Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseely
emunix.emich.edu>
I recently posted a query as to whether there exists <a> a mechanism for the objective measurement of hostility in spoken English (as expressed by acoustic stress), and <b> a unit of measurement for same comparable to the erg or the calorie. Among the positions taken in responses were: Hostilty in English is not expressed by acoustic/phonetic stress, therefore the question is vacuous; yes, hostility in English is expressed by stress, but no measuring mechanism or unit exists; yes, hostility in English is expressed by stress, and there *is* a measuring mechanism and/or unit. Given this lack of consensus among the experts, it's not surprising that the general public is baffled. My thanks to those who responded, including: lenellMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueucsu.Colorado.EDU (Elizabeth Lenell) PICARD
VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA (Marc Picard) ahlen
cs.cmu.edu(Sondra Ahlen) pdaniels
press.gopher.uchicago.edu (Peter Daniels) archer
cats.ucsc.edu (Dane Archer) myl
unagi.cis.upenn.edu (Mark Liberman) jsc
indy.phon.ox.ac.uk (John Coleman) dobrovol
acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Dobrovolsky) vitale
dectik.ENET.dec.com (Anthony J. Vitale) taylor_kathi
po.gis.prc.com (Kathi Taylor) tjay
nasc.mass.edu (Timothy Jay) godden
lgm.cs.gmr.com (Kurt Godden) Minor clarifications to answer questions that came with the responses, and to provide context: (1) I (and others in medical comunication) use the term "hostility" as a cover term for a variety of negative emotions, because it seems to cover the broadest range -- and because it is the term used in medical literature for the component of "Type A" behavior that has been proved to be a risk factor for heart disease. It is a "technical" term, in that sense. (2) Most of the people I work with are physicians and therapists (never linguists), and they are totally unwilling to sit still for detailed explanations of terms and concepts in linguistics; I try to be as accurate as possible within the constraints this poses. The subject is a very serious issue in psychoneuroimmunology and in medicine in general, where failure to understand what's going on in verbal interactions can lead to mortality, morbidity, inadequate performance in the medical setting, and large malpractice suits. More than 70 percent of malpractice suits in this country are for Malpractice Of The Mouth. (3) I have been working with hostility in spoken American Mainstream English since the 1960s, and one thing I feel very certain of is that it is not marked by the *words* used. Every beginning drama student is expected to be able to take an emotionally empty word like "goldfish" and say it in such a way that it expresses lust, rage, terror, tenderness, etc.; this is a routine task. No matter how carefully a speaker may choose his/her words to express only affection, kind concern, or even just neutrality, if the speaker's actual feeling for the listener is hostility -- and the speaker is neither a Meryl-Streep-caliber actor nor a sociopath -- the positive message will be cancelled by the nonverbal communication. (This is something that physicians -- and college professors -- would strongly prefer to have proved false; the famous quotation in the medical field is a physician who said to Gregg Esterbrook, "I will not ALLOW that to be true!") There is no word so "inherently offensive," in my opinion, that it cannot be spoken in a way that conveys only a positive emotional message. (4) Literature that linguists might not routinely turn to on this topic, but that I would recommend, is found in aviation/space medicine -- where it's crucial to be able to determine a pilot's emotional state from voice data; and in law literature, where there are two related goals: <a> to be able to judge a juror's emotional state from NVC even if words convey a different message; and <b> to be able to appeal verdicts on the grounds that inappropriate emotional messages have been conveyed by the NVC of judges. Of primary importance to me is the demonstration that the *effects* of emotional messages conveyed by voice alone can be proved even when the listeners consistently claim that they were unaware of any such messages; I find this more compelling than studies showing that college students cannot reliably identify such messages and claiming that they therefore do not receive them. I am, as always, willing to be proved wrong. Some of the responses: "To my mind, the hostile stress you're talking about reflects just one of the many uses of EMPHATIC stress so there's no such animal as a 'hostile stress marker' or some such measurable unit. Hostility has to be based on a message that's already negative ... (T)he point is that you can put emphatic stress pretty much in the same places as in any hostile message, and get a totally different effect depending on the content." (From Marc Picard) "I poked around in my textbooks and found 'FTA' (Face Threatening Act) as a sociolinguistic unit and 'level' or 'degree' as phonological units which are related to hostile stress. Brown and Levinson (1978,1987) define <it> as a sociolinguistic unit which encompasses instances of hostile exaggerated stress as well as many other linguistic devices which they claim are intended to save or threaten 'face,' an individual's public image. .... <See> especially on page 217 where there's a discussion of how contrastive stress can be used to indicate criticism. <See also> Hyman (1975)... <where> hostile stress is one instance of emphatic or contrastive sentence stress." (From Sondra Ahlen; she lists Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson 1978,1987, Politeness- Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge U. Press -- Studies in International Sociolinguistics, Vol. 4 ; and Hyman, L.M. 1975, Phonology: Theory and Analysis, Holt NY.) "I suspect that it is misleading to talk about 'the phonetic marker for hostility' or even 'the primary phonetic marker for hostility...' at least without defining 'hostility' in a very narrow and perhaps circular way. ... This is a problem at the intersection of physiology, language, cognition and culture, and it is not clear that we should expect to find a simple one-to-one alignment among physiological states, subjective feelings, and vocal expressions. ... There are some interesting recent review articles about research on emotion and its expression by the social psychologist Klaus Scherer. .. Scherer is going to be organizing a special session on the expression of emotion, at the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing meeting in Philadelphia next fall. I believe that this session will include a presentation on the stsate of the art in automatic recognition of emotion in speech. I would be very surprised to find that what you have called 'phonetic stress' is necessarily connected, or even strongly correlated with 'hostility.' Thus emphatic speech might well be taken to express joyous exaltation, while extreme anger might quite stereotypically be expressed in a trembling monotone. However, opinions (including my own) about how people usually express themselves may be a more accurate reflection of social stereotypes than of actual communicative behavior. This is just as true when the opinions are collected from subjects in an experiment as when the opinions are collected from linguists in their proverbial armchairs." (From Mark Liberman) Several respondents recommended Scherer's work; several wrote to express interest in the results of the discussion and to describe related projects they are involved in. If any of the respondents quoted feel that I have done them verbal violence rather than "summarizing" their comments, I apologize; that was not my intention. References I find useful: Cosmides, Leda. 1983. "Invariances in the Acoustic Expression of Emotion During Speech." Journal of Experimental Psychology 9:6;864-881, 1983. Hollien, Harry. "Vocal Indicators of Psychological Stress." Annals of New York Academy of Science 347;47-72, 1980. Simonov, Pavel V. and Mikhail V. Frolov. "Analysis of the Human Voice as a Method of Controlling Emotional State: Achievement and Goals." Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, January 1977, pp, 23-25. Suggs, David, and Bruce Dennis Sales. "Using Comunication Cues to Evaluate Prospective Jurors During the Voir Dire." Arizona Law Review 20;630-642, 1978. A.F.G. "Notes: Judges' Nonverbal Behavior in Jury Trials a Threat to Judician Impartiality." Virginia Law Review 61;1266-1298, 1975. (Any of the studies by Peter Blanck et al. on the subject of judges' "leaked" emotional messages.) I very much appreciate your help. As I said, this is a serious problem in medicine, and one I would like to be able to discuss with greater confidence that what I am saying represents at least a partial consensus within linguistics. If anyone has further comments on this topic, or references to suggest, I would always be grateful to receive them and to respond to the best of my ability. Suzette Haden Elgin PO Box 1137, Huntsville AR 72740-1137