5. Discussion
5.4. Reflections on data collection and methodology
When I started this project as a first-year graduate student, I committed to doing every- thing by the book. I trusted in the knowledge and expertise of those who came before me (for good reason!) and strove to emulate the methodologies they employed. As the study unfolded, however, I found that many of the methods I emulated were not working for me or for my par- ticipants. The methodological quandary that caused the most stress involved the ways in which researchers typically document participants’ personal information, especially their sexual ori- entation.
One aspect that makes bisexuality so elusive is the array of terms used to describe non- monosexual identities and behaviors. People who identify as non-monosexual may use terms other than bisexual depending on the context. On the one hand, non-monosexual people may use terms such as gay, lesbian, or queer to indicate political solidarity with lesbian and gay peo- ple. On the other hand, non-monosexual people may use terms such as pansexual, polysexual, queer, or bisexual interchangeably in their personal lives depending on how they perceive the immediate interactional context and/or political leanings or in-group knowledge of their inter-
locutor(s)2. For example, one individual who participated in this study wrote ‘queer3’ rather than choosing one of the pre-selected terms to describe their sexuality. Another individual wrote ‘asexual biromantic4’, and yet another wrote ‘straight demisexual5’. In the end, I chose to not use any of these individuals’ data because I could not easily categorize them as bisexual or otherwise in accordance with the conventions of the field. However, I also did not interview the participants whose data I did use about why they chose specific terms for themselves; it is entirely possible that they use a number of terms to describe themselves and simply chose a particular term because the situation required it. Reflecting on this possibility, the fluidity of sexual identity raises the question of whether individuals categorized as gay or straight use those terms all the time or if there are other terms they believe are more accurate. To be clear, I am certainly not arguing that researchers should be skeptical of how their participants self- identify. Rather, my intention is to draw attention to the processes, and the ideologies embedded in those processes, that researchers use to elicit personal information from their participants. In a community as understudied in linguistics as bisexuals, it is critical to understand not only what terms individuals use to categorize themselves but also why they select certain terms over others, because this informs how they experience life as non-monosexual people, and in turn, informs our understanding of their social practice.
6. Conclusion
This thesis makes three important contributions to the language, gender, and sexuality lit- erature: (1) bisexual speakers are not easily categorized with lesbian/gay or straight speakers, and as such bisexuals should occupy a distinct category, (2) bisexuals’ /s/ production does not pattern uniformly amongst themselves, and (3) the lack of uniformity among the bisexual speak-
2However, these terms may also be used to differentiate between distinct non-monosexual identities.
3The term queer is used to capture multiple aspects of various LGBTQIA+ identities (LGBTQIA Glossary,
n.d.). It is not clear how this particular participant understands queer or why they identify with that term.
4The term asexual describes a sexual orientation characterized by the lack of sexual desire or attraction, whereas
biromantic refers to a romantic orientation characterized by attraction to two or more genders (LGBTQIA Glossary,
n.d.).
5Demisexual refers to a sexual orientation in which “someone feels sexual attraction only to people with whom
ers is potentially explained by the different ways in which bisexual women and men experience the intersection of sexuality and gender normativity. In addition, I have cast a bisexual lens on methods for data collection and experimental design, drawing attention to practices that erase speakers who are not categorized as lesbian/gay or straight. There is a great need for further investigation beyond this thesis, particularly in regards to the role of speech rate and token po- sition in analyses of duration vis-à-vis gender and sexuality, as well as the speech production of bisexual men. My hope for this thesis is that it will increase the visibility and inclusion of bisexual people in linguistics, not only through a description of bisexuals’ speech, but also by attending to the ways in which bisexual people are marginalized by the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of the field.
7. References
Ackerman, Lauren M. 2018. Reporting statistics in prose. Retrieved February 27, 2020 from https://verbingnouns.github.io/notebooks/prose_statistics.nb.html#introduction
Alarie, Milaine & Stéphanie Gaudet, S. 2013. “I don’t know if she is bisexual or if she just wants to get attention”: Analyzing the various mechanisms through which emerging adults invisibilize bisexuality. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(2), 191-214.
Audacity Team. 2019. Audacity(R): Free Audio Editor and Recorder, Version 2.3.2 [Com- puter application]. https://audacityteam.org/. (May 20, 2019)
Barron-Luztross, Auburn. 2015. The Production and Perception of a Lesbian Speech Style. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Report, 11(11).
Boersma, Paul. 2011. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/.
Borsel, John van, Jana Vandaele & Paul Corthals. 2013. Pitch and pitch variation in lesbian women. Journal of Voice, 27(5). 656-713.
Brewster, Melanie E. & Bonnie Moradi. 2010. Personal, relational, and community aspects of bisexual identity in emerging, early and middle adult cohorts. Journal of Bisexuality, 10(4).
404-428.
Calder, Jeremy. 2019. From sissy to sickening: the indexical landscape of /s/ in SoMa, San Francisco. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 29(3). 332-358.
Carahaly, Lynn N. 2000. Listener accuracy in identifying the sexual orientation of male and female speakers. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University dissertation.
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2007. Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener percep- tions. American speech, 82(1). 32-64.
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2011. Intersecting variables and perceived sexual orientation in men. American Speech, 86(1). 52-68.
Crist, Sean. 1997. Duration of onset consonants in gay male stereotyped speech. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(3), 4.
Fairbanks, Grant. 1960. Voice and articulation drillbook. New York: Harper & Row. Gaudio, Rudolf P. 1994. Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight men. American speech, 69(1). 30-57.
Hazenberg, Evan. 2016. Walking the straight and narrow: linguistic choice and gendered presentation. Gender and Language, 10(2). 270-294.
Hartman, Julie E. 2013. Creating a bisexual display: Making bisexuality visible. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(1). 39-62.
Hertlein, Katherine M., Erica E. Hartwell & Mashara E. Munns. 2016. Attitudes Toward Bisexuality According to Sexual Orientation and Gender. Journal of Bisexuality, 16(3). 339- 360.
Jacobs, Greg, Ron Smyth & Henry Rogers. 2000. Language and sexuality: Searching for the phonetic correlates of gay- and straight-sounding male voices. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 18.
Lee, Sangseok & Dong Kyu Lee. What is the proper way to apply the multiple comparison test?. Korean journal of anesthesiology, 71(5).
of men’s speech. American speech, 81(1). 56-78.
Levon, Erez. 2007. Sexuality in context: Variation and the sociolinguistic perception of identity. Language in Society, 36(4). 533-544.
Levon, Erez. 2011. Teasing apart to bring together: Gender and sexuality in variations research. American Speech, 86(1). 69-84.
LGBTQIA Glossary. (n.d.). http://rcsgd.sa.ucsb.edu/education/lgbtqia-glossary. (February 20, 2020)
Linville, Sue Ellen. 1998. Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men’s speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 50(1). 35-48.
Moonwomon-Baird, Birch. 1997. Toward the study of lesbian speech. In Anna Livia & Kira Hall (eds.), Queerly Phrased, 202-213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Munson, Benjamin, Sarah V. Jefferson, & Elizabeth C. McDonald. 2006b. The influence of perceived sexual orientation on fricative identification. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119. 2427-2437.
Munson, Benjamin, Elizabeth C. McDonald, Nancy L. DeBoe & Aubrey R. White. 2006a. The acoustic and perceptual bases of judgements of women and men’s sexual orientation from read speech. Journal of Phonetics, 34. 202-240.
Munson, Benjamin. 2007. The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and perceived sexual orientation. Language and Speech, 50(1). 125-142.
Munson, Benjamin & Molly Babel. 2007. Loose lips and silver tongues, or, projecting sexual orientation through speech. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(5). 416-449.
Murphy, M. Lynne. 1997. The elusive bisexual: Social categorization and lexico-semantic change. In Anna Livia & Kira Hall (eds.), Queerly Phrased: Language, Gender, and Sexuality, 35–57. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B., Tessa Bent, Benjamin Munson, Ann R. Bradlow & J. Michael Bailey. 2004. The influence of sexual orientation on vowel production (L). The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 116(4). 1905-1908.
Podesva, Robert J. & Janneke Van Hofwegen. 2014. How Conservative and Normative Gender Constrain Variation in Inland California; The Case of /s/. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 20(2), Article 15.
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Founda- tion for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Rendall, Drew, Paul L. Vasey & Jared McKenzie. 2008. The Queen’s English: An alter- native, biosocial hypothesis for the distinctive features of “gay speech”. Archives of sexual behavior, 37(1). 188-204.
Rogers, Henry, Ron Smyth & Greg Jacobs. 2000. Vowel and Sibilant Duration in Gay- and Straight-Sounding Male Speech. Paper presented at First International Gender and Language Association Conference (IGALA 1), Stanford, California, May 5-7.
Rogers, Henry & Ron Smyth. 2003. Phonetic Differences between Gay- and Straight- Sounding Male Speakers of North American English. Studies, 1(3). 5-6.
Rothauser, E.H. 1969. IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans. on Audio and Electroacoustics, 17. 225-246.
Shapiro, Michael. 1995. A case of distant assimilation: /str/ → /ʃtr/. American Speech, 70(1). 101-107.
Smyth, Ron & Henry Rogers. 2008. Do gay-sounding men speak like women? Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 27.
Smyth, Ron, Greg Jacobs, & Henry Rogers. 2003. Male voices and perceived sexual ori- entation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society, 32(3). 329-350.
Talbot, Mary M. 2010. Language and Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Thomas, Erik. 2010. Sociophonetics: an introduction. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Thorne, Lisa. 2013. “But I’m attracted to women”: Sexuality and sexual identity perfor- mance in interactional discourse among bisexual students. Journal of Language and Sexuality, 2(1). 70-100.
Waksler, Rachelle. 2001. Pitch range and women’s sexual orientation. Word, 52(1). 69-77. Zimman, Lal. 2010. Female-to-male transsexuals and gay-sounding voices: A pilot study. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 22(1). 1-21.
Zimman, Lal. 2013. Hegemonic masculinity and the variability of gay-sounding speech: The perceived sexuality of transgender men. Journal of Language and Sexuality, 2(1). 1-39.
Zimman, Lal. 2017. Variability in /s/ among transgender speakers: Evidence for a socially grounded account of gender and sibilants. Linguistics, 55(5). 993-1019.