Perceptions of African American English dialect density by Anglo-European American speech-language pathologists

Language researchers have used the terms dialect density and dialect rate to describe the varying amounts and types of features used by speakers of a given dialect (Getting & McDonald, 2002). Members of the general population use other terms, such as "thick dialect" or "slight accent." These colloquial terms often coincide with subjective statements about how easy the speaker was to understand and/or how noticeable the use of the dialect was. Although dialects consist of features across all levels of language (phonology, morphosyntax, semantics, and pragmatics), phonological features may be the most identifiable (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, 1998). Little is known concerning the actual role that these features play in perception of inter-speaker differences.; It is important to understand the perceptibility of dialect density, because speakers of some dialects are penalized for the use of their dialect in some situations. For example, a speech-language pathologist (SLP) may mistake an African American English (AAE) dialect for a speech-language disorder. This may be more likely to happen with speakers who use a greater number or particular types of AAE phonological features. This study aims to determine the extent to which selected amounts and types of AAE features contribute to subjective judgments by non-AAE-speaking speech-language pathologists in predominantly Anglo-European American school districts. The subjective judgments under investigation are perceived degree of comprehensibility (i.e., how easily understandable the speaker would be to the general population) and perceived dialect detectability (i.e., how noticeable the use of AAE was) as perceptual indicators of dialect density.; Certified speech-language pathologists from predominantly Anglo-European American school districts in rural mid-Michigan listened to individual sentences that contained varying amounts and types of AAE phonological features. The SLPs rated each sentence on five-point ordinal scales regarding how noticeable the dialect was (1= AAE dialect was not noticeable, 5= AAE dialect was extremely noticeable) and how understandable the speaker would be to people in the general population (1= Very difficult to understand, 5= Very easy to understand). The ratings for the different sentences were compared to determine the extent to which the frequency and types of features represented in the sentences contributed to the SLPs' judgments.; The study found that both comprehensibility and dialect detectability ratings were affected by the number of features included in the sentences. The type of features included had consistent effects in the comprehensibility ratings but less consistent effects in the dialect detectability ratings. Possible explanations for these inconsistencies were discussed. Theoretical implications for prototype-based models of speech perception were addressed along with practical implications for speech-language pathologists in the areas of: (a) assessments with nonmainstream dialect speakers, and (b) accent modification.