Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T01:54:28.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Is [nuz] really the new [njuz]? Yod dropping in Toronto English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2022

KATHARINA PABST*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics University of Toronto Sidney Smith Hall, 4th floor 100 St George Street Toronto ON M5S 3G3 Canada katharina.pabst@mail.utoronto.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates yod dropping, i.e. the loss of the onglide after the coronals /t, d, n/, in Toronto English. Previous research has shown that this change is almost complete in Canadian English. However, most work has drawn on self-reported data rather than actual speech, and few studies have taken word frequency into consideration, although it has been shown to play a major role during earlier stages of the change. Combining auditory and acoustic analysis of production data from 20 speakers from the Greater Toronto Area, this study confirms that the change towards the yod-less pronunciation is largely complete. As in other varieties, there is considerable acoustic overlap between test words that historically had yod (new) and those that did not (too). This highlights the need to move away from predetermined cut-off points for determining yod presence, which are common in previous work, and find diagnostics that will allow us to distinguish between yod retention and /u/-fronting, another change that is currently underway in Canadian English (see also Roeder et al. 2018). Possible solutions are discussed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Overview of test words

Figure 1

Table 2. Test words by word frequency

Figure 2

Table 3. Coding schema

Figure 3

Table 4. Overall distribution of yod dropping in Toronto English (based on perceptual coding)

Figure 4

Table 5. Mixed-effects linear regression on F2 values (in Hz, non-normalized) at 20 percent of vowel duration by vowel type (too = −0.5), age (over 40 = −0.5), gender (men = −0.5), preceding consonant (comparison 1: difference between /d/ and /n/; comparison 2: difference between /t/ and /d/), frequency (continuous, log-transformed and centered around 0), the interaction between vowel type and age, and the interaction between vowel type and frequency. Random intercepts for speaker and word are included as well as a by-subject slope for vowel. N = 1,185

Figure 5

Figure 1. F2 (in Hz) at 20 percent of vowel duration by vowel type and gender

Figure 6

Figure 2. F2 (in Hz) at 20 percent of vowel duration by vowel type and preceding consonant

Figure 7

Table 6. Pairwise comparison between preceding consonants in analysis 1. P-value adjustment method: Holm

Figure 8

Table 7. Mixed-effects linear regression on F2 values (in Hz) at 20 percent of vowel duration by vowel type (comparison 1: difference between feud and chew; comparison 2: difference between chew and new; comparison 3: difference between new and too; comparison 4: difference between too and food), age (over 40 = −0.5) and gender (men = −0.5). Random intercepts for speaker and word are included. N = 1,655

Figure 9

Table 8. Pairwise comparison between vowel types in analysis 2. P-value adjustment method: Holm