Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The dynamics of variation and change in Northern English back vowels

179 views

Published on

Hughes, V., Haddican, B. and Foulkes, P. (2012) The dynamics of variation and change in Northern English back vowels. Paper presented at New Ways of Analysing Variation (NWAV) 41 conference, Indiana University, Bloomington. 25-28 October 2012.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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
  2. 2. 1. Introduction • fronting of GOOSE (/u:/) and GOAT (/ow/ ~ /əʊ/) • noted across varieties of English worldwide Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 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) Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 3
  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 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 4
  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) Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 5
  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) Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 6
  7. 7. 1. Introduction Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 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?
  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
  9. 9. 9 2. Data York • young speakers (NE project 2008) • older speakers (Tagliamonte, 1998 – Thanks!) • c. 40 tokens per speaker Male Female 2008, younger 8 10 1998, older 8 8
  10. 10. ‘a group of us’ (OF – Manchester) ‘microphone’ (YF – York) ‘notice it’ (YF – Manchester) Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes 10 2. Data
  11. 11. Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 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)
  12. 12. • lexical-functional role of vowel contrast • fronting inhibited for lexical items with a competitor in order to maintain phonetic contrast (Hay et al 2010) 12 3. Method: lexical competition Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 Lexical Set Lexical Competitor GOOSE FLEECE /i:/ KIT /ɪ/ GOAT NURSE /ə:/ FACE /eɪ/ DRESS /ɛ/
  13. 13. 13 • 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
  14. 14. Results: usual suspects 14 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41
  15. 15. 15 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 NWAV 41
  16. 16. Partial effects for community 16 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
  17. 17. 17 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 NWAV 41
  18. 18. Results: unusual suspects 18 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41
  19. 19. Partial effects for GOOSE and GOAT 19 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 NWAV 41
  20. 20. 20 5.2 Results: phonetic implementation 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 NWAV 41
  21. 21. 21 tongue body fronting or unrounding? • ‘F3 lowers with tongue retraction and lip rounding’ (West 2000:1902) • ‘rounding leads to a closer proximity of F2 and F3, and a lowering of the centre of gravity of the spectral peak formed by F2 and F3’ (Stevens 2001:291) BUT: lack of F3 normalisation/ no direct correlate of (un)rounding/ greater between-speaker F3 variability/ F3 affected by VQ Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 5.2 Results: phonetic implementation
  22. 22. 22 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 5.3 Results: Manchester F3-trajectories 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 0 20 40 60 80 100 F3 (Hz) +10% step GOOSE 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 1.41.21.00.8 F1/S(F1)
  23. 23. (i) Phonetic implementation • 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 – regional dialect levelling? – BUT different interaction with F1 affects Euclidean distance in different ways Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 23 6. Discussion and summary
  24. 24. • F3 reveals considerable within-community/between- speaker variation in articulatory strategy – possible evidence of unrounding for young females • lack of systematicitywithin the Manchester speakers – acoustic output more important than articulatory implementation Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 24 6. Discussion and summary
  25. 25. (ii) Internal constraints • 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 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 25 6. Discussion and summary
  26. 26. (ii) External constraints • fronting led by younger speakers • sex effect for GOAT: change led by females – consistent with Hall-Lew (2004) Flynn (2011) • more social baggage for GOAT than GOOSE – overt awareness of the speakers? Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 26 6. Discussion and summary
  27. 27. • between-community differences in the way change diffuses according to social factors • Manchester/ York adhere to Labov’s (1994) generalisation – GOAT fronting dependent on GOOSE fronting and GOOSE more advanced – different patterns from Newcastle (Watt 2002) Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 27 5. Discussion and summary
  28. 28. • 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 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 28 5. Discussion and summary
  29. 29. 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 Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 29
  30. 30. 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. 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
  31. 31. references Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 31 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.
  32. 32. references Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 32 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.
  33. 33. references Hughes, Haddican & Foulkes NWAV 41 33 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. West, P. (1999) The extent of coarticulation of English liquids: an acoustic and articulatory study. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS1999), San Francisco. 1901-1904.

×