This article was downloaded by: [University of North Dakota]

On: 19 December 2014, At: 19:00

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Communication

Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjac20

Language attitudes toward varieties

of English: An AmericanJapanese
context
a b
Aaron Castelan Cargile & Howard Giles
a
Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication
Studies , California State University , Long Beach
b
Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication ,
University of California , Santa Barbara
Published online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Aaron Castelan Cargile & Howard Giles (1998) Language attitudes toward
varieties of English: An AmericanJapanese context, Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 26:3, 338-356, DOI: 10.1080/00909889809365511

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00909889809365511

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/
page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Applied Communication Research
26 (1998), 338-356

Language Attitudes Toward

Varieties of English:
An American-Japanese Context
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

Aaron Castelan Cargile and Howard Giles

ABSTRACT To our knowledge, no data exist on attitudes toward speakers with Japanese
accented varieties of American English, an area of profound significance given increasing
American-Japanese contacts across a wide range of applied contexts. This "matched-guise"
study provides such by eliciting Americans' reactions to a Japanese male talking on two
different topics (aggressive versus neutral) using four language varieties (viz., standard,
moderate-accented, heavy-accented, and disfluent). Speaker evaluations on status, attrac-
tiveness, and dynamism traits confirmed certain predictions based on the literature, but
some surprising, yet interpretable, patterns emerged in this new domain of American-
Japanese inquiry. Specifically, it was found that Japanese-accented speakers were evalu-
ated in manner unlike all other non-standard accented speakers of American English,
except those of British and Malaysian background. It is suggested that perceptions of social
group competitiveness may be responsible for this pattern of results which, in turn, is
discussed in terms of its applied ramifications.

T he study of language attitudes has a rich history that stretches across several
decades and social scientific disciplines (see Cargile, Giles, Ryan, & Bradac,
1994). In essence, it recognizes that language is a powerful social force that does
more than convey intended referential information. For better or worse, hearers
can react to linguistic and paralinguistic variation in messages as though they
indicate both personal and social characteristics of the speaker. For example, an
American may think a stranger 'cultured' and 'refined' simply because his or her
accent is deemed British. Because such beliefs about language use can bias social
interactionand often in those contexts where important social decision-making
is requiredlanguage attitudes represent important communicative phenomena
to explore.

Aaron Castelan Cargile (Ph.D., University of California, Santa Barbara) is Assistant Professor in the
Department of Communication Studies, California State University, Long Beach. Howard Giles (Ph.D.,
DSc, University of Bristol) is Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication, University of
California, Santa Barbara. Thanks are extended to James Bradac, Diane Mackie, and John Wiemann for
their assistance at various stages of this project. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the numerous
and insightful comments of this journal's Editor and of three anonymous referees which greatly
improved this article.
 339
JACR AUGUST 1998

Although there have been hundreds of language attitude studies conducted

throughout the world (see Bradac, 1990; Giles, Hewstone, Ryan, & Johnson, 1987),
and people's reactions to a host of accents and languages have been profiled, to our
knowledge no studies (published in English and adopting a quantitative methodol-
ogy) have explored American attitudes toward varieties of Japanese-accented
English. Such an empirical enterprise is important because these attitudes stand at
the center of critical intercourse. Japan and America are partners in the single most
important bilateral trade relationship in the world (Cohen, 1993). In 1995 alone,
the total of this trade was valued at nearly 200 billion dollars (Ministry of Finance,
1996a). In that same year, Americans had invested close to 2 billion dollars in
Japan, more than three times the amount invested by people from any other nation.
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

In turn, Japan has also been America's most faithful investorJapan's stake in
America is worth over 23 billion dollars (Ministry of Finance, 1996b). More than
money, these enormous sums represent an incredible human and cultural
exchange. Consider a few facts: more companies operating in the United States are
affiliated with Japan (7,289) than with any other nation, including all European
ones (Japanese External Trade Organization, 1994); 82,000 Japanese students are
educated in American universities each year (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1996);
over one-quarter of one million Japanese nationals live in the United States
(Ministry of Justice, 1996a); and nearly 5 million Japanese visit America annually
(Ministry of Justice, 1996b). Today, Japanese and Americans are interacting in
large and record numbers, usually in English, and often times in critical
educational, military, political, organizational, and economic contexts. Viewing
this, there is a clear need to work toward understanding the dynamics of
interactions between Japanese and Americans. One strategy to address this need is
to study the evaluative predispositions that Americans share toward speakers of
Japanese-accented English; in short, to study language attitudes.
In order to understand fully American attitudes toward Japanese-accented
English, it must be recognized that many such varieties exist, and that these
varieties may be evaluated differently in different contexts. For example, Ameri-
cans may react differently to a Japanese who speaks fluent English with a moderate
accent than to one who speaks disfluent English with a heavy accent. Previous
research has demonstrated that both the strength of a speaker's accent and the
fluency of his or her speech can influence a hearer's evaluations (e.g., Nesdale &
Rooney, 1990; Ryan, Carranza, & Moffie, 1977; White & Li, 1991). Consequently, it
is meaningful to investigate whether or not Japanese-accented speakers of English
are treated similarly to other non-native speakers of English in this regard.
Additionally, it is useful to explore reactions to these varieties of Japanese-
accented English in different contexts, represented herein by different messages.
Although traditional language attitude research has generally neglected message
content (see Giles & Coupland, 1991a), several studies have found it to be crucial to
understanding the ways in which speakers with different accents are appraised
(Giles, Coupland, Henwood, Harriman, & Coupland, 1992; Giles & Johnson, 1986;
Johnson & Buttny, 1982). For this reason, it is important to investigate whether the
content of a Japanese-accented speaker's message (in this case, an "aggressive"
message compared to a "non-aggressive" message) will moderate evaluations that
are made of him. Thus, in order to begin to develop a profile of reactions to the
language often used in essential cross-cultural interactions, the present study of
American attitudes toward varieties of Japanese-accented English was conducted.
 340
AMERICAN-JAPANESE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES CARGILE & GILES

Having overviewed the study's empirical intent, the following section situates it
within the longstanding literature on this multidisciplinary topic.

Previous Language Attitudes Research

As mentioned earlier, language attitudes research has successfully profiled
hearer reactions to a number of different accents around the world. For example,
Wilson and Bayard (1992) compared New Zealand listeners' evaluations of New
Zealand-, Canadian-, Australian-, and British-accented English. Similarly, Pal-
tridge and Giles (1984) elicited reactions towards speakers of several different
French-accented varieties. These studies, and numerous others like them across
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

the world, have revealed a generally consistent pattern of results. Most accents can
be classified by the degree to which they are considered "standard" or "non-
standard" within a particular community. A "standard" variety is that most often
associated with status, the media, and power, whereas a "non-standard" variety is
one that is often associated with a lower level of socioeconomic success (Fishman,
1971). As described by Ryan, Hewstone, and Giles (1984), standard accented
speakers are rated highly on traits related to competence, intelligence, and social
status, whereas non-standard accented speakers are evaluated less favorably on
these same traits, even by listeners who themselves speak with a non-standard
accent. However, when these speakers are evaluated along traits related to
kindness, solidarity, and overall attractiveness, speakers with a non-standard
accent compare much more favorably, and are sometimes rated as more kind and
attractive, especially by listeners with a non-standard accent.
An explanation for the above pattern can be found when these evaluations are
recognized to undergird a functional separation that often occurs between
languages. Across many national and societal contexts, groups often speak two
language varieties, "standard" and "non-standard", with distinct contextual
constraints and social meanings (Barker, 1947; Ferguson, 1959; Fishman, 1971).
Because the standard. variety is linked to social status, it is often used when
speakers are motivated by instrumental goals. However, because the non-standard
variety does not have the same associations, it is often used when speakers wish to
fulfill integrative needs. Indeed, and in some ways irrespective of its status
connotations, the association of a strong sense of ingroup solidarity with particular
non-standard language varieties may be a crucial determinant for why certain
minority languages persist (see Ryan, 1979). This functional difference is the
primary basis for Giles and Ryan's (1982) argument that the evaluative dimensions
of social status and attractiveness may have universal importance for the
understanding of attitudes toward contrasting language varieties.
Of course, evaluations related to a speaker's perceived status and attractiveness
are not the only ones worth measuring. Over the years, researchers have assessed a
whole host of evaluations, ranging from a speaker's perceived integrity (Lambert,
1967), to his or her degree of perceived internality-externality (Bradac, Hosman, &
Tardy, 1978). With such a wide variety of evaluative measures available, some
researchers have sought to standardize the measurement process by developing a
general speech evaluation instrument, using factor analytic procedures. Such
efforts have resulted in two instruments (the Speech Dialect Attitudinal Scale:
Mulac, 1975; the Speech Evaluation Instrument: Zahn & Hopper, 1985) that
measure the same three evaluative dimensions: status, attractiveness, and dyna-
 341

JACR AUGUST 1998

mism (i.e., how active, confident, and energetic the speaker sounds). However,
because dynamism is a relatively new dimension in the study of language
attitudes, relatively few studies have observed how perceptions of dynamism are
affected by non-standard speech. Despite this, most extant studies document that,
at least in the domain of American English, non-standard speakers are perceived
by Anglo-American listeners to be either equal or less dynamic than standard
speakers (e.g., Bodtker, 1992; Giles, Williams, Mackie, & Rosselli, 1995; Gill, 1994;
Mulac, Hanley, & Prigge, 1974; however, cf. Johnson & Buttny, 1982). Unfortu-
nately, researchers have not attempted to explain these results, but we speculate
that they are influenced, in part, by ingroup preferences. Numerous studies in an
independent sphere of inquiry have demonstrated that people prefer, and evaluate
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

more favorably, members of their own social ingroups, compared to outgroup

members (e.g., Doise et al., 1972; Rabbie & Wilkens, 1971). Thus, provided that
high dynamism ratings are considered favorable in an American cultural context,
it is reasonable that if any differences are to be found, Anglo-American listeners
would rate similar-sounding (i.e., standard accented) speakers as more dynamic
than others.
In addition to comparing evaluations of standard and non-standard language
varieties, language attitudes research has also explored the effects that the degree
of non-standardness (i.e., the strength of accent and the disfluency of speech) may
have on listener evaluations. For example, Ryan, Carranza, and Moffie (1977) had
native speakers of American English listen to and evaluate eight different
Spanish-accented speakerssome whose Spanish accents were strong, others
whose accents were moderate or barely perceptible. They found that even small
increments in accent were associated with gradually less favorable ratings along
traits related to both a speaker's perceived status (i.e., intelligence, competence,
and social standing) and attractiveness (i.e., kindness, solidarity, and friendli-
ness). This same pattern, in which stronger non-native accents are more severely
downgraded across traits related to both status and attractiveness, has also been
found in other studies (see Brennan & Brennan, 1981; Giles, 1972; Nesdale &
Rooney, 1990). Similarly, speaker disfluency has also been found to negatively
affect listener reactions (Ryan, 1983). For example, a study by White and Li (1991)
demonstrated that less fluent non-native speakers of both Chinese and English are
rated more negatively (across both status and attractiveness related traits by
native-born Chinese and American listeners) than speakers who are more fluent.
Unfortunately, none of this work testing the impact of degrees of non-standard
speech has employed dependent measures related to dynamism. Even so, because
greater degrees of non-standard speech have been shown to influence negatively
evaluations of both status and attractiveness, and because dynamism evaluations
are correlated with both of these types of evaluations (Zahn & Hopper, 1985), it
seems reasonable to assume that greater degrees of non-standard speech will also
produce more negative ratings of speaker dynamism.
Considering the evidence and arguments presented thus far, one should expect
status-related evaluations of standard accented listeners to become progressively
less favorable when encountering speakers with greater degrees of non-standard
speech. Additionally, one should expect both attractiveness- and dynamism-
related evaluations of these same listeners to also become progressively less
favorable. Even so, the rate of this progression (i.e., effect sizes) should generally
be slower (i.e., smaller) because non-standard speakers appear not to be penalized
 342
AMERICAN-JAPANESE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES CARGILE & GILES

evaluatively to the same degree for attractiveness- and dynamism-related evalua-

tions as they are for evaluations related to social status. Thus, if the varieties of
Japanese-accented English investigated in the present study were considered
typical non-standard speech, the above statements could serve as research
hypotheses. However, it is our contention that Japanese-accented English is a
special variety of non-standard speech in America.
In a model of language attitudes developed by Cargile, Giles, Ryan, and Bradac
(1994), many processes and variables are identified that shape a hearer's attitudes.
Among these, cultural factors (e.g., ethnolinguistic vitality and processes of
language standardization) appear to be responsible for the above-discussed pattern
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

of evaluations for standard and non-standard speech. However, the model also
recognizes that speech evaluations are equally sensitive to stereotypes. For
example, a given variety of language may not be standardized within a community
and, as a result, it may not meet a speaker's instrumental needs. Even so, that
speaker may still be perceived to possess considerable amounts of social status if
stereotypes about his or her group indicate this. Conversely, a non-standard
variety of language does not assure even mediocre estimations of attractiveness if
stereotypes about the represented social group suggest a lack of warmth and
friendliness (among other things).
Indeed, this is the case of British-accented English in America. Unlike speakers
of other non-standard varieties (e.g., Spanish- or Appalachian-accented English)
who receive relatively low estimates of status and comparable estimates of
attractiveness, speakers of British- (RP) accented English receive high estimates of
status, but low estimates of attractiveness, relative to standard accented speakers
of American English (Stewart, Ryan, & Giles, 1985). Not surprisingly, these
evaluations are consistent with American stereotypes that present the British as
"tradition loving," "conservative", and "reserved" (Jamison, 1971). Similarly,
American images of the Japanese suggest that they also have high standing, but
may encourage few warm feelings. For example, terms such as "ambitious",
"hard-working", and "intelligent" are among those that Americans most often
associate with the Japanese (Barnlund, 1974; Keene & Ladd, 1990; Mayovich,
1972). Correspondingly, the American mass media have declared Asians (includ-
ing Japanese) a "model minority" (e.g., Kasindorf, 1982; Rodriguez, 1987; Spencer,
1985). At the same time, however, these same media suggest that Americans may
feel threatened by the success of the Japanese (e.g., Goshima & Hall, 1996), and
reports circulate about the hostility provoked by the Japanese in America (e.g.,
Morrow, 1992; Powell, 1991; Smith, 1990). Considering such images, it is
reasonable to expect Japanese-accented speakers to compare favorably to standard
accented speakers of American English on traits related to social status, but
unfavorably on attractiveness-related traits. Despite this, increasing degrees of
non-standard speech should still be expected to negatively influence both status
and attractiveness ratings. Lastly, both recognition of Japanese-accented English as
non-standard speech, and the circulation of stereotypes that present the Japanese
as "reserved", "cautious", and "quiet" (Barnlund, 1974; Karlins, Coffman, &
Walters, 1988; Mayovich, 1972) suggest that Japanese-accented speakers should
compare unfavorably on dynamism-related traits (especially those whose speech
is increasingly non-standard).
 343

JACR AUGUST 1998

Based on the above, the following hypothesis is proffered with regard to

non-Asian American listener-judges:
Hi: (A) A moderate Japanese-accented speaker will be evaluated negatively on traits
related to attractiveness and dynamism, but favorably on status-related traits
when compared with evaluations of a standard American English speaker.
(B) A heavy Japanese-accented speaker will be evaluated more negatively on
traits related to status, attractiveness, and dynamism than a moderate Japanese-
accented speaker.
(C) A disfluent and heavy Japanese-accented speaker will be evaluated more
negatively on traits related to status, attractiveness, and dynamism than a
speaker with a heavy Japanese-accent only.
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

In addition to documenting non-Asian American (Southern Californian) atti-

tudes toward a range of Japanese-accented speakers, this study was also concerned
with the possible effects of differences in the nature of the speaker's message.
Surprisingly few language attitudes studies have considered the influence that
message content may have on reactions to different accented speakers (see
however, Gallois, Callan, & Johnstone, 1984; Giles, et al., 1992; Giles & Johnson,
1986; Johnson & Buttny, 1982). This may be so because most researchers have
assumed its effects can be "controlled" by developing "neutral" passages for
speakers to read. However, the assumption that such "neutral" texts, no matter
how bland, are immune to evaluative implications has recently been criticized
(Giles & Coupland, 1991b) and, in one instance, found not to be true (Giles et al.,
1992). For this reason, message content was manipulated as an independent
variable and in a socially meaningful way. Although the dimensions along which a
speaker's message can vary are numerous (e.g., a message may be more logical,
more interesting, more emotional, etc.; see Hazleton, Cupach, & Liska, 1986), we
chose to manipulate the perceived "aggressiveness" of the message. According to
an inductive typology of aggressive messages developed by Kinney (1994),
aggressive messages result from attacks on people's group memberships, their
personal failings, or their relational failings. Following this, an "aggressive
message" was produced by having the speaker explicitly criticize and denigrate
Americans and American trading practices in the context of a university lecture in
a course on economics. Historically, in terms of past conflicts and current trade
competitions (see Iritani, 1997), we felt that this content dimension was among the
most socially potent and relevant available. In contrast, a "non-aggressive"
message was produced by having the speaker lecture on the subject of animal
communicationa topic that was irrelevant to the listeners' group membership,
personal failings, and relational failings.
Aggressiveness is an important feature of any message used to elicit language
attitudes because it relates to the degree of identity-threat that listeners may
experience. As we have described elsewhere (Cargile & Giles, 1997), social
identities are important in the language attitudes process because they shape
responses that listeners have to language. Specifically, the more salient a listener's
identity, the more likely he or she is to behave in an "intergroup" fashion, a
fashion that includes favoring ingroup members (both materially and evaluatively)
over outgroup members in an effort to boost one's self-esteem (see Tajfel & Turner,
1986). Following this, a message that not only refers to, but also attacks a listener's
 344
AMERICAN-JAPANESE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES CARGILE & GILES

social identity should result in less favorable evaluations for the speaker than a
message that does not invoke, much less criticize, one's identity. Indeed, previous
studies have found that aggressive messages perceived to threaten listeners'
ingroup memberships resulted in more negative evaluations for the sourcebe it a
single speaker (Giles & Johnson, 1986) or a group (Grant, 1993)than non-
aggressive messages on traits relating to both status and attractiveness. Across both
studies, traits related to dynamism were not included. However, it seems
reasonable to expect that the rhetorically assertive qualities of an aggressive
message will make a speaker appear more dynamic, even if such dynamism is
perceived negatively. Given the above, our second hypothesis is as follows:
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

H2: Speakers with an aggressive message will be evaluated more negatively on traits
related to status and attractiveness, but more positively on traits related to
dynamism than speakers whose message is not aggressive.
In order to test the above hypotheses, an experiment was designed and
conducted as described below.

Method
This study centered around a 4 X 2 factorial design with manipulations of the
speaker's accent, fluency (standard American vs. moderate Japanese vs. heavy
Japanese vs. heavy/disfluent Japanese) and message content (aggressive vs.
non-aggressive). We adopted the "matched-guise" technique (Lambert, 1967)
where the same, genuinely tridialectal native Japanese male speaker read, and
audio-tape recorded, the two messages in the four target accents. Although this
method is widely praised (Ball & Giles, 1982; Ryan, Giles, & Hewstone, 1988), it is
nonetheless susceptible to threats to validity that are present when conclusions
are drawn about the impact of a variable (e.g., heavy Japanese-accented English)
based upon a single instantiation of that variable (see Jackson, 1992; Jackson &
Jacobs, 1983). Unlike other studies that have employed naturally disfluent
speakers (e.g., White & Li, 1991; Wible & Hui, 1985), only one speaker was used
here, therefore it was necessary to manipulate the fluency of his speech along with
his accent. Both studies by White and Li, and Wible and Hui operationalized
fluency through the use of eight scales pertaining to the speaker's mastery of a
non-native language as judged by native-speaking listeners.1 In the present study,
the speaker's fluency was manipulated through changes in the vocabulary and
grammar of his speech because these manipulations were easy to undertake and
constitute important features of fluency as operationalized by the researchers cited
above. Consequently, the speaker delivered two versions of each text: one
representing fluent speech and another, with simplified vocabulary and numerous
grammatical mistakes indicative of native-Japanese speakers, representing disflu-
ent speech. Recording of the stimulus audio-tapes was monitored to ensure that
numerous paralinguistic features (e.g., voice pitch, tone, etc.) were constant across
all conditions. Despite this, it should be noted that the speaker's rate of speech
varied along with his accent. He reported it increasingly "unnatural" to speak
English with a moderate and heavy Japanese accent as fast as he spoke with a
standard American accent. Thus, in a concession to produce more natural
sounding stimulus tapes, speech rate and accent were confounded in this
experiment2 (average tape length [by accent condition]: standard American, 126
 345

JACR AUGUST 1998

seconds; moderate Japanese, 142 seconds; heavy Japanese, 192 seconds; heavy and
disfluent Japanese, 182 seconds). While this decision to confound speech rate and
accent increased the risk of threats to internal validity, it also simultaneously
increased the external validity of the experiment.
In order to ensure that the target accent recordings were perceived to be
authentic representations of each accent and message condition, the tapes were
first pretested with a convenience sample of 149 undergraduates from a major
western university in the United States. Participants were divided into eight
groups and listened to one of the eight prerecorded tapes. Following this, they
evaluated qualities of the speaker, his accent, and his message qualities that are
reported, along with the results, in Tables 1 and 2. These results indicated
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

successful manipulation of the speaker's accent and message. The aggressive

message was perceived to be more aggressive and more critical than the non-
aggressive message. Similarly, in the moderate Japanese accent condition, the
speaker was perceived to have less of a non-native accent than in either the heavy,
or the heavy/disfluent conditions. Furthermore, in the heavy Japanese accent
condition, the speaker was perceived to be more fluent along each of five measures
measures of fluency employed by White and Li (1991) than in the heavy/disfluent
condition. It is interesting to note that despite the fact that grammar and
vocabulary were held constant across the moderate and heavy accented condi-
tions, judges reported hearing them differently (see Table 2 again). Thus, accented-
ness was found to bias the perceptions of other linguistic behaviors and this
finding points, perhaps, to particular schema that these listeners possess concern-
ing the linguistic competencies of strong non-native sounding speakers; namely, a
"thick" accent necessarily indicates speech that is simple and incorrect.
In addition to rating the quality of speech, listeners were also asked to indicate
the background of the speaker so that the success of the standard American accent
manipulation could be determined. A standard American English accent was
operationalized here as one without easily identifiable regional, or ethnic,
pronunciations (Ryan & Bulik, 1982). Thus, any comment by listeners about the
speaker's background indicating their belief that he was not American, or that he
came from a particular geographical region of America, was recognized as an
"unsuccessful" manipulation. When delivering the non-aggressive message in the
standard American accent condition, 77% of listeners reported the speaker's
background as American. However, when delivering the aggressive message,
initially only 10% of listeners reported the speaker's background as American.
Analysis of the recording by a trained phonologist revealed slight, non-native
qualities in the speaker's pronunciation. Consequently, the speaker was coached
in his pronunciation and the passage was rerecorded several times. Finally, a
version was selected which led a slight majority (53%) of pretest participants to

TABLE 1
Pretest Results: Comparison of Means Across Text Conditions

Question Aggressive Text Non-Aggressive Text

How aggressive was his message? 3.80 1.69
How critical was his message? 4.58 2.58
Note. Both differences are significant [p < .01).
 346
AMERICAN-JAPANESE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES CARGILE & GILES

TABLE 2
Pretest Results: Comparison of Means Across Japanese Accent Conditions

Japanese Accent
Question Moderate Heavy Heavy/Disfluent
How accented was his speech? 3.47 a 2.00 b 1.48C
How fluent (smooth) was his speech? 4.41 a 2.38b 1.83C
How correct was his grammar? 5.65 a 3.95b 2.65C
How excellent was his vocabulary? 5.18a 3.76 h 2.87c
How difficult was it to understand him? 5.12 a 2.43 b 1.26c
How excellent, overall, was his English? 5.24 a 3.00b 2.13c

iVofe. The scores are recorded on a scale from 1 to 7 where a high score always represents native-like
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

English speech. Means with different subscripts are significantly [p < .05] different from one another
according to the Scheffe test of post-hoc differences.

report the speaker's background as American.3 Although certainly not perfect, this
manipulation was considered successful, especially because analysis of the test
data itself failed to reveal any significant differences between the evaluations
made by listeners who believed the speaker was American, and those who
detected slight non-native qualities in his pronunciation.4
Once the tapes were finally prepared to our satisfaction, 240 non-Asian
American undergraduates (222 of whom reported their background as Anglo) at a
major California university were solicited to participate in this study in exchange
for extra-credit. Individually, participants were randomly assigned to one of the
eight experimental conditions, listened to a two-minute long tape of the speaker
corresponding to the assigned condition, and then completed the twenty-two item
short form of the Speech Evaluation Instrument (Zahn & Hopper, 1985). This
instrument is a valid, reliable, and integrative measure that accounts for the major
components of listeners' evaluations of speakers: evaluations of attractiveness,
status, and dynamism (Zahn & Hopper, 1990). Of the twenty-two items, ten of them
measure the perceived attractiveness of the speaker, and six measure both the
speakers' perceived status and dynamism. Before beginning, participants were
told that the speaker was a TA on campus and that the extract they were about to
hear was recorded from one of his recent mini-lectures. Afterwards, they were
debriefed.

Results
Participant responses to the Speech Evaluation Instrument were first factor
analyzed (using Principle Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation; Zahn & Hopper,
1990) and were found to be consistent with the underlying three-factor structure
described in previous work (Zahn & Hopper, 1985). The resulting solution
accounted for 63.9% of the variance and internal reliabilities for the three factors
(attractiveness, status, and dynamism) were .93, .77, and .91 (Cronbach's alpha),
respectively. Following Zahn and Hopper (1990), each item was multiplied by its
corresponding factor score and added together with other items to form three
sub-scales corresponding to each factor. The resulting sub-scale scores were then
transformed for the purposes of comparison so that the maximum possible score
was 30. Because the sub-scales were correlated (as expected; Zahn & Hopper,
1985), the effects of two independent variables (i.e., the speaker's accent and
 347
JACR AUGUST 1998

message text) were investigated simultaneously across all three evaluation sub-
scales through the use of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The
MANOVA produced a significant main effect for the speaker's accent, lambda =
.76, F(9, 555) = 7.33, p < .001, with significant univariate effects for attractiveness,
F(3, 230) = 15.55, p < .001, eta2 = .17, status, F(3, 230) = 6.55, p < .001, eta2 = .08,
and dynamism, F[3, 230) = 5.85, p < .001, eta2 = .07. There was also a significant
main effect for the message text, lambda = .77, F{3, 228) = 22.82, p < .001, with
significant univariate effects for attractiveness, F[l, 230) = 22.52, p < .001, eta2 =
.09, and dynamism, F(l,230) = 41.71, p < .001, eta2 = .15, but not for status. The
speaker was judged to be less attractive [M = 15.64, SD = 4.46), but more dynamic
(M = 17.95, SD = 5.86 in the aggressive message conditions compared to the
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

non-aggressive message conditions (attractiveness: M = 18.43, SD = 4.59; dyna-

mism: M = 13.76, SD = 5.14). Lastly, the multivariate interaction effect was
non-significant, lambda = .95, F(9, 555) = 1.25, p = .26, but this test was affected
by low levels of power (.62, alpha = .05). Consequently, it is worth noting that this
interaction was found to be univariately significant for ratings of the speaker's
dynamism, F(3, 230) = 2.64, p = .05, eta2 = .03.
Those effects found to be univariately significant were explored further through
a series of planned comparisons. Figure 1 displays the mean attractiveness ratings
for each experimental condition.5 Tests of the three contrasts indicated in Hi
revealed two significant results: the speaker was judged to be more attractive
(M = 19.62, SD = 5.16) when speaking with a standard American accent than
when speaking with a moderate Japanese accent (M = 17.59, SD = 3.95), f(l22) =
2.85, p < .01; and he was judged to be more attractive in the moderate Japanese
accent guise than in the heavy Japanese accent guise (M= 15.51, SD = 4.02),
((112) = 2.31, p < .05. The speaker was judged to be no less attractive in the heavy
and disfluent Japanese accent guise than in the heavy (only) Japanese accent guise.
Figure 2 displays the mean status ratings for each experimental condition. Tests of

Text Condition
ONon-Aggressive
Aggressive
American Heavy Jpns
Moderate Jpns Heavy/Disfluent Jpns

Accent Condition
Figure 1. Attractiveness ratings.
 348

AMERICAN-JAPANESE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES CARGILE & GILES

Text Condition
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

CZlNon-Aggressive

BB-Aggressive
American Heavy Jpns
Moderate Jpns Heavy/Disfluent Jpns

Accent Condition
Figure 2. Status ratings.

the three contrasts revealed one significant difference: the speaker was judged to
possess more status when speaking with moderate Japanese accent (M = 22.30,
SD 4.16) than when speaking with a heavy (only) Japanese accent (M = 20.39,
SD = 3.15), f(112) = 2.52, p < .01. Lastly, Figure 3 displays the mean dynamism
ratings for each experimental condition. Because the effect of accent on these

UnMrlAmerican

Accent Condition
Moderate Jpns
Heavy Jpns
Text Condition
I

Heavy/Disfluent Jpns
iNon-Aggressive

lAggressive

Figure 3. Dynamism ratings.

 349

JACR AUGUST 1998

ratings was observed to interact with the message content, the three contrasts
indicated in Hi were tested separately for the aggressive and non-aggressive text
conditions. These contrasts revealed only one significant difference: in the
non-aggressive message condition, the speaker with the standard American accent
(M = 17.34, SD = 6.06) was judged to be more dynamic than the same speaker
with a moderate Japanese-accent (M = 11.48, SD = 3.19), f(6l) = 5.01, p < .001.
Based on the evidence presented above, both Hi and H2 were confirmed to a
modest extent. The results of this study were entirely consistent with Hl(A): the
moderate Japanese-accented speaker was evaluated significantly more negatively
on traits related to attractiveness and dynamism (in the non-aggressive message
condition), but no differently on status-related traits when compared to the
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

standard American English speaker. Of course, failure to reject the null hypothesis
of difference for status-related evaluations does not establish that there are, in fact,
no differences in the ratings of these two speakers, particularly with the power of
this test being too low to detect very small effect sizes (.16, alpha = .05). Even so,
this result is nontheless consistent with our prediction that the moderate
Japanese-accented speaker would be judged favorably on status-related traits, at
least relative to the judgments awarded him for attractiveness- and dynamism-
related traits. Study results were also mostly consistent with Hl(B): The heavy
Japanese-accented speaker was evaluated more negatively on traits related to
status and attractiveness than the moderate Japanese-accented speaker. Contrary
to our prediction though, a difference in these speakers' dynamism ratings was not
found. Predictions also went unsupported in Hl(C): The disfluent and heavy
Japanese-accented speaker was not evaluated more negatively than the heavy
Japanese-accented speaker on any of the three evaluative dimensions. Lastly, and
in contrast, these data largely supported H2: speakers with the aggressive message
were evaluated more negatively on attractiveness-related traits, but more posi-
tively on dynamism-related traits than speakers who delivered the non-aggressive
message. Even so, the predicted differences for status-related evaluations were not
found.

Discussion
. The results of this study confirmed many of our expectations about the
evaluation of Japanese-accented English. Despite this, these results remain
striking because they stand in contrast to the robust pattern of speech evaluations
developed over decades of language attitudes research. As discussed earlier,
non-standard speakers are usually evaluated unfavorably by standard speaking
listeners on status related traits, but often compare favorably on traits related to
attractiveness (Ryan et al., 1984). These data, however, demonstrate that a
(non-standard) moderate Japanese-accented speaker compares favorably on status-
related traits, but unfavorably on traits related to attractiveness. More specifically,
this evaluative profile is relatively unique among profiles provided by American
listeners. Previous research has shown that among American listeners, Spanish-
accented (Bradac & Wisegarver, 1984; Ryan & Carranza, 1975), Appalachian-
accented (Luhman, 1990), and vernacular Black (Johnson & Buttny, 1982) English
speakers are consistently downgraded on status-related appraisals, yet equally
well-liked compared with standard American English speakers. German- (Ryan &
Bulik, 1982), Norwegian-, and Italian-accented speakers (Mulac et al., 1974) are
 350
AMERICAN-JAPANESE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES CARGILE & GILES

also downgraded on status-related traits, but are additionally burdened with

unfavorable attractiveness ratings. In contrast, the only speakers who compare
favorably on status-related traits and unfavorably on attractiveness-related ones
are British (Stewart, Ryan, & Giles, 1985), Malaysian (Gill, 1994), and the present,
moderate Japanese-accented speaker.
The fact that two other national groups share the evaluative profile found here
suggests that these findings neither call into question the well-developed pattern
of contrasts between standard and non-standard languages, nor should they be
considered anomalous. Instead, these findings fit a further refined category system
developed by Ryan, Hewstone, and Giles (1984). Put succinctly, what do British,
Malaysian, and Japanese-accented speakers have in common? They appear to
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

represent varieties of non-standard speech associated with outgroups that Ameri-

cans perceive as competitive, status-equals; that is, in contrast to outgroups who
are perceived to be subordinate. (Interestingly, Malaysians per se may not be
perceived as competitive, status equals, but the extent to which American listeners
fail to differentiate between numerous Asian accents in English, all Asians may be
stereotypically grouped together and, as a consequence, evaluated similarly; an
issue, of course, to pursue in future work.) If future research confirms this pattern
in which reactions to non-standard varieties of American English (or of any
language) can be distinguished on the basis of a groups' perceived competitive-
ness, it would be significant because such a pattern helps account for greater
variability in the attitudes people hold toward speakers of different language
varieties.
Before concluding, however, that stereotypes (manifest as perceptions of
competitiveness) are solely responsible for comparable status ratings among the
standard American and moderate Japanese-accented speakers, the speakers'
ostensible role as a teaching assistant should first be considered. It is possible that
the Japanese-accented speaker was evaluated as relatively "intelligent", "rich",
and "literate" only because of instructions to participants that indicated the
speaker was a teaching assistant delivering a lecture in a college classroom. Even
so, other language attitude work suggests that speakers portrayed as college
instructors do not automatically enjoy higher status ratings as a consequence of
their position. A study by Cargile (1997) found that when speakers were
introduced as college professors, they in fact received lower status ratings than
when they were introduced as job applicants. Thus, although the possibility
remains that the present results are an artifact of the selected instructional context,
they more likely represent the emergence of a second, non-standard language
attitude profile that is based upon American stereotypes of the Japanese.
In addition to evaluations of status and attractiveness, the dynamism evalua-
tions measured here also confirmed some of our predictions. When delivering the
non-aggressive message, the moderate Japanese-accented speaker was rated as
significantly less dynamic than the standard American-accented speaker. This
matched our expectations and most previous research. However, this did not hold
true for speakers in the aggressive message condition. When delivering the
aggressive message, the speaker was judged to be equally dynamic, regardless of
whether he spoke with a standard American- or moderate Japanese-accent. Thus,
it seems that messages alone can possess a vitality great enough to counteract the
extant tendancy to downgrade non-standard speakers on dynamism-related traits.
When comparing evaluations of the moderate Japanese-accented speaker to
 351

JACR AUGUST 1998

those of the heavy Japanese-accented speaker, this study confirmed that the
increasing strength of a speaker's accent is associated with less favorable ratings of
status and attractiveness. These results are entirely consistent with previous
research (Brennan & Brennan, 1981; Giles, 1972; Nesdale & Rooney, 1990), yet
detract slightly from the generalization that a stronger accent will lead to more
negative speaker evaluations. This is because the heavier accent was not found to
cause more negative ratings on traits related to dynamism. As noted earlier, most
studies have not employed dynamism as a dependent variable, so here we
observefor the first timethat the increasing strength of a speaker's accent does
not consistently lead to more negative evaluations; at least not in the case of traits
such as the perceived enthusiasm or activity of the speaker.
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

When comparing evaluations of the two heavy accented varieties of Japanese

speech, to our surprise, the heavy and disfluent speaker was rated as equally
dynamic, attractive, and status-possessing as the heavy accented speaker. This
contrasts with the results of both White and Li (1991) and Wible and Hui (1985),
who found that increasing disfluency was associated with more negative evalua-
tions of speakers across traits related to both status and attractiveness. What, then,
should be made of this contradiction and of the present results? To answer this
question, differences in these studies' methodologies must be considered. Specifi-
cally, the previous research operationalized fluency based on eight criteria that
confounded differences in vocabulary, grammar, and the strength of the speaker's
non-native accent (see endnote number 1). In the present study however,
problematic vocabulary and grammar co-occurred only with a heavy non-native
accent. It thus becomes reasonable to attribute differences in the results of these
studies to differences in the particular combinations of accent strength, vocabu-
lary, and grammar employed by speakers across the studies. Thus, for example,
disfluencies of vocabulary and grammar may not affect evaluations of a heavy
(non-native) accented speaker (as was found here), yet may still matter dearly to
evaluations of a moderate or light (non-native) accented speaker. This explanation
is especially plausible because pretest results demonstrated that the speaker's
accent influenced perceptions of his vocabulary and grammar. If an accent can
cause listeners to misperceive qualities of a speaker's vocabulary and grammar,
then it is possible that a heavy (non-native) accent may completely "override" the
effect of these and other disfluency-related variables. In other words, a strong
non-native accent may trigger evaluations so negative that other speech disfluen-
cies become evaluatively irrelevant. Paired with other accents though, these
disfluencies may once again acquire the sort of evaluative potency demonstrated
in the other studies (White & Li, 1991; Wible & Hui, 1985). Although this
explanation is compelling, future research should nonetheless be designed to test
it as a means of understanding better the impact of disfluent speech on listeners'
evaluations.
Lastly, the results of this study confirmed effects for message content. Speakers
in the aggressive message condition were rated lower on attractiveness-related
traits, but higher on dynamism-related traits, than speakers in the non-aggressive
message condition. However, no effect was found on status-related evaluations.
These results demonstrate that, indeed, a speaker's message is evaluatively
critical. Message content both added to (in the case of attractiveness ratings) and
interacted with (in the case of dynamism ratings) evaluations made on the basis of
accent. Viewing this, future language attitude studies must be sure to anticipate
 352
AMERICAN-JAPANESE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES CARGILE & GILES

and account for the potential effects of message content, rather than continuing to
ignore them. Additionally, these results partially support the contention that
attacks on a listener's social identity will result in less favorable evaluations.6 Even
so, failure to reject the null hypothesis in the case of status-related evaluations
suggests that the evaluative downgrading that results when one's identity is
challenged may dimension specific, rather than global. Indeed, other (non-
language attitude) research has shown that identity dependent processes primarily
affect attractiveness-related evaluations (Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Grant, 1992).
Thus, it may be the case that aggressive messages, and other messages that invoke
the salience of a listener's social group membership, call up only (negative)
attractiveness-related evaluations in the listener's mind. Of course, the primacy of
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

this evaluative dimension in intergroup contexts is simply speculative at this

pointspeculation worthy of testing, however.

Implications
Language attitudes research has helped us understand the ways in which
listeners may be evaluatively predisposed to others with different accented
varieties of language. This study has added to that body of literature by describing
an evaluative profile that is especially important because thousands of Japanese
and Americans interact everyday in relationships that are critical to the welfare of
millions. We are beginning to discover how young Southern Californian, non-
Asian American listeners react to various Japanese-accented speakers. For them, a
moderate Japanese accent represents someone who is well-respected, but less
liked, and perceived as less dynamic. Additionally, we know that a speaker with a
strong Japanese accent is less respected and liked even less than a speaker with
only a moderately strong accent. Contrary to our expectations, however, a
disfluent Japanese speaker was evaluated no less negatively than one who was
fluent. When it comes to a speaker's message, this study shows that language
attitudes research must continue to consider the effects of what a speaker says,
because, in this case, the message both added to, and interacted with, the effects of
the speaker's accent.
If we want to generalize these results beyond this particular population of
participants, and beyond classroom interaction (something that should be done
with caution; cf. Cargile, 1997), this study suggests an number of things about
interactions between Japanese and Americans. First, it suggests that Japanese face
a deficit in terms of being liked by Americans when they speak in English with
either a strong, or even a moderate, accent. Thus, for example, if a Japanese figure
(e.g., a musician, or a sports hero) wants to encourage popularity among
Americans, he or she may be served best by fewer rather than more opportunities
to speak English in public. Second, this study suggests that Japanese speakers face
little, if any, deficit in terms of being respected by Americans. Thus, for example, a
male Japanese executive need not be concerned about his basis of power being
eroded each time he speaks English to subordinates in an American-based
manufacturing plant. Third, this study suggests that Japanese may face a deficit in
terms of appearing dynamic to Americansin certain contexts, their accent may
make them appear less potent, whereas in other contexts, it may matter little.
Thus, for example, if a communication consultant is concerned about fostering her
Japanese client's image as an enthusiastic, confident leader, then she would be best
 353
JACR AUGUST 1998

advised to focus on developing strong message content rather than on attempting

to reduce her client's non-native English accent. From an American perspective,
all of this information merits consideration because it indicates the predisposi-
tions that are evoked when Japanese speakers are heard. In one manner, it provides
a partial map of the terrain of interaction that must be navigated if fruitful,
productive, and non-prejudiced relationships are to be developed and continued.
Despite the contributions that this study makes to our understanding of
language attitudes, much work remains to be done. Because, as described in the
method section, threats to the internal validity of this study remain, future studies
should test whether or not the evaluative pattern described herein can be
reproduced using different Japanese-accented speakers, different rates of speech,
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

and different messages. Relatedly, an analysis of a small sample of Asian-

American listeners indicates that their responses to Japanese-accented speakers
may be very different from the reactions of non Asian-American listeners. Thus,
similar studies should be completed with audiences who possess different
attributes that are relevant to the language attitudes process (e.g., racial back-
ground, age, occupation, and geographical location). Likewise, similar studies
should also be completed using other Asian-accented target speakers. Importantly,
such investigations could disentangle (among other things) whether Anglo-
American listeners differentiate varieties of Asian accents (e.g., Chinese, Thai,
Vietnamese, Korean, etc.), or whether all Asian sounding speakers evoke a
stereotypically consistent pattern of evaluative and affective responses similar to
the one described here. Moreover, the riddle concerning the effects of a disfluent
accent (Asian and otherwise) should be addressed in future research. It is our hope
that this current and proposed language attitude research will add an important
new dimension to the burgeoning interest in Japanese-American communication.

Endnotes
1. The eight scales used by these researchers pertained to: accuracy of pronunciation, correctness of
grammar, range and use of vocabulary, degree of fluency, degree of animation and expressiveness,
authenticity of sound, pleasantness of speech, and general impression of language quality.
2. A MANCOVA analysis was attempted on the resultant data in an effort to remove any possible
effect of speech rate. However the effect of rate, as a covariate, was not found to be constant across the
experimental conditions. This is a necessary condition for any MANCOVA analysis (see Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995) therefore such an analysis was judged inappropriate for this data.
3. It is believed that the differential rate in successful manipulation between the two message
conditions is attributable to the fact that in the aggressive message condition, the speaker, through his
criticisms, positions himself rhetorically against Americans. This, in turn, makes it difficult to believe
that the speaker himself is an American and/or leads some listeners to attend to the slight non-native
qualities in his pronunciation.
4. MANOVA analysis did not indicate significant differences for ratings of the speaker's status,
attractiveness, and dynamism between listeners who reported perceiving non-native vocal qualities
(N = 15), and those who did not (N = 17), F(3, 28) = .30, p = .827. Although this result supports our
belief that the standard American accent manipulation is acceptable, it is not definitive because the
small sample size, and the small effect size undermine the test's power (.10, alpha = .05).
5. This Figure, along with Figures 2 and 3, represents the sum of all factor score multiplied sub-scale
items. Because the number of items and the corresponding factor scores vary across each sub-scale, this
sum has been multiplied by an appropriate fraction for purposes of comparison. Consequently, the
maximum possible score in all Figures is 30; the minimum is 4.29.
 354
AMERICAN-JAPANESE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES CARGILE & GILES

6. The relationship between aggressive message content, perceptions of threat to listeners' American
identities, and subsequent evaluative downgrading of the speaker are explored and reported more
thoroughly in Cargile & Giles (1997).

References
Ball, P., & Giles, H. (1982). Speech styles and employment selection: Use of the matched-guise
technique. In G. Breakwell, H. Foot, & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Social psychology: A practical manual (pp.
101-122). London: Edward Arnold.
Barker, G. C. (1947). Social functions of language in a Mexican-American community. Acta Americana,
4, 189-192.
Barnlund, D. (1974). The public self and the private self in Japan and the United States. In J. C. Condon
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

& M. Saito (Eds.), Intercultural encounters with Japan: Communication, contact, and conflict (pp.
27-96). Tokyo: Simul Press.
Bodtker, A. (1992). Emotional correlates of language attitudes: The effect of mood on speaker
evaluations. Unpublished Master's, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Bradac, J. J. (1990). Language attitudes and impression formation. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.),
Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 387-412). Chichester: Wiley.
Bradac, J. J., & Wisegarver, R. (1984). Ascribed status, lexical diversity, and accent: Determinants of
perceived status, solidarity, and control of speech style. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
3, 239-255.
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L, (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation
when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 641-657.
Brennan, E. M., & Brennan, J. S. (1981). Accent scaling and language attitudes: Reactions to
Mexican-American English speech. Language and Speech, 24, 207-221.
Cargile, A. C. (1997). Attitudes toward Chinese-accented speech: An investigation in two contexts.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 434-443.
Cargile, A. C., & Giles, H. (1997). Understanding language attitudes: Exploring listener affect and
identity. Language and Communication, 17, 195-217.
Cargile, A. C., Giles, H., Ryan, E. B., & Bradac, J. J. (1994). Language attitudes as a social process: A
conceptual model and new directions. Language and Communication, 14, 211-236.
Cohen, S. (1993). Uneasy partnership: competition and conflict in U. S.Japanese trade relations.
Cambridge: Ballinger.
Doise, W., Csepeli, G., Dann, H. D., Gouge, C., Larsen, K., & Ostell, A. (1972). An experimental
investigation into the formation of intergroup representations. European Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 2, 202-204.
Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 324-340.
Fishman, J. A. (1971). Sociolinguistics: A brief introduction. Boston: Rowley.
Gallois, C, Callan, V. J., & Johnstone, M. (1984). Personality judgments of Australian Aborigine and
white speakers: Ethnicity, sex and context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 39-57.
Giles, H. (1972). Evaluation of personality content from accented speech as a function of listeners'
social attitudes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 168-170.
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991a). Language: Contexts and consequences. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991b). Language Attitudes: Discursive, contextual, and gerontological
considerations. In A. Reynolds (Ed.), Bilingualism, Multiculturalism, and second language learning
(pp. 21-42). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Giles, H., Coupland, N., Henwood, K., Harriman, J., & Coupland, J. (1992). Language attitudes and
cognitive mediation. Human Communication Research, 18, 500-527.
Giles, H., Hewstone, M., Ryan, E. B., & Johnson, P. (1987). Research on language attitudes. In H. v. U.
Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. J. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the
science of language (Vol. 1, pp. 585-597). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1986). Perceived threat, ethnic commitment, and interethnic language
behavior. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), Interethnic communication: Current research (pp. 91-116). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Giles, H., & Ryan, E. B. (1982). Prolegomena for developing a social psychological theory of language
attitudes. In E. B. Ryan & H. Giles (Eds.), Attitudes toward language variation: Social and applied
contexts (pp. 208-223). London: Edward Arnold.
 355
JACR AUGUST 1998

Giles, H., Williams, A., Mackie, D. M, & Rosselli, F. (1995). Reactions to Anglo- and Hispanic-American-
accented speakers: Affect, identity, persuasion, and the English-only controversy. Language and
Communication, 15, 107-120.
Gill, M. (1994). Accent and stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teachers and lecture
comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 348-361.
Gill, M., & Badzinski, D. (1992). The impact of accent and status on information perception and recall
formation. Communication Reports, 5, 99-105.
Goshima, K., & Hall, B. J. (1996, November). Visions of US/Japan relations manifest and maintained
through editorial cartoons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication
Association, San Diego, CA.
Grant, P. R. (1992). Ethnocentrism between groups of unequal power in response to perceived threat to
social identity and valued resources. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24, 348-370.
Grant, P. R. (1993). Ethnocentrism in response to a threat to social identity. Journal of Social Behavior
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

and Personality, 8, 143-154.

Gudykunst, W. B. (ed). Communication in Japan and the United States. Albany, NY: State University
Press.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hazleton, V., Cupach, W. R., & Liska, J. (1986). Message style: An investigation of the perceived
characteristics of persuasive messages. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 565-574.
Iritani, E. (1997, October 18). U.S., Japan defuse trade fight; ports stay open. The Los Angeles Times, pp.
A1, A17.
Jackson, S. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1983). Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of
experiments. Human Communication Research, 9, 169-181.
Jamison, K. (1971). British and American personality stereotyping. Proceedings of the Annual
Convention of the APA, 6, 349-350.
Japanese External Trade Organization (1994). Directory of Japanese-affiliated companies in the USA
and Canada, 1995-96. Tokyo: Japanese External Trade Organization.
Johnson, F. L., & Buttny, R. (1982). White listeners' responses to "sounding black" and "sounding
white": The effects of message content on judgments about language. Communication Monographs,
49, 33-19.
Karlins, M.Coffman, T. L., & Walters, G. (1988). On the fading social stereotypes: Studies in three
generations of college students. In W. Bergmann (Ed.), Error without trial: Psychological research on
antisemitism (pp. 302-330). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kasindorf, M. (1982, December 6). Asian-Americans: A 'model minority'. Newsweek, 108, 39-51.
Keene, K. H., & Ladd, E. C. (Eds.). (1990). The American enterprise public opinion reports. Harford, CT:
The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.
Kinney, T. A. (1994). An inductively derived typology of verbal aggression and its association to
distress. Human Communication Research, 21, 183-222.
Lambert, W. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 91-109.
Luhman, R. (1990). Appalachian English stereotypes: Language attitudes in Kentucky. Language in
Society, 39, 331-348.
Mayovich, M. K. (1972). Stereotypes and racial images: White, Black, and Yellow. International Journal
of Social Psychiatry, 18, 239-253.
Ministry of Finance. (1996a). Annual report customs and tariff bureau. Japan Information Network
[On-line], Available:http://www.jinjapan.org/
Ministry of Finance. (1996b). Conditions of inward and abroad direct investment 1995. Japan
Information Network [On-line]. Available: http://www.jinjapan.org/
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (1996). Annual report of statistics on Japanese nationals overseas. Japan
Information Network [On-line]. Available:http://www.jinjapan.org/
Ministry of Justice. (1996a). Annual report of statistics on legal migrants. Japan Information Network
[On-line].Available: http://www.jinjapan.org/
Ministry of Justice. (1996b). Annual statistical report on departure and entry management. Japan
Information Network [On-line]. Available: http://www.jinjapan.org/
Miyoshi, M., & Harootunian, H. D. (1993). Japan in the world. In M. Miyoshi & H. D. Harootunian (Eds.),
Japan in the world (pp. 1-12). Durham: Duke University Press.
 356
AMERICAN-JAPANESE LANGUAGE ATTITUDES CARGILE & GILES

Morrow, L. (1992, February 10). Japan in the mind of America. Time, 139, 16-20.
Mulac, A. (1975). Evaluation of the speech dialect attitudinal scale. Speech Monographs, 42, 184-189.
Mulac, A. (1976). Assessment and application of the revised speech dialect attitudinal scale.
Communication Monographs, 43, 238-245.
Mulac, A., Hanley, T. D., & Prigge, D. Y. (1974). Effects of phonologcal speech foreignness upon three
dimensions of attitude of selected American listeners. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60, 411-420.
Mulac, A., & Lundell, T. L. (1982). An empirical test of the gender-linked language effect in a public
speaking setting. Language and Speech, 25, 243-256.
Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S.J., & Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences
and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication
Monographs, 55, 315-335.
Nesdale, A. R., & Rooney, R. (1990). Effect of children's ethnic accents on adult's evaluations and
stereotyping. Australian Journal of Psychology, 42, 309-319.
Downloaded by [University of North Dakota] at 19:00 19 December 2014

Paltridge, J., & Giles, H. (1984). Attitudes towards speakers of regional accents of French: Effects of
regionality, age and sex of listeners. Linguistiche Berichte, 90, 71-85.
Powell, B. (1991, June 24). A case of Ja-Panic: Behind the new bashing. Newsweek, 117, 33-35.
Rabbie, J. M., & Wilkens, G. (1971). Intergroup competition and its effect on intragroup and intergroup
relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 302-310.
Rodriguez, R. (1987, Sunday, October 11). Asians-a class by themselves: a formal model for minority
education. Los Angeles Times, pp. sec V, col 1.
Ryan, E. B. (1979). Why do low-prestige language varieites persist? In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.),
Language and social psychology [pp. 145-157). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ryan, E. B. (1983). Social psychological mechanisms underlying native speaker reactions to nonnative
speech. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 5, 148-159.
Ryan, E. B., & Bulik, C. (1982). Evaluations of middle class and lower class speakers of standard
American and German-accented English. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1, 51-61.
Ryan, E. B., & Carranza, M. A. (1975). Evaluative reactions of adolescents toward speakers of standard
English and Mexican-American accented English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,
855-863.
Ryan, E. B., Carranza, M., & Moffie, R. W. (1977). Reactions toward varying degrees of accentedness in
the speech of Spanish-English bilinguals. Language and Speech, 20, 267-273.
Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., & Hewstone, M. (1988). The measurement of language attitudes. In U. Ammon, N.
Dittmar, & K. J. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of
language (Vol. 2, pp. 1068-1081). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ryan, E. B., Hewstone, M., & Giles, H. (1984). Language and intergroup attitudes. In J. Eiser (Ed.),
Attitudinal Judgment (pp. 135-160). New York: Springer.
Smith, L. (1990, February 26). Fear and loathing of Japan. Fortune, 121, 50-60.
Spencer, R. (1985, October 10). Asian Americans outperform others in school and work: Census data
outlines 'model minority'. Washington Post, p. A1.
Stewart, M. A., Ryan, E. B., & Giles, H. (1985). Accent and social class effects on status and solidarity
evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 98-105.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G.
Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
White, M. J., & Li, Y. (1991). Second-language fluency and person perception in China and the United
States. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 99-113.
Wible, D. S., & Hui, C. H. (1985). Perceived language proficiency and person perception. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 206-222.
Wilson, J., & Bayard, D. (1992). Accent, gender, and the elderly listener: Evaluations of NZE and other
English accents by rest home residents. Te Reo, 35, 19-56.
Zahn, C. J., & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 113-123.
Zahn, C. J., & Hopper, R. (1990). The speech evaluation instrument: A user's manual. Unpublished
manuscript, Miami University.