Following L Over Hill and Dale: Changes in L-Vocalization Through, Space, Time, and Methods

Following L over hill and dale: Changes in L-vocalization through, space, time, and methods

Kirk Hazen (WVU) & Robin Dodsworth (NCSU)

Friday, August 19, 2011 Research focus

Transmission vs. diffusion

Transferred from Philadelphia or homegrown in WV?

Assessing constraints on L variation

Transmission = consistent constraints within the region

Diffusion = weakening of constraints between regions for younger speakers {????}

Friday, August 19, 2011 Light and Dark L

Johnson & Britain (2007:302): “Whilst the primary (consonantal) place for this sound is coronal, it has a secondary (vocalic) place which is dorsal. The difference between the clear and dark /l/ rests in the relationship between the two gestures. Dark /l/ is traditionally described as ‘velarised’ (see for example Ladefoged (2001), implying that clear /l/ has no dorsal gesture.”

Friday, August 19, 2011 Light and Dark L

Johnson & Britain (2007:302) Phonetic studies: “In the case of the clear /l/ the coronal gesture generally precedes the dorsal one, making the latter somewhat weaker. On the other hand, in the case of dark /l/, the order of the gestures is reversed, the dorsal one preceding the coronal (leaving a margin for error in the coronal).”

Friday, August 19, 2011 L-Vocalization

L-vocalization is the phonetic process where the apical gesture of a dark L does not occluded airﬂow to create a more vocalic sound.

This more vocalic sound may range from a semi- vowel to a full vowel.

Hardcastle & Barry (1989:15): “. . . the vocalisation process should not be seen simply as the suppression of the apical gesture under certain conditions but, speaking ﬁguratively, as a reduction in the intensity of the apical command.”

Friday, August 19, 2011 Previous research

Ash, Sharon. (1982). The vocalization of /l/ in Philadelphia. PhD dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Dodsworth, Robin. (2005). Attribute networking: A technique for modeling social perceptions. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (2): 225-253. Hardcastle, William, and Barry, William. (1989). Articulatory and perceptual factors in /l/ vocalization in English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 15:3-17. Horvath, Barbara M. and Horvath, Ronald J. (2001). A multilocality study of a sound change in progress: The case of /l/ vocalization in New Zealand and Australian English. Language Variation and Change 13:37-57. Horvath, Barbara M. and Horvath, Ronald J. (2002). The geolinguistics of /l/ vocalization in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 319-346. Johnson, Wyn and Britain, David. (2007). L-vocalisation as a natural phenomenon: explorations in sociophonology. Language Science 29: 294-315. Meuter, Anne. (2002). L-vocalisation and labiodental variants of /r/ in the speech of Colchester primary school children—The acquisition of a sound change? Unpublished MA dissertation. Essex University.

Friday, August 19, 2011 Points of comparison 308 W. Johnson, D. Britain / Language Sciences 29 (2007) 294–315

100

50 % vocalisation 40

Hobart (Aust)Sydney (Aust) Brisbane (Aust.) Melbourne (Aust) Mt Gambier (Aust.) Fenland adolescentsFenland 20-30Fenland years 50-65 years Colchester Colchester10 year olds 6 year olds

Southend and Colchester adultsPlace

labial coronal dorsal

Fig. 5. Syllabic /l/, vocalisation and the eﬀect of preceding consonant.

Friday, August 19, 2011 stances. Borowsky (2001) suggests a constraint SHARE/cor, the terms of which might be called upon to cover this, however, Borowsky’s constraint is more specifically geared to post-/l/ coronals and is, for our purposes, too general. One puzzling finding, however, both among Southend and Colchester adults and in our Fenland sample, is that a preceding dorsal also appears to have a relatively inhibiting effect on vocalisation. Clearly, dark /l/ shares dorsal place, but one would expect the previous dorsal contact to promote vocalisation, as indeed it appears to do in Australian English (and among the young children in Meuter’s (2002) study). It might be suggested that the inhibiting factor was the result of an OCP effect, in that dorsal place is shared by the preceding consonant and by the vocalic gesture involved in [1~], but the manner of the gesture does not lead to lateral release. A dorsal stop such as [k] involves a closure at the dorsum whereas the vocalised /l/ involves no such dorsal closure. This is different from the coronal gesture where both the consonant involved and the lateral involve a Diffusion or Transmission?

More Vocalization Philadelphia Older WV Younger WV

before velars

before labials

before coronals

before vowels

after low vowels

Friday, August 19, 2011 The geographical region

Friday, August 19, 2011 The set of speakers 112 KIRK HAZEN

TABLE 3. Social divisions for the West Virginia Corpus of English in Appalachia (WVCEA)

Group Subgroup Number of People

Age Group 2: 1919–1947 23 Group 3: 1950–1979 23 Group 4: 1980–1989 21 Sex F 32 M 35 Region North 33 South 34 College experience College (some) 44 No college 23 Ethnicity African American 6 European American 61 Social class Working 16 Lower middle 32 Upper middle 19

Friday, August 19, 2011 environment for CCR in the two ethnic groups. Their data shows that their speakers have significantly lower rates of CCR in bimorphemic tokens (2004:39), thereby demonstrating that ethnic groups do not diverge in terms of the variable’s morphological constraints. For prevocalic, monomorphemic forms, African Americans have rates of 26% versus 4% for European Americans, as shown in Table 2. The data from Appalachia indicate that the patterns found elsewhere in the United States also operate in this vernacular dialect region. Phonological constraints, at least between consonants and vowels, affect rates of consonant deletion, and morphological constraints also have an effect, albeit they are less influential than the phonological factors. Socially, consonant deletion operates across Appalachian communities in all ethnic groups and generations. From these previous investigations into CCR, the most straightforward hypothesis for the current examination of CSD is that its vernacular status will be reduced and that both phonological and morphological factors will influence the frequency of deletion.

METHODS

For the investigation of sociolinguistic variation in Appalachia, the West Virginia Dialect Project (WVDP) has conducted sociolinguistic interviews with 151 native Appalachians. From these interviews, 67 speakers,3 born between 1919 and 1989, form the basis for the West Virginia Corpus of English in Appalachia (WVCEA), as shown in Table 3. Most of these interviews include word lists and reading passages besides casual conversation. These speakers were chosen because of the quality of their interviews,4 their social distribution in terms of geography, age, and sex, and, lastly, the status of their parents as natives of Appalachia.5 Older Speaker’s L Samples

Friday, August 19, 2011 A closer look

Friday, August 19, 2011 Younger L

Friday, August 19, 2011 A closer look

Friday, August 19, 2011 Acoustic methods

988 tokens were marked for preceding and following phonological environment

Acoustically analyzed for duration, intensity, pitch, F1, F2, and F3 at four points along the L- containing word.

Friday, August 19, 2011 Acoustic methods: Coda L

The change in intensity (in terms of amplitude) from the vowel midpoint to the L.

Vowel + L as one unit (no imaginary boundaries)

Dependent variable: (The intensity measure from its midpoint) - (the intensity measure at the 75% mark).

The more intensity drops, the more consonant-like the L is. The foundational assumption is that the more consonant- like the L is, the more closure it will have.

The intensity measures were normalized by dividing the change in intensity by the intensity at the vowel midpoint.

Friday, August 19, 2011 Acoustic methods: Syllabic L

For syllabic L, there is no vowel to L transition.

F3 for Syllabic L

First, when F3 is low, you normally have something rounded (like the back rounded vowels of vocalized L)

Second, a lateral L should have a high F3 (because it should have an antiformant between F2 and F3 that drives its F3 up)

Lower F3 means a more vocalized token

F3 normalized to each speaker’s /a/ vowel.

Friday, August 19, 2011 Tokens of L

Tokens Coda L 570 Syllabic L 418 Oldest speakers 295 Youngest speakers 693 Female 479 Male 509 Northern WV 586 Southern WV 402

Friday, August 19, 2011 Statistical ﬁndings: Coda L

Decrease in intensity from vowel midpoint to L across age groups

l l l

l l

0.15 l l l l l l l l l l l l 0.10 0.05 0.00 intensity decrease

l l − 0.05 l l l l

l − 0.10

l − 0.15

2 4

age group

Friday, August 19, 2011 Statistical ﬁndings: Coda L

Decrease in intensity from vowel midpoint to L, older speakers

l 0.15

0.10 l 0.05 0.00 intensity decrease − 0.05

l − 0.10 − 0.15

vowel coronal labial none velar

following place of articulation

Friday, August 19, 2011 Statistical ﬁndings: Coda L Decrease in intensity from vowel midpoint to L, younger speakers l 0.15 l l l l l l l l l l 0.10 l l l l l 0.05 0.00

intensity decrease l l

− 0.05 l l l − 0.10

l − 0.15

vowel coronal labial none velar

following place of articulation

Friday, August 19, 2011 Statistical ﬁndings: Syllabic L

Normalized F3 at syllabic L midpoint across age groups

l l l l 1.4 l l l 1.2 normalized F3 1.0 0.8

l l

2 4

age group

Friday, August 19, 2011 Statistical ﬁndings: Syllabic L

Normalized F3 at syllabic L midpoint, older speakers

l 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 normalized F3 0.9

l 0.8

vowel coronal labial none velar

following place of articulation

Friday, August 19, 2011 Statistical ﬁndings: Syllabic L

Normalized F3 at syllabic L midpoint, older speakers

l 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 normalized F3 0.9 0.8

northern southern

region

Friday, August 19, 2011 Statistical ﬁndings: Syllabic L

Normalized F3 at syllabic L midpoint, younger speakers

l l l l 1.4 1.2 normalized F3 1.0 0.8

l l

female male

region

Friday, August 19, 2011 Diffusion or Transmission?

More Vocalization Philadelphia Older WV Younger WV

before velars ᛚ

before labials ᛚ

before coronals ᛚ

before pause ᛚ ᛚ

before vowels ᛚ ᛚ

after low vowels ᛚ ᛚ

Friday, August 19, 2011 Discussion

If there is a change in process for syllabic L towards a less vocalized norm, younger females and northerners in general are leading the way.

Inter-speaker variation is small. All speakers greatly overlap in their distribution of tokens.

Intra-speaker variation is large for all speakers.

Friday, August 19, 2011 Intra-speaker variation: Coda L

Decrease in intensity from vowel midpoint to L

l l

l 0.15 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

0.10 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0.05 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 0.00 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l intensity decrease l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l − 0.05 l l l − 0.10

l − 0.15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

speaker

Friday, August 19, 2011 Intra-Speaker Variation: Syllabic L

Normalized F3 at syllabic L midpoint

l l

l 1.4

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 1.2 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l normalized F3 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

1.0 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

0.8 l l l l l l l l

l l

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

speaker

Friday, August 19, 2011 Summary

Analysis reinforces our belief that Coda L and Syllabic L are different phonetic creatures.

It appears that older speakers shared constraints with Philadelphians, but that younger speakers are working towards more phonetically natural constraints. Transmission.

Phonetic analysis of L-vocalization is more fruitful for the study of language variation and change.

Friday, August 19, 2011 Endings

PDF of presentation:

http://dialects.english.wvu.edu/research

We would like to thank the National Science Foundation (BCS-0743489) for funding and the research assistants of the WVDP for all their hard work.

Friday, August 19, 2011 References

Ash, Sharon. (1982). The vocalization of /l/ in Philadelphia. PhD dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Ash, Sherry. (1982). The Vocalization of Intervocalic /l/ in Philadelphia. SECOL Review 6: 162-175. Barry, Martin C. (2000). A phonetic and phonological investigation of English clear and dark syllabic /l/. Bulletin de la communication parlee 5:77-88. Borowsky, Toni. The vocalization of dark /l/ in Australian English. “English in Australia.” Edited by David Blair and Peter Collins. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam: 2001. Borowsky, Toni and Horvath, Barbara M. (1997). L-Vocalization in Australian English. Book edited by Frans Hinskens, Roeland van Hout, and W. Leo Wetzels. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory: Variation, Change and Phonological Theory 146: 101-123. Dodsworth, Robin. (2005). Attribute networking: A technique for modeling social perceptions. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (2): 225-253. Durian, David. (2008). The Vocalization of /l/ in Urban Blue Collar Columbus, Oh African American Vernacular English: A Quantitative Sociophonetic Analysis. OSUWPL 58: 30-51. Hardcastle, William, and Barry, William. (1989). Articulatory and perceptual factors in /l/ vocalization in English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 15:3-17. Horvath, Barbara M. and Horvath, Ronald J. (2001). A multilocality study of a sound change in progress: The case of /l/ vocalization in New Zealand and Australian English. Language Variation and Change 13:37-57. Horvath, Barbara M. and Horvath, Ronald J. (2002). The geolinguistics of /l/ vocalization in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 319-346. Johnson, Wyn and Britain, David. (2007). L-vocalisation as a natural phenomenon: explorations in sociophonology. Language Science 29: 294-315. Jones, Daniel. (1959). The Use of Syllabic and Non-Syllabic l and n in Derivatives of English Words Ending in Syllabic l and n. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 12: 136-144. Kerswill, Paul. (1995). Phonological convergence in dialect contact: Evidence from citation forms. Language Variation and Change 7: 195-207. McElhinny, Bonnie. (1999). More on the Third Dialect of English: Linguistic constraints on the use of three phonological variables in Pittsburgh. Language Variation and Change 11: 171-195. Meuter, Anne. (2002). L-vocalisation and labiodental variants of /r/ in the speech of Colchester primary school children—The acquisition of a sound change? Unpublished MA dissertation. Essex University. Recasens, Daniel. (1996). An Articulatory-Perceptual Account of Vocalization and Elision of Dark /l/ in the Romance Languages. Language and Speech 39 (1): 63-89. Sproatt, Richard, and Fujimura, Osamu. (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21:291-312. Wright, S. (1989). “The effects of style and speaking rate on /l/-vocalisation in local Cambridge English,” in York Papers in Linguistics 13, 355-365.

Friday, August 19, 2011