Preliminary analyses

The respondents’ background variables are tested for possible effects in preliminary analyses (chi-square test). The tables with the test results including the exact p-values from the chi-square tests can be found in Appendix F. The analyses show that the following variables have no effect: respondents’ gender, age (relatively homogenous here), major at the university (divided into the two factors of linguistic subjects and

non-linguistic subjects), the numbers of languages used in daily life (divided into the

two factors one language and two or three languages), the respondents’ language learning history (divided into the factors 1 language, 2 languages, 3 languages, 4

languages and 5 or more languages), the frequency of contact with non-native

speakers (divided into the two factors often and not often) and the varieties used by these non-native speakers as an indicator for the respondents’ experiences (divided into three factors vernacular, standard variety and hybrid varieties). The data is thus collapsed across all these variables for the main analyses. A further analysis shows that respondents have not chosen significantly differently between the female voice and male voice guises in the case of both non-native and native speakers. Therefore, also the results for male and female voices are collapsed.

Only two variables show partial effects. The variable place of growing up in

Finland (divided into the two factors from the Helsinki capital region and not from the Helsinki capital region) does not have any effect in the case of native speakers

and neither in the case of the job interview and the shared flat scenario in the case of non-native speakers. In the group presentation scenario, however, the respondents from outside the capital region have chosen significantly more often the non-native vernacular speaker than the respondents from the capital region (X²=4.96, df=1; p<0.05). That there is no effect in the job interview scenario shows that the possibly too typical Helsinki spoken language features in the vernacular guise of this scenario did not bias the results (see Subsection 3.3.3). The variable international experience operationalised as a stay abroad (divided into the two factors stayed abroad and not

stayed abroad) has no significant effect in the case of non-native speakers again in

the job interview and the shared flat scenario, but in the group presentation scenario (X²=3.991, df=1, p<0.05). The respondents who have stayed abroad have chosen more often the standard speaker than the respondents who have not stayed abroad. In the case of the native speakers, there is no effect in any of the scenarios per se, but overall (X²=4.353, df=1, p<0.05). Of the respondents who have stayed abroad,

43.3% have chosen the standard speaker, but only 24% of the respondents who have not stayed abroad.

Their place of origin within Finland and international experience seem thus to influence native Finnish speaking students’ variety preference in some way (see also Leinonen 2015: 126–128, and Subsection 2.7.2). As the variables do not affect all scenarios, the results are collapsed also across these variables for the main analyses.

Based on the respondents’ informal comments in the listening test, the majority of the respondents have perceived the guises correctly. Seven students have mistaken non-native speakers for native speakers or have not been sure about the non-nativeness of their speech, as Table 3 shows:

Table 3: Comments on the non-native speakers’ nativeness in the listening test.

Original comments as given by the respondents (in Finnish)

English translations (own translations)

ajattelisin, että helpompi pitää hänen kanssaan, kun äidinkieli suomi

I would think it’s easier with her/him, because the native language [is] Finnish

Samaa kieltä äidinkielenä puhuva tuntuu läheisemmältä.

A person who speaks the same mother tongue feels closer.

Toinen kuulostaa ulkomaalaiselta ja liian viralliselta.

The second sounds like a foreigner and too official.

koska ulkomaalainen because foreigner

helpompi valita syntyperäiseltä suomalaiselta kuulostva

easier to choose a person who sounds like a native Finn

Ulkomaalaistaustaisella (?) voi olla hyviä ideoita ainakin kieliaineissa.

A person with a foreign origin (?) could have good ideas at least in a language subject.

Five students have not understood one of the non-native speakers properly, as Table 4 shows:

Table 4: Comments on the non-native speakers’ intelligibility in the listening test.

Original comments as given by the respondents (in Finnish)

English translations (own translations)

Ensimmäisestä ei saanut selvää. The first was not comprehensible.

Puheesta saa paremmin selvää. The speech was easier to understand.

helpompi ymmärtää easier to understand

ekassa pätkässä vaikea saada parista sanasta selvää

difficult to make out some of the words in the first turn

Toisen puhujan puheesta ei saanut aina selvää.

The second speaker’s speech was not always comprehensible.

Eleven students have justified their choices on the basis of the speakers’ prosodics, two of them on the basis of the rate of speaking with the standard variety, as Table 5 shows:

Table 5: Comments on the non-native speakers’ prosodics in the listening test.

Original comments as given by the respondents (in Finnish)

English translations (own translations)

Toisessa ärsytti narina. In the second, the creaky voice was annoying.

helpompi ymmärtää, selkeämmät konsonantit, tauot

easier to understand, clearer consonants, pauses

Eka mumisi. The first one mumbled.

parempi äänenkäyttö better usage of the voice

rytmi äänessä the rhythm in the voice

vakuuttavampi intonaatio more convincing intonation

Monotoninen ääni häiritsi molemmissa. The monotonous voice disturbed in both.

puhui lujemmalla ja itsevarmemmalla äänellä, mikä antaa kuvan tehokkuudesta

talked with a louder and more self- assured voice, which gives the impression of efficiency

hitaampi slower [on the standard variety]

hitaammin puhuttu slowlier spoken [on the standard variety]

The latter problem is difficult to avoid, as the standard variety is morphologically more complex (see Subsection 2.8.2). No phonetical tests have been made to decide if the prosodics are measurably different or only perceived to be different.