Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T04:06:02.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Style-dependent rules for reduction: Mixed-model multiple linear regression analysis of reduction phenomena in Danish news readings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2014

Jan Heegård
Affiliation:
Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 120, DK-2300, Copenhagen S, Denmark. janhp@hum.ku.dk
Jacob Thøgersen
Affiliation:
Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 120, DK-2300, Copenhagen S, Denmark. jthoegersen@hum.ku.dk

Abstract

It has been suggested that Danish is a language particularly prone to spoken language reductions in spontaneous speech. Previous studies have shown that reduction phenomena, in Danish and other languages, are rule-governed by e.g. phonological context, word frequency and stress patterns. This paper analyses two reduction phenomena, those occurring in the endings -ede and -te in a genre of spoken Danish which is particularly resistant to reductions, viz. radio news readings. Its first aim is to establish the reduction rules of formal spoken Danish and compare these with the rules of more informal spoken Danish, e.g. sociolinguistic interviews. Reduction of -te is found to follow the same general rules as in spontaneous speech, although reductions are far less frequent in news readings. Reduction of -ede is found to follow rules different from those of spontaneous speech. The second aim is to investigate whether the reduction rules have changed over the 70 years which the data span. It is found that the rules, and thus the style, have indeed changed. The modern rules appear to be simpler and include less complex interaction effects.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2014 
Figure 0

Table 1. The variables’ distinct and reduced realizations.

Figure 1

Table 2. Assimilation of stem-final semi-vowels with the -ede ending.

Figure 2

Figure 1. An example of the sound played to listener–judges. The example shows the word udbrændte ‘burnt down’ in the context ‘in his burnt-down hotel’ with the 25 msec buffer before and after the word.

Figure 3

Figure 2. The multiple choice task presented to the listener–judges.

Figure 4

Figure 3. (a) Reduction score for (te) based on all listeners’ judgement. (b) Reduction score for (ede) based on all listeners’ judgement.

Figure 5

Figure 4. (a) Reduction of (te) 1930–2000. (b) Reduction of (ede) 1930–2000.

Figure 6

Table 3. Mixed-model multiple linear regression analysis for (te); 594 observations; random factors: 147 word forms, 44 speakers.

Figure 7

Figure 5. Mean reduction scores for the levels [C] and [V] (NextPhone) for the (te) variable.

Figure 8

Figure 6. Mean reduction scores for the levels [ADJ] and [VB] (WordClass) for the (te) variable.

Figure 9

Figure 7. Mean reduction scores for the levels [No] and [Yes] (AccentNext) for the (te) variable.

Figure 10

Figure 8. (a) Interaction of the factor logFreq and the level [Yes] (AccentNext) for the (te) variable. (b) Interaction of the factor logFreq and the level [No] (AccentNext) for the (te) variable.

Figure 11

Figure 9. Interaction between the levels [C] and [V] (PhoneNext) and [ADJ] and [VB] (WordClass).

Figure 12

Table 4. Mixed-model multiple linear regression analysis for (ede); 340 observations; random factors: 172 word forms.

Figure 13

Figure 10. Mean reduction scores for the levels [No] and [Yes] (AccentNext) for the (ede) variable.

Figure 14

Figure 11. Mean reduction scores for the levels [New] and [Old] (Generation) for the (ede) variable.

Figure 15

Figure 12. Mean reduction scores for the levels [C] and [V] (PhoneNext) for the (ede) variable.

Figure 16

Figure 13. Interaction between the levels [No] and [Yes] (AccentNext) and [C] and [V] (PhoneStem).

Figure 17

Figure 14. Interaction between the levels [No] and [Yes] (AccentNext) and [C] and [V] (PhoneNext).

Figure 18

Table 5. Significant factors (individual and in interactions) and factor levels with the direction of their contribution to the reduction of (te) and (ede).

Figure 19

Table 6. ‘Naïve’ mixed-model multiple linear regression analysis of (te), generation Old/New; 292/302 observations; random factors: 100/91 word forms, 22/22 speakers.

Figure 20

Table 7. Mixed-model multiple linear regression analysis of (te), generation Old; 292 observations; random factors: 100 word forms, 22 speakers.

Figure 21

Table 8. Mixed-model multiple linear regression analysis of (te), generation New; 302 observations; random factors: 91 word forms, 22 speakers.

Figure 22

Table 9. ‘Naïve’ mixed-model multiple linear regression analysis of (ede), generation Old/New; 198/142 observations; random factors: 97/97 word forms, 20/21 speakers.

Figure 23

Table 10. Mixed-model multiple linear regression analysis of (ede), Old generation; 198 observations; random factors: 97 word forms, 20 speakers.

Figure 24

Table 11. Mixed-model multiple linear regression analysis of (ede), New generation; 142 observations; random factors: 97 word forms, 21 speakers.