Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T07:17:08.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonation differences and the phonetic content of the tense-lax contrast in Utah English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Marianna Di Paolo  and
Alice Faber
Marianna Di Paolo
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Alice Faber
Affiliation:
Haskins Laboratories
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents data bearing on the question of what happens at the phonetic level during a sound change of the type which Labov, Yaeger, and Steiner (1972) labeled an “apparent merger.” Our production data come from three generations of native Utahns who participated in the Intermountain Language Survey (ImLS) and four New Yorkers who served as control subjects. The phonetic subject of our study is the ongoing change in the tense-lax pairs /i-I, e-ε, u-υ/ before tautosyllabic dark [†] in Utah English. Previous studies reported that the resultant vowels are usually, but not always, perceived by both transcribers and speakers as lax. Acoustic analysis, self-categorization data, and perception data demonstrate that, after the usual F1/F2 contrast has been lost, contrasts between these and lax vowels may persist in phonation differences and that these phonation differences may be available to hearers.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , July 1990 , pp. 155 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bauer, L. (1986). Notes on New Zealand English phonetics and phonology. English World-Wide 7:225–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13:145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickley, C. (1982). Acoustic analysis and perception of breathy vowels. MIT-RLE Speech Communication Group Working Papers 1:71–81.Google Scholar
Charles-Luce, J. (1985). Word final devoicing in German: Effects of phonetic and sentential contexts. Journal of Phonetics 13:455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles-Luce, J. & Dinnsen, D. A. (1987). A reanalysis of Catalan devoicing. Journal of Phonetics 15:187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornyn, W. S. & Roop, D. H. (1968). Beginning Burmese. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Denning, K. (1989). The diachronic development of phonological voice quality with special reference to Dinka and the other Nilotic languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. A. & Charles-Luce, J. (1984). Phonological neutralization, phonetic implementation, and individual differences. Journal of Phonetics 12:49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Paolo, M. (1988). Pronunciation and categorization in sound change. In Ferrara, K., Brown, B., Walters, K., & Baugh, J. (eds.), Linguistic change & contact: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation in Language. Austin: Texas Linguistic Forum, 30:84–92.Google Scholar
Faber, A. (1990, 05). The time course of labial gestures for sibilant articulation. Paper presented at the Acoustical Society of America meeting.University Park, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic theory of speech production. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Feagin, C. (1986). More evidence for major vowel change in the South. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Diversity and diachrony: Current issues in linguistic theory. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feagin, C. (1987). A closer look at the Southern drawl: Variation taken to extremes. In Denning, K. M., Inkelas, S., McNair-Knox, F. C., & Rickford, J. R. (eds.), Variation in language: NWAV-XV at Stanford (Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation). Stanford: Stanford University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1989). Phonetic analysis of the stød in Standard Danish. Phonetica 46:1–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fourakis, M. & Iverson, G. A. (1984). On the incomplete neutralization of German final obstruents. Phonetica 41:140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobl, C. & Ni Chasaide, A. (1988). The effects of adjacent voiced/voiceless consonants on the vowel voice source: A cross-language study STL-QPSR (2–3):23–59.Google Scholar
Hartman, J. (1984). Some possible trends in the pronunciation of young Americans (maybe). American Speech 59:218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, M. K. (1987). Measures of phonation type in Hmong. JASA 81:495–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchison, J. & McClenon, C. (1977). An acoustical study of the vowels and tones in Burmese. Austin: Texas Linguistic Forum, 8:129–142.Google Scholar
Javkin, H. R., Antonanzas-Barroso, N. & Maddieson, I. (1987). Digital inverse filtering for linguistic research. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30:122–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, R. D. (1980). The history of final devoicing in Yiddish. In Herzog, M. I., Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, B., Miron, D., & Wisse, R. (eds.), The field of Yiddish IV. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. 371–430.Google Scholar
Kirk, P., Ladefoged, P. & Ladefoged, J. (1984). Using a spectrograph for measures of phonation type in natural language. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 59:102–113.Google Scholar
Klátt, D. H. & Klatt, L. C. (1990). Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. JASA 87:820–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurath, H. & McDavid, R. (1961). The pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1974). On the use of the present to explain the past. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists. Vol. 2. Bologna, Societá Editrice Il Mulino. 825–851.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1989). The limitations of context: Evidence from misunderstandings in Chicago. University of Pennsylvania, typescript.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (in press). The three dialects of English. In Eckert, P. (ed.), New ways of analyzing sound change. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Yaeger, M. & Steiner, R. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress (Report on National Science Foundation Contract GS-3287). Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1983). The linguistic use of different phonation types. In Bless, D. & Abbs, J. (eds.), Vocal fold physiology: Contemporary research and clinical issues. San Diego: College Hill. 351–360.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. & Antonanzas-Barroso, N. (1985). Computer measures of breathy phonation. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 61:79–86.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P., Maddieson, I., & Jackson, M. (1988). Investigating phonation types in different languages. In Fujimura, O. (ed.), Vocal physiology: Voice production, mechanisms, and functions. New York: Raven. 297–317.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. & Ladefoged, P. (1985). “Tense” and “lax” in four minority languages of China. Journal of Phonetics 13:433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascaro, J. (1987). Underlying voicing recoverability of finally devoiced obstruents in Catalan. Journal of Phonetics 15:183–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRoberts, G. W. & Faber, A. (1989). Variations in measured voice quality related to linguistic and non-linguistic factors. JASA 84:S58.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Harris, J. (1980). When is a merger not a merger? The MEAT/MATE problem in a present-day English vernacular. English World-Wide 1:199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1980). A falsely reported merger in eighteenth century English: A study in diachronic variation. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 221–250.Google Scholar
Payne, A. (1980). Factors controlling the acquisition of the Philadelphia dialect by out-of-state children. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 143–178.Google Scholar
Port, R. F. & Crawford, P. (1989). Incomplete neutralization and pragmatics in German. Journal of Phonetics 17:257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port, R. F. & O'Dell, M. L. (1985). Neutralization of syllable-final voicing in German. Journal of Phonetics 13:455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, N.-Q. & Mattingly, I. (1989). Spectral slope as a cue for the perception of breathy and nonbreathy stops in Shanghainese. JASA 86:S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothenberg, M. (1973). A new inverse filtering technique for deriving the glottal airflow waveform during voicing. JASA 53:1632–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shores, D. L. (1985). Vowels before /l/ and /r/ in the Tangier dialect. Journal of English Linguistics 18:124–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuy, R. W., Wolfram, W. A. & Riley, W. K. (1968). Field techniques in an urban language study. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sledd, J. (1987). A Canterbury tell. American Speech 62:185–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slowiaczek, L. M. & Dinnsen, D. A. (1985). On the neutralizing status of Polish word-final devoicing. Journal of Phonetics 13:325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K. N. (1988). Modes of vocal fold vibration based on a two-section model. In Fujimura, O. (ed.), Vocal physiology: Voice production, mechanisms, and functions. New York: Raven. 357–370.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N. (1989). On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics 17:3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thongkum, T. L. (1988). Phonation types in Mon-Khmer languages. In Fujimura, O. (ed.), Vocal physiology: Voice production, mechanisms, and functions. New York: Raven. 319–333.Google Scholar
Tillery, J. & Kerr, G. (1989, 10). The neutralization of tense and lax vowels before /l/. Paper presented at the Eighteenth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English and Other Languages,Durham, NC,Duke University.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1984). Sex and covert prestige: Linguistic change in the urban dialect of Norwich. In Baugh, J. & Sherzer, J. (eds.), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 54–66.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1982). Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar