Non-binary speech, race, and non-normative gender: Sociolinguistic style beyond the binary
Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Ariana June Steele, B.A.
Linguistics Graduate Program
The Ohio State University
2019
Thesis Committee:
Kathryn Campbell-Kibler, Adviser
Cynthia Clopper
i
Copyright by
Ariana June Steele
2019
ii
Abstract
Non-binary speech is understudied in the realm of sociolinguistics. Previous studies on nonbinary speech (Kirtley 2015; Gratton 2016; Jas 2018) suggest that non-binary speakers are able to make use of linguistic variables that have been tied to binary gender in novel ways, often dependent on social context and goals, though these studies are limited in scope, considering eight or fewer non-binary talkers in their studies. Research into sociolinguistic style (Eckert 2008; Campbell-Kibler 2011) emphasizes the ways that multiple linguistic and extralinguistic variables can be employed simultaneously to construct coherent styles, leaving room for speaker race to be included in the stylistic context (Pharao et al. 2014). Zimman’s (2017) study on transmasculine speakers showed that speakers can employ binary gendered linguistic variables in speech styles to position themselves towards or against normative binary gender. The current study considers how twenty non-binary speakers, stratified by sex assigned at birth and race, use /s/ and f0, variables which tied to gender in previous research, alongside clothing to construct non-binary gendered styles. Results further support that race is an important construct in understanding gendered speech, as Black non-binary speakers produce /s/ differently with respect to self-identified masculinity than do white non-binary speakers. Overall, non-binary speakers align with other speakers who position themselves with non-normative gender expressions through their use of /s/ and f0.
i
Acknowledgements
I’d like to thank my adviser, Kathryn Campbell-Kibler, who not only has given me invaluable advice on my research and writing of this project, but has helped me look beyond my worries to the greatness in the work that I’m doing. I’d also like to thank Cynthia Clopper and Jian Chen, my QP1 committee members, for their feedback and support on the research and writing herein. The discussion group SoMean has been integral to my conceptualizing of this research – I thank you all immensely for your comments. Last, but certainly not least, I’d like to thank my friends and family who have been there throughout this journey: Mom, Dad, Jayleen, Josh, and Javi. You have all given me the strength to make this happen, and I’m forever greatful.
ii Vita
2012 ...................................................Thomas Jefferson High School 2016 ...................................................B.A. Linguistics & Cognitive Science, Northwestern
University
2016 to 2017......................................Graduate Enrichment Fellow, Department of Linguistics,
The Ohio State University
2017 to 2018......................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Linguistics,
The Ohio State University
2018 to present ..................................Fellow, National Science Foundation Graduate Research
Fellowship Program
Fields of Study
Major Field: Linguistics Specialization: Sociophonetics
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract..................................................................................................................................i Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................ii Vita ........................................................................................................................................iii List of Tables.........................................................................................................................vi List of Figures........................................................................................................................vii Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1 Literature Review ..................................................................................................................3 Methods .................................................................................................................................16
Population & Participants................................................................................................16 Gender Questionnaire......................................................................................................17 Ethnographic Interview ...................................................................................................18 Reading Passage ..............................................................................................................19
Analysis .................................................................................................................................20
Phonetic Analysis ............................................................................................................20 Analysis of Styles............................................................................................................21 Statistical Analysis ..........................................................................................................25
Results & Discussion.............................................................................................................27 f0 Results.........................................................................................................................27 /s/ Results.........................................................................................................................30
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................34 iv
References .............................................................................................................................38 Appendix A: Gender Questionnaire ......................................................................................41 Appendix B: Interview Guide ...............................................................................................43 Appendix C: /s/ and f0 Word Lists........................................................................................46 Appendix D: Participants’ Visibility Scores and Self-Descriptions of Their Clothing on the Day of Their Interview ..........................................................................................................48
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Participant information............................................................................................17
Table 2. Indexical markers from participant descriptions of clothing styles noted in Phase I of style coding.......................................................................................................22 Table 3. Indexical markers of visibility levels with number of participants in each style. ..............................................................................................................................24
Table 4. Linear mixed effects regression model results of demographic predictors for CoG in Hertz...................................................................................................27 Table 5. Linear mixed effects regression model results of visibility predictor for CoG in Hertz..........................................................................................................................28 Table 6. Linear mixed effects regression model results of demographic predictors for f0 in Hertz. ......................................................................................................30
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Femininity ratings by masculinity ratings for all speakers. ...................................26 Figure 2. CoG by masculinity for Black and white speakers................................................28 Figure 3. CoG by visibility level. ..........................................................................................29 Figure 4. Boxplot of f0 by sex assigned at birth....................................................................31 Figure 5. f0 by femininity......................................................................................................32 Figure 6. f0 by femininity ratings with sex assigned at birth. ...............................................33
vii
Introduction
In linguistics, the speech of people who align themselves against normative gender and race is severely understudied, and especially so in sociolinguistics/sociophonetics. As Gaudio (1994) said on cisgender gay men’s speech before it had been thoroughly studied, “in linguistics… we have barely left the earlier days of enforced invisibility and negative stereotypes” (pp. 30). In the current study, I aim to lessen the gap in understanding of and garner greater visibility for speakers who fit in neither normative genders nor majority racial identities. Through focusing on non-binary speakers and equally centering Black and white non-binary speakers, this study adds to growing sociolinguistic research that suggests that gender is not expressed in line with dominant social gendered expectations by those who identify with nonnormative gender and racialized identities (Zimman 2017; Calder forthcoming).
In this study, I consider how both Black and white non-binary speakers use /s/ and f0, two sociophonetic variables that have been tied to binary expressions of gender, to construct non-binary gendered styles. Considering style from a perspective that centers intersectionality (Crenshaw 1989), the fact that people experience multiple identities simultaneously, will allow for a broader understanding of gender as it relates to race and vice versa in sociolinguistics. Likewise, taking into account participants’ demographics in their production of phonetic variables provides a greater depth to our understanding of gendered speech.
Results show that Black non-binary speakers use high frequency /s/ productions to perform a non-normative masculinity, distancing themselves from negative stereotypes put upon them. Participants describe an opposition between two non-binary clothing styles, genderless and genderfuck, which, upon inspection, appear to be primarily distinguished by their level of
1visibility in public settings. Non-binary speakers, as other speakers who associate with nonnormative gender (e.g., Calder forthcoming), are able to selectively use binary gendered linguistic variables to push against normative gendered speech.
2
Literature review
In 1989, Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality, which was originally created to refer to the structural, political, and representational ways through which Black women uniquely face oppression by both white supremacy and patriarchy. Crenshaw explained that the experience of Black women cannot be distilled to simply their womanhood or their Blackness, but is rather a constant interaction between these identities. In most sociophonetic studies of language and gender, the intersections of identities have not been considered (see Levon 2015 for a discussion of intersectionality in sociolinguistics). By leaving out large populations of speakers with multiple intersecting identities, we make conclusions about language and gender that do not necessarily hold beyond the white populations studied. As a corollary to how Black women’s experiences correspond to the unique intersection of their Blackness and their womanhood, cisgender white gay men’s experiences are unique to their intersection of identities and cannot necessarily be generalized to speakers who do not fit this specific intersection. I consider both Black and white non-binary speakers in the current study in order to begin to enhance our understandings of how gender and race interplay in the sociophonetic study of language and gender. As I situate the study of non-binary speech within the history of language and gender research especially in sociophonetics, we must take note of whose speech has been prioritized and whose has been overlooked within this course of study.
Early sociolinguistic inquiry into language and gender emerged from attempts by feminist linguists to describe the speech of cisgender women and compare their speech patterns to those of cisgender men (e.g., Lakoff 1975, Cameron 1992). This early study referred to differences in power and social upbringing as motivating differences in speech patterns between
3cisgender women and men and did not delve deeply into the speech of cisgender women and men who are not heterosexual.
As sociophonetics started gaining traction in sociolinguistics after Labov (1966), research on language and sexuality came to the forefront in the sociophonetic study of language and gender (see Podesva & Kajino 2014 for a summary of sociophonetics and sexuality). This line of research observed the speech of white cisgender gay men and asked what characterizes “gay speech” and how sets of phonetic variables influence the perception of masculinity in their speech. Some early research considered f0, the acoustic correlate of pitch, for the answers. Terango (1966) and Avery & Liss (1996) found that men that researchers thought were less masculine and more effeminate produced higher f0 than more masculine men. Munson (2007) found that lower f0 correlated with greater perceived masculinity in cisgender men’s speech and higher f0 with greater perceived femininity in cisgender women’s speech. However, Gaudio (1994) and Smyth, Jacobs, and Rogers (2003) found no effect of f0 on listener perceptions of sexuality or gender. These studies suggest that people perceive f0 as reflecting the femininity and/or masculinity of the speaker.
Other researchers have looked to the “gay lisp,” a popular stereotype about gay men’s production of /s/, to explain what distinguishes gay men’s speech from that of heterosexual men, to varying results (see Zimman 2012 for a summary of this feature). Rogers, Smyth, and Jacobs (2000) and Linville (1998) found that sibilant duration and high peak frequency of sibilants correlated with voices that were identified as gay by listeners. Similarly, Smyth and Rogers (2008) found that gayer-sounding men had higher peak frequencies of /s/ than straightersounding men. In a perceptual study, Levon (2007) found that only a combination of a longer /s/
4duration and broader pitch range resulted in higher gayness ratings in the speech of a cisgender straight man.
While many of these sociophonetic studies consider speakers’ perceived gender and/or sexuality as they relate to their production of certain phonetic variables, none of these studies consider the relationship between speakers’ self-identified femininity and masculinity and their production of these variables. This has key implications for transgender (hereafter trans) speakers, who identify with a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth. Just as trans people show that we cannot tell a person’s gender from the appearance of their body, neither can we tell how feminine or masculine a person is from their appearance. The focus on perceived gender and sexuality over the internal identity of the speaker does not leave room for an analysis including trans people, whose outward performance may not reflect their internal identity in standard ways. In order to close the gap and allow more room for trans—and especially nonbinary—speakers in sociolinguistics research, speakers in the current study were asked to selfidentify their femininity and masculinity, and these ratings were considered as potential predictors of their productions of phonetic variables.
Looking to how trans speakers use gendered sociophonetic variables can lead to a greater understanding of how speakers’ self-identified gender relates to their speech patterns. In his study of /s/ and the discourse marker so comparing productions by binary trans, queer cisgender, and heterosexual cisgender speakers, Hazenberg (2016) found that speakers who identify as women produce uniformly higher /s/ than speakers who identify as men regardless of the sex they were assigned at birth (hereafter SAB). Speakers also using so in accordance with the gender they identify with. That is to say, one’s use of variables reflects their self-identified gender more than it does the physiology of their body. Considering multiple phonetic variables at once can
5allow us to better explain the context under which speakers produce different realizations of each variable.
Zimman (2017) studied how transmasculine speakers, trans people who self-identify as masculine, use both /s/ and f0 to construct gendered identities. He found that when transmasculine speakers take testosterone, which lowers their f0 overall, speakers tend to use a higher frequency /s/, which can be attributed to their stance towards binary gender. Some speakers mentioned feeling more comfortable expressing their femininity with their lower f0; being perceived as men allowed them to use more feminine features, such as higher frequency /s/, in order to position themselves against normative masculinity. When they were seen as women, high frequency /s/ indexed normative femininity, but high frequency /s/ was able index non-normative masculinity in the context of a lower, masculine f0. This recontextualization shows that speakers can employ varying combinations of phonetic variable realizations in order to position themselves towards or against dominant notions of femininity and/or masculinity, and these features do not necessarily pattern in normative, expected ways. Studying /s/ in combination with f0 can shed light on the complex interplay of gendered speech styles. Though more comprehensive of self-identified gender identity than previous studies, Zimman’s study does not include speakers’ non-normative gender identities or race in his analysis.
Non-binary is an umbrella term for gender identities that do not strictly align with
“woman” or “man”. Gender identities that tend to fall under the non-binary umbrella include genderfluid, agender, demigender, trans-masculine, trans-feminine, and more. The term non- binary can be used on its own to describe one’s gender; instead, some people identify as simply non-binary, some as an identity under the non-binary umbrella (e.g., agender), and some as both (e.g., non-binary agender). We can look to non-binary speakers to understand how style can be
6used to perform gender beyond the feminine-masculine binary. Non-binary people in the United States navigate a society that perceives their gender as within the binary while they identify outside of it. This suggests that non-binary speakers understand how their gender expression is viewed through the lens of femininity and masculinity and may adjust their expression to influence how they are perceived publicly.
Gratton (2016) looked at two non-binary speakers’ use of (ING) and found that their production patterns reflected a distancing of oneself from the sex they were assigned at birth (SAB). The non-binary person who was assigned female at birth (AFAB) used the more stereotypically masculine variant of (ING), [ɪn], in non-queer public spaces to distance themselves from femininity, while the non-binary person who was assigned male at birth (AMAB) used the more stereotypically feminine variant [ɪŋ] to distance themselves from masculinity. The two speakers use their respective (ING) variants to differentiate themselves from the gender that would be assumed of them, though this does not characterize a full picture of the forces at play in gendering oneself. The methodological weaknesses of a small sample size (two non-binary speakers) and inconsistencies in who was present during the interviews (both non-binary speakers, assorted additional friends, etc.) make the results unclear. Theoretically, as Gratton notes, the use of a single phonetic variant does not necessarily index femininity or masculinity on its own; rather, multiple phonetic variables are employed alongside other social resources to construct holistic gendered styles. Without data from a larger number of non-binary speakers, balancing who is present during interviews, or a concern with more phonetic variables, it is unclear the extent to which Gratton’s results are applicable beyond the speakers and interviews in her study.
7
Kirtley (2015) studied the speech patterns of three speakers who identify with nonnormative genders in Hawai’i in different social situations, two of whom were ethnically Hawaiian and one Jewish. Through both discourse and phonetic analyses of phonetic variables such as f0, /s/, creaky voice, pauses, and more, Kirtley found that these speakers exhibited different usage of variables depending on their interactional goals, which can change between and within each interaction. For example, Jody, who describes himself as “’someone who was born in the wrong body’ but who is now a guy, a guy ‘with both a cock and a pussy’” (pp. 122), uses low frequency /s/, low f0, and a slower speech rate when he is acting tough or knowledgeable around people he does not know, but he does not try to act more masculine in these ways when around his family. Kirtley’s speakers’ use of phonetic variables differs greatly from one another due to their varying identities and social goals-in-interaction. Though again a small sample size of three, with only one of the three speakers in the study self-identifying as non-binary, this in-depth study into the interactional habits of three speakers who identify with non-normative genders suggests that non-binary speakers’ production of phonetic variables will differ based on their social goals.
More recently, Jas (2018) looked at f0 mean, range, and slope amongst eight non-binary speakers in the UK, also taking into account SAB, age, gender presentation, sexuality, and affect in order to determine how physiological and social influence f0 for non-binary speakers. Though nothing significantly predicted mean f0, SAB did significantly predict f0 range. Sexuality and age were significant predictors of f0 slope (i.e., the steepness of difference in speakers’ high vs. low f0 range), with queer-identifying and older non-binary speakers producing a greater f0 range than other speakers, which shows that queer speakers and older speakers have a greater difference between their minimum and maximum f0 than others. With the incorporation of affect
8
(positive, negative, or neutral), Jas found that masculine-presenting non-binary speakers produced lower mean f0 and a narrow f0 range in neutral affective contexts relative to negative/positive contexts. Jas’ results further support the theory suggested by Kirtley (2015) and Zimman (2017) that the speech styles of non-binary and non-normative gender speakers can provide insight into how speakers employ certain sets of variables in order to construct styles that run counter to dominant social norms.
There are two primary methodological concerns regarding the aforementioned sociophonetic studies on non-binary speech. First, the total sample of all speakers amongst these three studies is only twelve speakers, and small sample size can exaggerate individual variation and make it appear more representative than it is. Also, in all of the studies except for Kirtley (2015), speakers are primarily white, an issue endemic in sociophonetic language and gender research at large. Gratton (2016) and Jas (2018) make no analytical reference to the speakers’ race, which suggests that their analyses of non-binary speech are limited to white speakers. In the current study, I aim to create a better representation of non-binary speech by gathering a larger sample of non-binary speakers and building race into my sampling. By expanding upon both of these crucial shortcomings, the current study extends the applicability of its results to represent a greater variety of non-binary speakers.
Another looming theoretical concern with most of the sociophonetic research on nonbinary speech thus far is the focus on one phonetic variable representing one’s stances towards gender. Jas’ analysis of only the phonetic variable f0 leaves questions about what speakers are doing in the larger context of their speech beyond f0. As rightly noted by Gratton (2016), single variables are used alongside a host of other linguistic and non-linguistic variables to construct