Abstract
Although we are delighted that U.K. data we reported in sociolinguistic/communication contexts are being resurrected for critical consideration in a current social psychological domain, and by a reputable scholar who is emerging justifiably as a significant entity in language studies, we cannot but he extremely disappointed at the end-product. First, Ball's reanalysis, and his interpretation of it, are to say the least highly dubious. Given that about 20% of our Black samples were, as we have always claimed, correctly identified ethnically and that very few Caucasians were not heard as White, it is hardly surprising, if at all important, to learn now that “Black speakers are recognized as Black significantly more than White speakers are falsely categorized as Black” (our italics). Indeed, this in no way alters the overall picture that 80% of Blacks were mis-attributed as White. Moreover, when examining this statistical “significance”, we find that no significant differences in actuality emerged from two of Ball's analyses anyway. Even then, when he resorts to estimating marc data for further analyses, still the older group does not reach the conventional significance level.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
