Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-846f6c7c4f-n4jxq Total loading time: 8.495 Render date: 2022-07-07T13:17:32.838Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Change and stability in goose, goat and foot: back vowel dynamics in Carlisle English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2017

SANDRA JANSEN*
Affiliation:
University of Paderborn, Department of English and American Studies, Warburger Str. 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germanysandra.jansen@uni-paderborn.de

Abstract

In this article, I demonstrate that goose-fronting is taking place in Carlisle, a city in the north-west of England, and I provide detailed information about this change. The results show that similarly strong linguistic constraints are found in this variety and other varieties. A second point of discussion is the dynamics between goose and other back vowels, i.e. goat and foot, in this community. I argue that we also need to study the most adjacent back vowels in order to understand the complexity of this vowel change and the influence on nearby vowels. The data stem from interviews conducted in Carlisle between 2007 and 2010 and show that while goose is fronting across apparent time, for goat and foot no change in progress is observable. These dynamics seem to be geographically restricted to the north-west of England. While a parallel shift of goose and goat is very common in US and southern English varieties, the fronting of goat is not found in this northern variety. This lack of change is due to the monophthongal realisation of the goat vowel which prevents a parallel shift. Similarly, the fronting of foot seems to be blocked due to the lack of the foot–strut split.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Claire Nance, two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments which greatly improved this article. I would also like to thank Daniel Ezra Johnson for his help with statistics. Of course, I am responsible for any shortcomings.

References

Altendorf, Ulrike. 2003. Estuary English: Levelling at the interface of RP and south-eastern British English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Baranowski, Maciej. 2007. Phonological variation and change in the dialect of Charleston, South Carolina. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Baranowski, Maciej. 2008. The fronting of the back upgliding vowels in Charleston, South Carolina. Language Variation and Change 20 (3), 527–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, 1985. Tracing phonetic change in the received pronunciation of British English. Journal of Phonetics 13, 6181.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan. 2009. Enregisterment, commodification and historical context: ‘Geordie’ versus ‘Sheffieldish’. American Speech 84 (2), 138–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan, Burbano-Elizondo, Lourdes & Llamas, Carmen. 2012. English from Tyne to Tees: Urban varieties of the north-east of England. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2005. The Canadian shift in Montreal. Language Variation and Change 17 (2), 133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2008. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ (accessed 1 November 2015).Google Scholar
Britain, David. 2009. One foot in the grave? Dialect death, dialect contact and dialect birth in England. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 196–7, 121–55.Google Scholar
Carfoot, Catherine. 2004. An investigation of the sociophonology of the fronting of the foot vowel in three locations in England. MA dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2003. Sociolinguistic theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coombes, Mike. 1995. The impact of international boundaries on labour market area definitions. Area 27 (1), 4652.Google Scholar
Cooper, Paul. 2013. ‘Turtely amazing’: goat fronting & the enregisterment of ‘Yorkshire’ dialect. Presented at UKLVC 9, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, Marianna, Yaeger-Dror, Malcah & Wassink, Alicia Beckford. 2010. Analyzing vowels. In Di Paolo, Marianna & Yaeger-Dror, Malcah (eds.), Sociophonetics: A student's guide, 87106. Oxford and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerard. 2010. Phonological innovation in contemporary spoken British English. In Kirkpatrick, Andy (ed.), The Routledge handbook of World Englishes, 5975. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Durian, David. 2012. A new perspective on vowel variation across the 19th and 20th centuries in Columbus, OH. PhD thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Durian, David & Joseph, Brian D.. 2011. Making sense of shifty changes: The role of phonetic analogy in vowel shifts. Presented at New Ways of Analysing Variation (NWAV) 40, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Fabricius, Anne. 2007. Vowel formants and angle measurements in diachronic sociophonetic studies: foot-fronting in RP. Proceedings of the 16th ICPhS, Saarbrücken, 1477–80.Google Scholar
Fabricius, Anne, Watt, Dominic & Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2009. A comparison of three speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithms for sociophonetics. Language Variation and Change 21 (3), 413–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferragne, Emmanuel & Pellegrino, François. 2010. Formant frequencies of vowels in 13 accents of the British Isles. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 40 (1), 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnegan, Katie. 2009. goat-fronting in Sheffield English. Poster presented at UKLVC 7, Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Finnegan, Katie. 2015. Sheffield. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Researching Northern English, 227–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2003. The relationship between coronal place and vowel backness. Phonology 20 (3), 335–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, Nicholas. 2012. A sociophonetic study of Nottingham speakers. PhD thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Fought, Carmen. 1999. A majority sound change in a minority community: /u/-fronting in Chicano English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3 (1), 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerard (eds.). 1999a. Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerard. 1999b. Urban voices – overview. In Foulkes & Docherty (eds.), 1–24.Google Scholar
Fridland, Valerie. 2008. Patterns of /uw/, /ʊ/ and /ow/ fronting in Reno, Nevada. American Speech 83 (4), 432–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridland, Valerie & Bartlett, Kathy. 2006. The social and linguistic conditioning of back vowel fronting across ethnic groups in Memphis, Tennessee. English Language and Linguistics 10 (1), 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fruehwald, Josef. 2013. Phonological involvement in phonetic change. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1992. English phonology: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2001. Small-town values, big-city vowels: A study of the Northern Cities Shift in Michigan. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Haddican, William, Foulkes, Paul, Hughes, Vincent & Richards, Hazel. 2013. Interaction of social and linguistic constraints on two changes in northern England. Language Variation and Change 25, 371403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Damien. 2008. A sociolinguistic study of the regional French of Normandy. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2009. Ethnicity and phonetic variation in a San Francisco neighborhood. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Cox, Felicity & Evans, Zoe. 1997. An acoustic phonetic study of broad, general, and cultivated Australian English vowels. Australian Journal of Linguistics 17, 155–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Kleber, Felicitas & Reubold, Ulrich. 2011. The contributions of the lips and the tongue to the diachronic fronting of high back vowels in Standard Southern British English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41 (2), 137–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret & Gordon, Elizabeth. 2008. New Zealand English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Bohmann, Axel & Gorman, Kyle. 2013. Real-time trends in the Texas English vowel system: F2 trajectory in goose as an index of a variety's ongoing delocalization. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 112.Google Scholar
Holmes-Elliot, Sophie. 2015. London calling: Assessing the spread of metropolitan features in the southeast. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Jansen, Sandra. 2012a. Variation and change in the Cumbrian city dialect of Carlisle. PhD thesis, University of Duisburg-Essen.Google Scholar
Jansen, Sandra. 2012b. High back vowel fronting in the north-west of England. In Calamai, Silvia, Celata, Chiara & Ciucci, Luca (eds.), Proceedings of ‘Sociophonetics at the crossroads of speech variation, processing and communication’, 2932. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.Google Scholar
Jansen, Sandra. 2013. ‘I don't sound like a Geordie!’ Phonological and morphosyntactic features of Carlisle English. In Johannesson, Nils-Lennart, Melchers, Gunnel & Björkman, Beyza (eds.), Of butterflies and birds, of dialects and genres: Essays in honour of Philip Shaw, 209–24. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.Google Scholar
Jansen, Sandra. Forthcoming. Peripheral communities and innovation. Changes in the goose vowel in a West Cumbrian town. In Braber, Natalie & Jansen, Sandra (eds.), Sociolinguistics in England. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (1), 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Daniel. 1932. An outline of English phonetics, 3rd edn. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Kendall, Tyler. 2009. Vowel capture script, http://ncslaap.lib.ncsu.edu/tools/ (accessed 2 June 2015).Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 2009. Language and social class. In Culpeper, Jonathan, Katamba, Francis, Kerswill, Paul, Wodak, Ruth & McEnery, Tony (eds.), English language: Description, variation and context, 358–72. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, Paul & Williams, Ann. 2005. New towns and koineization: Linguistic and social correlates. Linguistics 43 (5), 1023–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1991. The three dialects of English. In Eckert, Penelope (ed.), Quantitative analyses of sound change, 144. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Yaeger, Malcah & Steiner, Richard. 1972. A quantitative study of sound change in progress. Philadelphia: US Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclagan, Margaret, Watson, Catherine I., Harlow, Ray, King, Jeanette & Keegan, Peter. 2009. /u/ fronting and /t/ aspiration in Māori and New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 21 (2), 175–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRaild, Donald M. 1998. Culture, conflict and migration: The Irish in Victorian Cumbria. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend. 2010. Socio-phonetics and social change: Deracialisation of the goose vowel in South African English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14 (1), 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley (2007). Off the shelf or over the counter? On the social dynamics of sound changes. In Cain, Christopher & Russom, Geoffrey (eds), Studies in the history of the English language, vol. 3, 149–72. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Chris. 2006. Northern English dialects: A perceptual approach. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, Carrie S., Hendrick, Roberta A. & Miller, Mary Frances (eds.), Parasession on language and behavior (CLS), 178203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Roach, Peter & Hartman, James. 1997. English pronunciation dictionary, 15th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James M., Stuart-Smith, Jane & Lawson, Eleanor. 2012. Back to front: A socially-stratified ultrasound tongue imaging study of Scottish English /u/. Rivista di Linguistica / Italian Journal of Linguistics 24 (1), 103–48.Google Scholar
Sóskuthy, Marton, Foulkes, Paul, Hughes, Vince, Hay, Jen & Haddican, William. 2015. Word-level distributions and structural factors codetermine goose fronting. Proceedings of the 18th ICPhS, Glasgow.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert & Minkova, Donka. 1997. On drifts and shifts. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 31, 283303.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2013. In the aftermath of /u/ leaving: Glaswegian vowels through real and apparent time. Presented at UKLVC 9, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. & Kendall, Tyler. 2007. NORM: The vowel normalization and plotting suite, http://ncslaap.lib.ncsu.edu/tools/norm/ (accessed 2 June 2015).Google Scholar
Torgersen, Eivind. 1997. Some phonological innovations in south-east British English. MA dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Torgersen, Eivind. 2002. Phonological distribution of the foot vowel in young people's speech in south-eastern British English. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 2538.Google Scholar
Torgersen, Eivind & Kerswill, Paul. 2004. Internal and external motivation in phonetic change: Dialect levelling outcomes for an English vowel shift. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8 (1), 2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turton, Danielle & Baranowski, Maciej. 2014. T[ʉ] c[ʉɫ] for sch [ʉɫ]: The interaction of /l/-darkening and /u/-fronting in Manchester. Presented at NWAV 43, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic. 2000. Phonetic parallels between the close-mid vowels of Tyneside English: Are they internally or externally motivated? Language Variation and Change 12 (1), 69101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Dominic. 2002. ‘I don't speak with a Geordie accent, I speak, like, the northern accent’: Contact-induced levelling in the Tyneside vowel system. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6 (1), 4463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Dominic & Milroy, Lesley. 1999. Patterns of variation and change in three Newcastle vowels: Is this dialect levelling? In Foulkes & Docherty (eds.), 25–46.Google Scholar
Watt, Dominic & Tillotson, Jennifer. 2001. A spectrographic analysis of vowel fronting in Bradford English. English World-Wide 22 (2), 269302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wing-mei Wong, Amy. 2014. goose-fronting among Chinese Americans in New York City. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20 (2), article 23.Google Scholar
10
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Change and stability in goose, goat and foot: back vowel dynamics in Carlisle English
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Change and stability in goose, goat and foot: back vowel dynamics in Carlisle English
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Change and stability in goose, goat and foot: back vowel dynamics in Carlisle English
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *