THIS REPORT WAS DESIGNED (1) TO PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED AND SOPHISTICATED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SOCIAL DIFFERENCES IN ORAL COMMUNICATION AND (2) TO ASCERTAIN THE ACCURACY WITH WHICH SUBJECTS COULD IDENTIFY THE RACE AND EDUCATION OF SPEAKERS WHOM THEY COULD NOT SEE. TO DETERMINE REACTIONS TO PRONUNCIATIONS, THE INVESTIGATORS DEVISED AN INSTRUMENT COMPOSED OF PRONUNCIATIONS BY SPEAKERS OF SPECIFIC REGIONAL AND ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS ADMINISTERED TO SOME THREE HUNDRED RESPONDENTS, WHITES AND NEGROES IN ALMOST EQUAL NUMBERS, OF VARIOUS EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS. IT WAS FOUND THAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LOWER-CLASS WHITE SPEECH AND MIDDLE-CLASS TO LOWER-CLASS NEGRO SPEECH ARE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO DETECT THAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SPEECH OF WHITE CHICAGOANS AND SOUTHERN NEGROES. IT IS AN INTUITIVE REACTION THAT SUPRASEGMENTALS AND PARALANGUAGE ARE MORE EFFECTIVE INDICATORS OF ETHNIC BACKGROUND THAN VOCABULARY, GRAMMAR, OR PRONUNCIATION. (JL)
