The rise of Canadian raising of /au/ in English Katie Carmichael

Citation: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147, 554 (2020); doi: 10.1121/10.0000553 View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 View Table of Contents: https://asa.scitation.org/toc/jas/147/1 Published by the Acoustical Society of America ...... ARTICLE

The rise of Canadian raising of /au/ in New Orleans English

Katie Carmichaela) Department of English, Virginia Tech, 181 Turner Street NW, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA

ABSTRACT: New Orleans English (NOE) has always stood out amongst Southern Englishes, since NOE speakers do not participate in the Southern vowel shift, and instead display features more commonly associated with . While these traditional features of NOE are on the decline, this study establishes the adoption of a new feature in the dialect that is similarly distinctive within the Gulf South: the pre-voiceless raising of the nucleus of /au/. Based on statistical analyses and consideration of the social context in post-Katrina New Orleans, this paper argues that this feature is a change in progress which appears to pre-date the demographic shifts following Hurricane Katrina, and which arose independently rather than due to contact with /au/-raising speakers. The social and phonetic findings in this paper converge to support arguments for the naturalness of raising in pre-voiceless environments, and for the likelihood of this feature being more widely adopted within the region. Moreover, the presence of Canadian raising of /au/ in NOE represents an additional way that the local dialect continues to diverge from patterns in the vowel systems found in nearby Southern dialects, and retain its uniqueness within the American South. VC 2020 Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 (Received 17 January 2019; revised 2 November 2019; accepted 4 November 2019; published online 31 January 2020) [Editor: Irina A Shport] Pages: 554–567

I. INTRODUCTION Becker, 2018). These traditional features are on the retreat (Carmichael 2014, 2017), though there is evidence that The raising of the nucleus of /au/ and/or /ai/ preceding social developments in the city following Hurricane Katrina voiceless consonants is commonly referred to as “Canadian” in 2005 have had impacts on ideologies about these linguis- raising, in part because of the association of /au/-raising in tic features, and indeed conceptions about New Orleans lan- particular with a distinctly Canadian identity (Niedzielski, guage practices on the whole (Schoux Casey, 2016; Dajko 1999; Swan, 2017; Nycz, 2018). Despite its name and associ- and Carmichael, 2018). The existence of these documented ations, pre-voiceless diphthong raising is attested in various linguistic and social shifts raises the question of what NOE locations throughout the U.S., with /ai/-raising more common will sound like in future generations, especially as the after- than /au/-raising outside of Canada. That said, /au/-raising is effects of Katrina develop and stabilize. In this paper, I present outside of Canada and has indeed been examined in a suggest that the phonologically conditioned raising of /au/ number of Northern U.S. states along the Canadian border, represents an innovation that will continue to distinguish including Michigan (Dailey-O’Cain, 1997; Niedzielski, NOE from surrounding Southern dialects. This change in 1999), Vermont (Roberts, 2007), and Washington (Swan, progress is of interest for three key reasons: (1) in light of 2017). Within the Southern U.S., /au/-raising has been noted evidence that distinctive NOE features are being lost, it sug- historically in Coastal Atlantic states such as Maryland, gests that the dialect is not simply leveling as Englishes in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia some other Southern cities are doing (e.g., Baranowski, (Kurath and McDavid, 1961; Baranowski, 2007). Though 2007); rather NOE may be developing new local linguistic Canadian raising of /au/ has not been previously noted any- markers; (2) this post-Katrina dataset presents an opportu- where in the Inland/Gulf South, this study establishes its nity to examine broader questions about the relationship presence within a suburban White dialect of New Orleans between language change, mobility, and place orientation, English (NOE), and demonstrates its current status as a since speakers in this sample vary in terms of their move- change in progress. I examine the social patterning of this ments after the storm, and their affiliation with their pre- feature within this community, and consider the role of and post-Katrina homes; and (3) the data presented supports Hurricane Katrina in the adoption and spread of this variable. arguments in favor of the naturalness of pre-voiceless rais- New Orleans has been noted as something of a dialect ing, based on phonetic evidence as well as consideration of island within the South (Labov et al., 2006), with many the social context of its development. speakers featuring distinctly Northern-sounding linguistic features, in particular a number of phonological features II. CANADIAN RAISING IN CANADA AND THE U.S. shared with New York City English, such as raised /O/, non- rhoticity, and a split short-a system (Carmichael and Chambers (1973) coined the phrase “Canadian raising” to describe raising of the nucleus of /au/ and/or /ai/ before voiceless consonants. This phonologically conditioned rais- a)Electronic mail: [email protected] ing has been extensively examined throughout Canada

554 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 0001-4966/2020/147(1)/554/14/$30.00 VC 2020 Acoustical Society of America https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553

(Joos, 1942; Chambers, 1973, 1989, 2006; Chambers and raising in Kansas City without evidence of contact, and as I Hardwick, 1985; Kinloch and Ismail, 1993; Hagiwara, will argue in this paper, NOE presents evidence of pre- 2006; Rosenfelder, 2007; Sadlier-Brown, 2012; Hall, 2016; voiceless /au/-raising without evidence of contact. Thus, an Swan, 2017) and the U.S. (Kurath and McDavid, 1961; examination of this feature in NOE provides an opportunity Labov, 1963; Vance, 1987; Chambers, 1989; Dailey- to probe the question of naturalness without the issue of O’Cain, 1997; Baranowski, 2007; Roberts, 2007; Labov confounding population- and contact-based factors. et al., 2013; Baclawski et al., 2014; Swan, 2017). Within Within sociolinguistic examinations of /au/-raising in the U.S., /ai/-raising is more common than /au/-raising, with particular, questions have predominantly been centered on some researchers advocating for /ai/-raising without con- the social meaning of this variation and on its spread and comitant /au/-raising to be referred to as “American raising” adoption. A common finding across communities featuring (Davis et al., 2019). And indeed, there is evidence that /au/- /au/-raising is gendered patterning of change, with women raising strongly indexes Canadian nationality, due to stereo- leading changes both towards and away from pre-voiceless types about Canadian pronunciations of words like “out” /au/-raising (Chambers and Hardwick, 1985; Dailey- and “about” (Chambers, 1989; Dailey-O’Cain, 1997; O’Cain, 1997; Roberts, 2007; Sadlier-Brown, 2012; Hall, Boberg, 2010), while /ai/-raising does not (Nycz, 2018). 2016; Swan, 2017). There is also, as mentioned, a strong A central question in phonological research on pre- association of pre-voiceless /au/-raising with Canadian voiceless diphthong-raising has been whether this variation identity. This perception persists even though not all represents a phonemic versus allophonic split (see Mielke Canadian dialects feature /au/-raising. Niedzielski (1999) et al., 2003; Idsardi, 2006; Moreton, 2016; Hualde et al., demonstrated that Detroit listeners so robustly associated 2017). The phonemicization of diphthong raising is gener- /au/-raising with being Canadian that they misidentified ally established based on the existence of minimal pairs raised tokens as unraised when they were attributed to a with raised and unraised variants, such as rider/writer in the Detroit speaker as opposed to a Canadian. Moreover, Swan case of /ai/—where the underlying [t] is realized as a flap, (2017) showed that Vancouverites who express more rendering the trigger for raising “opaque,” or irretrievable national pride in being Canadian also demonstrate more from the surface representation. Examination of pre-flap pre-voiceless raising of /au/. In addition, Nycz (2018) found environments can further shed light on how the adoption of that speakers of who live in the U.S. pro- diphthong raising progresses within a community when this duce lower pre-voiceless /au/ nuclei when expressing posi- feature is incipient, though such examinations have typically tive affect about the U.S., compared to when they talk been limited to /ai/-raising (see Fruehwald, 2016; Berkson positively about Canada, which she argued was evidence of et al., 2017; Bermudez-Otero, 2017). This may be due to the their alignment with a U.S.-based, rather than Canada- fact that /ai/-raising is more widespread than /au/-raising in based, identity in those moments. Notably, Nycz did not dialects of North , or due to /ai/’s greater find the same effect with /ai/-raising, which she argued was lexical frequency compared to /au/, both in general and in not a salient identifier of Canadian identity in the same way pre-flap environments (the only pre-flap minimal pair for that /au/-raising is. /au/ that could be argued to exist is “powder” vs “pouter,” Vocalic variation in NOE is not well described in gen- with the latter an extremely low frequency word, being a eral, but in the scant research that does document vowel variety of pigeon). pronunciations in NOE (predominantly consisting of While /au/-raising research is not particularly well- Master’s theses, dissertations, and broader dialectological suited to answering questions about the phonologization of surveys), /au/ variation is noticeably absent from descrip- raising on the basis of minimal pairs, it can still provide evi- tions of key NOE features. In fact, Rubrecht (1971, p. 184) dence for the phonetic origins of pre-voiceless diphthong in his work for the Dictionary of Regional American raising. A number of researchers have proposed that English (DARE) specifically states that he found no system- Canadian raising of /ai/ and /au/ represents a phonetically atic /au/ variation preceding voiceless versus voiced conso- motivated process based on the vowel shortening and nants, citing the work of Kurath and McDavid (1961) in offglide-peripheralizing effects of a following voiceless The Pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States: consonant (Joos, 1942; Moreton, 2004; Moreton and Thomas, 2004). This argument, which is centered on the it is clear […] that there exists no regional phonotactic naturalness of raising in pre-voiceless environments, would pattern similar to that along certain sections of the be bolstered by the independent development of Canadian Atlantic coast in which one variant, [@U]or[ÆU], raising of either /ai/ or /au/ in a speech community not in occurs before voiceless consonants, and another, [æU] contact with another in which raising is found. However, in or [aU], in other positions. many studies of the spread of this variation, the adoption of diphthong raising can be explained by either contact or his- Thus the research questions that this data set can speak toric settlement patterns (Daily-O’Cain, 1997; Roberts, to are: Is Canadian raising of /au/ present in NOE? If so, to 2007; Baranowski, 2007; Baclawski et al., 2014), making it what degree? And why is it not documented historically in impossible to determine whether it would have arisen spon- NOE—because it is a change in progress, or because this taneously. Strelluf (2018) documents pre-voiceless /ai/- dialect is simply under-described? Finally, how does it

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael 555 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 pattern according to social factors in the community, espe- Figure 1 demonstrates the location of Chalmette in relation cially given the upheaval in New Orleans following to New Orleans proper. Hurricane Katrina, and how can our interpretation of these Sociolinguistic interviews were audiorecorded in .wav results improve our broader understanding of the ways format with a Zoom H4 handy recorder. Participants wore a diphthong-raising, in general, is adopted and spreads in cardioid Shure SM10A unidirectional headset microphone ? while a Crown Audio Sound Grabber II microphone set next to the recorder captured other speech and interaction; the III. METHODS two microphones recorded onto separate channels, at a sam- pling rate of 44 100 Hz. The linguistic data analyzed in this The data for this study were collected over nine months study came from the Shure SM10A microphone, which cap- of ethnographic fieldwork in Greater New Orleans (GNO) tured a recording of sufficient quality for performing acoustic in 2012. The ethnographic data, collected in the form of analysis, without background noise that could introduce for- fieldnotes and reflexive observations about interactions in mant tracking errors in Praat. During the interview, partici- the community, allowed for a nuanced treatment of the pants were prompted to share narratives about their life and social divisions in this community that seemed to be most growing up in the Greater New Orleans area. For the study, salient to participants, so that /au/ variation according to 15–45 min of the interview were transcribed, which was used social factors could be tested in meaningful ways. to represent the interview speech condition. The other two Linguistic data in the form of audio recordings from 57 par- speech conditions included a reading passage and word list ticipants were included in this study. All participants were featuring /au/ in a variety of phonological contexts (see from the White, working class New Orleans suburb of Appendix A for /au/ words featured in each), resulting in Chalmette preceding Hurricane Katrina; however, a number three speech conditions reported on in this paper. of participants had permanently relocated to other parts of Interview speech, reading passage, and word list GNO following the storm. Chalmette was targeted as part recordings were automatically aligned and segmented using of a broader study of NOE features because it has been the Penn Forced Aligner (Yuan and Liberman, 2008). All described as a more linguistically conservative speech com- vowel tokens analyzed in this paper were hand-checked for munity (Mucciaccio, 2009), representative of historic NOE alignment errors, which sometimes consisted of misidentifi- patterns that remain to be adequately documented in the lit- cation of certain words or segments, or of segmenting vow- erature; indeed, Chalmette is frequently identified by other els longer or shorter than the duration of the actual vowel, GNO residents as the locus of stigmatized local linguistic as identified by the clarity of the formant structure and the features (Mucciaccio, 2009; Dajko and Carmichael, 2018). darkness of shading on the spectrogram. Once the tokens

FIG. 1. (Color online) Map of Greater New Orleans, with the town of Chalmette highlighted.

556 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 were hand-corrected, formant values at two locations within encapsulates into a single quantitative measure the local sig- the vowel (25% and 75% points), as well as duration of the nificance both of identification as a Chalmatian (a term used vowel, were extracted via a Praat script for the first 30 tokens pejoratively by outsiders, but reclaimed as a positive identi- of /au/ from the interview speech, along with all the tokens fier by many Chalmette residents), and of retaining a from the reading passage and wordlist. F1andF2valuesat Chalmette-centric daily life, limiting interactions with out- the 50% point were also extracted for 10–20 tokens of siders. For example, many participants in my sample noted /i,æ,A,oU,eI,u/ for each speaker from the reading passage and that “True Chalmatians” actively avoided spending time interview conditions, in order to normalize the vowel spaces outside of Chalmette, and rarely focused their energy on using the Lobanov (1971) speaker-intrinsic method of nor- relationships with non-Chalmette residents. As participants malization. As a check on this automated extraction process, explained to me: outliers for all tokens that were more than two standard devia- tions from the mean value were hand-checked and corrected “Mostly homegrown stay homegrown […] they don’t when necessary, or discarded if it was not possible to get an really venture out” accurate measure on the formant track. The vast majority of /au/ outliers came from pre-nasal environments. Pre-nasal (Molly, 23, female) environments were noted to be the site of extreme nucleus- raising and -fronting, which both sounded and presented on “[Chalmatians] stay in Chalmette, they don’t leave” the spectrogram differently from other tokens in the sample; as a result, pre-nasal environments are considered separately (Buckaroo, 25, female) from pre-voiced/pausal and pre-voiceless tokens of /au/ in the Thus a defining feature of a true Chalmatian is limiting analyses that follow. Ultimately, 21 tokens of /au/ were manu- one’s exposure to outside forces, and this was the case even ally corrected or discarded. This process resulted in a total of for a number of participants who relocated after the storm 566 tokens of /au/ from the word list (10 per speaker), 1656 who continued to work, attend religious services, and tokens from the reading passage (30 per speaker), and 1629 patronize Chalmette-based businesses, despite living 30 or tokens from interview speech (30 per speaker), for a total of more minutes away post-Katrina. Yet others in the sample 3851 tokens overall. embraced their new communities and homes, explaining Because this study sought to examine the influence of that they had always wanted to leave Chalmette and the social factors on Canadian raising of /au/ in the sample of storm had simply provided the impetus to finally do so. In Chalmette residents, a number of social factors were coded my development of the extra-Chalmatian orientation score, or controlled for in the sample. To begin with, one question I strived to encompass this idea of inward- vs outward- of interest was whether displacement following Hurricane focused participants, and quantify some of the observations Katrina had any effect on this variable. Of the 57 partici- that participants made about what behaviors signify one’s pants, 30 rebuilt in Chalmette following Hurricane Katrina, orientation within this community. For this reason, aspects while 27 moved away permanently to other areas of GNO of personal identity as well as affiliation with Chalmette- such as the Northshore of Lake Pontchartrain (see Fig. 1); based versus external institutions are included in this multi- those who returned and rebuilt were coded as returners and faceted place orientation score.1 The resulting measure is a those who relocated elsewhere were coded as relocators,in numeric score ranging from 5 (very locally oriented) to terms of their post-Katrina location status. Recall that 16 (very externally oriented), the calculation of which is Chalmette is the locus of more traditional pronunciations in described in further detail in Appendix B. Note that the GNO, which means that relocation would result in partici- extra-Chalmatian orientation measure is not correlated with pants living in a part of GNO with different linguistic norms, post-Katrina location status. which could affect their use of local linguistic features. Another social factor that was important to account for While post-Katrina location status documents whether was social class. Although all speakers came from a pre- participants were physically displaced from their pre- dominantly working class community, and thus are not rep- Katrina homes, I also sought to address questions about par- resentative of the entire range of social class distribution ticipants’ more subjective relationships with Chalmette as a across the Greater New Orleans metro area, there was varia- place. In order to consider aspects of place-based identity tion in educational attainment and occupation types across (Johnstone et al., 2006) within the statistical model of /au/ the corpus. To test the significance of these differences variation, a place orientation measure was developed based within this sample, a social class score representing a con- on nine months of ethnographic data collection. This mea- tinuous measure ranging from 2 to 12 was calculated for sure, which I call the extra-Chalmatian orientation measure, each speaker. The score included the following: represents a multifaceted method of accounting for ways participants oriented to a Chalmette-based identity, versus (1) Educational attainment: a score from 1 to 5 capturing an externally-focused identity. It captures the fact that whether participants attended or completed high school, returning versus relocating was not always a voluntary college, or graduate/professional degrees. choice, and did not always reflect participants’ levels of (2) Occupation: a score from 1 to 6 based on occupational affiliation with their new and old homes. It also categories established in Labov (2001, p. 61) where 1 is

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael 557 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553

unemployed, 2–3 is blue collar unskilled/skilled, 4–5 is shorter duration (Moon and Lindblom, 1994). The results of white collar unskilled/skilled, and 6 is professional; no these analyses are reported below. participants in the sample were categorized as 1 or 6; retired individuals were categorized based on their IV. ESTABLISHING THE PRESENCE OF CANADIAN working career and stay-at-home spouses were catego- RAISING OF /au/ IN NOE rized according to their spouse’s profession. Since Canadian raising of /au/ has not previously been (3) Public vs private high school attendance (a locally established as a feature of NOE, it is essential first to exam- salient class marker): participants received 1 point for ine the evidence that this feature is present in the corpus of private/Catholic schooling and 0 points for public recordings being analyzed, and to describe its phonetic schooling. manifestation. First, overall measurements were examined On this scale, Nunu—a public high school graduate across the data set. Table I presents mean values within the and factory mechanic—receives a 3, while Frank—a CPA interview condition for F1 and F2 at the 25% point, both in who attended an elite Catholic school and then completed a raw Hz values and normalized, for men and women sepa- professional degree—receives an 11. The average class rately, as well as mean duration, for all tokens preceding ranking was 6.5. Note that the social class is not correlated voiceless consonants, versus those preceding voiced conso- with the extra-Chalmatian orientation measure. nants and pauses (pre-nasal tokens were excluded from this The participant pool was approximately balanced by age table). The means were first calculated by speaker, and then (ranging from 18 to 85) and gender (32 women, 25 men), by gender group so that differing token counts across partic- allowing for these factors to be tested for in the statistical ipants would not skew the overall means. analysis. The ethnicity of the speaker could not be tested for Table I on its own does not provide good evidence for the since all participants identified as White, which is representa- presence of Canadian raising of /au/ in NOE. However, closer tive of the community, which was 80%–90% White preced- inspection of individual speaker patterns reveals that this is ing Hurricane Katrina (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). likely because (a) some speakers in the sample do not feature Because all participants were recorded during three con- raising, and (b) the speakers that do feature pre-voiceless rais- ditions—interview, reading passage, word list—speech condi- ing are sometimes inconsistent in their use of this feature. tion was examined as a potential variable impacting Canadian Vowel plots for individual speakers allow for a closer look at raising of /au/. Variation across condition could suggest some individual patterns. Figure 2, for example, presents a plot of level of awareness of the feature, since variation across the mean normalized trajectories for pre-voiced/pausal speech styles tends to occur for features which have acquired (excluding pre-nasal) and pre-voiceless /au/ from interview some social meaning, either positive or negative, influencing speech for Ellie (18, female). In Fig. 2, filled triangles repre- whether individuals manipulate the feature when more atten- sent the pre-voiceless trajectory while unfilled circles repre- tion is directed towards their speech (Labov, 2001). sent the pre-voiced trajectory. Figure 2, in contrast with Table The presence of Canadian raising of /au/ was established I, does provide evidence of pre-voiceless /au/-raising. based on visual examination of vowel plots for each speaker, As a point of comparison, /au/ trajectories preceding as well as analysis of raw Hz values for pre-voiced and pre- voiced/voiceless consonants are presented in Fig. 3 for voiceless/pausal environments. In addition, to test the effects Ronda’s (85, female) interview speech. Ronda’s realizations of the above described social factors on Canadian raising of of /au/ present nearly overlapping distributions in pre- /au/, a linear mixed effects regression model was generated voiced and pre-voiceless environments; she does not feature in RStudio (Rstudio Team, 2016). The dependent variable raising. consisted of normalized F1 at the 25% point of the vowel, in In The Atlas of North American English, Labov et al. order to capture tongue raising.2 Also included in the model (2006, p. 222) set a threshold of 60 Hz difference between were following environment, in order to test the influence of (normalized and rescaled to Hz) /au/ nuclei preceding following voiceless consonants, and duration of the vowel, voiced and voiceless tokens for classification as Canadian to address the question of whether raising in these environ- raising. Because the Lobanov normalization used in the cur- ments was purely phonetic in nature, due to phonetic rent study results in z-scored values, this threshold cannot “undershoot,” or less peripheral realizations, in segments of be examined within the normalized data set; however,

TABLE I. Mean F1/F2 (in Hz and Lobanov normalized) at 25% point and mean duration preceding voiced and voiceless consonants within the interview condition.

Mean F1at Mean F2at Mean duration Mean Lobanov Mean Lobanov 25% point (Hz) 25% point (Hz) (ms) normalized F1 at 25% point normalized F2 at 25% point women voiceless 808.260 1591.415 168 1.207 0.596 women voiced 814.336 1700.749 225 1.411 0.553 men voiceless 672.279 1298.738 165 1.251 0.597 men voiced 696.700 1353.403 221 1.552 0.563

558 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553

FIG. 2. Mean normalized pre-voiced and pre-voiceless /au/ in Ellie’s (18, female, returner) interview speech: evidence of raising. FIG. 3. Mean normalized pre-voiced and pre-voiceless /au/ in Ronda’s (85, female, returner) interview speech: no evidence of raising. within-speaker differences can be inspected for raw Hz val- In Fig. 4, pre-voiceless environments feature notably ues. Doing so results in only 9 out of 57 speakers meeting lower F1 values, which translates to raised pronunciations the threshold of >60 Hz difference in mean F1 value at the due to the inverse relationship between F1 and tongue raising, 25% point between voiced and voiceless tokens. Box plots in comparison with pre-voiced environments. Figure 4 thus of the normalized F1 values for these speakers collapsed provides good evidence that there are speakers in this data set across all three conditions are presented in Fig. 4, in which who consistently raise in pre-voiceless environments. What is 0 (in white) represents pre-voiceless environments and V more, a number of speakers do not meet this threshold, but (in grey) represents pre-voiced environments. these speakers still show evidence of variable pre-voiceless

FIG. 4. Pre-voiced and pre-voiceless normalized F1 at the 25% point across all speech conditions for Labovian- threshold raisers.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael 559 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 raising. Ellie, whose vowel plot appears in Fig. 2,showsevi- TABLE II. Mixed effects linear regression for normalized F1 at 25%. dence of raising in her vowel plot, and her raised tokens are Estimate Std. error t- value readily apparent in the audio of her recordings; however, her overall mean pre-voiced and pre-voiceless tokens differed (Intercept) 1.102 0.078 14.073 only by 26 Hz. Thus, in this speech community, where raising Following segment seems to be inconsistent at times both across and within sub- (reference point: voiced) jects, it is necessary to inspect the data in multiple ways in voiceless 20.525 0.078 26.710 order to detect the presence of Canadian raising. The exami- nasal 20.287 0.086 23.320 nation above leads to the conclusion that (a) Canadian raising Duration 0.715 0.165 4.335 Condition is present in the speech of some participants in this study, but (reference point: interview speech) that (b) it is not a feature found across the board, and (c) even reading passage 0.075 0.041 1.850 within speakers who feature pre-voiceless raising, this feature word list 0.160 0.053 3.004 is not consistent. To gain a clearer idea of what factors condi- Age 0.003 0.001 2.302 tions raising in this community beyond following environ- Gender ment, it is necessary to generate and analyze a more complex (reference point: female) statistical model of the variation, which is presented in Sec. V. male 0.133 0.039 3.376 Extra-Chalmatian orientation 20.008 0.002 23.406 V. VARIATIONIST ANALYSIS OF CANADIAN RAISING Interaction: following segment and duration OF /au/ IN NOE voiceless-duration 1.901 0.268 7.084 nasal-duration 0.346 0.250 1.386 To test the factors impacting Canadian raising of /au/ in Interaction: following segment and condition the sample, a mixed effects linear regression model was gen- voiceless-reading passage 20.269 0.048 25.635 erated, with the dependent variable of normalized F1 at the nasal-reading passage 20.127 0.051 22.485 25% point. Fixed effects tested in the model include the lin- voiceless-wordlist 0.114 0.075 1.517 guistic effects of vowel duration and the following segment, nasal-wordlist 0.022 0.083 0.268 which was simplified into nasal, voiceless, and voiced.3 As a Interaction: following segment and age reminder, in this dialect, pre-nasal raising and fronting are voiceless-age 0.004 0.001 4.716 nasal-age 0.001 0.001 0.854 observed for some speakers, thus nasal environments were Interaction: following segment and gender treated separately from other voiced segments so that they voiceless-male 0.045 0.031 1.465 did not skew the F1 measurements and obscure differences nasal-male 0.152 0.032 4.724 between pre-voiced and pre-voiceless environments. Social Random effects of speaker (SD¼0.121) and word (SD¼0.305) predictors examined include speech condition (interview, reading passage, word list), age (treated as a continuous vari- able), gender (male, female), social class (an integer value marked in bold, and lower estimates indicate a lower F1, from 2 to 12, where 12 is the highest social class), post- which symbolizes more raising, due to the inverse relation- Katrina location status (returner, relocator), and extra- ship between F1 and tongue raising. Chalmatian orientation score (an integer value from -5 to 16, Table II reveals that normalized F1 at the 25% point in where 16 is the most externally oriented). The random pre-nasal and pre-voiceless environments differs significantly effects of the speaker and word were included in each from pre-voiced/pausal contexts, with pre-nasal and pre- model. Since the research questions were centered on condi- voiceless environments both featuring lower F1 values, and tioning based on the following segment, interactions thus more tongue raising. The pre-nasal result is reflective of between the following segment and each of the fixed effects the above-described raising and fronting preceding nasal con- were tested in a step-up process, which consists of adding sonants. The pre-voiceless result indicates that there is indeed predictors to the model and testing via analysis of variance Canadian raising within this corpus and that it is present in (ANOVA) whether it improved the predictive power of the high enough rates across participants to fuel an overall signifi- model. Table II presents the results of the mixed effects lin- cant finding of F1 values according to following environment. ear regression model that best predicted normalized F1at Table II also demonstrates that vowel tokens featuring the 25% point of the vowel. Significant predictors include: longer durations tend to feature higher F1 values (less rais- following segment, vowel duration, speech condition, age, ing). Since syllables of longer duration allow more time for gender, extra-Chalmatian orientation score, and interactions the tongue to achieve a peripheral realization, this finding between the following segment and duration, the following suggests that some aspects of the raising in this corpus may segment and condition, the following segment and age, and indeed be a function of “undershoot” (Moon and Lindblom, the following segment and gender. Social class and post- 1994). In the case of Canadian raising, undershoot would Katrina location status were not included in the model represent a less peripheral realization of /a/, and thus a more because their inclusion does not significantly improve the centralized (in this case, raised) nucleus in these shorter syl- ability of the model to account for the observed variation. In lables. Furthermore, the significant interaction between fol- Table II, significant predictors within each factor group, lowing segment and duration indicates significantly less indicated by a T-value greater than 2 or under 2, are raising in pre-voiceless contexts when the duration of the

560 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 vowel is longer. Figure 5 demonstrates this effect, wherein the (interview speech) to most monitored (word list) (Labov, data set is divided according to tokens longer and shorter than 2001). Thus features that participants are aware of often vary 25 milliseconds, for ease of visualization. For shorter sylla- in predictable ways across these conditions, with more presti- bles, one observes a clear distinction between pre-voiceless gious features appearing in higher rates in more monitored and pre-voiced tokens, whereas for longer syllables there is no speech conditions, and more stigmatized features appearing at noticeable difference between F1 height across these environ- lower rates in these conditions. However, here we see no such ments. Both pre-voiceless and pre-voiced tokens feature pattern. Following this framing of the speech condition higher F1 (less raising) in syllables longer than 25 ms; how- effects, one potential explanation is that New Orleanians are ever, the difference in raising between the shorter and longer simply not aware of this variation and/or do not assign social tokens is much larger for pre-voiceless environments. meaning to it, thus variation between these conditions is not Since vowels preceding voiceless consonants tend to be meaningful. And on the whole, there is no evidence that shorter than those preceding voiced consonants (Chen, Canadian raising of /au/ is overtly stigmatized in Greater New 1970), it is not entirely unexpected to note an effect of dura- Orleans, unlike some other NOE features (e.g., nonrhoticity, tion in the model; however, the interaction seen in Fig. 5 Carmichael, 2017) which are explicitly criticized by residents. points to an effect of duration even within pre-voiceless Another possible explanation is that some speakers may be contexts—in that shorter pre-voiceless vowels feature more more aware of this feature than others, and their variation raising than longer ones—which suggests that undershoot across conditions is obscured to a certain extent by others in may be driving pre-voiceless raising of /au/. That is, some the data set who do not vary across conditions in systematic amount of raising seems to be phonetic, caused by articula- ways. A final potential explanation is that if Canadian raising tory constraints. This pattern may suggest that the change in of /au/ is indeed still an incipient change in progress, there is progress remains incipient and has not been fully phonolo- simply more variation in the dataset than would be the case gized (Fruehwald, 2016; Berkson et al., 2017), warranting with a more established variant in the community, accounting further investigation of this feature using more controlled for the unclear patterns across conditions. (e.g., laboratory) methods. Speaker age was a significant predictor, with older In terms of social factors, speech condition was a signifi- speakers featuring less raising than younger speakers—a cant predictor of normalized F1 at the 25% point, with less pattern that is indicative of a change in progress, according raising in the word list condition than in interview speech. to the apparent time hypothesis, in which individual speech This may be a product of slower speech rate in the word list is postulated to change very little over one’s lifetime, thus condition allowing for a longer duration of syllables, which differences between older and younger speakers in a given as mentioned above produces less raising. However, an inter- community are interpreted as representing evidence of lin- action between condition and the following segment reveals guistic change over time. Figure 6 presents a scatter plot of that in the reading passage condition, there is conversely each speaker’s mean normalized F1 at the 25% point for more raising in pre-nasal and pre-voiceless contexts than only pre-voiceless tokens, demonstrating a clear trend there is in interview speech. Another consideration in inter- wherein younger speakers on the whole feature lower F1 preting these speech condition effects is that they are typi- values (more raising) in these contexts than older speakers. cally targeted in sociolinguistic interviews because they are An interaction between the following segment and age considered to represent a continuum from least monitored demonstrates that this effect in the full dataset is indeed

FIG. 5. Normalized /au/ height according to following environment and FIG. 6. Speakers’ mean normalized F1 at the 25% point for pre-voiceless vowel duration. /au/ across all speech conditions, according to age.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael 561 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 driven by pre-voiceless contexts—Canadian raising—rather than pre-nasal contexts, which do not show a significant effect for age. This suggests that pre-nasal raising and front- ing of /au/ is not a change in progress in this community as Canadian raising appears to be. Pre-nasal raising and front- ing thus likely represents a separate phonological process. Speaker gender was selected as a significant factor in the model, with men featuring less raised /au/ nuclei than women. An interaction between the preceding segment and gender reveals that this distinction is driven by pre-nasal tokens and is not significant for pre-voiceless contexts. Pre-nasal raising and fronting appear to be more common in the speech of women than men in this community; no such pattern exists for pre-voiceless raising. Thus, unlike in many other communities in which gendered patterning of Canadian raising is observed, FIG. 7. Speakers’ mean normalized F1 at the 25% point for pre-voiceless /au/ in New Orleans there appears to be no correlation between across all speech conditions, according to extra-Chalmatian orientation. gender and pre-voiceless /au/-raising, and the change in pro- gress does not appear to be led by either sex. normalized F1 values) do tend to be more locally oriented, The final significant predictor in the model was extra- featuring negative extra-Chalmatian orientation scores. This Chalmatian orientation. As a reminder, extra-Chalmatian orien- patterning is the opposite of what Carmichael (2014, 2017) tation scores indicate participants’ affiliation with places exter- documented for traditional NOE features in this community nal to Chalmette; a lower extra-Chalmatian orientation score such as nonrhoticity; the most locally oriented speakers, in indicates a strong orientation towards Chalmette-centric identi- this case, were those who featured the most r-less pronunci- ties and institutions, while a higher score is indicative of affilia- ations. Thus, considering these results in tandem, we see tion with external locations (see Appendix B). This is different that the speakers who are most locally oriented in this com- from post-Katrina location status, which notes whether a munity are those most likely to feature traditional NOE fea- speaker permanently relocated following the storm. It is impor- tures like nonrhoticity, as well as the more “conservative” tant to note that post-Katrina location status was not a signifi- pronunciation of unraised pre-voiceless /au/. Below, I con- cant predictor of /au/-raising, which means that displacement sider this patterning in relationship to further evidence that following the storm does not seem to significantly impact the Canadian raising is present in NOE beyond Chalmette, in adoption of this variable. In contrast, extra-Chalmatian orienta- order to address the question of how Canadian raising of tion scores do predict F1 height, with those speakers featuring /au/ is distributed in the Greater New Orleans region. higher extra-Chalmatian orientation scores also demonstrating more raising on the whole. There was no significant interaction VI. DISCUSSION between extra-Chalmatian orientation and the following seg- ment, which means that this effect was not driven solely by The data presented in this paper support two main conclu- pre-voiceless environments. To visualize this relationship for sions: (1) Canadian raising of /au/ is present in contemporary Canadian raising of /au/ in particular, to determine the strength varieties of English spoken in Greater New Orleans, and (2) of the effect for the feature of interest in this study, Fig. 7 this feature represents a change in progress in this region. Less presents the average normalized F1 at the 25% point for pre- clear from the results presented are (3) the origin of the raising voiceless tokens, according to speaker orientation scores. As in in GNO, (4) who is leading the change in progress, and (5) the previous figure, lower normalized F1 values represent more what the distribution of this trend is across the broader metro- tongue raising. Lower extra-Chalmatian orientation scores indi- politan area, in particular in less linguistically conservative cate greater affiliation with Chalmette. areas of GNO. All of these points will be discussed below. Figure 7 demonstrates that speakers with low extra- Several lines of evidence have been presented that Chalmatian orientation scores feature a range of F1 values demonstrate (1) and (2). Visual examination of individual in pre-voiceless environments—some appearing to raise, vowel plots, as well as boxplots of F1 at the 25% point, others not. However, if we focus on the most externally ori- show that for some speakers, there is a clear trend of pre- ented speakers (those with extra-Chalmatian orientation voiceless nucleus raising, in contrast with the realization of scores of 5 and above, distinguished in Fig. 7 with filled tri- /au/ in pre-voiced/pausal contexts. Yet others do not demon- angles), we see that they tended to produce pre-voiceless strate the use of this variable, thus its presence is not uni- /au/ F1 values towards the middle or low end of the sample; form across the sample, making it such that the effect of that is, they are not the speakers producing the most conser- raising is lost in the “noise” of the sample when all speaker vative, unraised realizations of /au/. The pattern is less F1 values are collapsed together (as in Table I). Notably, robust than that of age since many locally-oriented speakers the effects for those who raise are robust enough that statis- also appear to feature raised /au/ nuclei.4 Notably, however, tical analysis demonstrates significantly lower F1 values at the speakers with the least raising (those with the highest the 25% point (more raising) in pre-voiceless environments

562 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 in comparison with pre-voiced environments. This means undershoot in shorter syllables (such as pre-voiceless con- that enough pre-voiceless tokens in the sample feature rais- texts, which are naturally shorter in duration than pre-voiced ing that the following segment significantly predicts vowel contexts) that becomes phonologized. height. Moreover, the significant effect of age on vowel Another factor that supports the notion that Canadian height suggests a change in apparent time, with younger raising of /au/ has come about in GNO due to phonetic varia- speakers more likely to feature raised variants in general, tion becoming phonologized is the fact that this feature is not and within pre-voiceless environments specifically (seen via historically documented within this region or anywhere within an interaction between age and following environment). five hundred miles of the city. The closest documented loca- These results taken together clearly demonstrate the vari- tion would be Charleston, SC on the Atlantic Coast, where able presence of Canadian raising within GNO, and estab- Canadian raising of /au/ and /ai/ are used only by speakers lish its status as a change in progress. aged 40 and older (Baranowski, 2007), quite the opposite of Syllable duration was also significant within the statis- the trend in New Orleans. Thus, unlike other locales in which tical model, as was an interaction between syllable duration Canadian raising of /au/ has likely arisen due to contact with and the following segment, for pre-voiceless environments speakers featuring raising [e.g., Canadians in the Northern in particular. Vowel tokens featuring longer durations U.S. (Dailey-O’Cain, 1997); Virginians in Charleston, SC resulted in higher F1 values (less raising), even in pre- (Baranowski, 2007)], New Orleans does not border dialects voiceless contexts where raising is expected. This finding is with pre-voiceless /au/-raising. And unlike in Vermont relevant to the question of the phonetic versus the phono- (Roberts, 2007), there is not historical evidence of raising in logical status of Canadian raising, and also to arguments this community nor a majority settler group such as the about the naturalness of pre-voiceless raising/centralization. Scottish/Scots-Irish who would have brought this dialectal Ohala (1981) put forth the notion that the source of some feature with them, influencing the regional pronunciations in sound changes is purely mechanical in nature, springing their new homes. One potential contact-related source that from natural phonetic processes (e.g., coarticulation) and must be assessed, however, is the influx of new residents in then spreading based on listeners initially interpreting the New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. target realization incorrectly, and then shifting their own Since the storm, there have been a number of demo- target to match that (thereby phonologizing what were ini- graphic changes in GNO. While many longstanding New tially forms of phonetic variation). And indeed, such pro- Orleanians relocated permanently—either to other surround- cesses in the case of pre-voiceless vowels have been argued ing areas, as is the case with relocators in this sample, or to to be the source of Canadian raising, with Joos (1942) noting locales such as Houston, Atlanta, and beyond—there was that pre-voiceless diphthongs are shorter and thus less also an uptick in outsiders arriving in New Orleans to take peripherally-produced, resulting in centralization of pre- advantage of tax incentives or the steady stream of work that voiceless /ai/ and /au/, Moreton (2004) suggesting that hyper- went into rebuilding a major metropolis after a catastrophic articulation preceding voiceless segments results in more natural disaster. Many of these newcomers came from Latin peripheral off-glides, thus higher /i/ in the case of Canadian America (Grimm, 2015), which presumably would not raising of /ai/, to which the nucleus assimilates, producing an impact pronunciations of /au/ in English across longstanding overall raised perceptual correlate, and Moreton and Thomas populations of New Orleanians. The preponderance of (2004) arguing that Canadian raising is the result of under- domestic newcomers came from elsewhere in , shoot, or phonetic assimilation of the nucleus to the offglide neighboring Texas and Mississippi, and New York, in pre-voiceless segments. Fruehwald (2016) tested the California, and Georgia (Aisch and Gebeloff, 2014; Koenig hypothesis of Canadian raising’s phonetic underpinnings for et al.,2015), none of which represent dialect areas where the case of /ai/-raising in the Philadelphia Neighborhood one would expect Canadian raising of /au/. Moreover, if it Corpus. He found that there was not strong evidence in favor were newcomer populations bringing this feature post- of incremental, phonetically-motivated change towards pho- Katrina, the incremental adoption across age groups that we nologization of this feature, concluding that any period of see in this sample would be unlikely. And the fact that some purely phonetic conditioning is either too brief to be noted, or speakers aged 60 and up feature raising suggests that the non-existent. In a response to Fruehwald’s paper, Berkson change in progress began before 2005. It seems reasonable, et al. (2017) presented data from Fort Wayne, Indiana demon- based on this data patterning according to age, to conclude strating purely phonetic conditioning in the incipient change that the rise of Canadian raising of /au/ in NOE pre-dated for two speakers, continuing the debate about the phonetic Hurricane Katrina and the demographic changes caused by and phonological foundations of Canadian raising. Though the storm. Moreover, since there is no demographic of newly my dataset cannot speak to some aspects of this argument arriving residents that would have reasonably brought about since I did not tightly control word choice in the data set, the this change, we can also conclude that this change arose significance of duration in this model does support the argu- spontaneously rather than as a result of contact. ments made by Joos (1942), Moreton (2004),andMoreton This brings up the question of what, if any, have been and Thomas (2004) about the naturalness of raised realiza- the effects of Hurricane Katrina on this linguistic change tions preceding voiceless consonants. This result suggests in progress. While this study presents no pre-Katrina that /au/-raising in NOE does have its roots in phonetic recordings as a point of comparison, I do examine two

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael 563 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 social factors relating to participants’ relationship to their out and say “are you Canadian”—it’s usually ‘….where pre- and post-Katrina homes: post-Katrina location status are you from?’ and I reflect on my last sentence, realize (whether they returned or relocated after the storm) and that it included the words out, about, or house, and say extra-Chalmatian orientation scores (how they orient to ‘you think I’m Canadian, don’t you?’” their pre-Katrina home of Chalmette, versus other places in GNO; see Appendix B). This first factor, which directly In both examples, the individuals cite pre-voiceless captures physical relocation following the storm, was not words that are frequent and iconic sites of Canadian raising a significant predictor of /au/-raising, suggesting that of /au/ (out, about,andhouse), and note being mistaken for displacement following the storm has not impacted the Canadians specifically by out-of-towners due to their pro- trajectory of this linguistic change in progress. Extra- nunciation of these words. The examples above demonstrate Chalmatian orientation scores, however, were a signifi- that, at least in the western suburb of Metairie, there is some cant predictor of raising, with the participants featuring conscious awareness of /au/-raising in GNO—though in both the least raising also amongst those most oriented to cases this was triggered by non-locals drawing attention to it, Chalmette rather than external institutions. Recall that rather than by any local stereotypes within GNO. In the cur- Chalmette itself is a linguistically conservative enclave rent sample from residents of the eastern suburb of located just downriver of New Orleans proper, where tra- Chalmette, only 2 out of 57 participants mentioned pronunci- ditional local features such as nonrhoticity, raised /O/, and ations of /au/ when asked about distinctive linguistic features split short-a systems are still found in active use in the area. In contrast, many speakers brought up traditional (Carmichael, 2014, 2017), despite evidence of their rapid NOE features such as nonrhoticity—suggesting greater retreat throughout much of the rest of GNO (Labov, awareness of those features than of Canadian raising of /au/. 2007). If we consider adopting linguistic innovations to Whether or not most GNO residents are aware of be quite the opposite of retaining traditional features, then Canadian raising of /au/, the rise of this feature may define we could posit that perhaps this effect of extra-local orien- the future of NOE. Because many Southern urban centers tation reflects that Chalmette-centric residents lag behind experience dialect leveling due to the influx of new popula- the rest of GNO not just in abandoning traditional fea- tions in the past 30 years (Thomas, 1997; Tillery and tures, but in adopting Canadian raising of /au/. That is, Bailey, 2004; Dodsworth and Kohn, 2012; Koops, 2014), /au/-raising may be more widespread within GNO than the case of New Orleans provides an interesting counter- this dataset implies. And in fact, there is good reason to example. While it is true that many traditional NOE features are being lost in the speech of younger generations adopt this framing, since preliminary data collection in New (Carmichael, 2014, 2017), the development of Canadian Orleans proper and in other surrounding suburbs, such as the raising of /au/ points to a future NOE that will retain its sta- predominantly White, middle class suburb of Metairie, point tus as an oddity within the American South. Moreover, to the presence of Canadian raising throughout GNO. Berkson and Herd (2017) have documented incipient pre- Notably, despite New Orleanians being notoriously sensitive voiceless raising of /ai/ within GNO and Baton Rouge, to the linguistic peculiarities that set them apart from other sometimes in combination with pre-voiced /ai/-mono- locales (Eble, 2003, 2006), there is very little evidence that phthongization, suggesting that the changes in progress that Canadian raising has entered the collective consciousness are ongoing in NOE are not limited to the /au/ diphthong. within GNO as a defining feature of local ways of speaking. Future research on NOE is needed in order to document the That said, there does appear to be burgeoning awareness of scope and distribution of these changes in progress across this feature on the part of residents who have contact with the population, especially comparing New Orleans proper non-locals who notice raising. For example, below a to surrounding suburbs, and comparing the presence of Metairie resident interviewed as a part of a broader GNO these features in White dialects to dialects spoken by people data set mentions raising as a feature she began to notice as a of color, which are drastically underdocumented in the liter- result of attending college in Georgia: ature on NOE, despite evidence that language patterns diverge between New Orleanians of different ethnicities “I can always tell someone from New Orleans because (Dajko et al., 2013; Carmichael and Dajko, 2019). they say ‘out’ and ‘house’ like a Canadian, it is the weirdest thing {interviewer: And who does this?} Um, VII. CONCLUSIONS you know, I know I do, because people used to make fun of me in Georgia, like, “what are you Canadian?” This study represents an examination of Canadian rais- ing of /au/ in the speech of 57 White, working class speak- Similarly, another Metairie resident from this data set ers of NOE from the linguistically conservative suburb of wrote, as a part of a recent social media campaign to finish Chalmette. The research goals were to establish the status the phrase “#I’mSoNewOrleans” with local traditions and of pre-voiceless /au/-raising in NOE, and to consider the practices,5 potential sources of this variation, in order to contribute to research on this variable across North America. Further, in “I’m so New Orleans that when I’m out of town people light of previous evidence that traditional NOE features ask me if I am Canadian […] most people don’t come such as nonrhoticity, raised /O/, and the split short-a system

564 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553 are on the retreat, I sought to describe the social patterning Orleans will retain its distinctive nature as a linguistic odd- of Canadian raising of /au/, and examine which speakers in ity within the Deep South. While the linguistic effects of this sample demonstrate the use of this feature. And finally, Hurricane Katrina and the resulting demographic shifts in this post-disaster context, it was crucial to consider the remain to be seen, the data presented in this paper demon- effects of displacement following Hurricane Katrina in strate that New Orleans’ trajectory continues to defy determining the spread and distribution of /au/-raising. regional linguistic trends. The findings presented above demonstrate that Canadian raising of /au/ is indeed variably present in the sample exam- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ined, and that based on the apparent time hypothesis it I am deeply grateful to the residents of Greater New appears to be a change in progress. Since the historical Orleans who spoke to me as a part of this project. I also record on NOE specifically does not note /au/ variation in thank Kathryn Campbell-Kibler, Galey Modan, Cynthia the past, I conclude that the change is relatively recent. In Clopper, and Don Winford for comments on earlier 2005, Hurricane Katrina resulted in largescale demographic versions of this analysis, Mary Kohn for her helpful upheaval, making it necessary to consider the potential effect of displacement, new arrivals in the region, and shifting alle- feedback on this work, the anonymous reviewers for their giances to regional linguistic norms in examining the devel- careful eyes, and Katie Garahan and Savannah Murray for opment of /au/-raising in NOE. Whether participants their support as I worked through revisions. Finally, I thank relocated following the storm was not a significant predictor Irina Shport and Wendy Herd for organizing the special of raising, thus displacement is not a likely candidate for trig- session at ASA 2017 that led to this issue. gering this change. In addition, the newcomer groups that arrived in New Orleans after the storm predominantly came from regions that do not feature raising, so they are also not APPENDIX A: TOKENS OF /au/ FROM READING probable sources for this change. I thus concluded that this PASSAGE AND WORD LIST* change likely represents an independent development. Notably, however, in statistical models, a significant predic- Word Following segment Condition tor of /au/ F1 at the 25% point was extra-Chalmatian orienta- tion score, with the participants featuring the least raising about voiceless reading passage being those most oriented towards Chalmette specifically, couch voiceless reading passage and not towards the broader GNO area. Taken in consider- house (two tokens) voiceless reading passage out (three tokens) voiceless reading passage ation with metalinguistic commentary from GNO residents, I outside voiceless reading passage argued that /au/-raising may, in fact, have a broader distribu- Rouse’s (a local grocery store chain) voiceless reading passage tion in the region than this sample from Chalmette is able to south voiceless reading passage demonstrate. It will be worth examining this feature, thus, in cloudy voiced/pause reading passage a larger data set across the Greater New Orleans region. cow voiced/pause reading passage An additional promising future direction is examination cows voiced/pause reading passage of /ai/ realizations. /ai/ is variably monophthongal before hour voiced/pause reading passage voiced consonants within NOE but has been reported to how voiced/pause reading passage demonstrate some evidence of pre-voiceless raising—in thousand voiced/pause reading passage some cases, in alternation with monophthongization within around nasal reading passage a single speaker’s system (Berkson and Herd, 2017). bounty nasal reading passage down (three tokens) nasal reading passage Although it is not possible to pinpoint the origins of found nasal reading passage Canadian raising of /au/ in NOE, evidence from the current frowned nasal reading passage study points to the likelihood of independent development pound (two tokens) nasal reading passage within this dialect, supporting previous claims that pre- pounds nasal reading passage voiceless environments favor the kind of raising/fronting sundown nasal reading passage that has been observed for /ai/ and /au/ (Ohala, 1981; doubt voiceless word list Moreton, 2004; Moreton and Thomas, 2004). This argu- house voiceless word list ment would be bolstered by the demonstration of parallel lout voiceless word list patterns in /ai/ for speakers who also raise /au/. crowd voiced/pause word list The final significant contribution that this paper makes how voiced/pause word list loud voiced/pause word list is dialectological in nature. NOE has historically differed thousand voiced/pause word list from the Englishes spoken in much of the rest of the vows voiced/pause word list American South in terms of its dialectal features and in par- crown nasal word list ticular its markedly Northern sound. Although some of down nasal word list these traditional features are in retreat, the development of Canadian raising of /au/ in New Orleans, a feature that is *Tokens of /au/ from interview speech varied according to uncommon in Southern Englishes, suggests that New topics discussed by participants.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael 565 https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553

APPENDIX B: EXTRA-CHALMATIAN ORIENTATION Aisch, G., and Gebeloff, R. (2014). “Mapping migration in the United MEASURE CALCULATION SCHEMA States,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/upshot/ mapping-migration-in-the-united-states-since-1900.html (Last viewed January 20, 2020). Baclawski, K., Severance, N. A., and Stanford, J. M. (2014). “150 years of Category Measure ‘Canadian Raising’ in New Hampshire,” in Presentation at the American (a) Identification 2 Identifies explicitly/enthusiastically as Chalmatian Dialect Society Annual Meeting, January 2–5, 2014, Minneapolis, MN. Baranowski, M. (2007). Phonological Variation and Change in the Dialect as Chalmatian 1 Identifies as Chalmatian, qualified (e.g., “I guess”) of Charleston, South Carolina (Duke University Press, Durham, NC). 0 No data (N¼1; did not answer question due to time Berkson, K., Davis, S., and Strickler, A. (2017). “What does incipient /ay/- constraints) raising look like?: A response to Josef Fruehwald,” Language 93(3), þ1 Identifies as non-Chalmatian, qualified (e.g., “I e181–e191. guess”) Berkson, K., and Herd, W. (2017). “Incipient /ay/-raising in Baton Rouge,” þ2 Identifies explicitly/enthusiastically as non- in Poster Presentation at the Acoustical Society of America 174th Annual Chalmatian Meeting, December 4–8, New Orleans, LA. (b) Desire to leave1 Never wanted to leave/always knew would return Bermudez-Otero, R. (2017). “The allophony of English /ai/ reconsidered,” in Proceedings of PhLEGM 2017, July 10, 2019, Bloomington, IN, avail- Chalmette 0 No explicit statement about desire to leave Chalmette able at http://www.bermudez-otero.com/Brugmann3.pdf. þ1 Wanted to leave/happy to have left Boberg, C. (2010). The in Canada: Status, History and (c) Residential þ5 Left Chalmette of their own volition before Katrina Comparative Analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK). history þ1 Lived in GNO outside of Chalmette for <5 years Carmichael, K. (2014). “ ‘I never thought I had an accent until the hurri- þ2 Lived in GNO outside of Chalmette for >5 years cane’: Sociolinguistic variation in Post-Katrina Greater New Orleans,” þ5 Lived in GNO outside of Chalmette for >10 years Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University Columbus, OH. Carmichael, K. ( ). “Displacement and variation: The case of r-lessness þ5 Lived outside of GNO for under 5 years 2017 in Greater New Orleans,” J. Sociolinguist. 21(5), 696–719. þ7 Lived outside of GNO for over 5 years Carmichael, K., and Becker, K. (2018). “The New York City–New Orleans þ10 Lived outside of GNO for over 10 years connection: Evidence from constraint ranking comparison,” Lang. Var. þ1 Evacuated and spent at least 1 year outside of GNO Change 30(3), 287–314. (d) Schooling 1 Attended HS within Chalmette Carmichael, K., and Dajko, N. (2019). “Lexical and syntactic features in þ1 Attended HS outside of Chalmette New Orleans English,” in Proceedings of the American Dialect Society þ1 Attended college outside of Chalmette, but in Annual Meeting, January 3–6, 2019, New York, NY. Louisiana Chambers, J. K. (1973). “Canadian raising,” Can. J. Linguist. 18(2), 113–135. þ2 Attended college outside of Louisiana Chambers, J. K. (1989). “Canadian raising: Blocking, fronting, etc.,” Am. (e) Workplace 1 Currently works in Chalmette Speech 64(1), 75–88. þ1 Currently works outside of Chalmette Chambers, J. K. (2006). “Canadian raising retrospect and prospect,” Can. J. Linguist. 51(2/3), 105–118. Chambers, J. K., and Hardwick, M. F. (1985). “Dialect homogeneity and 1Because Chalmette is an insular community where many residents spend incipient variation: Changes in progress in Toronto and Vancouver,” their entire lives, the measures relating to participation in external institu- Sheffield Working Papers Lang. Linguist. 2, 28–49. tions are in fact stances that locals take because it is extremely marked to Chen, M. (1970). “Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of spend any significant amount of time outside of Chalmette. Notably, the consonant environment,” Phonetica 22, 129–159. many relocators still work or attend school in Chalmette, thus returner- Dailey-O’Cain, J. (1997). “Canadian raising in a Midwestern U.S. city,” Lang. Var. Change 9(1), 107–120. relocator status and extra-Chalmatian orientation scores do capture differ- Dajko, N., and Carmichael, K. (2018). “Plus c¸a change: (Un)changing ent aspects of individuals’ movements and interactions within the broader perceptions of New Orleans English,” in Proceedings of the American GNO community. 2 Dialect Society Annual Meeting (ADS), January 4–7, Salt Lake City, I also examined Euclidean distance between the mean pre-voiced and UT. pre-voiceless environments, in order to capture the entire trajectory of the Dajko, N., Schoux Casey, C., and Carmichael, K. (2013). “New Orleans /au/ vowel. The results were similar to those reported on here, but did not English: The r-ful truth,” paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of allow for the inclusion of random effects and were not as easily compara- the Southeastern Conference on Linguistics (SECOL 79), April 13–15, ble with other papers on Canadian raising, thus it was decided to focus Lexington, KY. this analysis on the nucleus of the vowel only. Davis, S., Berkson, K., and Strickler, A. (2019). “On the nature of incipient 3“Voiced” is a bit of shorthand here, since this category is actually more American raising in comparison with older varieties,” in Proceedings of of a catchall that includes all tokens that are not pre-nasal or pre- the New Ways of Analyzing Variation Meeting (NWAV), October 10–12, voiceless. Thus it includes tokens of /au/ preceding non-nasal voiced seg- Eugene, OR. ments, as well as any pre-pausal tokens. Dodsworth, R., and Kohn, M. (2012). “Urban rejection of the vernacular: 4There is no correlation between age and extra-Chalmatian orientation The SVS undone,” Lang. Var. Change 24, 221–245. scores; indeed, the majority of the most externally oriented speakers are Eble, C. (2003). “The Englishes of Southern Louisiana,” in English in the in their 40s and 50s, thus the effect is not driven by young, externally ori- , edited by S. Nagle and S. Sanders (Blackwell, ented speakers. Malden, MA), pp. 178–188. 5This post comes from a private Facebook interaction from June 22, 2015. Eble, C. (2006). “Speaking the Big Easy” in American Voices: How Dialects Differ from Coast to Coast, edited by W. Wolfram and B. Ward Permission to include the wording from this original post has been (Blackwell, Malden, MA), pp. 42–48. received from the individual who posted the status update. Capitalization Fruehwald, J. (2016). “The early influence of on a phonetic and spelling are retained from the original formatting of the post, which change,” Language 22(2), 376–410. features colloquial stylization in line with the norms of social media con- Grimm, A. (2015). “Hispanic immigration post-Katrina finding permanent ventions. Ellipses have been included where other comments on the post roots in metro New Orleans,” https://www.nola.com/news/article_ were omitted since permission was not obtained from the other comment- ddb9794b-8bd7-5be8-8d55-6669024d3cb3.html (Last viewed January ers on this post. Since this individual was also a participant in broader 20, 2020). data collection in the city, their identity has been anonymized in this Hagiwara, R. E. (2006). “Vowel production in Winnipeg,” Can. J. Linguist. excerpt. 51(2/3), 127–141.

566 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000553

Hall, E. (2016). “Static and dynamic analyses of Canadian raising in Laboratory Phonology 9, edited by J. Cole and J. I. Hualde (De Gruyter Toronto and Vancouver,” in Proceedings of New Ways of Analyzing Mouton, Berlin). Variation (NWAV), November 3–6, Vancouver, BC. Mucciaccio, F. (2009). “ ‘A Gaggle a’ Y’ats’ and other stories: Tracing the Hualde, J. I., Luchkina, T., and Eager, C. D. (2017). “Canadian raising in effects of ideology on language change through indexical formation in Chicagoland: The production and perception of a marginal contrast,” Y’at,” Reed College Honors Thesis. J. Phon. 65, 15–44. Niedzielski, N. (1999). “The effect of social information on the Idsardi, W. (2006). “Canadian raising, opacity, and rephonemicization,” perception of sociolinguistic variables,” J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 18(1), Can. J. Linguist. 51(2/3), 119–126. 62–85. Johnstone, B., Andrus, J., and Danielson, A. E. (2006). “Mobility, indexi- Nycz, J. (2018). “Stylistic variation among mobile speakers: Using old and cality, and the enregisterment of ‘Pittsburghese,’” J. English Linguist. new regional variables to construct complex place identity,” Lang. Var. 34(2), 77–104. Change 30, 175–202. Joos, M. (1942). “A phonological dilemma in Canadian English,” Ohala, J. J. (1981). “The listener as a source of sound change,” in Papers Language 18(2), 141–144. from the Parasession on Language and Behavior, edited by C. S. Masek, Kinloch, M., and Ismail, F. M. (1993). “Canadian raising: /au/ in R. A. Hendrick, and M. F. Miller (Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Fredricton, New Brunswick,” Linguistica Atlantica 15, 105–114. IL), pp. 178–203. Koenig, R., Rainey, R., and Sayre, K. (2015). “Hurricane Katrina migra- Roberts, J. (2007). “Vermont lowering? Raising some questions about tion: Where did people go? Where are they coming from now?,” https:// /ai/ and /au/ south of the Canadian border,” Lang. Var. Change 19, www.nola.com/news/article_b84a9b86-e0dc-511a-872d-09fef0012508.html 181–197. (Last viewed January 20, 2020). Rosenfelder, I. (2007). “Canadian raising in Victoria, B.C.: An acoustic Koops, C. (2014). “Iconization and the timing of Southern vowels: A case analysis,” Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32(2), 257–284. study of /æ/,” Univ. Penn. Working Papers Ling. 20(2), 81–90, available RStudio Team (2016). “RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, at https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss2/10. Inc., Boston, MA,” http://www.rstudio.com/ (January 20. 2020). Kurath, H., and McDavid, R., Jr. (1961). The Pronunciation of English in Rubrecht, A. (1971). “Regional phonological variants in Louisiana the Atlantic States (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI). speech,” University of Florida dissertation. Labov, W. (1963). “The social motivation of a sound change,” Word 19, Sadlier-Brown, E. (2012). “Homogeneity and autonomy of Canadian 273–309. raising,” 31(4), 534–548. Lobanov, B. M. (1971). “Classification of Russian vowels spoken by differ- Schoux Casey, C. (2016). “Ya heard me?: Rhoticity in post-Katrina New ent speakers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49, 606–608. Orleans English,” Am. Speech 91(2), 166–199. Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors (Wiley- Swan, J. (2017). “Canadian raising on the rise in Vancouver? A phonetic Blackwell, Malden, MA), Vol. 2. comparison of Vancouver, BC and Seattle, WA,” in Proceedings of the Labov, W., Ash, S., and Boberg, C. (2006). The Atlas of North American Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, May 27–May English: , Phonology and Sound Change (Mouton de Gruyter, 29, Toronto, ON, pp. 1–15. Berlin). Strelluf, C. (2018). Speaking From the Heartland: The Midland Vowel Labov, W., Rosenfelder, I., and Fruehwald, J. (2013). “One hundred years System of Kansas City (Duke University Press, Durham, NC). of sound change in Philadelphia: Linear incrementation, reversal and Thomas, E. (1997). “A rural/metropolitan split in the speech of Texas reanalysis,” Language 89(1), 30–65. Anglos,” Lang. Var. Change 9, 309–332. Mielke, J., Armstrong, M., and Hume, E. (2003). “Looking through Tillery, J., and Bailey, G. (2004). “The urban South: Phonology,” in A opacity,” Theor. Linguist. 29, 123–139. Handbook of Varieties of English. Vol. 1: Phonology, edited by E. W. Moon, S., and Lindblom, B. (1994). “Interaction between duration, context, Schneider, K. Burridge, B. Kortmann, R. Mesthrie, and C. Upton and speaking style in English stressed vowels,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin). 96(1), 40–55. U.S. Census Bureau (2000). “American fact finder, profile of selected Moreton, E. (2004). “Realization of the English postvocalic [voice] con- social characteristics: Chalmette, Louisiana,” https://factfinder.census. trast in F1 and F2,” J. Phon. 32, 1–33. gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml (Last viewed August 6, 2018). Moreton, E. (2016). “Prosody-morphology interaction in English diphthong Vance, T. J. (1987). “ ‘Canadian raising’ in some dialects of the Northern raising in a Mississippi dialect,” South. J. Linguist. 40(2), 15–58. United States,” Am. Speech 62(3), 195–210. Moreton, E., and Thomas, E. (2004). “Origins of Canadian raising in Yuan, J., and Liberman, M. (2008). “Speaker identification on the voiceless-coda effects: A Case study in phonologization,” in Papers in SCOTUS corpus,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 3878.

J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 147 (1), January 2020 Katie Carmichael 567