Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-n7x5d Total loading time: 0.299 Render date: 2021-11-28T02:20:11.250Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

On the role of social factors in the loss of phonemic distinctions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2013

MACIEJ BARANOWSKI*
Affiliation:
Linguistics & English Language, University of Manchester, Samuel Alexander Building, Manchester M13 9PL, UKmaciej.baranowski@manchester.ac.uk

Abstract

The article tests the generalisation of the curvilinear hypothesis and the tendency of females to lead linguistic change in vocalic mergers on the basis of two mergers currently in progress in Charleston, South Carolina: the low-back merger and the pin–pen merger. It is based on sociolinguistic interviews with 100 informants, aged 8–90, covering the socioeconomic spectrum of the city. The speech of 90 of the informants is analysed acoustically; it is supplemented with minimal-pair tests and word list reading. F1/F2 measurements and minimal-pair test results are subjected to a series of multiple linear regression analyses, with social class, gender, age and style as independent variables. While the low-back merger is a change from below showing a female lead and a curvilinear effect of social class, the pin–pen merger shows a decreasing monotonic relationship with social class and no female advantage. The difference is argued to be due to the two mergers being at different levels of social awareness.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

1

Support from the Arts & Humanities Research Council (Research Leave Grant AH/G006873/1) is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks to Bill Labov, Sherry Ash, Charles Boberg, Lynn Clark, Matt Gordon, Greg Guy, Gillian Sankoff, Erik Thomas, Peter Trudgill and Dominic Watt for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. I am also grateful to three anonymous reviewers for insightful comments and suggestions.

References

Ash, Sharon. 2013. Social class. In Chambers, J. K. & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 2nd edition, 350–67. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baranowski, Maciej. 2007. Phonological variation and change in the dialect of Charleston, South Carolina. Publication of the American Dialect Society 92. 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, 527–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baranowski, Maciej. 2013. Sociophonetics. In Bayley, R., Cameron, R. & Lucas, C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 403–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bigham, Douglas S. 2005. The movement of front vowel allophones before nasals in Southern Illinois White Vernacular English (the pin~pen merger). Dissertation, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
Bigham, Douglas S. 2009. Correlation of the low-back vowel merger and trap-retraction. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15 (2), article 4.Google Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2005. The Canadian Shift in Montreal. Language Variation and Change 17, 133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2008. Praat 4.6: Doing phonetics by computer. Computer program: www.Praat.org.Google Scholar
Brown, Vivian R. 1991. Evolution of the merger of /ɪ/ and /ɛ/ before nasals in Tennessee. American Speech 66 (3), 303–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta. 1973. The interplay of social and linguistic factors in Panama. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Conn, Jeffrey. 2002. Of ‘moice’ and men: The evolution of a male-led sound change. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, Marianna. 1988. Pronunciation and categorization in sound change. In Ferrara, K., Brown, B., Walters, K. & Baugh, J. (eds.), Linguistic change & contact: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation in Language. Austin: Texas Linguistic Forum 30, 8492.Google Scholar
Durian, David. 2008. A new perspective on vowel variation throughout the 20th century in Columbus, OH. Paper presented at NWAV 37, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2004. California Vowels. www.stanford.edu/~eckert/vowels.htmlGoogle Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. 1969. A sociolinguistic study of three vowels in Detroit speech. Mimeograph.Google Scholar
Feagin, Crawford. 2003. Vowel shifting in the Southern states. In Nagle, S. & Sanders, S. (eds.), English in the Southern United States, 126–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garde, Paul. 1961. Réflexions sur les différences phonétiques entre les langues slaves. Word 17, 3462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2006. Tracking the low back merger in Missouri. In Murray, T. & Simon, B. (eds.), Language variation and change in the American Midland: A new look at ‘Heartland’ English. Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2009. Ethnicity and phonetic variation in a San Francisco neighborhood. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Warren, Paul & Drager, Katie. 2006. Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics 34, 458–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herold, Ruth. 1990. Mechanisms of merger: The implementation and distribution of the low back merger in Eastern Pennsylvania. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Herold, Ruth. 1997. Solving the actuation problem: Merger and immigration in eastern Pennsylvania. Language Variation and Change 9, 149–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, Marvin I. 1965. The Yiddish language in northern Poland: Its geography and history. Special issue of International Journal of American Linguistics 31.2, part 2.Google Scholar
Irons, Terry L. 2007. On the status of low back vowels in Kentucky English: More evidence of merger. Language Variation and Change 19, 137–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. 2010. Stability and change along a dialect boundary: The low vowels of southeastern New England. Publication of the American Dialect Society 95. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Koops, Chris, Gentry, Elizabeth & Pantos, Andrew. 2008. The effect of perceived speaker age on the perception of pin and pen vowels in Houston, Texas. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 91101.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2, 205–54.CrossRefGoogle 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 2006. The social stratification of English in New York City, 2nd edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Plotnik 9.3. Computer program: www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Plotnik.htmlGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclagan, Margaret A. & Gordon, Elizabeth. 1996. Out of the air and into the ear: Another view of the New Zealand diphthong merger. Language Variation and Change 8, 125–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majors, Tivoli. 2005. Low back vowel merger in Missouri speech: Acoustic description and explanation. American Speech 80, 165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDavidRaven I., Jr. Raven I., Jr. 1955. The position of the Charleston dialect. Publications of the American Dialect Society 23, 3549. Reprinted in W. Kretzschmar, Jr (ed.). 1979. Dialects in culture: Essays in general dialectology, 272–81. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Metcalf, Allan A. 1972. Directions of change in southern California English. Journal of English Linguistics 6, 2834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael & Elbe, Connie. 2004. Historical perspectives on the pen/pin merger in Southern American English. In Curzan, A. & Emmons, K. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language, vol. II: Unfolding conversations, 415–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nearey, Terrance M. 1977. Phonetic feature systems for vowels. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger W., Wolfram, Walt & Riley, William K.. 1967. A study of social dialects in Detroit. Final report, Project 6–1347. Washington, DC: Office of Education.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik. 1997. A rural/metropolitan split in the speech of Texas Anglos. Language Variation and Change 9, 309–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. 2001. An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English. Publication of the American Dialect Society 85. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik. 2004. Rural Southern white accents. In Schneider, E., Burridge, K., Kortmann, B., Mesthrie, R. & Upton, C. (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English, vol. 1: Phonology, 300–24. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tillery, Jan & Bailey, Guy. 2004. The urban South: Phonology. In Schneider, E., Burridge, K., Kortmann, B., Mesthrie, R. & Upton, C. (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English, vol. 1: Phonology, 325–37. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter & Foxcroft, Tina. 1978. On the sociolinguistics of vocalic mergers: Transfer and approximation in East Anglia. In Trudgill, P. (ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns in British English, 6979. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
14
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

On the role of social factors in the loss of phonemic distinctions1
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

On the role of social factors in the loss of phonemic distinctions1
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

On the role of social factors in the loss of phonemic distinctions1
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? *