The Matched Guise Technique: a Classic Test for Formal Measurement of Language Attitudes, by Marina Solís Obiols

Lambert himself (1967) notes that the interviewees usually enjoy taking part in this test because they regard it as a game. Most language attitude studies that have used the matched guise technique have been conducted at schools or colleges.

The results obtained using this technique confirm intuitions about stereotyped prejudices towards a given linguistic variety and, hence, towards the social (sub)group that uses that variety. They also confirm the fact that users of the least prestigious linguistic variety have a negative self-image. (9)

4.1.1 (Non-)existent stereotypes

Lambert (Gardner & Lambert, 1972) points out some of the limitations of his method:

i) firstly, he asks whether the attitude measurements that emerge are really what interviewees believe or what they think they should express in public about their opinions;

ii) secondly, Lambert questions whether the recording encourages the use of stereotypes, which produces other associations reflected in the data obtained.

On this last point, Hudson (1979: 205) considers that the matched guise technique can reveal stereotypes that do not actually exist, since interviewees can judge according to data in the questionnaire and not using their own opinions.

4.1.2. The experimental nature of the technique

Another aspect of this technique with negative connotations are its experimental features: the matched guise technique is usually used with groups in classrooms or laboratories and has thus been qualified as artificial or not very ‘natural’; Robinson (1978) also believes that experimental situations, by their nature, force individuals to provide an answer.

Moreover, the use of oral stimulus material created for the experiment has increased scepticism about obtaining significant results with this technique (Tajfel, 1962; Lee, 1971; Robinson, 1972). Lee (1971) even suggests that repeating the message can mean that ‘judges’ focus on the linguistic features of the varieties used more than they would in a normal and unconditioned situation.

4.1.3. The monostylistic presupposition of the varieties used

Moreover, this technique presupposes that the linguistic varieties evaluated have only one functional style (Agheyisi & Fishman, 1970). Thus, it is unable to explain the social meaning of speakers’ multistylistic capacity in different contexts or degrees of knowledge of the linguistic varieties evaluated. One possible methodological solution for this false presupposition was developed in Kimple’s study (1968) using the mirror image technique. (10)