Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

The dynamics of variation and change in Northern English back vowels

119 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Hughes, V., Haddican, B. and Foulkes, P. (2013) The dynamics of variation and change in Northern English back vowels. Paper presented at VALP2 Conference, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ. 16-18 January 2013.

Publicado en: Educación
  • I can advise you this service - ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐ Bought essay here. No problem.
       Responder 
    ¿Estás seguro?    No
    Tu mensaje aparecerá aquí
  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

The dynamics of variation and change in Northern English back vowels

  1. 1. The dynamics of variation and change in northern British English back vowels Vincent Hughes (University of York) Bill Haddican (CUNY - Queens College) Paul Foulkes (University of York) A Comparative Study of Language Change in Northern Englishes (2008-13) ESRC: RES-061-25-0033 Variation and Language Processing 2 Conference (VALP2) New Zealand Institute of Language, Brain and Behaviour (NZILBB) University of Canterbury 16-18 January 2013
  2. 2. 1. Introduction • fronting of GOOSE (/u:/) and GOAT (/ow/ ~ /əʊ/) • noted across varieties of English worldwide Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2 2 Britain Henton 1983, Bauer 1985, Watt 2000, Watt & Tillotson 2001, Hawkins & Midgley 2005, Kerswill & Williams 1999, 2005, Ferragne & Pellegrino 2010, Jansen 2010, Flynn 2012, inter alia. US Labov 1994, Clarke et al 1995, Anderson & Milroy 1999, Thomas 2001, Baranowski 2008, Fridland and Bartlett 2006, Fridland 2008, Hall-Lew 2009, Fought 2009, Koops 2010, inter alia. South Africa Mesthrie 2010 Australia Cox 1996 New Zealand Easton & Bauer 2000
  3. 3. 1. Introduction • fronted GOOSE covering ‘90% of the North American continent’ (Labov 2008: 27) • “off the shelf” change (Milroy 2007, Fridland 2008) • Labov (1994): Principle III of vowel change • some consistent patterns of variation – linguistic: in chain shifts, GOAT fronting generally parasitic on GOOSE fronting – social: led by young speakers and females (at least for GOAT; Hall-Lew 2004, Baranowski 2008) 3 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  4. 4. 1. Introduction • but is it the ‘same’ change across the English-speaking world? • some evidence of differences reported in: – social constraints on variation and transmission of change 4 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  5. 5. 1. Introduction phonetic implementation GOOSE • US: fronting in nucleus (Hall-Lew 2009, Koops 2010) • GB & rural southern US: fronting of whole vowel (Kerswill & Williams 2005, Koops 2010) GOAT • US/GB = fronting in the off-glide (Kerswill & Williams 2005) 5 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  6. 6. 1. Introduction linguistic constraints • ___/l/ fronting in southern US & Liverpool, UK • ___/l/ fronting prohibited elsewhere • Newcastle, UK: GOAT fronting without GOOSE fronting (Watt 2002) 6 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  7. 7. 1. Introduction 7 The present study: (i) how is the fronting of GOOSE/ GOAT implemented acoustically and articulatorily in northern British English? (ii) are internal and external constraints the same across communities? If not, how might we explain the differences? Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  8. 8. 8 Manchester • recorded in 2008 • conversation data in peer-group pairs • 27-52 tokens per speaker per vowel 2. Data Male Female Young (18-21) 4 4 Older (62-82) 4 4 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  9. 9. 9 2. Data York • young speakers (NE project 2008) • older speakers (Tagliamonte, 1998) • c. 40 tokens per speaker Male Female 2008, younger 8 10 1998, older 8 8 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  10. 10. ‘a group of us’ (OF – Manchester) ‘microphone’ (YF – York) ‘notice it’ (YF – Manchester) 10 2. Data Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  11. 11. 11 3. Method • manual segmentation • Praat script extracted 9 time-normalised values from formant trajectories (McDougall 2004) • Manchester= F1, F2 and F3; York = F1 and F2 • formant values normalised using modified Watt & Fabricius method using Vowels package in R (Kendall & Thomas 2012) Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  12. 12. • increase in F2 can be caused by fronting and unrounding • quantification of degree of roundingusing F3 (Stevens 2001) BUT lack of W+F F3 normalisation • extent of F3 = /i:/ F3 (max unrounded F3) – /w/ F3 (max rounded F3) • mean GOOSE/ GOAT F3 calculated by-group/ by- speaker at point of max F2 (+10% step) • % rounding (following method used to quantify fronting in Ash (1996), Flynn (2011)) 12 3. Method: (un)rounding Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  13. 13. 13 3. Method: (un)rounding Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2 F3 /i:/ mean F3 maximally spread /w/ mean F3 maximally rounded 100% 0% GOOSE mean F3 GOAT mean F3
  14. 14. • lexical-functional role of vowel contrast • fronting inhibited for lexical items with a competitor in order to maintain phonetic contrast (Hay et al 2010) 14 3. Method: lexical competition Lexical Set Lexical Competitor GOOSE FLEECE /i:/ KIT /ɪ/ GOAT NURSE /ə:/ FACE /eɪ/ DRESS /ɛ/ Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  15. 15. 15 • Analysis: lmer models (lme4) • Predictors • Dep. Variable: F2 at maximum measurement point • Fixed effects: • Community (York vs. Manchester) • Age group (older vs. younger) • Speaker sex • Front lexical competitor (FLEECE, KIT, FACE, DRESS, NURSE) • Vowel duration (logs) • Euclidean distance (logs) • Following & preceding voicing/manner/POA •Random intercepts: • speaker • lexical root Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  16. 16. Results: usual suspects 16 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  17. 17. 17 4. Results: dynamic F1~F2 plots 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.41.21.00.8 Manchester F2/S(F2) F1/S(F1) FLEECE GOOSE GOAT THOUGHT START Older females Older males Younger females Younger males 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.41.21.00.8 York F2/S(F2) F1/S(F1) FLEECE FACE GOOSE GOAT THOUGHT START Older females Older males Younger females Younger males Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  18. 18. Partial effects for community 18 4. Results: contextual effects 1.151.251.351.45 Age group * Community-GOOSE Community F2/S(F2) Manchester York - - - - - - - - Young Older 1.051.101.151.201.25 Community * Age group-GOAT Community F2/S(F2) Manchester York - - - - - - - - Young Older Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  19. 19. 19 4. Results: contextual effects 0.81.01.21.4 Foll. sound * Community-GOOSE Following sound F2/S(F2) coronal vowel/pause/glottallabial/velar coda-l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Manchester York 1.01.11.21.31.41.5 Prec. sound * Age group-GOOSE Preceding sound F2/S(F2) coronal vowel/pause/glottal labial/velar - - - - - - - - - - - - Young Older GOOSE Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  20. 20. Results: unusual suspects 20 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  21. 21. Partial effects for GOOSE and GOAT 21 5.1 Results: lexical competition1.351.401.451.501.551.60 Lexical comp. * Community-GOOSE Lexical competitor F2/S(F2) Short Long Neither Short+long - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -Manchester York 1.101.151.201.25 Lexical competitor-GOAT Lexical competitor F2/S(F2) Neither NURSE Short Short+NURSE - - - - - - - - Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  22. 22. -20020406080100 Unrounding (%) 5.2 Results: (un)rounding GOOSE /i:/ /w/ Young Males (56%) Older Males (49%) Older Females (-4%) Young Females (35%)
  23. 23. -40-20020406080100 Unrounding (%) 30% 54% 56% 5.2 Results: (un)rounding GOOSE /i:/ /w/ 20% 7% 31% 53% 23% -21% -22% 26% 36% 73% 72% 25% 33%
  24. 24. 0102030405060708090100 Unrounding (%) 5.3 Results: (un)rounding GOAT /i:/ /w/ Young Males (31%) Older Males (70%) Older Females (11%) Young Females (41%)
  25. 25. -40-20020406080100120140 Unrounding (%) 5.3 Results: (un)rounding GOAT /i:/ /w/ 75% 29% 36% 29% 37% -23% 22% 38% 16% 75% 32% 127% -11% 74% 16% 62%
  26. 26. (i) how is the fronting of GOOSE/ GOAT implemented acoustically and articulatorily in northern British English? • increase in F2 for GOOSE/ GOAT across both communities – fronting more advanced in Manchester • involving ‘flattening’ of F2 trajectory in both lexical sets in both communities – fronting of the offglide (for GOOSE and GOAT) – regional dialect levelling? – BUT different interaction with F1 affects Euclidean distance in different ways according to social factors 26 6. Discussion and summary Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  27. 27. • F3 data reveals evidence of higher F2 caused by unroundingin Manchester: – YM and YF for GOOSE – YF for GOAT BUT… • considerable between-speaker variation • predicted to be high within-speaker variation *the acoustic output (high F2) appears to be more important than the articulatory implementation 27 6. Discussion and summary Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  28. 28. (ii) are internal and external constraints the same across communities? • similar internal constraints: – pre-l/ post-coronal BUT… • more marked lowering of pre-l F2 GOOSE for younger speakers in Manchester • no community effect for GOAT competitor, but unusual patterns for Manchester GOOSE 28 6. Discussion and summary Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  29. 29. (ii) are internal and external constraints the same across communities? • fronting led by younger speakers in both communities across both lexical sets BUT… between-community differences in the way change diffuses according to social factors 29 6. Discussion and summary Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  30. 30. • sex effect for Manchester GOAT: change led by females – consistent with Hall-Lew (2004) Flynn (2011) • more social baggage for GOAT than GOOSE – overt awareness of the speakers? • differences in the phonetic implementation of GOAT = different social correlates – GOAT = diphthongisation in York, compared with monophthongisation in Manchester • attitudinal effect (Haddican et al 2011) – GOAT carries more social baggage in York than in Manchester 30 5. Discussion and summary Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  31. 31. 6. Conclusion • both within- and between-community differences in the phonetics of fronting – evidence against the ‘same change’ across Northern Englishes • importance of social factors in explaining the heterogeneity of change 31 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  32. 32. The dynamics of variation and change in northern British English back vowels Vincent Hughes (University of York) Bill Haddican (CUNY - Queens College) Paul Foulkes (University of York) Thanks to: Participants in Manchester and York, Nathan Atkinson, Laura Bailey, Diane Blakemore, Dan Johnson, Jen Hay, Holly Prest, Sali Tagliamonte, Dominic Watt, Sophie Wood, audiences at UKLVC, CUNY, Sociolinguistics Symposium, NWAV. Economic and Social Research Council (RES-061-25-0033) A Comparative Study of Language Change in Northern Englishes (2008-13) ESRC: RES-061-25-0033 Variation and Language Processing 2 Conference (VALP2) New Zealand Institute of Language, Brain and Behaviour (NZILBB) University of Canterbury 16-18 January 2013
  33. 33. references 33 Baranowski, M. (2008) The fronting of the back upgliding vowels in Charleston, South Carolina. Language Variation and Change20:527-551. Bauer, L. (1985) Tracing phonetic change in the received pronunciation of British English. Journal of Phonetics 13:61-81. Clarke, S., Elms, F. and Youssef, A. (1995) The third dialect of English: some Canadian evidence. Language Variation and Change7(2):209-228. Cox, F.(1999) Vowelchange in Australian English. Phonetica 56(1):1-27. Easton, L. and Bauer, L. (2000) An acoustic study of the vowels of New Zealand English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 20(2):93-117. Fabricius, A. (2007) Variation and change in the TRAP and STRUT vowels of RP: a real time comparison of five acoustic data sets. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 37(3): 293-320. Flynn, N. E. J. (submitted 2012) Levelling and diffusion at the North/South border: a sociophonetic study of Nottinghamspeakers. PhD dissertation. University of York: York. Fridland, V. (2008) Patterns of /uw/, /ʊ/, and /ow/ fronting in Reno, Nevada. American Speech 83(4): 432-454. Hall-Lew, L. (2004) The Western Vowel Shift in Northern Arizona. Unpublished Qualifying Paper. Stanford University, Stanford,CA. Hall-Lew, L. (2009) Ethnicity and Phonetic Variation in a San Francisco Neighborhood. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. StanfordUniversity,Stanford,CA. Haddican, B., Foulkes, P., Richards, H. and Hughes, V. (2011) Social correlates of change in mid-vowels in Northern England. Paper presented at the 40th New Ways of Analysing Variation (NWAV) Conference, Georgetown University. 27th-30th November. Hawkins, S. and Midgley, J. (2005) Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four age-groups of speakers. Journalof the InternationalPhoneticAssociation 35(2):183-199. Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  34. 34. references 34 Hay, J., Pierrehumbert, J. and Walker, A. (2010) Lexical frequency in (push-) vowel change. Paper presented at the InauguralNZILBBWorkshop.Christchurch,NZ. December 2010. Henton, C. G. (1983) Changesin the vowels of received pronunciation. Journalof Phonetics11(4):353-371. Hughes, V., Haddican, B., Richards, H. and Foulkes, P. (2011) Vowel variation in Manchester English: a dynamic approach.Paper presented at UKLVC8 conference, Edge Hill University.12th-14thSeptember2011. Kerswill, P. and Williams, A. (2005) New towns and koineization: linguistic and social correlates. Linguistics 43(5):1023-1048. Koops, C. (2010) /u/-fronting is not monolithic: two types of fronted /u/ in Houston Anglos. University of Pennsylvania Working Papersin Linguistics 16(2):113-122. Labov,W. (1994) Principles of linguistic change: internal factors.Oxford:Blackwell. Labov, W. (2008) Triggering events. In Fitzmaurice, S. and Minkova, D. (eds.) Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 11-54. McDougall, K. (2004) Speaker-specific formant dynamics: An experiment on Australian English /aɪ/. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11(1): 103-130. McDougall, K. (2006) Dynamic features of speech and the characterisation of speakers: towards a new approach using formant frequencies . International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 13(1): 89- 126. Mesthrie, R. (2010) Deracialisation of the GOOSE vowel in South African English. Journal of Sociolinguisitics 14(1):3-33. Stevens, K. N. (2001) Acoustic Phonetics. MIT Press. Thomas, E. J. (2001) An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English. Publication of the American Dialect Society 85. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2
  35. 35. references 35 Tagliamonte, S. (1996-1998) Roots of identity: variation and grammaticalisation in contemporary British English. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) of Great Britain. Ref R000221842. Watt, D. (2002) ‘I don’t speak with a Geordie accent, I speak, like, the Northern accent’: contact-induced levelling in the Tyneside vowel system.Journalof Sociolinguistics 6(1):44-63. Watt, D. and Tillotson, J. (2001). A spectrographic analysis of vowel fronting in Bradford English. English World- Wide 22(2):269-302. Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes VALP 2

×