Matched-guise test

The Matched-Guise Test is a sociolinguistic experiment technique employed by a method and its most related research in two or more guises, which has been lately known as matched-guise or matched-guise model. This experiment was first introduced by Lambert in 1960s to determine attitudes held by bilingual French Canadians toward the languages in contact (Davies & Elder 2004:189).

As there are varieties of applications and explanations as to its findings, the aim of the matched guise model and its intended purposes has not only been in most part subtle but also having its contradictions as to an approach to understanding a sociolinguistic phenomena or related phenomenon. In general, this method involves experimental candidates listening to apparently different speakers representing guises in two or more languages and evaluating those speakers for impressions or of their personality characteristics. So without the knowledge of the informant (the listener of guises), the speaker is actually a bilingual or polyglot and the reactions elicited by each of his/her linguistic guises are compared not as individual’s guises but as actual speech of an individual.

Since the initial aim of these studies range from the influence of linguistic attitudes on educational and political systems to their influence on workplace environments, Lambert’s technique has proven successful in identifying and eliciting certain stereotypes toward particular social groups. The matched-guise technique has been widely used in bicultural settings such as in Quebec, as well as in cross-cultural studies and multi-ethnic societies, and it has been employed not only as an instrument in comparing attitudes toward languages, but also toward variations in dialects and accents. And depending on particular listener, a speaker’s accent, speech patterns, vocabulary, intonation, etc., can all serve as markers for evaluating speaker’s appearance, personality, social status, and character. Among other things, listeners also possess language attitudes, which they use to evaluate the speakers whom they are hearing.

Origins

The matched-guise technique was developed and pioneered by Lambert et al (1965) to evaluate the reactions of Montreal residents towards both French-speakers and English-speakers. Interestingly, the results of this initial investigation showed that as expected the Canadian English-speakers evaluated the Canadian French guises less favourably, but the Canadian French-speakers also attributed the Canadian French guises with less positive characteristics, which was not surprising.

Lambert continued to implement the matched-guise technique for further investigations. Some did not involve different languages, but different accents, such as in finding out how people evaluated English speakers with and without a Jewish accent (Anisfeld 1962).

The same technique has been applied to English-speakers in the United Kingdom. In an investigation into assessing people’s varying reactions to London and Yorkshire accents (Strongman and Woosley 1967), the judges of the various guises were all students and were split equally into a “southern” and a “northern” group. The results, however, did not show much variation in the judges’ attitudes towards the accents.

The technique was later used to investigate the perception of Scottish and English accents in the United Kingdom (Cheyne 1970) and of Welsh and Somerset accents with regard to received pronunciation (Giles 1971).

The matched-guise test has since been used on many other countries for a range of other languages and dialects.

Procedure

• i) the variables of ‘sex’; ‘age’; ‘L1’, ‘variety used in domestic relationships’, etc. of the ‘judges’ evaluating the recorded ‘voices’ are taken into consideration;
• ii) the variables of ‘sex’, ‘age’, ‘voice’ and ‘linguistic variety’ of the individuals recorded are taken into consideration.
• iii) the stimulus material spoken in the linguistic variety that is recorded is studied from a strictly linguistic approach (phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical aspects) and from a stylistic point of view (formal, informal register...).
• iv) the interviewees have no information about the ‘voices’; that is, they do not know that the ‘voices’ speaking at least two different linguistic varieties are the same person and that these are guises; this is where the technique gets its name: matched guise.
• v) there is total control over the variable ‘voice’, with the removal of all features of speed, volume, timbre, tone, etc. Nonetheless, the importance of this technique lies in manipulating the linguistic features of the oral stimulus material, rather than in manipulating the recorded voices.
• vi) the length of the oral stimulus material recording is two minutes;
• vii) the ‘judges’ or interviewees are asked to evaluate the personal qualities of the recorded individuals on the basis of their ‘voices’, as if they were evaluating the ‘voice’ of somebody they did not know during a telephone conversation.
• viii) a questionnaire allows the personality traits of the ‘voices’ evaluated to be attributed to the ‘voices’ (intelligence; leadership; physical attractiveness; social status, unpleasantness...).

Lambert himself (1967) notes that the interviewees usually enjoy taking part in this test because they regard it as a game. Most language attitude studies that have used the matched guise technique have been conducted at schools or colleges.

Criticisms

(Non-)existent stereotypes

Lambert (Gardner & Lambert, 1972) points out some of the limitations of his method:

• i) firstly, he asks whether the attitude measurements that emerge are really what interviewees believe or what they think they should express in public about their opinions;
• ii) secondly, Lambert questions whether the recording encourages the use of stereotypes, which produces other associations reflected in the data obtained.

The experimental nature of the technique

Another aspect of this technique with negative connotations are its experimental features: the matched guise technique is usually used with groups in classrooms or laboratories and has thus been qualified as artificial or not very ‘natural’; Robinson (1978) also believes that experimental situations, by their nature, force individuals to provide an answer. Moreover, the use of oral stimulus material created for the experiment has increased scepticism about obtaining significant results with this technique (Tajfel, 1962; Lee, 1971; Robinson, 1972). Lee (1971) even suggests that repeating the message can mean that ‘judges’ focus on the linguistic features of the varieties used more than they would in a normal and unconditioned situation.

The monostylistic presupposition of the varieties used

Moreover, this technique presupposes that the linguistic varieties evaluated have only one functional style (Agheyisi & Fishman, 1970). Thus, it is unable to explain the social meaning of speakers’ multistylistic capacity in different contexts or degrees of knowledge of the linguistic varieties evaluated. However, efforts have been made to improve the matched-guise test to cater for this (Howard & Bourhis 1976).

See also

• Diglossia
• Linguistics
• Sociolinguistics

Bibliography

• Agheyisi, R.; Fishman, J. (1970): “Language Attitudes: A Brief Survey of Methodological Approaches”, Anthropological Linguistics, 12. pgs. 137-157.
• Davies, A & Elder, C. 2004, The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, Blackwell Publishing, UK.
• Downes, William (1998) Language and Society (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gardner, R. G.; Lambert, W. (1972): Attitudes and motivation in a second-language learning. Rowley Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
• Giles, Howard and Richard Y. Bourhis (1976): "Methodological Issues in Dialect Perception", Anthropological Linguistics 18., pp. 294–304.
• Lambert, W. E. (1967): “A Social Psychology of Bilingualism”, in Journal of Social Issues, vol. 23. (pgs. 91-108.
• Lee, R. R. (1971): “Dialect Perception: a Critical Review and Re-Evaluation”, in Quarterly Journal of Speech, 57. pgs. 410-17.
• Robinson, W. P. (1978): Lenguaje y conducta social. Mexico: Trillas.
• Tajfel, H. (1972): “Experiments in a Vacuum in the Context of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment”, in J. Israel; H. Tajfel (ed.). London: Academic Press.
• Wardhaugh, Ronald (1992) An Introduction to Linguistics (2nd edition), Oxford: Blackwell.