Listening to Writers and Riders: Partial Contrast and the Perception of Canadian Raising Patrick Joseph Murphy A thesis submied in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Linguistics University of Toronto © Copyright by Patrick Joseph Murphy (2019) Abstract Listening to Writers and Riders: Partial Contrast and the Perception of Canadian Raising Patrick Joseph Murphy Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Linguistics University of Toronto 2019 Listeners generally have a greater perceptual sensitivity to native contrasts compared to allophones (Whalen et al., 1997; Boomershine et al., 2008) or non-native contrasts (Goto, 1971; Sundara et al., 2006) in discrimination and other tasks. Recent research has emphasized the gradient nature of contrast, showing that many phonological relationships are intermediate or variable between contrast and allophony (Hall, 2009, 2013). This dissertation presents a series of experiments investigating the perception ofwhathas been called marginal contrast or partial contrast using Canadian Raising as a testing ground. Experiment 1 tests discrimination of raised and non-raised diphthongs ([ʌj]~[aj] and [ʌw]~[aw]) in dier- ent phonological environments, nding better discrimination in the contrastive environment where they can create dierent words than in the allophonic environment where they cannot, but only for one of the two diphthongs (/aj/ but not /aw/). This diphthong dierence was ambiguous—it could be a property of the diphthongs themselves, or it could have been a result of the stimuli used, specically that [ʌj]~[aj] has more recognizable minimal pairs (e.g., writing/riding) than [ʌw]~[aw] (e.g., clouting/clouding). Ex- periments 2, 3, and 4 clarify this partial contrast eect and diphthong dierence, nding support for an inherent diphthong dierence (using non-words in Experiment 2) and for an additional eect of the min- imal pairs (Experiments 3 and 4). Experiments 1b, 1c, 2b, 3b, and 4b are semi-replications of these initial four experiments. They lack an additional experimental condition that was present in the original ex- ii periments, and in each case the original partial contrast eect fails to replicate, suggesting that partial contrast eects depend on quality/quantity of linguistic exposure. Finally, Experiment 5 tests discrimi- nation of Canadian Raising diphthongs by Canadians and Americans, nding generally faster and more accurate discrimination by Canadians, with dierences between dierent American regions as well. Together, these experiments provide insight rst and foremost into the eect of contrast—specically partial contrast—on discrimination, as well as other topics such as cross-dialectal perception (and the eect of dialect stereotypes and dialect exposure on perception) and regional dierences in the production of raising (and related phenomena) in Canada and the United States. iii Anowledgments Graduate school has been an incredible experience for me, and many people deserve credit for that. The obvious person to start with is Phil Monahan, who had more inuence than anyone else on my develop- ment as a researcher. He was my dissertation supervisor, a co-supervisor on both of my generals papers, and he taught the class on speech perception that really inspired the research path I took. I’ve appreciated his intellectually rigorous but down-to-earth supervising style, his ability to creatively brainstorm and sort through ideas with me, and his support for my rst time as a course instructor (LINB29 Quantitative Methods in Linguistics at UoT Scarborough), which was an extremely rewarding experience. The other members of my dissertation committee also have my enthusiastic appreciation. Jessamyn Schertz has a remarkable skill of making unexpected or confusing results make sense (as I saw with my rst generals paper and then this dissertation), and I must highlight that she and her advanced quantitative methods class were central in developing my skills and condence working with data and statistics. Next, Jack Chambers has an impressive eye for detail, a wealth of knowledge on North American dialects, and an enviable level of energy and inquisitiveness even in retirement. He also pioneered work on Canadian Raising that made this dissertation possible in the rst place. Finally, my internal and external reviewers (Yoonjung Kang, Nathan Sanders, and Kathleen Currie Hall) provided constructive comments and insight- ful perspectives that greatly beneted this dissertation and my thinking about these topics. Going back, I want to mention my master’s supervisor, Diane Massam, who was a big part of why I enjoyed my MA so much and decided to continue on to a PhD. I also want to give a shout-out to my 2013/2014 UoT linguistics MA cohort. They’ve since spread to a lot of dierent places, but there was something especially exciting about that rst year of graduate school that we all experienced. To go back even further, I’m also indebted to the linguistics faculty at Saint Mary’s University in Halifax (Daniel Currie Hall, Elissa Asp, and Egor Tsedryk) for an undergraduate experience that I remember very fondly as well. I’m also thankful to many special people outside of academia. My parents, Michele and Darrin, provided me with one of the best childhoods anyone could hope for, which I have to assume plays a role in anything I achieve. My grandmother, Sylvia, always supported me and provided perspective by reminding me that getting a PhD is actually a pretty cool thing to do, which wasn’t always at the front of mymindasIwas deep into the details of a research project. Finally, to Jasmine, thank you for being my companion for these amazing years in Toronto, for supporting me through the ups and downs, and for pushing me to get out, explore, and develop as a person instead of just as an academic. iv Contents 1 Introduction & Baground 1 1.1 Contrast and Speech Perception ................................. 2 1.2 The Role of Context in Speech Perception ............................ 7 1.3 Partial Contrast .......................................... 8 1.3.1 Dening Partial Contrast ................................ 8 1.3.2 Partial Contrast and Perception ............................. 10 1.4 Canadian Raising ......................................... 14 1.4.1 Phonetics and Geographic Distribution ......................... 14 1.4.2 Partial Contrast ...................................... 16 1.5 Online Data Collection ...................................... 18 1.6 Dissertation Outline ........................................ 18 2 Canadian Raising Diphthongs 21 2.1 Previous Studies .......................................... 21 2.2 Phonetic Analysis of Stimuli ................................... 22 2.2.1 Rationale ......................................... 22 2.2.2 Stimulus Creation .................................... 23 2.2.3 Method .......................................... 23 2.2.4 Results ........................................... 26 2.2.5 Discussion ......................................... 29 3 Basic Findings 31 3.1 Experiment 1 ............................................ 31 3.1.1 Rationale ......................................... 31 v 3.1.2 Method .......................................... 32 3.1.3 Results ........................................... 37 3.1.4 Discussion ......................................... 39 3.2 Experiment 2 ............................................ 43 3.2.1 Rationale ......................................... 43 3.2.2 Method .......................................... 43 3.2.3 Results ........................................... 45 3.2.4 Discussion ......................................... 47 4 Manipulating Lexicality 50 4.1 Experiment 3 ............................................ 51 4.1.1 Rationale ......................................... 51 4.1.2 Method .......................................... 51 4.1.3 Results ........................................... 53 4.1.4 Discussion ......................................... 55 4.2 Experiment 4 ............................................ 58 4.2.1 Rationale ......................................... 58 4.2.2 Method .......................................... 58 4.2.3 Results ........................................... 61 4.2.4 Discussion ......................................... 63 5 Importance of Input 65 5.1 Experiment 1b ........................................... 65 5.1.1 Rationale ......................................... 65 5.1.2 Method .......................................... 66 5.1.3 Results ........................................... 67 5.2 Experiment 1c ........................................... 68 5.2.1 Rationale ......................................... 68 5.2.2 Method .......................................... 69 5.2.3 Results ........................................... 70 5.3 Experiment 2b ........................................... 71 5.3.1 Rationale ......................................... 71 5.3.2 Method .......................................... 71 vi 5.3.3 Results ........................................... 73 5.4 Experiment 3b ........................................... 74 5.4.1 Rationale ......................................... 74 5.4.2 Method .......................................... 74 5.4.3 Results ........................................... 76 5.5 Experiment 4b ........................................... 77 5.5.1 Rationale ......................................... 77 5.5.2 Method .......................................... 77 5.5.3 Results ..........................................