A SYNCHRONIC SOCIOPHONETIC STUDY OF MONOPHTHONGS IN TRINIDADIAN ENGLISH
Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philologischen Fakultät der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg-im-Breisgau
vorgelegt von Glenda Alicia Elsie Leung aus Port-of-Spain, Trinidad und Tobago SS 2012
Erster Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Dr. Christian Mair
Zweiter Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Peter Auer
Vorsitzender des Promotionausschusses der Gemeinsamen Kommission der Philologischen, Philosophischen und Wirtschafts- und Verhaltenswissenschaftlichen Fakultät: Prof. Dr. Hans-Helmuth Gander
Datum der Disputation: 01.03.2013
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 15 2. A HISTORICAL SKETCH OF LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN TRINIDAD ...... 17 2.1 OVERVIEW ...... 17 2.2 LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN TRINIDAD ...... 17 2.2.1 Overview of Trinidad and Tobago’s colonial past ...... 17 2.2.2 Trinidad’s linguistic milieu ...... 18 2.3 THE CREOLE CONTINUUM AND TERMINOLOGY ...... 20 3. LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH FOCUS ...... 22 3.1 OVERVIEW ...... 22 3.2 VOWEL MERGERS AND CREOLE TYPOLOGY ...... 22 3.3 VOWEL STUDIES IN TRINIDADIAN ENGLISH ...... 23 3.3.1 The merger of [+high] vowels: /i, ɪ/ → /i/ and /ʊ, u/ → /u/ ...... 23 3.3.2 The merger of [+low] vowels: /a, ɑ/→ /a/ and /a, ə/→/a/ ...... 24 3.3.3 Mergers among [-high] vowels: /ʌ, ɒ, ɔ, ɛ/ → /ɒ/ ...... 26 3.4 SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDY OF VOWELS IN TRINIDADIAN ENGLISH ...... 29 3.4.1 Overview of sociolinguistic findings ...... 31 3.4.2 Variation in formal interview ...... 32 3.4.3 Variation in peer-group interactions ...... 32 3.4.4 Hypercorrection ...... 33 3.5 FOCUS OF THE STUDY ...... 35 4. METHODOLOGY ...... 39 4.1 OVERVIEW ...... 39 4.2 DATA COLLECTION SITES: DIEGO MARTIN AND SANGRE GRANDE ...... 39 4.2.1 Subject recruitment ...... 40 4.2.2 Sample design ...... 40 4.3 LINGUISTIC TASKS...... 42 4.4 PHONOLOGICAL VARIABLES ...... 42 4.5 DATA HANDLING ...... 43 4.5.1 Analysis procedures ...... 44 4.5.2 Vowel normalisation ...... 45 4.5.3 Coding independent variables ...... 45 4.5.4 Occupational prestige survey ...... 47 4.6 STATISTICAL PROCEDURES ...... 47 4.7 VOWEL PERCEPTION SURVEY ...... 47 5. VOWEL PERCEPTION SURVEY ...... 48 5.1 INTRODUCTION...... 48 5.2 METHOD IN MERGER EVALUATION SURVEY ...... 49 5.3 OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ...... 52 5.3.1 Descriptive statistics ...... 52 5.3.2 Inferential statistics ...... 52 5.4 DISCUSSION OF [+LOW] VOWEL MERGER EVALUATION...... 53 5.4.1 Traditional acrolectal pattern ...... 56 5.4.2 Emergent acrolectal pattern...... 58 5.4.3 BATH-TRAP merger-by-approximation ...... 60 5.4.4 Canonically creole pattern ...... 60 5.5 SUMMARY OF [+LOW] VOWEL FINDINGS ...... 61 5.6 DISCUSSION OF [-HIGH] VOWEL MERGER EVALUATION ...... 61
3
5.6.1 STRUT-LOT ...... 63 5.6.2 CLOTH-THOUGHT ...... 65 5.6.3 NURSE-LOT ...... 68 5.7 SUMMARY OF [-HIGH] VOWEL FINDINGS ...... 69 5.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 70 6. ANALYSIS OF [+LOW] VOWELS ...... 71 6.1 INTRODUCTION...... 71 6.2 METHODOLOGY OF MICRO-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF [+LOW] VOWELS ...... 71 6.3 OVERVIEW OF PILLAI SCORES ...... 73 6.3.1 Acrolectal patterns ...... 74 6.3.2 Creole patterns ...... 76 6.3.3 Mixed patterns ...... 80 6.3.4 Exceptional cases ...... 82 6.4 MACRO-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF [+LOW] VOWELS ...... 83 6.5 METHODOLOGY OF MODEL BUILDING ...... 83 6.5.1 Reference levels within the models ...... 84 6.5.2 Presentation of results ...... 85 6.6 MIXED EFFECTS REGRESSION ON NORMALISED FORMANT VALUES FOR + LOW VOWEL SETS . 85 6.6.1 TRAP F1 ...... 85 6.6.2 BATH F2 ...... 86 6.6.3 START F2 ...... 89 6.7 ASSESSING OVERLAP ...... 90 6.7.1 BATH-TRAP Pillai ...... 90 6.7.2 START-TRAP Pillai ...... 91 6.7.3 BATH-START Pillai ...... 91 6.8 DISCUSSION ...... 92 6.9 DIACHRONIC DEVELOPMENT OF [+LOW] VOWELS...... 95 6.10 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 98 7. ANAYSIS OF [-HIGH] VOWELS ...... 99 7.1 INTRODUCTION...... 99 7.2 METHODOLOGY OF MICRO-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF [-HIGH] VOWELS ...... 99 7.3 OVERVIEW OF PILLAI SCORES ...... 100 7.3.1 Acrolectal patterns ...... 102 7.3.2 Variation in LOT distribution ...... 104 7.3.3 Variation in STRUT distribution ...... 107 7.3.4 Variation in CLOTH distribution ...... 109 7.4 MACRO-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF [-HIGH] VOWELS ...... 111 7.5 METHODOLOGY ...... 111 7.6 MIXED-EFFECTS REGRESSION ON NORMALISED FORMANT VALUES FOR [-HIGH] VOWELS .... 112 7.6.1 STRUT F2 ...... 112 7.6.2 CLOTH F1 ...... 114 7.6.3 LOT F2 ...... 120 7.6.4 THOUGHT F1 ...... 123 7.7 ASSESSING OVERLAP ...... 123 7.7.1 LOT-STRUT overlap ...... 124 7.7.2 LOT-CLOTH overlap ...... 124 7.7.3 THOUGHT-CLOTH overlap ...... 125 7.8 DISCUSSION ...... 125 7.8.1 Discussion of internal factors ...... 125 7.8.2 Discussion of external factors ...... 129 7.9 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 130 8. OLDER STAGES OF TRINIDADIAN ENGLISH ...... 131
4
8.1 INTRODUCTION...... 131 8.2 PROCEDURE ...... 131 8.3 WINFORD’S IDEALISED VOWEL SYSTEM ...... 131 8.4 FORMAT VALUES FOR THREE SPEAKERS ...... 132 8.5 WINFORD’S DATA REVISITED ...... 133 8.5.1 Mayo male, born 1898 ...... 133 8.5.2 Mayo male, born 1911 ...... 135 8.5.3 St. James male, born ca. 1932 ...... 138 8.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY ...... 139 9. CONCLUSION ...... 141 9.1 INTRODUCTION...... 141 9.2 FRONT VOWELS ...... 141 9.2.1 FLEECE/KIT ...... 141 9.2.2 FACE ...... 141 9.2.3 DRESS ...... 142 9.2.4 TRAP...... 142 9.2.5 BATH /START ...... 142 9.3 CENTRAL VOWELS ...... 142 9.3.1 LettER/SCHWA...... 142 9.3.2 NURSE ...... 143 9.4 BACK VOWELS ...... 144 9.4.1 GOOSE/FOOT ...... 144 9.4.2 GOAT ...... 145 9.4.3 STRUT ...... 145 9.4.4 THOUGHT/FORCE/NORTH ...... 146 9.4.5 BATH/START ...... 146 9.4.6 LOT/CLOTH ...... 146 9.5 EVIDENCE FOR MERGER TYPES ...... 147 9.6 FURTHER PERSPECTIVES FOR RESEARCH ...... 148
5
FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Map highlighting Winford’s (1972) collection sites, St. James (urban) and Mayo (rural). 30 Figure 4.1 Area covered by Diego Martin (left) and Sangre Grande (right) Regional Corporations. .. 39 Figure 4.2 Map highlighting data collection sites, Diego Martin (urban) and Sangre Grande (semi- rural)...... 41 Figure 4.3. Example of Wells’ (1982) lexical set colour coding script in Crimson Editor...... 43 Figure 4.4. Example of ICE-Simplified markup in transcript...... 43 Figure 5.1 Boxplots of MPI scores for a) [+low] vowels and b) [-high] vowels (where ‘d’ is ‘distinct,’ ‘m’ is ‘merged,’ and ‘o’ is ‘occasionally merged’)...... 52 Figure 5.2 MPI scores for [+low] vowels BATH and START with potential merger towards TRAP...... 55 Figure 5.3 Traditional acrolectal pattern of [+low] vowels of Bernard, 56, Afro-Trinidadian, upper middle class (BATH-TRAP distinct guise)...... 57 Figure 5.4 Emergent acrolectal pattern of [+low] vowels of Dirk, 37, mixed ethnicity, middle class (BATH-TRAP merged guise)...... 59 Figure 5.5 Pattern of [+low] vowels of Alicia, 25, Indo-Trinidadian, lower middle class (BATH-TRAP occasionally merged guise and START-TRAP distinct guise)...... 59 Figure 5.6 Creole pattern of [+low] vowels of Aisha, 20, Afro-Trinidadian, lower class (START-TRAP merged guise)...... 61 Figure 5.7 MPI scores for [-high] vowels...... 62 Figure 5.8 Acrolectal pattern of [-high] vowels of Bernard, 56, Afro-Trinidadian, upper middle class (STRUT-LOT distinct guise); a) visualisation by lexical set only; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set...... 64 Figure 5.9 Creole pattern of [-high] vowels of Aisha, 20, Afro-Trinidadian, lower class (STRUT-LOT merged guise); a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set...... 65 Figure 5.10 Acrolectal pattern of [-high] vowels of Dirk, 37, mixed ethnicity, middle class (CLOTH- THOUGHT distinct guise); a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set...... 66 Figure 5.11 Illustration of grapheme
Figure 6.8 Canonical creole pattern in low vowels of Ricardo, 48, Afro-Trinidadian, Sangre Grande from word list data...... 80 Figure 6.9. Mixed pattern indicative of near merger in low vowels of Trish, 26, Indo-Trinidadian, Diego Martin from interview data...... 81 Figure 6.10. Mixed pattern indicative of near merger in low vowels of Bhuvan, 67, Indo-Trinidadian, Diego Martin from interview data...... 82 Figure 6.11 Normalised mean TRAP F1 values by age cohort and gender...... 86 Figure 6.12 Range of phonetic realisations of the word father in Trinidadian English and their percentage of representation in the data (n = 48)...... 89 Figure 6.13 Normalised mean START F2 values by age cohort...... 90 Figure 6.14 Normalised mean BATH F2 and START F2 values by occupational status groups...... 94 Figure 6.15 Linear regression of BATH-START Pillai score versus age...... 95 Figure 7.1 An idealised visualisation of LOT-CLOTH distribution, highlighting a) overlap in the acrolect and b) (partial) distinction in the near acrolect...... 102 Figure 7.2 Acrolectal pattern in [-high] vowels of Sareeta, 54, Indo-Trinidadian female, Diego Martin from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set...... 103 Figure 7.3 Acrolectal pattern in [-high] vowels of Dick, 44, Indo-Trinidadian male, Diego Martin from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set...... 104 Figure 7.4 Near acrolectal pattern in [-high] vowels of Philippa, 41, Afro-Trinidadian female, Diego Martin from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set...... 105 Figure 7.5 Creole pattern in [-high] vowels of Ricardo, 48, Afro-Trinidadian male, Sangre Grande from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set...... 107 Figure 7.6 Creole pattern in [-high] vowels of Johnny, 28, Afro-Trinidadian male, Diego Martin from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical se.t ...... 108 Figure 7.7 Near acrolectal pattern in [-high] vowels of Edward, 33, Afro-Trinidadian male, Sangre Grande from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set ...... 109 Figure 7.8 Creole pattern in [-high] vowels of Nicholas, 45, Indo-Trinidadian male, Sangre Grande from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set...... 110 Figure 7.9 Sample conditional inference tree illustrating income by educational attainment...... 112 Figure 7.10 Predominant STRUT variants from total STRUT sample (N = 460)...... 112 Figure 7.11 Predominant CLOTH variants from the total CLOTH sample (N = 389) ...... 114 Figure 7.12 Conditional inference tree illustrating the distribution CLOTH variants (auditory coding)[ɔ], [ɒ], [ʌ] and [ʌ ] by following manner of articulation...... 116 Figure 7.13 An interaction plot illustrating the effect of gender x city on CLOTH F1 values...... 117 Figure 7.14 Conditional inference tree illustrating lexical distribution by CLOTH normalised F1values...... 119 Figure 7.15 Venn diagram representation of the results of the conditional inference tree from Figure 7.14...... 119 Figure 7.16 Predominant LOT variants from the total LOT sample (N = 457) ...... 120 Figure 7.17 Conditional inference tree illustrating the distribution of LOT variants (auditory coding) by following manner of articulation...... 121 Figure 7.18 Predominant THOUGHT variants from the total THOUGHT sample (N = 472)...... 123 Figure 7.19 The development of the CLOTH lexical from Middle English to contemporary Southern British English (Wells, 1997)...... 127 Figure 8.1 Abstract vowel systems in the English of St. James and Mayo (Winford, 1978, p. 286). 132 Figure 8.2 Distribution of vowel variants in two Trinidadian communities (Winford, 1978, p. 285)...... 132
7
Figure 8.3 Vowel system of Deso, male speaker from Mayo (ethnicity unknown), born 1898, , illustrating a) mean formant values for [+low] and [-high] vowels and b) individual token distribution for NURSE, GOAT, and THOUGHT...... 133 Figure 8.4 Vowel system of Deso, male speaker from Mayo (ethnicity unknown), born 1898, , illustrating a) individual token distribution for CLOTH and THOUGHT and b) individual token distribution for LOT and STRUT...... 135 Figure 8.5 Vowel system of Narin, male speaker from Mayo (possibly Indo-Trinidadian), born 1911, illustrating a) mean formant values for [+low] and [-high] vowels and b) individual token distribution for NURSE and GOAT...... 136 Figure 8.6 Vowel system of Narin, male speaker from Mayo (possibly Indo-Trinidadian), born 1911, illustrating a) individual token distribution for STRUT and LOT and b) individual token distribution for LOT and CLOTH...... 137 Figure 8.7 Vowel system of Narin, male speaker from Mayo (possibly Indo-Trinidadian), born 1911, illustrating a) individual token distribution for CLOTH, THOUGHT, and NORTH ...... 138 Figure 8.8 Vowel system of Paul, male speaker from St. James (ethnicity unknown), born ca. 1932, illustrating a) mean formant values for [+low] and [-high] vowels and b) individual token distribution for all sets...... 138
8
TABLES
Table 2.1 A Comparison of Terms Used by Various Authors to Refer to Varieties of Trinidadian English ...... 21 Table 3.1 Phonemic Inventories for Trinidadian English (Warner, 1967; Winford, 1978; Wells, 1982) ...... 24 Table 3.2 A Comparative View of Mergers in Trinidadian English by Warner (1967) and Winford (1978) ...... 25 Table 3.3 A Comparison of Phonetic Variants According to Wells (1982) and Youssef & James (2004) ...... 29 Table 3.4 Distribution of Vowel Variants in Two Trinidadian Communities (Winford 1978, p. 285) . 31 Table 3.5 Overview of Research Questions, Data Sets, and Relevant Chapters ...... 37 Table 4.1 Summary of Sample (N = 48) ...... 41 Table 4.2 Summary of Lexical Sets Included in the Current Study ...... 43 Table 4.3 Independent Internal and External Factors Coded as Potential Predictors of F1 and F2 .. 46 Table 4.4 Summary of Levels within the Coding Category ‘Following (Environment)’ and its Associated Consonantal Segments ...... 46 Table 4.5 Overview of Participants in the Occupational Prestige Survey ...... 47 Table 5.1 Merger Pairs Investigated in the Merger Evaluation Survey ...... 49 Table 5.2 Summary of Readers and the Number of Guises Represented in Perception Survey by Lexical Set and Merger Status ...... 51 Table 5.3 Overview of Participants in Merger Evaluation Survey ...... 51 Table 5.4 Results of Pairwise T-Tests for Merger Evaluation Survey ...... 53 Table 5.5 Models of [+low] Vowel Patterning in Trinidadian English Proposed by the Author ...... 54 Table 5.6 Pillai Scores of Speakers’ [+low] Vowels Used in BATH-TRAP-START Guises ...... 56 Table 5.7 Pillai Scores of Speakers’ [-high] Vowels Used in Guises ...... 63 Table 6.1 Summary of Subsample (n= 24) ...... 72 Table 6.2 Pillai Scores from Interview Data for Selected Speakers for [-low] Vowels ...... 74 Table 6.3 Summary of Traditional Acrolectal Pattern of [+low] Vowels ...... 74 Table 6.4 Summary of Emergent Acrolectal Pattern of + Low Vowels ...... 76 Table 6.5 ANOVA Results Based on Euclidean Distances from Rihanna’s Interview Data...... 77 Table 6.6 ANOVA Results Based on F2 Values (Hz) from Rihanna’s Word List Data ...... 77 Table 6.7 ANOVA Results Based on F2 Values (Hz) from Ricardo’s Word List Data ...... 79 Table 6.8 ANOVA Results Based on Euclidean Distances from Ricardo’s Interview List Data ...... 79 Table 6.9 ANOVA Results Based on Euclidean Distances from Trish’s Interview Data ...... 81 Table 6.10 Regression results based on Euclidean distances from Bhuvan’s interview data ...... 82 Table 6.11 Formant Values (Hz) for [+low] Vowel Patterns— Traditional Acrolect, Emergent Acrolect, and Canonically Creole from Interview Data ...... 83 Table 6.12 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for TRAP Normalised F1 (Women) ...... 86 Table 6.13 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for BATH normalised F2 ...... 88 Table 6.14 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for START Normalised F2 ...... 90 Table 6.15 Summary of ANOVA Regression for BATH-TRAP Pillai Scores ...... 91 Table 6.16 Summary of ANOVA Regression for START-TRAP Pillai Scores ...... 91 Table 6.17 Summary of ANOVA Regression for BATH-START Pillai Scores ...... 92 Table 7.1 A Contrastive Overview of [-high] Vowels by Idealised Acrolectal, Near Acrolectal, and Creole Patterns ...... 100 Table 7.2 Pillai Scores Selected Speakers for [-high] Vowels for a) Interview Data and b) List Data ...... 101 Table 7.3 Formant Values (Hz) for [-high] Vowels STRUT, LOT, CLOTH, and THOUGHT ...... 111 Table 7.4 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for F2 values for STRUT ...... 113 Table 7.5 Examples of STRUT [ɒ] Realisation by Following Environment ...... 114 Table 7.6 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalised F1 Values for CLOTH ...... 116 Table 7.7 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalised F1 Values for CLOTH (Women) .... 117 Table 7.8 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalized F1 Values for CLOTH (Men) ...... 118 Table 7.9 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for normalised F2 values for LOT ...... 121 9
Table 7.10 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalised F2 Values for Following Stops in LOT ...... 123 Table 7.11 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalised F1Values for THOUGHT ...... 123 Table 7.12 Summary of ANOVA Regression for LOT-STRUT Pillai scores ...... 124 Table 7.13 Summary of ANOVA Regression for LOT-CLOTH Pillai Scores ...... 124 Table 7.14 Summary of ANOVA Regression for THOUGHT-CLOTH Pillai Scores ...... 125 Table 8.1 Average Hz Values for [+low] Vowels from Winford’s (1978) Data ...... 132 Table 8.2 Average Hz Values for [-high] Vowels from Winford’s (1978) Data ...... 133
10
Dedication
For the ancestors that braved Violence of sea and soil For my mother, Trinidad and Tobago—
Dissertation completed on 31st August, 2012 (50 years of TnT independence)
“Hear the chantuelle sing his call, Feel the people answer. The trick is that we must never fall. We’ve got to always be the dancer.” David Rudder, Permission to Mash up de Place
11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, this work is dedicated to my devoted mother Bina who has shown me in her life’s work the meaning of brute perseverance and determination. Also, to my younger brother Nicolai who is my infinite source of joy and laughter. To my favourite aunt Aunt Pam and my cousin Mayling, what a blessing that we are family! And to Glynton, Doris, and Indra, wherever you are in the cycle. This piece of scholarship would not have been possible without the funding and support of the DAAD. I thank them for the opportunity for pursuing my studies here in Germany. I am indebted to the wonderful staff at the English Seminar. I have been very fortunate to have had Prof. Christian Mair as my supervisor. I deeply appreciate and the support and understanding you have extended to me over the years. A special thanks to my second supervisor Prof. Peter Auer for his counsel and to Prof. Bernd Kortmann. To my unofficial third supervisor Dr. Véronique Lacoste, thanks for the many informal exchanges on Tate. To Prof. Dagmar Deuber and Dr. Gert Fehlner, thank you for convincing me in Trinidad in 2007 that the University of Freiburg would be the ideal place for me to pursue my doctoral studies. I could not have made the final decision to come here without your encouragement. A heartfelt thanks to my teachers at the University of Freiburg, Dr. Ingrid Rosenfelder for her course in Sociophonetics and Dr. Martin Hilpert for his course on R. Also, a special thanks to all the wonderful people I worked with at the University College Freiburg. It has truly been an honour to work with you. A special thanks to the scholars who took the time to correspond with me, helping me to deepen my knowledge in sociophonetics: Dr. Anne Fabricius, Dr. Lauren Hall-Lew, Dr. Jonathan Harrington, Dr. Tyler Kendall, and Dr. Erik Thomas. To Prof. Donald Winford, my fellow Trini, I am deeply grateful for having access to your recordings from the 1970s. It was a pure joy working with the recordings of the speakers born in the late 19th century and the turn of the 20th century, hearing earlier forms of the beloved language of my people. I owe a great deal to the people who assisted me with my participant recruitment: Mitra Narine, Leslie-Ann Noel, Stacey-Ann Xavier, and Augustine Desmond De Leon. Without you, I would not have been able to collect the 90+ recordings for this project. To the various research assistants and transcribers who worked assiduously with my data, Fabiane Lara, Larissa Teichert, Marcia Pinard, Wilesse Otten, and Amy Sooklal. Much credit is due to Lynetta Campbell for shepherding me through mixed-effects models. Lynetta, you have been an amazingly patient teacher and I hope to continue building on all that you have taught me. There aren’t words enough to express my gratitude. To the soon-to-be Dr. Sascha Wolfer, Dr. Bendikt Szmrecsanyi, and Dr. Daniel Ezra Johnson, my deepest gratitude for assisting me with R and other statistical matters. To my dearest mentor Dr. Kim Mallalieu, my time at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (UWI) prepared me well for the dissertation. Understanding the principle of iteration, which is fundamental to engineering, enabled me to approach my work with patience and vigour, always aspiring to improve the process. To the soon-to-be Dr. Trinity Simone Rosa Belgrave, I will err on the side of small words: you are my rock. To all the people rallying behind me: Stacey Xavier, Abba Belgrave, Donna Holder, Phillip Rudd, and Rimma Gerenstein, thank you for your friendship. To all the wonderful people I’ve met in Freiburg: Andrea Moll, Michael Percillier, Smaran Dayal, Rhea Ramjohn, Felisha Bahadur, and Christine Vogt-William. I owe my gratitude to the families that provided me with a safe and comfortable home to live and work in during my time in Germany: the Kreutners and the Jahners.
12
Last but not least, my sincerest gratitude to the people who welcomed me into their homes to conduct my fieldwork. Without your generosity, this work would have been impossible.
13
KURZE ZUSAMMENFASSUNG DER VORLIEGENDEN DISSERTATION IN DEUTSCHER SPRACHE
(GEMÄß § 7 ABS. 3 DER PROMOTIONSORDNUNG) Im anglophonen, postkolonialen Hoheitsgebiet von Trinidad ist die sprachliche Situation derart, dass ein Kreolkontinuum existiert. Während die offizielle Sprache Englisch ist, wird auf weiten Teilen der Insel eine englisch-basierte Kreolsprache gesprochen. Aufgrund ihrer soziohistorischen Entwicklung und ihres strukturellen Aufbaus klassifiziert Winford (1997, 2001) die in Trinidad gesprochene Kreolsprache als intermediäres Kreol. Diese Bezeichnung legt nahe, dass der Mesolekt die am stärksten weiterhin bestehende Form des Kreol in der Sprechergemeinschaft Trinidads ist. Trotz des Fehlens eines Basilektes im heutigen Englisch Trinidads ist die phonetische Aussprache geschlossener Vokale durch ein hohes Maß an systemischer Variation gekennzeichnet. Häufig kommt es zum Zusammenfall von Vokalen veschiedener lexikalischer Sets, sogenannter „merger“. Beispiele sind der BATH-
TRAP-START „merger“ zugunsten des Vokals [a], sowie der STRUT-NURSE-THOUGHT-LOT-
CLOTH „merger“ zugunsten von [ɒ]. Die im Trinidadischen Englisch auftretenden „merger“ sind in der Literatur hauptsächlich als Merkmale der lokalen Vernakularsprache oder des Kreols behandelt worden (Solomon 1993; Wells 1982; Winer 1993; Winford 1978; Youssef & James 2004). Obwohl dies eine gute Beschreibung für den Status dieser „merger“ ist, sind „merger“ im Trinidadischen Englisch in Wirklichkeit sehr viel komplizierterer Natur. Daher ist eine detailliertere Analyse des Status von „merger“ im Trinidadischen Englisch wünschenswert, wenn nicht gar geboten. Angesichts der Bandbreite phonetischer Realisationen innerhalb des Kreolkontinuums Trinidads untersucht die vorliegende soziophonetische Studie die synchrone Variation in der Aussprache von Monophthongen im Trinidadischen Englisch gemäß des Labovschen Forschungsansatzes. Wie in jeder klassischen Typenstudie nach Labov wird die Rolle von internen und externen Faktoren in Bezug auf Variationen in der Vokalaussprache in Betracht gezogen. Dies wird auf zwei Gruppen von Vokalen angewandt: [+offene] und [-geschlossene] Vokale. Zudem wird das relative Prestige oder Stigma der „merger“ im Bezug auf [+offene] und [-geschlossene] Vokale anhand von Sprecherevaluationen als Bestandteil einer Einstellungsstudie („verbal guise“) untersucht. Insgesamt hebt diese Studie die endonormativen Entwicklungen innerhalb des Vokalsystems des Trinidadischen Englisch hervor.
14
1. INTRODUCTION
In the Anglophone post-colonial territory of Trinidad, the language situation is such that a creole continuum exists. While the official language is English, an English-based creole is widely spoken on the island. Given its socio-historical development and structural features, Winford (1997; 2001) classifies Trinidadian creole as an intermediate creole. This nomenclature suggests that the mesolect is the most creole form extant in the Trinidadian speech community. Despite the absence of a basilect in contemporary Trinidadian English, there is much variation in the phonetic realisation of [-high] vowels within the system. Many mergers occur among lexical sets, such as the merger of BATH-TRAP-START towards [a] and
STRUT-NURSE-THOUGHT-LOT-CLOTH towards [ɒ]. Mergers in Trinidadian English have been treated in the literature primarily as a characteristic of the local vernacular or creole (Solomon 1993; Wells 1982; Winer 1993; Winford 1978; Youssef & James 2004). While this is a fair purport of the status of these mergers, in reality mergers in Trinidadian English are far more complex. As such, a more detailed analysis of the status of mergers in Trinidadian English is desirable, if not warranted. Given the cline of phonetic realisations within the Trinidadian creole continuum, the present sociophonetic study examines synchronic variation of monophthongs in Trinidadian English within a Labovian framework. As in any classic Labovian study, the role of internal and external factors is considered in accounting for vowel variation. This is done for two main vowel groupings: [+low] and [-high] vowels. Furthermore, the relative prestige or stigma of mergers within [+low] and [-high] vowels is investigated, using a verbal guise evaluation task. Overall, this study highlights endo-normative developments among vowels in Trinidadian English. This work consists of nine chapters. Chapter 2 provides the reader with a general orientation on Trinidadian English and the historical development of this particular variety. In Chapter 3, a comprehensive literature review on existing vowel descriptions is given. Chapter 4 outlines methodological procedures taken with regard to fieldwork, data collection, data processing, and coding. Chapters 5 through 8 analyse various types of data. Chapter 5 examines the results of a verbal guise survey which evaluated the stigma and prestige associated with various merged/non-merged vowels among the [-high] and [+low] vowels. Although Chapter 5 deals primarily with perception data (i.e. results of verbal guise task), it also examines the vowel realisations in the speakers’ verbal guises. Thus, Chapter 5 touches on production data
15 though in a limited capacity. This is strategically done to preview certain vowel patterns such as the emergent and traditional acrolect and other environments where potential conditioned merger may occur. These patterns are explained in far greater detail in chapters 6 and 7 which are the core analysis chapters of this dissertation. Both chapters 6 and 7 focus exclusively on production data. These production data consist of normalised F1/F2 values which are subjected to various statistical tests—namely mixed-effects modeling and to a lesser extent Pillai-Bartlett trace—with a view to understanding the roles internal and external factors play in accounting for vowel variation and vowel overlap/merger. Chapter 6 deals with [+low] vowels while chapter 7 addresses [-high] vowels. Chapter 8 is a unique complement to the current study as the author had the privilege of analysing selected speakers from the data Donald Winford collected in the early 1970s. Winford’s data shed some diachronic light on the current study which is largely synchronic in nature. Chapter 9 does not only recap major findings from Chapters 5 through 8. It also attempts to unify the disparate vowels descriptions of Trinidadian English in light of the synchronic data which was thoroughly interrogated in this work. Lastly, potential areas for future research are identified seeing that this work lends a deeper understanding of contemporary Trinidadian English, thereby allowing future researchers to explore more detailed aspects of Trinidadian phonetics and phonology.
16
2. A HISTORICAL SKETCH OF LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN TRINIDAD
2.1 Overview This chapter explains how various migrant populations during the late 18th to the early 20th century impacted on the development of local varieties of Trinidadian English. Given that Trinidadian English partly developed out of already existing mesolectal English-based creoles from Barbados and other Eastern Caribbean territories, consideration is given here as to why Trinidadian English is best described as an intermediate creole. Additionally, the terminology used in the current study to refer to varieties within the system of Trinidadian English—‘creole’ vs. ‘acrolect’—is justified. Lastly, new terms which the author has employed to describe certain distributions of vowels in Trinidadian English—namely, traditional acrolect, emergent acrolect, and near acrolect—are introduced.
2.2 Languages spoken in Trinidad In order to appreciate the language complex in Trinidad, one must examine the island’s colonial past and patterns of settlement. Trinidad and Tobago, for all intents and purposes, is an English-speaking territory where English is the official language. In Trinidad, minor languages such as French Creole, Spanish (Moddie-Kublalsingh, 1994), and Bhojpuri (Mohan & Zador, 1986) are spoken in some pockets of the island (Lewis, 2009). Despite the dwindling numbers of native French Creole, Spanish, and Bhojpuri speakers, these languages have played an important role in the development of the varieties of English spoken on the island today. English-based creoles are also spoken on both islands although a distinction must be made between the varieties spoken in Trinidad and on the sister isle Tobago. Tobagonian Creole English is more conservative variety than Trinidadian Creole English, the latter being classified as intermediate creole.
2.2.1 Overview of Trinidad and Tobago’s colonial past
Christopher Columbus rediscovered Trinidad and Tobago in 1498 during his third voyage to the West Indies and claimed the two islands for Spain. Trinidad remained a Spanish colony for 299 years until the onset of forceful British occupation in 1797. The Spanish officially ceded Trinidad to the British in 1802. In the history of Trinidad, the island changed colonial hands only twice whereas in Tobago the island was bitterly fought over by the Spanish, French, Dutch, and British, changing hands 21 times until it became a British crown colony in 1802. The two islands became a single political entity in 1889 during which time both islands were under British colonial rule. Modern-day Trinidad and Tobago gained
17 its independence from the British1962 and is a twin island republic state which falls under the tutelage of a single government.
2.2.2 Trinidad’s linguistic milieu
Although Trinidad was under Spanish rule for almost three hundred years, it remained an insignificant, sparsely populated outpost with a few hundred inhabitants until 1783. In 1783, the Spanish government issued the Cedula of Population, inviting Roman Catholics willing to swear allegiance to the Spanish monarchy to settle the island. French planters as well as freed coloureds took advantage of this opportunity as the Cedula of Population allowed them to acquire new lands (Brereton, 2002, p. 8). A major linguistic outcome of French settlement was that French Creole, not Spanish, became the lingua franca on the island and French, the de facto language of commerce and law, a situation which continued well into the 19th century (Holm, 1989, p. 459). Despite the onset of British settlement in the late 18th century, English did not gain a stronghold in Trinidad until the earlier part of the 20th century after considerable efforts of the British government to displace French Creole and French as the lingua franca. Other groups which impacted on Trinidad’s linguistic milieu during the early 19th century included Spanish-speaking South American peasants fleeing the wars of independence on the mainland as well as various groups of English-speaking immigrants. These English-speaking immigrants constituted an eclectic, numerically significant group, which included British landowners and overseers, black veterans of the British army, and immigrants namely from Barbados as well as other Lesser Antillean islands (Holm, 1989, p. 460). The language mix in Trinidad also grew increasingly complex following Emancipation in 1838. Alternative sources of labour had to be found to sustain the sugar plantations. To this end, Indians, and to a far lesser extent, Chinese and Portuguese were recruited as labourers. It is estimated that approximately 134, 183 indentured labourers from India were brought to Trinidad during the period 1845 through 1917 (Brereton, 2002, p. 10), many of whom spoke Bhojpuri and other Indic languages. The effects of such varied settlement throughout the 18th and 19th century by diverse speakers have impacted on the varieties of English spoken in Trinidad. For instance, though Bhojpuri is now a dying language (Mohan & Zador, 1986), it has left an indelible mark on the lexicon of Trinidadian English (Winer, 2007). French Creole—though only spoken in small enclaves nowadays, most notably in Paramin in the Northern range—has impacted on Trinidadian English both lexically and structurally (Solomon, 1993; Winer, 2009). Lastly, the
18 input and influence of Barbadian English and other West Indian Englishes on Trinidadian English must not be underestimated. Population statistics show that Barbadians and other islanders constituted a considerable segment in Trinidad’s population. By 1831, approximately half of Trinidad’s population was born in Barbados (Le Page & Tabouret- Keller, 1985, p. 54). By 1901, West Indian immigrants made up 18% of the entire population, 18,522 (40.26%) of whom came from Barbados (Winer, 1995). The linguistic implication of this West Indian immigrant presence was that Barbadian speech in particular served as a model for urban Trinidadians in the 19th century. As Winer (1995) notes, “the protector of immigrants, C.W. Mitchell, pointed out in 1888, the concentration of Bajans in the main towns led to more Trinidadians in these areas learning to speak English than did the education system” (p. 142). Although Barbadian English may have served as an input to the development of Trinidadian English, Winer (1995) argues that by the early 20th century there was a strong “growing nationalistic identity, partly developed in the opposition to Bajan identity” (p. 141): Trinidadians did not want to sound like Bajans, considering it better even to sound like a ‘small islander’ than a Bajan. The fact that so many Bajans were resident in Trinidad, and were in such influential positions, but that virtually no special elements are apparent in TEC [Trinidadian English Creole]…can surely be at least partially attributed to acts of nationalistic identity and rejection on the part of TEC speakers. (Winer, 1995, p. 145) Despite the importance of Barbadian English, other Englishes from the Leeward Islands were instrumental in the development of Trinidadian English. For instance, non- rhoticity in Trinidadian English was derived from English from the Leeward Islands, not through metropolitan British English (Wells, 1982, p. 578). On the issue of rhoticity, it should be noted with the exception of Bajan, all other varieties in the Eastern Caribbean are non-rhotic (Aceto, 2004, p. 485). Solomon (1993) claims that the lack of post-vocalic /r/ is a feature common to those creoles which had a French Creole history such as Dominica, St. Lucia, and Grenada. Indeed with the colonial presence of the British on the island, mastering some form English was advantageous, hence the growing shift away from French Creole or Spanish. Hence it can be said that Trinidadian English emerged in towns during the 19th century. It then became a model for rural speakers who would have spoken some form of rural creole English or French Creole. Eventually by the later part of the 19th century to early 20th century, Trinidadian English was spoken throughout the island (Winford, 1997, p. 251). According to 19
Holm (1989), the vast majority of Trinidadians born after 1940 spoke English as their first language (p. 460). Because Trinidadian English developed in the 19th century from other intermediate English creoles (i.e. Barbadian English and Leeward Island Englishes), there has been reservation in calling Trinidadian English a creole (Garrett, 2003; Holm, 1989; Winer, 1984). Winer suggests that what obtained in Trinidad was dialect levelling of the various available English creole inputs (Winer, 1984).
2.3 The creole continuum and terminology Linguists have used the creole continuum model to describe the variation between the local standard variety and the creole. Despite the use of this model in creole linguistics, there is much disagreement as to the nature of the continuum itself. One view is that the creole constitutes a single grammar or ‘seamless whole’, a view which is keeping with De Camp’s (1971) elucidation. The other view is that there are two co-existent grammars at play, a position brought to the fore by Bailey (1966; 1971). In his article “Re-examining Caribbean English creole continua,” Winford (1997) explores the continua in various Anglophone creole countries and highlights that the relationship among lects varies from territory to territory. In short, when using terms such as ‘basilect,’ ‘mesolect,’ ‘acrolect,’ and ‘intermediate creole,’ one must take into consideration the socio-historical and sociolinguistic development of the of each creole variety in question, particularly in contrast to the superstrate variety. For instance, Winford uses ‘mesolect’ to refer to “an area of interaction between a relatively conservative creole and the local standard which appears to have no distinct status as a system” (1997, p. 236) as is the case in Jamaica. In contrast, Winford uses ‘intermediate creole’ and ‘creole vernacular’ interchangeably to refer to “a distinct system in its own right...[though] not as ‘radical’ or divergent from its English superstrate” (1997, p. 236). This would apply to Barbados and Trinidad, territories in which a basilect is purported to be currently non-existent or as he describes it, where “no ‘radical’ creole survives” (1997, p. 236). Lastly, Winford cautions that the term ‘basilect’, though used to refer the creole furthest from the acrolect, may refer to something different in Barbados than in Jamaica. Bearing these terminological distinctions in mind is of importance when examining the existing literature on varieties of English spoken in Caribbean territories where a creole situation may pertain. Various researchers have employed different terminology to refer to the varieties of English spoken in Trinidad. Table 2.1 summarises the terminology used in various phonetic/phonological descriptions of Trinidadian English. To facilitate comparison of the available literature, the author has decided to use the terms ‘acrolect’ and ‘creole.’ In
20 this study, the ‘acrolect’ is used to refer to the standard variety of Trinidadian English whereas the term ‘creole’ is used to refer to the most divergent variety. Furthermore, ‘Trinidadian English’ is used in this work as an umbrella term for varieties spoken in Trinidad. For the sake of consistency and to avoid confusion, the terms ‘basilect’ and ‘mesolect’ are not employed in this work. Table 2.1 A Comparison of Terms Used by Various Authors to Refer to Varieties of Trinidadian English Author Acrolect Creole Warner (1967) Dialect A Dialect B Winford (1978) Prestige norms i) Urban vernacular ii) Rural vernacular Wells (1982) Trinidadian acrolect i) Trinidadian basilect ii) Trinidadian popular pronunciation Winer (1993, 2009) Trinidadian English Trinidadian English Creole Solomon (1993) Acrolect Basilect Youssef & James (2004) Trinidadian acrolect Trinidadian mesolect Ferreira (2008) Standard English (Trinbago) English Creole (Trinidad) Ferreira & Drayton Trinidadian English N/A (forthcoming)
The author also coins new terminology to describe certain vowel constellations in the data. In Chapter 5, the terms traditional acrolect and emergent acrolect are introduced to describe particular vowel merger configurations among the [+low] vowels sets TRAP, BATH, and START. In Chapter 7, the term near acrolect is introduced to describe an overall pattern among the CLOTH, THOUGHT, LOT, and STRUT sets which shares some similarities with the acrolect but also displays some differences.
21
3. LITERATURE REVIEW & RESEARCH FOCUS
3.1 Overview The present chapter explores the existing literature on Trinidadian English vowels, with particular emphasis on vowel mergers. For the sake of expedience, vowels are discussed under three sets: [+high], [+low], and [-high] vowels. Additionally, the major findings of the only sociolinguistic study on Trinidadian English (Winford, 1972; 1978; 1979) are summarised. Lastly, the purpose of the current study is articulated and the research questions are specified.
3.2 Vowel mergers and creole typology The area of vowel mergers is typically addressed in descriptions of Trinidadian English. This is because the creole phoneme inventory (between nine to eleven) is smaller than the acrolectal one (between twelve to thirteen). (See Table 3.1 for a comparative view of vowel inventories). Because of these neutralisations or loss of contrasts in the creole, it makes for good discussion when compared to the acrolect. A broad generalisation regarding mergers in Trinidadian English is as follows: vowel mergers are a creole phenomenon. While there is some truth to that, such a generalisation obsfuscates much of the complexity operating within the system. Indeed the argument of creole simplicity has been challenged, most recently in Klein’s (2006) work on creole phonology typology with specific focus on phoneme inventory size. His findings illustrate that “Creole sound systems are of typical complexity and center on typological middle ground” (p. 17) when tested against Maddieson’s (1984) classification of inventory segment size: simple (< 19); typical (20-37); complex ( > 37). Based on Klein’s sample of fairly conservative creole variety across langauges (N = 23), he states “Creole languages span from five to nine vowels, unlike the three to fifteen distinct vowel qualities found in non-Creole languages…The great majority of Creole languages show vowel quality inventories in the typical range of 5,6 or 7 vowels” (p. 12). Using Klein’s description of vowels as a rough benmark, with potentially 9 to 11 phonemes, Trinidadian creole vowel inventory can hardly be considered conservative. Decreolisation has also shaped the varieties spoken in Trinidad, particularly at the phonetic/phonological level. Smith (2008) writes, “A case of creole displaying greater than average superstrate influence in its phonology might be Trinidadian Creole English” (p. 101). Indeed in many respects, the sound system of Trinidadian Standard English/acrolect closely
22 resembles the phonetic variants in contemporary Standard British English (SBE), particularly among monophthongs.
3.3 Vowel studies in Trinidadian English Although no acoustic study of vowels in Trinidadian English has been conducted to date, there are numerous impressionistic descriptions (Ferreira & Drayton, forthcoming; Solomon, 1993; Winer, 1993, 2009; Youssef & James, 2004), most notably Winford (1972; 1978; 1979), Warner(1967), and Wells (1982). All of these descriptions deal with the acrolect and the creole with the exception of Ferreira and Drayton (forthcoming), which focuses exclusively on the standard. In reviewing the available literature, the author has elected to focus the literature review on the work of Warner (1967), Winford (1972; 1978), and Wells (1982) as these studies are most comprehensive in dealing with vowel neutralisations/mergers and sociolinguistic variation. Other works are mentioned wherever warranted. (For an overview of all existing works, please refer to the appendix where a table comparing reports on Trinidadian English is provided, arranged according to Wells’ (1982) lexical sets).
3.3.1 The merger of [+high] vowels: /i, ɪ/ → /i/ and /ʊ, u/ → /u/
As illustrated in Table 3.1, both the acrolect and the creole have identical phoneme inventories with regard to the front vowels /i, ɪ, e, ɛ, a/ and the back vowels /o, ʊ, u/. However, both Winford (1978) and Warner (1967) report the merger of [+high] vowels, /i,
ɪ/→ /i/ and /ʊ, u/→ /u/, for some creole speakers. Examples of this are as follows: fish [fɪʃ] →
[fiːʃ] and cook [kʊk] → [kuk]. In the synchronic snapshot of Trinidadian English that Winford (1972; 1978; 1979) and Warner (1967) provide, it is clear that [+high] mergers are characteristic of older varieties of Trinidadian English, especially of speakers whose first language (L1) may not have been English. To illustrate, Warner (1967) posited mergers for speakers whose L1 was either French Creole and/or Spanish or an Indic language. Similarly, Winford (1978) reported mergers for old Indians whose L1 was an Indic language, but also noted the mergers among older speakers of African and Indian descent living in rural Trinidad.1 In both Winford’s and Warner’s studies, these mergers are not noted among younger speakers and English L1 speakers. That said, it is not surprising that in recent studies these particular mergers are briefly mentioned (Solomon, 1993; Wells, 1982; Winer, 1993;
1 It should be noted here that Winford (1972; 1978; 1979) did not have any L1 Indic language speakers in his urban sample. 23
Youssef & James, 2004). Winer (1993), for example, describes [i ~ ɪ] and [u ~ ʊ] as “sounds that may be allophonic for some speakers” (p. 14). In her recent work “Dictionary of the English/Creole of Trinidad and Tobago,” Winer (2009) is more specific regarding allophony, suggesting that there is free allophonic variation in [+high] vowels:
Another “merger” in the vowel system in /u/~/ʊ/, particularly common for TTE/C speakers with French Creole, Spanish, or Indic linguistic influence. The variation in
/i~ɪ/ appears to be still allophonic (not distinguishing minimal pairs of words) for many speakers, especially of i/een ‘in’ and the realization of both in all types of TTE/C is often in between. (pp. xxi-xxii) Youssef and James (2004) characterise the /i/ merger as a neutralisation “which do[es] not hold for all speakers” in which “the vowels in bit and beat become homophonous with the use of [iː]” (p. 519). Wells (1982), drawing from Warner (1967), notes that [+high] mergers are “perceived as giving an old-fashioned rural effect” (p. 57). From the existing literature, it is clear that the status of [+high] mergers in contemporary Trinidadian English is tenuous at best since allophonic free variation is operates here. That is to say, [+high] mergers are best attributed to an earlier evolutionary stage within Trinidadian English.
Table 3.1 Phonemic Inventories for Trinidadian English (Warner, 1967; Winford, 1978; Wells, 1982)
Source Variety Phonemes Front Central Back
Warner Dial. A 13 i ɪ e ɛ a ɜ ə ɑ ─ ʌ ɔ o ʊ u (1967) Dial. B 9 i ɪ e ɛ a ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ɔ o ʊ u
Winford Prest. Norm 12 i ɪ e ɛ a ɜ ə ─ ─ ʌ ɔ o ʊ u (1978) Urb. Vern. 11 i ɪ e ɛ a oː ─ ─ ─ ʌ ɔ o ʊ u
Wells Acrolect 13 i ɪ e ɛ a ɜ ─ ɑ ɒ ʌ ɔ o ʊ u (1982) Basilect 9 i ɪ e ɛ a ─ ─ ─ ɒ ─ ─ o ʊ u
3.3.2 The merger of [+low] vowels: /a, ɑ/→ /a/ and /a, ə/→/a/
Regarding the [+low] vowels /a/ and /ɑ/, accounts vary as to the phonemic status of these two sounds. Warner (1967) and Wells (1982) both report the merger /a, ɑ / → /a/ in the creole, for example, as in laugh [lɑːf] → [laːf] and shark [ʃɑːk] → [ʃaːk]. They also show that in the acrolect these phonemes are differentiated. However, Winford’s (1978) analysis differs
24
2 in that he does not posit /ɑ/ at all in the acrolect, only /a/. Similarly, Youssef and James
(2004) do not report [ɑ] in the BATH, PALM, and START sets although elsewhere in the literature the phonemic status of /ɑ/ in the acrolect is attested (Ferreira & Drayton, forthcoming; Solomon, 1993; Winer, 1993, 2009). One peculiarity in the distribution of /ɑ/ is its use in ‘social hypercorrection’ where there is a tendency towards /ɑ/, for example, magazine with /ɑ/ (Wells, 1982, p. 578). Regarding /a/ in the TRAP set, there is unanimity that
[a] is its surface form with the exception of Youssef and James (2004) who list [ӕ] as an additional phonetic variant (p. 515). Table 3.2 A Comparative View of Mergers in Trinidadian English by Warner (1967) and Winford (1978)
Warner (1967) Winford (1978) Acrolect a ɑ ə ɜ ɔ ʌ a ə ʌ ɔ ɜ
\ / \ \ / / \ / \ / |
Creole a ɔ a ɔ o
Although Winford does not mention the /a, ɑ/→ /a/ merger in his analysis, he proposes the merger /a, ə/ → /a/ in the creole, shown in Table 3.2, which can be inferred to be the merger of lexical sets lettER and commA in the direction of TRAP. Winford (1979) takes issue with Warner’s treatment of /a/, directing the following criticism to her analysis: Warner does not make it clear whether the class of words for which she postulates the phoneme /ə/ includes such words as about, father etc., which Gimson describes as having the phoneme /ə/ (in unstressed syllables) in R.P. It seems clear that Warner’s classification of the phonemes of T.E. fails to take such words into account. (Winford, 1979, p. 7) Although Winford attempts to redress this omission in Warner’s work but positing /a, ə/ →
/a/, Wells’ (1982) description is more compelling since he acknowledges both the /a, ɑ/→ /a/ and /ə/→/a/mergers. Wells explicitly attends to the /a, ɑ/→ /a/ merger in the creole, but tacitly alludes to the /a, ə/→/a/merger in the creole in his enumeration of the lexical sets lettER and commA (Wells, 1982, p. 57) which can be articulated as follows: in the lettER and
2 The author has had the privilege of listening to a small selection of Winford’s interviews which was collected for his (1972) dissertation. A few speakers were heard using the [ɑ] variant but the front vowels [a] appears to have been the dominant pattern. One can only speculate this is why he did not posit the existence of /ɑ/, that is, because it was less frequently occurring in his data. 25 commA sets, the “weak (unstressable) vowels occurring word-finally” (Wells, 1982, p. 165) varies socially, /ə/ belonging to the acrolect and /a/ to the creole. It should be noted that
Youssef and James (2004) report additional variants for both the lettER and commA sets. For lettER they list the phonetic variants [ə, ʌ] and [a, ə, ʌ] for commA. To summarise, regarding the [+low] vowels, Wells’ (1982) is probably the most comprehensive source although there are quite different accounts in the literature on these vowels.
3.3.3 Mergers among [-high] vowels: /ʌ, ɒ, ɔ, ɛ/ → /ɒ/
For the sake of expediency, [-high] mergers will be used to refer to mergers occurring within the central vowel space: /ʌ, ɒ, ɔ, ɛ/→ /ɒ/. Using the open-mid back rounded vowel /ɔ/ as starting point for discussion, there is general consensus that this phoneme is part of the acrolectal vowel system. However, descriptions of its distribution in the creole vary from author to author. As can be seen in Table 3.2, both Warner and Winford posit /ɔ/ as a phoneme in the creole, though the two authors have different ways of describing mergers relevant to it. In her description, Warner maintains a four-way distinction among /ə, ɛ, ɔ, ʌ/ in the acrolect but claims that in the creole these phonemes have coalesced into /ɔ/. Winford (1979) questions the accuracy of Warner’s analysis given that there are discrepancies in her word class examples as they relate to the posited phonemes: …the words specified by Warner as containing the phoneme /ə/, are members of the
class of words in RP which have the phoneme /ʌ/, whilst words specified by her as
having the phoneme /ʌ/ are members of the class of words which have the phonemes
/ɒ/ in RP. The postulation of these two phonemes is subject to doubt…The contention
here is that the postulation of a phoneme /ə/ as opposed /ʌ/ is without sufficient justification. (Winford, 1979, pp. 6-7) Winford’s point is indeed a valid one and as he rightly says “It is evident at this point that the status of the entire central vowel system of TE [Trinidadian English] as described by Warner is in doubt” (p. 7). In riposte, Winford (1978) offers an alternative analysis in which he assigns the variable (ʌ) and phoneme /ʌ/ to the words such as hut, run, rub, gun, and stuff and variable (ɔ) and phoneme /ɔ/ to words such as hot, rob, spot, sock, and shop (Winford, 1978, p. 284). While this is an improvement of phoneme allocation to word classes, it is peculiar
26 that he does not posit the existence of /ɒ/ or [ɒ] in any of his various analyses (Winford, 1972; 1978; 1979). He does, however, acknowledge in his critique of Warner’s work that hot, rob, spot, sock, shop have the phoneme /ɒ/ in RP. Indeed not because hot, rob, spot, sock, shop have the phoneme /ɒ/ in RP means that it should be present in the acrolect. However,
Wells (1982) does attest the presence of the phoneme /ɒ/ in both the acrolect and the creole in his analysis, shown in Table 3.1. In fact, while Warner and Winford refer to the merger towards /ɔ/, Wells describes the merger as moving towards /ɒ/ in the creole. Furthermore,
Wells does not include /ɔ/ as a phoneme in the creole, but does so in the acrolect. While Winford’s analysis is a marked improvement from Warner’s, he still fails to delineate the subtleties between the back rounded vowels /ɔ/ and /ɒ/ as they apply to the entire vowel system of Trinidadian English. In this regard, Wells’ (1982) work emerges as superior as he addresses /ɒ/ in his work, thus resulting in a more fine-grained description of the Trinidadian
English vowel system. Wells’ (1982) description of the /ɒ/ merger is also markedly different: acrolectal speakers have a four-way distinction between cut, cot, caught and curt,
with /ʌ/, /ɒ/, /ɔ/ and /ɜ/ respectively…In popular pronunciation…all four vowels /ʌ, ɒ,
ɔ, ɜ/ may be merged in a single back open rounded vowel /ɒ/ (phonetically [ɔ] or
thereabouts). Speakers using this merged /ɒ/ will have bud, bod(y), board~bored and bird as homophones. (p. 579)
Given that Wells describes the phonetic quality of /ɒ/ as [ɔ], one may speculate that Winford treated /ɒ/ and /ɔ/ as one and the same because their surface realisations were so similar. This is not implausible because when the author listened to a few of Winford (1972) recordings, the speakers did seem to have a more close realisation of LOT tokens, thereabouts [ɔ]. For example, the word job may be rendered [ ɔ ] More recent works published after Wells’ (1982) “Accents of English,” have utilised the lexical set notation to describe the [-high] vowel mergers (Ferreira, 2008; Ferreira & Drayton, forthcoming; Youssef & James, 2004). Moreover, the [-high] mergers in the creole can be described as the merger of NORTH, FORCE, THOUGHT, STRUT, and NURSE in the direction of LOT/ɒ/. As shown in Table 3.3, Youssef and James (2004) list other variants for
27 some of these sets. For example, in addition to phonetic variants [ʌ] and [ɒ] for STRUT, they also list [ɔ]; in addition to [ɒ] for LOT, they note [ɔ] and [ʌ]; in addition to [ɔ]for THOUGHT, they report [ɒ]. It should also be noted that Youssef and James (2004) also describe a different pattern in regard to CLOTH. They note the phonetic realisation of [ɔ] and [ɔː] which differ in length whereas Wells (1982) notes [ɒ] and [ɔ], respectively the acrolect and the creole. One additional difference between Wells’ and Winford’s analysis lies in their treatment of /ɜ/. Winford (1978) reports a different merger of /ɜ/, claiming that it merges with /o/ in the creole. Wells (1982) mentions this variant merger as attested by Winford (1978) but does not subscribe to it in his analysis: “Winford (1978) reports a slightly different pattern of possible mergers, including that of NURSE and GOAT (and hence hypercorrect foam as
[fɜm])...(My account follows Warner, whose description agrees with my own observations)” (p. 579). It should be noted that no other descriptions make reference to the /o/ merger except for Winford’s (1978). Despite this, having analysed some of the Winford data (see chapter 8), the author understands why Winford posited this phoneme since some speakers were heard using [o] in NURSE words. Regarding the phonetic quality of /ɜ/ in the acrolect, most linguists describe it as an open-mid central unrounded vowel [ɜ] whereas Ferreira and Drayton
(forthcoming) describe it as the close-mid central unrounded vowel [ɘː]. The author prefers to use the close-mid central unrounded vowel [ɘː] to describe the NURSE vowel (following
Ferreira and Drayton) since the vowel is in fact realised higher in the vowel space than [ɜː]. As evidenced in the review of the literature for [-high] vowels, there is much complexity given the number of mergers there. Gaining a better understanding of this complexity would be a worthwhile endeavour, which is partly what the current study intends to do.
28
Table 3.3 A Comparison of Phonetic Variants According to Wells (1982) and Youssef & James (2004) 3 Lexical set Wells (1982) Youssef & James (2004) FLEECE [i] [iː] KIT [ɪ] [ɪ>i] TRAP [a] [a>æ] BATH [ɑ x a] [aː] PALM [ɑ x a] [aː] START [ɑ x a] [aː] GOOSE [u] [uː] FOOT [ʊ] [ʊ] NORTH [ɔ x ɒ] [ɔː] FORCE [ɔ x ɒ] [ɔː] THOUGHT [ɔ x ɒ] [ɔː>ɒ] CLOTH [ɒ x ɔ] [ɔ>ɔː] LOT [ɒ] [ɔ>ʌ>ɒ] NURSE [ɜ x ɒ] [ɜː>ɔ] STRUT [ʌ x ɒ] [ʌ>ɔː>ɒ] letter [ə x a] [ə>ʌ]
3.4 Sociolinguistic study of vowels in Trinidadian English The only existing sociolinguistic study on Trinidadian English was conducted by Winford (1972) in his unpublished doctoral dissertation “A Sociolinguistic Description of Two Communities in Trinidad.” Subsequent works published from this dissertation include “Phonological Hypercorrection in the Process of Decreolization” in 1978 and “Phonological Variation and Change in Trinidadian English—The Evolution of the Vowel System” in 1979. These three studies have been thoroughly explored in previous sections of this chapter in relation to vowel inventories. Attention will now be given to the sociolinguistic dimension of Trinidadian English. Using a Labovian framework, Winford examined the external factors of socio- economic class, locality (urban vs. rural), speech style, ethnicity, and age as regards Trinidadian vowels and consonants. He collected his data in 1970, conducting sociolinguistic interviews (Labov, 1966) in urban and rural communities, St. James and Mayo, respectively. St. James is a suburb of the capital Port-of-Spain, and Mayo, a rural village in the Monserrat Hills of South Central Trinidad. The total sample consisted of 57 Indo- and Afro-Trinidadian males. The urban St. James sample was comprised of thirty-three speakers, aged 21 to 50.
3 In the Wells (1982) description, the segment to the left refers to the acrolectal variant while the one on the right is the creole variant; ‘x’ signifies ‘varies socially.’ As an example, START [ɑ x a] means that [ɑ] varies socially with [a]. In Youssef and James’ (2004) description, the notation ‘>’ signifies that the segment on the left occurs more frequently than the segment on the right. For example, TRAP [a>æ] means that [a] is the more common or more frequently heard than [æ]. 29
Note that Winford (1972) does not state the number of Indo- and Afro-Trinidadians in the urban sample; the assumption is there is no marked difference in the speech of urban Indo- and Afro-Trinidadians. In contrast, the rural Mayo sample consisted of twenty-four speakers, aged 21 to 80, sixteen of whom were Indo-Trinidadian and eight, Afro-Trinidadian.
Figure 3.1 Map highlighting Winford’s (1972) collection sites, St. James (urban) and Mayo (rural).
In regard to the urban data, Winford (1972) collected speech for all four styles which comprise the sociolinguistic interview, that is, word list, reading passage, formal interview, and casual speech. However, in the rural community some participants had limited literacy skills. For this reason, Winford (1978; 1979) reported only on formal interview and casual speech data. Winford also supplemented the data with recordings of peer-group interactions, that is, speech he recorded of particular participants interacting with their friends. In urban St. James, he recorded five of these peer-group interactions with upper working class speakers while in rural Mayo he recorded seven peer-interaction groups with working class speakers. The urban sample was divided into four socio-economic classes: upper middle class, middle class, upper working class, and working class. In contrast, only three socio- economical classes were identified in the rural community which roughly corresponded to middle class, upper working class, and working class. Regarding the vocalic variables examined, Winford was most interested in the central vowel system (which has been referred to in this chapter as [-high] vowels) since he identified omissions in Warner’s (1967) M.Phil. thesis “Language in Trinidad—with Special Reference to English.” In his dissertation, he examined a total of six vocalic variables
30 although in subsequent 1978 and 1979 publications, he reported on four variables in detail, as shown in Table 3.4.4 Table 3.4 Distribution of Vowel Variants in Two Trinidadian Communities (Winford 1978, p. 285) Most frequently used Variable Other variants Word class variant (interview) St. James (urban) (ɜː) [ɜː] [ɛɔ ~ ː ~ ʌ ~ ɔ] shirt, work, etc. (ʌ) [ʌ] [ʌ˕ ~ ʌɔ ~ ɔ] hut, rub, run, etc. (ɔ) [ɔ] [ʌ ~ ʌɔ] hot, rob, shop, etc. (ə) [ə] [ə ~ a] about, father, etc.
Mayo (rural) (ɜː) [ɜː ~ ɛɔ] [ ː ~ o ~ ʊ ~ ʌ~ ɔ] shirt, work, etc. (ʌ) [ʌ ~ ɔ] [ʌɔ ~ ʌ˕ ~ ] hut, rub, run, etc. (ɔ) [ɔ] [ʌ ~ ʌɔ ~ ɔɔ ~ ] hot, rob, shop, etc. (ə) [ə] [ə˕ ~ a] about, father, etc.
3.4.1 Overview of sociolinguistic findings
Generally speaking, all classes showed style shifting in the same direction. That is to say, speakers “recognize[d] the prestige norms of the respective variables, and attempt[ed] to approximate them in more formal styles” (Winford, 1978, p. 284). Furthermore, he illustrated that decreolisation was evident from the data in that younger rural speakers were moving towards the norms of the urban vernacular. Older, rural Indo- and Afro-Trinidadians used more stigmatised variants. Overall, there was an increase in stigmatised variants in the peer- group interactions in both urban and rural speakers. Winford (1978) interpreted this to mean that “the norms of usage in vernacular [were] quite distinct from those aimed at in more formal speech” (p. 285). Regarding the creolisation process which would have taken place in the 19th century, Winford (1978) speculated that various phonemic contrasts which existed in then standard were lost in the creole. In the decreolisation process which was still in progress during the 1970s, the contrasts that were lost were slowly being restored. Among the urban speakers, the final stages of restoring these contrasts seemed to be taking place for all variables whereas among rural speakers, (ɜː) was in a more advanced stage of decreolisation than (ə) and (ʌ).
4 In his doctoral dissertation, Winford (1972) distinguished between (ʌ ) and (ʌ). (ʌ ) has the variants [ʌ ~ ʌɔ ~ ɔ] and occurs in words such as nut, fun, sun. (ʌ ) has the variants [ə ~ ʌ ~ ʌɔ ~ ɔ] and occurs in words with weak stress such as but, consist. In subsequent publications he only reported on (ʌ ) which he then labeled (ʌ). In Winford (1972), he also had the variable (a) with variants [ə ~ ə˕ ~ a ~ ä]. 31
3.4.2 Variation in formal interview
In St. James, variables (ə), (ʌ), and (ɜː) were not good indicators for socio-economic class since the difference amongst all classes was minimal as two broad social groups could be gleaned from the patterns of usage. Moreover, the participants from St. James had a higher tendency towards using the prestige variants. Conversely, a different picture emerged in Mayo: there was class stratification for these three variables in Mayo. Both the prestige and stigmatised variants were “more or less evenly distributed” (Winford, 1979, p. 12) in the formal interview as well as in other speech styles, namely casual speech and peer-group interactions. Overall, the participants from Mayo of a higher SEC used prestige variants in a similar pattern to urban counterparts of equivalent SEC. The rural participants belonging to a lower SEC used fewer prestige variants (1979, p.12). Patterns of usage among the rural and urban participants belonging to lower a socio-economic class were not isoglossic; the upper working- and working-class speakers from Mayo used stigmatised variants more frequently than the urban speakers of comparable socio-economic status in (ʌ) and (ɔ). For (ʌ), the urban
speakers used the range of variants [ʌ ~ ʌɔ ~ ɔ] whereas the rural speakers had additional variants [ʌ ~ ä]. The variants [ʌ ~ ä] were noted among the rural working and upper-working class speakers though more so among the Indian speakers. Furthermore, [ʌ ~ ä] were frequent in the speech of both the older rural Indo- and older Afro-Trinidadians. From this pattern of usage, Winford (1979) concluded that [ä] “was once a common feature of Indian speech, and
[was] now in the last stages of disappearing from use” (1979, p. 14). Similarly with (ɔ), the rural speakers used variants not found among the urban speakers, namely [ɔɔ ~ a ], which Winford (1979) interpreted as “relics of an earlier pronunciation most commonly used by Indians” (p. 14). It should be noted that certain older Afro-Trinidadians in Mayo used these variants as well.
3.4.3 Variation in peer-group interactions
In regard to peer-groups, recall that these recordings were made among the working class in Mayo and upper-working class in St. James. Overall, both the urban and rural speakers used stigmatised variants more frequently in the peer-group interactions than in their most casual speech style. On the basis of these observations, Winford (1979) concluded that,
32
It would appear that both urban and rural informants have two relatively distinct types
of speech behaviour with respect to (ə) (ɜː) and (ʌ)—one type for formal speech, and another for conversation among friends. In the former, use of prestige variants is almost the norm; in the latter, the incidence of non-standard variants increases to such as extent that no absolute norm can be identified. (p. 17).
With variant (ɜː), the urban speakers mostly used the prestige variant [ɜː] in addition to [ɛɔ] even in the peer-group interactions in contrast to the rural speakers who tended to use the stigmatised variants [o ~ ʊ ~ ɔ] regardless of speech style.
3.4.4 Hypercorrection
In his 1978 article entitled “Phonological Hypercorrection in the Process of Decreolisation,” Winford addressed what appeared to be hypercorrection in the data. Using a traditional variationist approach, Winford discovered a cross-over pattern among upper working class Trinidadians for the TH-stopping variables (dh)→[ð ~ d] and (th)→[θ ~ t]. TH- stopping is characteristic among English-lexifier creole in the Caribbean and is, the neutralization, in popular speech, of the oppositions/θ/ vs. /t/ and / ð/ vs. /d/. Alveolar stops, [t, d], are used for both dental fricatives and alveolar plosives of
standard accents. Thus, the popular pronunciation of thing is [tɪŋ], that of father
[ˈfaːda]. Pairs such as thin-tin, faith-fate, though-dough, breathe-breed are homophonous. (Wells, 1982, p. 565). Winford (1978) found that Trinidadian speakers in his sample showed great fluctuation in their production of stigmatised variants across speech styles. Generally speaking, the speakers used more stigmatised variants in casual speech than in the more formal linguistic tasks. This was true across all socioeconomic classes. This great fluctuation across speech styles suggests that the speakers were attuned and sensitive to stigmatised variants, and were to some extent, linguistically insecure. Winford argued convincingly against calling the observed cross-over effect hypercorrection. He preferred to use the term supercorrection in a post-creole continuum since Trinidadian English speakers were not producing erroneous, ungrammatical or poorly formed utterances as the term hypercorrection would suggest. Winford (1978) interpreted the observed cross-over effect as "evidence that two distinct systems, each with its own norms of usage, are in contact. This evidence is especially valuable in shedding light on the relationship that exists between varieties in a creole
33 continuum and on the nature of the changes involved in the decreolisation process" (p. 284). Winford then extended this line of argumentation to his vowel data, offering evidence of decreolisation of the Trinidadian vowel system. Furthermore, he used the evidence of hypercorrection to prove the existence of fluctuating usage norms in Trinidadian English.
Using the variables (ɜː) and (ɔ), he illustrated this.
Regarding (ɜː), the variants are listed here from most prestigious to most stigmatised:
[ɜː ~ oː ~ ɔ]. It should be noted that [oː] is vernacular variant which was used moreover by the lower-status urban speakers and younger rural speakers. Hypercorrection occured when these urban and rural speakers, who were well aware of both the prestige and vernacular norms, produced [ɜː] in words where it did not belong in formal contexts, rendering words such as coke and foam as [kɜːk] and [fɜːm], respectively.
Regarding (ɔ), the variant range was [ɔ ~ ʌ ~ ʌɔ], [ɔ] being the prestige norm and [ʌ ~
ʌɔ] being stigmatised variants. Hypercorrection occurred when speakers used [ʌ~ ʌɔ] in words such as hot, rob, lock in an attempt to avoid [ɔ], a vowel which was heavily stigmatised when used in words such as hut, rub, luck, etc.; the urban, lower-working class speakers tended to use [ɔ] in hut, rub, luck, etc. The urban speakers belonging to high-status groups and the upper-working class engaged in this [ɔ] avoidance. These urban speakers generally recognized [ɔ] as the prestige variant but had a tendency to use [ʌ~ ʌɔ] in casual speech and in the formal interview. In contrast, the lower-working class speakers showed more consistency in using [ɔ] in (ɔ) words such as hot, rob, lock, etc. Winford argued against interpreting [ʌ] as a more prestigious pronunciation. Rather, he suggested that word-classes of (ʌ) and (ɔ) were ambiguous for most speakers. Because the use of [ʌ] in words belonging to (ɔ) class did not attract negative evaluation, Winford concluded that hypercorrection was operating here. In the rural community, similar patterns of hypercorrection as described above were observed. There was, however, hypercorrection involving another variant of (ɔ), namely [a]. Recall that the highly stigmatised [a] was stereotypical in the speech of low-status, rural
Indians whereas [ɔ] was the prestige norm. Winford noted that some rural speakers hypercorrected to [ɔ] in words which have [a]. These speakers then rendered language,
34 stammer, wrap, etc. as [lɔŋɡwij, stɔmə, ɹɔp]. It should also be noted that these speakers rarely used the stigmatised [a] in words belonging to the (ɔ) class. Overall, Winford paints a picture of Trinidadian English undergoing decreolisation, a “macrocosmic counterpart of individual shifts from creole to standard structures” (1978, p. 289). Thus, hypercorrection was evidence of this larger linguistic process taking place. Examining hypercorrection also revealed the evaluative stance of speakers in regard to certain phonetic realisations. To summarise, Winford showed that:
1) [oː] is somewhat stigmatised in (ɜː) words; therefore, hypercorrection in words with /o/ to [ɜː] occurs. 2) [ɔ] is strongly stigmatised in (ʌ) words; therefore, hypercorrection in (ɔ) words to [ʌ] occurs. 3) [a] is highly stigmatised in (ɔ) words; therefore, hypercorrection in words with /a/ to [ɔ] occurs.
3.5 Focus of the study As can be gleaned from the previous sections, mergers constitute a good starting place for inquiry for several reasons. Firstly, the literature is varied in its reportage on vowel mergers. Although there have been successive improvements from scholar to scholar, there is need for an empirical study of contemporary Trinidadian English since the data from the most recent large-scale, sociolinguistic work come from the 1970s. These data include Hindi L1 speakers who are quite likely to have been ‘the last of their kind.’ Wells (1982) estimates that by approximately 1940, English would have been the “mother tongue virtually all Trinidadians” (p. 578). That said, given the gradual attrition of languages such as Hindi, Spanish, and French Creole, Trinidadian English has, to some extent, ‘levelled off’ since there are no longer these vibrant language contact situations. Furthermore, given the increased physical and socio-economic mobility of Trinidadians, one may surmise that these societal changes have impacted on the linguistic landscape. Notwithstanding societal and social factors, phonetic and phonological changes in Trinidadian English are plausible within a time span of forty years as it is well-established that language change can occur within a generation. Advances in linguistic scholarship and technology herald the use of more sophisticated research practices. Case in point: it is established practice to use Wells’ (1982) lexical sets as a point of reference in vowel analyses and descriptions. A lexical set represents a subset of words which share the same pronunciation within a particular variety of English.
35
For all intents and purposes, the concept of lexical sets “enable[s] one to refer concisely to large groups of words which tend to share the same vowel, and the vowel which they share” (Wells, 1982, p. xviii). A framework such as Wells’ lexical sets allows for a concise reference to vowels and their historical development in English. 5, 6 Additionally, the use of lexical sets in linguistic scholarship foments replication as well as cross-variety comparison. The mergers described in the sections above may be summarily stated as follows:
[+high] mergers i) FLEECE-KIT towards /i/
ii) GOOSE-FOOT towards /u/
[+low] mergers BATH-TRAP-START towards /a/
[-high] mergers i) NORTH-FORCE-THOUGHT towards /ɔ/
ii) THOUGHT-LOT- CLOTH-STRUT-NURSE towards /ɒ/
ii) LETTER-TRAP towards /a/ In creole studies, sociophonetics is a fairly new subfield. Most sociophonetic studies have been conducted on Jamaican English/Creole (Rosenfelder, 2009; Veatch, 1991; Wassink-Beckford, 2001). Eastern Caribbean varieties such as Bajan (Straw & Patrick, 2007), though in disaporic contexts, and Bequian Creole (Partridge, 2009) have also received attention. In a historical vein, Thomas and Bailey (1998) have done comparative work on early African American Vernacular English and Caribbean English-lexifier creoles. A sociophonetic study on Trinidadian English would be a timely and welcome contribution to creole studies, especially since all previous phonological and phonetic studies on Trinidadian English have been based on auditory analyses. Using techniques in instrumental phonetics, the current study endeavours to shed light on the complex usage of phonological systems of Trinidadian varieties by examining the phonetic quality and phonological realisation of the subsets [-high] and [+low] vowels in Trinidadian English. The broad research questions guiding this study are: RQ1: To what extent is vowel variation phonetically conditioned? RQ2: To what extent can external factors account for variation? RQ 3: To what extent can external factors account for vowel overlap/merger?
5 Using lexical sets enables the linguist to make comparisons across varieties of English without appealing to cumbersome formulations such as /æ/ is realised as [a] in variety X. Instead, one may articulate this as “words belonging to the TRAP lexical set are realised as [a].” Such a statement avoids positing that the underlying form is /æ/, which may not be the case in the variety in question. 6 For example, words belonging to the BATH set are derived from the phonemic split of /æ/ in the 18th century, also known as the TRAP-BATH split, which resulted in BATH words being pronounced with a long vowel [ɑː] in SBE. 36
RQ4: In relation to vowels which may be merged, which phonetic variants are more prestigious? RQ5: In relation to vowels which may be merged, which phonetic variants are more stigmatised? Research questions RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3are addressed by conducting a macro-level analysis from a corpus of 8771 vowel tokens which were measured acoustically. These data come from interviews conducted by the author. (See section 4.3 on linguistic tasks). Research questions RQ4 and RQ5, in contrast, are answered through a small-scale language evaluation survey (N = 15) which was conducted online. Table 3.5 Overview of Research Questions, Data Sets, and Relevant Chapters Research Vowel Lexical set Analysis chapter question subset reference RQ1 & RQ2 [+low] TRAP, BATH, START Ch. 6 [-high] STRUT, LOT, CLOTH, THOUGHT Ch. 7
RQ3 [+low] BATH-TRAP, START-TRAP, BATH-START Ch. 6 [-high] LOT-STRUT, LOT-CLOTH, THOUGHT-CLOTH Ch. 7 7 RQ4 & RQ5 [+low] BATH→TRAP, START→TRAP Ch. 5 [-high] CLOTH→THOUGHT, NURSE→ LOT, STRUT→LOT Ch. 5
Table 3.5 summarises which lexical sets are examined in relation to the research questions. Additionally, Table 3.5 references the chapters in which the analyses can be found. Details on general methodology are outlined in Chapter 4 whereas specifics on statistical tests applied to the data can be found in the relevant analysis chapters. Additionally, acoustic measurements of other lexical sets are made and tested for vowel overlap seeing that mergers have been reported among these sets—namely, [NORTH-
FORCE], [NURSE-LOT], [SCHWA- LETTER-TRAP], [FLEECE- KIT], and [GOOSE-FOOT]. Investigating vowel overlap among these sets is beyond the scope of the current study. In other words, RQ1 through RQ5 are not addressed in relation to these lexical sets. That said, as a preliminary means, the aforementioned sets were tested for overlap using Pillai scores. (Refer to section 5.2 for details on this statistical procedure). Because this initial screening revealed fairly straightforward patterning, that is, patterns that are consistent with existing descriptions, further statistical analysis was deemed unnecessary. The results of this overlap screening are incorporated into Chapter 8 where a description of Trinidadian English is presented. In other words, the groups of vowels referred to in [+low] and [-high] subsets constitute those vowel spaces where there is maximum variation hence why the current study is largely focused on these particular subsets.
7 The set to the right of the arrow indicates the direction of the merger. 37
Lastly, for the sake of having a complete description of monophthongs in Trinidadian
English, acoustic measurement of lexical sets FACE, DRESS, and GOAT are also included in the current study.
38
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Overview This chapter describes the two communities, Diego Martin and Sangre Grande, where the data were collected, as well as the selection criteria used in sampling. Furthermore, the chapter identifies the range of speech styles recorded in accordance to Labov’s (1966, 1972) sociolinguistic interview. Data handling and analysis procedures—from transcription and coding to measuring vowel formants and vowel normalistaion—are described in detail. In order to assess occupational prestige, the procedure employed in constructing an occupational prestige metric is outlined. Lastly, brief mention is made of a merger evaluation survey which was conducted to ascertain levels of prestige and stigma towards merged or non-merged vowel realisations. (See chapter 5).
4.2 Data collection sites: Diego Martin and Sangre Grande The data were collected in two localities, Diego Martin and Sangre Grande. Administratively speaking, Trinidad is divided into 14 local governmental corporations. Both Diego Martin and Sangre Grande have their own regional corporations. Information such as population size and density and patterns of land use are available for the respective corporations though not as readily available for the towns Diego Martin and Sangre Grande themselves. As such, the description of the two data collection sites refers to the Diego Martin and Sangre Grande Regional Corporations, not to the towns themselves. Additionally, the physical boundaries set by local government are used to delimit the sample by geographic area as shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Area covered by Diego Martin (left) and Sangre Grande (right) Regional Corporations.
39
The rationale behind choosing Diego Martin and Sangre Grande was to explore the dimension of urban versus semi-rural speakers. Diego Martin is located in the North-Western part of Trinidad and lies approximately six km west of the nation’s capital Port-of-Spain. The Diego Martin Regional Corporation encompasses an area of 125 km2. Land use is largely residential although there are some industrial zones along the Diego Martin Main Road. The population of the Diego Martin Regional Corporation is 105,720 and there is a population density of 846 inhabitants/km2. In contrast, the Sangre Grande Regional Corporation encompasses a much larger area of 929.2 km2 yet has a considerably smaller population of 65,680 inhabitants and a low population density of 71 inhabitants/km2 (Ministry of Local Government, 2010, p. 21). Land pattern usage is mostly rural with large expanses of forested areas and lands devoted to agriculture. In terms of residences, housing is typically found along major roads in a pattern known as ribbon settlements. Sangre Grande lies 26 km east of the capital Port-of-Spain and 32 km east of Diego Martin. Diego Martin and, by extension, Port-of-Spain is connected to Sangre Grande via the Churchill-Roosevelt Dual-Carriageway/Highway which tapers into the single-lane Valencia Stretch and finally into the Eastern Main Road as one travels further East.
4.2.1 Subject recruitment
In each collection site, there were a number of recruiters assisting with locating subjects and securing interviews on behalf of the researcher. The researcher, however, was the only person involved in the actual collection of data. The recruiters asked their co- workers, acquaintances, family, and friends to participate. Care was taken to have recruiters from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds so as not to bias the data by having subjects of similar backgrounds. For instance, in the Diego Martin area, there were three main recruiters: a business woman, an artist, and a construction worker. For the Sangre Grande area, there were two main recruiters: a forest ranger and a secondary school teacher. The researcher also knew people in either community and relied on her personal contacts to source additional subjects.
4.2.2 Sample design
Because urban versus semi-rural distinctions were to be compared and contrasted, data were collected at two sites, Diego Martin and Sangre Grande. For each site, only subjects who spent their formative through adolescent years and were still resident in the respective communities were included in the study. Furthermore, subjects who spent more
40 than five years living abroad during their adult life were deemed ineligible for the study. As for the size of the sample, a minimum of 24 subjects for each site was deemed appropriate since a sample of between 20 to 40 is the norm in sociophonetic studies (cf. Hall-Lew, 2010; Kerswill & Williams, 2005; Langstrof, 2006; Rosenfelder, 2008; Watson et al., 2000). Furthermore, although a minimum of 24 subjects was the goal, the number of vowel tokens measured is a far more meaningful measure statistically speaking.
Figure 4.2 Map highlighting data collection sites, Diego Martin (urban) and Sangre Grande (semi-rural).
Regarding gender, the sample was balanced, having equal numbers of males and females. With regard to ethnicity, the sample was limited to speakers who identified themselves as either Afro-Trinidadian or Indo-Trinidadian since these two ethnic groups are the most significant in the population. According to the census of 2000, people of African descent constituted 37.5% of the population while those of Indian descent made up 40% (Central Statistical Office, 2008, p. 3). Mixed raced subjects or those of other ethnicities were excluded from the study so as to eliminate any variation which may be ascribed to ethnicity. The sample was not explicitly controlled for age and educational level as was done with ethnicity, gender, and area. Although no strict criteria were in place, attempts were made to have a fairly heterogeneous sample with regard to age and education level. Inasmuch as the construct of apparent time can be used to posit language change, a spread of ages was desirable. Table 4.1 Summary of Sample (N = 48) Indo-Trinidadian Afro-Trinidadian Area Male Female Male Female Urban Diego Martin 6 6 6 6
Semi-rural 6 6 6 6 Sangre Grande
41
A total of 70 subjects were interviewed during the months of March and April, 2009. Of the eligible 70 subjects interviewed, 34 came from Diego Martin and 36 for Sangre Grande. However, only the data of 48 subjects were used for the present study, that is, 24 from each locality. Using a four-cell design for each locality, each sub-sample was equally balanced in terms of gender and ethnicity, yielding six speakers per cell.
4.3 Linguistic tasks Labov’s sociolinguistic interview protocol, comprising formal and informal linguistic tasks, was used to collect a combination of citation forms and continuous speech. Subjects were asked to: 1) read a list of words 2) read a passage 3) talk with the interviewer (careful speech) 4) talk with a family member or friend (casual speech) Citation forms were produced through the reading of a word list which was the most formal of the linguistic tasks performed by the subjects, followed by the reading task. As for spontaneous speech, careful and casual speech recordings were each between 30-40 minutes in length. A recording of this length typically yielded a transcript between 2,000 to 3,000 words. This was sufficiently long to find ten tokens for the monophthongal lexical sets under investigation. It should be noted that it was not possible to obtain casual speech for all subjects. In very few cases, subjects did not do the word list or reading task because of limited literacy skills. Given time and resource constraints, a decision was made to only examine the speech from the interviews conducted by the author.
4.4 Phonological variables The lexical sets investigated were TRAP, BATH, START, NORTH, FORCE, THOUGHT, LOT,
CLOTH, STRUT, NURSE, SCHWA, and lettER, all of which are relevant to the mergers of non-high vowels in Trinidadian English. Another set Other lexical sets included in the analysis were
FLEECE, GOOSE, KIT, FACE, DRESS, FOOT, and GOAT. These sets were necessary for optimal vowel normalisation. (See Table 4.2).
42
Table 4.2 Summary of Lexical Sets Included in the Current Study Sets investigated Sets for normalisation TRAP THOUGHT SCHWA FACE BATH LOT LETTER DRESS START CLOTH FLEECE FOOT NORTH STRUT GOOSE GOAT FORCE NURSE KIT
4.5 Data handling All sociolinguistic interviews were transcribed using a simplified version of the International Corpus of English (ICE) mark-up, designed by the researcher. In order to facilitate the visual identification of lexical sets, a simple keyword script was written for use in Crimson Editor. This script colour coded items belonging to the relevant lexical set, based on keyword entries made by the researcher. In addition to using the example lexical items listed in Wells’ (1982) “Accents of English,” the researcher coded a list of the 700 most frequently occurring words in the Brown corpus and included these to the keyword search list (Words listed by frequency: The first 700 most frequent words from the Brown Corpus (1,015,945 words), 2009). All possible derivations of the keywords were then included in the Crimson Editor script by the author.
Figure 4.3. Example of Wells’ (1982) lexical set colour coding script in Crimson Editor.
Figure 4.4. Example of ICE-Simplified markup in transcript.
43
4.5.1 Analysis procedures
The first and second formants (F1/ F2) of vowel tokens were measured using Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2012). Measuring 10 vowel tokens per lexical set was the target. This, however, proved to be difficult with some sets such as BATH, CLOTH and FOOT. All measured vowels occurred in stressed syllables with the exception of words belonging to lettER and
SCHWA sets, both of which deal with the unstressed mid central vowel /ə/. The phonetic context was variable across all tasks. However, four specific phonological environments were excluded from the analysis, /w_/, /r_/, /j_/, and dark /_l/, as it is well-known that there is a tendency for undershoot to occur in these environments, thus resulting in vowel reduction (Lindblom, 1963), “a situation in which a given speech sound is articulated in a manner that does not fully instantiate the canonical realization of that sound” (Crosswhite & Jun, 2001, p. 45). F1 and F2 measurements were taken from the steady-state portion of the vowel since “the primary information specifying the identity of a vowel is assumed to be the value of the formant frequencies during the steady-state portion of the syllable” (Miller, 1981, p. 41). The first and second formants were identified via a Linear Predictive Coding (LPC) display which is overlaid on a spectrogram in Praat. In cases where the formants were visible but were incorrectly predicted by the LPC algorithm, the default formant settings were manually adjusted to improve the accuracy of F1 and F2 measurements.8 Measurements of F1 and F2 were extracted and compiled using a Praat script written by Ingrid Rosenfelder (2009), which was later adapted by the researcher. Once the F1 and F2 measurements were obtained, they were checked for outliers using an R script written by the author. Any F1 or F2 measurement outside 2 standard deviations (which accounts for 95% of the data points per lexical set) was treated as a potential outlier. Potential outliers were not immediately discarded. Instead measurements were rechecked in Praat. The potential outliers, relative to the distribution of tokens in their respective sets, were also visually inspected on a vowel plot, generated using the ‘vowels’ package (Kendall & Thomas, 2010) in an R environment.9 This was done because what appeared to be an outlier may well have been a vowel moving into another space. For example, in the case of the merger of BATH and TRAP,
8 Default formant settings in Praat are five formants at 5000 Hz for men and 5500 Hz for women. 9 There is also an online version called the NORM suite available at http://ncslaap.lib.ncsu.edu/tools/norm/about_norm.php. The back-end R version package{vowels} was used since it allows users to customise vowel plots. 44 if there was a token that belonged to either set but fell outside the combined distribution of
BATH and TRAP, only then would it be treated as a true outlier.
4.5.2 Vowel normalisation
Because male and female vocal tracts differ in size, raw Hertz (Hz) values obtained from F1 and F2 measurements are not directly comparable; vowel normalisation is necessary. Raw Hz values were first converted to Bark before normalisation since this conversion “corresponds more closely to the way in which frequency is processed in the ear” (Harrington, 2010, p. 312). The ‘vowels’ package available in R was used both for the Hz to Bark conversion as well as for Watt and Fabricius (2002) normalisation. Of the many normalisation techniques, the Watt and Fabricius procedure (2002) performs just as well as other robust normalisation procedures (Fabricius, Watt, & Johnson, 2009; Flynn, 2011) such as Lobanov (1971) and Nearey (1978) normalisation. (Also refer to Adank (2003) and Adank, Smits, & van Hout (2004) for comprehensive evaluations of normalisation procedures). In the Watt and Fabricius (2002) normalisation method, the minima and maxima F1 and F2 values are determined for each speaker. Based on these values, three points are calculated: the most fronted, backed and lowered positions in the vowel space. It should be noted that these three aforementioned points are not observed but derived. Next, a centroid point (S) in the vowel space is derived from the three corner points, using the following formula: [ ] [ ] [ ] ( )
Lastly, all observed formant values for Fn are then divided by the S value for that Fn. All values normalised using Watt and Fabricius are expressed on the scale of Fn/S(Fn).
4.5.3 Coding independent variables
Seeing that phonetic environment potentially plays a role in the observed variation in Trinidadian English, a Visual Basic script, run in Microsoft Excel, was used to extract and code the preceding and following environment in which each vowel occurred. Coding for external factors was also performed. (See Table 4.3 for the independent factors that were coded).
45
Table 4.3 Independent Internal and External Factors Coded as Potential Predictors of F1 and F2 Coding category Values Speaker Each individual from a sample of 48 speakers Age Ranging from 22 to 69
Gender WOMEN/MEN
Ethnicity AFRO-/INDO-TRINIDADIAN
Town URBAN/ SEMI-RURAL
Highest education PRIMARY/SECONDARY/TERTIARY
Occupational prestige LOW/MID-LOW/MID-HIGH/HIGH
Lexical set BATH/TRAP/START, etc Preceding segment Place feature Following segment Manner; voicing; following (environment)
The coding categories presented in Table 4.3 are fairly straightforward and do not require further elucidation with the exception of ‘preceding segment’ and ‘following segment’ which represent aspects of phonetic environment such as place and manner of articulation. Under preceding segment, ‘place feature’ was a coding category which referred to place of articulation. The levels included within ‘place feature’ were coronal, dorsal, guttural, and labial. Under following segment, ‘manner’ referred to manner of articulation and included stops, fricatives, nasals, affricates, approximants, lateral approximants, and null. The last coding category ‘following (environment)’ constitutes a variety of groups of consonantal descriptors. The levels within ‘following (environment)’ include postdental stops, postdental affricates, postdental fricatives, labial fricatives, labial stops, velar stops, glides, glottal stop, liquids, and nasals. The segments which are subsumed under these levels are summarised in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Summary of Levels within the Coding Category ‘Following (Environment)’ and its Associated Consonantal Segments Level Associated segments Postdental stops /d, t/ Postdental affricates / , tʃ/ Postdental fricatives /z, s/ Labial fricatives /v, f/ Labial stops /b, p/ Velar stops /g, k/ Glottal stop /h/ Glides /w, j/ Liquids /l, r/ Nasals /m, n, ŋ/
46
4.5.4 Occupational prestige survey
Instead of constructing a socio-economic class index on the basis of education level, occupational prestige, and income level, these three aforementioned factors were treated as independent, external factors. In order to have a metric to assess occupation, an occupational prestige survey was conducted online. Respondents were asked to rate the prestige they associated with 99 different occupations. A total of 72 responses were collected, the majority of which came from female, university-educated Trinidadians. (See Table 4.5). The 95% trimmed mean score for each occupation was used to construct the occupational prestige ranking metric. In other words, the upper 2.5% and lower 2.5% of data points were discarded before calculating the mean so as to remove extreme outliers. (See appendix for the results of the occupation prestige survey). Table 4.5 Overview of Participants in the Occupational Prestige Survey Highest education Males Females Subtotal University 14 45 59 Secondary 0 7 7 Technical 2 4 6 Subtotal 16 56 72
4.6 Statistical procedures Particulars regarding statistical tests used in evaluating vowel merger—namely, analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-tests, Pillai-Bartlett trace, mixed-effects models, and conditional inference trees—are addressed in their respective analysis chapters, that is, Chapters 5, 6, and 7.
4.7 Vowel perception survey Recall that research questions four and five asked the following: in relation to vowel merger, which are the phonetic variants that are considered prestigious or stigmatised. In order to probe these issues, a vowel perception survey was implemented, using the verbal guise technique. Specifics on the design of the vowel perception survey can be found in Chapter 5 which deals exclusively with this survey.
47
5. VOWEL PERCEPTION SURVEY
5.1 Introduction The present chapter focuses on the merger evaluation survey which was conducted to assess the prestige and stigma associated with five merger pairs: BATH [ɑ]→TRAP [a], START
[ɑ] → TRAP [a], CLOTH [ɒ] → THOUGHT [ɔ], NURSE [ɘː] → LOT [ɒ], and STRUT [ʌ] → LOT
10 [ɒ]. A description of the survey design and sample is followed by an overview of the results. Instead of presenting a discussion on each merger pair, it is arguably advantageous to arrange the discussion by vowel dimension since multiple sets interact with each other. As a consequence of this, the discussion is divided into two parts. Section 5.4 addresses the interaction among the [+low] vowel sets BATH, TRAP, and START while section 5.6 examines the complex relationships among the [–high] vowel sets CLOTH, LOT, NURSE, STRUT, and
THOUGHT. Although the scope of Chapter 5 is comparatively small (cf. Chapter 6 and 7), it serves three main purposes. Firstly, it contextualises the status of mergers in Trinidadian English; as this analysis shows, all mergers are not equal. That is to say, although there is a generalisation that mergers in Trinidadian English are a vernacular phenomena, the results of the merger evaluation survey indicate otherwise. In fact, there are varying degrees of prestige and stigma associated with specific mergers which call into question the whole notion of what is deemed acrolectal and creole. Overall, a good introduction to subjective community norms is gained from this chapter. Secondly, this chapter examines vowel variation at a micro-level, that is, at the level of the individual. Understanding individual variation presents the reader with a window for understanding macro-level or community-level patterns. Thirdly, Chapter 5 provides a description of some of the dominant patterns found in Trinidadian English which are fundamental in understanding even more complex vowel behaviours discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. Thus, Chapter 5 should not be read as an entity unto itself since it is a pre-requisite to appreciating Chapters 6 and 7 which explore further individual variation and, more importantly, macro-level norms.
10 Please note that the set to the right of the arrow indicates the direction of the merger. For example, BATH→TRAP here signifies the potential merger to BATH in the direction of TRAP. If the direction of the merger is not germane to discussion, a hypen is used to reference the sets collectively: BATH-START.
48
5.2 Method in merger evaluation survey In order to ascertain the prestige and stigma associated with mergers, a verbal guise survey was designed. This was done for five pairs of sets where there is potential neutralisation or loss of contrast as illustrated in Table 5.1: Table 5.1 Merger Pairs Investigated in the Merger Evaluation Survey Acrolectal Overlap direction Typically Creole
BATH [ɑ] → TRAP [a]
START [ɑ] → TRAP [a]
CLOTH [ɒ] → THOUGHT [ɔ]
NURSE [ɘː] → LOT [ɒ]
STRUT [ʌ] → LOT [ɒ]
For the sake of expedience, the author has elected not to include vowel length in the transcription when referring to lexical sets in this particular chapter. This is purposely done to avoid any confusion as to the length of the vowel within that lexical set. Furthermore, since vowel length can hardly be considered phonemic, omitting the vowel length diacritic does not affect the analysis since vowel quality is the primary concern. However, in subsequent chapters, vowel length is pertinent in the discussion of the development of lexical sets such as
BATH and CLOTH because of late seventeenth century Pre-Fricative Lengthening and Pre-R
Lengthening in the case of START. Guises were not produced in the traditional matched-guise sense in which a speaker changes his/her accent (Lambert et al., 1960). Instead verbal guises were obtained by asking people to read short standard English texts which contained vowel tokens under investigation. The readers were not informed of the purpose of the reading task, neither was attention drawn to their pronunciation. The only exception to this was with a guise containing tokens relevant to the NURSE-LOT merger. Since the phonetic realisation [ɒ] is highly stigmatised in the
NURSE set, it was challenging to find a person who would produce it naturally while reading a text. In order to get a verbal guise containing NURSE [ɒ], one reader was coached to read the text using the merged variant. In 2010, verbal guises were collected from nine readers, five men between the ages of 19 and 56 (M = 31.2, SD = 15.6) and four women between the ages of 19 and 25 (M = 22, SD = 2.9). Each reader produced a total of five verbal guises, that is, one guise per merged lexical set. A total of 45 readings was recorded. However, only 11 were used to construct the
49 vowel perception survey (see Table 5.2). The author listened to all the readings that were recorded and categorised them according to degree of merger on the basis of auditory analysis:11 1. merged 2. distinct, i.e. no merger 3. occasional, i.e. vowel variation between merger and non-merger Vowel plots were also visually inspected to assess the degree of merger in each guise used. Furthermore, Pillai-Bartlett scores (referred to as Pillai scores in sociophonetics, following Hay, Warren, & Drager, 2006) were used to statistically test for overlap and distinction (Hall- Lew, 2010; Hall-Lew, Correction: Pillai score). The Pillai score is the output of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) in which normalised F1 and F2 values (see Chapter 4) are used as the dependent variables. The Pillai score reflects the degree to which a speaker keeps lexical sets distinct: Higher Pillai scores indicate greater distance (in F1 and/or F2) between the two vowels. Alternatively, the lower Pillai score, the more advanced the merger. As a summary of the degree to which to distributions are kept distinct, this is superior to taking Euclidean distances between means. This is because it takes account of the degree of overlap of the entire distribution (Olson, 1976). (Hay, Warren, & Drager, 2006, p. 467) P-values over .05 indicate overlap whereas p-values <.05 indicate distinction. The Pillai score itself can be compared across speakers. Higher Pillai scores indicate a great degree of distinction is made whereas low Pillai scores suggest overlap (see Table 5.6 and Table 5.7). For every lexical set represented in the survey, a minimum of two guises was used: merged and distinct. A third guise with occasional merger was included in the survey in cases where readers produced both merged and distinct variants in the rendering of a single text. An occasional merger guise was represented in BATH-TRAP only.
11 Although three categorisations of the merger types are used here, it is acknowledge that these categories are not entirely clear cut. Hence, Pillai-Bartlett scores are also used as a more fine-grained metric to assess the degree of vowel set overlap as is explained subsequently. 50
Table 5.2 Summary of Readers and the Number of Guises Represented in Perception Survey by Lexical Set and Merger Status Merger Distinct Occasional Merged
BATH [ɑ]→TRAP [a] Bernard (1) Alicia (1) Dirk (1)
START [ɑ]→TRAP [a] Alicia (1) Aisha (1)
NURSE [ɘː] →LOT [ɒ] Dirk (1) Richie (1)
CLOTH [ɒ]→THOUGHT [ɔ] Dirk (1) Joe (1)
STRUT [ʌ] →LOT [ɒ] Bernard (1) Aisha (1)
In order to probe merger prestige and stigma, survey respondents were asked to rate each guise based on seven criteria, phrased in the following statement: ‘This person gives the impression of being: intelligent; competent; hard-working; educated; successful; wealthy; ambitious.’ Respondents rated each voice according to the seven criteria, using a 6-point Likert scale, 1 being ‘not at all’ and 6 being ‘very.’ The survey was administered online using the survey website http://www.surveymonkey.com. A total of 27 responses were collected with a completion rate of 56%. As such, only 15 responses were considered, that is, those surveys which were successfully completed (see Table 5.3). These 15 respondents were all university educated. More women (60%) than men were in the sample. Additionally, most respondents fell within the 26-35 (53%) and 36-45 (27%) age range.
Table 5.3 Overview of Participants in Merger Evaluation Survey Age range Women Men Total 15-25 1 1 2 26-35 5 3 8 35-45 3 1 4 46-55 0 1 1 Total 9 6 15
Because the data collected from a Likert scale are interval, care was taken not to treat them as continuous data. The reliability or consistency of responses to the questions asked was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. The reliability coefficient for the seven aforementioned criteria was α = .97. With such high consistency of an alpha over .95, there was justification in summing all the Likert responses to create a new variable which will be referred to as the merger prestige index (MPI). Since there were seven criteria to be judged each with a maximum rating of six, the maximum MPI score was 42.
51
Pairwise t-tests were conducted on the data. The response variable was MPI scores. Degree of merger was the predictor variable. All effects were considered statistically significant at an alpha level of .05.
5.3 Overview of results 5.3.1 Descriptive statistics Boxplots of MPI scores by degree of merger and merger sets are presented in Figure 5.1. A cursory examination of the boxplots reveals that the distinct degree of merger received high ratings, suggesting that the non-overlapping variants were considered more prestigious.
Occasional merger, as in the case of BATH-TRAP, was next in relative prestige. The merged variants received the lowest rating, suggesting that they were least prestigious. a. b.
Figure 5.1 Boxplots of MPI scores for a) [+low] vowels and b) [-high] vowels (where ‘d’ is ‘distinct,’ ‘m’ is ‘merged,’ and ‘o’ is ‘occasionally merged’).
5.3.2 Inferential statistics Table 5.4 provides pairwise comparisons for the degree of merger. Overall, t-tests confirmed that the difference in MPI scores between the distinct and merged guises across all five pairs of sets was statistically significant. The distinct guises were consistently rated higher than their merged counterparts. In the case of BATH-TRAP where an occasionally merged guise was judged, there was no statistically significant difference between MPI scores. This suggests that BATH-TRAP guises irrespective of being distinct or occasionally merged were evaluated similarly.
52
Table 5.4 Results of Pairwise T-Tests for Merger Evaluation Survey Distinct Merged Occasional t-test
Lexical set M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Distinct vs. Distinct vs. Merged vs. Merged occasional occasional BATH-TRAP 36.6 30.13 34.4 t(28)= 3.46** t(28)= 1.17 t(28)=−2.09* (4.66) (5.55) (5.62)
START-TRAP 32.87 19.2 t(28)= 5.91*** (6.31) (6.36)
STRUT-LOT 34.4 20.2 t(28)= 6.23*** (6.97) (5.39)
CLOTH-THOUGHT 31.27 21.93 t(28)=4.21*** (5.38) (6.69)
NURSE-LOT 30.8 17.73 t(28)= 5.33*** (6.21) (4.27)
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
5.4 Discussion of [+low] vowel merger evaluation The results of the merger evaluation survey are in keeping with what would be expected in the context of the subjective assessment of a reading passage in standard English: the distinct vowel realisations were evaluated more positively than the merged ones. This comes as no surprise since maintaining vowel distinction has been documented as the prestige norm (Wells, 1982). In contrast, speakers with merged vowels were consistently rated much lower relative to those with distinct and occasionally merged vowel sets. Thus, it may be inferred that of all possible variants, merged ones were considered least prestigious and were thus stigmatised when used in formal tasks, such as reading a standard English text. An over-simplification of the literature is that merged variants are typical in creole speech.
Indeed there is some truth to this. What is interesting, specifically with BATH-TRAP, is occasional merger was not evaluated significantly different to the distinct case.
Let us first quickly consider the literature regarding [+low] vowels found in BATH,
TRAP, and START lexical sets. Winford (1978, 1979) proposes the merger /a, ə/ → /a/ in the creole which can be inferred to be the merger of lexical sets lettER and commA in the direction of TRAP. Furthermore, he does not posit the phoneme /ɑ/ in Trinidadian English. Instead he posits /a/ in both the prestige (acrolectal) and vernacular (creole) varieties. One can only assume that BATH-START-TRAP are merged to [a] in his analysis. In contrast, Warner
(1967) and Wells (1982) both note the phonemic status of /a/ and /ɑ/ in Trinidadian English.
Furthermore, they report the merger of /a, ɑ / → /a/ in the creole, thus yielding the phonetic realisation [a]. However, in the acrolect, both Warner (1967) and Wells (1982) acknowledge
53
/ɑ/ as a phoneme, and by extension [ɑ] as its realisation. These seeming contradictions in the literature are in fact resolvable if a close examination of the distribution of phonetic variants by lexical sets is considered; that is to say, what Warner (1967), Winford (1978), and Wells (1982) have reported is valid though what is lacking is a model which unifies all their observations on the Trinidadian vowel system. Thus, based on the triangulation of data conceived in this study, the contradictions in reportage can be easily resolved in the following hypothesis: among the [+low] vowels, which constitute the lexical sets BATH, START, and
TRAP, there are two prestige models operating in Trinidadian English. In fact, Winford (1978) alludes in part to what I have coined an emergent (endo-normative) prestige model which favours [a] as a prestige variant in words belonging to the BATH lexical set whereas Warner (1967) and Wells (1982) describe a traditional prestige model in which phonetic variants by lexical set roughly mirror (exo-normative) SBE. The above hypothesis may be summarised as follows in Table 5.5: Table 5.5 Models of [+low] Vowel Patterning in Trinidadian English Proposed by the Author
Model BATH TRAP START Traditional acrolect [ɑ] [a] [ɑ] (exo-normative)
Emergent acrolect [a] [a] [ɑ] (endo-normative)
Creole [a] [a] [a] (endo-normative)
Triangulation of the results from the merger evaluation survey strongly supports the presence of two prestige models. Let us examine the t-test results for the merger evaluation survey for BATH-TRAP. For BATH-TRAP, three levels of merger were assessed: distinct, occasional, and merged. BATH-TRAP distinction was rated highest (M = 36.6). Relative to
BATH-TRAP distinction, occasional BATH-TRAP (M = 34.4) was not statistically significant, t(42) = −1.138, p = .262. In contrast, BATH-TRAP merger was rated the lowest (M = 30.13). The difference between merger and distinction was statistically significant, t(42) = −3.345, p = .002.
These t-test results indicate that listeners rated BATH-TRAP distinction and occasional
BATH-TRAP merger similarly. Furthermore, although MPI ratings for BATH-TRAP merger were statistically significant when compared to BATH-TRAP distinction, in the whole scheme of things, merged BATH-TRAP fared well when the MPI scores of other mergers are taken into consideration. MPI scores for other mergers were considerably lower than that of merged
BATH-TRAP (see Table 5.4). Merged BATH-TRAP received the highest MPI score in the merged
54 condition with 30.13 points. Contrast this with the second highest MPI score in the merged condition which was 21.93 for CLOTH-THOUGHT, and lowest MPI score in the merged 12 condition which was 17.73 for NURSE-LOT. In sum, relative to other mergers, BATH-TRAP merger was rated much higher. Therefore, an interpretation which posits BATH-TRAP merger as an emerging prestige pattern is entirely plausible. However, in order to convincingly advance such a position, data triangulation is necessary. Four additional pieces of information ought to be examined: 1) MPI scores for all [+low] vowels, that is, both MPI scores BATH-
TRAP and START-TRAP; 2) vowel plots of speakers used to create the guises; 3) Pillai scores to statistically assess the degree of lexical set overlap in the [+low] vowels of speakers used in guises; 4) data from the large-scale analysis on [+low] vowels, presented in Chapter 6.
40 36,6 34,4 35 32,87 30,13 30 25 19,2 20 15 10 5 0 BATH [ɑ] BATH [ɑ~a] BATH [a] START [ɑ] START [a] distinct partial merged distinct merged
Figure 5.2 MPI scores for [+low] vowels BATH and START with potential merger towards TRAP.
Figure 5.2 highlights the MPI scores for all the [+low] vowels assessed in the merger evaluation survey. As can be seen, START-TRAP merger was evaluated quite negatively with a
MPI score of 19.2, relative to BATH-TRAP merger MPI score of 30.13. Hence, the crude generalisation that mergers in Trinidadian English are stigmatised clearly does not apply to
BATH-TRAP merger since this merger appeared to be gaining prestige whereas START-TRAP merger was not highly regarded. It is difficult to say how an occasionally merged START-TRAP speaker would be judged since only two levels of merger were examined: distinct and merged. Nonetheless, START-TRAP distinction (M = 32.87) was rated much higher than
12 Recall that because NURSE→LOT merger is extremely stigmatised it was difficult to find a speaker who would produce [ɒ] during a reading task. Nonetheless a NURSE→LOT merger guise was included in the survey. Given the stigmatised nature of NURSE→LOT merger, its MPI score of 17.73 can be used as a rough guide to evaluate how stigmatised a variant is. 55
START-TRAP merger (M = 19.2). The difference between these two conditions was statistically significant, F (1, 28) = 34.89, p < .001. Given the considerable difference in MPI scores between START-TRAP distinction and START-TRAP merger, it is reasonable to say that, comparatively speaking, START-TRAP and BATH-TRAP merger were assessed quite differently relative to distinction. BATH-TRAP merger prestige appeared to be quite advanced in its acceptability into the acrolect whereas START-TRAP merger was so negatively rated, it was unlikely to be accepted as a prestige pattern.
Table 5.6 Pillai Scores of Speakers’ [+low] Vowels Used in BATH-TRAP-START Guises
Speaker BATH- p Pattern BATH- p Pattern START- p Pattern TRAP START TRAP Bernard .868 <.001 distinct .237 ns overlap .985 <.001 distinct Tr. Acrolect Dirk .407 ns overlap .859 <.001 distinct .942 <.001 distinct Em. acrolect Alicia .554 .04 distinct .738 < .005 distinct .764 .001 distinct Mixed Aisha .358 ns overlap .207 ns overlap .084 ns overlap Creole
5.4.1 Traditional acrolectal pattern
When the vowel systems of the speakers whose voices were used to create the BATH-
TRAP and START-TRAP guises were compared, different BATH-START-TRAP distributions emerged. Figure 5.3 shows the [+low] vowel system of Bernard whose BATH-TRAP vowels were used for the distinct guise. As confirmed in Pillai scores, his BATH-TRAP and START-
TRAP vowels were distinct. Overlap occurred with BATH-START sets (see Table 5.6 for Pillai scores). This pattern mirrored the kind of [+low] vowel distribution that would be found in SBE and is in fact the pattern that Wells (1982) describes for acrolectal Trinidadian English. Though one cannot be certain in terms of lexical set distribution, it is likely that Warner (1967) was referring to a system similar to that in Figure 5.3 in her analysis since she positsed the phonemes /a/ and /ɑ/ among the [+low] vowels.
56
Figure 5.3 Traditional acrolectal pattern of [+low] vowels of Bernard, 56, Afro-Trinidadian, upper middle class (BATH-TRAP distinct guise).
This distribution of [+low] vowels is best described as the traditional acrolectal pattern. This terminology is used for two reasons. Firstly, because of Trinidad’s British colonial past, it is likely that this constellation of [+low] vowels was a potential model in the speech community. In Le Page and Tabouret-Keller’s (1985) Acts of Identity, they briefly discuss education in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Jamaica and the Eastern Caribbean. They surmise that the expatriate British model would have probably been accessible to a select few rather than to the masses: What emerged…in the second half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries was an urban coloured middle class, bilingual in a fairly standard educated local variety of English and in the creole vernacular of their territory. To this class belonged the head teachers and senior school teachers, the local West Indian recruits to the Civil Service, office workers and shop workers. Unconsciously, or perhaps partly consciously, they provided an alternative linguistic model to the expatriate model. (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985, pp. 68-69) Even if the expatriate model were a minor one, it was still there in the linguistic landscape. In John Lent’s (1997) book Third World Mass Media and their Search for Modernity he alludes loosely to this expatriate model which would have been most accessible to the local elites as opposed to the masses: “Scholars enumerating the sociological influences upon the Commonwealth Caribbean nearly always start with the imprint that colonialism has left…they feel that British colonialism made mimics of the intellectual classes [and] imported too many ‘made in England’ education-and-language patterns” (p. 191). In terms of SBE functioning as an exo-normative target, Devonish writes, “Until the period of independence
57 beginning in the 1960s, the unquestioned target for English language usage in the Caribbean were models associated with Standard British English” (2003, p. 160). Secondly, it is appropriate to employ the nomenclature traditional acrolect to refer to Bernard’s speech because he had access to British speakers as a child. Bernard grew up on an oil field compound in South Trinidad during the 1960s. His family was one of two black families living on the compound during that time. The rest were either local white or expatriate white families. All primary and secondary schooling and extracurricular amenities were provided to those living on the camp. Furthermore, his teachers, according to his recollection, were all from England. In an anecdote Bernard related to me, he recalled being told that he spoke like a ‘white boy’ when he encountered other students at a public government school in South Trinidad where we he went to do his A’Levels at age 16. Other speakers from the main dissertation sample (see Chapter 6) who had British ties also display a [+low] vowel distribution identical to Bernard’s in which TRAP is distinctly differentiated from BATH and START. For instance, Sharon (whose vowel system is discussed at length in Chapter 6) said that as a child she always aspired to speak ‘properly’ like her aunt who had emigrated to England after Trinidad’s independence. Another speaker, a female lawyer who studied briefly in London, also displayed the traditional acrolectal patterns for low vowels in her interview data. Although the traditional acrolectal pattern may not be the one most frequently heard in Trinidad, it is indeed a linguistic reality. Furthermore, it is still a prestigious in Trinidad and receives the highest MPI score as shown in the merger evaluation survey.
5.4.2 Emergent acrolectal pattern The vowel system for the speaker whose reading was used to construct the merged
BATH-TRAP guise is illustrated in Figure 5.4. Pillai scores confirm that Dirk’s BATH-TRAP sets are overlapping while BATH-START and TRAP-START sets are distinct (see Table 5.6). Many speakers from the main dissertation sample have a [+low] vowel system like Dirk (refer to Chapter 6). This [+low] vowel distribution is referred to the emergent acrolect henceforth. A word of caution should be heeded here in terms of what is meant by emergent. Emergent is used in the sense of the emerging prestige of BATH-TRAP merger. It is not intended to imply that BATH-TRAP merger is a new phenomenon in Trinidadian English. Data from the large- scale analysis in Chapter 6 revealed that speakers across generations had this pattern, the youngest being born in 1983 and the oldest in 1955. Thus, it can be said with certainty that this pattern has existed since the mid- 20th century at the very least, if not earlier.
58
Figure 5.4 Emergent acrolectal pattern of [+low] vowels of Dirk, 37, mixed ethnicity, middle class (BATH-TRAP merged guise).
Recall that Winford (1978; 1979) posits an abstract vowel system in which /a/ is the prestige norm. The assumption made here is that he was alluding to a system similar to Dirk’s where BATH is merged with TRAP since this synchronic analysis supports the emergent prestige of BATH-TRAP merger. However, one issue which cannot be extrapolated from
Winford’s (1978) account is the treatment of words belonging to the START lexical set. Synchronic evidence from this current study—both in this merger evaluation survey and the implicational model presented in Chapter 8—does not support the acceptability of START-
TRAP as a prestige pattern. Neither Wells (1982) nor Warner (1967) suggests that START-TRAP merger is typical of the acrolect.
Figure 5.5 Pattern of [+low] vowels of Alicia, 25, Indo-Trinidadian, lower middle class (BATH-TRAP occasionally merged guise and START-TRAP distinct guise).
59
5.4.3 BATH-TRAP merger-by-approximation Another interesting pattern among the [+low] vowels is shown in Figure 5.5. Alicia’s readings were used to construct the occasionally merged BATH-TRAP guise as well as the
START-TRAP distinct guise. Alicia’s vowel plot is quite different from the ones we have seen thus far, mainly because the means of her [+low] vowel sets look equally spaced. Pillai scores confirmed that her TRAP-START sets were distinct (see Table 5.6). Furthermore, Pillai scores indicated her BATH-TRAP sets were distinct whereas auditory coding indicated variation in the phonetic realisation of BATH with the following range: [a, ɑ, ɑ, ɑ]. The presence of these phonetic variants in the BATH set indicates a process of merger-by-approximation in which
BATH is incremental moving towards TRAP. For Alicia, it would be premature to say that
BATH-TRAP is near merged since she makes considerable phonetic contrasts between some of her BATH-TRAP tokens. While Alicia’s [+low] vowel pattern was not predominant in the main dissertation data (see Chapter 6), it does lend insight into BATH-TRAP merger in Trinidadian
English. Moreover, her BATH-TRAP pattern is a precursor to the emergent acrolect highlighted in Dirk’s [+low] vowel system (recall Figure 5.4). Recall that Alicia’s occasionally merged
BATH-TRAP guise was ranked below the BATH-TRAP distinct guise but higher than the BATH-
TRAP merged guise. The relatively high MPI score her BATH-TRAP guise received was probably due to the presence of the traditional prestige variant [ɑ] in her reading. Despite her occasional BATH-TRAP mergings, judges in the merger evaluation survey appeared to be responding positively to her [ɑ] variants. Therefore, positing a traditional prestige pattern is strengthened given the evaluation results of Alicia’s BATH-TRAP merger.
5.4.4 Canonically creole pattern
The merger among the [+low] vowels which was rated the lowest was START-TRAP. Given its low MPI score, it was not a good candidate for a prestige variant. Figure 5.6 illustrates the vowel system of Aisha whose reading was used in the START-TRAP guise. Pillai scores indicated that her START-TRAP vowels overlapped extensively (see Table 5.6). Moreover, all her low vowels overlapped with each other. Aisha’s [+low] vowel patterning can be considered canonically creole due to the extensive overlap of BATH-TRAP-START. Furthermore, this creole pattern has been attested in the literature.
60
Figure 5.6 Creole pattern of [+low] vowels of Aisha, 20, Afro-Trinidadian, lower class (START-TRAP merged guise).
5.5 Summary of [+low] vowel findings To sum up, the merger evaluation survey provided insight into inter-speaker variation. Among [+low] vowels there were two prestige patterns operating in Trinidadian English: a traditional acrolect which roughly mirrored SBE and the emergent acrolect, an endo- normative pattern in which BATH was merged with TRAP. The emergent BATH-TRAP acrolectal pattern demonstrates that this creole variant has undergone a prestige shift. Both the traditional and emergent BATH-TRAP patterns were highly evaluated in Trinidadian English. However, because of Trinidad’s colonial heritage, the traditional acrolect enjoys more prestige. At the level of the speaker, maintenance of the traditional prestige pattern may be a reflex of personal history, assuming that the speaker has acquired the mental representation of lexical set distribution. Furthermore, occasional BATH-TRAP merger provided evidence of merger-by-approximation. Relative to START-TRAP distinction, START-TRAP merger was stigmatised and was among the most poorly rated among the guises. Although START-TRAP may be merged in formal contexts such a reading task, negative survey results suggested that listeners did not favour such a pronunciation.
5.6 Discussion of [-high] vowel merger evaluation A succinct recap of the [–high] vowels in Trinidadian English is that there is potential loss of distinction and merger moves towards /ɒ/. This is nicely articulated by Wells (1982): acrolectal speakers have a four-way distinction between cut, cot, caught and curt, with
/ʌ/, /ɒ/, /ɔ/ and /ɜ/ respectively…In popular pronunciation…all four vowels /ʌ, ɒ, ɔ, ɜ/
61
may be merged in a single back open rounded vowel /ɒ/ (phonetically [ɔ] or thereabouts). (p. 579) The examples Wells (1982) uses—cut, cot, caught, and curt—correspond to the lexical sets
STRUT, LOT, THOUGHT, and NURSE. If using Wells’ notation, it can be said that STRUT,
THOUGHT, and NURSE are merged towards LOT whereas distinction among all sets are preserved in the acrolect, respectively STRUT [ʌ], LOT [ɒ], THOUGHT [ɔ], and NURSE [ɘː]. As for the CLOTH lexical set, it is merged with the LOT set in the acrolect; both CLOTH and LOT are realised as [ɒ] (which is the same distribution found in SBE nowadays). In contrast,
CLOTH is realised with the open-mid back rounded vowel [ɔ] in the creole. Figure 5.7 highlights the mean MPI scores for the three [–high] vowels assessed in the survey. As is clearly seen, distinct conditions were rated considerably higher than merged conditions. T-tests revealed that the difference in MPI for the three [–high] vowels merger pairs assessed were all statistical significant and well below a p-value of .05 (p < .001). (See Table 5.4 for detailed results).
40 34,4 35 31,27 30,8 30 25 21,93 20,2 20 17,73 15 10 5 0 STRUT [ʌ] STRUT [ɒ] CLOTH [ɒ] CLOTH [ɔ] NURSE [ɜ] NURSE [ɒ] distinct merged distinct merged distinct merged
Figure 5.7 MPI scores for [-high] vowels.
Recall that in constructing the merger evaluation survey, a total of 45 guises were recorded. Among the [–high] vowels, readers did not produce guises which could easily be coded as occasionally merged. For the most part, [–high] vowel distributions by lexical set were categorical: either they were merger or not. Additionally, there was little evidence of intermediate phonetic forms between merged and non-merged variants, a situation which was quite different from the [+low] vowels. Lack of intermediate forms suggests that merger-by-
62 approximation does not account for mergers among [-high] vowels. Thus, other merger types ought to be considered, such as conditioned mergers, unconditioned mergers, and merger-by- transfer. Table 5.7 Pillai Scores of Speakers’ [-high] Vowels Used in Guises Lexical set Speaker Pillai p Pattern STRUT-LOT Bernard .859 <.001 Distinct Aisha .306 .12 Overlap
CLOTH-THOUGHT Dirk .698 .001 Distinct Joseph .089 .657 Overlap
NURSE-LOT Dirk .979 <.001 Distinct Richie .042 .068 Overlap
5.6.1 STRUT-LOT
By examining Bernard’s STRUT distributions, one gets a glimpse into where conditioned allophony may occur. Bernard is a typical acrolectal speaker. As seen in the previous section on [+low] vowels, his distribution of BATH, START, and TRAP sets constituted the traditionally acrolectal pattern. Visual inspection of his vowel plot for STRUT and LOT in Figure 5.8 revealed that the two sets were largely distinct. This was also confirmed in his
Pillai scores (see Table 5.7). Bernard’s LOT tokens were realised with the open back rounded vowel [ɒ] whereas his STRUT tokens were largely realised with the open-mid back unrounded vowel [ʌ]. These realisations of STRUT and LOT, respectively [ʌ] and [ɒ], have been documented as acrolectal variants (Wells, 1982; Ferreira & Drayton, forthcoming; Ferreira,
Sixth draft 2008). In Bernard’s vowels, however, the STRUT token enough was realised with
[ɒ]. Although these might seem like an isolated case, the large-scale regression analysis in
Chapter 7 provides evidence that following labial segments tend to prompt STRUT [ɒ]. Hence, the possibility of conditioned allophony ought to be considered. In terms of how Bernard’s speech was evaluated, his reading was used to construct the STRUT guise where vowel productions were distinct or non-merged, namely STRUT [ʌ].
STRUT-LOT distinction was rated much higher (M = 34.4)—and by extension, more positively—than STRUT-LOT merger (M = 20.2). The difference in MPI scores between these two conditions was statistically significant, F(1,28)=6.23, p <.001. Given the positive evaluation of the non-merged or distinct STRUT guise, there is ample justification in saying that STRUT [ʌ] is the acrolectal variant whereas STRUT [ɒ] is the creole variant. This is in keeping with aforementioned literature.
63 a. b.
Figure 5.8 Acrolectal pattern of [-high] vowels of Bernard, 56, Afro-Trinidadian, upper middle class (STRUT- LOT distinct guise); a) visualisation by lexical set only; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
In contrast to Bernard who is an acrolectal speaker, Aisha—whose reading was used to construct the STRUT-LOT [ɒ] merger guise—is a canonically creole speaker. Recall that her
[+low] vowels constituted the canonically creole pattern since her BATH, START, and TRAP vowels all overlapped and were realised with the open front unrounded vowel [a]. Further justification in calling her a canonically creole speaker lies in the fact that her STRUT and LOT vowels overlapped extensively and tokens from both sets were realised largely with the open back rounded vowel [ɒ]. This can be seen through a visual inspection of her vowel plot in Figure 5.9. This was also confirmed in her Pillai scores in Table 5.7. Regarding her realisations of STRUT tokens, she produced STRUT [ɒ] in a wide range of phonological contexts. Examination of Aisha’s [-high] vowels provides insight into a conditioned allophony in the LOT set. There was a tendency for words belonging to the LOT lexical set to be realised with the open-mid back unrounded vowel [ʌ] in the environment of following stops. This is illustrated in her pronunciation of shop, got, lot, and stopped which were realised with LOT
[ʌ]. This conditioning effect of following voiceless stops was also observed in the large-scale regression analysis presented in Chapter 7. Nonetheless, most of her LOT tokens were realised with LOT [ɒ].
64 a. b.
Figure 5.9 Creole pattern of [-high] vowels of Aisha, 20, Afro-Trinidadian, lower class (STRUT-LOT merged guise); a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
What these micro-analyses reveal is that merger within LOT lexical set appears to be phonetically constrained. Therefore, an argument for conditioned allophony can be made. As regards how these mergers were evaluated, STRUT-LOT merger towards [ɒ] was rated lower than STRUT-LOT distinction.
5.6.2 CLOTH-THOUGHT
CLOTH [ɔ] is typically treated as a creole variant whereas CLOTH [ɒ] is the acrolectal one (Wells, 1982; Winer, 1993). Regarding the evaluation of CLOTH-THOUGHT, listeners rated
CLOTH-THOUGHT distinction (M = 31.27) higher than CLOTH-THOUGHT overlap (M = 21.93), F(1,28)=4.21, p <.001.
Examination of the CLOTH-THOUGHT vowel plots used in distinct and overlapping guises provide a snippet view into various phonological processes within the CLOTH lexical set. Dirk’s reading passage was used to construct the CLOTH guise where vowel productions were distinct and were typically produced as the open back rounded [ɒ]. For the most part his
CLOTH tokens were realised with [ɒ]. However, a few exceptions could be found, namely in his realisation of the words sorry, horrible, and lost. In the case of sorry and horrible, the stressed vowel was realised as [ʌ]. Notice that the following phonological environment was the intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/. A similar occurrence took place in Joe’s CLOTH tokens, specifically in the words authority, sorry, and horrible, where he produced [ʌ] in the
65 following environment of intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/. Note that Joe’s speech was used to construct the CLOTH guise in which merger towards [ɔ] occurred. Apart from the following intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/ where Joe’s CLOTH tokens are realised as [ʌ], his CLOTH tokens were [ɔ] elsewhere. Although Dirk’s sorry and horrible and Joe’s authority, sorry, and horrible look like outliers given the rest of their respective CLOTH token distributions, results from the large-scale regression analysis in Chapter 7 indicate that the following approximant
/ɹ/ had a strong conditioning effect on CLOTH tokens. Thus, there is ample reason to propose a conditioned allophony in the CLOTH lexical set, specifically in the environment of following intersyllabic /ɹ/. a. b.
Figure 5.10 Acrolectal pattern of [-high] vowels of Dirk, 37, mixed ethnicity, middle class (CLOTH-THOUGHT distinct guise); a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
Another CLOTH token which looked like an outlier is Dirk’s lost. As can be seen from
Figure 5.10, lost falls within the distribution of the THOUGHT lexical set. In Dirk’s speech,
THOUGHT tokens were consistently realised with the open mid back rounded vowel [ɔ].
Likewise, his CLOTH token lost was realised with [ɔ].
66
Figure 5.11 Illustration of grapheme
In the case of Joe, all his other CLOTH tokens were realised with [ɔ], which overlapped extensively with THOUGHT [ɔ]. (See Table 5.7 for Joe’s Pillai score). This suggests that underlyingly for both CLOTH and THOUGHT, he has the phoneme /ɔ/. In contrast, Dirk has two phonemes, /ɒ/ and /ɔ/. It may be argued that he has [ɔ] in the word lost because of preservation of the creole variant in this lexical item. (This is an argument put forth in Chapter 7). Thus, by comparing and contrasting speakers such as Joe and Dirk, it is possible to gain insight into different phonological systems operating in Trinidadian English.
67 a. b.
Figure 5.12 Creole pattern of [-high] vowels of Joe, 24, Afro-Trinidadian, lower class (CLOTH-THOUGHT merged guise); a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
5.6.3 NURSE-LOT
In the literature, NURSE [ɘː] is reported as the acrolectal variant whereas NURSE [ɒ] is regarded as the creole variant. As mentioned in Section 5.2, it was impossible to find a speaker who read the reading passage with the variant [ɒ]. Therefore, a reader was coached to produce the NURSE-LOT merged guise. Given the artificiality of the NURSE merged guise, a detailed analysis of vowel plots and distributions cannot be performed as was done with other guise productions. The difficulty encountered in eliciting NURSE [ɒ] gives an indication as to its stigmatised status. In the merger evaluation survey, listeners rated NURSE-LOT distinction
(M = 30.8) much higher than NURSE-LOT overlap (M = 17.73), F(1,28)=5.33, p <.001.
Furthermore, of all the merged realisation investigated, NURSE merger was the most poorly evaluated.
68 a. b.
Figure 5.13 Acrolectal pattern of [-high] vowels of Dirk, 37, mixed ethnicity, middle class (NURSE-LOT distinct guise); a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set. a. b.
Figure 5.14 Idealised pattern of [-high] vowels of Richie, 54, Indo-Trinidadian male, lower middle class (NURSE-LOT distinct guise—coached); a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
5.7 Summary of [-high] vowel findings To summarise, among the [-high] vowels, various phonological processes at play were observed. Firstly, there was evidence to suggest that there may be conditioned allophony in the STRUT, LOT, and CLOTH sets. Additionally, there was evidence to suggest the preservation of merged CLOTH [ɔ] in specific lexical items within the speech of speakers who would predominantly realise CLOTH tokens with [ɒ]. These findings are similar to the large- scale analysis of [-high] vowels in Chapter 7. Regarding the NURSE-LOT merger, it was not possible on the basis of these merger evaluation survey data to gain insight into potential phonological processes at play since the reader of the NURSE merger guise had to be coached.
69
5.8 Chapter summary The results of the merger evaluation survey revealed that there were varying degrees of stigma and prestige associated with mergers in Trinidadian English. The merger of BATH-
TRAP is not yet complete as merger-by-approximation is taking place. BATH-TRAP merger can be considered another prestige form in Trinidadian English, more conveniently dubbed the emergent acrolect. The emergent acrolect exists alongside the traditional acrolect which mirrors the traditional RP variant for BATH [ɑː]. The scenario is summarised as follows. There are two prestige models regarding the [+low] vowels: traditional acrolectal one model which is exo-normative and the emergent acrolectal model which is endo-normative. The merger of
START-TRAP does not garner the same prestige as BATH-TRAP merger and is therefore not a good candidate for being called acrolectal. Among the [-high] vowels, phonetic conditioning plays a much more prominent role than among the [+low] vowels. The merger evaluation survey provides a preview of the type of conditioning effects observed in the macro-level analysis presented in Chapter 7. These conditioning effects may be indicative of conditioned allophonic variation. Potential sites of conditioned allophony among the [-high] vowels, as revealed in the merger evaluation data and supported by the macro-level analysis, are:
1. STRUT when followed by the environment of labials prompts [ɒ];
2. LOT when followed by the environment of voiceless stops prompts [ʌ];
3. CLOTH when followed by the environment of intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/
prompts [ʌ]. These endo-normative developments have not been previously documented for Trinidadian English. Overall, merged guises in [-high] vowels were rated much lower than guises in which distinction was maintained between sets. This finding is much different in relation to [+low] vowels in which case the merger of BATH and TRAP towards [a] holds some prestige in the community.
70
6. ANALYSIS OF [+LOW] VOWELS
6.1 Introduction This chapter presents and synthesises two types of analyses of [+low] vowels in TRAP,
BATH, and START: a micro-level analysis and a macro-level analysis. Firstly, a micro-level analysis—that is, an analysis privileging intra- and inter-speaker variation—was conducted on a subsample of 24 speakers. Both intra- and inter-speaker vowel patterns are described and subsequently classified in light of the low vowel patterns posited in Chapter 5: the traditional acrolect, the emergent acrolectal, and canonically creole. Secondly, a macro-level analysis which considers the effect of internal (phonological) factors and external (social) factors on the phonetic realisation of vowels is presented. Finally, since social factors are prominent in accounting for [+ low] vowel variation, the results of both the micro-level and macro-level analyses are interpreted within a Labovian framework.
6.2 Methodology of micro-level analysis of [+low] vowels In order to examine the vowel quality of the [+low] vowels, a subsample of 24 speakers, that is, half of the original sample, was used. The 24 speakers were selected on the basis of the degree of BATH-TRAP-START overlap since the over-arching aim was to represent the range of overlap patterns. This would in essence shed light on the nature of merger among the low vowels. It should be noted that the vowel patterns of all 24 speakers are not reported here. Instead, the speaker patterns which best captured [+low] vowel variation are presented. As can be gleaned from Table 6.1, each cell contained three speakers in the subsample. The three speakers in each cell were categorised according to a three-level schema as having: a) the most acrolectal system; b) a mixed system; or lastly, c) the most creole system. The benchmark for defining the most acrolectal system was Wells’ (1982) description of Trinidadian English. In the most acrolectal speech, BATH-START overlap and are realised with the open back unrounded vowel [ɑː]. Furthermore, TRAP-BATH and TRAP-
START are distinct with TRAP being realised with the open front unrounded vowel [a]. This acrolectal pattern is referred to as the traditional acrolect. (See Chapter 5). The emergent acrolect—in which BATH is merged or near merged to [aː] (i.e. same vowel quality as TRAP) and START is kept distinct with [ɑː]—is also considered though it was not described in Wells (1982). Wells’ (1982) Trinidadian English description also serves as the benchmark for defining the most creole system. In the most creole speech or what is considered canonically
71 creole, TRAP, BATH, and START are overlapping in terms of vowel quality, hence the open front unrounded vowel [a]. However, a length distinction is made between TRAP and
BATH/START: TRAP has the short vowel [a] whereas BATH and START are realised with the lengthened [aː]. Finally, in this three-level schema, a ‘mixed system’ was loosely defined as any distribution that deviated from the strict definition of ‘most acrolectal’ and ‘most creole’ speech. For example, if BATH, START, and TRAP were all distinct, this distribution was coded as a ‘mixed system.’
Table 6.1 Summary of Subsample (n= 24) Indo-Trinidadian Afro-Trinidadian Area Male Female Male Female Urban 3 3 3 3 Diego Martin Semi-rural 3 3 3 3 Sangre Grande
A combination of four techniques was used to assess lexical set overlap. The first technique involved auditory coding of BATH, START, and TRAP. Secondly, Pillai scores (refer to Chapter 5) were calculated for each speaker to ascertain the degree of overlap in his/her sets. Recall that the purpose of Pillai scores, the output of a MANOVA, is to assess overlap: higher Pillai scores indicate increased set differentiation while low Pillai scores suggest overlap. Pillai scores were calculated for the vowel set pairs BATH-TRAP, START-TRAP, and
BATH-START. Furthermore, Pillai scores have the additional advantage of providing a metric for inter-speaker comparison. The third technique was ANOVA regressions of Euclidean distances to assess degree of set overlap. In this ANOVA, the dependent variable was Euclidean distance while the independent variable was ‘lexical set’ with three levels (which corresponded to the three [+low] lexical sets under investigation): TRAP, BATH, and START.
The reference level in the independent variable ‘lexical set’ was set as TRAP and BATH since two ANOVAs were run on the [+low] vowels of the selected speakers. These reference levels were specified to detect differences in overlap between i) TRAP versus BATH and START and 13 ii) BATH versus TRAP and START. Fourthly, ANOVA regressions based on Hertz values were presented in a few instances where a speaker’s word list data were examined since all corner vowel measurements for the list data were not made and Euclidean distances could not be calculated. In these ANOVAs, the dependent variable was Hertz values while the
13 Here the reference levels are underlined for the sake of clarity. 72 independent variable was ‘lexical set.’ As regards reference levels, the same applies as in the ANOVAs conducted with Euclidean distances. Euclidean distances are “used to calculate the proximities of the centers of overlapping or possibly merged vowel classes” (Di Paolo, Yaeger-Dror, & Beckford- Wassink, 2011, p. 101). In Figure 6.1, taken from Harrington (2010), the vector (0, 0) represents the centre of the vowel space and the vector (3, 4) represents vowel co-ordinates. The Euclidean distance is therefore the “straight-line distance between a vowel and the center of the vowel space” (Harrington, 2010, p. 191) represented by the solid line in the figure.
Figure 6.1 Example of Euclidean distance in a triangle. The length of the solid line is the Euclidean distance between the points (0, 0) and (3, 4). The dotted lines show the horizontal and vertical distances that are used for the Euclidean distance calculation (Harrington, 2010, p. 191).
Given that the normalisation procedure used with the data was the Watt and Fabricius centroid-based method (refer to section 4.5.2), the natural corollary was to use the S-centroid anchor method developed by Watt and Fabricius (Watt & Fabricius, 2011) to calculate Euclidean distances. In the Watt and Fabricius (2011) method, the “centroid of the vowel system can provide an anchor point for geometrical comparisons of locations on the F1~F2 plane” (p. 2103) as opposed to other methods which use another vowel as an anchor point (cf. Di Paolo, Yaeger-Dror, & Beckford-Wassink, 2011, p. 104; Fabricius, 2007; Harrington, 2006). It should be noted that the Euclidean distance of each token was calculated as opposed to the mean of each lexical set. This was done so that the Euclidean distances could be used in further regression analyses. The following formula from Fabricius (2007) was adapted, using the centroid coordinates (1, 1) (Watt & Fabricius, 2011, p. 2103): 2 2 DISTANCE = ((F1 token – centroid) + (F2 token – centroid) )
6.3 Overview of Pillai scores Overall, Pillai scores revealed that some speakers had systems in which the BATH-
START-TRAP overlap was extensive, while others preserved varying degrees of distinction among the sets. This can be gleaned from Table 6.2 which shows the Pillai scores of selected 73 speakers. For example, of all the speakers in Table 6.2, Sharon had the highest BATH-TRAP
Pillai score of .776. Her p-value of less than .001 confirmed that her BATH and TRAP sets were kept distinct, respectively BATH [ɑː] and TRAP [a]. In contrast, Ricardo had the lowest Pillai score of .075. Because statistical significance was not reached, his BATH and TRAP sets were interpreted as being merged, respectively BATH [aː] and TRAP [a]. As further analysis showed, some speakers had merged or near merged systems while others maintained distinction.
Table 6.2 Pillai Scores from Interview Data for Selected Speakers for [-low] Vowels
Speaker BATH p Pattern BATH- p Pattern START- p Pattern -TRAP START TRAP Sharon .776 < .001 distinct .009 ns overlap .731 < .001 distinct Tr. Acrolect Marco .564 .01 distinct .213 ns overlap .622 .013 distinct Tr. Acrolect Christian .333 ns overlap .538 .021 distinct .664 .007 distinct Em. Acrolect Rihanna .111 ns overlap .116 ns overlap .208 ns overlap Creole Ricardo .075 ns overlap .081 ns overlap .016 ns overlap Creole Trish .631 .007 distinct .614 .008 distinct .819 < .001 distinct Mixed Bhuvan .424 .048 distinct .102 ns overlap .196 ns overlap Mixed
6.3.1 Acrolectal patterns Among the female speakers in the subsample, Sharon maintained the most distinction between BATH-TRAP (Pillai’s trace = .776, p <.001) and START-TRAP (Pillai’s trace = .731, p
<.001). Additionally, Figure 6.2 exemplifies the acrolectal patterning in Sharon’s low vowels which can be described as the traditional acrolect. The distribution of the traditional acrolect is summarised in Table 6.3. Table 6.3 Summary of Traditional Acrolectal Pattern of [+low] Vowels Degree of overlap Vowel quality
BATH-TRAP: distinct BATH [ɑː] TRAP [a]
START-TRAP: distinct START [ɑː] TRAP [a]
BATH-START: overlap BATH [ɑː] START [ɑː]
However, it should be noted that a speaker like Sharon who made such clear distinctions was an exception in the data. More often than not, speakers who displayed the above traditional acrolectal patterning had systems in which the distribution of BATH and START were closer to TRAP (cf. Marco’s low vowels in Figure 6.3). Marco’s vowels in Figure 6.3 highlight a less
74 conservative distribution of the traditional acrolectal pattern in Trinidadian English (cf.
Sharon’s low vowels in Figure 6.2). Similar to Sharon, Marco’s BATH-TRAP vowels were distinct (Pillai’s trace = .564, p = .01) as were START-TRAP (Pillai’s trace = .622, p = .013). As would be in the traditional acrolect, Marco’s BATH-START sets overlapped (Pillai’s trace = .213, p = ns). In this less conservative rendering of the traditional acrolectal pattern, there was a tendency for some BATH and START tokens to occupy the phonetic space [aː] and for the vowel to be lengthened. Despite these minor exceptions, BATH-TRAP and START-TRAP distinctions were largely maintained, suggesting differentiation between the lexical pairs.
Additionally, auditory distinction could be made between TRAP and BATH-START sets, respectively TRAP [a] and BATH/START [ɑː]. This is important to note in ruling out near merger where distributions often test as being statistically distinct in terms of formant values but no auditory distinction can be made.
Figure 6.2. Traditional acrolectal pattern of low vowels of Sharon, 36, Indo-Trinidadian, Sangre Grande from interview data.
75
Figure 6.3. Traditional acrolectal pattern of low vowels of Marco, 39, Afro-Trinidadian, Diego Martin from interview data.
Among the urban Indo-Trinidadian men, Christian had the most acrolectal pattern which was the emergent acrolect. This distribution is summarised in Table 6.4. Additionally, his vowels are shown in Figure 6.4: Table 6.4 Summary of Emergent Acrolectal Pattern of + Low Vowels Degree of overlap Vowel quality BATH-TRAP: overlap BATH [aː] TRAP [a]
START-TRAP: distinct START [ɑː] TRAP [a] BATH-START: distinct BATH [aː] START [ɑː]
As demonstrated in the merger evaluation survey in Chapter 5, BATH-TRAP merger towards [a] was evaluated quite positively. Thus, it can be said that there are two systems of prestige variants among low vowels in Trinidadian English: a traditional distribution of prestige variants—which, for the sake of convenient reference, resembles the low vowels in SBE; and an emergent distribution in which BATH [aː] is merged in the direction of TRAP but START-
TRAP are distinct, respectively START [ɑː] and TRAP [a]. By extension BATH and START are distinct, respectively BATH [aː] and START [ɑː].
Figure 6.4. Emergent acrolectal pattern of low vowels of Christian, 26, Indo-Trinidadian, Diego Martin from interview data.
6.3.2 Creole patterns
For other speakers in the sample, their low vowels overlapped considerably. When
Rihanna’s interview data were considered, for example, she demonstrated full overlap of
76
BATH-START-TRAP sets towards [a] though a length distinction is made as regards
BATH/START [aː]. This extensive overlap among [+low] vowels is indicated in both auditory analysis and the statistical tests, both Pillai scores (see Table 6.2) and ANOVA results based on Euclidean distances (see Table 6.5) Rihanna’s low vowel system can be classified as canonically creole since all sets overlap and the quality of her [+low] vowels is predominantly [a].
Table 6.5 ANOVA Results Based on Euclidean Distances from Rihanna’s Interview Data Model Predictors B p Pattern Rihanna – TRAP TRAP (Constant) 0.338 INTERVIEW TRAP vs. START 0.029 ns overlap TRAP vs. BATH 0.057 ns overlap Rihanna – BATH BATH (Constant) 0.394 INTERVIEW BATH vs. START −0.028 ns overlap R2 .08 F(2,26) = 1.08, p = .354
However, despite the high degree of overlap in Rihanna’s interview data, a different picture emerged when her list data were examined. The ANOVA on her Hertz values of her list data (see Table 6.6) revealed a higher degree of set differentiation which reached statistical significance when TRAP-START (M = 621, p < .001) and BATH-START (M = 621, p =
.033) were contrasted. Sets TRAP-BATH were not statistical different (M = 725, p = .073) when compared to the reference level TRAP (M = 810). However, a p-value of .073 suggests partial overlap between TRAP and BATH. Table 6.6 ANOVA Results Based on F2 Values (Hz) from Rihanna’s Word List Data Model Predictors B p Pattern Rihanna – TRAP TRAP (Constant) 810 WORD LIST TRAP vs. START −189 < .001 distinction TRAP vs. BATH −85 .073 overlap Rihanna – BATH BATH (Constant) 724 WORD LIST BATH vs. START −103 .033 distinction R2 .07 F(2,26) = 1.03 , p = .373
Overall, both TRAP and BATH were realised more front in the vowel space, thereabouts
[aː] whereas START was further back in the vowel space, thereabouts [ɑː]. This can be gleaned from a visual inspection of her vowel chart in Figure 6.6. The regression results strongly illustrate that Rihanna was aware of a prestige pattern in which the low vowels were distinguished by their lexical membership. This was true for TRAP-START and BATH-START
77 and was also confirmed in the auditory coding.14 However, Rihanna’s knowledge of the differences between TRAP-BATH sets was more tenuous since there was considerable overlap between these two sets in her list data. Lastly, the low vowels distribution from the list data indicated that Rihanna was approximating to the emergent prestige pattern rather than the traditional prestige pattern in Trinidadian English.
Figure 6.5. Canonical creole pattern in low vowels of Rihanna, 22, Indo-Trinidadian, Diego Martin from interview data.
Figure 6.6. Approximation to the emergent acrolectal pattern in low vowels of Rihanna, 22, Indo-Trinidadian, Diego Martin from word list data.
In contrast to Rihanna who displayed varying patterns of usage between speech styles, Ricardo’s low vowels overlapped extensively in both the interview and list data (see ANOVA results in Table 6.7 and Table 6.8). A cursory, visual comparison of his vowel plots in
14 In regard to auditory coding, Rihanna’s START realisations from the list data included several instances [ɑː] (n = 4) whereas in the interview data the phonetic quality of the vowel is mostly [aː] (n = 7) alongside other phonetic variants, namely [aː ] (n = 2) and [aː ] (n = 1). 78
Figures 6.6 (interview data) and 6.7 (word list data) reveals very little differentiation among
TRAP, BATH, and START sets irrespective of speech style. Furthermore, regression of Euclidean distances, F2 values, and Pillai scores confirmed the overlap of BATH-START-TRAP towards the phonetic realisation [a].
Table 6.7 ANOVA Results Based on F2 Values (Hz) from Ricardo’s Word List Data Model Predictors B p Pattern Ricardo – TRAP TRAP (Constant) 490 WORD LIST TRAP vs. START −58 ns overlap TRAP vs. BATH −33 ns overlap
Ricardo – BATH BATH (Constant) 456 WORD LIST BATH vs. START −24 ns overlap R2 .09 F(2,26) = 1.3 , p =.29
Table 6.8 ANOVA Results Based on Euclidean Distances from Ricardo’s Interview List Data Model Predictors B p Pattern Ricardo – TRAP TRAP (Constant) 0.465 INTERVIEW TRAP vs. START 0.0003 ns overlap TRAP vs. BATH 0.022 ns overlap Ricardo – BATH BATH (Constant) 0.487 INTERVIEW BATH vs. START −0.022 ns overlap R2 .01
F(2,27) = 0.14 , p = .86
Auditory coding showed that in the interview and list data Ricardo generally used [aː] and to a lesser extent the advanced or fronted low back unrounded vowel [ɑː ] as well as the occasional low back unrounded [ɑː] in lexical sets START and BATH. Sporadic use of [ɑː] and
[ɑː ] suggests that Ricardo is vaguely aware of the low back vowel being a prestige variant although his implicit knowledge of lexical set membership is questionable. Furthermore, assuming that the word list elicits the most careful speech, Ricardo clearly did not demonstrate varying patterns of usage among the low vowels across speech styles. Thus, it may be concluded that Ricardo’s low vowels were canonically creole irrespective of speech style.
79
Figure 6.7 Canonical creole pattern in low vowels of Ricardo, 48, Afro-Trinidadian, Sangre Grande from interview data.
Figure 6.8 Canonical creole pattern in low vowels of Ricardo, 48, Afro-Trinidadian, Sangre Grande from word list data.
6.3.3 Mixed patterns Mixed systems, that is, systems which conform neither to (traditional/ emergent) acrolectal nor creole patterns, provide strong evidence for near-merger in Trinidadian English. In Trish’s low vowel system, illustrated in Figure 6.9, it appears that the distributions of BATH, START, and TRAP are not overlapping. Her Pillai scores indicated this as well. Note that all three Pillai scores reveal set distinction among the three pairs of lexical sets tested for overlap: BATH-TRAP (Pillai’s trace = .631, p = .007), BATH-START (Pillai’s trace
= .614, p = .008), and START-TRAP (Pillai’s trace = .819, p <.001). However, the ANOVA based on Euclidean distances lent insight to nuances in Tricia’s vowel distribution. As seen in
Table 6.9, the difference between the TRAP-BATH sets did not reach statistical significance (M
= 0.437, p = .081) when compared to the reference level TRAP (M = 0.552). However, a p- value of .08 may be articulated in two converse propositions. Firstly, it can be said that
80
Tricia’s BATH-TRAP sets are approaching distinction which would imply that BATH and TRAP are somehow unmerging. This is a highly unlikely scenario. The alternative proposition is that Tricia’s BATH and TRAP sets are partially overlapping. This is a more plausible proposition in light of the proposal of the emergent acrolectal pattern. All things considered, the patterning of Trish’s low vowels is similar to that of the emergent acrolect. Recall that in such a scenario, BATH would merge towards the relatively stable TRAP [a]. What was particularly striking in her low vowels was the gradient nature of her phonetic realisations. These intermediate forms suggest a gradual process of merger rather than an abrupt one.
Moreover, Trish’s distribution of BATH-TRAP suggests that merger-by-approximation is occurring. However, the merger does not appear to be complete, thus yielding a near merger. Furthermore, evidence for near merger was found when the results of the Pillai scores and regression of Euclidean distances were taken in tandem with the auditory analysis. Although statistical testing revealed that lexical sets were more or less distinct, it was indeed challenging for the author to distinguish the sets auditorily. This seeming contradiction strongly suggests that BATH and TRAP are near merged for Trish. That is, distributions of tokens are extremely closely approximated to the extent that listeners perceive the vowels sounds as identical although there are acoustic differences. Table 6.9 ANOVA Results Based on Euclidean Distances from Trish’s Interview Data Model Predictors B p Pattern Trish – TRAP TRAP (Constant) 0.552 INTERVIEW TRAP vs. START −0.281 < .001 distinct TRAP vs. BATH −0.115 .094 partial Trish – BATH BATH (Constant) 0.437 INTERVIEW BATH vs. START −0.167 .02 distinct R2 0.42 F(2,27) = 9.63 , p < .001
Figure 6.9. Mixed pattern indicative of near merger in low vowels of Trish, 26, Indo-Trinidadian, Diego Martin from interview data.
81
6.3.4 Exceptional cases Another speaker who was coded as having a mixed low vowel system was Bhuvan. ANOVA results in Table 6.10, based on Euclidean distances, indicated considerable overlap in his low vowel pattern although Pillai scores in Table 6.2 indicated that his BATH-TRAP sets were distinct (Pillai’s trace = .424, p = .048). However, at a p-value of .048, it can be inferred that his BATH-TRAP sets shared some degree of overlap. Auditory analysis proved to be particularly illuminating for this speaker since Bhuvan had a strong tendency to hypercorrect words belonging to the TRAP set to [ɑ]. His phonetic realisations of BATH tokens were consistently [ɑː]. Therefore, the BATH-TRAP overlap suggested in the regression was in fact
TRAP moving the direction of [ɑ], which is an anomaly given TRAP’s stability. Bhuvan’s extensive hypercorrection was probably due to the observer’s paradox. Though Bhuvan was the exception to the rule, his tendency to hypercorrect clearly illustrates that [ɑ] is a prestige variant in Trinidadian English and that any description of Trinidadian English which does not include [ɑ] as a phonetic variant fails to capture a great deal of variation in the vowel system (cf. Winford, 1978; Youssef & James, 2004). Table 6.10 Regression results based on Euclidean distances from Bhuvan’s interview data Model Predictors B p Pattern Bhuvan – TRAP TRAP (Constant) 2.739 INTERVIEW TRAP vs. START −0.334 ns overlap TRAP vs. BATH −0.169 ns overlap Bhuvan – BATH BATH (Constant) 2.569 INTERVIEW BATH vs. START −0.165 ns overlap R2 .07 F(2,27) = 1.05 , p < .363
Figure 6.10. Mixed pattern indicative of near merger in low vowels of Bhuvan, 67, Indo-Trinidadian, Diego Martin from interview data.
82
6.4 Macro-level analysis of [+low] vowels Taking the entire sample into consideration, the three patterns of [+low] vowels— traditional acrolect, emergent acrolect, and canonically creole—are described in terms of their formant values in Hertz. Table 6.11 presents these data for men and women by [+low] vowel pattern and lexical set.
Table 6.11 Formant Values (Hz) for [+low] Vowel Patterns— Traditional Acrolect, Emergent Acrolect, and Canonically Creole from Interview Data Men Women Pattern Lexical set F1 F2 F1 F2 Creole TRAP [a] 714 1384 845 1559 Creole BATH [aː] 721 1364 852 1552 Creole START [aː] 724 1351 827 1531 Tr. Acrolect TRAP [a] 714 1346 851 1516 Tr. Acrolect BATH [ɑː] 676 1237 770 1335 Tr. Acrolect START [ɑː] 668 1218 762 1335 Em. Acrolect TRAP [a] 651 1251 882 1491 Em. Acrolect BATH [aː] 656 1191 816 1419 Em. Acrolect START [ɑː] 609 1110 721 1366
6.5 Methodology of model building A mixed-effects model for normalised formant values (either F1 or F2) of each lexical set was built to test the effects of internal and external factors. The vowel dimension under investigation determined whether normalised F1 or F2 was used as the dependent variable.
For instance, since BATH variation [a ~ ɑ] exploits the front-back dimension, F2 was used as the dependent variable in the BATH regression model. Conversely, F1 was used as the dependent variable in the TRAP regression model since TRAP raising, which affects vowel height, was being explored. The mixed-effects models were built using a manual backward elimination process in an R environment. Backward elimination is a predictor selection strategy which “begins with the maximum model and delete[s] variables of no value” (Cheng, Edwards, Maldonado-Molina, Komro, & Muller, 2010, p. 512). The maximum model is defined as the model with the most predictors to be considered in the analysis. The corollary of the maximum model is that a good model is embedded in it, implying that “the maximum model contains the correct model” (Cheng et al., 2010, p. 509) or the ‘good enough’ model. Both statistical and domain knowledge of linguistics were used to determine which predictors went into the maximum model. In this analysis, the maximum model contained six fixed effects related to social factors: age, gender, ethnicity, city, education, and occupational prestige. Since it was
83 impractical to test all possible combinations of interactions, predictors which were hypothesised to be most relevant were included. These were age, gender, ethnicity, and town, resulting in eight possible combinations of interactions: 1. Age x Gender x Town x Ethnicity; 2. Age x Gender x Town; 3. Age x Gender x Ethnicity; 4. Age x Ethnicity; 5. Age x Gender; 6. Age x Town; 7. Gender x Town; 8. Gender x Ethnicity. Fixed effects related to internal factors were also included in the maximum model. These included the coding of preceding and following phonological environments. In addition to the aforementioned fixed effects, the maximum model also contained two random effects: speaker and word. Drager and Hay (2012) note that “In linguistic analyses, random effects are most likely to be individual speakers or stimulus items” (Drager & Hay, 2012, p. 61). This is because factors such as individual speakers and tokens from interview data are “part of a larger population that has not been sampled exhaustively” (Drager & Hay, 2012, p. 61). For instance, by allowing each speaker to have his or her own random intercept, the model is able to deal with speakers whose extreme linguistic behaviour—that is, “extreme divergence from the norm” (Drager & Hay, 2012, p. 61)—may potentially skew the results. Thus, random effects are “included in a mixed model to account for the effect of the naturally heterogeneity among subjects on the prediction of a response variable of interest” (Kleinbaum, Kupper, Muller, & Nizam, 2008, p. 736).
6.5.1 Reference levels within the models For the sake of expediency, the levels used within the models are enumerated here. Recall that the predictors gender, ethnicity, and town had two levels. For gender, the level ‘men’ served as the reference category. For ethnicity, ‘Afro-Trinidadian’ was used as the reference level as opposed to ‘Indo-Trinidadian.’ Lastly, for town, ‘urban’ Diego Martin was designated the reference category as opposed to ‘semi-rural’ Sangre Grande. The predictors education and occupational prestige both had more than two levels. Because the levels within these predictors are implicitly ordered and not completely independent—for instance, one cannot be university educated without having gone to primary
84 school—either the lowest or highest level was selected as the reference category. For education, ‘primary’ school education was designated the reference category. In occupational prestige, either ‘low’ or ‘high’ occupational prestige was selected as the reference category, depending on which aspect of the data was emphasised. As for internal factors, linguistic considerations informed the selection of the reference level. (See individual regression sections for rationale for level selection.)
6.5.2 Presentation of results The reference level for every predictor is included in the results table for each regression model. For example, the variable gender is presented as follows in the results tables: ‘Gender: men vs. women.’ The reference level is presented as the first term. This is then contrasted with the other level(s). In this case, ‘men’ is the first term presented. Thus, it is the reference level which is then contrasted to the other level ‘women.’ In cases where age was included in the model, estimated means were provided in the text for the youngest, median-aged, and oldest speakers in the sample, respectively aged 22, 48, and 69. The rationale for providing the estimated means for these three ages was to highlight the differences in formant values predicted by the model.
6.6 Mixed effects regression on normalised formant values for + low vowel sets
6.6.1 TRAP F1 TRAP is fairly stable vowel in Trinidadian English, meaning that it is typically realised with the open front unrounded vowel [a]. However, Youssef and Winford (2004) report the occurrence of [æ] in the TRAP lexical set. Exploratory regression models did not yield any statistically significant predictors. However, impressionistically, TRAP raising seemed to be occurring among younger women. In order to test whether TRAP raising is a change led by younger women, separate models were built for both genders, using normalised F1 as the dependent variable and age as the predictor variable.
The regression model for the men indicated that age did not have any effect on TRAP F1 values (p = .993). In contrast, the model for the women in Table 6.12 revealed that for every year that age increased, so did F1 values by 0.002 points for TRAP vowels (p = .127). At a p-value of .127, this result can only be treated as a trend. Thus, the tendency was for older women to have the lowered TRAP vowel [a] whereas some of the younger women had the raised TRAP vowel [æ] in addition to [a].
85
Table 6.12 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for TRAP Normalised F1 (Women) Model Variable B SE B t p TRAP Age 0.002 0.001 1.5 .127 (Constant) 1.364 0.056 24.2 <.001
Figure 6.11 highlights differences in normalised mean TRAP F1 values among the women when grouped in four age cohorts. The younger cohorts, that is, women in their 20s and 30s, were more likely to have raised TRAP vowels while the older cohorts, women in their 40s and over 50, were not.
1,52 1,5 1,48 1,46 1,44 women 1,42 1,4 men 1,38 1,36 1,34 50s & up 40s 30s 20s
Figure 6.11 Normalised mean TRAP F1 values by age cohort and gender.
6.6.2 BATH F2 For the lexical set BATH, the model tested the extent to which vowels were fronted or retracted within the vowel space and which internal and external factors were potentially responsible for these differences. As such, the BATH model was built, using normalised F2 values as the dependent variable. The model included the predictors gender, occupational status, and following manner of articulation as shown in Table 6.11.
The model revealed that the women in the sample had a tendency to produce BATH tokens further back in the vowel space (M = 1.203, p = .07) in comparison to the reference level men (M = 1.23). At a p-value of .07, this finding is best treated as a tendency, suggesting that the women used the traditional prestige variant [ɑː] at a higher rate than the men. When occupational status was considered, the difference in normalised F2 values between the reference level—those speakers holding low status jobs—and those holding high prestige jobs was not statistically significant. However, the difference in normalised F2 values between the speakers with low prestige jobs (M = 1.231) and those in mid-high prestige jobs reached statistical significance (M = 1.168, p = .008), and to a lesser extent to those holding mid-low status jobs (M = 1.188, p = .08). Thus, the speakers in mid-low and
86 mid-high occupational jobs produced BATH tokens further back in the vowel space relative to those holding low status. Furthermore, when compared to all occupational levels, the speakers with mid-high prestige jobs produced the most retracted vowels, even more than the speakers in high prestige jobs. This finding is in keeping with Labov’s curvilinear hypothesis (Principle 1) which states, “Linguistic change from below originates in a central social group, located in the interior of the socioeconomic hierarchy” (Labov, 2001, p. 188). Although occupational status is not equivalent to socioeconomic class, it does implicitly include a hierarchy which to some extent contributes to socioeconomic class. As such, applying Labov’s curvilinear hypothesis to occupational status in the present study is justified. Similar findings regarding occupational status and the retraction of START F2 values are revealed in the following section (6.6.3); speakers in mid-high prestige jobs had the most backed START vowels of all the occupational groups. Regarding the internal factor following manner of articulation, there were three levels which were coded: stops (which were used as the reference level in the model), nasals, and fricatives. It may seem peculiar to speak of stops—specifically [d] and [t]—as post-vocalic environments in relation to BATH since the BATH-TRAP split occurs in specific words in nasal and fricative environments, precisely __f#, __fC, __θ#, __st, __sp#, __sk, __sl, __sn , __ns,
__nt, __n(t)ʃ, __nd, and __m l. A feature of Trinidadian English, and by extension Caribbean
Englishes, is TH-stopping in which dental fricatives [ð] and [θ] are neutralised to alveolar stops. For example, path may be realised as [ aːt] and father as [ˈfa ə]. Because of TH- stopping, stops had to be included in the manner coding in the BATH data. Stops were selected as the reference level since it is well-known that the historical BATH-TRAP split which th occurred in the 18 century was phonological specified. The regression revealed that BATH tokens were produced further front in the vowel space in the environment of nasals (M = 1.272, p = .008) in comparison to reference level stops (M = 1.231). This suggests that there is awareness of the phonolexical variability within the BATH set. However, the distribution was somewhat different in Trinidadian English when compared to other varieties of English.
Moreover, there was a propensity for BATH vowels in fricative and stop environments—e.g. last [last] and father [fɑː ə]—to be retracted whereas in nasal environments, BATH vowels tend to be realised closer to TRAP—e.g. plant [plant].
87
Table 6.13 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for BATH normalised F2 Model Variable B SE B t p BATH Gender: men vs. women –0.027 0.015 –1.8 .07 Occupation: low vs. mid-low –0.043 0.025 –1.7 .083 Occupation: low vs. mid-high –0.063 0.023 –2.7 .008 Occupation: low vs. high –0.044 0.036 –1.2 ns Follow manner: stops vs. fricatives 0.004 0.013 0.3 ns Follow manner: stops vs. nasals 0.041 0.016 2.7 .008 (Constant) 1.231 0.026 47.9 <.001
TH-stopping is generally regarded as a creole feature rather than an acrolectal one. However, as will be demonstrated, this kind of binary designation is highly problematic given the available cline of variation and growing erosion of diglossia in Trinidadian English. In total, there were 38 potential cases for TH-stopping with segment /ð/, all from the word father and its derivatives (e.g. father’s, fathers).15 As can be seen in Figure 6.12 out of these 38 potential cases, the creole variant [d] was used 63% of the time (24/38) and the acrolectal variant 37% of the time (14/38). A canonical description of Trinidadian English would predict two possible realisations of the word father: [ˈfɑː ðə], the traditional acrolectal variant, and [ˈfaː ə], the creole variant. In the current data, the traditional acrolectal variant occurred 26% (10/38) of the time while the creole variant occurred 11% (4/38) of the time. As can be gleaned from Figure 6.1, two intermediate variants were found in the data, namely [ˈfɑː ə], which occurred most frequently (37%), and [ˈfaː ðə], occurring 14% of the time. Of these two intermediate variants, [ˈfɑː ə] is most innovative since [ˈfaː ðə] can arguably be accounted for through potential BATH-TRAP. The intermediate variant [ˈfɑː ə] is an interesting case because the creole TH-stopped variant [d] is used in conjunction with a vocalic segment that is typically acrolectal [ɑː]. A static view of creole phonetics would likely espouse the following implications: a) if the variable (dh) in the word father is phonetically realised as the voiced interdental fricative [ð], then the vowel in the first syllable will be realised as [ɑː]; b) if the variable (dh) in the word father is phonetically realised as voiced alveolar stop [d], then the vowel in the first syllable will be realised as [aː] or [aː ]. The intermediate variant [ˈfɑː ə] runs contrary to this implicational logic, highlighting the variability which can be found within the system.
15 Although the word father and its derivatives truly belong to the PALM lexical set, they were included in BATH in this analysis since the same potential phonetic realisations are involved, that is, [ɑː] versus [aː]. 88
TH-realisations Vowel realisations Example Lect in stressed syllable
[ɑː] 26% [ˈfɑːˌðʌ] trad. acrolect [ð] 37% [aː] 14% [ˈfa̱ːˌðʌ] intermediate
[ɑː] 37% [ˈfɑːˌdʌ] intermediate [d] 63% father [aː] 11% [ˈfa̱ːˌdʌ] creole
[ˈfa̱ːˌda] broad creole
[ˈfaˌda] broadest creole
Figure 6.12 Range of phonetic realisations of the word father in Trinidadian English and their percentage of representation in the data (n = 48).16
6.6.3 START F2 In the START lexical set, the model tested the extent to which vowels were fronted or retracted within the vowel space and which external factors were potentially responsible for these differences. Thus, the model was built with normalised START F2 values as the dependent variable. The START model contained three predictors: age, gender, and occupational status.
The START model revealed that the women in the sample produced START tokens further back in the vowel space (M = 1.147, p = .01) in comparison to the men (M = 1.188).
Similar to the BATH F2 regression presented above, this finding indicates that women tended to use the traditional prestige variant [ɑː] more than men. With regard to occupational status, the speakers in mid-high occupational jobs also produced the most retracted START tokens (M = 1.122, p = .008) relative to the reference level of those holding low status jobs (M = 1.188). To a lesser extent, the speakers in high prestige occupations also produced START vowels further back in the vowel space (M = 1.124, p = .088). The difference in normalised F2 values between speakers holding low status jobs and those holding mid-low and high prestige jobs was not statistically significant.
16 Items in grey did not occur in the data but in principle are forms which can be found on the most creole end of the continuum. 89
Table 6.14 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for START Normalised F2 Model Variable B SE B t p START Age 0.001 0.0006 1.8 .065 Gender: men vs. women –0.040 0.015 –2.6 .001 Occupation: low vs. mid-low –0.028 0.027 –1.0 ns Occupation: low vs. mid-high –0.066 0.025 –2.7 .008 Occupation: low vs. high –0.064 0.037 –1.7 .088 (Constant) 1.188 0.038 31.1 <.001
According to the model, age tended to have an increasing effect on normalised F2 values (p = .065), thus suggesting younger speakers had more retracted START vowels while older speakers produced fronted START vowel [aː]. For example, the model predicts a 22-year old speaker would have an estimated normalised F2 mean of 1.212, a 48-year old speaker an estimated mean of 1.24, and a 69-year old speaker an estimated mean of 1.263.
1,22
1,2
1,18
1,16
1,14 age
1,12
1,1
1,08 60s 50s 40s 30s 20s
Figure 6.13 Normalised mean START F2 values by age cohort.
6.7 Assessing overlap A second series of ANOVA regressions was conducted to ascertain which social factors were relevant in overlap among lexical sets. For these regressions, Pillai scores were used as the dependent variable.
6.7.1 BATH-TRAP Pillai In the BATH-TRAP Pillai regression, the predictors gender and occupation status were included. The regression revealed that there was a gender effect in terms of BATH-TRAP overlap (p = .006). Since the mean Pillai score was higher for women (M = 0.595) than their male counterparts (M = 0.463), it was concluded that the women maintained distinction between BATH and TRAP more than the men.
90
Regarding occupational status, the overall finding was as the occupational status of speakers increased so did the differentiation between BATH and TRAP sets. The model revealed that speakers holding low status jobs displayed the greatest degree of BATH-TRAP overlap (M = 0.081) when compared to the reference level speakers in high prestige jobs (M
= 0.463). Those with mid-low status jobs (M = 0.262, p = ns) had a tendency to keep BATH and TRAP sets more distinct than speakers holding low status jobs (M = 0.081). Furthermore, relative to those in low status job, speakers holding mid-high (M = 0.325, p = .018) and high status jobs (M = 0.463, p = .016) had increased differentiation between BATH and TRAP sets.
Table 6.15 Summary of ANOVA Regression for BATH-TRAP Pillai Scores Model Variable B SE B t p BATH-TRAP Gender: men vs. women 0.132 0.063 2.1 .044 PILLAI Occupation: high vs. low –0.382 0.153 –2.5 .081 Occupation: high vs. mid-low –0.201 0.137 –1.5 ns Occupation: high vs. mid-high –0.137 0.133 –1.0 ns (Constant) 0.463 0.126 3.7 R2 .21 F(4,43) = 2.94, p = .031
6.7.2 START-TRAP Pillai The START-TRAP Pillai regression contained two predictors as shown in Table 6.16: gender and occupation. According to the model, there was a potential gender effect. Men (M
= 0.171) tended to have more START-TRAP overlap than the women (M = 0.313. p = .088). When low occupational prestige was selected as the reference level for occupation status, the model revealed no statistically significant contrast with the speakers holding mid- low and mid-high prestige jobs. However, the speakers holding high prestige jobs had a tendency to have increased START-TRAP differentiation (M = 0.514, p = .086).
Table 6.16 Summary of ANOVA Regression for START-TRAP Pillai Scores Model Variable B SE B t p START-TRAP Gender: men vs. women 0.141 0.081 1.7 .088 PILLAI Occupation: low vs. mid-low 0.113 0.132 0.9 ns Occupation: low vs. mid-high 0.164 0.126 1.3 ns Occupation: low vs. high 0.343 0.195 1.8 .086 (Constant) 0.171 0.120 1.4 R2 .12 F(4,43) = 1.49, p = .223
6.7.3 BATH-START Pillai In the BATH-START Pillai regression, only one predictor was included in the model: age. According to the model, age had a decreasing tendency on Pillai scores (p = .071), thus suggesting younger speakers made more of a distinction between BATH and START while older speaker displayed more overlap in these sets. For example, the model predicted a 22-
91 year old speaker would have an estimated mean Pillai score of 0.306, a 48-year old speaker a score of 0.229, and a 69-year old speaker a score of 0.167.
Table 6.17 Summary of ANOVA Regression for BATH-START Pillai Scores Model Variable B SE B t p BATH-START Age –0.003 0.002 –1.8 .071 PILLAI (Constant) 0.371 0.07 5.3 R2 .07 F(1,46) = 3.41, p = .071
6.8 Discussion From the various regression models presented above on TRAP, BATH, and START, several major findings couched within a Labovian framework were deduced regarding [+low] vowels. Firstly, there is evidence to support Labov’s principle of linguistic conformity of women: “For stable sociolinguistic variables, women show a lower rate of stigmatised variants and a higher rate of prestige variants than men” (Labov, 2001, p. 266). Evidence from four regression models supported this principle: BATH F2, START F2, BATH-TRAP Pillai, and START-TRAP Pillai. Recall that in the BATH F2 and START F2 models, the women produced vowels which were more retracted than those of their male counterparts. The corollary to this was that the women tended to use the traditional prestige variant [ɑː] at a higher rate than [aː], and moreover more than the men. This was supported by the BATH-TRAP and START-TRAP Pillai models, both of which confirmed that the women maintained distinction between BATH/START and TRAP more than the men. Secondly, the conformity paradox, an off-shoot of the principle of linguistic conformity of women, may be extended to the [+low] vowels as a whole. The conformity paradox articulates that “Women deviate less than men for linguistic norms when the deviations are overtly proscribed, but more than men when the deviations are not proscribed”
(Labov, 2001, p. 367). Five pieces of evidence supported the conformity paradox: BATH F2,
START F2, TRAP F1 (for women), BATH-TRAP Pillai, and START-TRAP Pillai. The first part of the conformity paradox “women deviate less than men for linguistic norms when the deviations are overtly proscribed” can be aptly applied to [+low] vowel sets BATH and START in which case what is overtly prescribed and recognised is the traditional prestige [ɑː]. This was supported by the results of the BATH F2, START F2, BATH-TRAP Pillai, and START-TRAP Pillai models. The second part of the conformity paradox “women deviate…more than men when the deviations are not proscribed” is applicable to the raising of TRAP vowels, a change which occurs below the level of social awareness and is being led by the women in the
92 sample, not the men. All things considered, TRAP raising is illustrative of Labov’s Principle 4 women lead in change from below: “In linguistic change from below, women use higher frequencies of innovative forms than men do” (Labov, 2001, p. 292). Furthermore, the raised
TRAP realisation [æ] is not a stable variable as apparent time shows it to be used primarily by women in their 20s and 30s rather than by middle-aged and older women in their 40s and above. Finally, there was evidence of Labov-hypercorrection, a phenomenon in which speakers from the second highest status group “go beyond the highest status group in their tendency to use the forms considered correct and appropriate for formal styles” (Labov, 1966, p. 88). Recall that the speakers with mid-high prestige jobs produced the most retracted vowels of all occupational groups in the BATH F2 and START F2 regression models. This is represented in
Figure 6.14 which shows the mean normalised F2 values for START and BATH across occupational status groups. Despite the similar findings regarding vowel retraction in START
F2 and BATH F2 and occupational status, a more detailed examination within each set is required.
Generally speaking, the low back unrounded vowel [ɑː] is the prescribed traditional acrolectal realisation for both BATH and START—although elsewhere I have argued for an emergent acrolectal [aː] in BATH though not in START. Recall from the merger evaluation survey (section 5.4.4) that START-TRAP merger was so negatively rated that it was unlikely to be accepted as a prestige pattern. In light of this competing emergent acrolectal [aː] form within BATH, it comes as no surprise that the difference in F2 values between the speakers holding high prestige jobs and those holding low prestige jobs was not statistically significant. This may be interpreted as follows: the high prestige speakers were less linguistically insecure; thus, they allowed more variable realisations within the BATH set between the front and the back variants, respectively [aː] and [ɑː]. In contrast, the speakers in mid-high prestige jobs demonstrated a particular sensitivity to the traditional acrolectal [ɑː] which manifested in them having the most retracted vowels of all occupational groups, thus revealing their linguistic insecurity. Within a Labovian framework, this would be considered hypercorrection. However, Winford (1978) prefers the term ‘supercorrection’ to hypercorrection, particularly in a creole continuum context: Both hypercorrection and supercorrection involve the attempt by linguistically insecure speakers to replace features of their everyday speech by forms which are
93
regarded as more prestigious. But the essential distinction between hypercorrection and supercorrection…is that the former involves (i) and incorrect analogy which leads to (ii) an irregularity of placement in the use of a prestige feature, while the latter involves neither of these. (Winford, p. 282)
Indeed the use of the BATH backed variant [ɑː] by the mid-high prestige speakers is by no means erroneous. However, by triangulating multiple pieces of information—the mean F2 values of the various occupational prestige groups, regression results, and both traditional acrolectal and emergent acrolectal patterns—there is ample reason suggest that supercorrection is relevant to the interior group, that is, the mid-high occupational prestige speakers. It should be noted that when BATH F2 values were considered in apparent time, there was no age effect. Thus, we can posit that both the traditional and the emergent acrolectal patterns have existed concurrently in Trinidad.
1,12
1,14
1,16 BATH
1,18 START 1,2
1,22
1,24 high midhigh midlow low Figure 6.14 Normalised mean BATH F2 and START F2 values by occupational status groups.
From Figure 6.14, it can be seen that the speakers holding mid-high prestige jobs had the most retracted START vowels across all occupational groups. However, it is clear from
Figure 6.14 that the difference between the mean START F2 values of the speakers in high and mid-high prestige jobs was minimal. So although the mid-high occupational status speakers were ‘hypercorrecting,’ both groups were targeting the prestige back variant [ɑː]. This is markedly different to the BATH scenario presented above in which there was more variability among the high occupational prestige speakers since there were two prestige targets to consider, the traditional acrolectal [ɑː] and the emergent acrolectal [aː]. Furthermore, the difference between START F2 values of the speakers holding high status jobs and low prestige
94 jobs was just above statistical significance (p = .088), thus indicating that the high occupational prestige speakers were indeed sensitive to the acrolectal form [ɑː] and tended to use it more than [aː]. It should also be noted that there was an apparent time age effect when
START F2 was considered. This was evident in the START F2 and BATH-START Pillai regressions which demonstrated that the younger speakers had more retracted START vowels than the older speakers. This is illustrated in Figure 6.15 which shows that the younger speakers had higher Pillai scores than the older speakers; higher Pillai scores indicate a greater degree of lexical set differentiation, thus suggesting increased START retraction. Given the age effect observed in START—that is, START backing among the younger speakers— positing a decreolisation scenario for the START lexical set is entirely plausible since the younger speakers increasingly used the back variant [ɑː].
Figure 6.15 Linear regression of BATH-START Pillai score versus age.
Overall, among the [+low] vowels, social factors played a more significant role in vowel variation than internal factors. This differs to the analysis of the [–high] vowels presented in Chapter 7 in which case the role of internal factors was more pronounced.
6.9 Diachronic development of [+low] vowels. A natural question which arises from the results of this synchronic analysis is how did these various patterns among low vowels come into being in Trinidadian English. If we were to go back to the formation of Trinidadian English in the late 18th century through the 19th century, we would see that there were many competing inputs into Trinidadian English:
95
The sources of input to early [Trinidadian English Creole] TEC are multiple: English from Britain and other British West Indian colonies; English creoles from other islands, especially Barbados, St. Vincent and Grenada, and probably some English pidgins from Africa. Furthermore, the developing TEC was learned and developed by people from a wide range of first language backgrounds, especially French creole, Spanish and from the mid-19th century, Indian languages, primarily ‘Hindi’ (Bhojpuri). (Winer 1995: 128)
When the data from this study are considered, the pattern in which all sets are merged is a reflex of the most creole variety which would have been derived from Barbadian creole and other English-based creoles brought to Trinidad in the 19th and early 20th century. The traditional acrolectal pattern, in which TRAP-BATH split and START backing are noted, derives from 18th and 19th century developments in English in the south-east region. This pattern would have been a prestige norm in Trinidad arguably introduced by the British during the colonial period (1797-1962). It is unlikely that SBE would have served as a major input into the early formation of Trinidadian English during the 19th century since contact between the British expatriates/local British whites elites and non-white population was quite limited. Increased contact between white and non-white population was likely to have occurred in the late 19th century in the sphere of education. The source of the other competing prestige pattern, the emergent acrolect, in which
TRAP-BATH are merged but START is backed is not as clear cut. Firstly, let us consider what is known about the principles of mergers. Regarding Garde’s principle of “mergers are irreversible by linguistic means” Labov states, “Since word classes are defined as phonological units, not morphological or syntactic, this means they cannot be reversed by any operation dependent on linguistic structure” (Labov, 1999, p. 311). In assuming the irreversibility of mergers, we arrive at a proposition put forth by Veatch (2005) for creole contexts: “If historically accurate word classes are kept separate at one level of the creole continuum, but are merged at another level, then the level…which keeps them separate must have existed continuously throughout the history of the community.” The corollary to this would be that the traditional acrolectal pattern of low vowels—though not a dominant pattern in the speech community—must have been present in the linguistic landscape. Given the principle of the irreversibility of mergers, the origins of the emergent acrolectal pattern cannot be rooted in a system in which all three lexical sets were merged. This negates Barbadian English as an input variety for the emergent acrolectal pattern. Although there are
96 no proposed vowel inventories for older forms of Barbadian English, I make the assumption here that older forms would not have had BATH-TRAP split or START backing since it is derived from 17th century southwestern British dialects and Irish English which would not have undergone these changes. Indeed in contemporary Barbadian English, all sets are merged although a length distinction is maintained in BATH and START, yielding [aː] and [aːɹ] respectively (Blake, 2008, p. 316; Wells, 1982). Therefore, lack of the phoneme /ɑ/ may be attributed to the fossilised 17th century south-west British and Irish dialects which served as th inputs to Barbadian English during the mid 17 century. As Trudgill notes, “the START vowel is a relatively new addition to the phoneme inventory of English and many varieties have not acquired it, including many of the accents of Scotland and the southwest of England” (2006, p. 59). Furthermore, given that length distinctions are made in contemporary Barbadian English, we can assume that the varieties of English which served as an input to older forms of Barbadian English had already undergone Pre-R lengthening and Pre-Fricative lengthening though not Pre-R dropping or BATH broadening.
Because this study provides evidence of merger-by-approximation in which BATH is moving in the direction of TRAP, it is clear that the emergent prestige pattern is an endo- normative development in Trinidadian English, derived from the traditional prestige pattern.
It is only natural to ask what has prompted the merger of BATH-TRAP in Trinidadian English.
Given that the merger of BATH-TRAP results in few homonyms, there is a reduced need for distinctions to be made. This answer, however, raises another question: why doesn’t START merge as well with BATH-TRAP since there would be minimal loss of information? Here is where the sociolinguistics of the creole continuum comes into play. “Changes in phonological inventory that we recognize as mergers…proceed well below the level of social consciousness” (Labov, 1999, p. 342) ; this, however, may be more complex in a creole situation in which speakers are attuned to the sociolinguistic value of lects from a very young age. Linguistically speaking, merger of BATH-START-TRAP is economical and results in little misunderstanding. However, because this pattern is quite stigmatised, this type of merger may be avoided by those speakers who have acquired a mental representation of sets in which some degree of distinction is maintained. Because /ɑ/—by extension [ɑ]—is a prestige variant, it is retained in a person’s inventory either by preserving [ɑ] in BATH or START or both. That is to say, both linguistic principles of merger apply as well as overt language attitudes inasmuch as a speaker’s mental representation of lexical sets permits.
97
6.10 Chapter summary Overall, there was evidence in the [+low] vowel analysis to support Labov’s linguistic conformity of women, conformity paradox, and curvilinear principle. Furthermore, there was evidence of competing prestige norms as evidenced in the traditional acrolect and emergent acrolect. Endo-normative developments within the [+low] vowels included the raising of
TRAP among the younger women and merger-by-approximation with BATH→TRAP. Moreover, external rather than internal factors were more important predictors of vowel variation in Trinidadian English, a finding which is markedly different in the [-high] vowel sets (cf. Chapter 7).
98
7. ANAYSIS OF [-HIGH] VOWELS
7.1 Introduction Similar to the layout of Chapter 6, Chapter 7 presents and combines micro- and macro-level analyses of the [-high] vowels STRUT, LOT, CLOTH, and THOUGHT. Firstly, the chapter starts with a micro-level analysis of selected speakers (n = 8). This is done to highlight inter-speaker variation within the [-high] vowels in Trinidadian English. Additionally, new nomenclature to describe the distribution of [-high] vowels, namely the ‘near acrolect,’ is motivated and introduced in the chapter. This vowel pattern alongside the acrolect and creole are exemplified in micro-level analysis using the aforementioned subsample of eight speakers. Such a micro-level analysis is invaluable since it provides a preview to the macro-level vowel patterning found in the data. Next, extensive statistical model building is conducted in the macro-level analysis. Here the entire sample of speakers (N = 48) is considered and the effect of internal and external factors are examined. Lastly, since the role of internal factors is more prominent in explaining variation than external factors, the discussion unifies both the micro- and macro-level analyses by considering those phonetic environments which exert a strong influence on vowel realisations. Furthermore, where applicable, the discussion is couched within a Labovian framework to deal with external factors.
7.2 Methodology of micro-level analysis of [-high] vowels Eight speakers were selected from the sample to highlight the kind of variation observed within the [-high] vowels. Two techniques were used to assess lexical set overlap.
Firstly, the [-high] vowels STRUT, LOT, CLOTH, and THOUGHT were coded auditorily for four variants which emerged during the coding process: the open back rounded [ɒ], the open-mid back rounded [ɔ], the open-mid back unrounded [ʌ], and open-mid back vowel which had some degree of rounding [ʌ ], as indicated by the diacritic. Secondly, Pillai scores were used to determine the degree of vowel overlap between lexical sets. (See section 5.2 for an explanation of Pillai scores). In Chapter 6, ANOVAs of Euclidean distances were also used to assess the degree of vowel overlap among the [+low] vowels. This was not done for the [- high] vowels since the auditory coding process revealed less phonetic variation when compared to the [+low] vowels. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to have an additional metric to examine vowel overlap since Pillai scores sufficed.
99
7.3 Overview of Pillai scores There are three major patterns among the [-high] vowels which are presented here through the use of Pillai scores: the acrolect, the near acrolect, and the creole. Firstly, there is the acrolectal pattern which, for ease of reference, is similar to the distribution of SBE. (See appendix for overview of SBE variants). That is to say, LOT-STRUT are kept distinct with the respective realisations [ɒ] and [ʌ]. CLOTH and THOUGHT are also distinct, respectively [ɒ] and
[ɔː]. Lastly, CLOTH-LOT overlap and both sets are realised with [ɒ]. This description of the acrolect is consistent with Wells (1982), Winer (1993), and Ferreira and Drayton (forthcoming).
Table 7.1 A Contrastive Overview of [-high] Vowels by Idealised Acrolectal, Near Acrolectal, and Creole Patterns Acrolect Near acrolect Creole CLOTH-THOUGHT: distinct CLOTH-THOUGHT: distinct CLOTH-THOUGHT: overlap CLOTH [ɒ] THOUGHT [ɔː] CLOTH [ɒ] THOUGHT [ɔː] CLOTH [ɔː] THOUGHT [ɔː] LOT-STRUT : distinct LOT-STRUT: partial LOT-STRUT : overlap LOT [ɒ] STRUT [ʌ] LOT [ɒ~ʌ] STRUT [ʌ~ɒ] LOT [ɒ] STRUT [ɒ] CLOTH-LOT: overlap CLOTH-LOT: partial CLOTH-LOT: distinction CLOTH [ɒ] LOT [ɒ] CLOTH [ɒ~ɔː] LOT [ɒ~ʌ] CLOTH [ɔː] LOT [ɒ]
Similar to the acrolectal pattern is what the author has coined the near acrolect. A contrastive view of the acrolect, near acrolect, and creole is provided in Table 7.1. The near acrolect is identical to the acrolect in terms of CLOTH-THOUGHT distribution as both sets are kept distinct. This CLOTH-THOUGHT similarity between the acrolect and near acrolect can be gleaned from Table 7.1. As discussed in section 5.6.2, CLOTH-THOUGHT merger towards [ɔː] is salient, recognisably creole, and quite stigmatised. Thus, it comes as little surprise that near acrolectal speakers maintain CLOTH-THOUGHT distinction. It is precisely upon this premise— that is, CLOTH-THOUGHT distinction—that the near acrolect is defined since in all other respects, it is more similar to what is considered creole. Furthermore, both LOT-STRUT and
CLOTH-LOT have a much wider distribution of vowel variants in the near acrolect than in the acrolect.
In terms of LOT-STRUT, there is a much wider distribution of both sets in the near acrolect which can be gleaned from Table 7.2. This results in the partial overlap or overlap of these two sets when tested statistically with Pillai scores. This overlap, which is reflected in
100 the Pillai score, is the result of the presence of both LOT [ɒ~ʌ] and STRUT [ʌ~ɒ] variants in a person’s speech.
Table 7.2 Pillai Scores Selected Speakers for [-high] Vowels for a) Interview Data and b) List Data a.
Speaker LOT- p PATTERN CLOTH- p PATTERN CLOTH- p PATTERN STRUT LOT THOUGHT Sareeta 0.456 .048 distinct 0.006 .962 overlap 0.931 <.001 distinct Acrolect Dick 0.760 .002 distinct 0.335 .196 overlap 0.701 .015 distinct Acrolect Philippa 0.398 .079 partial 0.430 .003 distinct 0.705 .002 distinct Near acrolect Edward 0.090 .596 overlap 0.391 .066 partial 0.645 .003 distinct Near acrolect ------Vishnu 0.240 .291 overlap 0.374 .096 partial 0.328 .167 overlap Creole Johnny 0.359 .135 overlap 0.514 .080 partial 0.278 .142 overlap Creole Nicholas 0.080 .716 overlap 0.625 .007 distinct 0.041 .811 overlap Creole Ricardo 0.124 .551 overlap 0.792 <.001 distinct 0.214 .339 overlap Creole b.
Speaker LOT- p PATTERN CLOTH- p PATTERN CLOTH- p PATTERN STRUT LOT THOUGHT Philippa 0.456 .006 distinct 0.098 .538 overlap 0.836 .011 distinct Edward 0.039 .685 overlap 0.646 .002 distinct 0.970 <.001 distinct Johnny 0.395 .008 distinct 0.603 .004 distinct 0.808 .016 distinct Nicholas 0.094 .479 overlap 0.918 <.001 distinct 0.469 .282 overlap Ricardo 0.077 .466 overlap 0.574 .006 distinct 0.091 .826 overlap
17 In the near acrolect, CLOTH-LOT may be distinct or partially distinct. This is visualised in Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1 presents the range of possible variants in LOT and CLOTH in Trinidadian English. From Figure 7.1a, it can be seen that LOT and CLOTH overlap in the acrolect and their phonetic realisation is typically [ɒ]. In the near acrolect, LOT varies between
[ɒ] and [ʌ] whereas CLOTH varies between [ɒ] and [ɔː] as shown in Figure 7.1b. Because of the wide distribution of LOT and CLOTH, the Pillai scores typically indicate distinction or partial distinction.
17 At an alpha-level of ≤.05, the designation “distinct” is made when using Pillai scores. P-values ≥ .06 but ≤ .1 are considered indicative of “partial” overlap or distinction. 101
a.
b.
Figure 7.1 An idealised visualisation of LOT-CLOTH distribution, highlighting a) overlap in the acrolect and b) (partial) distinction in the near acrolect.
As regards the creole pattern of [-high] vowels in Trinidadian English, the most prominent feature is that CLOTH-THOUGHT overlap with each other and are realised with [ɔː].
This is noted in Table 7.2. Secondly, LOT-STRUT typically overlap as well. In terms of CLOTH-
LOT, these two sets are distinct, respectively CLOTH [ɔː] and LOT [ɒ] in the most creole rendering. Some creole speakers may have partial overlap between CLOTH-LOT because they use both variants [ɒ] and [ɔː] with words belonging to the CLOTH lexical set, which is documented in Wells (1982).
7.3.1 Acrolectal patterns Of the eight speakers considered in the micro-level analysis, two of them can be described as having an acrolectal pattern of [-high] vowels: Sareeta and Dick. (See Table 7.2). Apart from having an acrolectal pattern of [-high] vowels, Sareeta also had the traditional acrolectal pattern of [+low] vowels. From Figure 7.2, three basic observations can be made. Firstly, it is clear that her LOT-STRUT vowels do not overlap. Auditory coding confirmed that the quality of her STRUT vowels was predominantly [ʌ] while the quality of her LOT vowel was predominantly [ɒ]. Secondly, Sareeta’s CLOTH-LOT sets overlapped and the quality of her CLOTH vowels was mostly [ɒ]. Lastly, her vowels demonstrated no
THOUGHT overlap with LOT or CLOTH; her THOUGHT tokens were realised with [ɔː]. These three observations were also confirmed in her Pillai scores in Table 7.2 and were consistent with the auditory analysis.
102
a. b.
Figure 7.2 Acrolectal pattern in [-high] vowels of Sareeta, 54, Indo-Trinidadian female, Diego Martin from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
While the vast majority of Sareeta’s vowel realisations fit Wells’ (1982) acrolectal description, there were instances in which Sareeta appears to use creole variants. However, as is shown in the macro-level regression analysis in section 7.4, there were specific phonetic environments which prompted these particular realisations. For instance, within the STRUT set, she realised public [ˈ ɒ lɪk] with the open back rounded variant [ɒ]. The regression model STRUT revealed that preceding labial stops had an effect on STRUT tokens, thus yielding
[ɒ]. Within LOT tokens, following voiceless stops had an effect on vowel realisations: LOT →
[ʌ]/ _ {voiceless stop}. (See section 7.6.3 LOT regression analysis). Evidence of this was found in Sareeta’s speech when she realised lot [lʌt] and top [tʌ ] with the wedge type vowel.
Regarding the CLOTH lexical set, phonological conditioning also occurred when CLOTH tokens were followed by the intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/, thus yielding [ʌ]. This occurred in
Sareeta’s speech in her realisation of orange [ˈʌɹɪn ]. Overall, these seeming exceptions in Sareeta’s speech are clearly phonologically governed. Furthermore, the phonetic conditioning described here in relation to STRUT, LOT, and CLOTH are all patterns which emerged in the regression analysis when the entire sample (N = 48) was considered. Like Sareeta, Dick’s [-high] vowel distribution roughly mirrored the acrolectal pattern outlined in Table 7.1. This was not quite as obvious from Dick’s vowel plots in Figure 7.3 because of a few seeming outlier tokens (which are subsequently discussed in detail). Nonetheless, when his Pillai scores are considered (see Table 7.2), it is clear that his
103 distribution of [-high] vowels falls within the acrolectal pattern outlined in Table 7.1. There were a few occurrences in Dick’s speech which differed from the acrolectal pattern. These occurrences are highlighted here to serve as a preview to the results of the macro-level analysis presented in Section 7.4. As previously mentioned, phonetic conditioning played a role in STRUT realisations. In Dick’s case, there was the conditioning effect of preceding labial stops which yielded the open back rounded vowel [ɒ] in Buffy
[ˈ ɒfi] as opposed to the more acrolectal [ˈ ʌfi]. Following labial stops and following nasals also had a similar effect as seen in his realisation of couple [ˈkɒ l] and months [mɒnθs] and uncle [ˈɒŋkl], respectively. As regards the lexical set CLOTH, the typical acrolectal realisation is the open back rounded vowel [ɒ]. However, for Dick, he realised off [ɔːf] using the open- mid back rounded variant [ɔ]. Similarly, the typical acrolectal realisation the LOT lexical set is the open back rounded vowel [ɒ]. Dick, however, had two instances where he used the open- mid back rounded vowel [ɔ] with LOT tokens: costume [ˈkɔːstjum] and mosque [ˈmɔːsk]. What this analysis of Dick’s vowels highlights is that even the most acrolectal speakers in the sample displayed occasional use of creole features in their speech.
a. b.
Figure 7.3 Acrolectal pattern in [-high] vowels of Dick, 44, Indo-Trinidadian male, Diego Martin from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
7.3.2 Variation in LOT distribution The two speakers examined above, Sareeta and Dick, both had phonetic vowel patterns which closely mirrored descriptions of the acrolect (give or take a few creole
104 realisations). Now attention is drawn to the particular variation found within each lexical set. To some degree, the idealised [-high] acrolectal pattern presented in Table 7.1 acts as benchmark for comparison. Vowel realisations which were divergent to the acrolect are examined per lexical set, starting with LOT, then followed by STRUT and CLOTH.
Two speakers are contrasted here regarding LOT, namely, Philippa, whose [-high] vowel pattern was considered near acrolectal, and Ricardo, whose [-high] vowels were canonically creole.18 a. b.
Figure 7.4 Near acrolectal pattern in [-high] vowels of Philippa, 41, Afro-Trinidadian female, Diego Martin from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
In the case of Philippa, there was overlap with her realisations of the STRUT and LOT sets. This is clear from her vowel plots in Figure 7.4 and was also confirmed in her Pillai score. Although her STRUT vowels were consistently realised with the acrolectal variant [ʌ], her LOT vowels varied between [ɒ ~ ʌ]. In essence, she had a wider distribution of LOT in the vowel space. This differs to the acrolectal pattern in which the distributions of LOT and STRUT were distinct.
A close examination of Philippa’s LOT vowels revealed that 60% (6/10) of her LOT tokens were realised with the open back rounded vowel [ɒ] in the words lot, shop (n = 2), and bother (n = 3). In contrast 40% (4/10) of her LOT tokens were realised with [ʌ] in the words lot, not, and shop (n = 2). As has been mentioned, the regression analysis of LOT confirmed
18 That is to say, Philippa’s [-high] vowels bear some resemblance to the acrolect although much more variation is observed. 105 that following voiceless stops had an effect on vowel realisations: LOT → [ʌ]/ _ {voiceless stop}.
The use of [ʌ] among words belonging to the LOT lexical set has been attested in
Winford (1978) but he treats such occurrences as hypercorrection to avoid the stigmatised [ɔ]. However, Philippa’s data in addition to the results of the regression analysis strongly suggest that phonetic conditioning governs such realisations. An alternative explanation for the occurrence of [ʌ] in the LOT lexical set could be vowel undershoot (Lindblom, 1963) since [ʌ] occurs quite frequently in words such as lot, got, and not which may be reduced in speech. However, care was taken in the analysis to measure tokens which occurred in stressed position. Although in principle undershoot may account for some of the instances [ʌ], statistical testing favours an interpretation in which following voiceless stops have a conditioning effect on LOT tokens.
Further support for phonetic conditioning as opposed to hypercorrection in the LOT lexical set is presented here by examining the vowel system of Ricardo. Ricardo has a more creole system overall in comparison to Philippa. Apart from his canonically creole distribution of [+low] vowel sets in which TRAP, BATH, and START overlapped towards [a], his
STRUT and LOT sets as well as his THOUGHT and CLOTH sets overlapped. This is clearly seen in Figure 7.5 and confirmed in his Pillai scores in Table 7.2. The majority of Ricardos’s
STRUT tokens (90%) were realised with the acrolectal variant [ʌ]. As regards his LOT tokens,
80% (8/10) of them were realised with [ʌ] in the following words: job (n = 2), not, doctorate, lot, clock, tops, and hospital. Only 20% (2/10) of his LOT tokens were realised with [ɒ] in the words nonsense and economy. As can be seen, LOT [ʌ] realisation emerged 5 out of 8 times in the environment of a following voiceless stop.
106
a. b.
Figure 7.5 Creole pattern in [-high] vowels of Ricardo, 48, Afro-Trinidadian male, Sangre Grande from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
A pertinent question to ask at this juncture is this: was Ricardo hypercorrecting in the sense of over-shooting his target? In light of the strong conditioning effect following stops had on the LOT lexical set—evidenced both in Ricardo’s speech, but more importantly when the entire sample is considered (N = 48)—phonetic conditioning emerges as a stronger argument than hypercorrection. Furthermore, it should be noted that not a single speaker from the data producing a majority of [ʌ] in a non-stop following environment could be found
19 which thus bolsters the argument for phonetic conditioning within the LOT lexical set.
7.3.3 Variation in STRUT distribution
Regarding STRUT, the merger of STRUT [ʌ] towards LOT [ɒ] is well documented in the literature as a creole phenomenon (Wells, 1982; Winer, 1993). Older studies such and Warner
(1967) and Winford (1978) document the merger of /ʌ/ → /ɔ/ in the creole. Auditory coding of the data revealed that there were those speakers who largely realised STRUT tokens with
[ʌ], others who roughly had an equal distribution of both STRUT variants [ʌ] and [ɒ], and just
20 a few who approached categorical realisation of STRUT [ɒ]. According to the STRUT regression analysis in Section 7.6.1, certain phonetic environments decreased F2, thereby suggesting that phonetic environment played a role in STRUT [ɒ] realisation. Preceding labial
19 Here I define ‘majority LOT [ʌ]’ as 5 tokens (50%) or more. 20 Here I define ‘categorically approaching STRUT [ɒ]’ as 7 tokens (70%) or more. 107 stops as well as following labial fricatives and following labial stops tended to prompt STRUT
[ɒ].
The speaker who categorically approached STRUT [ɒ] realisations was Johnny. In many ways, Johnny’s vowel realisations resembled a creole pattern. Firstly, his [+low] vowel sets (BATH, TRAP, and START) were canonically creole since all overlapped. Although LOT and
STRUT appeared to be fairly apart in his vowel plot in Figure 7.6, both auditory coding and Pillai scores confirmed the overlap in distribution between these two sets.
The quality of his LOT tokens varied between [ɒ] and [ʌ] while his STRUT vowels primarily had the quality [ɒ]. Johnny’s STRUT [ɒ] realisations occurred 90% (9/10) of the time in a range of phonetic environments: for example, following labial fricatives in the words stuff [stɒf] (n = 2), enough [iˈnɒf] (n = 2), and love [lɒv], following labial stop in the word clubs [klɒ z] and couple [ˈkɒ l]; and following nasals as in funny [ˈfɒni]. With the word other
(n = 2), Johnny used both variants [ɒ] and [ʌ].
a. b.
Figure 7.6 Creole pattern in [-high] vowels of Johnny, 28, Afro-Trinidadian male, Diego Martin from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical se.t
Speakers who had near acrolectal vowel systems also showed evidence of STRUT [ɒ] realisations being phonologically governed. This is illustrated in the case of Edward. In contrast to Johnny, Edward had a near acrolectal system. His [+low] vowels fell within the traditional acrolectal pattern. Furthermore, from the vowel plot in Figure 7.7, his CLOTH and
THOUGHT sets appear to be distinct. Pillai scores also indicated this but as will be shown in
108
Section 7.3.4, Edward’s distribution of CLOTH tokens in the phonetic space was quite wide since he used both CLOTH variants [ɒ] and [ɔː] in his speech.
a. b.
Figure 7.7 Near acrolectal pattern in [-high] vowels of Edward, 33, Afro-Trinidadian male, Sangre Grande from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set
Edward’s STRUT and LOT sets overlapped and his use of STRUT [ɒ] was limited.
Edward tended to use the acrolectal STRUT variant [ʌ] most of the time (70%). He used [ʌ] in potential environments where rounding could occur but it did not in his speech, for example in following nasal environments in the words fun [fʌn], some [sʌm], and Sunday [ˈsʌnde] or in the environment of following labial stops in the word up [ʌp]. However, the rounded
STRUT variant [ɒ] does occur in his speech, primarily in the environment of preceding labial stops, for example, in buck [ ɒk], but [ ɒt], and budget [ˈ ɒ ɪt]. Thus, by comparing and contrasting Johnny’s and Edward’s STRUT realisations, inter-speaker variability regarding
STRUT [ɒ] is highlighted.
7.3.4 Variation in CLOTH distribution
From the regression analysis done on CLOTH realisations, it was noted that CLOTH tokens occurring in a following fricative environment were generally realised higher in the vowel space while CLOTH tokens in the environment of following nasals were realised lower in the vowel space. Thus, the following suggestion can be proffered:
CLOTH → [ɒ]/ _ [ ] CLOTH → [ɔː]/ _ [ ]
109
Despite this, there was considerable observed variation between [ɒ ~ ɔ] for some speakers irrespective of the following phonetic environment. (See section 7.8.1 for a historical explanation for these variants in Trinidadian English). For example, Edward’s CLOTH realisations were variable as seen in Figure 7.7. He has 50% (5/10) of his CLOTH realisations in the [ɒ] space and the other 50% in the [ɔː] space. For Edward, CLOTH [ɒ] occurred in words such as off (n = 2), long, longer, and along. In contrast, CLOTH [ɔː] appeared in words such as lost (n = 2), officer, office, and often. It may be argued that the following fricative environment prompted his CLOTH [ɔː] realisations whereas the following nasal environment prompted CLOTH [ɒ]. However, he used the more acrolectal [ɒ] in off in a fricative environment.
Some speakers did approach a categorical use of CLOTH [ɔː]. Nicholas, for instance, realised his CLOTH tokens 70% (7/10) of time using [ɔ] regardless of the following phonetic environment. In Nicholas’ speech, CLOTH [ɔː] was present in both fricative and nasal environments in words such as gone (n = 2), along (n = 2), offer (n = 2), and long. It should be noted that his CLOTH [ʌ] realisations in the words sorry [ˈsʌɹi] and horrible [ˈ ʌɹɪ l] were phonetically conditioned by the following intersyllabic approximant environment /ɹ/, a finding which was found to be true throughout the CLOTH data. (Refer to section 7.6.2 for a comprehensive explanation). a. b.
Figure 7.8 Creole pattern in [-high] vowels of Nicholas, 45, Indo-Trinidadian male, Sangre Grande from interview data; a) visualisation by lexical set; b) visualisation by lexical incidence and lexical set.
110
In sum, by examining speakers Edward and Nicholas, it is clear that some speakers approached CLOTH [ɔː] categorically while others demonstrated variation which is oftentimes phonologically governed.
7.4 Macro-level analysis of [-high] vowels The average formant values in Hertz for the lexical sets STRUT, LOT, CLOTH, and
THOUGHT are summarised in Table 7.3 and are presented by gender for both the acrolect and creole.
Table 7.3 Formant Values (Hz) for [-high] Vowels STRUT, LOT, CLOTH, and THOUGHT Men Women Lect Lexical set F1 F2 F1 F2 Acrolect STRUT [ʌ] 568 1257 684 1403 LOT [ɒ] 572 1036 701 1179 CLOTH [ɒ] 568 1010 685 1126 THOUGHT [ɔː] 473 891 561 981 Creole STRUT [ɒ] 565 1023 754 1232 STRUT [ɔ] 541 1085 517 1010 LOT [ʌ] 567 1233 678 1403 LOT [ɔ] 496 907 563 1044 CLOTH [ɔː] 491 910 578 1007 CLOTH [ʌ] 500 1092 626 1136 THOUGHT [ɒ] 538 1035 681 1094
7.5 Methodology The same process of building mixed-effects models for [+low] vowels was utilised. (Refer to 6.5 for methodology and 6.5.1 for reference levels within the model). Additionally, conditional inference trees—implemented in an R environment via the ctree() function of the ‘party’ package (Hothorn, Hornik, Strobl, & Zeileis, 2012)—were also used to detect patterns in the data. A conditional inference tree is a type of binary recursive partitioning method in which the algorithm identifies the most homogenous groupings of the dependent variable. If such homogeneity is found, then a binary split is created in the tree, contingent on the specified independent variable(s).
111
Figure 7.9 Sample conditional inference tree illustrating income by educational attainment.
In the sample tree in Figure 7.9 , the conditional inference tree tests whether there is a difference in income level depending on a person’s educational attainment. The dependent variable is income and the independent variable is the highest level of education attained. The split in the tree indicates that there is a difference in income level based on educational level. The tree is interpreted as follows: those with tertiary level education earn more than those whose highest educational attainment is secondary school education or vocational training.
7.6 Mixed-effects regression on normalised formant values for [-high] vowels
7.6.1 STRUT F2
As a point of orientation, Figure 7.10 illustrates the predominant STRUT variants which emerged during auditory coding. The wedge-like vowel [ʌ] was coded 289 times, followed by STRUT [ɒ] which was coded 22 times. A wedge-like vowel which was slighted round, [ʌ ], occurred 45 times. STRUT [ɔ] was noted only four times.
Figure 7.10 Predominant STRUT variants from total STRUT sample (N = 460).
112
With regard to the STRUT lexical set, the model tested the extent to which vowels were fronted or retracted and which internal and external factors could account for variation.
Furthermore, since the STRUT variants [ʌ] and [ɒ] differ by rounding, normalised F2 values were used as the dependent variable in the model since rounded vowels have a decreasing effect on F2.
As seen in Table 7.4, the STRUT model included three predictors: city, preceding place feature, and following environment. The regression revealed that the speakers from the semi- rural area had lower F2 values (M = 1.17, p = .044) than the speakers from the urban area (M = 1.198). This indicated that the rural speakers tended to have more rounded realisations of
STRUT tokens, falling within the distribution of [ɒ].
Table 7.4 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for F2 values for STRUT Model Variable B SE B t p STRUT City: urban vs. semi-rural –0.028 0.014 –2.0 .044 Preceding place feature: guttural vs. coronal 0.048 0.022 2.1 .033 Preceding place feature: guttural vs. labial –0.036 0.024 -1.5 .130 Preceding place feature: guttural vs. dorsal 0.010 0.023 0.4 ns Following: postdental stop vs. labial fricative –0.137 0.020 –6.8 <.001 Following: postdental stop vs. labial stop –0.089 0.021 –4.3 <.001 Following: postdental stop vs. nasal –0.090 0.016 –5.6 <.001 Following: postdental stop vs. postdental fricative –0.020 0.017 –1.2 ns (Constant) 1.198 0.027 44.2 <.001
With regard to internal factors, preceding place feature and following environment had conditioning effects on STRUT tokens. This can be seen from Table 7.4 which highlights the regression results and in Table 7.5 which provides examples of this. For preceding place feature, the reference level was set as guttural (M = 1.198). The model revealed that preceding coronals had an increasing effect on F2 (M = 1.246, p = .033), thus suggesting that
STRUT was realised with a wedge like vowel [ʌ]. Although effect of preceding labials did not turn out to be significant at an alpha-level of .05, with a p-value of .13 it is still worth mentioning given that during the auditory coding of the data, preceding labials seemed to be segments which potentially prompted STRUT [ɒ]. The model predicted that when STRUT vowels were preceded by labial segments, F2 tended to decrease (M = 1.162, p = .13), suggesting that STRUT [ɒ] may be used. For following environment, the reference level was set at postdental stops under which /t/ and /d/ were subsumed. Following labial fricatives (M = 1.061, p < .001), labial stops (M = 1.109, p < .001), and nasals (M = 1.108, p <.001) all had a decreasing effect on F2 values when compared to the reference level postdental stops (M = 1.198). Thus, when the
113
STRUT vowel occurred in these following environments, it was more likely to be realised with a vowel in the vicinity of [ɒ] than [ʌ].
Table 7.5 Examples of STRUT [ɒ] Realisation by Following Environment Phonological environment Segment Examples Following Labial stops /b/ subject [ˈsɒ ɪkt], double [ˈ ɒ l] /p/ up [ɒ ], couple [ˈkɒ l] Labial fricatives /v/ covered [ˈkɒvə ] /f/ tough [tɒf], stuff [stɒf] Nasals /n/ fun [fɒn], done [ ɒn] / / m come [kɒm], some [sɒm] Preceding Labials /b/ bus [ ɒs], budget [ˈ ɒ ɪt] /p/ public [ˈ ɒ lɪk]
7.6.2 CLOTH F1
Figure 7.11 provides an overview of the predominant CLOTH tokens coded during auditory analysis. CLOTH [ɔː] was coded 181 times, followed by CLOTH [ɒ] which occurred
174 times. The wedge-like vowel [ʌ] was coded 25 times and its slightly rounded counterpart
[ʌ ], five times.
Figure 7.11 Predominant CLOTH variants from the total CLOTH sample (N = 389)
In the CLOTH lexical set, normalised F1 values were used as the dependent variable since vowel height is a distinguishing feature between the two documented CLOTH realisations [ɒ] and [ɔː].
Several models are presented for CLOTH to highlight certain intricacies of the data, namely gender effects and the effect of phonetic environment. Through auditory coding of the data, four variants emerged: [ɒ], [ɔː], [ʌ], and [ʌ ]. The occurrence of variants [ɒ] and [ɔː] was anticipated since these were most noted in the literature (Wells, 1982; Winer, 1993;
Youssef & James, 2004). Winford notes the open-mid back unrounded variant [ʌ] and
114 slightly round variant [ʌ ] in his 1978 study. Further auditory analysis also revealed that [ʌ] occurred mostly preceding the intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/. This was tested using recursive partitioning in the form of conditional inference tree as shown in Figure 7.12. To generate this tree, the effect of the following manner of articulation on CLOTH tokens was tested. The dependent variable was the auditory coding of CLOTH tokens: [ɒ], [ɔː], [ʌ], and [ʌ ]. The predictor variable was following manner of articulation, consisting of three levels: fricatives, nasals, and approximants. In such a model, the algorithm determined the best binary split for the data. The split in the conditional inference tree indicated that a differentiation could be made between the realisation of CLOTH vowels occurring before approximants versus all other environments (p <.001). Thus, CLOTH [ʌ] had the propensity to occur when followed by the intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/
The presence of [ʌ] and [ʌ ] could potentially complicate the analysis since they occur in a similar portion of the vowel space as [ɒ] as regards the F1. Recall that F1 captures the vowel height dimension. Given the strong condition effect following approximants had on
CLOTH tokens, a decision was made to exclude approximants from the regression model.
Three CLOTH models were run, using F1 as the dependent variable. The first model included gender as a predictor (among others as explained below). Seeing that gender turned out to be statistically significant in this first model, two subsequent separate models were built for men and women. This was done to determine the difference in linguistic behaviour between men and women. The first model contained the following predictors: gender, occupational status, city, and following manner of articulation. The model also included the interaction gender x city. The results of this first regression are presented in Table 7.6. The regression revealed a gender effect: men had higher normalised F1 values (M = 1.231) than women (M = 1.164, p
= .055), suggesting the men produce CLOTH tokens lower in the vowel space, thereabouts [ɒ]. The model also indicated that the urban speakers (M = 1.231) had higher normalised F1 values than the rural speakers (M = 1.117, p <.001), suggesting that the rural speakers had a higher propensity to use [ɔː] in the CLOTH set.
115
Figure 7.12 Conditional inference tree illustrating the distribution CLOTH variants (auditory coding)[ɔ], [ɒ], [ʌ] and [ʌ] by following manner of articulation.
With regard to occupational status, the reference level in the model was speakers holding high status jobs. Relative to this group, there was no statistically significant difference when compared to speakers holding mid-low and mid-high prestige jobs. There was, however, a contrast between those in high status jobs and low status jobs. The speakers holding high prestige occupations had higher F1 values (M = 1.231) than the speakers in low prestige jobs (M = 1.082, p =.009). Thus, it can be concluded that the speakers holding low prestige jobs produced CLOTH tokens higher the vowel space in comparison to all other groups. In terms in internal factors, nasals (M = 1.277, p = .037) had an increasing effect on normalised F1 values in comparison to the reference level fricatives (M = 1.231).
Table 7.6 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalised F1 Values for CLOTH Model Variable B SE B t p CLOTH Gender: men vs. female –0.067 0.035 –1.9 .055 City: urban vs. rural –0.114 0.032 –3.6 <.001 Occupation: high vs. low –0.149 0.057 –2.6 .009 Occupation: high vs. mid-low –0.049 0.049 –1.0 ns Occupation: high vs. mid-high –0.007 0.049 –0.1 ns Follow manner: fricatives vs. nasals 0.046 0.022 2.1 .037 Gender X City 0.127 0.050 2.5 .012 (Constant) 1.231 0.054 23.0 <.001
116
The interaction gender x city, illustrated in Figure 7.13, also proved to be statistically significant (p = .012). Figure 7.13 reveals that within the women, there was not much of a difference between the semi-rural and the urban speakers. There was, however, a marked difference in vowel realisation between the men from the semi-rural and the urban areas:
CLOTH tokens for the men from the semi-rural town were realised higher in the vowel space, thereabouts [ɔː] than for the men from the urban area, thereabouts [ɒ]. Figure 7.13 highlights linguistic behaviour among urban men which goes against conventional Labovian wisdom.
That is, the urban men seemed to be more sensitive to using the prestige variant [ɒ] than the women in both the urban and semi-rural areas. This was confirmed in the two additional models in which men and women were examined separately.
1,2 1,18 1,185 1,16 1,167 1,14 1,12 urban 1,131 1,1 1,099 rural 1,08 1,06 1,04 women men
Figure 7.13 An interaction plot illustrating the effect of gender x city on CLOTH F1 values.
A second model was run for the women only in which the predictors city, occupational status, and following manner of articulation were considered. As shown in Table 7.7, none of the predictors proved to be statistically significant. In contrast, a different picture emerged when the identical model was run for the men only in the third model.
Table 7.7 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalised F1 Values for CLOTH (Women) Model Variable B SE B t p CLOTH City: urban vs. rural 0.007 0.043 0.2 ns Occupation: high vs. low –0.073 0.109 –0.7 ns Occupation: high vs. mid-low 0.0001 0.097 0.0 ns Occupation: high vs. mid-high 0.051 0.093 0.6 ns Follow manner: fricatives vs. nasals 0.039 0.038 1.0 ns (Constant) 1.115 0.091 12.3 <.001
The third model included the predictors city, occupational status, and following manner of articulation for men only. As seen in Table 7.8, the regression revealed that the
117 men for the urban area (M = 1.253) had higher F1 values than the men from the semi-rural town (M = 1.135, p <.001).
Table 7.8 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalized F1 Values for CLOTH (Men) Model Variable B SE B t p CLOTH City: urban vs. rural –0.118 0.032 –3.7 <.001 Occupation: high vs. low –0.192 0.068 –2.8 .006 Occupation: high vs. mid-low –0.067 0.058 –1.1 ns Occupation: high vs. mid-high –0.033 0.060 –0.5 ns Follow manner: fricatives vs. nasals 0.047 0.016 2.9 .004 (Constant) 1.253 0.060 20.7 <.001
With regard to occupational status, when the reference level was men holding high prestige jobs (M = 1.253), only the men holding low prestige jobs emerged as being statistically different (M = 1.061, p = .006). In terms of internal factors, nasals (M = 1.3, p = .004) had an increasing effect on normalised F1 values in comparison to the reference level fricatives (M = 1.253). This third model in which men only were examined reconfirmed that the urban men engaged in different linguistic behaviour to their semi-rural counterparts, namely that the urban men were more likely to use the prestige variant [ɒ] with words belonging to the lexical set CLOTH.
A question that requires attention regarding the CLOTH lexical set is as follows: is the distribution of variants [ɒ] and [ɔː] lexically dictated within the CLOTH set? In order gain insight into answering this question, an exploratory analysis using a conditional inference tree was generated to test whether or not CLOTH realisations [ɒ] and [ɔː] were lexicalised. Words which occurred 5 or more times were taken into consideration for this exploratory inference 21 tree. The dependent variable was normalised F1 values for CLOTH since differences in F1 would reflect differences in vowel height in the vowel space. The predictor variable was ‘word.’
21 It should be noted that CLOTH tokens occurring in the environment of following approximant /ɹ/were excluded from this particular analysis because of the strong conditioning effect yielding CLOTH [ʌ]. 118
Figure 7.14 Conditional inference tree illustrating lexical distribution by CLOTH normalised F1values.
The split in the conditional inference tree indicated that a differentiation could be made between two groups of words (p = .001) as shown in Figure 7.14. Words with both following nasal and fricative environments could be found under node two whereas mostly words with following fricative environments were found under node three. For ease of reference, the results of the conditional inference tree are represented in the form of a Venn diagram in Figure 7.15. The difference in these groups, phonetically speaking, is that words under node two had a higher mean F1 (M = 1.19) whereas words under node three had a lower mean F1 (M = 1.099). This means that words under node two (where the mean F1 is higher) occurred lower in the vowel space and words under node three (where the mean F1 is lower) occurred higher in the vowel space, thereabouts [ɒ] and [ɔː], respectively.
Figure 7.15 Venn diagram representation of the results of the conditional inference tree from Figure 7.14.
In contemporary SBE, CLOTH is realised with the open back rounded variant [ɒ] (Upton, 2008). For the most part, the acrolectal trend in Trinidad is similar since words
119 belonging to the CLOTH lexical set are mostly realised with [ɒ] although it must be noted that speakers may have a few [ɔː] occurrences in their speech. In contrast, CLOTH [ɔː] is a markedly creole variant. As Lass (2000) notes, “Nowadays…pre-fricative lengthening of ME
/o/ has largely receded in favour of /ɒ/ in most standard British varieties, though some conservative standards and vernaculars still have the old /ɔː/, as do eastern US and some South African dialects” (p. 224). One plausible yet tentative explanation is that the occurrence of CLOTH variant [ɔː] in acrolectal speech— that is, in cases where CLOTH is largely realised as [ɒ] and other vowel distributions fall within an acrolectal range—is due to the preservation of the older CLOTH [ɔː] variant within certain lexical items. (See section 7.8.1 for further discussion on historical aspects).
7.6.3 LOT F2
Figure 7.16 highlights the predominant LOT variants from the auditory coding. LOT
[ɒ] was coded 240 times and the wedge-like vowel [ʌ] occurred 150 times. LOT [ɔ] was coded 42 times and the slightly rounded wedge-like vowel [ʌ ] was noted 25 times.
Figure 7.16 Predominant LOT variants from the total LOT sample (N = 457)
For the LOT lexical set, normalised F2 values were used as the dependent variable since lip rounding has a decreasing effect on F2 values and is distinguishing feature between the LOT realisations [ɒ] and [ʌ].
The predictor following manner of articulation was included in the LOT model. The regression revealed that in comparison to the reference level fricatives (M = 1.022), F2 values increased in the environment of stops (M = 1.066, p = .048), thus suggesting that in the phonetic environment of following stops, LOT realisation was more likely to be [ʌ].
120
Table 7.9 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for normalised F2 values for LOT Model Variable B SE B t p LOT F2 Follow manner: fricatives vs. stops 0.044 0.022 2.0 .048 Follow manner: fricatives vs. nasals 0.023 0.024 1.0 ns Follow manner: fricatives vs. lateral approximants 0.007 0.031 0.2 ns Follow manner: fricatives vs. null 0.066 0.085 0.8 ns (Constant) 1.022 0.022 46.8 <.001
This finding was also confirmed when a conditional inference tree was generated using auditory coding as the dependent variable and following manner of articulation as the independent variable. The binary split between stops and all other environments (p=.013) shown in Figure 7.17 clearly illustrates that there is high propensity for LOT [ʌ] to occur when followed by a stop.
Figure 7.17 Conditional inference tree illustrating the distribution of LOT variants (auditory coding) by following manner of articulation.
Through the process of auditory coding, it was noted that oftentimes LOT [ʌ] occurred in the environment of following voiceless stops. In order to test whether voicing of the stop had an effect on vowel realisations, a mixed-effects model was built with a subset of the data—F2 values for LOT vowels in following stop environments. As can be seen from
121
Table 7.10, following voiceless stops had an increasing effect on F2 values (M = 1.073, p = .01) when compared to the reference level voiced stops (M = 1.029). This means that a following voiceless stop environment prompted the LOT [ʌ] realisation.
122
Table 7.10 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalised F2 Values for Following Stops in LOT Model Variable B SE B t p LOT F2 Voicing: voiced stops vs. voiceless stops 0.044 0.017 2.6 .01 (following stops only) (Constant) 1.029 0.017 61.8 <.001
7.6.4 THOUGHT F1
Figure 7.18 illustrates the predominant THOUGHT realisations which emerged during auditory coding. THOUGHT [ɔ] was coded 362 times while THOUGHT [ɒ] occurred 40 times.
The wedge-like vowel [ʌ] was coded ten times.
Figure 7.18 Predominant THOUGHT variants from the total THOUGHT sample (N = 472).
For the THOUGHT model, the dependent variable used was normalised F1 values since
THOUGHT realisations [ɔː] and [ɒ] vary by vowel height. The THOUGHT model included one predictor: gender. The women in the sample had a tendency to have lower normalised F1 values (M = 1.051, p = .054) than the men (M = 1.084), suggesting that the women produce
THOUGHT tokens higher in the vowel space.
Table 7.11 Summary of Mixed-Effects Regression for Normalised F1Values for THOUGHT Model Variable B SE B t p THOUGHT Gender: men vs. women –0.033 0.017 –1.9 .054 (Constant) 1.084 0.015 74.1 <.001
7.7 Assessing overlap In order to assess degree of phonetic overlap among lexical sets, Pillai scores were used as the dependent variable in a series of ANOVA regressions. Predictors included age, gender, city, ethnicity, level of education, and occupational status. No interactions were included in these models. Statistical significance was determined at an alpha level of .05. Cases in which the p-value in the model was ≤ .15 were also reported as these results lend insight into minor trends. A total of three regressions were run which were relevant to the [- high] vowel sets LOT, STRUT, CLOTH, and THOUGHT. These three models were based on LOT-
STRUT, LOT-CLOTH, and THOUGHT-CLOTH Pillai scores.
123
7.7.1 LOT-STRUT overlap
In the LOT-STRUT regression model, two predictors were included: city and occupation. According to the model, there was a city effect (p = .006). The urban speakers (M
= 0.317) made more of a LOT-STRUT distinction that semi-rural speakers (M = 0.129). When low occupational prestige was selected as the reference level for occupation status, the model revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the reference level and the speakers holding mid-low or mid-high prestige jobs. However, the speakers holding high prestige jobs demonstrate increased LOT-STRUT differentiation (M = 0.689, p = .021) relative to the reference level (M = 0.317). In terms of what that means phonetically, the semi-rural speakers and the speakers with low, mid-low, and mid-high occupational status were more likely to have LOT-STRUT overlap towards [ɒ]. The urban speakers and speakers with high occupational status tended to keep the two sets distinct with LOT [ɒ] and STRUT [ʌ] realisations.
Table 7.12 Summary of ANOVA Regression for LOT-STRUT Pillai scores Model Variable B SE B t p LOT-STRUT City: urban vs. semi-rural –0.188 0.064 –2.9 .006 PILLAI Occupation: low vs. mid-low 0.092 0.106 0.9 ns Occupation: low vs. mid-high 0.126 0.102 1.2 ns Occupation: low vs. high 0.372 0.156 2.4 .021 (Constant) 0.317 R2 .25 F(4,43) = 3.61, p = .013
7.7.2 LOT-CLOTH overlap
The LOT-CLOTH Pillai regression contained the predictor city. The model revealed that the semi-rural speakers (M = 0.543, p = .058) had a tendency to differentiate more between
LOT and CLOTH than the reference level urban speakers (M = 0.421).
Phonetically speaking, the semi-rural speakers were more likely to realise LOT and
CLOTH with the variants [ɒ] and [ɔː], respectively. In contrast, the urban speakers were more likely to realise LOT and CLOTH both with [ɒ].
Table 7.13 Summary of ANOVA Regression for LOT-CLOTH Pillai Scores Model Variable B p LOT-CLOTH City: urban vs. semi-rural 0.123 .058 PILLAI (Constant) 0.421 R2 .08 F(1,46) = 3.61, p = .057
124
7.7.3 THOUGHT-CLOTH overlap
In the THOUGHT-CLOTH Pillai model, the predictor ethnicity was included. The regression revealed that the Indo-Trinidadian speakers (M = 0.512, p = .104) may differentiate between THOUGHT and CLOTH more than the Afro-Trinidadians (M = 0.401). At a p-value of .104, this finding is best treated as tentative. Nonetheless, in phonetic terms these results suggest that the Indo-Trinidadians may sometimes realise THOUGHT [ɔː] and CLOTH [ɒ] separately whereas the Afro-Trinidadians may have a tendency to realise THOUGHT and
CLOTH with more overlap towards [ɔː].
Table 7.14 Summary of ANOVA Regression for THOUGHT-CLOTH Pillai Scores Model Variable B p THOUGHT-CLOTH Ethnicity: Afro- vs. Indo-Trini 0.111 .104 PILLAI (Constant) 0.401 R2 .06 F(1,46) = 2.75, p = .104
7.8 Discussion
7.8.1 Discussion of internal factors Among the [-high] vowels, phonetic factors played a far more prominent role in explaining vowel variation than among the [+low] vowels. The [-high] vowel sets in which this was most prominent were STRUT, LOT, and CLOTH. The generalisations presented here are based on patterns and tendencies regarding phonetic conditioning, given the results of the statistical analyses conducted on the data set. It should also be noted that the statistical results complemented the impressionistic observations made during auditory coding. Although patterns of phonetic conditioning were detectable during auditory coding, impressionistic vowel analysis admittedly has its limitations. Thus, the statistical analyses allowed for the discernment of patterns that would have been difficult to identify with auditory analysis alone.
Within the STRUT lexical set, STRUT [ɒ] had a propensity to occur when followed by labial stops /p, b/, labial fricatives /f, v/, and nasals /n, m/. Another finding—though rather tentative (see section 7.6.1)—is that preceding labial segments may also prompt STRUT [ɒ].
Despite the tendencies outlined here, STRUT [ɒ] was heard in many other phonetic contexts apart from these specified ones. Therefore, it is advisable treat these results as provisional yet insightful and worthy of further investigation.
125
It should also be noted that other English-lexifier creoles also have “a backed realization of [the STRUT] vowel, roughly as [ɔ]” (Schneider, 2008, p. 385), most notably in Surinamese Creole, Jamaican English/Creole, Tobagonian Creole, Bahamian English, and Eastern Caribbean Creoles. This is possibly due to a substrate effect which is a line of argumentation that Harris (1990) advances. Harris also puts forth Irish English as a possible candidate to account for the rounded STRUT variant in the Caribbean, which he transcribes as
[ɔ]. However, because of the high variability of STRUT within Ireland itself—[ʉ ~ ʊ ~ ʌ ]—it is difficult to say with certainty if Irish English was indeed an input (Harris, 1990).
As for LOT, there was a strong conditioning effect on the vowel when followed by voiceless stops /p, t, k/, thus yielding LOT [ʌ]. Here too an interpretation of the hypercorrection [ʌ] as suggested by Winford (1978) needs revision since the current analysis suggests phonetic conditioning may play a role in LOT [ʌ] realisations rather than hypercorrection.
Regarding the CLOTH lexical set, CLOTH [ʌ] occurred almost categorically when followed by the intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/. In light of this finding, Winford’s (1978) treatment of the variant [ʌ] as hypercorrection ought to be reconsidered since [ʌ] is possibly an allophone of /ɒ/ or /ɔː/, although Wells (1982) states that CLOTH vowels following consonant is intersyllabic /ɹ/ “appear never to have had /ɔː/ in RP or its forerunner” (p. 136). Overall, this needs to be investigated more systematically before declaring the allophonic status of CLOTH [ʌ].
Based on the regression results, CLOTH [ɒ] was more likely to occur when followed by nasals /n, ŋ/ whereas CLOTH [ɔː] was the more likely variant when followed by fricatives /f, θ, s/. This finding should not be treated as categorical for two reasons. Firstly, variation between
CLOTH [ɒ ~ ɔː] is observed frequently in the data. Furthermore, the complex history of
th th CLOTH—spanning from the late 17 century to early 20 century— potentially contributes to the variability observed.
Pre-Fricative Lengthening resulted in the LOT-CLOTH split (Middle English /ɔ/) by the
th end of the 17 century. Thus, in the following fricative environments /f, θ, s/, CLOTH was
126 rendered [ɔː] while LOT retained the short vowel [ɒ]. Wells (1982) summarises the complicated history of the CLOTH set as shown in Figure 7.19. Wells also notes the transfer of th the CLOTH set to the LOT set during the early 20 century: “In Jones's time, and until around the time of the second world war, words belonging to the standard lexical set CLOTH (Wells
1982) were usually pronounced with the vowel /ɔː/ (as in thought); but nowadays they are pronounced with /ɒ/ (as in lot). Examples include cough, soft, cross, lost—words in which the vowel is followed by a voiceless fricative”(Wells, 1997). From this snapshot of the CLOTH lexical, continual shifts between [ɒ] and [ɔ] are apparent, thereby complicating the development of CLOTH in Trinidadian English as there would have been multiple British inputs from different time periods.22
Middle English [klɔθ] ↓ th 16 century [klɒθ] ↓ th 17 century [klɒːθ] ↓ [klɔːθ] ↓ Modern mainstream RP [klɒθ] Upper-crust RP (U-RP) [klɔːθ]
Figure 7.19 The development of the CLOTH lexical from Middle English to contemporary Southern British English (Wells, 1997).
In the contemporary Trinidadian acrolect, CLOTH distribution closely resembles SBE, meaning that LOT and CLOTH are both realised with the short vowel [ɒ]. The presence of this
CLOTH variant suggests that modern SBE was probably one of the models in Trinidad. (Refer to section 5.4.1 for role of SBE). However, as noted in the micro-level analysis of CLOTH, even the most acrolectal speakers had sporadic CLOTH [ɔː] usage. That is to say, neither acrolectal nor near acrolectal speakers in the sample do not exclusively have CLOTH [ɒ] pronunciations. Given the considerable variation within the CLOTH lexical set in SBE during the 19th and early 20th century and assuming that SBE served as one of many models during this critical period of the English development in Trinidad, it is not surprising that there is such variability nowadays in Trinidadian English.
22 For ease of reference here, vowel length was purposely omitted. However, vowel length was also another complicating factor. 127
The rendering of CLOTH with the long vowel [ɔː] is considered the creole variant in contemporary Trinidadian English. Indeed CLOTH [ɔː] in Trinidadian English is clearly a vestige of Pre-Fricative Lengthening and is the form which would have crossed the Atlantic during the 17th century and would have served as an input to West Indian English-based th creoles. Pre-Fricative Lengthening resulted in the LOT-CLOTH split by the end of the 17 century. As Wells notes,
It is noteworthy that West Indian accents have long vowels in BATH and
CLOTH…English became established in the West Indies in the seventeenth century; the stopping of /θ/ may well be attributable to African influence and datable to the same period. This shows that the vowels of bath and cloth must already have been
long at that time; because if the lengthening of the vowel in BATH and CLOTH words were a fashion introduced later from England or elsewhere it would have been likely to affect other words ending in [t], such as flat, lot, which it did not. In early West
Indian speech, in fact, the local development of TH Stopping must have served to phonologize the Pre-Fricative Lengthening earlier than elsewhere. (p. 204-205)
However, CLOTH [ɔː] is found not only in fricative environments but also in nasal environments, for example in song [sɔːŋ] and long [lɔːŋ]. Furthermore, [ɔː] may also be found in words such as dog [ ɔːɡ] and chocolate [ˈtʃɔːklɪt]. In this regard, creole [ɔː] resembles varieties of American English in the eastern US in which lengthening was also extended in the environment of following velars as indicated in the examples song, long, chocolate, and dog. This extension of [ɔː] to velar environments did not take place in SBE.
Regarding the prestige of CLOTH [ɔː], Ward notes that “the lengthened vowels became more and more common in ‘good’ speech, until by 1784 and the publication of Nares’ Elements of Orthoepy, they were regarded as the norm. However, Sheridan’s usage (1780) differ from those of Nares” (MacMahon, 1998, S. 433). As suggested here, the long vowel
[ɔː] was a prestige form that was likely in competition with the short vowel variant [ɒ].
Although CLOTH [ɔː] may have been a prestige variant at some point in the development of
th Trinidadian English—most plausibly at the turn of the 18 century—CLOTH [ɔː] eventually became associated with the creole and along with that came stigmatisation of the form as reflected in contemporary Trinidadian English. Furthermore, because acrolectal variants
128 correspond to contemporary variation in British English, it is quite likely that SBE CLOTH [ɒ] was a target post World War II up until independence in 1962 at the very least (if not beyond).
7.8.2 Discussion of external factors As regards external factors, evidence to support Labov’s principle of linguistic conformity of women can be found in the THOUGHT model. Recall that the principle of linguistic conformity states, “For stable sociolinguistic variables, women show a lower rate of stigmatized variants and a higher rate of prestige variants than men” (Labov 2001, p. 266). In the THOUGHT lexical set, the open-mid back rounded vowel [ɔː] is considered the acrolectal variant whereas the open back round vowel [ɒ] is creole. The women in the sample realised their THOUGHT tokens higher in the vowel space, thereabouts [ɔː], whereas the men had a tendency to realise THOUGHT lower in the vowel space (p = .054) and showed more variation between [ɔː] and [ɒ].
The applicability of Labov’s principles regarding gender is less transparent when the
CLOTH data are considered. It was anticipated that the men from the urban area would use the prestige variant [ɒ] more than the men from the semi-rural town. This was confirmed in the
CLOTH regression analysis in which only men were considered. However, one surprising finding regarding gender was that the men from urban areas realised CLOTH tokens higher in the vowel space than the urban women and, by extension, women from the semi-rural area. In essence, the men from the urban area displayed more sensitivity to using the prestige variant than the urban women. This sensitivity that the urban men displayed towards CLOTH [ɒ] is likely to be rooted in the fact that CLOTH [ɔː] is quite a salient creole variant. In fact, CLOTH
[ɔː] is so salient it is often represented orthographically in Trinidadian creole by the grapheme
[ɔː].
129
Among the [-high] vowels, city effects were quite distinct. As a generalisation, the semi-rural speakers had more creole pronunciations than the urban speakers. For instance, there was a propensity for the semi-rural speakers to have the rounded creole STRUT variant
[ɒ] more than the STRUT variant [ʌ]. With the CLOTH lexical set, speakers from the semi-rural area tended to realise CLOTH tokens higher in the vowel space with the creole variant [ɔː].
Regarding LOT-STRUT overlap, the urban speakers were more likely to maintain a higher degree of distinction between LOT [ɒ] and STRUT [ʌ] than the semi-rural speakers who tended towards LOT-STRUT [ɒ] overlap. As for LOT-CLOTH overlap, the semi-rural speakers distinguished between these two sets more than the urban speakers. Thus, the semi-rural speakers were more likely to have LOT [ɒ] and CLOTH [ɔː] variants whereas the urban speakers may have had the variant [ɒ] for both LOT and CLOTH sets. Regarding occupational status, it was noted that those holding high prestige jobs showed the most differentiation between the lexical sets LOT and STRUT. Additionally, the speakers holding low prestige jobs showed a different CLOTH distribution in comparison to all other occupational status groups; the speakers holding low prestige jobs had a tendency to use the creole CLOTH variant [ɔː]. As for the development of the [-high] vowels in Trinidadian English, this synchronic analysis strongly supports the presence of the phoneme /ɒ/ in the acrolect which is attested in Wells (1982) and Winer (1993), though not in other works such as Warner (1967) and Winford (1972, 1978, 1979).
7.9 Chapter summary An overview of the results from the various regression models for STRUT, LOT, CLOTH, and THOUGHT is as follows. Internal factors ranked high in accounting for vowel variation as opposed to external factors. Phonetic conditioning can possibly account for some of mergers observed among the [-high] vowels, most notably in the STRUT, LOT, and CLOTH sets. External factors which accounted for variation among [-high] vowels included gender, city, occupation and, to a very minor extent, ethnicity. Age and education did not emerge as important factors in accounting for vowel variation.
130
8. OLDER STAGES OF TRINIDADIAN ENGLISH
8.1 Introduction Although the current study is primarily a synchronic one, data are presented here from Winford’s doctoral dissertation to provide some diachronic perspective. The vowels of three male speakers are examined, one of whom was born in the late 19th century (1898) and the other two in the early 20th century (1911 & ca. 1932). Their respective vowel plots are presented alongside their average F1/F2 vowel measurements in Hz. This is done to highlight real-time changes in the Trinidadian vowel system.
8.2 Procedure These data come from recordings from made in 1970 and range from 10 to 35 minutes in length. The analogue recordings were digitally converted at 16 bits per sample and 44,000 samples per second. Because the first and second formants were clearly identifiable on a spectrogram, the data were deemed suitable for acoustic analysis. Hertz measurements of F1 and F2 were made in Praat. The data were not subjected to any additional procedures such as Hertz to Bark conversion or normalisation. The lexical sets in the vowel plots represent the mean F1 and F2 values in Hz. Measurements were made for 12 lexical sets:
[+low] vowels: TRAP, BATH, START
[-high] vowels: STRUT, LOT, CLOTH, THOUGHT, NORTH, NURSE, GOAT
corner vowels: FLEECE, GOOSE
It should be noted here that the label ‘NORTH’ includes tokens belonging to both the FORCE and NORTH lexical sets.
8.3 Winford’s idealised vowel system In his article “Phonological hypercorrection in the process of decreolization: The case of Trinidadian English,” Winford (1978) presents an idealisation of the vowel systems in the communities where his fieldwork was conducted, the urban site St. James and the rural site Mayo. For ease of reference, Winford’s abstract vowel system is reproduced here in Figure 8.1. His listing of variants used in the interview setting is also reproduced in Figure 8.2.
131
Figure 8.1 Abstract vowel systems in the English of St. James and Mayo (Winford, 1978, p. 286).
Figure 8.2 Distribution of vowel variants in two Trinidadian communities (Winford, 1978, p. 285).
8.4 Format values for three speakers The average formant values in Hertz for [+low] and [-high] vowels are provided in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2, respectively. Table 8.1 Average Hz Values for [+low] Vowels from Winford’s (1978) Data
Speaker Formant TRAP BATH START Mayo male 1898 F1 717 710 737 F2 1394 1355 1362 Mayo male 1911 F1 714 674 701 F2 1368 1322 1344 St.James male ca. 1935 F1 697 657 630 F2 1349 1278 1204
132
Table 8.2 Average Hz Values for [-high] Vowels from Winford’s (1978) Data
Speaker Formant STRUT LOT CLOTH THOUGHT NURSE GOAT Mayo male 1898 F1 533 577 506 516 440 414 F2 1066 1254 989 961 984 892 Mayo male 1911 F1 600 615 615 585 517 460 F2 1219 1199 1038 1069 856 838 St.James male ca. 1932 F1 563 622 582 494 450 458 F2 1249 1149 1002 1018 1487 884
8.5 Winford’s data revisited
8.5.1 Mayo male, born 1898
Deso was one of the speakers from Winford’s rural sample, representing Mayo. He was born in 1898 and was 72 at the time of the interview. Deso’s ethnicity is unknown. He used to do quarry work and then worked in the oilfields in southern Trinidad. At the time of the interview, he was retired. As regards grammar, although no metric was used to assess the speakers’ speech, the author’s would say that Deso was approximating to acrolectal English. a. b.
Figure 8.3 Vowel system of Deso, male speaker from Mayo (ethnicity unknown), born 1898, , illustrating a) mean formant values for [+low] and [-high] vowels and b) individual token distribution for NURSE, GOAT, and THOUGHT.
As can be seen from Deso’s vowel plot in Figure 8.3a, his TRAP, BATH, and START vowels occupy roughly in the same space. Regarding the quality of the [+low] vowels, all sets were realised with open front unrounded vowel [a]. Although length was not measured acoustically, a difference in vowel length was noted by the author. Tokens belonging to BATH and START typically had longer vowels than TRAP, thereabouts [aː], whereas the short vowel is
133 maintained in TRAP. The perceivable vowel lengthening in BATH and START sets are derivatives of 17th century Pre-Fricative Lengthening and Pre-R Lengthening. Irrespective of vowel length, the vowel quality in all three sets was the same.
Regarding the [-high] vowels, the most striking feature is the position of the NURSE lexical set. Note the proximity of NURSE in relation to the back vowels, such as /o/ represented in GOAT and /ɔ/ represented in NORTH, THOUGHT, and CLOTH. In contemporary
Trinidadian English, the acrolectal NURSE variant is the close-mid central unrounded vowel
[ɘː], whereas the creole variant is realised with the open back rounded vowel [ɒ]. In Winford’s idealised vowel system for St. James (urban) and Mayo (rural), he describes older rural Indo- and Afro-Trinidadian men as realising NURSE tokens with the open-mid back
23 rounded vowel [ɔ]. Deso’s NURSE realisations do fit Winford’s description. Additionally, he uses the variant [ɘː] and [oː] in his speech. It is worth mentioning that Winford notes the use of NURSE [oː] in the vernacular speech of younger rural Indo- and Afro-Trinidadians. In sum, three NURSE variants are found in Deso’s speech: [ɔː ~ oː ~ ɘː] as illustrated in Figure 8.3b.
The presence of the variant NURSE [oː] is particularly fascinating since no other vowel description mentions it. In fact, Wells (1982) notes, “Winford (1978) reports a slightly different pattern of possible mergers, including that of NURSE and GOAT (and hence hypercorrect foam as [fɜm])” (p. 579). The author, a Trinidadian herself, cannot recall hearing this variant and did not find it in the current data set collected in 2009. NURSE [oː] is a vestige of the past and if encountered in Trinidad, it would likely be from a very old speaker.
In terms of the other [-high] vowels, Deso’s THOUGHT, CLOTH, and NORTH sets are largely realised with the open-mid rounded vowel [ɔ] with minor incursion into the open back rounded vowel space [ɒ]. In contrast, LOT and STRUT vary between the open back rounded [ɒ] and a less rounded variant occurring a little higher in the vowel space [ʌ ]. From the vowel plot in Figure 8.4b, it appears that LOT and STRUT have distinct distributions. Auditory reveals that the LOT tokens which appear to occupy a more central vowel space were in fact realised with a more wedge-like vowel hence the apparent spread in Figure 8.4b.
23 I take it Winford (1978) is referring to the NURSE lexical set when he uses the notation (ɜː) to identify the variable. 134 a. b.
Figure 8.4 Vowel system of Deso, male speaker from Mayo (ethnicity unknown), born 1898, , illustrating a) individual token distribution for CLOTH and THOUGHT and b) individual token distribution for LOT and STRUT.
Deso’s vowels are best represented by Winford’s designation ‘rural vernacular— older Indians and Africans’ in Figure 8.1, although one criticism would be that Winford does not account for the occurrence of [ɒ] in his description. Rather, occurrences of [ɒ] are subsumed under the variable (ɔ), and, by extension, [ɔ]. One can only speculate here, but given the wide range of variants that Winford (1978) was confronted with for the variable
(ɔ)—[ʌ ~ ʌ˕ ~ ʌ ~ ɔ ~ ɔ ~ ä]—a compromise had to me made in terms of abstracting the vowel system. It is probable that like START [ɑː] and BATH [ɑː]—which are not represented in
Winford’s description—LOT [ɒ] was a minor variant that was ‘lost’ in the transcription and ‘normalisation’ processes of abstraction. If Winford’s (1978) description is based on the critical mass of a particular set of variants—which seems to be the case given the current re- analysis of the data—his interpretation should not be criticised too harshly. That said, having the privilege of revisiting Winford’s recordings and exploring them with instrumental techniques reveal interesting intricacies of the data.
8.5.2 Mayo male, born 1911
Narin was the second oldest speaker in the subset of data that the author had access to. Narin was one of the speakers from the Mayo (rural) cohort. At the time of the interview, he was 59 years old. Thus, it is estimated that he was born in 1911. From the interview, the author assumes that Narin is of Indian descent since he mentions making malas, which are garlands made of flowers often used in Hindu religious ceremonies. Narin did not grow up in
135
Mayo. He was born in Centeno but moved to Mayo when he was 20 years old. At the time of the interview, Narin was working as a heavy machinery driver at the then Texaco, which is now called Petrotrin. As regards to grammar, Narin’s speech was considered creole. a. b.
Figure 8.5 Vowel system of Narin, male speaker from Mayo (possibly Indo-Trinidadian), born 1911, illustrating a) mean formant values for [+low] and [-high] vowels and b) individual token distribution for NURSE and GOAT. By examining Narin’s overall mean vowel distributions in Figure 8.5a, it is apparent that are GOAT and NURSE do not occur as closely together (cf. Deso’s speech in section 8.5.1).
Furthermore, [-high] vowels THOUGHT, STRUT, LOT, and CLOTH appear to cluster together as do the [+low] vowels TRAP, BATH, and START. The mean of the NORTH tokens occurs higher up in the vowel space than the other [-high] vowels. Auditory analysis reveals that in the
NURSE lexical set, Narin uses the centralised variant [ɘː] in addition to [ɔ] and [oː]. This can be gleaned from Figure 8.5b which highlights the individual distribution of NURSE and GOAT tokens in Narin’s speech.
As regards STRUT and LOT, Narin uses a wide range of variants in both of these sets, namely [ʌ ~ ʌ ~ ɒ ~ ɔ], hence the extensive spread of LOT and STRUT tokens, illustrated in
Figure 8.6a. Notice that some of Narin’s LOT tokens approach TRAP. Winford (1978) notes the centralised open front unrounded vowel [ä] as one of the variants in relation to the variables (ʌ) and (ɔ), which we can assume refers respectively to STRUT and
LOT/THOUGHT/CLOTH. Winford notes that [ä] is a minor variant in the Mayo community (see
Figure 8.2). As seen from Figure 8.6, Narin displays use of the variant [ä] in his LOT tokens. In Winford’s abstract vowel system, he lists the variant [a]—in what is assumed to be lexical sets STRUT and LOT/CLOTH/THOUGHT—in use in the rural vernacular among old Indians
136 whose first language was Hindi. The author assumes that Narin is of Indian descent, but does not know if his first language was Hindi. At the time of the interview, Narin would have been approximately 59 years old, which would place him in the old cohort of speakers from Mayo.
For the CLOTH lexical set, Narin uses the variants [ɔ ~ ɒ] and [ä] to a lesser extent. a. b.
Figure 8.6 Vowel system of Narin, male speaker from Mayo (possibly Indo-Trinidadian), born 1911, illustrating a) individual token distribution for STRUT and LOT and b) individual token distribution for LOT and CLOTH.
As regards the lexical set NORTH—which would be captured in Winford’s variable
(ɔː), Narin produces these tokens higher in the vowel space, thereabouts [ɔ], as demonstrated in Figure 8.7 . Narin’s use of the salient [ä] in LOT and CLOTH suggests that he perhaps was a
Hindi speaker although he does not use the variant [ä] in words belonging to the NORTH set. One can only speculate here but at age 59, it is plausible that Narin falls somewhere in between the two old categories of speakers Winford suggests since Narin displays features of both old Indians whose first language was Hindi—namely LOT/CLOTH [ä]—and older
Indians—that is, use of [ɔː] in NORTH tokens.
137
Figure 8.7 Vowel system of Narin, male speaker from Mayo (possibly Indo-Trinidadian), born 1911, illustrating a) individual token distribution for CLOTH, THOUGHT, and NORTH
8.5.3 St. James male, born ca. 1932
Of the available recordings for the St. James (urban) cohort, Paul’s data was purposely chosen since he realised BATH and START tokens primarily with [ɑː], a variant which Winford does not mention in his various analyses based on his 1970s data. It is estimated that at the time of the interview, Paul was in his late 30s. Using the arbitrary age of 38, it is estimated that Paul was born circa 1932. Paul’s ethnicity is unknown. Although Paul was not native to St. James (a suburb of Port-of-Spain), he was born in Port-of-Spain and grew up in the environs of the capital. He attended the prestigious boys school Fatima College. At the time of the interview, Paul was working at a bank. As regards to grammar, Paul spoke what the author considered to be acrolectal Trinidadian English. a. b.
Figure 8.8 Vowel system of Paul, male speaker from St. James (ethnicity unknown), born ca. 1932, illustrating a) mean formant values for [+low] and [-high] vowels and b) individual token distribution for all sets.
138
Of the three speakers whose data were analysed here, Paul’s vowels resemble contemporary acrolectal Trinidadian English the most. Recall that the recordings the author made were done in 2009. If Paul were alive in 2009, he would have been ca. 77 years old. The oldest person in the author’s data was 69 years old. In a sense, Winford’s cohort of adults under 40 potentially overlap the oldest speakers in the author’s own data. The most interesting thing in Paul’s vowels is his distribution of [+low] vowels. As seen in Figure 8.8a and Figure 8.8b, TRAP tokens occur lower in the vowel space in relation to
BATH and START. Auditory coding of BATH and START reveal that the open back unrounded
[ɑː] variant is mostly used in Paul’s speech. This pattern is what the author has called the traditional acrolect. In Winford’s (1978) description, he does not represent the variant [ɑː] although, as evidenced in Paul’s vowel plot, it was indeed present. In the author’s own data the traditional acrolectal pattern of [+low] vowels was a minor pattern, meaning that most speakers did not have this particular distribution of vowels. It is entirely speculative that this was perhaps the same case in Winford’s sample and for this reason, these minority variants are not represented in Figure 8.1. By and large, Paul’s vowels are representative of Wells’ (1982) description of acrolectal Trinidadian English, the variety which has similar [+low] vowel distributions to
SBE. Notice that LOT and CLOTH are distributed roughly in the same space, thereabouts [ɒ] although Paul does have a few CLOTH [ɔː] tokens. NORTH and THOUGHT are overlapping and are both realised with the open-mid back rounded vowel [ɔː]. STRUT is distinct from LOT and is produced with the wedge-like vowel [ʌ]. NURSE is in the central part of the vowel space and is pronounced [ɘː]. Paul’s vowels do not fit into Winford’s prestige norms as outlined in
Figure 8.1 because his description does not account for variants [ɑː] and [ɒ].
8.6 Chapter summary Although this chapter was mostly descriptive, it was illuminating to revisit Winford’s data for two main reasons. Firstly, Winford describe norms which no longer exist in contemporary Trinidadian English, that is, his rural vernacular norms, particularly among old speakers. Using current techniques in sociophonetics, the author was able to verify Winford’s analysis of these rural norms among old speakers by examining the speech of Deso and Narin. Secondly, Winford’s own data provides counterevidence to his description of the
139 prestige norm he outlines. This is clearly demonstrated through the examination of Paul’s vowels. This is not meant by any means to discount Winford’s description. Rather, it provides support for the notion that multiple prestige norms can exist within a creole continuum language scenario.
140
9. CONCLUSION
9.1 Introduction In order to bring together the anaylses presented in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8, Chapter 9 presents a revised description of the phonetic inventory of Trinidadian English. Drawing from the existing literature as well as the findings of the current study, there is ample material from which a unified descritpion may be crafted for monopthongs. It should be noted that the description here does not explicitly address the role of historical, social, and external factors. For a more comprehensive coverage of these three domains, the reader is avised to consult the discussion sections of Chapters 6 and 7.
9.2 Front vowels
9.2.1 FLEECE/KIT
The FLEECE set is fairly stable in Trinidadian English and is realised with the close front unrounded [i] vowel. The KIT vowel is typical realised with the near-close near-front unrounded vowel [ɪ]. Older studies of Trinidadian English report the merger of /ɪ/ towards /i/ among old speakers of the rural vernacular. This applies to old speakers of Indian and African descent and old speakers whose first language was an Indic language (Winford, 1978, p.
286). Winer (1993) notes that in the creole [i] and [ɪ] are allophones in free variation (p. 14). In particular, she mentions the pronunciation of the word in in which both variants may occur irrespective of variety, that is, irrespective of being acrolectal or creole (Winer, 2009, p. xxii).
In the current study, both FLEECE (N = 483) and KIT (N = 481) vowels where measured acoustically and tested for overlap per speaker. Out of the entire sample (N = 48), there was not a single speaker whose FLEECE and KIT sets overlapped. This could be due to the fact that the data come from an interview setting. Perhaps in a less formal setting, there would be more 24 usage of KIT [i].
9.2.2 FACE
The FACE vowel is stable in Trinidadian English and is consistently realised with the close–mid front unrounded [eː]. There is no observed variation in the FACE set.
24 However, the author’s intuition as a native speaker is that kit [i] is sporadic, which is not inconsistent with Winder’s (1993, 2009) account. 141
9.2.3 DRESS
The DRESS vowel is also stable in Trinidadian English and is realised with the open- mid front unrounded vowel [ɛ]. It should be noted that the author observed the sporadic use the variant [e] word initially, thus yielding egg [eːg] and [ˈeni] any.
9.2.4 TRAP
The TRAP vowel has been documented in all of the existing literature as being realised as the open front unrounded vowel [a]. The only exception to this can be found in Youssef and Winford’s (2004) description in which they also include the near-open front unrounded variant [æ]. They, however, do not specify which groups use this variant. The current study shows that TRAP [æ], an endo-normative development, is a new variant in Trinidadian English used by young women though not by men.
9.2.5 BATH /START
Two variants exist in the BATH and START lexical sets: [aː] and [ɑː]. The open back unrounded vowel [ɑː] is characteristic of the traditional acrolectal pattern which is likely derived from SBE. It should be noted, however, that BATH/START [ɑː] in Trinidadian English is not as retracted as in SBE. For some speakers, BATH [aː] is near merged with TRAP. The author has elected to call this pattern—where BATH is moving forward in the vowel space towards [aː] but start stays back [ɑː]—the emergent acrolect. START is realised with the open front unrounded vowel [aː] most notably in the creole as is not considered a prestige form.
Regarding vowel length, BATH and START are typically long irrespective of vowel quality.
Historical processes such as Pre-Fricative Lengthening would have affected the BATH lexical set whereas Pre-R Lengthening and Pre-R Dropping would have affected lexical set START.
9.3 Central vowels
9.3.1 LettER/SCHWA
On the basis of the interview data, no overlap between lettER (N = 481) and TRAP (N = 487) sets was found. Given the context under which the data were collected, it is not surprising that overlap was not detected since lettER [a] is considered a fairly creole feature.
As regards the quality of lettER in the interview data, some speakers used primarily the open-
142 mid back unrounded vowel [ʌ] whereas others used the mid-central vowel [ə]. Youssef and
Winford (2004) note both lettER variants [ʌ] and [ə] in their description, noting that the mid- central vowel [ə] occurs more frequently than the wedge-like vowel [ʌ]. As for the quality of
SCHWA (N = 480), there is variance between [ʌ ~ ə].
9.3.2 NURSE
From the interview data, NURSE vowels (N = 463) were acoustically measured and tested for overlap with LOT [ɒ] per speaker since merger of NURSE in the direction of LOT [ɒ] has been reported in the literature (Wells, 1982; Winer, 1993; Youssef & James, 2004). Out of the sample (N = 48), there was only one speaker whose NURSE and LOT set approached overlap in the direction of [ɒ]. Seeing that NURSE [ɒ] is highly stigmatised variant, it is not surprising that it occurred infrequently in the interview data. In the data, the NURSE vowel is realised predominantly with the close-mid central unrounded vowel [ɘː], which is considered the acrolectal and prestige variant. In the literature, linguists have elected to transcribe the acroletcal NURSE vowel differently. Winford (1978, 1979), Wells (1982), Winer (1993),
Youssef and James (2004) use the open-mid central unrounded vowel [ɜː] to represent acrolectal NURSE. In contrast, Ferreira and Drayton (forthcoming) prefer to use [ɘː], which is the representation the author favours since the NURSE realisation in the acrolect is not as open as [ɜː] would suggest. Furthermore, Ferreira (2008) proposes the phoneme /ɘː/ for the NURSE set (p. 4).
A few creole NURSE tokens in the data were realised with the open back unrounded vowel [ɒː]. The length diacritic is included to indicate compensatory lengthening in the absence of rhoticity. However, based on the author’s observations, it is possible for creole
NURSE to be realised without a lengthened vowel [ɒ] as in work [wɒk], burst [ ɒs], and thirsty
[ˈtɒsti]. Furthermore, in creole the same words mentioned here may be rendered with a wedge like vowel [ʌ], thus yielding work [wʌk], burst [ ʌs], and thirsty [ˈtʌsti]. This is even suggested in the creole orthography of these words, respectively, wuk, buss, and tusty. It is noteworthy that Ferreira (2008) is the only linguist who posits the phoneme /ʌ/ for NURSE in
143 creole, and by extension [ʌ]. Thus, it can be said that the creole realisations [ɒː ~ ɒ ~ ʌ] occur in allophonic free variation.25
Other linguists have posited the phonemes /ɒ/ (Wells, 1982;Winer, 1993) and /ɔ/
(Youssef & James, 2004). Winford (1978) also posits /oː/ in the urban vernacular and in the rural vernacular for both young Afro- and Indo- Trinidadians. However, he posits /ɔ/ in the rural vernacular for older Afro- and Indo-Trinidadians as well as old Indo-Trinidadians whose first language would have been Hindi.
9.4 Back vowels
9.4.1 GOOSE/FOOT
The GOOSE vowel is stable in Trinidadian English and is realised with the close back rounded vowel [u]. The FOOT vowel is typically realised with the near-close near-back unrounded vowel [ʊ]. Winer (1993, 2009) notes that [ʊ] and [u] may occur in allophonic free variation for some speakers. She also makes reference to Warner (1967) who suggests a
“‘merger’ in the vowel system [between] /u/ ~ /ʊ/, particularly common for TEC [Trinidadian English Creole] speakers with FC [French Creole], Spanish, or Indian influence”(Winer,
1993, p. 14). In similar vein, Winford (1978) suggests the merger of /u/ and /ʊ/ towards the close back rounded /u/ among old rural vernacular speakers who are Afro- and Indo- Trinidadian and those Indo-Trinidadians whose first language was Indic.
In the present study, FOOT (N = 398) and GOOSE tokens (N = 471) were measured acoustically and tested for overlap per speaker. There were no speakers (N = 48) whose FOOT and GOOSE tokens overlapped. This could be a reflex of the interview scenario in which the data were collected. Winer’s (1993, 2009) description of [u ~ ʊ] is the one the author favours most since it is highly unlikely that /u/ and /ʊ/ are merged in contemporary Trinidadian varieties. Rather, FOOT [u] usage is sporadic as can be extrapolated from Winer (1993, 2009) and is consistent with the author’s observations.
25 It is the impression of the author that the rounded variants are possibly considered even more creole than the wedge-like ones.
144
9.4.2 GOAT
The GOAT vowel is stable in Trinidadian English and is realised with the close-mid back rounded vowel [oː].
9.4.3 STRUT
The STRUT lexical set is realised with the open-mid back unrounded vowel [ʌ] in the acrolect whereas in the creole it is realised with the open back unrounded vowel [ɒ]. This distribution is the typical description given in the literature (Ferreira & Drayton, forthcoming;
Wells, 1982; Winer, 1993; Winer, 2009). Wells discusses the potential merger of /ʌ/ and /ɒ/ towards /ɒ/ in the creole: “A striking characteristic of Trinidadian popular pronunciation, though not of the local standard accent, is the merger of certain vowels—such that ham and harm may be homophonous, as also cut and cot” (Wells, 1982, p. 578). In contrast, older studies such as Warner (1967) and Winford (1978) posit the phoneme /ɔ/ for the STRUT set in creole but /ʌ/ in the acrolect. For older Indo-Trinidadians who spoke Hindi as a first language, Winford suggests that they had the phoneme for the /a/ in the STRUT lexical set. It seems a little odd that Winford does not posit the phoneme /ɒ/ anywhere in his description; he only posits /ɔ/ throughout his work. However, the author had the opportunity to listen to some of Winford’s data upon which his dissertation and subsequent works were based (1978, 1979). From the few recordings surveyed, the speakers did seem to have a much higher variant in STRUT and LOT sets, thereabouts [ɔ]. Perhaps this is why Winford chose the notation of the open-mid back rounded vowel in his analysis. It should be noted that of the
460 STRUT tokens auditorily coded in the current study, there were only four occurrences of
26 [ɔ]. It is difficult to say what this means conclusively. Nonetheless, if asked to wager a guess, it seems that quality of the creole STRUT variant has changed and is realised much lower in the vowel space in contemporary creole, thereabouts [ɒ]. Results from the current study suggest that certain phonetic environments may trigger
STRUT [ɒ]. Potential environments included following labial stops /p, b/, following labio- dental fricatives /f, v/, and following nasals /n, m/. Preceding labial stops /p, b/ may also
26 In the auditory coding of STRUT, there were 289 occurrences of [ʌ], 45 of [ʌ], and 122 of [ɒ]. 145 condition STRUT [ɒ] but here the evidence supporting this position is tentative. Whether these are absolute instances of conditioned allophony is difficult to say conclusively.
Given the variance observed within STRUT in the near acrolect (see section 7.3.1), it is possible that STRUT [ɒ] may be undergoing a shift in prestige. The merger evaluation survey did not suggest this, but this could be because of the population sampled: university educated people may have a more restrictive notion of acrolectal STRUT, that is, STRUT [ʌ]. What is clear is that more detailed investigation into STRUT is required to answer questions surrounding conditioned allophony and changing prestige within the set.
9.4.4 THOUGHT/FORCE/NORTH
THOUGHT is somewhat stable in Trinidadian English and is mostly realised with [ɔː].
Tokens from the FORCE (N = 433) and NORTH (N = 433) sets were measured acoustically and tested for overlap per speaker. The sets THOUGHT, FORCE, and NORTH overlap extensively and are all realised with the open-mid back rounded vowel [ɔː].This is consistent with the literature (Ferreira & Drayton, forthcoming; Wells, 1982; Youssef & James, 2004).
Another variant is also found within the THOUGHT lexical set, that is, the open back rounded vowel [ɒ]. Wells (1982) alludes to this being a creole variant (p. 57). The auditory coding of THOUGHT in this study revealed that [ɒ] is a minor pattern, occurring just under 10% of the time in the data.27 This is consistent with Youssef and James’ (2004) description of the THOUGHT set in which they indicate [ɔː] is the pronunciation heard more often than [ɒ].
9.4.5 BATH/START
The lexical sets BATH and START are discussed extensively above. Please refer to Section 9.2.5.
9.4.6 LOT/CLOTH
LOT and CLOTH are typically realised with the open back rounded vowel [ɒ] in the acrolect. This is consistent with the majority of the literature (Ferreira, 2008; Ferreira &
Drayton (forthcoming); Wells, 1982; Winer, 1993). Thus, LOT and CLOTH can be said to be merged in the acrolect. Exceptions to this include Youssef and James (2004) who claim that
27 In THOUGHT auditory coding, there were 362 occurrences of [ɔ], 40 of [ɒ], and 10 of [ʌ]. 146 the only phonetic variants for CLOTH are [ɔ > ɔː]. The ‘less than’ sign in Youssef and James’
(2004) notation suggests that the short variant [ɔ] is occurs more frequently than the lengthened one [ɔː]. The author does not agree with this description, particularly because of the historical evidence (see section 7.8.1) which supports Pre-Fricative Lengthening. Older sources such as Warner (1967) and Wells (1978; 1979) do not report on the occurrence of /ɒ/ at all but rather use /ɔ/. As mentioned in section 9.4.3, the quality of the low back rounded vowels seems to be changing from [ɔ] to [ɒ] for sets such as LOT, CLOTH, and also STRUT. In other words, there appears to be increased differentiation in phonetic realisation for the back rounded vowels. Since there isn’t sufficient older data to make a real time comparison, this suggestion should be treated as tentatively. The current analysis indicates that certain phonetic environments have an influence on vowel realisations. In the case of LOT, following voiceless stop tended to render LOT [ʌ]. In
CLOTH, following intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/ prompted CLOTH [ʌ]. Winford (1978) interprets the use of the wedge-like vowel [ʌ] as hypercorrection and avoidance of the stigmatised back rounded variants. It is inconclusive whether LOT [ʌ] is a case of conditioned merger. As such, further investigation is warranted to confirm this. Also, further research is required to establish if CLOTH [ʌ] is an allophone occurring in complementary distribution.
The creole variant of CLOTH is realised with the open-mid back rounded vowel [ɔː].
(For a fairly comprehensive discussion on the historical development of CLOTH [ɔː], please refer to section 7.8.1).
9.5 Evidence for merger types As regards to merger processes in Trinidadian English, there is strongest evidence of merger-by-approximation. Merger-by-approximation is relevant to the BATH-TRAP merger in which case BATH tokens are realised with the open front unrounded vowel [aː]. This merger appears not to be complete yet and may be near merged. The merger evaluation survey reveals that this merger is not poorly evaluated. On the basis of this metric, the author proposes a constellation of [+low] vowels called the emergent acrolect in which BATH-TRAP share the same vowel quality [a]—though vowel length is retained in BATH [aː]—but START
147 remains backed [ɑː]. Furthermore, the emergent acrolect is an endo-normative development whereas the traditional acrolectal distribution of [+low] vowels is a vestige of Standard British exo-normativity. The most probable place for conditioned mergers to occur is among the [-high] vowels. There is strong evidence to suggest that the use of a wedge-like vowel [ʌ] in sets
CLOTH and LOT is phonetically conditioned: CLOTH [ʌ] occurs when followed by the intersyllabic approximant /ɹ/ and LOT [ʌ] occurs when followed by a voiceless stop. However, from these data, proposing conditioned mergers would be too strong a claim. Rather, the most that can be derived from these data are potential sites for conditioned allophonic variation. If the production of CLOTH [ʌ] and LOT [ʌ] is interpreted as conditioned allophonic variation, then these results present scenario different to Winford’s interpretation of the use of [ʌ] as hypercorrection. Even if Winford is given the benefit of the doubt that the use of [ʌ] is hypercorrection or supercorrection, the fact of the matter is the current analysis strongly suggests that phonetic conditioning plays a very strong role in accounting for these wedge- like [ʌ] variants. In the STRUT lexical set, following labials and nasals had the most effect on
STRUT yielding [ɒ], and to a lesser extent preceding labials. In the case of STRUT [ɒ], it is heard in other phonetic contexts as well so the strength of this finding is somewhat diminished.
Other endo-normative trends include the raising of TRAP among younger women towards [æ]. There is also the pattern of [-high] vowels which the author has labelled near acrolect in order to capture vowel constellations which permit a greater deal of variation within the LOT, CLOTH, and STRUT lexical sets.
9.6 Further perspectives for research Although the current study makes a significant contribution to the research on vowel variation in Trinidadian English, there is still a considerable amount of work which can be pursued. This study explored communities along the East-West corridor in Trinidad. The geographical dimension which truly requires attention is the North-South divide. It is a commonly held belief that people from “town”, that is, Port-of-Spain and environs, speak differently from southerners. Ideal places include San Fernando for an urban site and Penal for a semi-rural site.
148
A more immediate research concern which was raised in this study is the nature of mergers in Trinidadian English. Indeed, this study identified a series of potential areas where conditioned mergers may occur. On a theoretical vein, the natural trajectory for further research is how the acrolect should be defined in Trinidadian English. For authors such as Well (1982) and Ferreira and Drayton (forthcoming), the acrolect is very much defined by an elite group of users whose vowel patterns resemble monophthongal distributions in SBE. In contrast, it appears that Winford (1978) defines the prestige norms on the basis of critical mass, meaning on the basis of the most widely used variants. What is needed is a reconciliation between these two positions. In fact, there is little harm in positing multiple prestige norms within the creole continuum, which is covertly the position taken in the present study. This notion is one worthy of further reflection and refinement and would be a welcome contribution to creole linguistics.
149
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aceto, M. (2004). Eastern Caribbean English-derived language varieties: Phonology. In B. Kortmann, K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie, & E. W. Schneider (Eds.), A Handbook of the Varieties of English: Phonology (Vol. 2, pp. 481-500). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Adank, P. (2003). Vowel normalisation: A perceptual-acoustic study of Dutch vowels. PhD dissertation, University of Nigmegen. Adank, P., Smits, R., & van Hout, R. (2004). A comparison of vowel normalisation procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(5), 3099-3107. Bailey, B. (1966). Jamaican creole syntax. Cambridge University Press. Bailey, B. L. (1971). Jamaican Creole: Can dialect boundaries be defined? In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages (pp. 341–348). Cambridge: CUP. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2012). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ Brereton, B. (2002). Race relations in colonial Trinidad 1870-1900. Cheng, J., Edwards, L. J., Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Komro, K. A., & Muller, K. E. (2010, February 20). Real longitudinal data analysis for real people: Building a good enough mixed model. Stat Med, 29(4), 504–520. Crosswhite, K., & Jun, A. (2001). Vowel reduction in optimality theory. Psychology Press. De Camp, D. (1971). "Towards a generative analysis of a post-creole continuum." . In D. Hymes (Ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (pp. 349-370). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deuber, D., & Leung, G.-A. (forthcoming). Investigating attitudes towards an emerging Standard of English: Evaluations of newcasters' accents in Trinidad. Multilingua. Devonish, H. (2003). Language advocacy and 'conquest' diglossia in the 'Anglophone' Caribbean. In C. Mair (Ed.), The politics of English as a world language: New horizons in postcolonial cultural studies (pp. 157-177). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Di Paolo, M., Yaeger-Dror, M., & Beckford-Wassink, A. (2011). Analysing vowels. In M. Di Paolo, & M. Yaeger-Dror (Eds.), Sociophonetics: A student's guide (pp. 87-106). New York: Routledge. Drager, K., & Hay, J. (2012). Exploiting random intercepts: Two case studies in sociophonetics. Language Variation and Change(24), 59-78. Escure, G. (1978). Vocalic changes in the Belizean English/Creole continuum and markedness theory. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Lingusitics Society, (pp. 283-293). Fabricius, A. (2007). Variation and change in the TRAP and STRUT vowels of RP : A real time comparison of five acoustic data sets. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 37(3), 293-320. Fabricius, A. H., Watt, D., & Johnson, D. E. (2009). A comparison of three speaker-intrinsic vowel formant frequency normalization algorithms for sociophonetics. Language Variation and Change, 21(3), 413-435. Ferreira, J.-A. S. (Sixth draft 2008). LING 1001 (Introduction to phonetics and phonology) resource manual and CD. Ferreira, J.-A. S., & Drayton, K.-A. (forthcoming). Trinidadian English. Flynn, N. (2011, March). Comparing vowel formant normalisation procedures. York Papers in Linguistics: Series 2(11), 1-28. Garrett, P. (2003). An 'English Creole' that isn't: On the sociohistorical origins and linguistic classification of the vernacular English of St. Lucia. In M. Aceto, & J. Williams
150
(Eds.), Contact Englishes of the Eastern Caribbean (pp. 155-210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hall-Lew, L. (2010). Improved Representation of Variance in Measures of Vowel Merger. Proceedings of Meeting on Acoustics, 9. Hall-Lew, L. (n.d.). Correction: Pillai score. Retrieved August 1, 2012, from Lauren Hall- Lew: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~lhlew/pillai.html Harrington, J. (2010). Phonetic analysis of speech corpora. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Harris, J. (1990). More on brogues and creoles. What's been happening to Englisg short 'u'? In T. Dolan (Ed.), The English of the Irish. Commemorative issue of The Irish Universtiy Review for Alan J. Bliss (Vol. 20, pp. 73-90). Hay, J., Warren, P., & Drager, K. (2006). Factors influencing speech perceptions in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 458-484. Holm, J. (1989). Pidgins and creoles: Reference survey. Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., Strobl, C., & Zeileis, A. (2012). party: A Laboratory for Recursive Partytioning. Retrieved from The Comprehensive R Archive Network: http://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/party/index.html Kendall, T., & Thomas, E. (2010). vowels: Vowel Manipulation, Normalization, and Plotting. Retrieved from The comprehensive R archive network: http://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/vowels/ Klein, T. (2006). Creole phonology typology: Phoneme inventory size, vowel quality disctinctions and stop consonant series. In P. Bhatt (Ed.), The structure of creole words: Segmental, syllabic and morphological aspects (pp. 3-22). Tuebingen: De Gruyter. Kleinbaum, D., Kupper, L., Muller, K., & Nizam, A. (2008). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Belmont, CAe, 2008: Thomson, Brooks/Coel. Labov, W. (1966). Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. In W. Bright, Sociolinguistics> Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964 (pp. 84-113). The Hague: Moutin & Co. . Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Lass, R. (2000). A branching path: Low vowel lengthening and its friends in the emerging standard. In L. Wright (Ed.), The Development of Standard English 1300-1800: theories, Descriptions, Conflicts (pp. 219-229). Cambridge, UK: CUP. Le Page, R. B., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: CUP. Lent, J. A. (1977). Third World mass media and their search for modernity: The case of Commonwealth Caribbean, 1717-1976. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. Lewis, M. P. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas: SIL International. Retrieved from Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/ Lindblom, B. (1963). Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35, 1773-1781. Lobanov, B. M. (1971). Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 606-08. MacMahon, M. K. (1998). Phonology. In S. Romaine (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language: 1776-1997 (Vol. 4, pp. 373-535). Cambridge: CUP. Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, J. L. (1981). Effects of speaking rate on segmental distinction. In P. D. Eimas, & J. L. Miller (Eds.), Perspectives on the study of speech (pp. 39-74). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Moddie-Kublalsingh, S. (1994). The cocoa panyols of Trinidad: An oral record. Macmillan.
151
Mohan, P., & Zador, P. (1986). Discontinuity in a life cycle: The death of Trinidad Bhojpuri. Language, 62(2), 291-319. Neary, T. M. (1978). Phonetic feature systems for vowels. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Partridge, A. (2009). Charting the vowel space of Bequian Creole. MSc thesis, University of Edinburgh. Rosenfelder, I. (2009). Sociophonetic variation in educated Jamaican Englsih: An analysis of the spoken component of ICE-Jamaica. PhD dissertation, University of Freiburg. Smith, N. (2008). Creole phonology. In The handbook of pidgin and creole studies (pp. 98- 129). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Limited. Solomon, D. (1993). The speech of Trinidad: A reference grammar. St. Augustine: University of the West Indies, School of Continuing Studies. Straw, M., & Patrick, P. L. (2007). Dialect acquisition of glottal variation in /t/: Barbadians in Ipswich. Language Sciences, 29(2-3), 385-407. Thomas, E. R., & Bailey, G. (1998). Parallels ebtween vowel subsystems of African American Vernacular English and Caribbean Anglogohne Creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 13, 267-96. Upton, C. (2008). Received Pronunciation. In B. Kortmann, & C. Upton (Eds.), Varieties of English 1: The British Isles (pp. 269-282). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Veatch, T. (1991). English vowels: Their surface phonology and phonetic implimentation in vernacular dialects. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Warner, M. (1967). Language in Trinidad with special reference to English. MPhil thesis, University of York. Wassink-Beckford, A. (2001). Theme and variation in Jamaican vowels. Language Variation and Change, 13, 135-59. Watt, D., & Fabricius, A. H. (2002). “Evaluation of a technique for improving the mapping of multiple speakers' vowel spaces in the F1~F2 plane. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics(9), 159-173. Watt, D., & Fabricius, A. H. (2011). A measure of variable planar locations anchored on the centroid of the vowel space: A sociophonetic research tool. the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Science (ICPhS XVII), (pp. 2103-2105). Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.icphs2011.hk/resources/OnlineProceedings/RegularSession/Watt/Watt.pd f Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English 3: Beyond the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wells, J. C. (1997). Whatever happened to Received Pronunciation. Jornados de Estudios Ingleses, 19-28. Winer, L. (1984). Early Trinidadian English Creole: The Spectator Texts. English World- Wide, 5.2, pp. 181-210. Winer, L. (1993). Varieties around the world: Trinidad and Tobago. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Winer, L. (1995). Penny Cuts: Differentiation of creole varities in Trinidad, 1904-1906. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 10(1), 127-155. Winer, L. (2007). Indic lexicon in the English/Creole of Trinidad. In Badjohns, bhaaji and banknote blue: Essays on the social history of language. St. Augustine, Trinidad: School of Continuing Studies, UWI. Winer, L. (2009). Dictionary of the English/Creole of Trinidad and Tobago. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
152
Winford, D. (1972). A Sociolinguistic Description of Two Communities in Trinidad. Unpublished D.Phil. Thesis, University of York. Winford, D. (1978). Phonological hypercorrection in the process of decreolization: The case of Trinidadian English. Journal of Linguistics, 14(2), 277-291. Winford, D. (1979). Phonological variation and change in Trinidadian English: The evolution of the vowel systems. Society of Caribbean Linguistics Occasional Papers, 12. Winford, D. (1997). Re-examining the Caribbean English Creole continua. World Englishes, 16(2), 233-279. Words listed by frequency: The first 700 most frequent words from the Brown Corpus (1,015,945 words). (2009). Retrieved from Virtual Language Center: http://www.edict.biz/lexiconindex/frequencylists/words700.htm Youssef, V., & James, W. (2004). The Creoles of Trinidad and Tobago: Phonology. In B. Kortmann, K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie, & E. W. Schneider (Eds.), A Handbook of the Varieties of English: Phonology (pp. 508-524). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
153
APPENDIX a) Summary of literature on the phonological system of Trinidadian English sorted by Wells’ lexical sets b) Overview of Standard British English (SBE) variants from Upton (2008) c) Results of occupational prestige survey
154
a) Summary of literature on the phonological system of Trinidadian English sorted by Wells’ lexical sets
Warner Warner Winford Winford Winford Wells Winer Winer Solomon Solomon Youssef & Ferreira (1967) (1967) (1978) (1978) (1978) (1988) (1993) (1993) (1993) (1993) Winford & Dial.A Dial.B Prestige Urban Rural Acrol TEC Acrolect Basilect (2004) Drayton Vern Vern ect system (frthcmg) FLEECE [i] [i] [i] [i] [i] [i] [i] [i] [i] beat [i] [iː] [i(ː)] KIT [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ] [ɪ]~[i] [ɪ] bit --- [ɪ]>[i] [ɪ] FACE [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] bait [e] [eː] [eː] DRESS [ɛ] [ɛ] [ɛ] [ɛ] [ɛ] [ɛ] [ɛ] [ɛ] [ɛ] bet [ɛ] [ɛ] [ɛ] TRAP [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] bat [a] [a>æ] [a] BATH [ɑ] [a] [aː] [aː] [aː] [ɑ x a] [ɑ] [a] [ɑ] --- [aː] [ɑː] candle PALM [ɑ] [aː] [aː] [aː] [ɑ x a] [ɑ] [a] [aː] [ɑː] START [aː] [aː] [aː] [ɑ x a] [ɑ] [a] [ɑː] [aː] [ɑː] part GOOSE [u] [u] [u] [u] [u] [u] [u] [u] [u] [u] [uː] [u(ː)] boot FOOT [ʊ] [ö] [ʊ] [ʊ] [ʊ] [ʊ] [ʊ] [ʊ]~[u [ʊ] put [ʊ] [ʊ] ] GOAT [o] [o] [oː] [oː] [oː] [o] [o] [o] [o] [o] [oː] [oː] boat NORTH [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔː] [ɔː] [ɔː] [ɔ x ɒ] [ɔ] [ɒ] [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔː] [ɔː] FORCE [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔ x ɒ] [ɔ] [ɒ] [ɔː] [ɔː] THOUGHT [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔ] [ɔ x ɒ] [ɔ] [ɒ] [ɔː] [ɔ] [ɔː>ɒ] [ɔ] bought CLOTH [ɒ x ɔ] [ɒ] [ɒ] ? ɔ [ɔ>ɔː] [ɒ] LOT [ɒ] [ɒ] [ɒ] [ɔ] pot --- ? ɔ [ɔ>ʌ>ɒ] [ɒ] NURSE [ɜ] [ɔ] [ɜː] [oː] [oː] [ɜ x ɒ] [ɜ] [ɒ] [ɜ] [ɜː>ɔ] [ɘː] Bert STRUT [ʌ] [ɔ] [ʌ] [ʌ] [ɔ] [ʌ x ɒ] [ʌ] [ɒ] [ʌ>ɔː>ɒ] [ʌ] SCHWA [ə] [ɔ] [ə] [a] [a] [ə] [ə] [ə] but COMMA [ə] [a] [a] [ə x a] [ə] [a>ə>ʌ] LETTER [ə] [a] [a] [ə x a] [ɑ] [ə>ʌ] HAPPY [i] [ɪ>i] PRICE [ai] [ai] [ai] [ai] [ai] [aɪ] [aɪ] [aɪ] [aɪ] [aɪ] buy CHOICE [oi] [oi] [ɔi] [ɔi] [ɔi] [ɔɪ] [ɔɪ] [ɔɪ] [ɔɪ] [ɔɪ] boy MOUTH [ou] [ou] ------[ɔʊ] [ɔʊ] [ɔʊ] [ɔʊ] [ɒʊ] bought NEAR [iə] [ia] [iɛ] [iɛ] [iɛ] [eə] [ɛː] [ɛː] or [ɛə] SQUARE [iə] [ia] [eə] [ɛː] or [ɛː] or [ɛə] [ɛə] CURE [ɒ x ɔ] [ɔ] [ɒ] [juɛ] [jɔː]
155
b) Overview of Standard British English (SBE) variants from Upton (2008)
Vowel RP shared RP/trad-RP trad-RP [+low] TRAP a æ BATH ɑː~a ɑː START ɑː [-high] STRUT ʌ LOT ɒ CLOTH ɒ ɒ~ɔː THOUGHT ɔː NORTH ɔː FORCE ɔː NURSE ɘː ɜː
156
c) Results of occupational prestige survey
HIGH MID-HIGH MID-LOW Judge 4.86 Priest.ministr 3.96 Electrician 2.89 Doctor 4.77 Schl.principal 3.87 Law.clerk 2.89 Pilot 4.59 Accountant 3.86 Lab.tech 2.87 Architect 4.40 Legislator 3.76 Policeman 2.86 Uni.lect 4.37 Pharmacist 3.73 Airport.ops.agent 2.83 Engineer 4.36 Comp.prgrmmr 3.66 Bank.clerk 2.83 Dentist 4.34 Politician 3.66 Accounting.Asst 2.81 Corp.mngr 4.33 Uni.tutor 3.57 Vet.asst 2.77 Mngr.big.firm 4.33 Small.biz.ownr 3.44 Acct.clerk 2.74 Scientist 4.30 Dept.mngr 3.41 Radio.tech 2.73 Biz.exec 4.27 Gvt.official 3.41 Dental.asst 2.69 Lawyer 4.26 Contractor 3.39 Admin.asst 2.67 Vet 4.14 Site.ops.mngr 3.39 Highschl.libr 2.61 Owner.big.store 4.11 Sec.schl.teachr 3.37 Hairdresser 2.59 Ship.capt 4.04 Journalist 3.30 Forester 2.59 Schl.admin 3.29 Sales.persn.cmpny 2.53 Nurse 3.26 Plumber 2.46 Prim.schl.teachr 3.24 Farmer 2.44 Events.mngr 3.21 Seamstress 2.44 Customs.offcr 3.14 Carpenter 2.41 Store.mang 3.11 Cust.serv.rep 2.37 LOW Flight.attend 3.07 Jun.civil.serv 2.37 Sales.clrk.retail 1.97 Army.offcr 3.06 Office.clerk 2.34 Quarry.wrkr 1.93 Fireman 3.04 Car.mechanic 2.30 Sec.guard 1.84 Draughtsman 3.03 Locksmith 2.29 OJT.worker 1.84 Tech 3.03 Mason 2.26 Construct.wrkr 1.81 Machine.opertr 2.26 Groundsman 1.76 Painter 2.26 Delivery.drvr 1.76 Receptionist 2.26 Laundry.wrkr 1.74 Housewife 2.24 Estate.Labor 1.73 Machinery.drvr 2.23 Domestic.help 1.69 Food.prep.wrkr 2.19 Watchman 1.69 Shoemaker 2.13 Labourer 1.67 Data.entry.clrk 2.07 Packer 1.67 Bus.driver 2.04 Gateman 1.64 Assembly.wrkr 2.04 Street.vend 1.59 Store.clrk 2.03 Cleaner 1.57 Store.cashr 2.01 Garbageman 1.54 Factory.wrkr 2.00 CPEP.wrkr 1.40 Taxi.drvr 2.00
157