ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF THE PIN/PEN MERGER IN OKLAHOMA
By
Phillip Weirich
Oklahoma, being situated geographically and culturally between the Midlands and the South, and only having seen widespread Anglo settlement as early as the late 19th century, presents an interesting laboratory for the study of language change when different dialects come into sustained contact. One particularly interesting linguistic phenomenon that follows such contact is the merger of two previously distinct vowels. An earlier study of English in Oklahoma, SOD
(Bailey et al., 1997), identified a number of demographic characteristics associated with the
PIN/PEN merger, including age, gender, and location (urban vs. rural). Although results from
SOD painted a clear picture of the distribution of this merger (or for many speakers, a split) and tracked its progress in apparent time, no mention was made about variation in production within the merged and split speakers.
This study seeks to provide a description of the production of several speakers from a range of relevant demographic groups in and around Oklahoma City. Wordlist production of minimal and near-minimal pairs of 24 speakers from eight demographic categories (age, urban/rural, gender) is considered. An impressionistic evaluation of speakers’ merger status and acoustic analysis of formant contours are used to describe the sorts of variation present in
Oklahoman production of vowels in the PIN- and PEN-classes. The findings show that in addition to having either merged or split PIN/PEN vowels, speakers also produce the vowels as monophthongs, lax triphthongs, or tense triphthongs. All of the young speakers produced the vowels as monophthongs, although some were merged and others were split. However, most of the middle-aged speakers produced triphthongs, suggesting that Oklahoma City and surrounding areas are shifting from a triphthongal norm to a monophthongal norm for these vowels.
1 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1 GOALS ...... 6 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF SECTIONS ...... 7 2 BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ...... 8 2.1 VOWELS: MERGERS AND SPLITS ...... 8 2.1.1 Basic Characteristics of Vowel Systems ...... 8 2.1.2 Mergers ...... 9 2.1.3 Splits ...... 12 2.1.4 Near-Mergers ...... 12 2.2 SOCIAL FACTORS OF CHANGE: DIFFUSION ...... 13 2.3 THE PIN/PEN MERGER ...... 14 2.3.1 Linguistic Factor: Nasalization ...... 15 2.3.2 Social Factor: Path of Diffusion ...... 16 2.4 OKLAHOMA: CULTURE AND LANGUAGE ...... 17 2.4.1 Settlement History ...... 17 2.4.2 Where is Oklahoma? ...... 20 2.4.3 PIN/PEN in Oklahoma ...... 23 3 METHODOLOGY: DATA COLLECTION ...... 25 3.1 PARTICIPANTS ...... 26 3.2 DATA COLLECTION ...... 27 3.2.1 Interview ...... 27 3.2.2 Wordlist ...... 28 3.3 RECORDING AND PREPARATION FOR ANALYSIS ...... 31 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ...... 32 4.1 IMPRESSIONISTIC EVALUATION ...... 33 4.1.1 Methods ...... 33 4.1.2 Results ...... 34 4.2 ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS ...... 36 4.2.1 Nasalized Vowels ...... 36 4.2.2 Types of formant contours ...... 37 4.2.3 Monophthongs: “flat” countours ...... 38 4.2.4 Triphthongs: “humped” contours ...... 41 4.2.5 Diphthongs: “sloped” contours ...... 43 4.2.6 Examples of intraspeaker variation ...... 45 4.3 SUMMARY OF LINGUISTIC FINDINGS ...... 62 4.4 SOCIAL DISTRIBUTION ...... 65 4.4.1 Single Demographic Variables and Production Style ...... 65 4.4.2 Merged vs. Split and Tense vs. Lax Across Demographic Groups ...... 68 5 CONCLUSION ...... 70
2 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: State of origin of settlers of 1889 Land Run ...... 20
Table 3.1: PIN/PEN vowels elicited in wordlist ...... 29
Table 3.2: hVd words presented in the wordlist ...... 30
Table 4.1: Results of Impressionistic Evaluation ...... 34
Table 4.2: Summary of individual speakers' production styles ...... 63
3 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.3: A schematized depiction of merger-by-expansion ...... 12
Figure 2.4: The PIN/PEN merger in the North America ...... 16
Figure 2.5: Map of Oklahoma and Indian Territories prior to 1889 ...... 18
Figure 2.7: Popular regions of North America ...... 21
Figure 4.1: Fitz "send" ...... 38
Figure 4.2: Shelly "sinned" ...... 39
Figure 4.3: Amber "tin" ...... 40
Figure 4.4: Dale "send" ...... 41
Figure 4.5: Allen "send" ...... 42
Figure 4.6: Sam "dim" ...... 43
Figure 4.7: Hilda "hem" ...... 44
Figure 4.8: Allen: Minimal and Near-Minimal Pairs ...... 46
Figure 4.9: Fitz: Minimal and Near-Minimal Pairs ...... 48
Figure 4.10: Hilda: Minimal and Near-Minimal Pairs ...... 50
Figure 4.11: Ramona: Minimal and Near-Minimal Pairs ...... 52
Figure 4.12: Herbert: Minimal and Near-Minimal Pairs ...... 54
Figure 4.13: Van: Minimal and Near-Minimal Pairs ...... 56
Figure 4.14: Renee: Minimal and Near-Minimal Pairs ...... 58
Figure 4.15: Amber: Minimal and Near-Minimal Pairs ...... 60
Figure 4.16: Comparison of age and production style ...... 66
Figure 4.17: Comparision of location of residence and production style ...... 67
Figure 4.18: Comparision of gender and production style ...... 67
4 Figure 4.19: Comparison of demographic groups and merger status ...... 68
Figure 4.20: Comparison of monophthongal speakers' merger status ...... 69
Figure 4.21: Comparison of Triphthongal Speakers' usage of tense and lax vowel targets ...... 70
5 1 Introduction
This thesis considers the phonological merger of PIN and PEN class vowels in and
around Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The PIN/PEN merger, so called because speakers pronounce the two vowel classes in the same manner and, thus, merge the two vowels into one, has been present in American speech for over a hundred years (Brown 1990).
It is widespread in the South, and there are indications that the merger is expanding beyond the traditional Southern dialect region (Labov et al. 2006). Oklahoma is a state that was settled relatively recently by people from both Southern and Midwestern states, so it provides an interesting laboratory in which to study dialectal change when two dialects come into contact. An earlier study of the PIN/PEN merger in Oklahoma, the Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) (see Bailey et al. 1997), found that the PIN/PEN
merger had nearly gone to completion by the 1930s. However, sometime after the
1930s, the merger began to reverse, and some speakers began to produce a distinction
between the two vowel classes (Bailey et al. 1995). It is evident, though, that the diverse
settlement history of the state continues to affect the language of residents in interesting
ways. The present study examines recordings of 24 speakers from Oklahoma City and
adjacent rural areas collected in 2012 and 2013 in association with the most recent
attempt to explore language in Oklahoma, Research on Dialects of English in Oklahoma
(RODEO). In addition to an impressionistic evaluation of the merger status of the
speakers’ PIN/PEN vowels, acoustic data is also presented to provide a clearer picture of
how speakers merge or split (produce a distinction between) these vowels.
1.1 Goals
When this project began, I thought that it would be a simple matter of recording several
speakers from various demographic groups, determining who merges and splits the
6 PIN/PEN vowels, and then looking at how mergers and splits are distributed across the
demographic groups. The previous literature on the topic from Oklahoma and other
linguistically similar states led me to believe that the two classes of vowels were either
produced the same way or not. As I began my analysis of the data I had collected, it
quickly became apparent that there was much more variation among speakers than
previously expected. Not only do speakers merge and split the vowels, they do so
using different vowel qualities.
Because no earlier studies in Oklahoma have considered the variation present in
the PIN and PEN vowels, my purpose is to describe the various means of production used by speakers, and thereby add depth to a topic that has previously only considered a binary description of speakers as being either merged or not merged.
The goals of this project are to describe 1) the ways in which speakers in the new data set produce vowels in the PIN/PEN classes, 2) who among them merge and split the
vowels, and 3) how these identified features might provide insights into the future
direction of English in Oklahoma. These descriptions are made based on
impressionistic evaluation and acoustic analysis of minimal and near-minimal pairs
produced in a word list elicitation.
1.2 Organization of Sections
Chapter 2 will consider relevant background information regarding the nature of
phonological change and vowel mergers as well as providing a summary of the
findings of an earlier Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD). In Chapter 3, the
methodology of the study is presented, explaining how respondents were selected and
recorded and how the data was prepared for analysis. The results are presented and
discussed in Chapter 4. In this chapter, results of impressionistic and acoustic analysis
7 are presented as well as several examples from individual speakers for comparison.
Chapter 5 concludes the study by summarizing the relevant findings and suggesting
avenues for further study.
2 Background and Review of Relevant Literature
This chapter presents relevant background information related to sound change, vowel
mergers in particular, to provide a context to understand why vowel mergers might
occur. Then it considers the cultural and linguistic history of Oklahoma including
previous research findings in the state regarding the PIN/PEN merger in order to suggest why that particular vowel pair is undergoing change in Oklahoma.
2.1 Vowels: Mergers and Splits
This section focuses on how vowel systems are organized and how they adapt to
change, especially as a result of mergers and splits.
2.1.1 Basic Characteristics of Vowel Systems
Vowel systems, or any sound system for that matter, are actually quite resilient to
change, so it is usually somewhat of a surprise when a change arises. Two ideas that
originated in the 19th century remain helpful when thinking about sound change: the
desire for ease of articulation and the need for clarity. On the one hand, sounds need to be
easy to articulate in order to be efficient, but on the other hand, sounds must be distinct
enough that we can clearly distinguish one from the other.
This need for clarity has been explored through the principle of maximum
dispersion. Thomas (2011: 274) summarizes this rather old, but still relevant, idea in
8 saying that “contrastive sounds tend to become located as far apart as possible in the perceptual space, as if they repel each other like the same pole of two magnets.” There is evidence that some processes akin to maximum dispersion are at work in the world’s languages, as with Liljencrants and Lindblom’s (1972) finding that the most common three-vowel system was /i, a, u/ and not a less dispersed system such as /i, e, ɨ/.
Moulton (1962) even showed that vowels can “move” within the vowel space depending on where the other vowels are located. For example, in his study of local dialects of Swiss German he found that in dialects with an /æ:/ but no /ɔ:/, the /a:/ tended to shift backward, away from the /æ:/, while those dialects with an /ɔ:/ but no
/æ:/ tended to have an /a:/ that was more fronted.
Maddieson (1984) adds an important note about maximally dispersed vowel systems. He points out that the most common vowel system is not actually maximally dispersed because there are many ways to increase distinctions that are not used. For example, we don't see systems that are /i, a,̃ uˤ /. He says that “the world’s languages only add the additional parameters of contrast to vowels if they include a fairly wide sample of simple contrasts on the vowel quality dimensions” (16). So even though maximal dispersion plays a role in determining the structure of vowel systems, other factors, such as the desire for ease of articulation, are involved as well.
2.1.2 Mergers
Mergers are a particular type of sound change in which two sounds that were historically distinct have become a single sound in both production and perception.
That is they result in a decrease in phonemic distinction. Vowel mergers seem unlikely when considering the principle of maximum dispersion from the previous section
9 because vowels tend to avoid other vowels in order to maintain a distinction, as seen in examples from Swiss German; however, various phonological and/or phonetic factors can bring two vowels close enough together in the vowel space that a merger is possible. The PIN/PEN merger is likely driven by the influence of the following nasal.
This possibility is discussed further in section 0.
Labov (1994: Ch 11) mentions two principles that vowel mergers tend to follow:
1) Garde’s Principle: Mergers cannot be reversed by linguistic means
2) Herzog’s Corollary: Mergers expand at the expense of distinctions
Merger’s cannot be reversed by linguistic means, according to Garde’s Principle, because the two sounds have become identical; there is no longer a way for speakers to distinguish the sounds and separate them into their original classes. Mergers can be reversed by social factors, such as the influx to an area of large numbers of immigrants who have a vowel system that do not have the merger (Bailey et al. 1993; Herold 1990).
Herzog’s Corollary says that mergers expand at the expense of distinctions, meaning that if someone were to have to choose between a system that merges two sound classes and a system that distinguishes two sound classes, the speaker is more likely to choose the system with fewer sounds.
2.1.2.1 Three Kinds of Mergers
Three processes for the progression of mergers have been suggested. Merger-by- approximation and merger-by-transfer were proposed by Trudgill and Foxcroft (1978) while (Herold 1990; Herold 1997) furnishes the third, merger-by-expansion.
Merger-by-approximation (Figure 2.1) is the result of speakers producing the two sounds with increasingly similar acoustic characteristics, which eventually converge at some point in the acoustic space between the original vowels. If this kind of merger
10 applied to the PIN/PEN merger (which is not necessarily the case), the words “pin” and
“pen” would be pronounced in the same way with a new vowel that is neither as high o + "{ @ o L r z U U a d € r,t as “pin” nor as low as “pen.” f z o U I z (, u iiiiiiii js,E -v -a\ - i: fl 8lr E = if 00 I A [/ !xr 't lt 0 \O s -tr .9 .ry F o- d i q) L oo a) ! do b0 L 0) c o- c) E d o Figure 2.1: A schematized depiction of merger-by- approximation (Thomas 2011: 285) cl i- a o + "{ @ o L r z U U a d € r,t f z o U I z (, u li.?i l'zf /", \ \,ri"*/ \ii! l-;;..,'rl /.T*1 YV /{+ \*+/ \'_ lr,l /-l' \ ,/ /sa* /s\/,r{ Figure 2.2 vr/ Merger-by-transfer ( ), rather\__,, than being based on acoustic distinctions, iiiiiiii js,E ,t-\ -v iw.af -a\ - i: fl 8lr E = iitr.\ ?.- {:sr\ X *+\ rr\ v\ -*l{ +/ ^l> \ \/.1'\ / t \ r
is accomplished by speakers recategorizingr> sounds from one phoneme and transferring { -i > if 00 I A [/ , l.t" l* \ | I i \ them to another nearby phoneme’s\u*,i category. In other words, two vowel classes may / \-r ,/ !xr \___/ - & " '{l\ +\ - remain in the same position in the vowel space,'| but individual words begin being \ .' / \ \ 1> l lQ pronounced with the vowel of another class. Using “pin” and “pen” as an example g ! '6 o € E It .s0 F .e 'E F E E cJ c c L f E Y' C) o- o = _ g 't \O lt 0 s -tr .9 .ry F o- d i q) L oo a) ! do b0 L 0) c o- again, [pin] might be used for both words,c) E d o “ten” would be pronounced as [tin], etc. j: € :1 jEr?;eir :Peej:F € : ijiT"e$jgE ziis ,ir;t18:L :*TTit;:: l'"iiiiiii *ii 1i13s cl i- EF a si+; li.?i l'zf /", \ \,ri"*/ \ii! l-;;..,'rl /.T*1 YV /{+ \*+/ \'_ lr,l /-l' \ ; ,/ /sa* /s\/,r{ vr/ Siii=*Ei \__,, ,t-\ itirEi iw.af iitr.\ ?.- {:sr\ X *+\ rr\ v\ -*l{ +/ ^l> \ t:i: a++T \/.1'\ / Yi € t \ r r> { -i > ii;
, l.t" l* \ I | i \ \u*,i / \-r ,/ j \___/ - & ;+ " '{l\ +\ - '| \ .' / \ \ 1> l lQ g tir:li; ; IS*;!tl E =:;i?i=. H, u$;*gi: g ! '6 o € E It .s0 F .e 'E F E E cJ c c L f E Y' C) o- o = _ g ifsEi: j tiji=i !; ij $:+2Ei ajSi € Figure 2,=iE;; .2: A schematized depiction of merger-by-
iiE € transfer (Thomas 2011: 285) j: € :1 jEr?;eir :Peej:F € : ijiT"e$jgE ziis ,ir;t18:L :*TTit;:: l'"iiiiiii *ii \i:t li\i 1i13s
EF si+; F ; Siii=*Ei s i itirEi t:i: a++T Yi € ii;
j ;+ g tir:li; ; IS*;!tl 11 E =:;i?i=. H, u$;*gi: ifsEi: j tiji=i !; ij $:+2Ei ajSi € ,=iE;; iiE € \i:t li\i F s i Finally, merger-by-expansion (Figure 2.3) is the result of speakers broadening the proportion of the vowel space used in the production of both vowels until there is no longer a boundary between the two. In this case, “pin” might be produced as [pin] or o (.) a{ q, l z I z (, U 1\ c{ o € [pɛn], and the same for “pen.”o I z u - U q Ev ; i- d - tr a-\ I:-/ /:\
i iiIiirlirieiijjiliiiiii*iiiiii aiij*iiii;lllitiiiriiiigi:git Figure 2.3: A schematized depiction of merger-by- expansion (Thomas 2011: 286) iiii
2.1.3 Splits
Splits are the oppositeigss:ij of mergers in that they result in an increase of phonemic distinction rather than a reduction. According to Garde’s principle, mergers cannot be reversed by linguistic means, but social factors are not excluded from playing a role in reversing mergers and causingjg € a split. For example, Britain (1997) reported the
expansion of an /u/ig* ~ /ʌ/ distinction among the Fens in Eastern England which was apparently favored by social prestige (in Labov 2010: 335). In this case, the distinction +i;* was borrowed from another dialect because of the perceived prestige associated with the split vowel system and did not arise spontaneously within the Fen’s dialect. lssi 2.1.4 Near-Mergers
Near-mergers lie on a continuum between mergers and splits. Labov et al. (1991: 33) ?*ri;i say of near-mergers that “sound change may bring two phonemes into such close approximation that semantic contrast between them is suspended for native speakers of
12 the dialect, without necessarily leading to merger.” Referring back to the depiction of merger-by-approximation in Figure 2.1, we can imagine that time 2 represents a near- merger in that the two phonemes are less distinct from each other than in time 1, but enough of a distinction still exists that the two are not completely merged. Hearers may not report being able to distinguish a minimal pair, even when two sounds are measurably different. In production, too, the same people who cannot perceive a difference may pronounce the minimal pair differently. For example, Labov et al. (1972) reported about New York that “the native speaker hears source and sauce as ‘the same,’ but produced a reliable statistical difference between the nuclei of these vowels” (cited in Labov 2006: 25). As long as some kind of distinction is maintained, regardless of if speakers can consciously recognize the distinction, the sounds could eventually become distinct in both production and perception.
2.2 Social Factors of Change: Diffusion
The geographic diffusion of linguistic innovations is perhaps the most readily studied form of language change. Bailey et al. (1993) outline some of the more well- attested types of diffusion. The most common sort of diffusion seems to be hierarchical, in which “innovations begin in central places, which serve as the focal points for diffusion across the landscape. Rather than spreading uniformly across the landscape, diffusion begins in large cities like London, moving then to smaller cities and so on down the hierarchy” (Bailey et al. 1993: 361). This does not appear to be the only kind of geographic diffusion, though. Contrahierarchical diffusion has also been attested in which features of local speech migrate into the population centers (Bailey et al. 1993;
Brown 1991). Bailey et al. also mention that linguistic diffusion isn’t as simple as
13 looking at geographic spread. Changes also occur along social lines, including ethnicity and economic status (e.g. Labov’s department store study, 1966).
Prestige also plays an important role in language change and diffusion. Labov
(1972) refers to change from above and change from below. The latter concerns innovations that begin within certain subgroups of a speech community and are “below the level of social awareness” (Labov 1972: 178). These innovations gain traction as they become associated with the subgroup and can acquire a level of covert prestige that serves a function of solidarity within that group. Change from above, on the other hand, concerns innovations that are imposed on speakers by some sort of linguistic authority figure, such as parents, news broadcasters, teachers, and style manuals. Overt prestige is associated with change from above because the speakers are usually aware of the features and know that they are considered “correct” within the community. It has been noted by many sociolinguists (Labov, 1966, for one example) that it is the upwardly mobile middle class that are most concerned with overt prestige, while the working class tend to harbor covert prestige.
2.3 The PIN/PEN Merger
The PIN/PEN merger is a conditioned merger because the phonetic environment provides the conditions necessary that lead to the merger. In this case, it is the following nasal that conditions the merger of /ɪ/ and /ɛ/. The same vowels in other phonetic environments (non-nasal) are not necessarily affected, that is, a distinction is still maintained between words such as “pig” and “peg.” This section will review the linguistic and social factors that have led to the PIN/PEN merger.
14 2.3.1 Linguistic Factor: Nasalization
Unlike vowels in a non-nasal environment, vowels in a pre-nasal context are subject to complex acoustic interactions caused by having airflow through not only the oral cavity but also the nasal cavity as the velum lowers in anticipation of the nasal consonant. It has been found that in American English velar lowering coincides with the onset of the preceding vowel, meaning that pre-nasal vowels in American English are nasalized throughout their production (Solé 2007), so the acoustic effects of nasalization are also realized throughout the vowel. Nasalized vowels are characterized by “a broader frequency region in the vicinity of the first formant over which the spectral energy is distributed for a nasal vowel” (Hawkins & Stevens 1985: 1560). Feng and Castelli (1996), in their review of previous work, say that for the velar nasal consonant, what they propose as the target of nasal vowels, typical first and second peaks are at 300 Hz and
1000 Hz, and there is also commonly a low resonance frequency around 250 Hz. The broader frequency region and interference introduced by the nasal resonances around
F1 means that hearers will have a difficult time accurately perceiving the height of the vowel, the primary distinction between /ɪ/ and /ɛ/.
The added difficulty of articulating a distinction between /ɪ/ and /ɛ/ introduced by the nasal resonances may lead speakers to suspend the distinction in favor of ease of articulation and simply merge the two vowels before nasal consonants. Once the merger has been established on linguistic grounds, the variant is ready to spread out from the original innovators to the broader community of speakers.
15 2.3.2 Social Factor: Path of Diffusion
Because the PIN/PEN merger is associated with Southern speech, it is appropriate to
consider the spread of the merger in the South. Brown (1990, 1991) conducted an
extensive study of the merger in the South with the oldest data coming from the
journals of civil war soldiers in Tennessee. In Tennessee, she found that the raising of
/ɛ/ to /ɪ/ was present but not common in most of the state for most of the 19th century.
However, a widespread urbanization movement in the South around 1875 was accompanied by an increased incidence of the merger. Thus, it appeared that the merger was brought to the cities from rural areas, a type of diffusion known as contrahierarchical. By the 1930s the merger was nearly complete and ubiquitous in the state.
Given the present even distribution of the merger across the South, as seen in
Figure 2.4, the merger has been quite robust. There is even evidence, as Labov et al.
(2006) point out, that the merger is actually continuing to spread beyond the traditional boundaries of the South.
1RUWK$PHULFDQPHUJHUVLQSURJUHVV
(GPRQWRQ $QFKRUDJH
9DQFRXYHU &DOJDU\ 6DVNDWRRQ 6W -RKQ V
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aH1 1HZ2UOHDQV 2UODQGR GLVWLQFWLQSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQ FORVHLQSHUFHSWLRQRUSURGXFWLRQ 7DPSD &RUSXV VDPHLQSHUFHSWLRQRUSURGXFWLRQ &KULVWL VDPHLQSHUFHSWLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQ 0LDPL PRQRSKWKRQJL]DWLRQRID\ $IULFDQ$PHULFDQ Figure 2.4: The0DS 7KHPHUJHURILDQGHEHIRUHQDVDOVPIN/PEN merger in the North America (Labov et al. 2006) 7KHRULHQWHGUHGLVRJORVVRXWOLQHVWKHUHJLRQZKHUHLDQGHKDYHPHUJHGEH PD.DQVDV0LVVRXULDQGVRXWKHUQ,QGLDQD7KHFLW\RI%DNHUVÀHOGLQ6RXWKHUQ IRUHQDVDOFRQVRQDQWVLQSLQYVSHQKLPYVKHPHWF7KLVZHOONQRZQIHDWXUH &DOLIRUQLDLVPDUNHGE\WKUHHVSHDNHUVZKRVKRZWKLVPHUJHU7KHVFDWWHULQJRI RI6RXWKHUQSKRQRORJ\LVFOHDUO\H[SDQGLQJLQWRWKHODUJHU6RXWKHDVWHUQUHJLRQ LQVWDQFHVRIWKHPHUJHULQVHYHUDO1RUWKHUQFLWLHVLVWKHUHVXOWRIWKHLQFOXVLRQRI SDVVLQJEH\RQGWKHVROLGUHGLVRJORVVWKDWGHÀQHVWKH6RXWKE\WKHGHOHWLRQRI $IULFDQ$PHULFDQVXEMHFWVLQWKHVDPSOHSRSXODWLRQ WKHJOLGHRID\7KHH[SDQVLRQRIWKLVPHUJHULVSDUWLFXODUO\PDUNHGLQ2NODKR 16 !"#$%&'"%()#%'*+,+-./012/003/044 567"86#*+5#%'+,+.9.90:+3;.2+<= Figure 2.4 shows that the PIN/PEN merger is widespread in the South. The solid red line shows the extent of monophthongal /ay/ production, one of the most common features of Southern speech. The hashed line shows the extent of the PIN/PEN merger, which reaches beyond the border of monophthongal /ay/ and includes portions of southern Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. 2.4 Oklahoma: Culture and Language This section gives the relevant history of Oklahoma and discusses how the state has developed culturally and linguistically since settlement. 2.4.1 Settlement History Oklahoma became the 46th state to enter the union in 1907. Since then, the area of the state was split between the Oklahoma Territory to the west and Indian Territory to the east. Most of the state had been allocated to various Native American tribes beginning around 1830 after the signing of the Indian Removal Act. The earliest and densest settlement took place in the eastern part of the state, which included the land of what are called the Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole nations (see Figure 2.3). 17 Figure 2.5: Map of Oklahoma and Indian Territories prior to 1889 (Wikipedia). After the Civil War, several of the Indian nations were displaced from their lands as a form of reparations for siding with the Confederacy. One portion of these lands in the central part of the state became known as the Unassigned Lands as they were not assigned to any of the other Indian nations. No one could legally settle in the Unassigned Lands, although several groups attempted to. Eventually, pressure from these groups of hopeful settlers encouraged congress to pass an amended form of the Indian Appropriations act of 1889 which opened up the Unassigned Lands for settlement. Over the next few years, all of western Oklahoma was opened for Anglo settlement. Figure 2.6 shows the years in which the designated lands were open for settlement. Most of the lands were settled by “land run,” but one region was settled by lottery. 18 234 SOUTHARD Midwestern Speech in Oklahoma 235 A complete analysis of the LAO data may help resolve these confusing pictures, presenting a clear depiction of dialect distribution which may assist cultural geographers in better defining Oklahoma's place within the regional cultures of the United States. Until that analysis is finished, however, preliminary studies of LAO data suggest PANHANDLE an intricate correlation between the settlement history of Oklahoma (1890) and its current dialect distribution. The LAO, an autonomous regional project which is part of the larger Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada, is particularly significant in identifying dialect distribu- tion within Oklahoma. It represents the most complete and detailed study ever conducted of language within the state. Moreover, it differs in three important ways from other American atlas projects: (1) all data were collected within a four-year span (1960-63) by a single inter- viewer, W. R. Van. Riper, using a consistent interview style; (2) all interviews were recorded on tape and the orig!nal tape recordings were placed with the Library of Congress so that other" scholars are able to corroborate phonetic transcriptions and calibrate their own transcrip- tions with those for the LAO; (3) all interviews were transcribed by a single, highly competent phonetidan, Raven I. McDavid, Jr., whose interviews and transcriptions constitute a substantial body of the data collected for all the Atlas projects and whose participation ensured a Map 15.6. Oklahoma land divisions prior to 1907. continuity with the other Atlas projects. Figure 2.6: Oklahoma land divisions prior to 1907 (from Southard 1993) Constituting a separate project within the framework of the Lin- . Panhandle was dedicated by treaty to the Five Civilized Tribes. At the guistic Atlas of the United States and Canada, Oklahoma is particularly time of the Civil War, however, these tribes signed treaties of alliance important to dialect study, for it may provide a "laboratory case" for the with the Confederate States of America and even sent more than 5,000 study of language interaction when a sparsely populated area is rapidly Accordingmen to fight toon the the rulesside of ofthe these Confederacy land runs,(Gibson the 1980: land 120). to be settled was cleared of all settled by a new linguistic stock representing various dialects of one Following the war, the tribes were forced to sign Reconstruction treaties language. With the land runs which began in the late nineteenth with the United States. These treaties provided for the cession of tribal century, the western half of Oklahoma ("Oklahoma Territory") was earlier settlers,lands to the all federal of whom government; were thethere Seminoles illegally, ceded thenvirtually the their land would open up for legal settled literally overnight by English-speaking peoples. The eastern half entire domain (2.17 million acres) to the United States for fifteen cents of the state, which constituted "Indian Territory" at the time of the land settlementper acreat a(Gibson pre-established 1980: The date other and tribes time, were also usually forced tonoon. cede When the gunshots were runs, soon had an Anglo admixture joining the Indian tribes which had their westernmost lands, which supposedly were to be used to settle been resettled predominantly from southeastern states. The Anglo tribes from other parts of the United States. settlers in Indian Territory followed more traditional migratory paths fired at noon,Ultimately, potential pressure settlers from Anglos could who run wanted out access and to claim cheap landthe first parcel of 160-acres that and timetables, gradually moving in from Missouri, and Arkansas and led to these ceded lands, which constitute most of Oklahoma Territory, Texas in particular. hadn’t alreadybeing made been available claimed. via land On run Aprilfor settlement. 22nd, 1889, The dates the on first map of several land runs occurred Map 15.6 depicts the land divisions within Oklahoma immediately 15.6 identify the areas opened by land run from 1889 to 1893. The prior to statehood in 1907. Indian Territory encompassed land reserved Panhandle, as mentioned above, was added to Oklahoma Territory by exclusively for Indian nations, particularly the "Five Civilized Tribes" in the UnassignedCongress in 1890 lands, and was and open a large at that part time toof settlementcentral Oklahomaby home- was settled in a single (the Cherokees, the Chickasaws, the Choctaws, the Creeks, and the steaders; it was divided into its present three counties at conferral of Seminoles) whose allotments are identified by tribal name on map 15.6. day. statehood in 1907. The area identified on map 15.6 as" Annex" was the Earlier, from 1830 to 1855, virtually all of Oklahoma save the former Greer County of Texas. The Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that Table 2.1 shows the states of origin of those who participated in that first land run in 1889. Roark (1979) summarizes the provenance of these early settlers saying that “42% of the population of the Territory came from five Midwestern states and that 21% of the population came from three Upper Southern states. This suggests that a Midwestern cultural imprint was significant during the formative period” (in Southard, 1993, p. 237). 19 236 SOUTHARD Midwestern Speech in Oklahoma 237 the Prairie Dog Fork of the Red River, and not its North Fork, constituted Table 15.1 the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma Territory and that Greer State of Origin of Settlers of 1889 Land Run County be added to Oklahoma Territory; longtime settlers were al- Kansas 10,048 19% lowed to file homesteads of 160 acres and to purchase additional land Missouri 7,421 14% for one dollar per acre (Gibson 1980: 181). Finally, "Lottery" identifies Texas 5,381 10% the area of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache reservations opened to Illinois 5,347 10% settlement in 1901 by lottery rather than land.ll;,J.lll. Indiana 4,090 8% Little is known of the type of English spoken or the extent to which Ohio 3,734 7% it was spoken by the Five Civilized Tribes in Indian Territory prior to Iowa 3,003 6% statehood. Full bloods apparently tended to remain isolated, speaking Kentucky 2,895 5% Tennessee 2,507 5o/o their native languages and leading a subsistence type of life, relying on· hunting, fishing, and small crops for their livelihood. Their way of life Table 2.1: State of origin of settlers of 1889 Land Run (In gave rise to the derogatory term blanket Indian, which one may still numberSouthard of settlers. 1993, citing Population Roark 1979) figures are followed by approximate encounter in Oklahoma. The mixed bloods, however, tended to emu- It ispercentage unclear which of total states population. Roark considers Roark pointsto be Midwestern out that "grouping and Upper the Southern late Southern whites, developing large farms and plantations in fertile states together shows that 42o/o of the population of the Territory came river valleys and even owning slaves. Because the Indians' original states, or fromif he takesfive Midwestern into account states that andthe thatsouthern 21 o/o ofportions the population of Illinois came and fromIndiana homelands were in what came to be the Confederate States and because three Upper Southern states. This suggests that a Midwestern cultural the mixed bloods emulated numerous elements of Southern culture, might be imprintbetter defin wased significant as Upper duringSouthern the than formative the more period" culturally (1979: Midwestern 96). 4 even sending their children to private schools and colleges in the In all of the land-run areas, moreover, the settlers were generally South, one might reasonably expect their language to be generally inhabitantsfrom further the Midwest,north in those as table states. 15.2 However, discloses, the although important there point was is somethat Southern. The migrants from Texas, Arkansas, and southern Missouri variation from land run to land run. The 1893 Land Run, for example, who entered Oklahoma following statehood undoubtedly added to the Oklahomawas was predominantly settled by people composed from various of settlers parts from of the the Midwest Lower and theUpper South, and development of a Southern or South Midland dialect in the former Midwest. Settlers in the Land Runs of 1889 and 1891 tended to divide Indian Territory. that the culturalinto northern balance and probably southern tilts halves. in the Comparedirection ofCleveland the Midwest, County, at leastat the for the In contrast to the fuzzy picture of English in Indian Territory, a great southern extreme of the 1889 Land Run area, with the other counties 1889 settlers who went on to found some of the most important cities in the state: deal is known about the settlers of Oklahoma Territory. Much of this formed from that Land Run, for example. The 1891 Land Run shows a information is summarized in Michael Roark's 19 79 dissertation, "Okla- Oklahomaconsiderable City (state capitol), disparity Norman between (University the· northern of Oklahoma), Lincoln county and Stillwater and the homa Territory: Frontier Development, Migration, and Culture Areas;" southern Pottawatomie. The 1892 Land Run area tends to divide into which contains an extensive study of the origins of migrants to (Oklahomaeastern State University).and western halves, with such sparsely populated western Oklahoma Territory. Although there is some variation from land-run counties as Roger Mills (6, 190) having a considerably greater percent- area to land-run area, Roark's analysis of 1900 census data disclosed the age of Southerners (79.8o/o) than the more densely populated eastern following proportions for state of origin of settlers in Oklahoma counties, such as Blain (10,658) with 34.2o/o from the South. The figures Territory as a whole: "Lower Midwest 47o/o, Upper Midwest and North- 2.4.2 Where iin tables Oklahoma? 15.2 represent percentages of total population and accordingly east 5o/o, Upper South 30o/o and Texas-Lower South 17o/o. Of the four do not reflect density of population. Logan County, with a 1900 states with the largest number of migrants three were adjacent to the Thepopulation regional and of 26,563,linguistic for identity example, of Oklahomahad a population is unclear more as it than is situated four at a Territory: Kansas (19o/o), Missouri (15o/o), Texas (11 o/o), and Illinois (9o/o)" times that of Roger Mills County. Accordingly, these data give only (131). geographicapproximations crossroads between as to thethe influenceMidlands ofregion, different the South,areas of and origin. the West. Any An examination of the land-run area of 1889 discloses particularly Land settlement in the Panhandle, Greer County, and the Lottery number of maps produced by cultural or linguistic geographers will quickly indicate pertinent information about this earliest Oklahoma Territory settle- lands followed a different pattern than did settlement for the areas opened by land run. In both the Panhandle and Grter County, settlers ment. The 1890 census, taken one year after the 1889land run, shows the mixed regional feelings of the state. This Remarkable Continent (Rooney et al. 1982) a total population in the area of 53,822.3 Table 15.1 shows the distribu- had occupied the lands prior to their addition to Oklahoma Territory, tion by state of origin for the nine states contributing the greatest depicts a numberand thus of followed maps that more illustrate traditional Oklahoma’s settlement ambiguous patterns. ident In ity.the landsA map of “popular regions of North America” based on the number of times regional terms appear in telephone directories shows that Oklahoma can be included in four different regions: the Midwest, the South, the Southwest, and the West (see Figure 2.7). 20 Figure 2.7: Popular regions of North America based on telephone book data (Rooney et al. 1982) The map only includes data from three cities in Oklahoma, which only indicate the Southwest and the Midwest; however, the justification for the South comes from data collected in Fort Smith, Arkansas, a city that borders Oklahoma to the east. The West has been extrapolated seemingly by exclusion since the Midwest seems to end halfway through Oklahoma, and both Amarillo, Texas and Denver, Colorado are associated with the West. A number of other maps in the collection corroborate the mixed, if not confused, regional identity of Oklahoma. 2.4.2.1 Language Linguistic maps of the United States also illustrate the mixed identity of Oklahoma. The Atlas of North American English (ANAE) (Labov et al. 2006) considers data from only four Oklahoma respondents, a male and female each from Oklahoma City and Tulsa, but fits them into the broader map of English in America. In the Atlas, Oklahoma is ostensibly presented as belonging to the Midland region (Figure 2.5). 21 7KHGLDOHFWVRI1RUWK$PHULFDQ(QJOLVK $QFKRUDJH 6W -RKQ V &DQDGD $WODQWLF 3URYLQFHV 1RUWK&HQWUDO (1( :1( 7KH1RUWK ,QODQG ,QODQG 1RUWK 3URY 1RUWK LGHQFH 7KH:HVW 1<& :3D 0LG 6W '& $WODQWLF /RXLV 7KH0LGODQG FRUUL GRU ,QODQG 6RXWK 7KH6RXWK &KDUOHVWRQ 7H[DV 6RXWK (O3DVR )ORULGD &RUSXV&KULVWL 0DS$QRYHUDOOYLHZRI1RUWK$PHULFDQGLDOHFWV 7KHYDULRXVUHJLRQVDQGGLDOHFWVGHÀQHGLQSUHYLRXVPDSVDUHKHUHGLVSOD\HGE\Figure 2.5: An overall view of North American Dialects (from Labov, Ash, & Boberg, 2006) WKHLVRJORVVHVWKDWGHÀQHWKHP6RPHUHJLRQVLQFOXGHVPDOOHUGLDOHFWDUHDVLQ ZKLFKWKHVRXQGFKDQJHVLQSURJUHVVDUHPRVWDGYDQFHG7KLVLVVHHQPRVWFOHDUO\ LQWKHUHODWLRQRIWKH,QODQG1RUWKWRWKH1RUWKDQGLQWKHUHODWLRQRIWKH,QODQG 6RXWKDQG7H[DV6RXWKWRWKH6RXWKDVDZKROH The isogloss for The South encompasses the southern part of the state, but as there were !"#$%&'"%()#%'*+,+-./012/003/044 567"86#*+5#%'+,+.9.90:+00;44+<= no respondents from this region, this depiction can only be taken as an extrapolation. The Oklahoma respondents are classified as speakers of the Midland dialect on the basis of the criteria determined for that region: • fronting of /o/, the vowel in “boat”; • /ɑ/ and /ɔ/not clearly distinct or clearly the same in production and perception, that is, the COT/CAUGHT merger is in a transitional state; • no monophtongization of /aj/ before obstruents, a feature that clearly distinguishes the dialect from the South (adapted from Labov, Ash, & Boberg, 2006, p. 135) In addition, the ANAE also indicates an incomplete merger of PIN and PEN in Oklahoma. In the case of this particular merger, Oklahoma tends to follow the South (Labov et. al, 2006: 68). 22 The fronting of /o/, according to the ANAE findings, was most pronounced in the central Midwestern states Ohio and Indiana. The Oklahoma speakers were relatively less fronted. The COT/CAUGHT merger was also found to be in a transitional state in Oklahoma, and a preliminary study of this merger in the present data set further supports a transitional state in Oklahoma. A COT/CAUGHT distinction is typically maintained in the South, and given Oklahoma’s settlement history, the distinction most likely arrived with some of the early settlers. /aj/ monophthongization was clearly absent from the ANAE respondents in Oklahoma, but such a production is easily found in the state, even if it is less likely in urban areas. Based on the analysis provided in the ANAE, Oklahoma appears to be distinctly Midlands but with some Southern features present in transitional states. It is important to note, though, that the ANAE analysis is based on only four speakers from Oklahoma City and Tulsa, the two largest cities in the state. The linguistic situation in Oklahoma is certainly more complex than a study with the scope of the ANAE can indicate. 2.4.3 PIN/PEN in Oklahoma This section provides a review of linguistic work done in Oklahoma with a focus on the PIN/PEN vowels. Although several studies of English in Oklahoma have been undertaken, only Bailey’s Survey of Oklahoma Dialects (SOD) in the early 1990s has produced a phonological study. E. Bagby Atwood’s The regional vocabulary of Texas (1962) did include a number of respondents from Oklahoma, but the goal of the project was to study lexical rather than phonetic variation. William Van Riper began the Linguistic Atlas of Oklahoma (LAO) in the 1960s. Although he conducted at least 50 interviews between 1960 and 1963, and though many, if not all, of the interviews have been transcribed by Raven I. McDavid, Jr., no acoustic or phonological analysis of this 23 data has been undertaken to date. Finally, the most recent study conducted in Oklahoma, Dennis Preston’s Research on Dialects of English in Oklahoma (RODEO), is an ongoing project that is currently being analyzed by Jon Bakos (2013). The present thesis also considers a portion of the RODEO data from speakers in and around Oklahoma City. As no other data has yet been thoroughly analyzed besides SOD, that study is the basis for this review of Oklahoma. SOD was an extensive study that utilized a relatively quick but geographically broad telephone survey along with a more in-depth field survey. The telephone survey gathered responses from 632 people, and the field survey collected data from 145 respondents (see Bailey et al. 1997). Data was collected systematically across the state from a full range of age groups in order to allow for an apparent time study that is representative of the entire population of the state. As part of the SOD study, respondents were assessed for their production of “pen” and “Wednesday”. The traditional form was considered [ɛ] and the innovative pronunciation raised the vowel to [ɪ]. Tillery (1997) found a number of social factors to be relevant to the raising of /ɛ/ to /ɪ/ in Oklahoma, which are summarized in Table 2.2. Linguistic Age Gender Occupation Education Nativity Years in Rurality Size of Variable Neighborhood longest Residence /ɪ/ in ______.01 .01 __ .01 .01 Wednesday /ɪ/ in pen ______.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 Table 2.2: Significant correlations (p) between linguistic features and demographic information in SOD (Tillery 1997) The factors found to be significant include level of education, whether the speaker was born in Oklahoma or not, whether the speaker lived in an urban or rural location, and the size of the place where the speaker had lived the longest. This final 24 factor is related to the rurality factor. It is interesting to note here that age and gender are not found to be significant for the PIN/PEN merger. This would suggest that as of the early 1990s the merger is no longer in progress and that it has instead settled into a marker of social identity. SOD data indicates that the PIN/PEN merger nearly went to completion in the 1930s (Bailey et al. 1995), just as Brown (1991) found in Tennessee, suggesting that similar phonological and social processes were at work in both states. However, the merger apparently began to reverse, especially after WWII. As mentioned in section 2.1.2, mergers can only be reversed by non-linguistic processes. Bailey et al. (1995) suggest that several factors led to the reversal of the PIN/PEN merger. The establishment of several military bases and a strong economy brought many new people to the state, and these immigrants, they claim, were more likely to distinguish the two vowels. Many of these new immigrants were in the upper-middle class and settled in the suburbs of Oklahoma City and Tulsa, areas that were influential in the diffusion of linguistic change. 3 Methodology: Data Collection This study considers the production of vowels in the PIN/PEN classes for 24 speakers of Oklahoma English living in Oklahoma City and the surrounding rural areas. Wordlist data was evaluated impressionistically and acoustically to determine if individual speakers produce a distinction between minimal and near-minimal pairs. An acoustic analysis also documents the change in speakers’ vowel quality over time. 25 3.1 Participants For this study, data was collected from 24 speakers. Speakers were given pseudonyms. There were three speakers in each of eight categories, defined by age, “rurality,” and gender. These factors were defined as follows: Age Respondents were classified as “young” if they were between 18 and 35, and they were classified as “middle,” or middle-aged, if they were between 45 and 65. Rurality Respondents were classified as “rural” if they came from a town of fewer than 25,000 people or from a rural area. All of the rural respondents lived in areas close to Oklahoma City, and all identified with being “rural” when asked directly. “Urban” respondents had lived in Oklahoma City their entire lives, with the exception of leaving for college. Gender Respondents were either “male” or “female.” Several demographic factors were held constant among all respondents, including nativity, education, and general geographic area. Participants in this study were all natives of Oklahoma or had moved to the state before the age of 4. Some respondents had lived outside of the state for a predetermined amount of time, such as for college or professional training. As for education, all participants held at least an associate’s degree. Finally, all participants were from the same general geographic region, being Oklahoma City and the surrounding rural areas. 26 The birthplace and native language of both parents of the participants was noted, but this information did not affect the selection of participants. None of the participants spoke another language at home besides English. 3.2 Data collection Data for this study was collected as part of a longer interview which consisted of five parts: 1) an elicitation of casual speech, 2) a perceptual dialect map-drawing task, 3) a reading passage, 4) a word list, and 5) an auditory perception study. This thesis only considers data from the word list, as it is likely to be the most formal off all of the speaking styles elicited in this study, as discussed below. 3.2.1 Interview Interviews were conducted following the general protocol for sociolinguistic interviews described in Labov (2006). A number of different speech styles were elicited from participants in order of increasing formality, as Labov outlined. Respondents were first given a general overview of the nature of the research, which was to study the way that Oklahomans talk. They were told that there were no right or wrong answers to any of the questions or tasks, and that the purpose was simply to see how they really talk. Just before the interview was begun, the consent form was explained to them and they were asked to sign it. At all times an effort was made on the part of the researcher to be transparent. This thesis only considers data from the word list, as it can be considered the most formal style in the interview according to Labov (2006). In the production of formal speech, speakers are more likely to pronounce words carefully and in keeping with their conception of prescribed norms. Concerning the PIN/PEN merger, as we have seen, phonetic factors are driving the merger (generally a Southern feature), but social factors 27 (e.g. prestige) support the split (a non-Southern feature). Southern features are typically stigmatized in American speech (see, for example Preston 1996) so anyone who does not want to sound Southern should try to avoid Southern features, including the PIN/PEN merger, if they are able to do so. As prescribed norms exclude stigmatized features almost by definition, and because formal speech styles are more likely to elicit a speaker’s conception of prescribed norms, the word list reading, being a formal task, can be regarded as the most likely to provide evidence of a split vowel system, if it exists. If the vowels are not distinguished in this formal style, then it is likely they are also not distinguished in less formal registers. We can conclude that if a speaker merges the vowel pairs here, the speaker is certainly merged. Using word list data, we can thus be as assured as possible that the evidence we have available points to one state or the other. 3.2.2 Wordlist The tokens considered in this study were elicited and recorded as part of a longer wordlist (approximately 100 words, see Appendix A) designed to study other aspects of Oklahoma English. Words were presented to participants in the form of a slideshow on a laptop computer. The words appeared individually and were read aloud one time by each participant. To minimize the effects of list intonation, the interviewer manually controlled the rate of presentation so that words were presented at uneven time intervals. Seven tokens in the PIN/PEN class were elicited, as presented in Table 3.1. 28 PIN/PEN /ɪ/ /ɛ/ tin ten sinned send windy Wendy dim hem thing then Table 3.1: PIN/PEN vowels elicited in wordlist, with minimal pairs in bold As shown above, this list included several minimal pairs, to allow for direct comparison of vowels. The top two minimal pairs are the primary focus of this study as they provide the clearest examples of a merger or split since the vowels in question are in the same phonetic environment and cannot be influenced in different ways by the surrounding consonants. The “wind/Wendy” pair is only considered in the impressionistic evaluation because the adjacent glide makes acoustic analysis difficult. Even in the impressionistic evaluation, the pair is considered less indicative of a merger or split due to the influence of the glide. “Then” is not explicitly considered in this paper because a preliminary analysis found that it tended to follow the pattern of “hem” and a second near-minimal pair was not available for a systematic comparison. One token with a velar nasal was elicited, “thing”. This word was ultimately excluded from analysis as many speakers produced the vowel in “thing” differently than the other PIN/PEN vowels; in “thing” the vowel was produced more like /e/. This production is common in Oklahoma, and words such as “thank” and “think” are often homophonous in Oklahoma speech. Although these vowels before velar nasals thus do 29 appear to be involved in a merger, it is not the merger under consideration in this study. The wordlist also included a set of reference vowels in the environment /hVd/, as shown in Table 3.2. These are the same 12 vowels in the same context as were elicited and studied in Hillenbrand, Getty, Clark, and Wheeler (1995), which is based on Peterson and Barney (1952). Vowel Word /i/ heed /ɪ/ hid /e/ hayed /ɛ/ head /æ/ had /ʌ/ HUD /ɑ/ hod /ɔ/ hawed /ɚ/ heard /o/ hoed /ʊ/ hood /u/ who’d Table 3.2: hVd words presented in the wordlist The vowels produced in this context serve as helpful reference points because they indicate the formant frequencies of some of the most common vowels in American English. They can be used to show the extent of a given speaker’s vowel space. Of particular importance to our examination of the PIN/PEN vowels, these words can also tell us where speakers produce /ɪ/and /ɛ/ when they are not influenced by a following nasal consonant. 30 3.3 Recording and Preparation for Analysis Participants were recorded in the field, usually in their homes or at a local community center, using a Shure Beta 53 omnidirectional condenser headworn vocal microphone routed through a Sound Solutions USBpre amplifier. The microphone was positioned approximately one inch to the side of the respondent’s mouth. Recordings were made using Praat and were collected at a sampling rate of 44,000 Hz. The recordings were resampled to 10,000 Hz prior to analysis in order to reduce the file size and speed up analysis. An effort was made during recording to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio by selecting quiet locations and avoiding sources of low frequency background noise, such as refrigerators and air conditioner vents. As recordings were made directly into Praat, a laptop computer was present during recording and was placed either on a table or the floor, depending on the recording environment. The lightweight, headworn microphone was chosen because it is relatively inconspicuous and remains at a consistent distance from the respondent’s mouth. Respondents did not show overt signs of being bothered by the presence of the microphone. Recordings were typically made in two back-to-back sessions and lasted from 45 to 75 minutes in total. The first session consisted of the “casual” conversation component of the interview. In this session, respondents were asked to provide some basic background information, including date and place of birth, residence history, provenance of parents, education, perspectives on Oklahoma, etc. This portion also included a map-drawing task in which respondents were presented with a “blank” map of Oklahoma and asked to indicate where people speak differently in the state (see 31 Preston, 1981). This “perceptual dialectology” component was intended to elicit respondents’ attitudes and beliefs about English in Oklahoma, but this information is not considered in the present analysis. At the conclusion of the first portion of the interview, the recording was stopped and saved. The second portion proceeded immediately afterwards unless the respondent wished to take a short break, which rarely happened. The second portion consisted of a reading passage and word list. After the word list had been read, the recording was stopped and saved. A perception experiment intended to determine respondents’ ability to distinguish several potential vowel mergers (PIN/PEN, COT/CAUGHT, vowels before /l/) followed but also is not considered here. 4 Data Analysis and Discussion This section presents the results of the impressionistic evaluation and acoustic analysis of the wordlist data. This study first categorizes the speakers’ production of the PIN/PEN vowels according to degree of merger or split based on an impressionistic evaluation (Section 4.1). Speakers are assessed relative to their own production and not based on conformity to a predetermined “norm.” Next, an acoustic analysis further explores the various production methods speakers use (Section 4.2). The acoustic analysis looks primarily at the shape of F2 during the vowel as it is the clearest indicator of variation between speakers. A summary of the linguistic findings from the impressionistic evaluation and acoustic analysis is given in 4.3. Finally, the social distribution of variables identified in the impressionistic and acoustic analyses is considered (Section 4.4). 32 The findings show that Oklahomans not only have the option to merge or not merge PIN and PEN, but they also have two or three options for how they merge or do not merge the vowel classes – those with a relatively steady or slightly downward F2 trajectory, those with a humped F2 trajectory indicative of triphthongal production, and those who mix the two production styles. Section 0 will provide examples of each of these options. 4.1 Impressionistic Evaluation An impressionistic evaluation of several minimal pairs and a near-minimal pair was done in order to determine if the speakers produced a recognizable difference in the production of the (near-) minimal pairs. 4.1.1 Methods Two evaluators with training in phonetics listened to the minimal and near-minimal pairs (tin/ten, sinned/send, windy/Wendy, and dim/hem) and rated the degree of similarity or difference between the pairs relative to the speakers’ own production. Although many token pairs were clearly similar or different, in cases where pairs were not clearly similar or different, a third opinion was sought. Token pairs were designated as “same” or “different.” Based on these results from production of minimal pairs, speakers were classified according to degree of merger. If all four pairs were determined to be “same” or “different,” they were considered “strongly merged” or “strongly split”, coded as “M1” and “S1,” respectively. Speakers were considered “moderately merged” or “moderately split” if one minimal pair was different from the determinations of the other pairs, coded as “M2” and S2,” respectively. Speakers for whom the “Wendy”/”windy” pair was the only pair inconsistent with the determinations of the other minimal pairs were still 33 considered strongly merged or split since the preceding glide often interfered with the production of the following vowel. The results of the impressionistic evaluation are given in Table 4.1. 4.1.2 Results Speaker Age Location Gender SEND/SINNED TEN/TIN WENDY/WINDY HEM/DIM Status 19 Allen M U M same same same same M1 4 Amber Y R F different different same different S1 22 Chad Y U M different different different different S1 7 Cody M R M same same same same M1 8 Dale M R M same same same same M1 5 Danny Y R F same same same same M1 23 Fitz Y U M different different different different S1 10 Gabe Y R M same different same same M2 9 Herbert M R M same same same same M1 13 Hilda M U F different same same same M2 20 Jack M U M different different different different S1 11 James Y R M different different different different S1 14 Jane M U F same same different same M1 24 Mason Y U M different same same different M1* 1 Pam M R F same same different same M1 15 Janet M U F same same different same M1 16 Ramona Y U F different different different different S1 2 Renee M R F same different different different S2 17 Shelly Y U F different different different different S1 21 Sam M U M different different same same S2 18 Skylar Y U F different different different different S1 6 Sarah Y R F same same same same M1 3 Tracy M R F different different different different S1 12 Van Gough Y R M same different same same M2 Table 4.1: Results of Impressionistic Evaluation (M1 = Strongly merged, M2 = Moderately merged, S1 = Strongly split, S2 = Moderately split) Many of the speakers, eight out of twenty-four, consistently produced very clear distinctions while others, six out of twenty-four, consistently produced the minimal pairs in very similar manners. Of those for whom the “Wendy”/”windy” pair was the only one differing in evaluation from the other three, one (Amber) merged the pair 34 when she had an otherwise split system, and three (Jane, Pam, and Janet) actually distinguished the pair even though they had an otherwise merged system. The only other token pair that yielded evaluations that diverged from the speaker’s other three pairs was “send”/”sinned,” including two speakers, Hilda – who produced a distinction in an otherwise merged system, and Renee – who produced the two tokens the same in an otherwise split system. Finally, two speakers produced half of the pairs similarly and the other half differently, Mason and Sam. These two speakers’ production, however, is less easy to describe according to the guidelines used for the other speakers. Sam produced weak distinctions even for the pairs that were evaluated as different. For Mason, although individual token pairs may have been either “same” or “different,” his means of producing the vowels across all four pairs was not consistent. He produces “dim” with [ɛ] and “hem” with [ɪ] and similarly inverts the vowels in “sinned” and “send.” “Tin” and “ten” and “Wendy” and “windy” are produced the same, with [ɪ]. Without more data it is difficult to offer an explanation for Mason’s production; however, this sort of mixed production that blurs the line between /ɪ/ and /ɛ/ is what would be expected in a merger-by-expansion (see Herold, 1990), that is to say, a phonological merger with the allophones [ɪ] and [ɛ] in free variation. It is also interesting to note that Mason is the son of Jane, a strongly merged speaker, and Sam, the moderately split speaker. Exposure to these differing vowel systems, in light of Herzog’s Principle that mergers expand at the expense of distinctions, provides a simple explanation for Mason’s merged state. Speculating further to suggest an explanation for Mason’s inverted production of the vowels in question, he may have learned the two distinct vowel targets from his father and others with a similar system, and inherited an enlarged phonemic space from his 35 mother and other merged speakers. If this were the case, Mason’s may be a transitional state on the way to a complete merger-by-transfer or merger-by-approximation. 4.2 Acoustic Analysis This acoustic analysis focuses primarily on a visual inspection of the spectrograms. Although measurements will be given to the extent that such measurements can be considered valid will the given when available, the nature of the particular class of vowels in question makes the taking of accurate and valid measurements difficult. First, the problem of nasalized vowels is discussed, followed by a presentation of the various sorts of formant contours found in the data set. Then, examples of intraspeaker variation are given to show how several types of formant contours can be present in a single speaker’s production. 4.2.1 Nasalized Vowels Unlike vowels in a non-nasal environment, vowels in a pre-nasal context are subject to complex acoustic interactions caused by having airflow through not only the oral cavity but also the nasal cavity once the velum lowers in anticipation of the nasal consonant. Nasalized vowels are characterized by “a broader frequency region in the vicinity of the first formant over which the spectral energy is distributed for a nasal vowel” (Hawkins & Stevens 1985: 1560). Feng and Castelli (1996), in their review of previous work, say that for the velar nasal consonant, what they propose as the target of nasal vowels, typical first and second peaks are at 300 Hz and 1000 Hz, and there is also commonly a low resonance frequency around 250 Hz. Nasalization is also accompanied by an antiformant in the vicinity of F1, which varies in position depending on the degree of nasalization. These additional and conflicting, sometimes canceling, resonances pose a problem because it makes it difficult to be confident about the location of the oral F1. 36 For this reason, this portion of the study will not place a strong emphasis on formant measurements as many other vowel studies have done in recent years. A method of data collection designed to capture nasal and oral resonances separately would certainly reveal interesting details about the role of F1 in these pre-nasal vowels. 4.2.2 Types of formant contours Three types of formant contours are present in the data set analyzed in this study. The relevant contours are found in F2 of the vowels. F1 evidently plays a role in the production of these vowels, but interference from the nasal resonances prohibits consistent analysis of the available data. The first type is referred to as “flat” because the vowel produces a flat, steady state F2 through the duration of the vowel. This sort of production results in a monophthong. The second type is referred to as “humped” because, in the most prototypical of cases, begins fairly high, increases by about 100 Hz over approximately one-third of the duration of the vowel, then descends to a point below the onset and may or may not achieve a steady state. This sort of production results in a triphthong. The third type can be described most generally as a “downward” slope of F2; however, the steepness and shape of F2 may vary. This sort of production results in a diphthong. Two kinds of diphthongs can be observed in this data set, those for which a steady state occurs in the first part of the vowel followed by a downward slope that may or may not reach another steady state, and those which consist of only the downward slope. Bigham (2005) identified similar diphthongs in his study of Southern Illinois, so his terminology will be adopted here, referring to the former diphthongs as “true diphthongs” and the latter as “breaking diphthongs.” 37 4.2.3 Monophthongs: “flat” countours A prototypical monophthong aims to hit only one target vowel quality that is maintained for the entire duration of the vowel. Some variation is expected, of course, and the following three examples present some of the observed varieties. With an F2 onset at 1735 Hz and an offset at 1700, Fitz’s production of “send” in Figure 4.1 presents a clear example of a monophthongal production. F1 is also level for the duration of the vowel. “send” 5000 5000 4000 ) z H 3000 ( y n c q u e e 2000 r F 1000 0 0 0.4629 0.9629 Time (s) Figure 4.1: Fitz "send" 38 Shelly’s production of “sinned” (Figure 4.2) has an F2 onset at 2150 Hz and an offset at 2180 Hz but the formant trajectory reaches a peak around the middle of the vowel at 2280 Hz, 100 Hz higher than the offset. Fluctuations such as these need not be evidence of a diphthongal pronunciation since there is clearly only one vowel target. This example also shows how the nasal resonances interfere with the oral resonances in the area of F1. “sinned” 5000 5000 4000 ) z H 3000 ( y n c q u e e 2000 r F 1000 0 0 0.3403 0.8403 Time (s) Figure 4.2: Shelly "sinned" 39 Figure 4.3 shows Amber’s gently sloping F2 in her production of “tin.” The onset is at 2520 Hz and the offset is at 2230 Hz, a difference of about 300 Hz. Formant tracks have been added to this figure to highlight the oral formant. Productions with such a change from onset to offset are not as prototypically monophthongal as Fitz’ “send” in Figure 4.1, but there are certainly more similarities between these two than with any of the diphthongal examples, especially since Amber’s F1 remains steady throughout the vowel. 5000 5000 4000 ) z 3000 H ( y c n e u q e r 2000 F 1000 0 0 0.4514 0.8374 Time (s) Figure 4.3: Amber "tin" 40 4.2.4 Triphthongs: “humped” contours This section presents examples of triphthongs, which pass through three targets within the span of the vowel. Feagin (1987) presents some examples of triphthongal production in the South, such as “crib,” transcribed as [khrɪiyəb]. This kind of production is evidently similar to what can be observed in Dale’s production. Dale produces “send” (Figure 4.4) with an onset at 1970 Hz, a peak at 2500 Hz, and an offset at 1680 Hz. The F2 values at the onset and peak correspond with the values of [ɪ] and a fronted version of [i] as presented in Peterson & Barney (1952) followed by an offglide, which is often transcribed as [ə]. Because the most prominent target in this type of production is [i], a tense vowel, this kind of vowel will be referred to as a “tense triphthong.” 5000 5 4 ) z 3 H ( y c n e u q e r 2 F 1 0 0 0.3436 0.8984 Time (s) Figure 4.4: Dale "send" 41 In Figure 4.5 we see that Allen also produces “send” in a “humped” manner with an onset at 1680 Hz, a peak at 1900 Hz, and an offset at 1420 Hz. This F2 peak at 1900 Hz is in the vicinity of Peterson & Barney’s (1952) [ɪ]. Because the most prominent target in this type of production is [ɪ], a lax vowel, this kind of vowel will be referred to as a “lax triphthong.” 5000 5000 4000 ) z 3000 H ( y c n e u q e r 2000 F 1000 0 0 0.6693 1.332 Time (s) Figure 4.5: Allen "send" 42 4.2.5 Diphthongs: “sloped” contours Two kinds of diphthongs were identified in this data set, “true” diphthongs and “breaking” diphthongs. This section will present examples of both. Sam’s production of “dim” (Figure 4.6) presents a relatively flat trajectory during the first 40% of the vowel before pursuing a downward trajectory. The onset is at 1750, there is a slight 55 Hz rise up to the breaking point, and the offset is at 1080. The final offglide is similar in appearance to the triphthongal offglide in that it continues a downward trajectory without reaching a steady state before transition into the nasal. 5000 5000 4000 ) z 3000 H ( y c n e u q e r 2000 F 1000 0 0 0.6664 1.001 Time (s) Figure 4.6: Sam "dim" Figure 4.7 shows Hilda’s production of “hem,” which shows an F2 with steep and steady downward trajectory with nothing identifiable as a steady state, a breaking diphthong. The onset is at 2690 Hz and the offset is at 1460 Hz, a difference of more 43 than 1200 Hz. Also of note is the apparently raising F1 in the latter half of the vowel, a feature that is consistent with the production of a diphthong. 5000 5000 4000 ) z 3000 H ( y c n e u q e r 2000 F 1000 0 0 0.4479 0.8903 Time (s) Figure 4.7: Hilda "hem" As we will see in the following section, breaking diphthongs occur almost exclusively in the token “hem,” even for speakers who have monphthongal productions in their other tokens, suggesting that this sort of production is the result of coarticulatory effects rather than the phonology of the vowels. There is evidence in the aspirated portion of tokens with breaking diphthongs (sometimes “tin” and “ten” in addition to “hem”) that true diphthongs, or even triphthongs, are actually articulated by some speakers before the onset of voicing. 44 4.2.6 Examples of intraspeaker variation Although it is convenient to have such clear examples of each of the varieties of formant contours identified in the data, not all of the spectrograms present such relatively clean and unambiguous depictions of the acoustic signal as shown in the pervious section. Speakers vary in ways that may be attributed to phonetic context, but they also vary because the production of human speech is variable by nature. This section considers the speech of one speaker from each of the eight demographic groups surveyed in this study. A collection of six spectrograms are presented for each speaker consisting of two minimal pairs and one near-minimal pair: “sinned,” “send,” “tin,” “ten,” “dim,” and “hem.” These speakers are not necessarily thought to be “representative” of their respective demographic groups, but it is convenient to show the diversity of variation of the entire data set by selecting one speaker from each group. The demographic description of each speaker is given after his or her pseudonym in the form (age, location, gender) such that “YUM” stands for a young, urban, male, and “MRF” stands for a middle-aged, rural, female. The speakers’ merger status is also given, as determined in the impressionistic analysis. Spectrograms in this section are shown without formant tracks in order to provide a clear view of each image. Images were created be selecting a frame from 100 ms before and 400 ms after the onset of voicing to give a consistent total frame width of 500 ms. 45 4.2.6.1 Allen (MUM) – M1 “tin” “ten” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.5637 1.064 0.6066 1.107 Time (s) Time (s) “sinned” “send” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.9395 1.44 0.7809 1.281 Time (s) Time (s) “dim” “hem” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.8742 1.374 0.6639 1.164 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.8: Allen At first glance, Allen appears to produce these vowels as true diphthongs with some coarticulatory effects creating a lax triphthong in his production of “sinned” and “send.” However, closer inspection of the aspirated portions of “tin” and “ten” reveal formants in the region of F2 that directly track onto the same formant in the voiced 46 portion resulting in a contour the mirrors that of F2 in “sinned,” “send,” and, to a lesser extent, “dim.” The voiced portion of “hem” appears to be a breaking diphthong; however, the aspirated portion has an F2 contour that suggests at least a true diphthong, if not a tripthongal articulation. There is no substantial difference in length between the two vowel classes and the minimal pairs produced nearly identical spectrogram images, corroborating the impressionistic evaluation as strongly merged. 47 4.2.6.2 Fitz (YUM) – S1 “tin” “ten” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.3214 0.8214 0.273 0.773 Time (s) Time (s) “sinned” “send” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.3749 0.8749 0.4629 0.9629 Time (s) Time (s) “dim” “hem” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.3071 0.8071 0.3688 0.8688 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.9: Fitz Fitz is clearly and prototypically monophthongal in the first four tokens. The final two show slightly greater downward trajectories, but the change from onset to offset is relatively slight and consistent with other monophthongal speaker’s production of “dim” and “hem.” F1 is higher for all of the PEN-class vowels, supporting the impressionistic evaluation of strongly split. The fact that oral F1 is visible in the 48 spectrogram for PEN-class above the lower frequency nasal resonances suggests that such a production is important in producing the vowel class distinction. Neither vowel class appears to be longer than the other. 49 4.2.6.3 Hilda (MUF) – M2 “tin” “ten” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.4931 0.9931 0.5933 1.093 Time (s) Time (s) “sinned” “send” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.4342 0.9342 0.4398 0.9398 Time (s) Time (s) “dim” “hem” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.3772 0.8772 0.4865 0.9865 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.10: Hilda Hilda shows much variation in her production style, but all closer to the triphthongal end of the spectrum than the monophthongal end. “Sinned” is produced as a lax triphthong while its counterpart “send” is a true diphthong. This is a meaningful difference as this pair was evaluated as sounding different. “Tin” and “ten” are both diphthongal in the voiced portion, but there is some vague evidence in the aspirated 50 portion of a triphthongal articulation. “Dim” appears as a true diphthong while “hem” has a sharply breaking diphthong that is somewhat characteristic of that token. Hilda is not strongly merged, and she does, in fact, produce a distinction between “sinned” and “send,” but the weight of the evidence suggests a moderate merger. Furthermore, neither vowel class was longer than the other. 51 4.2.6.4 Ramona (YUF) – S1 “tin” “ten” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.394 0.894 0.4961 0.9961 Time (s) Time (s) “sinned” “send” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.3504 0.8504 0.3932 0.8932 Time (s) Time (s) “dim” “hem” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.3792 0.8792 0.3853 0.8853 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.11: Ramona Ramona, who also happens to be Fitz’ sister, shares her brother’s means of production. F2 for three of the first four tokens is quite steady. Even the relatively slight downward slope in “tin” is minor enough to be considered monophthongal. “Dim” and “hem” show the slightly downward sloping F2 characteristic of these tokens as produced by 52 monophthongal speakers. F2 is higher for the PIN-class vowels in all cases, and the PEN- class vowels tend to be longer, thus supporting a strong merger evaluation. 53 4.2.6.5 Herbert (MRM) – M1 “tin” “ten” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.3097 0.8097 0.2377 0.7377 Time (s) Time (s) “sinned” “send” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.3524 0.8524 0.4832 0.9832 Time (s) Time (s) “dim” “hem” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.2959 0.7959 0.4093 0.9093 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.12: Herbert Herbert produces lax triphthongs in “sinned” and “send.” As is typical of speakers of this type, “tin” and “ten” appear to be true diphthongs, but the aspirated portion of the words suggest them to be articulatorily triphthongal. “Dim” has a contour similar to that produced in the same token by Hilda (Figure 4.10). “Hem,” in contrast to most of 54 the other speakers’ production of the same token, is a true diphthong rather than a breaking diphthong. This assessment bears out in the aspirated portion as well since F2 remains flat. The spectrograms of the minimal pairs look nearly identical, supporting the impressionistic evaluation as strongly merged. Vowel length was not substantially different between the two classes. 55 4.2.6.6 Van (YRM) – M2 “tin” “ten” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 19.21 19.71 0.4679 0.9679 Time (s) Time (s) “sinned” “send” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.5268 1.027 0.5892 1.089 Time (s) Time (s) “dim” “hem” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.6182 1.118 0.8323 1.332 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.13: Van As Hilda showed a great deal of variation on the triphthongal end of the continuum, so does Van show on the monophthongal end of the continuum. Three of the first four vowels in the figure show downward sloping F2s that toe the line between what can be considered monophthongs and breaking diphthongs. The apparent raising of F1 towad the end of the nucleus for the PIN-class vowels also detracts from a monophthonal 56 classification. “Dim” presents a true diphthong while “hem” shows the same downward trajectory as most other monophthongal speakers. These two tokens have similar F2 contours when including the aspirated portion of “hem.” Although “sinned” and “send” were evaluated as different, and “ten” is longer than “tin” Van seems to be more merged than not. More data could contradict this assessment, but the available evidence supports this conclusion. 57 4.2.6.7 Renee (MRF) – S2 “tin” “ten” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.312 0.812 0.3661 0.8661 Time (s) Time (s) “sinned” “send” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.4195 0.9195 0.3987 0.8987 Time (s) Time (s) “dim” “hem” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.1932 0.6932 0.3333 0.8333 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.14: Renee Renee appears to be a typical tense triphthongal speaker; however, unlike the other triphthongal speakers, she differentiates the PIN- and PEN-class vowels. “Sinned” and “send” were evaluated as being the same, but all of the other pairs were different. The spectrograms reveal that her PIN vowels are produced as tense triphthongs and the PEN vowels are produced as diphthongs. She is the only speaker in this data set who uses a 58 triphthongal production style who is not merged, and she accomplishes this split by tending to produce diphthongal PEN-class vowels. 59 4.2.6.8 Amber (YRF) – S1 “tin” “ten” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.4804 0.9804 0.456 0.956 Time (s) Time (s) “sinned” “send” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.6293 1.129 0.5451 1.045 Time (s) Time (s) “dim” “hem” 5000 5000 5000 5000 4000 4000 ) ) z z H 3000 H 3000 ( ( y y n c n c q u e q u e e 2000 e 2000 r r F F 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0.6168 1.117 0.4958 0.9958 Time (s) Time (s) Figure 4.15: Amber Amber produces the PIN and PEN class vowels differently. The PIN vowels have a higher F2, shorter length, and a more diphthongal quality than the PEN class vowels. “Dim” and “hem,” while different in appearance from Amber’s other tokens in the figure, more closely resemble lax triphthongal speakers’ production of the same tokens than they resemble monophthongal speakers’ production (e.g. Hilda and Renee). Although 60 this section of the results has avoided making comments on demographics, it is interesting to note here that she is young and rural, and has aspects of both monophthongal and triphthongal production, suggesting that she is in a transition state going toward a more urban speaking style. Much more data would be needed to support this idea of a transitional speaker, but speakers like Amber would make interesting case studies to see how much and what kind of variant production is present in transitional speakers. 61 4.3 Summary of Linguistic Findings It is evident that the merger of PIN and PEN in Oklahoma is not a simple matter of speakers either producing a distinction between the vowel classes or not. There are two systems interacting. One system includes somewhat monophthongal representations of these vowels, and the speakers may be either merged or not. The monophthongal speakers who are merged tend to converge on /ɪ/, but one speaker, Van, does appear to converge on /ɛ/, and another speaker, Mason, has the two phonemes in apparently free variation. The other system includes vowels of the PIN and PEN classes that are triphthongal in varying degrees. Some of these speakers aim for a target in the vicinity of Peterson & Barney’s (1952) /i/, a tense vowel, while others aim for a target in the vicinity of /ɪ/, a lax vowel. Table 4.2 presents a summary of the individual speaker’s production styles based on the impressionistic evaluation and spectrogram analysis. The code in the far right column summarizes the production styles. 62 Speaker Age Location Gender Merger status Tense/Lax F2 Shape Summary Code1 Allen M U M M1 lax Triphthong M1T(L) Amber Y R F S1 Monophthong S1M Chad Y U M S1 Monophthong S1M Cody M R M M1 tense Triphthong M1T(T) Dale M R M M1 tense Triphthong M1T(T) Danny Y R F M1 Monophthong M1M Fitz Y U M S1 Monophthong S1M Gabe Y R M M2 Monophthong M2M Herbert M R M M1 lax Triphthong M1T(L) Hilda M U F M2 lax Triphthong M2T(L) Jack M U M S1 Monophthong S1M James Y R M S1 Monophthong S1M Jane M U F M1 lax Mixed M1M/T(L) Mason Y U M M1 Monophthong M1M Pam M R F M1 tense Triphthong M1T(T) Janet M U F M1 lax Triphthong M1T(L) Ramona Y U F S1 Monophthong S1M Renee M R F S2 tense Mixed S2M/T(T) Shelly Y U F S1 Monophthong S1M Sam M U M S2 lax Triphthong S2T(L) Skylar Y U F S1 Monophthong S1M Sarah Y R F M1 Monophthong M1M Tracy M R F S1 lax Triphthong S1T(L) Van Gough Y R M M2 Monophthong M2M Table 4.2: Summary of individual speakers' production styles Thirteen of the speakers in this data set of 24 produce PIN/PEN vowels in a way that can be considered monophthongal, nine produce the vowels in a way that can be considered triphthongal, and the remaining two use both monophthongal and triphthongal productions. All of the monophthongal speakers produce lax varieties of the vowels. If the monophthongal speakers do produce certain tokens with diphthongal qualities, it is typically the result of a weak offglide toward [ə], a trend that appears to be phonetically conditioned, especially in the case of “hem.” Eight of the monophthongal speakers 1 The code summarizes the analysis results for each speaker. First, the speaker’s merger status is given using the alphanumeric combination described in the impressionistic evaluation section, then speaker’s F2 shape is given as either “T” for triphthongal or “M” for monophthongal, and finally, if the speaker is triphthongal, a letter appears in parentheses to give the tenseness of the vowel, “L” for lax and “T” for tense. Some speakers had mixed productions, in which case both letters are included in the code. 63 produce strongly split (unmerged) PIN and PEN vowel classes, two are moderately merged, and three are strongly merged. Of the 11 triphthongal speakers, including those who demonstrate triphthongal production in some tokens, seven produce lax varieties and the remaining four produce tense varieties. All three of the exclusively tense triphthongal speakers are strongly merged, and Renee is the only tense triphthongal speaker who splits the two vowel classes. Of the lax triphthongal speakers, four are strongly merged, one is moderately merged, one is moderately split, and one is strongly split. The evidence available in this relatively limited data set suggests no less than five different production possibilities of the PIN and PEN vowel classes: merged tense triphthong, merged lax triphthong, merged monophthong, split tense triphthong with monophthong, and split monophthong. A split lax triphthong is also suggested by the data, but only for one speaker and the split was only determined to be moderate, which is not strong enough evidence in a data set of this size to be convincing. Earlier acoustic studies have found or assumed F1 (or vowel height) to be a robust indicator of a merger or split of the PIN/PEN vowels in Oklahoma and similar dialect regions (Bailey, Wikle, Tillery, & Sand, 1993; Bigham, 2005). In fact, much of the data available in the current study agree with these earlier findings; however, the triphthongal and diphthongal vowel quality of some of the speakers in this study lead us to question if F2 may be used to distinguish the vowel classes for those speakers, especially given the acoustic difficulties presented by nasal resonances in these pre- nasal vowels. The diversity of production styles used by Oklahomans means that a significant amount of detail is lost of one only considers F1 and ignores F2. The findings of this present study show that F2 plays an important role in the way that some speakers distinguish the PIN and PEN vowel classes. 64 4.4 Social Distribution The social distribution of the various linguistic variables identified in the earlier sections is described here. This data set suggests that age and location of residence (urban vs. rural) are important factors associated with production style of the PIN and PEN vowels in and around Oklahoma City. Age, alone, serves an almost absolute role in distinguishing monophthongal and triphthongal production. Location of residence and tense or lax triphthong production are associated factors among middle-aged speakers. Location of residence and merger status are also related factors among young speakers. Data presented in this section are taken from the linguistic variables summarized in Table 4.2. Because two speakers were determined to have both monophthongal and triphthongal production styles, those speakers will be included in counts of both styles when relevant, so the total number of speakers may appear to be greater than the 24 actually considered in this study. 4.4.1 Single Demographic Variables and Production Style The interaction of single demographic variables with production style is considered first in Figure 4.16, Figure 4.17, and Figure 4.18. In these figures, the blue columns represent the diametrically opposed variables of merged and split production while the solid red columns represent the diametrically opposed variables of monophthongal and triphthongal production. The hatched red columns represent the component makeup of the triphthongal column by presenting the number of speakers with lax and tense triphthongal vowels. 65 Age and Production Style 12 10 8 6 4 # of speakers 2 0 Figure 4.16: Comparison of age and production style In Figure 4.16 we see that all of the young speakers have a monophthongal production style. Only one middle-aged speaker is exclusively monophthongal and the other two produced some vowels as monophthongs, but not all. All but one of the middle-aged speakers use triphthongal PIN/PEN vowels. Among these, four use a tense variety and seven use a lax variety. From the broad perspective of this figure, the distribution of merged vs. split speakers is not as clear as the distribution of monophthongs and triphthongs, but the young age group has more split speakers than the middle age group. 66 Location and Production Style 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 # of speakers 2 1 0 Figure 4.17: Comparision of location of residence and production style As seen in Figure 4.17, the number of rural merged speakers is twice as many as rural split speakers and the urban speaker are slightly more likely to be split than merged. Urban speakers who are triphthongal use the lax variety exclusively while the rural speakers are more likely to use the tense variety. Gender and Production Styles 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 # of speakers 2 1 0 Figure 4.18: Comparision of gender and production style 67 Gender has no identifiable interaction with production styles as presented in Figure 4.19. All of the columns on the male side are within one speaker difference in the related column on the female side. Gender may or may not play an important role in and around Oklahoma City, but the effects are not strong enough to be apparent in a sample of this size. 4.4.2 Merged vs. Split and Tense vs. Lax Across Demographic Groups This next section takes a closer look at how linguistic features are distributed across specific demographic groups in this study. Demographic Groups 3 2 Split Merged 1 # of speakers 0 YUF YUM MUM MRF YRM YRF MUF MRM Figure 4.19: Comparison of demographic groups and merger status In Figure 4.19 we can see that urban speakers are more likely to be split and that rural speakers are more likely to be merged, but this association appears to be only weak. Young urban speakers are more likely to be split than their rural counterparts, but again, only slightly. This figure shows that having a split or merged PIN/PEN system isn’t simply a matter of demographic group. 68 The following two figures show that demographic groups help to describe the distribution of linguistic features only when manner of production is taken into account. Monophthongal Speakers 3 2 Split Merged 1 # of speakers 0 MUM YRF YRM YUM YUF Figure 4.20: Comparison of monophthongal speakers' merger status Figure 4.20 presents the merger status of all monophthongal speakers. Only one middle-aged speaker is monphthongal, while the rest are young. Urban speakers tend to be split while rural speakers tend to be merged, as was noted in Figure 4.19. 69 Triphthongal Speakers 3 2 Lax Tense 1 # of speakers 0 MRM MRF MUM MUF Figure 4.21: Comparison of Triphthongal Speakers' usage of tense and lax vowel targets Because only three of the eleven triphthongal speakers are split, a comparison of two features that show more interesting distribution is more helpful. As mentioned earlier, only middle-aged speakers were found to produce triphthongs in this data set. Figure 4.21 shows that rural speakers are more likely to use a tense variety of triphthong than a lax variety. In contrast, only one urban speaker uses a tense variety, and the rest use the lax variety. While the data available in this sample indicates a strong association between manner of production and age, there is also a weaker effect of location of residence. If a difference between male and female production exists, it was not evident in this data set. 5 Conclusion When this research project was first conceived, the original intention was to study the PIN/PEN merger in a region that is one of the greatest foci of linguistic innovation in a state that was settled rapidly by speakers from at least two distinct dialect regions. The 70 only previously published study of Oklahoma that mentions the same merger was done by an impressionistic evaluation of two tokens, “Wednesday” and “pen” (SOD; Bailey, Tillery, & Wikle, 1997). That study, with over 800 respondents and nearly 55 target features, was very broad in scope, so it was hoped that conducting a narrower, qualitative study of a single linguistic feature in an influential region would reveal a more detailed picture of one aspect of the linguistic state of Oklahoma. The results uncovered in this study and presented in this paper show that there is much more to the PIN/PEN merger than simply asking if a speaker produces the two classes in a similar way. Rather, it is also about change in vowel quality over time. A speaker can produce the vowels monophthongally and be either merged or split, and a speaker can produce the vowels triphthongally with a tense or lax target vowel. Triphthongal speakers are almost always merged; one of the split speakers uses a triphthong for one vowel class, and a monophthong for the other, while the other split triphthongal speaker only produces a weak distinction. The young speakers in this study strongly favor a monophthongal production of the PIN/PEN vowels regardless of their merger status or location of residence. The middle-aged speakers, in contrast, overwhelmingly favor a triphthongal production. Such a diametric opposition along age lines suggests a robust change in progress. Considering, though, that the middle-aged speakers also have two ways of producing the triphthongs, with a lax target more likely for urban speakers and a tense target more likely for rural speakers, the young speakers are not simply adopting a different production style than the older generation, they are consolidating what was earlier two means of production into one, suggesting a leveling of social distinction and weakening of the urban/rural distinction. 71 One of the greatest difficulties that face this finding of an apparently monolithic linguistic shift between younger and older speakers comes from the small sample size. Coordinating evidence across several demographic groups does help to strengthen otherwise weak evidence; however, it is possible that an education divide between the young and middle-aged speakers, slight though it may be, may have significant implications. As all of the young rural speakers had obtained or were pursuing a bachelor’s degree, most of the middle-aged rural speakers had associate’s degrees from institutions close to their hometowns. One middle-aged rural speaker had earned a doctorate, but she produced lax triphthongs, a pattern that is associated with the middle-aged urban speakers in this study, not with young people. Nonetheless, the type of degree is not as important as where one must go to obtain one. Fewer institutions offer bachelor’s degrees than associate’s, so someone would typically need to travel further to attend a bachelor’s granting institution. It could be that an increased importance placed on pursuing a bachelor’s degree in the past 30 years has encouraged rural young people to consider moving away from their hometowns to attend a four- year institution. As in Labov’s (1963) study of Martha’s Vineyard, these young people may be experiencing a wholesale positive orientation toward a dialect they perceive as being more useful, namely the urban dialect. If a large proportion of rural youth actually did fit this description, it would be very easy for a six-person sample to inadvertently exclude rural youth who have stronger positive orientations toward rural life and speech patterns. However, if the young rural speakers were trying to emulate urban speech, we would expect to see a lag of one generation. So the rural youth ought to be speaking like the urban middle-aged speakers, and this is not the case. Based on the evidence available in this data set, we see that an urban/rural distinction exists among the middle-aged speakers, but the young speakers are 72 essentially the same. There is a sense in which the middle-aged rural respondents grew up in areas that were rural during their childhood but which are now suburban, or even urban, as Oklahoma City has expanded. So two generations could have been raised in the same town, but that town may have been considered rural in the 1950s and suburban by the 1990s. In this case, it isn’t the urban/rural distinction that has been weakened, rather rural has become urban and there are no longer two classes to distinguish. We can speculate that the young rural and urban respondents speak in the same manner because they are not actually different groups. More work will need to be done to assess the validity of these claims, but stark contrasts in production between middle-aged urban and rural speakers, and between young and middle aged speakers suggests that further exploration would be fruitful. The settlement history of Oklahoma with people immigrating from both Midwestern and Southern states and the continuing mixed regional identity of the state has certainly contributed to the present day linguistic situation in the state. Although this study has only been able to provide a glimpse into a narrow section of language in Oklahoma, it has contributed some insights into how Oklahomans vary in production of key speech sounds. These kinds of variation are the seeds of change. Understanding what varieties are available to hearers and speakers and how those varieties are distributed in the population are part of the necessary background work needed to inform future studies language variation and change. Many more questions can be asked, and it is my hope that this study has provided a platform from which to further explore language in Oklahoma. 73 Appendix A: Wordlist Tree Thing Mat Pig Measure Hem Wendy Shop Fish Hayed Hug Wasn’t Day Heat Had Every Mesh Jab Thick Tin Strength HUD Peel Cob Talker Saw Tuesday Hoe Loan Good Cut Who’d Heed Hawk Send Chew Shoot Duty Knife How Hook Don Forty Hoed Push Boy Hawed Lie Out Those Brother Ruth Lied Wash Chewed Business Then Garage Heard Soda Windy Head Happy Shrimp Sang Strike Hid Houston Ten Floyd Bet Seven Pawed With Fail Hock Dim Hod Ate Cloud Cool Sinned Where Steve Dawn Trade Hood Sand Boat 74 Appendix B: IRB Consent form ConsentForm - How OklahomansTalk Researchers:Dennis R. Prestonand studentfieldworkers This is a study of how people in Oklahomatalk. In this study, we are not at all interestedin "right" and "wrong" and would neverrefer to the resultsof this researchthat way. We are fascinatedby the way languagechanges from place to place, and our study will contribute to tl-rescientific knowledge of languageand our ability to advisepeople in education,the law, and other public domainsthat are concernedwith language.I wor-rldbe happyto discussthese objectives with you beforeyour decisionto participateor during or after the interview. I will recordyour speech(and video recordthe interviewif you agree)and ask questionsabout what you think about language.I will ask you to read a list of words and a short passageand ask you about your life history. I will ask you to identify words from a recordingand imitate how othersspeak, if you are comfoftabledoing so. Tliis interview should take no more than an hour. Your participationis completelyvoluntary, and you may choosenot to participateat all, or you may refuseto participatein certain parts of the interview, refuseto answerceftain questiorrs,or stop participatingat any time, and you can ask me to stop recording at any time. There are no known risks associatedwith this project which are greater than those ordir-rarilyencountered in daily life, and nothing that affects you would resultif you decidenot to parlicipatein whole or in part. The recordsof tliis studywill be kept private.Any written or publicly presentedresults will discuss groupfindings, not informationtliat would identifuyou. All researchrecords will be storedpermanently in a lockedfile cabinetat OklahornaState University and only researchersand individualsresponsible for researchoversight will haveaccess to them.It is possiblethat the consentprocess and data collection will be observedby researchoversight staff responsiblefor safeguardingthe rights and wellbeingof peoplewho participatein research.We may play your recordedvoice and show your image as part of our repofts at academicconferences, on academicwebsites, or in acadernicvideos. If at any time after you havecompleted this interview,you would like to withdraw,we will destroyyour recording. Ifyou haveconcerns or questionsabout this Ifyou havequestions about your rightsas a study,such as scientificissues, how to do any researchvolunteer, you may contactDr. Shelia part of it, or to reporl an injury, pleasecontact Kennison,IRB Chair,219 Cordell North, Dennis R. Preston,Oklahoma State University Stillwater,OK 1407 8, 405-317-331 1 or 405 -5 64 -063 6 or [email protected] [email protected]. I haveread and fully understandthis form. I signit freelyand volLurtarily. A copy hasbeen given to me. Signatureof Participant Date I certifli that I have personallyexplained this documentbefore requesting that the participantsign it. Sisnatureof Researcher Date Pleasealso sign below if you agreeto the specialcase of beingvideo-recorded. Please remember that if you agreeto this we may show your imageas part of our repoftsat academicconferences, on academic websites,or in academicvideos. Signature of Participant Date 0Ih.ffie Univ. IRB ^wM-o/f//a.;rrlra.r. /g /12 W8 A 75 References Atwood, E. Bagby. 1962. The regional vocabulary of Texas Austin: University of Texas Press. Bailey, Guy, Jan Tillery & Tom Wikle. 1995. Reversal of near-merger. Paper presented at the NWAV 24, Philadelphia : University of Philadelphia. —. 1997. Methodology of a survey of Oklahoma dialects. SECOL (Southeast Conference on Linguistics) Review 21.1-30. Bailey, Guy, Tom Wikle, Jan Tillery & Lori Sand. 1993. Some patterns of linguistic diffusion. Language Variation and Change 5.359-90. Bakos, Jon. 2013. A Comparison of the Speech Patterns and Dialect Attitudes of Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University Dissertation. Britain, David. 1997. Dialect contact, focusing and phonological rule complexity: the koineisation of Fenland English. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: A Selection of Papers from NWAV 25 4.141-69. Brown, Vivian. 1990. The social and linguistic history of a merger: /ɪ/ and /ɛ/ before nasals in Southern American English: Texas A&M University Dissertation. —. 1991. Evolution of the merger of /I/ and /e/ before nasals in Tennessee. American Speech 66.303-15. Feagin, Crawford. 1987. A closer look at the Southern drawl: Variation taken to exteremes. Variation in Language, ed. by K. Denning, S. Inkelas, F. McNair-Knox & J. Rickford, 137-50. Stanford Univeristy: Department of Linguistics. Feng, Gang & Eric Castelli. 1996. Some acoustic features of nasal and nasalized vowels: A target for vowel nasalization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99.3694-706. 76 Hawkins, Sarah & Kenneth N. Stevens. 1985. Acoustic and perceptual correlates of the non- nasal--nasal distinction for vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77.1560-75. Herold, Ruth. 1990. Mechanisms of merger: The implementation and distribution of the low back merger in eastern Pennsylvania. United States -- Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania 9026574. —. 1997. Solving the Actuation Problem: Merger and Immigration in Eastern Pennsylvania. Language Variation and Change 9.165-89. Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19.273-309. —. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. —. 1994. Principles of linguistic change Cambridge [Mass.]: Blackwell. —. 2006. The Social Stratification of English in New York City Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change: Cognitive and Cultural Factors West Sussex: Wiley- Blackwell. Labov, William, Sharon Ash & Charles Boberg. 2006. The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter. Labov, William, Mark Karen & Corey Miller. 1991. Near-Mergers and the Suspension of Phonemic Contrast. Language Variation and Change 3.33-74. Liljencrants, Johan & Björn Lindblom. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48.839-62. Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of Sounds Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 77 Moulton, William. 1962. Dialect Geography and the concept of phonological space. Word 18.23- 32. Peterson, Gordon E. & Harold L. Barney. 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24.175-84. Preston, Dennis R. 1996. Where the Worst English is Spoken. Focus on the USA, ed. by E.W. Schneider, 297-360. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Roark, Michael Owen. 1979. Oklahoma Territory: Frontier development, migration, and culture areas: Syracuse University Dissertation. Rooney, John F., Wilbur Zelinsky, Dean R. Louder & John D. Vitek. 1982. This Remarkable Continent: An Atlas of United States and Canadian Society and Culture College Station [Tex.]: Published for The Society for the North American Cultural Survey by Texas A & M University Press. Solé, Maria-Josep. 2007. Controlled and mechanical properties in speech: a review of the literature. Experimental approaches to phonology, ed. by M.-J. Solé, P. Beddor & M. Ohala, 302-21. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Southard, Bruce. 1993. Elements of Midwestern speech in Oklahoma. “Heartland” English, ed. by T.C. Frazer, 229-43. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press. Thomas, Erik R. 2011. Sociophonetics: An introduction Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Tillery, Jan. 1997. The role of social processes in language variation and change. Language Variety in the South, ed. by C. Bernstein, T. Nunnally & R. Sabino, 434-46. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. 78 Trudgill, Peter & Tina Foxcroft. 1978. On the sociolinguistics of vocalic mergers: Transfer and accommodation in East Anglia. Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, ed. by P. Trudgill, 69-79. London: Edward Arnold. 79