Chain Shifts and Merger in New Zealand English

CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH

CHIKAKO SHIBATA

The vowels of New Zealand English have been developing for over a century, though the vowel system is phonemically identical to that of RP. While the chain shift of short front vowels and the rotation of closing diphthongs maintain vowel contrasts, the merger of front centering diphthongs eliminates them and collapses the vowel system. This paper demonstrates that these sound changes are all ascribed to dominance relations between the constraints on contrasts, and that the NZE constraint ranking achieves a vowel system with at most three phonologically significant degrees of height.*

Keywords: constraint, distinctiveness, auditory space, phonological contrast, vowel system

1. Introduction

Some sound changes tend to preserve the auditory distinctiveness of particular phonemic contrasts. Where vowels are rather close to each other in auditory space, vowel shift reduces possible confusion between them. Diphthongization even increases the perceptibility of distinction by reinforcing a difference on the vowel height dimension. These developments sometimes constitute a chain of events in order to maintain the entire sound system of a language. On the other hand, splits and mergers inevitably involve an alteration in the system of oppositions. While contrasting phonemes are merged into a single phoneme, allophones of a single phoneme achieve independent status through splitting. Although these sound changes are incom- patible with the system-preserving processes, chain shifts and merger

* I am deeply indebted to the anonymous EL reviewers for their invaluable com- ments on the earlier versions of this article. All remaining errors and inadequacies are of course my own.

occur synchronically in New Zealand English (hereafter NZE). In Section 2, I consider how the NZE vowel system is described by Hawkins (1976), Wells (1982), B auer (1986, 1994), and other researchers. The NZE vowel system provides evidence for the existence of constraints on contrasts. Flemming (1995) proposes a theory of phonological contrast dubbed the "Dispersion Theory," and claims that perceptual markedness is a property of contrasts rather than individual sounds. In Section 3, I examine the constraints on the system of contrasts that are introduced by NiChiosain and Padgett (2001) and Minkova and Stockwell (2003). The goal of this paper is to account for the chain shifts and merger in NZE in terms of dominance relations between the constraints on contrasts. Analysis of the NZE vowel system reveals dispersion effects whereby contrasting sounds tend to be evenly distributed over as much auditory space as articulatory effort allows.

2. The Vowel System of New Zealand English According to Bauer (1986: 226), the phonemic system of NZE is reminiscent of or even identical with phonemic systems found in the south eastern part of England, which have the same vowel inventory as Received Pronunciation (hereafter RP). Although phonemically identical, RP and NZE differ in the phonetic realization of certain phonemes.1 Wells (1982) shows the RP vowel system and the NZE vowel system as follows: (1) The RP Vowel System (Wells (1982: 119))

1 Historical records of New Zealand tell us that European settlement began in the 1840s, and that immigrants were largely British for the rest of the nineteenth century. The proportion of native-born New Zealanders increased to nearly 60% by 1901 (Sinclair (1996)). After that date, therefore, the development of the English language in New Zealand started to reflect New Zealand rather than British trends. CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 29

(2) The NZE Vowel System (Wells (1982: 608))

In this paper an attempt is made to discuss NZE in its own terms, but from time to time it is inevitably compared with RP.

2.1. The Chain Shift of Short Front Vowels The NZE vowel in words of the lexical set KIT is commonly a central vowel, which is symbolized as /e/ in figure (2). The centralized high vowel is a diagnostic feature of NZE, which indicates that the speaker is not an Australian but a New Zealander.2 Phonologically, at least younger New Zealanders seem to have no distinction between /l/ and /e/, and pronounce finish [fene∫], Philip [felep], as compared to Australian English [filep] and RP [filip] (Trudgill and Hannah (2002: 23)). The front vowels are closer in Australian English than in RP, and they are even closer in NZE than in Australian English. In fact, /e/ of DRESScan range as close as [l] in NZE, so ten can readily be heard as RP or General American tin. However, ten can avoid risking confusion with tin in NZE because of the centrality of the vowel in tin.3 These changes bear the classic marks of a chain shift as illustrated below:

2 The vowel system of Australian English set out by Wells (1982: 596) is shown below:

According to Wells (1982: 598), the short front vowels tend to be rather closer than the qualities usual in RP or GA. This development is referred to as "pancake vocalism" because of the effect of squashing up the vowels towards the upper part of the vowel area. 3 Wells (1982: 607) notes that the NZE /e/ often has some degree of diphthonging as in bed [bied]. The present author observed ten [tien] in 2001. 30 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006)

(3) The Chain Shift of NZE Short Front Vowels

According to Bauer (1986: 231-232), acoustic analyses have con- firmed this shift, suggesting that auditory analyses have underestimated the closeness of the front vowels. He gives the following figures for Formant 1 and Formant 2 of the NZE short vowels, which can be compared with those of RP equivalents cited in Gimson et al. (1994: 96): (4) Formant Frequencies for Short Front Vowels

The F1 frequencies indicate that /e/ of DRESSis closer than /l/ of KIT in NZE, and that /ae/ of TRAPin NZE is as close as /e/ in RP. If this is a chain shift, then we are faced with the issue of whether it is a push chain or pull chain, and which vowel started the chain. This issue is debated among linguists in New Zealand, where the mid vowel may be the possible initiator of the change, giving a push-pull chain. Allan and Starks (2000: 76-80) avoid deciding whether there is a link between the changes occurring to any of the front vowels. However, they assume that if the shift was a push chain, then all three vowels would move simultaneously in order to avoid merger and the potential collapse of the vowel system. If it was a pull chain, then we do not necessarily expect a simultaneous shift, because the centralization of /l/ would not result in a merger with any of the other short vowels. On this line of reasoning, if it was a push-pull chain, the high vowel /l/ would move simultaneously with the initiating mid vowel /e/, but /ae/ CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 31 could stay as low as it was before. The acoustic evidence given in (4) shows that the three vowels have shifted relatively simultaneously, suggesting that it is a push chain initiated by the low vowel /ae/.4 Although Wells (1982) finds it sensible to symbolize the NZE KIT vowel as /e/, Hawkins (1976) proposes to describe the NZE vowel system without the transcription [e], for this vowel is not distinctive. Given that the KIT vowel is central and the DRESSvowel is the closest short front vowel, the NZE short vowel system is represented "with only two phonologically significant degrees of height." (Wells (1982: 607)) Hawkins (1976: 50) claims that this vowel system constitutes "a more stable vowel pattern," which can be satisfactorily specified in terms of binary features, than the RP system of short vowels. The NZE short vowels are described by Hawkins (1976: 58) as follows: (5) Feature Composition of the NZE Short Vowels e ae l A U D high + - + - + - front + + - - - - round - - + +

2.2. The Diphthong Shift The diphthong shift is identified by Wells (1982) in his description of London English. This shift affects the four closing diphthongs /el/, /al/, /ou/, and /au/, as well as the closest monophthongs /iI/ and /uI/ which are realized as diphthongs in many dialects. Wells (1982: 308) remarks that the shifts in the starting points of these diphthongs are "presumably

4 Based on the data derived from the Origins of New Zealand English Mobile Unit Corpus, Trudgill (2004: 43) claims that the modem NZE close realizations of /e/ and /ae/ were already present in the speech of the first and second generation of New Zealand born English speakers, while the centralization of /l/ is a twentieth century innovation. The ONZE Mobile Corpus consists of recordings made for the National Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand between 1946 and 1948 by their Mobile Disc Recording Unit, which traveled around small towns in both the North Island and South Island of New Zealand. Trudgill maintains that the Southern Hemisphere English varieties have short front vowels which are close in quality because they inherited these qualities from southeastern English varieties. He argues that "the occurrence of a single innovation-that of lowering in England-is very much more likely to be the correct explanation for this differentiation than the occurrence of four separate but identical innovations that just happened to take place at about the same time in four different and widely separated parts of the world." 32 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006) related, perhaps as a push-chain." Since the four diphthongs and the two monophthongs are the outputs of the so-called Great Vowel Shift (GVS), this chain shift may be regarded as an extension of the GVS.5 Polarization in the closing diphthongs is a phenomenon observed not only in the London dialect but also in the southern hemisphere dialects such as NZE, Australian English, South African English (Allan and Starks (2000)). The fronted and closer articulation of the nucleus of the MOUTHdiphthong is one of the most salient features observed in NZE.6 The fronting of the nucleus makes the vowel more contrastive to the following glide /u/. In terms of distinctive features, the first element of the diphthong /aeu/ is specified with [-high, -back] while the second element is specified with [+high, +back]. This shift expands the distance between the two elements of the diphthong, satisfying the requirement that perceptual distinctiveness be maximized. There is a variation between [nl] and [Dl] in the PRICEvowel in NZE. The retraction of the nucleus makes the vowel more distinctive from the following glide /l/. The expanded distance between the two elements can stabilize the diphthongs, which are prone to phonological processes such as smoothing and shortening. The above-mentioned development is referred to as the PRICE-MOUTH Crossover (Wells (1982: 310)): (6) The PRICE-MOUTH Crossover

RP al au

NZE aeu Dl

The first element of the FACE diphthong is lowered and retracted in NZE. On the other hand, the nuclear vowel of the GOAT diphthong is lowered, unrounded, and/or fronted. Consequently, the lowered and

5 According to Wells (1982: 150-151), all words containing the diphthong /ol/ are believed to be ultimately loan words, mainly from Old French. The CHOICEvowel is the only diphthong that was exempt from vowel shift. However, the CHOICE vowel seems to have merged with the PRICE vowel in parts of the south of England, where a diphthong of the [Dl] type may be used in both PRICE and CHOICE. See also footnote 17. 6 The present author observed in 2001 that /n/ is even palatalized as in now [naeu] when the nasal consonant precedes the diphthong /aeu/. CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 33 retracted nucleus of /el/ has coincided with the lowered and unrounded nucleus of /ou/: the starting points of the two diphthongs have arrived at a nonhigh, nonfront, unrounded vowel, namely /Λ/. The innovative GOAT diphthong can exaggerate its diphthongal quality.

The lowered and unrounded nucleus, /Λ/, is specified with [-high, +back, -round] while the second element /u/ is specified with [+high, +back, +round]. If the nuclear vowel of /Λu/ were further fronted, the resulting diphthong would be merged with the MOUTH diphthong /aeu/ in NZE. The perceptual distance is thus maintained between the two diphthongs. In the same way, if the nuclear vowel of the FACE diphthong /Λl/ were further retracted, the resulting diphthong would be merged with the PRICE diphthong /Dl/ in NZE. Here again, the diphthong shift has avoided merger. According to Bauer (1994), long high vowels were diphthongized in NZE by the 1930s.7 One of the variants of the FLEECEvowel, [el], has "a mid central starting point moving up and front to a high mid termi- nus." (Allan and Starks (2000: 64)) High vowel diphthongization is a process of dissimilation, in which the first element changes its height and/or backness to make it distinctive from the second element. One of the NZE variants of the GOOSEvowel is a fronted diphthong [ei]. Centralization of this diphthong "is not restricted to the southern hemisphere and UK dialects but seems to be a feature of English world wide." (Allan and Starks (2000: 64)) The shifts in the starting points of these various diphthongs and monophthongs constitute a chain as shown in the following simplified

7 Bauer (1986: 232) presents figures for F1 and F2 of the NZE long high vowels, which can be compared with those of RP equivalents cited in Gimson et al. (1994: 96):

The F1 frequencies indicate that the nuclei of the NZE long vowels are lower than those of RP equivalents. It is also noticed that /uI/ in NZE is centralized by com- paring the F2 frequencies. 34 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006) diagram: (7) The Chain Shift of Long Vowels in NZE RP iI el al Du eu uI

NZE el Λl Dl aeu Λu eu

In his discussion of London English, Wells (1982: 306-310) suggests that the diphthongization of long high vowels started a push chain. Chronologically speaking, however, the chain shift appears to have been dragged by the PRICE and MOUTH diphthongs in NZE.8 The retraction of the starting point in the PRICE diphthong initiated the counterclock- wise shift of the FACE diphthong and the FLEECE vowel. On the other hand, the fronting of the MOUTH diphthong dragged the clockwise rotation of the GOAT diphthong and the GOOSE vowel. Although these shifts seem to be related as a pull chain, the first elements of those diphthongs move in order to maximize the perceptual distinctiveness from the second elements, rather than in order to fill the gap left behind by the earlier shifted diphthongs.

2.3. The Merger of Front Centering Diphthongs So far we have seen that the closing diphthongs rotate in the vowel system, where the perceptual distinction is maintained from each other. In NZE, however, there is "a strong and growing tendency for /le/ and /εe/ to merge, so that pairs such as beer, bear are pronounced identical- ly." (Trudgill and Hannah (2002: 24)) The merger between the two front centering diphthongs is labeled as ear/air merger, and it has been investigated by linguists in New Zealand for over three decades. In the early studies, researchers presented "a picture of confusion regarding the direction and degree of merger" (Batterham (2000: 113)):

8 According to Bauer (1994: 391-394), the earliest trustworthy account of NZE pronunciation was provided in 1887 by Samuel McBurney, an autodidact phoneti- cian, who indicated the variation between [al] and [Dl] in the PRICEvowel as well as the front and raised starting-point of the MOUTHvowel. From the early 1900s, com- plaints were made about the lowering of the starting-points in the FACE and GOAT diphthongs. In 1930s, the list of "errors" in NZE included the diphthongization of the FLEECEand GOOSEvowels. CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 35

some suggested a merger on the closer variant, while others suggested a trend towards the more open variant. The longitudinal study conducted by Gordon and Maclagan (1990) proved that the direction reversed from the open variant in 1983 towards the close variant in 1988. The recent studies have revealed that "the shift is occurring to some degree in both directions and that the predominant direction of the merger has altered between two generations." (Batterham (2000: 115)) The question that arises here is why the two centering diphthongs merge at the expense of distinction. The answer is suggested by Wells' (1982: 99-101) indication that mergers reduce the number of terms in a system, which inevitably involves an alteration in the phonemic system. The long vowel system in question is repeated below: (8) The RP System The NZE System le ue (ie) (ue)

εe ３I oI ee 3I oI

DI aI

The merger between /le/ and /εe/ could reduce the functional load of the opposition in the NZE system of long vowels. Labov (1994: 328- 330) proposes to distinguish two types of functional load. One of them is referred to as a measure of "lexical opposition," i.e. the number of minimal pairs which depend on the distinction. If the number is small, the lexical opposition is low and the functional load is heavy. "If two phonemes are completely merged, by definition the functional load is zero." Therefore, mergers are encouraged especially when a particular phonemic dimension is overcrowded.9 Maclagan and Gordon (1996: 145) claim that the ear/air merger "is now nearing completion," suggesting that it is occurring because one member of the pair has been involved in the chain-shift raising of the NZE front vowels discussed in 2.1. Though we do not decide whether the merger is related to the raising, we may conclude that /le/ and /εe/ have been reduced to co-allophonic variants of the new phoneme /ee/

9 Another type of functional load is referred to as a measure of "lexical predictability" of the distributions, or the extent to which the distinction depends on minimal pairs. "High lexical predictability implies low lexical opposition, but not vice versa." (Labov (1994: 328)) 36 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006) during this single generation in New Zealand.10

3. The Constraints on the System of Contrasts Changes affecting the sound system of a language are classified by Labov (1994: 295) into "three complementary categories: rotations, mergers, and splits." Rotations, or chain shifts, maintain distinctions while mergers eliminate them. On the other hand, splits create distinctions typically when a positional allophone develops into an independent phoneme due to the changes in the environments where it occurs. Unlike the conditioned process of phoneme splitting, chain shifts are usually context-free sound changes, where vowels rotate within the system so as to avoid merger. These phonological processes are analyzed within a version of Dispersion Theory (hereafter DT, Flemming (1995, 2001, 2004)) dubbed after Lindblom's (1986) theory of Adaptive Dispersion. In DT, wellformedness is evaluated not only over isolated forms but also with respect to the system of contrasts. According to Flemming (2001: 25), the selection of phonological contrasts is subject to three functional goals: (9) a. Maximise the number of contrasts (in any given context). b. Maximise the distinctiveness of contrasts. c. Minimise effort. The selection of a set of contrasts involves balancing these three requirements, and different languages can reach different compromises, resulting in cross-linguistic variation in systems of contrast.11

10 Labov (1994: 323) states that "[m]erger by transfer is the slowest; merger by approximation may take three or four generations; merger by expansion appears to be complete in a single generation." Merger by transfer is a unidirectional process in which words are transferred gradually from one phonemic category to another. Merger by approximation is a gradual approximation of the phonetic targets of two phonemes until they are indistinct. In merger by expansion, the phonetic range of the new phoneme is roughly equivalent to the union of the range of the two phonemes that merged. The earlair merger in NZE may be a case of this merger by expansion. 11 Flemming (2001: 16) notes that DT differs from Optimality Theory in that constraint conflict is resolved in terms of constraint weighting rather than strict dominance ranking of constraints. He claims that none of the constraints is completely dominant, and that each constraint can be violated to a greater or lesser degree. See also footnote 14. CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 37

The process of splitting is forced by the requirement in (9a) so as to differentiate as many words as possible. NiChiosain and Padgett (2001: 133) formulate a family of constraints that consider the number of contrasting words as follows:12 (10) NWord constraints a. NWORDS: A language must have at least n contrasting words. b. 1WORD>>2WORDS>>...>>N-1WORDS>>NWORDS A universal ranking of these constraints is assumed as in (10b). For example, a language with a system of three vowels can have at least three contrasting words. Obviously, the more contrasting segments the inventory contains, the less perceptual space is given for each segment, and the distinctiveness (dispersion) of contrasts is reduced. Therefore, the process of splitting is checked by the requirement in (9b). The distinctiveness of contrasts should be maximized so it is easy for the listener to distinguish words. NiChiosain and Padgett (2001: 132) propose a family of SPACE constraints as follows: (11) Space constraints for segmental backness a. Spacing: |...S1...|...S2...|...S3...| Each segment gets 1/3 of the perceptual space |...... S1...... |...... S2...... | Each segment gets 1/2 of the perceptual space |...... S1...... | Each segment gets 1/1 of the perceptual space b. SPACE(FZ)≧1/N: For every pair of words differing only in the F2 value of one segment, the contrasting segments differ by at least 1/nth of the full F2 range. c. SPACE(F2)≧1/3>>SPACE(F2)≧1/2>>SPACE(F2)≧1 Concerning vowel backness, a three-way contrast is found in the English language. Since the relevant acoustic correlate is roughly the second formant (F2) value of the vowel, the contrast is accounted for by the constraint SPACE(F2)≧1/3. A universal ranking in (11c) shows that

12 NiChiosain and Padgett (2001: 133) depart from Flemming in their formulation of these constraints in order to "fully integrate the ideas of DT into phonology." They claim that if we are not able to evaluate entire words, there is no way to consider most phonological processes such as stress, assimilation, final devoicing, and so on, simultaneously with matters of contrast. 38 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006) more spacing between contrasting segments is preferred, all else equal. Outputs are selected so as to best satisfy the conflicting violable constraints. If we assume dominance relations between the constraints, the following hypothetical ranking demonstrates how NWORD and SPACE constraints work together to realize a maximally dispersed contrast: (12) The Constraint Ranking for Vowel Backness

When the maintenance of three-way contrast predominates over the maintenance of one-half of the auditory space, the system of three vowel contrasts in (12a) is selected as shown above. The candidates in

(12b) and (12c) violate SPACE(F2)≧1/2 because the central vowel /Λ/ occupies more than one-half of the full F2 range. If this constraint was ranked over 3WORDS, the system of two vowel contrasts in (12d) would be selected for an optimal system of vowel contrasts. It is well known that the frequency of F1 corresponds to vowel height. High vowels have the lowest F1 frequency and the lowest sonority, while low vowels have the highest sonority. When a low vowel is raised, the acoustic space for higher vowels is reduced. Chain shifts are then caused by the requirement that the perceptual distance be maintained between vowels, namely by the SPACEconstraints. It is reasonable to ask what causes the raising of a low vowel. The answer is suggested by Kirchner's (2001: 87) notion of lenition, such that "vowel reduction, which would appear to be the vocalic counterpart of consonant lenition, typically involves raising (and centralization)." He states that lenition processes involve reduction of the magnitude or duration of articulatory gestures, and that sometimes lenitional chain shifts are found within a given language. Kirchner proposes that leni- CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 39 tion is driven by the phonetic imperative for articulatory effort to be minimized. Minkova and Stockwell (2003: 179-180) posit this imperative, which corresponds to the requirement in (9c), as the following constraint: (13) a. *EFFORT:An articulation which requires more effort is disfavored. b. *EFFORT=3>>*EFFORT=2>>*EFFORT=1 This constraint is also quantifiable in the form of gestural score as shown in (13b). Low vowels, which have the highest F1 frequency, are thus disfavored by the constraint *EFFORT=3. However, the NZE diphthong shift discussed in 2.2 does not involve vowel raising. The closing diphthongs rotate in order to enhance the nucleus-glide differentiation. Minkova and Stockwell (2003: 173) refer to the constraint that controls the auditory distance as HEAR CLEAR: (14) a. HEAR CLEAR:Maximize the auditory distance between the nuclear vowel and the following glide (measured in formant frequency). b. HEAR CLEARF1=1>>HEAR CLEAR F1=2>> HEAR CLEAR F1=3 A diphthong shifts so as to achieve optimal shape by balancing the perceptual constraint HEARCLEAR and the articulatory constraint *EFFORT. In order to evaluate wellformedness of the diphthongs, we should decompose the vowel height (F1) dimension into four levels of sonority as follows:13

13 Although Flemming(2004: 238) decomposesthe F1 dimensioninto seven levels of sonority, only four levels are adequatefor the analysis developedhere. The coarsely quantized vowel space in (15) is based on the following formant frequencies for RP diphthongscited in Gimson et al. (1994:96). For F1 and F2 of long high vowels, see footnote 7.

Since we have no data on the NZE diphthongs, I assume that /Λu/ occupies the F1 space between /eu/ and /au/. 40 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006)

(15) i u 0 e e o 1

ε Λ o 2

ae a D 3 The numerals indicate the relative distance of the nuclear vowel from the following glide, /l/ or /u/. The long vowel /iI/ violates the constraint HEARCLEAR(F1)=1 because the distance between the nucleus and the glide is less than one. The diphthong /el/ violates HEARCLEAR(F1)=2 because the distance is less than two, and the diphthong /Λl/ violates HEARCLEAR (F1)=3 because it is less than three. Both /al/ and /Dl/ completely satisfy the constraint HEARCLEAR(F1), but they violate *EFFORT=3 because of the maximal distance in height between the nucleus and the glide. The following hypothetical constraint ranking demonstrates how HEAR CLEAR interacts with *EFFORT: (16) The Constraint Ranking for the Diphthongs

The long monophthong in (16a), which completely satisfies *EFFORT,is excluded if the articulatory constraint is dominated by HEARCLEAR(F1). In the abbreviated tableau, the triple asterisk indicates that the candidate violates HEARCLEAR(F1)=1. The candidates in (16b) and (16c) are excluded from the set of optimal output forms by the violation of HEARCLEAR(F1)=2 and HEARCLEAR(F1)=3, respectively. A diphthong shift in accordance with the perceptual requirement causes the other diphthongs to rotate within the vowel system. The distinctive phonemes are forced by the SPACEconstraints to maintain perceptual distance from each other, avoiding merger. However, mergers do occur in the sound system of a given language, because this process of neutralization is also motivated by the SPACEconstraints. If two separate phonemes merge into one, the new phoneme can use the auditory space that was formerly divided between the two phonemes. Since CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 41 mergers proceed at the cost of lexical contrasts, the process is checked by the NWORDconstraints in (10). Repeated below are the four constraint families and their requirements relevant to the processes of chain shift and merger, which will be discussed in detail in the following section: (17) a. NWORD:Maximize the number of contrasts. b. SPACE: Maximize the distinctiveness of contrasts between phonemes. c. HEAR CLEAR:Maximize the auditory distance between the nucleus and the following glide of a diphthong. d. *EFFORT:Minimize articulatory effort. Although I assume the dominance relations between the constraints, the constraint conflict may be resolved by compromise between the constraints in the analysis of contrasts. Flemming (2001) claims that effort and distinctiveness are scalar quantities, and that they trade off against each other in an additive fashion. The constraints on the system of contrasts are violated to some degree, and better satisfaction of two constraints can make up for greater violation of the third.14 It is true that RP is a prestigious accent in New Zealand, but it is not the origin of NZE. Each of them has its own sound system, and the following section is devoted to finding the difference between the vowel systems. For this reason, I employ no faithfulness constraints that evaluate input-output correspondence. This attitude is in accordance with DT, whose constraints demand contrast directly in the output. The key idea of DT is that wellformedness must be evaluated not simply over isolated forms, but also with respect to the larger system of contrasts. Constraints on the distinctiveness of contrasts predict that a sound may be marked by virtue of the contrasts it enters into. Therefore, I employ no markedness constraints that exclude particular sounds or features in the following analysis. Perceptual markedness is a property of contrasts rather than individual sounds. On the other hand, perceptual difficulty is very different from articulatory difficulty.

14 Flemming (2001) argues that these interactions are better modeled in a weighted constraint system rather than one which exclusively employs strict constraint dominance. In his theory, the sum of the costs of violating lower-weighted constraints may add up to more than the cost of violating a higher-weighted constraint. 42 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006)

In what follows, we will find that vowel systems strike a balance between two often contradictory requirements, i.e. articulatory simplicity and perceptual distinctiveness.

4. Analysis

We have considered two cases of chain shift observed in NZE during the last century: the raising/centralization of front vowels in 2.1 and the rotation of closing diphthongs in 2.2. Alongside of these processes of neutralization avoidance, the merger of centering diphthongs is almost completed in NZE as discussed in 2.3. In this section, I attempt to give a unified account for these phonological changes by exploring the vowel system of NZE.15

4.1. The Chain Shift of Front Vowels The NZE system of short vowels is illustrated below in comparison with the RP system: (18) The NZE System The RP System e l u [+high] l u ae Λ D [-high] e Λ

[+low] ae D Since articulation of a low vowel requires more effort than that of higher vowels, I assume that the chain shift of front vowels is initiated by the raising of /ae/ as a vocalic version of lenition. This vowel raising reduces the F1 space for /e/, and the subsequent raising of /e/ causes the centralization of /l/, which is also a process of lenition. As a result of this lenitional chain shift, the NZE system of short vowels is represented with two degrees of height as shown above. Thus, each of the six vowels can use one-half of the full F1 range. Let us now analyze the system of short vowels. The constraints relevant here are the following: (19) a. 1WORD>>2WORDS>>...>>5WORDS>>WORDS b. SPACE (F1)≧1/2, SPACE(F2)≧1/2 c. *EFFORT=3

15 Minkova and Stockwell (2003: 186) argue that nucleus-glide dissimilation, chain shift, and merger are independent of each other, and that they "should not be classified as the same unified historical phenomenon." They also claim that these changes "have to be seen as reflexes of the different rankings of the same constraints." CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 43

First, the constraint 6WORDS in (19a) excludes the candidate systems of less than six vowels as follows: (20) The Constraint Ranking for the Short Vowel System (1)

The system of six vowels in (20f) violates *EFFORT=3 twice by containing two low vowels, which have the highest F1 frequency. Neverthe- less, it is selected for an optimal system because it satisfies the constraint 6WORDS that dominates *EFFORT=3.16

16 Flemming (2004: 237) notes that contrast maximization and effort minimization do not directly conflict with each other, though both of them conflict with distinctiveness maximization. However, he assumes that a contrast may be neutralized in some context if it cannot be realized with a distinctiveness without violating *EFFORT, which penalizes some articulation. For example, producing a low vowel with the same duration as a higher vowel will require faster and more effortful movements. Indeed, reduction of /a/ to [e] or [e] in unstressed syllables is commonly reported impressionistically and in experimental studies. 44 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006)

Next, let us examine the following candidate systems of six vowel contrast in terms of the SPACEconstraints: (21) The Constraint Ranking for the Short Vowel System (2)

When SPACE(F1)≧1/2 dominates SPACE(F2)≧1/2, the NZE system in (21c) with two degrees of height is selected for an optimal vowel system. If SPACE(F1)≧1/2 was dominated by SPACE(F2)≧1/2, however, the symmetrical vowel system in (21a) would be selected. If there was no dominance relation between SPACE(F1)≧1/2 and SPACE(F2)≧1/2, a compromise or trade-off would be expected between the two SPACEcon- straints. In the RP system in (21b), the front vowels violate SPACE(F1)≧1/2, but the dispersed back vowels evade the violation of the same constraint. On the other hand, the unrounded back vowel /Λ/. which occupies two-thirds of the F2 space, causes /e/ to violate

SPACE(F2)≧1/2. Vowels that violate the SPACE constraints thus amount to four in the system in (21b). Six vowels violate SPACE(F1)≧1/2 in the system in (21a), while six vowels violate SPACE(F2)≧1/2 in (21c). Therefore, the asymmetrical system in (21b) with dispersed contrast of back vowels could be selected as a consequence of the compromise between SPACE(F1)≧1/2 and SPACE(F2)≧1/2. So far I have demonstrated that the difference between the NZE system and the RP system of short vowels comes from the difference in the dominance relation between the two SPACE constraints: CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 45

(22) NZE: *EFFORT=3, SPACE(F1)≧1/2>>SPACE(F2)≧1/2 RP: SPACE(F1)≧1/2, SPACE(F2)≧1/2>>*EFFORT=3 In NZE, the *EFFORT constraint causes the raising of the low vowel /ae/, and the dominance of SPACE(F1)≧1/2 over SPACE(F2)≧1/2 accounts for the centralization, not the subsequent raising, of the high vowel /l/. The result is the vowel system with only two phonologically significant degrees of height.

4.2. The Rotation of Closing Diphthongs I have claimed in 2.2 that the chain shift of closing diphthongs and long high vowels is dragged by the PRICE and MOUTH diphthongs in NZE. The NZE system of closing diphthongs is illustrated below in comparison with the RP system:17 (23) The NZE System The RP System el eu iI uI

Λ1 Λu el eu

aeu Dl al au As discussed in section three, diphthong dissimilation is forced by the constraints that require distinctiveness maximization, and checked by the constraints that require effort minimization. The shift of one diphthong causes the others to move subsequently. This chain shift is motivated by the SPACE constraints that require contrasting sounds to be evenly distributed over as much auditory space as possible. The constraints relevant to the diphthong shift are the following:

(24) a. HEARCLEAR(F1)=1>>HEARCLEAR(F1)=2>> HEARCLEAR(F1)=3

HEARCLEAR(F2)=1>>HEARCLEAR(F2)=2>> HEARCLEAR(F2)=3

b. SPACE(F1)≧1/2

c. *EFFORT=3 Let us first evaluate the following candidate forms so as to select

17 The diphthong /ol/ is omitted from the representations because it remains an isolated element in English phonology. (See also footnote 5.) According to Labov (1994: 307), however, the confusion of /al/ and /ol/ is found in fifteenth-century mis- spellings. In the late seventeenth century, mergers between line and loin, bile and boil, isle and oil were identified by some phoneticians. The merger was stigmatized and already in retreat by the end of the eighteenth century. /al/ and /ol/ are distinct in most modem English dialects. 46 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006) optimal diphthongs: (25) The Constraint Ranking for the Closing Diphthongs

When the HEARCLEAR constraints dominate *EFFORT=3, the NZE diphthongs /Dl/ and /aeu/, which completely satisfy both HEARCLEAR(F1) and HEARCLEAR(F2),are selected for optimal diphthongs in spite of the articulatory effort they require. However, wellformedness of these diphthongs must be evaluated not only over isolated forms but with respect to the system of contrasts. Consider the following candidate systems of the closing diphthongs: CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 47

(26) The Constraint Ranking for the Diphthong System (1)

When HEARCLEAR(F2)=1 dominates SPACE(F1)≧1/2, the NZE system in (26d) is selected for an optimal diphthong system. In (26d), the diphthongized long high vowel /al/ can evade the violation of HEARCLEAR(F2)=1. In the other candidate systems, the long monophthong /iI/ violates the undominated constraint. If SPACE(F1)≧1/2 dominated the HEAR CLEAR constraints, however, the maximally dispersed system in (26c) would be selected for an optimal system of contrasts. It should be noted here that the candidate in (26a) would be a maximally dispersed system if it included the isolated element /ol/, the only diphthong that was exempt from vowel shift. (See footnotes 5 and 17.) It is possible that the RP system maintains the contrast in (26a) in order to avoid merger between /Dl/ and /ol/. Let us now evaluate the systems of closing diphthongs ending in /u/ through the constraint ranking assumed in (26): 48 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006)

(27) The Constraint Ranking for the Diphthong System (2)

This constraint raking selects the NZE system in (27d), which contains no monophthong, for an optimal system of contrasts as expected. Incidentally, the candidate systems in (27) are exhibited in chronological order. The candidate in (27a) is the final output of the GVS.18 In the RP system in (27b), the centralized GOATvowel /eu/ evades the violation of SPACE(F1)≧1/2, because each of /eu/ and /au/ can maintain one-half of the F1 space. In the system in (27c), the fronted MOUTH vowel /aeu/ allows the GOAT vowel to be lowered to /Λu/. Since /aeu/ better satisfies HEARCLEAR(F2) than /au/, and /Λu/ better satisfies HEARCLEAR(F1)than /eu/, the maximally dispersed system in (27c) should be preferred over the candidate in (27b). Once the GOAT vowel is lowered from /eu/ to /Λu/, the GOOSE vowel

18 To be more precise, Middle English /oI/ was raised to /oI/ by the late seventeenth century, and the output of the GVS was diphthongized into /ou/ around 1800 (Nakao (1985: 205)). CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 49 is forced to be dissimilated by the HEAR CLEAR constraints. These developments demonstrate that the chain shift of these diphthongs is initiated by the fronting of the nucleus of the MOUTH diphthong. Unless it was fronted, the GOAT vowel would not have been lowered. Unless it is lowered, the GOOSE vowel would never be diphthongized. Only if HEARCLEAR(F2)=1 is ranked above SPACE(F1)≧1/2, the NZE system in (27d) should be selected for an optimal system of closing diphthongs.

4.3. The Merger of Centering Diphthongs So far we have seen that the closing diphthongs rotate within the system so as to avoid merger. According to Labov (1994: 310), however, "mergers are much more common in the history of languages than chain shifts." I have claimed in 2.3 that the distinctive phonemes /le/ and /εe/ have been reduced to co-allophones of the new phoneme /ee/ in NZE. The NZE system of long vowels is illustrated below in comparison with the RP system: (28) The NZE system The RP system

(ue) le (ue)

ee 3I oI εe 3I oI

aI DI It is well known that the centering diphthongs have developed as a consequence of certain phonological processes in the history of RP. The epenthetic glide [e] developed between the long vowels /iI, eI, oI, uI/ and the following /r/. When the /r/ that furnishes the conditioning environment for the epenthesis was dropped, the centering diphthongs /le, εe, oe, ue/ achieved phonemic status through the process of splitting.19 Of the four, /oe/ in words of the lexical set FORCE has usually

19 The centering diphthongs are not included in the General American system of long vowels as follows (Wells (1982: 120)):

checked free Since the /r/ that follows the long vowels is preserved in General American, the centering diphthongs remain co-allophones of the long vowels used in the other environment. 50 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006) been merged with /oI/ of NORTH. In addition, the diphthong /ue/ of the lexical set CURE is now being lowered to [oI], which is phonetically identical with the FORCEvowel.20 The RP system is thus being reduced by one member through this latter process of merger. In NZE, the merger of front centering diphthongs may lead to the four-term system as shown in (28). The constraints relevant to the long vowel system are the following: (29) a. HEARCLEAR(F1)=1>>HEARCLEAR(F1)=2>> HEARCLEAR(F1)=3 HEARCLEAR(F2)=1>>HEARCLEAR(F2)=2>> HEARCLEAR(F2)=3 b. SPACE(F1)≧1/3>>SPACE(F1)≧1/2 SPACE(F2)≧1/3 c. *EFFORT=3 Before examining the system of long vowels, let us evaluate wellformedness of the centering diphthongs and long vowels:

20 The NORTHvowel had already been merged with the THOUGHTvowel after the /r/-dropping. The subsequent merger of FORCE and NORTHis referred to as the First FORCE Merger. The Second FORCE Merger involves the ongoing development of CURE Lowering, whereby the /ue/ of CURE is lowered via intermediate stages such as [oe], [oe] to [oI] (Wells (1982: 234-237)). CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 51

(30) The Constraint Ranking for the Long Vowels

When HEARCLEAR(F2) dominates HEARCLEAR(F1), /ee/ and /oe/ are selected in addition to the four centering diphthongs /le/, /εe/, /ue/, and /oe/. If HEARCLEAR(F2) was dominated by HEARCLEAR(F1), /ee/ and /oe/ would be disfavored. The monophthongs /3I/, /oI/, /DI/, and /aI/ should be excluded by the HEAR CLEAR constraints. Let us now evaluate wellformedness of the long vowel systems through the constraint ranking assumed in (26): 52 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006)

(31) The Constraint Ranking for the Long Vowel System (1)

When HEARCLEAR(F2)=1 dominates SPACE(F1)≧1/2, the candidate in (31a) should be selected for an optimal system of long vowels. The other candidates containing three monophthongs violate the undominated constraint more severely than the candidate in (31a). In order to evaluate wellformedness of the entire system of long vowels, let us superimpose the above candidate systems on the diphthong systems exhibited in (26) and (27): CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 53

(32) The Constraint Ranking for the Long Vowel System (2)

When SPACE(F1)≧1/3 dominates SPACE(F2)≧1/3, the NZE system in (32d), which completely satisfies the undominated constraint, is selected for an optimal system of long vowels. If SPACE(F2)≧1/3 was undominated, however, the RP system in (32b) would be selected. As in the case of short vowel systems, the difference between the NZE system and the RP system of long vowels comes from the difference in the dominance relation between the SPACE constraints: (33) NZE: HEARCLEAR(F2)=1, SPACE(F1)≧1/3>>SPACE(F2)≧1/3 RP: SPACE(F2)≧1/3>>SPACE(F1)≧1/3, HEARCLEAR(F2)=1 54 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006)

The dominance of SPACE(F1)≧1/3 over SPACE(F2)≧1/3 reveals that the NZE system depends more on the front-back distinction than on the high-low distinction. Hence the dominance of HEARCLEAR(F2)over HEARCLEAR(F1) when evaluating wellformedness of diphthongs, as shown in (25) and (30). The diphthong shift in NZE reflects these dominance relations between the constraints on contrasts. The candidate systems in (32) are exhibited in chronological order. The symmetrical system in (32a) is the output of Modern English, where the phonemic distinction depends on the difference in height of the nuclear vowels. Since the overcrowded F1 dimension reduces the perceptual distinctiveness of contrasts, the second elements of the diphthongs are required to participate in the differentiation of the diphthongs. In the RP system in (32b), the fronting of the GOATvowel from /ou/ to /eu/ enables the FORCEvowel /oe/ to be monophthongized into /oI/, because the GOAT vowel is more distant from the FORCEvowel than before. In the candidate system in (32c), the PRICE-MOUTHcrossover realizes the well-balanced F2 spacing among /aeu/, /aI/, and /Dl/. The shift of the MOUTH vowel causes the GOAT vowel to be lowered to /Λu/, while the shift of the PRICE vowel causes the FACE vowel to be lowered and retracted to /Λl/. The lower central area of the system is thus crowded with the shifted vowels. In the NZE system in (32d), the long high vowels are diphthongized into /el/ and /eu/. On the other hand, the front centering diphthongs /le/ and /εe/ are merged into /ee/, while the CURE vowel /ue/ is merged with the long monophthong /oI/. The result is the vowel system with three degrees of height. Although the F2 space is more crowded with the shifted vowels, the system completely satisfies the constraint on the F1 spacing. Note that the mergers do not start until the diphthong shift is completed. The ear/air merger would not occur unless the FACE vowel is retracted from /el/ to /Λl/. In the same way, the CURE vowel would never be merged with the monophthong /oI/ unless the GOAT vowel is fronted from /ou/ to /Λu/. The mergers then proceed under the constraint ranking that realizes a wellformed vowel system with optimal spacing. CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 55

5. Conclusion In the NZE vowel system, distinctions depend more on backness (chromaticity or F2) than on height (sonority or F1). I have demonstrated that the chain shift of front vowels has achieved a short vowel system with two degrees of height. In the system of long vowels, where the mergers of centering diphthongs are nearing completion, the vowel height is to be collapsed into three degrees. In the DT terms, these developments are attributed to the dominance relation between the SPACE constraints: SPACE(F1) dominates SPACE(F2) in the NZE vowel system. I have claimed that the chain shift of short front vowels is initiated by the raising of a low vowel /ae/. The constraint *EFFORTmotivates this lenitional process, or reduction, of a low vowel whose articulation requires more effort than that of higher vowels. While this change causes the subsequent raising of a mid vowel /e/, the high vowel /l/ is not raised but centralized because SPACE(F1)≧1/2 dominates

SPACE(F2)≧1/2 in the NZE vowel system. The chain shift of closing diphthongs is caused by the HEAR CLEAR constraints which require the auditory distinctiveness to be maximized between the nuclear vowel and the following glide. It is initiated by the PRICE and MOUTH diphthongs, which have achieved the optimal shapes /Dl/ and /aeu/, respectively. The subsequent move is checked by the SPACE constraints which require contrasting sounds to maintain suf- ficient perceptual distance from each other. The long high vowels are diphthongized because HEARCLEAR (F2)=1 dominates SPACE(F1)≧1/2 in the NZE vowel system. After the diphthong shift, two front centering diphthongs are merged into one phoneme /ee/. The contrast is neutralized because the required effort is not balanced with the achieved distinction. When the back centering diphthong /ue/ is merged with /oI/, the long vowel system is to be collapsed into three degrees of height. The mergers of centering diphthongs are motivated by SPACE(F1)≧1/3 that dominates SPACE(F2)≧1/3 in NZE. The consequence is vowel distinction that depends more on backness than on height. Hence the dominance of HEARCLEAR(F2) over HEARCLEAR(F1). In sum, the proposed constraints on the NZE vowel system are ranked as follows: HEARCLEAR(F2)=1, SPACE(F1)≧1/3>>

SPACE(F2)≧1/3, HEARCLEAR(F1)=1>>*EFFORT=3, SPACE(F1)≧1/2>> 56 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 23, NO. 1 (2006)

SPACE(F2)≧1/2.

REFERENCES

Allan, W. Scott and Donna Starks (2000)“‘No-one Sounds Like Us?’ A Comparison of New Zealand and Other Southern Hemisphere Englishes,” New Zealand English, ed. by Allan Bell and Koenraad Kuiper, 53-83, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Batterham, Margaret (2000) “The Apparent Merger of the Front Centring Diphthongs-Ear and Air-in New Zealand English,” New Zealand English, ed. by Allan Bell and Koenraad Kuiper, 111-145, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Bauer, Laurie (1986) “Notes on New Zealand English Phonetics and Phonology,” English World-Wide 7, 225-258. Bauer, Laurie (1994) “English in New Zealand,” The Cambridge History of the English Language V: English in Britain and Overseas: Origins and Development, ed. by Robert Burchfield, 382-429, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Flemming, Edward (1995) Auditory Representations in Phonology, Doctoral dis- sertation, University of California, Los Angels. [Published by Garland, New York, 2001.] Flemming, Edward (2001) “Scalar and Categorical Phenomena in a Unified Model of Phonetics and Phonology,” Phonology 18, 7-44. Flemming, Edward (2004) “Contrast and Perceptual Distinctiveness,” Phonet- ically Based Phonology, ed. by Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner and Donca Steriade, 232-276, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gimson, A. C. and Alan Cruttenden (1994) Gimson's Pronunciation of English, 5th ed., Arnold, London. Gordon, Elizabeth and Margaret A. Maclagan (1990) “A Longitudinal Study of the ‘Ear/Air’ Contrast in New Zealand Speech,” New Zealand Ways of Speaking English, ed. by Allan Bell and Janet Holmes, 129-148, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Hawkins, Peter (1976) “The Role of NZ English in a Binary Feature Analysis of English Short Vowels,” Journal of the International Phonetic Associa- tion 6, 50-66.

Kirchner, Robert (2001) “Phonological Contrast and Articulatory Effort,” Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representa- tions, ed. by Linda Lombardi, 79-117, Cambridge University Press, New York. Labov, William (1994) Principles of Linguistic Change 1: Internal Factors, Blackwell, Oxford. Lindblom, Bjorn (1986) “Phonetic Universals in Vowel Systems,” Experimental Phonology, ed. by John J. Ohala and Jeri J. Jaeger, 13-44, Academic CHAIN SHIFTS AND MERGER IN NEW ZEALAND ENGLISH 57

Press, New York. Maclagan, Margaret A. and Elizabeth Gordon (1996) “Out of the AIR and into the EAR: Another View of the New Zealand Diphthong Merger,” Language Variation and Change 8, 125-147. Minkova, Donka and Robert Stockwell (2003) “English Vowel Shifts and ‘Optimal’ Diphthongs: Is There a Logical Link?” Optimality Theory and

Language Change, ed. by D. Eric Holt, 169-190, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Nakao, Toshio (1985) On-in-shi (English Historical Phonology), Taishukan, Tokyo. NiChiosain, Maire and Jaye Padgett (2001) “Markedness, Segment Realization, and Locality in Spreading,” Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and Representations, ed. by Linda Lombardi, 118-156, Cambridge University Press, New York. Sinclair, Keith, ed. (1996) The Oxford Illustrated History of New Zealand, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford. Trudgill, Peter (2004) New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Trudgill, Peter and Jean Hannah (2002) International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English, 4th ed., Arnold, London. Wells, John Christopher (1982) Accents of English, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

e-mail: [email protected]