Ethnolinguistic Convergence and Divergence within Dyadic Communication

Harding University

Scholar Works at Harding

Honors College Research Honors College

Spring 2018

Ethnolinguistic Convergence and Divergence

within Dyadic Communication

Anna E. Pitman

apitman@harding.edu

Follow this and additional works at: h5ps://scholarworks.harding.edu/honors-research

Part of the Anthropological Linguistics and Sociolinguistics Commons, Discourse and Text

Linguistics Commons, Ethnic Studies Commons, Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Ethnicity in

Communication Commons, International and Intercultural Communication Commons,

Interpersonal and Small Group Communication Commons, Linguistic Anthropology Commons,

and the Race and Ethnicity Commons

4is Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the

Honors College at Scholar Works at Harding. It has been accepted for

inclusion in Honors College Research by an authorized administrator of

Scholar Works at Harding. For more information, please contact

scholarworks@harding.edu.

Recommended Citation

Pitman, A. E. (2018). Ethnolinguistic Convergence and Divergence within Dyadic Communication. Retrieved from

h5ps://scholarworks.harding.edu/honors-research/1

Running head: ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 1

Ethnolinguistic Convergence and Divergence within Dyadic Communication

Anna E. Pitman

Harding University

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 2

Abstract

This study investigated just one dependent variable within communication: ethnicity. Ethnicity

often influences language. The study examined interethnic communication behaviors through the

lens of the Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), as influenced by one of its

offshoots, Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory (ELIT). Communication within CAT is given one of

three labels—convergence, divergence, and maintenance. The study included four students at

Harding University: two African American females, one Hispanic American female, and one

Caucasian American female. The primary participant, an African American woman, had a

recorded 20 minute conversation with each of the other three participants. Discussion questions

provided were formulated to create either convergence or divergence. This study utilized

discourse analysis to evaluate the communication between participants, focusing on syntactical

differences, discourse markers, and turn-taking silence behaviors within the dyads. Through

analysis of interethnic linguistic behaviors, this study hopes to facilitate understanding of factors

which govern them. These factors could, in turn, illuminate ways to foster constructive

interethnic communication.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 3

Ethnolinguistic Convergence and Divergence within Dyadic Communication

Ethnicity and language are often influenced by each other. Linguist John McWhorter

(2017), in his book Talking Back, Talking Black



, talks about his experience as a black man who

can accommodate fully into Standard English:

Whites are often perplexed that educated black people don’t like being called

“articulate.” The rub is that a white person speaking the same way often would not be

called “articulate.” The implication is that your not making “mistakes,” alone, renders

you remarkable, which feels like a bar being set awfully low. It’s as if you are thought of

as executing Standard English, rather than its being as integral to your soul as it is to any

white person’s. . . .So very many articulate white people are never called such, because

no one considers it remarkable that they can speak effectively. (p. 102)

Experiences like this are common for people who speak non-standard dialects, especially within

the United States. How does linguistic accommodation, sometimes called code-switching,

change the way people interact interethnically? The study proposed in this paper will attempt to

explore these issues through the lens of Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT).

Speech Accommodation Theory, which later became known as Communication

Accommodation Theory, was posited in 1973 by Welsh social psychologist Howard Giles. Giles

was influenced significantly by social identity theory (SIT) of Henri Tajfel (1978). SIT has been,

and continues to be, hugely influential in the socio-psychological tradition. Research within SIT

equates cultural identity maintenance with psychological health and assimilation with social

health (Hecht, Jackson, & Pitts, 2005). This is significant, as those in the dominant culture have

the luxury of not choosing between psychological health and social health, while those in

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 4

minority communities often do not. Research questions for the proposed study take this

framework into account.

Communication within CAT is given one of three labels—convergence, divergence, and

maintenance. Convergence describes communication behavior which is altered to become more

similar to a communication partner’s behavior; divergence describes behavior which accentuates

differences (Muir, Joinson, Cotterill, & Dewdney, 2016). Maintenance refers to the lack of either

convergence or divergence.

Research within CAT has focused on the way language is used in intergroup

communication (Harwood, Giles, & Palomares, 2005). Intergroup communication as discussed

in this proposal occurs when “either party in a social interaction defines self or other in terms of

group memberships” (Harwood, Giles, & Palomares, 2005, p. 2). When group identity is salient

to at least one communicative participant, intergroup communication is taking place. It is

important to note that it is not necessary for all



communicative participants to view

communication as intergroup. If group identification is significant for one participant, it is

considered intergroup communication.

Intergroup communication, in which group identification is a highly salient factor, is

often contrasted with interpersonal communication, in which previous relationship takes

precedence over group identification. Communication generally occurs with either a high focus

on intergroup factors or



a high focus on interpersonal factors. It is difficult to communicate with

high saliency for both factors. It is not, however, impossible. As Harwood, Giles, and Palomares

(2005) note, a conversation about cultural issues within a multiethnic marriage would be both

interpersonal and



intergroup communication.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 5

Analyzing intergroup communication is no simple matter. Innumerable factors influence

communication, rising and falling in salience. As Pitts and Harwood (2015) note,

Even everyday conversation frequently involves complex interactions requiring constant

negotiation, including strategic revealing and concealing of multiple social and cultural

identities. . . .Competent accommodation among interactants with different social

identities requires social and communication competence that will vary from group to

group, individual to individual, and involve a complicated system of cultural and

linguistic code switching.

This study investigated just one dependent variable within communication: ethnicity. This

research does not ignore the myriad other factors which influence convergence and divergence;

however, research of linguistic communication between different ethnic groups is useful and

important. Social separation of ethnic groups, often through subjugation of minority groups,

propagate linguistic differences. These linguistic differences, in turn, are often used to keep

minority groups in perpetual social subjugation. Even without direct cases of oppression,

tensions between equally powerful ethnic groups have been exacerbated by miscommunication.

In many places, ethnic distinction can be determined from simply hearing a few words or

phrases. In the United States, perceptual cues can be used to differentiate between African

American and European American voices with surprising accuracy (Thomas & Reaser, 2004).

This is not at all to say that all ethnically-based dialects are harmful (though the distinction can

be used to harm). These are rich and complex linguistic systems, which convey belonging to

their users. Understanding the factors which influence convergence or divergence in

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 6

communication can be helpful when considering how to facilitate constructive conversation

between ethnicities.

Ethnolinguistic Identity Theory (ELIT) developed naturally out of CAT. Giles and

Johnson (1987) proposed ELIT as a way to understand ethnicity and language as they relate to

each other in different social settings. With ELIT, Giles and Johnson (1987) attempted to expose

the underlying social psychological factors affecting interethnic communication. Research within

ELIT suggests that individuals who identify themselves strongly with a group are more likely to

view a given communication situation as intergroup, and are more likely to converge because of

the psychological factors inherent within that cognizance (Pitts & Harwood, 2015).

Understanding these factors could, in turn, illuminate ways to foster constructive interethnic

communication. ELIT has influenced the goals and methods of this study, though it was not used

explicitly as a theoretical lens.

Method

Participants

The study included four students at Harding University: two African American females,

one Hispanic American female, and one Caucasian American female. Each of the participants

identified as being from the southern United States and were native English speakers. In

addition, each participant was within two university classifications of one another. They were

recruited for this study through different means, including recruitments in introductory-level

English courses. Participants were also asked to participate in consideration of their acquaintance

with the other participants; none of the participants knew each other before this recorded

interaction.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 7

Each participant provided informed consent before participating, and participants’

identities were protected by the use of letters in accordance with their group. The groupings are

as follows:

A: African American female (primary participant)

B1: African American female (secondary participant)

B2: Caucasian American female (secondary participant)

B3: Hispanic American female

Participants were compensated for participation.

Design

To decrease the inherent subjectivity of this qualitative study, all of the participants were

females within two years in age and students at the same university. In addition, they all

identified as being from the southern region of the United States. The primary participant, an

African American woman, had a recorded and timed conversation with each of the other three

participants. Discussion questions were provided to the members of each dyad. Three of the

provided questions (listed in Appendix D) were deemed likely to create convergence, and the

other three likely to create divergence. Each conversational dyad—one intraethnic, the other two

interethnic—were analyzed for convergent and divergent linguistic behaviors.

Procedure

Each participant, after signing their informed consent to participate, completed a short

survey regarding ethnicity. The survey was a modification of The Multigroup Ethnic Identity

Measure (MEIM) developed by Phinney (1992). The purpose of this survey was to raise

consciousness of participants’ respective identities as a salient factor before the conversations.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 8

Each dyad read and discussed their two questions, led by A, the primary participant. A and her

conversation partner were instructed to talk about anything, as long as they discussed one of the

convergence-likely questions and one of the divergence-likely questions. Each discussion lasted

20 minutes. At the end of their participation in the study, each woman was debriefed regarding

the purpose of the study and encouraged to ask any questions about the process.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Women seem to be more likely to converge than men (Nilsson, 2015; Van Hofwegen,

2015). Whether this is a biological or socially conditioned response is a discussion not within the

scope of this study. The assumption did, however, influence the amount of convergence expected

in this study. Since all of the participants in the study were young females, a demographic more

likely to converge, the first hypothesis was as follows:

Hypothesis 1



: Convergence within the dyads will be high during the communication

prompted by the first, convergence-likely question.

There was a second question, with a topic more likely to create divergence, as it was expected to

enhance the salience of ethnicity. This precipitated hypothesis two:

Hypothesis 2:



Divergence will occur during the communication prompted by the second,

divergence-likely question.

As a study of this kind had not been done within CAT, this study was also be guided by

research questions which could not yet be formed into hypotheses:

Research Question 1:



How much accommodation will happen between the African

American participant and the Caucasian American participant?

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 9

Research Question 2:



Will the accommodation of that dyad be similar to the African

American-Hispanic American dyad? If not, what are the differences?

Research Question 3:



What will be the turn-taking effects for each dyad?

Research Question 4:



Will the members of the intraethnic dyad be more likely to

interrupt one another or is the opposite true?

Research Question 4 was not addressed in this study, as the direction of analysis was more

conducive to the former research questions, but future analysis of this data may address this

question.

The data collected through this study were analyzed through the methods of discourse

analysis—more specifically, conversation analysis. Discourse markers (e.g. “um,” “well,” “you

know”) are important within discourse analysis. In addition, turn-taking plays a prominent role

for discourse analysts (Tannen, n.d.).

This study focused on syntactical differences, silences in conversation, discourse

markers, and turn-taking behaviors within the dyads. Discourse analysis is a useful and efficient

tool for ethnolinguistic study. Deborah Tannen (n.d.) says, “By comparing how people in

different cultures use language, discourse analysts hope to make a contribution to improving

cross-cultural understanding” (para. 5). That is what this study hoped to achieve through

discourse analysis within CAT, while being influenced by ELIT.

Results

As previously mentioned, the data were analyzed using conversation analysis through the

theoretical lens of Communication Accommodation Theory. Each conversation was first entered

into Praat software (Boersma & Weenink) for analysis. The Praat software was used to

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 10

determine the amount and duration of silence intervals. The parameters for the silent interval

analysis are pictured below:

Figure 1.



Silent Interval Analysis. Praat software (Boersma & Weenink).

As is shown in the figure, the minimum silent interval duration is one-tenth of a second. Silence

signals trouble in a conversation (Pietikäinen, 2018). This study uses one-tenth of a second, the

time threshold Stokoe (2015) suggested as the amount of time generally acceptable within

well-flowing conversation. Since the original conversations were pitch-shifted to protect the

identities of the participants, the minimum silence interval pitch was lowered to 80Hz. This did

lead to some subjectively inaccurate silent or sounding times; this may be due to shortcomings in

the recording equipment. However, the same parameters were used on all conversations and the

few subjectively inaccurate instances were not changed to maintain continuity within the Praat

software system. One parameter change was made in the divergent cross-section of the

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 11

Participant A and Participant B2 dyad. The minimum dB level was sometimes changed from

-40dB to -50dB due to recording differences between dyads. This change was made as needed to

avoid misleading silence data.

The amount of conversational overlap is related to the silences analyzed through Praat.

Women tend to create more conversational overlap than men. A higher degree of conversation

overlap and interruptions is associated in this context with positive conversational involvement:

[Linguist Deborah] Tannen distinguishes, for example, between the ways that men and

women interrupt each other. Although the actions sound similar, the interpretations are

quite different. Men see interruptions as conversational bullying, denoting hostility and

manipulation. Women see them as cooperative overlapping, meaning mutual support and

involvement. (Armstrong, 1996)

For the purposes of this study, conversational overlap and lack of silence shown in

conversational analysis were considered convergent behaviors. This was a unique direction for

conversation analysis study, but in line with the fusion of CAT and conversation analysis

contained in this study.

Analysis of this data was done both holistically and within cross-sections of data. For

each dyad, 35-second cross-sections were transcribed and examined in detail. A 35-second

convergent period and divergent period were analyzed within each dyad. This resulted in 6

detailed transcriptions, recorded in Appendices A, B, and C.

B2 and A (interethnic communication)

Convergence. A great amount of convergence was observed in the conversation between

Participant B2 (white female) and Participant A. The conversation seemed to start at an

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 12

interpersonal level more than an interethic one. As was anticipated in hypothesis 1, convergence

was high in the beginning of the conversation. Observe the following rapport-building

interaction (transcribed completely in Appendix B):

1 B2: [hh] That’s good I mean

2 (1.0)

3 A: I mean yeah (.) if you don’t got weird friends

4 B2: Yeah [ya know] you right

5 A: What are you doin?

6 B2: What are you doin. Especially here I don’t know,

7 A: Especially here, yes. [yea:hhhh] yes.

This is a clear example of linguistic convergence. Each participant is repeating almost exactly

what the other is saying. Even words which are not important for the content are repeated, as

seen in the I mean



in lines 1 and 3, what are you doin?



in lines 5 and 6, and especially here



lines 6 and 7.

There are very few silences in this section of the conversation, another sign of

convergence. In the conversation between Participants B2 and A, there were 459 silences which

lasted more than .1 second. The 35-second detailed analysis of this portion of the conversation

contained 8 silences with a combined total silence time of 2.4 seconds.

Participant B2 also converged in a traditional interethnic way with her deletion of the

conjugated verb to be,



a dialectal feature of Black English (McWhorter, 2017). It is important to

consider the context of this act of convergence. In line 3, Participant A uses the double negative

feature associated with Black English: “if you don’t got weird friends.” In the very next line,

Participant B2 responds with “you right,” the to be



deletion also associated with Black English,

in line 4. This is an example of dialectal convergence, which can be fraught, especially in

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 13

interethnic contexts in the United States. This act of convergence by participant B2 is

well-received by Participant A, as the conversation continues in the convergent vein previously

seen.

Divergence. There were also moments of divergence within the conversation between

Participants B2 and A, as seen in the following excerpt from the conversation (transcribed in

Appendix B):

7 B2: Yeah (.) and so [that’s weird to me] the whole time he’s just like (.) yeah no it’s not

8 very good i was like (1.6) [he said] is it worth watching then?

9 A: He’s a guy too [yeah] so you’d expect him to be like (.) oh yeah, she’s (.8) she’s hot

10 (.2) [hhh ] (.) i like the movie [hh] (.3) that’s all i hear from a lot of [really?] people

11 too (.6) yeah

12 (.4)

The most immediately striking part of this conversation is the amount of silence within this

section of the conversation. As previously noted, silences within conversations are seen as points

of divergence. The full 35-second transcription of this data show 16 silences, lasting 7.3 seconds.

This is significant when contrasted with the 8 silences in the convergent cross-section of

Participants B2 and A, lasting 2.4 seconds.

This section is not completely divergent, however. This can be seen in the repetition of

the discourse marker yeah.



Researchers within conversation analysis have found that yeah

specifically is used more often among strangers than friends (Stokoe, 2015), making it either an

act of convergence or divergence, depending on the perspective taken. One could consider it

convergence, as it is matching the expression of the other participant. However, since it is a

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 14

discourse marker used more often with people who are strangers than friends, it could be an

implicit act of distancing.

B3 and A (interethnic communication)

Convergence. The conversation between Participant B3 (Hispanic female) and

Participant A was, on the whole, less convergent than the other dyads. The 35-second

cross-section section of convergence contained 16 silences, lasting for a total of 5.45 seconds.

5 B3: yeah

6 A: okay was it goo::d, was it

7 B3: [it was really good i actually want to watch it again (.) t(hh)oday yeah I told my

8 friends about it (.) and I was like (.) you need to watch this movie. [really] (.) yeah.

9 A: but it wasn't (.) were the ratings that good?

Both the convergent and divergent behavior in this dyad were characterized by a search for

information. Participant A spent much of the conversation asking direct questions, sometimes

answered quickly by Participant B3 (generally convergence) and often evaded (generally

divergence) by Participant B3. This was an example of different communication

tactics—convergence and divergence—both used in search of social approval. This can also be

noted in the next section, detailing divergence as a result of Participant B3’s evasion.

Divergence. The divergence in this dyad was not limited to silences. Participant B3 used

a lot of discourse markers in this conversation, while Participant A actually decreased her use of

discourse markers. Both participants, then, exhibited divergent behavior. Note the following

example, with discourse markers bolded for legibility:

6 A: I mind my bu:siness (.2) in chapel. (.4) I’m normally asleep. (1) [mhhhm (hhh)]

7 (.4) you are too?

8 B3: Umm (.) sometimes [or studying (.) or something] Yeah

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 15

9 A: Or listening. (.4)

10 B3: Yeah (.6) umm (.) [that’s good] yeah, i’ll fall asleep sometimes. (.2) But. yeah.

11 (1.1) Sometimes (1.6) yeah. ((hh))

Every discourse marker in this excerpt was uttered by Participant B3, while Participant A used

no discourse markers. Throughout the conversation, Participant A increased her use of like



relation to use within the other dyads. Other discourse marker use from Participant A did not

differ significantly in this dyad compared with the other two (as seen in Table 1 in Appendix E).

As noted earlier, this portion of the conversation also followed the pattern shown in the

convergent excerpt. Participant A made a statement about her chapel habits. Chapel, a

requirement at the participants’ university, was generally an easy topic for convergent behavior.

The socially acceptable ways to respond to chapel were enumerated in lines 6 and 8 (bolded for

clarity):

6 A: I mind my bu:siness (.2) in chapel. (.4) I’m normally asleep. (1) [mhhhm (hhh)]

7 (.4) you are too?

8 B3: Umm (.) sometimes [or studying (.) or something] Yeah

The socially acceptable options for chapel at this university were minding one’s business,

sleeping, or studying. Participant B3 understood this, but it seems from her hesitation that she

actually enjoyed chapel. Admitting that she paid attention would be likely to create social

distance between them, so Participant B3 was loath to commit that social misstep. Participant A

continued with her pressing, and Participant B3 admitted that she listened during chapel. To

repair some of her social credibility, she noted that she did



fall asleep sometimes.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 16

B1 and A (intraethnic communication)

Convergence. There was not a significant difference between convergent behaviors in

the intraethnic dyad between Participants B1 and A. As in the other dyads, there were convergent

and divergent moments throughout the conversation. The types of convergence were also similar

to other dyads. Below is a representative convergent section (transcribed in Appendix A):

8 B1: I tried to find the comic part, we just kinda laughed [hh] I was watching it with my

9 friends a $couple weeks ago we were just kinda laughing at it even though

10 °(unintelligible)°  [it is funny

11 A: especially when she’s just sick in her bed [and yeah] yeah like [oh >we people who

12 are like<

13 B1: why are you h(hhh)e::re (.) <we made jokes> about it for a while [(for re::al)

The most notable part of this convergence—and throughout the convergent moments of the

dyad—is the low number of silences. There was a lot of positive interruption in this

cross-section, centered on a discussion of the popular horror film The Exorcist



prompted by one

of the convergence-likely questions presented. This is representative of the convergence found

throughout the conversation. It is also interesting to note that this dyad was the most likely to

focus on personal topics, such as friendship conflicts and career goals. There was not much

dialectal convergence, which will be discussed in the next section.

Divergence. The intraethnic dyad produced 496 silences in the 20-minute conversation.

This was the highest number of silences recorded in all three dyads.

9 B1: They made it look kinda real though (1.2)

10 A: Yeah

11 (1.3)

12 B1: Yeah i dunwanna be a babysitter now who knows what kinda trouble you can get into

13 (1.1)

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 17

14 A: Who knows and really I just (.6) I’m glad I didn’t have a babysitter (.3) [mhm] (.3)I’m

15 glad I just had my parents (.)

There was not a higher use of Black English dialectal features in this dyad. Participant A

used Black English features throughout all conversations. Participant B1 did not exhibit any

evidence that she was a speaker of Black English, which may have caused the dialectal

convergence to be similar to the other, interethnic dyads. The results of the Multi-Ethnic Identity

Measure (MEIM) survey provided a possible insight. Participant A noted on the MEIM a high

identification with African-American culture, people, and traditions. Participant B1 did not show

a high identification, strongly disagreeing with many of the cultural identity statements, such as I

have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group



and I participate in cultural practices

of my own group, such as special food, music, or customs.



There was one moment of dialectal

convergence in which Participant A noted the importance of having a few close friends you can

be real with.



Participant B3 replied, you have to be careful who you “be real”



with though.

Syntactically speaking, this was the only moment of Black English convergence.

Discourse Markers

Participant A’s use of discourse markers is noted below. The use of discourse markers

varied between dyads, but not significantly. The highest incidence, like



in dyad A/B3, was likely

prompted by the higher use of like



by B3—although B3 also used yeah



at a very high rate

without convergence in that area from Participant A. This is in keeping with the other findings

between the conversations.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 18

Discourse Marker

A with B2

A with B3

A with B1

Yeah

Really

Mmhmm

You know

Table 1.



Participant A’s use of discourse markers in each 20 minute conversation dyad.

Discussion

Overall, there was a high amount of convergent behavior among all of the dyads. This is

consistent with previous research, especially considering the accommodative behavior of young

females (Van Hofwegen, 2015). The conversations were also, by design, highly intragroup. All

of the participants were female, from the same area of the United States, and around the same

age. The higher likelihood of interaction later occasioned by enrollment at the same small

university may have also increased the likelihood of convergent behavior. It is also possible that

the knowledge that group salience was being observed may have made convergence happen

more than it might have under more natural conditions.

Future direction of this research could include more analysis of this data, possibly using

phonological analysis or a greater study of interruptions within the dyads and discourse marker

distinctions. More representation from members of other ethnicities and cultures would also be

interesting to study using this method of analysis. In addition, a replication of this study using

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 19

more subjects would make quantitative data more accessible and generalizable. An interethnic

communication study between men and mixed-gender dyads would be a variable worth

investigation as well.

Sweeping generalizations are impossible to make with only three dyads to analyze. The

purpose of this study was not, however, to make sweeping generalizations, but to analyze those

dyads as ethnographically significant. Perhaps they are not microcosms, but they may open up a

new line of questions for future study in communication accommodation. This study’s limitation

was also its strength. A detailed analysis of a few dyads, rather than mass analysis of hundreds or

thousands, can give insight that is hard to achieve with mass subjects. As many communicators

know, there is persuasive power in a story. Perhaps advances in constructive, respectful

interethnic communication will not come from statistics, but from an examination of one

resonant conversation.

Acknowledgements

This project was funded in part by a Harding University Honors College Undergraduate Research Fellowship.

Special thanks to Dr. Mike James, dean of the Harding University Honors College, and Mrs. Debbie Baird, Honors

College Administrator.

Thank you also to the Harding University Speech Clinic for the use of their facility for this research.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 20

Appendix A

B1 (black female) and A (primary participant)

Convergence and Divergence Transcriptions

CONVERGENCE: The Exorcist

1 B1: the first thing that came to mind was the exorcist^ (.5) that movie’s we:ird. (.8) Cause

2 it’s like, in like the (.3) 70s [the 70s ye::s] or something. Yeah >it just looks really weird<

3 I’m just like weumm i >don’t know about this<

4 A: yes

5 B1: but i watched it so (.5) (unintelligible) °it was wild°

6 A: you made it through the whole movie? [I di:d] I don’t even think I made it through it

7 (.5)

8 B1: I tried to find the comic part, we just kinda laughed [hh] i was watching it with my

9 friends a $couple weeks ago we were just kinda laughing at it even though

10 °(unintelligible)°  [it is funny

11 A: especially when she’s just sick in her bed [and yeah] yeah like [oh >we people who

12 are like<

13 B1: why are you k(hhh)e::re (.) <we made jokes> about it for a while [(for re::al)

14 A: (.9) it looks (.25) sick...

SILENCE: 8 silences, 3.85 seconds

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 21

DIVERGENCE: The Babysitter

1 (2.2)

2 A: I don’t remember that (.2) I would’ve remembered that (.7)

3 B1: I need a second one. I need closure

4 A: Oh yeah i do remember that car hitting her through the house

5 B1: [That was (.3) wild [hh] i was like (.1) i don’t think that could happen but

6 A: (hh) at all

7 B1: Ok!

8 A: (.4) But they reached for it. they reached

9 B1: They made it look kinda real though (1.2)

10 A: Yeah

11 (1.3)

12 B1: Yeah i dunwanna be a babysitter now who knows what kinda trouble you can get into

13 (1.1)

14 A: Who knows and really I just (.6) I’m glad I didn’t have a babysitter (.3) [mhm] (.3)I’m

15 glad I just had my parents (.)

SILENCE: 13 silences, 8.8 seconds

TOTAL CONVERSATION SILENCES: 496 over .1 second

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 22

Appendix B

B2 (white female) and A (primary participant)

Convergence and Divergence Transcriptions

CONVERGENCE: The Harding Air

1 B2: [hh] That’s good I mean

2 (1.0)

3 A: I mean yeah (.) if you don’t got weird friends

4 B2: Yeah [ya know] you right

5 A: What are you doin?

6 B2: What are you doin. Especially here I don’t know,

7 A: Especially here, yes. [yeahhhh] yes. tur...Everybody’s a little weird here. It’s

8 something (.5) in the air

9 (.2)

10 B2: It’s something in the yeah, [harding air] in the harding bubble air [yes] It’s just very

11 contained

12 A: Is it--or is it searcy? (.4)

13 B2: Oh maybe [searcy]

14 B2: It’s arkansas [um]

15 A: Yeah (.2) arkansas.

16 B2: Arkansas air

17 A: Where’re you from?

SILENCE: 8 silences, 2.4 seconds

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 23

DIVERGENCE: Wonder Woman

1 (.7)

2 B2: Also the guy next to me was like “oh you’re watching that (.4) I’m not gonna tell you

3 what I think about it til the end.” (.6) but then he was like “I didn’t like it” (.2) and I was

4 like

5 (1.0)

6 A: Really? (.)

7 B2: Yeah (.) and so [that’s weird to me] the whole time he’s just like (.) yeah no it’s not

8 very good i was like (1.6) [he said] is it worth watching then?

9 A: He’s a guy too [yeah] so you’d expect him to be like (.)oh yeah, she’s (.8) she’s hot so

10 (.2) [hhh ] (.) i like the movie [hh] (.3) that’s all I hear from a lot of [really?] people

11 too (.6) yeah

12 (.4)

13 B2: I feel like a lot of people have told me they--well I feel like no I feel like when it first

14 came out

SILENCE: 16 silences, 7.3 seconds

TOTAL CONVERSATION SILENCES: 459 over .1 second

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 24

Appendix C

B3 (hispanic female) and A (primary participant)

Convergence and Divergence Transcriptions

CONVERGENCE: The Preacher’s Kid

1 B3: yeah

2 A: Preacher’s kid [it’s a really good movie] i don’t know (.)

3 B3: Yeah (.)

4 A: it sounds interesting cuz I do like her (1.25)

5 B3: yeah

6 A: okay was it goo::d, was it

7 B3: [it was really good i actually want to watch it again (.) t(hh)oday yeah I told my

8 friends about it (.) and I was like (.) you need to watch this movie. [really] (.) yeah.

9 A: but it wasn't (.) were the ratings that good?

10 (.2)

11 B3: Um (.2) I think so (.3) [hmm] I don't know, I guess it came out a long time ago

12 (.3) like (.3) I don't know (1.2) yeah I don't remember it being in theaters, but (.9)

13 it probably did come out in theaters

14 A: Wo::w

15 B3: yeah [I wanna see this now] yeah (.) you should (hh).

SILENCE: 16 silences, 5.45 seconds

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 25

DIVERGENCE: Sleeping in Chapel (14:00)

1 (.2)

2 B3: Yeah (1.5) yeah. I don’t think i saw a response (.) from the first person he did it

3 to, cuz i was probly like (.6) seriously: (.7) (hh) i dunno.

4 A: [My go:sh

5 (1.2)

6 A: I mind my bu:siness (.2) in chapel. (.4) I’m normally asleep. (1) [mhhhm (hhh)]

7 (.4) you are too?

8 B3: Umm (.) sometimes [or studying (.) or something] Yeah

9 A: Or listening. (.4)

10 B3: Yeah (.6) umm (.) [that’s good] yeah, i’ll fall asleep sometimes. (.2) But. yeah.

11 (1.1) Sometimes (1.6) yeah. ((hh))

SILENCE: 18 silences, 10.5 seconds

TOTAL CONVERSATION SILENCES: 480 over .1 second

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 26

Appendix D

Discussion Questions

Category 1: Convergence-likely questions

What’s the strangest movie you have ever seen? Describe it.

What was the last movie you watched? How was it?

What is something you can't stop watching on Netflix/Hulu?

Category 2: Divergence-likely questions

Are you a sports fan? What was the last game you watched?

Is your ethnicity is important to you? If so, in what way?*

Think of the most annoying person you know and describe them without using physical

identifying information (name, accent, clothes, speech patterns, hairstyle). Is it easy or hard to

describe them?

*This was the only question not



chosen as a discussion topic for any dyad.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 27

Appendix E

Table 1

Discourse Marker

A with B2

A with B3

A with B1

Yeah

Really

Mmhmm

You know

Table 1.



Participant A’s use of discourse markers in each 20 minute conversation dyad.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 28

References

Armstrong, C. (1996). Deborah Tannen comes to class: Implications of gender and conversation

in the classroom. The English Journal



, (2), 15. doi:10.2307/820607.

Berger, C. R., Roloff, M. E., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2010). Intergroup conflict. The

Handbook of Communication Science



. Los Angeles: Sage.

Cunningham, V. (2017, June 19). The case for Black English. Retrieved April 14, 2018, from

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/15/the-case-for-black-english.

Douglass, S., Wang, Y., & Yip, T. (2016). The everyday implications of ethnic-racial identity

processes: exploring variability in ethnic-racial identity salience across

situations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence



, 45



(7), 1396-1411.

doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0390-1.

Giles, H. (Ed.). (2002). Law enforcement, communication, and community



. Retrieved from

https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.nexus.harding.edu.

Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: a social psychological approach

to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language



, 1987



(68),

69-99.

Harwood, J., Giles, H., & Palomares, N. A. (2005). Chapter 1: Intergroup theory and

communication processes. Intergroup Communication



(pp. 2-17). Peter Lang Publishing,

Inc.

Hect, M. L., Jackson II, R. L., & Pitts, M. J. (2005). Chapter 2: Culture: Intersections of

intergroup and identity theories. Intergroup Communication



(pp. 21-42). Peter Lang

Publishing, Inc.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 29

Hirschman, L., & Tannen, D. (1994). Female-male differences in conversational interaction.

Language in Society



, 23(3), 427-442. doi:10.1017/S0047404500018054.

Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach



. Philadelphia,

University of Pennsylvania Press [1974].

Kirkham, S. (2015). Intersectionality and the social meanings of variation: Class, ethnicity, and

social practice. Language in Society



, 44



(5), 629-652. doi:10.1017/S0047404515000585.

McWhorter, J. (2017). Talking Back, Talking Black: Truths about America’s Lingua Franca



Consortium Book Sales & Dist.

Muir, K., Joinson, A., Cotterill, R., & Dewdney, N. (2016). Characterizing the linguistic

chameleon: Personal and social correlates of linguistic style accommodation. Human

Communication Research



, 42



(3), 462-484. doi:10.1111/hcre.12083.

Nilsson, J. (2015). Dialect accommodation in interaction: Explaining dialect change and

stability. Language and Communication



, 41



(Recent developments in Communication

Accommodation Theory: Innovative contexts and applications), 6-16.

doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.008.

Pietikäinen, K. S. (2018). Silence that speaks: The local inferences of withholding a response in

intercultural couples' conflicts. Journal of Pragmatics



, 12976-89.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.017.

Phinney, J. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with

adolescents and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research



, 7,

156-176.

ETHNOLINGUISTIC CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE 30

Pitts, M. J., & Harwood, J. (2015). Communication accommodation competence: The nature and

nurture of accommodative resources across the lifespan. Language and

Communication



, 41



(Recent developments in Communication Accommodation Theory:

Innovative contexts and applications), 89-99. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.002.

Stokoe, E. (2015, July 08). The interactional 'nudge' - talking about talk. The Royal Institution



Retrieved April 12, 2018.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of

intergroup relations



. Oxford, England: Academic Press.

Tannen, Deborah. “Discourse analysis—what speakers do in conversation.” Linguistics Society

of America



. Retrieved from

ww.linguisticsociety.org/resource/discourse-analysis-what-speakers-do-conversation.

Thomas, E. R., & Reaser, J. (2004). Delimiting perceptual cues used for the ethnic labeling of

African American and European American voices. Journal of Sociolinguistics



, 8



(1),

54-87.

Van Hofwegen, J. (2015). Dyadic analysis: Factors affecting African American English usage

and accommodation in adolescent peer dyads. Language and Communication



, 41



(Recent

developments in Communication Accommodation Theory: Innovative contexts and

applications), 28-45. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2014.10.004.