Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T20:22:32.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quality and quantity in New Zealand English vowel contrasts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2017

Paul Warren*
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealandpaul.warren@vuw.ac.nz
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Acoustic analysis of word-list and sentence data from a database of spoken New Zealand English is used to address the suggestion that a number of vowel contrasts in this variety are moving towards a quantity-based distinction. Data from 73 speakers across three age groups and two sexes are analysed, for a total of almost 6,000 vowel tokens. The move to a quantity distinction is confirmed for the strut‒start contrast. In the case of dress and fleece, younger and female speakers show greater overlap of the two vowels but also stronger diphthongisation of fleece. The data also confirm the fronting of foot away from thought and towards goose, but with no evident adjustment in durational contrasts or in the diphthongisation of either long vowel. Kit is becoming increasingly centralised, especially in the speech of young women, and is as a consequence becoming more distinct from nurse. The findings are discussed in the context of the system of vowel contrasts in this variety.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2017 
Figure 0

Figure 1 Approximate positions of New Zealand English short and long monophthongs (from Bauer et al. 2007, reproduced with permission. Note that the symbols are not centroids, but labels positioned to indicate clearly the different distributions.)

Figure 1

Figure 2 Normalised F1-F2 plots for vowel midpoints for the nine vowels of interest, from /hVd/ contexts, one token per speaker. Left hand panels show female speakers and right hand panels show male speakers. The top row is for older speakers, the middle row for mid-age speakers and the bottom row for younger speakers. Long vowels are shown in red with dotted ellipses.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Normalised F1-F2 plots for vowel midpoints for the nine vowels of interest from sentence contexts, for eight accented tokens per vowel for each speaker. Left hand panels show female speakers and right hand panels show male speakers. The top row is for older speakers, the middle row for mid-age speakers and the bottom row for younger speakers. Long vowels are shown in red with dotted ellipses.

Figure 3

Figure 4 Euclidean distance between dress and fleece by speaker sex and age (means and standard errors).

Figure 4

Table 1 Bhattacharyya's affinity values for dress and fleece in the sentence tokens (possible values range from zero (no overlap) to one (total overlap)).

Figure 5

Figure 5 Euclidean distance between dress and fleece by average fleece diphthongisation. Points represent data in the sentence context for individual speakers and the line is a nonparametric smoother fit (loess).

Figure 6

Figure 6 Euclidean distance between kit and nurse by context, sex, and age (means and standard errors).

Figure 7

Table 2 Bhattacharyya's affinity values for kit and nurse in the sentence tokens (possible values range from zero (no overlap) to one (total overlap)).

Figure 8

Figure 7 Average durations (in milliseconds) of kit and nurse by context, speaker sex and age (means and standard errors).

Figure 9

Table 3 Bhattacharyya's affinity values for strut and start in the sentence tokens (possible values range from zero (no overlap) to one (total overlap)).

Figure 10

Figure 8 Average durations (in milliseconds) of strut and start by context and age (means and standard errors).

Figure 11

Figure 9 Euclidean distance between foot and thought by speaker sex and age (means and standard errors).

Figure 12

Table 4 Bhattacharyya's affinity values for foot and thought in the sentence tokens (possible values range from zero (no overlap) to one (total overlap)).

Figure 13

Table 5 Bhattacharyya's affinity values for foot and goose in the sentence tokens (possible values range from zero (no overlap) to one (total overlap)).

Figure 14

Figure 10 Durations of foot, goose and thought by age (means and standard errors).