UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title Sound Change in San Francisco English Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6qz10226 Author Moonwomon, Birch Publication Date 1991 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Sound Change in San Francisco English By Birch Moonwomon B A (Sonoma State University) 1981 M.A. (Sonoma State University) 1983 M.A. (University of California) 1986 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of die requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA at BERKELEY Approved: iviaitaiaiii .Tf^rv^.. ............. YA?/?/ . PfNJkp- • ... ih y j. V.... |'JxJIa UAaU»- fLh'UaU, 2 ■i/ I*)?I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Sound Change in San Francisco English by Birch Moonwomon Abstract This is a sociolinguisdc study of sound change in progress in San Francisco White English. Both phonemic and subphonemic recategorizations have taken place in the phonology in the last 50 years. The dissertation repeats on observations of variation in the speech of 14 working class and middle class San Franciscan women, ranging in age from 22 to 74. Vowel movements involving /ae/, /a/, and h i (treated as principal variables (x), (xN), (a), (ar), (o), (ol), and (or)) are traced through apparent time. /x/ before nasal consonants, treated as the variable (xN), is becoming increasingly tense. The development of complementarity between /x/ in this environment and /x/ elsewhere is reflected in the gradual separation of (xN) from (x) in vowel space over time. There is also sound change for low, nonperipheral (x); (xS), that is, /x/ before fricatives, is centralizing. Lexical conditioning is found. In the last few decades the distributional structure internal to (xN) and (x), considered as a whole distribution, has changed; presently vowels followed by nasals are frontnest and highest, followed by vowels before stops, followed by vowels before fricatives. The merger of /a/ and h i is traced through apparent time, (a) and (o), representing historical /a/ and h i when not followed by liquids, are both fronting; (o) also shows lowering. In particular, (aT), that is, /a/ before alveolar stops, is moving forward; there is lexical conditioning. This movement is impeded by the low, nonperipheral position of (x). This block to the fronting of (a) provides the condition for merger of /a/ and h i, given the forward movement of (o). Realignments of environmental distributions have taken place, making the internal structure of (o) conform to that of (a). Vowel rotation underway in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 Eastern and Midwestern cities is not paralleled in San Francisco, due to the maintenance of a low, lax position for a portion of /ae/ and the merger of /a/ and h i At both phonemic and subphonemic levels phonological recategorization has been accomplished before the phonetically gradual processes (as reflected in informal speech), corresponding to loss of distinction on the one hand and complementarily on the other, are themselves completed. Comparison of vowel charts for formal and informal speech suggests that a loss of contrast between /a/ and /O/ came about several decades ago in the phonology, coinciding with the accomplishment of complete phonetic overlap of one historical vowel are with another; environment by environment neutralization, however, began before that time and continues now. Merger is viewed here as a series of environmental coalescences; the process is not quite complete, although recategorization has taken place. Vowels in two frequently used words, class and got, are observed to be advanced in the backing of (aeS) and the fronting of (aT), respectively. It is suggested that selection of frequently used items for lexical diffusion in sound change comes about as a rule acts upon sounds word by word as the items are used. There is opportunistic, iterative rule application. This notion associates performance with competence in process operation. Signature of Commi ttee Chair Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sound Change in San Francisco English Copyright © 1991 by Birch Moonwomon Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for Shirley Silver What do you mean, why? Why do you think, Shirley? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: The Linguistic Atlas of the Pacific Coast 6 Chapter 3: Sound change studies 40 Chapter 4: Procedures 86 Chapter 5: (ae) in San Francisco English 102 Chapter 6: (a) and (o) in San Francisco English 153 Chapter 7: (x), (a), (o): comparison of findings 216 Chapter 8: Conclusion 229 References 251 Appendix A: Vowel charts 262 Appendix B: Sample texts 408 Appendix C: Demographic information 440 Appendix D: Forms 442 Appendix E: Abbreviations and symbols 450 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv Figures and Tables Figures: Figure 3.1. Five models of sound change 44 Figure 3.2. Intrusion of the area of confusability into the area of production 58 Figure 3.3. The Northern Cities vowel rotation 71 Figure 3.4. Philadelphia and New York 'core patterns' 74 Figure 5.1. (ae) and (seN) for Meg Cork 109 Figure 5.2. (ae) and (aeN) for Marion Thompson 110 Figure 5.3. (ae) and (aeN) for Sharon Ryan 111 Figure 5.4. (ae) and (aeN) for Jean ORoark 112 Figure 5.5. (ae) and (aeN) for Suzi Copeland 113 Figure 5.6. (ae) and (aeN) for Jesse Austin 114 Figure 5.7. (ae) and (aeN) for Ginger Ryan 115 Figure 5.8. (ae) and (aeN) for Beth Thompson 116 Figure 6.1. (a), (al), and (ar) for Meg Coik 165 Figure 6.2. (a), (al), and (ar) for Marion Thompson 166 Figure 6.3. (a), (al), and (ar) for Sharon Ryan 167 Figure 6.4. (a), (al), and (ar) for Jean ORoark 168 Figure 6.5. (a), (al), and (ar) for Suzi Copeland 169 Figure 6.6. (a), (al), and (ar) for Jesse Austin 170 Figure 6.7. (a), (al), and (ar) for Ginger Ryan 171 Figure 6.8. (a), (al), and (ar) for Beth Thompson 172 Figure 6.9. (o), (ol), and (or) for Meg Cork 183 Figure 6.10. (o), (ol), and (or) for Marion Thompson 184 Figure 6.11. (o), (ol), and (or) for Sharon Ryan 185 Figure 6.12. (o), (ol), and (or) for Jean ORoark 186 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 6.13. (a), (al), and (ar) for Suzi Copeland 187 Figure 6.14. (a), (al), and (ar) for Jesse Austin 188 Figure 6.15. (a), (al), and (ar) for Ginger Ryan 189 Figure 6.16. (a), (al), and (ar) for Beth Thompson 190 Figure 7.1. Environments for tensing (ae) in NYC, Philadelphia, and San Francisco 226 Figure 8.1. Low vowel movements in San Francisco White English 237 Appendix A figures: (ae), (aeN): main group speakers 262 (ae), (aeN): supplementary group speakers 297 (a), (al), (ar): main group speakers 303 (a), (al), (ar): supplementary group speakers 344 (o), (ol), (or): main group speakers 350 (o), (ol), (or): supplementary group speakers 396 formal speech charts 402 Tables: Table 2.1. Age group and speaker type of LAPC SF White informants 22 Table 2.2. Eight traits diagnostic for dialects in regional subareas 23 Table 2.3. For each informant, the three highest ranked dialect areas 24 Table 2.4. Phonemic inventory for San Francisco English 26 Table 2.5. Items co-occurring in the LAPC worksheets and present study 30 Table 2.6. Distribution of alternant phones for /o/ by speaker type 33 Table 3.1. Summary of discussion of phonetic regularity versus lexical diffusion 50 Table 4.1. Ages and SES index scores for 14 informants 90 Table 5.1. Relative frontness and height of stop environment centers, (ae) 107 Table 5.2. Relative frontness and height of obstruent environment centers, (ae) 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi Table 5.3. Fronting and raising orders for (aeN) in several environments 131 Table 5.4. Presence or absence of four features in the (ae) and (cN) distributions 145 Table 6.1. Postvocalic consonant environments permitted /a/ and h i 156 Table 6.2. Relative frontness and height of obstruent environment centers, (a) 158 Table 6.3. Relative frontness and height of obstruent environment centers, (o) 177 Table 6.4. Comparison of frontness and height positions of centers for (a) and (o) 199 Table 6.5. Frontness orders within (a) and (o) for supplementary speakers 206 Table 6.6. Environmental mergers reflected in the speech of main group speakers 211 Table 7.1. Comparison of DeCamp's transcriptions and current speech, (ae) 219 Table 7.2. Comparison of DeCamp's transcriptions and current speech, (a) and (o) 222 Appendix C Table: 1980 census information 440 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Acknowledgments I am grateful to the San Franciscans who spent time with me, told me their stories, and let me record their speech. I thank my committee members for their helpful criticism, patience, good humor, and companionship at Berkeley restaurants. My friends Martha Macri, Lindsay Smith Welcome, Grace Miller, and Jody Larson have helped in uncountable ways, as have other friends. A general cooperative spirit among of staff, faculty, and fellow students in the Linguistics Department has helped a great deal. In particular, I thank John Ohala for acoustic phonetics advice, Rich Rhodes for computer help, Alicia Alvarez-Villasenor, Liz Ozsel?uk, and Ky Anh Tonnu for taking care of administrative difficulties, and Tim Radzykewycz for performing magic on the machinery in the Phonology Lab.