University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor Mrchnyan an ' 30 O J a St John's Road Tyler S Green High Wycombe B U C K S

INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2 . When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor Mrchnyan An ' 30 o j A St John's Road Tyler s Green High Wycombe B u c k s . England HP10 8HR 77- 17,124 PERKINS, John Wayne, 1945- AN ACOUSTIC PHONETIC STUDY OF CROSS-DIALECT PHONOLOGICAL BORROWING. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1977 Language, linguistics

Xerox University Microfilms f Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

@ Copyrighted by

John Wayne Perkins

1977 AN ACOUSTIC PHONETIC STUDY OF CROSS-DIALECT

PHONOLOGICAL BORROWING

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

John-Wayne Perkins, B.A., M.A.

* * -* * * *

The Ohio State University

1977

Reading Committee: Approved By

Use Lehiste Robert Jeffers David Stampe Olga Gamica Adviser Department of Linguistics ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported on this dissertation was made possible by

National Science Foundation grant no, BNS76-02435. The writer wishes to thank Mr. L. L. Stout of the Ohio State University Research

Foundation for his assistance in the administration of the grant.

I especially wish to thank Professor U s e Lehiste for her aca demic guidance, direction, and moral support throughout the duration of

this research effort. I also thank Professors Robert J. Jeffers, David

Stampe and Olga K. Gamica for their constructive comments on the prep arations of materials, procedural methods, and interpretation of results. 1 gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance and generous commitment of time given by Mr. C. Robert Iden, of the Ohio State Uni versity Linguistics Laboratory. I also thank Professor Bjorn Lindblom of Stockholm University for his technical advice.

Special thanks are owed to the interviewers who obtained the dia lect samples central to this research— Professor Robert J. Jeffers, Ms.

Mary Jo Hood, and Ms. Gwen Moore; and to the dialect informants— Mrs.

Eleanor Jeffers, Mrs. Mary Taylor, and Ms. Linda Woodberry. Special thank3 are also owed to the subjects who served as imitators of the dia lects— Ms. Claudia Erubeck, Mrs. Lisa Wynne, and Ms. Celeste Danglade.

I am also especially grateful to my wife, Ms. Marty J. Moore for her patience, support, assistance and sacrifice of time throughout this

research endeavor.

Finally, I am grateful for the assistance of Mrs. Eleanor Sapp in

the preparation of the manuscript. ii VITA

July 6, 1945 ...... Bom, Findlay, Ohio

1967 ...... B.A. , The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

1968-1970 ...... Service in U.S. Army

1971-1973 ...... Teaching Associate, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

1973 ...... M.A. , The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

1974-1977 ...... Teaching Associate, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

"A Sociolinguistlc Glance at the Great Vowel Shift of English." O.S.U. Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 22, pp. 123-151. To appear in 1977.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Linguistics

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 11

VITA ...... Ill

LIST OF FIGURES...... vi

LIST OF T A B L E S ...... xi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

The Sociolinguistic Model of Language Change ...... 1 The Dialect-Borrowing Hypothesis and the Critical Period Hypothesis ...... * 5 Phonological Interference in Cross-Dialect Borrowing . 7

II. THE ELICITATION OF DIALECTAL PRONUNCIATIONS: PROCEDURES AND M A T E R I A L S ...... 10

B a c k g r o u n d ...... 10 The Problem of Stylistic Shifting and the Elicitation of Vernacular Pronunciations ...... 11 Elicitation Procedures ...... 15 N o t e s ...... 19

III. THE CROSS-DIALECT IMITATION T A S K ...... 20

Previous Studies of Vowel Imitation ...... 20 The Selection of Experimental Subjects ...... 23 Procedure for the Cross-Dialect Imitation Task .... 30 The Structure of the Imitation S e s s i o n ...... 32 Subjects* Comments on the Imitation T a s k ...... 35 N o t e s ...... 56

IV. ACOUSTIC ANALYSES OF DIALECTAL VARIANTS ...... 37

Problems Inherent in the Study ...... 37 Procedures and Measurement Criteria ...... • 52 Acoustic Vowel Diagrams ...... 55

iv Page

Maximally-Contrasted Vowel Systems ...... 56 Acoustic Description of Dialectal Targets ...... 8l N o t e s ...... * ...... 1**2

V. ACOUSTIC ANALYSES OF CROSS-DIALECT IMITATIONS...... I1*1*

The Vowel Targets...... l M Phonetic Categorization of Vowel Targets ...... 156 Phonological Categorization of Vowel Targets ...... 159 Subjects* Performances in the Cross-Dialect Imitation T a s k ...... 1^3

VI...... CONCLUSIONS...... 209.

Implications for the Cross-Dialectal Borrowing Model of Sou n d - C h a n g e...... 209 Implications for the Theory of Speech Reception .... 210

APPENDIX

A ...... 215 B ...... 218 C...... 220 D...... 225 E ...... 228

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 2l*2

v LIST OF FIGURES

The words bet and bat„ produced by Informant L.W.; normal and boosted displays ...... 39

The word pot, produced by informant L.W.; normal and boosted displays ...... AO

Corresponding narrow-band and wlde-band displays of the words bet and bat, produced by subject L.W. . . A2

Vowel loops surrounding F1/F2 plots of "American English" vowels perceived as "the same" by 70 listeners ...... AA

Vowel loops surrounding F1/F2 plots of Italian vowels perceived as "the same" A5

Third formant frequency as a function of vocal tract length...... A9

Maximally—contrasted short vowels of speaker C.B. (Columbus, Ohio). . . . 61

Maximally-contrasted short vowels of speaker C.D. (Columbus, Ohio). . . . 62

Maximally-contrasted short vowels of speaker L.W. (Columbus, Ohio). . . . 63

Maximally-contrasted short vowels of all Columbus speakers combined . . . 6A

Maximally-contrasted short vowels of speaker E.J. (Jersey City, N.J.) . . 66

Maximally-contrasted short vowels of speaker M.T. (Xenia, Ohio) ...... 68

Maximally-contrasted short vowels of speaker L.W. (Toledo, Ohio) .... 71

Maximally-contrasted short vowels of all Columbus Bpeakers and speaker E.J (Jersey City) compared .

vi Figure Page

4.15. Maximally-contrasted short vowels of all Columbus speakers and speaker M.T. (Xenia, Ohio) compared .... 75

4.16. Maximally-contrasted short vowels of all Columbus speakers and speaker L.W. (Toledo, Ohio) compared . . . 77

4.17. Maximally-contrasted short vowels of all speakers combined ...... 82

4.18. Speaker E.J.— Productions of long /dfe / ......

4.19. Speaker E.J.— Productions of /e r / ......

4.20. Speaker E.J.— Productions of /or/ ...... ®9

4.21. Speaker E.J.— Productions of /a r / ...... ®9

4.22. Speaker E.J.— Productions of long / 3 / ...... 92

4.23. Speaker E.J.— Productions of /a y / ...... 92

4.24. Speaker E.J.— Productions of long f2e / ...... 95

4.25. Columbus speakers* productions of long /3e/ ...... 95

4.26. Speaker E.J.— Productions of /er/ ...... 96

4.27. Columbus speakers1 productions of /er/...... 96

4.28. Speaker E.J.— Productions of /o r / ...... 97

4.29. Columbus speakers1 productions of /o r / ...... 97

4.30. Speaker E.J.— Productions of /ar/ ...... 98

4.31. Columbus speakers1 productions of /ar/...... 98

4.32. Speaker E.J.— Productions of long / o f ...... 99

4.33. Columbus speakers1 productions of long / o f ...... 99

4.34. Speaker E.J.— Productions of /a y / ......

4.35. Columbus speakers* productions of /ay/ ......

4.36. Speaker M.T.— Productions of / u / ......

vii Figure Page

4.37. Speaker M.T.— Productions of long / £ / ...... 10**

4.38. Speaker M.T.— Productions of /ow/ ......

4.39. Speaker M.T.— Productions of / a y / ...... 108

4.40. Speaker M.T.— Productions of / u / ...... H 3

4.41. Columbus speakers* productions of /u / ...... H 3

4.42. Speaker M.T.— Productions of long /£./...... H**

4.43. Columbus speakers* productions of long /fc/...... H**

4.44. Speaker M.T.— Productions of / o w / ...... H 5

4.45. Columbus speakers' productions of /ow/ ...... H 5

4.46. Speaker M.T.— Productions of /ay/ ......

4.47. Columbus speakers' productions of /ay/......

4.48. Speaker L.W.— Productions of long /I / ...... 12U

4.49. Speaker L.W.— Productions of long /t / ...... 12**

4.50. Speaker L.W.— Productions of long /* / ...... 12T

4.51. Speaker L.W.— Productions of / a y / ...... 127

4.52. Speaker L.W.— Productions of long /a / ...... 130

4.53. Speaker L.W.— Productions of long /I / ...... 132

4.54. Columbus speakers* productions of long /X / ...... 132

4.55. Speaker L.W.— Productions of long /t / ...... 133

4.56. Columbus speakers* productions of long I t } ...... 133

4.57. Speaker L.W.— Productions of long fx / ...... 13**

4.58. Columbus speakers* productions of long / « £ / ...... 13**

4.59. Speaker L.W.— Productions of /ay/ ...... 135

viii Figure Page

4.60. Columbus speakers’ productions of /ay/ ...... 135

4.61. Speaker L.W.— Productions of long / a / ...... 136

4.62. Columbus speakers' productions of long /a / ...... 136

5.1. Acoustic target areas ...... 1U6

5.2. Columbus speaker C.B.— Total range of phonetic variants . 152

5.3. Columbus speaker L.W.— Total range of phonetic variants . 153

5.4. Columbus speaker C.D.— Total range of phonetic variants . 15^

5.5. Columbus speakers' imitations of E.J.'s (ae:I)...... 10**'

5.6. Columbus speakers' imitations of L.W. (1:1) and (1:2). (Imitations for (1:1) circled) ...... 105

5.7. Columbus speakers' imitations of M.T.'s (u) 106

5.8.a. Columbus speakers' imitations of L.W.'s (t:l) 107

5.8.b. Columbus speakers' imitations of L.W.'s (t:2) 100

5.9. Columbus speakers' imitations of E.J.'s (erl) and (erll) limitations for (erl) c i r c l e d ) ...... 109

5.10. Columbus speakers' imitations of M.T.'s (£:3) ...... 190

5.11. Columbus speakers imitations of E.J.'s (ae :II)...... 191

5.12. Columbus speakers' imitations of L.W.'s (3t:l) and (se:2) (Imitations for (ae :1) circled)...... 192

5.13. Columbus speakers' imitations of E.J.'s (ae :III) ...... 193

5.14. Columbus speakers' imitations of M.T.'s (ow) (Darkened circles represent imitator's own /ow/ nuclei) ...... 19^

5-15. Columbus speakers' imitations of L.W.'s (a :) ...... 195

5.16. Columbus speakers' imitations of E.J.'s (ayl) and (ay II ) ...... 196

ix Figure Page

5.17. Columbus speakers* imitations of M.T.'s (ayl)...... 197

5.18. Columbus speakers* imitations of L.W.'s ( a y 2 ) ...... 198

5.19. Columbus speakers’ imitations of E.J.'s (orl) ...... 199.

5.20. Columbus speakers' imitations of E.J.'s (3:) ...... 200

5.21. Columbus speakers* imitations of E.J.'s (orll) ...... 201

5.22. Columbus speakers* imitations of E.J.'s (arl) and (aril) (Imitations for (arl) circled) ...... 202

x LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Accuracy of F2 and F^ in imitations of front-vowel targets...... 203

2. Accuracy of F2 and F^ in imitations of central-vowel targets...... 20U

3. Accuracy of F2 and F^ in imitations of back-vowel targets...... 20k

A. Accuracy of F2 and F^ in imitations of high front rounded targets . . 20 L

5. Nuclei of imitation v o w e l s ...... 205

6. Relative ranges of T and B diaphonemes and imitation nuclei for frontal targets ...... 20 6

7.a Relative ranges of T and B diaphonemes and imitation nuclei for central and back targets...... 207

7.a Relative ranges of T and B diaphonemes and imitation nuclei for central and back targets...... 208

xi CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.0. The Sociolingulstic Model of Language Change

Historical linguistics has today reached a stage of development where theoreticians are no longer content to merely describe the nature and cumulative effects of language change, or to simply incor porate a description of language change within the framework of a particular model of linguistic structure. The school of Generative

Grammarians, representing the most recent extension of structural linguistics, has, for example, turned from the attempt to "explain" phonological and phonetic change by merely describing modifications in the phonological and morphophonemic rules of a grammer (see

Kiparsky 1968 and King 1969) toward an examination of the actual ways

In which these rules become modified between generations. In general, attention has become focused increasingly on the question: "Why do languages change?", rather than on the question: "How do languages change?" This provocative line of inquiry has led many linguists to search for explanations of sound-change which involve the functional aspects of language— i.e., its use in social communication— as well as its structural aspects. The result of this concentration on language as a social entity has been the development of a socio lingulstic model of language change which has largely disintegrated the Saussurian dichotomy between langue— language at the abstract, 2 albeit communal level— and parole— language at the concrete, function al, personal level. The concept that language must be abstracted from reality and viewed as an idealized, homogeneous system has been seriously challenged by the works of such "variationist" forerunners as Labov and Bailey, who have gained interesting insights into the nature of language change by specifically dealing with the hetero geneity of language in its non-ideal, real-world form. This way of regarding language has always existed among some linguists of every generation, but has been largely relegated to the background from the time of Saussure until quite recently, chiefly because of the great advances in linguistic analysis which were being made during that period by looking at language from the more removed point of view.

Notably, the emminent English philologist H. C. Wyld and the influen tial American linguist Leonard Bloomfield advanced serious thoughts about the role of social usage in linguistic change. Excellent accounts of the evolution of the importance of the socio-linguistic viewpoint in historical linguistics are contained in Labov 1972 (pp. 260-325) and Bailey 1973 (pp. 1-35).

From studies of dialectal and ideolectal variation at the phonetic and phonological levels, Labov and Bailey have concluded that sound- change is propagated and perhaps even brought about to a large extent by the contact of individuals who speak different varieties of the same language, and who are of unequal social standing. Wyld (1930) observed that there has been a tendency throughout the modern period of the history of English for rural dialects to become established as class dialects when their speakers have immigrated to urban centers. 3

This is clear today in the case of the Southern Black English dialects and rural Appalachian dialects found In Northern American cities, which have become associated with working-class status; and the

Midwestern variety found in New York City, which is identified with

upper-middle-class status. Extrapolating from this observation,

Labov has hypothesized and demonstrated that particular pronunciations

serve as Important cues to the identification of ascribed social

status in New York City (Labov 1966, 1972). Shuy, Wolfram and Riley

(1967) and Trudgill (1972) have demonstrated this for Detroit and

Norwich, England, as well. In addition, there have been experiments

conducted by Crider (1962), Harms (1961), Tucker and Lambert (1969) , and Arthur, Farrar and Bradford (1974) which have suggested that dialectal features are associated with personality traits as well as social traits (although, as Robinson (1972) points out, it is not clear whether linguistic features are directly associated with per sonality traits, or associated with class status, which is, in turn, stereotypically associated with personality traits).

Labov has hypothesized that speakers who function in two (or more) social milieux (e.g., with working-class speakers at home and upper-middle-class speakers at the office) learn to adopt features of different social dialects for different social contexts (Labov 1972).

Variations may thereby be found in the speech of a given individual which correlate with the subjective social nature of a given communi cative event. For example, in a more formal social situation, where

the attention is more directed toward the usage of "correct" features of speech (I.e., more prestigious features), a speaker with a 4 multilectal repertoire of forms may shift toward his mental image of that pronunciation associated in his or her experience with more prestigious people. In some situations, on the contrary, which are regarded as less formal, the shift may go In the direction of less prestigious norms of speech, especially when the speaker wishes to enhance his social solidarity with interlocutors of a lower social standing.

The significance of what might be called the "Labov effect" for historical linguistics is that it provides a functional framework within the speech of individual language-users which allows an explanation of the fact that pronunciation variants are propagated from one speech community to another. From the point of view of a speech community Incorporating a phonetic form from another speech community, sound-change has occurred when the majority of its members have adopted the borrowed form in place of an older native form. The notion that cross-dialect borrowing is a mechanism of sound-change is, of course, not new to linguistics. Jespersen, Wyld and Luick, among other historical linguists of the neo-grammarian tradition, called upon cross-dialect borrowing as an explanation in the case of many forms which appear to be exceptions to otherwise regular sound changes.

For example, words like beetle and weight, which should have been modified from /bi:tal/ and /wiyt/ in Middle English to */baytel/ and

/wayt/ by the vowel shift /I:/, /iy/ > /ay/, are traditionally explained as having been borrowed in the forms /beital/ and /weyt/

Into the dialect which underwent the vowel shift (generally assumed to be East Midlands dialect^). Bloomfield 1933 (Chapter 27) contains an elaboration of the model of cross-dialect borrowing which accounts for the geographical distribution of isophones as well as irregular ities of the lexicon. The original idea seems traceable to Johannes

Schmidt, who suggested the "Wave Theory" in 1872 to account for cer tain discrepancies in the development of some Indo-European dialects, which share features of structure which are unaccounted for by their internal histories (Bloomfield 1933, pp. 317-318).

1.1. The dialect—borrowing hypothesis and the critical period

Implicit in the "social-diffusion" model of sound-change dis cussed above is the assumption that most cross-dialect borrowing is done by persons old enough or sophisticated enough to recognize the social significance attached to some variations in pronunciation by various groups of speakers. Linguistic socialization no doubt occurs to some extent throughout the lifetime of an individual. Frimary- language acquisition is, of course, linguistic socialization in the broad sense, since it Involves the learning of a complex array of meaning-sound relationships which are basically a matter of social convention within a given speech community. But it is thought that

^Actually, the only compelling reason for this assumption seems to be the fact that this Middle English dialect has the vowel system which makes the traditional formulation of the Great Vowel Shift work with the fewest exceptions. The historical facts, discussed in Perkins 1977, indicate that there was actually a mixture of regional dialects— Central Southern as well as East Midland— in Fourteenth Century London which interacted to produce the beginnings of the Vowel Shift. the learning of linguistic features specifically correlated with social status (and perhaps personality traits) largely occurs during adolescence and adulthood (see Labov 1972, p. 138). To the knowledge of this writer, no longitudinal investigations have yet been undertaken to study this latter type of linguistic socialization; there fore, this assumption must presently be considered a matter of conjecture, based on casual observation. Taken at face value, the hypotheses of Bloomfield and Labov regarding the cross-dialect bor rowing of pronunciations tacitly imply that there is an intact trans ference of phonetic forms from one speech community to another*

That is, this "social diffusion" model of sound-change, as commonly espoused, implies that phonetically-untrained adults who contact speakers of another more prestigious dialect can successfully master the phonetic details of the segments of that dialect. In contradic tion to this apparent assumption there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence, and some experimental evidence, which Indicates that It is essentially impossible for most untrained adults (and even most trained adults) to successfully reproduce the phonetic details of a foreign language.

Penfield (1959), Grittner (1969), Kirch (1955, 1956), Larew

(1961), and Dunkel and Pillet (1962) have presented neurological and experimental evidence which indicates that younger children can learn

foreign phonetic segments more quickly and accurately than older

2A discussion of the issues involved, culminating in the same conclusion Is to be found in Grlmshaw and Holden 1976. children. Sellger, Krashen and Ladefoged (1975) have argued from a large body of evidence that adult second-language learning abilities are inferior to child language-learning abilities. Lenneberg (1967) has formulated the hypothesis that there is a biologically condi tioned critical period during which language learning occurs most efficiently. According to the strong form of this "critical period hypothesis," the language-learning ability undergoes a "shut down," or at least becomes seriously restricted after puberty. This view is not uncontroversial. Grinder, Otoma and Toyota (1961) have presented evidence that older children learn foreign languages more quickly than younger children, which indicates an increase, rather than decrease, in linguistic analytical abilities during the aging process.

Duskovfi (1969), Buteau (1970), and Bailey and Hadden (1973) have argued from error-analysis studies that similar learning strategies are used by children in prlmary-language acquisition and adults in later second-language acquisition. In general, however, most contem porary linguists appear to accept the notion that the mental faculties that enable the efficient learning of language undergo a suppression or impairment during pubescence.

1.2. Phonological interference in cross-dialect borrowing.

If the "critical period hypothesis" is correct, then it is logical to assume that it should apply to second-dialect learning in the post- pubescent period of life as well as to second-language learning.

There is no a priori reason to supposed that adults can learn the phonetic representations of a language which they understand or any more easily than they can acquire the phonetic representations of a form of language which they do not initially understand. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the sorts of interference effects noted in adult foreign-language learning, especially at the phonologi cal and phonetic levels, should he paralleled by interference from a native dialect in cross-dialect borrowing. This possibility has not gone unmentioned in the literature concerning cross-dialect borrowing.

Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 (pp. 156-157) contains mention of the fact that the phonetic segments of a "target" dialect may only be approximated by the speakers of a ’’borrowing" dialect. Yet, most of the literature on the subject neglects any mention of the probability of phonological or phonetic Interference in this process. So far as this author knows, no investigation of the effects of such interfer ence in cross-dialect imitation of phonetic segments has been under taken .

In the study that is described below, a cross-dialect imitation experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that there is Inter ference from the native dialect when a speaker imitates the acoustic representations of phonemes used in another dialect of the same language. Speakers of the White Upper-Middle-Class variety of

English spoken in Columbus, Ohio were confronted with samples of con versation produced by speakers of three other American English dia lects— Jersey City White Working-Class English, Western West Virginia

White English, and Lower-Middle-Class-Black Toledo, Ohio English. The subjects were asked to imitate the phonetic segments and suprasegmental features of these dialects. Acoustic phonetic analyses were made of the imitations of selected target vowels in the stimulus utter

ances and compared to the acoustic analyses of the original pronunci

ations of these target vowels. In addition, the acoustic analyses

of the imitation vowels were compared to the acoustic analyses of the

same vowels in the same utterances as produced by the subjects in

their native dialect.

The selection and recording of target-dialect informants is dis cussed in Chapter 2. The selection of subjects for the cross-dialect imitation task is described in Chapter 3, along with the structure of the task. Chapter 4 contains a discussion of the methodological pro cedures utilized in the instrumental analysis of the vocalic systems of the target-dialect informants and borrowing-dialect test subjects, the target vowel segments, and the imitation vowels. In addition,

Chapter 4 contains a detailed acoustic description of the vowel sys tems of the informants and subjects, the target vowels and their counterparts in the speech of the subjects. Chapter 5 consists of an acoustic description and analysis of the results of the vowel imita tion task. The results are assessed in Chapter 6 with respect to the hypothesis under examination. The implications of these results for the "social diffusion” model of sound-change and the theory of speech perception are also examined in Chapter 6. CHAPTER 2

THE ELICITATION OF DIALECTAL PRONOUNCIATIONS:

PROCEDURES AND MATERIALS

2.0. Background

Most scholars who have evoked the model of cross-dialect borrow ing as an explanation for sound change have focused the greater part of their attention on historical alterations in the pronunciation of vocalic phonemes; e.g., Gauchat 1905; Wyld 1920,1927; Martinet 1969;

Labov 1963,1966,1972; Labov, Yaeger and Steiner 1972; and Trudgill

1972, inter alia. It therefore seemed that an empirical study of cross-dialect imitation would prove most profitable in relation to this model of phonological change if it concentrated on the manner in which vocalic segments are imitated.

The target segments for presentation to the test subjects for imitation were selected from speech samples recorded In conversations with three randomly-selected female adult speakers of different con temporary American English dialects: (a) a variety of English charac teristic of White working-class natives of Jersey City, New Jersey;

(b) a variety characteristic of White working-class immigrants to

Southern Ohio from West Virginia; and (c) a variety characteristic of Black working-class natives of Toledo, Ohio. The first variety approximates the one reported for New York City residents by Labov

10 (1966,1972); the second, the variety reported for Eastern West

Virginia by Wolfram and Christian (1975); and the third, the variety reported for Detroit by Wolfram (1969). These three varieties were selected because they exhibit marked differences from Standard

American Media English with respect to the phonetic manifestations of certain vowel phonemes. The test subjects were all speakers of the variety of English regarded as being the prestige norm among educated, middle-class residents of Columbus, Ohio, which exhibits only slight qualitative divergence with respect to vocalic phones from Standard

American Media English. A partial acoustic description of the vocalic system of each informant and test subject, as well as an acoustic analysis of the particular segments selected as targets is presented below In Chapter IV.

2.1. The problem of stylistic shifting and the elicitation of vernacular pronunciations

Linguists have noted for decades that there is a certain amount of phonetic variation in the speech of most linguistic communities, and often a surprising latitude in the way that any given Individual phonetically realizes the allophones of his or her idiolect. Follow ing the lead of Saussure, linguists of this century have generally dis regarded this linguistic fact of life. In his classic conceptual division of langue from parole, Saussure intended to M. . . simultane ously separate: (1) what is social from what is Individual; (2) what is essential from what is accessory and more or less accidental . . .

(Saussure 1959, p. 14)." Subsequently, structuralist linguists con cerned with the construction of synchronic descriptive grammars 12

abstracted their data away from the variations exhibited by speakers

and proceeded with phonological description as if the language of a

given community were uniform on the phonetic level. The more recent

school of geherativist phonology continued this tradition, advocating

as the proper focus of linguistic attention the competence of . .

an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech com

munity . . . (Chomsky 1965, p. 3-4)."

Intrapersonal phonetic variation, when noted, has thus been con

sidered "free" and unsystematic by most linguists until quite recently.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, a growing interest developed among

sociologically-oriented linguists around the correlations between the

variation of language at all levels of structure and the social

functions of language. With this interest there has evolved an

increasing awareness that heterogeneity In idiolects is to a great

extent constrained in interesting ways by social convention and

utilized as an important mechanism for signalling interpersonal rela

tionships and individual social orientations.

Studies of Intrapersonal phonological variability conducted by

Labov in New York City (1966) and Gumperz in Hemnesberg, Norway (1971) have shown that an important social factor correlated with an indi vidual^ choice of phonetic variants is the relative subjective formality of the communication situation- Both studies found that informants tended to modify their pronunciations toward the phonetic realizations associated with higher social prestige when they were disposed to present a positive linguistic or social Image. Conversely,

Informants were found to switch Into local dialectal pronunciations of 13

the same phonemes In situations where they were not self-conscious

about their speech or social image.

Labov (1966,1972) has derived a continuum of speech styles ranging

along a dimension of subjective formality through which this switching

seems to occur:

less formal more formal

Vernacular Careful Reading Word Minimal Speech Speech Style Lists Pairs

A larger number of approximations of more prestigious pronunciations

(evaluated as such by the informants themselves) were observed in the

reading of minimal pairs, word lists and prepared texts, and in the

careful speech used in formal interviews, whereas a larger number of

local dialectal forms were observed in less formal conversation.

Working within the framework of this scheme, Labov has outlined inter

view techniques intended to purposefully elicit phonetic variants

characteristic of these different speech styles (Labov 1966). These

techniques have been used with apparent success in subsequent investi

gations of social dialects by Wolfram, Shuy and Riley (1967) ; Labov,

Yaeger and Steiner 1972; and Trudgill 1972. A more recent study of

California English by Ladefoged, Kameny and Brackenridge (1975) indi

cates that such stylistic shifting may not be operable in certain

linguistic communities; however, the weight of the evidence collected

to date makes it clear that the possibility of stylistically-

conditioned shifting toward prestige models must be seriously consid

ered in any interview situation designed to elicit accurate samples

of dialectal pronunciation. 14

The present study was Intended to make use of actual dialectal

pronunciations, and precautions were therefore taken to ensure that

the switching effect was minimized in the collection of samples. The

interview schedule proposed by Labov is engineered to allow an inter

viewer who is a stranger to the informant to manipulate the inter

viewee into "dropping his guard" and switching to his vernacular

pronunciation. This is to be accomplished by the introduction of

topics of conversation such as childhood memories and emotionally-

loaded memories which are supposedly more likely to be discussed

without attention to the "correctness" of one's speech. This proposal

accords in part with Gumperz' observations in Hemnesberg (1971) that

topic of discourse was a significant factor correlated with shifting

toward the standard bokm&l. On the other hand, Gumperz reports that

the degree of social intimacy between Interlocutors was of higher

significance in the hierarchy of factors influencing shifting.

Speakers conversing in a "closed social network," i.e., a group where

everyone knows everyone else, are more likely to use vernacular pro

nunciations than speakers communicating in an "open social network,"

i.e., a group where there is at least one person Involved who is a

stranger to at least one other speaker. It is obvious that an inter

view situation in which one informant is confronted by an interviewer who is a complete stranger to him represents a maximally "open" net

work. It does not seem likely that topic manipulation will quickly

alter the stylistic effect of the social distance.

It was therefore decided that the collection of dialectal target

segments could be most effectively conducted by interviewers who 15

could tape-record informants within the context of a closed social

network, i.e., in a situation where everyone present, including the

interviewer and the informant, know each other well. Persons were

located who could record samples of casual conversation within this

context. The interviewer for E.J., the speaker of the New Jersey variety, was her son R.J., a professor of linguistics at Ohio State

University (O.S.U.). For M.T., the speaker of the West Virginia variety, the interviewer was M.J.H., an undergraduate student majoring in linguistics at O.S.U.,who had been a next-door neighbor and close acquaintance of the informant during several years spent in Xenia,

Ohio. The interviewer for L.W., the speaker of the Toledo Black English variety, was G.M., another undergraduate student at O.S.U., and a high- school friend of the informant. In two cases, the interviews were conducted in the homes of the Informants (E.J. and L.W.), and in the third case the interview was conducted in a next-door neighbor's home, frequently visited by the informant (M.T.). Thus, in each case the interview took place in surroundings In which the interviewee was comfortable, and where all other persons present were involved in a closed social network with the interviewer and interviewee.

2.2. Elicitation Procedures

Each interviewer was Instructed in the positioning and use of the recording equipment, a Uher 4000-L magnetic tape recorder and an

Electrovoice RE-11 unidirectional cardiold microphone. Recordings were made on Tenzar heavy-duty tape at 1 7/8 l.p.s., with the microphone placed approximately one to two feet from the informant's mouth. This 16 less-than-optlmal recording situation resulted in the input of some background noise; however, the cardioid characteristics of the

Electrovoice RE-11 reduced the extraneous noise to an intensity level too low to interfere with the reading of spectrograms made from the tapes.

Each interviewer was also given instructions regarding the schedule of the interview and equipped with necessary interview materials. The interviewers first had the informants count slowly from "one" to "ten" while the recording level was adjusted. They then had the informants read through the following list of sentences, pre typed on a pack of index cards, one sentence per card, randomized by shuffling;

The words beat and bit are different. The words bit and bait are different. The words bait and bet are different. The words bet and bat are different. The words pot and pat are different. The words gut and got are different. The words put and pot are different. The words gut and good are different. The words putt and put are different. The words good and goat are different. The words boat and bought are different. The words boot and boat are different. The words boat and bout are different. The words bite and bait are different.

The purpose of this section of the interview was to collect pronunciations of vocalic nuclei in a stylistic context which overtly directed the attention of the speaker toward the production of maximally-contrasting allophones. The lexical items in the list were so selected that the initial and final consonant-transition influ ences on the first and second formants of the nuclei were relatively 17 uniform.^ This selection of lexical Items was also made so that the phonemes /»/, /i/, /«y/, /«/, /* /, /v/, /*/, /*/, /»/, /ou/, /u/,

were elicited In the phonological environment most conducive to the production of short allophones, viz., In position before non continuant voiceless oral obstruents (cf., Lehiste and Petersen, 1960).

This phonological consideration was made because casual observations of the varieties typified by the idiolects of the informants have revealed that many of the dialectal differences, in the phonetic reali zation of the phonemes in question appear to occur in phonological environments which condition lengthening of vocalic nuclei in all dialects of American English, viz., before continuant oral obstruents, before nasal obstruents and before voiced non-continuant oral ✓ obstruents. Unfortunately, the accidents of historical development have made it impossible to find one completely consistent phonologi cal environment. There are, for example— owing to the action of the

Great Vowel Shift of English— few lexical items containing /W, especially preceding /t/.

The interviewers next had the informants read a prepared passage designed to elicit allophonic productions characteristic of the target dialects. These texts include lexical items formerly observed to contain vocalic nuclei which diverge acoustically from the nuclei of Standard American Media English. The passage for the speaker of the Jersey City variety was taken directly from Labov 1966, while the text for the speaker of the Black English variety was adapted from

Fasold 1972. For the speaker of the West Virginia variety, it was necessary for the author to prepare a text based on his personal 18 observation of the speech of West Virginia immigrants to Columbus,

Ohio. The three reading passages referred to heie are presented in

Appendix A.

Finally, the three interviewers engaged in casual conversations about everyday matters with the informants without turning off the tape recorder. The intent here was to disengage the informants’ awareness that the conversation was being taped, and to engage them in talking about the types of topics usually touched on in casual conversations with the interviewers within the context of a closed social network in familiar surroundings. In the subjective Judgment of the Interviewers— who were in each case close acquaintances of the informant— the pronunciation elicited In these conversations was typical of the non-self-conscious casual speech style of the inform ants. It was from these casual conversations that the phrases con taining sample target dialectal segments were extracted. 19 NOTES

^■Previous acoustic and perceptual analyses of American English consonants have established that the second-formant transitional locus for velar obstruents preceding back vowels such as t»], [a], [u] and [«w] approximates the locus for labials, cf., Cooper, DeLattre, Liberman, Borst and Gerstman 1952. 2 See, in this connection, Lehiste and Petersen 1961 and Labov, et al., 1975. CHAPTER III

THE CROSS-DIALECT IMITATION TASK

3.0. Previous studies of vowel Imitation

In the past decade, several studies have been made of the ability of persons to Imitate the formant structures of synthesized vowels.

The studies can be grouped into two types (following Kent 1974):

"shadowing experiments" and "mlcking experiments." The shadowing experiments"— reported in Chistovich, Fant, de Serpa-Lelt3o and

Tjernhund 1966— requires subjects to reproduce stimulus vowels with as little delay as possible. The "mimicking experiment— reported in

Chistovich, Fant, de Serpa-Leit3o and Tjernhund 1966; Chistovich, Fant and de Serpa-LeitSo 1966; Chistovich and Kozhevnikov 1969; Kent 1973; and Kent 1974— requires subjects to reproduce stimulus vowels within a more leisurely time period (generally about seven seconds), allowing for more processing of the stimulus. Most of these studies have

Involved the reproduction of monophthongal synthetic vowels (i.e., stimuli with a single, prolonged steady state formant pattern. Kent

1974 reports a mimicking experiment in which subjects were required to

"track" formant movements in diphthongal stimuli (i.e., synthetic vowels with two distinct formant steady states).

The principle motivation for these studies has been to elicit information regarding the neural processes by which speakers trans form auditory signals into sets of motor nerve comnands to the

20 21 musculature of the vocal tract. Responses of subjects in these experi ments have indicated that the abilities of speakers to produce dis

tinct vowels is not narrowly limited by their linguistic experience.

Imitators produce a wider range of vowel structures in response to diverse stimuli than is contained within the phonetic structure of

their native language. At the same time, they produce fewer distinct acoustic vowel structures than they can discriminate. Kent's 1974 experiment with diphthong imitation revealed that the relative formant

frequencies of the two steady states in the stimuli were not accur ately reproduced. These stimuli consisted of "standard vowels" with steady-state formant frequencies derived from median values reported for "American English" vowels by Peterson and Barney 19521 combined with "ambiguous vowels" foreign to American English. Kent found that the "standard" steady states were not consistently imitated better than the "ambiguous" steady states. Also, subjects showed a great deal of interpersonal and intrapersonal variance in their imitations.

Another experiment Involving vowel imitation (although not restricted to vowel imitation) waa conducted by Bri£re (1968) in his study of phonological interference with regard to learning theory.

BriSre's study showed that difficulties in reproducing foreign vowels

(elicited from native speakers of French and Vietnamese) were greater when these imitations Involved the production of combinations of phonetic features totally alien to the subjects' language (American

English), as opposed to a reassignment of familiar feature combinations from allophonlc to phonemic status or phonemic to allophonic status. 22

l'he task involved in the present study could be classified as a

"mimickry experiment," since it required subjects to reproduce stimu

lus segments within a period of time which allowed for the processing

of phrases. Unlike the previous mimickry experiments conducted, it

employed natural language stimuli, rather than synthesized stimuli.

Since the aim of this study has been to investigate the performance

of persons in imitating the acoustic realizations of vowels in the context of conversation— viz., in the natural speech of individuals of other dialect communities— the stimuli consisted of vowels em bedded within consonant contexts, rather than presented in isolation, as in the other studies citied.

This imitation task also differed from those previously con ducted in that it involved vowel stimuli of relatively short duration.

The results of this imitation taks will be compared briefly with those of the experiments mentioned above in Chapter 6. 23

3.1. The selection of experimental subjects

In selecting subjects to attempt the imitation of vocalic segments of other dialects, several factors had to be considered which could potentially have interfered with the results of the experiment. First of all, it had to be recognized that people seem to have different abilities with respect to the production of foreign speech sounds.

Whether such aptitudinal differences are due to biological differences or arise from background socialization differences, they nonetheless exist as a fact of life.

Secondly, it was recognized that there is always a possibility that there is some differentiation between the sexes in a speech com munity with respect to phonetic performance. Several researchers concerned with variation have observed differences between men and women with respect to the amount and degree of stylistic pronunciation- shifting which they exhibit (Gauchat 1905; Labov 1966,1977; Shuy,

Wolfram and Riley 1967; Trudgill 1974). It has been claimed that women are often a generation ahead of men in the same community with respect to the implementation of sound change (Labov 1972; Bailey

1973; Labov, et al. 1975). It seems likely that this type of differ entiation is due to differential socialization of the sexes rather than biological factors. It should be noted that this claim is largely based on studies conducted in large urban centers. No studies of sociolingulstic factors of this nature have been conducted for the speech community from which the subjects were selected— Columbus, Ohio; therefore it was not known whether such inter-sexual differences would 24

present a problem for this experiment. To be on the safe side, how

ever, control was exercised for this possibility by selecting only

female test subjects.

Another factor that had to be considered was the possibility that

socio-economic class differences between the test subjects might have

been correlated with differences in phonetic performance. Labov

(1972) has observed among New Yorkers a marked tendency for Lower

Middle Class speakers to engage in greater stylistic pronunciation-

shifting than any other socioeconomic group. He reasonably attri butes this fact to greater "linguistic insecurity" on the part of that social group, which is composed of people who stand to gain the most upward mobility by emulating the behavior of the higher-status por tion of the population. Apart from this consideration, it has been demonstrated that there are class dialects in several American speech communities (Labov 1966; Shuy, Wolfram and Riley 1967; Wolfram 1969).

Casual observation indicates that variation of this type exists in

Columbus, Ohio, where large portions of the Work Class and Lower

Middle Class are first or second generation speakers of Appalachian dialects or speakers of Black English dialects. Again, no exacting data of this type is available for Columbus, but on the basis of the researcher's knowledge of the community it was decided that some control should be exercised to guarantee socioeconomic class homogeneity within the test group.

Finally, a double-check on the phonetic vowel systems of the tentative subjects was seen as necessary to ensure uniformity among 25 the subjects with respect j-j the "phonetic filter" which it was expected would interfere with their imitation attempts.

The subjects were obtained from among the students enrolled in several sections of the undergraduate introductory linguistics course at Ohio State University. Volunteers were solicited who satisfied four criteria:

(1) Lifelong residents of North Columbus or the suburbs to the immediate North of Columbus

(2) Female.

(3) 19-22 years of age.

(4) Native speaker of English.

All volunteers were paid at the rate of $5.00 per hour for their participation in the research. This solicitation procured seven initial subjects who were then further screened to control for the factors discussed above. Each volunteer was Interviewed Individually to obtain pertinent background information. Control for sexual homogeneity and age was obviously exercised in this initial selection.

3.1.a. Control for Phonetic Aptitude

Control for uniformity of phonetic aptitude was exercised by selecting from the initial group of volunteers those who were rated the same according to Pike's "Test for Predicting Phonetic Ability"

(Pike 1959). This test was the only one designed for evaluating foreign-language-learning ability specifically at the phonetic level which was recommended by consultants in foreign language education.

It was also the same test used by Brlere (1968) to screen subjects for his study of phonological interference. This test was originally 26

designed to be used in separating students at the Summer Linguistic

Institute into graded sections of an introductory phonetics course.

A high degree of positive correlation has been demonstrated between

scores attained on this test before the phonetics course and the final

grade obtained in the phonetics course. Subjects are assigned a score

of from 0 to 28 points on the basis of their performance in the

production of 14 utterances. Seven of the utterances are imitations

of nonsense words containing speech sounds not used in American English.

The remaining seven utterances are responses to verbal instructions

that request specific articulatory maneuvers. Each of the utterances

contains one particular segmental or suprasegmental feature which

involves a type of neuro-imiscular coordination of the vocal tract that

is not ordinarily used by speakers of English (at least in the context

in which it is to be produced for the test) . Subjects are assigned

two points for each segmental or suprasegmental feature that is pro

duced correctly, zero for each failure to produce the correct response,

giving a possible total of 28 points.

The seven nonsense words for imitation were prerecorded for

presentation by the researcher, situated in an anechoic chamber, on an

Ampex 354 tape deck at 7.5 ips using an Electrovoice RE-11 cardioid microphone. Each utterance was copied three times using another Ampex

354. An additional practice utterance was recorded and copied, giving a total of 24 stlnaili. The three tokens of each utterance were

separated by a two-second interval of leader tape, and each group of

identical tokens was separated from the next by a four-second inter val. The verbal instructions for the production of the remaining 27

seven items were also pre-recorded by the researcher, with four-

second intervals of leader tape inserted between each set of instruc

tions. The same instructions were typed on an index card supplied to

the subject. The entire text of the test tape is included as Appendix

Each subject in turn was situated in an anechoic chamber and the

prepared test tape was played for her at 7.5 ips on an Ampex 354 tape

deck over an Ampex 622 loudspeaker. The subject's responses were

recorded on another Ampex 354 using an Electrovoice RE-11 microphone.

On the basis of the total point scores which they were assigned accord

ing to Pike’s criteria (see Appendix B) by the researcher, the sub jects were assigned to one of four quartiles. The distribution was as follows:

Quartlie Number of Subjects

I (21-28 points) 0

II (14-20 points) 4

III (7-13 points) 2

IV (0-6 points) 1

3.1.b. Control for Socioeconomic Class

The volunteers were assigned to a social class position using

Warner’s "Index of Status Characteristics" (ISC) (Warner, Meeker and

Eels 1960). This method was selected because it is the same tech nique which has been utilized for determining social class membership of Informants in earlier socio-lingulstic studies, e.g., Labov 1966,

Fasold 1972, Trudgill 1974, and because it can be applied with a reasonable degree of reliability (for small American urban communities, 28 at any rate) under conditions where time and money do not permit the application of more elaborate methods such as the "Evaluated Partici pation Technique" (Warner, et al., ibid). Three steps are involved in determining the ISC for an individual:

(1) Primary numerical scores are computed using seven-point scales for occupation, source of income, house—type and dwelling area.

(2) A weighted total of three scores is computed by multi plying each primary score by a numerical scaling factor reflecting the relative importance of each of the above factors.

(3) The weighted total is converted into a social-class equivalent by reference to a scale developed by Warner for Midwestern towns (Warner, et al., ibid).

Primary scale values for the subjects involved in this study were assigned on the basis of the occupation and source of income of the subjects' fathers, assuming, like Ellis, Lane and Olesen (1963), that the social status of undergraduate students is probably ascribed by their families. The house-type and dwelling area of the students' families were also used. The scales used for obtaining the primary values and the social-class equivalence scale are presented in

Appendix C. The information for the ISC assignment was elicited from the subjects during the initial-contact interview. The list of information elicited is also contained in Appendix C.

On the basis of the ISC technique, each subject was to be classed as Upper Class, Upper Middle Class, Middle Middle Class, Lower Middle

Class or Working Class. As it turned out, only the Upper Middle

Class (UMC) and Lower Middle Class (LMC) ratings were relevant. The distribution was the following: 29

Class-Equivalent Number of Subjects

UMC 3

LMC 4

3.1.c. Control for Dialect

Finally, control for uniformity of dialect was exercised by eliciting samples of the subjects’ speech and gathering background information. Informal elicitation occurred during the initial inter view, when background information for the ISC was collected. Also, it was asked where each Interviewee had spent her pre-adolescent and adolescent years. Each subject was asked to read the same list of minimal pairs, presented in the frame sentence "The words ______and

are different" (Chapter I, p. 8) which the dialect Informants had been asked to read. In addition, each was asked to read three lists of phrases. Each list consisted of an orthographic transcrip tion of the phrases referred to in Chapter I which had been extracted for use in the imitation experiment from the tapes of casual conver sation with the dialect informants. The phrases are contained in

Appendix D.

Acoustic analyses were made of the maximally-contrasting vowels obtained through the recording of minimal pairs, using the procedures outlined in Chapter IV. Subjective phonetic analysis was made by the researcher of the speakers’ reading styles of pronunciation as exhibited in their productions of the phrases. On the basis of the comparison of the acoustic vowel charts made from the acoustic measurements for the subjects' maximally-contrasting vowel phones and the degree of 30 subjective similarity between their pronunciations of vowels, speakers were selected who seemed to exhibit similar vowel systems.

The outcome of the screening procedure was that four subjects were found to"rank in the Second Quartile for phonetic aptitude.

These four speakers were found to have very similar vowel systems.

Of the four, two were ranked as Upper Middle Class and two as Lower

Middle Class. All four were contacted for further participation in the experiment, again at the rate of $5.00 per hour. Unfortunately, one subject did not wish to continue; therefore, three subjects were actually Involved in the experiment, one assigned to LMC and two to

UMC.

3.2. Testing procedure for the cross-dialect imitation task

3.2.a. Briefing

All the subjects who had originally volunteered for the study were briefed regarding the general nature of the experiment at the time of the original Interviews conducted with them for the purpose of eliciting background information. Each was told simply that she would be asked to imitate the "accents" of three speakers who spoke dialects differing from her own, and that the analysis of what she did in imitating the speakers would be examined in relation to a theory that pronunciation change resulted in part from cross-dialect imitation.

The exact "accents" to be imitated were not mentioned, so that the subjects would have no motivation to practice in advance.

When the subjects selected by the screening procedure returned, each was reminded of the task involved and informed that she would be 31 paid $5.00 per session for three individual sessions to be fitted to her schedule. Each was also told that three bonus payments of $20,

$15 and $10 would be made for the best, second-best and third-best performances, respectively. These bonus payments were offered to provide an "instrumental motivation" for performing as well as possible.1 Each subject was also briefed on the format of the sessions and told that the phrases which she would be imitating had been cut out of tape recordings made of casual conversations between persons who knew each other well.

The phrases which the subjects were to imitate had previously been recorded by them during their first meetings with the researcher and formed the basis for his impressionistic assessment of dialect uniformity (see section 3.I.e. above and Appendix D). Their re cordings of these phrases served a second purpose as well, since they could be used to compare the subjects* natural pronunciations with their imitative pronunciations of particular lexical items.

It might be argued that the "reading style" of pronunciation elicited for these phrases during the initial interview session did not actually represent the subjects' dialectal versions of the lexical items in question. As noted in section 2.1, it has been observed that informants may tend to switch away from their "vernacular" pro nunciations toward their impression of "standard" pronunciations in reading. It should be borne in mind, however, that the purpose of this study was to investigate what people do in imitating another dialect precisely when they are in a frame of mind where they are paying attention to their speech production. It is, after all, 32

imitation originating in fairly formal social situations and prop

agated within formal speech styles which has been attributed with a

role in phonetic change. Thus, a comparison of phonetic productions

elicited in a self-conscious situation seems to be most germane to the

issue involved.

In the briefing, subjects were told that there were three pos sible ways in which one might interpret the instruction '’imitate speaker X's pronunciation." One might interpret it as calling for an imitation of the speaker's voice quality, or as calling for an

Imitation of the speaker's pattern of Intonation and timing, or as calling for an Imitation of the quality of speech sounds which the speaker produced. They were asked to interpret it to mean that they were to attempt to replicate the speaker's intonation and timing and the quality of the speaker's vowels and consonants, and not to attempt to imitate voice quality. All three subjects, who had by that time been Introduced to descriptive phonetic terms in their introduc tory linguistic courses, indicated that they understood what this meant. (It should be mentioned that none of the subjects had re ceived any practical training in phonetics, i.e., transcription or production training.)

3.2.b. The structure of the imitation session

Three testing sessions were conducted for each subject in which the same format was followed. First, the subject was acquainted with the voice quality and acoustic vowel space of the informant by playing a recording of the informant reading the list of sentences containing 33 minimal pairs (see section 2.2). Previous experimentation has shown that the identification of vocalic nuclei in test stimuli is facili tated if a listener is first given the opportunity to "construct" an acoustic framework by being presented with an introductory phrase containing several different vowels (Ladefoged and Broadbent 1956).

It seems reasonable to assume that the optimal type of introductory utterance for use in establishing such a frame of reference would be an extended utterance in which maximally-differentiated vowels are presented.

Next* the subject was acquainted with the "target characteris tics" of the informant*s dialect by playing a reading passage which the informant had recorded that contained lexical items exhibiting the relevant phonetic variants (see section 2.2 and Appendix I).

Thirdly* the phrases excerpted from casual conversation were played for the subjects. One token of each phrase was presented on the tape. An interval of two to four seconds had been inserted fol lowing each phrase* with the interval length determined by the length of the phrase. The subject was supplied with a "script" sheet con taining the phrases typed in normal orthography. The phrases were then played a second time for the subject with the Instruction given to practice imitating the speaker. This "dry run" allowed the researcher to determine whether the subject had misunderstood the requirements of the imitation task or was incapable of the task.

None of the subjects exhibited any difficulty in doing what was asked of them. All recordings played for the subject prior to the actual

Imitation task were presented at 7.5 ips on a Tandberg Series 15 tape deck. For the imitation task. Itself, the subject was seated In the same

anecholc chamber used during the Initial lnterview-session recordings.

The stimulus phrases were presented from an Ampex 354 tape deck

through an Ampex 622 loudspeaker at 7.5 ips. Responses were recorded

using the same Electrovoice RE-11 microphone utilized for the initial

sessions. Recordings were at 7.5 ips on another Ampex 354. The

researcher monitored the imitation session on headphones in case any difficulties on the part of the subject or the recording equipment necessitated a "retake." The subjects were not equipped with head phones because it was felt important that they be exposed to natural auditory feedback from their own productions.

The tape played for the subjects during the actual imitation task contained three successive tokens at each phrase. Three copies had been made of each phrase at 7.5 ips feeding one Ampex 354 from another. Intervals ranging from two to four seconds, depending on the length of the phrase, had been inserted following each token. This allowed time for the subject to process and reproduce the tokens.

Between each group of tokens, an additional interval of one second was inserted to provide a break between groups. The phrases were arranged in precisely the order in which they had occurred in the conversations taped by the interviewers. The subjects were instructed to mimic the phrase each time it was presented, concentrating especi ally on their third production. They were again supplied with the

"script" so that any possible comprehension difficulties would not

Interfere with their performance. They were also asked to read through the entire list of sentences again, imitating the "accent" of 35

the speaker they had just been mimicking, as soon as the entire

mimicry task was completed.

The first session involved 27 phrases produced by E.J., the

informant from Jersey City, New Jersey; the second involved 26 phrases

spoken by M.T., the informant from Xenia, Ohio; the third, 35 phrases

produced by L.W., from Toledo, Ohio. Thus, a total of 26b phrases were presented to each subject. Each subject produced four responses

for each phrase— three pronunciations in mimicry, one pronunciation

from memory— for a total of 352 productions per subject.

3.3. Subjects1 comments on the imitation task

It is noteworthy that the subjects were unamimous in their re actions to the task presented them. They all agreed that it was harder to imitate another dialect than they had assumed when they were first informed of the nature of the task. They found that it was easy to hear differences between the "accents" of the speakers and their own pronunciations, but difficult to reproduce the differences in vowel quality. The suprasegmental features seem to have presented little problem for them, and in the subjective opinion of the researcher they succeeded quite well in reproducing them. This parallels findings, mentioned above, with respect to the imitative performance of profes sional impressionists, and is interesting in light of acquisition studies which have shown that supresegmental features are the first aspects of adult phonology which are replicated by children.

The subjects were in accord in their assessment that the "accent" of M.T., from Xenia, Ohio, was the most difficult to imitate. This is interesting in light of the fact that M.T.*s dialect is impression istically closest in phonetic detail to the dialect of the subjects from Columbus* Ohio

NOTES

*1 am grateful to Dr. Leonard Newmark, University of California, San Diego, for this suggestion. CHAPTER 4

ACOUSTIC ANALYSES OF DIALECTAL VARIANTS

4.0. Problems Inherent In the Study

4.0.a. Problem One: The Analysis of Female Vocalic Systems

Because the dialect informants and test subjects used in this

stucfywere females with relatively high fundamental frequencies, there was present from the outset an inherent complication in the utiliza

tion of spectrographic analysis. As all students of acoustic

phonetics are aware, currently available models of spectrum analyzers are not designed to produce spectrograms of high-pitched voices in which formant structures are well-defined. The Voiceprint Series 700

spectrograph used by this researcher is no exception; the resolution of formants in spectrographic displays of the vowels [k ] , [a.] and

[oj proved to be especially inadequate.

Alternatives to the straightforward, conventional operating technique were tried in an attempt to find a means of accurately identifying and measuring the component formants of the female speakers' vowels.^ In the end, the most successful technique proved to be one in which the fundamental and formant frequencies of the speakers voices were raised by a factor of two. The utterances to be analyzed were copied at 3.75 ips on a Tandberg Series 15 tape deck from another identical deck on which the original recording was played at 7.5 ips. The copy was then replayed for analysis on the Volcepoint 37 38

700 spectrograph. Naturally, this technique la not to be recommended where duration measurements are to be attempted, since It compresses all segments along the horizontal time axis. With respect to the isolation and measurement of vocalic segments within consonantal environments, however, this technique improves the accuracy with which female voices can be analyzed.

The compression of the time dimension makes the separation of vertical voicing striatlons narrower, thus making the formants appear less fragmented. The time compression combined with the exaggeration of the vertical frequency axis facilitates the segmentation of the acoustic signal owing to the fact that the slopes of formant transi tions to and from consonant hubs appear four times as steep as they do in a normal display (see Figure 4.1 for a comparison of normal and

"boosted" displays for the same vowels^). Another advantage of this type of display is that formant harmonics are spread far enough apart along the frequency axis that formants one and two are more easily discernible for vowels such as [Si], [3] and [u], for which they overlap (see Figure 4.2).

A possible drawback to this procedure is that the boosting of formant harmonics spreads them so far apart that in wide-band spectrograms (bandwidth ** 400 Hz.) the harmonics which constitute formants appear as individual bands which themselves look like for mants (again, see Figure 4.1, especially the "boosted" display for bat). With a small amount of practice, however, the researcher can easily learn to identify formants from such spectrograms. As in the conventional display, harmonics which make up a formant appear darker bet bet bat bat

Figure k.l. The vords bet and bat, produced by informant L.W.; normal (left) and boosted (right) displays. Figure !+.2, The word pot,, produced by informant L.W,; normal (left) and boosted o {right) displays. 41

than surrounding harmonics, which generally do not have enough intens

ity to even be visible. Differences in the degree of blackness of

harmonics— which are evident in a broad-band display of this type—

aid in the identification of those harmonics which have the highest

intensity, and are thus the primary contributors of acoustic energy

to the formants. Actual measurements of formant centers determined

from the broad-band boosted displays can be taken from the corres

ponding narrow-band displays (bandwidth - 45 Hz.). Figure 4.3 shows

corresponding wlde-band and narrow-band spectrograms of the same

utterance by the same speaker.

Since all frequency measurements made on such a display have twice

their normal value, they must all be divided by a factor of two. This has the felicitous effect of also halving all measurement errors.

Thus, the final values arrived at are approximately twice as accurate as measurements arrived at in the conventional manner. A more de

tailed description of the analytic procedure will be given further along In this chapter.

4.0.b. Problem Two: The comparison of vocalic systems across speakers

Any linguist who attempts to utilize acoustic analysis in compar

ing the phonetic vowel systems of two individuals— whether they are speakers of the same dialect, different dialects or different lan guages— soon encounters one of the knottiest problems confronting acoustic phoneticians and speech-perception theorists. In the early nineteen-fifties researchers discovered that the presence of the first and second formant frequencies is (in general) necessary and sufficient bet and bat bet and bat

Figure it. 3. Corresponding narrow-band (left) and vide-band (right) displays of the words bet and bat, produced by subject L.W. 43 for the perception of vowels. Cooper, Liberman and Borst (1951) and

Cooper, DeLattre, Liberman, Borst and Gerstman (1952) first estab lished this in perception experiments using vowel stimuli produced by terminal-analog speech synthesizers. Peterson and Barney (1952) showed this to be true for the perception of natural American English vowel segments, and Fant (1957) demonstrated the validity of this deduction for vowel systems in general.

Almost simultaneously followed the discovery that there is a wide range of variance in the absolute frequencies of the first and second formants which is tolerated by listeners without disrupting their perception of a phonetic category. This type of variance exists even in consecutive productions of "the same" lexical item by one individ ual. It is naturally more apparent in the comparison of absolute formant frequencies produced by different individuals in pronouncing perceptually indistinguishable vowels. Fant (1966) has established that men, women and children— considered as categories of speakers— produce systematically different formant frequencies for perceptually identical vowels. Presumably, there are anatomical— if not neuro- physiological— differences which underlie such acoustic differences.

Figures 4.4 and 4.5 serve to demonstrate the wide degree of latitude which does not affect perception.

At present, it is simply not understood how human beings, mentally compensate for the physical intra- and interpersonal differences in acoustic vowel structure. Furthermore, we have little idea precisely what acoustic details are Ignored when two Individuals are said to speak "the same dialect" (even though their voice qualities differ). Ft (C /s )

Figure U.U. Vovel loops surrounding F1/F2 plots of "American English" vovels perceived as the same by 70 listeners. V

4CM

f ■ I ■ ' ' Ks • * Hi *

. . ' 9000 9000 1 1 /A * V-i .. 2900 >500 ylv / . ' J V* \i] I ’ * • y i e 2000 ( d 6 y w*t" a 2000 Is 2 (vVt > 1 J 1 r8 a 1500 • \ 1500 1 j a / 9 k • " ** j • J 1

• J ) p v ’*/ / UA 0 r # */ * • rf 3 . v • / f 1 **? 1000 / • I* > ; 1900 f\ 0 / * V.* \ */ r ■ r * I 17 r% I . . V I ' a - j 1 * 1 750 rjfffj I *' I1 • * 750 1 w • ’ - 5001 / » 0 400 600 900 vj 1200 Hi H00 BOO 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1J00 Hi 1«0

Figure ^.5. Vowel loops surrounding F1/F2 plots of Italian vowels perceived'as "the same". 46

Nor do we know what acoustic details are attended to when two indi viduals are assessed as speaking "different dialects."

For this reason, any comparison of acoustic vowel structures across speakers must be undertaken with a high degree of caution.

This fact has forced linguists studying phonological variation between generations and geographical and social dialects using acoustic phonetic analysis (e.g., Labov et al. 1972) to include cautionary statements like: ", . . a direct quantification of this progress [in a sound change, viz. the raising of /*:/] is not possible, since the

F1/F2 values for each speaker can have significance only in relation to their (sic) vowel system. . . " (Labov et al. 1972, p. 55). The solution arrived at in Labov et al., ibid., is to construct a scale of heights for each individual's vowel system with reference to

. . other stable vowels. . . ." High vowels are divided into

"upper high" and "lower high" with reference to the distribution of the F1/F2 coordinate plots for /i:/ and /I:/. Similarly, mid and low vowels are subdivided into "upper mid," "lower mid," "upper low" and

"lower low" with reference to F1/F2 plots for /ey/, /£:/, /*:/ and

respectively. Plots for vowels that are compared are discussed in terms of these labels, assigned according to the reference areas in which the plotted points fall. Labov et al. acknowledge that this reference scale has no absolute significance.

Ideally, the formant frequency measurements determined by spectrographic analysis for the vowels of different speakers could be subjected to a mathematical manipulation which would compensate for perceptually non-significant acoustic differences in a manner 47

analogous to the way In which human listeners compensate mentally for

such differences. On an acoustic vowel diagram (FI /F2 coordinate

plot) the visual effect would be a spatial convergence of plots for

perceptually Similar vowels. At the same time, such a procedure

should preserve differences between plots for vowels which are per

ceived as dialectally different. Differences between sex groups and

age groups should also be compensated for.

Several "normalization" algorithms have been proposed to accom

plish the effect described above. Ladefoged (1975) has suggested

that the entire ranges of variation for the first and second formant

frequencies of each Individual speaker to be compared should be cal

culated and that the measurements for the first two formants of each

particular vowel should be reexpressed as percentages of these entire

ranges. The maximum value for FI would generally be that for an

individual's [je] or [a.]; its minimum value, that for [i] or [u]. The greatest value for F2 would be that for the vowel [ij; its lowest, that for [u]. (This rule of thumb would, of course, have to be varied slightly, depending on the particular dialectal vowel system in volved.) On an F1/F2 plot, the visual effect would be that of making everyone's acoustic vowel space perimeter identical, while preserving the relative spacing between the points for Individual vowels within a person's system. This researcher tried Ladefoged's suggested tech nique with respect to the maximally-contrasted vowels of the test subjects from Columbus, Ohio, with the result that the graphic co ordinate plots for vowels which were perceived as identical (by the researcher) were actually driven apart, rather than converged. 48

A second technique has been suggested by Nordstrom and Lindblom

(1975). In this algorithm, a numerical scaling factor is derived by

comparing the average third formant frequency values for "open" vowels

(FI > 600 Hz.) produced by different individuals. The third formant

frequency of open vowels (i.e., (»], [A], [a], [»]) has been found

to vary inversely with the length of the supraglottal tract

(Nordstrom and Lindblom ibid., p. 4). Nordstrifm and Lindblom (ibid) have applied a vocal tract area function equation to a wide range of

third formant frequency values to derive— via computer simulation— a curve showing this relations (Figure 4.6). Given an individual's average third formant frequency for open vowels, one can visually determine the corresponding vocal tract length from this curve. The scaling factor (k) is then derived via an equation which expresses the individual's vocal tract length (£ave) as a percentage of the average reference vocal tract length (&ref), which Fant (1966) has determined to be 17.5 cm. This equation, then, is

o k » ave

For each formant frequency value, FN, multiplication by this scaling factor yields a derived formant frequency value, kFN, which is then apparently to be subtracted from the original formant frequency value to derive the "normalized" value, i.e.,

FN - kFN " "normalized" FN.

(This final point is not very clearly expressed in Nordstrom and

Linblom’s description of their algorithm.) N as M o c 3

O T3 x : E - i

10 12 16 18

Vocal tract length (cm).

Figure U*6. Third formant frequency as a function of vocal tract length. 50

The application of this algorithm to an individual's acoustic vowel diagram has the visual effect of moving the F1/F2 plots toward or away from the source of the coordinate plane along straight-line

trajectories radiating from the source. Obviously, since one scaling

is applied uniformly to all formant measurements, the relative spacing between vowel plots for a given idiolectal system is retained.

Fant (1976) has suggested a refinement of this normalization technique which utilizes different scaling factors for each formant frequency (FI, F2, F3) of each phonetic vowel category.^ That is a different numerical factor is multiplied times the first formant fre quency value of a particular vowel than is multiplied times the second formant frequency of the same vowel. Furthermore, these scaling factors vary according to whether one is considering, for example,

[i]» [&]» or [u]. Fant's elaborated algorithm is based on a comparison of FI, F2 and F3 values for male and female speakers of six different languages (Swedish, American English, Danish, Estonian, Dutch and

Serbo-Croatian).

The equation used by Fant in his "non-uniform” normalization procedure takes into account not only individual differences (again, reflected by a comparison of average third formant frequency values) but also average sex-specific differences, determined his cross language survey. For women, an individual sex-specific scaling factor

(k) is derived by the equation

i. _ •> ,Ave. individual F3^ , , k 2 Aye. f.ny.1. F3 >+ 1/2 ______3______.17 51 where the average F3 value for females Is 2645 Hz., and k.21 and k3i

represent female-to-male scaling factors for the second and third

formants of the vowel [i]— reflecting female/male differences in half-wave-length resonances of the oral and pharyngeal cavities, due

to differing length ratios. The figures 2 and 3 provide a weighting of the individual and sex-specific factors. The division by .17 ex presses the individual female's scaling factor as a ratio to the average female-to-male scaling factor.

The derived value k is multiplied times individual female-to- male scaling factors for each formant (FI, F2, F3) of each particular vowel category to be compared, giving a vowel-and-formant-specific numerical factor which is then multiplied times a measured formant frequency. As in the Nordstrtfm-Lindblora algorithm, the product of this procedure is then apparently to be subtracted from the original measured value to yield the "normalized" formant frequency value.

(Again, this step is not straightforwardly explained in the description of the procedure.) Fant's article contains a table of vowel-and- formant-specific numerical factors for specific vowel categories, including categories for American English, based on the data of

Peterson and Barney 1952 (Fant, ibid., p. 5).5

Fant gives persuasive, empirically-derived evidence to support his contention that a "non-uniform" technique provides a higher degree of convergence for F1/F2 plots of perceptually-similar vowels; there fore, this researcher decided to apply Fant's normalization algorithm to the formant frequency data of the speakers Involved in this study.

The average third formant values for the three dialect Informants 52

(E.J., M.T. and L.W.) and the three test subjects (C.B., C.D. and L.W.)

were determined by taking spectrum-envelope sections for their open

vowels using a Kay 6061-A Sonagraph analyzer. Using Fant's equation

(given above)-, individual scaling factors were derived. These data

are summarized below,

Speaker Ave. F3 Scaling factor (k)

E.J. 2800 Hz. .378 M.T. 2888 Hz. .376 L.W. 2700 Hz. .376

C.B. 2855 Hz. .375 C.D. 2866 Hz. .376 L.W. 3013 Hz. .373

It is apparent that the differences in the derived individual

scaling factors are minute— varying only by .005. The application of these factors (using formant-and-vowel specific numerical values

from Fant's table) has a negligible visual effect on a F1/F2 plot.

The relationships between vowel plots for individual vowels is changed by miniscule amounts; therefore, it was possible to dispense with the normalization step in comparing the acoustic vowel diagrams of the particular individuals concerned in this study. The differences which exist in comparing the vowel plots of thesespeakers appear to reflect actual, potentially perceptible differences between their individual vowel systems.

4.1. Procedures and Measurement Criteria

The acoustic analyses of all utterances described and compared in this study were made using the technique described above in

Section 4.0.a. All original utterances were copied at 3.75 ips on one Tandberg Series 15 tape deck from another Tandberg 15 played at 53

7.5 ips. Spectrographic displays were made at 7.5 ips on a Voiceprint

Series 700 analyzer, with VU meter intensity readings varying from -1 to -2.5. Wide and narrow-band displays were made for each of 528 utterances utilized in the study (one original rendition of each of

88 original phrases by a dialect informant, one read rendition and four imitations of each of the 88 phrases by each of the three sub jects), in addition to wide and narrow-band spectrograms for the maximally-contrasted vowels of each speaker.

Formants were located and points established for their measure ments using the wide-band spectrograms (400 Hz. bandwidth). The actual measurements of FI and F2 were taken from the corresponding points on the narrow-band versions of each spectrogram (45 Hz. band width) . Formant measurements were taken at points established along the horizontal time dimension basically utilizing criteria described in Lehiste and Peterson 1961. For monophthongs, the points at which the measurements were taken were established at positions where the transitional inflection of a preceding consonant segment ceased and the transitional inflection of a following consonant began. Since most of the measurements were taken from connected speech samples, It was frequently not possible to discern a "steady state" formant structure for a given vowel. Where a steady state between consonant/ vowel transitions was discernible, the measurements were taken at the midpoint of the steady state, or the point where the formant bands reached their maxima or minima, depending on the direction of travel.

For vowels following Initial aspirated stops or fricatives, the point of measurement usually was situated at a point following closely on 54

the end of the visible "noise" gap. For vowels following or preceding

a nasal or lateral approximant, the highly visible discontinuities in

formant structure caused by anti-resonances produced for nasals and

laterals generally aided in the location of a measurement point.

For diphthongs and glides there were generally no discernible

steady states, owing to the compression of the time dimension produced

as an artifact of analyzing utterances played at twice their normal

speed. However, initial and final transitional Inflections and

spectral discontinuities of the type described above made it possible

to locate points where the formant movements involved in the

diphthongal nuclei started and ended. The measurements were made at

these points.

On the vertical frequency dimension, the points for measurement were located using criteria similar to those employed by Labov,

Yaeger and Steiner (1972, pp. 29-31). The boosting of harmonic fre

quencies brought about by the analysis at twice normal speed generally

caused the formants to have a "chevron"-!ike appearance in which

individual harmonics were resolved. As mentioned in Section 4.0.a.,

the wide-band analysis revealed intensity differences that existed between the harmonics constituting formants. If there were bands of

equal darkness (as for F2 of [X] in Figure 4.3), they were taken to be equal contributors to the formant. If there were bands of differ

ing darkness (as for FI of [1] in Figure 4.3), the darker band was

considered to be the "primary" harmonic and lighter bands were con

sidered "secondaries." 55

If the formant was composed of a group of equally-intense har monic bands, the measurement was taken at the midpoint of the group of harmonic bands on the corresponding narrow-band display. If there was a group of three harmonics, the middle of which was darker, the measurement was made at the middle of that harmonic on the narrow band display. If there were three harmonics (or four) with a "primary*' occurring off-center, the measurement position was established at the point midway between the midpoint of the harmonic group and the middle of the "primary."

In the case of overlapping formants' (see pot in Figure 4.2), FI was measured at a point halfway between the midpoint of the harmonic group and the bottom of the group. F2 was measured halfway between the group midpoint and the top of the group. All original measurements were, of course, divided by a factor of two to compensate for the doubled harmonic frequencies in the "boosted" displays.

Comparisons of repeated measurements of the same formants of the same vowels taken on different days revealed that there was a variance in measurement no larger than +25 Hz. In terms of the scale adopted for use In the acoustic vowel diagrams developed for this study, the graphic effect of such variance is very small.

4.2. Acoustic Vowel Diagrams

The first and second formant measurements were plotted simultane ously as points on a coordinate plane with the origin located at the upper right, the horizontal axis representing F2 increasing to the left, and the vertical axis representing FI increasing toward the 56

bottom* This orientation was arbitrarily selected merely so that the

acoustic vowel diagrams would bear a closer resemblance to the conven

tional orientation of the "articulatory" vowel quadrilateral to which

most linguists are accustomed. Since the perception of pitch intervals

is known to be logarithmic, rather than linear (Lehiste 1970, p. 65),

logarithmic scales were used for the representation of FI and F2 on

the ordinate and abscissa of the diagrams. Thus, the spatial distri

bution and orientation of the plotted points more closely replicates

their auditory perceptual relationships. Measurements for the third

formant frequency have not been taken into account in the representa

tions of data presented here. This is not meant to imply that the third

formant frequency is not to be considered a contributing factor in the perception of vowel structure. In the case of certain phonetic dis

tinctions (e.g., l?P] vs. [3], or [a] vs. Mr]), the third formant fre

quency is, in fact, crucial. But this writer agrees with the reasoning of Labov et al. (Ibid., p. 31) that the addition of F3 information could only serve to amplify distinctions between vocalic nuclei which are already apparent from F1/F2 plots.

4.3. Maximally-Contrasted Vowel Systems

Labov et al. (ibid., p. 55) appear to assume that certain vowel nuclei are "stable" across American English dialects— viz., nuclei in non-lengthening environments, for example preceding voiceless stops, preceding /r/ and preceding upglides (i.e., the nuclei of /ay/ and

/ow/). Contrary to this assumption, this researcher has found a good deal of difference between the acoustic structures of the vowel nuclei 57

/A/, /x/, /e(y)/, /£/, /* /, /a /, /a/, /:>/, /o(w)/ /v/ and /u/ in the

four dialects spoken by the speakers in this study. Naturally, it

must be borne in mind that the data base considered here is not large

enough to state conclusively that the speakers whose vowels are

described here are truly representative of the statistical norms of

pronunciation for their respective dialect communities.

In the acoustic diagrams of maximally-contrasted vowel nuclei

contained in this section, elipses have been drawn around the F1/F2

coordinate plots representing the vowel measurements taken for the

minimal and near-minimal pairs elicited in the frame "The words ____

and ____ are different." The circumferences of the elipses touch on

the most widely-separated points measured for the vowels in the data

sample from each speaker. In order to provide a standard of comparison,

the vowel elipses have been superimposed on a grid of lines which

represent the boundaries between the vowel loops in Figure 4.4, taken

from Peterson and Barney 1952. These loops enclose the F1/F2 plots

of those vowels produced by 76 speakers which were categorized as being

phonetic representations of the phonemes /i/, /I/, /£/, !*!, /*/, /A/,

/d /, /v / and /u/ by 70 listeners. The measurements published by

Peterson and Barney are generally cited as typifying "General American

English." As has been noted above, Peterson and Barney did not exer cise any strict selection measures to ensure homogeneity of dialect In either their group of listeners or their group of speakers. The data

in their diagram therefore probably represent a fairly broad sampling of phonetic representations identifiable as manifesting the categories mentioned above. The border lines have been drawn after reorienting 58

the Peterson and Barney diagram so that the origin Is In the upper

right-hand comer and after converting the scale of the axes from

linear to logarithmic. For the sake of brevity, the areas enclosed by the vowel loops in the Peterson and Barney diagram and demarcated by the grid lines in the diagrams of this section will be referred to as PB /i/, PB /I/, PB /«/, etc.

Figures 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 show the maximally-contrasted phonetic representations of the test subjects from Columbus, Ohio for the phonemes /i/, /i/, /«/, /* /, /a /, /*/, /o/, /v/ and /u/. Their versions of the nuclei of the rising diphthongs /ey/ and /ow/ have also been

included. Figures 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 exhibit the phonetic representa tions of the same nuclei as produced by the dialect informants, E.J.,

M.T. and L.W. Figure 4.10 pictures the productions of the three Col umbus speakers as a group. In Figures 4.14, 4.15 and 4.16, the pro ductions of the Columbus speakers are enclosed by larger eliptlcal envelopes and compared as a group with the productions of the dialect informants E.J., M.T. and L.W., respectively.

The productions of the six speakers in this study will be com mented on with reference to the PB areas. It must be remembered that the terms "lowered," "raised," "fronted," etc., utilized In the descriptions that follow are employed with reference to locations on an acoustic vowel diagram only. Although there is a rough direct relationship between the raising of F2 and the fronting of the tongue, and a rough inverse relationship between the raising of Fl and the raising of the tongue, it is by no means clear at this point what the exact relationship between articulation and acoustic characteristics 59 is (see. e.g., Lindau 1975). Therefore, the comparisons that follow must be regarded as only rough indications of articulatory differences and similarities.

4,3.a Columbus speakers

The monophthongal nuclei produced by Columbus speakers C.B. and

L.W. lie well within PB /i/; however, subject C.D. produced a glide,^ originating in PB /I/ and raising forward into PB /i/. The productions produced by all the Columbus speakers for /i/ are lowered with respect to PB /I/, bordering on PB /£/. In fact, for subject C.B., the repre sentations are within PB /£/. Their representations of the nucleus of /ey/ are produced at the top of PB /£./, slightly forward of their versions of /Z/- This would seem to coincide fairly well with the description of this target given for "American English" as [e] in the literature (see e.g., Lehiste and Peterson 1961).

The Columbus versions of /£/ are also lowered, bordering between

PB /£ / and PB /* /. For two of the Columbus speakers, C.D. and L.W., the phonetic representations of / * / are also lowered. The third subject, C.B., produced versions of / 3* / in the middle of PB /3t/.

The Columbus speakers agree in showing versions of /a/ which are fronted within PB /a/. Their productions for fof are also well within PB /a/, although uniformly higher than their productions for

/a/. This is not surprising to anyone who has taught phonetics to students from this area, who often fail to hear a difference between the vowels of the words cot and caught. It looks as though these vowels are virtually merged, but a pair of words in which /a/ and 60

fof were maximally-contrasted was not, unfortunately, included in the

elicitation list. Further research is needed to clarify this point.

The phonetic representations of hsl and /u/ are quite fronted with respect to PB fvf and /u/, especially in the case of subject

L.W., whose productions lie within the extreme back areas of PB Ilf

and /£/, respectively. The productions for /a / are also fronted with

respect to PB /a / , again especially in the case of subject L.W., whose versions lie within PB /at/. The nucleus of /ow/ is similarly

fronted, lying between PB fof and PB /«/, whereas in phonetic descrip tions of "American English" it is usually described as a back vowel,

[3] or [o].

In summary, the maximally-contrasted vowel nuclei produced by the

Columbus speakers may be assigned the following phonetic labels:

/if: [i] varying with [1^] /I/: fit] varying to [t1-] /e/: [e] (or [e4*-1]) /«/: [£T ] /at/: [at] varying to [at*] /u/: [■»] varying to [*f*] ([%*]) representing a high control vowel) fvf: [tf] varying to [v-*] lo/i [V] /A/ : [a* ] varying to [*H /:>/: fAA] /*/: [**]

This list assumes that the cardinal values of the vowel symbols may be appropriately assigned to the PB areas for American English. It might be more accurate to assign the symbol [vr] rather than [v] to the nucleus of put and good, since this symbol conventionally designates an absence of lip-rounding in contradistinction to [u]. The spectro- graphlc displays for the Columbus speakers* versions of fvf showed ¥■

3 0 0 0 2000 1000 5 0 0 .J— w l --- nr. 1

’ 5 0 0

O bait

bet O

- 1000

Figure 1*.T* Maximally-contrasted short vowels of speaker C.B.(Columbus, Ohio).

ON 3000 2000 1000 500 4 , .1 , ,

300

- 500

1000 O go-t pat

Figure I*.8. Maximally-contrasted short vovels of speaker C.D. {Columbus, Ohio). ON ro 3000 2000 1000 500 ■■ »— --1--

boot

V S 5 0 0

bet

1000

Figure H.9- Maximally-contrasted short vowels of speaker L.W, (Columbus, Ohio). 3000 2000 1000 500 — j------i_ _ __ , „ ... . - . . j______

Figure U.10. maximally-contrasted short vowels of all Columbus speakers combined. 65

no attenuation of the intensity of F2, which is an acoustic correlate

of lip-rounding. Such attenuation was evidenced for their productions

of /u/ and /of.

4.3.b. The Jersey City speaker

Figure 4.11 shows that the representation of /i/ produced by the

Jersey City speaker E.J. is well within PB /i/. Her versions of /I/

centered around the border between PB /I/ and PB /£/, with more

occurring in the upper part of the PB /£/ area. In the case of this

speaker, the vowel produced in the lexical item bit was located high

in PB /I/, behind her production for /i/ and at the same height.

Therefore, her diagram was supplemented with versions of /i/ produced

in the words kick, kid, thing, big, it and is in her reading of the

passage contained in Appendix A. E.J.'s versions of /e/ are located

on the border of PB ftf and PB /*/. Her representations of ftf are well within PB /»/. This speaker's versions of /*/ are retracted

from PB /*/, located in the lower extremity of PB /A/. These vowels are very close to her productions for /a/, and it may be that

further observations would show that these phonemes are phonetically merged by speakers of this dialect. The version of fi&f which E.J. produced in the phrase "The words pat and pot are different" was at the rear of herfvtf area, while her production of f&f in pot was at the rear of her /a/ area. In general, E.J.'s pronunciations of /a/ are fronted with reference to PB f&f.

E.J.'s representation of fuf is well within PB /u/, while her productions for fvf are quite fronted and lowered, lying in front of , 3000 2000 io o O 500 i. .. . i _

500

btt -1000

Figure l+.ll. Maximally-contrasted short vowels of speaker E.J. (Jersey City).

ON ON 67

PB /a/. Her Ixjf productions show attenuation of F2, indicating that

they were produced with lip-rounding. Her representations of / a / are well within PB area /a/. For the nucleus of the diphthong /ow/, this

speaker produced vowels which lie on the border of PB Is I and fyjf.

The representation which E.J. produced for /3/ in the word bought was a centering glide starting low in PB /:>/, and moving toward a target in PB /a /.

In summary, the vocalic phones of the Jersey City informant may be assigned the following symbolic labels within the present descrip tive framework:

/i/: [i] /I/: [IT] varying to [£*] /e/: [in ftfz [at*] /*/: [aK] /u/: [u] /v/: [«*) /o/: [v*] or Eo**] / a / : [a] /3/: [aft] /a/: [a-*] (or perhaps [*£])

4.3.c. The West Virginia speaker

Figure 4.12 shows that the West Virginia immigrant to Southern

Ohio, M.T., has a representation of /i/ which is low in the PB /l/ area. Her versions of /I/ are in the lower part of PB /l/» but all within that area. Her productions for /e/ are retracted behind her versions of /i/ and /£/, bordering on PB /I/ and /*/. M.T's produc tions for /£/ are raised, lying in the upper part of PB /&/, bordering on PB flf. Her versions of /at/ are also raised, lying on the border between PB ft / and PB / 3* /. 30 p 0 gopo l o p o • 50 ?

-300 boot

bait -500

"1000 Figure U.12. Maximally-contrasted short vovfcls of speaker M.Tv' {Xenia, Ohio). CD 69

M.T.'s representations of /a/ are retracted to well within the

PB /a/ area, as is her version of /J/, which seems to be virtually

identical to her /a/. Again, these vowel representations were

unfortunately not elicited in a maximally-contrasted pair, and subse

quent detailed study is necessary to confirm whether these phonemes are phonetically merged in her dialect.

The most striking feature of M.T.'s vowel diagram is the extreme

fronting of her representations of the phonemes /u/, /v/, /a / and the nucleus of /ow/. Her /u/ lies well within PB /i/, although it is rounded. Her /«/, which does not seem to be rounded, lies well within

PB /l/, although behind and higher than her versions of /I/ . The nucleus of M.T.'s versions of /ow/ lie in the rear of PB area /£/, above her versions of /a /, which border on PB /£/ and /*/, at the rear of those areas.

The phonetic representations of M.T.'s vowels may be given in the present framework as:

/!/ [i] n i [IT ] /e/ IV I or [ITf] /‘/ [£*-] /*/ [**] /u/ [u] /w [v] (front v /o/ [£**] /A/ or [t^] /*/ U 1] /a/ [a]

4.3.d. The Toledo Black English speaker

Figure 4.13 shows the maximally-contrasted vowel nuclei produced by informant L.W., from Toledo, Ohio. Her phonetic representation of 70

/i/ is centered in PB /i/ and her versions of /I/ are well within

PB /X/- L.W.'s productions for /£/ are in the upper region of

PB /£/, while her versions of the nucleus of the diphthong /ey/ are

in the back part of PB /£/. This speaker’s productions for /3*/ are

located in the upper part of PB /»/, wholly within that area.

L.W. shows phonetic representations of /a/ which are well fronted,

lying on the border between PB /a/ and PB /a/. Her version of /a/ is much higher and more retracted, but still well within PB fa/, L.W.’s phonetic version of /u/ is well within the PB /u/ area; however, her versions of /u/ and /A/ are somewhat fronted. Actually, the phonetic realization recorded for fvf in good was a centering glide begin ning in the lower PB /u/ area and ending with a steady-state in the ellptical envelope labelled 'PUT, GOOD." Finally, the nucleus of

/ow/ produced by this speaker lies to the front of PB /a/.

In summary, the following phonetic labels may be assigned to

L.W.’s productions:

/!/ [i] /I/ [I*] /e/ U-] /»/ UM /»/ [*] /u / [u] N i [V] , tof M /*/ h i U*] faf fa ]

A few further comments are in order regarding L.W.'s phonetic produc tions. Her versions of /u/ generally have little indication of lip- rounding (I.e., F2 attenuation), especially the very short allophone in put. The word good, however, was produced with a relatively long 1*000 3000 2000 1000

300

■1000

Figure U.13. Maximally-contrasted > short vovels of speaker L.W. (Toledo,Ohio). 72

nucleus, which, as observed above, is a glide. The beginning part of

this phone, i.e., the on-glide evidences lip-rounding; therefore,

this long allophone may better be labeled Cu>). Again, the produc

tions for hst evidence no lip-rounding, and the symbol [a] may be

preferred as substitute for [v] if this latter symbol is taken to

imply rounding.

4.3.e. Systems of maximally-contrasted vowel nuclei compared

Figure 4.14, which shows the eliptical envelopes surrounding the

Jersey City informant's vowel nuclei superimposed on those surrounding

all productions of the Columbus speakers combined, exhibits the sim

ilarities and differences between the two systems. The phonetic

realizations of the phonemes /l/ and /a / are virtually identical;

E.J.'s versions of those vowels fall within the areas of distribution

of the Columbus speaker's productions for them. One Columbus speaker,

L.W., did, however, produce versions of fhf which are fronted compared

to E.J.s /a /.

The Jersey City speaker's versions of /I/, /u/, fof and /a/ partially overlap with the productions of the Columbus speakers for

those phonemes. In the case of Ilf, fvf and fof, the overlaps are with the productions of subject C.B. The overlap of E.J.*s /a/ pro ductions are with subject L.W. In general, however, the Jersey City speaker's /i/ productions are somewhat lower than the Columbus speakers' productions. Her versions of fvf are also somewhat lower than the Colun&us speakers' versions of fvf. E.J.'s phonetic realiza tions of fof are generally retracted compared to those of the Columbus Figure Maximally-contrasted short vovels or, all Columbus speakers and speaker-E.J. (jersey .-City) compared (E . 'J, ' s vqvel; elipses darkened);: r- “ ‘ Ik

speakers. The Jersey City informant's realizations of /a/ are gener

ally fronted compared to the realizations of this phoneme produced by

the Columbus informants.

The most striking contrasts occur for the phonemes /£/, /® />

and /P/, and for the nucleus of /ey/. The Jersey City speaker's

versions of /e/ and /£/ are considerably lower than the versions of

the Columbus speakers» and closer to their productions for /£/,

although somewhat more fronted. Her productions for /*/ are more

retracted than the Columbus speakers'versions of that phoneme. Her

productions for fof (i.e., the steady-state initial portion of the

glide she produces for /^/) are considerably higher than the

Columbus speakers' productions for that phoneme.

The vowel system of the West Virginia speaker, M.T., is super

imposed on the system of the Columbus speakers in Figure 4.15. The

differences are quite striking in this case. Only the productions for

the phonemes /i/ and /I/ and /p/ show any overlap. M.T.'s /i/ is

solidly within the range of /l/ productions made by the Columbus

speakers. The West Virginia speaker's /I/ productions coincide with

those of Columbus speaker L.W., while her /O/ production is closest to

the /p/ production of Columbus informant C.B.

The West Virginia speaker's versions of the nucleus of /ey/ are

somewhat higher and more retracted than the productions of the

Columbus speakers for that phoneme, basically lying within the area of the productions made for flf by the Columbus informants. Her ftf

is produced much higher than the flf of the Columbus speakers, border

ing between the Columbus version of flf and the nucleus of /ey/. Her 4

3000 2000 1000 500

Figure i*, 15• Maximally-contrasted short vowels of all Columbus speakers and speaker M.T. (Xenia* Ohio) compared (M.T.’s vowel elipses darkened). versions of /*/ are also higher in general than the Columbus speakers’

versions of /*/, and more fronted.

The phonetic realizations produced by the West Virginia speaker

for the phonemes /u/, /tr/ and / a / are both higher and more fronted

than the versions produced by the Columbus speakers. Her versions of

the nucleus of /ow/ are also more fronted. The off-glides from her

version of /ow/ were also found to be fronted, rising into PB /1/*

It appeared from the spectrograms of her /ow/ productions that the nucleus was not rounded, but that the off-glides were rounded.

Finally, the West Virginia informant's /a/ productions were found to be more retracted and higher than the /a/ productions of the Columbus speakers, falling more within the area of the phones which they pro duced for /3/.

Figure 4.16 shows the vowels of the Toledo Black English speaker,

L.W., superimposed on the Columbus vowel system. This informant's production for /i/ proved to be considerably higher than the Columbus speakers' productions for that phoneme. Her /if productions are also higher, falling, in fact on the fringe of the area of the Columbus speakers /If productions. In particular, her productions for flf coincide with steady-state portion of the glide produced for flf by

Columbus speaker C.D. (see Figure 4.8). The Black English speaker's versions of ftf are likewise raised, bordering on the areas enclosing the productions of the Columbus speakers for flf and the nucleus of

/ey/. This speaker's /*/ productions are generally raised relative to the versions of that phoneme produced by the Columbus speakers.

Only Columbus informant C.B. produced a version of /at/ as high as L.W.' "* 1 * Figure L.l6. Maximally-contrasted short vowels of all Columbus speakers and speaker L.W. {Toledo, Ohio) compared (L.W.'s vowel elipses darkened). 78

The Black English speaker's version of /a/ is generally more

fronted than the versions of that phoneme produced by the Columbus

speakers, while her version of /o/ is clearly within the area of the

versions of /o/ produced by the Columbus informants. This speaker's

versions of /a / are much higher than the versions of that phoneme

produced by the speakers from Columbus, lying within the Columbus /o/

area. Her productions for /v/ also lie within the area of the produc

tions of /v/ given by the Columbus speakers.

Finally, it will be noted that the versions of /u/ and the ver

sions of the nuclei of /ey/ and /ow/ produced by the Black English

speaker are considerably retracted with respect to the versions of these

vowels produced by the Columbus speakers. Her versions of the nucleus

of /ey/ lie within the area of /v/ productions elicited from the

Columbus speakers.

4.3.f. Summary of observations

In sumnary the Columbus dialect shows a version of /i/ within the

PB /i/ area. The Columbus versions of /i/ and /fi./ are somewhat lowered.

The Columbus /*/ is also within the PB area for /*/. The nucleus of

/ey/ for Columbus speakers is high in the PB /£/ area and more

peripheral than /i/ or /£/, but equal in peripherality with /i/. The

Columbus speakers'versions of /a/ and /a/ are both with PB /a/, with

/a/ a bit higher and more retracted in general. The Columbus

speakers' versions of /u/, /u/, /a / and the nucleus of /ow/ are all

fronted relative to the PB framework. The nucleus of /ow/ coincides generally with Columbus fvf. 79

Compared to the Columbus dialect, the New Jersey and Toledo Black.

English dialects share a back /u/ in the PB /u/ area, while the West

Virginia dialect has an /u/ even more fronted than the /u/ of the

Columbus dialect. The Black English dialect and Jersey City dialect

agree with the Columbus dialect in having an fvf more fronted than

PB /u/, although it is slightly lower for the Jersey City dialect.

The West Virginia dialect has a higher and more fronted fvf than the

Columbus dialect. This vowel is often imitated by Columbus speakers

as [u], especially in words in which a palatal continuant follows,

e.g., in push and bushel. The Jersey City and Toledo Black English dialects also share a nucleus for /ow/ which is more retracted than in Columbus dialect. The West Virginia version is, again, more

fronted than the Columbus version. The Black English version of /a/ is considerably higher than the Columbus version, and the West Virginia version is, again, more fronted. The Jersey City dialect agrees with the Columbus dialect in having an /a/ in the PB /a/ area. The

Columbus, Toledo Black English and West Virginia dialects agree in having a version of /0/ in the PB /a/ area. The Jersey City version of fof is a glide with a nucleus in the PB f?f area.

With respect to the front vowels, the Jersey City dialect shows a relatively retracted huf, while the Black English and Columbus dia lects agree in having an /*/ within the PB /a/ area. The Jersey City dialect has lower versions of /i/, ft-f and the nucleus of /ey/ than the Columbus dialect. The West Virginia dialect has a higher version of /£/, /»/ and the nucleus of /ey/. The Black English dialect also has a higher /£/, and a higher /I/ as well. The Black English nucleus 80 of /ey/ is more retracted. The West Virginia dialect shows the same

/1/ as the Columbus dialect. The dialects agree basically in their versions of /1/, although the Toledo Black English /!/ is high in the

PB /i/ area. *

The correspondence between the phonetic representations of the vowel phonemes In the four dialects under consideration may be symbolized with reference to the PB grid as follows:

Columbus West Virginia Black English Jersey City

/!/: U3, Hip [i] [i*J ti] /I/: t m , u m [I*] [IT] [I-T], [e*] /e/: [**], [**►] [£-] [i t ] /*/: Itr] [£*] U M [*'} /*/: [*], [ar] [**] W /u/: M , [*•] t«] [u] [u] /W: M . t*"] m M , [y*] [A*] /o/: M u-i [3] ivTi, [j **] /A/: [A*], [»*►] [se^], [ f ] [»T«], [*■►] [a i /0/: [a*-] [a*] [a*] [»*] /a/: [a-*] [a] [a-*] [an]

This list of correspondences makes clearer the similarities between some of the dialects with respect to certain features. The

Columbus, Ohio and West Virginia dialects share a fronting of /u/t

/u/, the nucleus of /ow/ and /a /. This may well be a common inherited dialectal tendency, since it is known that immigrants to Southern and

Central Ohio came from West Virginia and Kentucky. Possibly this feature is traceable to Scots English, where a similar fronting is attested. The raising of [£] is shared by the West Virginia and Black

English dialects. Since both dialects probably have shared some in fluence from Southern White dialects, this is likely a feature with a common source. It is also likely that the virtual merger of /a/ and 81

/a/ on the phonetic level exhibited by the Columbus and West Virginia

dialects has a common origin.

Figure 4.17 shows the phonetic representations of all six speakers combined. The theoretical implications of this diagram will be con

sidered in Chapter VI.

4.4 Acoustic descriptions of the dialectal target segments

The phonetic targets for the cross-dialect imitation task were chosen partly on the basis of casual observations of the speakers of the dialects concerned, partly on the basis of impressionistic evalu ations of the phonetic details of the speech samples recorded according to the procedures outlined in Chapter 2, and partially on the basis of prior expectations about those dialects founded upon descriptions of similar dialects contained in the dialectological literature.

The descriptions of the phonetic variants will proceed from the assumptions that American English dialects (if not all English

i dialects) share a common underlying system of phonemic vowel categories.

This assumption has been tacitly, if not overtly, made in most recent studies of English conducted within the generative theoretical frame work. Trudglll (1972) has characterized a "diasystemic" phonological level underlying all varieties of English in Norwich, including the historically imported variety known as R.P. Bailey (1973) has hypothesized that all speakers of all varieties of English must some how construct such a diasystem of phonemic categories as an essential part of a "panlectal grananar" which allows them to understand a myriad of other varieties which they contact during their lifetimes. The 3000 2000 1000 500 i _

r 3 0 0

500

1000

00 Figure Maximally-contrasted short vowels ro of all speakers combined. 83

target variants described herein will be dealt with as phonetic level

manifestations of vowel dlaphonemes which underlie all four of the

dialects concerned. Far more extensive research than is within the

scope of this work is obviously needed to either ascertain or disprove

this assumption of underlying phonemic unity. In the descriptions that

follow, the symbols enclosed in diagonal brackets are intended to

refer to such shared abstract underlying diaphonemlc categories.

4.4.a. The phonetic variants of /*/, /er/, /or/, /ar/, /a/ and /ay/ in Jersey City English

In the Female White Working Class speech of Jersey City, New

Jersey— typified by informant E.J.— there is a set of centering, fall

ing glides at the phonetic level which are similar to those reported for

New York City speech in Labov 1966,1972. One member of this set has a

fontal nucleus which ranges in height from the Informant's /i/ area to her /I/ area. This phonetic glide may appear as a manifestation of either /* / or /er/. In the case of /, the glide representation occurs when the phoneme is pronounced in lengthening environments, i.e., preceding a voiced oral obstruent, a nasal, or a voiceless continuant.

This glide is exemplified in the corpus of utterances selected for the imitation task in the words classroom and classrooms (see Appendix D).

Figure 4.18 shows the acoustic analysis of lengthened / * / ' s. One occurrence of classroom has a glide beginning just behind, and level with, the informant's /l/ area, and falling off into the /V/ area.

In another occurrence of classroom, and in classrooms, the steady state of the glide lies in the speaker's /I/ region, and the off-glide target is to the front and slightly below her /v/ area. In terms of the (

3000 2000 1500 i__ 3000 2000 1500 — i_ 300

i O

Qvidwirkcs * t r5oo 500

hiooo 1000

Figure I*. 18. Speaker E.J.— Productioris1 Figure J*.l9- Speaker E,J.--Productions 1500 of long /fc /. ■of / e r S 85

Peterson-Barney framework, these glides may be represented as [ia ] and

[ X at*t> ], respectively.

But lengthened /X / does not appear categorically as a centering

glide. In the words family, sandwiches, glad, and a third pronuncia

tion of classroom, the diaphoneme is realized as a monophthong ranging

from between the speaker*s /i/ and /X/ regions to her /«/ area. In

family, the vowel is higher than E.J.’s /I/; in sandwiches it is in her

high 111 area. In one production of glad it is just below her /l/

region and in classroom it is in just about the same vicinity. In the

second production of glad, the vowel phone is at the level of E.J.’s

/£/. In terms of the PB reference grid, these monophthongs range from

[I*-:] to [£>] to [Xi ]. One apparent lexical exception is contained in

the corpus, the word banana, in which lengthened / X / is realized as

[X^M ], that is, low and retracted— virtually within the speaker's

short / & / area.

In sunmary, the phonetic manifestations of long /X / may be repre

sented symbolically as:

classroom^ [tj] classroom? [I*:] family [I:] sandwiches

[t:] glad! [X*V:] banana

E.J.'s long / X / distribution is thus similar to the long /at / distri butions reported in Labov, Yaeger and Steiner 1972 (pp. 47-70) for New

York City speakers; however, there are also dissimilarities. Labov

et al. mention (p. 58) that it is usual for middle-aged speakers to

have a gap in the distributional range for long / % / , separating a raised area and a lower area. Figure 4.1 demonstrates, on the con

trary, that E.J., who is 57 years old, has a continuous long /3t /

range. She has higher allophones which Labov et al. report as more

characteristic of the speech of female New York City speakers under about 45, and lower variants of long /31/, e.g., in glad? , which do not seem to be "corrections*' toward a more prestigious standard of pro nunciation, given the elicitation circumstances (see Chapter 2). Her pattern of distribution is most like that of a 31-year-old female New

York informant reported in Labov et al., ibid. (p. 57).

The Jersey City informant's speech also exhibits another character istic attributed to younger New York City speakers, namely the overlap of the long /at / range with one of the allophonic ranges of the diaphonemic sequence /er/. As is well-known, this sequence has two alternate phonetic realizations in White Working Class New York City speech— one with an "r-colored" off-glide, which occurs before a vowel, and one without "r-colorlng," which appears before a consonant or pause. Labov (1966, Chapter 2) regards the phonemic sequence underly ing these surface alternates as being composed of a mid front nucleus and a centering glide (which he symbolizes /h/), i.e., as /eh/. This writer takes the point of view that the underlying phonemic representa tion is the diaphonemic sequence /er/, for which the /r/ is alternately manifested phonetically with lowering of the third formant before vowels— i.e., as [<]— or without F3 lowering— i.e., as [3] or a variant thereof— before consonants or a pause. The same alternation occurs In ■ the speech of the Jersey City informant. The allophonic representation of /er/ which lacks F3 lowering— or

"rhotocization," to use Ladefoged's label (Ladefoged 1975, p. 71)—

appears to be realized consistently with a high frontal nucleus in the

speech of E.J. In the lexical items contained in the corpus of phrases

selected from E.J.'s casual conversation (analyzed in Figure 4.19),

this nucleus ranges from a position behind and level with the infor

mant’s /i/ to a position within her /I/ range. The higher nucleus is

exemplified in there-^; the lower nucleus, in thereg, pear and hair.

In the case of there-^, there? and pear, the glide falls off to a posi-

tion between E.J.'s fvj and /a/ ranges, or in front of her / a / range.

In the case of hair, the glide falls to the bottom of the /I/ range.

Thus, the diaphonemic sequence /er/ and the diaphoneme / » / are some

times merged phonetically in the Jersey City dialect, as they are in

New York City English. Labov et al., ibid. (p. 58) mention that this

type of merger, like the extreme raising of lengthened /J t /f is

characteristic of New York City speakers under about 45.

The phonetic manifestations of /er/ in E.J.'s dialect may be

k symbolized within the Peterson-Barney grid framework as:

there^ [M**] there? . pear [z r *] hair

The diaphonemic sequence /or/ undergoes the same sort of alterna

tion at the phonetic level as /er/, that is, it is realized with a rhotacized off-glide before vowels and a non-rhotacized off-glide before consonants or a pause, as is the case in New York City speech. The nucleus of /or/ is realized as a glide in the non-rhotacized pre- consonantal, pre-pausal alternate both in the Jersey City and New York 83

City Working Class dialects. This glide manifestation of the nucleus

of /or/ has a raised back steady state in E.J. 's speech virtually

identical to that reported In Labov et al., Ibid. for their New York

City informants. A difference between the Jersey City dialect and the

New York City dialect appears, however, in the phonetic manifestation

of the nucleus when /or/ has an r-colored off-glide before vowels.

In E.J.'s speech, the nucleus of /or/ is realized as a glide, even in

this form, whereas in the speech of Labov, Yaeger and Steiner's New

York informants, the rhotacized alternate appears to be phonetically realized with a monophthongal nucleus*

The Jersey City informant's non-rhotacized alternate exhibits a steady state varying in height from her /u/ area to her / W area, while her rhotacized alternate has a steady state close to her /9/.

In the variants of /or/which are exemplified by the words shore, store and (New) Orleans, the phonetic manifestation is a glide begin ning at a point between the informant’s /u/ and fof areas or at a point between the informant's /u/ and /o/ areas or at a point behind and level with her fof region (see Figure 4.20). There is an off-glide in these instances to a region behind the speaker's fvf and fhf areas.

In the words Florida, Florida? and orange, the nucleus of /or/ Is pronounced as either a monophthong or a glide (itself followed by an r-colored off-glide) . In the words Florldai and Florid^ t^ie glide realization originates in a position just below E.J.'s f9f area and falls to her /3t/-/a/ region. The word orange exhibits a monophthongal nucleus at a height just below the fof area. In terms of the PB refer ence framework, these phonetic realizations of /or/ may be given as: 2000 1500 1000 700 2000 1500 1000 1______L------.------)— ------L__. -----1------. J

« v 1300

/ r500

m r i o o o 1000 i

t L U500 1500 Figure k.2Q. Speaker E.J.— Productions Figure I*.21. Speaker E.J.--Productions of /or/. of /ar/. 90

[uft] shore " store [uAf] Orleans [d a a."1] Floridai [p* ] orange M* Florida?

(The symbol [t»] Is Intended to represent a rounded [a]. Lip-rounding is evidenced in the beginning portion of all these glides.)

As in the case of /er/, the raised versions of /or/ in E.J.'s speech have raised counterparts in the speech of the White Working

Class New York City informants cited in Labov et al. In this case,

E.J.'s pronunciations for pre-consonantal, pre-pausal /or/ seem to lie in the same area as the corresponding productions made by her New York

City contemporaries. Labov, et al. do not, however, report the glide articulation of the nucleus of pre-vocalic /or/ for New York City speech.

The phonetic manifestation of the diaphonemic sequence /ar/ also shows alternations parallel to the r-colored vs. non-r-colored alter nations for /er/ and /or/. The pre-consonantal, pre-pausal alternate, which occurs without rhotacism, is realized in the Jersey City informant's speech with a raised nucleus like the nucleus of /or/. The corpus contains three words— Barbara's, yard^ and yard2 — in which the phonetic realization originates at a point level with and behind the speaker's /o/ or fof (see Figure 4.21). In the case of the word

Barbara's, the glide falls to a point just below her fof area. In the pronunciations of yard, the off-glide is to behind her / a / region.

For the words car and parties, a glide beginning just below the speaker's fof area and proceeding to position between her /a/ and /a/ regions is recorded. These manifestations of /ar/ may be transcribed with reference to the PB grid as:

[u j t ] Barbara's [d*a ] yardi yard2

I'DJ"A ] car " parties

The same type of raising affecting /ar/ is noted in Labov et al., ibid.

for some of E.J.'s New York City contemporaries, although not all of

them (see Labov et al. , ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 7-8, Figures 6 and 7).

The Jersey City speaker also has pronunciations of the dla-

phoneme fof which are considerably raised relative to the phonetic

counterparts of that phoneme In Columbus, Ohio English. It was noted

above, in Section 4.3.b., that E.J.'s phonetic realization of fof in

even non-lengthening environments, i.e., before a voiceless non

continuant, is a glide considerably longer than the Columbus fof t . which originates in PB fof and falls to PB / a / . This same sort of

glide is exhibited for fof before voiced obstruents. The corpus phrases selected from E.J.'s casual conversation contain the words jobs, ballgames and all as examples of lexical items with fof.

Figure 4.22 shows her productions of fof in these words, superimposed over her maximally-contrasted vowel system (darkened elipses) , which includes her fof area for bought. Only the word all contains a vocalic nucleus which does not center toward her / a / region. It has a nucleus which appears to glide within her fof area, within PB fof. The phonetic realizations of fof may thus be transcribed as:

[d a ] jobs [ d : ] all " ballgames

This speaker's versions of /or/, /ar/ and fof are thus sometimes merged ’000 1000 700 30,00 2000 1500 A?2P- u. b o o

r500 5 0 0

aJL IT

hiooo -1000

1500 Figure k,22. Speaker E.J.— Productions of Figure 1.23. Speaker E.J.— Productions long /o/. of /ay/. 9 3

at the phonetic level. The merger of /of and /or/ is reported for her

New York City contemporaries in Labov et al., ibid. and Labov 1966,1972.

The final phonetic variant selected as representative of White

Working ClasS Jersey City English is the realization of the diaphonemic sequence /ay/. In E.J.'s speech, /ay/ is manifested before voiced obstruents with a higher nucleus than It has in its Columbus English counterpart. Figure 4.23 shows the acoustic analyses of the pronunci ations of /ay/ in the words time, outsidej and outside? contained in the corpus of excised phrases. In the case of the word time, there is a glide beginning with a steady state in the informant's /o/ region

(PB. /a/) and gliding up and forward towards her /i/ area. In her pronunciations of outside, the steady state portion of the phonetic glide is lower, just behind her /a / region, in the upper, forward part of PB /a/. The off-glide in these cases is toward her /£/ area, low in PB /£/. In all cases, the steady-state portion appears to be rounded, while the off-glide is unrounded. The phonetic manifestations of /ay/ may therefore be transcribed as:

[oi ) time [p^ £t ] outside-^ ” outside^

It has been noted that there are certain differences in detail between the speech of the Jersey City informant and the speech of her

New York City contemporaries. At a glance, it would seem that E.J.'s dialect is about a generation in advance of New York City Working Class speech with respect to the raising of lengthened /* / and /er/. How ever, these differences may be correlated with differences in educa tional and ethnic background. The Jersey City informant did not graduate from high school. The educational level obtained by the

Labov, Yaeger and Steiner informants is not reported. Also, the

informants whose vowel systems are analyzed as typical of New York

City Working Class women's speech are of Italian descent, whereas the

Jersey City informant is of predominantly ‘Polish extraction. As Labov

(1966,1972) has noted, there are conspicuous differences between the

English vernaculars of different ethnic groups in the New York City area, especially with respect to the raising of /ae /, /er/ and /or/.

4.4.b. The Columbus English variants of /* /, /er/, /or/, /ar/, /a/ and /ay/

Figures 4.24 through 4.35 illustrate the differences between the phonetic realizations of the diaphonemes /*/, /er/, /or/, /ar/, fo/ and /ay/ in the speech of the Columbus informants and the speech of the

Jersey City informant. The Columbus English versions of these dia phonemes were analyzed from the Columbus speakers' readings of the phrases excised from E.J.'s conversation, presented in Appendix D. For lengthened /£/, the Columbus Informants' pronunciations are depicted In

Figure 4.25. It will be observed that in general their versions of /ae/ are lower than E.J.'s versions, centering around their short /3e/ area

(darkened), well within PB /*/. For certain lexical items, however, two of the Columbus speakers show a raising of /d£/. Informant C.B. has a raised variant, higher than or level with the combined Columbus

/£/ region. These raised versions occur before a voiceless continuant

— /s/— In the words classroom-^, and classroom? and before a voiced alveolar stop — /d/— in glad^ and .glad^* This informant's other pronunciations of long /^/, including those in her other productions 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 j _ i_ '300 ,1-----1------1------..,,, j.,. — t----- 1-300

£ a. unity Vf

- 500

qLajL^X Cl d. tS ro crn« J 1 v \ j ' V*4”

r i o o o

Id cLMRWt. 1500

Figure U.2k. Speaker E.J.— Productions A CD \o of long /ae /. Figure U.25. Columbus speakers’ productions v of long /at /. 3000 2000 .j__ L.__ I5OO 3000 2000 300 j------1------L 1_

- 500

!"1000

>rr A a CB olw -1500 1 C6

Figure h.26. Speaker E.J.— Figure U,27- Columbus speakers' Productions of /er/. productions of /er/. 2000 1500 1000 TOO . t i ... t ____ x ._____ j ___ _L. 15,00______1090 , , 7OQ

• XL -300 r300

« ./

i "500 r 500

i.orange fCD> / orange m m # riooo BrJ * Crtw^e (l w ) h 1000

• ca j o LM) A CD i-1500 • .ri500 '■O Figure 1.28. Speaker E.J.— Productions Figure 1.29- Columbus speakers' —i of /or/. productions of /or/. 2000 1500 1000 TOO 1500 1000 TOO i— ■ > ■300

f500

uooo > 1000

4 CD i-1500 '1500 \o Figure U.30. Speaker E.J.— Productions Figure I*. 31. Columbus speakers* CO of /ar/. productions of /ar/. 2000 1500 1000 700 1500 1000 . 700 — ■>— ... ~ - j — . — ---- i _ _» » ■ _i— I____ I____ I_____ L, r-300 * u ^ 00

P500 b o o

ti !

ri rlooo *rlOOO i i I

IT;a ' m m • CB O LwJ A CP pi 500 B. 5 0 0 I vo Figure 1+.32. Speaker E.J.- ■Productions Figure 1*.33. Columbus speakers1 vo of long (of. productions of long /of. 3000 2000 1500

• OB 0 LW A 00 1500 100

Figure 4,34. Speaker E.J.— Figure 4.35* Columbus speakers' Productions of /ay/. productions of /ay/. 101

of classrooin(s), are well within the combined Columbus /X / range.

This is the same Columbus informant who showed one raised pronunciation

for short /X / (in bat) in hermaximally contrasted productions (see

Figure 4.7). Long /S®-/ before a bilabial nasal stop— /m/— in inform

ant L.H.'s pronunciation of family is also raised.

Labov, Yaeger and Steiner, ibid., have reported raisings of

lengthened / ® / for speakers in a number of Northern urban areas

stretching from New York City north to Buffalo, and across the Great

Lakes region to Chicago. From their evidence it seems that the raising

of / * / has thus been spread into parts of the Midwest. Apparently

this sound-change has entered the speech of some Middle Class speakers

in Columbus, Ohio as a phonetic variant. The informant (C.B.) who

exhibits it most was classified according to Warner's ISC criteria as

Lower Middle Class, while the informant who exhibits the raising in

only one word in her reading and the informant who does not exhibit it

at all were both classified as Upper Middle Class (see Section 3.1.b.).

This raising is also manifested in more words containing lengthened

f x f in the readings of subjects C.B. and L.W. for the phrases tran

scribed from the conversation of the Toledo Black-English-speaking

Informant L.W. (See Figure 4.58 and Section 4.4.f., below.)

Figure 4.27 shows the Columbus speakers' versions of the nucleus

of /er/. In the dialect of these Informants there is always a

rhotacized off-glide manifesting /r/. Their phonetic realizations of

the nucleus consistently exhibit a steady state centering between

their /e/ and /I/ ranges and their /£/ areas, solidly with FB area /£/.

Figure 4.29 shows that in the Columbus dialect the nucleus of /or/ 102 which always has a rhotacized off-glide, is generally located behind

the combined /o/ area— that is, it is level with, but retracted from the nucleus of /ow/. Thus, the nucleus of /or/ is generally lower than the Jersey City nucleus in non-rhotacized verions of /or/, but generally higher than the Jersey City nucleus in rhotacized (pre vocalic) productions. Two speakers— D.C. and L.W.— did, however, pro duce a version of the nucleus within the Columbus /□/ area for the lexical item orange, which is virtually the same as the Jersey City informant's monophthongal version of the nucleus— in terms of absolute formant frequencies— in that same word. The Columbus speakers' version of /ar/— which is, again, always produced with an r-colored off-glide— is situated within an area ranging from between Columbus /o/ and fof to in front of Columbus /o/, as depicted in Figure 4.31. The nucleus of

/or/ is produced by the Columbus speakers with lip-rounding, while the nucleus of /ar/ is unrounded. Both are monophthongs.

The Columbus version of lengthened /^/, shown in Figure 4.33,is a monophthong produced within their short /3/ region, and showing no lip- rounding. Figure 4.35 shows the Columbus speakers' version of /ay/, which has a generally lower nucleus than the Jersey City Informant's version of /ay/. This nucleus, which is unrounded, is produced some what above the short /a/ area, in some cases as high as the combined

Columbus /a/ region.

The Columbus speakers' phonetic representations are summarized below with reference to the FB framework, in comparison with the Jersey

City speaker's representations of the same diaphonemes: 103

Columbus Jersey City

Long /» / [at : [i ]MI ] M l : l^E£: ]M *T«-:]

[ua JMvai- )^[DiA-,a]^[r 1a]

/ar/ [a\i [u d t ]^[d,'a ]r^['D1A]

fr! [a^l [da

ati at i /ay/ [a-*i* ]^[a-*£i e ]^[ * ]^[ £ a ] [oi]M p t>^£Tl |s

4.4.c. The phonetic variants of /u/, /e/, /ow/ and /ay/ In West Virginia English

The speech of the dialect informant M.T., a female, Lower Middle

Class resident of Xenia, Ohio (Southwestern Ohio)— who is an immigrant: to that area from Lincoln County, West Virginia, near the Kentucky border— contains pronunciations of the diaphonemes /u/, /£/, /ow/ and

/ay/ that differ from the phonetic realizations of those phonemes in

Colunfcus Middle Class English. The phonetic variants contained in her speech are not unknown to Columbus speakers, since there are many first and second-generation immigrants to Columbus from various parts of West

Virginia. As remarked in Section 3.1. above, West Virginian immigrants are largely confined to the Working Class stratum in Columbus, Ohio, and casual observation indicates that the phonetic variants dealt with here are among those which are strongly associated with that segment of the

Columbus population by Middle Class speakers.

For the dlaphoneme /u/, the Xenia informant has phonetic realiza tions which center around her /i/ area. Figure 4.36 exhibits the acoustic analysis of her versions of /u/ in several productions of the 4

14000 3000 2000 1500 1;000 3000 2000 __ — 1 1500

' 300 0 u yaa,f da,.

.4 $ '500

^ K./UU’yi

' 1000 -1000

Figure I4.36. Speaker M.T.— Productions Figure 1*.37. Speaker M.T.— Productions of /u/. of long /£/. t/OI 105

words do and you, taken from her taped casual conversation (see Appendix

D). The variants of /u/ which she produced in these words are even

more fronted than her fronted, maximally-contrasted short /u/ in boot

(see Figure 4.12). In all cases, there is a visible attenuation of

higher formant intensity, which indicates lip-rounding. It will be

noted from Figure 4.36 that in one production of the word do (do^),

speaker M.T. produced a progressively-rounded glide originating just in

front of the margin of her /I/ area and rising into the envelope sur

rounding her other productions of /u/. This variant was produced with

relatively greater lengthening and stress. One other production of do

(do-Q is level with the top of her /I/ area. Other phonetic realiza

tions of /u/ are between her /I/ and /!/ areas (you?, do?, do?) or

level with her /!/ region (you-^, do^) . In all cases but one, M.T.*s

manifestations of /u/ are within the upper half of PB area /I/. The

exception is contained in her production of you^, which has a vowel

nucleus in the bottom part of PB /i/.

In terms of the symbolic phonetic framework adopted here, the

phonetic realizations of the diaphoneme /u/ may be transcribed as

follows:

[u] you! [v-**- ] do/( [u^] dolt do?, youp [I^u-^t-] do^

The symbol [u] represents a rounded vowel In PB area /!/, while [£]

represents a rounded vowel in PB /if.

For the diaphoneme /£/ occurring before the voiced stop /d/ and nasals, M.T.'s speech contains pronunciations which are sometimes 106

raised relative to the phonetic realizations of the same diaphoneme in

the same phonetic environments in Columbus Middle Class speech.

Figure 4.37 depicts the informant's productions of /£/, while Figures

4.42 and 4.43 compare them with the Columbus speakers' productions of

/£/ in the same words. It has been observed above in Section 4.3.e. that the Xenia informant's phonetic realizations of short, maximally- contrasted /£/ (in bet) are considerably higher than the maximally- contrasted productions of the same vowel in the Columbus Middle Class dialect.

The vowel /£/ is instantiated in its raised variant in M.T.*s pronunciations of length, bed, bedroom, Ed. (abbreviation for education) and one occurrence of the word any (any^). The second-formant location varies from in front of that for the maximally-contrasted vowels /I/ and /£/ to behind that for the informant's maximally—contrasted version of the nucleus of /ey/. In the case of the words length, bed, bedroom and any^, M.T.'s productions of /£ / lie in PB area /I/. The vowel of

Ed. is in the upper rear extreme of PB /£/.

It is often remarked that the diaphonemes /l/ and /£/ are neutral ized phonetically before nasals in favor of flf in Southern Midlands

American English— of which M.T.'s dialect is probably a variant.

Although the raising of /£/ to phonetic /I/ is evidenced in the Xenia informant's speech in several instances, identified above, it is not the case that this speaker categorically produces a raised variant of

/£/ before nasals. In one production of the word any (any,,) and in the words anybody, anything and friend, she produced phonetic variants of

/£/ which are decidedly lower than her versions of maximally-contrasted 107

/£/, squarely located with PB area /£/. Figure 4.37 indicates the lower and higher variants of ft/ with smaller diameter elipses. From the corpus of phrases at hand it is difficult to discern any conditioning factors which account for the variable pronunciations of /£/ in M.T.'s speech. Both variants occur before nasal stops followed by a vowel

(cp. any^ and any?); both are found in monosyllabic words before nasal/ non-nasal obstruent clusters (cp. length and friend); and both were elicited in exactly the same speech situation. It is true that among the few examples cited here, the raised variant of ft/ alone occurs before the voiced alveolar stop /d/, and only the lowered variety appears in the first syllable of trisyllabic words. Without more extensive research, however, remarks about the conditioning of raising or lowering of /£/ would be unsupportable. What is certain, though, is the fact that /*/ is not always merged phonetically with /if before nasals.

The phonetic variants of /£/ in the Xenia informant's speech may be transcribed a s :

[IT:] length, bed, bedroom, any. [£*►:] Ed. [£:] anybody, anything, friend, any,,

M.T.'s speech contains phonetic variants of the diaphoneme /ow/ which are generally quite different from the phonetic realizations of the same phoneme in other dialects of American English. In the corpus of phrases contained in Appendix D of this work, /ow/ is variably manifested as a rounded monophthong or a glide with progressive lip- rounding. These phonetic feature compositions thus parallel those of the Informant's /u/ variants, which are either rounded monophthongs or progressively-rounded glides. Figure 4.38 depicts the productions for 3000 2000 1500 1000 3000 2000 1500 1000 -J ..... L ,

“ 300 M o o © u. u. #

- 500

3 $ © 1

r i o o o t 1*1000

Figure U.3S- Speaker M.T, Productions Figure U, 9. Speaker M.T.--Productions 108 Of /ov/. of /ay/. 109

/u/. The ellptlcal envelope drawn around M.T.'s /ow/ nuclei centers

about her short, maximally-contrasted /ow/ nucleus region. The glide manifestations of /ow/— in toes, know , broke and outgrow— were produced under heavier sentence stress, and were relatively more lengthened than

the monophthongal variants in jjo and hope. The nuclei of the glides

range from the middle of PB /£/— in the case of toes— to the upper rear portion of PB / a / . They are thus level with the top margin of the speaker's / a / region. The glide targets lie in the upper rear area of

PB /£/— in toes; the area between PB /£/ and PB fvf— in know and broke; and to the rear of the upper extreme of PB / a / — in outgrow. The latter variant of the glie-/ow/ was produced under least stress of the glide variants, and was also the shortest of the glides.

The monophthongal variants of /ow/— shorter than any of the glide manifestations— are within PB / £ / — for go— and upper, rear PB / a / — for hope. They are thus near the informant's / £ / and / a / regions, respectively.

The phonetic manifestations of /ow/ in the West Virginia immi grant's speech may be transcribed as follows:

(ofc ] £o [ toe1*-] toes [ aaw ] know, broke t®*"] hope [a -1*-©] outgrow

The symbol [oc ] represents a rounded vowel in PB /£/; [©] represents a rounded vowel in PB / a / ; and [v] represents a rounded vowel in the cen tral area of the PB grid, between PB /i/ and /v/.

The West Virginia immigrant exhibits another feature attributed to the South Midlands dialect, namely the phonetic realization of /ay/ as a monophthong. Figure 4.39 depicts the acoustic analyses of several 110

of the productions of /ay/ contained in the corpus of conversational

phrases. All of these occurrences of /ay/ are monophthongs situated

in an area between the inf ormant' s rather low / a / region and her

/a/-/o/ area. They are thus also between her /aa / and /a/. In terms

of the PB framework, M.T.'s versions of /ay/ range from the rear of

PB / ® / across the lower sector of PB / a / into the front of PB /a/.

These phonetic realizations of /ay/ will thus be labeled as:

[*- :] type, l,t I3 [a-*:] I'mj . ITm2 , I1 , I^, time^ time night, try, guy Ta:] while

where [a-*] is to be Interpreted as representing a low central vowel in

the PB / a / area.

In summary, a few general observations may be made about the

Southern Midlands dialectal variety typified in M.T.'s speech. The

extreme fronting of "back" vowels found in M.T.'s short vowel system--

described above in Section 4.3.c— is a tendency found also among the

more lengthened vowels of her system. The more lengthened and stressed

the vowels /u/ and /ow/ are, the more likely they are to be realized as

glides. Conversely, the shorter and less stressed the phonetic realiza

tions of /u/ and /ow/ are, the more likely they are to be monophthongs.

If these phonemes are realized as glides, the lip-rounding is shifted

to the off-glide, whereas if they are pronounced as monophthongs, the

lip-rounding is present throughout the vowel. It has been noted that

there is a tendency in M.T.'s speech toward a raised phonetic realiza

tion of /£/, although this tendency must be regarded as sporadic until more evidence about its conditioning is obtained. Finally, there is a Ill

clear monophthonglzatlon of /ay/ In this dialect; however, the result

is not a phonetic merger with either /S£ / or /a/. Rather, the monophthongal variant of /ay/ appears to have filled a gap in the vowel

system. It has been remarked above, in Section 4.3.e, that the phonetic realization of /<£ / in M.T.'s system of maximally-contrasting nuclei is raised relative to its Columbus English counterpart. At the same time, her phonetic productions for /a/ are retracted relative to

the Columbus English /a/. Columbus English does not characteristically contain a monophthongal variant for /ay/, which leads one to suspect

9 that the monophthonlgizatlon of /ay/ to a low central vowel, the fronting and raising of /at/, and the retraction of /a/ are connected events in the history of this dialect. Whether the monophthonglzatlon of /ay/ occurred first, creating a "push chain" effecting the dis tancing of /3t/ and /a/ from the new low vowel; or the fronting of

/3® / or retraction of /a/ (or both) occurred first, creating a gap for a monophthongized variant of /ay/ is not immediately determinable from the data at hand. It may well be the case that the apparently sporadic raising of /£/ in this speaker's speech is a further consequence of the raising of /at/— that it is, in fact, a push chain effect viewed in progress.

The extreme consistent fronting of the West Virginia speaker's vowel system, with its alignment of nuclear regions in a crescent shaped configuration suggests a unitary cause of the sort which Trudgill

(1972) discusses in his description of the "articulatory setting" characteristic of Working Class speakers in Norwich, England (pp. 185-

191). The raised position of ?2 for the higher vowels indicates that these vowels are produced with the tongue held in such a position that the frontal resonating cavity of the supra-laryngeal tract is always smaller than the rear resonating cavity; that is, the tongue is held forward in the mouth, in a relatively fixed position with respect to forward and backward movement. It is true that F2 is lower for

[a-t: ], [a] and [ai] (representing /ay/, /a/ and /j/, respectively), but this would not necessarily have to result from a retraction of the tongue body. Rather, the production of a combined high and low F2 requires a narrowing of the pharyngeal cavity. This same effect could be achieved by a lowering of the jaw, which would automatically force the root of the tongue back if no counteractive adjustments of the tongue musculature were made. The idea of articulatory settings, or long-term overall adjustments of the vocal tract musculature is not novel. It has been suggested by Honikman (1964) and Abercrombie (1967).

Cineradiographlc and electromyographic evidence bearing on the physiological articulation of vowel sounds in the dialect of the Xenia informant need to be accumulated and assessed before this hypothesis can be seriously entertained as an explanation of this vowel system.

4.4.d. The acoustic variants of /u/, /£/, /ow/ and /ay/ in Columbus English

The Middle Class female Columbus speakers' versions of the diaphonemes /u/, /£/, /ow/ and /ay/ are analyzed and compared graphi cally with the Xenia speaker's phonetic counterparts in Figures 4.40 through 4.47. Figure 4.41 shows that there is a fronting of /u/ at the phonetic level in the Columbus dialect which resembles the fronting 1+000 3000 2000 1500 3000 2 0 0 0 1500 1 — 1 1__

1300

d o

'500

^v>>rV'V V/ / 1000 113 Figure 1+.1+0. Speaker M.T.— Productions Figure U.l+l, Columbus speakers' of /u/. productions of /u/. 1+000 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 . • ' ...... » L -.

r 300 t I- 300

i [. ■ btJroo^.

■ 500 e

“ 1000 r 1000

H Figure U.U2. Speaker M.T.— Productions Figure U.l+3. Columbus speakers' t r of long /£/. productions of long /£/. 3000 2000 1500 1000

(-300 & a

- 5 0 0

r 1 0 0 0 t i Figure lt.Wt. Speaker M.T.— Productions 1 Figure I+.U5 . Colunibus speakers’ of /ov/. productions of /ov/. O'

-i f* ©

" ' . 4 1 \ 1000 116 Figure 4.46. Speaker M.T.— Productions Figure 4.1*7. Columbus speakers' of /ay/. productions of /ay/. 117

in the West Virginia native's dialect. It will be recalled that the

short, maximally-contrasted versions of /u/ described for the Columbus

speakers in Section 4.3.a. show a fronting which is also similar to

that revealed in the speech of the Xenia informant, but less acute.

The relationship between the pronunciations of /u/ in dc> and you and the maximally-contrasted /u/ produced by the Columbus speakers is parallel to the relationship between these two vowel regions in the

Xenia informant's dialect; that is, the /u/ realizations produced for i the words do and you in the corpus phrases are fronted more than the vowels produced in the maximally-contrasted word boot of the word list.

In general, the Columbus speakers' versions of /u/ in do and you are lower and somewhat less fronted than the Xenia speaker’s versions of

/u/ in the same words, although two of the Columbus speakers did pro duce /u/ variants which fall within the range of M.T.'s /u/ produc tions. These three productions— L.W.'s do^ and do^, and C.D.'s do^— are labeled in Figure 4.41. Generally, the Columbus speakers produced monophthongal variants of /u/, ranging from the upper part of PB I'Ll to the upper rear part of PB /£/, all produced with lip-rounding through out .

The Columbus speakers also produced glide variants of /u/ in several instances (labeled in Figure 4.41). Speaker C.B. pronounced the /u/ in do as a glide in the words do^ and do^, which were in phrase-final position and lengthened. In the case of do^ the nucleus of the glide's steady state portion is located within the Columbus /e/ area, in PB /£/, with an off-glide target close to the Columbus

English /u/ region, at the extreme rear of PB /I/. The steady-state 118

portion of her other glide version of /u/ lies to the rear of the

Columbus /I/ area, In the extreme upper rear portion of PB /€/, with

an off-glide target In the area between PB /I/ and PB /v/. Speaker

L.W.'s one glide production of /u/— in the phrase-final word do^— has

a steady state in the upper rear of PB /£/, at the rear margin of the

Columbus fit region, and an off-glide target in the Columbus /of area,

between PB fit and PB /u/. Speaker C.D.'s glide versions of /u/— in

the phrase-final pronunciation of do^ and pre-vocalic pronunciation of

do-^— have steady states in the Columbus /e/ area, within the upper part

of PB /£/. For phrase-final do^, the off-glide target is in the lower

reaches of PB Ilf t while for the glide of do^, the off-glide target is

in the extreme rear of PB /I/, close to the front margin of Columbus

/u/. In all cases where the phonetic realization of /u/ was a glide

in the Columbus speakers1 readings, there was progressive rounding in transition from the steady state to the off-glide.

Figure 4.43 exhibits the Columbus informants' phonetic realizations of lengthened /£/, which are all lower than the raised variants of /£/ produced by the Xenia informant, and generally lower than her non-raised variants of /£/. Columbus speakers C.B. and L.W. show variants of lengthened /£/ centering about the Columbus short /£/ area, ranging from the bottom fringes of the Columbus /e/ and Ilf areas to the top portion of Columbus /»/. Speaker C.D. has uniformly lower productions of lengthened /£/, centering in the upper reaches of the generalized

Columbus short /at/ area. The Columbus speaker with the highest short

/se/ productions also shows the highest lengthened /£/ variants, while the Columbus speaker whose short /*/ productions are lowest also shows 119

the lowest lengthened /£/'s. The entire group of lengthened /£/ variants produced by the Columbus speakers ranges from the lower PB

/£/ area to the upper portion of PB /* /.

For the diaphoneme /ow/, depicted in Figure 4.45, the Columbus speakers generally produced glides with nuclei ranging from the upper rear of PB /*■/ to the frontal margin of PB /a/, and ranging in height from the upper sections of these areas to their middle regions. The off-glide targets are uniformly higher and more retracted, ranging from the frontal portion of PB /u/ to the frontal section of PB /3/.

In all glide versions of /ow/ in Columbus speech, the lip-rounding appears to be continuously present. The Columbus speakers also uni formly produced monophthongal variants of /ow/ in the word broke, which was relatively shortened and produced under relatively low sentence stress. These rounded monophthongs vary from the rear of the border between PB / * / and /€/ to the upper rear margin of PB / a / and the upper front margin of PB /a/. Informant L.W. also produced a rounded monophthongal variant of /ow/ in her production of hope, which lies within the front margin of PB /W.

Figure 4.47 shows that the Columbus speakers realized the dia phoneme /ay/ in a wide variety of ways. Compare also the productions of /ay/ in Figures 4.35 and 4.60. There is a general tendency for the steady-state nuclei of /ay/ to be located in the front of PB /a/— within the Columbus /a/ and /Of areas— or within the upper part of PB

/A/— at the lower extremes of or below Columbus / a / . The off-glide targets are generally within PB /£/ or PB /I/. There are, however, productions recorded for the Columbus speakers which are exceptions to 120

both these generalities. Speaker C.D. produced two variants of /ay/

with a nucleus quite low in PB f x f and an off-glide target at about

the middle of PB /X /. The same speaker also produced variants of

/ay/ with steady-states in PB / a / and /a/, but off-glides to PB /X /.

Speaker C.B. produced two glide variants of /ay/ which are very short

and aberrant in the direction of formant movement. One glides forward

from the anterior PB /a/ area into the lower part of PB /a/, while the

other rises from lower PB /a/ to upper PB /a/. Both are found before

a nasal stop, in C.B.'s two productions of the word time. The same

speaker produced two shortened, low-stress monophthongal variants of

/ay/, both before the nsasal stop of /m/ in the clitic word I'm. One

lies in the lower PB /* / area; the other, in the upper rear PB / * /

region. Informant L.W. also produced one monophthongal /ay/ variant,

likewise in a clitic I'm, in the front section of PB /a/.

The symbolic representations of the Columbus informants' variants

of /u/, /£/, /ow/ and /ay/ are given here in comparison with the variants of the same diaphones produced the Xenia West Virginia

immigrant:

Columbus Dialect West Virginia Dialect

/u/ [if * ] [u t ] a , [ce-^3 *\> [ *\< [u]Mv*]MiiMl^] l^]

Lengthened /€/ [£T : ]M : ]

/ow/ [v ■* ■v [e*-]^ [<*.*-] [e*-]'v[oe] [oy],u[T>3 ]'u[pToi]'u[©u'],u [A*-v]'u[A1*e]'\*t£ceJ+]

/ay/ [a^Mse^MaeT] [a: ]A.[a-*: J'V-f 3ew :] fa^*s]^ta-'at ] [a** x. I'V’[ax),v.[a6 [a ae ] % [ aeT 3K ] 121

It Is obvious from the foregoing comparison that the dialect

spoken by the immigrant from West Virginia and the dialect spoken by

the Columbus informants have many tendencies in common. This is hardly

surprising, considering the fact that immigrants entered Southern and

Central Ohio in the late 18th and early 19th centuries from West

Virginia and Kentucky. Specifically, the fronting tendency found In both dialects for the short vowel systems is extended to the longer vowels as well, especially to /u/. The monophthongizing tendency affecting /ow/ is present in both dialects, as well as the tendency to front /ow/. The Columbia dialect also shows a tendency towards the monophthonglzatlon of /ay/, especially before nasal stops and in clitic pronouns bearing low stress. In all cases, the tendencies which are shared are more strongly actuated in the West Virginia dialect. It is not possible at the present to say whether the Columbus dialect shows these tendencies to a lesser extent because of the greater influence brought to bear upon its speakers by a Northern regional standard variety, which tends to repress phonological processes which are allowed freer play in the West Virginia variety. Actual evidence re garding the social value attached to the expression of these tendencies by Columbus natives must be collected before such an explanation can be substantiated; however, in the opinion of this writer— who has resided in Columbus, Ohio for about eleven years— this is probably the case.

It is Interesting that the one Columbus informant whose speech exhibits the most fronted and raised variants of /u/ and the most fronted nuclei for /ow/— speaker L.W.— remarked that it was difficult for her to hear a great deal of difference between the Xenia 122

Informant's speech and her own. It Is also worthy of note that she expressed a resentment at being considered Upper Middle Class and a resentment that her mother— from New England— often told her that her speech was "not proper" and "rural sounding." Neither of the other speakers from Columbus, who show the same tendencies affecting /u/ and

/ow/ to a lesser degree, expressed an alienation from Upper Middle

Class status or value judgments. Interestingly, the Lower Middle Class speaker— C.B.— showed the least high variant of /u/ and the least fronted variant of /ow/.

4.4.e. The phonetic variants of /I/, /£/, /3?/, /ay/, and /a / in Toledo Black English

In the Black Lower Middle Class speech of Toledo, Ohio— repre sented by informant L.W.— there is found a set of falling frontal glides manifesting the diaphonemes /l/» /£/ and /ae/, when these occur in lengthening environments. Lengthening of these so-called "checked" or "lax" phonemes occurs before voiced stops, nasals, liquids and voiceless continuants in American English dialects in general.

Exceptional lengthening of the lax vowels appears to be a defining characteristic of Northern Urban Black American English, among other varieties of Black English. This lengthening is particularly evident in words containing lax vowels which receive main sentence stress. In the longest variants, there are two steady-state positions manifested.

In the speech samples excised from the casual conversation of informant L.W., the diaphoneme /I/— when lengthened, and especially when heavily stressed— is realized phonetically as a glide with a steady state located above the speaker's /I/ region, in the upper part 123

of PB /I/ or the lower extremes of PB /i/. This glide falls down and

the back to positions ranging from behind the informant's /I/ area to

below her /£/ and / a / areas. In the lexical items beer, stilly ,

s t i l ^ , in and jLs, contained in the phrases of the corpus (Appendix D),

the raising of the steady-state portion of /I/ is exemplified. These

are depicted graphically in Figure A.48. In the case of the word is,

the glide falls to behind the informant's /1/ area, in PB 111. For

the word beer the off-glide recorded is to a location nearly within her

/e/ area (the nucleus of her productions of /ey/.). In the case of the

word in, the off-glide is to a somewhat lower position, just posterior

to the informant's /£/ region. In both these latter words, the off-

glide target is located in the upper rear portion of PB /£/. For the

Informant's productions of still, the off-glide falls even more, to

below and behind the speaker's /£/ region for stilly and below her

/ a / area for stilly. In these cases, the off-glide target is located

in the upper rear part of PB region /<£ /. Figure 4.36 also shows three

cases in which there is a lowering, rather than raising, of 111. The word things contains a phonetic representation of flf which is located

just above the speaker's /€/ area, low within PB 111. In the word here, the nucleus is located low within PB (If also, but closer to the

Informant's /e/ region. For the word everything, the manifestation of

111 is even lower, on the frontal edge of L.W.'s /e/ area, within the upper back part of PB /£/.

The phonetic representations of lengthened /£/ may thus be assigned

the following symbolic labels: L i 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 J-----1------!------1...... ■ * 1 1

Crujtfi

dead

\ r 1000 j- 1000

^t3—S& I«l Figure U.U8. Speaker L.W.— Figure U.L9 . Speaker L.W.— Productions ^ Productions of long /I/. of long /£/. 125

U T£^1 beer, in [lTae.n-] still [I^asAv.] stilly u Ai*-3 is [IT: ] things [t-n- s] here, everything

The diaphoneme /£/ is also manifested as a glide with a raised steady state in some instances; again, especially in cases where the words bear heavy sentence stress. Figure 4.49 displays the analyses of productions for lengthened ftf in graphic form. The word sald^ shows a glide originating well above the informant's /i/ area— in the lower reaches of PB /i/— which falls to within the speaker's /£/ region, in the extreme upper part of PB ftf. For the word then, the glide originates within the speaker's flf area— in PB /X/— and falls to a position lower in PB /I/, below the informant's ill area. In the word head, a glide was produced which begins just below L.W.'s /I/ area, rises to a position above her /I/ area, and falls back and down to behind and below her flf region. In this case, the entire glide movement appears to be located within PB flf. The word men^ and an other production of said (labeled said^) show glides beginning at the top margin of L.W.'s flf area— in the extreme lower part of PB flf— and falling to positions at the bottom of and just below her f£f area, respectively, within PB /£/. There are also cases of lengthened ftf in the corpus of phrases which exhibit a raising of the vowel with no discernible off-glide. The word men,, contains a vowel located in the lower part of PB flf. The word there has a vowel located at the rear of L.W.'s flf area— in PB flf— while the word Gwen^ shows a version of ftf that is between the informant's flf and ftf areas, also within 126

PB /£/. Not all instances of lengthened /£/ are, however, either

extremely raised or glided. The vowels of mentioned and bed, for example, are located at the upper margin of the informant's /£/ area,

Just within the lower reaches of PB /I/. The words Gwen^ and dead contain phonetic representations of long /£/ that aresituated anterior to L.W.'s /£/ area, also within the extreme lower part of

PB /I/.

The informant's productions of long /£/ may be summarized symbol ically as:

said„ [iT i] men^ [Ii^] then [ I L P i M head fl:] there, Gwen2 [It ;] bed, Qwen^, dead, mentioned

[IT£] men, " said^

The Toledo Black English informant's phonetic versions of lengthened / ® / are also sometimes produced as glides under heavy sentence stress. Figure 4.50 shows such glides— rising glides in the case of long /ae/— in the words, hands and passed. In both cases, the glide originates below the speaker's /£/ area, in the lower part of

PB /£/. In the words hands, the glide is raised to the upper part of the informant's /£/ area, within the top of PB /£/. In the instance of passed, the off-glide target lies above L.W.'s /e/ region, on the border between PB /I/ and PB /£/. There are, as in the case of lengthened /I/ and /£/, also productions of long /ae / which are monophthongal and raised. The word had contains a long monophthong produced above the speaker's /£/ area, in the lower part of PB /I/.

The word man contains a vowel at the front of her /&/ region, in I

3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 1000 * - i__ ___t_ 1 ' -...... i- 1

u -300 F300

I • X#

f-500 0

X \ bett rlOOQ 7 2 1

Figure 1+.50. Speaker L.W,— Productions Figure L . 5 1 . Speaker L.W.— Productions of of long / 3C / . /ay/. 120

PB /£/. For the word pants, the vowel is located between L.W.'s /£/

and /"3C / areas, at the bottom of PB /£/.

The speaker's productions of lengthened / may thus be depicted

symbolically as:

[IT:] had [t£Ai-] passed [t:] man [£T£i] hands [tT :] pants

Like the West Virginia speaker, the Black English dialect inform

ant generally produces variants of /ay/ which a monophthongal. In

Figure A.51, only one variant which is a rising, fronting diphthong is recorded from the corpus phrases (although all instances of /ay/ are not represented). This diphthongal variant has a steady state in

PB / a / and an off-glide target in PB /»/. The monophthongal variants of /ay/ in L.W.'s speech range from her /afc/ area— in PB / * / — through the PB / a / region to the frontal part of PB /a/. The word besides con tains a fronted low vowel located on the rear periphery of the inform ant's /* / region, whereas two productions of the word 1 (1^ and I3) show low vowels nearly within the speaker's /a/ area. Thus, the Black

English speaker's dialect is unlike the other dialect discussed here which monophthongizes /ay/ in the respect that in the Black dialect the phoneme /ay/ is sometimes phonetically merged with /a/ and some times with /* /. Short /at / is raised somewhat, but not nearly to the extent that it is in the West Virginia dialect. Long /se/, on the other hand, as has been demonstrated above, is considerably raised, and even produced as a falling glide, which, of course, distinguishes it clearly from the monophthongal variant of /ay/. The /a/ of the Black dialect is not retracted at all to distance it from monophthongal /ay/, as in the West Virginia variety. It may be that this variety is in

the earlier stages of a "chain shift" which has run its course in the

West Virginia dialect, or it may be the case that a length distinction

separates monophthongal /ay/ and /a/ in this dialect. Further study

is necessary to confirm or disconfirm this latter possibility.

The Toledo Black English variants of /ay/ may be transcribed as:

[~~:] besides [a :] otherwise, style U-*:] Ii, I 3~~

~~The diaphoneme /A/, when produced in its lengthened form in the~~

~~Black English dialect, is generally raised, like the speaker's short, maximally-contrasted /a/, but shows a generally greater degree of retraction. These variants range from a vowel in the upper rear~~

PB /S®-/ area— in the words stub and sun in Figure 4.52— to the uppermost part of PB /a/— in the case of love, and bug of Figure 4.52 to the frontal section of PB fxsf— for loveg and son. One very lengthened pro duction of /a/— in the word uj>— has an extremely raised and retracted variant, lying to the rear of PB /u/. In all cases, the variants of lengthened /a/ are unrounded.

~~These variants may be transcribed as:~~

~~f sun, stub [ a *-:] love1 , bug 2000 1500 1000 TOO~~

~~...J ------L—~~

~~U. Q ■ 300~~

V V J L p *

~~SC-r r 500~~

~~0 3~~

~~1000 0 3 1~~

~~Figure U.52. Speaker L.W.— Productions of long /A/. 131~~

~~4.4.f. The phonetic variants of /I/, ftf t /# /, /ay/ and /a/ in Columbus English~~

~~Figures 4.53 through 4.62 compare the variants produced for the~~

~~diaphonemes /I/, /£/, /»/, /ay/ and /a/ with the phonetic variants~~

~~of the same phonemes in Toledo Black English. Figure 4.54 shows that~~

~~the Middle Class White Columbus speakers have much lower versions of~~

~~/I/ than the Black speaker, generally centered between the Columbus~~

~~/e/-/l/ level and the level of Columbus ftf. All three Columbus~~

~~informants produced some variants of flf in their /e/ and flf ranges~~

~~and other variants squarely within their ftf ranges. Their productions~~

~~thus vary from the lower part of PB flf through PB ftf to the upper~~

~~section of PB /as/. One speaker— C.D.— produced variants of flf before nasals which are very low— within the general Columbus /32/ region.~~

Two of the Columbus speaker's— C.D. and L.W.— produced falling glides similar in kind to those produced by the Black speaker for flf; how ever, these glides have a steady-state portion which is clearly lower than the steady-state portions of the glides produced by the Black speaker, located in the lower extremes of PB flf and upper part of

PB /£/. Columbus speaker L.W.'s two glide productions for flf have off-glide targets in the upper part of PB /ffi/, while speaker C.B.'s glide variant has an off-glide target in the upper rear portion of

~~PB /£/. These glide variants are labeled in Figure 4.54. All were produced in the most lengthened manifestations of /!/.~~

Figure 4.56 illustrates the fact that the variants of ftf pro duced by the Columbus speakers are considerably lower than the Black speaker's flf variants. They range from the upper extremes of PB ftf 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 — .... _ i ___ >o i__ j . _ i

~~1 300 r300~~

~~e V - 500~~

~~ff-~~

~~1000 1-1000~~

~~o tw i ;>■■■’ i r ' k ct~~

~~Figure U.53- Speaker L.W.— Productions Figure Columbus speakers' Z~~

~~L 3 0 0 F300~~

~~h 500 ^ 0 0~~

~~/'• •: A a~~

LlOOO a Klooo 0 uw . 133 Figure 1+-55- Speaker L.W.— Productions Figure U.56. Columbus speakers' of long /£/. productions of long /£/. 30C0 2000 1500 L000 3000 2000 1500 - ‘ - • - i .... - - 1 ' — , -I --___ »______

~~i-300 i.300~~

~~3 £ 3 > ^ ■500~~

~~i ' } ' 11 11 f,; ; J 1 I '1~~

~~\ s |\ pttf'tl~~

~~-1000 I 1000~~

~~H Figure ^.57* Speaker L.W.— Productions Figure *+.58. Columbus speakers' re of long /* /. productions of long /2/. 3000 2000 1500 1000 3000 2000 1500 1000 i____ 1_ 1. ___~~

~~■ 300~~

~~.300~~

~~I ©~~

~~r500~~

~~^ / /x r / K v ■500 ft.~~

~~H'- \ r~~

~~V -1000 * Ur, sty it O'twcruMse.■ N © :>~~

~~besitlfi ■1000 < & • ce~~

~~6 LW 135 L CD Figure 4.59- Speaker L.W.— Figure L.60. Columbus speakers' Productions of /ay/. productions of /ay/. 2000 150C 1000 TOO 3000 1500 1000 TOO -1------1------I___ I___ I____~~

~~u 0 -300 -300~~

~~ii. r~~

~~\ *500 ‘ i-500~~

~~;h Js*" ■ j ^1000 LlOOO~~

~~r l • CP O UWJ A CO Figure i+.6l. Speaker L.W.— Productions f- Figure h.62. Columbus speakers’ uo of long /a /. productions of long /A/. a\ 137~~

~~down to the higher portion of PB I si I. A H three Columbus speakers~~

~~also produced glide variants of /£/ in those words which they length~~

~~ened most, which are labeled in Figure 4.56. Speaker C.B. produced~~

~~falling glides for lengthened /£/ which resemble the falling glides~~

~~produced by the Black speaker, but which have considerably lower~~

~~steady states and off-glide targets. These glides fall from the upper~~

~~PB /£/ area to the lower extremity of the same /£/ area. Speaker~~

L.W.’s falling glide variants of lengthened /£/ fall from the lower part of PB /£ / into the PB / # / area. Speaker C.D.'s falling glide ver sion of long ft! is confined to the PB / * / region. Speakers L.W. and

C.D. also produced rising glide variants of lengthened /£/. L.W.'s version glides from the front of upper PB / * / to the rear of that region, rising only slightly. C.D.'s version (in the same word— head) rises from the upper part of PB /ae / to the PB /®/-PB /£■/ border.

~~Speaker C.B. produced an in-gliding variant for long /£/ in the word said, which moves from the central upper part of PB /* / to the rear of~~

~~PB /*/. These inglidlng versions of /£/ are also labeled in Figure~~

~~4.56. i~~

~~Figure 4.58 depicts the Columbus speaker's versions of lengthened~~

/ac/t which were produced variably as monophthongs or in-glides. Two of the speakers— C.B. and L.W.— produced raised monophthongal variants of long / * / and falling glides representing long / * / which have raised steady states. All of speaker C.B.'s variants of long /ae / are raised, and the majority of them glided. As was mentioned above in

Sections 4.3.a. and 4.4.b., this is the Columbus informant who pro duced the highest variants of short, maximally-contrasted /«£/. C.B.'s one monophthongal production of long /X / lies in the lower

~~extreme of PB /£/, while her glided variants have steady-state por~~

~~tions varying from the border between PB /3®/ and PB /£/ to the upper~~

~~PB /£/ area. The off-glide targets vary from the upper rear portion~~

~~of PB /£/ to the upper rear of the PB /$ / area. Speaker L.W.'s~~

~~raised monophthongal variant is located in PB /£/. Her falling glide~~

~~versions have steady-state portions located in the upper, mid and lower~~

~~parts of PB /£/, and off-glides to the rear of PB /£/ and the upper~~

~~rear of PB /*/, respectively. This speaker also produced lower~~

~~monophthongal variants of long /ae/f squarely located in PB /*/, and~~

~~one slightly rising, centering glide variant with a steady state in~~

~~PB / * / and off-glide target in PB /£/. Speaker C.D.'s versions of~~

~~long / x / are generally lower, and mostly monophthongs ranging from the~~

~~upper part of PB /0*- / to the middle of PB /3t/. She did, however,~~

~~produce two falling glides for long /3S /, but both have formant~~

~~trajectories confined wholly to the area of PB /*/, moving from the upper front portion of that region to the mid central part.~~

Figure 4.60 shows the variants of /ay/ produced by the Columbus informants in their readings of the phrases contained in the corpus collected from the Black English speaker's conversation. As was noted in Section 4.4.d, with respect to their productions of /ay/ for the corpus phrases taken from the Xenia informant's conversation, the range of both steady-state and off-glide portions of /ay/ is very large.

~~The phonetic descriptions of the variants of /ay/ produced by the~~

~~Columbus informants which was given in that Section generally holds true for these versions of /ay/, although no monophthongal variants 139~~

~~or variants of /ay/ with fronted steady states were recorded for this~~

~~corpus of phrases.~~

~~Figure 4.62 shows the variants of lengthened /a/ produced by the~~

~~Columbus informants, which are generally lower and more retracted than~~

~~the corresponding realizations of /A/ in the Black English dialect~~

~~(with the exception of the item up). Most of these / a / variants were~~

~~also produced behind the short, maximally-contrasted / a / region of the~~

~~Columbus speakers. They lie generally within PB / a / — ranging from the~~

~~center to the top of that area— or on the border between PB / a / and~~

~~PB /a/. The two exceptions are a fronted variant produced by speaker~~

~~L.W. in the word stub, which lies in the upper rear of PB /<£/, and a~~

~~retracted variant produced by the same speaker in the word u£, which~~

~~lies within PB /a/. The word stub was produced by the other two~~

~~Columbus speakers with the highest F2 value as well, although it was less exaggerated. Also, one of the other Columbus informants produced her lowest F2 for / a / in up.~~

~~The Columbus speakers pronunciations of the diaphonemes /I/, /£/,~~

~~/*/, /ay/ and /a / are summarized below in symbolic form in comparison with the variants of the same diaphonemes produced by the Toledo Black~~

~~English speaker. lkO~~

~~Columbus Dialect Toledo Black Dialect~~

~~long /I/ [I t : IMt-*-; 1M & : JM : ] [1T : l^te-Vk*: ] [Iae^ JM I & M [iT£*n]Mi'r*rt ^ JM M l A a~~

~~long /e/ [€A : ]^[t tl'V'f ] [1t i ]MI:]M it s 1 [iT£A l^tlI t ]^[ItP rM M l T£ 1 ]^[ae^T ] " A ^ A~~

~~long / x / [t: ]^[fcT:]^[se* :I'v-tae :] [IT : ]^[e : ]M e T : ] [£■*£*• ] Me *•**■]'''[ f'aeit-l'v. [6§ * H M £ T£-i 1 [£*► i^tWAHaf] [*"a ]~~

~~/ay/ [a-*i ]'\'[a-,£]'^[Al]'^[A£]'V>[A» [ae»- :]MA:]Ma-*:l^Ea.;] * T # ] [a %±] long /a / [%*••: ]M a -* :] M a :]M a t :]a, [**>■: ] M a -*-: ]'v-[ir*: J^ E v : ] [a ** : ]M a A*:]Ma]~~

It la evident that the White Middle Class Columbus dialect shares some tendencies with this Black English dialect, just as It does with the West Virginia dialect and the Jersey City dialect. The tendency to produce lengthened "lax" or "checked" vowels— e.g., /I/ and /£/— as falling inglides Is observable In both dialects, although more preva lent In the Black dialect, where it is coupled with another tendency towards raising the long lax front vowels. Long /at/ is susceptible to raising and Inglldlng in both dialects, although In the case of this vowel, the tendency Is to form an upgllde.

~~4.4.g. Summary of observations regarding cross-dialectal variation of the target segments~~

~~It has been observed at several points above that there appear to be general tendencies in the phonetic realization of certain vowel phonemes which are shared with the three "target" dialects by the~~

Columbus dialect to lesser degrees. With the Jersey City dialect it shares the tendency to raise lengthened /se/ and produce it as a falling inglide. On the other hand, it shares another tendency affect ing lengthened fse / with the Black dialect, namely that of producing it as a rising inglide, rather than a falling inglide. With both the

West Virginia dialect and the Black English dialect there is a shared tendency to produce long, lax /i/ and /£ / as falling inglides. And with the West Virginia dialect, the Columbus Middle Class White dialect also shares a tendency toward the fronting of /u/, and the mono- phthonigization of /ow/ and /ay/. Ik2

~~NOTES~~

^One attempted technique was to lower the tape speed used in the analysis by a factor of two, thus lowering the frequency of the for mant harmonics to half their actual value. This was done by copying the utterances to be analyzed at 15 ips and playing them back for analysis at 7.5 ips. It was hoped that this would make the formants more amenable to spectrographic analysis by lowering them into a male-like frequency range which the Voiceprint 700 is better designed to handle. Unfortunately this manipulation produced inaccurate results in many cases. For one thing, this method usually lowered the first formant for the vowels [a], [3] and [u] so much that it was com pletely frbottomed out.” This, in addition to the overlapping of the second formant into the top of the first formant, made the location of the first formant frequency extremely difficult. Another diffi culty was that the lowering of the fundamental frequency by a factor of two spread the formant bands over widely-separated voicing stlrations, which had the visual effect of making the edges of the formants quite "fuzzy." This often made the identification of the precise edge of a formant a matter of guesswork, which was especially annoying in cases where the first two formants overlapped and the center had to be estimated by measuring up from the bottom or down from the top of a formant. Generally, the resulting measurements proved to be objectionably inaccurate due to the fact that all fre quency measurements had to be multiplied by a factor of two to com pensate for the tape-speed/frequency manipulation. This also meant, of course, that all measurement errors were multiplied by a factor of two. Thus, a measurement error of 50-100 Hz. caused by this resolution problem resulted in a final error of 100-200 Hz.! 2 Fortunately, one of the speakers— informant L.W.— had a voice with a low-enough fundamental frequency that it was possible to make conventional displays for her in which the formants are discernible. Thus, a comparison of displays was possible. -a Actually, the average combined length of the oral and pharyngeal cavities is 16.5 cm., but with the addition of an "end- correction factor" to compensate for glottal opening (which Fant has determined to be 1 cm.) the usual figure cited in the literature— 17.5 cm.— is derived.

~~^1 wish to express my appreciation to Dr. B j B m Linblom, Stockholm University, for supplying me with a copy of Fant's paper, cited here.~~

^It should be borne in mind that the formant frequency data of Peterson and Barney (ibid.) for "General American English" are open to criticism, as Nordstrom and Llndblom (ibid., p. 4) point out. The speakers they used were from different regions of the U.S., and even some non-native speakers were used. Thus, little control was exercised for homogeneity of the data base. lit 3

^"Glides" are here distinguished from "diphthongs” according to the definitions developed in Lehiste and Peterson 1961. "Glides" are defined as long syllabic nuclei with one steady state and a long glide to or from this steady state which originates or terminates in the region of another target. "Diphthongs" are defined as syllabic nuclei with two distinct steady states. CHAPTER V

~~ACOUSTIC ANALYSES OF CROSS-DIALECT IMITATIONS~~

~~5.0. The vowel targets~~

~~Before embarking on the description of the results obtained from~~

~~the Columbus test subjects in the experimental task described above in~~

~~Section 3.2.6., it is necessary that a few prefatory remarks be made~~

~~regarding the acoustic targets presented in the imitation task, and~~

~~the acoustic representations manifesting the test subjects' native vowel systems. In the foregoing chapter, the acoustic targets selected~~

~~for presentation in phrases extracted from conversation have been~~

described as collections of Individual formant structures representing diaphonemlc elements in different ways in different dialects. These collections of acoustic realizations might also be thought of as target ranges within which particular diaphonemlcs are realized in the speech of the informants. Needless to say, the ranges covered by the acoustic representations sampled In this study are Incomplete. A systematic sampling of formant structures representing each diaphoneme in every conceivable phonetic context would have to be made in order to describe the entire vowel system of a particular individual. But even this would be an ephemeral description, since the acoustic ranges used by particular individuals doubtless vary from utterance to utterance, and definitely vary with age (Fant 1966, Ladefoged and

~~Broadbent 1956). These facts suggest that the acoustic representations lUU 11*5 produced by an Individual should be considered as falling within some~~

~~what vaguely-defined target regions. For a collection of individuals~~

~~speaking the same dialect, these broad target ranges from particular~~

~~diaphonemes should be roughly congruent. This has been shown to be~~

~~true for the Columbus informants (Sections 4.3 and 4.4), except in~~

~~the case of long (ae:), where it appears likely that a raising~~

~~process has been integrated into the language of some, but not all,~~

~~Columbus natives.~~

~~For some of the dialect informants it would seem (from the small~~

~~sample of vowels) that there are sub-ranges from particular dia~~

~~phonemes. For example, there seem to be three fairly distinct steady-~~

~~state target ranges for long (ae:) in the speech of the Jersey City~~

~~informant, E.J.— higher, mid and lower ranges, which can be labeled~~

~~/ge :/l, f^-ilII and /a^r/III, respectively. She also seems to have~~

~~two areas for the nucleus of /er/— one higher (like /3£:/l), the other~~

~~mid (like / 3^:/II)— which can labeled /er/ I and /er/ II. The same~~

~~speaker has two /or/-nucleus ranges— again higher and lower— which can~~

~~be designated as /or/i and /or/II; and two ranges for /ar/, as well— a~~

~~higher /ar/l and lower /ar/ll. In addition it seems that she may have~~

~~two nucleus ranges for /ay/— higher /ay/l and lower /ay/I. It is also~~

~~possible that two further subranges should be distinguished among her~~

~~productions of /ae:/III— Upper /atr/lll and Lower /3e:/lII.~~

Speaker L.W., from Toledo, Ohio, also has acoustic ranges which may be subdivided. Her phonetic realizations of long /i/ fall into an upper range— /l:/l— and a lower range— /l:/2. Likewise, her phonetic

~~realiz atlons of long /£/ and long /ae/ fall into two subranges each. ^000 ( 3000' ^ 2000 1500 1000 TOO~~

~~L 1500 9Tt Figure 5*1• Acoustic target areas. Higher long /£/— /£:/1— overlaps with the range /1;/1, while lower~~

~~long /£/— /£ :/2— nearly overlaps with /1:/2. Higher long /ae. /—~~

~~/3e :/l— overlaps with /X;/2 and /£:/2 , and lower than these nucleus~~

~~areas is /ae :/2.~~

~~As targets for the imitation task, the acoustic variants to be~~

~~mimicked can be viewed as objective areas without regard to diaphonemlc~~

~~classification. These target areas can be grouped into seven major~~

~~regions, designated in Figure 5.1 as A through H. The target areas~~

~~themselves are labeled in Figure 5.1 with reference to the diaphonemlc~~

~~categories which they represent in the speech of the dialect informants~~

~~however, when considering these target areas in objective acoustic~~

~~terms, these labels serve only as mnemonic devices, with no phonetic~~

~~significance. The targets are shaded to remind the reader which~~

~~informant's speech they are taken from: white areas representing E.J.’s~~

~~vowel nuclei; grey areas, M.T.'s nuclei; and black areas, L.W.’s~~

~~nuclei.~~

~~Region A contains target ranges which lie entirely above the~~

~~Columbus speakers' ranges, except for their /i/ ranges. These targets~~

~~are also posterior to the Columbus speakers* /!/ ranges (at least for~~

~~the relatively small groups of phonetic variants sampled). This~~

~~region includes the higher variant range for /I:/ found in The Black~~

~~English dialect— labeled (1:1)— ; the virtually identical higher vari~~

ant of /£:/ found in the same dialect— labeled (£:1)— ; the higher variant of /er/ found in the Jersey City dialect— (er I)— ; the higher variants of /JB;/ found in this dialect— (3&:I) — ; and the variants of

~~(u) found in the West Virginia dialect. These targets have nuclei lU8~~

~~which are essentially the same in terms of the locations of the first~~

~~and second formants; however, they differ somewhat with regard to other~~

~~phonetic features. (1:1) and (fc:l) have steep, falling off-glides~~

~~directed toward or into PB /£/ in most cases. Four exceptions for~~

~~(£:1) are the vowels of the Black English speaker’s productions for~~

~~Gwen^ and mer^i an(* there, which are monophthongs in region A; and her~~

~~vowel in head, which is a rising-falling glide within A (see Figure~~

~~4.49). Target (er I) has a less steep off-glide in the Jersey City~~

~~informant's speech, directed toward the very back of PB /£/. One of~~

~~the same Informant's productions of (ae :I) is also a glide, directed~~

~~toward the same PB area. The other version of (3t:I) is a monophthong.~~

~~The target (u) is different in that it is rounded, with an attenuaton~~

~~of F2 and a lowering of F3. The targets in Region A and other regions~~

~~which have off-glides are identified with arrows Indicating the direc~~

~~tion in which the off-glides are directed.~~

~~Region B contains targets which are within the great overlapping~~

~~ranges of variants exhibited by the Columbus speakers for the~~

~~diaphonemes /I/, /I:/, /ey/, /er/, /£/, /£:/ and (higher ) /» : / (see~~

~~Figures 5.2, 53 and 5.4). The area of the West Virginia speaker's~~

~~/£:/ variants— labeled (£:3)— covers the entire B region. The Black~~

~~speaker's lower variant ranges for /I:/ and /£:/ and higher variant~~

~~range for i& :/— labeled (1:2), (£:2) and ( ® : 1), respectively— are within the top of Region B. The Jersey City informant's highest mid~~

~~variant for /3£ :/— in target area (at:II) is also in the upper part of~~

~~B. The Jersey City speaker's lower versions of (at:II) and the Black~~

speaker's lower /SC;/ variants— identified as (9£:2)— are in the lower lU9 part of Region B. Again, as in the case of the targets of Region A, there are phonetic details which differentiate some of the targets.

Targets (er II) and (*:II) generally have centering off-glides, although this is not true for the upper and lower variants of (ae:II), which are monophthongal. Target (£:2) also generally has a steeper off-glide (although some instances are monophthongs). Target ( £ :2) mainly consists of nuclei with rising glides, and one higher mono phthong. For the most part, the nuclei in Region B are monophthongal targets.

Region C contains the lower variants of / £ :/— target (®:III) — which are found in the Jersey City speaker's dialect. One is in the lower Columbus /^e:/ area and the second is considerably below the range of /£:/ variants found in the Columbus dialect.

~~Region D contains the lengthened /a/ variants of the Black~~

~~English speaker— target (A:)— which are generally higher than the~~

Columbus speaker's /A/ productions, and partially overlapped with their Aj/-variant regions. This region also contains the majority of the nuclei of the West Virginia speaker's /ow/ productions. It will be noted in Figure 5.1 that some of her /ow/ nuclei also lie within

~~Region B, to the front. One nucleus of the fronting, rising glide /ay/ of the Jersey City speaker's dialect also lies in Region D. These targets are labeled (ow) and (ay I).~~

~~Region E contains the monophthongal versions of /ay/ produced by the West Virginia and Black speakers and the nucleus of the Jersey~~

~~City speaker's lower variant of /ay/— labeled (ay 1), (ay 2) and~~

~~(ay II), respectively. 150~~

~~Region F contains the nuclei of the Jersey City speaker’s higher~~

~~variants of /or/— labeled (or I). In Region G are her higher nuclei~~

~~for /ar/— labeled (ar I). Region H contains her nuclei for /o:/—~~

~~labeled (o:)--and the nuclei of her lower variants of /or/ and /ar/—~~

~~labeled (or II) and (ar II), respectively. As the arrows in Figure~~

~~5.1 indicate, all the variants of targets (or I), (or II), (ar I) and~~

~~(ar II) have falling in-glides, as do two of the variants of (o:). One~~

~~variant of (o:) has a rising - falling glide.~~

~~Figures 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 show the total sampled vowel systems of~~

~~the Columbus test subjects, superimposed on the grid of target regions~~

~~devised for Figure 5.1. These figures represent compilations of the~~

~~ranges described in Section 4.3 for the maximally-contrasted, shorter~~

diaphonemlc variants of the Columbus speakers, and the ranges of variants corresponding to the dialect informants' target ranges, which were described in Section 4.4. It will be noted that the only variants

~~exhibited by the Columbus speakers which lie within Region A are those~~

for the diaphoneme /if. The sampling of lexical items containing /i/ was extremely small, and more extensive sampling for /!/ variants would no doubt expand the /if ranges to cover more of Region A. Region

~~B, in which most of the acoustic targets are located, contains wholly the variant ranges exhibited by the Columbus speakers for the diaphonemes /I/, /ey/ and /er/. It also contains their ranges for~~

~~/u/, and for one speaker— L.W.— the variants of /v/ are included in t*iis region as well.~~

~~Region B also contains variants of the lengthened diaphonemes~~

~~/I:/, and /£:/ for all the Columbus speakers, and portions of the 151~~

~~variant ranges of lengthened / X-i/ for two of the subjects— C.B. and~~

~~L.W.~~

~~Region C contains lower variants of /£:/ for all the Columbus~~

~~speakers, as well as the lower variants of /*:/ for speakers C.B.~~

~~and L.W. Speaker C.D.'s /*£:/ variants are wholly contained in~~

~~Region C. The variants of shorter / & j are also contained in this~~

~~region, while the variants of shorter /£/ for all three speakers~~

~~straddle the border between Regions B and C. For one speaker— C.D.— there are even lowered variants of lengthened /I:/ in Region C.~~

For the sake of greater clarity, the ranges containing variants of /e/— in /ey/ and /er/— and variants of /£/ and lengthened /£:/ have been shaded in Figures 5.2-5.4. It is obvious that the speakers of this dialect show enormous overlap for the acoustic ranges of

~~/I:/, /£:/ and /<£:/, as well as /i/, /£/ and the nuclei of the glides~~

/ey/ and /er/. Short /I/ and /£/ are clearly distinguished from one another by height (i.e., the height of FI), and /ey/ and /er/ have off-glides of differing qualities to distinguish them. It is not at all clear, however, that it is possible for Columbus speakers to distin guish many longer variants of /I:/, /£:/ and /ae.:/. This apparent acoustic jumble may be disambiguated by relative third-formant posi tion; however, cursory investigations by the writer have not produced any evidence that characteristic F3 differences exist between the overlapping variants of /I:/, /t:/ and /ee :/. It was observed above in Section 4 that the Columbus speakers exhibit tendencies toward the production of off-glides for lengthened /I:/, /£:/ and /3£:/, which may somehow serve as acoustic cues for the disambiguation of these 3000 2000 1500 1000 500

~~-300~~

-500 / & r*

~~hi 000 *i r i~~

~~Figure 5*2. Columbus speaker C.B.— a 5 oo Total range of phonetic variants. 3 0 0 0 2000 1500 1000 500 . i~~

~~. 300~~

~~( t~~

~~500~~

~~>-1000 153 Figure 5*3. Columbus speaker L.W.. -1500 Total range of phonetic variants. 3000 2000 1500 1000 . ... I . t~~

~~' i-~~

~~!• 1000~~

Figure 5.^. Columbus speaker C.D. Total range of phonetic variants. 155 nuclei. However, in light of the fact that falling off-glides are produced for all three diaphonemes, this seems unlikely (see Figures

~~4.25, 4.54, 4.56, and 4.58).~~

In comparing the targets of Figure 5.1 and the total acoustic variant ranges of the Columbus speakers, it is apparent that there is even greater variation in the acoustic realization of the lengthened diaphonemes /I:/, /£:/ and /fie :/ which confronts a speaker when cross- dialectal communication occurs. It has already been demonstrated above in Figure 4.7— which shows the complete range of variation for the shorter diaphonemes among the four dialects considered here— that this situation also obtains for the shorter vowels— particularly, again, /I/, /£/ and /*/. The ramifications of this enormous overlap at the acoustic phonetic level will be considered with respect to speech perception theory in Chapter 6.

~~Returning to Figures 5.2-5.4, the reader will observe that Region~~

~~D contains the nuclei of shorter /ow/ for all Columbus speakers, and the nuclei of shorter /A/ for one speaker— C.B. Two of the subjects have~~

~~/u/ variants located within this area as well. The nuclei for longer~~

/ow/ have been omitted from Figures 5.2-5.4 because of their wide degree of scatter, but they are generally located in Region E, with a few Instances of the (mostly monophthongal) variants in Region D (see

~~Figure 4 .45).~~

~~Region E contains the nucleus of /ar/ and the variants of /a/,~~

~~/o/, /o:/ and /a :/ produced by the Columbus speakers. The variants of~~

~~/a / produced by L.W. and C.D. are also in this region, as are most of 156~~

~~the nuclei for /ay/— especially the monophthongal variants (see~~

~~Figures 4.35, 4.47 and 4.60),~~

~~Region F contains only a few occurrences of /or/ produced by the~~

~~Columbus speakers. Region G also contains a few variants of the~~

~~Columbus /or/ nucleus. Region H contains the bulk of the Columbus~~

~~/or/ nuclei, a few variants of the nucleus of /ar/ produced by C.D.~~

~~and a few cases of /3:/ for all three speakers.~~

~~It will have become apparent during the foregoing discussion of~~

~~the targets and the distribution of Columbus English variants within~~

~~the major target regions that the test subjects involved in the cross~~

~~dialect imitation task were confronted with a wide variety of acoustic~~

~~nuclear areas which differ as targets with respect to both the degree~~

~~of acoustic familiarity and categorizational difficulty which they~~

~~present. These acoustic targets may be viewed in two ways: as objec~~

~~tive F1/F2 target regions without reference to their diaphonemlc~~

~~categorization, and as targets which had to be identified with some~~

~~diaphonemlc category by the test subject.~~

~~5.1. Phonetic categorization of vowel targets~~

~~In terms of objective acoustic parameters alone (i.e., FI and F2~~

~~coordinates) the acoustic targets can be classed into three broad~~

categories: (a) those targets which are completely unlike any phonetic variants found in the speech of the Columbus subjects; (b) targets which are within the range of phonetic variants produced by the

~~Columbus speakers; and (c) those targets which differ only slightly~~

~~from phonetic variants found in the speech sample taken from the test~~

~~subjects. 157~~

The targets (1:1), (fc:l), (er I) and (ae :I) of Region A and the targets (or I) and (ar I) of Regions F and G, respectively, fall within category (a). (1:1), (£:1), (er I) and (3£:I) are like one another, in that they show a lower FI and lower F2 than any Columbus vowels. Their

F2 is lower than that for the /i/ sample and their F2 is lower than that for the /I/ sample. In terms of the acoustic diagram, they are all higher than Columbus /I/ and retracted from Columbus /i/. As was mentioned above, a larger sample of /!/ variants from the Columbus speakers might (very possibly) reveal some overlap with /i/. At any rate, these targets are higher (with lower FI) than the Columbus

~~/I/ or /I:/, but have the same degree of peripherality (i.e., the same F2 range) as Columbus /i/ and /I:/. The lower instance of target~~

(32:111), in Region C, is also different from any Columbus vowel sampled, with a higher FI than Columbus / variants. Target (or 1) of Region F has a lower F2 and lower FI than any Columbus vowel, and is thus situated above and to the rear of the Columbus /or/ nucleus.

Target (ar I) of Region G has a lower F2 than any Columbus vowel, although its FI range puts it directly posterior to the Columbus /or/ nucleus. Both (or I) and (ar I) are also dissimilar from any Columbus vowels in that they exhibit centering, falling off-glides (rising F2 and F^) without r-coloring (no dip in F3).

~~In category (b)— targets within the range of acoustic variants natively produced by the Columbus speakers— are all of the targets of~~

~~Region B: (1:2), (£:3), (£:2), (er II), (at :1), (S:2) and (* :II).~~

~~Also Included in category (b) is the higher version of (ae :III) in 158~~

~~Region C. The targets of Regions D and E also are of this type— i.e. , targets (a :), (o w ) , (ay I), (ay II), (ay 1) and (ay 2).~~

~~Category (c)— targets only slightly different from native acoustic variants of the test subjects— includes A target (u), which has only a slightly higher F2 and slightly lower F2 in general than~~

~~Columbus /u/ and target (ar II), in G, which has only slightly lower~~

FI and F2 values than the nucleus of Columbus /ar/ In this category may also be placed the targets (orll), (aril) and (o:) of Region H, all of which are between Columbus /or/, and Columbus foif and /ar/.

~~(orll), (aril) and (o:) all have slightly lower F2 values than either~~

~~Columbus /or/ or Columbus fOif and /ar/. They also have slightly lower FI values than Columbus /ar/ and /a:/.~~

~~For the sake of convenience, the category assignments described above are summarized here in outline form:~~

~~Category (a): Completely unlike acoustic variants in the borrowing dialect:~~

~~A: (1:1), (£:1), (erl), (a*;i) F: (orl) G: (arl)~~

~~Category (b): Like phonetic variants in the borrowing dialect:~~

~~B: (1:2), (£:2), (t:3), (erIT), (9e:l), (9£ :2), (ae :i i ) C: Upper (* ;III) D: (a :), (o w ), (ayl), (ayll), (ayl), (ay2).~~

~~Category (c): Slightly different from phonetic variants in borrowing dialect:~~

~~A: (u) C: (Lower (at :ni ) H: (orll), (aril), (Oz) 159~~

~~5.2. Phonological Categorization of Vowel Targets~~

~~The acoustic targets may also be categorized into five groups~~

~~from the standpoint of their identifiability with the phonetic- variation ranges associated with diaphonemes in the Columbus dialect:~~

~~(1) those targets which are within the acoustic ranges of the same diaphonemes in the target dialect and the dialect of the subjects~~

(the borrowing dialect); (2) those targets which lie within the acoustic ranges of different diaphonemes in the target dialect and the borrowing dialect; (3) targets which are within the range of diaphonemes in the target dialect but not within the acoustic ranges of any diaphonemes in the borrowing dialect; (4) those targets which are close to the range of the same diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect as in the target dialect; and (5) those targets which are close to the range of different diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect than the diaphoneme which they represent in the target dialect.

~~In category (1) are target (1:2), target (erll) and the lower variants of target (t:3) of Region B. Target (1:2) is within the~~

~~/I:/ range of the borrowing dialect, and target (erll) and lower target~~

(£:3) are within the Columbus /er/ and /£:/ ranges, respectively. The lower variants of (&:I) lie within the ranges of f x if for two of the subjects— C.B. and L.W.— as does target (3t;2). The upper variant of

(at :III) in Region C also lies within the /X :/ range of all the sub jects. The nucleus of (ow) lies partially within the range of /ow/ nuclei In the borrowing dialect and partially outside this range. The targets (ayll), (ayl) and (ay2) of Region E must also be regarded as 160 lying within the possible range of variants which Columbus speakers show

~~for the nucleus of /ay/.~~

~~In category (2)— targets which "cross diaphonemlc boundaries" be tween the target dialects and the borrowing dialect— belong the higher~~

~~(€_:3) and the (£:2) of Region B, which are within the range of /1:/ in the borrowing dialect. Also in category (2) are target {at :1) of~~

Region B, which lies within the Columbus /<£.:/ range, and the upper variants of target (ae :II) which are within Columbus /£:/. These lat ter targets— (ae :1) and the upper variant of (a£:II)— are also within the Columbus /I:/ range. For speaker C.D., the lower variants of

(ae:II) are also in this category, since they lie in her /£:/ range, rather than her / * :/ area. To this category one must also add some variants of target (A:) in Region D, which overlaps with the fvf and

/ow/-nucleus ranges for two subjects— C.B. and C.D.— and the /ow/ nucleus range of speaker L.W. In addition it overlaps with the /a/ range of C.B., and may partially be classed as an instance of category

~~(1). The frontal variants of target (ow) may also be put in category~~

~~(2), since they overlap with the /£:/ and /£/ ranges of the subjects.~~

Category (3)— targets not included in the range of any diaphonemlc category of the borrowing dialect— is equivalent to category (a) above, and includes targets (1:1), (£;1), (erl) and (3t:I) of Region A; the lower variant of target ( :III) in Region C; target (orl) of Region F; and target (art) of Region G.

Category (4)— targets close to variants of the same diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect as the one which they represent in the target dialect— Includes target (u) of Region A and target (aril) of Region G.

~~Target (u) has only a slightly higher F2 and slightly lower FI, In~~

~~general, than the /u/'s of the subjects. Target (aril) has only a~~

~~slightly lower F2 and FI than the nuclei of /ar/ represented in the borrowing dialect.~~

~~Category (5)— targets close to phonetic variants of a different~~

~~diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect than that which they represent in~~

~~the target dialect— includes targets (orll), (aril) and (o:) of Region~~

~~H, all of which have nuclei close to the nuclei of /or/, /ar/ and /?:/~~

~~in Columbus English.~~

One may wish to further consider a sixth category— those targets which are within the ranges of two or more different diaphonemes in the borrowing dialect. Into this category would fit some targets of

~~Region B, namely ( :2), and the upper variants of (3£ :II), which are in the /I:/, /£:/ and /«:/ ranges of two of the subjects— C.B. and~~

L.W.— and the /I:/ and /£:/ ranges of the third subject— C.D. Also, the target /a:/ of Region D, which is within both Ivf and /ow/ ranges for two subjects— C.B. and C.D.— as noted above, and the /a / range of speaker C.B., as well, must be put in category (6). Target (ow) of

~~Region D is also split between ranges of the borrowing dialect— /£:/,~~

/£/ and /ow/. One may also wish to put the nuclei of (ayl) and (ay2) of Region E in this group, since there are variants of these targets which overlap with the ranges of /*:/, /a:/, /a/, /o:/, lot and the nucleus of /ar/ In the Columbus dialect. Finally, one might want to include in this sixth category those targets which are close to the ranges of two different diaphonemes in the borrowing dialect, namely targets (3:), (or II) and (ar II) of Region G, all of which have nuclei 16? lying close to the Columbus speakers' /or/-nucleus, /ar/-nucleus and

~~Id :/ ranges.~~

~~Again for the sake of convenience, the cross-diaiect phonemic category assignments are summarized here in outline form:~~

~~Category (1): Within the acoustic variant range of the same diaphoneme in the target dialect and borrowing dialect.~~

~~B: (1:2), (erll), lower (f:3), lower (ac :II) [CB/LW], (* :2) [CB/LW] C: Upper (ae. :1II) D: back (ow), (a :) [CB-partially] E: (ayll), (ayl), (ay2)~~

~~Category (2): Within acoustic ranges of different diaphonemes in the target and borrowing dialects.~~

~~B: higher (E:3), (£:2), (3e:l), (9e:II) - flifji.il Oe :2) [CD = ft:/} Lower (0e :II) [CD ** I kit J D: (a .:)-partially - /ow/,/tr/ [CB/CD] front (ow) = filltfif~~

~~Category (3): Not within phonetic range of any diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect.~~

~~A: (1:1), (£:1), (erl), (ae: I) C: lower (x:III) F: (orl) G: (arl)~~

~~Category (4): Close to phonetic range of same diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect as it represents in the target dialect.~~

~~A: (u) close to full G: (aril) close to /ar/~~

~~Category (5): Close to phonetic range of different diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect than it represents in the target dialect.~~

~~H: (orll), (aril), (3:) close to /or/,/ar/,/a:/ 163~~

~~Category (6): Within phonetic range of more than one diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect.~~

B: (az:2), higher (x :II) *= /I :/,/£ :/,/ae :/[CB/LW] “ /!:/,/£:/ [CD] D: (A:) = /cr/, /o w /, /a/ [CB] = M, /ow/ [CD] = /ow/ [LW] E: (ayl), (ay2) = /9C :/./Ar/./a/^ar/./o:/,/'’/ G: (o:),(orll), (aril) close to /or/,/ar/,/o:/

~~5.3. Subjects' performances in the cross-dialect imitation task~~

The performances of the imitators in reproducing the F1/F2 struc tures of the target vowels described above will first be described with reference to the phonetic categorization of the target ranges dis cussed above in Section 5.1, and then assessed in terms of the phonological categorization of Section 5.2. For this entire section, graphic depictions of the acoustic analyses of the subjects' Imitations are Included in Figures 5.1-5.22. An imitation within 100 Hz. of the target range is considered to be within the target vicinity. Like wise, an imitation vowel within 100 Hz of one of the subjects' own variant ranges is considered to be within the vicinity of that range.

~~1. (1:1)— Figure 5.6. In this figure, imitations for (1:1) and (1:2)~~

~~are combined with those for (1:1) circled. The vowels of target~~

~~(1:1) were both monophthongs and falling in-glides. All three~~

~~Imitators produce both monophthongs and falling glides, but~~

~~without apparent regard for the monophthong or glide structure~~

~~of the particular target variant reproduced. The monophthongs~~

~~are scattered throughout an area from above the Colubmus /I:/~~

~~range to within the FI span of this range. The steady-state~~

~~nuclei of the falling ln-glides produce over the same area of~~

~~distribution, with off-glldes through the imitators' own /I/ or /I;/ vicinities. One speaker (CD) produced rising glides for the~~

~~word in, directed into her own /I:/ region. No imitations were~~

~~on target. Those close to the target are peripheral to it (i.e.,~~

~~had a higher F2).~~

~~( ;1)— Figure 5.8 .a. The variants of target (1 ;1) were also both~~

~~monophthongs and falling in-glides. Again the speakers produced~~

~~both monophthongs and in-glides, but without apparent regard for~~

~~the monophthong or glide structure of the target variants. Also,~~

~~the direction of formant movements in glides was not reproduced.~~

~~Speakers CB and CD produced monophthongs basically located above~~

~~their own /£:/ ranges. All three imitators produced falling in-~~

~~glldes with steady states above, peripheral to, or within their~~

~~own /£:/ areas. The off-glides are through their own /£.:/ ranges.~~

~~Both LW and CD produced rising-and-falling glides, with the fall~~

~~ing section directed through their own /I:/ or /£:/ regions.~~

~~These resemble combinations of the subjects* own variants for /ey/~~

~~followed by their own variants of /I:/ or /<£:/, e.g., /eyl/ or~~

~~/ey£/. Subject CD also produced rising glides for the word there.~~

~~In the case of this target, some steady states and peaks of rising-~~

~~falling glides were on target.~~

~~(erl)— Figure 5.9. In this figure the imitations for (erl) and~~

~~(erll) are combined, with those for (erl) circled. The target~~

~~was a single falling in-glide. The imitators produced only fall~~

~~ing glides, with steady states In their own /er/-nucleus region and~~

~~un-rhotacized off-glides into their own /£.:/ ranges. No imitations~~

~~were on target. 165~~

~~4. (gg :I)— Figure 5.5. The target variants were one monophthong and~~

~~one falling in-glide. The imitators produced only falling in~~

~~glides. For CB, the steady states are in her own raised /*:/,~~

~~and /£:/ areas. For CD they are located in her lower /I:/ area~~

~~or /£:/ area. For LW, the steady states are in her own /X:/ area,~~

~~or higher, her /£:/ area, and her higher /at :/ region. In all~~

~~cases, the off-glides are through the subjects1 own /<£:/ regions.~~

~~The only imitations with steady states close to the target were~~

~~peripheral to it.~~

~~5. (orl)— Figure 5.19. The target variants of (orl) were all falling,~~

~~centering glides. The reproductions were a combination of~~

~~monophthongs and falling in-glides. Speakers CB and CD produced~~

~~glides with steady states in their own /or/-nucleus vicinity. LW~~

~~produced glides with steady states on target. The off-glides were~~

~~generally directed through the vicinity of the speakers* own /o:/~~

~~range. If the sample for Columbus /a:/ were larger, it is possible~~

~~that these off-glides would all cross the /o:/ range.~~

~~6 . (arl)— Figure 5.22. In this figure, the imitations for (arl) and~~

~~(aril) are combined, with (arl) imitations circled. The target~~

~~variants were all falling in-glides, yet the imitators produced~~

~~only monophthongs. These were located within the speakers1 own~~

~~/ar/-nucleus and /o:/ ranges. No imitations were on target.~~

~~5.3.6. Category (b) targets: similar to native variants~~

~~1. (:2)— Figure 5.6. The imitations for (1:2) are uncircled. The~~

~~target variants were both monophthongs and falling In-glides, again produced without correlation to the monophthong or glide~~

~~status of the target variants. The monophthongal imitations are~~

~~above or within the imitators' own /I:/ ranges. Falling in-glide~~

~~productions have steady states above or within the subjects' own~~

~~/I:/ ranges, with a tendency toward being somewhat peripheral to~~

~~their own /I:/ areas. The off-glides produced are through the~~

~~subjects' own /I/ or /I:/ areas. Speaker LW produced high, front~~

~~ing glides for the word everything and lower, fronting glides for~~

~~things. LW also produced one rising glide for things, as did CD~~

~~in two instances, even though no rising glides occurred in the~~

~~target words. Several of the monophthongs and glide steady states~~

~~produced are within the FI span of target (1:2), but peripheral to~~

~~it. In general, the same range of imitations were produced for~~

~~lower (1 :2) as for higher (1 :1).~~

~~(£:2)— Figure 5.8.b. The target variants were both monophthongs and~~

~~falling In-glldes. As in other cases, both glides and monophthongs~~

~~were produced in imitation, but without correlation to the struc~~

~~ture of the target variants. Monophthongs were produced both above~~

~~and within the subjects' own /£;/ ranges. The higher monophthongal~~

~~imitations were in their /I:/ ranges. The falling in-glides pro~~

~~duced had steady states both above and within the Imitators' own~~

~~/£:/ ranges. Some of these were in or above the target range. As~~

~~for ( :1), LW and CD produced some rising-falling glides, resemb~~

~~ling combinations of their own variants for /ey/ and /£:/. LW~~

~~also produced some rising and centering glides originating in her~~

~~own /£:/ vicinity. (erll)— Figure 5.9. The uncircled imitations are those for (erll).~~

~~The variants of this target were falling in-glides, and only~~

~~falling in-glides were produced in imitation. In every case, as~~

~~for the higher (erl) target, the imitations had steady states in~~

~~the speakers* own /er/-nucleus regions, and un-rhotacized off-~~

~~glides into their own /£:/ ranges. These steady states were all~~

~~virtually on target.~~

~~(fc:3)— Figure 5.10. The target variants were all monophthongs, yet~~

~~the imitators produced glides as well as monophthongs. The~~

~~monophthongs produced by CB and CD are located within the target~~

~~range, but also within their own /£:/ ranges. LW's monophthongal~~

~~imitations lie above and below the target, mainly above or below~~

~~her own /£:/ range. The falling in-glide reproductions (by CB and~~

~~LW) have steady states above or within the speakers* own /£:/~~

~~ranges, all within the target range. The off-glides are directed~~

~~through their own /£:/ areas. All three imitators also produced~~

~~a few rising or level in-glides within their own /f:/ regions or~~

~~above, in the target range.~~

~~(9C :1)— Figure 5.12. The imitations for higher (9e:1) are circled~~

~~in the figure. The target was a single monophthong, yet the~~

~~speakers produced only glide imitations. CB produced steady~~

~~states within her own higher / 3£:/ range, which overlaps with her~~

~~/£.:/ range. LW and CD had steady states both in their /£,:/~~

ranges. The off-glides in all cases were through the speakers*

~~own /3® s/ ranges. LW and CD produced some rising-falling glide~~

~~imitations, as for (£:1) and (E:2), again basically like 168~~

~~combinations of their /ey/ with their own variants of the target~~

~~diaphone, in this case /X. :/, although the falling portion of~~

~~these glides tend to be directed behind their own higher fsB: /~~

~~regions. The imitation vowels approaching the target are~~

~~peripheral to it.~~

~~6 . (ae :2)— Figure 5.12. The imitations for lower (St:2) are uncircled.~~

~~The target variants consisted of monophthongs and rising glides.~~

~~The imitators produced a variety of glides and monophthongs for~~

~~this target, once more with no correlation to either the glide or~~

~~monophthong status of the target variants, or the direction of~~

~~formant movement in the target. All three speakers produced~~

~~falling in-glides like those described above for (£:1). LW and~~

~~CD also produced rising-falling glides as for ( # :1), The rising~~

~~glides made by CB and CD lie above the target range, while those~~

~~produced by LW are below the target. CD also produced level~~

~~centering glides above the target range. The rising glides of LW~~

~~are within her own /9*:/ range, while those produced by CB and~~

~~CD are above their own /a® :/ ranges. The monophthongs produced~~

~~by CD are above her own /3£:/ range, and also above the target.~~

~~Some of LW’s monophthongal imitations are also above the target~~

~~and her own / & : / area, while CB*s monophthongs are within her own~~

~~higher /& : / area. Some glides produced cross the target area,~~

~~but no monophthongs approach it.~~

~~7. (3&:II)— Figure 5.11. The target variants were both monophthongs~~

~~and falling in-glides, and both falling ln-glides and monophthongs~~

~~were produced in imitation, but again with no correlation to the 169~~

~~status of the Individual variants mimicked. The monophthongal~~

~~reproductions occurred only in the imitations of sub ject CB,~~

~~and are located in the vicinity of her own higher /# :/ area, or~~

~~peripheral to it and within or peripheral to the target range.~~

~~The falling in-glide reproductions have steady states above or~~

~~within CB and LW*s own /9*■:! ranges, and above CD's own (lower)~~

~~/*:/ range. These steady states are thus located above or~~

~~within the target range, with off-glides entering or directed~~

~~toward the subjects* own /* : / ranges.~~

~~8 . Upper (X;lll)— Figure 5.13. The target was a monophthong, yet two~~

~~of the imitators produced falling in-glides with steady states~~

~~above or within their own /*■ :/ areas, and off-glides through~~

~~their own /<*■ :/ regions. Only CB produced monophthongal imita~~

~~tions, and these are in her own higher /"£:/ area. Thus, all the~~

~~imitations of Upper :lll) are higher than the target.~~

~~9. (ow)— Fiuure 5.14. The targets were all monophthongs except for one~~

~~up-glide, but all the imitators produced up-glides for the most~~

~~part. All three subjects produced some of these glides with~~

~~steady states in the vicinity of or within the target range, and~~

~~some with steady states in their own, more retracted /ow/-nucleus~~

~~areas. CD produced a few monophthongs located in her own /ow/-~~

~~nucleus range. All three Imitators also produced some level,~~

~~backing glides. For CB and LW these are located in the higher~~

~~central portion of the acoustic vowel space, well above the~~

~~target range; whereas, for CD the back glides are well below the~~

~~target range, in the lower central part of the vowel space. 170’~~

~~10. (Ait)— Figure 5.15. All the target variants of (A:) were long~~

~~monophthongs; however, the Imitators produced an indiscriminate~~

~~array of monophthongs and glides. Some of the monophthongs pro~~

~~duced by each imitator fall within the target range, but some~~

~~are also below. In the cases of CB and CD, the off-target~~

~~monophthongs are essentially within their own /A:/ and /A/~~

~~ranges. The glides produced are uniformly short, but are in all~~

~~directions, some within and some outside the target range.~~

~~11. (ayl) and (ayII)— Figure 5.16. The targets were both rising,~~

~~fronting glides, yet one imitator produced two monophthongal~~

~~imitations. In general, however, the reproductions were rising,~~

~~fronting glides. The range of variation for the Columbus~~

~~speakers* own /ay/-nucleus and off-glide locations is so exten~~

~~sive that all their imitations must be considered substitutions~~

~~of their own variants for /ay/. They did not differentiate in~~

~~the height of the steady states for their reproductions between~~

~~the higher steady state of target (ayl) and the lower steady~~

~~state of (ayll). No imitations were produced exactly on target.~~

~~12. (ayl) and (ay2)— Figures 5.17 and 5.18. All the target variants~~

~~were monophthongs, yet the imitators produced both monophthongs~~

~~and rising, fronting glides. CB, who has more monophthongal~~

~~variants of /ay/ in her own speech, produced more monophthongal~~

~~imitations than LW or CD. The monophthongs are located within~~

~~the subjects' own / K :/ and /a:/ vicinities, or between these,~~

~~as are the steady-state portions of their glide reproductions.~~

~~Generally, the nuclei produced in Imitation of (ayl) are somewhat lower or somewhat to the front (for CB) of the target range. For~~

~~(ay2) ,which encompasses a wider range, the Imitation nuclei are~~

~~all essentially on target, for at least some portion (compare~~

~~Figures 5.17 and 5.18). Again, given the wide latitude of the~~

~~Columbus speakers' own variants for /ay/, it must be concluded~~

~~that the subjects merely substituted variants from their own~~

~~ranges for /ay/ In their imitations. There were even two reduced,~~

~~central vowels substituted for lower monophthongal targets by CD.~~

~~The Imitators all showed a tendency, however, to produce more~~

~~monophthongal variants of /ay/ in their reproductions of (ayl)~~

~~and (ay2) than are exhibited in the samples of their own speech.~~

~~3.c. Category (c) targets: close to some native phonetic variant~~

~~(u)— Figure 5.7. All the target variants were monophthongs, save~~

~~one rising, backing glide. All the imitators produced some~~

~~monophthongs and some glides. Some of the monophthongal repro~~

~~ductions are in the target range, others within the subjects* own~~

~~/u:/ areas. Speaker LW, whose own /u:/ area overlaps slightly~~

~~with the target (u), produced the most imitations within the~~

~~target range. Both LW and CD produced rising, backing glides~~

~~through their own /u:/ regions. In addition, CD produced several~~

~~rising, backing glide directed away from the target toward her~~

~~own more retracted short /u/ area. Speaker CB produced some~~

~~falling in-glldes directed from the target range through her own~~

~~/u:/ region. Once again, there was no correlation between the monophthong and glide imitations and the monophthong and glide~~

~~target variants.~~

~~(aril)— Figure 5.22. In the figure, the imitations for (aril) are~~

~~uncircled. The target variants were uniformly produced as fall~~

~~ing in-glides, yet the imitators produced both monophthongs and~~

~~glides. The monophthongs produced are in the subjects' own~~

~~/ar/-nucleus or /0:/ regions. CB produced some falling in-glides~~

~~with steady states in her own /ar/-nucleus and /oil areas, and~~

~~off-glides to the lower central region of the vowel space. LW pro~~

~~duced one level, centering glide through her own /d:/ region. CD~~

~~produced rising in-glides, basically with steady states in her~~

~~/o:/ region and /ar/-nucleus region, and off-glides through the~~

~~lower central area of the vowel space.~~

~~(orll)— Figure 5.21. The target variants consisted of two falling~~

~~in-glldes and one monophthong. The imitators consistently pro~~

~~duced monophthongal imitations. Two speakers (CB and CD) differ~~

~~entiated the nuclei of Florida and orange far more than they were~~

~~differentiated by the dialect informant. CB’s productions for~~

~~Florida are in her own /ar/-nucleus or /orAnucleus areas, while~~

~~her imitation vowels for orange are in front of her own /a/~~

~~region and /ar/-nucleus region. CD's productions for Florida are~~

~~within her own /ar/-nucleus and /o:/ areas; while her reproduc~~

~~tions for orange have vowels within her own /a/ area. LW's~~

~~imitation vowels are all within her /:>:/ and /ar/-nucleus regions.~~

~~(3i)— Figure 5.20. The target variants were all glides, two falling~~

~~in-glldes and one short rising-falling glide. The imitation vowels 173 were mostly long monophthongs within the subjects' own /ar/-~~

~~nucleus, /or/-nucleus or /:>:/ regions. LW and CD also produced~~

~~some monophthongs located behind their own /or/-nucleus areas.~~

~~LW produced one level, fronting glide through her own /ar/-~~

~~nucleus region. CD's imitations included two rising, backing~~

~~glides through her own /o:/ area.~~

~~5. Lower (3t :III)— Figure 5.13. The target was a single monophthong,~~

~~and two subjects produced only monophthongal Imitations, all~~

~~located higher than the target, within their own /ae :/ areas.~~

~~Speaker CD produced glides with steady states in her own /ae :/~~

~~region and centering off-glides to the lower central part of the~~

~~vowel space.~~

~~5.3.d. General observations about the subjects* imitation performances~~

The imitators generally did not accurately or consistently repro duce the target vowels of the other dialects. The monophthongal or glided quality of the target acoustic variants was not reproduced in any consistent manner, with the exception of the frontal targets

(erl) and (erll), which were consistently reproduced as falling in glides. Otherwise, monophthongs were often reproduced as glides, and glides often reproduced as monophthongs. Also, the direction of for mant movements in glide targets was often not reproduced. Falling in-glides were sometimes imitated with rising in-glides— for (1:2) and

(3t:2) — ; rising out-glides— for (1:1), (£:1) and (1:2) — ; or rising- falling glides— for (1 :1 ), (at:l), (£:2) and (9*-:2). * IT1*

~~The ranges of F2 in tiie imitations were generally about right, moreso for front and central targets than for back vowel targets~~

~~(see Tables 1-4). For front-vowel targets, the F2 range was more often correct for the lower vowel targets— (erll), (f:3), (32 :II),~~

~~(36 :2) and (?e :III) — (see Table 1). The range of F2 was most con sistently correct for the central-vowel targets— (*:), (ayl), (ayll),~~

(ayl) and (ay2)— (see Table 2). When the F2 of targets were missed, it was more often overshot, i.e., produced too high, than undershot, i.e., produced too low. That is, vowel targets were more frequently too fronted, rather than too retracted. There were, however, no gross errors in F2 reproduction; that is, no back vowels were reproduced as central or front vowels, and no front vowels reproduced as central or back vowels.

The ranges of F^ in the reproductions were not nearly as close to the ranges of F^ in the imitations as the ranges of F2 . ?2 was more consistently wrong for front-vowel targets than for central or back- vowel targets, and more consistently wrong for back-vowel target than for central-vowel targets (see Tables 2 and 3). When F^ was wrong, it was more often overshot than undershot; that is, vowel nuclei tended to be reproduced too low, rather than too high.

Front-vowel targets were reproduced with falling in-glides more frequently than with monophthongs, rising in-glides, rising out-glides, level fronting glides or level backing glides. The central-vowel target (a:) tended to be reproduced more frequently with short glides of various directions, than with monophthongs. The central-vowel targets (ow), (ayl), (ayll), (ayl) and (ay2) tended to be reproduced 175 more often with up-glides than with monophthongs. The back-vowel targets were more frequently reproduced with monophthongs than with glides.

The relative height of the steady states of glide imitations of front falling in-glides produced in imitation generally varied directly with the relative height of the steady states in the front-vowel tar get vowels (see Table 5). For target (1:1)— in PB /i/— the imitation steady state range varied through PB /i/, /I/ and /£/. For the targets in PB /I/ and /£/— (£: 1) , (ae:I)f (erl), (ae:l), (£: 2), (erll), (t:3),

(at :II) and (36:2)— the imitation steady-state range covered PB /I/ and /£/. For the targets in PB /3Z. /— Upper and lower (ae :III)— the relative height of the off-glides produced in imitations of front- vowel targets tended to vary directly with the relative height of the steady states produced in the imitations. For the target In PB /i/, the off-glides ranged through PB /I/, /£/ and /®/. For the targets in PB /I/ and /£/, the off-glide range covered PB /£./ and / 36 /. For

~~Upper (36 :III) in PB /3t/, the off-glides produced (by one imitator,~~

CD) were within PB /*■/; while for Lower (ae :lll), also in PB /*■/, the only off-glides produced (again by CD) were in PB /a/. The only exception to these tendencies was found in the case of target (1 :2)— located on the border between PB /I/ and /£/— , for which steady states were produced in PB /i/ and /i/, and for which off-glides were produced in PB /I/ and /£/. The falling in-glide reproductions for

~~(1 :2) thus resenble the reproductions for higher (1 :1) more than they do the in-glide reproductions for targets in the same PB region. 176~~

~~The relative height of monophthongal imitations produced for~~

~~front-vowel targets tended to vary directly with the relative height~~

~~of the front-vowel target vowels in the same way as the relative~~

~~height of the steady state portions of the glide reproductions of~~

~~front-vowel targets. Again, the only exception was found for target~~

~~(1 :2), which was treated like the higher target (1 :1), rather than~~

~~like the other front-vowel targets in the same PB area.~~

~~In general, the targets of Category (b)— those within the range~~

of acoustic variants of the borrowing dialect— were more frequently approximated than the targets of Category (a)— those outside the range of acoustic variants found in the borrowing dialect. Targets in

Category (c)— those close to the acoustic range of phonetic variants within the borrowing dialect, but not within it— were generally re placed with variants within the vicinity of the close borrowing- dialect ranges.

It should also be noted that there was an overriding tendency toward the substitution of native acoustic variants of the borrowing dialect, and an additional overriding tendency toward the modification of target variants in the direction of native acoustic variants.

~~5.3.e. Observations on the imitative performance of the subjects with reference to cross-dialectal compari sons of diaphonemic ranges~~

Targets of Category (1)— those within the range of the same diaphoneme in the target dialect and borrowing dialect— were treated somewhat differently, depending on whether they were frontal, central or back-vowel targets. Frontal targets wholly or partially within the borrowing dialect range for the same diaphoneme— (1 :2), (erll),

~~(£:3), (£:II), (£ :2) and Upper (ae :III)— were generally imitated with vowel nuclei both above and within the imitators' own ranges~~

~~for the same diaphonemes. For targets (1:2), (£:3) and (£ :2), imita~~

~~tions were generally within the target range or somewhat lower, in the~~

~~subjects* own ranges for those diaphonemes. There were, however, in~~

~~these cases a few reproductions with vowel nuclei above the target range. For target (92:11), the results varied according to the ranges~~

~~for /£ :/ of the individual subjects, CB, with the highest native~~

/* :/ range, produced imitations that were all in the target range; however, these were also all within her own / £ :/ range. LW, with a slightly lower / * :/ range, produced Imitations both above and within her own /£ :/, all within the target area. CD, whose / £ :/ range is lowest, produced Imitations in the target vicinity, all of which were above her own /fie :/ range. Upper (£ :II), the target wholly within the speakers* ranges for / £ :/, was imitated with nuclei in the bor rowing-dialect range, all above the target, (erll)— partially over lapping with the imitators* own /er/-nucleus range— was reproduced with nuclei from the subjects’ own /er/ range.

For central-vowel targets partially within the range for the same diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect, some imitations were produced within the target area, and some within the imitators* own areas, off- target. Target (ow)— which was partially in front of the Columbus

/ow/-nucleus range— was Imitated with some nuclei in front of the subjects' own /ow/ ranges, and some vowels within their own /ow/ ranges. Target /^:/— slightly above the Columbus /a :/ ranges— was 178 imitated with some nuclei within the target range, some vowels above the target and some reproductions below the target, generally within the subjects* own /a :/ areas.

~~Central vowel targets wholly within the imitators' ranges for the same diaphoneme— (ayl), (ayll) , (ayl) and (ay2)— were imitated with nuclei from the subjects' own ranges for the same diaphoneme.~~

The one back-vowel target partially within the range of the same diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect— (aril)— was essentially imitated with variants from the subjects' native ranges for the same diaphoneme.

Category (2) targets— those within, or partially within the range of a different diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect than they represent in the target dialect— higher (£:3), (£:2), (a :1) and (®:II) among the frontal targets, and (a ;) and (ow) among the central-vowel tar gets— the speakers frequently produced variants within their ranges for that different diaphoneme. They also frequently produced variants from their own ranges for the diaphoneme represented by the target variant.

Category (3) targets— those outside any diaphonemic variant range of the borrowing dialect— were treated in various ways, depending on the location of the target, and the corresponding range for the particular diaphoneme in the borrowing language. (1 :1) was reproduced with nuclei ranging from above the speakers' /I;/ range to within their /I:/ range. In a few cases, the imitators approached the FI range of (1:1), but if so, they overshot the F2 location of the target, i.e., made their imitation nuclei too peripheral. Target (e.:1), in the same PB region as (1:1), was reproduced with lower imitations within 179 the subjects* /1:/ and /t :/ regions. Target (3Z : I), which was also

~~in the same PB region was also produced with lower nuclei, generally~~

~~within the imitators’ own /£:/ or /<£:/ regions. Target (erl), again~~

~~within the same PB area, was reproduced with nuclei like those for the~~

~~target (erll) within the borrowing dialect range for /er/, i.e., with~~

~~glide steady states located within the vicinity of the subjects’ own~~

~~/er/ nucleus.~~

~~Lower (32 :III)— below the range of acoustic variants in the bor~~

~~rowing dialect— was imitated with nuclei higher than the target, within~~

the imitators* own / * :/ range. The targets (orl) and (arl)— located behind the subjects’ own range of acoustic variants— were generally reproduced with variants within the imitators' own ranges for the nuclei for the same dlaphonemes.

Category (4) targets— those close to the phonetic range for the same dlaphonemes in the borrowing dialect as they represent in the target dialect— were imitated with variants from the subjects' own ranges of variants for the same diaphoneme— in the case of (aril)— or variants from within the subjects* own ranges for the same diaphoneme and imitation nuclei in the target range— in the case of (u).

Targets of Category (5)— those close to the phonetic range of different dlaphonemes in the borrowing dialect than in the target dialect— were generally imitated with nuclei in the proximal ranges of the subjects. Thus, (orll), (aril) and (®:)— which lie between the imitators ranges for /or/ and their overlapping ranges for /ar/ and

~~/3:/— were generally reproduced with variants in the vicinity of their~~

~~/or/, /ar/ and /o:/ ranges. 180~~

Targets of Category (6)— those with ranges which overlap with more than one diaphonemlc range of variants in the borrowing dialect— were generally reproduced with variants from the different ranges which they overlap. Thus targets (*:2) and (ge :II)— within both the /I:/ and

/£:/ regions of the borrowing dialect— were sometimes imitated with nuclei in the subjects* /I:/ range, and sometimes with nuclei in the subjects* /£:/ range. The central-vowel target (A:)— which partially overlaps with the A>7, /ow/-nucleus and /a/ ranges of CB, the /V/ and

/ow/-nucleus ranges of CD, and the /ow/-nucleus range of LW— some times was imitated with nuclei from each of the diaphonemlc ranges with which it overlaps. Likewise, the central-vowel target (ow)— overlapping with the /£:/-/£/ ranges and /ow/-nucleus ranges of the borrowing dialect— sometimes was reproduced with nuclei from each of those diaphonemlc ranges. Targets (ayl) and (ay2)— which overlap the imitators' /#:/, /A/, /a/, /ar/-nucleus, /n:/ and fz>/ ranges— was reproduced with imitation nuclei from each of those ranges. In this case, however, as mentioned above, these imitation nuclei were well within the widespread ranges for the /ay/-nucleus in the subjects* own speech.

~~5.4. Analysis of the results of the cross-dialect imitation task~~

For target-dialect vowels which have phonetic ranges wholly above the ranges for the same diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect, speakers tend to produce imitations above their own corresponding ranges for the same diaphoneme, but generally either lower than the target (over shooting F^) or peripheral to the target (overshooting F2). In the l8l

~~case of the inost retracted back—vowel target— (D:)— there were a few~~

~~cases where F2 was undershot. But F2 and were both generally too~~

~~high for the target. Frontal targets above the borrowing dialect~~

~~ranges were often imitated with falling glides directed toward, into~~

~~or through the speakers1 native ranges for the same diaphoneme.~~

~~For target-dialect vowels overlapping the borrowing-dialect~~

~~ranges for the same diaphoneme, speakers tend to produce imitations more on target, and sometimes actually overshoot front-vowel targets~~

~~(i.e., produce F^ too low and F2 too high). Glide imitations pro duced have off-glides directed toward, into or through the variant ranges for the same diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect.~~

There is an overriding tendency for speakers to substitute vowel nuclei from their own ranges for the diaphoneme represented by differ ent phonetic ranges in a target dialect. This proved to be more true

in the case of back-vowel targets than in the case of front-vowel or central-vowel targets, and more true for front-vowel targets than for central-vowel targets. For front-vowel targets below the native phonetic-variant range, substitutions are made of nuclei from the lowest borrowing dialect range.

There thus seems to be a overall tendency for speakers imitating phonetic variants of another dialect to identify those variants with dlaphonemes in their own dialect, rather than simply attempting to reproduce the acoustic qualities of the target-dialect variants. This is evidenced by the fact that the imitators tended to substitute variants from their own acoustic ranges for the same diaphoneme; or if not for the same diaphoneme, at least from their own ranges for 1 8 2 another diaphoneme. It is also evidenced by the fact that the speakers generally tended to "compromise" between the targets and their own ranges for the same diaphoneme when they did not simply substitute a variant from their own range for the same diaphoneme. This they did by either producing an imitation nucleus intermediate in acoustic quality between the target and their own ranges for the same diaphoneme, or by producing a steady-state nucleus in the direction of or vicinity of the target, with an off-glide directed back toward, into or through their own ranges for the same diaphoneme.

Speakers thus seem to be attentive to acoustic phonetic qualities in the variants of a target dialect, since some attempt is made to approximate those qualities, although inaccurately, unless the target variant is within the acoustic range of some diaphoneme in the borrow ing dialect. But imitations of the vowels of a target dialect also seem to be modified by the acoustic range associated with the same diaphoneme in the borrowing dialect. This is more true in the case of front-vowel targets, and still more true in the case of back-vowel targets. It is also clearly seen in the case of the targets (1:1),

(£:1) and (3t:I), which were acoustically virtually the same, yet differentially Imitated, apparently with reference to the relative heights of the acoustic ranges of the same dlaphonemes— /I:/, ft if and

~~/3e :/— in the speakers' native speech.~~

Attempts to reproduce the vowels of another dialect which shares phonological tendencies with the borrowing dialect that effect the same types of vowels in both dialects seem to extend those shared phonolog ical processes. In the imitation of the long lax Black English vowels which are sometimes realized as falling in-glides with raised nuclei—

/I:/ and /t :/— the Columbus speakers produced more falling in-glides of the same type than they normally do in their own speech. In imitating the vowel /a? :/ which Is sometimes realized as a rising glide, the speakers also produced more rising glides than they normally do for /3e :/ in their own speech. In the case of the Jersey City version of /ae :/, which is often realized as a falling in-glide with a raised steady state, the Columbus speakers tended to produce more raised /3& :/ nuclei and more falling in-glide verions of / : / with raised nuclei than they do in their own speech. They also produced more monophthongal versions of /ay/ than they do in their own speech when imitating the monophthongal versions of /ay/ produced in the

~~West Virginia and Black English dialects. 15Q0 3000 1500 3000 2000 1500~~

~~300 MOO 300~~

~~,T ‘.~~

~~500 500 1-500~~

~~7 1000 1000~~

~~L.W. 03tr- Figure 5-5- Columbus speakers’ imitations of E.J. 's ( » :I). 2 0 0 0 1500 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 -L~~

~~-300 .300 ■300 X:1~~

~~/I/~~

~~500~~

~~t-1000 i o o o 1000~~

~~C.B, L.W.~~

~~Figure 5-6. Columbus speakers' imitations of L.W.'s (1:1) and (1:2). (imitations for (I :1) circled.) Co 3000 2 0 0 0 3000 3000 2000 I__~~

~~r 3 0 0 h300~~

~~x /<•« -500 \500 W t t w~~

~~C.B. 1000 L. W rlOOO C.D. hLOOO oo ,~~

~~Figure 5-7- Columbus speakers' imitations of M.T.'s (u). 186 . 3000 2 0 0 0 1500 3000 2 0 0 0 1500 3 0 0 0 2000 1500 I~~

~~■300 •300~~

~~• 500 1500~~

~~1000 / i-1000 aooo~~

~~C.B. L.W.~~

~~Figure 5.8.a. Columbus speakers' imitations of CO L.W.'s (£:l). 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500~~

~~300 300 300~~

~~; 500 500~~

~~f 1 0 0 0 ■ 1000~~

~~C.D.~~

Figure 5.8.13. Columbus speakers* imitations of L.W.*s {£ ;2), Figure 5-9* Columbus speakers' imitations of E.J.'s (erl) and (erll). (Imitations of (erl) circled.) 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000

~~V 500~~

~~■1000 L iooo 0 9 1 Figure 5-10. Columbus speakers' imitations of M.T.'s (E:3). 3000 2 0 0 0 1500 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500~~

~~f-300 t 300 h300~~

~~500 r s o o Y500~~

~~1000 1000~~

~~c.e. L U.w. I c.t>. Figure 5.11. Columbus speakers' imitations of 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 t I -- 1~~

~~h 300 300~~

~~/ / - 500 -500 ■500~~

~~- 1000 riooo~~

~~r C.E.,~~

~~Figure 5.12. Columbus speakers’ imitations of L.W. 's ($ :1) and (3£ :2). (imitations for (^ :1) circled.) j~~

~~3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 1500 3000 2000 . 1500~~

~~BOO [300 h300~~

~~■500 h500 1500 r-~~

~~flOOO hiooo 1000~~

~~L.W.~~

~~Figure 5-13* Columbus speakers' imitations of E. J.' s ( 38 :IIl). 2000 1500 1000 2000 1500 1Q00 2000 1500 1000~~

~~v ■500~~

~~'Oio' ■ o~~

~~1000 JLOOO L1000~~

~~&• Di~~

~~Figure 5*1^. Columbus speakers’ imitations of M.T.’s (ov). {Darkened, circles represent imitators' own /ov/ nuclei.)~~

~~H VO•C 15CC 1000 2000 1500 1000 2000 1500~~

~~IT -500 • 500 -500~~

~~/ " X . A ’,~~

~~A - 1000 .1000~~

~~C.D.~~

~~1500 .1500~~

~~Figure 5-15. Columbus speakers' imitations of 195 L.W.'s {A:). 1000 2000 1500 1000 2000 1500 1000 — 1 t i---1------1— __ I_ I t j 300 i-300 - 3 0 0 I~~

~~5 0 0 V 5, IT~~

~~( c J '1 ?\~~

~~V \ \ \ / '~~

~~f\ W N j n , J \ W^a.~~

~~r iooo nooo : iooo~~

~~'■1500 Figure 5*16. Columbus speakers' imitations of E.J.'s (ayl) and (ayll). 2000i------1500 ] _ —ii ■ - - 2000i ---- 1500 i~~

~~•300~~

~~1000~~

~~Figure 5.IT. Columbus speakers imitations of M.T.'s (ayl). 19T 2 0 0 0 1500 1 0 0 0 2000 1500 000 2000 1500 1000~~

~~500 r 500~~

~~1*1000~~

~~C.D,~~

~~Figure 5-18. Columbus speakers' imitations of L.W.'s (ay2} 00 1500 - 1000 800 2000 1500 1000 800 1500 1000 800~~

~~300~~

~~500 or~~

~~-1000 riooo i 1000~~

~~C.B.~~

~~Figure 5.19*. Columbus speakers1 imitations of E.J.'a (orl). so so L 5 GO 1000 800 1500 1000 8 0 0 1500 1000 800~~

~~300 300 I 300~~

~~----- ,1500 or •1500 y ' l * \ cr 0 ^ / r - v>? y \ y & ! I ' ,6 C I if~~

~~\ f t i ,' ( ■ I* : * .1 ■ ■ % / a fiooo / fort ri'ooo~~

~~' \h J i / /~~

~~C.B. C.D. 200~~

~~Figure 5*20. 001111111303 speakers' imitations of E.J. 's (0:}. 1500 100C 800 2000 1500 ' 1000 800 1500 1000 800~~

~~•300 ‘300~~

~~•500~~

~~or or~~

j / c r ! Ia, ! R°,iicLftv j V . ■ \ — or o j ja—err\ntjt ota* jc ((iwltsti'on) ’ ra.J'Ofl (innitat-iw, ar t ’"U Wdr^f. fiw) / 1000 M 000 1000 / 201 Figure 5-21. Columbus speakers' imitations of E.J.'s (orll). t

~~1500 1000 8oc 1500 1000 8oo 1500 1000 800~~

~~300 300 300~~

~~L500 T if 3X> \~~

~~r icoa 1000 '1000~~

~~C.B. Figure 5-22. Columbus speakers' imitations of E.J.'S (arl) and (aril), (imtations for (aril) circled.) TABLE 1~~

~~ACCURACY OF F2 AND F1 IN IMITATIONS OF FRONT-VOWEL TARGETS~~

*2 F1 Target/ PB About About Area Undershot Overshot Right Undershot Overshot Right

Cl:l)a^/i/ x(generally x(a) 'u x (£:l)a3/iT/-/Ii/ X (a)x(gener ally) (ae :I)a3/l/ X X (a)x 'u x(usually) (when F^ right) (usually) (erl)a3/l/ X (a)x (» :1)“ /I/ X X (1:2) /lT/-/£-*7 X (£:2)b2/ir/_/£i/ X ^ X x(b) 'v (b)x (erII)bl/lT/-/eJ-/ X X (t;3)bl/2/£V X (b)x(LW) (b)x(CD) -u x(CB) (» :II)bl'2/6/£/ x(LW) ^ x (at ;2)t>l/2/6/£iy X x(b) upper (e :III)b3/3e/ X x(b) lower (at :III)a3/ae.T/ X x(a) 203 20h

~~TABLE 2~~

~~ACCURACY OF F2 AND Fj IN IMITATIONS OF CENTRAL-VOWEL TARGETS~~

~~F2 F1 Target/PB About About Area Undershot Overshot Right Undershot Overshot Right~~

~~(A:)b X X ^ x x (ow)b X 'V X X ^ X ^ X (ayl)b X X (ayII) X X (aY3>b X X x (ay4)b X X ^ X~~

~~TABLE 3~~

~~ACCURACY OF F2 AND Fi IN IMITATIONS OF BACK-VOWEL TARGETS~~

~~F2 F1 Target/PB About About Area Undershot Overshot Right Undershot Overshot Right (orI)a X x(CB/CD) ^ x(LW) (arl)a X X (orII)c X ^ X X ^ X (o:)c X x x (CD) (aril)~~

~~TABLE 4~~

~~ACCURACY OF F2 AND IN IMITATIONS OF HIGH FRONT ROUNDED TARGETS~~

~~f2 F1 Target/PB About About Area Undershot Overshot Right Undershot Overshot Right (u)c X 'V. X X ^ X ^ X TABLE 5~~

~~NUCLEI OF IMITATION VOWELS~~

~~Target/PB PB Areas of PB Areas of Glide PB Areas of Additional Area Monophthongs Steady-States Off-Glides Features /i/ /I/ /£/ /at / /i / 111 /£/ /*/ HI 111 /£/ /a / (/A/)~~

(1 :1) /!/ X X XX X X X X X R ( :1VW-/IV x X X X n X X RF /R (*:I)/I/ XX X X (erl)/l/ - --- X X X (* :l)/l/ ---- X X | X RF (I:2)/lV-/6x/ X X XX X | X X R (6:2)/I T/ - / W X X X X | X X RF (erII)/iT/_/£>-/ — - —— X X | X (t:3)/tA/ X X X X X f X X BR (* :II)/t/ X X X X X X (x :2)/£t/ X X X X X RF /BR jpper (at :III)/ at / X X X X Lower (ae :ITI)/atT / X X X

~~Legend: BR - Back Rising Glide; BF - Back Falling Glide; RF - Rising-Falling Glide; R - Rising Glide. 205 TABLE 6~~

~~RELATIVE RANGES OF T AND B DIAPHONEMES AND IMITATION NUCLEI FOR FRONTAL TARGETS~~

Target Target Range Imitation Nuclei Above Within Below Above own Within own Below own Above Within . Below B B B range range range target target target Range Range Range CB LW CD CB LW CD CB LW CD CB LW CD CB LW CD CB LW CD

(1:1) X y y y y y y (y)(y)(y) y y y ( £ : D X y X y y y (y)(y)(y) y y y (* :i) X y XX y y X y x (er 1) X XX X X X X (# :1) XX X X XXX (1:2) X y y y y y y (y)(y)(y) y y y y y (£:2) X y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y (er 2) y y X XX XXX (£:3) y y y y y y X y y y y (y) y y (* :II) x(CD) y(CB/LW) y XX y (y) X y X (a :2) x(CD) y(CB/LW) y y X y y y y y y y y y upper (* :III) XX XXXXX lower (a :III) XXX X XXX (u) X y y y y y y y y y y y y

~~Legend: T ■ Target Dialect; B " Borrowing Dialect; x ■ completely; y = partially; ( ) * few instances. TABLE 7. a~~

~~RELATIVE RANGES OF T AND B DIAPHONEMES AND IMITATION NUCLEI FOR CENTRAL AND BACK TARGETS~~

Target Target Range Imitation Nuclei Imitation Nuclei Above Below Within Above Below Within Above Below Within B BB OR OR OR T Range T Range T Range Range Range Range CB LW CD CB LW CB CB LW CD CB LW CD CB LW CD CB LW CD (a :) X x y y y y y y y y y y (ow) x y y y X y y y y y y y y (aylXay2) x XX y y y y (ay3) XX X y y y y y y (ay A) XXX y y X y y (on) X y X y XX y y x (arl) X XXXXXX (orll) X y x x y y y y y y y (a:) X y y y yyy y yyyyy y (ar2) x(LW) x(CD/LW) y X y X y X y y y

Legend: B ■ borrowing dialect; T ■ target dialect; OR * imitator's own range; x = completely; y ■ partially; ( ) *• few cases, TABLE 7 ,b RELATIVE RANGES OF T AND B DIAFHONEMES AND IMITATION NUCLEI FOR CENTRAL AND BACK TARGETS

Target Target Range Imitation Nuclei Imitation Nuclei In front Behind Within In front Behind Within In front of Behind Within of B Range B Range of OR OR OR T Range T Range T Range B Range CB LW CD CB LW CB CB LW CD CB LW CD CB LW CD CB LW CD

(a :) XXX X X X (ow) y y y y XX y y y y y y (ayl)(ay2) x( round) XXX y y y y y y (ay3) XXXX y y y y x (ay4) XXXX X X X (orl) y y X y y X X (arl) X X XXXXX (orll) X X y y y y <»:) X y y X y y y y y y y y y Car2) x(CD/LW) X . . 7 . V - X y y y y y x y Legend: B * borrowing dialect; T = target dialect; OR ■ imitator's own range; x ° completely; y ° partially; ( ) » few cases. 208 CHAPTER VI

~~CONCLUSIONS~~

~~6.1. Implications for the cross-dialectal borrowing model of sound-change~~

~~The results of the cross-dialectal imitation task conducted in~~

~~this study indicate that the hypothesis that there is interference~~

from the native dialect of a speaker in the cross-dialectal borrowing of phonetic forms is confirmed. The results also indicate that this interference may manifest itself in several different ways. Imitators may simply substitute their own variants for a diaphoneme, and always tend to do so to some extent. This would seem to be more probable in the case of back-vowel targets. Imitators will probably modify the vowels of a target dialect in the direction of their own versions of the same vowels, more especially if the target vowel lies outside their own range of acoustic vowel variants. Target vowels are prob ably imitated with a degree of accuracy only in cases where the target vowels are like phonetic variants of some vowel which already exists in the native ranges of the borrowing dialect.

Thus it seems that it is more likely that cross-dialect borrowing will lead speakers to "reassign11 phonetic variants (or allophones) from one phoneme to another, than to adopt totally new phonetic representa tions for phonemes. Totally different phonetic variants seem to be

~~209 210~~

~~modified so that they are replaced by existing phonetic variants in~~

~~the borrowing dialect, or compromises between existing phonetic vari~~

~~ants in the borrowing dialect.~~

~~The results indicate that cross-dialect borrowing may be a source~~

for the actuation of sound-changest as well as a mechanism for the propagation of sound-changes. The reassignment of an allophonic vari ant from one phoneme to another as a result of a cross-dialectal bor

rowing attempt ("rephonemicization") is a sound-change from the point of view of the borrowing dialect. The modification of a phonetic variant of a target dialect under interference from the borrowing dialect may result in the creation of a vowel segment which is unlike any variant of a diaphoneme in either dialect. There seems to be a tendency, for example, to create compromise glides, especially in the case of dialects in contact which have full arrays of overlapping vowel ranges in the same area of the acoustic vowel space. Cross-dialect imitation may thus be a source of diphthonlzatlon in the history of a language. The tendency to overshoot target variants with ranges that overlap with the borrowing dialect ranges for the same diaphoneme may also be a source of vowel raising. This would seem, from the results, to be more likely for front vowel targets— in the case of a language like American English, which exhibits a wide range of variance for in high F2 (front) vowels.

~~6.2. Implications for the theory of speech perception.~~

~~Given the enormous amount of overlap for the phonetic realization ranges of vowel phonemes that has been observed within the speech of 211~~

~~the informants and subjects, and across dialects which are mutually~~

~~intelligible, the notion that speakers of English analyze utterances~~

~~in terms of individual phonetic segments seems untenable. Rather, the~~

~~great diversification and overlap in the acoustic representation of~~

~~diaphonemes within American English dialects implies that speaker-~~

~~hearers probably attend to overall configurations of lexical items.~~

~~It seems reasonable to infer that the consonant transitions in the phonetic representation of a lexical item are of greater importance in~~

~~identifying that lexical item than the acoustic quality of vocalic nuclei.~~

~~The tendencies revealed in the cross-dialect imitation attempts~~

imply that speaker-hearers engage in a matching of acoustic representa tions to mental representations of lexical items. This is indicated by the tendency to modify target vowels in the direction of native vowel variants and the tendency to substitute native vocalic variants of the same diaphoneme. The results of the imitation experiment reported in

~~Kent 1974 indicate that synthetic vowels of relatively long duration~~

(> 100 msec.) can be fairly faithfully reproduced, which led him to hypothesize that there may be a neuro-muscular level of mental repre sentation which can feed sensory-motor commands to the vocal tract

~~"motor executive" directly without higher-level analysis of a vowel.~~

The results of the experiment reported here indicate, however, that in the case where short vocalic nuclei in natural connected speech are being imitated, there is some sort of higher-level analysis— apparently in terms of native lexical representations— which occurs between the stage of auditory analysis and the stage where neural commands are sent 212

~~to the "motor executive" of the vocal tract.~~

~~The fact that there is wide latitude in the first-formant range~~

~~of the acoustic realizations of lexical items within the speech of~~

~~individuals, across dialects of the same language which are mutually~~

~~intelligible, and in cross-dialect imitations of vowels indicates~~

~~that the phonetic features underlying the realization of FI in lexical~~

~~representations must be very general. The narrower degree of latitude~~

~~shown in the variations of F2 within idiolects, across dialects, and~~

~~in cross-dialect imitations indicates that the features in lexical~~

~~representations which underly the realization of F2 are probably less~~

~~general than those underlying FI. In some sense, then, feature~~

~~representations for vowels in English would appear to be somewhat~~

~~nebulous.~~

~~The conclusion that vowel representations in the lexicon of English~~

~~speakers is somewhat inexact is not too surprising when one considers~~

~~the fact that the phonetic representation of vowels in English words~~

~~is highly variable owing to the phonological rules of the language.~~

Movable stress within words and the reduction of unstressed vowels work together to confront the speaker of English continually with morphemes which have varying vowel nuclei, e.g., in the vowels of the first two syllables of telegraph ([t^e lagr atf]) and photograph ( [f otagr aef ]) as opposed to telegraphy ([thal€grafiJ) and photography ([fstografi]).

Correspondences between the phonetic forms of morphemes which undergo morphophonemic alternation also confront the English speaker with such vowel variation. This is obvious in the case of "irregular" noun plurals such as men, geese, feet, etc., where the vowel differs from 213

~~the vowel in the singular forms: man, goose, foot, etc.; and in the~~

~~case of "irregular" past-tense verb forms like ran, broke, ate, saw, etc., where the vowel differs from that in the present-tense forms: run, break, eat, see, etc.~~

Many of the phonetic variations in the vowels of English morphemes are historically due to the tendency toward isochrony— i.e., the equalization of the time iterval between stressed vowels, and the equalization of the length of words— which exists in English. This seems to be a general characteristic of "stress-timed" languages (see

Abercrombie 1967, pp. 97-98). It would be interesting to conduct experiments in cross-dialectal imitation with speakers of "syllable- timed" languages, which show less vowel reduction (unless they have undergone a period of development in which they were "stressed-timed") to see if speakers of such languages are more attentive to dialectal differences in vowels than speakers of "stressed-timed" languages.

A logical extension of the present study would be one in which the development of phonetic representations in borrowed forms In the speech of an individual is analyzed longitudinally as the speaker becomes more used to using vowels "borrowed" from another dialect.

This might be possible, for example, in the case of actors who learn to imitate another dialect and use it consistently in a character role played over a long period of time. There are, for example, long- running television series like "All In the Family" and "Rhoda" for which actors with other native dialects have learned to Imitate New

York City dialects. Sound tracks may be available which would enable the linguist to trace an actor's development in using certain variants of the target dialect through a series of episodes taped at different times during the ''run” of the series. This sort of study would allow one to note the development of phonetic representations as familiar ity with them grows. Presumably, the effect of familiarity would be a change in the vowel structures produced, but this may not be the case. The interference effects noted in this study of immediate imita tion may or may not be diminished. If they were found to be retained even through habitual use of "borrowed" vowels, the implications drawn above for the theory of sound-change would be more clearly substan tiated. APPENDIX A

~~1. Reading Passage for E.J., Jersey City, New Jersey~~

When I was nine or ten, I had a lot of friends who used to come over to my house to play. I remember a kid named Henry who had very big feet, and I remember a boy named Billy who had no neck, or at least none to look a t . He was a funny kid, all right.

~~We always had chocolate milk and coffee cake around four o ’clock. My dog used to give us an awful lot of trouble. He jumped all over us when he saw the coffee cake. We calledhim Hungry Sam.~~

We used to play Kick-the-Can. One man is "it": you run past him as fast as you can, and you kick a tin can so he can't tag you. Sammy used to grab the can and dash down the street. We'd chase him with a baseball bat and yell, "Bad boy! Bad! Bad!" But he was too fast. Only my aunt could catch him. She had him do tricks, too; she even made him ask for a glass of milk and jump into a paper bag.

I remember where he was run over, not far from our corner. He darted out about four feet before a car and he got hit hard. We didn't have the heart to play ball or cards all morning. We didn't know we cared so much for him until he was hurt.

There's something strange about that— how I can remember every thing he did: this thing, that thing and the other thing. He used to carry three newspapers in his mouth at the same time. 1 suppose it's the same thing with most of us; your first dog is like your first girl. She's more trouble than she's worth, but you can't seem to forget her.

~~215 216~~

~~2. Reading Passage for M.T., Xenia, Ohio~~

~~When I was a kid, it seemed like every year, during the hottest part of the Summer, my dad would decide that he and my mom ought to go on a camping trip to Michigan.~~

I can still remember how he*d almost drive my mother nuts, just when she was feeling almost sick from the heat. Well, he'd raise a big stink over it— moping around the house and going on and on about how itchy he was to go fishing.

Finally, my mom would end up saying that she wished he'd just go ahead and go; but to count her out, because she'd rather stay home by the air-conditioner and watch television. She he always got it to look like she had made the decision that he should go on a fishing trip.

Then off he’d go— over the ridge and down the hill to the Game Commission Office to get issued his fishing license. The truth was that my mother hated camping and fishing with a passion. There was nothing she’d rather do less than sack out on the hard ground in a sleeping bag, get eaten alive by mosquitoes, and wash and clean the fish he’d drag back from the lake.

One thing about dad— he'd never catch more than the legal limit. He had so much respect for the law, that I'm surprised that he didn't want to wear a badge himself. Besides, he really didn't have the cash to pay any fines.

So every Summer, he'd push my mother into beggin* him to go on his trip. That way he didn't feel guilty about getting off on his own. I can still remember him sitting out on the back porch, mending the mesh on his fish net, and bragging about how good his dog was at fetching fish from the edge of the water. Seems like he never failed to get pleasure out of talking about how long the fish had measured that he'd caught the year before.

~~I guess those trips were more special to him than anything else in the world. 217~~

~~3. Reading Passage for L.W., Toledo, Ohio~~

I always had a hard time in school. In grammar school, we played a game called Wolf and Sheep. The class would stand in a circle around the desks and clasp hands. One kid was the wolf and one was the sheep. One time, I was the wolf and a kid named Sam was the sheep. I went around saying "Woof, woof.'1 The kids really laughed.

Miss Clark got mad at all of us. So she makes us sit down and tells us not to talk. For an hour, all you can hear is the clock going "Tick-tock." She thought I was a rat, and I guess maybe she was right*

It got worse in high school. My best friend was a girl named Tes who moved here from out West. I told her we shouldn’t take a sewing and cooking class. Tes told me that girls had to take that class, but I said, "No they don't." We ended up taking it anyway.

The first day, the teacher asks me to get a tin can. Just as I'm reaching for one, I stub my toe and knock down ten of them! The second day, we had to eat some ham the teacher cooked. I said, "Hey, there's a piece of dirt in mine!" But it turned out to be a clove.

Then we had to sew something to clothe a doll with. I decided to make a robe. The belt was the easiest part. I made it uut of a piece of rope. The first time I tried to bake a cake, I burned it. It was just a mass of black stuff. Since noone had a gas mask, we all had to leave the room. We couldn't breathe in there. I didn't even learn how to boil water in that class, but I really had a ball.

~~One class I really hated was Health Class. It was all about taking care of yourself and diseases that caused death and people who were sick and blind and deaf. It was awful!~~

The worst part of the day came after I got home from school. As soon as I got in the house, I always got the same questions from ray mother. "How was your day in school?" "Did you have any tests?" "What did you cover?" APPENDIX B

~~PIKE’S TEST OF PHONETIC ABILITY~~

~~This is a test to determine how well you can pronounce speech sounds which occur in languages other than English, but which are not used in English.~~

~~In the first section, you will hear seven different utterances.~~

Each utterance will be repeated three times. After the third repeti tion, there will be a pause, during which you are asked to pronounce the utterance as closely to the way in which I have pronounced it as you can.

~~Before proceeding, we will try one utterance for practice.~~

~~Number 0 .~~

~~Now~~

Number 1. Number 2 . * between [Ml and [*].) Number 3. — ['Ao]. (2 points for bilabial articulation.) Number 4. ['A.mrnaJ — (2 points for voiceless nasal.) Number 5. 1* (2 points for lengthened stop.) Number 6. [ x A m ’iuar] — [MAtvvVir] — . (2 points for 2 voiceless velars.) Number 7. [ooe]— [o&e]— [ooe] . (2 points for low-high-low pitch sequence.)

~~In the next section, you will be instructed to pronounce certain utterances in specific ways. Follow the directions as closely as you can.~~

~~218 219~~

~~Number 8 . (On card: "this way.") Pronounce the following utterance with a falling intonation instead of a rising intonation: U x sw**]. (2 points for falling intonation.)~~

~~Number 9. (On card: "t-t-t.") Pronounce three t*s with no inter vening vowel sound. (2 points for lack of voicing between stops.)~~

~~Number 10. (On card: "allow.") Blow while pronouncing the "l"'s in Number 10. (2 points for voiceless lateral approximant.)~~

~~Number 11. (On card: "hello.") Pronounce Number 11 while drawing your breath inward. (2 points for ingressive airstream.)~~

~~In the next section, you are to read the utterances written on the card. For each, I will give you specific instructions.~~

~~Number 12. (On card: "ah-h'h.") Be sure to pronounce the "h" when you read Number 12. Please go ahead. (2 points for change to [h] or voiceless vowel.)~~

~~Number 13. (On card: "sooo sslow.") Be sure to draw out the pronunciation of the second "s." Please go ahead. (2 points for lengthened [s].)~~

~~Number 14. (On card: "tsa.") Pronounce Number 14 with no vowel between the "t" and "s." Please go ahead. (2 points for close transition from [t] to [s].) APPENDIX C~~

~~Background Questions Asked Test Subjects to Determine I.S.C. Rating and Dialect Information~~

1. Places of residence before high school. 2. Places of residence during high school. 3. High school attended. 4. Father's educational level. 5. Father's occuption. 6. Father's median income (estimated with $5,000). 7. Mother's educational level. 8. Mother's occupation, 9. Mother's median Income (estimated within $5,000). 10. Type of dwelling lived in during high school (structural type, condition). 11. Approximate value of dwelling (estimate). 12. Self-ascribed socio-economic status (given the choice: Upper Class; Upper-Middle Class; Middle-Middle Class; Lower-Middle Class; Working Class) 13. Parents' regions of origin, native languages.

~~220 221~~

~~Scales Used in Determining Numerical Factors for I.S.C. Rating (from Warner, Meeker and Eels 1960)~~

~~R p o m d S c a u e f o b R a t o n : O c c u pa t io n~~

~~lUlIa* Picfiiiicoalt Propria tori Buliaaaa M n QvHu u d K b d nd Maaail hotictiv* u d I t m n t A a lp M Is n d M u a p n Wmk«nk Etc. W w tan Smrricm Wsrkcr) OeeepebBB~~

L w m doctors, Baatoaaaas valuad Ragloaa) u d Ctrtilid PtiUie C u f l s w h u m iMlUb. B|lllBIV at *75,000 and chrruiooal m ia - Accou&tuta M * —. W > icIiobI I f t n lar^a 1 - •aaclal u d InduB Mlcriurian» trial sntaipriaas 1 mbtatfn {yido *t«d h e m dirtwily •cfeoci). *tc. w a pomt- b«U M ^ i r UM

era. hitaad noraas, at *30.000 to ■nd gflct u d d«* man cf m l aatat*. Ibisb t w a m chlTOpodiiti. rhiro1 *7 5 4 0 0 pvttMDt n u ifftn s i inmmoca, poat- praetor*. u o a r - ml tiny bfwtwiti, n a i m * ■Am, Blaiiln ■ flltM ll 10 fctiCu ( h i m m U h ). b u t, mi*. M*AP*r MXM, thmiiH (p a * •»)

J o r i i l m i n B IlltBHK nVud AM a f u f i>H|ff>Ti dviD itlaiMfla, Caabscton trad a school •1 *5.000 to • f W ia w iw bank clarlu trtd t w i n , ujilun i- W i n * ca-him. pcial \ Mat*, lA nnaM staita. K M aiiB * lo o t BTodnato), Is nrnibm. tu * irtiildnr'i iwiB penrison erf rail ant*. BilBli---- road. BlaptaM , ( m I n hi ato, frisltaaa al tbs

Ba^Maa fdail Factory fn im ia , P*y « ) « ■ « , •1 * 3 4 0 0 to t a c U llf B * IBM otsctafdaos [ Sim botehm, ibtKft, « w o o o BiaO clerk*. lad- lliabm j bad- niliMd n fiu ft n d ttabat i i u t a carpaatat* Inma u d u J m l w . aalaa p tapis to dtp B tfe lB ik m •Bods M rs, ata. »

V bWmnbb todasd IHm itoao daitaa. Caiyttoi.ilnHb t u t a i . Tm U b b i h Bt **00 to *3400 an. aiacMctato Vnri>r< >ppr— bsswtp up ■ m il. (appM U ca). IfeMppncdul ■ Wta iIh ij it~ V— ■ ttM , aasa. tslspbaM or tolapaph, radio ta- fa mtMtncl, bw» t u d a t akoi m d ia n

BnlHMMiriH* Uttldii* t^ > S s d l t a a * •IlM lltaW OO ddUad sa ilsi. S i £ ? S & . »-<*— — as u t - said walrhaaaa. tad • psatsr, Sta. Bad track driven, *ss ilitaB a It ss d • nnti. stiM BN !■ SCStHtfBBt

~~H tm r labor, m l. t iil i m . w i b - M im a iln t T pmat«wk>«da> I HBI B m i l |J» 111 ■ I m SOUnCE OF INCOME~~

1—Inherited wealth. Families were so classified who lived on money made by a previous generation. This includes money derived from savings and investments or business enterprises inherited from an earlier generation. Inherited wealth is frequently referred to as "old money'* in contrast to "new money." This source of income has the highest prestige since it implies that there has been money in the family for several generations. 2—Earned wealth. Families or individuals were so classified if they lived on savings or investments earned by the present genera tion. This category implies considerable wealth, for the individual lives on interest from capital and has amassed sufficient money so that he does not need to work. This source of income applies most frequently to men who have made a largo amount of money and are able to retire and live comfortably on their earnings. They differ from individuals who are retired because of old age and live on pen sions, etc. (page 142). In the present case, it is not that they are too old to work, but that they no longer need to work. One gains prestige in American society by being a successful business man and making n large fortune. Therefore, these individuals are given a higher rating than those who work for a living. S—Profits and fees. This includes money which is paid to pro fessional men for services and advice. It also includes money made by owners of businesses for sale of goods and royalties paid to writers, musicians, eta 4—Salary. This is a regular Income paid for services on a monthly, or yearly, basis. This category also includes the commission type of salary paid to salesmen, 5—Wages. This is distinguished from salary since the amount is determined by an hourly rate. It is usually paid on a daily or weekly basis. 6—Private Relief. This includes money paid by friends or rela tives for the sake of friendship or because of family ties. It also In cludes money given by churches* associations, etc., when the agency does not reveal the names of those getting help. People receiving this form of income usually have no money themselves and only through this help are saved the shame of asking for public relief. 7—Public relief and non-respectable Income. This includes money received from a government agency or from some semi-pub lic charity organization which does not mind revealing the names of those getting help. A non-rcspectable income Includes money made from illegal occupation as gambling, prostitution, and bootlegging (during prohibition). People living on life insurance policies, social security benefits, or old age pensions were assigned the source of income on which they were dependent while they were working. In general, if a person received income from more than one source, the chief source of income was used. However, there were some cases in which it was known that an individual’s income was derived equally from two sources. In such cases it was possible to split the difference between the value assigned for two sources. This was done chiefly for members of the upper class who were working but were known to have inherited considerable wealth. It was also applied to business men who had a salary (4) and also had invested considerable money and derived part of their income from interest on earned wealth (2).

~~HOUSE TYPE; REVISED SCALE~~

1—Excellent houses. This includes only bouses which are very large single-family dwellings in good repair and surrounded by large lawns and yards which are landscaped and well cared for. These houses have an element of ostentation with respect to size, archi tectural style, and general condition of yards and lawns. S.—Very good houses. Roughly, this includes all houses which do not quite measure up to the first category. The primary difference is one of size. They are slightly smaller, but stiU larger than utility demands for the average family. 3—Good houses. In many cases they are only slightly larger than utility demands. They are more conventional and less ostentatious than the two higher categories. 4—Average houses. One-and-a-half to two-stoiy wood-frame and brick single-family dwellings. Conventional style, with lawns well cared for but not landscaped. 5—Fair houses. In general, this includes houses whose condition is not quite as good as those houses given a 4 rating. It also includes smaller houses in excellent condition. 6—Poor houses. In this, and the category below, size is less im portant than condition in determining evaluation. Houses in this category are badly run-down but have not deteriorated sufficiently that they cannot be repaired. They suffer from lack of care but do not have the profusion of debris which surrounds houses in the lowest category. 7—Very poor houses. All houses which have deteriorated so far that they cannot be repaired. They are considered unhealthy and unsafe to live in. All buddings not originally intended for dwellings, shacks, and over-crowded buildings. The halls and yards are littered with junk, and many have an extremely bad odor. d w e l l in g a r e a

1—Very high. la JonesviUe, as in most towns and small cities, this includes but one area. Residents, aware that this area has a high status reputation, remark that "no one can live here unless his family has lived in the community for at least three generations." The best houses in town are located in such an area. The streets are wide and clean and have many trees. 2—High. Dwelling areas felt to be superior and well above average but a little below the top. There are fewer mansions and pretentious houses in such districts than in the first. However, the chief difference is one oF reputation. 3—Above average. A little above average in social reputation and to the eye of the scientific observer. This is an area of nice but not pretentious houses. The streets are kept clean and the houses are well cared for. It is known as a “nice place to live" but "society doesn't live here.” 4—Average. These are areas of workingmen's homes which are small and unpretentious but neat in appearance. In these areas live "the respectable people in town who don’t amount to much but never give anybody any trouble." 5—Below average. All the areas in this group are undesirable because they are close to factories, or because they include the busi ness section of town, or are close to the railroad. There are more mn-down houses here because there are people living in these areas who "don't know how to take care of things." They are more con gested and heterogeneous than those above. It is said that "all kinds of people live here, and you don’t know who your neighbors will be." 6—Low. These areas are run-down and semi-slums. The houses are set dose together. The streets and yards are often filled with debris, and in some of die smaller towns, like Jonesvillc, some of the streets are not paved. 7—Very low. Slum districts, the areas with the poorest reputa tion in town, not only because of unpleasant and unhealthy geo graphical positions—for example, being near a garbage dump or a swamp—but also because of the social stigma attached to those who live there. The houses are little better than shacks. The people are referred to by such terms as "squatters along the canal," and are said to be lazy, shiftless, ignorant, and immoral. This general reputation is assigned to most people living in such sections regardless of their abilities or accomplishments. It might be stated here, for use by the reader in checking our computation of I.S.C.*s in Chapter 14, that the following areas in Jonesvflle were ranked as follows; Main Street, 1; West Side, 2; Northern Main and Southeast, 3; Chicken Hatchery, West New town, Mill, and East Benton, 4; Northwest, Business Area, and East Newtown, 5; West End, Old Town, East Washington, and Polish Area, 6; and Towpath, 7. APPENDIX D

Phrases excerpted from casual conversations with the dialect infor mants for the cross-dialect imitation task. (Also used for the elicitation of native dialectal pronunciations from the test sub jects.) Words containing dialectal target vowels are underlined.

~~a. Phrases from the conversation of E.J., Jersey City, New Jersey~~

1. In a shoe store.... 2. Had a lotta jobs.... 3. I boil it to make the tea. 4. Goes to parties.... 5. He goes to ballgames. 6. Oh, he's goln* away, down to the Shore. 7. They drove down in a car.... 8. ... to New Orleans. 9. Then they went to Florida. 10. Then he stayed in Florida. 11. We— bring it into the classroom. 12. And then we go into the classroom and clean the classrooms up. 13. I used to just watch the children outside. 14. They have it in their classroom. 15. ... or they stay outside. 16. Sandwiches.... 17. Banana*... 18. ... Sometimes an orange. 19. ... Sometimes a pear. 20. We had a good time there. 21. They had it in Barbara's house.... 22. 'Cause she had the yard.... 23. And the children could go out and play in the yard. 24. All the sisters were there. 25. Just the family. 26. I'm glad you found it' 27. I'm so glad he got his hair cut.

~~225 226 b. Phrases from the conversation of M.T., Xenia, Ohio.~~

1. I think kinda special Ed. 2. She went with another— friend. 3. Try puttin' yourself to sleep.... 4. ... Startin' with your toes. 5. You could really dc> your act. 6. You don't do that to your kids, do you? 7.1^ do. 8. And I hope 1 can outgrow it. 9. I mean, now, I'm gonna be an idiot. 10. I'm gonna keep thinkin' 'bout it. 11. _I always say "Be careful." 12. ... And was afraid to go.... 13. ... See if he was in the bed. 14. I didn't get out of the bedroom. 15. She called me last night. 16. ... A more appropriate time. 17. 1_ really do. 18. 'Cause Bill's not the type of person.... 19. ... That can get along with anybody.... 20. ... For any length of time. 21. The guy shouldn't be doin' that. 22. He broke the law! 23. ... And never havin' any receipts.... 24. ... Or anything, see? 25. See, it's been goin* on for a while. 26. I know. 227

~~c. Phrases from the conversation of L.W., Toledo, Ohio~~

1. Still— just because that's your son,... 2. ... Everything under the sun. 3 . When— he was there.... 4. ... And she wasn't dead when he hit her! 5. He saw a bug! 6. _! told you the answer, Gwen! 7. Okay, and so then.... 8. That's why I had.... 9. ... A check stub.... 10. Well, you should a remembered. 11. _X would put nothin' past Gwen. 12. I guess everybody have their own style. 13. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. 14. Well, if I had such a love hangover, I woulda let him come over. 13. She knows all about men. 16. You have those good men. 17. ... Girl here in the blue pants.... 18. ... And she still gets pleasure.... 19. ... From oral things. 20. Boy, I wish I could recall all those things they said. 21. You are still in.... 22. You can just do stuff as what is here. 23. It's prob'ly 'cause this man keeps you in line. 24. Her head.... 25. It's not as if your birthday hasn't already passed. 26. Uh— mental.... 27. This is hardly pickin' her up. 28. Oh, well she mentioned the fact.... 29. ... That she’d had— some beer. 30. ... Because Ricky'11 beat you at everything. 31. It's other things you can do in a bed besides sleep. 32. That is true! 33. Maybe she got a lotta love. 34. You Just sit up and hold hands? 35. And when you said "Linda", I said.... APPENDIX E 229

~~1 * Maximally-•contrasted short vowels : ( indicates glide* a. Col limb us Spea k e r s .~~

1CB LW CD FI F2 FI F2 FI F2 beat 350 2800 375 3050 ( 375 ( 2250 V 275 V 3000 bit 500 2200 (525 (2225 f U 50 ( 2125 600 2025 '■500 * 2175 1 hl2 V 2275 (1+75 (2325 V525 '■2375 bet 700 1925 (675 (2150 (675 ( 2000 700 2075 '700 ' 2250 725 2050 ,675 (2150 775 2100 '725 K2100 bat 675 2100 (1000 (2075 (1075 ( 2000 '1050 '■2087 1225 1950 pat 1050 2000 1175 2000 (1150 ( 2125 1200 2100 pot 700 1U00 •1250 (1575 (1050 , 1U 00 1075 1550 '1225 v1700 T .100 1375 (1100 (1550 l1125 ll625 got 1025 1350 1025 1^50 1050 1250 gut 700 1650 (875 (1900 750 1700 700 1750 825 1950 775 1700

putt 725 1U 25 (925 (1900 975 1550 725 1U75 950 1950 925 1825 put 650 1U00 , 600 ( 1200 575 ' 1275 good 1(75 1675 1(75 1900 * 500 1800 *i75 1700 ( 1(75 ( 2000 1(75 1625 ' 5 0 0 ' 2 0 7 5 bought ( 825 ( 1275 (900 ( 1300 ( 9 5 0 ( 1175 v 800 V 1250 ^1000 ill 50 v 100 ' 1225 boot 350 1500 375 1875 325 1625 bait (575 C 2275 (550 ( 2500 ( 5 7 5 * 2U50 U 50 2650 '350 ' 2900 v 1(00 1 2650 (575 f2500 ( 575 ( 2550 (500 ( 2U50 1(75 ^2828 UOO '2850 350 '2700 230

~~CB LW CD CM FI F 2 H FI F2 0 0 boat f 625 , 1300 ,550 ,1550 ,1200 l/\ 0 0~~

~~L 525 ' 1150 50 1 1U00 1075 ,625 , 1300 *650 ( 1550 500 1175 H 75 1375 goat 600 1U00 >550 ,1825 ,650 ,1675 \ o o 1U00 ^525 '*1325 231 b. Dialect informants.~~

EJ MT LW FI F2 FI F2 FI F2 beat 350 2750 350 2550 200 2950 bit 325 2U00 ,»*25 . 2U 50 ,375 ,21*50 (supplement *625 ' 214 00 v500 2275 below) 500 21400 375 2350 bet 950 2350 525 2500 626 2300 925 2200 500 2300 >500 2325 ■625 bat 1150 1925 825 2375 800 2175 1325 1875 pat ------750 2300 950 2200 pot 1212 1500 900 1275 1100 1500 1500 1750 925 1000 1150 1600 got 1100 1000 775 1250 1125 1775 gut 875 1575 750 2150 575 1750 900 1650 800 2150 875 1650 but 850 1575 ------—-- 925 1500 putt 775 1550 775 1875 625 1650 925 1725 600 1925 good 575 1850 U25 2200 ,1*00 , 9 5 0 1*25 2100 S 50 L i 6oo put 650 1500 350 1850 1*50 1375 725 1600 500 ll*50 bought ,625 ,950 825 1175 850 1225 900 1500 (525 1575 775 ,725 ,1175 875 ^1600 boot 300 950 325 1950 300 1050 232

EJ MT LW FI F2 FI F2 FI F2 boat , 625 1350 / 575 r 2000 ( 575 , 1125 1 1+87 ^00 1 1 8 5 0 ' 375 ' 1000 ✓ 6 0 0 ,1350 ( 6 0 0 /■ 1950 f 6 5 0 , 1150 ''250 '-1100 *+75 ^1750 '-1*50 '950 s 5 2 5 riooo 2 5 0 ^ 6 0 0 goat , 6 0 0 , 2150 375 ^ 1900

~~bait ( 7 7 5 / 2325 r U 2 5 ( 2 1 5 0 f 5 0 0 / 1 9 5 0 V 5 7 5 1 2700 Uoo ^ 2 7 5 0 l 3 7 5 ^2900 / 82 5 / 2 2 2 5 ( 5 2 5 , 2 0 7 5 , 5 0 0 .1650 ' 5 7 5 ' 21*75 v 3 7 5 L 3 1 5 0 Vl*25 l 2750~~

~~Supplementary measurements of /I'/ from reading passage for E.J.~~

~~this 525 2075 thing 500 2550 550 2325 kick 650 2050 is 525 2150 it 500 2250 kid 500 2250 U75 21*00 big 525 2500 233~~

~~2. Dialectal variants for imitation from casual conversations of dialect informants.~~

~~a. E.J.— Jersey City, New Jersey.~~

~~FI F2 FI F2~~

Diaphoneme / ae : / Pi aphoneme /o :/ p. 11 classroom^ , 350 2350 p. 2 jobs 725 / 1 0 8 7 6oo 1000 ^•900 ^1350 p .12 classroom^ 600 2150 p.5 ballgames ,600 ( 900 725 1900 ^900 ' 1U00 p .12 classrooms 625 2200 p.2U all /675 f 875 725 1750 >600 r8?5 p.lU classroom^ 725 2325 <-650 l950 Diaphoneme /ar/ p. l6 sandwiches 500 2U 00 p.*+ parties 725 1025 p.17 banana 1375 2050 (1050 c1550 p. 7 car ,725 1175 c p.25 family U37 2U50 <-1025 1500 p.21 Barbara's ,500 925 c p. 26 glad1 950 2200 ^ 775 1175 p.22 yard1 ,500 675 P-27 gladp 675 2025 '■750 c1375 p.23 yard2 r 6 2 5 750 ^S25 c1350 Diaphoneme /er/ Diaphoneme /ay/ P-19 pear .525 , 2575 '‘750 ^1700 p.13 outside^ 1850 f lli00 p .20 there-^ .350 - 2 3 0 0 '‘800 ^1900 ^ 8 0 0 * 1 9 2 5 p.15 outside2 ,850 r lU25 p.2U there - 5 0 0 , 2 5 2 5 ^750 ^2000 2 * 825 1 1850 p.20 time ,600 xlliOO p.27 hair 575 2175 ' 350 '-2000 675

~~Diaphoneme /or/~~

P - 1 store . 1400 , 1112 v 825 * 1U00 p. 6 Shore , 377 , 662 ^775 c 1^75 p. 8 Orleans 525 / 025 ( 725 V 1225 P-9 Florida1 ,800 , 1125 v i1150 i <:a V'■1875 p .10 Florida2 ,725 /1050 ^1175 V 1575 p .18 orange 050 1200 23k

~~b. M.T.— Xenia, Ohio.~~

~~FI F2 FI F2~~

~~Diaphoneme /u/ Diaphoneme /ow/~~

P-5 do^ 375 2550 p.U toes , 625 f 2 2 5 0 { t+75 2 0 5 0 p 2 7 0 0 p . 8 hope 6 0 0 . 6 d o 2 375 1575 p. 6 do ^ 1*50 2550 p. 8 outgrow , 6 5 0 f 1575 1 6 0 0 k l*»75 P-7 doh 350 2325 p . 1 2 go 550 2 U 5 0

~~P-17 do^ ( U 75 / 2500 p . 2 2 broke 6 0 0 / 1 7 0 0 ^ 375 ^ 2350 I U75 ' 1 6 0 0 p . 6 y o ^ 350 2750 p . 2 6 know , 625 f 1 8 5 0 ^ 1*25 1 6 0 0 p. 6 you2 IlOO 2750 Diaphoneme /ay/~~

Diaphoneme /£:/ p . 3 try 8 0 0 1 6 2 5 p.l Ed. 1*75 1875 P.7 Ii 825 1 6 0 0 p . 2 friend 6 5 0 2 6 0 0 P . 8 i2 8 0 0 1 8 0 0 p.13 bed 5 0 0 2 6 0 0 p . 1 1 l3 875 1750 p.l1! bedroom 5 0 0 2500 P-17 lu 8 0 0 1625

~~P-19 anybody 6 5 0 3 0 0 0 p . 9 I'mp 925 1550 p . 2 0 length i+75 2675 p.10 I*m 2 775 1 6 0 0~~

~~P-23 any 650 2 6 0 0 p . 1 5 night 9 0 0 1 6 5 0 p. 2k anything 7 0 0 2 2 5 0 p . 1 6 time-^ 875 1 6 5 0~~

~~p . 2 0 timep 950 1 6 0 0~~

~~p . 1 8 type 875 1 8 5 0~~

~~p . 2 5 while 925 1 3 0 0 c. L.W.— Toledo, Ohio~~

~~FI F2 FI F2~~

~~Diaphoneme /I:/ Diaphoneme / ae :/~~

~~p.18 stilly p .8 had **75 2350~~

~~p .21 stilly 325 f 2125 p .17 pants 700 2200 L675 1 1700 p .19 things i+75 - 2375 p .23 man 600 21*50~~

~~p.30 everything 500 1950 p.3l+ hands ✓ 750 2300 1 525 p.21 in e 325 , 21*75 p .25 passed t 650 / 2250 350 t 2150 ^ 1*50 ^ 2000 p . 32 is 350 ( 2250 t Uoo ^1975 p.22 here 1*50 2075 Diaphoneme /a :/~~

~~p.29 heer . 275 f 2525 1 1*75 v 1950 p.l son 500 1200~~

~~Diaphoneme /&:/ P. 2 sun 350 725~~

P-5 bug 300 650 p . 3 there 375 2250 P - 9 stub 750 1650 p.l* dead , 575 2800 V 500 p.lU love^ 625 1500 p.20 said2 .300 , 21*50 V525 ^ 2300 p . 33 love2 525 1250 p . 35 saidi ✓ 500 , 2l*50 '•675 ^ 2250 p . 27 up 1*50 650 p.2U head ,1*00 , 2375 Diaphoneme /ay/ > 350 V 2175 ' 1*00 v. 2125 P* ’■ besides 950 2200

~~p . 31 bed 1*75 2350 p. 35 T1 1000 1650~~

~~p -6 Gven^ 575 2600 p .6 X2 1050 1700 p . 7 Gwen2 1+25 2575 p .11 1750 *3 1275~~

~~p -15 menj f 500 , 21*75 P-13 Iu 1975 1850 ^ 600 v 2250 p .16 m e n 2 325 2U25 p .12 style 850 1750~~

p.10 remembered 250 1925 P-13 otherwise 850 1600 r 850 ^1650 p .28 mentioned 575 2600 p.23 line V 7 5 0 1 2000 3* Columbus speakers* readings of dialectal variants in phrases extracted from casual conversation of dialect informants.

~~a. Phrases of Informant E.J.~~

~~CB LWCD FI F2 FI F2 FI F2~~

Diaphoneme /3C :/ p . 1 1 classroom^ t 6 2 5 { 2 0 5 0 1125 2125 1 0 5 0 1 6 5 0 1025 ^ 1825 p . 1 2 classroom^ 750 1775 1050 1 6 5 0 900 1 7 0 0 p . 1 2 classrooms^ 825 1650 1100 1850 975 1 7 0 0 p.lU classroom^ 8 0 0 1950 1 0 5 0 1750 925 1 7 0 0 p . l 6 sandwichesto 825 / 2500 9 0 0 2550 1075 2075 1825 p . 1 7 banana m 975 2 7 0 0 8 5 0 2 1 0 0 975 2 2 5 0 p . 2 5 family 8 0 0 2 1 + 0 0 550 2550 1 1 0 0 2 2 5 0 p . 2 6 glad^ 725 1 8 5 0 1125 1950 950 1750 p.27 glat^ 6 5 0 1 8 5 0 1025 1650 875 1725

Diaphonome /er/ p . 1 9 pear 6 5 0 2 6 5 0 6 0 0 2500 6 0 0 21+75 p . 2 0 there 550 1 8 5 0 750 2 2 0 0 7 0 0 2375 p.2 U there2 6 0 0 2350 575 2 3 0 0 700 2 U0 0 p . 2 7 hair 6 5 0 1 8 5 0 6 0 0 2075 6 0 0 2 2 5 0

Diaphoneme /or/ p.l store 5 0 0 9 0 0 575 1 2 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 5 0 p . 6 Shore 550 875 550 1025 6 0 0 1 0 5 0 p . 8 Orleans 550 8 0 0 6 0 0 1 1 5 0 6 0 0 1 0 5 0 p.9 Florida^ 7 0 0 1275 625 1125 6 0 0 1025 p.10 Florida^ 575 1 2 5 0 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 p . 1 8 orange 7 0 0 1050 975 1 2 0 0 8 0 0 1 2 0 0 CBLW CD FI F2 FI F2 FI F2

~~Diaphoneme /O:/ p. 2 jobs / 925 , 1175 9 7 5 1 2 0 0 950 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 p . 5 ballgames 775 1 2 5 0 8 7 5 1 1 0 0 750 1150 p .2*4 all 8 5 0 1325 omitted 8 5 0 1 2 5 0~~

Diaphoneme /ar/ p.U parties 7 0 0 1 2 5 0 9 0 0 1*400 775 1225 p. 7 car 950 1300 975 1*450 8 0 0 1175 p .21 Barbara *s 6 5 0 1 3 0 0 900 1350 825 1 3 0 0 p . 2 2 yard^ 1000 1*425 925 1 6 2 5 925 1350 p.23 yardg 1050 1*450 1025 1700 8 5 O 1375

Diaphoneme /ay/ p.13 outside^ 9 7 5 , 1 6 0 0 ,1100, 1575 , 1025 ✓ 1 5 0 0 ( 725 ^ 1950 * 6 0 0 v 2 1 5 0 ' 625 V 2*4 00 p.15 outsideg 1 1 0 0 f 1 5 5 0 , 9 0 0 , 1 8 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 f 1 U0 0 ^ 6 7 5 ^ 2 0 0 0 (- 5 7 5 C 2 1 5 0 t*i50 C 2*4 0 0 p . 2 0 time , 1050 ,1*400 ,1075 ,1625 , 950 /1650 ^ 5 2 5 ' ■ 1 9 5 0 ^ 8 7 5 ' - 2 0 5 0 L 5 0 0 ^2075 238

~~b. Phrases of Informant M.T.~~

~~CB LW CD FI F2 FI F2 FI F2~~

~~Diaphoneme /u/~~

P-5 de^ 500 2 5 0 0 375 2 6 0 0 , 5 0 0 ✓ 21*75 *.1*50 L 2 1 * 0 0 p. 6 do^ 5 0 0 2 5 0 0 350 2275 525 2 1 5 0 p . 6 do^ 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 1*50 2350 1 * 0 0 2375 p. 7 do^ , 550 X 2 2 0 0 550 2 0 0 0 *+75 2 0 5 0 W 5 0 ^ 1375 525 ' 1325 p.17 do^ , 5 0 0 / 1875 t 2 5 0 0 u 5 0 1 3 0 0 ^ 1350 p. 6 you-^ 525 2 1 * 0 0 1*25 2 0 5 0 5 0 0 2550 p .6 you2 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 525 1825 1*50 2 0 5 0

~~Diaphoneme /£:/~~

p . 1 E d . 575 1925 8 5 0 2 0 0 0 8 5 0 1725 p. 2 friend 875 2 0 5 0 950 2 0 5 0 1050 1950 p.13 bed 7 0 0 2025 925 2 0 0 0 / 8 5 0 ( 2 1 5 0 V 8 0 0 ^ 1725 p.ll* bedroom 6 5 0 1975 675 2 2 0 0 8 2 5 1950 p . 1 9 anybody 7 0 0 2 2 5 0 950 2250 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 p . 2 0 length 575 2525 8 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 p . 2 3 any 075 2 3 0 0 1025 2 2 0 0 9 0 0 2225 p . 2k anything 7 0 0 1950 6 0 0 2 1 5 0 8 5 0 2525

Diaphoneme /ow/ p.l* toes r 700 ( 1^75 8 0 0 / 1 8 5 0 ✓ 975 r 1 5 5 0 ^550 1 1 2 5 0 5 0 0 ^ ll* 0 0 V 500 v 1 2 5 0 p hope . 8 - 8 5 0 , 1 2 0 0 575 1 2 0 0 ,825 f 1550 1 500 < 1150 V 5 2 5 ' 950 p.8 outgrow , 650 . 1250 8 0 0 , 1 6 0 0 ✓ 8 2 5 / 1325 ' 600 1 0 2 5 6 5 0 'W 3 0 0 t 500 8 2 5 P - 1 2 go 1325 - 1 1 0 0 9 0 0 / 1825 f 8 5 0 ✓ 1350 1 1100 ^ 725 550 ^ 1 2 5 0 v 6 0 0 VL050 p.22 broke * 625 , lU25 750 1375 6 7 5 1975 v 1*75 ^ 1 3 0 0 239

~~CB LW CD FI F2 FI F2 FI F2~~

Diaphoneme p . 3 try ✓ 800 1850 1075 .1875 925 ( 1850 1 525 ( 575 r 2125 \ 500 1 2525 P. 7 Ix ✓ 1000 ✓ 1625 ,925 ,1350 105 0 1300 1*425 ^2525 U 5 0 1 2300 1550 ( 2500 P .8 l2 ✓ 8oo ✓ 1175 ,950 , 1250 825 . 1350 * 500 V 2050 I 625 * 2225 C 525 1 2650 P-11 i3 ✓ 1050 ✓ 1800 ,1050 f 1850 825 1050 1625 V 2150 '850 1-1950 ( 725 1 1725 P.17 1^ /1150 ✓ 1625 1075 ✓ 1650 f 875 / 1775 I 650 1 1725 11475 l l 975 ( 6 5 0 ( 2250 p.9 I ' ^ 800 1725 .1050 ^1550 l675f 2U50 I 7 5 0 L l8oo ( 975 1 2500 p . 1 0 I'mg 1250 2U00 . 11 5 0 f 1650 . 1600 , 2*450 1 1000 1 1750 C 1025 1 2500 p.15 night f 950 /1325 925 f 1*425 1700 1 500 1 2250 ( 575 1 2125 t S S ° c 2500 p.l6 tirne-^ ,1050 -1500 1 1 0 0 , 1 5 5 0 1350 l8T5 1 Ik25 I 850 1 2100 Cfioof 2200 p . 2 0 timeg f f 1200f 1500 1600 f 1075 1500 r 1 1 5 0 r ' 1100 I 1825 ' 850 1 2100 \ 10001 2175 p.l8 type /950 / 1*425 .950 ( 1825 /1500 ✓ 11*00 v 625 1 2150 ( 925 1 2100 1700 1 2300 p .2 5 while #1050 ,1250 850 ✓ 1225 1 950 ^ 1 8 5 0 V-750 1 1775 1050 £1275 1650 c. Phrases of Informant L.W.

~~CB LWCD FI F2 FI F2 FI F2~~

~~Diaphoneme /I:/~~

p .1 8 stilly 7 0 0 1950 750 2 1 0 0 8 0 0 2i+50 p . 2 1 stilly 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 675 2025 6 5 0 2250 p .1 9 things 675 2 0 5 0 675 2225 1 0 5 0 2225 p . 3 0 everything 675 2 U 5 0 6 2 5 2175 1 0 5 0 2375 p . 2 1 in 700 2 1 0 0 /500 ,2525 950 2 2 0 0 ^ 9 0 0 * 1950 p . 32 is 5 0 0 / 2500 , 5 5 0 , 2 5 0 0 675 2^25 ' 1975 <750 I 2 0 0 0 p .2 2 here 5 0 0 2550 5 2 5 2950 550 2750 p . 2 9 beer 6 0 0 21+50 575 2 6 5 0 500 2725

Diaphoneme /£:/ p . 3 there 625 2U50 6 0 0 2 6 5 0 575 2U75 p.H dead 6 5 0 2225 ,675 , 2 U0 0 750 2 1 5 0 975 ' 2 1 0 0 p . 2 0 said2 675 2 0 0 0 025 , 2 0 5 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 VL900 p.35 said1 7 0 0 1950 8 0 0 1925 8 5 0 2025 p. 2 U head / 6 5 0 ,2125 , 9 0 0 , 2 2 5 0 , 9 0 0 t 2 3 0 0 '750 ' 2 0 0 0 V 8 5 0 1 1925 725 < - 2 0 5 0 p . 3 1 bed # 6 0 0 r 2125 8 5 0 2075 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 ^675 V 2 0 0 0 p. 6 Gven-^ 725 1 9 0 0 8 0 0 1975 1 0 0 0 2025 p. 7 Gven2 7 0 0 1 9 0 0 900 2050 1050 2000 p. 15 men1 6 0 0 1925 725 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 1950 p . 1 6 men2 7 0 0 2 0 5 0 8 5 0 2175 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 p . 1 0 remembered 8 0 0 1725 9 0 0 2 1 0 0 875 1 8 5 0 p . 2 8 mentioned 925 2 0 0 0 1025 2075 8 0 0 2 1 0 0 Diaphoneme / &:/

~~p .8 had ,675 r 2150 975 1950 1025 1975 ( 800 v 1900 P.17 pants ,675 r 2625 ,650 ,2750 ,800 f 2600 V 850 ( 1975 ^925 * 1975 (975 I 2075 P -23 man 775 2100 650 2600 950 2550~~

~~P-3U hands 500 ,2500 ,550 .2750 ,975 f 2550 (-1950 (625 (1975 IO75 (• 2150 p .25 passed ,700 , 2250 ,1150 . 2000 1150 1950 (-800 (-1850 (lOOO (-1725~~

~~Di aphoneme / A; / p.l son 900 1^25 1000 1750 1050 1500 p .2 sun 825 1500 1100 1700 1025 1525~~

~~P-5 bug 750 1350 1150 1675 825 1^50~~

~~P-9 stub 775 1500 750 1950 825 1575 p.iU love^ 650 1325 1000 1625 950 1350 p. 33 love g 750 11+25 775 1325 875 1500 p.27 up 700 1300 1000 1025 975 1^50~~

~~Diaphoneme /ay/~~

p. 31 besides ,675 ,1675 f 775 1775 950 ,1575 c ^625 ( 2000 v 500 2200 c 525 (2050 ,1150 p . 35 J1 ,1100 ,1650 -1225 ,1625 ,1375 1 600 ( 2125 (975 V 2375 I 375 (2650 ,1900 -1050 ,1800 p. 6 *2 , 1100, 1700 1125 ^ U 50 ' 2000 C Uoo (-2250 ( 300 v 2200 p. 11 1100 ,1800 -1075 -1600 875 V 1350 T 3 C U 75 2000 (-800 (- 1900 c:525 1575 950 , 1700 ,950 r 1350 ,1150 (1575 p.13 Jk ^1+50 *■ 1875 ' 550 (- 2075 K 550 (■185O p .12 style ,950 , 1650 ,1050 r 1575 1 1200 ,1500 ' 700 L 1800 (.700 (-2100 V 875 U 95O p.13 othervi; ,800 , 1U50 f 875 1125 /•850 ,1100 '575 ^ 1975 ^ **75 (2025 v U50 V 2000 p.23 line - 1 2 2 5 f 1^75 r1050 ,1275 , 1050 ( 1250 V1150'. 1725 V850 ^2150 V 550 V 2225 BIBLIOGRAPHY

~~Abercrombie, D. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Chicago: Aldlne Atherton.~~

~~Arthur, B., D. Farrar and G. Bradford. 1974. "Evaluation reactions of college students to dialect differences in the English of Mexican-Amerleans." Language and Speech. 17.3:255-271.~~

~~Bailey, C. J. 1973. Variation and Linguistic Theory. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics.~~

~~Bailey, N. and C. Madden. 1973. "Is second language learning like first language learning?" Unpublished paper: 3rd Annual Confer ence of the City University of New York.~~

~~Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.~~

~~Briere, E. J. 1968. "A Psycholinguistic Study of Phonological Inter ference." Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 66. The Hague: Mouton.~~

~~Buteau, M. 1970. "Students* errors and the learning of French as a second language: A pilot study." International Review of Applied Linguistics, 8:133-145.~~

Chistovich, L. A., G. Fant and A. de Serpa-LeitSo and P. Tjernhind. 1966. "Mimicking and perception of synthetic vowels." Quarterly Progress and Status Report, No. 2. Stockholm: Speech Transmis sion Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology.

Chistovich, L. A., G. Fant and A. de Serpa-LeIt3o. 1966. "Mimicking and perception of synthetic vowels, part II." Quarterly Progress and Status Report, No. 3 . Stockholm: Speech Transmission Labora tory, Royal Institute of Technology.

~~Chistovich, L. A. and V. A. Kozhevnikov. 1969. "Some aspects of the physiological study of speech." In L. D. Proctor (ed.), Biocybernetlcs of the Central Nervous System. Boston: Little, Brown.~~

~~Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.~~

~~2lt2 2^3~~

~~Cooper, F. S., A. M. Liberman and J. M. Borat. 1951. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 37:318-325.~~

Cooper, F. S., P. C, DeLattre, A. M. Lieberman, J. M. Borst and L. J. Gerstman. 1952. "Some experiments on the perception of synthetic speech sounds." Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 24: 597-606.

~~Crider, C. C. 1962. Regional Variations in the Estimation of Social Class from Auditory Stimuli. University of Southern California: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.~~

~~Crowder, R. G. and J. Morton. 1969. "Precategorical acoustic storage (PAS)." Perception and Psychophysiology, 5:365-373.~~

~~Crowder, R. G. 1972. "Visual and auditory memory." In J. F. Kavanaugh and I. G. Mattingly (eds.), Language by Ear and by Eye. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.~~

~~Dunkel, H. B. and R. A. Pillet. 1962. French in the Elementary School: Five Years1 Experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,~~

~~DuskovS, L. 1969. "On sources of errors in foreign language learning." International Review of Applied Linguistics, 8:11-36.~~

~~Ellis, R. A., W. C. Lane and V. Olesen. 1963. "The index of class posi tion: an improved intercommunity measure of stratification." American Sociological Review, 28:271-277.~~

~~Endres, W . , W. Bambach and G. FltJsser. 1970. "Voice spectrograms as a function of age, voice disguise and voice imitation." The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 49:1842-1971.~~

~~Fant, G. 1957. ’'Modern instruments and methods for acoustic studies of speech." In E. Sivertsen (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Inter- natlonal Congress of Linguists: 282-358. Oslo.~~

______. 1966. "A note on vocal tract size factors and nonuniform F- pattera scalings." Quarterly Progress and Status Report, Ho. 4- 66. Stockholm: Speech Transmission Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology.

~~______. 1976. "Non-uniform vowel normalization." Quarterly Progress and Status Report, No. 2-3. Stockholm: Speech Transmission Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology.~~

~~Fasold, R. W. 1972. Tense Marking in Black English. Arlington. Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics. 2hk~~

~~Ferrero, F. E. 1968. "Dlagrammi di esistenza delle vocale ltaliane." Instituto Elettrotecnico Nazionale Galileo Ferrarls XLIII. 1058-1059:1-13.~~

~~Fry, D. B., A. S. Abramson, P. D. Eiraas and A. M. Liberman. 1962. "The identification and discrimination of synthetic vowels." Language and Speech. 5:171-189.~~

~~Gauchat, L. 1905. "L'Unitii phonetique dans le patois d'une commune." In Aus Romanlschen Sprachen und Literaturen: Festschift Heinrich Morf. Halle: Max Niemeyer.~~

~~Grimshaw, A. D. and L. Holden. 1976. "Postchildhood modifications of linguistic and social competence." Social Science Research Council Items. 30.3.~~

Grinder, R. E., A. Otoma and W. Toyota. 1961. "Comparisons between second, third and fourth-gra'de children in the audio-lingual learning of Japanese as a second language." Journal of Educa tional Research. 56:191-197.

~~Grittner, F. M. 1969. Teaching Foreign Languages. New York: Harper and Row.~~

~~Gumperz, J. 1971. "On the ethnology of language change." In J. Fishman (ed.) Readings in Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton.~~

~~Harms, L. S. 1961. "Listener judgments of status cues in Speech." Quarterly Journal of Speech, 47:164-168.~~

~~Hiki, S., H. Sato, T. Igarishi and J. Oizumi. 1968. "Dynamic model of vowel perception." Report of the 6th International Congress on Acoustics. Tokyo: Maruzen.~~

~~Honikman, B. 1964. "Articulatory Settings." In D. Abercrombie, D. B. Fry, P. A. D. MacCarthy, N. C. Scott and J.L.M. Trim (eds.) In Honour of Daniel Jones (London: Longmans.~~

~~Kent, R. D. 1973. "The imitation of synthetic vowels and some Implica tions for speech memory." Phonetica, 28:1-25.~~

~~______• 1974. "Auditory-motor formant tracking: a study of speech imitation." Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 17.2:203-222.~~

~~King, R. D. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.~~

~~Kiparsky, P. 1968. "Linguistic unlversals and linguistic change." In E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.) Unlversals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 21+5~~

~~Kirch, M. S. 1955. "At what age elementary school language teaching?" M o d e m Language Journal, 40:399-400.~~

~~. 1956. "Foreign languages in elementary schools: first grade GenIlan.,, Modern Language Journal, 39:144-145.~~

~~Labov, W. 1963. "The social motivation of a sound change." Word, 19, 273-309.~~

~~______. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics.~~

~~______. 1972. Soclollnguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.~~

~~Labov, W., M. Yaeger and R. Steiner. 1972. A Quantitative Study of Sound Change in Progress. Final report on National Science Foundation contract NSF-GS-3287. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.~~

~~Ladefoged, P. 1975. A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.~~

~~Ladefoged, P. and D. e. Broadbent. 1956. "Information conveyed by vowels." The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 29.1: 98-104.~~

~~Ladefoged, P., I. Kameny and W. Brackenrldge. 1976. "Acoustic effects of style of speech." The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 59.1:228-231.~~

~~Larew, L. A. 1961. "A Study of Spanish articulation in the elementary school: A pilot study." University of Missouri: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.~~

~~Lehiste, I. and G. Petersen. 1961. "Transitions, glides and diph thongs." The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 33.3, 268-277.~~

~~Lehiste, I. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.~~

~~Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.~~

~~Linblom, B. E. and M. Studdert-Kennedy. 1967. "On the role of formant transitions in vowel recognition." The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 42, 830-843.~~

~~Lindau, M. 1975. "Vowel features." Working Papers, No. 11. Lund University: Phonetics Laboratory, Department of General Lin guistics . 2k6~~

~~Martinet, A. 1969. Le frangais sans fard. Paris: Presses Universi- taires de France~~

~~Nordstrflm, P-E. and B. Lindblom. 1975. "A normalization procedure for vowel formant data." Paper 212, International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Leeds.~~

~~Penfield, W, 1959. Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.~~

~~Perkins, J. 1977. "A sociolinguistic glance at the Great Vowel Shift of English." O.S.U. Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 22. Ohio State University.~~

~~Peterson, G. and H. Barney. 1952. "Control methods used in a study of the vowels," The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 24.2, 175-184.~~

~~Pike, E. 1959. "A test for predicting phonetic ability." Language Learning, IX.1, 35-42.~~

~~Robinson, W. P. 1972. Language and Social Behavior. Baltimore: Penguin Paperbacks.~~

~~Saussure, F. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. W. Baskin (trans.). New York: Philosophical Library.~~

~~Seliger, H . , S. D. Krashen and P. Ladefoged. 1975, "Maturational constraints in the acquisition of second-language accent." Language Sciences, 36.~~

~~Shuy, R., W. Wolfram and W. K. Riley. 1967. Linguistic Correlates of Social Stratification in Detroit Speech. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics.~~

~~Stevens, K. N. "Potential role of property detectors in the percep tion of consonants." Quarterly Progress Report, No. 110. Cambridge: Research Laboratory of Electronics, M.I.T.~~

~~Trudgill, P. 1972. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.~~

~~______. 1974. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction. Baltimore: Penguin Paperbacks.~~

~~Tucker, G. R. and W. Lambert. 1966. "White and Negro listeners reac tions to various American English dialects." Unpublished mimeograph.~~

~~Warner. W. L . , M. Meeker and K. Eels. 1960. Social Class in America. New York: Harper and Row. 2ii'7~~

Weinreich, U. , W. Labov and Y. Malkiel. 1968. "Empirical foundations for a theory of language change." In W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.

~~Wolfram, W. 1969. A Soclolingulstlc Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics.~~

~~Wolfram, W. and D. Christian. 1975. Sociolinguistic Variables in Appalachian Dialects. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics.~~

~~Wyld, H. C. 1920. A History of M o d e m Colloquial English. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.~~

~~______, 1927. A Short History of English. London; John Murray.~~

~~Yilmaz, H. 1967. "A theory of speech perception." Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 29, 793-825.~~