Citation

Material Information

Title:
A sociophonetic study of Urban Bahamian Creole vowel system
Creator:
Janina Kraus
Place of Publication:
Munchen, Germany
Publisher:
Ludwig-Maxilmiliens-Universitat
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
367 p.

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Doctor of Philosophy)
Committee Chair:
Stephanie Hackert
Committee Co-Chair:
Jonathan Harrington
Graduation Semester:
2017

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Creole dialects, English -- Bahamas
Urban dialects -- Bahamas
Genre:
theses ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
Janina Kraus

Record Information

Source Institution:
The University of The Bahamas Institutional Repository
Holding Location:
The University of The Bahamas Institutional Repository
Rights Management:
This item is licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives License. This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author.

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

ASociophoneticStudyoftheUrban BahamianCreoleVowelSystem JaninaKraus Munchen2016

PAGE 3

ASociophoneticStudyoftheUrban BahamianCreoleVowelSystem JaninaKraus Inaugural-Dissertation zurErlangungdesDoktorgradesderPhilosophie anderLudwig{Maximilians{Universitat Munchen vorgelegtvon JaninaKraus ausAugsburg Munchen2016

PAGE 4

Referent:Prof.Dr.StephanieHackert Korreferent:Prof.Dr.JonathanHarrington TagdermundlichenPrufung:02.02.2017

PAGE 5

Contents ListofFiguresix ListofTablesxviii Abstractxix 1Introduction1 2English,creoleandtheBahamas5 2.1Terminologicalissues...........................6 2.1.1Creolelanguages.........................6 2.1.2BahamianCreole.........................11 2.2AshortsociohistoryoftheBahamas..................14 2.3SociolinguisticvariationintheCaribbean................23 2.3.1Modellingsynchronicvariation..................24 2.3.2Languageattitudes........................31 2.3.3Studiesofsociolinguisticparameters..............42 2.3.4Phonologicalversusgrammaticalvariation...........56 2.4Creolephonology.............................64 i

PAGE 6

ii CONTENTS 2.4.1Originofcreolephonologies...................64 2.4.2GeneralcharacteristicsofCaribbeancreolevowelsystems...68 2.4.3Sociophoneticsandtheanalysisofvowels............70 2.4.4AcousticstudiesofCaribbeancreolevowels..........78 2.4.5TheBahamianCreolevowelsystem...............81 2.5Researchobjectiveandgeneralresearchquestions...........85 3Methodology89 3.1Conversationaldata............................89 3.2Maptaskandcitationformdata....................90 3.2.1Speakersandrecordingconditions................91 3.2.2Elicitationmaterialsandrecording...............94 3.3Generalanalysisprocedure........................100 3.3.1Preprocessingofrecordings....................100 3.3.2Segmentationandmeasurements................101 3.3.3Vowelnormalisation.......................103 3.3.4Statisticaltesting.........................104 4Diphthongs107 4.1FACEandGOAT.............................107 4.1.1FACEandGOATinBahamianvarieties............108 4.1.2MonophthongisationofFACEandGOAT...........110 4.1.3Researchquestionsandhypotheses...............115 4.1.4Analysisprocedure........................116

PAGE 7

CONTENTS iii 4.1.5Results...............................117 4.1.6Summary.............................134 4.2MOUTHandPRICE...........................137 4.2.1MOUTHandPRICEinBahamianvarieties..........137 4.2.2Voicing-conditionedalternationinMOUTHandPRICE...139 4.2.3Researchquestionsandhypotheses...............145 4.2.4Analysisprocedure........................145 4.2.5Results...............................147 4.2.6Summary.............................163 4.3CHOICEandNURSE..........................165 4.3.1CHOICEandNURSEinBahamianvarieties..........166 4.3.2Non-rhoticpronunciationinNorthAmerica..........168 4.3.3UpglidingdiphthonginNURSE.................170 4.3.4Researchquestionsandhypotheses...............171 4.3.5Analysisprocedure........................172 4.3.6Results...............................174 4.3.7Summary.............................191 5Monophthongs195 5.1NominalmonophthongsinBahamianvarieties.............199 5.2Spectralandtemporalinteractions...................203 5.2.1Variationinvowelduration...................203 5.2.2Spectralandtemporalcontributionstophonemicdistinctions204 5.2.3SpectralandtemporaloverlapinJamaicanvarieties......207

PAGE 8

iv CONTENTS 5.3Researchquestionsandhypotheses...................211 5.4Analysisprocedure............................212 5.5Results...................................215 5.5.1Cross-comparisonofvowelquality................215 5.5.2Cross-comparisonofvowelquantity...............221 5.5.3Variationinlowvowels......................225 5.5.4Variationinmidbackvowels...................232 5.5.5Spectralandtemporaloverlap..................237 5.6Summary.................................242 6Generaldiscussion245 6.1SystemandvariationinurbanBahamianspeech............246 6.1.1UrbanBahamianvowelinventories...............246 6.1.2Socialvariationanddiagnosticvocalicvariables........254 6.1.3Rhoticity.............................259 6.2Focusontheindividual..........................261 6.2.1Acrossspeechstyles.......................264 6.2.2Phonologicalversusmorphologicalvariation..........269 6.3Cross-varietalcomparisonofvowelvariants...............271 7Conclusion281 Appendices283 A1Recordingmaterials............................283 A2Numberoftokensperspeaker......................288 A3Linguisticrankingofspeakersacrossspeechstyles...........320 Bibliography323

PAGE 9

ListofFigures 2.1FromCreolisationtoAdvancedSecondLanguageAcquisition:Continuumofoutcomesofgrouplanguageshift,adaptedfromWinford ,256................................10 2.2TheBahamasHackertandHuber,2007,281.............12 2.3EstimatedgrowthoftheBahamianpopulationandoftherelative proportionofblackandcolouredBahamiansduringthe18thcentury; seeHackertandHuber,281-282andCratonandSaunders a,261................................15 2.4CensusdataDepartmentofStatisticsofTheBahamas,2012,1-2on thegrowthoftheBahamianpopulationandoftherelativeproportion ofBahamianslivingonNewProvidencethroughoutthe20thcentury upto2010.................................19 2.5Four-tieredvowelsystemofAfro-AmericanAlleyne,1980,38,76.69 2.6Left:PrimaryCardinalvowelsafterJones62;right:Thecurrent IPAvowelchartInternationalPhoneticAssociation,2015......72 2.7Waveformandspectrogramforvewordsutteredinisolationbya participantofthisstudyBen03....................75 2.8MeanF1andF2frequencyvaluesofroundedredandunrounded blueCardinalvowelsasutteredbyDanielJones;adaptedfrom Thomas,146............................76 3.1Exampleofcardsusedinthecollectionofcitationformdata.....95 v

PAGE 10

vi LISTOFFIGURES 3.2Exampleofapairofmapsusedinthecollectionofmaptaskdata left:instructiongiver;right:instructionfollower...........99 4.1SmoothedformanttrajectoriesF1',F2'ofFACEandGOATfor threespeakersandspeechstyles;toprow:alltokensconsidered jointly;bottomrow:tokensseparatedbyfollowingvoicingcontext redforpre-voiced,blueforpre-voiceless...............118 4.2 EDcentroid measuresacrosstimeforFACEbyvoicingcontextand speechstyle;meansandcondenceintervalsderivedfromsmoothed speakervalues...............................119 4.3 EDcentroid measuresacrosstimeforGOATbyvoicingcontextand task;meansandcondenceintervalsderivedfromsmoothedspeaker values...................................122 4.4 ED forFACEbyduration,voicingcontextandtask;smoothedcurves basedonvaluesaggregatedbyspeechstyle...............125 4.5 ED eectsplotforFACEbyvoicingcontextandduration......126 4.6 ED eectsplotsforGOATbyvoicingcontext,speechstyleandduration128 4.7 ED forFACEinpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextsbyspeaker variablesgenderleft,lower-classspeakersonlyandsocialclassand agegroupright.............................129 4.8 ED forGOATinpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextsbyspeaker variablesgenderleft,lower-classspeakersonlyandsocialclassand agegroupright.............................131 4.9 ED forFACEinthemaptaskleftandcitationformrightdata byvoicingcontextandbyspeakervariablesgenderandsocialclass.132 4.10 ED forGOATinthemaptaskleftandcitationformrightdata byvoicingcontextandbyspeakervariablesgenderandsocialclass.133 4.11 ED eectsplotforGOATbyvoicingcontext,taskandsocialclass.134 4.12Euclideandistancesbetweenthetimepointat60%ofatokenof MOUTHtothemeansofTRAP ed 1andGOOSE ed 2.......147

PAGE 11

LISTOFFIGURES vii 4.13SmoothedtrajectoriesofMOUTHandPRICEinpre-voicedred andpre-voicelessbluecontextsforeightspeakersandthreespeech stylesnormalisedF1,F2........................148 4.14LogratiosacrosstimeforMOUTHbyvoicingcontextandtask; meansandcondenceintervalsderivedfromsmoothedspeakervalues150 4.15LogratiosacrosstimeforPRICEbyvoicingcontextandtask;means andcondenceintervalsderivedfromsmoothedspeakervalues....152 4.16LogratiosforMOUTHintheconversationaldatasetbytimepoint, socialgroupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans.......154 4.17LogratiosforPRICEintheconversationaldatasetbytimepoint, socialgroupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans.......156 4.18LogratiosforMOUTHinthemaptaskdatasetbytimepoint,social groupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans..........157 4.19LogratiosforMOUTHinthecitationformdatasetbytimepoint, socialgroupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans.......158 4.20LogratiosforPRICEinthemaptaskdatasetbytimepoint,social groupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans..........160 4.21LogratiosforPRICEinthecitationformdatasetbytimepoint, socialgroupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans.......161 4.22SmoothedformanttrajectoriesF1',F2'ofCHOICEredandNURSE blueinpost-labialfulllinesandnon-post-labialdashedlinescontextsforfourspeakersandthreespeechstyles.............176 4.23 Lrat measuresacrosstimeforNURSEtoprowandCHOICEbottomrowbyprecedingplaceofarticulationandspeechstyle;means andcondenceintervalsderivedfromsmoothedspeakervalues....178 4.24Eectplotsforsignicantthree-wayinteractionsseetable4.33involvingthefactorlexicalset.......................182 4.25Logratiosmedianandinterquartilerangeintheconversationaldata byprecedingplaceofarticulation,socialgroup,timepointandlexical set.....................................184

PAGE 12

viii LISTOFFIGURES 4.26Logratiosmedianandinterquartilerangeinthemaptaskdataby precedingplaceofarticulation,socialgroup,timepointandlexicalset187 4.27Logratiosmedianandinterquartilerangeinthecitationformdata byprecedingplaceofarticulation,socialgroup,timepointandlexical set.....................................191 5.1F1'andF2'forallvoweltokensatvoweltargetintheconversational aboveandcitationformbelowdataset;labelsindicatemeanvalues216 5.2Meanvoweldurationsand95%condenceintervalsforninelexical setsbyspeechstyleandfollowingvoicingcontext...........222 5.3MeanF1'andF2'valuesand95%condenceintervalsforthelexical setsTRAP,STARTandBATHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext.225 5.4Meannormaliseddurationvaluesand95%condenceintervalsforthe lexicalsetsTRAP,STARTandBATHbysocialgroupandvoicing context...................................226 5.5MeanF1'andF2'valuesand95%condenceintervalsforthelexical setsPALM,TRAP,STARTandBATHbysocialgroupandvoicing context...................................229 5.6Meannormaliseddurationvaluesand95%condenceintervalsforthe lexicalsetsPALM,TRAP,STARTandBATHbysocialgroupand voicingcontext..............................230 5.7MeanF1'andF2'valuesand95%condenceintervalsforthelexical setsLOT,THOUGHTandCLOTHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext232 5.8Meannormaliseddurationvaluesand95%condenceintervalsfor thelexicalsetsLOT,THOUGHTandCLOTHbysocialgroupand voicingcontext..............................233 5.9MeanF1'andF2'valuesand95%condenceintervalsforthelexical setsLOT,THOUGHTandCLOTHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext235 5.10Meannormaliseddurationvaluesand95%condenceintervalsfor thelexicalsetsLOT,THOUGHTandCLOTHbysocialgroupand voicingcontext..............................235

PAGE 13

LISTOFFIGURES ix 5.11LogarithmicallytransformedmedianMahalanobisdistancesintwo F1' F2'andthreeF1' F2' Durationdimensionsfor /i:,i/ `i', /a:,a/ `a', /o:,o/ `o',and /u:,u/ `u'byfollowingvoicingcontext238 6.1Rankingby 2u and 2i forallspeakersandspeechstyles......263 6.2Rankingaverageofallspeakersandspeechstylesbysocialstatus..264 A1.1Demographicquestionnaire........................285 A1.2Exampleofmaptaskelicitationmaterials:Map1...........286 A1.3Exampleofmaptaskelicitationmaterials:Map2...........287

PAGE 14

x LISTOFFIGURES

PAGE 15

ListofTables 2.1ClasscategoriesandoccupationalgroupsaccordingGordon's1987 modelofclass,statusandsocialmobility;reproducedfromPatrick b,53................................46 2.2Thestandardlexicalsets;reproducedfromWells,xviii-xix,12374 2.3LexicalincidenceofvowelsinBahamianvarietiesaccordingtoHS, Wells,andCW..............................83 2.4ProposedvowelsystemsaccordingtoHS,Wells,andCW.......84 3.1Speakers,recordedin1997/98......................90 3.2Speakers,recordedin2014........................93 3.3Totalnumberofparticipantsbyyearofrecording,socialclassand gender...................................94 3.4Wordsanalysedinthisstudyincitationform,bylexicalsetand followingvoicingcontext.........................97 3.5Wordsanalysedinthisstudyinmaptaskstyle,bylexicalsetand followingvoicingcontext.........................99 3.6Totalnumberandaveragespeakernumberoftokensperlexicalset andspeechstyle..............................102 4.1SuggestedvowelqualitiesinBahCandassociatedvarieties.......109 xi

PAGE 16

xii LISTOFTABLES 4.2Numberoftokensforacousticanalysesbylexicalset,voicingcontext andspeechstyle..............................116 4.3 EDcentroid meansandstandarddeviationsforFACEattwotime pointsbyvoicingcontextandtask;valuesderivedfromallobserved tokens...................................119 4.4Mixedmodelanalysisresults: EDcentroid inFACEbytimepoint nucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandspeech styleconversational,maptask,citationform.............120 4.5Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforinteraction termsintable4.4fordependentvariableF1'..............121 4.6 EDcentroid meansandstandarddeviationsforGOATattwotime pointsbyvoicingcontextandtask;valuesderivedfromallobserved tokens...................................122 4.7Mixedmodelanalysisresults: EDcentroid inGOATbytimepoint nucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandspeech styleconversational,maptask,citationform.............123 4.8Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforinteraction termsintable4.7fordependentvariableF1'..............124 4.9Euclideandistance ED anddurationinmsmeanvaluesandstandarddeviationsforFACE;valuesderivedfromallobservedtokens..125 4.10Mixedmodelanalysisresults: ED inFACEbyvoicingcontextprevoiced,pre-voiceless,speechstyleconversational,maptask,citation formandduration............................126 4.11Euclideandistance ED anddurationinmsmeanvaluesandstandarddeviationsforGOAT;valuesderivedfromallobservedtokens..127 4.12Mixedmodelanalysisresults: ED inGOATbyvoicingcontextprevoiced,pre-voiceless,speechstyleconversational,maptask,citation formandduration............................128

PAGE 17

LISTOFTABLES xiii 4.13Mixedmodelanalysisresults,conversationaldata: ED inGOATby voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless,socialclasslower-class, higher-classandagegroupolder,younger..............131 4.14Mixedmodelanalysisresults,maptaskandcitationformdata: ED inFACEbyvoicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless,stylemap task,citationform,socialclasslower-class,higher-classandgender female,male...............................132 4.15Mixedmodelanalysisresults,maptaskandcitationformdata: ED inGOATbyvoicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless,stylemap task,citationform,socialclasslower-class,higher-classandgender female,male...............................134 4.16SuggestedvowelqualitiesinBahCandassociatedvarieties.......138 4.17Numberoftokensforacousticanalysesbylexicalset,voicingcontext andspeechstyle..............................146 4.18LogratiomeansandstandarddeviationsforMOUTHattwotime pointsbyvoicingcontextandstyle;valuesderivedfromallobserved tokens...................................149 4.19Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat inMOUTHbytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandspeech styleconversational,maptask,citationform.............151 4.20LogratiomeansandstandarddeviationsforPRICEattwotime pointsbyvoicingcontextandstyle;valuesderivedfromallobserved tokens...................................152 4.21Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat inPRICEbytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandspeech styleconversational,maptask,citationform.............153 4.22Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldata: Lrat inMOUTH bytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless andsocialclasslower-class,higher-class................155

PAGE 18

xiv LISTOFTABLES 4.23Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldata: Lrat inPRICEby timepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless andsocialgrouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-class females..................................156 4.24Mixedmodelanalysisresults;maptaskandcitationformdata: Lrat inMOUTHbytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextprevoiced,pre-voicelessandsocialclasslower-class,higher-classand genderfemale,male...........................159 4.25Mixedmodelanalysisresults;maptaskandcitationformdata: Lrat inPRICEbytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced, pre-voicelessandsocialclasslower-class,higher-classandgender female,male...............................161 4.26Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforfour-way interactionintable4.25fordependentvariableLratcitationform.162 4.27SuggestedvowelqualitiesinBahCandassociatedvarieties.......167 4.28Numberoftokensbylexicalset,rhoticityandspeechstyle......173 4.29RhotictokensofNURSEinthemaptaskdatabysocialclassand gender...................................174 4.30RhotictokensofNURSEinthecitationformdatabysocialclassand gender...................................174 4.31Generalisedmixedmodelanalysisresults;maptaskandcitationform data:DependentbinomialvariablerhoticityinNURSErhotic=1, non-rhotic=0bystylemaptask,citationform,socialclasslowerclass,higher-classandgenderfemale,male..............175 4.32LogratiomeansandstandarddeviationsforNURSEandCHOICE atthreetimepointsnucleus,midpoint,glidebytheplaceofarticulationoftheprecedingconsonantandspeechstyle;valuesderived fromallobservedtokens.........................179

PAGE 19

LISTOFTABLES xv 4.33Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat bystyleconversational,map task,citationform,lexicalsetCHOICE,NURSE,precedingplace ofarticulationpost-labial,non-post-labialandtimepointnucleus, midpoint,glide..............................179 4.34Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforthefactor lexicalset.................................181 4.35Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat byprecedingplaceofarticulationpost-labial,non-post-labial,socialgrouplower-classfemales, lower-classmales,higher-classfemales,timepointnucleus,midpoint,glideandlexicalsetCHOICE,NURSE............186 4.36Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat byprecedingplaceofarticulation post-labial,non-post-labial,socialclasslower-class,higher-class, timepointnucleus,midpoint,glideandlexicalsetCHOICE,NURSE189 4.37Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat lower-classspeakersonlyby precedingplaceofarticulationpost-labial,non-post-labial,gender female,male,timepointnucleus,midpoint,glideandlexicalset CHOICE,NURSE...........................190 4.38Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforthefactors lexicalsetandtimepointcontrastinglevelsnucleusandglideonly.190 5.1Denitionandoriginoflexicalsetsanalysedasmonophthongsinthis studycf.Wells,1982,127-159.....................196 5.2SuggestedvowelqualitiesinBahCandassociatedvarieties.......199 5.3Correspondencesamonglexicalsets....................203 5.4ProposedclassicationoflanguagesutilisingvowellengthCrother, 1978;alsoseeWassink,2006,2336...................205 5.5Duration[ms]for /i/ and /I/ andcorrespondingtense/laxduration ratiosindierentregionally,ethnically,andsociallydenedvarieties ofAmericanEnglishcf.Hillenbrandetal.,1995;Holtetal.,2015.206

PAGE 20

xvi LISTOFTABLES 5.6MeandurationratiosinbasilectalandacrolectalJamCforthree tense/laxvowelpairscf.Wassink,2001,149.............210 5.7Numberoftokensforacousticanalysesbylexicalset,voicingcontext andspeechstyle..............................213 5.8F1'andF2'meansandstandarddeviationsbylexicalsetandstyle.217 5.9Mixedmodelanalysisresults:F1'andF2'bystyleconversational, citationform,lexicalsetFLEECE,KIT,DRESS,TRAP,START, STRUT,LOT,FOOT,GOOSE,andvoicingcontextpre-voiced, pre-voiceless...............................218 5.10Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsandinteraction contrastsforinteractiontermsintable5.9fordependentvariableF1'219 5.11Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsandinteraction contrastsforinteractiontermsintable5.9fordependentvariableF2'220 5.12Mixedmodelanalysisresults:Vowelduration[ms]bytask-based styleconversational,citationform,voicingcontextpre-voiced,prevoiceless,andlexicalsetKIT,FOOT,STRUT,FLEECE,GOOSE, LOT,DRESS,TRAP,START.....................222 5.13Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsofinteraction termintable5.12fordependentvariableduration...........224 5.14Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldatarestrictedtoprevoicedcontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedbylexicalsetTRAP,STARTandsocialgrouplower-class females,lower-classmales,higher-classfemales............227 5.15Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldatarestrictedtoprevoicelesscontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationall normalisedbylexicalsetTRAP,START,BATHandsocialgroup lower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-classfemales.....227 5.16RhotictokensofSTARTbysocialclassandgender..........228

PAGE 21

LISTOFTABLES xvii 5.17Mixedmodelanalysisresults;citationformdatarestrictedtoprevoicedcontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedbylexicalsetPALM,TRAP,STARTandsocialgroup lower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-classspeakers.....230 5.18Mixedmodelanalysisresults;citationformdatarestrictedtoprevoicelesscontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationall normalisedbylexicalsetTRAP,START,BATHandsocialgroup lower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-classspeakers.....231 5.19Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldatarestrictedtoprevoicelesscontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationall normalisedbylexicalsetLOT,THOUGHT,CLOTHandsocial grouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-classfemales..234 5.20Mixedmodelanalysisresults;citationformdatarestrictedtoprevoicedcontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedbylexicalsetLOT,THOUGHT,socialclasslower-class, higher-classandgenderfemale,male.................236 5.21Mixedmodelanalysisresults;citationformdatarestrictedtoprevoicelesscontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationall normalisedbylexicalsetLOT,THOUGHT,CLOTH,socialclass lower-class,higher-classandgenderfemale,male..........236 5.22MedianMahalanobisdistancesandproportionofoverlappingtokens intwoF1' F2'andthreeF1' F2' Durationdimensionsforselectedvowelpairsbyfollowingvoicingcontext.............239 5.23Mixedmodelanalysisresults:Mahalanobis-distance-derivedprobabilitiesbytaskconversational,citationform,vowelpair /i:,i/ , /a:, a/ , /o:,o/ ,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessanddimensionstwo,three.............................241 5.24DurationratiosandSOAManalysisresultsbyvowelpairandspeech style....................................242 6.1LexicalincidenceofvowelsintwopolarvarietiesofurbanBahamian speech...................................252

PAGE 22

xviii LISTOFTABLES 6.2Proportionofrhotictokensinthemaptaskandcitationformdata bysocialclassandgender........................259 6.3Rankingofspeakersinthemaptaskandcitationformdata.....266 6.4Rankingofspeakersintheconversationaldata.............270 6.5Cross-comparisonofthelexicalincidenceofvowelvariantsinBahamianandrelatedorassociatedvarieties...............273 A1.1Completelistofwordsrecordedincitationform,groupedandordered bylexicalset...............................283 A2.2Numberoftypesandtokensforspeakersintheconversationaldata.288 A2.3Numberoftypesandtokensforspeakersinthemaptaskandcitation formdata.................................307 A3.4Linguisticrankingofspeakersacrossallspeechstyles,basedon 2u , i.e.therelativepositionwithrespecttoTRAPandGOOSEofthe nucleusinpre-voicelessMOUTH,and 2i ,i.e.thedegreeofdiphthongisationofpost-labialNURSErelativetoCHOICE........320

PAGE 23

Abstract ASociophoneticStudyoftheUrbanBahamian CreoleVowelSystem CreolephoneticsandphonologyhaslongbeenaCinderellaofcreolestudies" Schneider,2004a,252duetothediscipline'straditionalfocusontracesofcreole emergenceasencodedinthevarieties'morphosyntax.Accordingly,comprehensive accountsofcreolevowelsarehardtocomebyandtheliteratureonAmericanand Caribbeancreolephonologiesstilllacksadetailedacousticcharacterisationofthe vowelinventoriesoperatingwithinthedierentregions{withthenotableexception ofJamaicae.g.Wassink,1999a.Thepresentstudyseekstocontributetothis areaofresearchbyprovidinganacousticexaminationofthevowelsystemsof33 BahamianCreoleBahCspeakersfromNassau,thecapitaloftheBahamas,taking intoaccountsocialaspectsofsynchronicvariation. Theaimofthisthesiswas,thus,twofold.Ontheonehand,itpresentsarstindepthacousticdescriptionoftheurbanBahCvowelsystem,withaspecialfocuson featuresrelevanttophonologicalcontrastsandmajorallophonicvariationpatterns. Ontheotherhand,theeectofsocialsocialclass,genderandstylisticfactorswas examined,andthedistributionofsociallydiagnosticvocalicvariableswascompared tothatofthemorphologicalvariableofpastmarkingaspreviouslyanalysedby Hackert.AllresultswererelatedtothehistoricaldevelopmentofBahC,a CaribbeancreolelanguagewithNorthAmericanroots,andtoitspositionatthe linguisticcrossroadsoftheAmericas. Threetypesofdatawereanalysed,representingthreespeechstyles:Conversationaldata,maptaskdata,thatisinteractionalspeechelicitedwiththehelpof xix

PAGE 24

xx ABSTRACT labelledmaps,andcitationformdata.All33participantswerenativeblackBahamiansandlong-termresidentsofNassau.Thecategorisationofspeakersintodierent socialclasseswasbasedonanoccupationalclassicationschemedevelopedbyGordon7fortheJamaicancontext.Intotal,10169voweltokensenteredintothe analysesofthisstudy.SpectralF1andF2at10%intervalsthroughthevowel andtemporalfromvowelonsettoosetmeasurementswereconductedinPraat BoersmaandWeenik,2009.AllfurtheranalyseswereperformedinRRCore Team,2016,includingvowelnormalisationusingtheS-transformseeFabricius etal.,2009,calculationofclassicationmetricsbasedonEuclideanandMahalanobisdistances,andstatisticaltestingvialinearmixed-eectsmodels.Themain ndingsareasfollows. TherewasevidenceforextensiveallophonicvariationofthevowelsinFACE, GOAT,PRICEandMOUTH,conditionedbythevoicingstatusofthefollowing obstruent:Pre-voicelessdiphthongglideswereraisedandperipheralisedrelative totheirpre-voicedcounterparts.ForthevowelsinFACEandGOAT,thisgeneralpatternledtoexclusivelymonophthongalrealisationsinpre-voicedcontexts andvariablydiphthongalrealisationsinpre-voicelesscontexts.GOATshowedthe greatestdegreeofdiphthongisationforhigher-classparticipantsandincitationform speech;therewerenoanalogouseectsforFACE,wherethedegreeofdiphthongisationinpre-voicelesstokenscorrelatedprimarilywithvowelduration.Forthevowels inMOUTHandPRICE,pre-voicelessraisingandperipheralisationaectednotonly thediphthongglidesbutalsothenuclei;thisresultedinapatternofallophonicvariationanalogoustowhathasbeenreferredtoasCanadianRaising.ForMOUTH, pre-voicelessraisingwasindexicaloflowersocialclassandcorrelatedwithmore spontaneous,informalspeechstyles. ThevowelinNURSEwasrealisedasawide,back-to-frontglidingdiphthongor asavariablyrhotic,mid-centralmonophthong.DiphthongalvariantsofNURSE, phoneticallysimilartobutnotmergedwithCHOICE,predominatedinmoreinformalspeechstylesandinthespeechofworking-classparticipants.Inmaptask andcitationformspeech,rhoticrealisationsofmonophthongalNURSEwerequite common.Thismayindicateincreasingrhoticisationofatleaststandard-nearforms ofurbanBahamianspeech,whichhaspreviouslybeendescribedasnon-rhotic. Therewasverylimitedevidenceforsocialvariationintherealisationofmonophthongs.ThoughthevowelspaceofconversationalurbanBahCisbestcharacterised

PAGE 25

xxi byabasicV-shape,lowvowelsshowedsomespectraldierentiationincitationform speech:ThevowelsinSTARTandPALMwereraisedandbackedrelativetoTRAP. ThevowelsinSTARTandLOTwerephoneticallydistinct,aswerethevowelsin STRUTandLOT.High-frontandhigh-backtense/laxvowelpairsweredistinguished bothspectrallyandtemporally. Ingeneral,stylisticvariationtendedtobemorestableandextensivethanvariationbysocialclass.Dierencesbetweenthevowelsystemsofthesocio-stylistically denedpolarvarietiesoftheurbanBahamianspeechcontinuumweremainlyphoneticinnatureratherthanphonological.Signicantvariationconditionedbythe speakers'genderwasrareanddidnotconsistentlyfollowthepatterninWestern speechcommunitieswherebyfemalespeakerstendtousemorestandardformsthan malespeakers.Whenthedistributionofstigmatisedvocalicvariablesacrossthe subsetofspeakersintheconversationaldatasetwascomparedtothedistribution ofthemorphologicalvariableofpastinection,itwasfoundthattheypatternedin verysimilarways;thisindicatesthattheywerelikelyalsoevaluatedbyspeakersin verysimilarwayssothatphonologicalvariableshaveinprinciplethesamepotential toindexcreolenessornon-standardnessasgrammaticalvariables. IntermsoftheBahamas'positionatthelinguisticcrossroadsoftheAmericas, theresultsofthisstudyshowedthattheurbanBahCvowelsystemreectsabackgroundincreolisationwithaBritishEnglishsuperstrate,butitisclosertoAmerican mainlandvarietiesthantoCaribbeanvarieties.TheemergingBahamianstandard modelofpronunciationincorporatesfeaturesofboththeBritishandtheAmerican standardanditcombinestheminawaythatisuniquelyBahamian.

PAGE 26

xxii ABSTRACT

PAGE 27

Chapter1 Introduction TheCommonwealthofTheBahamasisasmallgroupofislandssoutheastofFlorida, inhabitedbyjustover350000peopleandsurroundedbytheAtlanticOcean.Despiteitsrelativelysmallsizeandapparentinsularity,thegeographicallocationof theBahamasanditsvariedsociopolitical,economicandculturalbackgroundhas ensureditsfullinvolvementinthehistoryoftheAmericas.AsBethelnotes: Itistruethattheseacannotbeeasilycrossed,exceptbythosewiththeboats andskill.Butitisequallytruethatwithboatsandskilltheseamaybecrossedin almostanydirectiononelikes".PriortoColumbus'arrivalinSanSalvadorin 1492,theislandswhichnowformpartoftheBahamaswereinhabitedbyseafaring LucayanIndians.TheSpanishenslavedanddeportedtheindigenouspopulation, buttheymadelittleattempttosettletheBahamasduetotheislands'lackofriches, poorsoilsandthetreacheroussurroundingwaters{thename Bahamas isoftensaid tocomefromSpanish bajamar ,meaning`shallowseas',thoughitmorelikelyrepresentstheLucayannameoriginallygiventoSanSalvador, Guanahani Harper, 2016.TherstEnglish-speakingsettlersarrivedover150yearslater.Inthewake oftheAmericanWarofIndependence,thousandsofBritishloyalistsedthenewly formedUnitedStatesfortheBahamas,nearlytriplingthelocalpopulationandestablishingsettlementsinpreviouslyuninhabited,remotelocations.Thelanguage varietiesusedbyblacksbornintheBahamas,bythosethathadarrivedfromNorth America,andbyliberatedslaveswhohaileddirectlyfromAfricaasshipmentswere interceptedinthenalyearsofthetransatlanticslavetradegraduallymergedinto alocalblackBahamianvernacular,referredtotodayasBahamianCreole. 1

PAGE 28

2 CHAPTER1.INTRODUCTION IntheBahamas,distinctionsbetweenwhatisglobalandwhatislocalarenot alwaysveryclear-cut.TheBahamasbecameanindependentCommonwealthrealm in1973,retainingQueenElizabethIIasitsmonarch.ItsdependenceontheUnited Statesformostlyeconomicreasons,however,onlyincreasedduringthe20thcentury,astourismando-shorebankingbecametheprimaryindustriesofthenation. Despitetechnically,thatisgeographically,notbeingapartoftheCaribbeanproper, theBahamasalsojoinedtheCaribbeanCommunityin1983e.g.CratonandSaunders,1992a,b.ThediverseforceswhichshapedandstillshapeBahamiansociety arereectedinitsvernacular,anintermediateCaribbeanEnglish-lexiercreolewith closetiestoNorthAmericanmainlandvarieties: BahamianEnglishseemsAmericantotheBritish,BritishtoAmericans, CaribbeantothosenotfromtheCaribbeanproper,etc.[...]ToJamaicanears BahamianEnglishsoundsveryAmerican[...],whileblackAmericansandBahamiansrefertothemorerusticfeaturesinoneanother'sspeechwithexactly thesameterm: Geechee .HolmandShilling,1982,304-305 BahamianCreolerepresentsacrossroadsformanyvarietiesofEnglish,which makesitaparticularlyinterestingresearchgroundforsociolinguisticstudy.However,despitetheBahamas'interestingsociolinguisticlandscape,BahamianCreolehasnotreceivedthesameattentionfromresearchersashasbeenbestowedon other,more`radical'and,thus,longconsideredmoretypicalcreolelanguagesofthe Caribbeanregion,suchasthecreolesspokeninJamaicaorGuyana.Thisisespeciallytrueregardingaspectsofphoneticsandphonology,whichareaCinderella ofcreolestudies"Schneider,2004a,252ingeneral.Inpart,thelackofresearch oncreolephonologymaybeduetothediscipline'straditionalfocusonquestionsof creolelanguagegenesis,andtothefactthatmorphologyandsyntaxoftenprovide themostdirectlinkstocognitivescience,whichhasinuencedtheeldimmensely e.g.Aceto,2004,481-482.Itisalsothecase,however,thatsoundsegments,and especiallytherealisationofvowels,arecharacterisedbyahighdegreeofvariability,whichcomplicatesthereliableandobjectivedocumentationoffeaturesinthe absenceofhigh-qualitybutaordablerecordingandprocessingdevices.Inmore recentyears,andnodoubtenabledbytheincreasedavailabilityofsaidrecording andprocessingdevices,interestintheresearchcommunityinthenatureofandvariationwithincreolesystemsofpronunciationhassurfaced,but,sofar,theliterature

PAGE 29

3 onNorthAmericanandCaribbeancreolephonologiesstilllacksadetailedacoustic characterisationofthevowelinventoriesoperatingwithinthedierentregions{with thenotableexceptionofJamaicae.g.Wassink,1999a,2001.Thepresentstudy explicitlycontributestothisareaofresearchbyprovidingasociophoneticdescriptionofthevowelsystemsoperatingwithintheurbanBahamianCreolecontinuum. Inthiscontext,`urban'referstothemesolectal-to-acrolectalformsofBahCspoken inNassau,thenation'scapitalcity,situatedontheislandofNewProvidence.As presentlyabout70%ofallBahamiansliveinNassau,theurbanvarietymaybe consideredmostrepresentativeofBahamianCreoleatlarge. Theaimofthisthesisistwofold.Ontheonehand,thisstudyseekstofurther ourunderstandingoftheinternallinguisticstructureofurbanBahamianspeech asreectedinitsvowelsystem.Thespeakersspeechproductionswillbeinvestigatedwithrecoursetomethodsfromacousticphonetics,examiningthespectral andtemporalfeaturesofvowelswiththeintentionofdescribingfeaturesrelevant tophonologicalcontrastsormajorallophonicvariationandprovidingmaterialthat willhelpclarifythepositionofBahamianvarietiesrelativetorelatedorassociated languagevarietiesspokeninNorthAmericaandtheCaribbean.Ontheotherhand, itisconcernedwiththesocialcountenanceofsynchronicvariationintheurban Bahamiancreolespeechcommunityregardingtheeectofbothsocialandstylistic factors.Thisstudycombinestheanalysisofinternalstructureandexternalinuencesonlanguageuseinacreoleenvironmentwithattentiontophoneticdetailand is,assuch,positionedattheintersectionofsociolinguistics,creolistics,andacoustic phonetics. Thetheoreticalbackgroundforthepresentstudyisprovidedinchapter2.First, certainpreliminariesaretakenupbrieyinsection2.1,whereterminologicalissuesandtheclassicationoflanguagevarietiesintomoreorlesscreolisedvarieties arediscussed.ThestudyoflanguageuseintheurbanBahamianspeechcommunity cannotbedivorcedfromquestionsofthesociety'ssociohistoryandtheemergenceof itsnationalidentity.Theseaspectsareoutlinedinsection2.2,focussingspecically onsocialdevelopmentsthathavelikelyhadanimpactonthelinguisticlandscape oftheBahamastoday.Section2.3thenturnstoadiscussionofthesociolinguisticbackgroundofthisstudy,introducinghowlinguisticvariationincreolespeech communitieshasbeenmodelledandpresentingndingsofprevioussociolinguistic researchonvarietiesspokenintheCaribbeanandtheBahamas.Section2.4iscon-

PAGE 30

4 CHAPTER1.INTRODUCTION cernedwithcreolephonology.Itsummariseswhatisknownaboutthephonologies andvowelsystemsofCaribbeancreolescollectively,followedbyabriefoutlineof howvowelscanbeanalysedacoustically.PreviousresearchonCaribbeanvarieties inthesociophoneticparadigmisdiscussedandtheBahamianCreolevowelsystem isintroduced.Aclearstatementofoverarchingresearchquestionsconcludesthis chapter. Chapter3isconcernedwithmethodology.Itpresents,rst,myeldworkmethodsanddescribesthedatacollected.Subsequently,thegeneralanalysisprocedure isoutlined. Theempiricalanalysisisspreadacrosstwochapters,onedevotedtodiphthongs chapter4,furtherdividedintothreesectionsinordertofocusonthreepairsof diphthongsindividually,andtheothertomonophthongschapter5.Eachanalysis sectioncomprisesashortbackgroundsection,anoutlineoftheanalysisprocedure, aresultssection,andabriefsummary. Chapter6providesthegeneraldiscussion,reviewingallthendingsoftheprecedinganalysissectionsandrelatingthemtothemainresearchquestions.Concludingremarksarefoundinchapter7.

PAGE 31

Chapter2 English,creoleandtheBahamas Itiscuriousthatthemostbasicconceptsoflinguisticsareoftennotoriouslydicult todeneinaclearandconcisemanner.Themeaningsoflabelssuchas language , dialect ,and creole areoftentreatedasusefulbuildingblocksintheconstructionof moreelaboratetheories,buteverydenition,beitexplicitorimplicit,reectsacertainperspectivegearedtosatisfytheresearchcontextand,thus,failstoaccountfor theendlessamountofvarietysuppliedbyreality.Section2.1belowprovidesaworkingdenitionoftheconceptofcreolelanguageswithspecialfocusonEnglish-lexier varietiesintheNorthAmericanandCaribbeancontext.Theaimisnottoenterinto anexhaustivediscussionofthevariousapproachesthathavebeenproposedtodene creolesandothercontact-inducedvarieties,buttooutlineasbrieyandobjectively aspossiblethetheoreticalbackgroundsomeofthemorewide-spreadframeworks provideforthisstudy.Formoredetailedtreatmentssee,forexample,Holm or,inthebroadercontextofcontactlinguistics,Winford.Section2.1will alsointroducethenotionofBahamianCreoleanddiscusshowitispresumedto relatetoassociatedvarieties,basedonanumberofclassicationschemes.Insection2.2,themajormilestonesofthesociohistoryoftheBahamaswillbeoutlinedin ordertoillustrateandsubstantiatetheclaimsconcerningitsuniquepositionatthe linguisticcrossroadsoftheAmericas.Section2.3willlookathowsynchronicvariationhasbeenmodelledincreolespeechcommunitiesandprovidethesociolinguistic backgroundforthepresentstudy.Insection2.4,somegeneralissuesconcerning researchonCaribbeancreolephonologiesandvowelsystemswillbepresented,beforethefocuswillshifttopreviousacousticstudiesonCaribbeancreolevowelsand 5

PAGE 32

6 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS theBahamianCreolevowelsystem.Section2.5providesaclearstatementofthe overarchingresearchquestionsaddressedinthisstudy. 2.1Terminologicalissues 2.1.1Creolelanguages Creoles areconsideredtoresultfromlinguisticprocessesthatrepresentextreme examplesofcontact-inducedlanguagechange"Holm,2004,3.Theyarelanguages thatdevelopedasameansofverbalcommunicationinsituationsofextendedcontact betweengroupsofspeakerswhodidnotshareacommonormutuallyintelligible language.Usually,thegrouporgroupswithlesssocio-politicalpower,speakersof so-called substrate languages,aremoreaccommodatingandmakeuseofthewords providedbythelanguagespokenbythemorepowerfulgroup,referredtoasthe superstrate or lexier language.Crucially,however,thesocialmatrixatthetimeof contactinhibitssucientaccesstotheinputlanguagesforanygrouptofullyacquire thenativelanguageofanyothergroup.Ithasbeensuggestedthataprerequisite forthisdevelopmentis tertiaryhybridisation ,wherebytheemergingcreoleisused andformedmainlybysubstratespeakersintheabsenceofsuperstratespeakerssee e.g.Holm,2004;Winford,2007;Velupillai,2015. Incontrasttopidgins,whichareoftendescribedascontact-inducedmake-shift language[s]"Holm,2004,5,creolesarefull-edgednaturallanguagesthatare spokennativelybyanentirespeechcommunity.Creoleshavetraditionallybeen denedasnativisedpidgins,which,intheprocessofcreolisation,haveundergone structuralexpansionandelaborationtomeetthesameexpressivepotentialasany other,non-creolelanguage.Thereis,however,notnecessarilyagreatdierence betweencreolesandpidginsintermsofthenatureandspeedofdevelopmentaswell assynchronicstructuralcomplexity.Moreover,adistinctionbasedonthecriterion ofnativisationmaybediculttoupholdinspeechcommunities,wherethesame contactlanguageisusedasbotharstandasecondlanguagebydierentspeaker groupse.g.Winford,2007,306-307. Theexactdenitionofcreolelanguageremainsamatterofintensedebate,asit isdiculttondacommondenominatorforallvarietiesconventionallysubsumed

PAGE 33

2.1.TERMINOLOGICALISSUES 7 underthisobscurecategorywhichunambiguouslysetsthemapartfromnon-creole languages.Itisoccasionallypointedoutthatcreolelanguagesarerelativelynew languages,whichonlyemergedbetween150and400yearsagoe.g.Aceto,2006, 206.Asitishighlyunlikelythatcontact-derivedvarietiesareanexclusivelymodern phenomenon,thiswouldindicatethattheapparentstatusofalanguageasacreole languagehasanaturalexpirydateandthat,overtime,processesoflanguagechange mayconfoundthespeciccircumstancesinvolvedintheiremergence.Somelinguists havearguedthat,duetotheiryoungage,creoleslacktheweightof`ornament' thatencrustsolderlanguages"McWhorter,2001,125andcan,thus,beidentied synchronicallyasadistincttypologicalgroupbasedontheirrelativelylowstructural complexitye.g.McWhorter,2001;Parkvall,2008.Bakkeretal.provide empiricalevidencewhichsuggeststhatcreolesmayalsobedistinguishedfromnoncreolesonthebasisofstructural-typologicalfeaturesnotdierentiablewithregard tocomplexity,butthenotionofcreolesasadistincttypologicalclassremainsa ercelycontendedissueseee.g.discussionsinMcWhorter,2008;Kouwenberg, 2010a,b;DeGraetal.,2013;Bakker,2014. Thosethatarguethereisnotenoughevidencefortheviewofcreolesasadistinct,structurallydenedclassprefertodenecreolesbasedontheirsociohistorical contextofemergence.Whiletheexactsociohistoryofanygivenlanguageisunique, includinganygivencreolelanguage,itiswidelyacknowledgedthatthecontactsituationsinwhichcreoleshaveevolvedsharecertainsociolinguisticparameterse.g. Holm,2004;Aceto,2006;Winford,2007.Specically,itisassumedthatthese contactsituationswerecharacterisedbyalopsidedpowerdynamic"Aceto,2006, 204,inwhichthesociallysubordinatesubstratespeakerswouldbemotivatedto attempttoapproximatetheprestigioussuperstratelanguage,andbymaintainedsocialdistancebetweenthegroupsinvolved,limitingthesubstratespeakers'accessto thesuperstrate.TheplantationscenariosurroundingthegenesisofcreolesincolonialAmericaisusuallycitedastheprototypicalcontextofcreoleformation,because thedemographicsandcodesofsocialinteractionatthetimeofcontactaredeemed especiallyconducivetotheemergenceoftheselanguages.Europeancolonisation andtheinstitutionofslaveryputinplaceadisproportionatepowerrelationshipand arigidsocialorder.Withtheestablishmentoflarge-scaleplantationeconomies,the demographicratiobetweensubstrateandsuperstratespeakersincreaseddrastically. Theaccessoftheeldslavestolanguagevarietiesofthecolonialpowersmusthave beenseverelyrestrictedandtherelativeprociencyintheEuropeantargetlanguage

PAGE 34

8 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS waslikelyindirectrelationtothespeaker'ssocialposition.Theslavepopulation, whichhadbeenforcefullyuprootedfromdiverseregionsinWestandWest-Central Africaandtransportedtoanothercontinent,didnotnecessarilyshareacommon language,whichmayhaveservedasacatalystinthestabilisationofanewcontact vernacularviatertiaryhybridisation. Therecurringattemptstodenewhatacreoleisfromeitherastructuralora sociohistoricalvantagepointhavebeencriticisedfortheoreticalandpracticalreasons.Somelinguistsquestionthemeaningfulnessofsuchapursuitonprinciple, suggestingthatitreectsexpectationsthataregroundedintraditionaldogma,ethnocentricityand/orinsucientfamiliaritywiththediversityencounteredincreole languages.AnsaldoandMatthews,forinstance,claimthatwhatsetscreoles apartfromnon-creolesisnottheidentityofsupposedcreolelanguagesthemselves butratherthewayinwhichatleastsomecreolistshaveapproachedthestudyof language".Theyconsequentlyargueforareintegrationofcreolestudiesinto mainstreamlinguisticinvestigation,dissolvingthenotionofcreolesasauniqueor exceptionaltypeoflanguagealtogetherandtreatingthemasproductsofhighcontactenvironmentsinspecicsociohistoricalsettings".Itwouldseem,then, thatthequestionis:Whenarespecicsocialsettingsandresultingsociolinguistic processesspecicenoughtowarrantaspecialdesignation?Againstthebackdropof theparadigmofPostcolonialEnglishesor:NewEnglishes,WorldEnglishesandin thebroadercontextofcontactlinguistics,restatingthequestionofwhatitmeans whenagivenlanguageisclassiedasacreolehasbroughtintofocusthetheoreticalimportanceofgradienceincreolisatione.g.Neumann-HolzschuhandSchneider, 2000a;Schneider,2007;Winford,2007.EvenamongthesubsetofAtlanticEnglishlexiercreolesintheAmericas,whosegenesisconditionssharedcertainlinguisticand sociohistoricalaspects,somecreolesshowahigherdegreeofrestructuringrelative totheirlexierthanothers.Thisperceivedclineincreolenesshadpreviouslybeen attributedto decreolisation ,aprocesswherebycreolelanguagesgraduallylosetheir supposedcreolefeaturesasaconsequenceofincreasedandsustainedcontactwith theirlexier.Morerecently,ithasbeenrecognisedthatevidencedoesnotsupport theassumptionthatalllessheavilyrestructuredvarietieswereoncemorecreole-like, whateversuchacharacterisationmayentail,andthatdierentiationcouldoccurat theonsetofcreoleformatione.g.Neumann-HolzschuhandSchneider,2000b,1-2. InanattempttoprovidelabelsforCaribbeanlanguagevarietieswhichtakeinto

PAGE 35

2.1.TERMINOLOGICALISSUES 9 accountdierencesinthesociolinguistichistoriespresumablyunderlyingobserved synchronicstructuraldierences,Acetodistinguishesbetween Autonomous orDeepCreoleVarieties and DialectCreoleVarieties 1 .AutonomousorDeepCreoleVarietiesrepresentthosecases,inwhichaccesstothelexierwashistorically severelyrestrictedandsuperstratespeakersweresubmergedwithinasignicant `sea'ofspeakersofotherrstlanguagevarieties".Thevarietiesthatemerged suchasGullah,spokenintheLowCountryregionsofSouthCarolinaandGeorgia, ortheSurinamesecreoleswerestructurallyverydierentfromtheirlexiersand largelyunintelligibletospeakersofdialectallexiervarieties.DialectalCreoleVarietiessuchasCaymanIslandsEnglishandAfricanAmericanVernacularEnglish AAVErepresenttheinversecase:Accesstothelexierwasconsistentlymore availableandthe`sea'ofrstlanguageorsubstratespeakers[...]wasneveras `deep',substantialorsustained"37.Theresultingvarietieswerestructurally muchclosertotheirrespectivelexiersandsomemaybemoreappropriatelyviewed asdialectalthanascreolevarieties.Aceto'sclassicationisnotableinthatheviews creolisationasaprimarilysocialprocessandcategorisescreolevarietiesaccordingly. Anystructuralconsequencesaremerelycitedasthemostlikelylinguisticoutcome ofagivenscenario.Thenotionofonlypartiallycreolisedvarieties,however,often referredtoas semi-creoles ,isnotanewconceptbutdatesbacktoatleastthelate 19thcentury.Semi-creolesareusuallydenedintermsoftheirstructuralcharacteristicsasvarietieswhichdisplayonlyalimitednumberofpresumedcreolefeatures. Thesociolinguisticcontextsoftheiremergencearequitediverse,rangingfromvarietiesthatneverfullycreolisedtonon-creolestakingoncreolefeaturesHolm,2000, 20-22.DespitetheoppositeperspectivesconstitutedbythelabelsDialectCreole Varietiesandsemi-creoles,ifacausalrelationshipbetweensociohistoricaleventsand degreeofcreolisationcanindeedbeassumed,alargeamountofoverlapinvarieties subsumedunderthesecategoriesistobeexpected. Winford,254-256proposestogobeyondthenarrowfocusoncreolelanguagesandtointegratecreolesinamodelwhichdirectlyrelatesthemtoother contact-inducedvarietiesseegure2.1.TheemergenceofcreolesversusindigenisedvarietiesofagivensuperstratelanguagesuchasEnglisharerepresentedas 1 Acetoadditionallyincludesthecategoryof ImmigrantCreoleVarieties ,whichdier fromtheothersinthattheyareusuallyapost-emancipationphenomenon,causedbyextensive intra-Caribbeanmigration.Theyderivefromthemixingofpre-existing,fully-formedEnglishderivedcreoleand/ordialectvarietiesandnoaprioriclaimcanbemadeconcerningtheirstructural distancefromtheirlexiers.

PAGE 36

10 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS processesoccupyingdierentpointsonacline,rangingfromheavilyrestructuredvarietiestonative-likevarietiesresultingfromfairlysuccessfulgroupsecondlanguage acquisition.Theunderlyingassumptionis,ofcourse,thatthereisnocategorical dierencebetweencreoles,dialectsandotheroutcomesoflanguageshift.Themain criteriaforlocatingvarietiesonWinford'sscalearestructuralinnature,buthe emphasisesthatthereisnosetofstructuralcharacteristicsthatisdenitiveof creolestatus"55.Hearguesthattransferfromtherstorsubstratelanguage andsimplicationarenotuniquetocreolisedvarietiesbutstemfromprocessesof changeandrestructuringwhichcreolisationshareswithotherproductsoflanguage contactinvolvingnaturalsecondlanguageacquisition.Thestructuraldierencebetweencreolisationandindigenisationis,thus,consideredaquestionofquantity,not ofquality.Byimplication,membershipinthecategoryofcreolelanguageshasto beunderstoodasinherentlyscalarseealsodiscussioninSchneider,2007,60-64. Withinthecategoryofcreolelanguages,Winford,313-319distinguishes radicalcreoles fromlighter,lessheavilyrestructured intermediatecreoles .Whilethe dierencebetweenthesetwosubcategoriesisalsogradual,hearguesthatradical andintermediatecreolesshouldeachbeanalysedascreationsintheirownright, independentlyofoneanother,becausetheypresumablyemergedinqualitatively dierentlanguageecologies. Figure2.1:FromCreolisationtoAdvancedSecondLanguageAcquisition:Continuumofoutcomesofgrouplanguageshift,adaptedfromWinford,256 Fromtheaboveoutlineofvariousapproachestotheconceptofcreole,thefollowingworkingdenitionforEnglish-derivedcreolevarietiesintheNorthAmerican contextmaybederived.Creolesarecontact-induced,naturallanguagesthatdevelopedinthecontextofplantationsocietyasameansofprimarilyintra-ethnic communicationamongtheslavepopulation.Dependingonthesociolinguisticenvironmentattheonsetandduringcreoleformation,inparticularwithrespectto demographicproportionsandsocialpatternsofinteractionwhichgovernedaccess

PAGE 37

2.1.TERMINOLOGICALISSUES 11 tothelexier,Englishwasor,ratherEnglishdialectsweregraduallyrestructured intomoreorlessdivergentlinguisticsystems.Theequationforcontact-inducedrestructuringisprincipallythesameforbothindigenisedandcreolisedvarieties.The latter,however,representvarietiesinwhichearlyspeakersweretosomeextentdeprivedoflexierinput,sothattheinuenceofdiverseAfricansubstratelanguages anduniversalprinciplesofgroupsecondlanguageacquisitionwasmorepronounced. 2.1.2BahamianCreole TheCommonwealthofTheBahamas,situatedinthesouthernAtlanticOcean,consistsofastringofmorethan700islandsextendingfromsoutheasternFloridain thenorthtoCubaandHispaniolainthesouthseegure2.2.Thecapitalcity NassauisontheislandofNewProvidence.Freeport,thesecondlargestcityis situatedonGrandBahama,amere50milesfromthecoastofFlorida.Islandsin thearchipelagootherthanNewProvidenceandGrandBahamaareknownasthe FamilyIslands or,formerly,asthe OutIslands .Despiteitsgeographicalproximity totheNorthAmericanmainlandanditsstrongsociohistoricaltiestotheUnited States,theBahamasarefrequentlyassociatedwiththeislandsoftheCaribbean, politicallyaswellasculturallyandlinguistically. BahamianCreole BahCisthe mothertongueofthemajorityofblackBahamians,whoconstituteabout90%of thetotalpopulationof351461asof2010DepartmentofStatisticsofTheBahamas, 2012.TheociallanguageoftheBahamas,however,isEnglishandtherolesthat standardEnglishandBahCplayinBahamiansocietymustbeseeninthebroader contextofthedevelopmentofotherCaribbeancountriesfromBritishcolonialsocieties,dominatedbyslaveeconomies,intoindependentnationsstronglyinuenced byNorthAmericanculture. Withrespecttothegradienceincreolisationdiscussedabove,BahCisusually groupedwiththelessheavilyrestructuredvarieties,thoughestimatesconcerning itsexactpositionrelativetoassociatedvarietiesvary.AcetoconsidersBahC aDialectalCreoleVariety,comparableincharactertoAfricanAmericanVernacularEnglishAAVEratherthantoDeepCreoleVarietiessuchasJamaicanCreole JamCandNorthAmericanGullah.Holm,whodistinguishescreolesfrom semi-creoles,identiesAAVEasasemi-creolebutplacesBahCrmlywithinthe

PAGE 38

12 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS Figure2.2:TheBahamasHackertandHuber,2007,281 categoryoffull-edgedcreoles,whosevaryingdegreesofrestructuringarenotfurtherdierentiated.Winford,2007dividescreolesintomoreorlessradically restructuredvarieties.Accordingtothisscheme,BahCisconsideredanintermediatecreoleenparwithvarietiessuchasBajan,thecreolespokenonBarbados,and Trinidadian;theyarepresumedclosertotheirlexierthanmoreradicalcreolessuch asJamCandTobagonian,butfartherremovedthanindigenised,dialectalvarieties suchasAAVE.ThegroundsonwhichBahChasbeencategorisedineachofthese modelsarelargelyabstractandimpressionistic,afactthatmayhavecontributed totheapparentlackofagreement.Moreimportantly,however,thereisextensive variabilitywithineachofthelistedcreolelanguages,rangingfrommoreextreme, basilectalformstostandard-nearacrolects,anditisnotalwaysclearwhichforma givenauthorusedasthebasisofcomparison.FortheBahamiancontext,Lawlor arguesthatdierencesinislandsettlementpatternsandsocioeconomicdevelopment,variablyreinforcedbytherelativeisolationofsettlements,gaveriseto discrete[linguistic]systems"rangingfromacreolesysteminthesoutheastis-

PAGE 39

2.1.TERMINOLOGICALISSUES 13 landstoanEnglishdialectinthenortheastislandswithspeechvarietiesinNew Providenceintermediatetothesetwoextremes".Asidefromall-whitenorthern communitiesandthesoutheasternislandspredominantlysettledbyblackBahamians,mostpartsoftheBahamashaveseenconsiderableinter-ethnicandlinguistic contactoverthepastthreecenturies.Thissituationisreectedinthepresentstate ofmesolectalBahC,whichHolmsummarisesasfollows:[I]tiscloserto whiteEnglishthancomparablevarietiesintheCaribbeanproper,butmuchfarther fromwhiteEnglishthanthevernacularBlackEnglishoftheUnitedStates." WithrecoursetoWinford'scontinuummodelofcontactvernaculars,BahC asspokenbythemajorityofblackBahamiansmaythusbeadequatelyreferredto asanintermediatecreole. Thereappeartobesomesatisfactoryreasonsfordividingtheregionofthe Caribbeanlinguisticallyintogeographicallydenedvarieties.Winford993,35distinguisheseasternvarietiessuchasthosespokeninTrinidadandTobago, BarbadosandGuyanafromwesternvarietiessuchasJamCandCaymanIslandEnglish,groupingBahCwiththelatter.Thisdistinctionisbasedonarelativelysmall selectionofphonologicalandmorphosyntacticfeaturesanditisemphasisedthat similaritiesamongallanglophoneCaribbeanvarietiesfaroutweightheirdierences. Indeed,Winfordconceivesoftheeasternandwesternvarietiesasbranches subsumedunderthehighernodeofCaribbeanEnglishCreole,whichhesuggests mayhaveinitiallybeenessentiallyauniformlanguage"4thatgraduallydiversiedunderthepressureofregionallyvaryingsocialconditions.Itremainsunclear howsuchafamilyofCaribbeancreolelanguagesmightrelatetoNorthAmerican varietiessuchasAAVEandGullah.Holm,92takesabroaderperspective anddistinguishesseveralgroupsofEnglish-lexierNewWorldcreolesonthebasisofmainlysociohistoricalcriteria.Caribbeancreolesareonceagaindividedinto easternandwesternvarieties,correspondingcloselytothedistinctionproposedby Winford.TheonlydierenceconcernsthepositionofBahC,whichHolm groupswiththeNorthAmericancreolevarietiesduetoitscloserelationship withGullah.

PAGE 40

14 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS 2.2AshortsociohistoryoftheBahamas ThehistoricalandlinguisticconnectionbetweenBahCandAmericanmainland varietiesAAVEandGullahhavelongbeenamatterofdispute.Theintertwining historiesoftheBahamasandtoday'sUnitedStatescanbedocumentedasfarbackas 1670,whenCharlesIIgrantedapatenttotheLordsProprietorsofCarolinawhich includedtheBahamianislands,eectivelyunitingtheterritoriestoformajoint colonythatwouldendureforabout50years.TherstpermanentBritishsettlement ontheBahamashadbeenestablishedonthenorthernislandofEleutherain1648by afewdozenreligiousdissentersfromBermuda.Itisassumedthatservantsandslaves formedpartofarrivingshipmentsfromtheverybeginning.By1670,Bahamian settlementshadspreadtotheislandofNewProvidenceandthetotalpopulation hadreachedatleast500.Abouttwo-thirdsoftheearlysettlerswerewhite,clearly outnumberingtheblack 2 .Theharshlivingconditionsontheislandsrequiredclose cooperationbyallinhabitants,whoturnedtotheseaforalivingorworkedonsmall farms,fosteringsustainedcontactbetweentheethnicgroups.Duringthisearly periodofcolonisation,thus,blacksintheBahamasmusthavehadsucientaccess tothewhitesettlers'dialectstolearnEnglishunderconditionsofnormalsecond languageacquisitione.g.Hackert,2004,34-36.Afteraninterludeofpiratical chaosatthebeginningofthe18thcentury,theLordsProprietorswerereplacedby separategovernorsfortheBahamasandCarolina,butthecoloniesremainedinclose politicalandeconomiccontact.ThepopulationoftheBahamasgraduallyincreased seegure2.3,untilin1773,ontheeveoftheAmericanrevolution,itamounted to4293,ofwhichabout66%livedonNewProvidence.Asthetotalnumberof settlersincreased,sodidtheproportionofblacks.Ithadgrowntoanaverageof 54%andwasgreatestinNewProvidence,where64%oftheinhabitantswerenow blacke.g.Hackert,2004,37.Theconcomitantdeclineintheoriginallyintense contactbetweenblacksandwhitesmusthaveprogressivelyrestrictedaccesstothe superstratedialects,butitisunlikelythatawide-spread,full-edgedcreolehad formedintheBahamasatthattime. ThemassiveinuxofAmericanloyalistsandtheirslaves,eeingthenewlyestablishedUnitedStatesaftertheRevolutionaryWar,hadaprofounddemographic eectonthestillsmallBahamianpopulation,ascanbegleanedfromgure2.3.It 2 TheindigenousLucayanpopulationhadbeenenslavedanddeportedbytheSpanishabouta centurypriortoBritishsettlement.

PAGE 41

2.2.ASHORTSOCIOHISTORYOFTHEBAHAMAS 15 Figure2.3:EstimatedgrowthoftheBahamianpopulationandoftherelativeproportionofblackandcolouredBahamiansduringthe18thcentury;seeHackertand Huber,281-282andCratonandSaundersa,261 istheseemigrantswhoarecreditedwithimportingcreoleintotheBahamas.On thewhole,about1600whiteloyalistsand5700slavesandfreeblacksareestimated tohavelefttheAmericanmainlandfortheBahamas.Thiswouldhavealmost tripledtheBahamianpopulation.Italsoraisedtheaverageproportionofblacks toover70%andincreasedthenumberofpermanentlysettledislandsasmanyloyalistplanterstooktheirfamiliesandslavestotheheretoforelargelyunpopulated Bahamiansouthinthehopetosetupprosperouscottonplantationse.g.Hackert, 2004,37.BasedonmainlylexicalandsomesyntacticsimilaritiesbetweencontemporaryBahCandGullah,Holm1983hypothesisedthatthemajorityofblack emigrantsmusthavespokenanearlier,creolisedformofAAVE,whichconsequently blendedwiththeBahamianvernacularthathaddevelopedonthenorthernislands andpredominatedoverspeechpatternsinthesouth.Gullahwasseenaseitherthe remnantorimmediatedescendentofthisoncemorewide-spreadAmericanPlantationCreoleandBahCwasregardedadiasporavarietyofthelatter.Evidencehas meanwhileaccumulatedwhichsuggeststhatAAVEwasneveritselfacreolelanguageandthat,whiletheremayhavebeensomeindependent[p]ocketsofgreater restructuring"HackertandHolm,2009,16,thedemographicandsocialconditions inthemajorityoflocalesinthecolonialAmericanSouthwerenotconducivetofull creolisation.HackertandHolmandHackertandHuberarguethat

PAGE 42

16 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS thecreolenatureoftheBahamianvernacularinsteadderivesdirectlyfromitsclose relationshipwithGullah,whichisnotmediatedbyathird,deceasedorfadingcreolelanguage.Acloseanalysisofhistoricalrecordsenabledthedistinctionbetween portsofembarkationandtheloyalists'actualpointsoforigin,whichrevealedthata substantialamountofblackemigrantsmusthavehailedformGullah-speakingareas inlow-countrySouthCarolinaandGeorgia.HackertandHuberadditionally providelinguisticevidencewhichsupportstheassumptionofaparticularlyclose connectionbetweenBahCandGullah:Basedonananalysisoftherelativeamount oflexicalandstructuralfeaturessharedbetweenBahC,Gullah,andsixotherAtlanticEnglish-lexiercreolesinearlytextualmaterial,theyshowthatthelinguistic anitybetweenBahCandGullahisstrongerthantheanitiesbetweenBahCand anyotherofthetestedcreoles,includingfellowCaribbeanvarietiesJamCandBajan.Consequently,HackertandHuberconcludethatthecombinedhistorical andlinguisticdataindicatethatGullahandBahCEareindeedcloselyrelated{so closelyinfactthatBahCEmustbeconsideredadiasporavarietynotofAAVEbut ofGullah." Thefurtherdevelopmentoftheimportedcreolethroughoutthe19thcentury wouldhavedependedchieyontheamountofcontactandthetypeofsocialrelations betweentheethnicgroupsonthediverseislandsoftheBahamas.Theplantation systemontheBahamasissaidtohavebeenofmodestproportionscomparedto thatofotherCaribbeanterritoriesandthesouthernUnitedStates.Onlyabouta quarterofBahamianslavesworkedonfarmsholdingmorethan50slavelabourers, andthesewereconcentratedonthesoutheasternislands,stretchingfromCatIsland andGreatExumatotheInaguas,whichhadbeenlargelyunsettledbeforethe loyalists'arrival.Thedemographicdistributionofwhitesandnon-whitesatthetime reectstherelativesizeofslaveholdings.Figure2.3showsthatby1810,about75% oftheBahamianpopulationwerecolouredorblack,buttheirdistributionacross theislandswasfarfromhomogenous.OnnorthernislandssuchasEleutheraand Abaco,themeanproportionofnon-whitesamountedtoabout50%,whileonthe southeasternislands,theproportionofnon-whitesaveragedatabout95%.About 70%ofNewProvidenceinhabitantswererecordedascolouredorblack,butthe majorityofslaveholdingsonthisislandwerecomparativelysmallandby1834 almosthalfoftheslavepopulationworkedasdomesticsCratonandSaunders, 1992a,261,281,286.ThecottonplantationinthesouthernBahamassoonfailed duetothepoorsoiloftheislandsandby1820mostplantershadlefttheirestates,

PAGE 43

2.2.ASHORTSOCIOHISTORYOFTHEBAHAMAS 17 leavingbehindtheirformerslavestofendforthemselvesinsubsistencefarming, shingorsaltraking.Domesticsandslavesworkingonsmallfarmsmusthavehad moresustainedcontactwithEnglish-speakingwhites,butharshvagrancylawsand segregationpoliciesseverelyrestrictedsocialinteractionbetweentheraces.The linguisticsituationofblacksintheBahamasmusthavebeenasdiverseastheir livingconditions,but,ingeneral,accesstoEnglishdrasticallydeclinedfollowing thearrivaloftheloyalists.AsHackertconcludes, althoughacreolevariety[...]canbepresumedtohaveourishedinthe southernBahamasaswellasinpartsofNewProvidenceandpossiblyon othernorthernislands,theassumptionofasupraregionallyuniformcreoleis probablyaslittlewarrantedfortheBahamasaftertheLoyalistimmigration asitwouldbefortheAmericanSouthofthesametime.Hackert,2004,44 Aftertheabolitionofslavery,enactedin1833andgraduallyachievedthefollowingyears,theblackBahamianpopulationconsistedoffamilieswhohadbeen freeforgenerations,recentlyfreedslavesandabout25%African-bornblacks,who hadbeenliberatedafterBritainoutlawedinternationalslavetradein1807.The isolation,poverty,andhardshipsofislandlife,coupledwiththesocialseparation betweenblacksandwhites,contributedtotheemergenceofanAfrican-Bahamian identityastheblackpopulationgraduallydrewtogether.AftertheAmericanCivil War,manyBahamianssoughttogarnerabetterlifeforthemselvesandtheirfamilies andmigratedtotheUnitedStates,mainlytoKeyWestandsouthernFlorida.In 1920,attheheightofwhatispopularlyknownasthe MiamiCraze ,itisestimated thatalmost5000Bahamian-bornblackshadpermanentlymovedtoMiami;they constitutedmorethanhalfofthecity'sblackandabout16%ofitstotalpopulation CratonandSaunders,1992b.Whilesomemovedontoindustrialisedcitiesinthe north,mostretainedclosefamilytiestotheirhomelandandeventodaycherish theiridentityasBahamianAmericans.Mohl,217-222seestheBahamian immigrationtoFloridaintheearly20thcenturyasonlyoneaspectofalargerpatternofCaribbeanmigration.ManyCaribbeanislandnationssueredperiodically fromecologicaldisastersandsevereshortageofemploymentandbasicfoodsupply,sothatmigrationbecameaformofeconomicadaption,anessentialstrategy thatenabledCaribbeanpeopletosurvivedespitetheirdepletedandinsuciently productivelands"-276.PriortothevastBahamianmigrationtoFlorida,BahamianshadalreadybeenworkingalloverCentralAmerica,mostlyinshort-term

PAGE 44

18 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS positionsasstevedoresanddeckhandsonsteamshipsengagedinfruitandlumber tradeoralongsidefellowCaribbeanworkersascontractlabourersonplantationsand largerconstructionprojects.Asearlyas1905,Britishocialsalreadyquestioned thelong-termbenet,ifany,suchlarge-scalelabourmigrationmighthaveonthe Bahamianeconomyand,apparently,wouldhavepreferredtomaintainsociocultural hegemonyandpopulationstabilityintheircolonyMohl,1987,277-279.Butit wasnottobe,andtheirreversibletrendtowardsAmericaneconomyandculture continuedtoundermineBritishimperialism.DuringWorldWarI,thousandsof BahamiansservedassoldiersoftheBritishWestIndiaregiment.Farfewerwent overseastoghtfortheBritishEmpireinWorldWarII,thoughBahamianswere stillnominallyinvolvedandNewProvidenceservedasanimportanttrainingbase forBritishsoldiersintheRoyalAirForceCratonandSaunders,1992b,275-277. Asaresultoftheexigenciesofthewar,theUnitedStatesgovernmentarrangedfor thetemporaryemploymentofmigrantlabourersinespeciallytheagriculturalsector, ofwhichasubstantialamountwasprovidedbytheBahamas.Under TheContract , asthelabourprogrammeissometimesreferredto,anestimated30000Bahamians wererecruitedtoworkinover20statesbetweentheyears1943and1965.Scholars havesuggestedthat TheContract leftasignicantmarkuponBahamiansociety. Thewagesearnedenabledmanyfamiliestosavemoneyandtolaythefoundations ofnanciallymoresecurelivesThompson,2012.Bethel,245-246claims thattheexperienceofstrictracialsegregationintheUSalsostronglyinuencedthe self-constructionofidentityofnon-whiteBahamiansinthattheracialdistinction betweenblackandwhitetendstobemorerigidinBahamiansocietytodaythanin otherCaribbeancountries. Throughoutthe20thcentury,asuccessfuleconomybasedontourismandforeigninvestmentwasgraduallybuiltup,butthemajorityofblackBahamiansstill livedindismalcircumstancesand,intheearly1950s,werestilldeniedbasicrights ofcitizenship.Despitethepervasivecultureofwhitesupremacy,ablackmiddle classhadslowlyemergedandaspiredforrepresentationintheHouseofAssembly,whichwasstillunderBritishruleanddominatedbythewhitebourgeoisie.In 1953,theProgressiveLiberalPartywasformedwiththemaingoaltowinpower fortheblackmajority.Thisaimwasnallyachievedin1967andonJuly10,1973, theBahamasbecamefullyindependentwithintheCommonwealthofNations,retainingtheBritishmonarchasheadofstate.Thenewgovernmentundertherst blackPrimeMinisteroftheBahamas,SirLyndenPindling,continuedtosupport

PAGE 45

2.2.ASHORTSOCIOHISTORYOFTHEBAHAMAS 19 economicpoliciesbasedontourismandbanking.Theyalsosignicantlyincreased educationalspending,whichwouldintimeincreaseaccesstosocialmobilityforthe blackpopulationandcontributetothediversicationoftheBahamianmiddleclass Hackert,2004,46-48. Figure2.4:CensusdataDepartmentofStatisticsofTheBahamas,2012,1-2on thegrowthoftheBahamianpopulationandoftherelativeproportionofBahamians livingonNewProvidencethroughoutthe20thcenturyupto2010 Tworelateddemographicprocesses,illustratedingure2.4,showedtohave considerableimpactonBahamiansocietyinthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury: populationexplosionandurbanisation.StartingintheyearsfollowingWorldWar II,theBahamianpopulationdrasticallyincreasedfrom84841in1953tomorethan fourtimesthesizein2010,whencensusdatarecordedatotalpopulationof351461. Accordingtothe99%whorespondedtotheracequestionin2010,91%identied themselvesasbeingblack,5%aswhiteand2%asmixedblackandwhite.The massivegrowthinpopulationwasaccompaniedbyaprogressiverelocationoflarge partsoftheBahamianpopulationawayfromthemoreruralFamilyIslandstothe urbanisedcentresonNewProvidenceandGrandBahama.Atthebeginningofthe 20thcentury,about23%oftheBahamianpopulationlivedonNewProvidence.By 1953,thenumberhadincreasedtomorethanhalfofthepopulation.Asof2010,70% ofallBahamiansliveonNewProvidenceandanother15%arerecordedforGrand Bahama.TogetherwithAbaco,EleutheraandAndros,thesenorthernislandsnow accountfor94%ofthetotalpopulationoftheBahamasand,asonemovessouth,

PAGE 46

20 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS theislandstendtobelessandlesspopulatedDepartmentofStatisticsofThe Bahamas,2012,1-2,10,82.Urbanisationhasobviouslycausedachangeinlifestyle andhasbroughtwithitanumberofproblems.WhilethemajorityofBahamiannow liveinNassau,mostofthemcantracetheirfamilytoororiginatethemselvesfrom elsewhereinthearchipelagoandtheseislandoriginsarecrucialinthemaintenanceof personalidentities.HackertnotesthatmanyofherNassauvianinterviewees contrastedtheanonymityofmoderncitylife,withitsmaterialisticoutlookand corruptivepotential,tothesimpleislandlifeofdaysgoneby,wheredailypursuits werecentredaroundfamilyandneighboursandvillagerslivedtogetherinharmony. Whilesomeofthesenotionsmayreectacertainamountofnostalgiaandwere likelyreinforcedbythenaiveteofchildhoodandyouth"-49,Nassauisalso objectivelynotwithoutitsproblems.Ithascometoplayapivotalroleinthe transshipmentofillicitdrugs,mainlycocaineandmarijuana,fromsourcecountries intheCaribbean,SouthandCentralAmericatotheUnitedStatesviatheFlorida coastseee.g.Bullington,1991.Ahighrateofunemploymenthasleadtothe increasedghettoisationofcertainresidentialareassuchas Over-the-hill andtoa riseinviolentcrime,mostlyrelatedtotheconsumptionandtrackingofnarcotics Hackert,2004,49. Inlinguisticterms,thesocialdevelopmentssinceBahamianindependencehave drasticallyincreasedaccesstoEnglishfortheblackBahamianpopulation,viaeducationandmediabutalsointheday-to-dayinteractionswithtourists,sothatmost BahamianstodaycancomfortablyswitchfromBahCtomorestandard-nearforms ofEnglishifsorequiredbythesocialcontext.AsinotherformerBritishcolonies, BritishEnglishoriginallyfunctionedastheprimaryexonormativestandard.Inthe lastdecades,however,inuenceofAmericanlanguageandculturehasencroached onmanyaspectsofBahamiansociety.WhentheBahamianeducationalsystemwas reorganisedin1973,theMinistryofEducation&Cultureociallyrejected theoldcolonialsystem,whichwasconsiderednarrow,meager,ill-suitedandirrelevant",infavourofanationalsystem,whichwouldembraceaphilosophy whichischaracteristicofthenation'sideals,values,beliefsandcustoms".A deliberatepolicyofBahamianisation"wasadopted,whichdemandedthatthe teachingforcebeBahamianisedassoonasitisconsistentwithsoundeducational progress".Expatriateeducators,mostlyBritish,weregraduallyreplacedby qualiedBahamiannationals.US-basedpublishinghouseshavebecomethesuppliersofmosttextbooksintheBahamas,especiallyinthecontextofprimaryand

PAGE 47

2.2.ASHORTSOCIOHISTORYOFTHEBAHAMAS 21 tertiaryeducation.Fromthelate1960stothepresent,NorthAmericanuniversitieshavedominatedasprovidersofhighereducationtoBahamians.Between1980 and1998,anannualaverageofabout147governmentscholarshipswereawarded toBahamianstudentstostudyabroad,andofthetotalabout84%wenttostudy atuniversitiesinCanadaortheUnitedStates.EventhoughtheBahamiangovernmenthasbeenanancialcontributortotheUniversityoftheWestIndiessince 1964andestablishedalocaluniversity,theCollegeofTheBahamas,in1975,the numbersofBahamiansstudyingabroadisgrowingsteadilyUrwick,2002,161-163, 164.Americanculturalandlinguisticinuenceisalsodisseminatedthroughthe massmedia.Accordingtoapublicsurveyconductedamonginhabitantsof300 householdsonNewProvidencein2008,nineofthetoptenmostwatchedtelevision channelsarebasedintheUnitedStates.Thetwomostpopularnewspaperswere TheTribune and TheGuardian ,bothbasedinNassau,butalmost20%indicated theyalsoregularlyreadthe MiamiHerald MinistryofTourism&Aviation,2008, 34-37.ThemostimportantindustryintheBahamastodayisthetourismindustry,which,fromitsverybeginning,wasdominatedbyNorthAmericantourists.In additiontoabout3.8millioncruisepassengers,1.4millionstay-overarrivalswere recordedfortheBahamasasawholein2010,ofwhichabout80%camefromthe UnitedStatesandanother9%fromCanada.AswithmanyaspectsofBahamian society,Nassau/NewProvidenceisthecentreofthetourismbusinessandin2010 accountedforover66%ofallstay-overarrivalsCaribbeanTourismOrganization, 2010,13-16.Inthe2008publicsurveymentionedabove,52%oftheparticipants statedthattheyworkeddirectlyinthetourismindustry.Abouthalfoftheresidents inNewProvidencewould,consequently,haveregularandclosecontactwithspeakersofAmericanEnglish,butthisestimateislikelytobesomewhatconservative, asover60%thoughttheirjobwasrelatedtotourismandonly18%believedthat tourismdidnotaectthempersonallyMinistryofTourism&Aviation,2008,21, 23,31. Thus,whilefromadiachronicperspectiveBahamianspeech,likeotherEnglishderivedCaribbeanvarieties,ismoreBritish-oriented,politicalindependenceandthe self-awarenessthatgoeswithcanbeexpectedtohavehadanimpactonattitudes towardsstandardusageofanykind.Today,BritishandAmericanEnglisharein competitionastheprovidersofexonormativemodelsofstandardEnglishtothe CommonwealthCaribbeane.g.Aceto,2006,211.AccordingtoMcArthur, thedegreeofacceptabilityofStandardBritishEnglish[...]continuestodependon

PAGE 48

22 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS sensitivitiesdatingfromcolonialexperience,andthedegreeofcomfortwithStandardAmericanEnglishdependsonwhether[...]theUSisperceivedasprimarily benevolentormalevolent".Althoughtheremaybepressuretowardstheunequivocaladoptionofoneofthetwointernationalstandardvarieties,heargued thatitmaybemorerealistictoviewthetwostandardsasrunningsidebyside [...]whileprovidingamoregenerousspaceforlocalisms".Notallislandsin theBahamianarchipelago,especiallythoseinthesoutheast,willsharethesame sociolinguisticforcesthatpresentlyimpactonlanguageuseonNewProvidence. However,sincethepopulationofNewProvidencetodayaccountsforthemajority ofBahamians,themesolectalBahCspokenintheurbanenvironmentofNassau, whichisinclosecontactwithanincreasinglyAmericanisedBahamianEnglish,can beconsideredmostrepresentative.

PAGE 49

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 23 2.3SociolinguisticvariationintheCaribbean Caribbeancreolestodayaretypicallyspokeninsocietieswhicharestillaected bytheircolonialpastandcontinuetobeunderpressurefromexternallanguage andculture.Theyarealsosubjecttourbanisation,migration,andotherprocesses ofsocialchange,whichcontinuouslyreconguresocietyasawholeandrequire there-constructionofnationalaswellaspersonalidentities.Intheanglophone Caribbean,creolescoexistwithEnglish,whichhasremainedanambientlanguageof powerthroughouthistory,andtodayfunctionsasthenations'ociallanguageinthe formofincreasinglylocalisedstandards.Fromavariationistperspective,linguistic andsocialstructurearecorrelated,andsoitcomesasnosurprisethatcreolespeech communitiesareoftenclaimedtodisplayaparticularlyhighdegreeoflinguisticvariabilitye.g.Holm,2004,54-55.Systematicvariation,ororderlyheterogeneity", isofcourseacharacteristicinherenttoalllivinglanguages.Individualspeakersare notconsideredmembersofthesamespeechcommunitybecausetheyallspeakalike, butbecause,inLabov'sterms,theyparticipateinasetofsharednorms", whichmaybeobservedinoverttypesofevaluativebehavior,and[in]theuniformityofabstractpatternsofvariation"-121.Thesevariationpatternsmanifest themselvesatthelevelofcommunity,whereinternallinguisticandexternalsocial andstylisticconstraintsgovernthedistributionofalternatingforms.Creolespeech communitiesdierfromprototypicalmonolingualcontextsinthat,dependingon theirsociolinguisticprole,theymaypossessanespeciallywiderangeoflinguistic dierentiationandpotentiallybursttheboundsprescribedforsinglelanguagevarieties"Patrick,2008.Atthesametime,itisequallyproblematictotreatcreole societiesasessentiallymultilingual,becausevariationbetweenindividualgrammars tendstobeextremelyne-grainedanditisusuallydiculttoclearlydemarcate thevarietiesinvolved.Variationincreolesocietiesisthereforeoftendescribedin termsofa creolecontinuum ,butthereremainssomedisagreementconcerningthe model'simplicationsfortherelationshipbetweenthepolarvarieties,i.e.Creoleand English.Thesearefundamentalissuesandtheywillbefurtherexploredinsection 2.3.1.Section2.3.2willlookmorecloselyatthestatusofEnglishandcreoleand associatedattitudesinCaribbeansocietiesand,morespecically,intheBahamas. Section2.3.3willturntoaspectsofsocialandstylisticvariationproperandreview ndingsofsociolinguisticstudies,mainlyinthevariationistparadigm,whichhave beenconductedintheCaribbeancontext.Asthegreatmajorityofsociolinguistic

PAGE 50

24 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS studiesinCaribbeancreolespeechcommunitieshavefocussedonthedistributionof grammaticalvariables,section2.3.4willpursuethequestionwhetherphonological variablesmightbeexpectedtopatterndierently. 2.3.1Modellingsynchronicvariation Initssimplestandmostneutralform,thenotionofa creolecontinuum evokesthe familiarpicturethatvariationacrossspeakersisextremelyne-grainedandnoteasilyamenabletoclassicationintoanitenumberofclearlydelineated,self-contained dialects.Thecreolecontinuumisaversionoftheclassicdialectcontinuumwitha specialtwist:itspolarvarietiesareacreoleononeend,anditslexierontheother. DeCamp61,1971bintroducedtheconcepttoaccountforsynchronicvariation intheJamaicancontext,rejectingthediglossicmodelthatFergusonhadproposedforHaiti:Thereisnosharpcleavagebetweencreoleandstandard.Rather, thereisalinguisticcontinuum,acontinuousspectrumofspeechvarietiesranging from[...]'bushtalk'or'brokenlanguage'[...]totheeducatedstandard"DeCamp, 1971b,350.Similarcontinuumsituationshavebeenidentiedinanumberofother anglophoneCaribbeansocieties,includingGuyana,Belize,TrinidadandBarbados Winford,1997,236.Bickertonprovidedtheterms basilect and acrolect as sociolinguisticlabelsrepresentingthevarietiesfoundattheendpointsofthelanguagespectrum,whichhavebecomefairlystandardintheeld.Thebasilectis denedasthevarietywhichisstructurallyfurthestremovedfromitslexier,while theacrolectreferstothelocalstandardvarietyofthelexier,whichdiersfrom otherstandardvarietiesofthelanguageonlyinafewphonologicaldetailsanda handfuloflexicalitems".Varietiesinbetweenthesepolarvarietiesarereferred toas mesolectal andspeakersareconsideredtooccupynotasinglepointbutaspan ofvarietiesonthecline,adjustingtheirspeechpatternsasrequiredbycontextand sociallydenednotionsofstyle. AsoriginallyconceivedbyDeCamp,1971bandBickerton,1975, continuaandtheirmesolectswereconsideredthedirectresultof decreolisation , wherebysuccessivegroupsofcreolespeakersgraduallymodiedtheirspeechtowards thelocalstandard/lexierlanguage. [T]hecreolecontinuumowesitsexistencetothefactthat,afteremancipation, thesocial,political,andeconomicbarriersbetweenwhitesandnon-whites

PAGE 51

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 25 weregraduallybutprogressivelyweakened{whilewhitenormsremained[...] dominantinthecommunityasawhole.Inconsequence,aslowlyincreasing segmentofthecreole-speakingpopulationwasprovidedwithbothopportunityandmotivationtomodifyitslinguisticbehaviorinthedirectionofthe approvedvariety.Bickerton,1973,644 AsRickfordpointsout,32-37,therearetwoassumptionsunderlyingthisperspective:First,post-creolespeechcontinua"DeCamp,1971bmusthaveevolved fromdiscreteandrelativelyhomogenouslinguisticsystemsinessentiallybilingual situations;andsecond,linguisticvariationincreolecontinuaalwaysreectsongoingchange,invariablydirectedtowardsthestandard.Bothclaimshavemeanwhile beenqualiedsomewhatbysubsequentresearch.Duetodierencesintheextent andnatureofinterethnicrelations,acontinuumofvarietiesbetweencreoleandlexierwaslikelyinplacefromtheearliestdaysofAfrican-Europeancontact.While post-emancipationdecreolisationmaystillhaveplayedaroleinshapingthepresent spectrumofvariationwhensocialchangesbroughtincreasingopportunitiesofsocialmobilityandeducationtotheblackpopulation,mesolectalformswouldhave alreadybeenavailableandtheprocessmightmoreappropriatelybedescribedas languageshifttosuccessivelyhigherlectsonthecontinuumaseachsectorofthe populationgraduallyadoptedsomeofthespeechcharacteristicsofthesocialgroup aboveitRickford,1987,34;Winford,1997,248-249.Afurtherpointofcriticism isthat,inthisscenario,speakersarestillpresentedasmoreorlesspassivelyadoptingovertlyprestigiouslinguisticfeaturesratherthanportrayingthemasactorsin shapingandnegotiatingtheirpersonalidentitiesandpositioningthemselvesina netofcomplexsocialrelations.Itisincorrecttoassumethatthestandardisconsideredtheonlyvarietyofsocialvalueincreolecontexts,thatCaribbeanspeakers havenothingbutloathingfortheirnativecreoleandnothingbutlongingforthe Queen'sEnglish"Rickford,1987,36.Inreality,thesituationismorecomplex thenthat.Ineverydaylife,speakersengageinstyle-shiftingbothupanddown thecreolecontinuum,and,whilethismayormaynotreectorpreviewlinguistic change,itcertainlyillustratesthatattitudestowardscreolespeecharenotalways negativeandattitudestowardsstandardspeechnotalwayspositive.Thetopicof languageattitudesandsocialstatusofvarietiesintheCaribbeanwillbediscussed furtherinsection2.3.2below.Fornow,itisimportanttoemphasisethatearlierassumptionsassociatedwiththenotionofthecreolecontinuumasacontinuouslyand unidirectionallychangingstructure,withtheacrolectasthetarget,cannolonger

PAGE 52

26 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS beupheld.Thisissuemayonlybeofsecondaryrelevancetothisstudy,whichis concernedwithaprimarilysynchronicdescriptionofurbanBahC,butithelpsput intoperspectivepresent-daysociolinguisticvariation.Foramoredetailedtreatise oftheconceptofdecreolisation,seee.g.Winford. Researcherstodaygenerallyagreethatthecontinuumnotionisappropriatefor thesynchronicdescriptionoftherangeofvarietiesfoundinspokenlanguageuse inanglophoneCaribbeancreolesituations,atleastfromasociolinguisticperspective.Muchcontroversy,however,surroundsthetheoreticalnatureofthecreole continuumandtheattemptstotranslatesurfacevariationintoaformallinguistic construct.DeCampbpioneeredthelinguisticuseofimplicationalscalesas amethodtosimplifyandconstraintheamountofrandomvariationbydisplayingorderingrelationsbetweenindividualspeakersandbetweenlinguisticelements withrespecttoacommonunderlyingpropertyofmore/lesscreolenessseealsoDeCamp,1971a;Bickerton,1973;Rickford,2002.Thecontinuum,inthisview,is notonlyadescriptivetoolofthesociolinguisticmanifestationbutoftheunderlyingsystemitself,whichmustbeconceptualisedasasuccessionoflectsaccounted forbyasinglesetofrules.DeCamp1b,353-354,357acknowledgedthatthe strict,unidimensionalrenderingofthecontinuummodelmayconstituteanecessary simplication,emphasising,however,thatatleastintheJamaicancontextlinear orderingoflectsfromcreoletostandardrepresentsareasonableapproximationto systemicreality.Heagreedthatsocialcorrelatesoflinguisticvariationmayindeed bemultidimensional,buthisformulationofthecontinuummodelfocussedexplicitly oninternallinguisticconstraintsonly:boththevarietiesandthedeningfeatures ofalinearlinguisticcontinuumcanbeorderedwithoutrecoursetothesociolinguisticdata"DeCamp,1971b,355.Astherangeoflinguisticvariationwouldhave beenestablishedindependentlyfromexternalfactors,socialandothercontextual datamightthenbecorrelatedwiththelinguisticstructurewithoutcircularityof argumentsuchaswordscharacteristicofhigh-schoolgraduatesarecommonlyused byhigh-schoolgraduates"DeCamp,1961,82.Nevertheless,socialfactorsand theircloseassociationwithcertainareasonthelinguisticcreolecontinuumwere partofthemodel'sattractionfromthebeginning.DeCampbhimselfnoted, forinstance,thattheveryoldandtheveryyoungtendmoretowardsthecreoleend ofthecontinuumthandoyoungadults"andthatthesocio-economicstanding ofinformantswasroughlynotexactlyproportionaltotheseinformants'position onthecontinuum".

PAGE 53

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 27 Today,theuseofimplicationalscaleshasfallenoutoffavourandvariationin creolespeechcommunitiesisusuallymodelledusingvariationistandothersociolinguisticapproachesWinford,1991,570-571.Issuesconcerningthespeechcontinuum'stheoreticalunderpinnings,however,arestilldebated.Winfordtooka broadCaribbeanperspectiveinre-examiningthevalidityofthecontinuummodel basedonndingsthatseveralauthorshadcontributedovertheyearstothedescriptionofcreolespeechcommunitiesinmainlyGuyana,JamaicaandTrinidad.While recognisingthattheviewofthecontinuumisvalidfromasociolinguisticperspective,hearguedforacoexistent-systemsapproach,whichallowsforacertaindegree ofoverlapbetweensystems"Winford,1997,263. Winfordhadpreviouslymadeacaseforclassifyingcreolecontinuumsituationsasinstancesofdiglossia.Diglossicspeechcommunitiesarecharacterisedby thecoexistenceoftwolanguagevarietiesandbysharpfunctionalandsociocultural dierentiationbetweenthesetwocodes.Thehigher-statusvarietyHhasovert prestigeandisregardedassuperiortothelower-statusvarietyL.Hiscodied andfunctionsasthelocalstandard,buttypicallyitisacquiredonlythroughschool educationandtherstlanguageofthemajorityofthepopulationisL.ThisfunctionaldierentiationbetweenanHandanLcodehasobviousappealfortheanalysis ofCaribbeansociolinguisticcontexts,buttheoriginalconceptofdiglossiaasproposedbyFergusonwasquitespeciconanumberofpoints,whichincluded notonlysocioculturalbutalsolinguisticcriteria:HandLbelongtothesamelanguageandareperceivedassuch,HandLareinstableoppositionbutthetension mayberesolvedbyunstableintermediateforms,Hhasamorecomplexgrammatical structurethanL,andHandLhavethesameunderlyingphonologicalsystem.While somecreolesandtheirlexiersmaysatisfythestructuralrequirements,itisproblematictoclaimthatadenitegeneticrelationshipexistsbetweenthetwovarieties. Stabilityofoppositionbetweencreoleandlexiermaypotentiallyalsobeanissue,if itisconsideredcentraltotheconceptofdiglossiathatittypicallypersistsatleast severalcenturies"Ferguson,1959,240.Meanwhile,Winfordhasabandonedany referencetodiglossia,presumablyinpartduetotheterminologicalissuesattached totheconcept,buthiscoexistent-systemsapproachtocreolecontinuaretainsmany ofthekeyfeaturesofdiglossia.Heclaimedthatempiricalanalysesrevealahigh degreeofhomogeneityatpolarendsofthecontinuum,inthecreolevernacularof theworkingclassesasopposedtotheformalusageoftheeducatedmiddleclasses" Winford,1997,274and,thus,provideevidenceofrelativelyself-contained,ifnot

PAGE 54

28 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS completelydiscrete,socially-anchoredgrammars: Iargueforaco-existentsystemsapproachtothesesituations,whichsees thecontinuumasasociolinguisticconstruct,theresultofinteractionbetween relativelystablegrammarsincontact,producingcomplexpatternsofvariation conditionedbysocialandsituationalfactorsandconstrainedbythedegrees ofoverlapormismatchbetweenthesegrammars.Winford,1997,274 Patrickb,apresentedaquantitativevariationiststudyofseverallinguistic variablesintheurbanJamaicanmesolectandreevaluatedtheusefulnessofthe creolecontinuummodelwithfocusonthenotionofnon-discreteness.Havingfound extensivecontinuityinsomeareasofgrammar,extendingnotonlytophonological butalsotomorphosyntacticsubsystems,hearmedamoderateversionoftheprocontinuumposition"Patrick,1999b,292,whichholdsthattheJamaicansituation ischaracterisedbyasymmetryinthedistributionofEnglishandcreolenorms: SincethevariablepresenceandsystematicintegrationofEnglishformsand rulesdenesthemesolect,thereappearstobenocleardividingline inthe grammar betweenthemesolectandtheacrolect[...].Buttheabsenceofsuch knowledgeboldlymarksobasilectalspeakers.Patrick,1999a,119 Thus,creolenormswerehighlyfocussedinthebasilect,whichshouldtherefore beanalysedasarelativelyself-containedsystem.Ingeneral,however,thecreole continuumshouldreallybethedefaultmodelsinceitisthemostdescriptively adequate{atleastwhenitislinkedtoaconceptofthemesolectwhichcrucially involvesdierentialknowledgeofstandardstructures"Patrick,1999b,293. WhileWinfordandPatrickbarrivedatdierentconclusionsregardingtheunderlyinglinguisticstructureofcontinuumsituations,theybothintegratedsocialfactorsintotheiranalysesoflinguisticvariationandagreedthat, fromafunctional,sociolinguisticperspective,thatisfromthewaythatlinguistic behaviourcorrelateswithsocialstratication,thenotionofacontinuumisvalid. DeuberanalysedstylisticvariationinconversationsofeducatedJamaican andTrinidadianspeakersandproposedthatastyle-basedsociolinguisticconceptionofthecontinuum[...]should[complement]earlierconceptionsbasedprimarily onsocialclassmembership".Shearguedthatspeakershavereinterpretedand

PAGE 55

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 29 adaptedtherangeoflinguisticvariationcharacteristicofCaribbeancreolesituationsforuseinnely-gradedidentityprojectionsandvaryingdiscoursecontexts. Thestylisticconnotationsofdierentformsandthefrequencieswithwhichtheyare usedreectacontinuumofvariationbetweencreoleandlocalEnglish.Fromalinguisticperspective,however,shecontendedthat,asPatrickbhademphasised onthebasilectasafocussed,relativelyself-containedvariety,herdatarevealedthe sameabouttheacrolect.Herquantitativeandqualitativeanalysisofmorphological andsyntacticvariablesshowedadeclineintheuseofcreoleandcreole-inuenced featuresfromanti-formaltoinformaltoneutraldiscoursecontexts.Thispresumably indicatedagradualincreaseintheadoptionofEnglishnormsinlinewithanunderlyinglinguisticsystemofEnglish,whichmustbeasfocussedasthecreolesystem atthebasilectalendofthecontinuum.Deuber,thus,supportedWinford's viewthatEnglishandCreolecanbeseparatedaslinguisticsystems", whichnecessarilysharetheuseofcertainformsandarecharacterisedbyapartial overlap. WhatabouttheBahamiancontext?Lawlorarguedthatdierencesin islandsettlementpatternsandsocioeconomicdevelopmentgaverisetoacontinuum ofvarietiesrangingfromacreolesysteminthesoutheastislandstoanEnglish dialectinthenortheastislandswithspeechvarietiesinNewProvidenceintermediatetothesetwoextremes".Shealsoproposedthatthesocially-conditioned dierencesinthedevelopmentofthesevarietieswasvariablyreinforcedbytherelativeisolationofsettlements,whichleadtothreediscrete[linguistic]systems" underlyingvarietiesinthegeographicallydenedgroups.Lawlor'snotionofacontinuumisnotablydierentfromwhatiscommonlyunderstoodasasocio-linguistic continuumintheCaribbeancontext.Itisreminiscentoftheconceptofaregionallybaseddialectcontinuum,wherethegeographicalratherthanthesocialdimension ofvariationisputintofocus.Herobservationsonthelinguisticsituationinthe BahamasparallelthoseonlanguageuseinGuyana,whereurbanandruralcreole varietiesarepresumedtohaveemergedindependentlyfromoneanother.According toWinford,thisledtoararetripartiteorganisation"oftheGuyanese continuumandtocontinuedinteractionbetweenthreeprincipallyautonomouslinguisticsystems:abasilectalruralcreole,anintermediateurbancreoleandalocal formofstandardEnglish. Donnellytookadierentviewandargued,tothecontrary,that[g]iven

PAGE 56

30 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS theyearsofisolation[...]andgiventhelittlecommunicationthatdidtakeplace withotherislands[...],[i]tisstrikingthatlanguagefeaturesareasuniformlydistributedthroughoutTheBahamasastheyare".Shecontendedthatmost featureswhichdistinguishthebasilectfromtheacrolectoccurinallpartsofthe Bahamianarchipelago,andeventhosewhichhaveregionalconnotationsaretypicallynotexclusivetothelocationswithwhichtheyareassociated.Inlinguistic terms,sheconsequentlydescribedtheBahamiansituationastwodistinctsystems masqueradingasone",referringtothepopularconceptionamongBahamians ofBahCasmerelyadialectofEnglish. Sofar,nodetailedstudieshavebeenconductedtoaddressthesequestions,and itisalsonotofimmediateconcerntothepresentstudy,whichfocussesexplicitlyon languageuseinNassau,NewProvidence.Theurbanvernacularhaspreviouslybeen characterisedasanintermediatecreolevariety.Itisincontactwithcreolevarieties fromtheBahamiansouthanddialectalvarietiesfromthenorth,inrelationtowhich itmaybereferredtoasamesolectalformofBahC.Inaddition,itinteractslocally withforeignaswellasBahamianvarietiesofEnglish.Variationpatternsintheuse ofassociatedvariantscanbeexpectedtocorrelatewithinternalandexternalfactors, mediatedbythelocalevaluationoffeaturesbysocially-awarelanguageusers,who liveinanurbanenvironmentwhichmustbeconsideredequalinsocialcomplexityto otherurbanenvironmentswherebetter-researchedmetropolitanorcreolevarieties ofEnglisharespoken,suchasNewYorkLabov,2006andKingstonPatrick, 1999b.Whiletherangeofvariationanticipatedintheuseofphonologicaland phoneticvocalicvariablesinthepresentstudymayindeedarisefromthestructured interactionbetweentwoormorerelativelyself-containedlinguisticsystems,Iagree withPatrickb,292-293thatthedefaultapproachtothestudyoflanguage useinmesolectalcreolespeechcommunitiesshoulddrawonthecreolecontinuum initsconceptionasauniedsystem,sincedeparturesfromitcanbecharacterised moreclearlythanthereverse.Inthecoexistent-systemsapproach,gradualand quantitativedierencesintheuseofcertainvariantsareexpectedandconsidered toexemplifythesociallyandstylisticallygroundedinteractionbetweenthesystems involved,sothatthendingthataspeechcommunitydisplayssuchgradualpatterns isnotenoughtofalsifytheinitialclaim.Itis,however,relativelyraretondnearcategoricaldistinctions,andrarerstilltondthatdiscontinuitieshappentocoincide acrossseveralvariablesorevenseveralgrammaticalsubsystems,whichwouldpoint toanunderlyinglinguisticboundaryanddelineatetheworkingsofseparatelinguistic

PAGE 57

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 31 systems.Fromapracticalpointofview,then,Iwillassumethatspeakersinthis studyhaveestablishedauniedsetofnormsonthebasilect-to-acrolectcontinuum. Itremainstobedeterminedwhatthosenormsare,howsubsystemsrelatetoone another,andwhethertheupperandlowerboundsofthecontinuum,thatisnearbasilectalandnear-acrolectalforms,aresharplydelimitedornelygraded.Quoting Patrickboncemore,thisisnotanarticleforlinguisticfaithbutamatter forempiricalinvestigation". 2.3.2Languageattitudes Thesignicanceoflanguageattitudesforsociolinguisticresearchisindisputable. Patternsofsocialdierentiation,style-shiftingandotherformsofsynchronicvariationcanonlybeinterpretedifndingsaboutthedistributionofrelevantlinguistic variablesarecomplementedbyanunderstandingofthesocialevaluationassociated withtheiruseinsocietyasawholeandinthecontextofdierentsocial,functional andinteractionaldomains.Thesameistruefortheinvestigationofdiachronicprocesses,whereanunderstandingofevaluativepatternsiscriticalforattemptingto explaintheoccurrenceanddirectionoflinguisticchange.Thetraditional,standardview"Rickford,1985,146ofevaluationpatternsreportedforanglophone Caribbeansocietiesisthatofagood/baddichotomyofattitudestowardsEnglish andCreole,respectively.Muhleisen,58-64arguedthatthedevelopmentof negativeattitudestowardscreoleswasfuelledbythesamesociohistoricalprocesses whichledtotheemergenceoftheselanguagevarieties:Thesustainedpowerasymmetryofplanationsocietyperpetuatedtheassociationofcreoleswiththelanguage useofspeakersattheverybottomofthesocialhierarchy,wholackedtheopportunityand,presumably,accordingtotheideologyofthetime,thecapabilitytofully acquirethegrammaticalcomplexityof`proper'English.Wherecreolesremainedin directcompetitionwiththeirlexier,theyneverfullygainedlinguisticautonomy; theywereconsideredformsof`bad'or`broken'English,vulgar`corruptions'oftheir lexier,and,assuch,untforuseinocial,publicdomainsandamonghighersocial classes.AfterindependencefromBritaininthemid20thcentury,thelinguisticstatusquowasmaintainedandEnglishremainedthedominantlanguageinallsectors ofpublicrespectability.Creoles,inturn,remainedstigmatisedandtheinteraction oflackoflinguisticautonomyandfunctionalelaborationwithnegativelanguage

PAGE 58

32 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS attitudes,groundedinbeliefsaboutthesocialaswellaslinguisticinferiorityofcreolevarieties,perpetuatedtheirnegativeimage.AsRickford,147,however, pointedout,ifeveryoneagreesthatnon-standardorCreolevarietiesarebadand thestandardlanguagegood,whyhasn'tmoreprogressbeenseenintheelimination oftheformer?"Duringthepastdecades,theanglophoneCaribbeanhasarguably witnessedsomechangesinthebeliefsandvaluesassociatedwithcreoles,and,while themainfunctionaldistinctionbetweenEnglishastheformalstandardandCreole astheinformalvernacularremainsintact,agood/baddichotomyofattitudesdoes notcapturewholepicture.Intheliteratureonthestatusoflanguagevarietiesin theCaribbean,thechangingattitudestowardscreolesaretypicallypresentedintwo ways:First,thefunctionaldistributionofEnglishversusCreoleinvarioussocial domainsisreported,focussingonthedegreetowhichthelatterhasencroachedon thedomainsoftheformer.Second,evaluativereactionsoflanguageusersareinvestigatedmoredirectly,eitherintheformofquestionnairestudiesorasanintegral partofsociolinguisticinterviews.Thefollowingtwosectionswillfocusoneachof theseperspectivesinturn. 2.3.2.1Functionaldistributioninsocialdomains IntheanglophoneCaribbean,standardEnglishwastraditionallytheexclusivevarietyofhigh,overtsocialprestigeandocialdomand,assuch,itdominatedall ocialandpublicdomains.Thedomainsusedtoexploretheinroadsmadebycreolevarietiesusuallyincludegovernmentandpolitics,education,massmedia,and literatureandperformingarts.ThefollowingoverviewofthefunctionaldistributionofstandardEnglishandCreoleintheCaribbeaningeneralandintheBahamas isbasedmainlyonthemoredetaileddiscussionsfoundinCarringtonand Hackert. AccordingtoCarrington,HaitiistheonlyCaribbeannationwhichidentiesitsFrench-lexierCreoleasanationallanguagewithinitsconstitution.In severalcountries,thereissomeformalprovisionfortheuseofcreolevarieties,but,in general,standardEnglishisusedinallaspectsofformalpoliticallife.Whilecreoles, therefore,donotusuallyenjoyanykindofocialstatusinthepoliticalsystem,it isduringelectioncampaignsthattheirindirectpoliticalimportanceisshowcased. Thosewhoseekelectedocemustprovetheirpopular bonades bydisplaysof

PAGE 59

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 33 bilingualism,includingcompetenceinthevernacularCreolelanguage".The samesituationappliestolanguageuseintheBahamas:Governmentandpolitics arestillclearlythedomainofEnglishandstandardEnglishisusedinparliamentarydebatesandinadministration.PoliticiansmakefrequentuseofBahCintheir speechesduringcampaignrallies,but,eventhen,themixingandswitchingofcodes ismainlyemployedasanemotionalrhetoricaldevicesignallingauthenticity,humour orabuse.Contentinpolitics,beitthebudgetorforeignpolicy,isdiscussedand presentedtothepublicinstandardEnglishHackert,2004,56-58. TheeducationsectorinCaribbeansocietieshasbeenatraditionalbattleground forthosewithparticularlystrongviewsontherelativestatusandusefulnessofcreoleandstandardlanguagevarieties.Theeducationsystemshistoricallyspreadfrom Britaintothecoloniesandfromhighertolowersocialclasses,sothestandardlanguageintheeducationcontext,includingclassroominteractions,isEnglish.From apurelyeducationalperspective,onecouldpointoutthatitisproblematictousea communicativetoolfortheinstructionofchildrenwhichtheydonotcompletelyunderstand.IntheBahamiancontext,forinstance,oneteacherinterviewedbyHackert ,62estimatedthatlessthan10%ofBahamianstudentsenteringschoolare uentinEnglish.Virtuallyalleducationsystemsthereforerecognisetheneedfor anacculturationperiodattheprimaryschoollevel,buttheuseofcreoleisusuallyrelegatedtoauxiliaryfunctionsandanyprovisionsmadeareidiosyncratically implementedbyteachers,schools,orschooldistrictsCarrington,1999,42-44.In theBahamas,likeintheanglophoneCaribbeanregioningeneral,standardEnglish remainstheunchallengedmediumofformalinstruction.TheintroductiontostandardEnglishinprimarylevelsoftenresemblesastructuredimmersionprogram asisusedinbilingualcontexts"Hackert,2004,62.Intermsofcurricularstatus, attitudestowardsBahCasaculturally-valuedmeansofexpressionhaveimproved somewhatthroughoutthelastdecades.Whilethemaingoaloflanguageeducation isstillclearlyfocussedonachievinggoodprociencyinEnglish,BahCismentioned explicitlyinseverallearningobjectivesinthe2009PrimaryLanguageArtsCurriculumDepartmentofEducation:HumanitiesSection,2010,whichseemtobe gearedprimarilytoraisingthepupils'awarenessofthelinguisticoptionsrequired indierentcommunicativecontexts;forexample:UseStandardEnglishandBahamianDialectappropriatelyaccordingtothepurposeofthespeechandaudience" DepartmentofEducation:HumanitiesSection,2010,Objective1.55andDistinguishbetweenStandardEnglishanddialectexpressions"DepartmentofEducation:

PAGE 60

34 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS HumanitiesSection,2010,Objective3.56.Presumably,thisistobeachievedby explicitcontrastivestudyofBahCandstandardEnglishfeatures,whichwould,of course,rstrequirethatteachersthemselvesareawareofthelinguisticboundaries separatingthevarietiesinvolved.AccordingtoHackert,64,inthisrespect aswellasintermsofteachers'generalrecognitionthatbothstandardEnglishand BahCarevaluableassets,greatstrideshavebeenmade".However,thisdoesnot meanthatthegeneralpublicappreciatestheuseofBahCinschools:Manyparents andcommunityleadersstillseeStEastheonlypathtoadvancementandtakeany attemptatusingBahCEintheclassroomasanattempttoblockthatpath"Hackert,2004,64.OenbringandFielding4,45-46askedlocaluniversitystudents abouttheirpreferredfunctionalstatusofBahCintheclassroom,andtheresults aresobering.Onlyslightlymorethan30%oftheparticipantsagreedthatBahC shouldbetaughtinadditiontoStandardEnglish"andthatitshouldbeusedby teacherstoexplainconceptstostudentsand/orruntheclassroom".Onaverage, educationalmajorsexpressedsignicantlymoreconservativeattitudestowardsthe useofBahCineducationthantheirpeersanditseemsthat,forthetimebeing,the roleofBahCasatopicaswellasmeansofclassroominteractionwillremainclearly subordinatetothatofstandardEnglish. ThemassmediaisanotherdomaintraditionallydominatedbystandardEnglish, intowhichcreolevarietieshavemadesomelimitedinroads.Intheprintmedia,their longestestablishedusehasbeeninhumour.LeadingBahamiannewspapersuse BahCasastylisticdeviceemployedfortheeectofauthenticityandinformality, mainlyincartoonsandcolumns,butserioustopics,aselsewhereintheCaribbean, arestilltreatedinstandardEnglish.Localnewsitemsmaycontainverbatimquotationsfromwitnessesofcurrentevents,clearlymarkedassuchandseparatedfrom themaintextCarrington,1999,45;Hackert,2004,58.TheuseofCaribbeancreole varietiesintelevisionbroadcastsisalsorelativelyrare,asmuchofthevideomaterial isofforeign,mainlyAmerican,ratherthanlocalorigin.TheBahamasBroadcasting Corporationrunsasingletelevisionstation,ZNS,andeventhereinternationalnews itemsareoftentakenstraightfromNorthAmericanTVstations.SomecreoleelementsmaybeheardinBahamiannewsreports,whichvariablyincludeshortclips ofinterviewswithlocals,butmostsegmentsonZNSfeaturescriptedspeechandare thereforedeliveredinstandardEnglishCarrington,1999,47;Hackert,2004,58-59. Ingeneral,theuseofCreoleismorereadilyacceptedinspokenthaninwrittenor scriptedcontexts,whichisnotsurprisingseeingasCaribbeancreolesarenotusu-

PAGE 61

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 35 allysupportedbywidelyknownwritingsystems.Theuseofcreolevarietiesismore widespreadinradiobroadcasts,whichfeaturepopularcall-intalkshowsforboth entertainmentanddiscussionofcontemporaryissues.Hackertnotedthat theradiohasplayedaprominentroleasanationalnewsmediumfortheBahamian FamilyIslandsandthatitisstillmorecentraltopubliclifeintheBahamasthanin othercountries.Itis,therefore,ofgreaterrelevancethanmaybeconsideredotherwisethatmuchdiscussionoflocalevents,frequentlyinvolvingpoliticaldebate,takes placeinthelocalvernacularwhenthetacitagreementofStEasthepublicformal variety[...]temporarilyceasestobeinforce".AnotherareainwhichBahC canbeheardonbothlocalradioandtelevisionstationsisadvertising.Globally availablebrandsareusuallypresentedinstandardEnglish,butlocalproductsand servicesmaybeadvertisedwithrecoursetolocallanguageuse.Here,too,however, creolefeaturesaremainlyemployedforstylisticeectHackert,2004,58.Inmore positiveconnotations,theuseofBahCmaysignalhumourandrealism;asOenbring andFielding,34pointedout,however,itismayalsoserveasthevoiceof the`unsophisticated'mindsetthatneeds`correcting'". AspecialpublicdomaininwhichCaribbeancreoleshavelongenjoyedprominenceandarewidelyacceptedandeventreasuredassymbolsoflocalcultureisthe domainofartsandliterature.TheCaribbeanmusicindustryisessentiallybased onCreole,andtheinternationalspreadoftheseformsofmusichasshiftedtheacceptabilityandregionalvalueofthevernacularsasexpressionsofculturalidentity Carrington,1999,48.AtleastintheBahamiancontext,inadditiontodiverse globalandlocalinuences,blackAmericanhip-hopcultureisaparticularlyaudible andvisiblesourceofidentityfortheyouthculture.Basedonananthropological analysisoftheblingandpompofBahamianhighschoolprom-goers,Thompson showedthatyoungpeople[...]consumehip-hopthroughapowerfulcombinationofthevisualandtheauditory".TheBahamiangovernmenthasapparentlytakenstepstocensureorcurtaildisplaysofAmericanhip-hopculturein localtelevisionoeringsaswellasprompartiesinanattempttostoptheperceived moraldecayofsocietalvalues",buttheseactionshaveonlyservedtopoliticise themovementasantiauthoritarianandasnotsomuchanti-colonialas[...]postnational".ThompsonthusarguedthatyoungBahamians'searchfor newwaysofself-presentationdrawsonculturalexpressionsandrepresentational vocabulariesfromtheAfricandiaspora,especiallyfromblackAmerica".Music andlyricsintheBahamasmaythereforebeconsideredadomain,inwhichnotonly

PAGE 62

36 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS theuseoflocal/CaribbeanbutofblackAmericanvernacularsingeneralarevariably appreciated. Asinmusic,theCaribbeanstageandliterarytraditionhaslongbeenaforumin whichcreolevarietieshavebeenemployedforartisticeect.Therangeoftopicshas transcendedtheearlycomicmaterialand[d]ramaofthemostseriouscontemporarytype"Carrington,1999,48ispresentedinCaribbeancreoles.IanStrachan, aBahamianauthorandstageactor,explainedthathismainmotivationasanartist isthewishtotransformBahamiansociety,tomakeitamoreegalitariansociety, amoretolerantsociety,amoredemocraticsociety,asocietythatislessexploited andexploitive"Strachan,2007,80.Hearguedthatthisgoalcanonlybeachieved fromwithintheBahamiancommunityandthatartmustdrawonlocalculture: TheanswerisnotBroadway,butthebush.[...]Iusethebushheremetaphorically torepresentastyle,amode,arhythm,asound,anart,onethatcomesfromwithin. Anartthatisrootedinwhatwehaveandwhatwelive".Whilethewordsofone artistcannotberepresentativeofallCaribbeanwriters,itemphasisesthefactthat literaryexplorationintheCaribbeanisbeingbroachedbyauthorsandperformers whounderstandtheirworkasderivingfromandinteractingwithlocalsocietyand culture.AsCarrington,48argued,literarypublicationshavedonemoreto improvethepublicimageofcreolevarietiesandadvancetheirsocietalfunctionsthan day-to-daypressreleases,butitisunclearwhateectsuchmainlyideologicaldevelopmentsmighthaveontheaverageBahamian.AccordingtoOenbringandFielding ,35,theBahamaslagsomewhatbehindsomeofitsCaribbeanneighbours inthatthereremainveryfewprint-publishedandwidelyavailablecreativeworks incorporatingBahC.OnenotableexceptionisTelcineTurnerRolle's WomanTake Two ,aplayreadbyBahamianpupilsinbothprivateandpublicschools. Itseemsthat,ingeneral,notmuchhaschangedregardingthefunctionaldistributionofCreoleandstandardEnglishinvariouspublicdomainsintheCaribbean andintheBahamas.TheuseofBahChasencroachedonsomesubdomainswhich involvedirectinteractionbetweenpeopleofdierentsocioeconomicstatusorwhere thegoalistoachieveaspecialstylisticeectsuchashumourorrealism,butinmost aspectsofpubliclife,BahCclearlyplaysasubordinateroletostandardEnglish.An exceptiontothispatternisthedomainorartsandliterature,wherecreolevarieties aretreasuredfortheirculturalvalueandtheirdirectsociopsychologicalconnection totheirspeakers.Carringtonsuggestedthatameasurewherebythesta-

PAGE 63

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 37 tusandchangingattitudestowardscreolevarietiesaredeterminedbythedegree towhichtheyhaveencroachedontraditionallystandard-dominateddomainsmay beawedbecauseitisbasedontheassumptionthatthesearetheonlydomains relevantfortheacquisitionofstatusandprestige: TheassumptionthatCreolesacquirestatusastheypenetratethedomains oftheociallanguageispartofanestablishedpatternofthemeasurement ofsuccessinCreolesocieties.Forinstance,theprogressoftheformerlyenslavedandindenturedhasbeendeterminedbytheextenttowhichtheyhave replacedtheplanterclassinthelatter'sspheresofaction.Successbyoccupationoftheenemy'sspace!However,wemustbepreparedforthepossibility thattheoccupationoftheenemy'sspacemaynolongerbethemostuseful indexofstatus.Creolesocietiesmayhaveevolvedsucientlybeyondthe desiretoreplacetheplanterthatthemeasuresofstatushavetoberevised. Carrington,1999,49 Muhleisen,30-42arguedthatlanguageattitudesintheanglophoneCaribbean havecertainlychanged,butthatsuchchangeshavebeengradualandthattheir eectonlanguageusemanifestsitselfnotonthelevelofdomainsbutonthelevel ofdiscourse.TheseandothernotionsoflanguageattitudesintheCaribbeanwill bepresentedbelow. 2.3.2.2Evaluativereactions Oneproblemwithstudyingattitudestowardslanguageandlanguagevarietiesis connectedtotheuncertaintyofwhatattitudesareand,consequently,thevaguenesssurroundingtheterm.Inthefollowingoutlineofattitudestowardscreoleand standardvarietiesintheanglophoneCaribbean,attitudeisunderstoodasalearned dispositiontothink,feelandbehavetowardapersonorobjectinaparticularway" Allport,1954,citedinGarrett,2010,19.Thisoften-cited,economicdenitionby Allporthighlightsthatattitudesaresocialconstructs{theymaynotbe`learned' inthetraditionalsenseofthewordbuttheyareacquiredthroughsocialisationin asociallyandculturallydenedcommunityofattitude-holders.Theterm`disposition'impliesthatattitudespre-existseeminglyadhocevaluativeresponsesandthat theyhaveadegreeofstabilitywhichallowsthemtobeidentied.Finally,Allport's

PAGE 64

38 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS denitionemphasisesthetripartitestructureofattitudes:Attitudesarenotonly anaectiveresponsetocertainstimuli,buttheyalsohaveinterrelatedcognitive andbehaviouralcomponentsseedetaileddiscussioninGarrett,2010,chapter1. AppliedtotheanglophoneCaribbeancontext,Muhleisen,45arguedthat beliefsaboutcreolevarietiesandtheirspeakers,thatiswhatattitude-holderstake ortooktobefactualknowledge,hadacausaleectonthetraditionallynegative attitudeformationtowardscreoles.Giventhesocialconditionsduringcreoleformationanditsassociationwithuprooted,sociallysubordinateandoppressedspeaker groups,emergentcreolevarietieswereregardedasthefragmentedlanguageofa fragmentedpeople"Wassink,1999b,58.Socially-andracially-basedcontempt forcreolespeakerswascompoundedbythelinguisticideologyatthetime,which heldthehighlyinectedgrammarsofGreekandLatininthehighestesteemand usedthemasyardsticksinthecomparisonofpresumedlogicandinherentvalueof otherlinguisticsystems.English-lexiercreoleswerenot`proper'English{they lacked,inparticular,standardEnglishconventionsformarkinggrammaticalcontrasts{butsincemanyoftheirlexicalitemsderivedfromEnglishones,therewas noimmediatereasontoassumetheymightbeanythingotherthanEnglish.Accordingly,creolevarietieswereconceptuallyalignedwithEnglishandfoundtobelacking incomparison;theywereconsidered`corrupted',`defective',`uncouth',`barbarous' or`infantile'versionsofEuropeanEnglishseee.g.Holm,2004,18-24.MostresearchersreportingresultsofattitudestudiesconductedinCaribbeancreolespeech communitiestodayconcludethattheirdatapresentapictureofbothcontinuity andchange.Whilecreolespeakersareincreasinglywillingtodisplayprideintheir locallanguagevarietyandacknowledgethattherearetimeswhentheuseofcreole ismoreappropriateandeectivethantheuseof`correct'English,theyarealsovery muchawareofthesocialstigmastillattachedtothepublicuseofcreoleandare eagertoavoidit. Intheearly1970s,Winford76conductedaquestionnairesurveyamong trainee-teachersinTrinidad,aimedatspeechevaluationandacceptabilityratings ofTrinidadianlanguagevarietiesbydierentgroupsofspeakers.Hefoundthat respondentsshowedgreatawarenessofdierentlanguagevarietiesandthatthe useofthesevarietiesreectedaconictofvalue-systems":Strivingtowards astandardEnglishmodelwasinseparablylinkedtoupwardsocialmobility,while creolevarieties,whichdevelopfromday-to-dayparticipationinsocialgroups,were valuedtovaryingdegreesasameansofcolourfulexpressionandidenticationwith

PAGE 65

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 39 friendsandfamily.Crucially,however,Winford'sanalysesshowedthatnegative attitudestowardsTrinidadianCreoleTrinCprevailed.Althoughtwothirdsof therespondentsindicatedthatTrinidadianesewastheirmostnaturalmediumof speaking"2,theyhadastrongtendencytoclassifyfeaturesoftheirlocalvernacularas`badEnglish',withruralspeakersbeingmorelinguisticallyinsecurethan speakersfromurbanareas-56.Whenaskedtocommentonparticulargroups ofTrinidadianswhosespeechtheyconsideredeithergoodorbad,theirresponses correlatedwithbothsocialstatusandlevelofeducation-67.Twentyyearslater, Muhleisendesignedafollow-upstudyandshereportedthatallherparticipantsrefusedtoacknowledgethetermbadEnglish"asreferringtoTrinC.When sherephrasedthequestionsaccordingly,shefoundthatthemajorityofmorphosyntacticandphonologicalfeaturesidentiedastypicalofTrinidadianspeechwerestill considerednotacceptableasEnglish-51,butshearguedthatthisdoesnotnecessarilyimplyanegativeattitudetowardsthecreole.AsinWinford'sstudy,about twothirdsindicatedthatTrinCwastheirmostnaturalmediumofcommunication, andmostrespondentsagreedthattheycouldgenerallyinferboththelevelofeducation%andsocialstatus%fromanindividual'sspeechpatterns.However, itwaspointedoutrepeatedlythatinter-speakervariationwasconfoundedbyintraspeakervariationdependingonvariousfactorsincludingfunctionaldomainsand interactionalcontextsMuhleisen,2001,57-58,60-61.Muhleisenconcluded that,whileafunctionaldistinctionbetweenEnglishandCreoleismaintained,negativeevaluationsofTrinCbasedonnotionsofincorrectnessandaestheticvalue judgmentsaredisappearingandtheconceptof`BadEnglish'trulyseemsadying form". WassinkbconductedasimilarstudyintheJamaicancontext.Sheadministeredatape-recordedquestionnairetorespondentsinasemi-urbancommunity closetothecapitalcityofKingston,whichwascentredaroundbeliefsconcerning thelinguisticidentityandviabilityofJamaicanCreoleJamC,popularlyknown asPatois.HerrespondentsshowedtobereluctanttoequatePatoiswith`broken' English%andofthosewhodidthemajorityweremembersoftheoldesttested agegroup.Onthewhole,however,thestudyshowedthattheuseofPatoisstill seemedtoreectratherunfavourablyontheindividualwhousesit.Whilemore orlessabstractfeelingstowardthecreolewererelativelypositive{forinstance, morethan70%agreedthatPatoisisanassettoknowandhasthesameexpressive potentialasEnglish{thisdidnottranslateintoagenerallymorepositiveatti-

PAGE 66

40 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS tudetowardstheuseofthecreole.Respondentswereconsistentlymorewillingtobe addressedinPatoisthantouseitthemselves,theypreferredtheirchildrentounderstandPatoisbutnottospeakit,andwhenaskedwhichlanguagevarietypeoplein generalshouldratheruse,70%statedtheywouldprefermostlyEnglishandsome Patois".WassinkbthusarguedthatherJamaicanrespondentsdidnot mentallyalignPatoiswithEnglishinthesensethatPatoiswasconceivedofasan inferiorversionofstandardEnglish,butthattheself-imposedrestrictionsregarding theuseofPatoisreecteditscontinuedlowovertprestigeandsocialstigmatisation. Hackert,54-56presentedapictureoflanguageattitudesintheBahamas inthelate1990s,basedmainlyonextendedsociolinguisticinterviewswithworkingclassspeakers.Shefoundthat,whileformanyworking-classBahamianscompetence instandardEnglishwaslimited,basicbeliefsandevaluationsofdierentBahamian varietiestranscendedethnicandsocialboundaries.ThedistinctionbetweenBahC andstandardEnglishwasgenerallyunclear,reectedinthecreolevernacular'slocal name`BahamianDialect'aswellasintheacceptanceoflabelssuchas`bad'or`broken'English.TheuseofBahCwasconsistentlyassociatedwithbackwardnessand lackofeducationanditwasgenerallyconsideredanobstacletoindividualspeakers'socialaspirationsaswellastomodernisationandinternationalintegrationof theBahamasasawhole.MostBahamians,however,wereunwillingtocompletely eradicateBahC,feelingthatitwasapartofBahamianheritageandculture.OenbringandFieldingrecentlyprovidedinsightsintotheperspectiveofyoung, educatedBahamiansinNassau.AnonlinesurveywasdistributedamongBahamian collegestudentsinordertosupplementandreviewearlierndings,and,onthesurface,notmuchappearedtohavechanged,asover80%agreedthatBahCisaform of`broken'English".Onaverage,however,therespondentsweremorevocal aboutpositivesocialevaluationsoftheirlocalvernacular.Only32%thoughtthat standardEnglishwasbetterthanBahC,56%saidtheyenjoyedspeakingBahCand 72%wereproudofBahC-43.Inlightofthesefavourableratings,itisunclear inhowfartheterm`broken'Englishcanbeequatedwith`bad'English,or,indeed, inhowfaritisnecessarilyconceptuallyalignedwithEnglishatall,since50%ofthe respondentsagreedthatBahCandEnglisharedierentlanguagesandanother25% wereundecidedonthisissue.IntheBahamas,`broken'Englishmayhavebecome axedterm,usedtorefertoEnglish-lexiercreolesintheCaribbean,and,consequently,anyattitudinaldispositionswouldhavetobeestablishedindependently.

PAGE 67

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 41 Alllanguageattitudestudiesintroducedaboveincludeacceptabilityratingsof theuseofEnglishandCreoleinvariousfunctionaldomainsandinterpersonalcontextsofvaryingdegreesofformality.Ingeneral,theresultslineupwiththecomplementarydistributionofEnglishandCreoleoutlinedintheprevioussectionfromthe perspectiveoflanguageuseinpublicdomains:Creoleusagewasfrequentlyjudged tobeappropriateininformal,humorousandin-groupsituations,whilestandard Englishwaspreferredinformal,seriousandout-groupcontexts.Thesefunctional relationsseempredictablewithinthesociolinguisticframeworkofovertandcovert prestige.Overtprestigeisacommunity'swidespreadpositivesocialevaluationof thelinguisticformsemployedbyahigh-statusgroup,whereascovertprestigeisthe positiveevaluationofasociallystigmatisedvarietyatasmaller,morelocallevel. Themainevidencefortheexistenceofsuchcovertnorms,asLabov,512 noted,isthefactthatnonstandardformspersist".Inmainstreamlanguageattituderesearch,itisgenerallyacknowledgedthatattitudesaremultidimensional.The twomostfrequentlydistinguisheddimensionsarestatus/powerandsolidarity/social attractiveness.Standardvarietiestendtoberatedfavourablyonthestatusdimension,thatistheyareassociatedwithcharacteristicssuchasintelligence,competence, andleadership.Nonstandardvarieties,dependingontheirdegreeofstigmatisation, aretypicallyratedrelativelylowonthestatusdimension,buttheyareupgradedon thesolidaritydimension,whichinvolvescharacteristicssuchasfriendliness,honesty, andhumour.e.g.Garrett,2010. Covertprestige,asthetermimplies,isnotusuallyexpressedovertly,andthis maybeoneofthereasonswhyitseemssoelusiveinmostattituderesearchconducted intheCaribbean,whichhasmadeusealmostexclusivelyofdirectattitudeelicitation techniques.Whenspeakersareaskeddirectlyabouttheirsocialevaluationofcreole varieties,theymayfeelcomfortabletoacknowledgetheirabstractculturalvalue ortheymaypraisetheirexpressivepotentialtoconveyhumourandinformality, butcomplexpatternsoflinguisticin-groupallegiance,especiallyincaseswherethe group'sidentityisassociatedwithlong-deniedaccesstoeducation,socialmobility or,indeed,equalstatusasahumanbeing,areaveryprivateandsensitivesubject whenapproachedbyanoutsider.Inaratherroundaboutway,feelingsoflinguistic solidaritywithinthecreolespeechcommunitycanstillbedetected,suchaswhen 44%ofTrinidadianrespondentsreportedtheyhadbeeninsituationswherethey spokeEnglishinsteadofCreoleandpeoplereactedwithhostility,accusingthemof pretentiousnessorinsincerityMuhleisen,2001,64.Itmaybemoreinformativeto

PAGE 68

42 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS testthesocialevaluationandacceptabilityofEnglish,whichhasthepotentialto, indirectly,throwsomelightonthespeakers'feelingstowardscreolevarieties,butso farattitudestudieshavefocussedprimarilyonreactionstocreoles. FromtheoutlineofattituderesearchintheanglophoneCaribbean,itwould appearthatattitudestowardscreolevarietieshaveevolvedfromthetimewhen theyweresimplythemostcomfortablevarietyforthemajorityofspeakersand prociencyinEnglishwasgenerallylowtotheircontemporarystateasessentially varietiesofchoice,whichspeakerscanswitchtoinordertosatisfyavarietyofsocial functions.StandardEnglishisstilltheuncontestedvarietyofovertprestigeand usedinmostpublicdomainsandformalcontexts.Assuch,Englishisassociated withahighlevelofeducationandhighsocialstatus,butthereversedoesnot necessarilyholdforcreolevarieties.Studieshaveshownthatcreolesaregradually losingtheirimageofbeingnothingmorebut`bad'English,alanguagevariety inherentlyinferiortostandardEnglish.Inprivateandinformalinteractions,the useofCreoleisappropriateandwelcomed;itistreasuredforitsculturalvalueand consideredasourceoflocalidentity.Asmoreandmorespeakersacquireprociency inbothEnglishandCreole,traditionalattitudesarebeingdilutedandlanguage usebecomesamatterofstyleandregister,reectingtheinterplayofovertand covertprestigeassociatedwithallsocialenvironmentsinwhichstandardandnonstandardvarietiescoexist.Ofcourse,functionalandsymbolicvaluesassignedto languagevarietiesmaydierfromoneindividualtoanother.AsDeuber,35 noted,thecreoles'symbolicfunctionofsolidarityandnationalidentitymaybemore relevanttothelinguisticanalysisofeducatedspeakers,whocananddomanipulate theirspeechaccordingtosubtlechangesincommunicativefunctionsanddiscourse contexts;forothers,Creolemaystillsimplybetheirunmarkedvarietyandmore specicsocialmeaningsaremainlyattachedtotheuseofEnglish. 2.3.3Studiesofsociolinguisticparameters Thissectionprovidesabriefoverviewofthesocialandstylisticfactorsthathave beentestedintheanglophoneCaribbean.Theaimisnottopresentacomprehensive resumeofindividualstudiesbuttopointoutcommonissuesandprominentndings. PrimaryfocuswillbegiventostudieswhichhavebeenconductedintheBahamian context.TheinvestigationintopastmarkinginurbanBahCbyHackertwill

PAGE 69

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 43 betreatedinmoredetail,asthedataprovidedbyherspeakersalsoformpartofthe presentstudy.Studiesinthesociophoneticparadigmwillbeintroducedinsection 2.4.4. 2.3.3.1Ethnicity MostanglophoneCaribbeancommunitiesaremoreorlessethnicallyhomogenous, withpeopleofAfricanoriginconstitutingbyfarthelargestethnicgroup.Thereare, however,someinwhichethnicdierencesdoplayamajorrole.Thepopulationin bothTrinidadandGuyana,forinstance,isalmostequallybalancedbetweenpeople ofAfricanandEastIndianorigin,andstudieshaveshownageneraltrendtowards moreconservative,creolefeaturesinthespeechofthelatterWinford,1991,573574. BlackBahamiansandnon-BahamiansarethelargestethnicgroupintheBahamas,constitutingabout91%ofthetotalpopulationin2010,followedbypeople identifyingaswhite%andmixedblackandwhite%DepartmentofStatisticsofTheBahamas,2012,10,82.ThelargestimmigrantgroupintheBahamas areblackHaitians,whichaccountforabout11%DepartmentofStatisticsofThe Bahamas,2012,9-10ofthetotalpopulation.Insomedistricts,Haitiannationalsaccountformorethan20%,whichhasraisedfearsthattheBahamasisbeing overwhelmedbythisgroup,butinlinguistictermsitisunlikelythattheirpresence willhaveastrongandlastingeectonBahamianvarieties.Haitianimmigrantsare oftenassociatedwithillegalstatus,pooreducationandpoverty.Theirvernacular, aFrench-lexiercreole,isstigmatisedinBahamiansocietyandpresentsalanguage barrierwhichservestoperpetuatethemarginalisationofHaitiansratherthanpromotepatternsofaccommodationFieldingetal.,2008. WhiteBahamianspeechvarietiesarenotusuallylocatedonthecreolecontinuum,duetotherareoccurrenceofcreolefeatures.AsShilling,141-142 argued,ifonewastoplacebothwhiteandblackBahamianspeechonthesamecontinuum,onewouldhavetosupposethatwhitespeechwastooclosetotheacrolectal poletodisplayovertcreolefeatures.However,whiteBahamianvarietiesclearly havesomenon-standardmorphosyntacticand,especially,phoneticandphonologicalfeatures,whichdistinguishthemfromstandardEnglish,and,consequently,must beconsideredethnicallydistinctivedialectalvarieties.Recentstudiesonblackand

PAGE 70

44 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS whiteBahamianspeechintwoenclavecommunitiesontheislandofAbacorevealed limited,bilaterallinguisticaccommodationregardinganumberofphonologicalfeaturesChildsetal.,2003aswellaspatternsofcopulaabsenceReaser,2004. Crucially,however,bothvarietiesremaindistinct,asthestudiesexposedapersistentqualitativeandquantitativeethnolinguisticdivide. 2.3.3.2Socioeconomicstatus MostsociolinguisticstudiesofCaribbeanvarietieshavefocussedonfactorsrelatedtosocioeconomicstatus.Whilesocialclassdierencesarenotuniformacross Caribbeancommunities,individualaccountsoftherelationshipbetweendierences insocialrankanddierencesinlanguagechoicedisplayahighdegreeofsimilarity:Studiesusuallyreportapatternofcorrelationbetweenmorecreolevarietiesand lowerstatusontheonehand,andvarietiesclosertoEnglishandhigherstatusonthe otherWinford,1991,571-573.However,socialclassandsocioeconomicstatusare controversialissuesintheliteratureonpost-colonialvarieties.SinceLabovrstcorrelatedlinguisticvariationandsocialstraticationintheurbanspeechcommunity ofNewYorkCityinthe1960sseee.g.Labov,2006,sociolinguistshavestruggled withhowtobestidentifyspeakers'socialclassesandorganisethemintostatushierarchieswhicharemeaningfulandreectthesocialrankingwithinthestudiedspeech community.Themostcommonapproachhasbeentoconstructmulti-indexscales basedonattributessuchasoccupation,educationandincomee.g.Labov,2006, 132-139.Apersistentproblemwiththisapproachhasbeenthatspeakervariables likegender,ageandethnicityareknowntointerferewithestablishedrankingsbased exclusivelyonsocioeconomicindices,and,thus,havetobecontrolledfororincluded asseparatefactorsintheanalysis.Inpost-colonialcontexts,afurtherproblem concernstheadoptionofmulti-indexscalesdesignedspecicallyforindustrialised, urbanisedWesterncommunities,andtheuseoftheseready-madeclassicationsas pigeonholeswhichmayfailtodojusticetothemorecomplexconditionsthathold inaparticularlocality"Patrick,2000,3.Therelativelysmallsocietiesinthe Caribbeanhaverarelygeneratedelaboratesocialtheoriesforscholarstodrawupon intheirstudies,buttherandomapplicationofforeignmodelsisunlikelytodeepen ourunderstandingoftherelationbetweensocialstructureandlinguisticvariation inthesespeechcommunities.

PAGE 71

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 45 Hackert,50-54,inhersociolinguisticstudyofpast-markinginurban BahC,recognisedthisproblemandprovidedashortoverviewofsocialstratication inNassautoday.WhileblackBahamianscanberoughlycategorisedintothree socialgroups{thepoorlowerclasses,thenouveauxriches,andtheincreasingly diversifyingmiddleclass{shenotedthatdistinctionsarenotalwaysclear-cutand that,associalmobilityhasbecomeafactoflife,membersofthesamefamilymay befoundtofallintodierentgroups.Intheabsenceofdetailedsociologicalstudies onsocialclassandsocialhierarchiesintheBahamas,sheoptedforacompromise andappliedastraticationschemedevelopedbysociologistDerekGordon fortheJamaicancontext,previouslyusedbyPatrickbinasociolinguistic analysisofcreolevarietiesinKingston.Gordon'smodelofclass,status, andsocialmobilityreliesprimarilyonaclassicationofoccupations.Basedonan island-widesurvey,Gordondevelopedarank-orderedlistof16occupationalgroups, furthercategorisedaccordingtoproductionrelations,suchasownership,authority andtraining,intothreebroadsocialclasses:the middlestrata MS,comprising mainlywhite-collarandmanagerialemployees,the petitbourgeoisie PB,which consistsofself-employedartisansandtradersaswellassmallbusinessownersand farmersemployingothers,and,nally,the workingclass WC,whichsubsumesall manualwage-labourersseetable2.1. WhenHackert,212-215correlatedtheratesofstandardpastinection producedby20NassauvianspeakersinconversationalinterviewswiththeirmembershipinthethreeboardclasscategoriesMS,PBandWC,shefoundthat,overall, MSspeakersdisplayedthemoststandard-leaningbehaviour,closelyfollowedbyPB speakers;WCspeakersshowedbyfarthelowestratesofstandardpast-marking. Hackertalsoobserved,however,thatsocialclassinteractedwithstyledenedas dierentdiscoursetypes.Whenonlychat-modediscoursepartswereconsidered, disregardingnarrativesandfolktales,PBspeakersrankedrstintheiruseofstandardforms.MSandWCspeakersdidnotshifttheirspeechtothesamedegree, bothgroupsshowingonlyaslightincreaseinstandardpastinection.Hackertarguedthatthispatternresemblesthehypercorrectbehaviourofthesecondhighest statusgroupwhichisoftenobservedinurbanWesterncontexts.Labov,for instance,foundthatlowermiddleclassspeakersgenerallyshowedthegreatestshift towardstheuseofstandardformsinmoreformalspeechstyles.Thisledtothe well-known`cross-over'patterne.g.152,163,165,wherebylowermiddleclass speakersproducelessstandardformsinmoreinformalcontextsbutmorestandard

PAGE 72

46 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS Table2.1:ClasscategoriesandoccupationalgroupsaccordingGordon's1987model ofclass,statusandsocialmobility;reproducedfromPatrickb,53 ClasslabelsOccupationalgroupsExamplejobs MS-1Highermanagers/professionalsCivilengineer,attorney MS-2Lowermanagers/ocesupervisorsLoanorpersonnelocer MS-3Lowerprofessional,technical,salesNurse,technician,salesman MS-4SecretarialandaccountingclerksTypist,bookkeeper,bankclerk MS-5OtherclerksnotsalesKeypunchoperator,leclerk MS-6SalesclerksShopclerk,bettingclerk PB-1Owner-employersGas-stationowner,largefarm PB-2ArtisansMechanic,dressmaker,taxi PB-3TradersStreetvendor,hairdresser PB-4SmallfarmersRoot-cropfarmer,sherman WC-1ForemenandhigherserviceworkLine-supervisor,police,chef WC-2CraftsmenandoperativesMachineoperator,trucker WC-3OtherserviceworknotWC-4Guard,waitress,messenger WC-4UnskilledmanualworkLongshoreman,construction WC-5DomesticworkHouseholdhelper WC-6AgriculturallabourersCane-cutter,fruit-picker formsinmoreformalcontextsthanuppermiddleclassspeakers,whichisinterpreted ashypercorrectlinguisticbehaviourand,presumably,reectslinguisticinsecurity inevitablyaccompanyingupwardsocialaspirations-318. AccordingtoPatrick999b,dierencesinsocialambitioncanexplainwhy certainspeakers,relativetoothers,rankhigherorloweronascaleoflinguistic standardnessthanonascaleofsocioeconomicstatus.Whenhepositionedtenurban JamaicanCreolespeakersindividuallyonascaleofsocialranks,basedonGordon's occupationalstraticationscheme,andrelatedthesepositionstothespeakers'rates ofstandardvariantsforfourlinguisticvariables,hefoundthatspeakersonthevery topandbottomofthestatusscalebehavedasexpected,producingthehighest andthelowestnumberofstandardforms,respectively.Acrossthecentralportion ofthescale,however,henoticedaconsiderableamountofmobility.Oncloser inspection,apatternrelatedtoageandindividualagencyemerged,inthatall thespeakerswhoselinguisticrankingwashigherthantheirstatusrankingwere youngspeakerswhohadexpressedoptimismaboutupwardsocialmobility.Inthe Caribbeancontext,ashasbeenoutlinedintheprevioussection,Englishlanguage useisstronglylinkedtosocialmobilityandstatus.Intheabsenceofeducational

PAGE 73

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 47 opportunityforthemassesincolonialandearlypost-colonialtimes,socialambition dependedontwofactors:theproperconnectionsandtherightappearance,interms ofbothlanguageandskincolor"Hackert,2004,214.Englishbecameimbuedwith moralauthorityandisstilltoday,asidefromactualwealthorformaleducation, animportantandsalientcomponentofanindividualspublicface,signallingsocial standingorambition.Patrickb,thus,arguedthatitisonlynaturalfor upwardlymobileyoungpeopletomanipulateallthesymbolicresourcesavailableto theminordertoprojectthemselvestoinuentialadultsasrespectable,educated, andthereforedeservingofopportunity".Hackert,217-219founda similarpatternamongtheurbanBahCspeakersparticipatinginherstudy,though socialambitioninthiscontextdidnotcorrelatewiththeparticipants'age.She observedthatspeakerswhorankedlinguisticallyhigherthansociallywereeagerto presentthemselvesasrespectableintheirinterviews"andindicatedthatthey wouldliketoimprovetheirsocialstanding.Whilebroadsocialclassdistinctions mayindeedcorrelatewithlanguageuseintheBahamas,Hackert04concluded thatwhenspeakersareconsideredindividually,therelationshipbetweensocialrank andlinguisticbehaviourisatbestindirect,withsocialaspirationasthemediating force". 2.3.3.3Age DespitethecontroversysurroundingthenotionofdecreolisationofCaribbeancreole languagesseesection2.3.1andtheobviousneedforbothdiachronicandsynchronic datatoinvestigatesupposedlinguisticchange,whetheritmayproceedinthedirectionofanexonormativeorlocalstandardorotherwise,surprisinglyfewstudies haveexplicitlyfocussedonagedierencesinCaribbeancommunities.Longitudinal andreal-timestudieshaveshownthatsomebasilectalfeaturesofGuyaneseCreole recordedaround1990havebeenlostandthatsomeBelizeanCreolespeakers,dependingontheirlifestylechoicesandconcomitantchangesinsocialconditions,have cometousemorestandardfeaturesastheygrewolderseediscussioninRickford, 1987,36-40.While,asRickfordpointedout,thesendingsareatleastnot inconsistent"withdecreolisation,theycannotbegeneralisedtoallcreolespeech communitiesintheCaribbeanand,crucially,theydonotnecessarilyimplythatthe basilectalendofthecreolespectrumhasbecomeanylessbasilectalasawhole.As

PAGE 74

48 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS forstudiesinapparenttime,everypossiblescenariohasbeendocumentedforindividualphonologicalandgrammaticalvariables,sometimespertainingtothesame communityofspeakers:nogenerationaldierences,increaseduseofstandardvariantsbytheyoungergeneration,andincreaseduseofcreolevariantsbytheyounger generationseebriefoverviewofstudiesine.g.Rickford,1987,37-40;Winford,1991, 574.Inadditiontothesevariedandconictingresults,itisimportanttoremember thatsynchronicvariationisnotalwaysindicativeofchange.Dierencesinlinguistic choicesbetweenagegroupscansignalcommunity-levellanguagechange,butthey mayalsoreectapatternrepeatedineachgeneration,i.e.age-grading.Inferences aboutchangeinapparenttimealsoneedtobequaliedinrelationtootherfactors suchassocialclass,urban/ruralorientation,educationandspeechstyle. Inanumberofstudies,itwasobservedthatcreolespeakers'relativelevelof educationisparticularlypronetointerferencewithage-relateddierences.Forexample,Rickfordinvestigatedthedistributionofbasilectalsingularpronoun usageamongthreeagegroupsintheruralGuyanesecommunityofCaneWalkand hefoundthattherelativefrequencyofbasilectalvariantsincreasedwithage.The changefrommoretolessbasilectalspeechhadbeganearlier,intheintermediate agegroup,amongspeakersofthehighersocialclassthanamongspeakersofthe lowersocialclass,whereonlytheyoungestagegroupdisplayedashiftawayfrom basilectalforms.Asthispatterncorrelatedwiththelevelofeducationmembersof thetwosocialclasseswereabletoobtain,inparticularwithaccesstosecondary education,Rickford,614arguedthatthedecreaseinbasilectalvariantswas causedbyanincreaseinformaleducation. Hackert's,203-209resultsonagedierencesregardingratesofstandard pastinectionamongurbanBahCspeakerscorroborateRickford'stheory.Taking anemicapproachtoestablishingagegroups,shedividedspeakersintothosewho spenttheiryouthduringthetimeofBahamiannationbuilding,andthosewho hadgrownupbefore,undertheBritishdualsystem.Overall,Hackertobserveda moderateagedierenceintheuseofpastinection:Olderspeakersmadelessuse ofstandardformsthanyoungerspeakers.Thisnding,however,camewithtwo caveats.First,thedistinctionbetweentheagegroupsbecameblurredifstylein termsofdiscoursetypewasaddedasanadditionalfactorintotheanalysis.Most non-standardformsoccurredingenericnarrativesandfolktales,andbothdiscourse typeswereusedconsiderablymorefrequentlybyolderthanbyyoungerspeakers.

PAGE 75

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 49 Thedierenceinpastinectionbetweenthetwoagegroupsinthemorecommon day-to-daydiscoursetypesofpersonalnarrativesandchatwasnegligible.Second, whentheeducationalattainmentofthespeakerswastakenintoaccount,itshowed tobettermodelthevariationfoundinthedatathanage.Hackertarguedthat, duetothefactthatmostoftheolderparticipantsdidnothavetheopportunityto obtainsecondaryeducation,theapparentlyage-relatedbehaviouractuallyreected dierentlevelsofeducation,which,inturn,causedspeakerstoproducedierent ratesofstandardforms. Onarelatednote,itshouldbementionedthethelevelofeducationnecessaryfor anyparticularoccupationhasincreasedwiththegrowthineducationalopportunity" Hackert,2004,209.Whatthismeansforthepresentstudyisthatahighlevel ofeducationmaycorrelatewellwithhighsocialstatuswhenconsideringyounger speakers,butthisisnotnecessarilythecaseforolderspeakers.Havingreceived onlyelementaryeducation,severaloftheolderspeakersinHackert'ssamplehad workedtheirwayupandoccupiedahighersocialrankthanyoungerspeakerswho hadattendedhighschool.Whilethelevelofeducationmaybecomeanimportant indextosocioeconomicstatusinthefuture,forthetimebeingitshouldbenoted thateducationisknowntocorrelatewithageandthatoccupation,thus,remains themostreliablepredictorofoverallsocialstatusseePatrick,1999b,288. 2.3.3.4Gender Winfordwrotein1991: VerylittleworkhasbeendoneonsexdierentiationinlanguageintheanglophoneCaribbean.Mostoftheprimarysociolinguisticstudiesofthearea [...]connetheirsamplepopulationstomen,whileothers[...]treatsex-based variationasincidentaltootherconcerns,orrelyonlimiteddata. Thisissurprising,giventhatlinguisticvariationcorrelatingwithspeakersexhas beenavitalaspectofmainstreamsociolinguisticresearchfromitsinceptionseee.g. Labov,2006;Trudgill,1972.Inmostoftheearlyvariationiststudies,demographic categoriessuchassex,age,andethnicityweretakenforgranted,andlinguistic dierentiationwasconsideredtodirectlyreectdierencesinmembershipineach

PAGE 76

50 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS ofthesecategoriesandtheirinteraction.Theswitchinterminologyfrom`sex'to `gender'indicatedadrasticshiftinperspective,arecognitionthatthenotionofa directindexicallinkbetweenlanguageuseandbiologicalvariablessuchasspeaker sexisquestionable. [S]exisabiologicalcategorythatservesasafundamentalbasisforthedierentiationofroles,norms,andexpectationsinallsocieties.Itistheseroles, norms,andexpectationsthatconstitutegender,thesocialconstructionof sex.[...][D]ierencesinpatternsofvariationbetweenmenandwomenare afunctionofgenderandonlyindirectlyafunctionofsex.Eckert,1989, 246-247 Bothsexandgenderareusuallytreatedasbinarycategoriesinsociolinguisticresearch;andwhilegenderdierences,essentiallyasocialandculturalconstruct,do notalwaysmapdirectlyontobiologically-basedsexdierences,muchofoursocial livesareorganisedaroundthephysiologicaldichotomy. Labovstatedthatoneoftheclearest,mostconsistentresultsofdecades ofresearchinbothurbanandrural,Westernandnon-Westernspeechcommunities wasthecarefulbehaviorofwomen",thatistheirlinguisticconformityand theirpreferenceforstandardvariants.Thendingthatfemalespeakerstendtouse andconsciouslyadoptahigherproportionofovertlyprestigiousstandardvariants thanmalespeakershasbeenofwidegeneralinteresttotheresearchcommunity. Severalexplanationshavebeenoeredforthisdistributionalpattern,rangingfrom women'ssupposedlygreaterverbalabilitiesorawarenesstothesocialsignicanceof linguisticvariantstotheirapparentdesiretosoundmore`ladylike'andtoavoidthe supposedsymbolicassociationoflocalvernacularswithpromiscuitycf.Cheshire, 2002;Romaine,2003.Trudgill'ssuggestionhasbeenparticularlyinuential. BasedonasampleofspeakersfromNorwich,hefoundthatwomentendedtooverreportwhilementendedtounder-reporttheirusageofstandardforms.Fromthis, Trudgilldeducedthatovertprestige,associatedwithstandardspeech,wasmore importanttowomen,whousedlinguisticmeansasawaytoachievesocialstatus presumablydeniedtothemthroughotheroutlets.Men,ontheotherhand,were abletoacquiresocialstatusthroughtheiroccupationalstatusandincome.They werethereforefreetoturntothecovertprestigeofnonstandardforms,associated

PAGE 77

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 51 withtheroughnessandtoughness"supposedlycharacteristicofbothworkingclasslifeandmasculinity.Trudgillessentiallysuggestedthatobservedgender dierencesreectwomen'srelativepowerlessnesscomparedtomeninthepublic sphere. Powerrelationshavealwaysbeenanimplicitissueingenderstudiesand,accordingtoMuhleisenandWalicek,oneofthereasonswhyresearchonlanguage andgenderhasbeenneglectedforsolonginCaribbeancontextsisthatpowerrelationsalongethniclineswereconsideredprimary.Earlysociologicalstudiesclaimed thattheviolenceofcolonisationandtheAtlanticslavetradeessentiallyeradicated genderdierentiation,astheultimatepowerofthemastersovertheslavesdeterminedeveryaspectoftherelationshipsbetweenmenandwomenMuhleisenand Walicek,2009,16.Inaddition,asHackert,216outlined,femaleslaveswere forcedtoworkashardasmaleslaves,andtheseestablishedstructuresdidnot immediatelychangeafteremancipation.Bethel993discussedthecentralityof womeninBahamianfamilystructureaswellassocietyatlargeandconcludedthat, whileCaribbeansocietieshavetraditionallyseenahighlevelofeconomicautonomy ofthesexes,Bahamianwomenhavebecomeevenlessdependentnanciallyonthe contributionsofmen.ShearguedthatBahamianfamiliesarestructurallyandfunctionallymatrifocal,andthatthepositionofauthorityofwomenextendstopublic andprofessionaldomains.WhileBahamianwomenarestillunderrepresentedin politicaloces,morewomenreceiveacademictrainingthanmenanditis,indeed, youngBahamianwomen[who]appearmoreself-condentandambitiousthantheir malecounterparts"Bethel,1993. Since1991,whenWinforddeploredthelackoflanguageandgenderstudiesin theCaribbean,somelimitedprogresshasbeenmade,thoughmoststudiesareto belocatedsquarelyintheareaofpragmaticsanddiscourseanalysisandfocuson aspectssuchastheconstructionofgenderedrolesandtheritualperformanceof genderandsexualidentity{noneofwhicharecentraltothetheaimsofthepresent studyforashortoverview,seeMuhleisenandWalicek,2009,21-25.Variationist studiesofgender-speciclanguageusearealmostalwayslinkedtoquestionsof variationonthecreole-to-standardcontinuum,andtheabsenceofacleardierence ingenderregardingthepreferenceforovertlyprestigiousformsisoftenconsidered indicativeofasocietalstructureinwhichgenderrolesarelesspolarizedthan,say, inawhitemiddleclasscontext"Escure,1991,604.WhenHackertanalysed

PAGE 78

52 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS ratesofstandardpastinectionacrossmaleandfemaleworking-classparticipants inherstudyofurbanBahC,shefoundthat,onaverage,theeectofgenderwas negligible.Shearguedthatwhilethepost-Emancipationperiodwithitsincrease inpersonalfreedomhascreatedampleopportunityforgenderdierentiationin general[...],thisdierentiationmaynotyet?havehadlinguisticrepercussions ormayhavehadtheminareasthathavenotbeenatthecenterofsociolinguistic attention".Sidnell,368-370alsocautionedagainsttheassumption ofaone-to-onerelationshipbetweenlinguisticformandsocialidentity.Heargued thatgender-baseddierencesmayshowatmanydierentlinguisticlevelsornotat all;and,crucially,genderrolesmaynot`translate'onlyintothosevariablesthat canbemappedontoasimplestandardtononstandardcontinuum".Rather, menandwomenmaybeusingthecreole-to-standardrangedierently".In hisanalysisoftheuseofbasilectalandmesolectalpronounsinaruralcreolespeech communityinGuyana,hefoundthatmenusedthebasilectalpronoun am more frequentlythanwomen.Thisdiscrepancy,however,wasnotsimplycausedbythe women'sgreaterpreferenceforprestigiousstandardforms.Whenthereferential contextwastakenintoaccount,anunderlyingpatternemergedwherebymesolectal markingwaspreferredforfemininereferentsandbasilectalmarkingformasculine andneuter/inanimatereferents,withfemalespeakersdistinguishingthesecontexts moreconsistentlythanmalespeakers-388.Gender-baseddierencesinthe Caribbeanmay,thus,showgreatercomplexitythanasimplecorrelationbetween genderandovertprestigecancapture. 2.3.3.5Beyondthe`Labovian'socialstraticationframework Allsociolinguisticstudiessharethecentraltenetthatlanguagevariationisinuencedbythesocialcontextofspeakers.Thetreatmentofsocialmeaninginlinguistic variation,however,hasbeenapproachedinwhatEckertreferstoasthree wavesofanalyticalpractice".Therstwaveapproach,adoptedbypioneering sociolinguistssuchasWilliamLabovandPeterTrudgill,seekstoestablishbroad correlationsbetweenlinguisticvariablesandmajordemographiccategorieslikesocialclass,age,genderandethnicityvialarge-scalesurveysandquantitativeanalysis methods.Theaboveoutlineofanumberofsocialvariablesandtheireecton languageuseintheanglophoneCaribbeanislargelybasedonndingsofstudies

PAGE 79

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 53 inthis`Labovian'variationistparadigm.Subsequentwaveshaveemployedethnographicmethodsinordertofocusonpatternsoflanguageuseinincreasinglymore narrowlydenedsocialsub-groupsofinformants,awayfromthecommunityandin thedirectionoftheindividualandindividualagency.Second-wavestudiesprovide aconnectionbetweentheindividualandabstractmacrosocialcategoriesbytaking intoaccountlocalsocialcongurationsandpatternsofinteraction.Basedonthe frequencyandqualityofinteractionbetweenmembersofasocialgroup,individual networktypescanbeinferred,which,dependingonthedensityandcomplexityof thenetwork,mayhaveaweakorstronglocalnorm-enforcingpowerEckert,2012, 91-93.Thesocial-networkapproachhasnotbeenusedextensivelyinsociolinguistic studiesintheCaribbeancontext.AnotableexceptionisWassinka,2001, whoanalysedvariationintheJamaicanvowelsystemsintwosocialnetworks{ oneurban-orientedandacrolect-dominant,theotherrural-orientedandbasilectdominant.Asherstudyalsocontributestothesociophoneticresearchparadigm increolespeechcommunities,averyrarecommodity,itwillbeintroducedinmore detailinsection2.4.Third-wavestudiesfocusonrelativelysmallgroupsofspeakers, denedbytheircloseinteractionandsharedpracticesandgoals,whichcanonlybe determinedthroughdetailedin-groupknowledge.Variationisseenasconstituting asocialsemioticsystem"Eckert,2012,94,whichindividualspeakerscanactively useinordertopositionthemselvesinthesociallandscapeandexpressandnegotiate avarietyofsocialconcerns.Inthisapproach,thetheoreticalboundariesbetween socialandstylisticvariationbecomeblurred. Oneofthelimitationsofthepresentstudyisthatitssampleofspeakersbasically consistsofisolatedindividualsorofgroupsoftwoorthreefamilymembersor friends.Whilethelocalsocialcontextwascertainlytakenintoconsideration,seeing asthereisnosubstituteforworkingclosetothegroundindeterminingwhatsocial categoriesaremostrelevantinagivenspeechcommunity,thisstudyapproaches theconceptofsociolinguisticvariationinanessentiallytraditionallyvariationist, rst-wavefashion.Thetraditionalvariationistapproachhasbeencriticisedforits passiveviewofindividualspeakers,itsuseofpredeterminedsocialcategories,andits principallyrandomwayofchoosingspeakerstorepresenttheestablishedcategories cf.Eckert,2012.However,thesemethodsalsoconstitutetheapproach'sprimary virtues:coverageandreplicability.Itisencouragingtonotethatdierent`waves' ofanalyticpracticemayindeedcomplementratherthancontradicteachother.In asociolinguisticstudyconductedinPhiladelphia,Labov,Ch.5combined

PAGE 80

54 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS theanalysisofsocialstraticationwiththestudyofsocialnetworksandfound,in retrospect,thattheonedidnotreplacetheotherintermsofexplanatoryvalue:in fact,theywereadditive"Labov,2006,133. 2.3.3.6Functionalandstylisticvariation Withinsociolinguistics,Labovpioneeredthequantitativeanalysisofstylewhenhe organisedintra-speakervariationwithinthesettingofthesociolinguisticinterview alongthedimensionofattentiontospeechLabov,2006,rstpublishedin1966. Bypurposefullymanipulatingtheinterviewsettingandintroducingarangeofadditionaltasks,hecoulddistinguishandanalyselanguageuseinvedierentcontextualstyles",rangingfrommoreinformaltomoreformaltypesofspeech:casual speech,recordedoutsidetheocialintervieworinducedbyquestionsthatcaused participantstobecomeemotionallyinvolved,carefulspeech,denedasthedefault typeofinterviewspeech,readingpassagestyle,wordliststyleandminimalpair liststyleLabov,2006,58-86.Inthisframework,styleisconsideredadimension ofvariationseparatefrombutrelatedtothesocialdimensioninthatvariantsused informalcontextsareassociatedwithhighsocialstatus.Thisearlyapproachto stylisticvariationhasbeencriticisedforitsrelativelynarrowfocusandlaterstudies wouldbecharacterisedbyincreasingattentiontootheraspectsofinteractionswhich maycauseashiftinstylesuchastopicandaudiencemembers. IntheirHarlemstudy,Labovetal.recordednotonlyinterviewsessions butalsopeer-groupinteractionsandfoundthatvernacularspeechcouldbeelicited moresystematicallyinthelatter.ThefactthatrelationalaspectsbetweeninterlocutorsmatterwasexploredmorethoroughlybyAllanBellandconstructedintoatheoryofstyle-shiftingreferredtoasaudiencedesigne.g.Bell,1984,2001.Audience designisaninteractionalmodelofstyle-shifting,whichattemptstoaccountforhow [s]peakersdesigntheirstyleprimarilyforandinresponsetotheiraudience"Bell, 2001,143.`Responsive'or`situational'styleshiftsoccurwhenspeakersadjusttheir speechindirectresponsetochangesintheaudience,while`initiative'styleshifts arecreativeanddemonstratespeakeragency;theyareessentiallyaredenitionby speakersoftheirownidentityinrelationtotheiraudience"andderivetheir forceanddirectionfromassociationofspecicspeechpatternswithanabsentreferencegroup.Theframeworkprovidedbyaudiencedesignhighlightsthelinkbetween

PAGE 81

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 55 intra-andinter-speakervariation,asstyleisconsideredtoderiveitsmeaningfrom theassociationoflinguisticfeatureswithparticularsocialgroups:Variationonthe styledimensionwithinthespeechofasinglespeakerderivesfromandechoesthe variationwhichexistsbetweenspeakersonthe`social'dimension". Withincreasingfocusonthedynamicexpressionofidentityandthesocialconstructionistturninthesocialsciencesingeneral,speakeragencyapproacheshave becomemoreprominent.AccordingtoDeuber,49-51,twomainstrandsof speakeragencyapproachescanbedistinguished,bothofwhichfocusonstyleas adynamic,individualisedprocess,wheredistinctionsbetweenstylisticandsocial variationbecomeuid:quantitativemethodsinthethird-waveparadigm,where variationisregardedasaformofsocialpracticeratherthanareectionofsocial structure,andqualitativediscourse-analyticmethods,whichfocusmorecloselyon howpersonalidentitiesandrelationshipsareactivelycontextualisedbyspeakers throughouttheirinteractions.Recentstudiesonstylisticvariationoftencombine macro-andmicro-levelanalyses,quantitativevariationistandqualitativediscourseanalyticmethodsinordertoavoidsimplicatoryviewsoflanguageandidentitycf. Deuber,2014,51-53,acknowledgingthatapersonisindeedmorethanastatic bundleofsociologicalcategories[butalso]morethananever-shiftingkaleidoscope ofpersonascreatedinandbydierentsituations"Bell,2001,164. IntheCaribbeancontext,earlyvariationiststudiesfoundthatthereisgenerally acleardistinctionbetweenmoreinformalandmoreformalstylesininterviewspeech, manifestedintheuseofmorecreoleandmorestandardEnglishforms,respectively cf.Winford,1991,575-576.Studieswhichincludedpeer-groupinteractionsintheir analysesusuallyreportedanevenhigherrateofcreolevariantsinpeer-groupstyle thanininformalinterviewstyleseee.g.Winford,1997,270.Thesendingsshow thatcreolespeakersarenotlocatedonasinglepointofthecreolecontinuumbut spanawholerangeofvarieties;theactualchoiceoflanguageusemaydependona numberofcontextualfactors,includingtheperceivedformalityofthecontextand theidentityofaudiencemembers.Wherestylisticvariationwascorrelatedwithdifferencesinspeakers'socialstatus,ageneralpatternemergedwherebyhigher-status speakerstendedtodisplaymorepronounceddierencesbetweenindividualstyles thanlower-statusspeakersWinford,1991,576.Thedierenceintheextentof style-shifting,however,wasnotusuallyconsideredtoindicateanunderlyingdifferenceinlinguisticchoices,buttoreectthathigher-statusspeakershadamuch

PAGE 82

56 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS widerrangeofvarietiesattheirdisposal.Forexample,Patrickb,269-273, whoincludedCreole-to-EnglishandEnglish-to-CreoletranslationtasksinhissociolinguisticinterviewsessionswithurbanJamaicanCreolespeakers,demonstrated thatbothhigher-andlower-statusspeakersweregenerallyabletoapproximatecreolenormswithrelativelyhighprecisionbutonlyhigher-statusspeakershadsucient knowledgeofEnglishtoproduceadequatetranslationsintoEnglish. Studiesofstylisticvariationfocussingexplicitlyonproductionsbyeducated, acrolect-dominantspeakershavebeenrareintheliteratureonCaribbeancreoles, thoughDeuberhasrecentlycontributedamilestonestudytotheeld.She presenteddetailedquantitativeandqualitativeanalysesofmorphologicalandsyntacticvariationinuppermesolectaltoacrolectalspeechinTrinidadandJamaica, andfoundthatcreoleformsweregenerallyinfrequentbutstillanimportantfeature ofstyle.FollowingAllsopp,shedistinguishednotonlybetweenformaland informalspeechstyles,butrecognisedanadditional`anti-formal'category,where languageuseprojectsconsciousfamiliarityandintimacy,associatedwithconnotationsrangingfromfriendlinessandhumourtocoarsenessandvulgarity.Deuber demonstratedthatovertcreoleformswereassociatedwithanti-formality, whilezeroforms,i.e.formsthatlackovertstandardEnglishmarking,werealso usedininformaldiscoursecontexts.Whenbothstylisticconnotationsandthefrequencyofdierentformswithinasegmentofdiscoursearetakenintoconsideration, shearguedthatallcreolismscanbepositionedonaclinewhichevokesthefamiliar notionofacontinuumofvariation-243.Moreover,dependingonthediscourse context,shefoundthatbothmoreEnglishandmoreCreolespeechformscanbe associatedwithin-grouporwithout-groupvalues",andthatinthespeakers' conceptionsofthemselves,their`English'and`Creole'identitiesarecomplementary ratherthanopposedandincompatible. 2.3.4Phonologicalversusgrammaticalvariation IntheNorthAmericancontext,phonologicalandgrammaticalvariationpatterns areoftensaidtodierinthattheformerdisplayprimarily`ne'or`gradient'and thelatter`sharp'socialstratication.Labovintroducedthetermsin1966asan empiricalproblem,whichmightshedlightonthequestionofwhetherclassdivisions

PAGE 83

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 57 reectedinlanguageusearedichotomousorcontinuous,andwhethersomeclass divisionsaremoremeaningfulthanothers: Ifwethinkofclassasarigidseriesofcategories,inwhichthemarginalcases arerareorinsignicant,thenaproofofclasscorrelationwithlanguagewould requireequallydiscretecategoriesoflinguisticbehaviorinourterminology, sharpstratication .[...]If,ontheotherhand,wethinkofclassasacontinuousnetworkofsocialandeconomicfactors,inwhicheverycaseismarginal tothenextone,wewouldexpectthatlanguagewouldalsoshowacontinuous rangeofvalues,andthenumberofintermediatepointsofcorrelationwouldbe limitedonlybytheconsistencyandreliabilityofthedatainourterminology, nestratication .[...]Itisclearthatclassandlanguagerelationshipswill besomewherebetweenthesetwoextremes.[...]Thecuttingpointswherethe linguisticevidenceshowsthegreatestinternalagreementwillbeindicatedas themostnaturaldivisionsoftheclasscontinuum{totheextentthatlanguage isameasureofclassbehavior.Labov,2006,148-149 InhisquantitativeanalysisofdatafromNewYorkCity,hefoundbothkindsof straticationandconcludedthatcontinuousanddiscretepatternsofsociolinguistic variationmayexistsimultaneouslywithinthesamespeechcommunity.Insubsequentresearch,aninterestingpatternemerged:Stablesociolinguisticvariables,denedprimarilywithrecoursetothestandard-to-nonstandardcontinuumofEnglish, tendtoshowrelativelysharpstratication,whereaslinguisticfeaturesundergoing changeareoftennelystratied.WolframandSchilling-Estespartlyattributedthesedierencesinalignmentbetweenlinguisticandsocialvariablestothe rolethatsocialclassplaysinlanguagechangewithinthecommunity,sincechange tendstostartinagivenclassandgraduallyspreadsfromthatpointtoadjacent classes-177.Guyemphasisedthat,astheuseoflinguisticfeatures changes,sodoestheirsocialmeaning;thestrictsocialevaluationofthesefeatures, however,mayrequiretimetodevelop: Newlyemergingvariablesmightseparatepeoplenelyaccordingtotheirsocial status,butwhenthedustsettlesafterthelonghaul,sharpandfundamental classdivisionsemerge.Thelong-establishedformacquiresarm,evenindexical,classidentity,whilethenewformmaybemerelytrendy.Guy,2011, 165

PAGE 84

58 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS Thedegreetowhichlinguisticvariablesaresociallydiagnosticinagivenspeech communitymayalsounderlytheassociationofnestraticationwithphonological variablesandsharpstraticationwithgrammaticalvariablesintheNorthAmericancontext.Broadlyspeaking,phonologicalvariablestendtovaryregionally,while grammaticalvariablesvarysocially.Pronunciationdierencesaremoreapttodelimitatedialectregionscf.Labovetal.,2006thantofunctionasglobalsymbolsof socialdierencesinAmericansociety.StandardAmericanEnglishpronunciation, traditionallyreferredtoasGeneralAmerican,isusuallycharacterisednegatively aswhatisleftafterspeakerssuppresssalientregionalandsocialfeatures.Crucially,however,asKretzschmar,Jr.noted,[d]ecisionsaboutwhichfeatures areperceivedtobesalientwillbedierentineveryregion",whichresults inarelativelevelofquality[...]thatvariesfromplacetoplace".Phonologicalfeaturesusedbyeducated,high-statusspeakersinagivenregionmaybe noticeabletooutsiders,andsometimestheymayevenbestigmatisedtotheseoutsiders,butwithintheirrespectivespeechcommunities,theseregionallycoloured featuresareconsideredstandard.Phonologicalvariables,thus,showagreatdealof exibilityinNorthAmericanEnglish;theyareviewedaswidelyacceptablemanifestationsofregionalidentity,whichmaybeparticularlytrueinthecaseofvowel dierences"Wolfram,2004,72,and,consequently,donotusuallyshowsharpsocialstratication.Incontrast,grammaticalvariablesaretypicallymorediagnostic ofsocialdierences.Presumablyduetotheircloseassociationwitheducational achievement,distinctionsbetweengrammaticalvariantscanbecapturedwithreferencetoastandard/nonstandarddichotomy,andtheirparticularsocialevaluation tendstoextendbeyondregionalboundaries.Asgrammaticalvariablesareascribed amajorsymbolicroleindistinguishingsociolectsinAmericansociety,theyoften displaysharpstraticationacrossdierentsocialclassese.g.Wolfram,2004,69-72. Theassociationofdierentkindsofsocialstraticationwithphonologicaland grammaticalvariablesisnotapatternthatisuniversaltoallsocietiesinwhich Englishisspoken.IntheUnitedKingdom,forexample,sharpsocialstraticationis foundinbothphonologicalandgrammaticalvariablesseee.g.analysesinTrudgill, 1974.Thisisoftenattributedtothefactthatthesystemofclassdistinctionsused tobequiterigid,atleastuptothe1970se.g.Tagliamonte,2012,26.Thesocial importanceofphoneticandphonologicalfeaturesisalsoreectedinthestillvery prominentnationalaswellasinternationalpositionofReceivedPronunciationRP, theBritishEnglishpronunciationstandard.ThepredecessorofRPoriginatedin

PAGE 85

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 59 thesouth-eastofEngland,whereitwasassociatedwiththesocialelite,butthe moreitwasusedasaninstrumentofsocialexclusionthroughoutthe18thand19th centuries,themoreitbecamecharacterisedasanessentiallynon-regionalaccent{ devoidofanylocalisablespeechpatternsprevalentamongthelowerclassesHickey, 2012,5-7.In1908,HenrySweetdescribedtherelationbetweenstandardEnglish, educatedlanguageuseandtheabsenceofregionalfeaturesasfollows: StandardEnglish[...]isnowaclass-dialectmorethanalocaldialect:itis thelanguageoftheeducatedalloverGreatBritain.[...]Thebestspeakers ofStandardEnglisharethosewhosepronunciation,andlanguagegenerally, leastbetraystheirlocalitySweet,1908,7. Throughoutthe20thcentury,therelationshipbetweensocialandregionalaccent variationinBritainhasoftenbeenmodelledashavingtheformofanequilateral triangle.Thebaseofthetriangleisbroad,implyingaconsiderableamountof phonologicalvariationbetweenthedierentregionalaccentsspokenbythelower socialclasses.Goingupwardsfromthebase,theincreasingnarrownessofthetriangle impliesdecreasingregionalvariationbetweentheaccentsofspeakershigherupthe socialscale.Toacertainextent,themodelmayalsoapplytolanguageusein nativevarietiesofEnglishoutsideBritain,notablyinIrelandandthesouthern hemisphere,whereRPfunctionsimplicitlyasanexonormativestandardaccent.In thelastfewdecades,therehavebeensomechangesinthesociolinguisticsituationof RP,asattitudestowardsnon-standardaccentshavebecomesomewhatmoreliberal. Nevertheless,theyoungergenerationsofthosesectionsofthecommunityonewould expecttobeRPspeakersstillareRPspeakers"Trudgill,2002,177,andwhileRP mayundergoprocessesofchangeasalllanguagevarietiesdo,thereisnocompelling linguisticreasontoassumethatRPwill`die'orbecomeincreasinglydilutedwith regionalfeaturesanytimesoonTrudgill,2002,173-180. FromtheavailableliteratureonphonologicalvariationinCaribbeanEnglishes andcreoles,notmuchsubstantialinformationcanbederivedaboutthesocialdistributionofphonologicalasopposedtogrammaticalvariables.Onreviewingthe contributionsto AHandbookofVarietiesofEnglishVol.1 ,whichprovidearough outlineofthephonologiesofworld-widevarietiesofEnglish,Schneiderbarguedthatnofundamentaldistinctionshouldbedrawnbetweendialectalandcreole varietiesofEnglishintheabsenceofempiricalevidenceandthat,atleastinthe

PAGE 86

60 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS Americancontext,suchadivisionwouldseemtobeevenlesscalledforonthelevel ofphoneticsandphonologythanonthelevelofmorphosyntax".Childsand Wolfram,whoprovidedanarticleonBahamianEnglishphonology,maintainedasimilarpositionandclaimedthatthoughBahamianvarietiesarecharacterisedbythepresenceofabasilectal-acrolectalcontinuumwithrespecttocreole features,thisdimensionofvariationwassetasideintheirdiscussionasittendsto bemorerelevanttothegrammaticaldescriptionofBahEthantophonology". Whiletheseassertionsarenotbasedonrigorouslinguisticevidence,theyprovide astartingpointforthediscussionofhowphonologicalvariationmightrelateto grammaticalvariationinthecontextofCaribbeancreolespeechcommunities.If thephonologiesofAmericancreolescannotingeneralbedistinguishedfromthose ofdialectalvarieties,andifthekindofsociolinguisticvariationthatiscapturedin thecreolecontinuummodeldoesnotapplytothelevelofphoneticsandphonology,thenphonologicalvariationinAmericancreolesmayindeedresemblethatof Americandialectalvarietiesandshowprimarilynesocialstratication. Theobservationthatsomelinguisticvariablesseemtomakemoreofadierence onthecreole-to-standardscaleofvariationhasbeenanissuesincetheconstruction ofimplicationalscales{indeed,thisispreciselywhattheorderingofvariablesin animplicationalscaleindicates:Somefeaturesaremoredistinctively`creole'than othersandcanbeusedtopredicttheoccurrenceothercreolefeatures.Bailey attemptedtodenedialectboundariesinJamaicanCreoleandsuggested thatdierentweightsshouldbeassignedtolexical,phonological,morphological andsyntacticvariables.Shealsoarguedthatmorphosyntacticvariablesdistinguish thevarietiesonthecreolecontinuummoreclearlythanphonologicalvariables:The samephonologicalvariantstendtobeusedbyspeakersacrossthecontinuum,which isreectedinthepositionofphonologicalvariablesonthelessmarkedlybasilectal columnsinmostimplicationalscalesseee.g.DeCamp,1971b,355 Tosomeextent,thishypothesisalsoseemstobesupportedfromavariationist perspective.Rickfordinvestigatedthesocialandstylisticvariationofselected phonologicalandmorphosyntacticvariablesinabasilectal/mesolectalGuyanese Creolespeechcommunity.Hefoundthatwhilespeakersofhigherandlowersocialstatusshowedqualitativedierencesintheiruseofmorphosyntacticfeatures, theysharedarangeofnon-standardorbasilectalcreolephonologicalfeaturessuch ash-dropping,r-lessness,consonantclusterreduction,vowel-laxingandth-stopping.

PAGE 87

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 61 Heconcludedthatphonologicalvariablesinthecreolecontinuumshowgradient ratherthansharpstratication,andarethereforemoreamenabletouniedanalysisinwhichdierentclasseswithinacommunityareassumedtosharecommon underlyingforms".However,healsofoundthattheexistenceofstigmatised, highlymarkedphonologicalvariantscomplicatethedistinctionbetweenthedierentpatternsofsocialdistributionofgrammaticalandphonologicalvariables.He identiedthebroad-mouthpronunciation"ofstandardEnglish [O:],[6],[Oi] aslow andunrounded [aa],[a],[ai] asthesinglemostimportantphonologicalvariablein the[GuyaneseCreole]continuum"intermsofsocialdistinctiveness.InRickford'sdata,`broad-mouth'showedtobeatruemarkerofcreolespeech,consistently separatingbasilectalfrommesolectalspeakers. Patrickbanalysedbothphonologicalandgrammaticalvariablesinthe urbanJamaicanCreolemesolectandfoundthat[i]tisstrikinghowcloselythelinguisticrankingscohere"intermsofacreole-to-standardscale:Speakerswho ranklowerorhigherintheiruseofstandardvariantsforonevariablealsodoso fortheothervariables,irrespectiveofthelinguisticlevelofvariation.Amongthe phonologicalvariables,heobservedbothneandsharppatternsofsocialstratication.ThelinguisticvariableTD,whichreferstoword-nal /t,d/ deletion,showed asmoothprogressionacrossthesample,withnestratication";onlyquantitativedistinctionsseparatedonespeakerfromthennextandevenspeakerswhose useofprestigepatternsgenerallypredominateddisplayedadeletionrateofover 50%.Incontrast,KYAinARword-classes,whichreferstothevariableinsertionofapalatalglideaftervelarsinwordslike card or garden ,wascategorically absentinthespeechofhigher-statusspeakers,displayinganentirelydiscontinuous, non-gradientpattern".Patrickb,similartoRickford,argued thatthisindicatesthatKYAinthesecontextsishighlystigmatised,and,thus, diersinitssocialdistributionfromother,presumablylessstigmatised,phonological variables. SomeindicationsthatthenatureandshapeofphonologicalvariationmaydifferfromgrammaticalvariationinCaribbeancreolecontextscomesfromquantitativestudieswhichfocusonspeechproductionsbyacrolect-dominantspeakers.In acrolectalspeech,overtmorphologicalandmorphosyntacticcreoleformstendtobe raree.g.Gut,2011;Deuber,2014,whichindicatesthatthesevariablesarecharacterisedbyasocialdistributionwhichsystematicallyseparatesspeakersoflower

PAGE 88

62 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS fromspeakersofhighersocialstatus,i.e.theyaresharplystratied.However,the sameisnotnecessarilythecaseforphonologicalvariables.Irvine,2008analysedthedistributionofanumberofphonologicalvariablesinthespeechofhighly educatedJamaicansinaformal,professionalcontextandfoundthatthereareonly veryfewphonologicalfeatureswhichtheacrolectdoesnotsharewithotherJamaican varieties.Whatdistinguishesacrolectalspeechisthefrequencywithwhichcertain featuresareusedand,inparticular,theverylowrateofstigmatised,allegedlycreole, items. Gutoeredanexplanationforthisdiscrepancy,suggestingthatCreole inuence[mightshow]dierentlyondierentlinguisticlevels".Inacrolectalspeech,creoleinuencemayberestrictedtotheareaofphonology,because Englishpronunciationisusuallylessemphasisedintheclassroomthangrammar anditcannotbedrawnfromwrittentexts,whichintroducemanycreolespeakers toEnglish.Asaconsequence,thenorm-orientationforEnglishphonologyand Englishgrammar"maydierinacrolectalspeech,wheregrammaticaldeviationsfromexonormativestandardmodelsareconsideredmistakesbutacertain amountoflocalfeaturesareacceptableinpronunciation.Irvine,67pointed outthat,inprinciple,thissituationisnodierentfromthatofotherestablishedas wellasemergingstandardsofEnglisharoundtheworld.Grammaticalsystemsare characterisedbyconsiderableuniformity,presumablybecausetheyareaconstruct anchoredinwriting,whilepronunciationiswhatdistinguisheseducatedspeechfrom dierentlocales.IrvinealsostronglyarguedagainsttreatingtheJamaicanacrolect asanessentiallynon-nativevariety;assumptionsaboutitsphonologyshouldnotbe basedoncomparisonswithsomeforeignmodel,asJamaicanEnglishis,afterall, anationalvariety[...]initsownright". Inthisspirit,Irvine8tackledthequestionwhymanynon-standardphonologicalfeaturesseemtobeacceptableinevenformalacrolectalspeech,whileothers tendtobeavoidedtovaryingdegrees,andhowthiscanbereconciledwithlanguageattitudestudieswhichreportthataccentisperceivedasanimportantaspect distinguishingcreolefromEnglishWassink,1999b,66;Muhleisen,2001,51.She arguedthatthehighlyasymmetricalpatternoffrequencieswithwhichstandard andnon-standardphonologicalvariantsareusedbyacrolectalspeakersindicates thatthearchitectureofsociolinguisticvariation"ischaracterisedbytheeffectof load-bearing aswellas non-load-bearing variables.Load-bearingvariablesare

PAGE 89

2.3.SOCIOLINGUISTICVARIATIONINTHECARIBBEAN 63 thosecrucialtodeningthevarietybeingused,whethercreoleorEnglish.Because load-bearingvariablesareindexicalofvariety,theuseofvariantswillbefocussed andnormalised,andsocialdierentiationisgoingtobemorestarklysignalledby useofthesevariables",reectedinrelativelysharpsocialstratication.In contrast,non-load-bearingvariablesarenotessentialtoagivenvarietybutmerely servetogivethestructureitscharacter",signallingJamaicanidentity.Their distributionwillbelessfocussed,whichmayshowinrelativelynesocialstratication. Thoughmostofthestudiesoutlinedabovearebasedonlanguagedatafrom Jamaica,itseemsthatasimpleequationofphonologyequalsneandgrammar equalssharpsocialstraticationisunlikelytoapplyintheBahamiancontext.It maybeexpectedthatsomesociallyvariablephonologicalstructuresaremoresocially diagnosticthanothers,whetherthisisattributedtothestigmatisationofassociated creolevariantsortothevariables'load-bearingqualitiesinindexingcreoleorEnglish speechtargets.Otherphonologicalvariablesaremorelikelytobecharacterisedby nesocialstratication,as,presumably,similartotheNorthAmericancontextin general,non-standardvariantsofthesevariablesareonlytrulyperceivedasnonstandardbytheoutsider.

PAGE 90

64 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS 2.4Creolephonology AninvestigationofsynchronicvariationintheBahamianvowelsystemscannot proceedwithoutarmgraspofthesociohistoricaldevelopmentofthevarieties involvedandanunderstandingofthesocialforceslikelytoinuencecontemporary socialandstylisticvariationpatterns.Theseissueshavebeenaddressedinthe previoussections.Thepresentsectionnowturnstoadiscussionofcreolephonology and,morespecically,ofvowelsandvowelsystemsintheCaribbeanandinthe Bahamas.Duetothediscipline'straditionalfocusoncreolegenesisasreectedin thegrammarofcreoles,in-depthstudiesofcreolephoneticsandphonologyhavebeen relativelyrare,whetherfromatypologicalperspectiveorwithregardtoindividual varieties.Sections2.4.1and2.4.2willfocusprimarilyonwhatisknownabout thephonologiesandvowelsystemsofCaribbeancreolescollectively:Section2.4.1 willshowwhyitisagreatchallengetoreconstructthephonologicaldevelopment ofcreolelanguagesandteaseapartsubstrate,superstrateanduniversalpatterns, andsection2.4.2willintroducesomegeneralcharacteristicsthataresharedamong CaribbeanEnglish-lexiercreoles.Thepresentstudyseekstoprovideanacoustic characterisationofvariationintheBahCvowelsystem,whichreliesheavilyon establishedframeworksforthecomparisonofvowelqualitiesandonacousticanalysis methods.Thesewillbedescribedbrieyinsection2.4.3,followedbyanoverviewof previousacousticstudiesofCaribbeancreolevowelsinsection2.4.4.Section2.4.5, nally,willturntoadiscussionofthelexicalincidenceofBahamianvowelsand proposedBahCvowelsystems. 2.4.1Originofcreolephonologies Muchofcreolistresearchinthepastdecadeshasfocusedoncreolegenesisand theidentityofcreolelanguagesaslinguisticsystemsintheirownright.Shaped inlanguagecontactsituations,varyingdegreesofinuencehavebeenattributedto superstrateandsubstrateforces,processesofgroupsecondlanguageacquisition,and languageuniversals,dependingonthemixofsocialfactorsandthetypeoflinguistic inputatthetimeofemergenceseee.g.Holm,2004,58-67;Winford,2007,314-352. OfparticularinteresthasbeentouncovertheCaribbeancreoles'donorvarieties, theirAfricanrootsandthe17th-and18th-centurynon-creolisedvarietiesthathave contributedtotheirformation.

PAGE 91

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 65 2.4.1.1Substrateinuence Whiletheimportanceofsubstrateinuencetotheformationofcreolephonology hasneverbeenseriouslychallenged,theclaimthatacreolelanguagereectsfeatures ofaparticularsourcelanguagerequiressubstantiallinguisticaswellashistorical evidence.AfricanlexicalcontributionshavebeenestablishedforseveralCaribbean creoles,includingBahCHolm,1980;Shilling,1981;HolmandShilling,1982,but thisdoesnotnecessarilyimplythattherespectiveAfricanlanguageshavecrucially inuencedthecreoles'structureduringtheirformativestagesseee.g.Smith,2008, 99-100,whoarguesforlateradstrateinuenceonGullah.Also,thereversecannot bepostulatedapriorieither:thatAfricanlanguagesforwhichnocognateshave beenfoundinrespectivecreolesdidnothaveasignicantimpactonthecreoles' structuralproperties. BahCsharesasubsetofwordsofdisparateAfricanoriginswithmostofthe otherEnglish-lexierbutnotwithFrench-orPortuguese-lexierCaribbeancreoles.Collectivelyreferredtoas IngredientX ,atermcoinedbySmith,these lexicalitemssuggestacommonmediatingsource.Whiledisagreementpersistson whetherthismediatingforcewasastabilisedpidginorafully-edgedcreole,its originhasbeentracedtoBarbadosSmith,1997,fromwhereitisassumedtohave subsequentlyspreadtootherCaribbeanterritories.Thus,ratherthanlinkingthe BahamasdirectlywithAfrica,thelexiconcontainsevidenceofsharedinputtoall English-lexierCaribbeancreoles,whichfurthercompoundsanyattemptsatattributingcertainphonologicalfeaturestotheinuenceofspecicAfricanlanguages. AsSmith,101-102noted,evenvaguereferencestoWestAfricanorKwalanguagefamilyinuenceshouldonlybemadewithcaution.Kwalanguagesmaybe typologicallysimilar,buttheyarecertainlynotidentical.Moreover,somecharacteristicsofKwalanguagesaresharedbyEnglish,sothatcertainfeaturesmightjust aslikelybeadducedtosuperstateinuence. 2.4.1.2Superstrateinuence Whileitisclearthatcreolesowemanyaspectsoftheirphonologicalsystemstotheir superstratesources,locatingconcretecontributionscanbealmostasproblematic aswithsubstrateinuences.Increolesettings,thereislesscontinuitybetween

PAGE 92

66 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS Englishandthederivedcontactlanguagethaninotherpost-colonialcontextswhich resultedintheemergenceofanon-creolisedregionalvarietyofEnglish.Thelatter areessentiallyproductsof`ordinary'languagechangeandtheirfeaturescanbe describedasreexesofthefeaturesthatprecededthem.Creoles,however,are consideredlanguagesintheirownright,withlinguisticsystemsthatdierfrom thoseofallinputlanguages,anditisunclearinhowfaritisstillmeaningfultospeak ofEnglishreexesinthesesituationsHolm,2004,137.Afurthercomplication presentsitselfregardingthechoiceofearlyEnglishdialectstowhichagivencreole shouldberelated{usingcontemporarystandardEnglishphonologyasapointof comparisonisusuallyconsideredinappropriate 3 . Tracingtheregionalprovenanceof2500Bahamianexpressionsnotcurrently usedinstandardBritishorAmericanEnglish,Holmassigned43%ofthe regionalismstoScotlandandNorthcountry,withanother25%fromIrelandand Westcountry.While18th-centurysettlementpatternsseemtosupporttheview thatScottishandNorthernEnglishvarietiespredominatedintheBahamasatthe timeoflanguagecontact,conclusivehistoricalevidenceremainstobeestablished Hackert,2004,8. 2.4.1.3Groupsecondlanguageacquisitionandlanguageuniversals AccordingtoWinford,creolephonologyappearstobetheresultofvarying degreesofreinterpretationofsuperstratephonologyintermsofsubstratephonetic categoriesandphonologicalrules".ThisviewinvokestheoriesofsecondlanguageacquisitionSLA,specicallyoftheacquisitionofnewphonologies,inwhich itispositedthattheabilitytoperceivecertaincontrastsinthetargetlanguage isconfoundedbyautomaticselectiveperceptualprocessesthelearnerhasalready acquiredinarstlanguage.MuchworkinSLArestsonthenotionofsimilarity andcontrastbetweenalearner'srstL1andsecondL2languageandseeksto predicttheoccurrenceof transfer ,whichinthenarrowsensecanbedenedasthe mentalprocessesinindividualspeakersthatoccurwhenfeaturesofonelanguage inuencefeaturesofanotherlanguagepresentinthespeaker'smind"Plag,2009, 3 Smith,118-119,however,arguedthatstandardEarlyModernEnglishwasthemost inuentialsuperstratedialectinpost-colonialcontextsingeneral,asthemajorityofmigrantsfrom theBritishIslesmusthavehadatleastsomeknowledgeofthestandard.

PAGE 93

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 67 123.Flege's SpeechLearningModel ,forexample,positsanexplicitmechanismforthemappingofphoneticcategoriesinL1andL2bythelearner,which involvesanequivalenceclassicationprocedure:L2segmentswhicharesimilarto L1phoneticcategoriesaremappedontothesealreadyexistingcategories,andnonnativephonologicalrepresentationthenleadstonon-native-likeproduction. WhiletheideathatprocessesofSLAarerelevantforanaccountofcreolisationisnotnew,Plaghasrecentlytakenituponhimselftorevisittheissue andtoprovideevidenceforhishypothesisthatcreolesoriginateasconventionalizedinterlanguagesofanearlydevelopmentalstage".Withrespecttocreole phonology,heconcludedthatthemake-upofcreoleinventoriesbearswitnessof developmentsthataretypicalofL2acquisition,mostprominentlytheconationof phonologicalcategoriesandtheemergenceofunmarkedstructure",although somephenomenaremainthatarenotaseasilyaccommodatedbyanSLA-based approach.InSLAterminology,the`conationofphonologicalcategories'maybe consideredinstancesofnegativetransferfromthelearners'rsti.e.substratelanguages.The`emergenceofunmarkedstructure'referstothenotionthatspeakers ofinterlanguages,inthiscasespeakersofearlycreoles,performbetteronand aremorelikelytoadoptlessmarkedstructures,irrespectiveofwhethertheywere originallyL1orL2structuresor,possibly,neitherL1norL2.Transferanduniversal markednesspatternsareknowntointeractinintricateways{inthisrespect,SLA researchissimilartopidginandcreolestudies,whereananalogoussubstrateinuenceversuslanguageuniversalsdebatehasdominatedthediscussionfordecades.In theeldofSLA,recentoptimality-theoreticapproachesprovidesophisticatedmeans tomodelthere-rankingofconstraintsinlightofuniversalhierarchiesofmarkedness, buttheyarebasedonexplicitassumptionsabouttheinitialstateofthelearner,i.e. hisorherL1constraintranking,andarethusofonlylimitedvaluetothestudy ofthedevelopmentofcreolesPlag,2009,124.Aslongaswedonotknowthe exactidentityofinputlanguagesinsituationsofcreoleformation,wecanonlyrely onconventionalwisdom,partlyderivedfromSLAresearchcf.e.g.Holm,2004, 137-139:Creolelanguagefeaturesreecttheinuenceofsuperstrate,substrate andadstratelanguages,universalsofL2acquisitionandindependentinnovation. Itisdiculttodeterminewhenceaparticularphonologicalfeaturecame,because ofthefrequentconvergenceofallorsomeoftheseprocesses.Contactlanguages areoftensaidtoretainfeaturescommontotheirsourcelanguages,butphonetic realisationsfollowprimarilytherulesofsubstratelanguages.Substratelanguages

PAGE 94

68 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS mayalsocontributephonemestothenewlyformedcreole,butthelikelihoodofthe adoptionofsuchfeaturesisgreatestwhenbothsubstrateinuenceanduniversal tendenciesconverge. 2.4.2GeneralcharacteristicsofCaribbeancreolevowelsystems AsSmithstated,[t]hereislittlepointinindulginginageneraldiscussionof thephonologicalsystemsofcreolelanguages,astheydonotformanykindofunique type".Whilethisnotionistosomeextentdisputedbylinguistswhopropose thatcreolelanguagesmayformadistincttypologicalclassandthattherearespecictypologicalcharacteristicswhichreliablysetotheclassofcreolelanguage fromnon-creolelanguages,concreteevidenceofthisviewisscarce.McWhorter ,forinstance,claimedthat[t]heworld'ssimplestgrammarsarecreolegrammars".Duetotheirrelativelyyoungage,heargued,creolelanguageslack thecomplexityofolder,non-creolelanguages,whichisonlyacquiredthroughtime. McWhorterproposedtocomparelanguages'phonologicalandgrammaticalsystems andsubsystemsintermsofboththeabsolutenumberofoppositionsandtherelative markednessofindividualunits,andhepredictedthatinthenalanalysis,there wouldbeahealthybandoflanguagesbeginningatthe`simplicity'polewhichwould allbecreoles".Kleinsetouttotestwhathereferredtoas,thecreole simplicityhypothesis"withregardtothesizeofphonemeinventories,thesize ofvowelqualityinventories,thenumberofstopconsonantseriesandthenumber ofattestedsyllabletypes.Hecreatedadatabasecontaining32creolelanguages, balancedwherepossiblebygeographicalregionandlexier,andfoundthat,with respecttothemeasuresapplied,creolesdidnotclustertowardthesimplerpole;if anything,creolesappearedtoclustertowardthetypologicalmiddle{theirphoneme andsyllableinventoriesweremoreaverageinsizethanthoseofnon-creolelanguages. Inhisanalysisofvowelqualityinventories 4 ,Klein,166-169evenfoundthat, onaverage,creolestendtoexhibitalargernumberofcontraststhannon-creoles. Thesendingsindicatethatcreolevowelinventoriescannotbeconsideredsmallin relationtothatofnon-creolelanguagesingeneral.However,aswasnotedinthe 4 FollowingMaddieson,Kleinrecordedvowellengthcontrastsasphonemiconly iftheywereaccompaniedbyvowelqualitydierences.

PAGE 95

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 69 previoussection,duringcreolisationspeakerstendtoadoptthosesegmentswhich aresharedintheinputlanguagesortomapL2soundsperceivedtobesimilaronto alreadyexistingL1categories.SinceEnglishhasacomparativelylargevowelinventorywhereasWestAfricanlanguageshavepredominantlyve-orseven-vowel systems,manyAtlanticEnglish-lexiercreolesmaystillhavefewervowelphonemes thanEnglish. Whileitisdiculttoviewcreolephonologiesasacoherenteldofstudydueto theextensivevariationamongcreoles,thesubsetofCaribbeanEnglish-lexiercreolesdoesshareanumberofgeneralcharacteristics.Theytypicallylackafront/back distinctioninlowvowels,theyrarelyhavemid-centralvowels,thedistinctionbetweentense/laxvowelpairsissaidtodependmoreheavilyonvowellengththanin metropolitanvarietiesofEnglish,andthereisatendencytowardsmonophthongal realisationsofphonemeswhichareproducedasnarrowdiphthongsinmetropolitan standardEnglishesseerelevantcontributionsinSchneideretal.,2004.Thesefeaturesareusuallyconsideredtoreectthecommonoriginandsharedsociohistoryof Caribbeancreolesratherthanmerelytheiridentityascreolelanguages. AlleynecharacterisedAfro-American",theearliestformofNewWorld creole,asavarietywithafour-tieredseven-vowelsystemasillustratedingure2.5. Themidvowels [E] and [O] aredescribedashavingarelativelylowfunctionalload, whichpresumablyreectstheirstatusasallophonicvariantsof /e/ and /o/ ina numberofAfricanlanguagesAlleyne,1980,39-41;Holm,2004,145-146 Figure2.5:Four-tieredvowelsystemofAfro-AmericanAlleyne,1980,38,76 Inadditiontotheabsenceofaproductivetense/laxdistinction,Alleyne arguedthattheemergingvowelsysteminitiallyalsolackedsystematicvowellength distinctions.LongvowelsinEnglishwereinterpretedasnucleiofneutrallength", whichwouldhaveresultedinalackofcontrastbetweenlong/shortpairssuchas beat and bit .MostCaribbeancreoleshavecoexistedwithEnglishforcenturiesand,

PAGE 96

70 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS accordingtoAlleyne,38-43,itwasduetothesustainedinuenceofEnglish thatvowelseventuallyacquiredlongcounterparts.However,Carterdisagreed andarguedthatvariabilityinvowellengthwascharacteristicofCaribbeancreoles fromthebeginning,derivingfromcompetingWestAfricansubsystems.Shealso suggestedthatthedistinctionbetweenlong/shortvowelpairsinsomeCaribbean creolesmaynotbeattributedtovowellengthperse,butrathertothedoublingor rearticulationofvowelsasitoccursinmanyAfricansubstratelanguages.Inany case,bothauthorsimpliedthatthedierenceinlengthbetweenresultinglong/short vowelpairsmaynothavebeenaccompaniedbydierentiationinvowelquality,at leastnottothesameextentasitisusuallythecaseinBritishorAmericanEnglish; moregenerally,however,opinionstendtodivergeonthisissueseee.g.discussioninRickford,1993,355-356.Thehypothesisthatdistinctivevowellengthwas initiallyinterpretedasadistinctionbetweensingleanddoublevowelsresemblesanotherclaimoftenmadeaboutearlyCaribbeancreolevowels:Asvowelsequences inmanyWestAfricanlanguagesarebettertreatedastwoelements,sincethey cancarrydierenttones,diphthongsareclaimedtohavebeenaddedonlylaterto Caribbeanvowelinventoriese.g.Holm,2004,148.Atpresent,researchonthesynchronicnatureofCaribbeancreolevowelsystemsisstillscarce,thoughsomeinroads havebeenmadewithrespecttovarietiesspokeninJamaicae.g.Patrick,1999b; Wassink,1999a,2001;Irvine,2008.Theresultsofindividualstudieswhichinvolve theacousticanalysisofvowelsinNorthAmericanandCaribbeancreolelanguages willbefurtherdiscussedbelowseesection2.4.4. 2.4.3Sociophoneticsandtheanalysisofvowels Insociolinguistics,theexaminationofphonologicalvariablesandtheirdistribution withrespecttolanguage-internaland-externalfactorshasalongtraditione.g. Labov,2006;Trudgill,1974.Manystudieshavealsoinvestigatedthephonetic qualityofphonologicalvariants,buttheyvaryconsiderablyintheamountofphoneticdetail.Impressionistic,auditoryanalysishaslongbeenthestandardmethod forthedescriptionofvowelsandvowelinventories,butmorerecently,duetotheincreasedavailabilityofhigh-qualityrecordingdevicesandsoftwarepackagesforthe acousticanalysisofsoundwaves,instrumental,acoustictechniqueshavebecome morecommon.Section2.4.3.1belowwillfocusbrieyontheauditorymethodin

PAGE 97

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 71 ordertointroducetwocommonlyusedframeworks:oneforthedescriptionofvowel qualitytheIPAvowelchartandanotherforthecomparisonofvowelinventories andlexicalincidenceacrossdierentvarietiesofEnglishJohnWells'standardlexicalsets.Bothoftheseframeworksprovideimportantanchoringpointsforthe presentstudy.Section2.4.3.2willthenintroducehowperceivedvowelqualityis representedinthespeechsignalandcan,thus,bedescribedusingacousticanalysis methods. 2.4.3.1Importantframeworksforthesociolinguisticanalysisofvowels Thetypicalprocedureintheauditoryanalysisofvowelsistolistenrepeatedlyto recordingsofspeechandtotranscribetheperceivedvowelsegmentsusingthesymbolsprovidedbytheInternationalPhoneticAlphabetIPA.TheIPAwasrst issuedbytheInternationalPhoneticAssociationin1886andhassincethenundergoneseveralrevisions,thelastonecompletedin2005 5 .Accordingtothe Handbook oftheInternationalPhoneticAssociation ,vowelscanbedenedassounds whichoccuratsyllablecentres,andwhich,becausetheyinvolvelessextremenarrowingofthevoweltractthanconsonants,cannoteasilybedescribedintermsofa `placeofarticulation'asconsonantscan".Instead,vowelsoundsareclassied intermsofanabstract,quasi-articulatoryspacemodel,derivedfromDanielJones' workonCardinalvowelsandvariouslyreferredtoasthevowelquadrilateral,the voweltrapeziumor,simply,thevowelchart. Similartothecardinalpointsofacompass,Cardinalvowelswereintendedto serveasstandardreferencepoints,representingtheuniversallimitsofvocalicarticulationwithrespecttotonguepositionandlippostureseegure2.6,left.Two primaryCardinalvowels,C1andC5,weredenedbyarticulatorymeans,theirpositionsconstrainedbytheconstrictionwhichwouldbecreatedifarticulatorygestures wereanymoreextremeinthehigh/lowandfront/backdimensions.AllotherprimaryCardinalvowelswerepositionedatintermediate,auditorilyequidistantsteps alongthemarginsofthevowelspace.C1throughC5areproducedwiththelips spreadorneutral,whileC6throughC8requireroundedandincreasinglyprotruded lips.ThesetofprimaryCardinalvowelswasaccompaniedbyasetofsecondaryCardinalvowels,occupyingtheexactsamepositionswithreverselipposturesClark, 5 Anewchartwithminorlayoutchangeswaspublishedin2015.

PAGE 98

72 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS YallopandFletcher2007:24;JonesOutline1962:31-32.Inanattempttoretain morearticulatoryinformationinthemodel,Jonesinitiallymadeuseofasloping-top trapezoid,reectingthegreaterdistancebetweenfrontvowels,whichheonlylater abandonedforasimpliedversionwithparalleltopandbottomandrightanglesat topandbottomback{theversionadoptedbytheIPAseegure2.6,right.In additiontotheCardinalvowels,theIPAvowelchartoerssymbolsformidcentral vowelsandforanumberofintermediatelocations. Figure2.6:Left:PrimaryCardinalvowelsafterJones;right:Thecurrent IPAvowelchartInternationalPhoneticAssociation,2015 Today,itiscustomarytodescribevowelqualitywithrespecttothethreedimensionsrepresentedinthevowelchart:vowel/tongueheight,vowel/tongueposition/frontnessandvowelroundednessor:liprounding.Thereremainssome disagreementastowhetherthoselabels,whichstillreectthequasi-articulatory originofthemodel,shouldbeinterpretedinacautiouslyproprioceptive-tactileway, orwhetheranydirectassociationwitharticulatorycongurationsshouldbestbe avoidedinfavourofastrictandexclusiveauditoryreadingLindblad,2001,106. Whileitisindisputablethattheacousticoutputduringvowelproductionismainly governedbythesizeandshapeoftheairpassageabovethelarynx,which,inturn, canbemodiedbyarticulatorygestures,itisbynomeansclearwhichaspectsof articulatoryposition,ifany,arethemostreliableindicatorsofvowelquality.Even theearliestX-raystudiesoftonguepositionshowedthatthecorrespondencebetweenthelocationofvowelsinthevowelchartandthehighestpointofthetongue areroughatbestseegure9.3inLadefoged,2001,203.Theprimaryfunctionof

PAGE 99

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 73 thevowelsymbolsprovidedbytheIPAvowelchartistoserveasreferencevalues forphoneticiansandphonologists.Asneithervowelproductionnorvowelperceptionisabsoluteanddierencesbetweenvowelqualitiesaregradual,thereobviously remainsasubjectivefactorinanyauditoryanalysis.Agreementbetweendierent transcriberstendstobelowtosatisfactory,dependingontheamountoftraining andtranscribingconditionse.g.GutandBayerl,2004. Itwasandinsomecasesstilliscommonpracticetodescribethevowelinventories ofdierentaccentsofEnglishbycomparingthemtoeitherReceivedPronunciation RPorGeneralAmericanGenAm.Wellsdevisedamoreconvenientand democraticreferencesystemwhichallowsthemappingofvowelstoacommonset ofkeywords,eachrepresentingalargegroupofwords,theso-called standardlexical sets .Wellsexplainsasfollows: [Thestandardlexicalsets]enableonetoreferconciselytolargegroupsof wordswhichtendtosharethesamevowel,andtothevowelwhichtheyshare. TheyarebasedonthevowelcorrespondenceswhichapplybetweenBritish ReceivedPronunciationandavarietyofGeneralAmerican,andmakeuse ofkeywordsintendedtobeunmistakablenomatterwhataccentonesaysthem in.Thus`theKITwords'refersto`ship,bridge,milk...';`theKITvowel' referstothevowelthesewordshaveinmostaccents, /I/ ;bothmayjustbe referredtoasKIT.Wells,1982,xviii Thefulllistofstandardlexicalsetsforvowelsinstressedorpotentiallystressed syllablesisgivenbelowintable2.2,alongwiththeircorrespondingvowelphonemes inRPandGenAm.

PAGE 100

74 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS Table2.2:Thestandardlexicalsets;reproducedfromWells,xviii-xix,123 KeywordRPGenAm KeywordRPGenAm 1.KIT II 13.THOUGHT O:O 2.DRESS eE 14.GOAT @Uo 3.TRAP 15.GOOSE u:u 4.LOT 6A 16.PRICE aIaI 5.STRUT 22 17.CHOICE OIOI 6.FOOT UU 18.MOUTH aUaU 7.BATH A: 19.NEAR I@I r 8.CLOTH 6O 20.SQUARE E@E r 9.NURSE 3:3r 21.START A:A r 10.FLEECE i:i 22.NORTH O:O r 11.FACE eIeI 23.FORCE O:o r 12.PALM A:A 24.CURE U@U r 2.4.3.2Acousticanalysisofvowelquality Labovetal.1972markedthebeginningofacousticanalysismethodsinthestudy ofdialectvariation.Thisstudyshowedthatspectrographicanalysisreadilyilluminatesne-graineddierentiationofdialectalvowelqualityvariants,andthatconversationalspeechis,inprinciple,suitabletolarge-scaleacousticanalysis.This sectionisintendedasabriefintroductiontotheacousticcorrelatesofvowelquality; itoutlineswhatanacousticanalysisofvowelqualityentailsandhowtheresultscan beinterpreted.Formoredetailed,accessibleintroductionstotheacousticanalysisofspeechandspeechacousticssee,forexample,HarringtonandCassidy andKentandRead.DiPaoloandYaeger-DrorandThomas provideintroductionstotheeldofsociophonetics. Allsoundresultsfromvibrationofonekindoranother.Acousticspeechsignals areformedwhenvocalorgansmove,causingapatternofdisturbanceintheairparticlesthatispropagatedoutwardsandthroughspace,muchlikeripplesonapond. Theacousticbehaviourandpropertiesofthevocaltractduringvowelproduction aregenerallyconsideredintermsofalinearsource-ltermodel,whichproposes thattheexcitationsignalofthesourcecanbemodeledasindependentfromthe ltercharacteristicsofthevocaltract"Harrington,2013,81.Thevibratingvocalfoldsofthelarynxactasanecientsourceofsound.Theycreateacomplex quasi-periodicsoundwave,whosepowerspectrumcontainsallharmonicsatmultipleintegersofthefundamentalfrequencyF0,whichitselfdependsontherateof

PAGE 101

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 75 vocalfoldvibration.Thesoundwavesubsequentlypassesthroughthesupralaryngealvocaltract,whereitismodiedbytheresonatingcharacteristicsofthenasal, oralandpharyngealcavities,whichfunctionasafrequencylter:Somefrequencies areenhances,whileothersaredampened.Asthepositionofarticulatorschanges thesizeandshapeoftheoralcavity,thisinturnmodiestheresonatingproperties ofthevocaltract.Theresonancefrequenciesofagivenvocaltractshapeareknown as formants ,andtheyarethemostimportantacousticcuetovowelqualitye.g. HarringtonandCassidy,1999,30-33. Figure2.7:Waveformandspectrogramforvewordsutteredinisolationbya participantofthisstudyBen03 Formantsareclearlyvisibleasdarkhorizontalbandsinaspectrographicdisplayseegure2.7providedbyspeechanalysissoftwarepackagessuchasPraat BoersmaandWeenik,2009orEMU-webAppWinkelmannandRaess,2014, whichalsooerautomaticformantfrequencyestimationmethods.Forthedierentiationofvowels,itisusuallysucienttorefertothersttwoformantsF1andF2. Inanumberofearlystudies,itwasdemonstratedthatF1andF2correlatewith thedescriptivedimensionsofthevowelquadrilateral:F1isinverselyproportionalto

PAGE 102

76 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS vowelheight,andF2increaseswithvowelfrontnessHarringtonandCassidy,1999. TheF1 F2planehassincebecomeoneofthestandardwaysofillustratingand comparingvowelqualitiesseee.g.Thomas,2001;Labovetal.,2006.Figure2.8is anexampleofsucharepresentation;itdisplaysthemeanF1andF2frequenciesof allprimaryandsecondaryCardinalvowelsasproducedbyDanielJones.Ascanbe gleanedfromthepositionaldierencebetweenroundedredandunroundedblue counterparts,formantsarealsoinuencedbythepresenceoflip-rounding,lowering theirfrequenciesespeciallyintheF2andF3dimension. Figure2.8:MeanF1andF2frequencyvaluesofroundedredandunroundedblue CardinalvowelsasutteredbyDanielJones;adaptedfromThomas,146 Beforeformantscanbeestimated,adecisionhastobemadeconcerningwhere,at whattimepointsinthevowel,measurementsshouldbetaken.Ifresearchfocusses ontheclassicationofvowels,itiscommonpracticetotryandlocatethatpart ofavowelwhichispresumablymostrepresentativeofitsintendedquality,known astheacousticvoweltarget.Inmonophthongs,thevoweltargettypicallyoccurs atorclosetothetemporalmidpointofthevowel,wheretheinuenceofanking segmentsisminimalandformantvaluesarerelativelystable.Thereareseveral methodstoautomatisethisprocedure,whichinvolvetakingmeasurementseitherat

PAGE 103

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 77 pre-speciedabsoluteorproportionaldistancesfromthevowelmarginsorattime pointswhichmarkachangeindirectionforoneormoreformantsThomas,2011, 150-152. Theperceptualdistinctionbetweenmonophthongsanddiphthongsisquitesalient, asdiphthongsseemtoinvolvenotonebuttwovoweltargets.Itisnotstraightforward,however,howbesttodescribediphthongsinacousticterms.Threecontemporaryapproachesformodellingvowel-inherentspectralchangehaveprovensomewhat successfulindeterminingthespectralandtemporalfeatureslistenersuseinidentifyingdiphthongs,eachtakingthepositionthatvowelonsetformantvaluesare relevant:theonset+osethypothesis,whichholdsthatlistenersadditionallyand minimallyneedacertainamountofchangebyvoweloset,theonset+direction hypothesis,whichassertsthattheonlyadditionallyrelevantfactoristhedirection ofmovement,andtheonset+slopehypothesis,whichclaimsthatlistenersadditionallyattendtoboththedirectionandrateofmovementseeMorrison,2013.On reviewingtherelevantliterature,Morrison,31foundthattheonset+oset hypothesiswassuperiorintermsofleadingtohighercorrect-classicationrates andhighercorrelationwithlisteners'vowelidenticationresponses"inboth nominalmonophthongsanddiphthongs.Healsostatedthatsimplemodelsbased onformantmeasurementstakenattwotimepoints,onsetandoset,have,asyet, notbeenoutperformedbymorecomplexmodelswhichtcurvestowholeformant trajectories. Instrumentalacousticphoneticmethodspermitexaminationofsomevariables whichcannotbeanalysedimpressionistically.Theycancapturetheoperationof low-levelphoneticfeatureswithinthelargerrealmoflinguisticvariationandchange andmay,thus,aidinexplainingphonologicalphenomena.Agoodexampleisthe workbyMoretonandThomase.g.2007,cf.section4.2.2.3,whoexaminedsubtlevoicing-conditionedeectsofconsonantsontheglideofprecedingdiphthongs, whichmaybeinvolvedinthedevelopmentofallophonicrulessuchas`Canadian raising'.Inthisrespect,sociophoneticresearch,whilerecognisingtheintertwined natureoflinguisticvariationandsocialmeaning,oerstogobeyondthemerediscoveryofsocialfunction.AccordingtoFoulkesetal.,theunifyingthemeof sociophoneticworkistheaimofidentifying,andultimatelyexplaining,thesources, loci,parameters,andcommunicativefunctionsofsocially-structuredvariationin speech".Researchwithinthesociophoneticframeworkexplicitlyinvokesan

PAGE 104

78 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS intersectionbetweentheeldsofsociolinguisticsandphonetics.Bothparentelds arecharacterisedbytheirowngeneralaimsandmethodologicalpriorities,which needtobebalancediftheyaretobecombinedfruitfully.Sociolinguisticstudiesrequiretheirspeechsamplestobeasnaturalforagivenspeakerandasrepresentative ofagivenspeakergroupaspossible.Phoneticians,conversely,valuereplicability mosthighlyandaimformaximumexperimentalcontrol.AsHayandDrager argued,onlyacombinationofsociolinguistic,anthropologicalandphoneticresearch toolswillpermitanintegratedunderstandingofhowphoneticandphonological variationisproducedandperceivedinitssocialcontext. 2.4.4AcousticstudiesofCaribbeancreolevowels MostresearchreportsonacousticanalysesofvowelsintheCaribbeanarecentredon languagevarietiesintheJamaicancreolecontinuum.Veatchinvestigatedthe acousticcharacteristicsofthevowelsproducedbytwomalerepresentativeseachof fourEnglish-relatedvarieties,mesolectalJamaicanCreoleJamC,ChicagoWhite English,AlabamaEnglish,andLosAngelesChicanoEnglish,inaneorttoprovide avariety-specicphoneticgrammar"whichrelatessurfacephonologicalstructures tomeasurablephoneticforms.ForJamC,hepositedseventeenvowelqualities, includingsixshort,eightlongordiphthongalandthreer-colouredvowels,distributed inatriangularorV-shapeinF1 F2acousticspace.Highandmidlong/shortvowel pairswerefoundtodieralsoinvowelquality,withthelongercounterpartsraised andperipheralised,whichallowedthemtofunctionasseparatesubsystemsinsound change. OneofthevariablesthatPatrickbanalysedinhisstudyonsocialvariation inurbanmesolectalJamCwasKYA,whichreferstothevariableinsertionofa palatalglideaftervelarsandbeforelowvowels.Thefront/backdistinctionamong lowvowelshasbeenlostformany,especiallyworking-class,JamCspeakers,so thatthevowelsinwordslike cat and cot arespectrallyindistinguishable.Patrick bprovidedacousticmeasurementsoftokensinthelow-vowelspacefortwo speakers,RoseandTamas,whoexempliedtheprestige"andtraditional"pattern, respectively.HefoundthateventhoughTamasandspeakerslikehimdidnot distinguishlowfrontandlowbackvowelsqualities,KYAconsistentlyoccurred onlyinthosecontexts,wherethevowelwaslowandfrontin17thcenturyBritish

PAGE 105

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 79 dialects{andstillisforprestigespeakerslikeRose.He,thus,concludedthatKYA mustbeaphonolexicallydistributedvariable,whichservestodistinguishminimal pairsforatleastsomecreolespeakers. Themostcomprehensiveandcomparativelylarge-scaleacousticstudyofJamC vowelswasconductedbyWassinka,2001,whocomparedthevowelsystems oftenbasilect-dominant,rural-orientedandnineacrolect-dominant,urban-oriented speakersofJamC,linkingphoneticfeatureswithsociolinguisticfactors.AsVeatch before,shefoundabasicV-shapeddistributionofvowelsinF1 F2acousticspace,thoughapatterncouldbediscernedwhichdistinguishedbasilect-from acrolect-dominantspeakers:Forthelatter,vowelsweredistributedfairlyevenly alongtheperipheryofthevowelspace,whiletheformerproducedaclusteringof vowelsinthehighfront,low,andhighbackregionsWassink,1999a,176-182. OneofthemainaimsofWassink'sstudywastoassessthenatureandrelativerole ofvowelquantityandqualitydierencesinphonemiccontrasts,basedmainlyon word-listdata.Shefoundthatthetemporaldistinctionintense/laxvowelpairswas moresalientforhighback /u:,u/ thanfortheothervowelqualitysubsystems /i:, i/ and /a:,a/ ,butthelong/shortdurationratiosforallvowelpairscamecloseto orexceeded1.6,thelowerboundforlanguageswithphonemiclengthdistinctions. Onaverage,basilect-dominantspeakersshowedslightlyhigherdurationratios.As concernsvowelquality,Wassinkfoundthatbothbasilect-andacrolect-dominant speakersdisplayedsomespectraldistinctions,butthattheformershowedagreater tendencytowardsspectraloverlapoftense/laxvowelpairs.Inconjunctionwith thetemporalndings,shearguedthatthismaysuggestthatspectraldistinctivenessdoesnotplayasprominentaroleintense/laxcontrastsforbasilect-dominant speakersasitdoesforacrolect-dominantonesWassink,1999a,168-173.Combiningvisualassessmentofvowelsystemdata,acousticandauditoryanalyses,she arguedforaphonologicalinterpretationofherresultsandproposedtwodistinct vowelsystemsforbasilectalandacrolectalJamCWassink,2001,150-151. AcousticanalysesofthevowelsystemsofotherCaribbeancreolevarietiesare morecursoryandprovidebasicoverviewsofthevowelproductionsofindividual speakers,usuallywiththeintentionofusingthemaspreliminarymodelsofcomparisonwithotherlanguagevarieties.Thomaspublishedamonographmeantas areferencetool,whichexaminestheacousticvariationinvowelcongurationsina widerangeofEnglishvarietiesintheNorthAmericancontext.Thevowelsystemsof

PAGE 106

80 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS individualspeakersareillustratedintheformofF1 F2vowelformantplots,where monophthongsarerepresentedbypointsanddiphthongsbyarrowsextendingfrom thersttargetnucleustothesecondtargetglide.Accompanyingcomments pointoutthemostsalientfeaturesofagivendialectoridiolect.Creolevarieties arerepresentedbyfourspeakers:abasilectalGuyaneseCreolespeaker,amesolectal JamaicanCreolespeaker,anupper-mesolectalspeakerfromGrenada,andanearly mesolectalGullahspeakerbornin184461-165.Thomasexplicitlynotedthat thecreolevowelsystemsprovideddonotcapturetheentirerangeofvariationin thesevarietiesandareincludedhereforcomparisonwithAfricanAmericanvowels".Thevowelsofthreeofthecreolespeakershadbeenanalysedpreviously byThomasandBaileytoshowthatearlyAfricanAmericanVernacularEnglishAAVEsharesanumberofphoneticandphonologicalfeatureswithAmerican creoles,inparticularmonophthongal /e/ and /o/ lexicalsetsFACEandGOAT andnon-fronted /au/ MOUTH,whichmayindicatecommonsubstrateinuence. TheonlyacousticanalysisofvowelsinBahamianvarietieswasconductedby Childsetal.,whopresentedastudyofaccommodationpatternsbetween whiteandblackBahamianspeakersontheislandofAbaco.Thegeneralsettingof AbacoissomewhatisolatedfromtheotherislandsintheBahamas"and,impressionistically,theblackvarietyinvestigatedisalittledierentfromtheNassau dialect,whichtendstobeabitmorevernacular".TheimmediateapplicationoftheirndingstotheurbanBahCcontext,therefore,seemsdoubtful,and anygeneralisationswhichmightbedrawnfromtheirstudyhavetobeevaluated carefully.Theresultsofanacousticanalysisofvowelqualitiesproducedbythree whiteandthreeblackAbaconians,chosentorepresentthreeagegroupsintheir respectivespeechcommunities,arepresentedinsuchawaythattheyaredirectly comparabletothevowelcongurationsinThomas.Childsetal.documentanitieswithbothsouthernUSdialects,includingAAVE,andCaribbean creolevarieties.WhiteAbaconians,forinstance,sharedthefrontingofbackvowels in /au,o,u/ lexicalsetsMOUTH,GOATandGOOSEwithanumberofsouthern whitedialects,whichwasabsentinthespeechofblackAbaconians.BlackAbaconiansdisplayedweakenedglidesin /ai/ PRICEbeforevoicedconsonants,which iscommonamongAAVEspeakersandhasspreadtoothersouthernUSdialects. Glide-weakeninginPRICEwasalsofoundinthevowelproductionsoftheyoungest whiteAbaconianspeakerandmaybeattributedtoinuencefromtheUSoraccommodationtoblacknorms. /2/ STRUTwasbackedandroundedinthespeech

PAGE 107

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 81 ofbothblackandwhiteAbaconians;forblackparticipants,STRUTapproached andoverlappedwith /O/ THOUGHT,whichisawell-documentedfeatureofother CaribbeancreolesandGullahbutrareinnon-creolisedUSvarieties-26.Based ontheseandotherobservationsconcerningtheidentityanddistributionofvocalic andconsonantalvariants,Childsetal.concludedthattheblackandwhite speechcommunitiesonAbacoshowedsignsofbothbilateralaccommodationanda continuationofanethnicdivide.Inaddition,theyarguedthat,whileAbaconianBahamianvarietiesmaysharecertainfeatureswithvarietiesinNorthAmerica,Great BritainandtheCaribbean,noparticularsourcealignsisomorphicallywithallthe featuresofthesevarieties".Itis,thus,reasonabletoassumethatthetruehistoryofvoweldevelopment[...]istiedtofoundereects,contact,accommodation, andinnovation". 2.4.5TheBahamianCreolevowelsystem Despiteitsinterestinglinguisticecology,researchonBahamianspeechand,inparticular,onBahamianvowelshasbeenscarce.Therstsystematicdescriptionof BahamianvowelswaspublishedinJohnWells' AccentsofEnglish ,where, basedonearlierimpressionisticaccountsandtheintuitionsofoneAnglo-Bahamian informant,heimpartedtentative'informationontheBahamianvowelsystem. AnotherearlysourceisHolmandShilling's DictionaryofBahamianEnglish , whichcontainsaroughpronunciationguideofexamplewordsinrelaxedNassau speech"viiaccordingtotheauthors'personalexperience.Themostrecent,comprehensiveaccountofBahamianvowelsandtheirlexicalincidencewaspresented byChildsandWolfram,whoprovidedastructuredcompilationofprevious reports.InadditiontoWells,theyreliedheavilyontheinformationderived fromtheacousticstudyinAbacobyChildsetal.,whichwasintroduced insection2.4.4above.FurtherdescriptionsofBahamianvowelscanbefoundin Shilling,Holm,Donnelly,Reaser,andHackert. Inthefollowing,thekeycontributionsbyWells,HolmandShilling, andChildsandWolframwillbereferredtoas Wells , HS ,and CW ,respectively. Thenatureoftheavailablesourcematerialsisratherheterogeneous,as,forthe mostpart,theauthorsdidnotdistinguishconsistentlybetweenthedierentregional

PAGE 108

82 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS andsocialvarietiesfoundintheBahamas.CWexplicitlyignoredvariationonthe basilect-acrolectcontinuum,whichtheyconsideredmorerelevantforthedescription ofmorphosyntacticthanphonologicalfeatures.Whileitmaybetruethatitis diculttodrawafundamentaldistinctionbetweendialectalandcreolevarieties basedonphoneticandphonologicalpropertiesseesection2.3.4,thisdoesnotimply thatcreolespeechcommunitieshaveonlyoneinvariantmodelofpronunciation.As Holm04noted,[s]peakers'phonologiescanvaryconsiderablydependingon theirpositiononthiscontinuumoflects,ascanthephonologyofasinglespeaker whocommandsarangeoflectsfordierentsocialsituations".Research intheJamaicancontexte.g.Wassink,1999a;Patrick,1999b;Irvine,2008shows thatsociallyandstylisticallyconditionedvarieties,whichmaybecategorisedas basilectal,mesolectalandacrolectal,indeeddisplaysignicantdierencesonthe levelofphoneticsandphonology.Whendiscussingaspectsofcreolevowelsystems, itis,thus,absolutelynecessarytoaddressandinvestigatethedimensionofsocial variation. Table2.3describesthelexicalincidenceofvowelsinBahamianvarietiesaccordingtothereportsinHS,WellsandCW.Thelexicalsetswereroughlyordered accordingtovowelqualitytoenhancedreadability.Table2.4presentsthecorrespondingvowelsystems,withproposedphonemesgroupedforconvenienceinto threecategories:short/neutralvowels,longvowels,anddiphthongs.WellsexplicitlyproposedavowelsystemofBahamianspeech",whichisreplicatedwith onlyminormodicationsreectingfurthercommentshemadeintheaccompanying text.ThevowelsystemsforHSandCWwerederivedfromtheirdescriptionsofthe lexicalincidenceofvowels.Itisobviousthatthereisahighdegreeofdisagreement betweenauthorsaswellassomevariationinherenttotheindividualsystems,which wasvariouslyattributedtofreeorsociallyconstrainedvariation.AllauthorsdescribedBahCasanon-rhoticaccent,whichisreectedinthecentringdiphthongsin NEAR/SQUARE,and,possibly,inCURE,FORCEandNORTH.Also,allproposed vowelsystemsmakeuseofbothvowelqualityandvowelquantitydistinctions,but thesalienceattributedtotheirrespectiverolesinmarkingphonologicalcontrasts variesacrossaccounts.AccordingtoCW,thereareonlytwolongvowels, /A:/ and /u:/ ,andothercontrastsseemtorelyprimarilyondierencesinvowelquality. Itisinthelowvowelsandmidtolowbackvowels,distributedacrossthelexicalsetsTRAP,BATH,START,PALM,THOUGHT,CLOTH,LOTandSTRUT,

PAGE 109

2.4.CREOLEPHONOLOGY 83 Table2.3:LexicalincidenceofvowelsinBahamianvarietiesaccordingtoHS,Wells, andCW LexicalsetHSWellsCW LexicalsetHSWellsCW FLEECE i:i:i GOOSE u:u:u: KIT III FOOT UUU FACE e:e:ei GOAT o:o:ou DRESS EEE FORCE o:oao@ TRAP aa NORTH OoaO@ BATH a: a:a MOUTH aUAUaO AO START a:a:A: PRICE aI2Iai Ai PALM a:a: A:A CHOICE 2I OI@iOi THOUGHT OA: O:O NURSE 2I 2@i 3:@i 3 CLOTH --A: O:O NEAR E@eae@ i@ LOT OA OA SQUARE E@eae@ STRUT 2 O22 O CURE --oau@ wheretheaccountsseemtodivergethemost.TRAPisunanimouslydescribed asashort,lowandfairlycentralvowel,butitremainsunclearwhetheritcontrastswithSTARTandPALMprimarilyinvowelquality,vowelquantity,orboth. BATHisgroupedwithSTARTinWells,withTRAPinCW,andoccupiesanintermediate,variablepositioninHS.Partofthisconfusionpresumablyderivesfrom thevaryingvowelqualitiesascribedtoTHOUGHT,CLOTHandLOT.Forallauthors,THOUGHTdiersqualitativelyfromSTART.WhileHSandCWdescribe THOUGHTasshort,backandrounded /O/ ,Wellstranscribesitas /A:/ ,overlappingwithPALM;accordingtohim,THOUGHTisroundedonlyinmiddle-class speech.WhereCLOTHisincluded,itpatternswithTHOUGHT.LOT,however, isvaryinglygroupedwithTHOUGHTHS,withPALMCWordescribedasa shortversionofTHOUGHTWells.STRUTisdescribedasextremelybackedby allauthors,awell-documentedfeatureinmanyotherCaribbeancreoles,butonly HSandCWnotethatisencroachesonTHOUGHT. HSandWellsdescribethevowelsinFACEandGOATaslongmonophthongs /e:/ and /o:/ ,whichisalsotypicalofmanyCaribbeancreolesandGullah,but theyarediphthongal /ei/ and /ou/ inCW.Allauthorsproposeclosingdiphthongs inCHOICE,NURSE,MOUTH,andPRICE.DiphthongalNURSEisaconspicuousfeatureofBahC,atruemarker"Donnelly,1997,23,whichisonlyreplaced withmonophthongal /2/ or /3:/ intheacrolect.Theauthorsdisagreewhether diphthongalNURSEismergedwithCHOICEorwhethercontrastispreserved.

PAGE 110

84 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS Table2.4:ProposedvowelsystemsaccordingtoHS,Wells,andCW Author Shortvowels Longvowels Diphthongs HS IU i:u: E,O e:o: E@2I OI a: aI,aU Wells IU i:u: E2 e::o: ea@ioa a A a: A:O: 2I,AU CW i u: i@u@ IU e@,eio@,ou E3*,O @i*O@,Oi aA A: ai,aO *variantsofthesameunderlyingphoneme RealisationsofMOUTHandPRICE,nally,appearrelativelystraightforward:All authorsdescribethemasglidingfromalow,fairlycentralpositiontowardsthehight backandhighfrontofthevowelspace,respectively.Therearesomecommentsin theliterature,however,thatPRICEand/orMOUTHmaybeinvolvedinextensive allophonicvariatione.g.ChildsandWolfram,2004,441. Adirectcomparisonofthevowelsystemsintable2.4highlightssomeofthe dierencesbetweentheaccountsalreadyobservedabove.ForHSandWells,thereis aroughlyequalnumberoflongandshortvowels,whileCWproposearelativelylarge amountofdiphthongs.Thecontrastbetweenlongandshortlowmonophthongal vowelphonemesmayormaynotdependadditionallyondierencesinvowelquality. Dependingonwhether /2/ hasphonemicstatus,thevowelsystemproposedbyHS comprises15or16vowelphonemes.Wellsreservessomevowelqualities, /6/ , /O:/ and /3:/ ,formiddle-classspeakersonly,sothatthemostbasicvowelsystem,which maybeconsideredbasilectal,has15vowels,andthemostelaborate,acrolectal systemhas18or19vowels.CWproposeaminimumof19andamaximumof21 vowelphonemesintheAfro-Bahamianvowelinventory,dependingonthephonemic statusof /2/ and /i@/ ; /3/ and /@i/ arevariantsofthesameunderlyingphoneme.

PAGE 111

2.5.RESEARCHOBJECTIVEANDGENERALRESEARCHQUESTIONS 85 2.5Researchobjectiveandgeneralresearchquestions Researchoncreoleshastendedtoemphasisetheirnatureaslanguagecontactphenomenaand,partlyduetothedicultyofproducinghigh-qualityrecordingsofcreoleusageinthesesociolinguisticallycomplexsocieties,studieshavemainlyfocussed ongrammaticaldescriptions.Sofar,theliteraturelacksadetailedinstrumental acousticcharacterisationofthevowelsystemsoperatingwithintheBahamiancreolecontinuum.Thepresentstudyseekstoremedythissituationandtoextentthe bodyofresearchinthesociophoneticparadigmbypresentinganacousticanalysis ofsynchronicvariationinthevowelsystemsofurbanBahamianspeech.Amajor challengeinthisstudywastheheterogeneousnatureofthedataandsourcematerials,whichwillbeintroducedindetailinchapter3.Anotherchallengeconcernedthe relativelylargescopeofthestudy,whichnecessitatedabalancedapproach,combiningin-depth,phoneticallyne-grainedanalysesofindividuallyselectedvariables withmoreholisticanalysismethodsforothers,andwithasociolinguisticinterpretationoftheresults.Inwhatfollows,theoverarchingresearchquestionswhich motivatedallanalysesinthisstudywillbeoutlined;concretehypothesesregarding individualvariablesorgroupsofvariablesarerelegatedtotheirrespectiveanalysis sections. Oneaimofthisstudywastoprovidearstin-depthacousticdescriptionofthe urbanBahCvowelsystem.Apartformapurelydescriptivescheme,thefollowing questionsguidedtheanalyses: 1.Whichproposedphonemicmergersornear-mergerscanbesubstantiatedby theresultsofacousticanalyses? 2.Cansalientallophonicdistributionpatternsexplain,tosomeextent,theapparentlackofagreementintheimpressionisticaccounts? 3.Whatistherelativeroleofspectralandtemporalcharacteristicsinmarking phonologicalcontrastsamongmonophthongs? Asecondgroupofresearchquestionsfocussedonaspectsofsociolinguisticvariation:

PAGE 112

86 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS 1.WhichaspectsoftheBahCvowelsystemaresubjecttovariationbysocial class?Whichvariablesareespeciallyprominentassocialmarkersoreven stereotypesintheurbanBahamiancontext? 2.Arenon-standardvariantsassociatedconsistentlywiththespeechoflowerstatusparticipants?And,conversely,dohigher-statusparticipantsconsistentlyavoidnon-standardvariants? 3.Howdoesstylisticvariationrelatetothesocialdistributionofgivenvariables? 4.Doesgenderplayaroleinthesocialdistributionofinvestigatedphonological variables?Doesvariationbygenderreectthe`typical'Westernpatternin thatfemalespeakersshowlinguisticinsecuritycomparedtomalespeakers? 5.Ingeneral,doacousticanalysessupporttheexistenceofasocially-and/or stylistically-anchoredcontinuumofphonologicalvariationintheurbanBahamiancontext,rangingfromamorebasilectalornon-standardtoamore acrolectalorstandardpole?Doallspeakersfollowthesamepatternor,ifnot, whichspeakersdisruptthepatternandwhy? 6.ThedatapertainingtosomespeakersinthisstudywerecollectedandpreviouslyusedbyHackertinherinvestigationofpastmarking.Howdoes thepatternofphonologicalvariationexhibitedbythesespeakerscompareto theirvariationinmorphosyntax? Lastly,havingestablishedtherealisationandlexicalincidenceofvowelsinthe urbanBahamiancontext,includingtheirpatternsofsocialandstylisticvariation, howdoesthederivedvowelinventoryreecttheBahamas'sociohistoryandits positionatthelinguisticcrossroadsoftheAmericas? 1.HowhomogenousaretheEnglish-derivedvarietiesspokenintheBahamas? WhataresalientdierencesbetweenthevarietiesspokeninNassau,NewProvidence,andonAbacoChildsetal.,2003? 2.HasthegeographicalclosenessoftheBahamastotheCaribbeanregionand theirsharedsociohistoricalandculturalbackgroundresultedinlinguisticaccommodation,traceableintherealisationofvowelsinBahamianspeech?

PAGE 113

2.5.RESEARCHOBJECTIVEANDGENERALRESEARCHQUESTIONS 87 3.WhichaspectsoftheBahamianvowelinventoryreecttheBahamas'historical andlinguisticconnectiontotheNorthAmericanmainland? 4.WhichrolesdostandardAmericanandstandardBritishEnglishplayinthe emergenceofalocal,i.e.Bahamian,standardmodelofpronunciation?

PAGE 114

88 CHAPTER2.ENGLISH,CREOLEANDTHEBAHAMAS

PAGE 115

Chapter3 Methodology 3.1Conversationaldata Asubsetofthespeakersanalysedinthisstudywasdrawnfromtape-recorded one-on-onesociolinguisticinterviewsessions,whichStephanieHackertconducted in1997/98aspartofherresearchprojectonpasttemporalreferenceinurbanBahC Hackert,2004.Individualsessionsusuallylastedbetweenoneandtwohours,and, asHackerttooktimetogettoknowherparticipants,resultedinrelativelycasual, conversationalinterviewstyle.Intotal,Hackertproducedandanalysedrecordings of20Nassauvianspeakers.Thequalityofrecordingsdieredconsiderablydependingonwheretheinterviewswereconducted.Someinterviewstookplaceinaquiet cornerofalocalparkoratthehomesofparticipants,inwhichcasethequality ofrecordingswasgenerallysucientforbasicformantestimation.Atothertimes, recordingswereproducedatthebeach,inthestreetsoratthebusyStrawmarket, renderinglargepartsinaccessibletoacousticanalysis.Asubsetof15speakerswas chosen,basedmainlyonthequalityofrecordings,torepresentthisgroupofspeakers inthepresentstudyseetable3.1. Allspeakerswereblack,ranginginagefrom25toover70.Pseudonymswere providedbyHackert.Inordertoassignparticipantstodierentsocialclasses, Hackertmadeuseoftheoccupationalclassicationschemedevelopedby GordonfortheJamaicancontext.Gordon'smodelofclass,status,and socialmobilitywasintroducedinsection2.3.3.2andalsoinformeddecisionsonclass 89

PAGE 116

90 CHAPTER3.METHODOLOGY Table3.1:Speakers,recordedin1997/98 SpeakerAgeEducationClass/Occupation Jeanne32SecondaryMS-6/Salesclerk SisterB39SecondaryMS-6/Salesclerk MrsSmith70+SecondaryPB-1/Smallproprietor MrsWall54PrimarPB-2/Strawvendor MrsMill60+PrimaryPB-3/Hairdresser George55PrimaryWC-2/Cook Sharon28SecondaryWC-3/Guard Sidney45+PrimaryWC-3/Guard Carol32SecondaryWC-3/Janitress Eddie46PrimaryWC-4/Constructionworker Albert60+PrimaryWC-4/Constructionworker Viola49PrimaryWC-5/Cleaner Shanae25SecondaryWC-5/Householdhelper Johnny25PrimaryWC-6/Agriculturallabourer Henry55PrimaryWC-6/Agriculturallabourer divisionsinthepresentstudy.Forstatisticalanalyses,thespeakersweregrouped intoten lower-classspeakers ,correspondingtotheworking-classparticipantsinthe sample,andve higher-classspeakers ,comprisingallnon-working-classparticipants. Ascanbeseenintable3.1,thecategoryofhigher-classspeakerswasrepresented exclusivelybyfemaleparticipants,sothattheanalysisofgenderdierenceswas connedtolower-classspeakersonly.Whileinformationonthelevelofeducationis includedintable3.1forthesakeofcompleteness,itcorrelatedwiththeparticipants' ageandsocialclass;therefore,theeectofeducationwasnotinvestigatedforthe speakersinthisdataset. 3.2Maptaskandcitationformdata AsecondsetofspeakerswasrecordedduringaDAAD-fundedeldworktripto Nassauinthesummerof2014.ThemaingoalwastocollectdatawhichwouldcomplementtheconversationaldatacollectedbyHackert,2004,butallowne-grained acousticphoneticanalysesofbothspectralandtemporalvowelcharacteristics.To thisend,threemajorprioritieshadtobebalanced: 1.Theacousticvowelsignalissensitivetobackgroundnoiseand,inaddition,

PAGE 117

3.2.MAPTASKANDCITATIONFORMDATA 91 formantanddurationmeasurementsarestronglyinuencedbythevowels' prosodicandconsonantalenvironment.Iaccordinglysoughttoreducenoise factorsintherecordingsandcontrolthevariablecontextasfaraspossible. 2.ThesampleofspeakersrecordedwasintendedtobecomparabletoHackert's,whileavoidingitslimitationsregardingtheskeweddistributionofgender acrosssocialclass.Inaddition,Ioriginallyintendedtorestrictdatacollectiontospeakersbelowtheageof30,which,however,provedtobeextremely dicult. 3.IntheBahamas,scriptedspeechisstronglyassociatedwithEnglishandthe useofcreoleformsinthesecontextstendstobestigmatised,resultinginthe productionofmainlyacrolectalforms.Whiletheanalysisofacrolectalforms iscertainlyoneofthefocalpointsofthepresentstudy,Iwasparticularly interestedinexploringtheinterfacebetweenmesolectalandacrolectalspeech. Thus,anotherdatacollectionchallengeconcernedtheelicitationofmaximally casualspeechpatternsforatleastsomevowelswithouttradingamorecasual speechstyleforthequalityrequirementslistedunderpoint1. 3.2.1Speakersandrecordingconditions Themosttime-consumingaspectofeldworkduringthesummerof2014wasthe acquisitionofparticipants.Dependingonthetargetgroup,i.e.higher-versuslowerclassspeakers,thesearchforparticipantsprogressedviatwodierentchannels.Even beforeIhadleftfortheBahamas,Iwasalreadyincontactwithtwolecturersatthe CollegeofTheBahamas,whooeredtointroducemetosomeoftheirstudentswho mightbewillingtoparticipateinmystudy,presumablyqualifyingashigher-class speakers.Asforlower-classspeakers,Ihadplannedtoapproachpotentialparticipantsoutsidetheuniversitysetting,graduallyextendingmynetworkofcontactsvia the`friendofafriend'approach. AftermyarrivalinNassau,IcontactedmyacquaintancesattheCollegeofThe Bahamas,whoprovidedmuchneededhelpandsupportduringtherstdaysof mystayintheBahamas.Iwasintroducedtoothermembersofstaasavisiting researcherandoeredadeskinasharedocespace,whereIwouldbeableto conductmyrecordings.Thiswas,ofcourse,averygenerousoerandIwashappy

PAGE 118

92 CHAPTER3.METHODOLOGY withthearrangement,eventhoughtherecordingconditionswerecertainlynotideal fromanacousticphoneticpointofview:Itwasnotalwayspossibletoarrange recordingsessionsduringtheabsenceoftheotherthreeoccupantsoftheocespace, whowouldfrequentlytalkwithstudentsoranswerthetelephone.Inaddition,the air-conditioningsystemgaveoarelativelyloudhummingsoundandcouldonlybe turnedoforabouttenminutesatatimeduetotheintenseheatandhumidityofthe Bahamianclimate.Duringthersttwoweeks,thesearchforsuitableparticipants progressedslowly,but,intime,studentsIhadalreadymetwouldintroducemeto theirfriendsandfellowstudentsandthepoolofpotentialparticipantsbeganto grow.Onelecturerwasespeciallyhelpfulandoeredbonuspointstothestudents enrolledinhisEnglishwritingcourseforparticipatinginmystudy. Outsidetheuniversitysetting,mysearchforparticipantsbeganwithanattendanceatchurch.ReligionandChristianfaithareacentralpartofBahamianlife, andwhenanacquaintanceIhadmetatmyguesthouseinvitedmetojoinherfor serviceatanewandvibrantdenomination-freechurch,Iwashappytoaccept.The membersofthecongregationwereverywelcomingandoutgoing.Iexchangedphone numberswithsomeofthem,whowouldintroducemetosomeacquaintances,who wouldinturnintroducemetosomemoreacquaintancesandsoon,untilImetmy rstparticipants.Recordingsweremadeindierentplacesandundersomewhat varyingconditionsbut,ingeneral,backgroundnoisecouldbekepttoaminimum. Mostrecordingsessionwereconductedinthelivingroomofaveryhelpfulfriend. Otherstookplace,forexample,ataquietbarjustbeforelunchhourorearlyinthe morninginasmallshopomainstreet.Incorrespondencetothewishesoflocal researchersIcouldnotoermonetaryrecompensetopotentialparticipants.While thismayhaveinitiallysloweddowntheprocessofacquiringspeakers,itmayhave alsocontributedtoamoreinformalatmosphere. BythetimeIleftNassau,Ihadcollectedrecordingsof30speakers.Someofthe recordingshadtobedismissedforoneormoreofthefollowingreasons:thespeaker wasnotamemberofthetargetedagegroupyoungerthan18orolderthan60; thespeakerhadrecentlybeenabroadformorethansixmonthsatatimeorwent abroadregularlyduetoclosefamilyties;thespeakerwasbornonanotherisland intheBahamasandhadmovedtoNassauonlyrecently.Ninehigher-classspeakers andninelower-classspeakerswerenallychosenforfurtheranalysisseetable3.2. Intable3.2, Ben and Beth and Art and Ada arepseudonymsgiventomaleand

PAGE 119

3.2.MAPTASKANDCITATIONFORMDATA 93 Table3.2:Speakers,recordedin2014 SpeakerAgeClass/OccupationClassofparents/spouse Ben0118MS-1,2/Stud.ofelectricalengineeringMS-1/MinisterofGov. Beth0518MS-1,2/Stud.oftourismmanagementMS-3/Surgicaltechnologist Beth0219MS-1,2/Stud.ofbiochemistryMS-4/Accountingclerk Ben0221MS-1,2/Stud.ofhistoryMS-6/Shopsupervisor Ben0321MS-1,2/Stud.ofelectricalengineeringWC-2/Plumber Ben0420MS-1,2/Stud.ofbankingandnanceWC-3/Stevedore Beth0618MS-3/Stud.ofnursingMS-6/Salesclerk Beth0718MS-3/Stud.ofnursingPB-3/Entrepreneur Beth0318MS-3/Stud.ofnursingWC-3/Waitress Art0623WC-2/LifeguardWC-4/Contractor Art0425WC-3/Barman,musicianMS-3/Realestateagent Ada0150+WC-3/Janitress,copyshopassistantPB-2/Electrician Ada0548WC-3/WaitressPB-3/Entrepreneur Art0120WC-3/Waiter? Ada0344WC-3/OceassistantWC-?/Unemployed Ada0240WC-4/StockclerkWC-4/Porter Art0223WC-4/UnskilledtechnicianWC-1/Policeocer Art0340WC-4/PorterWC-4/Stockclerk femalehigher-andlower-classspeakers,respectively.Allhigher-classspeakerswere studentsattheCollegeofTheBahamas,whichwasdeemedtoyieldarelatively homogenousspeakergroup.Theirrespectiveoccupationalclasswasestimatedfrom thepositionstheywouldlikelyholdoncegraduated.Thoughallofthelower-class speakershadhadsomesecondary-leveleducation,nonehadeverseriouslycontemplatedcollegeclasses;theoccupationnotedforthisgroupofsubjectsisusually thehighestpositionachieved,exceptincaseswhereachangeinjobsoccurredvery recentlyorwherethepositionwasneverheldforverylong.Overall,thesetcomprisedninefemaleandninemalespeakers,distributedfairlyevenlyacrosssocial class.Unfortunately,itwasnotpossibletorestrictparticipantstospeakersaged30 andbelow;thus,whilemostparticipantswerebetweentheagesof18and25,ve lower-classspeakers,mainlyfemale,werebetween40andaround55.Thefourth columnintable3.2notestheoccupationalclassoftheyoungerspeakers'parents highestpositionheldbyanyparentor,forthosespeakersaged40andabove,the occupationalclassoftheirspouse.Itseemsthatthestudentscomprisingthehigherclassspeakergroupmaynothavebeenashomogenousasoriginallythought.Still livingwiththeirparentsorhavingmovedoutoftheirparents'homesonlyrecently,

PAGE 120

94 CHAPTER3.METHODOLOGY itislikelythatthestudentswerestillstronglyinuencedbytheirparents'social class.Whiletheeectoftheparents'socialclasswasnotinvestigatedstatisticallyin thisstudy,itwasconsideredinthediscussionofthelinguisticrankingofindividual speakersinthegeneraldiscussioninchapter6.Foreasyreference,table3.3provides thetotalnumberofspeakersanalysedinthisstudybyyearofrecording,socialclass andgender.Foreachspeakergroup,italsoincludestheparticipants'meanageat thetimeofrecording,alongwithstandarddeviations. Table3.3:Totalnumberofparticipantsbyyearofrecording,socialclassandgender Yearofrec.Class FemalemeanageMalemeanage 1997/98Higher 5 : 0 15 : 50{ Lower 4 : 5 10 : 76 : 7 12 : 5 2014Higher 5 : 2 0 : 44 : 0 1 : 4 Lower 4 : 5 4 : 45 : 2 7 : 9 3.2.2Elicitationmaterialsandrecording AllparticipantswereaskedtowearheadsetsandwererecordedusingaZoomH4n handyrecorder.Sessionsusuallylastedbetween60and90minutesandallparticipantswerepresentedwiththesameelicitationmaterials.Beforetheactualrecording started,participantsandIwouldllinashortdemographicquestionnairetogether seegureA1.1intheappendixA1.Ialsousedthetimetogettoknowmyparticipantsandtomakethemfeelmorecomfortablewithwearingheadsetsandwith theset-upoftheexperimentingeneral.Wetalkedabouttheirpersonalexperiences andopinionsaboutthelinguisticsituationintheBahamas,abouttourismandthe USA,abouttherelationbetweentheBahamasandtheCaribbean,andaboutspecial Bahamianvocabularyandslangwords.Thelatterwasanespeciallypopulartopic amongmyparticipants,asmosttookgreatjoyinhavingmetryandpronounce whateveritemstheyoered.Theactualexperimentconsistedoftwoparts.Part onewasdesignedtoelicitcitationformdataforeachparticipantseparately.Part twoconsistedofaninteractionalmaptask,inwhichtargetwordsareproducedina natural,interactionalpeer-groupcontextwhilestillallowingtheexperimentercontrolovertheconsonantalcontextofvowels.Inwhatfollows,theelicitationmaterial forbothtaskswillbeintroducedinmoredetail.

PAGE 121

3.2.MAPTASKANDCITATIONFORMDATA 95 3.2.2.1Citationformdata Duringtherstpartoftheexperiment,participantswereaskedtoreadoutanumber ofisolatedwords,witheachlexicalsetrepresentedatleastfourtimes.Thechoiceof wordswasdeterminedbythefollowingcriteria,listedfromhighesttolowestpriority: 1.Wordsshouldbemeaningfulandideallypartofbasicvocabulary. 2.Acrosslexicalsets,targetvowelsshouldoccurinsimilarconsonantalcontexts: /b,p,f,h/ V /d,t,z,s/ . 3.Foreachlexicalset,thenumberofwordsinwhichthetargetvowelisfollowed byavoicedorvoicelessconsonantshouldberoughlyequal. 4.Wordsshouldbemonosyllabicandmonomorphemic. 5.Initialandnalconsonantclustersshouldbeavoided. Intotal,207wordswereselectedseeappendixA1,tableA1.1forafulllist andeachwasprintedontwoseparatecards.Introducingextrallersordistractors wasnotnecessary,asthedierentlexicalsetsalreadyservedasdistractorsforeach other.Wherepossible,wordswereaccompaniedbyillustrationsintendedtosupport participantswhomighthavetroubleidentifyingsomeofthewords.Thisprocedure producedtwoidenticaldecksofcards,whichwerepresentedtoparticipantsinrandomisedorderseeg3.1.Duringtheexperiment,participantswouldbehanded onecardatatimeinordertopreventlistintonation. Figure3.1:Exampleofcardsusedinthecollectionofcitationformdata

PAGE 122

96 CHAPTER3.METHODOLOGY Aseldworkprogressed,itbecameclearthatasmallnumberofwordscontained inthedecksofcardswouldnotbeavailableforanalysisinthisstudy,eitherbecause participantsregularlyconfusedthemwithotherwordsorbecausetheywerenotin commonuseintheBahamasand,thus,unknowntosomeofthespeakers.Inaddition,someconsonantalcontextsandallwordspertainingtothelexicalsetsNEAR, SQUARE,NORTH,andFORCEwerelaterexcludedfromthisstudy.Table3.4lists alllexicalsetsandwordtypesthatwereultimatelysubjectedtofurther analysis.Vowelsinbisyllabicwordswereonlyusedforspectralmeasurements,while vowelsinthewordsmarkedwithanasteriskwereonlyusedfortemporalmeasurements.ThelexicalsetsFACE,GOAT,MOUTH,PRICE,CHOICEandNURSE, potentiallycontainingdiphthongs,wererepresentedbymorewordsandbymore variedconsonantalcontextsthantheothers.Thisisbecausetheywereanalysedin moredetailand,specically,theywerecomparedtoproductionsinthemaptask speechstyle.

PAGE 123

3.2.MAPTASKANDCITATIONFORMDATA 97 Table3.4:Wordsanalysedinthisstudyincitationform,bylexicalsetandfollowing voicingcontext Lexicalset Context Items Types FLEECE Pre-voiced bead,feed,heed 3 Pre-voiceless beat,feet,heat 3 KIT Pre-voiced bid,ddle,hid 3 Pre-voiceless bit,t,hit 3 DRESS Pre-voiced bed,fed,head 3 Pre-voiceless bet,pet 3 TRAP Pre-voiced bad,pad,had 3 Pre-voiceless bat,fat,hat 3 BATH Pre-voiceless bath,path,fast,basket 4 START Pre-voiced bard,bars,hard,card,garden,cars 6 Pre-voiceless Bart,part,heart,cart 4 PALM Pre-voiced father,spas 2 STRUT Pre-voiced bud,buzz 2 Pre-voiceless butt,bus,hut 3 THOUGHT Pre-voiced paws,laws 2 Pre-voiceless bought,fought,caught,talk* 4 CLOTH Pre-voiceless boss,foster,cost 3 LOT Pre-voiced pod,body,cod 3 Pre-voiceless pot,hot,cot 3 GOOSE Pre-voiced booze,food,who'd 3 Pre-voiceless boot,booth,hoot 3 FOOT Pre-voiced hood,good* 2 Pre-voiceless put,foot,book* 3 FACE Pre-voiced bathe,fade,daisy,gaze,haze 5 Pre-voiceless bait,fate,date,gate,hate 5 GOAT Pre-voiced bows,toad,toes,code,hose 5 Pre-voiceless boat,dote,dose,goat,host 5 MOUTH Pre-voiced powder,loud,thousand,cloud,cloudy, cows,how'd 7 Pre-voiceless spouse,mouse,south,doubt,couch,house 6 PRICE Pre-voiced pies,died,tide,side,size,guide,hide 7 Pre-voiceless bite,dice,tight,sight,slice,kite,height 7 CHOICE Pre-voiced boys,poison,toys,joys,noise,noisy 6 Pre-voiceless Boyce,moist,toy-store,Joyce,choice,foist,hoist 7 Word-nal boy,coy,toy,soy 4 NURSE Pre-voiced bird,murder 2 Pre-voiceless birth,person,rst,dirt,dirty,turtle,shirt, nurse,nursing,church,hurt,curse 10 Word-nal purr,stir,sir 3 Total { { 151

PAGE 124

98 CHAPTER3.METHODOLOGY 3.2.2.2Maptaskdata Theelicitationtechniqueemployedinthesecondpartoftheexperimentisapartial adaptationofthe maptask usedintheconstructionoftheHCRCMapTaskCorpus Andersonetal.,1991,inwhichspeakersmustcollaborateverballytoreproduce ononeparticipant'smaparouteprintedontheother's".Themaptaskwas designedtoelicitspontaneous,interactionalspeechwhileavoidingsomeobvious drawbacksusuallyinvolvedinthecollectionofconversationaldata:Astheexperimenterretainssomecontroloverlexicalitemsanddiscoursecontent,itisensured thatthelinguisticphenomenaofinterestareadequatelyrepresentedinnumberand thattheyoccurinrelativelycontrolledvariablecontexts. Thegeneralmaptaskset-upinvolvestwoparticipants,sittingoppositeofeach other.Eachhasamapwhichtheothercannotsee,consistingoflabelledlandmarks.Thetwomapsaresimilarthoughnotidentical,andtheparticipantsaretold thisexplicitlyatthebeginningofthesession.Oneparticipantisdesignatedthe instructiongiver andhasaroutemarkedontheirmap;theotherparticipant,the instructionfollower ,hasnorouteontheirmap,onlyaspotmarkedasthestarting point.Thespeakersaretheninstructedtoreproducetheinstructiongiver'sroute ontheinstructionfollower'smap. AsAndersonetal.noted,therangeoflinguisticapplicationsofmaptasks isconstrainedonlybytheingenuityoftheartists[and]thenamesofthelandmarks canbedesignedtobeofphonologicalinterest"-353.Thus,themapsusedin thisstudyweredesignedtoelicitasmanywordsaspossiblepertainingtothelexical setsFACE,GOAT,MOUTH,PRICE,CHOICEandNURSE.Figure3.2givesan exampleofonesuchpairofmapsusedintheexperiment.Intotal,twoversions eachoftwodierentmapswerecreated,sothatduringonerecordingsessioneach ofthetwoparticipantswouldacttwiceasinstructiongiverandtwiceasinstruction follower.Asthespeakersparticipatingtogetherinthemaptaskskneweachother well{theywereusuallycolleaguesorfriends{interactionstendedtobecasualand informal.Table3.5listsallthewords,groupedbylexicalset,whichoccurredinthe maps'landmarklabelsandwhichweresubjectedtofurtheranalysis.Moreexample mapscanbefoundintheappendixA1guresA1.2andA1.3.

PAGE 125

3.2.MAPTASKANDCITATIONFORMDATA 99 Figure3.2:Exampleofapairofmapsusedinthecollectionofmaptaskdataleft: instructiongiver;right:instructionfollower Table3.5:Wordsanalysedinthisstudyinmaptaskstyle,bylexicalsetandfollowing voicingcontext Lexicalset Context Items Types FACE Pre-voiced bathe,daisy,haze 3 Pre-voiceless bait,fate,gate 3 GOAT Pre-voiced bows,toad,toes 3 Pre-voiceless boat,goat 2 MOUTH Pre-voiced powder,loud,thousand,cloudy, 4 Pre-voiceless mouse,south,house 3 PRICE Pre-voiced pies,tide,side,hide 4 Pre-voiceless bite,dice,kite,height,light,night,knight 7 CHOICE Pre-voiced boys,poison,noisy 3 Pre-voiceless Boyce,toy-store,Joyce,choice 4 NURSE Pre-voiced bird 1 Pre-voiceless birth,rst,dirty,turtle,nursing,church 6 Total { { 43

PAGE 126

100 CHAPTER3.METHODOLOGY 3.3Generalanalysisprocedure 3.3.1Preprocessingofrecordings Allsoundleswererstprocessedintheaudioeditor Audacity AudacityTeam Members,2016.The1997/98-tape-recordingsweredigitisedat22.05kHzand quantisedtoa16bitnumberusingaUSBAudio/MIDIInterfaceEdirolUA-20. Theywerethendividedintosmaller,moremanageable-sizedindividualles.Speech recordedduringeldworkin2014wassampledat44.1kHzandquantisedto16bit. In Audacity ,eldworksessionswerecutaccordingtospeakerandtaskandirrelevant partswereremoved.Allleswereconvertedtomonophonicsoundandsavedin.wav format. Word-leveltranscriptionswereproducedin ELAN Wittenburgetal.,2006. Largepartsofthe1997/98-recordingshadalreadybeentranscribedbyHackertand thetranscriptionsonlyneededtobetemporallyanchoredtothesoundles.Timestampedannotationtierswerethensavedastab-delimitedtextlesforimportin Praat BoersmaandWeenik,2009. In Praat ,allmono-andbisyllabicwords,whichcontainedlexicallystressedtarget vowelsandwereofadequatequalityforacousticanalysis,weremanuallymarkedand thenautomaticallyextractedandrecombinedtoshorterlesofamaximumlengthof aboutthreeminutes.Inthe1997/98-recordings,atleasttenwordtokens,ifpossible, werecollectedforeachspeakerandlexicalset,withnomorethantwotokensofthe samelexicalitem.Dierentwordformsofthesamelexemewereconsidereddierent lexicalitems.Pre-nasalandpre-liquidvowelcontextswereavoidedaswellaswords inwhichvowelswereprecededby/r/orsemivowels.ForthelexicalsetsTRAPand BATH,post-/k,g/vowelcontextswerealsodiscarded,astheyweretypicallyrealised withastrongpalatalglidefollowingthevelar.Fortheanalysisofsomevowels,the selectioncriteriaweresomewhatstricter,whichwillbediscussedintherespective analysissections.Inthemaptask2014-recordings,maximallyfourtokensofthe samelexicalitemwererandomlychosenforfurtheranalysis.Inthecitationform 2014-recordings,allclearlyarticulatedwordtokenswereselected.Thevowelsinthe maptaskandcitationformdataoccurredexclusivelyinpre-alveolarorword-nal contexts.

PAGE 127

3.3.GENERALANALYSISPROCEDURE 101 3.3.2Segmentationandmeasurements Wordsextractedfromthe1997/98-recordingsweresegmentedmanuallyin Praat . Wordsfromthe2014-recordingsweresegmentedautomaticallyin WebMAUS Kisler etal.,2016andsegmentationboundariesweremanuallycorrectedin Praat .The vowelonsetwasdeterminedfromthewaveformandsetattherstregularpitch pulse.Thevowelosetwasmarkedatthelastregularpitchpulseoratthepointat whichthecomplexwavesmoothed.Inuncertaincases,thespectrogramwasadditionallyconsultedandvowelosetwasmarkedatthepointatwhichF2disappeared. Allboundarieswereplacedatpositivezerocrossings.Somefurtherannotationswere addedtoeachvoweltoken,notallofwhichwererelevanttolateranalyses.Annotationswhichdidinformlateranalysesincludedmarkingtheauditorypresenceof post-vocalic/r/inthelexicalsetsSTARTandNURSE,andmarkingthedistinction betweenthelexicalsetsBATH/PALM/STARTandTHOUGHT/CLOTH,respectively,towhichtheautomaticsegmentationsoftwarehadappliedthesamephonetic symbols. Allacousticmeasurementswerecarriedoutin Praat inasupervisedautomatic procedureusinglinearpredictivecodingLPC.Theparameterswereinitiallyset tothe Praat default,thoughthenumberofexpectedformantswasadjustedinsome casestoimproveformantreadings.F1andF2measurementsweretakenat10% intervalsthroughthevowel,eachmeasurementrepresentingthemedianacrossa10 mswindow,andconrmedorcorrectedbyvisualinspection.Durationwasmeasured fromvowelonsettovoweloset.Allmeasurementsandannotationsweresaveto textleforfurtheranalysisin R RCoreTeam,2016. Obviouslyerroneousformantreadingsandextremeoutliersweremanuallyremovedfromthedata.Intotal,10169voweltokensultimatelyenteredintothe analysesofthisstudy,3387fromtheconversationaldata,1524fromthemaptask data,and5258fromthecitationformdata.Table3.6liststhetotalnumberof tokensaswellasthemeannumberoftokensperspeakerforeachlexicalsetand speechstyle.Foradetailedbreakdownofthetypesandtokensproducedbyeach speaker,seetablesA2.2andA2.3intheappendixA2.

PAGE 128

102 CHAPTER3.METHODOLOGY Table3.6:Totalnumberandaveragespeakernumberoftokensperlexicalsetand speechstyle Lexicalset Conversational Maptask Citationform TotalPerspeaker TotalPerspeaker TotalPerspeaker BATH 1328.8 {{ 1357.5 CHOICE 624.1 21912.2 53129.5 CLOTH 674.8 {{ 955.3 DRESS 22715.1 {{ 1729.6 FACE 39026.0 18310.2 51428.6 FLEECE 20013.3 {{ 20411.3 FOOT 15710.5 {{ 1709.4 GOAT 22615.1 18410.2 49627.6 GOOSE 634.2 {{ 18510.3 KIT 27118.1 {{ 21011.7 LOT 26717.8 {{ 20011.1 MOUTH 1469.7 30516.9 41022.8 NURSE 19713.1 1138.7 989.8 NURSE+/r/ 20.1 17911.2 40822.7 PALM 201.3 {{ 724.0 PRICE 26317.5 34118.9 47026.1 START 1489.9 {{ 1348.4 START+/r/ 00.0 {{ 18211.4 STRUT 25016.7 {{ 1749.7 THOUGHT 684.5 {{ 19710.9 TRAP 23115.4 {{ 20111.2

PAGE 129

3.3.GENERALANALYSISPROCEDURE 103 3.3.3Vowelnormalisation Duetotheeectofphysiologicalinter-individualdierences,directcomparisonof acousticdatainHertzcanbeproblematic.Hillenbrandetal.,forinstance, demonstratedthat,dependingonthevowel,F1andF2frequenciesofwomenare between10%and30%higherthanthoseofmen.Forthisreason,theraw formantfrequencieswererstconvertedtoBarkscale,andthenthe S-transform , aspeaker-dependent,vowel-extrinsicnormalisationtechniquedevelopedbyWatt andFabriciusandlatermodiedbyFabriciusetal.wasappliedto theBark-scaledvalues.TherationalebehindtheS-transformissimilartoother well-knownalgorithmsinthatthegrandmeanofaspeaker'svowelspaceinthe F1andF2dimensionsisestimatedfromtheavailabledataandthenusedtocalculatenormalisedvalues.UnlikeestablishedalgorithmssuchasLobanov'sorNearey's methods,however,thecentroidorgrandmeanvaluesarenotbasedonallthevowels ofagivenspeakerbutderivefromthreepointsrepresentingthemaximumspread ofthespeakersvowelspace.Therefore,theS-transformispotentiallylesssensitivetovariationsinsamplesizeacrossspeakersandvowelcategoriesandinthe distributionofindividualvowelcategoriesinformantspace,whichareimportant advantagesforthedatainthisstudy.RecentassessmentsofvowelformantnormalisationprocedureshavefoundthattheperformanceoftheS-transformiscomparable ineectivenesstoLobanov'sandNearey'smethodsFabriciusetal.,2009;Clopper, 2009;FlynnandFoulkes,2011. Foreachspeaker,acentroidSwasderivedfromthreevertexpointsrepresenting themaximumspreadofthespeaker'svowelspaceintheF1andF2dimensions: oneforthehighfrontcornerI,oneforthehighbackcornerU,andoneforthe bottomcornerA.ThemeanF1andF2valuesoftheFLEECEvowel 1 wereused ascoordinatesforI;themeanF1ofFLEECEwasalsousedasbothF1andF2 coordinatesforU,aprecautiontocounteractpotentialfrontingofhighbackvowels. TheF1coordinateforAwasdenedasthemeanF1ofthevowelinTRAP 2 ,while itsF2coordinatewasdenedasthemeanoftheF2coordinatesofthehighfrontand highbackvertexpoints.1.ThecentroidSwasthencalculatedasthemeanof allthreevertexpoints.2;normalisedformantvalueswerederivedbyexpressing 1 MeasurementsofFLEECEweretakenattheF2maximumbetween40%and60%intothe vowels. 2 MeasurementsofTRAPweretakenattheF1maximumbetween40%and60%intothevowels.

PAGE 130

104 CHAPTER3.METHODOLOGY formantsrelativetothecentroid.3.Throughoutthisstudy,normalisedformant frequencieswereusedformostanalysesandplots;thereferencetonormalisedvalues wasmarkedwiththeuseofanapostrophe:F1',F2'. I = )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 5.479 -9.683 Td [(I F 2 ;I F 1 = )]TJETq1 0 0 1 271.319 637.79 cm[]0 d 0 J 0.478 w 0 0 m 54.5 0 l SQBT/F31 11.9552 Tf 271.319 627.947 Td [(FLEECE F 2 ; FLEECE F 1 .1 U = )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 5.479 -9.683 Td [(U F 2 ;U F 1 = )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 5.479 -9.683 Td [(I F 1 ;I F 1 A = )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 5.479 -9.684 Td [(A F 2 ;A F 1 = )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 6.675 -1.596 Td [(I F 2 + U F 2 2 ; TRAP F 1 S Fi = I Fi + U Fi + A Fi 3 .2 X norm Fi = X Fi S Fi .3 3.3.4Statisticaltesting Inthisstudy,mostvariablesunderinvestigationwereanalysedstatisticallyusing functionsforlinearmixed-eectsmodelsasimplementedintheRpackage`lmerTest' Kuznetsovaetal.,2016.Mixed-eectsmodelsdierfromtraditionalxed-eects modelsinthatsomeoftheresidualerrorisattributedtotheinuenceofnoise factorsinagivenexperiment,suchasdierencesinmeasurementenvironmentor participants,andaccountedforbyadditionalcoecientsincludedinthemodel. Whiletheseso-calledrandomfactorsarenormallyuninterestingforthepurposes ofstudy,theirinuencemaynonethelessbesignicantand,ifnotcontrolledfor, maypotentiallyinterferewithormaskpatternsintheeectsofxedfactorse.g. Johnson,2009,363-365.Ifnotexplicitlystatedotherwise,allmixed-eectsmodels inthisstudywereconstructedtoaccountfortheeectsoftworandomfactors, speakerandword,andallpossiblerandomslopeswerespeciedaslongasthe modeldidnotfailtoconverge.Thexedfactorsincludedineachofthesemodels dependedonthehypothesestestedandwerespeciedindividuallyintheanalysis sections.Reportedp-valuesforthexedeectsderivefromincrementalFtestswith Satterthwaiteapproximationestimatesofdenominatordegreesoffreedom.

PAGE 131

3.3.GENERALANALYSISPROCEDURE 105 Thedefaultstrategyforperformingpost-hoctestsfollowingsignicantinteractionsistheanalysisofsimplemaineects,wherebymultiplecontrastsbetween factorlevelsareevaluated:Theeectofonefactorisobservedatxedvaluesfor allotherfactorsinvolvedinaninteraction,usuallywithcorrectionofthep-value inordertomaintainthefamily-wiseerrorrateDeRosario-Martnez,2015a,6. Thisprocedurehasbeencriticisedformixinginteractioneectswithmaineects orlower-orderinteractionswithinMarascuiloandLevin,1970;Graham,2000, butinlightoftheprincipleofmarginality,whichstatesthatlower-ordereectsare marginaltotheinteractionstheyareinvolvedin,thepresenceofaninteractioncan beconsideredtorendertheindividualeectsofcontributingfactorsmeaningless,so thattheyareabsorbedbytheinteraction"DeRosario-Martnez,2015a,7,asit were.Wheninterpretingtheoutcomeofananalysisofsimpleeectsforasignicant interactionterm A B ,itiscrucialtokeepinmindthatsimpleeectstestsonly showwhetherofnottheeectof A issignicantateachlevelof B orviceversa, butnotwhethertheeectof A isdierentatdierentlevelsof B .Itis,however, notnecessarilythecasethatasimplecombinationof A and B isresponsiblefor signicantinteraction;rather,theinteractioneectisattributabletothejointeect of A and B ,whichmayormaynotbedetectedwhensimpledierencesbetweencell meansareexaminedMarascuiloandLevin,1970,398-406. Analternativeapproachtopost-hocanalysisisthestudyofinteractioncontrasts.Ifaninteractionhasmorethanonedegreeoffreedom,smallercomponent interactionscanbeextractedandtestedtopinpointthesourcesoftheoverall interaction.Interactioncontrastsaredenedasdierentialeectsor`contrastsbetweencontrasts',thatisasinteractioncomponentswithallinvolvedfactorsviewed ascontrasts.Foraninteraction A B ,interactioncontrastsbasicallyconsistin crossingthecontrastsbetweenlevelsof A withthecontrastsbetweenlevelsof B DeRosario-Martnez,2015a,9.Themainadvantageofthispost-hocprocedure isthatthehypothesistestedisnotaectedbythecoecientsofmaineects,asit directlyaddressesinteractionMarascuiloandLevin,1970. Thepost-hocanalysisofinteractionsremainsacontroversialissueandnouniversallypreferredprocedurehasbeenproposedsofar.DeRosario-Martnez015aarguedthatconsensusabouttheinvariably`best'procedureisunlikelytobeachieved: Ageneralvalidprocedureisnotpossibleintherstplace,sincethecorrecttest dependsonthespecicproblemaddressedbytheexperiment".Itis,thus,a

PAGE 132

106 CHAPTER3.METHODOLOGY matterofhowtheresearcherisdisposedtointerpretagiveninteractioneectand whichaspectstheexperimentwasdesignedtofocuson.Meyer,573tooka similarlyutilitarianstancewhenhemaintainedthatresearchersshouldreportany teststheydeemusefulininterpretinganinteraction,aslongassignicancelevelsare adjustedformultiplicity.Mostpost-hoctestsperformedinthisstudywerebasedon ananalysisofsimplemaineectswithtoolsprovidedbytheRpackage`phia'De Rosario-Martnez,2015b.P-valueswerederivedfrommultiple X 2 -testsandadjustedusingthesequentiallyrejectiveproceduredesignedbyHolm.Keeping inmindthecaveatsconcerningthevalidityofthesimplemaineectsmethod,resultsshouldbeinterpretedwithcaution;specically,insignicantresultsofpairwise comparisonsshouldnotbeinterpretedaspotentiallyinvalidatingearlierndings ofsignicantinteractions.Insomecases,theanalysisofsimplemaineectswas supplementedbyananalysisofpartialinteractioncontrasts,alsoasimplemented in`phia'DeRosario-Martnez,2015b.

PAGE 133

Chapter4 Diphthongs Thischapterisconcernedwiththeacousticanalysisofdiphthongsandpotential diphthongsinurbanBahamianspeech.Section4.1willtakealookatthevariably monophthongalanddiphthongalrealisationsofFACEandGOAT,section4.2will presentananalysisofMOUTHandPRICE,andsection4.3willfocusonNURSE andCHOICE.Foreachanalysissection,backgroundinformationisprovidedonthe lexicalsetsinvolved,ontheproposedrealisationofassociatedvowelcategoriesin Bahamianandrelatedvarieties,andonpriorresearchwhichmotivatedandguided theindividualanalyses. 4.1FACEandGOAT Wells,141-142denesthestandardlexicalsetFACEascomprisingthose wordswhosecitationforminRPandGenAmhasthestressedvowel /eI/ .Phonetically, /eI/ isusuallydescribedasanunrounded,narrowfrontclosingdiphthong,but inunstressedsyllablesmonophthongalvariantsmayoccur.TheFACEvowelwastraditionallyreferredtoas`longA',asitderivesinmostcasesviatheGreatVowelShift GVSfromMiddleEnglish /a:/ inwordssuchas tape,bathe and lady .Otherorigins includeMiddleEnglish /E:/ inthosewordsthatwereexemptedfrommergingwith FLEECE,forexample great and steak ,andtheMiddleEnglishdiphthong /i Ei/ inwordssuchas wait,pain and beige ,whichhadlostitsdiphthongalqualityby thebeginningoftheeighteenthcenturyandmergedwiththenstillmonophthongal 107

PAGE 134

108 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS FACEWells,1982,192-196.ThelexicalsetGOATisusedtorefertothosewords whosecitationformhasthestressedvowel /@U/ inRPand /o/ inGenAmWells, 1982,146-147.Phonetically,GenAm /o/ isabackhalf-closeroundedmonophthong oranarrowclosingdiphthong [o oU] ,whereasinRP /@U/ istypicallyrealisedwith amidcentralunroundedstartingpoint.TheGOATvowelderivesinmostcases viatheGVSfromMiddleEnglish /O:/ inwordslike soap,note and toe ,henceits traditionalname`longO'.ItalsoemergedfromMiddleEnglish /Ou/ inwordslike know and soul ,which,similartothedevelopmentofMiddleEnglish /i Ei/ ,had lostitsdiphthongalityandmergedwithGOATduringtheeighteenthcentury. FACEandGOATareoftendiscussedasmirrorimagesofeachotheranddisplay paralleldevelopmentsinmanyvarietiesofEnglish.Inanumberofnorthernvarieties oftheUKandtheUS,forinstance,FACEandGOATarevariablyproducedas monophthongscloseto [e:] and [o:] ,respectivelyWells,1982,382,407,497.This isalsotypicalofmanyAfricanandAsianpostcolonialvarietiesofEnglishaswellas English-lexierAtlanticcreolesseee.g.Wassink,2001;Deterding,2000;Homann, 2011.Diphthongalrealisations,however,arenotusuallysymmetrical.Insouthern hemispherevarietiesWells,1982,597,609,614,FACEmaybeproducedasawide diphthongwithaconsiderablyloweredonset /Ei i 2i/ forAustralianEnglish,see e.g.Harringtonetal.,1997.GOAT,ontheotherhand,isfrequentlycharacterised byfrontingofeitherorbothnucleusandglideWells,1982,146,237-238. 4.1.1FACEandGOATinBahamianvarieties Table4.1liststhevowelqualitiesofBahCasproposedbyWells,Holmand ShillingHS,andChildsandWolframCW,comparingthemtovariantsinaselectionofassociatedvarietiesEdwards,2004;Blake,2004;Devonishand Harry,2004;Weldon,2004;YoussefandJames,2004;ThomasandBailey,1998. BothWellsandHS,theirreportspublishedin1982,describeBahamianFACEand GOATasmonophthongalvowels [e:] and [o:] .ThesecorrespondcloselytorealisationsinGullahandinothercreolelanguagesintheCaribbean,thoughamongthe latterdownglidingvariantsmayalsobefound,whichhavenotbeenreportedforthe Bahamiancontext. ThomasandBailey,271-278pointoutthatmonophthongalvariantsalso usedtobeprevalentinearliersouthernblackspeechintheUS,arguingforshared

PAGE 135

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 109 Table4.1:SuggestedvowelqualitiesinBahCandassociatedvarieties. BahamianCreole Caribbeanvarieties USvarieties Lexicalset WellsHSCW BajanTrinCJamC GullahAAVE FACE e:e:ei E: iE e: eie:e: ie ee: eI GOAT o:o:ou o: o@o:o: uo o oEo: ou substrateinuenceonAAVEandAtlanticEnglish-basedcreolesseesection4.1.2. Theymaintain,however,thatmonophthongalFACEandGOAThavebeenonthe declinesincethebeginningofthetwentiethcenturyandare,indeed,allbutmoribundasfeaturesofpresent-dayAAVE.MorerecentreportsofBahCandBahE byChildsandWolframandChildsetal.claimthatasimilardevelopmenthastakenplaceintheBahamasandthatthemajorityofspeakerstoday producenarrowupglidingdiphthongsratherthanmonophthongs.ThiswouldindicatethatBahamianproductionsaremorelikeAmericanEnglishandlesslike creolisedvarietiesofCaribbeanEnglish.Apointinfavourofthisinterpretationis theobservationbyChildsandWolfram4,440thattheethnicdistributionof back-vowelfrontinginSouthernUSGOAT 1 ,wherethevowelistypicallyfronted inwhitespeechbutnon-frontedinblackspeech,isalsoreplicatedintheBahamian context.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatdiphthongalvariants,whilenotcharacteristicofbasilectalforms,cancertainlybefoundinacrolectalCaribbeanvarieties andinintermediatecreolessuchasBajan.Insuchcases,socialvariationisusually impliedas [ei] and [ou] areassociatedwitheducatedandformalspeech. WhilemostofthediscussionofFACEandGOATintheliteratureonBahChas centredontheextentofglidingmovement,somecommentshavealsobeenmade withregardtopossiblevariationinthepositionofthevowelsinspeakers'vowel spaces.Glinton-Meicholas,2,forinstance,inabrieftreatiseoftheoral traditionoftheBahamas,remarksonregionalvariantsofthevowelintheword rain foundondierentislandsoftheBahamianarchipelago:ManyBahamians voiceitasalong`a'.Forothers,thepeopleofAndrosinparticular,`rain'rhymes with`seen',andforCatIslanders,itechoes`men',exceptthevowelsoundisof slightlylongerduration."Donnelly,23claimsthatthereisindeedalack ofcontrastbetween /e/ and /i/ ,wherebytheuppervowelprevails",butonlyfor basilectalspeakersandincontextsprecedinglabialoralveolarnasalsasin same{ 1 ThesameethnicdistributionisalsosaidtocharacterisethevowelinGOOSEand,according toThomasandBailey,thevowelinMOUTH.

PAGE 136

110 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS seem and main{mean .Shearguesthatthisisalsotrueforthevowelsinwordslike home{whom and moan{moon ,where /o/ supposedlymergeswith /u/ .Shilling ,141,apparently,disagrees,maintainingthatthevowelintheword same is invariablyrealisedas [e] inBahC. 4.1.2MonophthongisationofFACEandGOAT WhiledivergingclaimscanbefoundintheliteratureonBahCconcerningtherealisationofFACEandGOAT,allauthorsimplicitlyagreethatmonophthongalvariants intheCaribbeancontextaretobeinterpretedascreolefeatures.Inlightofthe widedistributionofmonophthongalrealisationsinnon-creolisedvarietiesofEnglish world-wide,thisassumptionseemssomewhatunexpectedandwillbesubstantiated orqualiedasnecessarybelow.Section4.1.2.2willconsidercontextualfactorsthat havebeenobservedtoaectthespectralshapeofFACEandGOAT. 4.1.2.1Monophthongisation-acreolefeature? Whileextensivesubstrateinuenceoncreolephonologyhasbeenassumedsince themid19thcenturyandhasneverbeenseriouslychallenged,theoriginofphonologicalfeatureshasremainedsomewhatelusiveasitisusuallydiculttotease apartsubstratefromsuperstrateinuence,universalsofsecondlanguageacquisition,adstrateborrowingandinternalinnovations.Phonologicalchangesinduced bylanguagecontactcanresultintransfer,wherebyspeakersidentifyaphonemein thesecondlanguagewithoneoftheirrstlanguagesandsubjectittothelatter's phoneticrules.Thelikelihoodofsuchchange,however,isgreaterwhenbothsubstrateinuenceanduniversaltendenciesconverge.Anaddedcomplicationisthe scarcesupplyofdetailedinformationaboutthephonologiesofsuperstratefounder varietiesthatcontributedtotheinitialcomponentialmatrix,tosaynothingabout theutterlackofdocumentationoftherelevantsubstratelanguagese.g.Holm,2000, 137-139.InthecaseofFACEandGOAT,therearetwobasicscenariosthatcould haveleadtothepresentdistributionofmonophthongalvariantsindialectaland creolevarietiesofNorthAmericaandtheCaribbean. FollowingKurathandMcDavid,vi,whopositthatphonologicalvariationinAmericandialectstodayderivesprimarilyfromdialectsoftheBritishIsles,

PAGE 137

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 111 monophthongalvariants [e:] and [o:] inNorthAmericamightbeconsideredreexes ofspeechpatternsprevalentintheearlywhitesettlerpopulation.Accordingto Wells982,210-211,LongMidDiphthongingofFACEandGOATstartedaround 1800intheprecursorofRP.AlthoughAmericanEnglishhadprobablybeenestablishedasadistinctaccentbeforethat,hearguesthatBritishinuencecontinued tobefeltwellafterAmericanIndependenceanditremainsinconclusivehowfar diphthongalFACEandGOATconstitutepartofthesharedhistoryofRPand GenAm.Ofcourse,evenifdiphthongalvariantswhereinheritedbyGenAmbefore thetwostandardaccentsdiverged,present-daymonophthongsinFACEandGOAT couldstillhavederivedfromother,moreconservativeregionaldialectsimportedby Britishsettlersthroughouttheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies.Themostlikely sourceofmonophthongalvariantswouldpresumablybethespeechofScottish-Irish settlers.FACEandGOATaremonophthongalinpresent-dayUlsterScotsWells, 1982,440,anditisassumedthattheywerealsomonophthongalatthetimeof Americancolonisation.GiventhelargenumberofScottish-Irishimmigrants,constitutingthesecondlargestnationalgroupincolonialAmericaaftertheEnglish Crozier,1984,310,itisnotinconceivablethatthesespeakersmayhavehadalastingeectonFACEandGOATvowels,eveninregionsasdiverseasNewfoundland, Minnesota,LouisianaandtheCaribbean. Thisis,however,preciselywhereThomasandBaileydisagreealsosee discussioninThomas,2001,17-18,30-32.TheyarguethataScottish-Irishsource, oranyotherBritishsource,forthatmatter,couldnotaccountforthesocial,ethnic andspatialdistributionofmonophthongalvariantsinAmericanvarietiesofEnglish.BasedondataintheLAMSASrecords,theLinguisticAtlasoftheMiddle andSouthAtlanticStates,andacousticanalysesofinterviewrecordingsoffourblack andthreewhitespeakersbornbetween1844and1859,ThomasandBailey, 270-278,282-287showthatthisfeaturewasmuchmorecommoninearlyAAVE thaninwhitespeech.Whenmonophthongalorassociatedinglidingvariantsdidoccurinproductionsofwhitespeakers,theytendedtobemostprominentinareasonce dominatedbyplantationcultureand,consequently,wherethelargestproportionof AfricanAmericanslivedsuchasintheLowCountryofcoastalSouthCarolinaand Georgia.IninlandareasprimarilysettledbyUlsterScots,monophthongalFACE andGOATwererare,suggestingakindofcomplemetarydistribution"Thomas andBailey,1998,283ofmonophthongalFACE/GOATandScottish-Irishpopulation.ThomasandBaileyconsequentlyarguethatmonophthongisationand,

PAGE 138

112 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS occasionally,subsequentinglidingoccurredaftersettlementandspreadfromblack towhitespeechincontextsofclosecontactbetweentheethnicgroups. Today,theuseofmonophthongalvariantsinFACEandGOATisrapidlydecliningamongbothAAVEspeakersandwhitespeakersintheLowCountry,butit isstillaveryvitalfeatureofCaribbeanEnglish-basedcreoles.TheethnicdistributionofearlymonophthongisationinNorthAmericainconjunctionwiththeoverall scarcityofdiphthongsinAfricanvowelsystemsmakesforanattractiveargumentin favourofsubstrateinuenceduringcreoleformation.Thereare,however,arange ofregionsintheUnitedStateswheremonophthongalvariantsprevaileventhough AfricanAmericansandScottish-Irishsettlersbothconstituteaminority.Minnesota andadjacentstatesweresettledlargelybyGermansandScandinavians,PennsylvaniabyGermans,andLouisianabytheFrench.Monophthongisationisalsofound amongHispanicgroups,JapaneseAmericansinCaliforniaandspeakersinIrishinuencedNewfoundland.Whatthesevarietieshaveincommonisasharedhistory ofextendedlanguagecontactThomas,2001,17-18,30-31,wheresubstrateinuencepresumablyconvergedwiththepreferencefortheretentionofmoreunmarked monophthongsinsteadoftheadoptionofmoremarkeddiphthongsintheprocess ofgroupsecondlanguageacquisition.Thisdevelopmentalprolewouldalsotthe descriptionsofFACEandGOATinmanypostcolonialvarietiesaroundtheworld, thoughitmaybediculttomakeaconclusivecaseformonophthongalvariantsin theBritishIslesasessentiallyderivingfromlanguagecontactwithCelticlanguages. Eitherway,whethermonophthongisationofFACEandGOATisprimarilya substratefeatureorwhetheritderivesfromuniversalprocessesofsecondlanguage acquisition,monophthongalvariantsinCaribbeanvarietiesofEnglishmaybeconsideredlanguagecontactphenomenaand,assuch,creolefeatures.Thesociolinguisticdistributionofingliding,monophthongalandupglidingvariantsreportedforsome Caribbeanspeechcommunitiesseemstosupportthisassumption.InBajan,thecreolespokeninBarbados,FACEisgenerallyrealisedasmonophthongal [e:] ,butBlake ,316claimsthatLongMidDiphthonginghasbecomeproductiveinthespeech ofurban,educatedspeakers,addingaclosingoglidetothelongmidvowel.Among ruralandlesseducatedspeakers,FACEmaybemanifestedaslowermonophthongal [E:] ordowngliding [IE] .Blakedoesnotmentionananalogouspatternof variationforGOAT.InthemoreradicalcreoleofJamaica,socialvariationinvolves primarilyanalternationbetweenin-ordownglidingandmonophthongalvariants

PAGE 139

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 113 ratherthanbetweenmonophthongalandupglidingvariants.DownglidinginFACE andGOATapparentlyconstitutesadevelopmentsubsequenttomonophthongisation Thomas,2001,18,32andtheresultingforms [ie] and [uo] arelocallystigmatised. Examiningtheproductionsof19JamCspeakers,Wassinka,2001foundthat acrolect-dominantspeakersdisplayedaclearpreferenceformonophthongaltokens inallanalysedspeechstyles.Basilect-dominantspeakersprimarilyuseddownglidingvariantsintheconversationalsettingbutapproximatedtheirspeechtothatof theacrolect-dominantspeakerswhencalledontoproducecarefulspeech.Overall, stylisticvariationwasgreateramongfemales,anddownglidinginGOATappeared tobemorestigmatisedthaninFACE.WhileBeckfordWassinkdidnotfocusonthe distributionofupglidingvariants,sheexplicitlyWassink,1999a,104-105orimplicitlyWassink,2001,152-155acknowledgedthatthesedooccurand,forthesakeof analysis,theyweregroupedwithmonophthongaltokens.Shealsomentionedthat upglidingvariantsmaybefoundinhypercorrectedspeechorwhenspeakerstryto imitateormimicAmericanEnglishWassink,1999a,241-244.Irvine,2008 addressedvariationwithinacrolectalproductionsofeducatedspeakersinformalsituationsandwasabletoreproducesomeofBeckfordWassink'sndings,specically theavoidanceofdownglidingvariantsinformalacrolectalspeechandthesomewhat morepronouncedstigmatisationof [uo] comparedto [ie] .ShearguedthattheabsenceofdownglidesinFACEandGOATisaload-bearing"Irvine,2008,18-19 structureofJamaicanEnglish,whichmeansthatitisclearlyidentiedbyJamaican speakersandovertlyevaluatedasacrucialandnecessaryfeatureoftheacrolect. 4.1.2.2Contextualfactorsinuencingmonophthongisation AccordingtoWells,211,monophthongalFACEandGOATinMinnesota andsurroundingstatesareparticularlycommonintheenvironmentofafollowing voicelessconsonantasin gate and soap ,wheretheirdurationisalsoreducedto half-long [e;] and [o;] .Whilethismightbeattributedtotruncationincontextsof pre-voicelessshortening,Gay,1571-1572showedthattheeectofvoicingon voweldurationwasgenerallysmallerin /eI/ and /oU/ thaninwiderdiphthongsand almostnegligiblecomparedtotheeectofspeechrate.Moreover,thisviewseems tobeatoddswithndingsbyMoreton,whoshowedthattokensofFACE mayactuallydisplayextendedglidingmovementsinpre-voicelesscontexts.Based onanacousticanalysisofthediphthongs /aI,OI,eI,aU/ inrecordingsofminimal

PAGE 140

114 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS ornear-minimalpairsreadbysixteenAmericanstudents,mostlyfromtheeastern US,Moreton,5-13demonstratedthatpre-voicelessoglidesweresignicantly raisedandperipheralisedinallfourdiphthongs.Whilethesametendencycouldbe observedforpre-voicelessnucleiin /aI,aU/ seesection4.2onvoicing-conditioned variationinMOUTHandPRICE,thiswasnotthecasefornucleiin /eI,OI/ , whicheectivelycausedanincreaseinglidingmovementinpre-voicelesscontextsin thesediphthongs.Moreton04,10-11didmention,however,thatnuclearwithinspeakervariabilitywasunusuallylarge"for /eI/ ,presumablyduetotheinuence ofprecedingconsonants,since /eI/ typicallyhasaveryearlyF1maximum". Moreton,12-13hypothesisedthatperipheralisationoftheoglideinclosingdiphthongsisaninstanceofhyperarticulationandassociatedwiththerealisationofthepostvocalicvoicingcontrast.Hearguedthatarticulatorygesturesfor voicelessobstruentsaremoreforcefulthanforvoicedobstruents.Thefacilitation oftheconsonantgesturethenspreadstotheneighbouringvocalicportion,causing hyperarticulationtowardstheendoftheprecedingvowel,whichtranslatestomore peripheraloglidesinclosingdiphthongs.Anydierencesinthenucleus,whichmay ormaynotaccompanydierencesintheglide,arethentobeinterpretedassecondary,arisingfromsubsequentcoarticulation.Theprincipaleectofvoicelessness occursonvowelterminationand,ifitistransmittedtoearlierportionsinthevowel, spectralchangeinthenucleuswillreectthepatterndisplayedintheglidealso seesection4.2.2.3.Theasymmetryofthevoicingeectinthathyperarticulation spreadstoprecedingratherthantofollowingvowelscouldbeaccountedforbythe needtoaccommodatetohigheroralairpressureduringtheclosingphaseofaconsonantgesture,whichdoesnotoccurduringreleaseMoreton,2004,29.Whetherthe observedspectraldierencesintheoglidesofclosingdiphthongsareindeedcaused byphoneticprocessesdirectlyassociatedwiththepostvocalicvoicingcontrastor not,itappearsthatlistenerscanaccessthesedierencesandusethemascuesto voicing.Intwolexicaldecisionexperimentsinvolvingthediphthongs [aI] and [eI] , participantsshowedtobemorelikelytoidentifycodaconsonantsasvoicelessasthe acousticperipheralisationofoglidesincreasedMoreton,2004,13-24. AnattempttoreconcileWells'propositionabovewiththendingsby Moreton;alsoseeThomas,2000seemsunlikelytobemetwithsuccess.Of course,vocalichyperarticulationmaynotactuallybeauniversalcorrelateofcoda voicelessness,oratleastitmaybemorepronouncedinvarietieswherespeakersand

PAGE 141

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 115 listenersdependmoreonvocalicperceptualcuesintheidenticationoffollowing obstruents.Itisconceivablethatrelativelyrobustoglidespectraldierenceshelp compensateforanyaverseeectsonperceptioncausedby,forinstance,lowrelease ratesinstopconsonants.InblackBahamianspeech,highlevelsofconsonantcluster reductionandnalconsonantdeletionarearegularoccurrenceinallphonological andmorphologicalcontextse.g.Childsetal.,2003;ChildsandWolfram,2004.In theabsenceofevidenceorevensuggestionstothecontrary,cuestocodavoicing, ifindeedencodedinthespectralshapeofFACEandGOAT,maythereforebe expectedtofollowthepatterndescribedbyMoreton. 4.1.3Researchquestionsandhypotheses BasedonthebackgroundofFACEandGOATintheBahamiancontextreported above,thefollowinghypothesesandresearchquestionsmaybederived. 1.GlidesinbothFACEandGOATwillbehigherandmoreperipheralinprevoicelessthaninpre-voicedcontexts. 2.Overallglidingmovementwillbeextendedinpre-voicelesscontextsornuclei willhaveshiftedinthesamedirectionasglides. 3.Moremonophthongalvariantswillbefoundintheconversationaldatacollectedinthelate1990sthaninthemaptaskandcitationformdatacollected in2014. 4.Truncationduetoincreasedspeechrateisalsolikelytoaectproductionsof FACEandGOATinthemaptasksettingcomparedtocitationforms. 5.IfmonophthongisationofFACEand/orGOATissociallydiagnosticinthe Bahamiancontext,moremonophthongalvariants,associatedwithBahC,will befoundamonglower-classthanhigher-classspeakers.Stigmatisationofcreolefeaturesmayalsoaddtothestylisticvariationexhibitedinthatmore diphthongalformsareproducedintasksthatcallformoreformalspeech.

PAGE 142

116 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS 4.1.4Analysisprocedure Allacousticanalyseswererestrictedtovowelsinmaximallybisyllabicwordsand withdurationsofminimally75ms.OnlyvowelsinCVCcontextswereselectedfrom themaptaskandcitationformdatasets.ForFACEandGOATinconversational speech,word-nalcontextswereincludedbuttreatedseparately.Allword-nal contextswerealsophrase-nal.Pre-nasalandpre-liquidcontextswereavoidedas wellastokensfollowing/r/orsemivowels.Tokensfollowedby/t/inpotentialtappingcontextswereremovedfromthedatasets.Thedatacollectedinthemap taskandcitationformsettingconsistedexclusivelyofvowelsfollowedbyalveolar obstruents.Atotalof1520tokenswerenallysubjectedtofurtheranalysis,818 forFACEand702forGOAT.Table4.2liststhetokennumbersforeachlexicalset, followingvoicingcontextandspeechstyle. Table4.2:Numberoftokensforacousticanalysesbylexicalset,voicingcontextand speechstyle LexicalsetVoicingcontext Conversational Maptask Citationform FACEPre-voiced 93 81 174 Pre-voiceless 165 102 166 Word-nal 37 { { GOATPre-voiced 33 89 169 Pre-voiceless 86 95 158 Word-nal 72 { { Total 486 367 667 Twomeasures, EDcentroid and ED ,werecalculatedinordertoaddressthe hypotheseslistedinsection4.1.3.Totestfortheeectoffollowingvoicingcontext ontherelativepositionofFACEandGOATinspeakers'vowelspaces,thedegree ofperipheralisationofthevowelsatvarioustimepointswasquantiedinterms ofEuclideandistancestospeaker-specicvowelspacecentroids.Foreachspeaker, F1'andF2'meansbasedonnormalisedfrequencyvalueswerecalculatedforthe lexicalsetsFLEECE,DRESS,TRAP,BATH,THOUGHT,andGOOSE,chosen torepresentasampleofmonophthongalvowelspositionedalongtheperimeters ofvowelspacewhichismaximallybalancedwithrespecttothefront/backand high/lowdimensions.Aspeaker'scentroid C wasdenedasthemeanF1'andF2' ofthemeanformantvaluesofthesesixlexicalsetssee4.1. EDcentroid values werethencalculatedforeachtimepointat10%-intervalsbetween20%and80%

PAGE 143

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 117 intoagivenvoweltoken v i astheEuclideandistancebetweenF1'andF2'atthat pointintimeand C see4.2. C Fn = FLEECEmean Fn + ::: + GOOSEmean Fn 6 .1 EDcentroid v i = q v i;F 1 )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 11.955 0 Td [(C F 1 2 + v i;F 2 )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 11.955 0 Td [(C F 2 2 .2 EDcentroid valueswereusedtoassessthedivergingeectthefollowingvoicing contextmayhaveonthebeginningandendportionofFACEandGOAT.Allother analysesdealtmoredirectlywiththeextentofglidingmovementquantiedas ED , theEuclideandistancebetweennucleusandglideinagivenvoweltoken;nucleus andglideweredenedas20%and80%intothevowel,respectively. 4.1.5Results 4.1.5.1Visualinspection Figure4.1illustratesthespectralmovementofthevowelsinFACEandGOATin normalisedF1 F2formantspaceforthreespeakersandspeechstyles.Measurementswereextractedat10%intervalsfrom20%to80%intovoweltokensand thetrajectoriesweresmoothedforeachspeaker,styleandvoicingcontextpriorto plotting. Fromthetoprowingure4.1itwouldseemthatoverallglidingmovementin FACEandGOATisextendedinthecitationformdatacomparedtotheothertwo tasks.However,between-speakervariationisextensiveandthedierenceobserved acrosstasksisvanishinglysmallcomparedtothedierenceconditionedbythefollowingvoicingcontextasillustratedinthebottomrow:Pre-voicedcontextsshow tobefairlymonophthongalforallspeakersandtasks,whilepre-voicelesscontexts displayadiphthongalqualitytovaryingdegrees.Tokenscharacterisedbyadistinctspectralmovementarealmostinvariablyupward-gliding.Inaddition,tokens ofFACEtendtomovetoamorefrontposition.

PAGE 144

118 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Figure4.1:SmoothedformanttrajectoriesF1',F2'ofFACEandGOATforthree speakersandspeechstyles;toprow:alltokensconsideredjointly;bottomrow:tokensseparatedbyfollowingvoicingcontextredforpre-voiced,blueforpre-voiceless 4.1.5.2Variationacrosstasks: EDcentroid FACE Figure4.2belowdisplays EDcentroid measuresforpre-voicedandprevoicelesstokensofFACEat10%-intervalsthroughthevowel.Eachpanelpresents theaggregatedmeasuresforonespeechstyle.Onlynon-word-naltokenswere included.Asexpected,pre-voicelesstokensexhibitapatternquitedistinctfrom pre-voicedtokensinthatthespectralmovementfromamorecentraltoamore peripheralpositionismorepronounced.Thisisespeciallyobviousinthemaptask andcitationformdata.IncontrarytowhatMoreton,12-13predicted,nucleiinpre-voicelesscontextsdonotappeartofollowinthedirectionoftheshiftof pre-voicelessglidesbutinsteadarefoundinamorecentralpositionthantheirprevoicedcounterparts,furtherextendingthedegreeofglidingmovement.Themain dierenceacrossdatasetsseemstobetheoverallmorecentrallocationofFACEin allvoicingcontextsintheconversationalsetting,wherepre-voicelessandpre-voiced

PAGE 145

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 119 tokensappeartoapproximateeachother.ThetokensofFACEwhichonaverage displaythegreatestdegreeofspectralmovementarefoundinpre-voicelesscontexts inthecitationformdata,whereglidesarecharacterisedbyahighdegreeofperipheralisation.Word-naltokenswereexcludedfromplottingandstatisticaltesting, buttheirobservedmeanvaluesatnucleusandglidearelistedintable4.3alongwith thoseintheothercontexts.Onaverage,word-naltokensintheconversationaldata hadamorecentralnucleusthanbothpre-voicedandpre-voicelesstokensandaglide whichwasaboutasperipheralasinpre-voicelesscontexts;word-nalFACE,thus, displayedmoreoverallglidingmovementthanFACEfollowedbyatautosyllabic consonant. Figure4.2: EDcentroid measuresacrosstimeforFACEbyvoicingcontextand speechstyle;meansandcondenceintervalsderivedfromsmoothedspeakervalues Table4.3: EDcentroid meansandstandarddeviationsforFACEattwotimepoints byvoicingcontextandtask;valuesderivedfromallobservedtokens TimepointVoicingcontext ConversationalMaptaskCitationform NucleusPre-voiced 0.35.080.47.060.46.08 Pre-voiceless 0.33.090.40.100.41.08 Word-nal 0.28.07{{ GlidePre-voiced 0.40.090.46.090.46.09 Pre-voiceless 0.47.100.58.090.62.08 Word-nal 0.46.10{{ Amixed-eectsmodelanalysiswasperformedfor EDcentroid measuresattwo

PAGE 146

120 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS timepoints,nucleusandglide,denedas20%and80%intothevowel.Theother xedfactorsincludedinthemodelwerespeechstyleconversational,maptask, citationformandfollowingvoicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless.Thetest revealedsignicantmaineectsfortimepointandstyle,andsignicanttwo-way interactionsbetweenallxedfactorpairingsseetable4.4.Signicantresultsof subsequentpost-hoctestsaresummarisedintable4.5. Table4.4:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: EDcentroid inFACEbytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandspeechstyleconversational,maptask,citationform Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value EDcentroid Timepoint69 : 7 ; 62 : 2 < 0 : 001*** Style13 : 0 ; 98 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Voicingcontext54 : 1 ; 75 : 3 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Style4 : 2 ; 137 : 2 < 0 : 05* Voicingcontext:Style3 : 9 ; 185 : 6 < 0 : 05* Overall,thatisacrossbothvoicingcontexts,theglideinFACEwassignicantly moreperipheralthanthenucleusinallthreespeechstyles.However,acrossall speechstyles,thedierencebetweenglideandnucleuswasonlysignicantinprevoicelesscontexts.Inpre-voicelesscontexts,theglidewasmoreperipheraland thenucleuswasmorecentralthaninpre-voicedcontexts.Inpre-voicedcontexts, thevowelinFACEwasmorecentralintheconversationaldatathaninthemap taskandcitationformdata;inpre-voicelesscontexts,thevowelinFACEwasmore centralintheconversationalandmaptaskdatathaninthecitationformdata. Acrossbothvoicingcontexts,theglidewasmorecentralintheconversationaland maptaskdatathaninthecitationformdata;thenucleuswasmorecentralinthe conversationaldatathaninthemaptaskdata,where,inturn,thenucleuswas morecentralthaninthecitationformdata.Inadditiontoananalysisofsimple maineects,simpleinteractioneectsweretestedfortheinteractionbetweentime pointandspeechstyle.Theseshowedthatthecontrastbetweennucleusandglide wassignicantlysmallerinthemaptaskdatacomparedtothecitationformdata coef =0 : 03; chisq =8 : 4; p< 0 : 05.

PAGE 147

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 121 Table4.5:Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforinteractionterms intable4.4fordependentvariableF1' Maineect:contrastedlevels ContextofsignicantcontrastsCoef.Chisqdf = 1p-value Timepoint:glide{nucleus pre-voiceless0 : 16135 : 9 < 0 : 001*** conversational0 : 0956 : 5 < 0 : 001*** maptask0 : 0823 : 1 < 0 : 001*** citationform0 : 1047 : 2 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:pre-voiced{pre-voiceless glide )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0822 : 6 < 0 : 001*** nucleus0 : 0617 : 1 < 0 : 001*** Style:conversational{maptask nucleus )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 068 : 0 < 0 : 05* pre-voiced )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0710 : 3 < 0 : 05* Style:conversational{citationform glide )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0815 : 4 < 0 : 01** nucleus )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 078 : 9 < 0 : 05* pre-voiced )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0812 : 2 < 0 : 01** pre-voiceless )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 079 : 5 < 0 : 05* Style:maptask{citationform glide )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0321 : 6 < 0 : 001*** pre-voiceless )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0321 : 2 < 0 : 001*** GOAT Figure4.3presents EDcentroid measuresat10%intervalsthroughthe vowelinGOATbyspeechstyleandvoicingcontext,excludingword-nalcontexts. ThepatterndisplayedbyGOATresemblesthatobservedforFACEinmanyways. Pre-voicelesscontextsexhibitgreateroverallglidingmovementduetoperipheralisationofpre-voicelessglides.Incitationform,pre-voicelessGOATisadditionally characterisedbymorecentralnuclei.Thedierenceacrossstylesmaybemore pronouncedinGOATthaninFACE,aspre-voicelessspectralmovementseemsto decreasestepwisefromrighttoleft:Inthemaptask,thisispresumablycausedby amuchlowerdegreeofcentralisationofpre-voicelessnuclei,whileconversational tokensalsoshowlessdierentiationbetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelessglides, leadingtocloseapproximationofGOATinthetwovoicingcontexts.Aswith FACE,conversationaltokensofGOATaremorecentraloverallcomparedtothe otherdatasets.Pre-voicedtokensalsoshowconsiderablespectralchangethroughoutthecourseofthevowel,buttheirtrajectoryisclearlyofaconcaveshape.For

PAGE 148

122 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS maptaskandcitationformsettings,theslopeisparticularlysteeptowardstheend ofthevowel,whichispresumablycausedbytheplaceofarticulationofthefollowingconsonant:Inallelicitedtargetwords,GOATwasimmediatelyfollowedbya coronalconsonant,whichleadstofrontinginbackvowelsand,thus,tomorecentral positionsofglidesinGOAT.AsintheanalysisofFACEabove,word-naltokens wereexcludedfromplottingandstatisticaltesting,buttheirobservedmeanvalues atnucleusandglidearelistedintable4.6alongwiththoseintheothercontexts. Onaverage,word-naltokensintheconversationaldatahadamorecentralnucleus thanbothpre-voicedandpre-voicelesstokensandaglidewhichwasaboutasperipheralasinpre-voicelesscontexts;word-nalGOAT,thus,displayedmoreoverall glidingmovementthanGOATfollowedbyatautosyllabicconsonant. Figure4.3: EDcentroid measuresacrosstimeforGOATbyvoicingcontextand task;meansandcondenceintervalsderivedfromsmoothedspeakervalues Table4.6: EDcentroid meansandstandarddeviationsforGOATattwotimepoints byvoicingcontextandtask;valuesderivedfromallobservedtokens TimepointVoicingcontext ConversationalMaptaskCitationform NucleusPre-voiced 0.27.110.34.090.39.10 Pre-voiceless 0.30.100.33.080.25.09 Word-nal 0.18.11{{ GlidePre-voiced 0.30.100.29.090.35.10 Pre-voiceless 0.38.110.49.100.50.10 Word-nal 0.38.10{{

PAGE 149

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 123 Inordertotesttheobservationsabove,amixed-eectsmodelanalysiswasperformedon EDcentroid measuresatnucleusandglide,denedasthepointsat20% and80%intothevowel.AsfortheanalysisofFACE,xedfactorswerespeciedas timepoint,voicingcontextandstyle.Theanalysisrevealedasignicantthree-way interactionbetweenallxedeectsseetable4.7andpost-hoctestswerecomputed seetable4.8.Theseshowedthat,inallthreespeechstyles,thedierencebetween nucleusandglidewassignicantinpre-voicelessbutnotinpre-voicedcontexts.The peripheralisationofpre-voicelessrelativetopre-voicedglideswassignicantinthe maptaskandcitationformdata.Incitationform,pre-voicelessnucleiwerealso foundtobesignicantlymorecentral:Theyweremorecentralthantheirpre-voiced counterpartsandmorecentralthanpre-voicelessnucleiinthemaptaskdata.In theconversationaldata,theeectofvoicingdidnotshowtobesignicant,neither innucleusnoringlideposition.Theapproximationofthetwovoicingcontextsin conversationalspeechmaybecausedprimarilybytherelativelycentralpositionof pre-voicelessglides,whichwassignicantcomparedtotheothertwospeechstyles. Inadditiontoananalysisofsimplemaineects,simpleinteractioneectswere testedwithxedvoicingcontext.Theseshowedthat,inpre-voicelesscontexts,the contrastbetweennucleusandglidewassignicantlysmallerintheconversational datacomparedtothemaptask coef =0 : 08; chisq =10 : 6; p< 0 : 01andcitation form coef =0 : 16; chisq =39 : 8; p< 0 : 001data,andsmallerinthemaptask comparedtothecitationformdata coef =0 : 08; chisq =18 : 0; p< 0 : 001. Table4.7:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: EDcentroid inGOATbytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandspeechstyleconversational,maptask,citationform Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value EDcentroid Timepoint25 : 0 ; 17 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Style4 : 9 ; 93 : 7 < 0 : 01** Timepoint:Voicingcontext79 : 4 ; 14 : 4 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Style10 : 0 ; 62 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:Style10 : 9 ; 93 : 5 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Voicingcontext:Style15 : 2 ; 59 : 4 < 0 : 001***

PAGE 150

124 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Table4.8:Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforinteractionterms intable4.7fordependentvariableF1' Maineect:contrastedlevels ContextofsignicantcontrastsCoef.Chisqdf = 1p-value Timepoint:glide{nucleus pre-voiceless,conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 0921 : 1 < 0 : 001*** pre-voiceless,maptask )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 1756 : 7 < 0 : 001*** pre-voiceless,citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 25134 : 2 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:pre-voiced{pre-voiceless glide,maptask )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 1745 : 5 < 0 : 001*** glide,citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 1334 : 5 < 0 : 001*** nucleus,citationform0 : 1627 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Style:conversational{maptask glide,pre-voiceless )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 0816 : 2 < 0 : 001*** Style:conversational{citationform glide,pre-voiceless )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 1126 : 9 < 0 : 001*** Style:maptask{citationform glide,pre-voiceless )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 0621 : 8 < 0 : 001*** nucleus,pre-voiceless0 : 0517 : 2 < 0 : 001*** 4.1.5.3Variationacrosstasks: ED FACE Asexpectedfromtheanalysisof EDcentroid measuresabove,average glidingmovementinFACEissmallerinpre-voicedcontextsthaninpre-voiceless contextsforallthreetasksseetable4.9.Whiletheextentofglidingmovement inpre-voicedcontextsremainsrelativelyconstantacrossspeechstyles,itappearsto increaseinpre-voicelesscontextsfrommoreinformaltomoreformalspeech.Since thedurationofvowelsinpre-voicedcontextsisconsistentlylongerthaninprevoicelesscontexts,theeectofvoicingonglidingmovementcannotbeattributed tounderlyingdierencesinduration.Asshownintable4.9,however,theincrease ofpre-voicelessdiphthongalityinmoreformalspeechisaccompaniedbyasteady increaseinvowelduration,presumablyduetoadecreaseinspeechrate.Consequently,analternativeinterpretationofthechangesin ED acrossspeechstylesmay bethattheydirectlyreectdierencesinduration,which,inturn,arecorrelated withdierencesinstyle.Figure4.4illustratesthat,whilethedierenceingliding movementbetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextsisfairlystableinvowels withadurationofapproximately150msorlonger,itdecreasesrapidlyasvowelsbecomeshorterandthoseinpre-voicelesscontextsbecomemoremonophthongal.The

PAGE 151

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 125 lledpointsintheplotshowthattheconversationaldataconsistsalmostexclusively ofveryshortpre-voicelessvowels,whichindicatesthattheinuenceofspeechstyle mayindeedmaskanunderlyingeectofduration. Table4.9:Euclideandistance ED anddurationinmsmeanvaluesandstandard deviationsforFACE;valuesderivedfromallobservedtokens Measure Voicingcontext ConversationalMaptaskCitationform ED Pre-voiced 0.11.070.09.050.10.06 Pre-voiceless 0.18.090.20.100.24.08 Word-nal 0.22.12{{ Duration Pre-voiced 169.4.3193.9.3287.4.8 Pre-voiceless 126.4.3156.1.0174.4.9 Word-nal 177.1.9{{ Figure4.4: ED forFACEbyduration,voicingcontextandtask;smoothedcurves basedonvaluesaggregatedbyspeechstyle Amixed-eectsmodelanalysiswithdependentvariable ED andxedfactors voicingcontext,styleanddurationshowedthatneithertheeectofstyle,notthe interactionbetweenstyleandvoicingcontextreachedsignicance;instead,theanalysisrevealedasignicantmaineectforduration F [1 ; 545 : 9]=8 : 2 ;p< 0 : 01anda signicantinteractionbetweenvoicingcontextandduration F [1 ; 511 : 0]=10 : 6 ;p< 0 : 01.Thesamemodelwasrerunexcludingallvoweltokenswithdurationsabove 275msinordertopreventthepredictionofhighlyunrealistic ED valuesinprevoicelesscontext,butthesamepatternofsignicancespersistedseetable4.10.

PAGE 152

126 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Thismeansthattheslopedescribingtheincreasein ED bydurationdieredsignicantlybetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesstokens,butitdidsosimilarlyinall threespeechstyles.Figure4.5illustratesthisrelationshipbasedonvaluespredicted bythenalmodel.Post-hoctestsrevealedthattheadjustedslopeforpre-voiced contextsdidnotdiersignicantlyfromzero,buttheslopeforpre-voicelesscontexts did chisq =19 : 4; p< 0 : 001,predictinganaverageincreaseofapproximately0.05 ED unitsevery100ms. Table4.10:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: ED inFACEbyvoicingcontextprevoiced,pre-voiceless,speechstyleconversational,maptask,citationformand duration Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value ED Duration16 : 5 ; 637 : 9 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:Duration5 : 0 ; 585 : 6 < 0 : 05* Figure4.5: ED eectsplotforFACEbyvoicingcontextandduration GOAT Atrstglance, ED measurementsforthevowelinGOATseetable4.11 showapatternsimilartotheonereportedforFACE.Pre-voicedcontextsarecharacterisedbyshorterglidingmovementandlongerdurationthanpre-voicelesscontexts inallthreespeechstyles.Acrossspeechstyles,itisthelattercontextsthatdisplay

PAGE 153

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 127 themostvariabilityin ED .Fromconversationaltomaptasktocitationformdata, glidingmovementinpre-voicelesstokensincreasesonaverageby0.04and0.07 ED units,respectively,whichismorethantheincreaseacrosstasksfoundforFACE .02and0.04 ED units.Inaddition,amoderateincreasein ED valuesmayalso benotedforpre-voicedcontextsincitationformcomparedtomaptasktokens.As withFACE,however,extendedglidingmovementacrossstylesgoeshandinhand withlongervoweldurationanditremainstobetestedwhetherstyle-baseddierencescontinuetopersistiftheeectsofspeechstyleanddurationareconsideredin unison. Table4.11:Euclideandistance ED anddurationinmsmeanvaluesandstandard deviationsforGOAT;valuesderivedfromallobservedtokens Measure Context ConversationalMaptaskCitationform ED Pre-voiced 0.15.090.14.070.17.09 Pre-voiceless 0.19.110.23.100.30.10 Word-nal 0.25.11{{ Duration Pre-voiced 182.3.0205.8.8293.5.7 Pre-voiceless 143.4.9151.3.3182.0.7 Word-nal 199.7.9{{ Amixed-eectsmodelanalysiswithdependentvariable ED andxedfactors voicingcontext,styleanddurationshowedasignicantthree-wayinteractionbetweenallxedfactors F [2 ; 459 : 0]=10 : 8 ;p< 0 : 001.Reducingthedatainputto tokenswithdurationsoflessorequalto275msstillrevealedasignicantinteractionbetweenthethreexedfactors;theresultsarelistedintable4.12.The complexinteractioneectaspredictedbythemodelisdisplayedingure4.6. ED inpre-voicedtokensisrelativelyconstantacrossspeechstylesandduration; theslightincreasebydurationincitationformdatawasnotsignicantandthe extensivevariabilitycanbeattributedtothefactthatthereareonlyveryfew shortpre-voicedtokensinthisdatasetn=6fordurationsbelow200ms. ED ofpre-voicelesstokensdiersacrossstyleinaveragevalueaswellaswithregard toitsfunctionalrelationshipwithduration.Post-hoctestsshowedthataverage ED inpre-voicelesscontextswassignicantlylowerinconversationalthanincitationformproductions coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 09; chisq =11 : 7; p< 0 : 01.Inspiteofthe closeapproximationofpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextsintheconversational data,however,theaveragedierencebetweenvoicingcontextswasstillsignicant inallthreetasksconversational: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 07; chisq =7 : 6; p< 0 : 05;maptask:

PAGE 154

128 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 14; chisq =27 : 3; p< 0 : 001;citationform: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 19; chisq = 30 : 8; p< 0 : 001.Theeectofdurationontheextentofglidingmovementinprevoicelesstokensseemstobeparticularlypronouncedinthemaptaskdata,where themodelpredictsasignicantaverageincreaseof0.14 ED unitsevery100ms chisq =17 : 1; p< 0 : 001.Intheotherspeechstyles,theincreasebydurationin pre-voicelessorpre-voicedGOATwasnotsignicantlydierentfromzero.The slopeforpre-voicelessGOATinmaptaskstylewassignicantlysteeperthanin citationform coef =0 : 002; chisq =17 : 7; p< 0 : 001,whilethedierencetothatin conversationalspeechjustmissedsignicance coef =0 : 001; chisq =7 : 3; p =0 : 055. Table4.12:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: ED inGOATbyvoicingcontextprevoiced,pre-voiceless,speechstyleconversational,maptask,citationformand duration Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value ED Style8 : 0 ; 363 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:Style5 : 7 ; 410 : 8 < 0 : 01** Style:Duration3 : 3 ; 455 : 5 < 0 : 05* Voicingcontext:Style:Duration6 : 1 ; 465 : 5 < 0 : 01** Figure4.6: ED eectsplotsforGOATbyvoicingcontext,speechstyleandduration

PAGE 155

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 129 4.1.5.4Socialvariation:Conversationaldata FACE Figure4.7belowillustratesthe ED valuesinpre-voicedandpre-voiceless FACErecordedforspeakersintheconversationaldataset,furthergroupedbygender,socialclassandage.Theleftpanel,whichdocuments ED valuesforspeakers groupedbygender,isbasedonproductionsbylower-classspeakersonly,because thedatadidnotincludehigher-classmales.Asexpectedfromtheanalysesinprevioussections,pre-voicelesscontextsconsistentlydisplaymoreglidingmovement thanpre-voicedcontexts,irrespectiveofspeakeridentity.Genderdoesnotappear toinuencethevowel'sglidingmovement,atleastnotforlower-classspeakers.For speakersoftheolderagegroup, ED seemstovarywiththespeakers'classmembershipinthathigher-classspeakersproducehigher ED valuesthanlower-class speakers,adierenceparticularlynoticeableinpre-voicelesscontexts. Figure4.7: ED forFACEinpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextsbyspeakervariablesgenderleft,lower-classspeakersonlyandsocialclassandagegroupright Amixed-eectsmodelwithxedfactorsvoicingcontextandgender,runonthe dataoflower-classspeakersonly,showedahighlysignicanteectofvoicingcontext F [1 ; 23 : 1]=14 : 5 ;p< 0 : 001,butpredictablydidnotrevealanysignicantresults involvinggender.Amixed-eectsmodelonall ED valueswithxedfactorsvoicing context,socialclasshigher-class,lower-classandagegroupolder,youngeralso revealedastrongeectofvoicingcontext F [1 ; 35 : 4]=31 : 6 ;p< 0 : 001;thethreewayinteractionbetweenallxedeectswasnotsignicant F [1 ; 234 : 1]=3 : 4 ;p =

PAGE 156

130 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS 0 : 068. GOAT Figure4.8showsthe ED valuesinpre-voicedandpre-voicelessGOAT recordedforspeakersintheconversationaldataset,furthergroupedbygender,social classandage.AswithFACEabove,theboxplotsintheleftpanelarebased onproductionsbylower-classspeakersonly,andgenderdoesnotshowtohavea perceptibleimpactonglidingmovement.Whencomparingpre-voicelessproductions ofGOATbyolderandbyyoungerspeakers,itseemsthattheextentofgliding movementisrelativelyincreasedinthelatterspeakergroupforbothlowerand highersocialclasses.Inpre-voicedcontexts,itwouldappearthatglidingmovement varieswithsocialclassforolderspeakers.However,whileitmaybenotedthatolder speakersdonotdisplaytheusualpatternoflongerglidingmovementinpre-voiceless thaninpre-voicedcontexts,theextremedierencebetweenlower-andhigher-class speakersandbetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelessproductionsbyolderhigherclassspeakersshouldnotbeoveremphasised.Pre-voicedproductionsofGOATby higher-classspeakerswereextremelyrareintheconversationaldata,yieldingatotal ofonly11tokens.Thescarcityoftokenscombinedwiththeunexpectedscenarioof morespectralmovementinpre-voicedthanpre-voicelesscontextsforolderhigherclassspeakers,andingentirelyincongruouswithallpreviousresults,suggeststhat thisphenomenonisunlikelytogeneralisetolargerspeakersamples. Amixed-eectsmodelon ED valuesproducedbylower-classspeakerswithxed factorsvoicingcontextandgenderrevealedasignicanteectofvoicingcontext F [1 ; 23 : 3]=7 : 9 ;p< 0 : 01butnosignicantcontributionsofgender.Basedonall ED valuesintheconversationaldataset,amodelwithxedfactorsvoicingcontext, socialclassandagegrouprevealedasignicantthree-wayinteractionbetweenall xedeectsseetable4.13.Post-hoctestsshowedthatforhigher-classspeakers, theglidingmovementinpre-voicelessGOATwassignicantlygreaterinthespeech ofyoungerthanofolderspeakers coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 16; chisq =12 : 5; p< 0 : 01.

PAGE 157

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 131 Figure4.8: ED forGOATinpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextsbyspeakervariablesgenderleft,lower-classspeakersonlyandsocialclassandagegroupright Table4.13:Mixedmodelanalysisresults,conversationaldata: ED inGOATby voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless,socialclasslower-class,higher-classand agegroupolder,younger Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value ED Voicingcontext4 : 9 ; 108 : 3 < 0 : 05* Agegroup7 : 1 ; 10 : 8 < 0 : 05* Voicingcontext:Socialclass:Agegroup4 : 0 ; 90 : 3 < 0 : 05* 4.1.5.5Socialvariation:Maptaskandcitationformdata FACE Figure4.9displaysthe ED valuesforpre-voicedandpre-voicelessFACE producedbyspeakersinthemaptaskandcitationformsettings,groupedbyspeaker genderandsocialclass.Itappearsthatsocialclasshaslittleimpactontheextentof glidingmovementinFACE.Femalehigher-classspeakermayproduceslightlymore diphthongaltokensinpre-voicelesscontextsthanfemalelower-classspeakers,but in-groupvariabilityisextensive.Ofthetwogenders,itisthemaleswho,onaverage, tendtodisplaythehighest ED values.Thisisespeciallynoticeableinpre-voiceless tokensinthecitationformdata,astherelativeincreaseinglidingmovementfrom moreinformalmaptasktomoreformalcitationformproductionsinpre-voiceless

PAGE 158

132 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS contextsisgreateramongmalethanfemalespeakers. Figure4.9: ED forFACEinthemaptaskleftandcitationformrightdataby voicingcontextandbyspeakervariablesgenderandsocialclass Amixed-eectsmodelwithxedfactorsvoicingcontext,speechstyle,genderand socialclassrevealedasignicantthree-wayinteractionbetweenthefactorsvoicing context,styleandgenderseetable4.14.Post-hoctestsshowedthat,formale speakers,theglidingmovementinpre-voicelessFACEwassignicantlysmallerin maptaskthanincitationformspeech coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 04; chisq =10 : 0; p< 0 : 05. Table4.14:Mixedmodelanalysisresults,maptaskandcitationformdata: ED in FACEbyvoicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless,stylemaptask,citationform, socialclasslower-class,higher-classandgenderfemale,male Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value ED Voicingcontext48 : 3 ; 27 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Style5 : 6 ; 25 : 7 < 0 : 05* Voicingcontext:Style:Gender9 : 2 ; 488 : 3 < 0 : 01** GOAT For ED valuesinGOATseegure4.10,dierencesbetweengenders appeartobesmallerthaninFACE.Malespeakersstillproduceslightlymorediphthongaltokensinpre-voicelesscontexts,particularlyinthemaptasksetting,but

PAGE 159

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 133 thereisextensiveoverlapbetweenthetwospeakergroups.Incontrasttothendings forFACE,glidingmovementinGOATseemstovaryasafunctionofsocialclass.In themaptaskdata,higher-classspeakersdisplaygreater ED valuesinpre-voiceless tokensthanlower-classspeakers,andthestylisticshifttocitationformproductions ismorepronouncedamonglower-classspeakers.Forhigher-classspeakers,thereappearstobeastyle-conditionedincreaseinglidingmovementforpre-voicedtokens ofGOAT. Figure4.10: ED forGOATinthemaptaskleftandcitationformrightdataby voicingcontextandbyspeakervariablesgenderandsocialclass Amixed-eectsmodelwithxedfactorsvoicingcontext,style,genderandsocialclassrevealedahighlysignicantthree-wayinteractionbetweenvoicingcontext, styleandsocialclassseetable4.15.Post-hoctestsshowedthattheincreasein glidingmovementincitationformrelativetomaptaskproductionswassignicant forlower-classspeakersinpre-voicelesscontexts coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 08; chisq =19 : 4; p< 0 : 001andforhigher-classspeakersinpre-voicedcontexts coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 05; chisq = 8 : 4; p< 0 : 05.Incitationformspeech,thedierencein ED valuesinpre-voicedcontextsbetweenlower-andhigher-classspeakerswassignicant coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 06; chisq = 10 : 7; p< 0 : 01.Theserelationships,presentedvisuallyintheeectsplotbasedon thenalmodelingure4.11,leadtoapproximationofthetwovoicingcontexts inlower-classmaptasktokensandinhigher-classcitationformtokens;inthelatter,thedierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesstokensremainssignicant coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 10; chisq =11 : 6; p< 0 : 01,whilethisisnotthecasefortheformer.

PAGE 160

134 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Table4.15:Mixedmodelanalysisresults,maptaskandcitationformdata: ED inGOATbyvoicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless,stylemaptask,citation form,socialclasslower-class,higher-classandgenderfemale,male Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value ED Voicingcontext21 : 5 ; 14 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Style13 : 5 ; 34 : 4 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:Style:Socialclass15 : 5 ; 475 : 2 < 0 : 001*** Figure4.11: ED eectsplotforGOATbyvoicingcontext,taskandsocialclass 4.1.6Summary TheprevioussectionshavedetailedtheresultsofacloseanalysisofFACEand GOATinBahC,variablyproducedasmoreorlessdiphthongalvowelsdepending onphoneticcontextual,stylisticandsocialvariables.Asexpected,bothFACE andGOATrevealedstrongvoicing-conditionedvariationwiththeeectofgreater dierentiationbetweennucleiandglidesinpre-voicelesscontexts.Whilethiswas causedprimarilybyperipheralisationofpre-voicelessglides,theshiftinglidesin themaptaskandcitationformdatawasaccompaniedbyareverse,centralising shiftinpre-voicelessnuclei.ThisndingdirectlycontradictspredictionsbyMoreton,cf.section4.1.2.2,whoclaimedthatpre-voicelessnucleieitherremain inthesamepositionaspre-voicednucleiorshiftinthedirectionofpre-voiceless

PAGE 161

4.1.FACEANDGOAT 135 glides.Onemightattempttoexplainthisphenomenonintermsofpre-voiceless hyperarticulation,arguingthatthediphthongsinFACEandGOATaresoshort thathyperarticulationspreadingfromthefollowingconsonantnotonlyaectsthe endportionofthevowelbutthevowelinitsentirety.Whileitisunclearhow farbackpre-voicelesshyperarticulationcanactuallyreach,thisscenario,whichis basedontheassumptionthatFACEandGOATarephonologicaldiphthongsin BahC,seemshighlyunlikely,ascentralisationofpre-voicelessrelativetopre-voiced nucleiwasmostpronouncedinthecomparativelylongcitationformtokens.Also, ifFACEandGOATwereindeedphonologicaldiphthongs,thereshouldbeatleast someindicationofspectralmovementinpre-voicedcontexts,which,however,consistentlydisplayedmonophthongaltendencies.Alternatively,itmaybepositedthat pre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextsinducedistinctphonologicalshapesforFACE andGOAT. Acrossspeechstyles,variationinpre-voicedcontextswasminimal,astokens ofbothFACEandGOATwereconsistentlyproducedasmonophthongs.Stylistic variationwas,thus,exhibitedmainlybypre-voicelesstokens,wheretherelative peripheralisationofglidesaswellasthecentralisationofnucleigenerally,ifnot alwayssignicantly,increasedwiththeformalityofthespeechstyle.Thepatterns ofstylisticvariationinFACEandGOATresembledeachotheronthesurface,but acloserexaminationrevealeddierencesregardingtheoveralldegreeofvariation aswellastheinuenceofcovaryingcontextualfactors.Moreextensivespectral movementinpre-voicelesstokensinmoreformalspeechstyleswasrecordedforboth FACEandGOAT,butstyle-conditioneddierencesweremorepronouncedinthe latter.Inaddition,whileincreasedglidingmovementcouldbeattributedprimarily todurationaldierencescorrelatingwithspeechstyleforFACE,thiswasnotthecase forGOAT,wheredurationshowedtohaveavariedeectonthevoweldepending onspeechstyle:spectralmovementinGOATwassmallintheconversationaldata andmoreextensiveinthecitationformdata,irrespectiveofvowelduration;inthe maptaskdata,spectralmovementvariedasafunctionofvowelduration. SocialvariationwithinspeechstylesforthevowelinFACEwasgenerallyvery small.Intheconversationaldata,therewasatendencyforolderlower-classspeakers toproducemoremonophthongaltokensinpre-voicelesscontextsthantheirolder higher-classcounterparts,butthedierencewasnotsignicant.Inthemaptask andcitationformdata,malespeakersdisplayedagreaterstylisticshiftthanfemale

PAGE 162

136 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS speakers,inthatspectralmovementinpre-voicelessFACEincreasedsignicantly frommaptasktocitationformproduction. ForthevowelinGOAT,amoderateamountofsocialvariationwasfoundwithin speechstyles.Intheconversationaldata,pre-voicelessGOATwasmorediphthongal inthespeechofyoungerthanolderhigher-classparticipants.Thesametendency couldalsobeobservedforyoungerandolderlower-classspeakers,but,here,theeect wasnotsignicant.Inthemaptaskdata,thedierencebetweenpre-voicedand pre-voicelessGOATwasnotsignicantforthelower-classspeakers,whogenerally producedlittlespectralmovementinGOATinthisspeechstyle.Thesespeakersalso showedasignicantincreaseinglidingmovementfrommaptasktocitationform style,restrictedtopre-voicelesscontexts.Conversely,higher-classspeakersshowed asignicantstyle-conditionedincreaseinglidingmovementinpre-voicedcontexts, whileglidingmovementinpre-voicelesscontextsremainedextensivethroughout.

PAGE 163

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 137 4.2MOUTHandPRICE Wells,149-152denesthestandardlexicalsetsMOUTHandPRICEascomprisingwordssuchas house,loud,now and night,side,pie ,whosecitationforms inRPandGenAmhavethestressedvowels /aU/ and /aI/ ,respectively.Inmost instances, /aU/ and /aI/ derivefromMiddleEnglish /u:/ and /i:/ ,whichdevelopedonglidesinthecourseofalarge-scalesetofvowelqualitychangesaroundthe fteenthcenturyknownastheGreatVowelShiftGVS.Whiletheexactpathof developmentremainsatopicofacademicdebatee.g.Yamada,1984,thestarting pointsofthediphthongisedformsgraduallybecamemoreopenandcentral.Many conservativeEnglishdialectstodayrestatthenalstageofthisprocess,displaying asymmetricalpairofupglidingdiphthongswithidenticalnucleiinunroundedlowcentralpositioncloseto [a] Labov,1994,167-169.However,MOUTHandPRICE areparticularlypronetoregional,socialandcontextualvariationinvolvingthepositionofeitherorbothnucleusandglide.BackedandraisednucleiinPRICE, forinstance,arecharacteristicoftheurbansouthofEnglandandofsouthernhemispherevarieties,andfrontedandraisednucleiinMOUTHcanbefoundinmany southernBritishaswellasSouthernUSaccents.AccordingtoLabov,167, frontingofMOUTHalongwithbackingofPRICEcanbeinterpretedasanextensionoftheGVS,asnucleus-glidedierentiationisatleastinitiallyfurtherincreased. ThediphthongsinMOUTHandPRICEalsoexhibitagooddealofallophonicvariationinEnglish,whichwillbediscussedinmoredetailinsection4.2.2below,after proposedrealisationsofMOUTHandPRICEinBahamianvarietiesareoutlinedin section4.2.1. 4.2.1MOUTHandPRICEinBahamianvarieties IntheBahamianCreoleliterature,thevowelsinwordslikePRICEandMOUTHare generallydescribedasconservative,fairlystandard,high-frontorhigh-backgliding diphthongs,respectively.Table4.16liststhevowelqualitiesofBahCasproposedby Wells,HolmandShillingHS,andChildsandWolframCW, comparingthemtovariantsinaselectionofassociatedvarietiesEdwards,2004; Blake,2004;DevonishandHarry,2004;Weldon,2004;YoussefandJames,2004; Thomas,2001;Labovetal.,2006.

PAGE 164

138 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Table4.16:SuggestedvowelqualitiesinBahCandassociatedvarieties. BahamianCreole Caribbeanvarieties USvarieties Lexicalset WellsHSCW BajanTrinCJamC GullahAAVE MOUTH AUaUaO AO 2u 2Uo OU8U aU OU 5UaO PRICE 2IaIai Ai 2IaIai 5IaI PRIZE 2IaIa: 2IaIai 5Ia a: WhileauthorsessentiallyagreeontheinterpretationofthetwovowelsasconstitutingtwofunctionalphonemesinatleastsomeformsofBahC,theydierwith respecttoreportedsocialand/orcontextualvariants.CWnotemonophthongalproductionsforPRIZE,i.e.PRICEinpre-voicedcontexts,exhibitingapatternsimilar tothatfoundinmodernAAVE.Theyreporttheresultsofanacousticanalysisof threeblackBahamianspeakersfromAbacoIsland,whoproducedfullyglidedtokens [ai] forPRICEprecedingvoicelessconsonantsbutdrasticallyreducedglides [a: a] precedingvoicedconsonantsChildsetal.,2003,21-23.Whilethese ndingssuggestthatblackBahamianspeechisclosertoNorthAmericanthanto CaribbeanvarietiesregardingrealisationsofPRICE,itisimportanttobeaware ofthestudy'slimitationsforgeneralisability,Abacobeingasmallplaceoutside themainstream.Holm,310pointsoutthatmonophthongalproductionsof PRICEbeforevoicedconsonantsdoindeedoccurinsomeBahamianvarieties,but theyareconnedtocertainislandssettledprincipallyfromtheAmericanSouthand otherwiseasrareintheBahamasasintherestoftheCaribbeanseee.g.Bailey andThomas,1998,97-100.AccordingtoShilling,monophthongalPRICE [a] isnotacontextualbutasocialvariant.ItisafeatureofbasilectalBahC,where PRICEfallstogether"withequallymonophthongalMOUTH [a] . Fornon-creolisedBahamianvarieties,ithasalsobeensuggestedthattheallophonesofMOUTHandPRICEfollowtherulesofCanadianRaising"Trudgill, 1986,160,wherebythenucleusisraisedtomidheightbeforevoicelessconsonants Chambers,1973.Whileevidenceofpre-voicelessraisingcanbefoundinmany NorthAmericanvarietiesfromCanadatocoastalSouthCarolinaandGeorgia,where itvariablyaectsthenucleiofeitherorbothMOUTHandPRICE,ithasnotbeen observedinanyoftheAtlanticcreolelanguages.InanumberofCaribbeanvarietiesandinGullahthenucleiinMOUTHmayberaisedto [2 O] irrespectiveof thephoneticcontextseetable4.16ande.g.Wassink,2001;ThomasandBailey, 1998,butsofarnoevidenceofnuclearraisinghasbeenattestedfortheBahamian

PAGE 165

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 139 context,voicing-conditionedorotherwise.Indeed,CWexplicitlyopposethenotion, statingthat[s]omeobservershavemistakenlyassociatedthediphthongofMOUTH inTheBahamaswithCanadianraising".Theyarguethatthistypeofraising isfoundinneitherblacknorwhiteBahamianspeechandmayhavebeenconfused withfront-glided [aE] inwhiteBahamianvarieties.Thefollowingsectionwillgivea briefoverviewoftheallophonypatternsmentionedintheavailabledescriptionsof BahCvowels. 4.2.2Voicing-conditionedalternationinMOUTHandPRICE ThediphthongsinMOUTHandPRICEexhibitagooddealofallophonicvariation inEnglish,generallywithaclearsplitbetweentwodistinctpositionalvariants.In someaccents,a`raised'variantisproducedbeforevoicelessobstruents,occasionally accompaniedbyfrontinginPRICEandbackinginMOUTH,whilethe`neutral', unraisedvariantoccursincertainotherenvironments.Thebestknownexampleof suchanallophonicalternationisreferredtoas`CanadianRaising',eventhoughits applicationisnotrestrictedtoCanadianvarietiesofEnglish.Inanumberofother accents,PRICEisreportedtoundergoglideweakeningbeforevoicedconsonants andword-nally,resultinginsomecasesinmonophthongalproductions,whilefully glidedvariantsareproducedinallothercontexts.Occasionallytermed`Southern monophthongisation',thisalternationisawell-knownfeatureofbothSouthernUS whitespeechandAAVE. 4.2.2.1Pre-voicelessraising Theterm`CanadianRaising',coinedbyChambersin1973,referstoanallophonic distributionconditionedbycodavoicingwherebythenucleiinthediphthongs /aI/ and /aU/ arehigherwhenfollowedbyatautosyllabicvoicelessconsonantthanin otherenvironments:approximately ice [2Is] and house [h2Us] versus eyes [aIz] , eye [aI] and loud [laUd] , how [haU] Chambers,1973;Paradis,1980.CanadianRaising haslongbeenconsideredastereotypicalfeatureofCanadianEnglish,datingback toatleastthe1880sThomas,1991,148,withrstaccountsinlinguisticjournals beingpublishedinthemidtolate1930sAyearst,1939;Emeneau,1935.Sinceit wasbroughttowiderlinguisticattentionasaphonologicalproblembyJoos2,

PAGE 166

140 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS whodiscussedthepossibledevelopmentofaphonemicsplitofthediphthongsbeforeapped /t/ ,CanadianRaisinghasbeenstudiedextensively,beingreported fromvariouspartsofCanadae.g.Gregg,1957;Chambers,1973;Thomas,1991, fromUSterritoriesrangingfromMichigantocoastalSouthCarolinaandGeorgia e.g.Dailey-O'Cain,1997;KurathandMcDavid,1961;Labov,2001;Moretonand Thomas,2007;Shewmake,1945;Thomas,1991,2004;Vance,1987,fromislandsin theSouthAtlanticOceansuchasSt.Helena,TristandaCunhaandtheFalkland IslandsTrudgill,1986,160andfromtheBritishFensBritain,1997.Theprocess isregularandproductive,aectingeitheroneorbothMOUTHandPRICE.Given thewidegeographicalspreadofthephenomenonandtheimprobabilityofitsdiffusionbycontactwithCanadianEnglishinalloftheabovementionedterritories, `CanadianRaising'seemssomewhatofamisnomerandwillhenceforthbereferred toas`pre-voicelessraising'. Muchcontroversyhassurroundedtheoriginofpre-voicelessraisingsince,for whichvariousmechanismshavebeenproposed.Accordingtoonehypothesis,prevoicelessraisingisanarchaism"Lass,1987,285,anintrinsicallyconservative phenomenonremnantoftheGVS.Ithasbeensuggestedthat,asthenucleiofthe diphthongisedformsgraduallylowered,successivestagesofthephono-lexicalvowel shiftsystematicallyreachedpre-voicelesscontextslateOguraetal.,1991;Ogura, 1995.Whileinmanydialectsvoiceless-codadiphthongseventuallycaughtupwith theshiftinthefavouredenvironments,persistentpre-voicelessraisingisarguedto representanarresteddevelopmentasnot-fully-lowereddiphthongsbecamefossilised Gregg,1973;Lass,1987;Picard,1977.ThistheoryhasbeentermedtheFailureto-Lowerhypothesis"byBritain,32.Itreceivessomesupportfromsimilar developmentsinScottishandScottish-Irishdialects,whererealisationsofPRICE reecttheallophonicsplitbetweenlongandshortvowelsaccordingtotheScottish VowelLengthRule: [aI] occursbeforevoicedfricatives,before /r/ andinmorphemenalpositionwhile [2I] isusedinallotherenvironmentsGregg,1973;Milroy,1996. Indeed,Gregg,142claimedthat,inviewofthenumberofScottishandIrish immigrantswholeftfortheNewWorld,itislikelythatpre-voicelessraisinginNorth AmericaissimplyanextensionoftheScottishVowelLengthRuleinthatthefollowingcontextforfullyglideddiphthongswidenedtoincludeallvoicedconsonants,not onlyfricatives.Otherauthors,however,pointedoutthatiftheCanadian-Raisingtypeallophonyofpre-voicelessraisingcouldemergeindependentlyinanumberof otherwiseunrelatedaccentsinNorthAmerica,eitherasthedirectresultsofthe

PAGE 167

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 141 GVSprogressionormediatedviaprocessesconnectedtotheScottishVowelLength Rule,itissuspiciouslyrareintheBritishIslesChambers,1989;Trudgill,1986, 156.Moreover,atleastsomecasesofpre-voicelessraisinginpartsoftheUSborderingCanadaappeartobetheresultofveryrecentdevelopments,aninnovation possibly,butnotnecessarily,spreadingfromCanadaThomas,2000;Moretonand Thomas,2007. AnalternativehypothesiswasprovidedbyChambers,1989,sometimes referredtoastheRaisinghypothesis"Britain,1997,33.Farfrombeinganintrinsicallyarchaicform,pre-voicelessraisingisconsidereda20thcenturyinnovation, resultingdirectlyfromtheshorteningofvowelsinpre-voicelessenvironments.Itis arguedthattherelativeshortnessexertsparticularpressureondiphthongswithlow nucleiandhighglides,asituationthatcanlogicallyberesolvedintwoways:either byraisingthenucleusorbyloweringtheglide.Inbothcases,theglidingdistanceof thediphthongswouldbereducedtoaccommodatetherelativelyshorterdurationin pre-voicelesscontexts.Pre-voicelessraisingwould,thus,beamanifestationofthe rstscenarioandtheterm`raising'inthisviewmaybeinterpretedsynchronically aswellasdiachronically.Itshouldbenotedthat,inaccordancewiththislineof argumentation,proponentsoftheFailure-to-lowerhypothesismayalsopointtothe phonologicalnaturalness"Britain,1997,31ofthedescribedscenarioasanexplanationofwhynucleiinpre-voicelesscontextsreachlowtargetslaterthanthose inpre-voicedcontexts. Athirdhypothesis,knownastheContact,Focusing,andReallocationhypothesis"Britain,1997,34,redenespre-voicelessraisingasadialectcontactphenomenon.FirstadvancedbyTrudgill1986,158-161forheartlandCanadianEnglishandbyBritainandTrudgillforEnglishintheBritishFens,itisargued thattheobservedallophonicdistributionistheresultofstructuralreallocationin thecontextofkoineisation.Inthisscenario,dialectswithvariantsofMOUTHand PRICEatvaryingstagesoftheGVS,andpossiblyreectingfurtherdevelopments, cameintoclosecontact.Inthesubsequentprocessofnew-dialectformation,theinputvarietiesweregraduallyfocussedovertimeintoamorehomogenousdialectvia acombinationofdialectlevellingandsimplication.Iftwoormoreinputvariants ofthediphthongssurvived,theirdistributionwasregularisedbyallocatingthemto phonologicallydistinctenvironments.Referenceismadeoncemoretothenatural phonetictendencies"Trudgill,159atworkintheallocationofraisedvariants

PAGE 168

142 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS totheshorterdiphthongsbeforevoicelessconsonants. Boththeraisingandthecontacthypothesisareviablescenariosthatmayaccount fortheoccurrenceofpre-voicelessraisinginmanyvarietiesofEnglish.Indeed,they neednotbemutuallyexclusive,acceptingthefactthatinsoundchangethereare somanypossibledevelopmentsthat,foraparticularchangetoactuallytakeplace, multiplecausationisverylikely.Thereis,however,thequestionofwhetherthe underlyingphoneticexplanation,thatisthattherelativelyshortdurationofvowels inpre-voicelesscontextstriggerstheraisingofthenuclei,cantrulygiveasatisfactory accountofaairs. AsstatedaboveandnotedbyChambers,84andBritain,31among others,thediphthongs'glidingmovementinpre-voicelesscontextscouldalsobedecreasedbyweakeningtheglide.Whiletheauthorsmadereferencetoanaccentin theUSsouthmidlandareawhereformssuchasthiscanbefounde.g.Britain,1997, 31,itistheexactoppositethatisextremelycommon:InAAVEandinawiderange ofSouthernUSvarieties,glideweakeningoccursinthelongerpre-voicedandwordnalcontexts,whilepre-voicelesstokensremainfullyglided.Trudgill,160, indiscussingexamplesof`CanadianRaising'inAtlanticOceanvarietiesofEnglish, remarkedonthefactthat,whilethediphthongsinpre-voicelessenvironmentshave centralonsetsasinCanadianEnglish,thoseintheelsewhere"environmentsmay beverydierent:[T]hese[...]varietieshavelonger,backer,andmoremonophthongalforms."Thesamepatternofraisednucleiinpre-voicelesscontextsalongwith weakenedglidesinpre-voicedandword-nalcontextshasalsobeenobservedina numberofNorthAmericanmainlandvarietiessuchasaccentsofEasternVirginia andnortheasternNorthCarolinaMoretonandThomas,2007,40.Theexistence ofsuchallophonicpatternsdoesnotinvalidatethedialectcontactscenarioperse. Indeed,Trudgill,160interpretedthisaslendingsupporttothehypothesis, asdialectsyoungerthanCanadianEnglishmayreectlatersouth-of-Englanddevelopmentsthatformedpartoftheirinitialinput.Itdoes,however,posedoubtas towhetherpre-voicelessraisingcanbeexplainedphoneticallyastheresultofoptimisingnucleus-glidedistancesaccordingtovowelduration.MoretonandThomas proposedanalternativephoneticbasisforthephenomenon,whichwillbe introducedinsection4.2.2.3below.

PAGE 169

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 143 4.2.2.2Glideweakening AnothercommontypeofallophonyconditionedbycodavoicingoccursamongaccentsofEnglish,wherebythediphthonginPRICEisreportedtoundergoglide weakeninginpre-voicedand,possibly,wordnalcontexts,alternatingwithfully oglidedtokensinpre-voicelessenvironments.Theseaccentshaveapproximately ice [aIs] versus eyes [aEz a:z] and eye [aE a:] MoretonandThomas,2007,39. Sometimesreferredtoas`Southernmonophthongisation'duetoitswidespreadoccurrenceintheSouthernUS,thephenomenonismoregeographicallydiversethan that.Pre-voicedglideweakeningisfoundinabroadrangeofruralsouthernwhite accents,whereitdevelopedinthelate19thcenturyand,morerecently,spreadto includepre-voicelesscontextsinsomesociallyrestrictedvarieties.Duetoitslong associationwithworking-classspeech,upper-middleclassspeakerstendtoavoid it.ItisapparentlydecliningalongthemarginsoftheSouth,thoughavoidance patternsaremoreprevalentinurbanthaninruralareasThomas,2004,311-312. Pre-voicedglideweakeningisalsoadiagnosticfeatureofsouthernaswellasnorthern varietiesofAAVE.AsBaileyandThomasdemonstrated,thevowelsystems ofspeakersofearlyformsofAAVEsharedanumberoffeatureswithcreolespeakers, possiblyreectingasharedlinguisticheritage.Productionsofpre-voicedPRICEby speakersofAAVEborninthemid19thcentury,likethoseofcreolespeakers,did nothaveweakenedoglidesinPRIZE,whicharguesagainstsubstrateinuencein theemergenceofglideweakeningandforindependentdevelopment.Baileyand Thomas8,thus,arguedthatpre-voicedglideweakeningisalate19thcentury innovationinAAVE,whichmayhaveparalleledcontemporaneousdevelopmentsin whitesettlerdialects.OutsidetheNorthAmericancontext,oglideweakeningin PRIZEismoregeographicallyrestrictedbutithasbeenreportedforthevarietiesof EnglishspokenintheHumbersideregionofnorthernEnglandandinthedialectsof DevonandCornwallMoretonandThomas,2007,40.Ingeneral,glideweakening isdiscussedonlywithrespecttoallophonicvariationinPRICE.Therearesomeauthors,however,whohavenotedananalogousprocessleadingtoreducedpre-voiced glidesinthevowelinMOUTHe.g.Holm,2000,148,usuallycoincidingwithglide weakeninginPRICE.

PAGE 170

144 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS 4.2.2.3AsymmetricAssimilation MoretonandThomasproposedthatpre-voicelessnuclearraisingandprevoicedglideweakeningareactuallytwosidesofthesamecoin,arisingfromuniversal phoneticprocesseswhichprotecttheglideagainstundershootinpre-voicelesscontexts.First,voicelesscodascauseperipheralisationofglidesinclosingdiphthongs, whichcanbeaccessedbyspeakersasaperceptualcueforlexicaldistinctionsee section4.1.2.2.Thishasbeenconrmedforspeakerswhodonotexhibitphonologised`CanadianRaising'Thomas,2000aswellasforclosingdiphthongsother thanPRICEandMOUTHMoreton,2004.Whilethereasonforthiseectis unknown,MoretonandThomas,41speculatedthatitmaybecausedbya propensityforhyperarticulationbeforevoicelesscodasingeneral,whichcouldalso accountforthewell-documentedloweringoflowmonophthongsinpre-voicelesscontextsalsoseeMoreton,2004,24-30.Second,pre-voicelessshorteningindiphthongs appearstoaectprimarilythebeginningofthetransition,whichleadstoshorter nucleusdurationsandpossiblylossofnuclearsteadystatesThomas,2000,10.A shortenednucleusis,consequently,moreexposedtocoarticulatorypressuresfrom neighbouringsounds.Theseprocessescreatetheconditionfor AsymmetricAssimilation ,wherebypre-voicelesscontextspromotetheassimilationofthenucleusto theglide,whiletheglideisdominatedbythenucleusinpre-voicedcontexts.Itis importanttonotethatperipheralisationoftheglidecannotbeconsideredaconsequenceofshorteningperse,ascomparableamountsofshorteningcausedbyfactors otherthanfollowingvoicelessconsonantsdonotproducethesameeect.When Englishclosingdiphthongsareshortenedbeforevoicelesscodas,theirglidesbecome moreperipheral.Whentheyareshortenedduetoachangeinspeechrate,however, glidesmaybecomemorecentralseee.g.Gay,1968. MoretonandThomassuggestedthatintheinitialstages,pre-voiceless raisingandglideweakeningarejustamatterofsubtlephoneticdierencesbetween glidesinpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontext.Asassimilatorypressurescontinueto persist,thespectraldierencemaybecomephonologisedandtheallophonesmay changeevenfurther.Inthecaseofglideweakening,thedierencebetweennucleus andglidecontinuestowaneinpre-voicedcontextsastheglidebecomesmorecentralised.If,however,pre-voicelessraisingspreadstothenucleus,anewcaseof `CanadianRaising'emerges.

PAGE 171

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 145 4.2.3Researchquestionsandhypotheses MoretonandThomas'notionofAsymmetricAssimilation,thoughessentially adiachronically-basedmodel,canbeextrapolatedtoformulatehypothesesthat applytosociallyconditionedsynchronicvariationwithintheBahamiancommunity, whereprestigiousstandardproductionsareassociatedwithnearlyidenticalwide diphthongsinpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontexts. 1.Voicing-conditionedspectraldierenceswillbefoundintheproductionsofall speakers,atleastinglideposition. 2.Ifpre-voicelessraisingaccountsfortherealisationsofMOUTHand/orPRICE bysomeBahCspeakers,voicing-conditionedspectraldierenceswillhave spreadtoincludevowelnuclei. 3.Ifpre-voicelessraisingorpre-voicedglideweakeningissociallydiagnosticin theBahamiancontext,non-standardproductions,associatedwiththespeech oflowersocialclasses,willbeaectedmorethanproductionsbyspeakersof highersocialclassesclosertothestandard. 4.Acertainamountofstylisticvariationisexpectedregardlessofother,possibly phonologised,phoneticprocessesatwork,inthatwidediphthongstendtobe truncatedasspeechrateincreases. 5.Stylisticvariationwillreectthesocialdistributionofthevariants,ifspeakersareawareofdierentsociolinguisticchoicesavailabletothem.Perceived stigmatisationofaparticularvariantwillresultinrelativelysharpstylistic stratication,withincreaseduseofstandard-nearformscorrelatingwithan increaseinformality. 4.2.4Analysisprocedure Onlyvowelsinmaximallybisyllabicwordswereselectedfortheanalysis.Allvowel tokenswererestrictedtoCVCcontexts,exceptforMOUTHintheconversational dataset,where,duetotheoverallscarcityoftokens,word-nalcontextswereincludedandtreatedaspre-voiced,ifthesewordsweredirectlyfollowedbyavoiced

PAGE 172

146 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS consonantinconnectedspeech.Pre-nasalandpre-liquidcontextswereavoidedas wellastokensfollowing/r/orsemivowels.Thedatacollectedinthemaptaskand citationformsettingconsistexclusivelyofvowelsfollowedbyalveolarobstruents. Tokensfollowedby/t/inapotentialappingcontextwereexcluded,regardlessof whethertheconsonantwasactuallyappedornot.Inaddition,vowelsshorterthen 75mswereremovedfromthedata.Thisprocedureyieldedatotalof1935vowel tokens,861forMOUTHand1074forPRICE.Table4.17liststhetotalnumber oftokensforeachlexicalset,voicingcontextandspeechstylesubjectedtofurther analysis. Table4.17:Numberoftokensforacousticanalysesbylexicalset,voicingcontext andspeechstyle LexicalsetVoicingcontext Convers. Maptask Cit.form MOUTHPre-voiced 50 160 252 Pre-voiceless 96 145 158 PRICEPre-voiced 105 137 235 Pre-voiceless 158 204 235 Total 409 646 880 Inordertoquantifytherelativepositionofthediphthongsinthespeakers' vowelspacesintheF1andF2dimensionsjointly,logratiosofEuclideandistances werecalculatedwhichrepresenttherelativedistancetothemeansofTRAPand GOOSEforMOUTHandtothemeansofTRAPandFLEECEforPRICE.For eachtimepointbetween10%and90%at10%-intervalsintoagivenvoweltoken, twoEuclideandistanceswerecomputed,basedontherawHertzvaluesofF1and F2: ed 1,thedistancetothemeanofTRAP,and ed 2,thedistancetothemeanof GOOSEforMOUTHor,inthecaseofPRICE,thedistancetothemeanofFLEECE. Thisprocedureisillustratedinschematicformingure4.12forthediphthongin MOUTH.Theratioofthesetwodistances, ed 1 =ed 2,indicateshowclosethevowel tokenatthisparticularpointintimeistoTRAPinrelationtoGOOSEorFLEECE. Thelogarithmofthisratio, Lrat = log ed 1 =ed 2,givesthesameinformationina moreconvenientform:IfameasurementpointisclosertoTRAP,thelogratiois negative;ifitisclosertoGOOSEorFLEECE,thelogratioispositive.Alogratio ofzerowouldindicatethatthevoweltokenatthistimepointisexactlyequidistant betweenTRAPandGOOSEorFLEECE.

PAGE 173

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 147 Figure4.12:Euclideandistancesbetweenthetimepointat60%ofatokenof MOUTHtothemeansofTRAP ed 1andGOOSE ed 2 4.2.5Results 4.2.5.1Visualinspection First,wemayinspectthepositionofthediphthongsinMOUTHandPRICEthrough timeinthevowelspaceforspeakersindividuallyinordertoobservetheoverallvariabilityfoundinthedata.Figure4.13onpage148showsthesmoothedF1'and F2'formanttrajectoriesbetween10%and90%intothevowelforeightselected speakersandthreespeechstyles,withpre-voicedredandpre-voicelessbluecontextstreatedseparately.Pre-voicelesstokensappeartoberaisedand,toalesser extent,peripheralisedcomparedtopre-voicedtokensforbothMOUTHandPRICE. Whilethisgeneralpatternholdsforallspeakersandstyles,thereisagreatdealof variabilityconcerningthedegreeofspectraldierentiationbothwithinandacross speechstyles.ForspeakerssuchasJohnnyintheconversationalandArt01in themaptasksetting,thedierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesstokensin MOUTHisparticularlyextreme.Inpre-voicedcontexts,theyproducelownuclei nearTRAPatapproximately [a] ,whilethenucleiinpre-voicelesstokensmaybe raisedtoapproximately [O] .SomespeakerssuchasSharonalsoproducemid-high nucleiinpre-voicedcontexts,resemblingthetypicalrealisationofthediphthongin manyAtlanticcreolesseetable4.16onpage138,butthesespeakerstendtoshow agreatdealofintra-speakervariationandpre-voicedraisedvariantscooccurwith unraisedvariants.

PAGE 174

148 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Figure4.13:SmoothedtrajectoriesofMOUTHandPRICEinpre-voicedredand pre-voicelessbluecontextsforeightspeakersandthreespeechstylesnormalised F1,F2 Acrossspeechstyles,thedierenceseemstolieprimarilyinanoverallextended glidingmovementofthediphthongsinthecitationformsetting.Asillustratedby speakerBeth02,theincreaseinglidingmovementmaycoincidewithadecreaseof dierentiationbetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelessvariants,especiallyforMOUTH.

PAGE 175

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 149 4.2.5.2Variationacrosstasks MOUTH Thespectraldierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesstokensof MOUTHseegure4.14showsconsiderablestylisticvariationinthatitismost pronouncedintheconversationaldataandsuccessivelysmallerinthemoreformalspeechstyles.Forpre-voicelesstokens,stylisticvariationappearstoaect primarilytherstpartofthediphthong,whichisraisedinmoreinformalspeech conversational > maptask > citationform.Inpre-voicedtokens,itistheglidethat ismorevariable,beinglowerinthemaptaskdatacomparedtotheconversational orthecitationformdata.Theoverallextentofglidingmovementseemstoincrease inmoreformalspeech.Whilethisisobviouswhencomparingmaptaskandcitationformproductions,conversationalvariantspresentamorecomplicatedpicture: Pre-voicelessMOUTHintheconversationaldataisindeedlessdiphthongalthanin themaptaskdata,butthereverseistrueforpre-voicedtokens.Theseobservations,however,shouldbeinterpretedonlywithcautionasadirectcomparisonof theconversationalwiththeotherdatasetsmaybeproblematic.Logratiosforthe maptaskandcitationformdataarebasedonEuclideandistancestothemeans ofTRAPandGOOSEor,inthecaseofPRICE,FLEECEinthecitationform setting;logratiosfortheconversationaldataarebasedondistancestothemeansof TRAPandGOOSE/FLEECEintheconversationalsetting.Asvowelstendtobe lessperipheralincasualspeech,theextentofglidingmovementofthediphthongs, whichisquantiedonlyinrelationtoTRAPandGOOSE/FLEECE,may,thus, beconfoundedbyadecreaseindistancebetweenTRAPandGOOSE/FLEECE themselves. Table4.18:LogratiomeansandstandarddeviationsforMOUTHattwotimepoints byvoicingcontextandstyle;valuesderivedfromallobservedtokens TimepointVoicingcontext ConversationalMaptaskCitationform NucleusPre-voiced -1.64.84-1.41.85-1.68.76 Pre-voiceless -0.09.99-0.56.75-1.23.77 GlidePre-voiced 0.10.04-0.27.680.53.70 Pre-voiceless 1.01.781.17.881.33.74 Forstatisticaltesting,theinformationinthedatawasreducedtologratiosat twotimepointspervoweltoken:thenucleus,denedasthepointofmaximumF1 between20%and40%intothevowel,representingthepointofmaximalvocalic

PAGE 176

150 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Figure4.14:LogratiosacrosstimeforMOUTHbyvoicingcontextandtask;means andcondenceintervalsderivedfromsmoothedspeakervalues openness,andtheglide,xedat80%.Themeansandstandarddeviationsofthe logratiosofMOUTHatthesetwotimepointscanbefoundintable4.18.The valueslistedarebasedonallobservedtokens;unequaltokennumbersbetween speakerswerenotcontrolledfor,whichmeansthatsomespeakersmayhaveaslightly disproportionateinuence. Amixed-eectsmodelanalysiswasconductedwithlogratiovaluesasdependentvariableandxedfactorstimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextprevoiced,pre-voicelessandspeechstyleconversational,maptask,citationform. Theanalysisshowedasignicantinteractionbetweenallmaineectsseetable 4.19andpost-hoctestswerecarriedout.Ananalysisofsimplemaineectsrevealedasignicantdierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelessglidesinboth maptask coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 04; chisq =44 : 2; p< 0 : 001andcitationformdata coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 61; chisq =17 : 2; p< 0 : 001.Inaddition,therewasasignicantcontrastbetween conversationalandcitationformspeechinpre-voicelessnuclei coef =0 : 90; chisq = 23 : 1; p< 0 : 001andpre-voicelessglides coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 50; chisq =9 : 0; p< 0 : 05;in bothcases,logratiosinconversationalspeechwerehigherthanincitationform speech.Inthemaptask,pre-voicelessnucleiwerehigher/moreperipheral coef = 0 : 5; chisq =27 : 5; p< 0 : 001andpre-voicedglideswerelower/lessperipheral coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 65; chisq =82 : 2; p< 0 : 001thanincitationform.Acontrast-between-contrast

PAGE 177

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 151 analysisforthelevelsofvoicingcontextandspeechstyleshowedthat,inthenucleus,thecontrastbetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextswassignicantly largerinconversationalthaninmaptask coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 58; chisq =6 : 4; p< 0 : 05or citationform coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 88; chisq =15 : 1; p< 0 : 001speech,andlargerinmap taskthanincitationformspeech coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 30; chisq =7 : 0; p< 0 : 001.Inthe glide,thecontrastbetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextswassignicantly largerinmaptaskthaninconversational coef =0 : 58; chisq =7 : 7; p< 0 : 05or citationform coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 43; chisq =14 : 8; p< 0 : 001speech. Table4.19:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat inMOUTHbytimepointnucleus, glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandspeechstyleconversational, maptask,citationform Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lrat Timepoint127 : 3 ; 31 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext7 : 5 ; 113 : 9 < 0 : 01** Timepoint:Voicingcontext16 : 9 ; 70 : 5 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Style52 : 1 ; 107 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:Style11 : 0 ; 137 : 3 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Voicingcontext:Style10 : 1 ; 631 : 5 < 0 : 001*** Eventhoughthedierencebetweenpre-voicelessandpre-voicednucleiinthe conversationaldataappearedtobeextensive,intermsofsimplemaineects,itdid notshowtobesignicant.Thismaybeinpartduetotheoverallscarcityofprevoicedtokens,whichforsomespeakerswereonlyrepresentedbyoneortwoword types.Itisalsothecase,however,thatinter-speakervariabilitywasparticularly largeintheconversationalspeechstyle.Itisinterestingtonotethatthetime pointsandvoicingcontextswhichshowthemostvariationacrosstasks,thatis pre-voicelessnucleiandpre-voicedglides,alsoshowthemostvariationwithinthe conversationaldataasreectedbythecomparativelylargestandarddeviationsin table4.18.Whethersomeofthisvariabilitycanbeaccountedforbythesocial identityofspeakerswillbeinvestigatedinsection4.2.5.3. PRICE Atrstglance,thespectraldierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voiceless tokensofPRICEdoesnotappeartobeaectedbyspeechstyletothesameextent asobservedforMOUTHseegure4.15.Inallthreestylisticsettings,thereis

PAGE 178

152 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS asoliddierencebetweenthetwovoicingcontexts,withhigherlogratiosinprevoicelesscontextsthroughoutthevowel.Whenthelogratiomeanslistedintable 4.20areconsulted,ittranspiresthatthespectraldierenceconditionedbyvoicing issomewhatmoreprominentinconversationalspeech.Inlogratiounits,thedierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesstokensinthenucleusdecreasesfrom1.29 intheconversationaldatato0.92and1.02inthemaptaskandcitationformdata, respectively.Intheglide,thespectraldierencedecreasesfrom1.43to0.88and 1.19.IncontrasttoMOUTH,however,stylisticvariationisnotmainlyrestrictedto pre-voicedglidesandpre-voicelessnuclei.Theoverallextendedglidingmovementin PRICEincitationformspeechcanbeattributedtolowerlogratiosinthenucleus andhigherlogratiosintheglideforbothvoicingcontexts. Figure4.15:LogratiosacrosstimeforPRICEbyvoicingcontextandtask;means andcondenceintervalsderivedfromsmoothedspeakervalues Table4.20:LogratiomeansandstandarddeviationsforPRICEattwotimepoints byvoicingcontextandstyle;valuesderivedfromallobservedtokens TimepointVoicingcontext ConversationalMaptaskCitationform NucleusPre-voiced -2.30.79-2.40.65-2.80.70 Pre-voiceless -1.01.77-1.48.66-1.78.64 GlidePre-voiced -0.08.630.01.590.24.49 Pre-voiceless 1.35.860.89.861.43.70 AmixedmodelanalysiswasconductedonthelogratiovaluesofPRICEwiththe samespecicationsasaboveforMOUTH.Theanalysisshowedsignicantinterac-

PAGE 179

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 153 tionsbetweenstyleandtimepointsandbetweenstyleandvoicingcontextseetable 4.21.Asubsequentanalysisofsimplemaineectsrevealedthattheeectofvoicing contextwassignicantforallspeechstylesconversational: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 17; chisq = 122 : 5; p< 0 : 001;maptask: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 83; chisq =54 : 5; p< 0 : 001;citation form: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 92; chisq =70 : 7; p< 0 : 001.Inaddition,glidesincitationform speechweresignicantlyhigher/moreperipheralthaninmaptaskspeech coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 25; chisq =25 : 2; p< 0 : 001,whilenucleiincitationformspeechweresignicantlylower/morecentralthaninmaptask coef =0 : 38; chisq =60 : 1; p< 0 : 001or conversationalspeechspeech coef =0 : 62; chisq =23 : 8; p< 0 : 001.Ananalysisof interactioncontrastsshowedthatthecontrastbetweenvoicingcontextswasgreater inconversationalthaninmaptaskspeech coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 34; chisq =6 : 9 ;p< 0 : 05. Table4.21:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat inPRICEbytimepointnucleus, glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandspeechstyleconversational, maptask,citationform Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lrat Timepoint864 : 9 ; 50 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext108 : 4 ; 64 : 9 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Style50 : 0 ; 92 : 3 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:Style3 : 6 ; 183 : 5 < 0 : 05* 4.2.5.3Variationintheconversationaldata MOUTH TheconversationaldatasetforMOUTHischaracterisedbyextensive inter-aswellasintra-speakervariability.Figure4.16illustratesthat,basedon speakermeans,apatterncanbediscernedwherebylower-classspeakersofboth gendersproducehighernucleiinpre-voicelesscontextsthanfemalehigher-class speakers.Forbothlower-classmalesandfemales,themedianlogratioinprevoicelessnucleiisequaltoorgreaterthenzero,whichindicatesthatatleast50%of alllower-classspeakersproduceonaveragepre-voicelessnucleiinMOUTHthatare spectrallyclosertoGOOSEthantoTRAP.Asimilartrendcanbeobservedforlog ratiosinglideposition:Althoughthecontrastbetweenvoicingcontextsissmaller thaninthenuclei,logratiosinpre-voicelessglidesareconsistentlyhigherthanin pre-voicedglides.Forthelower-classspeakers,medianlogratiosinpre-voicedglides

PAGE 180

154 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS areequaltoorsmallerthanzero;thatis50%ofthelower-classspeakersproduce pre-voicedglidesthatareclosertoTRAPthantoGOOSE. Figure4.16:LogratiosforMOUTHintheconversationaldatasetbytimepoint, socialgroupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans Inordertotestthestatisticalsignicanceoftheseobservations,twomixed modelanalyseswereperformed.Therstmodelwasconstructedtotesttheeffectofgenderonthelogratiovaluesoflower-classspeakersonly.Apartfrom gendermale,female,theotherxedfactorsincludedinthemodelweretimepoint nucleus,glideandvoicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless.Asexpected,neithergendernoranyinteractioninvolvinggendershowedtobesignicant.The secondmodelwasdesignedtosubsequentlytesttheeectofsocialclassonthe logratiosproducedbyallspeakersintheconversationaldataset;xedfactorsincludedtimepoint,voicingcontextandsocialclasslower-class,higher-class.The testrevealedasignicantthree-wayinteractionbetweenallxedfactorsseetable4.22.Post-hoctestsconrmedthatlower-classspeakershadrelativelyhigh logratiosinpre-voicelessnuclei:Theyweresignicantlyhigherthanlogratios inpre-voicednuclei coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 51; chisq =19 : 1; p< 0 : 001andsignicantly higherthanlogratiosinpre-voicelessnucleiproducedbyhigher-classspeakers coef =0 : 86; chisq =10 : 8; p< 0 : 01.Inaddition,pre-voicelessglidesweresignicantlyhigher/moreperipheralthanpre-voicedglidesforlower-classspeakers

PAGE 181

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 155 coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 80; chisq =9 : 0; p< 0 : 05. Table4.22:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldata: Lrat inMOUTH bytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandsocial classlower-class,higher-class Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lrat Timepoint88 : 2 ; 8 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext17 : 4 ; 21 : 6 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Socialclass5 : 7 ; 12 : 7 < 0 : 05* Timepoint:Voicingcontext:Socialclass5 : 3 ; 225 : 2 < 0 : 05* PRICE WhiletherealisationofPRICEwithinsocialgroups,illustratedingure 4.17,ismorefocussedthaninthecaseofMOUTH,socialvariationacrossthese groupsismorediverseandappearstobeinuencedbythespeakers'genderaswell associalclass.Logratiosformalespeakersarehigherthanthoseforfemalesinboth nucleusandglideandinallvoicingcontexts.Intermsofsocialclass,dierences occurprimarilyinthenucleusofpre-voicelesstokens:Lower-classspeakersofboth gendersdisplayhigherlogratiosthanfemalehigher-classspeakers,eventhoughthe nucleiarenotusuallyraisedtotheextentthattheyareclosertoFLEECEthanto TRAP.Overall,thedierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesstokensremains fairlystable AsforMOUTHabove,twosuccessivemixedmodelanalyseswereconducted. Therstmodelfocussedonlogratiosamonglower-classspeakersonly,withxed factorstimepoints,voicingcontextandgender.Theanalysisrevealedsignicant maineectsforallxedfactors:timepoint F [1 ; 10 : 1]=271 : 8; p< 0 : 001,voicing context F [1 ; 26 : 0]=96 : 9; p< 0 : 001andgender F [1 ; 7 : 4]=9 : 5; p< 0 : 05.A secondmodelwasttoalldatapointsintheconversationaldatasetwithxed factorstimepoint,voicingcontext,andsocialgrouplower-classfemales,lowerclassmales,higher-classfemales.Theresultsarelistedintable4.23.Whileall maineectsweresignicant,theinteractionbetweenallxedfactorsdidnotreach signicance.Ananalysisofsimplemaineectsforthelevelsinthefactorsocial groupshowedthatlogratiosforlower-classmalesweresignicantlyhigherthan thoseforhigher-classfemales coef =0 : 60; chisq =13 : 8; p< 0 : 001.

PAGE 182

156 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Figure4.17:LogratiosforPRICEintheconversationaldatasetbytimepoint,social groupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans Table4.23:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldata: Lrat inPRICEby timepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessandsocial grouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-classfemales Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lrat Timepoint365 : 3 ; 16 : 0 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext124 : 8 ; 24 : 1 < 0 : 001*** Socialgroup7 : 8 ; 11 : 8 < 0 : 01** Timepoint:Voicingcontext:Socialgroup2 : 9 ; 427 : 8=0 : 057 4.2.5.4Variationinthemaptaskandcitationformdata MOUTH ProductionsofMOUTHinthemaptasksettingareclearlycharacterisedbyaspectraldierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontexts,the latterbeingraisedinrelationtotheformerseegure4.18.Thedierentiation ofvoicingcontextsisparticularlypronouncedinglideposition,whereitmaybe moreappropriatetodescribethephenomenonaspre-voicedglideweakening,with thegreatmajorityofspeakersproducinglogratiosbelowzeroand,thus,glidesthat areclosertoTRAPthantoGOOSE.Pre-voicelessnucleiappeartobesomewhat

PAGE 183

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 157 higherinlower-classthaninhigher-classspeech,butthepatternisdisruptedbytwo speakersinparticular,Ben03andBeth03,whoproduceconsiderablyraisednuclei withmeanlogratiosat0.45and0.50,respectively.Inaddition,thedataindicate apossibleinuenceofspeakergender:Thepositionsofnucleiinpre-voicedand pre-voicelesscontextsaremoreclearlyseparatedamongfemalethanmalespeakers. Figure4.18:LogratiosforMOUTHinthemaptaskdatasetbytimepoint,social groupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans Inthecitationformdataseegure4.19,productionsofMOUTHappearmore focussedinthatbetween-speakervariationhasgenerallydecreased.Pre-voiceless nucleiarelowercomparedtothoseinthemaptaskdataandthespectraldierence betweenvoicingcontextsis,thus,considerablyreduced.Onaverage,lower-class speakersproducedslightlyhigherpre-voicelessnuclei,anditisagainBen03and Beth03thatdisplaythehighestscores,meanlogratiosat-0.65and-0.88,respectively,amongthegroupofhigher-classspeakers.Pre-voicedglideswerehigher comparedtomaptaskproductionsandthemajorityofassociatedlogratiosare nowabovezero.Thereremains,however,acleardierencebetweenpre-voicedand pre-voicelesscontextsinglideposition.

PAGE 184

158 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Figure4.19:LogratiosforMOUTHinthecitationformdatasetbytimepoint, socialgroupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans Twoseparatemixed-eectsmodelanalyseswereperformedforlogratiosinthe maptaskandinthecitationformdata,withxedfactorstimepoint,voicingcontext, socialclass,andgender.Theresultsarelistedintable4.24.Forlogratiosinthemap taskdata,thethree-wayinteractionbetweentimepoint,voicingcontextandgender failedtoreachsignicance,butthereweresignicantmaineectsofbothtimepoint andvoicingcontext.Forlogratiosinthecitationformdata,therewasasignicant interactionbetweentimepointandvoicingcontexts,andpost-hoctestsrevealed thatthecontrastbetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextswassignicantonly intheglide coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 40; chisq =5 : 9; p< 0 : 05.

PAGE 185

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 159 Table4.24:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;maptaskandcitationformdata: Lrat in MOUTHbytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless andsocialclasslower-class,higher-classandgenderfemale,male Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lratmaptask Timepoint43 : 1 ; 13 : 4 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext22 : 2 ; 10 : 4 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Voicingcontext:Gender3 : 8 ; 551 : 0=0 : 053 Lratcitationform Timepoint196 : 0 ; 14 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Voicingcontext6 : 8 ; 26 : 8 < 0 : 05* PRICE ForPRICEinthemaptasksetting,pre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontexts appeartobeclearlydierentiatedinbothnucleusandglideposition.Variation withinthesocialgroupsdisplayedingure4.20issmallercomparedtothecontext ofMOUTH.Whilenoneofthespeakersshowedraisedpre-voicelessnucleitothe extentthatcorrespondingmeanlogratiosweregreaterthanzero,manyspeakers producedweakenedglideswithlogratiosbelowzero,especiallyamongthelowerclassmalesandhigher-classfemales.Forthelatter,however,theloweringofprevoicedglidescoincideswithcomparativelylowvaluesalsoinpre-voicelesscontexts. Asimilarsituationisfoundforlogratiosinnucleusposition,wherevaluesformales andhigher-classspeakerstendtobehigherthanthoseforfemalesandlower-class speakers,but,again,thisisnotnecessarilyrestrictedtoeithervoicingcontext. Thedierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelessPRICEisnotnotablysmaller inthecitationformdatacomparedtothemaptaskdataseegure4.21.Also, thereremainsatendencyformalestoproducehighernucleiinpre-voicelesscontexts andforlower-classmalesandhigher-classfemalestoexhibitlowerglides.

PAGE 186

160 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Figure4.20:LogratiosforPRICEinthemaptaskdatasetbytimepoint,social groupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans AsforMOUTHabove,twomixedmodelanalyseswereconductedforPRICE, oneeachtotestforconstraintsonthevariabilityoflogratiosinthemaptask andinthecitationformdata;xedfactorsincludedtimepoint,voicingcontext, socialclassandgender.Theresultsarelistedintable4.25.Forlogratiosinthe maptaskdata,theanalysisrevealedsignicantmaineectsofbothtimepoint andvoicingcontext.Forlogratiosinthecitationformdata,thetestsshoweda signicantinteractionbetweenallxedfactors.Ananalysisofsimplemaineects showedthatthecontrastbetweenvoicingcontextswassignicantforalltimepoints, socialclassesandgendersseetable4.26;individualcontrastsinvolvingthefactors socialclassorgenderdidnotshowtobesignicant.Acontrast-between-contrast analysisforthevoicingcontextandtimepointwithxedvaluesforgenderand socialclassrevealedthat,forfemalelower-classspeakersonly,thecontrastbetween pre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontextswasgreaterintheglidethaninthenucleus coef =0 : 64; chisq =10 : 6; p< 0 : 01.

PAGE 187

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 161 Figure4.21:LogratiosforPRICEinthecitationformdatasetbytimepoint,social groupandvoicingcontext;basedonspeakermeans Table4.25:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;maptaskandcitationformdata: Lrat inPRICEbytimepointnucleus,glide,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless andsocialclasslower-class,higher-classandgenderfemale,male Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lratmaptask Timepoint218 : 9 ; 25 : 0 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext20 : 9 ; 33 : 3 < 0 : 001*** Lratcitationform Timepoint807 : 4 ; 20 : 3 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext104 : 9 ; 16 : 5 < 0 : 001*** Socialclass:Gender4 : 8 ; 14 : 0 < 0 : 05* Timepoint:Gender:Voicingcontext10 : 3 ; 863 : 7 < 0 : 01** Timepoint:Socialclass:Gender:4 : 4 ; 861 : 9 < 0 : 05* :Voicingcontext

PAGE 188

162 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Table4.26:Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforfour-wayinteractionintable4.25fordependentvariableLratcitationform Maineect:contrastedlevels ContextofsignicantcontrastsCoef.Chisqdf = 1p-value Voicingcontext:pre-voiced{pre-voiceless nucleus;female,lower-class )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 7115 : 1 < 0 : 01** nucleus;female,higher-class )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 9430 : 4 < 0 : 001*** nucleus;male,lower-class )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 2051 : 8 < 0 : 001*** nucleus;male,higher-class )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 2549 : 5 < 0 : 001*** glide;female,lower-class )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 3558 : 4 < 0 : 001*** glide;female,higher-class )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 1348 : 0 < 0 : 001*** glide;male,lower-class )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 0947 : 1 < 0 : 001*** glide;male,higher-class )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 2856 : 0 < 0 : 001***

PAGE 189

4.2.MOUTHANDPRICE 163 4.2.6Summary Intheprevioussections,theresultsofanacousticanalysisofthediphthongsin MOUTHandPRICEinurbanBahCinthreespeechstyleswerepresented.Informal speech,thatisinthemoststandard-nearrealisations,MOUTHandPRICEarea pairoffairlysymmetrical,widediphthongs,glidingfromamidlowpositioncloseto TRAPinthedirectionofhighbackGOOSEandhighfrontFLEECE,respectively. WhilethestandardformsofMOUTHandPRICEmay,thus,bedescribedasmirror imagesofeachother,thepatternofcontextual,socialandstylisticvariationserved toclearlysetthediphthongsapart. ThediphthonginPRICEshowedconsistentvoicing-conditionedvariationinboth nucleiandglidesinallspeechstyles.Althoughthecontrastbetweenpre-voicedand pre-voicelesstokenswaslargerinconversationalspeechthaninmaptaskspeech, stylisticvariationdidnotaecttheextentofdierentiationbyfollowingvoicing contextsomuchasitaectedtheoverallextentofglidingmovementinbothvoicingcontexts:GlidesincitationformPRICEwerehigher/moreperipheralthanin maptaskspeech,andnucleiincitationformwerelower/morecentralthaninmap taskandconversationalspeech.Inmaptaskspeech,anumberofspeakers,predominantlylower-classmalesandhigher-classfemales,producedrelativelylowglidesin PRICE,but,asthepre-voicedweakeninginglidescoincidedwithextremelylow, centralnuclei,theoverallglidingmovementwasstillextensive.Socialvariation withinthedierentspeechstyleswasminimalanddidnotshowaconsistentpattern.Intheconversationaldata,lower-classmalesproducedoverallhigherandmore peripheraltokensofPRICEthanhigher-classfemales.Incitationform,PRICEwas characterisedbyacomplexinteractioninvolvingbothgenderandsocialclass,but thesizeoftheeectwasrelativelysmall. ForMOUTH,theextentofdierentiationbetweenpre-voicedandpre-voiceless contextswasattimesconsiderable,butitwasalsoaccompaniedbyagreatdealof variability,bothwithinandacrossspeechstylesand,indeed,evenwithinspeakers. Acrossspeechstyles,theeectofvoicingcontextwasinitiallyfoundtobesignicantonlyinglidesinthemaptaskandcitationformdata.Pre-voicelessnucleiin theconversationaldataweresignicantlyhigher/moreperipheralthanthoseinthe citationformdata,andthecontrastbetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelessnucleiwas highestintheconversationalandlowestinthecitationformdata,butthevoicingconditionedcontrastinthenucleusitselfwasnotsignicant.Oncloserinspection,

PAGE 190

164 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS itbecameclearthatthislackofsignicancecouldbeaccountedforbyextensivesocialvariationintheconversationaldataset,wherebylower-classspeakersproduced signicantlyhigherpre-voicelessnuclei,quitedistinctfromthoseinpre-voicedcontexts,thanhigher-classspeakers.Tosomeextent,thesametendencycouldalso beobservedinthemaptaskdata,butitfailedtoreachsignicance;instead,prevoicelessvoweltokenswerefoundtobesignicantlyhigher/moreperipheralthan theirpre-voicedcounterpartsingeneral.Glidesinpre-voicedcontextsinmaptask speechtendedtoberelativelylow;forthemajorityofspeakersinthisspeechstyle, glidesinMOUTHrarelyextendedbeyondalogratioofzero,whichmeansthevowelsendedinaqualitythatwasclosertoTRAPthantoGOOSE.Inthecitation formdata,theeectofvoicingcontextwasonlysignicantinglides. Aninterestingaspectoftheapparentvoicing-conditionedallophonyinMOUTH istheextremedegreeofpre-voicelessraisingofthenucleiexhibitedbysomespeakers. Sevenoutoftenlower-classspeakersintheconversationaldatasetraised50%or moreofpre-voicelessnucleiofMOUTHtosuchanextentthattheywerecloserto GOOSEthantoTRAP.Ofthesespeakers,two,JohnnyandShanae,exclusively producedsuchextremelyraisedpre-voicelesstokens,andone,Sharon,displayedat least50%extremelyraisedtokensinbothpre-voicelessandpre-voicedcontexts,her pronunciationreminiscentofthetypicalrealisation [Ou] ofMOUTHinmanyAtlantic creoles.Inmaptaskspeechstyle,fouroutofeighteenspeakersdisplayed50%or moreextremelyraisedtokensofpre-voicelessMOUTH,twoofwhichwereclassied ashigher-classspeakers.SuchahighamountofextremelyraisedtokensofMOUTH isaquitenoticeablefeatureofnon-standardBahamianspeech,andsomespeakers indicatedtheirlinguisticawarenessexplicitly.Forinstance,oneoftheparticipants, Ada01,remarked:Wesay`sitonthecouch [Ou] '{`couch [Ou] '.It's`couch [au] 'but`sitonthecouch [Ou] '."Thestraightforwardassociationofpre-voicelessraising inMOUTHwithurbanBahCandtheconcomitantstigmatisationservetoexplain thesocialdistributionofthefeatureinconversationalspeechaswellasthestylistic variationacrossspeechstyles.

PAGE 191

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 165 4.3CHOICEandNURSE Wells2,150-151denesthestandardlexicalsetCHOICEascomprisingthose wordswhosecitationforminRPandGAhasthestressedvowel /OI/ .Phonetically, /OI/ isawidediphthongwithamid,back,roundedstarting-point,glidingtowardsa higher,fronter,unroundedqualitycloseto [I] .Inmostcases,thevowelinCHOICE derivesfromMiddleEnglish /Oi/ or /ui/ inwordssuchas boy , noise and join ,the majorityofwhicharebelievedtobeultimatelyloan-wordsfromOldFrench.Afew wordswithMiddleEnglish /i:/ ,usuallythesourceofthePRICEvowel,alsobecame CHOICEwords,forexample hoist or groin .Thehistoricalinteractionbetween CHOICEandPRICEisdescribedindetailinWells982,208-210.Apparently, thesubsetofCHOICEwordsderivedfromMiddleEnglish /ui/ wereatonetime realisedas [@i 2i] ,whichledtoconfusionbetweenthesewordsandPRICEwords. TheuctuationofthesewordsbetweenPRICEandCHOICElastedforseveral centuries,untiltheynallysettledwithCHOICEinthenineteenthcentury.Inthis confusion,somewordswithMiddleEnglish /i:/ ,whichoughttohavedeveloped asotherPRICEwords,gotattractedintotheCHOICElexicalset.Today,some accentsofEnglishstillreectamergerorpartialmergerofthetwodiphthongs.In partsofthesouthofEngland, [6I] maybeusedforbothCHOICEandPRICE,and intheCaribbean,diphthongsofthe [aI AI] typearefound. ThestandardlexicalsetNURSEisdenedbyWells,137-140ascomprisingthosewordswhosecitationforminRPandGAhasthestressedvowel /3:/ and /3r/=[3~] ,respectively.Phonetically,NURSEisarelativelylong,midcentral, unroundedvowelinbothreferenceaccents,butitisr-colouredonlyinrhoticGA. TherearethreecommonMiddleEnglishsourcesofNURSE,short /i/ , /E/ and /u/ , butonlyincontextswherethesevowelsweredirectlyfollowedbytautosyllabic,that isword-nalorpre-consonantal, /r/ .Examplewords,whichintheirspellingoften stillreecttheirdiverseorigins,include rst , stir , verb , earth and hurt .Fromthese MiddleEnglishroots,thevowelinNURSEreacheditspresentqualitythrougha numberofdevelopmentsfurtherdetailedinWells,199-203.Theseinclude therstNURSEmerger,Pre-RLengtheningand,inRPandothernon-rhoticaccents,RDropping.TheNURSEmergerstartedinthe15thcenturyinnorthern andeasterndialectsofEnglish;itprogressedandspreadthroughoutthefollowing twocenturies,wherebythethreeMiddleEnglishvowelqualitiesgraduallymerged inapproximately [@] intheenvironmentsoftautosyllabic /r/ .Pre-RLengthening

PAGE 192

166 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS canbedatedtotheseventeenthcentury;itaectedallmidandlowvowelsinthe environmentoffollowing /r/ plusaconsonantormorphemeboundary,including NURSE.InRPandothernon-rhoticaccents,non-prevocalic /r/ wassubsequently lost.InGA,thoughnotnecessarilyinotherrhoticaccents,vowellengthdistinctions wereneutralisedandthephonemesequence /3r/ coalescedin [3~] .Therealisations ofNURSEtodayvarymostobviouslywithrespecttorhotacisation,withr-coloured variantsbeingusedinmostrhoticmerged-NURSEaccentsandeveninsomeaccentswhichareusually,thatisinallothercontexts,non-rhotic.InmanyIrishand Scottishaccents,theNURSEmergerwasnotcompletedandtheirvowelinventories lacktheNURSEvowelasadistinctphonemicentity.Eveninaccentswhichhave undergonetheNURSEmerger,NURSEmaybequalitativelyequivalenttothevowel inSTRUT. 4.3.1CHOICEandNURSEinBahamianvarieties Table4.27liststhevowelqualitiesofBahCasproposedbyWells,Holmand ShillingHS,andChildsandWolframCW,comparingthemtovariantsinaselectionofassociatedvarietiesEdwards,2004;Blake,2004;Devonishand Harry,2004;Weldon,2004;YoussefandJames,2004;ThomasandBailey,1998. InmorebasilectalCaribbeanvarieties,thediphthonginCHOICEtendstobeproducedwithafronted,unroundedandpossiblyloweredrstelement,inwhichcaseit maymergewithPRICE.ThisoccursinBajan,JamaicanCreoleandinGullah;itis alsoavariantfoundinTobagonian,thebasilectalsistervarietyofTrinidadian.For BahC,WellsandCWproposeafairlyinvariantdiphthonginCHOICEwithaback, mid,roundedstarting-point,glidingtowardsahigh,front,unroundedquality.Only HSsuggestthattherstelementmaybeunroundedandpossiblyfronted,butitis stillclearlydistinctfromthevowelinPRICE,whichtheytranscribeas /aI/ .With respecttoCHOICE,mostauthors,thus,agreethatBahCismoresimilartoAAVE thantocreolevarieties.InAAVE,theglideinCHOICEmaybeweakenedbefore voicedobstruents,but,comparedtoglidedeletioninPRICE,prevalentthroughout theAmericanSouth,thisisafairlyrareoccurrenceandusuallyrestrictedtothe environmentspreceding /l/ Labovetal.,2006,251. IntheNorthAmericancontext,rhoticpronunciationofNURSEisthenorm, andoneofthedeningcharacteristicsofAAVEisitspersistentr-lessnessinsyllable

PAGE 193

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 167 Table4.27:SuggestedvowelqualitiesinBahCandassociatedvarieties. BahamianCreole Caribbeanvarieties USvarieties Lexicalset WellsHSCW BajanTrinCJamC GullahAAVE CHOICE OI2I OIOi 2I oIOIai Oi 5I OIoI OI NURSE OI 3:2I 2Oi 3 7O 2 3:o @: A 27 3 3~ codassuchasinSTARTanditsvariabler-lessnessinstressed,nucleuspositionasin NURSE.Intable4.27,therhoticvariantofNURSEinAAVEistranscribedas /3~/ , whichindicatesanr-colouredvowelquality,or,inWells'words,202-203,the coalescenceoftwophonemes /3/ and /r/ .Otherphonemicinterpretationsofthe samephoneticqualityfoundintheliteratureincludethephonemesequence /3r/ and syllabic /r/=[ " ] .Thisisimportanttonote,becausethesymbolsusedintable4.27 torepresentNURSEvariantsinthecreolevarietiesappeartoconsistentlyindicate non-rhoticpronunciation.However,BajanandacrolectalJamCaredescribedas rhotic,andbasilectalJamCasvariablyrhotic,wherecoda /r/ islimitedtocertain phonologicalcontextsDevonishandHarry,2004,470-471.TrinCandGullahare traditionallynon-rhotic.Creolevarietiesmay,thus,dierwithrespecttotherealisationofcoda /r/ .Innon-rhoticbasilectalcreoleforms,NURSEmaybebacked andvariablyrounded,mergingwiththevowelinSTRUT. BahCisconsistentlydescribedasnon-rhotic.ItdiersfromotherCaribbean creolesinthatnon-standardNURSEisnotrealisedasabackedmonophthong; instead,itmaybeproducedasafront-andupglidingdiphthong,mergingorpartially mergingwiththevowelinCHOICE.Thismayleadtonear-homophonesinwords like verse and voice .Thereissomedisagreementastohowsimilarproductions ofCHOICEandNURSEreallyareandhowsimilarityisachieved.WhileWells proposedthatrealisationsofNURSEapproachandmergewiththoseofCHOICE inthespeechoflowersocialclasses,HSsuggestedthatbothdiphthongsvarysocially and,in`lesseducated'speech,theyconvergeinavowelqualitycloseto [2I] seealso Shilling,1980,141.CWproposedthatproductionsofNURSEmayapproximate thoseofCHOICE,butthediphthongonsetoftheformerneverreachesthesame backedpositionofthelatter.

PAGE 194

168 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS 4.3.2Non-rhoticpronunciationinNorthAmerica Sincethelate17thcentury,thedefaultvalueinnorthernNorthAmericandialects wasconsistentr-fullpronunciation.Pocketsofnon-rhoticpronunciationcentred aroundallmajoreasternsea-boardcities,withtheexceptionofPhiladelphiaand BaltimoreLabovetal.,2006,47,49,240.TheNewYorkCityEnglishvernacular wasconsistentlynon-rhoticuntilthersthalfofthe20thcenturyandr-lessness usedtobecharacteristicofNewYorkersofallsocialclasses.FollowingWorldWar II,Labovobservedauniformshifttowardsamorepositiveevaluationofrfullspeech,reectedinaclearpatternofsocialandstylisticstraticationandinthe increaseduseofrhoticvariants,especiallybyyoungeruppermiddle-classspeakers. Gordon,288claimedthat,today,non-rhoticpronunciationinNewYorkCity isstigmatised;ithasbecomeastrongsocialmarkerofthelowerandworkingclasses andthegeneraltrendtowardsrhoticitycontinuestoprogress.Labovetal., 47,however,arguedthatnon-rhoticpronunciationstillcharacterisesNewYork CityaswellaseasternNewEnglandvernacularsandanotableincreaseinrhotic pronunciationcanbeobservedmainlyinformalspeechstyles.Thispresumably contrastswiththerapidgenerationalchangeintheuseof /r/ intheAmerican South. Traditionally,non-rhoticitywasprestigiousintheAmericanSouth,appearing mostfrequentlyinthespeechofhighersocialclassesandcorrelatinggeographically withformerplantationareas.BeforeWorldWarII,non-rhoticpronunciationpredominatedinabandstretchingfromVirginia,theCarolinasandGeorgiawestwards towardsregionsinKentucky,Tennessee,Alabama,Mississippi,LouisianaandTexas. Sincethen,r-fullpronunciationhasswepttheentireregioninallstylesofspeech. Today,eveninareasthatwereoncestrongholdsofnon-rhoticity,youngwhiteSouthernersarepredominantlyrhotic,andyoungfemalesespeciallyseemtohaveforged aheadinthischangeThomas,2004,318.RhoticityinSouthernEnglishhasbeen studiedextensivelyandshowsrichcontextualandwellasethnicvariation.While therealisationofpost-vocalic /r/ isusuallytreatedasabinaryvariable,thatisin termsofthepresenceorabsenceofcoda /r/ ,itshowscontinuousgradationformfully rhotictofullynon-rhoticvariants.Regardingthephoneticcontext,non-rhoticity ismostcommoninunstressedsyllablesasin letter ,wherer-lesspronunciationalso occursinnormallyrhoticvarieties.Thenextmostfrequentcontextfornon-rhoticity isinsyllablecodas,whetherfollowedbyatautosyllabicconsonantasin hard and

PAGE 195

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 169 fourth orword-nallyasin bar and four .Linking-rwashistoricallyabsentfrom Southernspeech.Moreover,non-rhoticitytendstobemorefrequentfollowingfront thanbackvowels.Thecontextthatismostconducivetorhoticpronunciationis instressed,syllabicposition,i.e.inNURSEe.g.Thomas,2004,317;Baileyand Thomas,1998,90.Althoughrhoticpronunciationhasincreaseddramaticallyinthe speechofwhiteSouthernersoverthelastcentury,AAVEremainslargelynon-rhotic. BaileyandThomas,90-91showedthatr-fullpronunciationisalsospreading inthespeechofAfricanAmericans,especiallyinthecontextofNURSEwords,but itappearstoprogressataslowerratethaninwhitespeech.Intheirsampleofblack andwhitespeakersfromTexas,youngerAAVEspeakerswerestillmorenon-rhotic thanolderwhitespeakers.Instressedsyllabic,i.e.NURSE,contexts,olderAfrican Americansproducedrhoticformsin16%ofallcases,youngerAfricanAmericansin 20%,olderwhitesin31%andyoungerwhitesin100%.Incoda /r/ contexts,the proportionofrhotictokensdwindledtohalforlessthanhalfoftheproportionin NURSEcontexts,exceptforyoungerwhitespeakers,whostillproduced93%rhotic tokens. Aswasindicatedinsection4.3.1above,AmericanEnglish-lexiercreolesdonot allshareadistinctlyrhoticornon-rhoticpronunciation.Bajanis,ifanything, morerhoticthanNorthAmerican[StandardEnglish]"VanHerk,2003,260,while thecreolesspokeninTrinidadandintheBahamasaretraditionallynon-rhotic.In Guyana,rhoticpronunciationvariesacrossgeographicalspaceAceto,2004,485. InbasilectalJamC,post-vocalic /r/ occursvariablyinthecontextofpreceding /a/ or /o/ ifnotfollowedbyatautosyllabicconsonant,whileacrolectalJamCisdescribedasmainlyrhoticDevonishandHarry,2004,470-471,476.Gullah,like TrinCandBahC,istraditionallynon-rhotic,butWeldon,402observedthat modern-dayGullahmayshowsomeincipientr-fullness,presumablyduetotheinuenceofneighbouringvarietiesaswellasAmericanStandardEnglish.Bahamians, too,havehadalonghistoryofexposuretonon-creolisedAmericanEnglishvarieties, andHackertnotedthatthismayhavehadconsiderableinuenceonwhat Bahamiansperceiveasthestandardpronunciation:EventhoughbothBahCEand standardBahamianEnglisharenon-rhotic,many{particularlyyounger{Bahamiansperceiver-fullAmericanpronunciationsas`correct'andimitatethem". BahamianwriterandculturalcriticPatriciaGlinton-Meicholas,however,contends that,asof1994,rhoticpronunciationisnottrulycharacteristicoftheBahamian vernacularbutmerelyanaectationfoundinformalspeech:

PAGE 196

170 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS When[...]Bahamianswishtoimpress,theyusuallyaectAmericanvowels and`r's.[...]Ifyouspendanylengthoftimehere,yourealizethatapronounced`r'isascommontoaBahamianasapinkyringtoanelephant.In fact,theaverageBahamianwouldfeelrightathomeinBostonwith`Hahvahd Yahd'.Glinton-Meicholas,1994,34 4.3.3UpglidingdiphthonginNURSE Donnellydescribedthefront-andupglidingcentraldiphthonginNURSEas atruemarker"ofbasilectalBahamianspeech.Itisperceptuallysalient,socially stigmatised,andanyoneaspiringtobeanewsreaderonthenationaltelevision stationZNSwouldhavetoeliminatesuchpronunciations".Whilediphthongal realisationsofNURSEareconspicuouslyabsentfromotherCaribbeancreolesand donotoccurinthevarietiesoftheBritishIslesWells,1982,139,itwasoncea morewidespreadfeaturefoundinanumberofnon-rhoticNorthAmericanmainland varieties. Theupglidingdiphthonginwordslike bird , shirt ,and worm ,thatiswherethe NURSEvowelisfollowedbyatautosyllabicconsonant,isawell-knownstigmatised featureofNewYorkCityspeech.AccordingtoLabov,213,ithascometo symbolisethecity'svernacularinfolkmythologyunderthenameof`Brooklynese', popularlyevokedinstockphraseslike`toidytoid'for`thirtythird'.Diphthongal NURSE,whichmaybephoneticallyrepresentedas [@I] ,wasapronunciationused regularlybyNewYorkersofallsocialclassesinthelate1900s.Forsomespeakers, asimilarvariantwaslikelyusedforthevowelinCHOICE,resultinginhomophones suchas voice{verse and oil{Earl .Forreasonsthatarenotentirelyclear,thediphthongmetwithanextremeformofsocialpressurefromaboveduringtheearly decadesofthe20thcentury,resultinginarapiddeclineintheuseofthisvariantin allspeechforms.Labov'sdatafromthemid-1960sindicatedthatthefeaturewas clearlyrecessiveeventhen.Whereas59%ofthespeakersbetweentheagesof50 and59produceddiphthongaltokensofNURSE,only4%ofthespeakersunderthe ageof20,twooutof51andbothmembersofthelowerworkingclass,showedany useoftheformatallLabov,2006,215.Theoncecommondiphthongalvariant hadbecomeahighlystigmatisedmarkeroflowerclassspeech.InNewYorkCity today,itisalmostextinct.Labovargued,however,thatitlingersoninthe useofapalatalizedformofawellcontracted,midcentral [r] ".

PAGE 197

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 171 WhilethehistoricaloriginofdiphthongalNURSEisunclear,itiscertainthat NewYorkCityspeechwasnottheonlyvarietyinwhichthisvariantwasused. AccordingtoThomas,309,anupglidingform,whichhetranscribedas [3I] , oncepredominatedinwhitesettleraccentsthroughouttheAmericanSouthfromthe LowerEastCoasttoTexasandnorthtoeasternArkansas.Ascanbeseeninmap 25inKurathandMcDavid,anespeciallysolidconcentrationcouldbefound inSouthCarolina,where`cultivated'aswellas`uncultivated'adultspeakersatthe timeusedthevariantwithperfectregularity.AswhiteSouthernspeechbecame increasinglyrhoticduringthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury,non-rhoticforms ofNURSE,includingmonophthongalaswellasdiphthongalvariants,gradually disappeared.Thomas,309,basedondatafromhislarge-scaleinvestigation intoNorthAmericanvowelsystemsThomas,2001,concludedthattodayonlyfew speakersbornafter1930useanupglidingdiphthonginNURSEanditis,thus,all butobsolete. TherealisationofNURSEasanupglidingdiphthonginNorthAmericanmainlandvarietieswasreportedtohavebeenrestrictedtocontextsinwhichthevowel wasfollowedbyacodaconsonantotherthan /r/ seee.g.Thomas,2004;Labov, 2006.InBahC,Wells'informantarguedthatNURSEmayalsobediphthongisedinopensyllables,i.e. stir mayrhymewith toy .Holm,however, describedthescopeofthephenomenonaslimitedtocontextsthatcorrespondto Americanstandard /3r/ or /@r/ beforeaconsonant".Descriptionsofthe phoneticqualityofthestarting-pointofthediphthonginNURSEareextremely variable,rangingform [@,2] torounded [8] andback,rounded [O] .Itislikelythata qualitythisvariablemaybeespeciallymalleableregardingthecoarticulatoryeect ofprecedingconsonants. 4.3.4Researchquestionsandhypotheses BahCistraditionallynon-rhotic,butifthesamesocialpressureaectingAAVEand othervarietiesofEnglishintheAmericanSouthalsohasanimpactonspeechinthe Bahamiancontext,Bahamianspeakersmayshowvariablyrhoticpronunciations. 1.MorerhotictokensofNURSEwillbefoundinthecitationformdatathanin themaptaskdata,andmorerhotictokenswillbefoundinthemaptaskdata thanintheconversationaldata.

PAGE 198

172 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS 2.MorerhotictokensofNURSEwillbefoundforhigher-classthanforlower-class speakers. 3.MorerhotictokensofNURSEwillbefoundforfemalethanformalespeakers. Diphthongalvariantsofnon-rhoticNURSEareexpectedtoshowsocialand stylisticvariation.HowcanthenatureandextentofthepartialmergerofCHOICE andNURSEbecharacterised? 1.ThedegreeofdiphthongisationinNURSEwillbegreaterintheconversational datathaninthemaptaskdata,andgreaterinthemaptaskdatathaninthe citationformdata. 2.ThedegreeofdiphthongisationinNURSEwillbegreateramonglower-class thanhigher-classspeakers. 3.CandiphthongalvariantsofNURSEbefoundinopensyllables? 4.HowdoestheextentofspectralchangeinNURSEcomparetothatinCHOICE? 5.HowdoestheoverallspectralpositionofNURSEcomparetothatofCHOICE? 6.Whatphoneticcontexteectscanbediscerned,inparticularwithrespectto theplaceofarticulationoftheprecedingconsonant? 4.3.5Analysisprocedure Allanalyseswererestrictedtovowelsinmaximallybisyllabicwordsandwithdurationsofminimally75ms.Pre-nasalandpre-liquidcontextswereavoidedaswell astokensfollowing/r/orsemivowels.ForNURSEinCVCsyllablesinthemap taskandcitationformspeech,thefollowingconsonantalcontextwasrestrictedto alveolarobstruents.Onlyveryfewstressedtokensofword-nalNURSEwereproducedbyparticipantsintheconversationalandmaptaskspeechstyles.Inthe conversationaldata,theseweremainlyemphatictokensofthepronoun her ,while inthemaptaskdataonlyonespeakerproducedtheword sir intheexpression Sir MichaelBoyce withlexicalstress.Clearly,thesetokenscannotbeconsideredrepresentativeofword-nalNURSE,subsequentlyreferredtoasthelexicalsetSIR,and

PAGE 199

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 173 werethereforeexcludedfromthedata.Atotalof1805tokenswerenallysubmitted tofurtheranalysis,809forCHOICE,926forNURSEand70forSIRseetable4.28. Priortoacousticanalysis,alltokensofNURSEandSIRwereauditorilyclassied asrhoticornon-rhotic,andonlyspectralmeasuresofthelatterwereconsideredin thisstudy. Table4.28:Numberoftokensbylexicalset,rhoticityandspeechstyle LexicalsetRhoticity Conversational Maptask Citationform CHOICE{ 62 216 531 NURSENon-rhotic 197 113 95 Rhotic 2 178 341 SIRNon-rhotic { { 3 Rhotic { { 67 Total 261 507 1037 InordertoquantifytherelativepositionofNURSEandCHOICEinthespeakers' vowelspacesandtoassestheamountofspectralchangefromvowelonsettoosetin theF1andF2dimensionsjointly,logratiosofEuclideandistanceswerecalculated whichrepresenttherelativedistancetothemeansofTHOUGHTandFLEECE. Thisprocedureisessentiallythesameastheonethatwasusedinsection4.2.4in thequanticationofthevoicing-conditionedallophonyinMOUTHandPRICE.For eachtimepointbetween10%and90%at10%-intervalsintoagivenvoweltoken,two Euclideandistanceswerecomputed,basedontherawHertzvaluesofF1andF2: ed 1,thedistancetothemeanofTHOUGHT,and ed 2,thedistancetothemeanof FLEECE.Theratioofthesetwodistances, ed 1 =ed 2,indicateshowclosethevowel tokenatthisparticularpointintimeistoTHOUGHTinrelationtoFLEECE. Thelogarithmofthisratio, Lrat = log ed 1 =ed 2,givesthesameinformationin amoreconvenientform:IfameasurementpointisclosertoTHOUGHT,thelog ratioisnegative;ifitisclosertoFLEECE,thelogratioispositive.Alogratioof zerowouldindicatethatthevoweltokenatthistimepointisexactlyequidistant betweenTHOUGHTandFLEECE.

PAGE 200

174 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS 4.3.6Results 4.3.6.1RhoticityinNURSE RhoticpronunciationofNURSEintheconversationaldatawasalmostcompletely absent.Theonlyspeakerwhodidproducer-fullNURSEwasthehigher-class speakerMrsSmith,andevensheonlydidsointwooutof14tokens.Thesetwo rhotictokensofNURSEweresubsequentlyremovedfromthedataset. Inthemaptaskdata,rhoticNURSEwasclearlythenormforhigher-classspeakersingeneral,thoughfemalesshowedslightlylowerratesofr-fullpronunciationthan malesseetable4.29.Lower-classfemalesshowedalmostcategoricalnon-rhoticity, whereaslower-classmalesshowed,atarateofabout60%,atendencytofavour rhoticNURSE.Inthecitationformdataseetable4.30,higher-classspeakers showedalmostcategoricallyr-fullpronunciation,irrespectiveofgender.Theuseof rhoticNURSEalsoincreasedinthespeechoflower-classparticipants,especiallyfor thelower-classfemales,whoseratesincreasedby40%incitationformrelativeto maptaskspeech. Table4.29:RhotictokensofNURSEinthemaptaskdatabysocialclassandgender SocialgroupTotalnumberoftokensProp.ofrhotictokens Lower-classfemales623.3% Lower-classmales8759.8% Higher-classfemales8982.0% Higher-classmales5396.2% Table4.30:RhotictokensofNURSEinthecitationformdatabysocialclassand gender SocialgroupTotalnumberoftokensProp.ofrhotictokens Lower-classfemales9743.3% Lower-classmales12070.8% Higher-classfemales11598.3% Higher-classmales10497.1% Ageneralisedlinearmixed-eectsmodelwasttothemaptaskandcitation formdatawithdependentbinomialvariablerhoticversusnon-rhoticNURSEand xedfactorsspeechstyle,socialclassandgender.TheresultsoftypeIIWaldchisquaretestsarelistedintable4.31.Thenalmodelrevealedasignicantinteraction

PAGE 201

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 175 betweenspeechstyleandgender,whiletheinteractionbetweengenderandsocial classmissedsignicancewithap-valueofapproximately0.053.Ananalysisof simplemaineectswasconductedforbothinteractionterms.Theseshowedthatthe contrastbetweenmaptaskandcitationformstylewassignicantforfemalespeakers coef =0 : 024; chisq =16 : 6; p< 0 : 001andthecontrastbetweengenderswas signicantinmaptaskstyle coef =0 : 039; chisq =14 : 7; p< 0 : 001.Thedierence betweenlower-andhigher-classproductionswassignicantforbothfemale coef = 0 : 002; chisq =31 : 5; p< 0 : 001andmale coef =0 : 032; chisq =10 : 4; p< 0 : 01 speakers,andthecontrastbetweengenderswassignicantforlower-classspeakers coef =0 : 031; chisq =12 : 5; p< 0 : 01. Table4.31:Generalisedmixedmodelanalysisresults;maptaskandcitationform data:DependentbinomialvariablerhoticityinNURSErhotic=1,non-rhotic=0 bystylemaptask,citationform,socialclasslower-class,higher-classandgender female,male Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsChisqdfp-value RhoticityinNURSE Style13 : 4 < 0 : 001*** Gender11 : 4 < 0 : 001*** Socialclass35 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Style:Gender4 : 6 < 0 : 05* Gender:Socialclass3 : 7=0 : 053 TheaboveanalysisofrhoticityinNURSEwasbasedonnon-word-nalNURSE vowelsonly.Incitationformspeech,atotalof70tokensofword-nalNURSEwere produced,andallbutthreewereclearlyrhotic.Allfollowinganalysesarebased onnon-rhotictokensofNURSEonly.Therefore,word-nalNURSEwasremoved fromfurtheranalysis,asweretokensofNURSEproducedbyhigher-classspeakers incitationformspeechstyle.Inmaptaskspeech,maleandfemalehigher-class speakersweregroupedtogether. 4.3.6.2Visualinspection Figure4.22illustratesthespectralchangethroughnormalisedi.eproportionaltime inthevowelsinCHOICEandnon-rhoticNURSEinnormalisedF1 F2formant spaceforfourspeakersandthreespeechstyles.Measurementswereextractedat

PAGE 202

176 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS 10%intervalsfrom20%to80%intovoweltokensandthetrajectoriesweresmoothed foreachspeaker,styleandprecedingplaceofarticulationpriortoplotting.The speakerswerechosentorepresentsomeofthepatternsfoundinthedata:NURSE innon-post-labialcontextswasfrontedandclosertoFLEECErelativetoNURSE inpost-labialcontexts.Inlower-classandlessformalspeech,NURSEtendedto bemorediphthongalthaninhigher-classand/ormoreformalspeech.Generally, however,spectralmovementinCHOICEwasmoreextensivethaninNURSE. Figure4.22:SmoothedformanttrajectoriesF1',F2'ofCHOICEredandNURSE blueinpost-labialfulllinesandnon-post-labialdashedlinescontextsforfour speakersandthreespeechstyles 4.3.6.3Variationacrossspeechstyles Figure4.23displaysmeanlogratiosat10%intervalsthroughthevowelinNURSE andCHOICE.Logratiovalueswerelinearlyinterpolatedforeachspeakerandprecedingplaceofarticulationlabial,non-labial/other,andthenaggregatedbyspeech style.Itappearsthattheplaceofarticulationoftheprecedingconsonanthasamore

PAGE 203

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 177 noticeableimpactontheonsetofNURSEthanonthatofCHOICE.Inpost-labial contexts,roughlythersthalfofthevowelinNURSEisclosertoTHOUGHTthan innon-post-labialcontexts,irrespectiveofspeechstyle.Inbothcontexts,NURSE intheconversationaldataglidestowardsaqualitythatmaybeclosertoFLEECE thaninthemoreformalspeechstyles.Inthemaptaskandinthecitationform data,thenucleiofpost-labialCHOICEarealsoclosertoTHOUGHTthanthose innon-post-labialcontexts,butthedierencebetweenthetwocontextsismuch smallerthaninNURSE.NucleiinCHOICEaresuccessivelyclosertoTHOUGHT inmoreformalstyles,andglidesareclosertoFLEECEinthecitationformdata thanintheotherspeechstyles.Inallspeechstylesandcontexts,thereremains acleardierencebetweenthevowelsinNURSEandCHOICE.Whiletheoverall extentofglidingmovementfromvowelonsettoosetmaybesimilar,especially inpost-labialcontextsintheconversationaldata,thespectralchangeacrosstime patternsdierently:IndiphthongalNURSE,mostformantmovementoccursinthe intervalfromvowelonsettoabout60%intothevowel;inCHOICE,itisthecentralpartofthediphthong,fromabout40%toabout70%,whichdisplaysthemost spectralchange. Amixed-eectsmodelanalysiswasperformedonlogratiovaluesatthreetime points:thenucleus,denedasthepointatmaximumF1between20%and40% intoavoweltoken,themidpointat50%intoavoweltokenandtheglideat80%. Apartfromtimepoint,theotherxedfactorsinthemodelwerespeechstyleconversational,maptask,citationform,lexicalsetCHOICE,NURSE,andpreceding placeofarticulationpost-labial,non-post-labial/other.Theobservedmeanvalues andstandarddeviationsforlogratiosinallthecombinationsdenedbythexed factorsinthemodelarelistedintable4.32.Theresultsofthemixed-modelanalysis arefoundintable4.33.

PAGE 204

178 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Figure4.23: Lrat measuresacrosstimeforNURSEtoprowandCHOICEbottom rowbyprecedingplaceofarticulationandspeechstyle;meansandcondence intervalsderivedfromsmoothedspeakervalues Theanalysisrevealedsignicantthree-wayinteractionsbetweenspeechstyle, lexicalsetandtimepoint,betweenspeechstyle,timepointandplaceofarticulation, andbetweenlexicalset,timepointandplaceofarticulation.Figure4.24onpage 182illustratesthepredictedeectoftheinteractiontermswhichinvolvethefactor lexicalset;factorsnotpresentintherespectiveinteractionswereaveragedacross alllevels.Ascanbeseenintheupperpanelsingure4.24,logratiosinNURSE arehigherintheconversationaldatathanintheothertwospeechstyles.Averaged acrosspost-labialandnon-post-labialcontexts,logratiovaluesforthenucleusin conversationalNURSEareroughlyequivalenttothoseofthemidpointincitation formNURSE.Inthecitationformdata,the95%condenceintervalforlogratiosin theglideofNURSEincludezero,whichconrmsafairlycentralpositionbetweenthe

PAGE 205

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 179 Table4.32:LogratiomeansandstandarddeviationsforNURSEandCHOICE atthreetimepointsnucleus,midpoint,glidebytheplaceofarticulationofthe precedingconsonantandspeechstyle;valuesderivedfromallobservedtokens Timepoint LexicalsetPlaceofart.ConversationalMaptaskCitationform Nucleus NURSEPost-labial-1.12.82-1.49.61-1.26.51 Other-0.22.82-0.22.53-0.47.43 CHOICEPost-labial-1.97.85-2.37.86-2.56.88 Other-1.90.98-1.83.76-2.46.87 Midpoint NURSEPost-labial-0.05.87-0.39.80-0.48.51 Other0.30.930.00.63-0.14.42 CHOICEPost-labial-1.44.04-1.32.87-1.27.86 Other-1.05.96-1.10.79-1.38.91 Glide NURSEPost-labial0.81.960.73.660.460.55 Other0.97.160.55.820.62.60 CHOICEPost-labial0.59.630.60.671.14.71 Other0.89.720.73.630.97.62 Table4.33:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat bystyleconversational,maptask, citationform,lexicalsetCHOICE,NURSE,precedingplaceofarticulationpostlabial,non-post-labialandtimepointnucleus,midpoint,glide Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lrat Style4 : 5 ; 62 : 7 < 0 : 05* Lexicalset27 : 9 ; 70 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint425 : 5 ; 36 : 9 < 0 : 001*** Style:Lexicalset5 : 9 ; 61 : 2 < 0 : 01** Style:Timepoint14 : 0 ; 81 : 6 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:Timepoint112 : 9 ; 52 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Placeofart.12 : 6 ; 26 : 9 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:Placeofart.10 : 5 ; 57 : 8 < 0 : 01** Style:Lexicalset:Timepoint7 : 0 ; 1347 : 1 < 0 : 001*** Style:Timepoint:Placeofart.2 : 7 ; 1175 : 5 < 0 : 05* Lexicalset:Timepoint:Placeofart.5 : 8 ; 52 : 3 < 0 : 01** lexicalsetsTHOUGHTandFLEECE,whiletheglideinCHOICEisclearlycloser toFLEECE.Intheconversationaldata,theglidesinNURSEandCHOICEoccupy

PAGE 206

180 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS similarpositionsrelativetoTHOUGHTandFLEECE{bothareclearlycloserto FLEECE.Incitationformspeech,theoverallglidingmovementinCHOICEismore extensivethanintheotherspeechstyles;thisiscausedbyacombinationofrelatively lowerlogratiosinthenucleusandrelativelyhigherlogratiosintheglide.Thelower panelsingure4.24illustratethestrongeecttheprecedingplaceofarticulation hasonespeciallythenucleusinNURSEasopposedtoCHOICE,averagedacross allspeechstyles.Thenucleusand,toalesserdegree,themidpointinNURSEare lowerinpost-labialthaninnon-post-labialcontexts,approximatingthepositionof CHOICE. InordertoassesstheextentofoverlapbetweenCHOICEandNURSE,an analysisofsimplemaineectswasconductedforthefactorlexicalset;signicantresultsarelistedintable4.34.Inpost-labialcontexts,thedierencebetween CHOICEandNURSEintheconversationaldatacentredmainlyonthevowelmidpoint,whichwasfoundtohavesignicantlyhigherlogratiosinNURSEthanin CHOICE.Inthemaptaskandcitationformdata,nucleiinpost-labialCHOICE weresignicantlyclosertoTHOUGHTthaninpost-labialNURSE.Innon-postlabialcontexts,nucleiinCHOICEweresignicantlyclosertoTHOUGHTthan inNURSEforallspeechstyles,andthesameappliedtovowelmidpoints.While therelativepositionofpost-labialnucleidistinguishedconversationalfrommap taskandcitationformproductions,therelativepositionofglidesservedtodierentiatecitationformproductionsfromthoseinthemoreinformalspeechstyles: GlidesincitationformCHOICEweresignicantlyclosertoFLEECEthanglides incitationformNURSE,irrespectiveoftheprecedingconsonantalcontext.In theconversationalandmaptaskdata,thedierenceinthepositionofglidesin NURSEandCHOICEwasnotsignicant.Acontrast-between-contrastanalysisforthelevelsoflexicalseti.e.CHOICE{NURSEandthelevelsnucleus andglideofthefactortimepointadditionallyrevealedthat,inbothpost-labial andnon-post-labialcontexts,thedierencebetweennucleusandglidewassignificantlylargerinCHOICEthaninNURSEforallspeechstylespost-labial,conversational: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 83; chisq =14 : 8; p< 0 : 01;non-post-labial,conversational: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 62; chisq =60 : 8; p< 0 : 001;post-labial,maptask: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(1 : 21; chisq = 28 : 7; p< 0 : 001;non-post-labial,maptask: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(2 : 01; chisq =121 : 4; p< 0 : 001; post-labial,citationform: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 75; chisq =61 : 5; p< 0 : 001;non-post-labial, citationform: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(2 : 54; chisq =221 : 3; p< 0 : 001.

PAGE 207

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 181 Table4.34:Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforthefactor lexicalset Maineect:contrastedlevels ContextofsignicantcontrastsCoef.Chisqdf = 1p-value Lexicalset:CHOICE{NURSE post-labial,nucleus,maptask )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 7810 : 5 < 0 : 05* post-labial,nucleus,citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 8412 : 2 < 0 : 05* post-labial,midpoint,conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 9513 : 7 < 0 : 01** post-labial,glide,citationform0 : 9117 : 1 < 0 : 01** non-post-labial,nucleus,conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 8170 : 8 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,nucleus,maptask )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 9092 : 8 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,nucleus,citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 96101 : 3 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,midpoint,conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 6753 : 4 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,midpoint,maptask )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 4847 : 4 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,midpoint,citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 2232 : 5 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,glide,citationform0 : 5810 : 2 < 0 : 05* Regardingvariationacrossspeechstyles,acontrast-between-contrastanalysisfor thelevelsoflexicalseti.e.CHOICE{NURSEandallpairwisecomparisonsofthe levelsofstylerevealedthat,irrespectiveoftheprecedingconsonantalcontext,the dierencebetweenNURSEandCHOICEintheglidewassignicantlylargerinthe citationformdatathaninboththemaptask coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 48; chisq =17 : 1; p< 0 : 01 andtheconversationaldata coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 77; chisq =13 : 9; p< 0 : 01.Inaddition,thedierencebetweenCHOICEandNURSEregardingtheextentofspectralchangefromnucleustoglidewassignicantlylargerincitationformspeech thaninbothmaptask coef =0 : 53; chisq =11 : 5; p< 0 : 05andconversational speech coef =0 : 92; chisq =23 : 8; p< 0 : 001,againirrespectiveofthepreceding consonantalcontext.

PAGE 208

182 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Figure4.24:Eectplotsforsignicantthree-wayinteractionsseetable4.33involvingthefactorlexicalset

PAGE 209

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 183 4.3.6.4Socialvariationintheconversationaldata Figure4.25displaysmedianlogratiosandtheirinterquartilerangesforthevowels inCHOICEandNURSEintheconversationaldataatthreetimepointsthrough thevowelnucleus,midpoint,glide,aggregatedacrosssocialgrouplower-class females,lower-classmales,higher-classfemalesandprecedingplaceofarticulation. Inallcontextsexceptinglidepositioninthespeechofhigher-classfemales,log ratiosinNURSEarehigherthaninCHOICE.Theplaceofarticulationofthe precedingconsonantaectstheNURSEvowelinallsocialgroups,asthenucleus isconsistentlyclosertoTHOUGHTinpost-labialthaninothercontexts,butthe eectismostsalientforlower-classmales.Forthesespeakers,NURSEinitsentirety isshiftedtowardsFLEECEinnon-post-labialcontexts,whiletheoverallextentof glidingmovementappearsrelativelyunaected.Relativetofemalespeakers,lowerclassmalesalsodisplayhigherlogratiosinCHOICE,butthisisnotconditioned bytheprecedingplaceofarticulation.CHOICEandNURSEappeartobevery similarinthespeechoflower-classmalesinpost-labialcontexts:NURSEspansa relativelywidespectralrangeandCHOICE,especiallyinthenucleusandmidpoint, hashigherlogratiosthaninothersocialgroups,whichleadstoacloseapproximation ofthetwodiphthongs.Thereremains,however,asoliddierencebetweenCHOICE andNURSEinthemidpoint.CHOICEandNURSEaremaximallydierentin thespeechofhigher-classfemalesinnon-post-labialcontexts:CHOICEisclearly diphthongalwithrelativelyfocussednucleusandglidepositions,whilelogratiosin NURSEareclosetozeroinalltimepoints. Twosuccessivemixedmodelanalyseswereconducted.Therstmodelfocussed mainlyontheeectofgenderamonglower-classspeakers,withdependentvariablelogratioslower-classspeakersonlyandxedfactorsprecedingplaceofarticulationpost-labial,non-post-labial,genderfemale,male,timepointnucleus, midpoint,glideandlexicalsetCHOICE,NURSE.Theanalysisrevealed,among othereects,asignicantinteractionbetweentimepoint,genderandlexicalset F [2 ; 356 : 3]=3 : 9; p< 0 : 05.Asecondmodelwasthereforeconstructedforlog ratiosintheentireconversationaldatasetwithxedfactorsprecedingplaceofarticulation,socialgrouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-classfemales, timepointandlexicalset.Theresultsofthenalmodelarelistedintable4.35.

PAGE 210

184 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Figure4.25:Logratiosmedianandinterquartilerangeintheconversationaldata byprecedingplaceofarticulation,socialgroup,timepointandlexicalset Theanalysisrevealedsignicantmaineectsofallxedfactorsinthemodel, qualied,however,byanumberofinteractionsincludingthreethree-wayinteractions,allofwhichinvolvedthefactorlexicalset.Thus,theoverallpositionof CHOICEandNURSEvariedbysocialgroup,butthepatternwasadditionallyconfoundedbytheprecedingplaceofarticulation.Also,thesimilarityintermsoflog ratiosbetweenCHOICEandNURSEvariedfordierenttimepoints,butthispatternwasfurthermodiedbytheeectsoftheprecedingplaceofarticulationonone

PAGE 211

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 185 hand,andbytheeectsofsocialgroupontheother. Asinthepreviousanalysisofvariationacrossspeechstyles,post-hoctesting focussedprimarilyonthecontrastbetweenthelevelsoflexicalset,i.e.CHOICE andNURSE.Somewhatsurprisingly,ananalysisofsimplemaineectsforlexical setrevealedthatthedierencebetweenCHOICEandNURSEinpost-labialcontextswasonlysignicantinthemidpointofthevowelsinthespeechoflower-class males coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 53; chisq =18 : 9; p< 0 : 001.LogratiosinespeciallyCHOICE showedextensivevariabilitybothbetweenandwithinspeakers,whichmayhave blurredanyothersystematiceects.Innon-post-labialcontexts,thedierencebetweenCHOICEandNURSEwassignicantforlower-classfemalesinthenucleus coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(1 : 96; chisq =15 : 1; p< 0 : 01,andforhigher-classfemalesinbothnucleus coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(1 : 87; chisq =24 : 7; p< 0 : 001andmidpoint coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 67; chisq = 19 : 5; p< 0 : 001.Forlower-classmales,NURSEandCHOICEwereonaveragequite farapartintermsoftheirrelativepositionbetweenTHOUGHTandFLEECE,but theyalsoshowedconsiderablevariabilityandwere,thus,notsignicantlydistinct. Acontrast-between-contrastanalysisshowedthat,inpost-labialcontext,higherclassfemalesweretheonlysocialgroupforwhichthedierencebetweenCHOICE andNURSEwithrespecttotheextentofspectralchangefromnucleustoglidewas signicant coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 18; chisq =17 : 2; p< 0 : 01,thatisthedierencebetweennucleusandglidewaslargerinCHOICEthaninNURSE.Innon-post-labialcontexts, thedierencebetweennucleusandglidewassignicantlylargerinCHOICEthan inNURSEforbothlower-classfemales coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 68; chisq =20 : 7; p< 0 : 001 andhigher-classfemales coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(2 : 06; chisq =43 : 7; p< 0 : 001.Finally,the dierencebetweenCHOICEandNURSEregardingtheextentofspectralchange fromnucleustoglidewassignicantlylargerinthespeechofhigher-classfemales thaninthatoflower-classmalesinbothpost-labialandnon-post-labialcontexts coef =1 : 23; chisq =14 : 9; p< 0 : 01.

PAGE 212

186 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Table4.35:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat byprecedingplaceofarticulation post-labial,non-post-labial,socialgrouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales, higher-classfemales,timepointnucleus,midpoint,glideandlexicalsetCHOICE, NURSE Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lrat Placeofart.8 : 0 ; 43 : 3 < 0 : 01** Socialgroup17 : 5 ; 11 : 5 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset12 : 8 ; 43 : 0 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint141 : 9 ; 21 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Placeofart.:Timepoint5 : 1 ; 41 : 8 < 0 : 05* Lexicalset:Timepoint32 : 2 ; 36 : 9 < 0 : 001*** Socialgroup:Timepoint4 : 4 ; 17 : 6 < 0 : 05* Placeofart.:Socialgroup:Lexicalset4 : 5 ; 344 : 3 < 0 : 05* Placeofart.:Lexicalset:Timepoint5 : 3 ; 84 : 1 < 0 : 01** Socialgroup:Lexicalset:Timepoint7 : 1 ; 631 : 8 < 0 : 001*** 4.3.6.5Socialvariationinthemaptaskdata Figure4.26displaysmedianlogratiosandtheirinterquartilerangesforthevowelsin CHOICEandNURSEinthemaptaskdataatthreetimepointsthroughthevowel nucleus,midpoint,glide,aggregatedacrosssocialgrouplower-classfemales,lowerclassmales,higher-classspeakersandprecedingplaceofarticulation.Logratiosin themaptaskdatapresentapatternofvariationthatresemblestheoneobservedfor logratiosintheconversationaldata,buttheproductionsofmaleandfemalelowerclassspeakersappeartobemoresimilar.LogratiosinNURSEtendtobehigher thanthoseinCHOICE,exceptintheglideinthespeechofhigher-classparticipants: Forlower-classspeakersofbothgenders,thevowelinNURSEglidestoaposition aboutasclosetoFLEECEasthevowelinCHOICE,whileitremainsfairlycentral, somewhatclosertoTHOUGHTthantoFLEECE,forhigher-classspeakers.The placeofarticulationoftheprecedingconsonantaectstheNURSEvowelinallsocial groups,asthenucleusisconsistentlyclosertoTHOUGHTinpost-labialthanin othercontexts.NucleiwhicharerelativelyclosetoTHOUGHTinconjunctionwith extensiveglidingmovementtowardsFLEECEleadstoclearlydiphthongaltokens ofpost-labialNURSEinlower-classspeech.Innon-post-labialcontexts,logratios inNURSEinlower-classspeecharehigherthaninhigher-classspeech.Theextent

PAGE 213

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 187 ofspectralchangefromnucleustoglideismuchsmallerinnon-post-labialNURSE thaninpost-labialNURSE. Figure4.26:Logratiosmedianandinterquartilerangeinthemaptaskdataby precedingplaceofarticulation,socialgroup,timepointandlexicalset Twosuccessivemixedmodelanalyseswereconducted.Therstmodelfocussed mainlyontheeectofgenderamonglower-classspeakers,withdependentvariable logratioslower-classspeakersonlyandxedfactorsprecedingplaceofarticulation post-labial,non-post-labial,genderfemale,male,timepointnucleus,midpoint, glideandlexicalsetCHOICE,NURSE.Asthefactorgenderdidnotshowto

PAGE 214

188 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS besignicant,neitherasamaineectnoraspartofasignicantinteraction,the dataformaleandfemalelower-classspeakerswerecombinedandasecondmodel wasttoallobservationsinthemaptaskdatawithxedfactorsprecedingplaceof articulation,socialclasslower-class,higher-class,timepointandlexicalset.The resultsofthenalmodelarelistedintable4.36. Theanalysisrevealedsignicantmaineectsforallxedfactorsexceptsocialclass.Thesewerequaliedbyanumberofinteractionsincludinganinteractionbetweenplaceofarticulationandtimepoint,andathree-wayinteraction betweensocialclass,timepointandlexicalset.Theprecedingplaceofarticulation,thus,hadasignicanteectonespeciallyvowelonsets,buttheeectwas notsignicantlydierentfordierentlexicalsetsand/orsocialclasses.Thefollowingndingsofpost-hocteststhereforeapplytovowelsinbothpost-labialand non-post-labialcontexts.Ananalysisofsimplemaineectsforthefactorlexical setshowedthat,forhigher-classspeakers,theglideinCHOICEwassignicantly closertoFLEECEthaninNURSE coef =0 : 95; chisq =18 : 8; p< 0 : 001.For lower-classspeakers,themidpointinNURSEwassignicantlyclosertoFLEECE thaninCHOICE coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(1 : 13; chisq =31 : 8; p< 0 : 001.Forbothhigher-and lower-classspeakers,thenucleusinCHOICEwassignicantlyclosertoTHOUGHT thaninNURSEhigher-class: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(1 : 17; chisq =24 : 6; p< 0 : 001;lower-class: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 42; chisq =50 : 6; p< 0 : 001.Moreover,acontrast-between-contrast analysisshowedthattheextentofspectralchangefromnucleustoglidewassignicantlylargerinCHOICEthaninNURSEforbothsocialclasseshigher-class: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(2 : 11; chisq =52 : 2; p< 0 : 001;lower-class: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 56; chisq =48 : 7; p< 0 : 001.

PAGE 215

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 189 Table4.36:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat byprecedingplaceofarticulation post-labial,non-post-labial,socialclasslower-class,higher-class,timepointnucleus,midpoint,glideandlexicalsetCHOICE,NURSE Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lrat Placeofart.5 : 5 ; 15 : 9 < 0 : 05* Timepoint182 : 9 ; 18 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset22 : 1 ; 15 : 6 < 0 : 001*** Placeofart.:Timepoint8 : 4 ; 13 : 6 < 0 : 01** Socialclass:Lexicalset21 : 4 ; 768 : 9 < 0 : 001*** Timepoint:Lexicalset39 : 7 ; 20 : 1 < 0 : 001*** Socialclass:Timepoint:Lexicalset3 : 2 ; 592 : 9 < 0 : 05* 4.3.6.6Socialvariationinthecitationformdata Figure4.27displaysmedianlogratiosandtheirinterquartilerangesforthevowels inCHOICEandNURSEinthecitationformdataatthreetimepointsthrough thevowelnucleus,midpoint,glide,aggregatedacrosssocialgrouplower-class females,lower-classmales,higher-classspeakersandprecedingplaceofarticulation. Astherewerehardlyanynon-rhotictokensofNURSEavailableforhigher-class speakers,higher-classtokensofNURSEhadtoberemovedfromanalysis.Inthe citationformdata,thedierencebetweenpost-labialandnon-post-labialcontexts regardingthediphthongalqualityofNURSEissmallercomparedtowhatwasfound fortheothertwospeechstyles.However,logratiosinbothnucleusandmidpoint arestilllowerinpost-labialcontextsthaninnon-post-labialcontexts.Whileinthe previousanalysestheglideinNURSEwasfoundtobemorecentralthanthatof CHOICEonlyforhigher-classspeakers,arelativelycentralosetofNURSEseems tobethenorminthecitationformdataforlower-classspeakers. Amixed-eectsmodelanalysiswasconductedforlogratiosinthespeechoflowerclassspeakersonly,withxedfactorsprecedingplaceofarticulation,gender,time pointandlexicalset.Thesignicanteectsinthenalmodelarelistedintable4.37. Theeectofgenderwasnotsignicant.Whilethemaineectofplaceofarticulation didnotreachsignicance,thefactorwasinvolvedintwosignicantinteractions, indicatingthatitseectdieredacrosstimepointsaswellaslexicalsets.The spectralrelationbetweenCHOICEandNURSEdieredfordierenttimepoints.

PAGE 216

190 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS Ananalysisofsimplemaineectswasperformedforthefactorslexicalsetandtime pointonlycontrastingthelevelsnucleusandglide;thesignicantresultsarelisted intable4.38.Inbothpost-labialandnon-post-labialcontexts,nucleiandmidpoints inCHOICEweresignicantlyclosertoTHOUGHTthaninNURSE,whileglides inCHOICEweresignicantlyclosertoFLEECE.Thedierencebetweennucleus andglideinNURSE,however,wasstillsignicant,irrespectiveofthepreceding placeofarticulation.Acontrast-between-contrastanalysisconrmedthatCHOICE displayedsignicantlygreaterspectralchangefromnucleustoglidethanNURSE coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(2 : 25; chisq =168 : 7; p< 0 : 001. Table4.37:Mixedmodelanalysisresults: Lrat lower-classspeakersonlybyprecedingplaceofarticulationpost-labial,non-post-labial,genderfemale,male, timepointnucleus,midpoint,glideandlexicalsetCHOICE,NURSE Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Lrat Timepoint339 : 3 ; 11 : 1 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset32 : 8 ; 28 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Placeofart.:Timepoint7 : 5 ; 36 : 7 < 0 : 01** Placeofart.:Lexicalset8 : 1 ; 34 : 0 < 0 : 01** Timepoint:Lexicalset84 : 4 ; 48 : 6 < 0 : 001*** Table4.38:Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsforthefactors lexicalsetandtimepointcontrastinglevelsnucleusandglideonly Maineect:contrastedlevels ContextofsignicantcontrastsCoef.Chisqdf = 1p-value Lexicalset:CHOICE{NURSE post-labial,nucleus )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 2429 : 4 < 0 : 001*** post-labial,midpoint )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 7610 : 2 < 0 : 01** post-labial,glide1 : 0128 : 5 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,nucleus )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 88100 : 9 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,midpoint )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 4048 : 5 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,glide0 : 377 : 2 < 0 : 05* Timepoint:nucleus{glide post-labial,CHOICE )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(3 : 91464 : 6 < 0 : 001*** post-labial,NURSE )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 6666 : 6 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,CHOICE )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(3 : 45522 : 1 < 0 : 001*** non-post-labial,NURSE )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 2046 : 9 < 0 : 001***

PAGE 217

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 191 Figure4.27:Logratiosmedianandinterquartilerangeinthecitationformdata byprecedingplaceofarticulation,socialgroup,timepointandlexicalset 4.3.7Summary Intheprecedingsections,theresultsofanacousticanalysisofthevowelinNURSE andofitsrelationshiptothevowelinCHOICEinurbanBahCwerepresented.Key ndingsaresummarisedbelow. Ingeneral,categoricalnon-rhoticitywasfoundforallspeakersintheconversationaldata.Onlyonespeaker,thehigher-classspeakerMrsSmith,producedany

PAGE 218

192 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS rhotictokensofNURSEatalloutof14.Morerhotictokenswerefoundinthe maptaskdata,especiallyamonghigher-classspeakers,forwhomrhoticpronunciationwasclearlythenorm.Inthecitationformdata,r-fullpronunciationofNURSE wasnearlycategoricalforhigher-classspeakers,anditwasalsousedvariablyby lower-classspeakers.Inboththemaptaskandthecitationformdata,considerablevariationconditionedbysocialclassandgendercouldbefound.Higher-class speakersofbothgenderswereconsistentlymorerhoticthanlower-classspeakers. ContrarytowhathasbeenobservedfortheAmericanSouth,Bahamianfemalesdid notappeartotakealeadinthechangetowardsamorerhoticpronunciation.Female speakersofbothhigherandlowersocialclassestendedtoproducemorenon-rhotic tokensofNURSEthantheirmalecounterparts.Thedierencebetweenthegenderswasespeciallygreatforlower-classspeakers,whereinmaptaskspeechfemales producedabout3%andmalesabout60%rhotictokens.Inthiscase,however,the patternmayhavebeencompoundedbythedierentagesoftheparticipants,as femalelower-classspeakerswereonaverageagenerationolderthanmalelower-class speakers. Realisationsofnon-rhoticNURSEandCHOICEapproximatedeachotherin especiallyconversationalspeech,butthesimilarityofthetwovowelcategorieswas conditionedbytheprecedingconsonantalcontextand,evenincaseswhereNURSE wasclearlydiphthongal,spectralchangeinNURSEpatterneddierentlyacross timethanspectralchangeinCHOICE.ThevowelonsetofNURSEshowedtobe extremelymalleable,rangingfromabacktocentralpositiondependingontheplace ofarticulationoftheprecedingconsonant.WhilevowelnucleiinbothCHOICEand NURSEwereclosertoTHOUGHTinpost-labialthaninnon-post-labialcontexts, thedierencebetweenthetwocontextswasmuchmoresalientforNURSEthanfor CHOICE.Inpost-labialcontexts,theonsetofNURSEtendedtoapproachafairly backposition,whiletheoglideremainedrelativelyfront,causinganincreasein overallspectralchange.Itwasfoundthattheextentofspectralchangefromnucleus toglideremainedsignicantlygreaterinCHOICEthaninNURSE,irrespectiveof speechstyleandprecedingplaceofarticulation.Itwasalsofound,however,that thisdierencewassignicantlysmallerintheconversationalandmaptaskspeech thanincitationformspeech. Acrossspeechstyles,NURSEandCHOICEweremostsimilarinpost-labialcontextsintheconversationaldata,where,intermsoftherelativepositionofvowelnu-

PAGE 219

4.3.CHOICEANDNURSE 193 cleus,midpointandglidebetweenTHOUGHTandFLEECE,NURSEandCHOICE onlydieredsignicantlyinthemidpoint.Basedonvisualassessment,thetrajectoryinCHOICEindicatedarststeady-stateatthebeginningofthediphthong, followedbyasharpchangeinspectralqualitytowardsamorefrontandhighoglide. InNURSE,thetrajectorydidnotindicateasteady-stateatthebeginningofthe diphthong;rather,spectralchangeatthebeginningofNURSEmaybedescribedas asomewhatelaborateonglidetowardsarelativelyfrontandhightargetpoint.In theconversationaldata,post-labialCHOICEandNURSEhadsimilarvowelonset qualities,butasspectralchangeinNURSEwasinitiatedearlierthaninCHOICE, themidpointinNURSEwasclosertoFLEECEthaninCHOICE.NURSEand CHOICEwereleastsimilarinnon-post-labialcontextsinthecitationformdata: BothnucleusandglidewereconsistentlymorecentralinNURSEthaninCHOICE. Maptaskproductionspatternedin-betweenconversationalandcitationformproductions.WhilethenucleusinmaptaskNURSEwasconsistentlymorecentral thanthenucleusinmaptaskCHOICE,thepositionofglideswasnotsignicantly dierent. SocialvariationregardingtheapproximationofNURSEandCHOICEwasmost salientintheconversationaldata,althoughinthisspeechstyle,theamountofbetweenaswellaswithin-speakervariabilitywasalsoextensive.Ingeneral,CHOICE andNURSEweremostsimilarinthespeechoflower-classmales,andleastsimilar inthespeechofhigher-classfemales.Inpost-labialcontexts,thedierencebetween NURSEandCHOICEwasonlysignicantinthevowelmidpointforlower-class males.Innon-post-labialcontexts,femalesofbothhigherandlowersocialclasses producedcentralisednucleiinNURSEcomparedtoCHOICE.Intermsofoverall spectralchangefromnucleustoglide,CHOICEwasconsistentlymorediphthongal thanNURSEinthespeechofhigher-classfemales,irrespectiveoftheplaceofarticulationoftheprecedingconsonant.Incontrast,thedierencebetweenNURSE andCHOICEintermsofspectralchangefromnucleustoglidewasnotsignicantforlower-classmales.Forlower-classfemales,CHOICEwasmorediphthongal thanNURSEinnon-post-labialcontexts,whiletheamountofspectralchangein CHOICEandNURSEwasequivalentinpost-labialcontexts. Socialvariationinthemaptaskdatashowedasimilartrendthanthatobservedin theconversationaldata,buttheoverallcontrastbetweenNURSEandCHOICEwas generallygreaterandtheeectoftheprecedingplaceofarticulationdidnotdier

PAGE 220

194 CHAPTER4.DIPHTHONGS signicantlyacrosslexicalsets.Forlower-classspeakers,theeectofgenderwas notsignicant;forhigher-classspeakers,notenoughnon-rhotictokensofNURSE wereavailabletoconsiderthedierencebetweenmaleandfemalespeakers.For higher-classspeakers,nucleiinCHOICEwereclosertoTHOUGHTandglidesin CHOICEwereclosertoFLEECEthaninNURSE;thatis,NURSEasawholewas morecentralthanCHOICE.Forlower-classspeakersofbothgenders,nucleiand midpointsinNURSEwerecentralisedcomparedtothoseinCHOICE,butglidesin NURSEandCHOICEweresimilarlyperipheral.Theextentofglidingmovement fromnucleustoglidewasgreaterinCHOICEthaninNURSEforallsocialgroups. TheanalysisofsocialvariationregardingtheapproximationofNURSEand CHOICEinthecitationformdatahadtoberestrictedtolower-classspeakersonly, ashigher-classspeakersproducedratesofrhotictokensofNURSEcloseto100%. Theanalysisshowedthatthedierencebetweengenderswasnegligible.Theeectof theplaceofarticulationoftheprecedingconsonantwasfoundtobemoresalientfor thenucleusinNURSEthanthatinCHOICE;irrespectiveoftheprecedingcontext, however,nucleiandmidpointsinCHOICEweresignicantlyclosertoTHOUGHT thatthoseinNURSE.Inaddition,glidesinCHOICEwereclosertoFLEECEthan glidesinNURSE.ThespectralchangefromnucleustoglidewasgreaterinCHOICE thaninNURSE.WhiletheNURSEvowelincitationformspeechmaybeadequately referredtoasamidcentralmonophthong,itisstillcharacterisedbyasignicant amountofspectralchangefromnucleustoglide. SIR,i.e.NURSEinword-nalcontexts,wasextremelyrareintheconversational andmaptaskdata.Basedonauditoryassessment,emphatictokensofthepronoun her inconversationalspeechwereconsistentlyproducedasmonophthongscloseto [5] .TheonlystressedtokenofSIRproducedinmaptaskspeechwasrhotic,aswere 67outof70tokensofSIRincitationformspeech.Thethreenon-rhotictokensof SIRwereimpressionisticallyfairlymonophthongal,withamidcentralvowelquality closeto [3] .Duetothescarcityofdataregardingnon-rhoticNURSEinword-nal contexts,thequestionwhetherdiphthongalvariantsmayoccurinthesecontextsin BahCcannotbeansweredconclusively;itis,however,unlikely.

PAGE 221

Chapter5 Monophthongs Thischapterisconcernedwiththespectralandtemporalcharacteristicsofnominal monophthongsinurbanBahamianspeech,focussingontheiroveralldistribution patternsandontherelativecontributionofspectralandtemporaldimensionsin thedistinctionofvowelsinvowelqualitysubsystems.Beforetheanalysisprocedure isoutlinedandtheresultsarepresentedinsections5.4and5.5,alllexicalsetswhich wereconsideredinthisstudyareintroducedbelowandinformationisprovidedon theproposedrealisationofassociatedvowelcategoriesinBahamianandrelated varietiessection5.1andonpriorresearchonspectralandtemporalinteractions inmonophthongssection5.2. Alllexicalsetsincludedintheanalysisarelistedintable5.1,whichalsogives someinformationonthedenitionandscopeofeachlexicalsetaswellasonthe vowelcategories'MiddleEnglishMidEroots.Lexicalsetsaredenedasgroups ofwordswhichsharetheoccurrenceofcertainvowelcategoriesinstressedsyllables, basedoriginallyonlexicalincidencecorrespondencesbetweenReceivedPronunciationRPandGeneralAmericanGAcf.section2.4.3.1.Thesevowelcategories arelistedinthesecondcolumnoftable5.1,labelled`Denition'.Thetableisdividedintothreesectionsbasedontherelativelength,tensenessandphonotactic distributioncharacteristicsgenerallyattributedtothevowelcategoriesassociated withthelexicalsets.Thefollowingbriefdescriptionsofeachlexicalsetarebased onWells,127-159. 195

PAGE 222

196 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Table5.1:Denitionandoriginoflexicalsetsanalysedasmonophthongsinthis studycf.Wells,1982,127-159 LexicalsetDenitionTrad.nameOriginExamplewords FLEECERP /i:/ longEMidE /e:,E:/ meet,see,piece, GA /i/ meat,bead,tea GOOSERP /u:/ longoo,MidE /o:,iu,Eu/ loop,boost,do, GA /u/ longUduke,suit,new THOUGHTRP /O:/ {MidE /au,Ou/ taught,bought, GA /O/ jaw,talk STARTRP /A:/ {MidE /ar/ far,bark,card GA /Ar/ PALMRP /A:/ {MidE /a,au/ calm,father,bra, GA /A/ Bach,spa,schwa KITRP /I/ shortIMidE /i/ ship,kid,myth GA /I/ DRESSRP /e/ shortEMidE /e,E:/ step,bed,theft, GA /E/ deaf,head FOOTRP /U/ shortooMidE /u,o:/ put,bush,good, GA /U/ could STRUTRP /2/ shortUMidE /u,o:/ cup,snu,bud, GA /2/ touch,blood TRAPRP // shortAMidE /a/ tap,mad,dash GA // LOTRP /6/ shortOMidE /O,a/ stop,sock,rob GA /A/ watch,wasp CLOTHRP /6/ {MidE /O/ soft,moth,boss GA /O/ BATHRP /A:/ {MidE /a,au/ sta,path,fast, GA // aunt,dance FLEECE,GOOSE,THOUGHT,START,andPALMaredescribedasrelatively longandtensevowelsthatoccurinbothcheckedandfreesyllables.Wells'use oflengthmarksforRPbutnotforGAvowelswasnotmeanttoreectsalient dierencesbetweentherealisationsofanyparticularvowelcategory,buttoindicatethatvowellengthmayplayamoreimportantroleinRPthaninGA.The vowelinFLEECEderivesviatheGreatVowelShiftGVSfromMidE /e:/ and /E:/ ;thedistinctionbetweenthereexeswaslostasaresultofthe17th-century FLEECEmerger.InmostEnglishaccentstoday,thevowelisproducedasalong, high,frontmonophthong,thoughsomedegreeofdiphthongisationofthe [Ii] -type

PAGE 223

197 iscommon,particularlyinfreesyllables.GOOSEderivesfromMidE /o:/ viathe GVS,orfromMidEdiphthongs /iu,Eu/ ,whichcorrespondtocurrent /ju:/ .The traditionalname`longU'isreservedforreexesof /iu,Eu/ ,whilereexesof /o:/ aresometimesreferredtoas`longoo'.`LongU'-GOOSEtodayischaracterisedby variableYODDroppingsothatEnglishaccentsvaryintheabsenceorpresence ofapalatalglideprecedingthevowelinwordslike duke , suit and news .Forthe presentstudy,analysisofGOOSEwasthereforeconnedtoreexesof /o:/ i.e.`long oo'.While`longoo'-GOOSEisgenerallyproducedasalong,highandrelatively backmonophthong,itissusceptibletofronting,forexampleinAustralianEnglish andinaccentsoftheUSsouth.Inaddition,similartoFLEECE,GOOSEmaybe characterisedbysomedegreeofdiphthongisation.ThevowelinTHOUGHThas variousorigins,includingMidE /au,Ou/ beforevelarfricativesandword-nal /au/ . Thelexicalsetonlycomprisesthosewordsinwhichthevowelisnotfollowedby tautosyllabic /r/ inGA;thesewordsareincludedinthelexicalsetNORTH.The qualityoftheTHOUGHTvoweldiersconsiderablybetweenthetworeferenceaccentsRPandGAaswellasbetweenEnglishaccentsingeneral.InRP,THOUGHT isrealisedasalong,back,mid,closely-roundedmonophthong.InGA,ittendsto belowerandonlyweaklyrounded.InsomeNorthAmericanaccents,THOUGHT haslostitsroundednesscompletely,fallinginwithPALMandLOT.THOUGHT mayalsobediphthongised,withrisingonglidesorcentringoglides.Thevowelin STARTderivesfromMidEshort /a/ incontextswhereitwashistorically,andin GAstillis,followedbytautosyllabic /r/ .Dueto17th-centuryPre-RLengthening, subsequentlyfollowedbyRDroppinginnon-rhoticaccents,itistodaydescribed asalong,low,unroundedmonophthong.Themostimportantphoneticvariation inSTARTconcernsthedegreeofadvancement:Whileitisrelativelybackinboth RPandGA,centralisedorfrontedrealisationsarefoundinanumberofaccents, includinginsomeCaribbeanvarieties.ThelexicalsetPALMcomprisesonlyfew commoneverydaywords,asmostofitsmembersarerecentborrowingsfromforeign languages.IncaseswherePALMoccursinnativeEnglishwords,itderivesfrom MidE /a/ and /au/ .Phonetically,PALMresemblesSTART. KIT,DRESS,FOOT,STRUT,andTRAParedescribedasrelativelyshortand laxvowelsthat,instressedcontexts,occuronlyincheckedsyllables.KITderives fromMidEshort /i/ andisintoday'sRPandGAproducedasashort,lax,fairly frontandfairlyhigh,unroundedmonophthong.MostEnglishaccentshavesimilar realisations,butKITmaybecloserto [i] ,i.e.higherandfronter,oritmaybeartic-

PAGE 224

198 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS ulatedmorecentralthanfront.KITisparticularlysusceptibletothedevelopment ofallophonesconditionedbytheconsonantalcontext.DRESSderivesinmostcases fromMidEshort /e/ ,thoughsomeinstanceshavetheirorigininMidE /E:/ viaa shorteningprocess.InRP,itisdescribedasarelativelyshort,lax,front,mid,unroundedmonophthong;inGA,itissomewhatlower.Whilemostaccentsaresimilar toRPandGA,DRESSisknowntovaryinthehigh-lowdimension,andinanumberofregionalAmericanEnglishaccentsDRESShasdevelopedclosingorcentring oglides.FOOTderivesfromMidEshort /u/ andfromMidE /o:/ viaashortening process.Itisgenerallydescribedasashort,lax,fairlybackandfairlyhigh,weakly roundedmonophthong.LikeKIT,FOOTvariesacrossaccentsregardingthedegree ofperipheralisation;italsovarieswithrespecttorelativeroundedness.Thevowel inSTRUTderivesfromthesameMidEsourcesasFOOT.Itistheresultofthe 17th-centuryFOOT-STRUTsplit,whenMidEshort /u/ insomewordsbecame unroundedandlowered.Today,STRUTischaracterisedbyconsiderablevariation acrossaccents,butitisgenerallydescribedasarelativelyshort,centralorback monophthong.InthoseaccentswhereitcontrastswithFOOT,itisoftenmidor lowerthanmidandunrounded.TRAPderivesfromMidEshort /a/ andistoday describedasarelativelyshort,front,relativelylow,unroundedmonophthonginRP andGA.RegionalaccentsintheUStendtowardsalonger,higher,andperhaps tenserordiphthongalcentringquality,whileBritishaccentsmaintainashort, lower,monophthongalquality.TRAPhasrelativelyhigh,monophthongalvariants inmanysouthern-hemisphereaccents;inmostWestIndianvarieties,mergerwith nominallybackvowelcategoriesmayleadtocentralorbackedqualitiesinTRAP. ThelexicalsetsLOT,CLOTHandBATHareplacedinaseparatesectionin table5.1,becausetheirrespectivevowellengthdiersbetweenthetworeference accents.ThevowelinLOTderivesinmostcasesfromMidE /O/ ,butitalsooccurs inwordswhichhadMidE /a/ precededby /w/ .Intoday'sRP,LOTisrealised asarelativelyshort,back,relativelylow,weaklyroundedmonophthong,which occursonlyincheckedsyllables.IntheUS,roundedvariantsarerestrictedto certainareassuchaseasternNewEnglandandpartsofthecoastalsouth.InGA, LOTistypicallylongerthaninRP,centraltobackandunrounded;becauseof thePALM-LOTmerger,thesamevowelcategoryalsooccursinfreesyllables.The vowelinCLOTHischaracterisedbyconsiderablevariation.Itderiveshistorically fromthesameMidEvowelasLOT, /O/ ,butinsomecontemporaryaccentsreects 17th-centuryPre-FricativeLengtheningandisproducedasalong,mid,backvowel.

PAGE 225

5.1.NOMINALMONOPHTHONGSINBAHAMIANVARIETIES 199 Wells1982,136-137referstotheseaccentsas broad-CLOTHaccents .GAisa broad-CLOTHaccentandCLOTHismergedwithTHOUGHT.InRPandother at-CLOTHaccents ,CLOTHretainedorrestoredthehistoricallyshortvoweland isusuallymergedwithLOT.BATH,nally,derives,likeTRAP,fromMidE /a/ .Its realisationinRPandinanumberofother broad-BATHaccents reectsthe18thcenturyTRAP-BATHsplit,whichultimatelyledBATHwordstobepronounced withalong,backedvowel,closetoormergedwithPALM.Inso-called at-BATH accents suchasGA,BATHoriginallyremainedshortandcorrespondstoTRAP. 5.1NominalmonophthongsinBahamianvarieties Table5.2liststhevowelqualitiesofBahCasproposedbyWells,Holmand ShillingHS,andChildsandWolframCW,comparingthemto variantsinaselectionofassociatedvarietiesEdwards,2004;Blake,2004;Devonish andHarry,2004;Weldon,2004;YoussefandJames,2004;ThomasandBailey,1998. Table5.2:SuggestedvowelqualitiesinBahCandassociatedvarieties. BahamianCreole Caribbeanvarieties USvarieties Lexicalset WellsHSCW BajanTrinCJamC GullahAAVE FLEECE i:i:i i:i:i: iII GOOSE u:u:u: u:u:u: uu THOUGHT A: O:OO A: 6:6 O:a: O: 6 OOU START a:a:A: a:a:a: aA: PALM a: A:a:A a:a:a: a KIT III Ii: Ii I I I iI DRESS EEE EEE E E EI FOOT UUU UUu U UU STRUT 2O 2O 2 26 O: 28 o 22 TRAP aa aa a 5 a E LOT A OOA A 66 2 Oa O 6 AA CLOTH A: O: { O 6:O:a: O: oA BATH a:a: a a:a:a: a E InCaribbeanvowelsystems,vowellengthplaysaprominentroleindistinguishingpotentiallong/shortvowelpairssuchasFLEECE/KIT,GOOSE/FOOTand START/TRAP,whileAmericanvarietiesGullahandAAVEcontrastthesevowels primarilyonthebasisofvowelquality.FortheJamaicancontext,ithasbeenargued

PAGE 226

200 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS thatthebasilectalsystemutilisesprimarilylengthdistinctionsforbothhighand lowlong/shortvowelpairs,whiletheacrolectalsystemdistinguishesnon-lowvowel pairsalsowithrespecttorelativeheight,peripheralisation,ortensenessDevonish andHarry,2004,453,461.Tosomeextent,thevaryingrolesthatquantityand qualitydistinctionsmayplayindierentvowelqualitysubsystemsisalsoreected inthelessradical,intermediatecreoleBajan:FLEECE/KITandGOOSE/FOOT aredistinguishedintermsofbothvowelquantityandquality,whereasthedistinctionsbetweenSTART/TRAPandTHOUGHT/LOTdependprimarilyonquantity. InTrinC,vowellengthisextremelyvariableandnodeniteclaimscanbemade exceptthatthecontrastbetweenGOOSEandFOOTreliesonbothvowelquantity andqualitydistinctions.VowellengthplaysaroleinallproposedBahamianvowel systems,butitappearstobemoreprominentinthedescriptionsprovidedbyWells andHS.AccordingtoWells,BahCvowelsbehavesimilarlytothoseofacrolectal JamCorBajan.FLEECE/KITandGOOSE/FOOTaredistinguishedintermsof bothquantityandquality,whileSTART/TRAPandTHOUGHT/LOTrelyprimarilyonvowelquantitydistinctionsonly.HSproposethatbothvowellengthand qualitycontrastsareutilisedinallsubsystems.CWsingleoutGOOSEandSTART astheonlyphonemicallylongvowels.GOOSE,thus,contrastswithFOOTinboth qualityandquantity,whilethedistinctionbetweenFLEECEandKITisattributed primarilytoadierenceinquality.STARTisdescribedasqualitativelydierent fromTRAP,whichisunusualforCaribbeanvarieties.Instead,CWsuggestthat STARTisproducedasalong,low,back,unroundedvowel,contrastingwithLOT onlyinvowellength. Intermsofvowelquality,thereislittledierenceinFLEECE,GOOSE,KIT, FOOTandDRESSacrossthedierentvarietiesandtheproposedvowelqualitiesof BahC.FLEECEandGOOSEaredescribedashigh,front,unroundedandhigh,back, roundedmonophthongs,respectively.KITandFOOToccupymorecentralpositions thantheirtensecounterparts.ForTrinCandJamCitisnotedthatKITmay approachFLEECEinquality.ForGullah,conversely,Weldonarguesthat KITisproducedasafairlyloweredand/orcentralisedversionof /I/ ,approachingthe positionof [E] -396.DRESSistranscribedbyallauthorsandforallvarieties as /E/ ,thoughitmaybeloweredinGullah,possiblyinresponsetolowered /I/ .The shortvowelinSTRUTischaracteristicallybackedandmayberoundedinCaribbean varieties.WhileitmayoverlapwithTHOUGHTorLOT,itisusuallyretainedas aseparatevowelcategory.HSandCWdescribetheSTRUTvowelinBahCas

PAGE 227

5.1.NOMINALMONOPHTHONGSINBAHAMIANVARIETIES 201 varyingbetweenamorebacked,roundedandamorecentral,unroundedquality. WellstranscribestheSTRUTvowelphonemicallyas /2/ butnotesthatitsphonetic realisationisextremelyback. ThelexicalsetsTHOUGHT,START,TRAP,LOT,CLOTH,PALMandBATH displayaconsiderabledegreeofvariabilityacrossthedierentvarieties.THOUGHT, STARTandTRAP,however,provideconvenientanchorpointsforthedescriptionof variationinvowelquality,againstwhichtheremaininglexicalsetscanthenbecomparedseetable5.3.InbasilectalJamC,thedistinctionbetweenmid-lowandlow frontandbackvowelsislostsothatTHOUGHTmergeswithSTARTandTRAP mergeswithLOT;theyareproducedaslongandshort,low,relativelycentral,unroundedmonophthongs,respectively.InmoreacrolectalformsofJamC,THOUGHT andLOTarebacked,roundedandraisedtoapproximatelymid-height.Thisgeneral patternisalsofoundinmanyotherCaribbeanvarieties.WhileTHOUGHTisnever mergedwithSTARTinBajanandTrinC,itistypicallyeitherunroundedorlow, anditisonlyroundedorraisedinacrolectalspeechforms.STARTandTRAPare producedaslow,relativelycentral,unroundedmonophthongsanddierprimarily invowelquantity.InGullah,therelationbetweenTHOUGHT,STARTandTRAP issimilartothesituationinBajanandTrinC.However,vowelqualitymayplay amoreimportantroleindistinguishingSTARTandTRAP,asthelattermaybe fronted,presumablyreectingtheinuenceofnon-creolisedUSvarieties.InAAVE, THOUGHTistypicallymid-high,back,rounded,andpossiblydiphthongised.It isclearlydistinctfromlow,back,unroundedSTART,which,inturn,diersfrom therelativelylow,front,andpossiblydiphthongisedvowelinTRAPintermsof bothqualityandquantity.AsforBahC,WellsessentiallydescribesTHOUGHT, STARTandTRAPasfollowingthesamepatternasintheintermediateCaribbean creolesBajanandTrinC:THOUGHTisalowtomid,possiblyroundedbackvowel, qualitativelydistinctfromSTART,whileSTARTandTRAPoccupyalow,relativelycentralpositionandaredistinguishedprimarilybyvowellength.HSdescribeTHOUGHT,STARTandTRAPasrepresentingthreequalitativelydierent vowelcategories, /O/ , /a:/ and // ,buttheynotethatTRAPisactuallymore centralthanmaybeinferredfromthephoneticsymbolandtranscribethevowel elsewhereas /a/ .CWalsoproposethreequalitativelydistinctvowelcategoriesfor THOUGHT,STARTandTRAP,withTHOUGHTinvariablymid-high,backand rounded,STARTinvariablylong,low,backandunrounded,andTRAPlow,relativelycentralorfrontandunrounded.Thislastpatternstronglyresemblesthe

PAGE 228

202 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS distributionofthevowelsinAAVEandothernon-creolisedAmericanvarietiesof English. TheremaininglexicalsetsLOT,CLOTH,PALMandBATHaredescribedin table5.3intermsofproposedcorrespondenceswiththelexicalsetsTHOUGHT, STARTandTRAP.ThevowelinLOTisequivalenttoashortversionofTHOUGHT inmostCaribbeanvarieties,buttoashortversionofSTARTinAAVE.LOTin Gullahissomewherein-between{itmaybeequivalenttoTHOUGHT,butitmay alsobesomewhatlower.ForLOTinBahC,threedierentrealisationshavebeen proposed:WellsdescribesBahCLOTasashortversionofTHOUGHTlikeinother Caribbeanvarieties,HSdescribeLOTasidenticaltoTHOUGHT,alsoinlength, andCWsuggestthatLOTisequivalenttoshortSTARTlikeinAAVEandmany otherUSaccents.MostCaribbeanaccentsarebroad-CLOTHaccentsinWells' terminology,asCLOTHtendstopatternwiththelongvowelinTHOUGHT.In contrast,AAVErealisesCLOTHasashortversionofSTART,thesameasLOT,and mightbereferredtoasaat-CLOTHaccent.GullahgenerallyproducesCLOTHas THOUGHT,thoughitmaybeslightlyhigherandmorecloselyrounded.ForBahC, WellsproposesthatCLOTHisequivalenttoashortversionofTHOUGHT,the sameasLOT,whichwouldpresumablymakeBahCaat-CLOTHaccent.However, CWidentifythevowelinCLOTHasidenticaltoTHOUGHT.ThevowelinPALM isgenerallyproducedasalong,low,unroundedmonophthonginmostCaribbean varieties,equivalenttoSTART.InGullahandAAVE,itisusuallyshorterandfronter thanSTART,similarinqualitytoTRAP.BahCPALMisuniformlydescribedas identicalorsimilarinqualitytoSTART,butCWsuggestthatitmaybeshorter. ThevowelinBATHalsodiersbetweenCaribbeanandUSvarieties.Caribbean varietiestendtobebroad-BATHaccents,withBATHidenticaltoSTART,while GullahandAAVEareat-BATHaccentsandBATHpatternswithTRAP.For BahC,allpossibleversionshavebeenproposed.WellsdescribesBATHasidentical toSTART,CWproposethatBATHisequivalenttoTRAP,andHSsuggestthat BATHmaybevariablyboth.

PAGE 229

5.2.SPECTRALANDTEMPORALINTERACTIONS 203 Table5.3:Correspondencesamonglexicalsets. Variety LOTCLOTHPALMBATH Caribbean short THOUGHTTHOUGHTSTARTSTART BahCWells short THOUGHT short THOUGHTSTARTSTART BahCHS THOUGHT { STARTSTART/TRAP BahCCW short STARTTHOUGHT short STARTTRAP Gullah THOUGHT THOUGHTTRAPTRAP AAVE short START short START TRAPTRAP 5.2Spectralandtemporalinteractions 5.2.1Variationinvowelduration IthasbeenlongestablishedthatEnglishvowelsvaryintheirdurationinsystematic ways.Phoneticfactorsthatmayaectvowellengthincludecharacteristicsintrinsictothevowelsthemselvesaswellascharacteristicspertainingtotheirphonetic environment.Forexample,vowelsproducedwithanopenjawpositiontendtobe longerthanthoseproducedwithaclosejawposition.Intermsofankingsegments, itisinparticularthevoicingstatusofthefollowingconsonantthathasaconsiderableinuenceonvowellength,withvowelsinpre-voicedcontextsbeinglongerthan thoseinpre-voicelesscontexts.Inconnectedspeech,thedurationofvowelsmay befurthermoderatedbyfactorsrelatedtolexicalstructureandsentenceprosody suchaslexicalstress,semanticemphasis,andphrase-nallengtheninge.g.Lehiste, 1970;Klatt,1976.Thesephoneticeectsareuniversal,principallyunrelatedto language-specicphonologicalcontrasts,buttheydonotnecessarilyoperateuniformlyacrossalllanguagesorlanguagevarieties.ZimmermanandSapon, forexample,examinedvoweldurationinEnglishandSpanishandfoundthatthe eectofthevoicingstatusofthefollowingconsonantinthetwolanguageswasqualitativelysimilarbutquantitativelydierent".Onaverage,thedurationratio ofpre-voicedtopre-voicelessvowelswas1.57inEnglishbutonly1.17inSpanish. Whilevoweldurationhasbeenstudiedextensivelyinphoneticsandspeechscience,ithasnotreceivedasmuchattentioninsociolinguisticsanddialectology,where eventhemostencyclopaedicresearchhasfocussedprimarilyonspectralvowel qualityseee.g.Labovetal.,2006,36.AsJacewiczetal.007noted,[g]iven themassivebodyofresearchonregionalandsocialvariationinAmericanEnglish

PAGE 230

204 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS vowels,itissurprisingtondalargegapinresearchonanissueasbasicasdurational dierences".Morerecently,interestinvoweldurationhasbeenrevitalisedand afewstudieshavedocumentedsystematicsociolinguisticvariationinvowelduration inNorthAmericanvarietiesofEnglish.VowelsintheSouthernregionsoftheUnited StateswerefoundtobesignicantlylongerthanvowelsintheNorth,Midland,or WestJacewiczetal.,2007;Fridlandetal.,2014.Sociophoneticvariationinvowel durationwasalsoreportedfortheeectsofethnicityandgender.Whencontrolled forregionalorigin,Holtetal.foundthatAAVEspeakerstendedtoproduce longervowelsthanwhitespeakers.Inaddition,thetemporaltense/laxcontrast wassomewhatminimisedforAAVEspeakers,thoughnotcompletelyneutralised. Onaverage,vowelsproducedbywomenofbothethnicitiesweresignicantlylonger thanthoseproducedbymen,andingthathasalsobeendocumentedforanumber ofothervarietiese.g.Hillenbrandetal.,1995;Jacewiczetal.,2007. 5.2.2Spectralandtemporalcontributionstophonemicdistinctions Fridlandetal.testedthelinkbetweenregionaldierencesinvowelduration andpatternsofvowelshiftandfoundthattheinterplayofvowelqualityandquantityinmarkingdistinctvowelcategoriesmaydieracrossdialectregions.They suggestedthattheobservedpositivecorrelationbetweenspectraloverlapandvowel durationinthespeechofNorthernandWesternspeakersindicatesthat,inthese varieties,durationaldistinctionisusedtomaintaincontrastincasesofspectral merger.Adierentpattern,however,wasfoundfor /e,E/ and /i,I/ incontemporarySouthernspeech.LaxvowelsintheSouthweresignicantlylongerthanthose intheotherdialects{thetypicallengthrelationshipoftenseandlaxvowelswas evenreversedforsomespeakers{andindividualspeakerswithincreasedtense/lax spectraloverlapactuallyshowedlessdurationalcontrast.Fridlandetal.argued thatdisambiguationofthesevowelpairsintheSouthmaybetypicallyachievedby spectralchangeacrosstime,inglidinginlaxvowelsandupglidingintensevowels,a notionsupportedbypreliminaryworkbyFoxandJacewicz. Acrosslanguages,agooddealofresearchhasbeendevotedtothetypological analysisofvowelsystemsandtheirclassicationasprimarylength-versusprimary quality-contrasting.Thedesignation primaryquality isusedforlanguagesinwhich

PAGE 231

5.2.SPECTRALANDTEMPORALINTERACTIONS 205 spectralcontrasts,typicallycarriedinthersttwoformants,providetheprimary basisforphonologicalcontrastsinneighbouringvowelcategories.Theterms primary quantity and secondaryquantity areusedforlanguagesinwhichvowellengthplays acrucialrole.Theformerreferstolanguagesinwhichphonologicalcontrastsrely primarilyontemporaldistinctions,whilethelatterindicatesthatrobustdierences inspectralvowelqualityaresystematicallyaccompaniedbydierencesinvowel lengthe.g.Wassink,2006.Notwithstandingtheobvioustruththatlanguagesand languagevarietiesmaydierintherelationbetweenspectralandtemporalcues tophonologicalcontrasts,theclassicationofvarietiesintothesethreebroadcategoriesneedstobebasedonaclearandunambiguousauditoryoracousticlinguistic rationale,whichsofarremainselusiveorisachievedbysomewhatarbitrarymeans. Table5.4listsaselectionoflanguageswhichhavebeenreportedtoutilisevowel lengthdistinctionsseeCrother,1978;Wassink,2006.Durationaldierencesbetweenphonologicallylongandshortvowelpairsaretraditionallyexpressedinlongto-shortratios,whicharehereaccompaniedbyimpressionisticjudgmentsofthe amountofspectraloverlapfull,partialornooverlapandtheassociatedcategorisationasprimaryorsecondaryquantityaccordingtoCrother.Japanese, Thai,IcelandicandLugandaareconsideredunambiguousexamplesofprimaryquantitylanguages,displayingveryhighlong-to-shortdurationratios.Byconvention,a durationratioof1.6:1isarbitrarilydenedasthelowermarginforlanguageswith primary-quantitydistinctions.English,withanaveragedurationratioof1.2:1,is typicallydescribedasalanguageutilisingsecondaryquantity,anddierencesin vowellengthbetweenvowelsintense/laxrelationshipsaresaidtoenhancerather thanconstitutephonologicaldistinctions. Table5.4:ProposedclassicationoflanguagesutilisingvowellengthCrother,1978; alsoseeWassink,2006,2336 LanguageDurationratioSpectraloverlapClassication Japanese2.5:1FullPrimaryquantity Thai1.9:1FullPrimaryquantity Icelandic2.0:1PartialPrimaryquantity Luganda2.5:1PartialPrimaryquantity German1.5:1PartialSecondaryquantity English1.2:1PartialSecondaryquantity Thereare,however,severalproblemswiththisrathersimplisticviewoftheissue.

PAGE 232

206 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Firstly,asalreadymentionedabove,therelationshipbetweenspectralandtemporal characteristicsofEnglishvowelsmaydieracrossregionally,sociallyandethnically denedvarieties.Table5.5liststheaveragevoweldurationsof /i/ and /I/ reported forspeakersoftwodistinctregionalvarietiesintheUnitedStates,furtherdividedby genderand,ifapplicable,ethnicgroup.MeasurementsfortheMidwesternspeakers aretakenfromHillenbrandetal.,3103,thosefortheSouthernspeakersare takenfromHoltetal.,465,adultsaged18-49.Allmeasurementsarebasedon wordlistdata,wherevowelsoccurredin /h/ V /d/ contexts.Correspondingduration ratios,listedincolumnsix,showthatthetemporalrelationbetweentense /i/ and lax /I/ variesfrom1.29:1forfemale,Midwesternspeakersto1.06:1forblack,female, Southernspeakers.IfAAVEintheAmericanSouthindeeddisplaysdurationratios closeto1.0:1,itisdoubtfulwhetherthecategorisationofthisvarietyasemploying secondaryquantitycontrastsistrulywarranted;this,inturn,qualiestosome extenttheclaimthattheEnglishlanguageasawholecanbeclearlydenedas employingsecondaryquantity. Table5.5:Duration[ms]for /i/ and /I/ andcorrespondingtense/laxdurationratios indierentregionally,ethnically,andsociallydenedvarietiesofAmericanEnglish cf.Hillenbrandetal.,1995;Holtetal.,2015 RegionEthnicityGenderDuration /i/ Duration /I/ Ratio MidwestWhite?Female3062371.29 Male2431921.27 SouthWhiteFemale2842421.17 Male2442151.13 BlackFemale3483271.06 Male3343031.10 Secondly,determiningthephonologicalstatusofvowellengthinagivenvarietymaybeproblematicduetotheinteractionofphonetic-universalandlanguagespeciceectsonvowelduration.Inparticular,dicultiesarisewhenthephonetic realisationofphonologicallengthisconfoundedwithprocessesofphoneticlengtheningunrelatedtophonologicalcontrasts.Forexample,Lehistereportedthat theaveragedurationratioofstandardAmericanEnglishtense/laxvowelpairsis 1.2:1,whichisalanguage-speciccharacteristicsofvowellength.Shealsonoted, however,thattheratiomayincreasetoabout1.5:1ifonlyvowelsprecedingvoiced obstruentsareconsidered,aphonetictendencyrelatedtothelengtheningofvowels beforevoicedrelativetovoicelesssegments.Inaddition,referencestothephonemic

PAGE 233

5.2.SPECTRALANDTEMPORALINTERACTIONS 207 orsub-phonemicnatureofvowellengthcontrastsareoftenmadewithoutin-depth analysisofthetypeanddegreeofspectraldistinctionsthatpotentiallyobtain simultaneouslytotemporaldistinctions.Whilepositioninglanguagevarietiesona scalefromprimaryquantitytosecondaryquantityandprimaryqualitydoesdepend ontheextentoftemporalcontrastobservedintense/laxorlong/shortvowelpairs,it isjustasimportanttoprovideadetaileddescriptionofspectralcharacteristicsand ofinteractionpatternsbetweenvowellengthandvowelquality;onlythejointanalysisoftemporalandspectralcharacteristicsmayuncovertherelativecontribution ofvowelquantityandvowelqualitytophonemicdistinctions. Finally,theapplicationofsuchall-encompassinglabelsasprimaryquantityimpliesthattemporalandspectralrelationshipswithinindividualvowelsystemsare relativelyuniform.However,asWassinkpointedout,[w]hileitmaybe convenienttobeabletoaccordclassicationssuchasprimaryquantityorprimary qualityonthebasisoftheoverallsystem,itcannotbeexpectedthatallpairsexistin thesamephoneticrelationships"39.Itis,thus,necessarytoexaminewhether agivenparametermaybemoreimportanttocontrastforoneparticularopposition thanforanother. 5.2.3SpectralandtemporaloverlapinJamaicanvarieties LinguistsinquiringintothephonologyofJamaicanCreoleJamChaveoftenargued thatthedistinctionbetweenlong/shortvowelpairsinbasilectalvarietiesisbased mainlyondierencesinvowellength,whilelong/shortdistinctionsinmesolectal andacrolectalvarietiesmayadditionallyshowvowelqualitycontrasts,especiallyin non-lowvowelpairs.DevonishandHarry,forinstance,positedthatthree ofvesimplevowelsinthebasilectalvowelsystem, /i/ , /a/ and /u/ ,combine withthemselvestoformcomplex,doublevowelphonemes /ii/ , /aa/ and /uu/ . Theyarguedthat[t]herelationshipbetweenthesimplevowelsandtheirlonger equivalentsisprimarilyoneoflengthratherthanthatofheightortenseness". InthevowelsystemofacrolectalJamC,DevonishandHarryarguedthat allsixsimplevowels, /i/ , /e/ , /a/ , /O/ , /o/ and /u/ ,combinetoformlongor doublevowelphonemes.MuchmoresothaninbasilectalJamC,however,nonlowlong/shortvowelpairsaredescribedtodiernotjustinvowellengthbutalso invowelquality:longnon-lowvowelsarealwayshigherandtenserthantheir

PAGE 234

208 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS shortequivalents".Inthelowvowels /a/ and /aa/ ,thephonemiccontrast reliesprimarilyonvowellength.While,phonetically,thecontributionofvowel lengthmayvaryasafunctionofvowelqualitysubsystem,DevonishandHarry arguedthat,fromaphonologicalperspective,itmaybemoreeconomicalto singleoutlengthastheprimarydistinction[...],withrelativeheightandtenseness beingsecondary,predictablefeaturesofthedistinctioninthecaseofthenon-low vowels". Inaseriesofstudiesonthevowelsystemsofbasilect-dominantandacrolectdominantspeakersofJamC,Wassinka,2001,2006soughttoilluminate thenatureandrelativeroleofvowelquantityandqualitydierencesinphonemic tense/laxcontrastsindierentvarietiesontheJamaicancreolecontinuum.The datausedwerethesameforallthreestudies,whichdieredonlyintheanalysis approach.Voweltokensrepresentingthephonemiccategories /i:,i,a:,a,u:,u/ were elicitedinmonosyllabictargetwordsin /b,d,k/ V /p,b,t,d,k,g,s,z,n/ contexts.Thetargetwords,inturn,wereembeddedinCreoleorEnglishcarrierphrases. Tense/laxvowelpairs /i:,i/ and /u:,u/ correspondtothelexicalsetsFLEECE/KIT andGOOSE/FOOT,respectively; /a:,a/ ,inWassink'sanalysis,representthelexicalsetsTHOUGHT/TRAP.InbasilectalvarietiesofJamC,THOUGHT/START andLOT/TRAParemerged,whiletheyhavedistinctvowelqualitiesinacrolectal speech.Thisisimportanttonote,because,asoutlinedabove,DevonishandHarry arguedthatthedistinctionbetween /aa/ and /a/ reliesprimarilyonvowel lengthinbothbasilectalandacrolectalvarieties.Crucially,however,forthedescriptionoftheacrolect,DevonishandHarryusedthesesymbolstoreferonlyto thelexicalsetsSTART/PALM/TRAP,whileTHOUGHT/LOTwererepresentedas /OO,O/ . Inherearlierstudies,Wassinka,2001quantiedtheamountoftemporal overlapthetraditionalway,withthehelpoflong-to-shortdurationratios:Ratios smallerthan1.2:1weredenedascompletetemporaloverlap,ratiosgreaterthan 1.6:1weredenedasnotemporaloverlapandthosein-betweenwereconsidered indicatingpartialtemporaloverlap.Spectraloverlapwasestimatedusingametric basedonellipsegeometry.Foreachpairofcontrastedvoweldistributions,ellipses inF1 F2spacewerettedtothedatapoints,whereprincipalradiiweredenedas twicethedistributions'standarddeviation.Overlapwasthengaugedbythemaximumextenttheradiusofeitherdistributionprotrudedintotheellipseareadescrib-

PAGE 235

5.2.SPECTRALANDTEMPORALINTERACTIONS 209 ingtheother:Completespectraloverlapoccurredwhentheradiusofeitherellipse protrudedintotheareaoftheotherbymorethanamoderateamount"Wassink, 2001,140,moderatebeingdenedas40%;nospectraloverlapoccurredwhenthe twoellipsesdidnotintersect;protrusionoftheradiusofoneellipseintotheotherby lessthan40%wasdenedaspartialspectraloverlap.Wassinkfoundthatbasilectal speakersshowedinstancesofnospectraloverlaponlyforthehighfrontvowelpair /i:, i/ ,whileacrolectalspeakersshowedinstancesofcompletespectraloverlaponlyfor thehighbackvowelpair /u:,u/ .Spectraloverlapwasgenerallygreaterforbasilectal thanforacrolectalspeakers.Thetemporalcontrastbetweenthethreevowelpairs wasrelativelyhigh.Thedurationratiosforbasilectalspeakerstendedtobeslightly higherthanthoseforacrolectalspeaker,thoughallratiosapproachedorexceeded thelowermarginforprimaryquantitylanguagesof1.6:1.Thetemporalcontrast between /u:,u/ wasespeciallyhigh,yieldinginbothspeakergroupsaduration ratioof2.27:1,presumablycompensatingforthehighamountofspectraloverlap Wassink,2001,149.WassinkconcludedthatbothbasilectalandacrolectalJamC speakersutilizedurationcontraststoanextentsimilartospeakersoflanguages withphonemicvowellength"andthatdurationpossiblypaysagreaterrole relativetospectraldistinctionsthaninvarietiesofEnglishsuchasAmerican". Inaddition,basilectalspeakers,showingsmallerspectraldierences,maydepend moreontemporalcontraststhanacrolectalspeakers. In2006,Wassinkarguedforamultidimensionalmathematicalprocedurewhich wouldallowsimultaneousrepresentationandquanticationofspectralandtemporalcuestophonologicalcontrasts,facilitatingthecross-linguisticandcross-varietal comparisonoftheinteractionofvowelqualityandvowelquantity.Sheproposedan ellipsoid-basedgeometricalmethod,referredtoasthespectraloverlapassessment metricSOAM,whichmaybeappliedtoaninvestigationofspectralF1,F2as wellasspectralandtemporalrelationsF1,F2,duration.Themethodisexplained indetailinWassink,2346-2349andrelies,likeherearliermethodforestimatingtheamountofspectraloverlap,onthettingoftwo-standard-deviation ellipsoidstoalldatapointsinagivenvowel'sdistribution.Inthisapproach,vowel distributionsarenotonlymodelledasellipsoidsintwo-dimensionalF1 F2space, butalsointhreedimensionsF1 F2 Duration.Thedierenceinoverlapbetween twovowels'distributionsintwoandthreedimensionsmaythenbeusedtodescribe therelativecontributionoftemporalcontrastsinthedistinctionofthetwovowel categories,giventheamountofspectraloverlap.Theoverlapoftwoellipsoidsis

PAGE 236

210 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS quantiedbyasomewhat`brute-force'method",whichinvolvesdividingthe ellipsoidspaceintoagridoftestpointsandcalculatingforeachtestpointwhether ornotitfallswithineitherofthetwoellipsoids.Testpointswhichoccupyspace inbothellipsoidsarethenusedtoestimatetheoverlapareaDorvolumeD. Sincethetwoellipsoidsmaybeofdierentareas/volumes,thesmalleroneischosen tocalculatetheoverlappercentage.ThedataforbasilectalandacrolectalJamC usedinthisstudywasthesameasforWassink'spreviousstudies,exceptthatconsonantalcontextswererestrictedtoplosives /b,d,k/ V /p,b,t,d,k,g/ .Inaddition, comparabledataforathirdvarietywasincludedinthestudy,asampleofPacic NorthwestAmericanEnglish.Thestudyresultsaresummarisedintable5.6. Table5.6:MeandurationratiosinbasilectalandacrolectalJamCforthreetense/lax vowelpairscf.Wassink,2001,149 Overlapin /i:,i/ Overlapin /u:,u/ Overlapin /a:,a/ Variety 2D3D 2D3D 2D3D JamCbasilect 75%17% 86%47% 55%23% JamEacrolect 36%9% 75%18% 23%2% AmE 46%27% 34%14% 15%0% Basedonthecomparisonoftheoverlapfractionsintwoandthreedimensions, Wassink,2340-2343concludedthatdurationismostcriticalforphonemic contrastsinbasilectalJamC,wheretheinclusionoftheparameterofdurationhas themostnotablereducingeectonoverlap.ForAmE,overlapalsodecreasesinthree relativetotwodimensions,butlesssubstantially,enhancingrobustcontraststhat alreadyexistinF1andF2dimensions.Themostcomplexspectralandtemporal relationsapparentlyholdforJamE,oracrolectalJamC,wheredurationplaysa prominentroleincontrastinghighbackvowelsbutseemstoonlyenhancespectral contrastsinhighfrontandlowcentralvowels.

PAGE 237

5.3.RESEARCHQUESTIONSANDHYPOTHESES 211 5.3Researchquestionsandhypotheses InlightofthegreatvariabilityintheaccountsofBahamianvowels,therstaimof thepresentstudymustbetoprovideabasicdescriptionofmonophthongalvowel categories. 1.Howcantheoverallspectraldistributionpatternofmonophthongsinurban BahCbedescribed?Whataretheapproximatepositionsofvowelsinthe individuallexicalsetsinF1 F2space? 2.WhatarethetemporalrelationsofmonophthongsintheBahCvowelsystem asawhole? 3.Vowelsinconversationalspeechcanbeexpectedtobesomewhatcentralised andshortenedrelativetovowelincitationform.Canothergeneralstyle-based dierencesortendenciesinthespectralandtemporalcharacteristicsofBahC monophthongsbeobserved? Inasecondstep,focuswillshifttoamorethoroughinvestigationoftwogroupsof lexicalsets,separatelyforeachspeechstyle. 1.WhatarethespectralandtemporalcharacteristicsofthevowelsinTRAP, BATH,STARTandPALM? 2.WhatarethespectralandtemporalcharacteristicsofthevowelsinLOT, CLOTHandTHOUGHT? 3.Dotheobservedspectralandtemporalcharacteristicsdieracrossgender and/orsocialclass? Lastly,theamountofspectralandtemporaloverlapintense/laxvowelpairswillbe analysedfortwoselectedspeakersgroups,whichrepresentthemostbasilectaland themostacrolectalspeechformsinthedataforthisstudy. 1.Whataretherelativecontributionsofspectralandtemporalcontraststo phonemicdistinctions?IfBahCissimilartoJamC,temporalcontrastsmay beexpectedtoplayaprominentrole.IfBahCissimilartoAAVEorother AmericanEnglishvarieties,temporalcontrastswillbelessprominent.

PAGE 238

212 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS 2.Dothesetemporalandspectralrelationsdierinmorebasilectalcomparedto moreacrolectalspeech?IfBahCissimilartoJamC,temporalcontrastswill moreprominentinbasilectalthaninacrolectalspeech. 3.Dothesetemporalandspectralrelationsdierfordierenttense/laxvowel pairsandfollowingvoicingcontexts? 5.4Analysisprocedure Allacousticanalyseswererestrictedtovowelsinmaximallybisyllabicwords.Vowels inmonosyllabicwordswereusedforspectralaswellastemporalanalyses,while vowelsinbisyllabicwordswererestrictedtospectralanalyses.Vowelsincitation formwereelicitedinCVCcontexts.Withonlyfewexceptions,allvowelswere precededby /b,p,f,h/ andfollowedby /d,t,s,z/ ; /t/ inpotentialt-apping contextswasavoided.Vowelswerefollowedbynon-coronalconsonantsonlyinthe words book n=34tokensand talk n=33tokens,whichwererestrictedtoanalyses ofvowelduration.Forafulllistofelicitedwords,seetable3.4onpage97.Forthe conversationaldata,vowelsinword-nalpositionwereretainedifdirectlyfollowed byavoicedconsonantandtreatedaspre-voiced.Pre-nasalandpre-liquidcontexts wereavoidedaswellastokensfollowing/r/orsemivowels.Vowelsfollowedby /t/ inpotentialt-appingcontextswereremovedfromthedataset.Afterclose inspectionofthedata,itwasfoundthatthevowelin good n=26tokensinthe conversationaldataandn=32tokensinthecitationformdatawasconsiderably frontedcomparedtootherwordsintheFOOTlexicalset,anditwassubsequently restrictedtoanalysesofvowelduration. ForthelexicalsetsTRAPandBATH,vowelsinpotentialKYApositionsi.e. followingvelarconsonantswereexcludedfromtheanalysis.Rhoticpronunciation ofSTARTwascompletelyabsentfromtheconversationaldata,butnotfromthe citationformdata,where182ofatotalof316voweltokenswerefollowedby /r/ by auditoryassessment.Thedistributionofr-fullSTARTwillbeexaminedacrosssocial variablesgenderandsocialclass,but /a:r/ tokenswillnotbeanalysedacoustically. ForFACE,andGOAT,onlypre-voicedtokenswereconsidered,whichshowedtobe monophthongalseesection4.1.Atotalof4671tokenswerenallysubjectedto acousticanalysis,2179fromtheconversationaland2492fromthecitationform

PAGE 239

5.4.ANALYSISPROCEDURE 213 dataset.Table5.7liststhetotalnumberofvoweltokensinmono-andbisyllabic wordsforeachlexicalset,followingvoicingcontextandspeechstyle. Table5.7:Numberoftokensforacousticanalysesbylexicalset,voicingcontextand speechstyle Conversational Citationform LexicalsetVoicingcontext Monosyl.Bisyl. Monosyl.Bisyl. BATHPre-voiceless 6963 10233 CLOTHPre-voiceless 5314 6134 DRESSPre-voiced 7518 1090 Pre-voiceless 10232 630 FACEPre-voiced 440 13935 FLEECEPre-voiced 4625 1070 Pre-voiceless 9039 970 FOOTPre-voiced 280 660 Pre-voiceless 11514 1040 GOATPre-voiced 1718 1690 GOOSEPre-voiced 455 1010 Pre-voiceless 130 840 KITPre-voiced 5929 7234 Pre-voiceless 11271 1040 LOTPre-voiced 5912 7036 Pre-voiceless 13957 940 PALMPre-voiced 119 3636 STARTPre-voiced 3915 7023 Pre-voiceless 7915 410 STRUTPre-voiced 4366 663 Pre-voiceless 9546 1050 THOUGHTPre-voiced 50 700 Pre-voiceless 3824 1270 TRAPPre-voiced 4929 1030 Pre-voiceless 8469 980 Total 1499680 2258234 Forspectralanalyses,measurementsofF1andF2weretakenatonetimepoint pervowel,representingtheapproximatevoweltarget.ForFLEECE,KIT,FACE andDRESS,measurementsweretakenatthemaximumvalueofF2between40% and60%intothevowel.ForGOOSEandFOOT,measurementsweretakenatthe F2minimumbetween40%and60%intothevowel.ForthelowvowelsinTRAP, BATH,STARTandPALM,measurementsweretakenatthemaximumvalueof F1between40%and60%intothevowel.ForthevowelsinSTRUTandLOT,no

PAGE 240

214 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS cleardecisioncouldbeformedregardingthevoweltargetinrespecttomaximum ofminimumformantfrequencyvalues.Therefore,measurementsforalllexicalsets pertainingtothisgeneralvowelqualitysubsystemSTRUT,LOT,THOUGHT, CLOTH,GOATweretakenatthevowelmidpointi.e.at50%intothevowel.All reportedvaluesarenormalisedformantfrequencies. Voweldurationwasmeasuredinmillisecondsfromvowelonsettovoweloset. Intheanalysisofoveralltemporalrelationsbetweenlexicalsets,followingvoicing contextsandspeechstylesseesection5.5.2,rawdurationvalueswereused.For allsubsequentanalyses,voweldurationwasnormalisedinaneorttocontrolfor dierentspeaker-specicspeechrates,whichmaybeespeciallyimportantforconversationaldata.Inasfarasvoweldurationisacuetovowelidentityandpost-vocalic voicing,whatisimportantistherelative,nottheabsolute,durationofthevowel. Asnoinformationwasavailableonthedurationofthelargerunitsofspeechin whichindividualvoweltokenswerecontainedsuchassyllables,wordsorphrases, onlyspeaker-specicoveralltendenciescouldbeaccountedfor.FollowingWassink ,durationmeasuresweretransformedtoz-scores.Foreachspeaker,themean durationsforeachlexicalsetwerecalculatedand,subsequently,thegrandmean andstandarddeviation overtheselexicalsetmeans.Z-scoresforthedurationof individualvoweltokens i ofagivenspeakerarederivedbysubtractingthespeaker's grandmeananddividingbythespeaker'sstandarddeviation.1.Thetransformationhastheeectofrepresentingindividualvoweldurationsintermsofthenumber ofstandarddeviationstheydivergefromthespeaker'smean. d norm i = d i )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 11.955 0 Td [( .1 Spectralandtemporaloverlapofpre-speciedlong/shortvowelpairswasquantiedwiththehelpofMahalanobisdistancecalculationsintwoF1' F2'andthree F1' F2' Durationdimensions.TheMahalanobisdistanceisamulti-dimensional algorithmmeasuringhowmanyellipsoidstandarddeviationsagivenpointPisfrom themeanorcentroidofadistributionD.ThemainadvantageoftheMahalanobis distanceovertheEuclideandistanceisthatittakesintoaccounttheoverallshape anddispersionofthemultivariatedistributioni.e.thevarianceofeachvariableand thecovariancebetweenvariables.Foreachpairofvoweldistributions V 1 and V 2

PAGE 241

5.5.RESULTS 215 contrastedintheanalyses,theMahalanobisdistanceintwoF1' F2'andthree F1' F2' Durationdimensionsofeachtoken v 1 ;k of V 1 tothecentroid 2 of V 2 and ofeachtoken v 2 ;k of V 2 tothecentroid 1 of V 1 wascalculated,usingtheformulain 5.2. S j referstothecovariancematrixofthevoweldistribution V j .Subsequently, themedianMahalanobisdistancesinF1' F2'spaceof V 1 towards V 2 andof V 2 towards V 1 werecomparedandthemeasuresofwhicheverdistribution V j wason averageclosertotheotherwereretainedandusedtorepresenttheproximityofthe twovowelcategoriesinbothtwoandthreedimensions. q v i;k )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 11.955 0 Td [( j t S )]TJ/F29 7.9701 Tf 6.587 0 Td [(1 j v i;k )]TJ/F31 11.9552 Tf 11.955 0 Td [( j ; i;j =1 ; 2; k =1 ;:::;n .2 Inordertofacilitatethecomparisonoftheresultsofthepresentstudywiththose byWassink;2006onJamaicanCreole,overalltemporaloverlapbetweentwo vowelcategorieswasalsoestimatedusingthetraditionaldurationratiomethod.In addition,thespectraloverlapassessmentmetricSOAMdevisedbyWassink wasappliedtothedata. 5.5Results 5.5.1Cross-comparisonofvowelquality Thissectionpresentsacross-comparisonofvowelqualitybytask-basedstyleconversational,citationform,lexicalsetandvoicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless. Therstresult,basedonvisualassessmentofthedata,isthatthevowelsystemof speakersintheconversationaldatasetaredistributedinabasicV-shapeinF1 F2 vowelspacewithitsapexat /a/ .Forspeakersinthecitationformdataset,vowelsalsoapproachaV-shapeddistribution,butlowvowelsinvolvingthelexicalsets TRAP,BATH,STARTandPALMshowsomedierentiationinthefront-backdimension,sothatthedistributionmaybemoreadequatelyreferredtoasU-shaped. Thesedistributionpatternsareillustratedingure5.1,whichdisplaysvaluesof normalisedF1andF2forallvoweltokensattheapproximatevoweltarget,separatedbyspeechstyle.Lexicalsetlabelsindicatemeanvaluesoftherespectivevowel

PAGE 242

216 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS categories.MeanvaluesandstandarddeviationsofF1'andF2'foralllexicalsets andspeechstylesareadditionallylistedintable5.8. Figure5.1:F1'andF2'forallvoweltokensatvoweltargetintheconversational aboveandcitationformbelowdataset;labelsindicatemeanvalues

PAGE 243

5.5.RESULTS 217 Table5.8:F1'andF2'meansandstandarddeviationsbylexicalsetandstyle Conversational Citationform Lexicalset F1F2 F1F2 FLEECE 0.76.101.56.04 0.68.071.640.05 FACE 0.87.101.50.04 0.85.101.570.06 KIT 0.97.121.42.08 1.06.121.450.08 DRESS 1.14.121.43.06 1.26.121.450.07 TRAP 1.48.101.20.05 1.63.111.210.05 BATH 1.49.091.17.05 1.62.101.170.05 START 1.51.111.20.06 1.56.091.160.07 PALM 1.47.121.16.06 1.52.101.130.06 STRUT 1.26.111.15.09 1.38.121.130.06 LOT 1.22.111.02.08 1.26.140.950.08 THOUGHT 1.18.100.98.07 1.23.130.940.08 CLOTH 1.17.110.97.09 1.24.130.910.07 FOOT 1.10.121.08.09 1.15.121.090.10 GOAT 0.93.090.93.09 0.91.100.860.09 GOOSE 0.80.090.86.12 0.76.070.810.10 Intermsofdierencesinabsolutevalues,itisclearthatthevowelsincitation formspeechcoverawiderareathanthoseinconversationalspeech,astheirhighest,lowest,mostfrontandmostbackvowelcategoriesdisplaymoreextremevalues: Onaverage,F1'valuesofFLEECEandGOOSEare0.05unitslower,F1'values ofTRAPandSTARTare0.11unitshigher,F2'valuesofFLEECEare0.08units higherandF2'valuesofGOOSEare0.05unitslowerincitationformthaninconversationalspeech.Forthepresentstudy,however,itisofgreaterinterestwhether therelativepositionsofindividuallexicalsetsdierbetweenthetwospeechstyles. Fromthevowelplotsingure5.1andfromthemeanvalueslistedintable5.8,it appearsthatKITandDRESSarelowerrelativetoFLEECEincitationformthan inconversationalspeech,thoughtherestillremainsawidegapinlowfrontvowel space.Inconversationalspeech,lowvowelslackdierentiationinthefront-back dimension.Incitationformspeech,PALMandSTARTappeartobebackedand raisedrelativetoTRAPandpossiblyBATH,reducingthegapinlowbackvowel space.THOUGHT,CLOTHandLOToverlapconsiderablyinbothspeechstyles, butSTRUTseemstobeclosertotheselexicalsetsinconversationalthanincitation formspeech.FOOToccupiesarelativelycentralpositioninbothspeechstyles.

PAGE 244

218 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Table5.9:Mixedmodelanalysisresults:F1'andF2'bystyleconversational, citationform,lexicalsetFLEECE,KIT,DRESS,TRAP,START,STRUT,LOT, FOOT,GOOSE,andvoicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value F1' style16 : 5 ; 34 : 7 < 0 : 001*** lexicalset1073 : 0 ; 146 : 9 < 0 : 001*** voicingcontext84 : 9 ; 219 : 5 < 0 : 001*** style:lexicalset24 : 9 ; 385 : 6 < 0 : 001*** lexicalset:voicingcontext5 : 5 ; 208 : 4 < 0 : 001*** F2' lexicalset765 : 3 ; 336 : 7 < 0 : 001*** voicingcontext5 : 3 ; 408 : 3 < 0 : 05* style:lexicalset9 : 3 ; 1313 : 5 < 0 : 001*** lexicalset:voicingcontext3 : 6 ; 403 : 3 < 0 : 001*** Twoseparatemixed-eectsmodelanalyseswereperformedforF1'andF2'measuresseetable5.9withxedfactorsstyleconversational,citationform,lexical setFLEECE,KIT,DRESS,TRAP,START,STRUT,LOT,FOOT,GOOSEand voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless.Onlythoselexicalsetswereincluded,for whichanadequatenumberoftokenswereavailableinbothspeechstylesandvoicing contexts.Thetestsrevealedsignicantmaineectsforallxedfactorsinthemodel forF1'andforxedfactorslexicalsetandvoicingcontextinthemodelforF2'.In bothmodels,themaineectswerequaliedbysignicanttwo-wayinteractionsbetweenstyleandlexicalsetandbetweenlexicalsetandvoicingcontexts.Voicing contextdidnotenterintosignicantinteractionwithstyle,whichindicatesthatthe eectofvoicingcontextmaydierfordierentlexicalsetsbutcanbeassumedto operatesimilarlyindierentspeechstyles. Arangeofpost-hoctestswereperformed.Thecontrastbetweenconversational andcitationformspeechstyleswastestedinthecontextofthelexicalsetsFLEECE, GOOSEandTRAPinordertodeterminewhetherthecentralisationofvowelspace inconversationalversuscitationformspeechwassignicant.Inaddition,interactioncontrasts,i.e.contrasts-between-constrasts,werecomputedandthecontrast betweenconversationalandcitationformspeechstylesweretestedinrelationtothe contrastbetweenthefollowingpairsoflexicalsets:FLEECE{KIT,DRESS{KIT, GOOSE{FOOT,LOT{STRUT,LOT{STARTandTRAP{START.Thecontrasts

PAGE 245

5.5.RESULTS 219 betweeneachofthesepairsoflexicalsetswerealsotestedinthecontextofconversationalandcitationformspeechstylesseparately.Finally,thecontrastbetween pre-voicedandpre-voicelesstokenswastestedinthecontextofalllexicalsetsinthe model.Signicantresultsarelistedintable5.10fordependentvariableF1'andin table5.11fordependentvariableF2'. Table5.10:Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsandinteraction contrastsforinteractiontermsintable5.9fordependentvariableF1' Maineect:contrastedlevels ContextofsignicantcontrastsCoef.Chisqdf = 1p-value Style:conversational{citationform FLEECE0 : 0915 : 4 < 0 : 001*** TRAP )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 1548 : 2 < 0 : 001*** FLEECE{KIT0 : 1865 : 7 < 0 : 001*** GOOSE{FOOT0 : 1330 : 0 < 0 : 001*** TRAP{START )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 1130 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:FLEECE{KIT conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 21300 : 4 < 0 : 001*** citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 38388 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:DRESS{KIT conversational0 : 17216 : 8 < 0 : 001*** citationform0 : 21110 : 5 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:GOOSE{FOOT conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 2599 : 6 < 0 : 001*** citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 39239 : 7 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:LOT{STRUT conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0732 : 3 < 0 : 001*** citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0921 : 1 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:LOT{START conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 32583 : 0 < 0 : 001*** citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 28224 : 2 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:TRAP{START citationform0 : 0817 : 6 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:pre-voiced{pre-voiceless DRESS )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0931 : 4 < 0 : 001*** FOOT )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 129 : 4 < 0 : 05* KIT )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0724 : 4 < 0 : 001*** LOT )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0831 : 8 < 0 : 001*** STRUT )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 0721 : 7 < 0 : 001*** TRAP )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 057 : 1 < 0 : 05*

PAGE 246

220 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Table5.11:Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsandinteraction contrastsforinteractiontermsintable5.9fordependentvariableF2' Maineect:contrastedlevels ContextofsignicantcontrastsCoef.Chisqdf = 1p-value Style:conversational{citationform FLEECE )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 0715 : 5 < 0 : 001*** TRAP{START )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 0620 : 2 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:FLEECE{KIT conversational0 : 14196 : 8 < 0 : 001*** citationform0 : 18100 : 8 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:GOOSE{FOOT conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 25128 : 3 < 0 : 001*** citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 27132 : 0 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:LOT{STRUT conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 16269 : 7 < 0 : 001*** citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 1564 : 0 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:LOT{START conversational )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 19284 : 79 < 0 : 001*** citationform )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 16100 : 1 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:TRAP{START citationform0 : 0825 : 9 < 0 : 001*** Voicingcontext:pre-voiced{pre-voiceless KIT0 : 0514 : 1 < 0 : 01** F1'inFLEECEwassignicantlysmallerandF2'wassignicantlylargerincitationformthanconversationalspeech,indicatingahigherandmorefrontposition. F1'inTRAPwassignicantlylargerincitationformthanconversationalspeech,indicatingalowerposition.ThepositionofGOOSEdidnotdiersignicantlyacross speechstyles.ThelexicalsetsFLEECEandKIT,GOOSEandFOOT,LOTand STRUT,andLOTandSTARTwerespectrallydistinctwithrespecttoF1'andF2' inbothspeechstyles.DRESSandKITwerespectrallydistinctonlywithrespect toF1'inbothspeechstyles.TRAPandSTARTwerespectrallydistinctonlyin citationformspeech,wherebothF1'andF2'weresmallerinSTARTthaninTRAP, indicatingaraisedandmorebackposition.ThecontrastbetweenFLEECEandKIT andbetweenGOOSEandFOOTintheF1'dimension,thoughsignicantinboth speechstyles,wassignicantlylargerincitationformthaninconversationalspeech. ThecontrastbetweenTRAPandSTARTwassignicantlylargerincitationform thaninconversationalspeechwithrespecttobothF1'andF2'dimensions.Asfor

PAGE 247

5.5.RESULTS 221 theeectofvoicingcontext,alllexicalsetsexceptthoserepresentingtraditionally `long'vowelcategories,i.e.FLEECE,GOOSEandSTART,hadsignicantlyhigher F1'valuesinpre-voicelessthaninpre-voicedcontexts,indicatingalowerpositionin vowelspace.OnlyKITshowedsignicantlylowerF2'valuesinpre-voicelessthan inpre-voicedcontexts,indicatingamorebackposition. 5.5.2Cross-comparisonofvowelquantity Thissectionpresentsacross-comparisonofvowelquantitybytask-basedbystyle conversational,citationform,lexicalsetFLEECE,KIT,DRESS,TRAP,START, STRUT,LOT,FOOT,GOOSEandvoicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless. Onlythoselexicalsetswereincluded,forwhichanadequatenumberoftokenswere availableinbothspeechstylesandvoicingcontexts.Figure5.2displaysmeanvowel durationsinmillisecondsfortheninelexicalsetsacrossstylesandvoicingcontexts. Averagedacrossallninelexicalsets,citationformvowelswere44.3mslongerthan conversationalvowels,andvowelsinpre-voicedcontextswere68.9mslongerthan thoseinpre-voicelesscontexts.Thetwofactors,however,obviouslyinteractwith eachotherandthedierencebetweenthetwostyleswasgreaterinpre-voiced.4 msthaninpre-voiceless.2mscontexts. Thedurationalrankofdierentlexicalsetsremainedfairlystableacrossstyles andcontexts:KITandFOOTwereinvariablytheshortestvowels,followedby STRUT.FLEECEwastheshortestofthetraditionallylongvowels,followedby vowelsofsimilardurationsinGOOSE,LOT,DRESSandTRAP;thevowelin STARTwasgenerallythelongest.Thispatternsreectstosomeextentthegreater degreeofvocalicopennessinforexampleSTRUTvis-a-visKITandFOOTor STARTandTRAPvis-a-visFLEECEandGOOSE.Thedurationofshortrelativetolongvowels,however,alsovariesasafunctionofbothvoicingcontextand style.Asseeningure5.2,voweldurationrisesrelativelyabruptlyfromFOOT toFLEECEinpre-voicedcitationformtokens,butincreasesmoregraduallyfor pre-voicedconversationaltokens.Pre-voicelesstokensinbothstylesdisplayavery slow,gradualincreaseindurationfromKITtoTRAPandthenasharprisefrom TRAPtoSTART.Thetemporaldierencebetween`short'KITandFOOTand `long'FLEECEandGOOSEislargestinpre-voicedcitationformtokens.

PAGE 248

222 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Figure5.2:Meanvoweldurationsand95%condenceintervalsforninelexicalsets byspeechstyleandfollowingvoicingcontext Table5.12:Mixedmodelanalysisresults:Vowelduration[ms]bytask-basedstyle conversational,citationform,voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voiceless,andlexicalsetKIT,FOOT,STRUT,FLEECE,GOOSE,LOT,DRESS,TRAP,START Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Duration style21 : 2 ; 36 : 3 < 0 : 001*** voicingcontext262 : 3 ; 144 : 3 < 0 : 001*** lexicalset59 : 3 ; 142 : 6 < 0 : 001*** style:voicingcontext37 : 4 ; 226 : 7 < 0 : 001*** voicingcontext:lexicalset3 : 7 ; 152 : 2 < 0 : 001*** style:voicingcontext:lexicalset2 : 2 ; 294 : 6 < 0 : 05* Amixed-eectsmodelanalysiswasperformedfordurationinmillisecondswith xedfactorsstyle,voicingcontextandlexicalset.Thetestrevealedsignicantmain eectsforallxedfactors,whichwere,however,qualiedbyinteractionsincluding asignicantthree-wayinteractionseetable5.12.Subsequentpost-hoctestssee table5.13ofsimplemaineectsshowedthattheeectofstylewassignicantfor pre-voicedtokensofvowelsinalllexicalsetsexcepttheshortest,thevowelinKIT, butitwasnotsignicantforvowelsinpre-voicelesscontextsTheeectofvoicing contextincitationformtokenswassignicantforalllexicalsetsexceptthetwo

PAGE 249

5.5.RESULTS 223 shortest,KITandFOOT.Inconversationalspeech,pre-voicedweresignicantly longerthanpre-voicelesstokensinFLEECE,GOOSE,LOT,DRESSandTRAP, thatisinalllexicalsetsexceptinthethreeshortest,KIT,FOOTandSTRUT, andinthelongest,START.Thefactorlexicalsethasninelevels,whichresultsin ahighnumberofpotentialpairwisecomparisonsacrossdierentvoicingcontexts andstyles.Inordertoretainamanageablenumberofcontrasts,onlythefollowing contrastsweretested:KIT{STRUT,FLEECE{KIT,FLEECE{STRUT,FLEECE{ TRAP,FOOT{GOOSE,GOOSE{STRUT,GOOSE{TRAP,andSTART{TRAP. ThedierencebetweentheshortvowelsinKITandSTRUTwasnotsignicant. Thedierencebetweentheshortest`long'vowelFLEECEanditsshortcounterpartKITwassignicantonlyinpre-voicedcontextsincitationform.Conversely, FLEECEwasfoundsignicantlyshorterthenTRAPonlyinconversationalspeech, irrespectiveofvoicingcontexts.Theseresultsreectthedurationaldierencesof pre-voicedFLEECEconditionedbyspeechstyle.ThedierencebetweenFLEECE andSTRUTwasnotsignicant,butGOOSEwassignicantlylongerthanSTRUT inpre-voicedcontextsinconversationalspeech.Inpre-voicedcontexts,GOOSEwas alsosignicantlylongerthanitsshortcounterpartFOOTinbothspeechstyles;in pre-voicelesscontexts,GOOSEwasonlysignicantlylongerthanFOOTincitation form.ThedurationaldierencebetweenlongvowelsexceptFLEECEandSTART wasgenerallyverysmall;thecontrastbetweenGOOSEandTRAPwasnotsignificant.ThesharpincreaseindurationinSTARTrelativetoTRAPisreectedin signicantresultsforthiscontrastforpre-voicelesscitationformtokensaswellas conversationaltokensinbothvoicingcontexts.

PAGE 250

224 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Table5.13:Post-hoctestresults:Analysisofsimplemaineectsofinteractionterm intable5.12fordependentvariableduration Maineect:contrastedlevels ContextofsignicantcontrastsCoef.Chisqdf = 1p-value Style:citationform{conversational pre-voiced,STRUT )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(76 : 312 : 7 < 0 : 05* pre-voiced,FLEECE )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(101 : 440 : 9 < 0 : 001*** pre-voiced,GOOSE )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(49 : 115 : 4 < 0 : 01** pre-voiced,LOT )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(66 : 810 : 7 < 0 : 05* pre-voiced,DRESS )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(57 : 127 : 2 < 0 : 001*** pre-voiced,TRAP )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(84 : 950 : 6 < 0 : 001*** pre-voiced,START )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(46 : 915 : 0 < 0 : 01** Voicingcontext:pre-voiced{pre-voiceless conversational,FLEECE45 : 815 : 8 < 0 : 01** conversational,GOOSE63 : 217 : 2 < 0 : 001** conversational,LOT41 : 520 : 7 < 0 : 001*** conversational,DRESS77 : 545 : 5 < 0 : 001*** conversational,TRAP57 : 921 : 9 < 0 : 001*** citationform,STRUT71 : 512 : 8 < 0 : 01* citationform,FLEECE120 : 163 : 6 < 0 : 001*** citationform,GOOSE77 : 128 : 8 < 0 : 001*** citationform,LOT89 : 621 : 3 < 0 : 05*** citationform,DRESS102 : 930 : 7 < 0 : 001*** citationform,TRAP129 : 066 : 4 < 0 : 001*** citationform,START44 : 811 : 3 < 0 : 001* Lexicalset:FLEECE{KIT citationform,pre-voiced114 : 536 : 2 < 0 : 001*** Lexicalset:FLEECE{TRAP conversational,pre-voiced )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(51 : 813 : 9 < 0 : 01** conversational,pre-voiceless )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(39 : 817 : 4 < 0 : 01** Lexicalset:FOOT{GOOSE conversational,pre-voiced )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(80 : 917 : 9 < 0 : 01** citationform,pre-voiced )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(75 : 216 : 4 < 0 : 01** citationform,pre-voiceless )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(49 : 610 : 4 < 0 : 05* Lexicalset:GOOSE{STRUT conversational,pre-voiced58 : 217 : 6 < 0 : 01** Lexicalset:START{TRAP conversational,pre-voiced50 : 313 : 2 < 0 : 05* conversational,pre-voiceless74 : 053 : 8 < 0 : 001*** citationform,pre-voiceless96 : 539 : 6 < 0 : 001***

PAGE 251

5.5.RESULTS 225 5.5.3Variationinlowvowels 5.5.3.1Conversationaldata Fortheconversationaldataset,notenoughtokenswereavailableofthelexicalset PALMtoincludethemintheanalysis,whichthereforefocussedexclusivelyon TRAP,STARTandBATH.NoneofthetokensofSTARTwerepronouncedr-full. Figure5.3showsthemeanF1'andF2'valuesforeachlexicalsetbysocialgroupand voicingcontext.Onlypre-voicelesstokenswereavailableforthevowelinBATH. Inpre-voicelesscontexts,itseemsthereislittledierencebetweentherealisations ofthethreelexicalsets.Inpre-voicedcontexts,F1'inTRAPissmallerthanin STARTinallsocialgroups,butSTARTisalsocharacterisedbysomevariation. F1'valuesforhigher-classfemalesingeneralaresmallerthanfortheothersocial groups. Figure5.3:MeanF1'andF2'valuesand95%condenceintervalsforthelexical setsTRAP,STARTandBATHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext Figure5.4displaysmeannormaliseddurationvaluesforTRAP,STARTand BATHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext.Intermsofduration,BATHappearsto patternwithSTART,whichislongerthanTRAP,atleastinpre-voicelesscontexts. Inpre-voicedcontexts,STARTislongerthanTRAPinthespeechoflower-class

PAGE 252

226 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS malesandhigher-classfemales,thoughinthelatter,STARTischaracterisedby considerablevariability.Lower-classfemalesdonotseemtodistinguishTRAPand STARTtemporallyinpre-voicedcontexts. Figure5.4:Meannormaliseddurationvaluesand95%condenceintervalsforthe lexicalsetsTRAP,STARTandBATHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext Separatemixed-eectsmodelanalyseswereperformedfordependentvariables F1',F2'andnormaliseddurationinpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontexts.Fixed factorsinallsixmodelsweredenedaslexicalsetTRAP,STARTformodels restrictedtopre-voiceddata;TRAP,START,BATHformodelsrestrictedtoprevoicelessdataandsocialgrouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-class females.Theresultsarelistedintables5.14and5.15. Inpre-voicedcontexts,F1'wassignicantlyaectedbybothmainfactors,lexical setandsocialgroup.ThisindicatesthatF1'inSTARTwassignicantlyhigher thaninTRAPforallsocialgroups.Asforvariationbysocialgroup,post-hoctests revealedthatlower-classmaleshadsignicantlyhigherF1'valuesthanhigher-class females coef =0 : 09; chisq =8 : 0; p< 0 : 05.F2'wasnotsignicantlyaected bythefactorsinthemodel.Durationwasaectedsignicantlybylexicalset, qualiedbyasignicantinteractionbetweenlexicalsetandsocialgroup.Ananalysis ofsimplemaineectsrevealedthatthedurationalcontrastbetweenSTARTand TRAPwassignicantonlyforhigher-classfemales coef =1 : 76; chisq =14 : 0; p< 0 : 01.Ananalysisofinteractioncontrastsshowedthatthedurationalcontrast

PAGE 253

5.5.RESULTS 227 Table5.14:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldatarestrictedtoprevoicedcontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedby lexicalsetTRAP,STARTandsocialgrouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales, higher-classfemales Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value F1norm. lexicalset6 : 6 ; 13 : 1 < 0 : 05* socialgroup4 : 0 ; 13 : 0 < 0 : 05* F2norm. nosignicanteects Durationnorm. lexicalset10 : 5 ; 7 : 3 < 0 : 05* lexicalset:socialgroup4 : 7 ; 81 : 0 < 0 : 05* betweenSTARTandTRAPwassignicantlylowerforlower-classthanforhigherclassfemales coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(1 : 80; chisq =9 : 1; p< 0 : 05. Table5.15:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldatarestrictedtoprevoicelesscontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedby lexicalsetTRAP,START,BATHandsocialgrouplower-classfemales,lower-class males,higher-classfemales Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value F1norm. nosignicanteects F2norm. lexicalset4 : 7 ; 27 : 2 < 0 : 05* Durationnorm. lexicalset35 : 1 ; 40 : 6 < 0 : 001*** Inpre-voicelesscontexts,thetestsdidnotrevealsignicantfactoreectson variationinF1'.ThemodelsforbothF2'anddurationrevealedsignicanteects forlexicalset.Posts-hoctestsshowedthatF2'inTRAPwassignicantlyhigher thaninBATH,thoughonlytoasmallextent coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 02; chisq =8 : 9; p< 0 : 01. DurationinbothBATH coef =1 : 31; chisq =47 : 0; p< 0 : 001andSTART coef = 1 : 35; chisq =55 : 9; p< 0 : 001wassignicantlylongerthaninTRAP.

PAGE 254

228 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS 5.5.3.2Citationformdata Inthecitationformdata,rhoticpronunciationofSTARTwasquitecommon,especiallyamonghigher-classfemalespeakersseetable5.16.Malesofbothhigherandlowersocialclassesexhibitedanapproximatelyequalamountofrhotictokens; abouthalfoftheirproductionsofSTARTwererhotic.Lower-classfemales,which were,onaverage,alsoolderthantheotherparticipants,showedonlyabout10% rhotictokensinSTART. Table5.16:RhotictokensofSTARTbysocialclassandgender SocialgroupTotalnumberoftokensProp.ofrhotictokens Lower-classfemales629.7% Lower-classmales8457.1% Higher-classfemales9192.3% Higher-classmales7955.7% Ageneralisedlinearmixed-eectsmodelwasttothedatawithdependent binomialvariablerhoticversusnon-rhoticSTARTandxedfactorssocialclassand gender.TypeIIWaldchi-squaretestsrevealedasignicantmaineectofsocial class chisq =7 : 5; df =1; p< 0 : 01andasignicantinteractionbetweensocial classandgender chisq =13 : 0; df =1; p< 0 : 001.Subsequentpost-hoctests showedasignicanteectofsocialclassforfemalespeakers coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 8; chisq = 21 : 2; p< 0 : 001andasignicanteectofgenderforlower-classspeakers coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 5; chisq =7 : 6; p< 0 : 05. Duetotheloweringeectthat /r/ mayhaveonF2formantfrequenciesofprecedingvowels,allfollowinganalyseswereconductedexclusivelyonnon-rhotictokens. Asfemalehigher-classspeakershadonlyveryfewnon-rhotictokensofSTART n=7,maleandfemalehigher-classspeakerswerecombinedtoasinglesocialgroup ofhigher-classspeakers.Figure5.5showsthemeanF1'andF2'valuesforthelexical setsPALM,TRAP,STARTandBATHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext.Only pre-voicelesstokenswereavailableforthevowelinBATH,whileonlypre-voiced tokenswereavailableforthevowelinPALM.Forlower-classfemalespeakers,dierencesbetweenthelexicalsetswereonlymarginal,buttheyfollowedthesamepattern observedfortheothertwosocialgroups:TRAPwascharacterisedbyhigherF1'and F2'valuesthanallotherlexicalsets,irrespectiveofthefollowingvoicingcontext. PALMandSTARTinpre-voicedcontextshadgenerallycomparablylowvaluesof

PAGE 255

5.5.RESULTS 229 F1'andF2'.Inpre-voicelesscontexts,BATHwasspectrallypositionedbetween TRAPandSTART. Figure5.5:MeanF1'andF2'valuesand95%condenceintervalsforthelexical setsPALM,TRAP,STARTandBATHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext Figure5.6displaysmeannormalisedvoweldurationsforPALM,TRAP,START andBATHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext.Inpre-voicelesscontexts,TRAP isclearlyshorterthanbothSTARTandBATH;intermsofduration,then,BATH patternswithSTARTratherthanTRAP,aswasalsothecaseintheconversational data.Thedurationaldierencebetweenlexicalsetswasgenerallysmallerinprevoicedcontexts,buthere,too,TRAPshowedatendencyforshorterdurationsthan bothPALMandSTART.Lower-classmalesshowedespeciallylongvoweldurations inSTART. Separatemixed-eectsmodelanalyseswereperformedfordependentvariables F1',F2'andnormaliseddurationinpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontexts.Fixed factorsinallsixmodelsweredenedaslexicalsetPALM,TRAP,STARTformodels restrictedtopre-voiceddata;TRAP,START,BATHformodelsrestrictedtoprevoicelessdataandsocialgrouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-class speakers.Theresultsarelistedintables5.17and5.18.

PAGE 256

230 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Figure5.6:Meannormaliseddurationvaluesand95%condenceintervalsforthe lexicalsetsPALM,TRAP,STARTandBATHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext Table5.17:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;citationformdatarestrictedtopre-voiced contexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedbylexicalset PALM,TRAP,STARTandsocialgrouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales, higher-classspeakers Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value F1norm. lexicalset15 : 8 ; 9 : 0 < 0 : 01** F2norm. lexicalset8 : 4 ; 10 : 8 < 0 : 01** Durationnorm. nosignicanteects Inpre-voicedcontexts,F1'andF2'werebothaectedsignicantlybylexical set.AnanalysisofsimplemaineectsshowedthatPALM coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 08; chisq = 30 : 6; p< 0 : 001andSTART coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 08; chisq =20 : 3; p< 0 : 001hadsignicantlylowerF1'valuesthanTRAP;PALM coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 08; chisq =12 : 6; p< 0 : 001 andSTART coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 08; chisq =14 : 6; p< 0 : 001alsohadsignicantlylower F2'valuesthanTRAP.Durationwasnotsignicantlyaectedbyanyfactorinthe model.

PAGE 257

5.5.RESULTS 231 Table5.18:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;citationformdatarestrictedtoprevoicelesscontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedby lexicalsetTRAP,START,BATHandsocialgrouplower-classfemales,lower-class males,higher-classspeakers Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value F1norm. lexicalset15 : 8 ; 9 : 6 < 0 : 001*** lexicalset:socialgroup2 : 5 ; 217 : 2 < 0 : 05* F2norm. lexicalset20 : 1 ; 11 : 6 < 0 : 001*** Durationnorm. lexicalset24 : 4 ; 9 : 0 < 0 : 001*** socialgroup4 : 2 ; 21 : 1 < 0 : 05* Inpre-voicelesscontexts,themodelforF1'revealedasignicantinteraction betweenlexicalsetandsocialgroup.Subsequentpost-hoctestsshowedthatthe contrastbetweenSTARTandTRAPwassignicantforlower-classmales coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 12; chisq =21 : 8; p< 0 : 001andhigher-classspeakers coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 15; chisq = 25 : 6; p< 0 : 001,aswasthecontrastbetweenSTARTandBATHlower-classmales: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 09; chisq =12 : 0; p< 0 : 01;higher-classspeakers: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 11; chisq = 16 : 2; p< 0 : 001.ThemodelforF2'revealedasignicanteectoflexicalset,and post-hoctestsshowedthatallpairwisecomparisonsweresignicant:STARThad lowerF2'valuesthanTRAP coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 10; chisq =36 : 5; p< 0 : 001orBATH coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 05; chisq =14 : 8; p< 0 : 001,andBATHhadlowerF2'valuesthan TRAP coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 05; chisq =26 : 4; p< 0 : 001.Durationwassignicantlyaffectedbybothmaineectsinthemodel,lexicalsetandgroup.Post-hoctests showedthatbothSTART coef =1 : 12; chisq =26 : 7; p< 0 : 001andBATH coef =1 : 38; chisq =44 : 0; p< 0 : 001weresignicantlylongerthanTRAP.Across lexicalsets,lower-classfemalesproducedsignicantlylongervowelsthanhigher-class speakers coef =0 : 31; chisq =8 : 4; p< 0 : 05.

PAGE 258

232 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS 5.5.4Variationinmidbackvowels 5.5.4.1Conversationaldata Fortheconversationaldataset,pre-voicedtokensinadequatenumberswereonly availableforthevowelinLOT.ThestatisticanalyseswerethereforerestrictedtoprevoicelesscontextsofLOT,THOUGHTandCLOTH.Figure5.7showsthemeanF1' andF2'valuesforeachlexicalsetbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext.Pre-voiceless LOThasconsistentlythehighestvaluesforbothF1'andF2',whileCLOTHtends tohaveF1'andF2'valuesequaltoorlowerthanTHOUGHT.Acrosslexicalsets, maleshaveslightlyhighervaluesthanfemales. Figure5.7:MeanF1'andF2'valuesand95%condenceintervalsforthelexical setsLOT,THOUGHTandCLOTHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext Figure5.8displaysmeannormaliseddurationvaluesforLOT,THOUGHTand CLOTHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext.Pre-voicelessLOTisconsistently shorterthanbothTHOUGHTandCLOTH.ThedurationsofTHOUGHTand CLOTHareapproximatelyequal,thoughTHOUGHTmaybeshorterforhigherclassfemalesthanforlower-classspeakers.

PAGE 259

5.5.RESULTS 233 Figure5.8:Meannormaliseddurationvaluesand95%condenceintervalsforthe lexicalsetsLOT,THOUGHTandCLOTHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext Separatemixed-eectsmodelanalyseswereperformedfordependentvariables F1',F2'andnormaliseddurationinpre-voicelesscontexts.Fixedfactorsinall threemodelsweredenedaslexicalsetLOT,THOUGHT,CLOTHandsocial grouplower-classfemales,lower-classmales,higher-classfemales.Theresults arelistedintable5.19.Inallthreeanalyses,onlythefactorlexicalsetreached signicance.Post-hoctestsrevealedthatthecontrastbetweenLOTandTHOUGHT wassignicantinbothspectraldimensionsF1': coef =0 : 05; chisq =6 : 3; p< 0 : 05;F2': coef =0 : 05; chisq =5 : 1; p< 0 : 05andintermsofduration coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 77; chisq =6 : 9; p< 0 : 05,aswasthecontrastbetweenLOTandCLOTHF1': coef =0 : 06; chisq =8 : 4; p< 0 : 05;F2': coef =0 : 05; chisq =7 : 3; p< 0 : 05;duration: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(0 : 69; chisq =6 : 7; p< 0 : 05.

PAGE 260

234 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Table5.19:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;conversationaldatarestrictedtoprevoicelesscontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedby lexicalsetLOT,THOUGHT,CLOTHandsocialgrouplower-classfemales,lowerclassmales,higher-classfemales Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value F1norm. lexicalset5 : 9 ; 27 : 2 < 0 : 01** F2norm. lexicalset4 : 7 ; 32 : 8 < 0 : 05* Durationnorm. lexicalset5 : 8 ; 20 : 3 < 0 : 05* 5.5.4.2Citationformdata Figure5.9showsthemeanF1'andF2'valuesforeachlexicalsetbysocialclass, genderandvoicingcontextforthecitationformdata.CLOTHonlyoccursinprevoicelesscontexts.Asintheconversationaldata,pre-voicelessLOTdisplaysthe highestvaluesofF1'andF2',butthecontrastbetweenthelexicalsetsseemsto bemoresalientintheF1'-dimension.F1'andF2'inpre-voicelessTHOUGHT andCLOTHareapproximatelyequal.Inpre-voicedcontexts,thespectralcontrast betweenLOTandTHOUGHTdisappears{inthespeechofhigher-classmales,LOT mayevenhaveslightlylowerF1'andF2'valuesthanTHOUGHT.Acrosslexical setsandvoicingcontexts,malesdisplayhighervaluesthanfemales. Figure5.10displaysmeannormaliseddurationvaluesforLOT,THOUGHT andCLOTHbysocialclass,genderandvoicingcontext.Pre-voicelessLOTis consistentlyshorterthanbothTHOUGHTandCLOTH.ThedurationsofprevoicelessTHOUGHTandCLOTHareapproximatelyequalforhigher-classmales, but,generally,THOUGHTtendstobepositionedin-betweenLOTandCLOTH intermsofvowelduration.Inpre-voicedcontexts,LOTisclearlyshorterthan THOUGHT,thoughtheextentofthecontrastvariessomewhatacrosssocialclass andgender.

PAGE 261

5.5.RESULTS 235 Figure5.9:MeanF1'andF2'valuesand95%condenceintervalsforthelexical setsLOT,THOUGHTandCLOTHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext Figure5.10:Meannormaliseddurationvaluesand95%condenceintervalsforthe lexicalsetsLOT,THOUGHTandCLOTHbysocialgroupandvoicingcontext Separatemixed-eectsmodelanalyseswereperformedfordependentvariables F1',F2'andnormaliseddurationinpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontexts.Fixed factorsinallsixmodelsweredenedaslexicalsetLOT,THOUGHTformodels restrictedtopre-voiceddata;LOT,THOUGHT,CLOTHformodelsrestrictedto

PAGE 262

236 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS pre-voicelessdata,socialclasslower-class,higher-class,andgenderfemale,male. Theresultsarelistedintables5.20and5.21. Table5.20:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;citationformdatarestrictedtopre-voiced contexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedbylexical setLOT,THOUGHT,socialclasslower-class,higher-classandgenderfemale, male Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value F1norm. nosignicanteects F2norm. nosignicanteects Durationnorm. lexicalset46 : 8 ; 2 : 7 < 0 : 01** Table5.21:Mixedmodelanalysisresults;citationformdatarestrictedtoprevoicelesscontexts:DependentvariablesF1',F2'anddurationallnormalisedby lexicalsetLOT,THOUGHT,CLOTH,socialclasslower-class,higher-classand genderfemale,male Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value F1norm. lexicalset4 : 6 ; 8 : 9 < 0 : 05* gender8 : 2 ; 16 : 4 < 0 : 05* F2norm. lexicalset6 : 8 ; 10 : 6 < 0 : 05* Durationnorm. lexicalset8 : 8 ; 7 : 5 < 0 : 05* gender4 : 7 ; 17 : 0 < 0 : 05* Asexpected,inpre-voicedcontexts,onlythemodelfordurationshowedasignificanteectoflexicalset;socialclassandgenderdidnothaveasignicantimpacton eitherF1',F2'orduration.Thisindicatesthat,inpre-voicedcontexts,thespectral contrastbetweenLOTandTHOUGHTisnotsignicant,butLOTissignicantly shorterthanTHOUGHT. Inpre-voicelesscontexts,thefactorlexicalsethadasignicanteectonall dependentvariables.Post-hoctestsshowedthatthecontrastbetweenLOTand

PAGE 263

5.5.RESULTS 237 THOUGHTwassignicantinbothspectraldimensionsF1': coef =0 : 08; chisq = 6 : 9; p< 0 : 05;F2': coef =0 : 04; chisq =7 : 5; p< 0 : 05andintermsofduration coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.298 0 Td [(0 : 72; chisq =8 : 5; p< 0 : 01,aswasthecontrastbetweenLOT andCLOTHF1': coef =0 : 09; chisq =7 : 5; p< 0 : 05;F2': coef =0 : 05; chisq = 12 : 8; p< 0 : 01;duration: coef = )]TJ/F26 11.9552 Tf 9.299 0 Td [(1 : 23; chisq =16 : 4; p< 0 : 001.Inadditionto lexicalset,F1'anddurationwerealsosignicantlyaectedbyspeakergender;that is,malesdisplayedsignicantlyhigherF1'valuesandshortervoweldurationsthan females. 5.5.5Spectralandtemporaloverlap Thissection'sfocusismainlydescriptive,itsprimaryaimbeingtodescribetherelativespectralandtemporalcontributionstophonemicdistinctionsinselectedvowel pairsandtoenablecomparisonwiththestudiesconductedonJamCbyWassink ,2006.Theinteractionbetweenspectralandtemporalcontrastswillbeanalysedforfourpairsofvowels: /i:,i/ inFLEECEandKIT, /a:,a/ inSTART/PALM andTRAP, /o:,o/ inTHOUGHT/CLOTHandLOT,and /u:,u/ inGOOSEand FOOT.Astheresultsintheprevioussectionshaveshown,PALMconsistently patternedwithSTARTandCLOTHwithTHOUGHT,sotheselexicalsetswere combinedinthefollowinganalyses.Althoughsocialvariationinthelowandmidbackvowelsshowedtobeminimal,higher-classfemalespeakerswereexcludedfrom theconversationaldatasetandlower-classfemalespeakersfromthecitationform datasetinordertoobtaintwomaximallydivergentandinternallyhomogenoussystems.Fortheconversationaldata,onlyonetokenofpre-voicedFOOTwasavailable 1 anditwassubsequentlyexcludedfromtheanalysis. Figure5.11showsthepositionofthefourvowelpairs /i:,i/ `i', /a:,a/ `a', /o:, o/ `o',and /u:,u/ `u'withrespecttologarithmicallytransformedmedianMahalanobisdistancesintwoF1' F2'andinthreeF1' F2' Durationdimensions, furtherdistinguishedbythefollowingvoicingcontext.Theverticalandhorizontal dashedlinesrepresentthelowermarginsp=0.05ofstatisticalsignicanceofthe contrastbetweenvowelpairsintwoMahalanobisdistance 2.45andinthree 1 Onlyonetokenofpre-voicedFOOTwasavailableotherthantokensoftheword good ,which wereexcludedfromallspectralanalysisseesection5.4.

PAGE 264

238 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Mahalanobisdistance 2.80dimensions,assuminganunderlyingchi-squaredistributionwithtwoandthreedegreesoffreedom,respectively.Thepositionsofthe individuallycontrastedvowelpairscanbeinterpretedasfollows:Ifthemedian Mahalanobisdistancesintwoandthreedimensionspositiontheminthelowerleft quartileoftheplot,atleast50%ofthetokensofoneofthecontrastedvowelcategoriesarenotsignicantlydierentfromthoseoftheother,irrespectiveofwhether temporalinformationisincludedinthecontrastcalculationsornot.Ifcontrasted vowelpairsarepositionedintheupperrightquartile,atleast50%ofthetokensin bothvoweldistributionsaresignicantlydierentfromeachotherbasedontheir spectralcharacteristics,andtheirtemporalcharacteristicsmayhavecontributed furthertotheirdistinction.Ifcontrastedvowelpairsarepositionedintheupperleft quartile,atleast50%ofthetokensofoneofthecontrastedvowelcategoriesarenot signicantlydierentfromthoseoftheotherintermsofspectralcharacteristics,but theyaredistinguishedbasedontheirtemporalcharacteristics.Theactualmedian Mahalanobisdistancevalues,correspondingtothelogarithmicallytransformedvaluesintheplots,arelistedintable5.22,alongwiththeproportionoftokensofthe smallervoweldistributionprotrudingintothe95%probabilityspaceofthelarger voweldistribution. Figure5.11:LogarithmicallytransformedmedianMahalanobisdistancesintwo F1' F2'andthreeF1' F2' Durationdimensionsfor /i:,i/ `i', /a:,a/ `a', /o:,o/ `o',and /u:,u/ `u'byfollowingvoicingcontext

PAGE 265

5.5.RESULTS 239 Table5.22:MedianMahalanobisdistancesandproportionofoverlappingtokensin twoF1' F2'andthreeF1' F2' Durationdimensionsforselectedvowelpairs byfollowingvoicingcontext MedianMahal.dist.Prop.ofoverlap VowelpairVoicingcontext2D3D2D3D Conversational /a:,a/ pre-voiced1.181.5892%92% pre-voiceless1.072.0188%73% /o:,o/ pre-voiced1.581.97100%67% pre-voiceless1.241.7692%92% /i:,i/ pre-voiced1.471.79100%96% pre-voiceless3.824.098%11% /u:,u/ pre-voiceless3.263.9121%11% Citationform /a:,a/ pre-voiced1.712.1873%75% pre-voiceless2.312.9463%37% /o:,o/ pre-voiced1.251.9996%89% pre-voiceless1.232.5589%57% /i:,i/ pre-voiced4.524.924%4% pre-voiceless5.625.710%0% /u:,u/ pre-voiced4.005.483%1% pre-voiceless5.005.440%0% Lowandmid-backvowelsubsystemsclusterinthelowerleftoftheplotforboth speechstyles,whilehighvowelsubsystemstendtoclusterintheupperright;an exceptiontothispatternisthevowelpairrepresentedby`i'i.e. /i:,i/ inpre-voiced contexts,whichisfoundamong`o'and`a'intheconversationaldata.Intheconversationaldata,thedierencebetweenMahalanobisdistancesintwoandthree dimensionsisgenerallymoderate.Vowelpairswhichare,onaverage,notclearly distinguishedintwodimensionsdonotshowextremelylargecontrastsinthree dimensions. /a:,a/ inpre-voicelesscontextsshowedthegreatestchangewhentemporalinformationwasaddedtothecontrastcalculations:themedianMahalanobis distanceincreasedfrom1.07to2.01,andtheproportionofoverlappingtokensof thesmallervoweldistributiondecreasedfrom88%to73%.Pre-voiced /o:,o/ also showedconsiderablechangefromthetwo-tothethree-dimensionalmodel.While thiswasnotasclearlyreectedinthemedianMahalanobisdistance,whichonly increasedfrom1.25to1.99,thetokensofthevowelpairs,especiallyoflong /o:/ in THOUGHTandCLOTH,wereextremelyvariablewithrespecttovowelduration

PAGE 266

240 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS cf.gure5.8inprevioussection;thiscausedaconsiderabledecreaseinoverlapping tokensfrom100%intwodimensionsto67%inthree.Inthecitationformdata,the proximityofthevowelpairsseemedtocorrelatenotonlywiththerelativeopenness ofthevowelcategoriesinvolvedbutalsowiththefollowingvoicingcontext:Based onbothmedianMahalanobisdistancevaluesaswellastheproportionofoverlappingtokens,thecontrastbetweenvowelsinpre-voicelesscontextswasgreaterthan inpre-voicedcontexts.Inthemid-backvowelpair /o:,o/ ,durationappearedto playanimportantroleinmarkingcontrast,especiallyinpre-voicelesscontexts. Inordertotesttheseobservations,theMahalanobisdistancescalculatedforeach voweltoken v 1 ;i wereusedtoestimatetheprobabilitythatatokenintheposition of v 1 ;i orfurtherawayfromthecentroidofthedistribution V 2 itwascomparedto wasactuallysampledfromthatsamedistribution.Asmentionedabove,thiswas basedontheassumptionofanunderlyingchi-squaredistributionwithtwoorthree degreesoffreedom.TheresultingMahalanobis-distance-derivedprobabilitieswere thensubjectedtoamixed-eectsmodelanalysiswithxedfactorsstyleconversational,citationformvowelpair /i:,i/ , /a:,a/ , /o:,o/ ,voicingcontextpre-voiced, pre-voicelessanddimensionstwo,three; /u:,u/ wereexcludedfromthestatistical analysis.DerivedprobabilitieswereusedinsteadofrawMahalanobisdistancevalues,becausethemaininterestoftheanalysiswasnotwhethertheabsolutedistance betweenvowelpairsdieredsignicantlybutwhetherthephonemiccontrastwas signicantlyaectedbyanyofthexedfactorsinthemodel.Theresultsarelisted intable5.23. Theanalysisrevealedsignicantthree-wayinteractionsbetweenthexedfactors style,vowelpairandvoicingcontext,andbetweenstyle,vowelpairanddimensions. Subsequentpost-hoctestsshowedthatthecontrastbetweenvoicingcontextswassignicantforthehighvowelpair /i:,i/ intheconversationaldata coef =0 : 34; chisq = 35 : 6; p< 0 : 001,anditalmostreachedsignicanceforthelowvowelpair /a:,a/ in thecitationformdata coef =0 : 17; chisq =6 : 6; p =0 : 050.Thecontrastbetween Mahalanobis-distance-derivedprobabilitiesintwoandthreedimensionswassignificantfor /a:,a/ intheconversationaldata coef =0 : 15; chisq =19 : 1; p< 0 : 001 andfor /o:,o/ inthecitationformdata coef =0 : 20; chisq =38 : 2; p< 0 : 001.

PAGE 267

5.5.RESULTS 241 Table5.23:Mixedmodelanalysisresults:Mahalanobis-distance-derivedprobabilitiesbytaskconversational,citationform,vowelpair /i:,i/ , /a:,a/ , /o:,o/ , voicingcontextpre-voiced,pre-voicelessanddimensionstwo,three Dependentvariable SignicantfactorsFdfp-value Mahalanobis-distance-derivedprobabilities style9 : 3 ; 38 : 7 < 0 : 01** vowelpair28 : 8 ; 44 : 4 < 0 : 001*** voicingcontext4 : 8 ; 30 : 4 < 0 : 05* dimensions28 : 5 ; 38 : 4 < 0 : 001*** style:voicingcontext4 : 3 ; 48 : 2 < 0 : 05* vowelpair:dimensions11 : 8 ; 49 : 8 < 0 : 001*** style:vowelpair:voicingcontext7 : 1 ; 64 : 1 < 0 : 01** style:vowelpair:dimensions7 : 2 ; 78 : 8 < 0 : 01** Forthesakeofcomparability,table5.24liststhemeandurationratiosandthe resultsofananalysisusingWassink'sspectraloverlapassessmentmetric SOAMtotesttheoverlapofallvowelpairsconsideredabove,disregardingthe eectsofthefollowingvoicingcontext.TheSOAMoverlapfractionsreectmuch ofwhathasbeenfoundintheanalysesabove: /a:,a/ and /o:,o/ arecharacterised byalmostcompletespectraloverlap, /u:,u/ byalmostnospectraloverlap,and /i:,i/ showssomespectraloverlapintheconversationalbutnotinthecitation formdata.Thephonemiccontrastinlowandmid-backvowelpairs,thus,seemsto dependtoalargeextentondurationalcontrasts;however,accordingtoWassink's denition, /o:,o/ inthreedimensionsarestillcharacterisedbyover40%and, thus,completeoverlap.Thedurationratiosforthosevowelpairswhosephonemic distinctionpresumablydependsthemostontemporalcontraststendtobelower thenforthosevowelpairswhicharealreadyquitedistinctspectrally.

PAGE 268

242 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Table5.24:DurationratiosandSOAManalysisresultsbyvowelpairandspeech style VowelpairDurationratioSOAM2DSOAM3D Conversational /a:,a/ 1.32:192%37% /o:,o/ 1.27:184%55% /i:,i/ 1.35:146%27% /u:,u/ 2.01:10%2% Citationform /a:,a/ 1.37:170%36% /o:,o/ 1.24:192%67% /i:,i/ 1.52:10%0% /u:,u/ 1.72:10%0% 5.6Summary Inthissection,theoverallspectraldistributionofmonophthongsinconversational andcitationformurbanBahCandtheirtemporalrelationswereanalysed.Inaddition,socialandcontextualvariationinlowandmid-backvowelswereexaminedin moredetailandtherelativecontributionofstaticspectralandtemporalcontrasts tothephonemicdistinctionofpre-speciedlong/shortortense/laxvowelpairswas assessed.Inthefollowing,themainresultswillbesummarised. Thevowelspaceoftheconversationalspeechofparticipantsrecordedin1997/98 wasgenerallyV-shaped,whilethatofthecitationformspeechofthe2014participantsmaybestbedescribedasU-shaped,duetoincipientspectralseparationof lowvowelsintheSTART,BATH,TRAPandPALMlexicalsets.Thevowelspace ofconversationalspeechtendedtobecentralisedrelativetothatofcitationform speech.Thefollowingvoicingcontexthadanimpactonthespectralcharacteristics ofmostvowelsanalysed;wheretheeectreachedsignicance,itcausedlowervowel qualitiesinpre-voicelessrelativetopre-voicedcontexts.IntheshortvowelsinKIT andFOOT,pre-voicelessvowelswerealsocharacterisedbyamorebackposition. Intermsofoveralltemporalcharacteristics,pre-voicedvowelstendedtobelonger thanpre-voicelessones,andvowelsincitationformtendedtobelongerthanvowels inconversationalspeech;however,voicingcontextandstyleinteractedwitheach otheraswellaswithlexicalset.Inbothspeechstyles,pre-voicedvowelswere signicantlylongerthanpre-voicelessvowelsforallvowelcategoriesexceptforvery

PAGE 269

5.6.SUMMARY 243 shortvowelsandforSTARTinconversationalspeech.Citationformvowelswere signicantlylongerthanconversationalvowelsonlyinpre-voicedcontexts,and, again,excludingshortvowelsinthelexicalsetsKITandFOOT.Thetemporal contrastbetweenlongerandshortervowelswas,thus,greatestinpre-voicedcitation formtokensandsmallestinpre-voicelesscontexts. Focussingonindividualcontrasts,thevowelinLOTwashigher,backerand shorterthanthatinSTART,indicatingdistinctvowelcategoriesinbothspeech styles.ThevowelinSTRUTwaslower,fronterandshorterthanthevowelinLOT, againindicatingdistinctvowelcategoriesinbothspeechstyles.KITandFOOT werelowerandmorecentralthanFLEECEandGOOSEinbothspeechstyles,but thespectralcontrastwasgreaterincitationformspeech.Ingeneral,FOOTwas alsoshorterthanGOOSE,whileKITwasshorterthanFLEECEonlyinpre-voiced contextsincitationformspeech.Inconversationalspeech,pre-voicedFLEECE wasrelativelyshortcomparedtootherlongvowelsandthedurationaldierence topre-voicedKITwasnotsignicant.ThevowelsinSTARTandTRAPshowed somevariationbyspeechstyleandvoicingcontext.Inspectralterms,STARTwas raisedandbackedrelativetoTRAPonlyincitationformspeech,andthespectral contrastbetweenSTARTandTRAPwassignicantlysmallerinconversationalthan incitationformspeech.TRAPwassignicantlyshorterthanSTARTinpre-voiceless contextsinbothspeechstyles,butinpre-voicedcontextsthedurationalcontrast wasonlysignicantinconversationalspeech. Withinspeechstyles,onlyfewsocially-conditioneddierenceswerefoundinthe lowandmid-backvowels.Inpre-voicelesscontexts,STARTwasgenerallylonger thanTRAP.Inpre-voicedcontexts,STARTwasonlylongerthanTRAPinthe speechoffemalehigher-classspeakersintheconversationaldata.Intheconversationaldata,STARTwasneitherbackednorraisedrelativetoTRAP,butitwas actuallyfoundtobeslightlylowerthanTRAPinpre-voicedcontexts.Inthecitationformdata,STARTwasraisedandbackedrelativetoTRAPforallspeakers exceptlower-classfemales,whodidnotdistinguishthetwovowelsspectrallyinprevoicelesscontexts.PALMconsistentlypatternedwithSTART,whileBATHshowed amorecomplexpicture:Intermsofdurationalproperties,BATHwassimilarto START,butintermsofspectralproperties,itwasgenerallypositionedin-between STARTandTRAP.

PAGE 270

244 CHAPTER5.MONOPHTHONGS Intheacousticanalyses,onlynon-rhotictokensofSTARTwereused.WhilerfullpronunciationofSTARTwascategoricallyabsentfromtheconversationaldata, allspeakersinthecitationformdatashowedconsiderableamountsofrhoticSTART, exceptlower-classfemales.Bothlower-andhigher-classmalesproducedapproximatelyequalamountsofrhoticandnon-rhotictokens,whilehigher-classfemales displayedalmostexclusivelyrhoticSTART.Ithasbeenobservedthatyoungfemale speakersintheAmericanSouthleadinthechangetowardsincreasinglyrhoticpronunciationseesection4.3.2.Whileitmayseemthat,inthecaseofrhoticSTART, thesameappliestotheBahamiancontext,itisimportanttopointoutthatthe dierencebetweengenderswasnotsignicantforhigher-classspeakers.Forlowerclassspeakers,femalesactuallyproducedsignicantlyfewerrhotictokensofSTART about10%thanmalesabout57%,thoughtheeectofgendermayhavebeen confoundedbytheparticipants'age,aslower-classfemaleswereonaverageagenerationolderthanlower-classmales. Ofthemid-backvowelsinTHOUGHT,CLOTHandLOT,LOTwasconsistently lower,fronterandshorterthantheothers.Thespectralandtemporalcharacteristics ofTHOUGHTandCLOTHweregenerallyequivalent.Onaverageandacrossall threelexicalsets,malesproducedlowerandshortervowels. Therelativespectralandtemporalcontributiontophonemicdistinctionswas analysedforthevowelsystemoflower-classconversationalspeechandcitationform speechexcludinglower-classfemales.Asalreadyindicatedbypreviousanalyses, high-frontandhigh-backtense/laxvowelpairswereclearlydistinguishedbyspectral contrasts;theyalsoshowedaveryhighamountoftemporalcontrast.Anexception tothispatternarepre-voicedhigh-frontvowelsinconversationalspeech,which weremoresimilarbothspectrallyandtemporally.Lowandmidbackvowelpairs werespectrallyveryclose,andtemporalcontrastmay,thus,becrucialtophonemic distinction.Durationratios,however,wererelativelylowcomparedtothosefound forJamaicanCreoleandtheclassicationofthosevowelqualitysubsystemsofBahC asprimaryquantityreliantdoesnotseemjustied.

PAGE 271

Chapter6 Generaldiscussion Theprecedingchaptersexaminedthesocial,stylisticandcontextualvariationrelevanttothelinguisticdescriptionofindividualmonophthongsanddiphthongsinthe BahCvowelinventory.Itwasshownthatselectedphonologicalcontextualfactors hadthemostconsistentimpactonvowelrealisations.Intermsofsociolinguistic variation,thestylisticdierencebetweendatasets,thatisbetweenconversational, maptaskandcitationformdata,wasgenerallymoreextensivethandierencesconditionedbysocialclassorgender.Thiswasalsotrueforsocialvariationwithinthe conversationaldata,wherethedierencebetweenlower-andhigher-classspeakers tendedtobemostpronounced.Thepresentchapternowturnstoageneraldiscussionofthendings;theresultsoftheindividualanalyseswillbesummarisedand interpretedinthecontextofthreecorethemes. Sections6.1willfocusprimarilyonurbanBahamianspeechandthevariation thatmaybefoundwithin.Althoughitisimpossibletoarriveatadenitivesolution aboutthecontemporaryurbanBahCvowelsystemsduetothehighlyheterogeneousnatureofthedataofthisstudy,thesameheterogeneityoersawealthof informationonmaximallydisparatevowelrealisationsfoundinurbanBahamian speech.Section6.1.1willreview,detailanddiscusstherealisationofvowelsinthe individuallexicalsets,takingintoaccountvariationalongthetwosociolinguisticdimensionswhichshowedtohavethemostnoticeableimpact:speechstyleandsocial class.Themaingoalofsection6.1.1thenistodistillthevariationinvowelrealisationsintotwomaximallydistinctrepresentationsoftheurbanBahamianvowel inventory,usingtheclassicationschemeprovidedbyJohnWells'standard 245

PAGE 272

246 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION lexicalsets.Section6.1.2willconsidermoreexplicitlythesocialsignicanceofthe patternofvariationdisplayedbyanumberofvocalicvariableswhichwerefound varybysocialclassandtask-basedspeechstyleinthedataofthisstudy.Inthis context,theeectofthespeakers'ageandgenderandofconfoundingfactors,specificallytheperceivedformalityoftherecordingsituations,willbediscussed.Findings concerningthespreadofrhoticitywillbesummarisedinsection6.1.3.Section6.2 willzoominontheindividualspeaker.Modelledonsimilarrepresentationsin Patrickb,288,290andHackert,217,theapproximatelinguisticand socialrankingsofindividualspeakerswillbeexploredbothwithinandacrossspeech styles.Forspeakersintheconversationaldataset,thelinguisticrankintermsofthe phonologicalvariationanalysedinthisstudywillbeadditionallycomparedtotheir rankwithrespecttovariationinstandardpasttensemarkinganalysedbyHackert .Section6.3,nally,willturntoacross-varietalcomparisonofvowelvariants. SelectedvariantsofurbanBahamianspeechwillbecomparedtothoseofrelated and/orassociatedvarieties,includingBahamianvarietiesspokenonAbaco,some AmericanmainlandvarietiesandsomeotherCaribbeanvarieties,withtheaimof uncoveringandelaboratingonsynchronicsimilaritiesaswellashistoricalanities. 6.1SystemandvariationinurbanBahamianspeech 6.1.1UrbanBahamianvowelinventories Thefollowingdescriptionsdiscussthevariantsthatoccurredinthedierentlexical setsinurbanBahamianspeech,givingtheirgeneraldistributionacrossspeechstyles andsocialclassesseesummaryintable6.1onpage252. FLEECE Inthecitationformdata,variationinFLEECEwasminimal;itwas generallyrealisedasthehighestandfrontestvowel,andclearlylongerinduration thanKIT.Intheconversationaldata,FLEECEshowedsomevariationinthatthe vowelwasmuchshorterthanotherlongvowelsinthecontextofafollowingvoiced consonant,inparticularinthespeechofthelowersocialclass. KIT KITwasproducedasashorthigh-to-midfront,somewhatcentralisedvowel inthecitationformdata.Intheconversationaldata,realisationsofKITvariedin

PAGE 273

6.1.SYSTEMANDVARIATIONINURBANBAHAMIANSPEECH 247 thatinpre-voicedcontexts,tokenswereclosertoFLEECEthaninpre-voicelesscontexts,especiallyforlower-classspeakers.ThisleadtoextensiveoverlapofFLEECE andKITinpre-voicedcontextsintheconversationalspeechofthelowersocialclass. FACE ThevowelinFACEwasdescribedasmonophthongalbybothHolmand ShillingandWells,similartoitsrealisationinotherCaribbeancreoles, butasdiphthongalbyChildsandWolfram.Theacousticanalysisshowed thatFACEmaybeboth;itdisplayedtwodistinctphonologicalshapes,dependingon thefollowingvoicingcontext.Inpre-voicedcontexts,FACEwasinvariablyproduced asalong,frontmonophthong,lowerthan /i:/ buthigherthen /I/ .Inpre-voiceless contexts,FACEwastypicallydiphthongal,thoughitbecamemoremonophthongal asspeechrateincreasedandoverallvoweldurationdecreased. DRESS ThevowelinDRESSwasproducedasarelativelyfront,mid-high monophthong;itwassomewhatlowerthanKITandacousticallyaboutequidistantbetweenFLEECEandTRAP.Itsrealisationsintermsofspectralpositiondid notdiersignicantlyintheconversationalandcitationformspeech.Inbothspeech styles,DRESSwasalsoproducedasafairlylongvowel,muchlongerthanKIT,its closestneighbourinvowelspace. TRAP TRAPwasproducedasalowandrelativelycentralvowel.Itsspectralpositiondidnotdiersignicantlybetweendierentspeechstylesandsocial classes.TRAPwasrelativelylong,butcomparedtootherlowvowels,itwasgenerallytheshortest.Inpre-voicedcontextsinlower-classconversationalspeech,the durationaldierencebetweenTRAPandSTARTwasonlyminimalanddidnot reachsignicance. START Intheconversationaldata,irrespectiveofsocialclass,thevowelin STARTwasrealisedasalowandrelativelycentralvowel,closeoridenticalinquality toTRAP.Inthecitationformdata,STARTwasusuallyraisedandbackedrelative toTRAP;forfemalelower-classspeakers,STARTandTRAPremainedspectrally quitesimilar.Intermsofvowelduration,STARTwasusuallylongerthanTRAP, exceptinpre-voicedcontextsinlower-classconversationalspeech,wherethedurationofthevowelsinSTARTandTRAPwasnotsignicantlydierent.

PAGE 274

248 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION PALM ThevowelinPALMwasrelativelyrareintheconversationaldata;its generalspectralpositionwasequivalentthatofthevowelsinTRAPandSTART. Inthecitationformdata,thespectralpositionofPALMwasequivalenttothatin START,thatisitwasraisedandbackedrelativetoTRAP.Auditorily,PALMremainedunrounded.Regardingvowelduration,PALMalsopatternedwithSTART, whichmayindicatethatvowelsinSTARTandPALMaremergedandinstantiate thesamephonemicvowelcategory. BATH Intheconversationaldata,BATHwasspectrallyequivalenttotheother lowvowelsinTRAP,STARTandPALM,andpatternedtemporallywiththevowel inSTART.Inthecitationformdata,BATHalsoshowedvoweldurationsequivalenttoSTART/PALM,butwaspositionedspectrallybetweencentralTRAPand raised,backedSTART/PALM.AsBATHpatternstemporallyconsistentlywith START/PALM,irrespectiveofspeechstylesandsocialclasses,andastheexistence ofthreedistinctvowelcategoriessharingsuchasmallspectralspaceinthelowcentraltobackvowelenvelopseemsunlikely,thevowelinBATHandSTART/PALM maybeconsideredtoinstantiatethesamephonemicvowelcategory.InWells' terminology,urbanBahamianvarietiesmaybereferredtoasbroad-BATHaccents. THOUGHT ThevowelinTHOUGHTwasrealisedasafairlylong,midback vowel,acousticallyapproximatelyequidistantbetweenGOOSEandTRAP.Based onauditoryassessment,ithadaclearlyroundedquality.TherelativespectralpositionofTHOUGHTdidnotvaryacrossspeechstylesandsocialclasses. CLOTH ThevowelinCLOTHwasspectrallyandtemporallyequivalentto thatinTHOUGHT.WhilethedatashowedageneraltendencyforCLOTHtobe moreextremethanTHOUGHTintermsofboththespectralpositioni.e.higher and/orbackerandvoweldurationi.e.longer,thesedierenceswerenotsignificant.THOUGHTandCLOTHmay,thus,beconsideredtoinstantiatethesame phonemicvowelcategory.InWells'terminology,urbanBahamianvarieties maybereferredtoasbroad-CLOTHaccents. LOT Intermsofspectralquality,LOTwascloselyassociatedwiththevowelsin THOUGHT/CLOTHand,thus,clearlydistinctfromthevowelsinSTART/PALM. Auditorily,LOThadaroundedquality.Inpre-voicedcontexts,LOTwasspectrally

PAGE 275

6.1.SYSTEMANDVARIATIONINURBANBAHAMIANSPEECH 249 equivalenttoTHOUGHT,butitwassignicantlyshorter.Inpre-voicelesscontexts, LOTwaslowerandcentralisedrelativetoTHOUGHT/CLOTHaswellassignicantlyshorter.THOUGHT/CLOTHandLOTmaybeinwhathasbeenreferredto asatense-laxrelationship.TherealisationofLOTdidnotvarysignicantlyacross speechstylesandsocialclasses. STRUT ThevowelinSTRUTwasconsistentlyproducedasafairlyshort,auditorilyunrounded,centraltoback,mid-openvowel,clearlydistinctfromLOT.Inthe conversationaldata,STRUTwasslightlyhigherandspectrallyclosertoLOTthan inthecitationformdata,butthisstylisticdierencewasnotsignicant.STRUT wasgenerallyextremelyshort,equivalentindurationtothevowelsinKITand FOOTandmuchshorterthanLOT,exceptinpre-voicedcontextsinthecitation formdata;inthesecontexts,STRUTwaslongerthanKITandFOOT,butstill shorterthanallothervowelsanalysed. GOOSE ThevowelinGOOSEwasconsistentlyrealisedasanauditorilyrounded, highbackvowel.Forallspeakers,itwasonaveragethemostbackvowel,showing nosignsoffronting.VoweldurationinGOOSEwasdistinctlylongerthaninits oftenassociatedlaxcounterpartFOOT. FOOT TheFOOTvowelwasveryshortandrelativelylowandcentral{clearly distinctinbothqualityandquantityfromGOOSE.Thespectraldierencebetween FOOTandGOOSEwasevengreaterincitationformthaninconversationalspeech. GOAT AsinFACE,thevowelinGOATwasdescribedasmonophthongalby bothHolmandShillingandWells,butasdiphthongalbyChildsand Wolfram.IncontrasttoFACE,theacousticanalysisofGOATshowedsignificantstylisticvariation.Inconversationalspeech,GOATwasinvariablyproduced asalong,backmonophthong,lowerthan /u:/ buthigherthen /O:/ .Inmaptask speech,diphthongalGOATshowedthesamedistributionasdiphthongalFACE: DiphthongalGOAToccurredexclusivelyinpre-voicelesscontexts,andtheextent ofdiphthongisationincreasedasvoweldurationincreased;inpre-voicedcontexts, GOATwasmonophthongal.Incitationformspeech,GOATwasfairlymonophthongalinpre-voicedanddiphthongalinpre-voicelesscontexts;theextentofdiphthongisationinpre-voicelesscontextsdidnotdependsignicantlyonvowelduration.

PAGE 276

250 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION MOUTH ThevowelinMOUTHshowedanextensivevoicing-conditionedallophony,presentinallspeechstylesandsocialclassesbutmoresalientinmore informalandlower-classspeech.Inpre-voicelesscontexts,bothnucleusandglide wereraisedandperipheralisedrelativetopre-voicedcontexts.Inthecitationform data,raisingandperipheralisationinpre-voicelesstokenswasonlysignicantin theglide,andMOUTHinbothvoicingcontextswasthereforerealisedasafairly widediphthongstartingwithalowandcentralvowelqualitycloseto [a] andgliding towards [u] .Intheconversationaldata,therealisationofMOUTHvariedbysocial class:Pre-voicelessnucleiwereconsiderablyandsignicantlyhigherinlower-class thaninhigher-classspeech,raisedtoapproximatelymid-height.Forsomespeakers, theglideinpre-voicedcontextswasweakenedtotheextentthatmonophthongal variantsofMOUTHcloseto [a] wereproduced,butthisphenomenonoccurredin speakersofbothsocialclasses.Inmaptaskspeech,thedierenceconditionedby thefollowingvoicingcontextwassignicantinbothnucleusandglide.Thedistributionofraisedandnon-raisedvariantsofMOUTHisadequatelydescribedbythe phonologicalrulesthatdenepre-voicelessraising,oftenreferredtoasCanadian Raising. PRICE ThevowelinPRICE,likeinMOUTH,alsoshowedasignicantvoicingconditionedallophonyinallspeechstylesandsocialclasses:Nucleiwerehigherin pre-voicelessthaninpre-voicedcontexts,andglideswereweakenedinpre-voiced relativetopre-voicelesscontexts.Thevoicing-conditioneddierenceinnucleusand glidepositionwasapproximatelyequalsothattheoverallextentofglidingmovementremainedfairlystable.AsinMOUTH,thedistributionofraisedandnon-raised variantsinPRICEfollowstherulesthatdenethephenomenonknownasCanadian Raising.However,incontrasttoMOUTH,theeectofthefollowingvoicingcontextvariedonlyminimallybyspeechstyleandtherewerenosignicantdierences betweenlower-andhigher-classspeakers. CHOICE CHOICEwasproducedasafairlywidediphthongwithamidback, auditorilyroundedstarting-pointcloseto [O] ,glidingtowardsasomewhathigher andfrontvowelquality,approximately [I] .Acrossspeechstyles,CHOICEmainly variedwithrespecttooverallglidingmovement:Incitationformspeech,thenucleiandglideshadmoreextremespectralpositions,i.e.nucleitendedtobemore

PAGE 277

6.1.SYSTEMANDVARIATIONINURBANBAHAMIANSPEECH 251 backandglidestendedtobeclosertoFLEECEthaninmoreinformalspeechstyles. NURSE Thevariablerealisationofnon-rhoticNURSEasamoremonophthongal ordiphthongalvowelshowedbothstylisticandsocialvariation,butitwasalsosensitivetotheplaceofarticulationoftheprecedingconsonant.Ingeneral,non-rhotic NURSEwasmostdiphthongalandclosestinqualitytoCHOICEinpost-labialcontextsinlower-classconversationalspeech.Themostconsistentdierencebetween socialclassesintheconversationaldatawasthatforhigher-classspeakers,theglide inNURSEwasmorecentralthanthatinCHOICE,whiletheywerenotsignicantlydierentforlower-classspeakers.Dependingontheprecedingconsonantal context,thenucleusinNURSEwasclosertoTHOUGHTinpost-labialcontexts ormorecentralinqualityinnon-post-labialcontexts,which,thus,leadtomore orlessdiphthongalrealisationsofNURSE.Eveninpost-labialcontexts,however, whereNURSEwasmaximallysimilartoCHOICE,thetwovowelswerenotidentical.ThenucleusinNURSEwasstillfrontedcomparedtothatinCHOICE,though notalwayssignicantly,anditwasinalmostallcasesauditorilyunrounded.More importantly,thepatternofspectralchangethroughtimefromvowelonsettovowel osetinpost-labialNURSEindicatedextensiveformantmovementatthebeginning ofthevowel,asharpandextendedonglide,reachingeventuallyarelativelylatevowel targetinthehighfrontvowelspace.Incontrast,thebeginningofCHOICEwas characterisedbyrelativelylittleformantmovement,whichmaybeinterpretedasa steady-statepattern;maximalformantchangetowardsthehighfrontvowelspace thenoccurredinthemidsectionofthediphthong.Thesedierencesinthetemporal patternofspectralchangeweregenerallysignicant,whichcouldbetestedbyshowingthatthetemporalmidpointinNURSEwasfrontedrelativetothatinCHOICE. Post-labialNURSE,thus,approachedrealisationsofCHOICEinlower-classconversationalspeech,butthetwovowelswerenotmerged.Inthemaptaskspeech,the sametendenciesregardingthesocialandcontextualvariationcouldbeobserved, buttheoverallextentofdiphthongisationofNURSEwassmaller.Inthecitation formdata,higher-classspeakersgenerallyproducedonlyrhotictokensofNURSE andacousticmeasureswereonlyavailableforlower-classspeakers.Non-rhotictokensofNURSEinlower-classcitationformspeechwererelativelymonophthongal. NURSEinword-nalcontexts,thatisinwordssuchas sir and purr ,wasextremely rareintheconversationalandmaptaskdata.Inthecitationformdata,word-nal NURSEwasalmostcategoricallyrhoticand,thus,notsubjectedtoacousticanal-

PAGE 278

252 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION ysis.Emphatictokensof her intheconversationaldatawereauditorilyjudgedto beproducedasmonophthongalvowelscloseto [5] .Thefewnon-rhotictokensthat occurredinthecitationformdatawereauditorilyjudgedtobeproducedasamid centralmonophthongscloseto [3] . Table6.1summarisesthelexicalincidenceofvowelcategoriesinwhatmightbe termedthemoststandardandthemostnon-standardspeechobservedinthisstudy. Standard isdenedhereasformalspeechandspeechusedmainlybyhigher-class speakers,while non-standard referstospeechpatternsusedinmoreinformalsituationsandnormallypreferredbylower-classspeakers.Thetermsbasilect/mesolect oracrolectwerespecicallyavoided,duetotherelianceonprimarilystylisticcues inthedistinctionofthetwopolarvarieties.TheIPAsymbolsintable6.1were generallyusedtorepresentphonemiccategories.Symbolsbetweensquarebrackets indicateconsiderablecontext-dependentvariationwithinonephonemiccategory, or,alternatively,theyillustratevowelqualitydierencesthatpersistbetweenlexicalsetswhoseassociatedphonemiccategorieshavebeentranscribedusingthesame phoneticsymbol.Traditionally,theglidesofclosingdiphthongshavebeentranscribedwithlaxvowelsymbols /I/ and /U/ .Theacousticmeasurements,however, haveshownthat,dependingonthecontext,thesediphthongsmayglidetowards theperipheryofthevowelspace,while /I/ and /U/ tendtoberelativelylowand central.Hence,theseglidesareusuallytranscribedherewithtensevowelsymbols. Table6.1:LexicalincidenceofvowelsintwopolarvarietiesofurbanBahamian speech LexicalsetNon-standardStandard LexicalsetNon-standardStandard FLEECE i:[i i:]i: GOOSE u:u: KIT I[i I]I FOOT UU FACE e:[e: ei]e:[e: ei] GOAT o:o:[o: ou] DRESS EE TRAP aa BATH a:A:[a :] MOUTH au[aO Ou]au[ao au] START a:A: PRICE ai[aI a i]ai[aI a i] PALM a:A: CHOICE Oi[O I]Oi[Oi] THOUGHT O:O: NURSE 2i[2I @i]3:[3:,3~] CLOTH O:O: LOT O[O O]O[O O] STRUT 22

PAGE 279

6.1.SYSTEMANDVARIATIONINURBANBAHAMIANSPEECH 253 Fromthesummaryprovidedintable6.1,itbecomesclearthatdierencesbetweenthevowelinventoriesofmaximallystandardandnon-standardurbanBahamianspeechconcernmainlythephoneticrealisationofphonemiccategoriesrather thanthetotalnumberofphonemicoppositions.Whiletheremayoccurmore extensiveoverlapbetweenindividualphonemicvowelcategoriesinnon-standard speech,specicallybetweenFLEECEandKIT,TRAPandBATH/START/PALM, andNURSEandCHOICE,acloseanalysisofthevowelsindierentphonologicalcontextsrevealedthatnoneofthesevowelcategorieswerecompletelymerged. Intotal,16phonemicvowelcategoriescanbeidentiedinbothstandardand non-standardspeech.Aslexicalsetswithpotentialcentringdiphthongs,FORCE, NORTH,NEAR,SQUAREandCURE,werenotanalysedinthisstudy,itislikely thatthetotalnumberofvowelphonemesinurbanBahamianvowelinventories rangessomewherebetween18and21. Anumberofdiphthongsanalysedinthisstudyshowedextensiveallophonic variation.FACEandGOATwererealisedasmonophthongsinpre-voicedcontext, butasvariablydiphthongalinpre-voicelesscontexts.MOUTHwasraisedinprevoicelesscontexts,anditsglidewasweakenedinpre-voicedcontexts,leadingto almostmonophthongalproductionscloseto [a] forsomespeakersintheconversationaldata.Thesecomplementarydistributedallophonicvariantsmay,tosome extent,explainthevariedaccountsofthesevowelsfoundintheliteratureonBahC. Othercontext-conditionedvariants,inparticularthoseinvolvingthelexicalsets NURSEandPRICE,donotseemtobedirectlyreectedinpriorimpressionistic accounts.NURSEwascharacterisedbyabackednucleusinpost-labialcontext, whichresultedinarelativelylongtrajectoryofformantmovementandaclearly diphthongalqualitycloseto [2i] .MostimpressionisticdescriptionsofBahCvowels citethisdiphthongalrealisationofNURSEastheprimaryvariantusedamongcreole speakers,withmonophthongalproductions [3 3~] reservedexclusivelyforeducated speakersofhighsocialstanding.Intheanalyses,however,itwasfoundthatthe samespeakerswhoproduceclearlydiphthongalvariantsinpost-labialNURSEmay showalmostmonophthongalproductionsofnon-post-labialNURSE,wherebythe nucleusisconsiderablyfronted,leadingtorealisationscloseto [Ii] .PRICE,nally, hasbeendescribedpreviouslyasarelativelystandard,widediphthongwithalow starting-pointandahigh,frontoglide,whichmaybeinvolvedinpre-voicedglide weakeningtotheextentthatmonophthongalvariantsmayoccur.Thisallophonic distributioncouldnotbesubstantiated.WhilePRICEdidshowvoicing-conditioned

PAGE 280

254 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION allophonyinthatthediphthonginitsentiretytendedtobehigherandmoreperipheralbeforevoicelessthanbeforevoicedconsonants,theoverallamountofgliding movementremainedfairlystable. Withrespecttotherelativerolethatspectralandtemporalcharacteristicsplay inmarkingphonologicalcontrastsamongmonophthongs,theanalysesshowedthat thedistinctionbetweenlowandbetweenrounded,non-highbackvowelsinBahC maydependalmostexclusivelyondierencesinvowellength.Thedurationratios ofvowelsinpredeterminedlong-shortvowelpairs,however,didnotindicategreater durationaldierencesthanthosethatoccurinother,dialectalvarietiesofEnglish. Thus,inconcluding,itmaybenotedthatvowelqualitiesoflowandnon-highback monophthongsclustermorecloselyaroundalowcentralandamidbackposition inF1 F2formantspacethanisusuallythecaseinBritishorAmericanvarietiesof English,butthedesignationof`primaryquantity'totheBahCvowelsystemorto anyofitssubsystemsdoesnotseemjustied. 6.1.2Socialvariationanddiagnosticvocalicvariables Thevocalicvariableswhichshowedthemostextensivesociolinguisticvariationwere instantiatedinthelexicalsetsSTART/PALM,GOAT,MOUTHandNURSE.The dierentvariantsofthesevowelcategoriesmaybeconsideredsociallydiagnostic or,inIrvine'sterminology,load-bearing,indexicalofstandardversusnonstandardurbanBahamianspeech. ThevowelsinSTART/PALMandTRAPwerespectrallydierentiatedonlyin citationformspeech,notinconversationalspeech.Whilethismaybeattributed tostylisticvariation,itcouldalsoindicatelanguagechange.Intheconversational data,whichwasrecordedinthelate1990s,thespectralqualityofthelowvowels START/PALMandTRAPgreatlyoverlapped,irrespectiveofthespeakers'social class.Thecitationformdatawasrecordedin2014,almosttwentyyearslater;init, thevowelinSTART/PALMwassignicantlyraisedandbackedrelativetoTRAP. Interestingly,thespeakergroupwhichretainedthemostextensiveoverlapbetween thesevowelcategorieswasthatofthelower-classfemales,eventhoughthedierence acrossspeakersgroupswasnotsignicant.Theselower-classfemales,however,did notonlydierfromotherspeakersinsocialclassandgender,buttheywerealso

PAGE 281

6.1.SYSTEMANDVARIATIONINURBANBAHAMIANSPEECH 255 theoldestspeakergroup;theywere,onaverage,agenerationolderthanallother participants.Fromanapparent-timeperspective,thevariationfoundinthecitation formdatamay,thus,supporttheinterpretationoflanguagechangetowardsagreater spectraldierentiationoflowvowels.AsnodatawasavailableonSTART/PALM andTRAPinmaptaskspeech,thatisonthecontemporaryrealisationoflowvowels inmoreinformalspeech,nodenitivecasecanbemadeforeitherlanguagechange inprogressorpersistentsynchronicvariation. Onthesurface,variationinFACEandGOATregardingmonophthongalversus diphthongalrealisationspatternedquitesimilarly:Monophthongalvariantspredominatedinpre-voicedcontexts,whilediphthongalvariantscouldbefoundpre-voiceless contexts.Acrossspeechstyles,bothFACEandGOATshowedonaveragemoreextensiveglidingmovementinpre-voicelesscontextsinmoreformalstyles.Acloser examination,however,showedthatrealisationsofpre-voicelessFACEdidnotdier signicantlyacrossspeechstyles,iftheaddedeectofvoweldurationwastaken intoconsideration:Speakersproducedlessglidingmovementinshortervowels,and moreglidingmovementinlongervowels,irrespectiveofspeechstyle.Diphthongal FACEinpre-voicelesscontextswas,thus,neithersociallynorstylisticallydiagnostic.Incontrast,diphthongisationinpre-voicelessGOATdidvarystylistically:In theconversationaldata,GOATwasrelativelymonophthongalthroughout;inthe maptaskdata,glidingmovementinpre-voicelessGOATincreasedwithvowelduration;andincitationformspeech,pre-voicelessGOATwasclearlydiphthongal, irrespectiveofvowelduration.Therefore,toasmallbutsignicantdegree,diphthongalpre-voicelessGOATmaybeconsideredaload-bearingvariableofstandard urbanBahamianspeechor,viceversa,monophthongalGOATmaybeindexicalof non-standardspeech.InurbanBahamianspeech,nodownglidingvariantsofeither FACEorGOATwereproduced,andvariationcentredonmonophthongalversus upglidingvariants.TheapparentfunctionaldierencebetweenFACEandGOAT asmarkersofdierentlanguageforms,however,seemstoparallelpreviousobservationsonJamaicanvarieties,wheredownglidingvariantsofGOATwerefoundtobe morestigmatisedthandownglidingvariantsofFACEWassink,2001;Irvine,2008. SimilartoFACEandGOAT,therealisationandcontextualvariationinPRICE andMOUTHinitiallyappearedtobeverysimilar:Variantsbeforevoicelessconsonantswereraisedrelativetothosebeforevoicedconsonantsorinword-nalposition;thisdistributionpatterniscompatiblewiththephonologicalrulesthatdescribe

PAGE 282

256 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION thephenomenonoftenreferredtoasCanadianRaising.Intermsofsociolinguistic variation,however,PRICEandMOUTHpatternedverydierently.Thedierencebetweenpre-voicedandpre-voicelessPRICEwassignicant,butwhetherthe allophonywasperceptuallysalientremainedunclear,asnoneoftheparticipants commentedonit.Evenifitwas,however,itdidnotseemtobeexploitedasasociolinguisticmarker,becausethedierentiationbetweenthevoicingcontextsremained stableacrossdierentspeechstylesandsociallydenedspeakergroups.Incontrast, pre-voicelessraisinginMOUTHwasclearlystigmatisedandassociatedwithnonstandardlocallanguageuse.Participantsovertlycommentedonthefeatureandthe extentofraisingshowedsharpstylisticstratication.Intheconversationaldata, extensivelyraisedtokenspredominatedintheproductionsoflower-classspeakers. Inthemaptaskdata,thedierencebetweensocialclasseswasnotsignicant,as extremelyraisedtokenswerealsofoundinthespeechoftwohigher-classspeakersinparticular,Ben03andBeth03.Incitationformspeech,raisedtokenswere avoidedbyallspeakers.TheperceptuallysalientandsociallydiagnosticvoicingconditionedallophonyinMOUTHmaybeconsideredaload-bearingvariableinthe urbanBahamiancontext,withraisedvariantsindexicalofnon-standardspeech. Finally,therealisationofNURSEasamonophthongorasadiphthongclose toCHOICEshowedsocialaswellasstylisticvariation.Onlynon-rhotictokensof NURSEweresubjectedtoacousticanalysis,whichmayhaveleadtomoreconservativeestimatesofthestylisticvariationinvolvedinNURSE,becausehigher-class speakersinthe2014recordingsproducedpredominantlyrhotictokens;formoreon rhoticityseesection6.1.3below.Itwasfoundthat,especiallyinpost-labialcontexts,NURSEwascharacterisedbyalongonglide.Inlower-classspeechinthe conversationaldata,theglideinNURSEwasasperipheralasthatinCHOICEso thattheoverallextentofspectralmovementinNURSEwaslargelyequivalentto thatinCHOICE.However,asthevowelsgenerallyshowedadierentspectralpatternthroughtime,theywerenotcompletelymerged.Overallglidingmovementwas smallerinhigher-classspeechandinmoreformalspeechstyles,whereNURSEwas realisedasafairlymonophthongal,midcentralvowel.Therefore,asDonnelly, 23pointedout,thefront-andupglidingdiphthonginNURSEisindeedatrue marker"ofBahC.Itisperceptuallysalient,andmaybeconsideredaload-bearing variable,withdiphthongalvariantsindexingnon-standardurbanBahamianspeech. Theabovevariablesweremainlydiscussedintermsofvariationalongthedi-

PAGE 283

6.1.SYSTEMANDVARIATIONINURBANBAHAMIANSPEECH 257 mensionsofstyleandsocialclass.Ingeneral,itwasfoundthatstylisticvariation tendedtobemoreextensiveandmoreconsistentthansocialvariation,especially inthemaptaskandcitationformdata,thatisinthedatarecordedin2014.It isusuallythecasethatincitationformspeechspeakersofallsocialbackgrounds tendtoproducevowelvariantsthataremaximallyclosetowhatisperceivedasthe localstandard.Solongasallparticipantshaveessentiallythesameknowledgeof standardnormsandtheabilitytoapproachstandard-nearformsofpronunciation, itfollowsthatsocially-conditioneddierencesincitationformspeechwouldbeminimal.Obviously,themaptasksettingingeneral,whileoeringtheopportunityto recordpeer-groupinteractions,cannotbeconsideredasinformalasettingasthat achievedbyextendedconversationscentredaroundtopicschosenbyparticipants themselvesandinvolvingtheirpersonallives.Crucially,however,itispossiblethat themaptasksettingmayhavebeenperceivedasmoreformalbylower-classthan higher-classspeakers,andproductionsofthetwospeakergroupsmaythereforehave beenmoresimilarthanwouldhavebeenthecaseotherwise.Higher-classspeakersin the2014recordingsconsistedexclusivelyofstudentsoftheCollegeofTheBahamas, whichwouldhavebeenfamiliarwithworkingwithtextsandwrittenmaterialsand withperformanceintestsituationsmoregenerally.Carewastakentocounteractan atmosphereofformalexamination,butsomelower-classparticipants,especiallythe olderfemalespeakers,stillappearedtobeinitiallysomewhatintimidatedorconfused.Someaskedformoreexplicitguidanceatthebeginningofthemaptask,while othersremindedtheirrespectivemaptaskpartnerstofocusandworkthroughthe taskmorediligently.Thestudentparticipantsdidnotapproachthemaptaskwith thesamedegreeofself-consciousness.Infact,theyusuallyappearedtoenjoythe task;theytendedtobevisiblyamusedbythedrawingsonthemapsandfrequently startedquarrellingandteasingeachother.Thesedierencesintheperceivedformalityofthespeechsituationmaywellhaveaectedtheparticipants'patternsof pronunciation,leadingtoarelativelycloseapproximationofthephoneticrealisation ofvowelsbyhigher-andlower-classspeakers. Oneoftheaimsofthisstudywastotesttheeectofbiologicalspeakergender ontherealisationofvowelsacrossdierentspeechstyles.Thendingsmayhelpto throughlightonthequestionwhethervariationbygenderinurbanBahCfollows thesupposedlytypicalWesternpattern,namelythatwomentendtobethemore standard-consciousspeakers,orwhethermenandwomeninthiscreole-speakingsocietyessentiallytalkalike.Theresultsoftheanalysesinthisstudyshowedthat

PAGE 284

258 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION dierencesbetweenthegenderswererarelysignicant.Themostobviousdierencesbetweengenderswerefoundwithrespecttovariablyrhoticpronunciationsof NURSEandSTART,whichwillbediscussedinthenextsection.Intermsofgender dierencesintherealisationofvowels,itwasfoundthatnon-standarddiphthongisationofNURSEinconversationalspeechwasmoreextensiveinlower-classmalesthan lower-classfemales,whichwouldindeedindicateamorestandard-leaningbehaviour inwomen.Thiswas,however,theonlyclearcaseofapreferencefornon-standard vocalicvariantsbymalespeakers.Comparedtofemalespeakers,malespeakers showedasignicantlygreaterstylisticshiftfrommoremonophthongalpre-voiceless FACEinmaptaskspeechtomorediphthongalpre-voicelessFACEincitationform speech.Moreactivestyleshiftersareusuallyascribedagreatersensitivitytolinguisticnorms,butinthecaseofFACEitisdiculttointerprettheobservedgender dierencesasindicatingthatmalespeakersrelytoagreaterextentonsymbolic capitalinmarkingtheirsocialstatus,becauseFACEdidnotshowsignicantstylisticvariationwhenvoweldurationwastakenintoconsideration.Inpre-voiceless contexts,thespectraldierencebetweenSTARTandTRAPwasnotsignicantin thehigh-lowdimensionforlower-classfemales,whileitwassignicantforother speakersgroup,includinglower-classmales.However,itisagaindoubtfulwhether thesendingsimplythatmalespeakerstendtousemorestandardformsthanfemalespeakers,becausethegenderdierencewasconfoundedbyadierenceinage {lower-classfemaleswereonaverage20yearsolderthanlower-classmales.Other signicantdierencesbetweenthegendersinvolvedthelexicalsetsPRICE,where malesintheconversationaldataproducedoverallhigherand/ormoreperipheral tokensinbothpre-voicedandpre-voicelesscontexts,andTHOUGHT/CLOTHand LOT,wheremalesinthecitationformdataproducedonaveragelowerandshorter vowels.Thevariantsusedbymaleandfemalespeakersinthesecontextscannotbe clearlylocatedonastandard-to-non-standardcontinuum. Ingeneral,ittranspiredthatwherethereweresignicantdierencesacross genders,thesecouldnotbeconsistentlyaccountedforbywomen'sallegedlymore prestige-consciouslinguisticbehaviour.AsHackertargued,whofoundgenderdierencesinurbanBahCtobenegligiblewithrespecttoratesofstandard pastinection,heridentityasayoung,white,femaleeldworkermayhavehada variedimpactonthelinguisticbehaviourofmaleasopposedtofemalespeakers. Whereasfemaleparticipantsseemedveryrelaxedinherpresence,maleparticipants werealwayseagertoimpress",whichmayhavecausedgreateraccommo-

PAGE 285

6.1.SYSTEMANDVARIATIONINURBANBAHAMIANSPEECH 259 dationontheirparttostandard-nearspeech.Someofmyownexperiencesduring eldworkpointinasimilardirection.Especiallylower-classmalesofmyownage indicatedtheywouldbeinterestedinstrikingupamoreintimaterelationship.A greateraccommodationbymalespeakerstothestandard-nearproductionsofthe eldworkerwouldpresumablyhaveconfoundedtheirtendency,ifitindeedexisted, tousemorenon-standardformsthanfemalespeakers.Alternatively,theabsence ofaclearandconsistentlinguisticgenderdierentiationregardingtherealisationof vowelsinurbanBahamianspeechmayindicatethatthepatternofvariationestablishedforWesternsocietiesdoesnotapplyintheBahamiancontext;orifitdoes, itmaynotbeinstantiatedinthephoneticsandphonologyoftheurbanBahamian vowelsystem. 6.1.3Rhoticity ThevariablyrhoticpronunciationofNURSEandSTARTwasanalysedauditorilyin termsofthepresenceorabsenceofanr-colouredqualityinthevowelinNURSEand thepresenceorabsenceofcoda /r/ followingthevowelinSTART.Forconvenience, theresultsforthemaptaskandcitationformdataarepresentedoncemoreintable 6.2below. Table6.2:Proportionofrhotictokensinthemaptaskandcitationformdataby socialclassandgender SpeechstyleSocialclassGender NURSESTART MaptaskLower-classFemale 3%notavailable Male 60%{ Higher-classFemale 82%{ Male 96%{ CitationformLower-classFemale 43%10% Male 71%57% Higher-classFemale 98%92% Male 97%56% RhoticpronunciationofSTARTwascategoricallyabsentintheconversational datarecordedin1997/98;onlytworhotictokensofNURSEwereproduced,both ofwhichwerefoundinthespeechofMrsSmith,aneducatedmiddle-classspeaker. ThesharpincreaseinrhotictokensofNURSEinthemaptaskdataof2014,with

PAGE 286

260 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION evenhigherratesofrhoticityinthecitationformdata,suggeststhatachangein standardnormstowardsrhoticpronunciationhastakenplacewithinthelast20 years.TokensofSTARTinthe2014recordingswereonlyavailableforcitation formspeech,buttheyalsoindicatedadrasticincreaseinrhoticpronunciation. Furthersupportforthishypothesiscomesfromthecomparativelylowratesofrhotic tokensinbothNURSEandSTARTinthespeechoflower-classfemales,whowere agenerationolderthanotherparticipantsand,thus,theirproductionsmayreect earlierpronunciationnorms. Atleastinpart,thehighratesofrhotictokensinthemaptaskandcitationform datamaybeattributedtospellingpronunciation.However,thedistributionofrhotic variantsinthe2014recordingsshowedextensivesocialandstylisticvariationaswell asvariationbylexicalset,whichindicatesthatspellingpronunciationcannotbethe onlyreasonfortheabruptriseinrhoticity.RhoticpronunciationofNURSEwas clearlythenormforhigher-classspeakersofbothgendersandinbothmaptaskand citationformspeech,thoughfemalesshowedslightlymorenon-rhotictokensthan malesinthemaptaskdata.Asalreadymentionedabove,lower-classfemalesshowed thelowestratesofrhotictokensofNURSE{inmaptaskspeech,theirrealisation ofNURSEwasalmostcategoricallynon-rhotic.Lower-classmalesproducedrates ofrhotictokensofNURSEin-betweenthoseoflower-classfemalesandthoseof higher-classspeakers. Insociolinguisticanalysesoftheshiftfromnon-rhotictorhoticpronunciation inblackandwhitespeechintheAmericanSouth,ithasbeenobservedthatrhotic tokensrstoccurredinstressedsyllabicposition,i.e.inNURSE,andthatthe spreadofrhoticityreachedothercontexts,suchasSTART,onlylater.Theuseof rhotictokensincitationformNURSEandSTARTinthisstudyshowedthesame distribution:RhoticNURSEwasmorecommonlyusedthanrhoticSTART.The dierencebetweentheuseofrhotictokensofNURSEandSTARTwasgreatestin higher-classmales,whoproducedalmostexclusivelyrhotictokensinNURSE,but onlyabouthalfofalltokensofSTARTwererhotic.Higher-classfemalesproduced predominantlyrhotictokensinbothNURSEandSTART,whichagainparallels previousndingsfromstudiesonrhoticityintheAmericanSouth,whereitwas observedthatyoungfemalesleadinthechangetowardsgreaterrhoticity.The distributionofrhoticvariantsacrosstime,speechstyles,socialclasses,gendersand lexicalsetsallsuggestthatrhoticitymaybespreadingintheBahamiancontext,

PAGE 287

6.2.FOCUSONTHEINDIVIDUAL 261 presumablyduetotheinuenceofthepan-Americanstandard. 6.2Focusontheindividual TheprecedingsectionshaveexaminedtherealisationofvowelsinurbanBahamian speechfromamacro-perspective,focussingontheeectofinternalfactorsandon aspectsofvariabilitythatcanbecapturedbysocialandstylisticfactors.However, theexternalfactorswerenotabletofullyaccountforthevariabilitydisplayedin thedata,providingonlyverycoarsedivisionsofspeakersintopredenedgroups. Thepresentsectionnowturnstothelinguisticbehaviouroftheindividuallanguage user. Forthesakeofcomparability,thelinguisticperformanceandsocialstatusofindividualspeakersweremodelledinanarrangementsimilartothatfoundinPatrick b,237-292andHackert,217-219:Theoverallstatusrankingofspeakers,derivedfromGordon'shierarchicalclassicationscheme,wasdirectly relatedtotheirlinguisticperformance,condensedintoanoveralllinguisticranking. Calculatingtheoveralllinguisticrankofspeakersnecessarilyinvolvedreductionof informationandamodellingofspeakers'languageuseinonedimensiononly.The sociolinguisticvariablesusedinthisprocedurewerechosencarefullyinordertoensuremaximalinterpretabilityoftheoutcome.Thetopandbottomranksonthe linguisticscaleweredesignedtorepresentmaximallystandardandnon-standard languageuse;thatis,onlythosevariableswereselectedwhichvariedbyspeechstyle whilealsoshowingthepotentialtostratifythesampleofspeakerswithindierent speechstyles.Inaddition,dataontherealisationofthesevariableshadtobeavailableforallspeakersandallspeechstyles.Eventually,twovariableswereselected, satisfyingallcriteria: 2u ,whichreferstothevariableraisingofthenucleusin pre-voicelessMOUTH,and 2i ,whichreferstothevariablediphthongisationof post-labialNURSE.Ashasbeendemonstratedinthisstudy,both 2u and 2i are sociallydiagnosticintheurbanBahamianspeechcommunityandtheirvariantscan beclearlylocatedonastandard-to-non-standardcontinuum.Roughly, 2u ranges fromamaximallystandardvariantwithanucleuscloseto [a] toanon-standard variantwithanucleuscloseto [O] ; 2i rangesfromastandardmonophthong [3 3~] toanon-standarddiphthongapproximately [2i] .Non-standardvariantsofboth

PAGE 288

262 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION 2u and 2i arehighlysalientandmaybeconsideredstereotypesintheurban Bahamiancontext.Speakersmayreactindierentwaystothestigmatisationattachedtolinguisticfeaturesandtheresultingoverallrankingmustbeinterpreted accordingly. Thelinguisticrankingaveragewascalculatedasfollows.Inarststep,speakers wererank-orderedseparatelywithrespectto 2u and 2i .Forlinguisticranking by 2u ,logratiosofthenucleusinpre-voicelessMOUTHwereusedascalculated intheprocedureoutlinedinsection4.2.4:Lowervaluesindicatethatthenucleus isclosertoTRAPi.e.morestandard,whilehighervaluesindicatethatthenucleus isclosertoGOOSEi.e.morenon-standard.Forrankingby 2i ,theextentof glidingmovementinpost-labialNURSErelativetoCHOICEwasgaugedforeach speakerbydividingthemeanEuclideandistancebetweennucleusandglidei.e. betweenthetimepointsat20%and80%intothevowelofpost-labialNURSEby thatofCHOICE.Bothrhoticandnon-rhotictokensofNURSEwereincludedinthe calculations.AlowerNURSE/CHOICEratioindicatesasmallerglidingmovement inpost-labialNURSErelativetoCHOICEi.e.amorestandardvariantof 2i ,while higherratiosindicatethatglidingmovementinpost-labialNURSEapproachesor evenexceedsthatinCHOICE.Whenallspeakerswererank-orderedrelativeto 2u and 2i ,theoveralllinguisticranking,referredtointhefollowingastheranking average,wasdenedasthemeanofthetwocomponentrankings.The 2u and 2i ratiosandrankingvaluesforallspeakersandspeechstylescanbefoundin theappendixA3.Inthefollowing,dierencesconcerningtherankingofspeakers withrespectto 2u and 2i willbeconsideredbrieyseegure6.1,beforethe discussionturnstothespeakers'linguisticrankingaverage. Figure6.1illustratestherelativepositionofallspeakerswithrespecttotheir locationontherank-orderedscalesforthevariables 2u and 2i ,rangingfrom maximallystandardtonon-standardvariants.Ifthetwovariableswereperfectly correlatedr=1,allspeakerswouldbelocatedontopofthedashedline.Asitis, theranksofspeakerswithrespectto 2u and 2i arecorrelatedwithacoecient ofr=0.64 t =5 : 7; df =49; p< 0 : 001.Ineleveninstances,speakersdieredin theirranksfor 2u and 2i bymorethan15points,markedinboldprintingure 6.1.Wherethesecasesinvolvedhigher-classspeakersinthemaptaskorcitation formdata,thatisinthedatacollectedin2014,theyrankedasmorenon-standard intheirproductionsof 2u thanof 2i .Incontrast,JeanneandMrsSmith,two

PAGE 289

6.2.FOCUSONTHEINDIVIDUAL 263 higher-classspeakersintheconversationaldatacollectedin1997/98,rankedas morenon-standardintheirproductionsof 2i thanof 2u .Whilethismightbe interpretedasanincreaseinstigmatisationofdiphthongalNURSEoverthelast twentyyears,itisimportanttonotethatthepatternislargelycausedbyand, thus,mayreecttheidiosyncraticbehaviourofthespeakersBeth03andBen03, whoproducedconsiderablymorenon-standardvariantsfor 2u thantheircohorts inbothmaptaskandcitationformspeech.Thespeakerwhodivergesthemost fromperfectcorrelationbetween 2i thanof 2u islower-classspeakerArt01, thoughhedoessoonlyincitationformspeech.Fromrank33forbothvariablesin maptaskspeech,heshiftstowardsrank38for 2u andrank1for 2i incitation formspeech,thatishisshifttowardsthestandardpronunciationof 2i ismore pronouncedthanforallotherspeakers.Ifthefourspeakersdisruptingthepattern ofcorrelationbetween 2i and 2u themost,thatisArt01,Ben03,Beth03and Jeanne,wereremovedfromthedata,thecorrelationcoecientwouldrisetor=0.81 t =8 : 8; df =42; p< 0 : 001. Figure6.1:Rankingby 2u and 2i forallspeakersandspeechstyles

PAGE 290

264 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION 6.2.1Acrossspeechstyles Figure6.2displaystherankingaverageforallspeakersandspeechstyles,plotted againstthespeakers'socialstatus.Mostofthespeakersfollowtheexpectedpattern inthatspeakersofhighersocialstatusandinmoreformalspeechstylesgenerally occupyhigherranks.Thelinguisticallylowest-rankingspeakersareworking-class speakersintheconversationaldatasetandthelinguisticallyhighest-rankingspeakers aremiddle-classspeakersinthecitationformdataset.Workingontheassumption thatthesymbolicvalueofstandardEnglishpronunciationisthesameforallspeakers,itindexessocialmobilityandstatus,educationalopportunityandformalspeech situations.ThespeakerswhomostnotablydisruptthepatternareHenryworking classintheconversationaldataandBeth03andBen03middlestratainthemap taskdata,whoselinguisticbehaviourwillbefurtherdiscussedbelow. Figure6.2:Rankingaverageofallspeakersandspeechstylesbysocialstatus Atrstglance,thereappearstobeconsiderableoverlapbetweenworking-class speakersintheconversationalandthemaptaskdata.Acloserlook,however,revealsthatitisonlythefemalespeakersAda02,Ada03andAda05whoseranks areroughlyequivalenttothoseoftheworking-classspeakersintheconversational dataset.Ashasbeenmentionedpreviously,thefemaleworking-classspeakersinthe

PAGE 291

6.2.FOCUSONTHEINDIVIDUAL 265 datacollectedin2014wereagenerationolderthantheotherparticipants;theircomparativelylowrankingaveragesmay,thus,reectnotonlytheirlowsocialstanding butalsotheirage.Inlightoftheseobservations,itisinterestingthatthefourth working-classfemalespeakerAda01,whowasincidentallytheoldestparticipantin the2014dataaged55+,rankedmuchhigherinthemaptaskdatathantheothers. Shewasalsotheonlyspeakerwhoserankingaveragewashigher,i.e.closertothe standard,inmaptaskthanincitationformspeech.Ada01hadbeenajanitressfor mostofheradultlife.Shewasmarriedtoaretiredelectricianandproudoflocal customsandofthe`BahamianDialect'.Whilenothinginhersocialbackground suggestedthatshewouldlikelydisplayamorestandard-leaningbehaviourthenher cohorts,herdemeanourduringtherecordingsessionand,inparticular,herreaction totheelicitationmaterialsmayshedsomelightontheissue.Duringthecitation formtask,thatiswhenreadingwordsinisolationoofcards,shewasverytalkative andenjoyedimpartingknowledgeonhowwordswereusedlocally,oftencouchedin shortstoriesofpersonalexperience.Duringtherecordingofthemaptask,however, shewasinitiallyconfusedastohowtoproceed.Whileshedideventuallyunderstand thetaskrequirements,shewasneverquiteasrelaxedasshehadbeenforthecitation formtask.Consequently,Ada01'sstandard-leaninglinguisticbehaviourinmaptask speechcomparedtootherworking-classfemaleslikelyreectsherdiscomfortwith themaptaskmaterialsandwiththetaskitself. Table6.3comparesthelinguisticandsocialrankingofspeakers,aftertheranking averageswereadjustedtothecitationformandthemaptaskdataseparately.As illustratedingure6.2,allspeakers,exceptAda01,shiftedtowardsmorestandard pronunciationsincitationformspeech,soalowerrankinginthecitationform columncomparedtothemaptaskcolumnintable6.3doesnotimplyashifttowards morenon-standardpronunciations,butratherthat,comparedtootherspeakers,the shifttowardsstandardnormswaslesspronounced.Consistentstyleshiftingalso indicatesthatallspeakersinthesamplewereawareoftheovertprestigeattachedto standardEnglishandofitsassociationswithsocialmobilityandstatus,eventhough theymaysubscribetothesesocialnormstovaryingdegrees.Speakerpseudonyms printedinboldmaptaskcolumnoritalicscitationformcolumnintable6.3 pointoutsizeableincongruitiesbetweenthespeakers'linguisticandsocialrankings. Mostnotably,Ben03andBeth03,asalreadymentionedabove,showeddownward linguisticmobility,thatistheirlinguisticrankingwaslowerthantheirsocialranking inbothmaptaskandcitationformspeech.Ben03wasastudentofelectrical

PAGE 292

266 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION Table6.3:Rankingofspeakersinthemaptaskandcitationformdata LinguisticrankingSocialranking Citationform Maptask Ranking Speaker Ranking Speaker SpeakerStatus average average 1.5Beth07 2.5Ben02 1 Ben02, MS-1,2 3.5Ben02 3.5Beth05 2 Beth05, 6.5 Ben01, 5.0 Beth02, 3 Beth02, Art03 Beth07 4 Ben04, 7.0Beth02 5.5Ben04 5 Ben01, 7.5 Beth05, 6.5Beth06 6 Ben03 Beth06 7.0 Ben01, 7 Beth07, MS-3 8.5 Ada05 Art03 8 Beth06, 9.0 Art04, 7.5 Art02 9 Beth03 Ben04 9.5Ada01 10 Art06WC-2 9.5 Art01, 11.5Art04 11 Ada01, WC-3 Beth03 12.5 Ben03, 12 Art04, 12.5 Ben03 Art01 13 Art01, 13.5 Art02, 13.0Art06 14 Ada03, Art06 14.5Ada03 15 Ada05 14.5 Ada02, 15.5 Beth03 16 Art03, WC-4 Ada03 16.0Ada02 17 Art02, 17.0Ada01 16.5Ada05 18 Ada02

PAGE 293

6.2.FOCUSONTHEINDIVIDUAL 267 engineering,andBeth03studiedattheCollegeofTheBahamasSchoolofNursing. Theirplansfortheimmediatefuturedidnotvaryconspicuouslyfromthoseofother students:Beth03wantedtostartworkingatalocalpublicclinic,preferablythe PrincessMargaretHospital,andBen03wantedtofocusonhisstudiesandoneday workasanengineerinNassau.However,mostotherstudentsmentionedtheyhad theintentiontogoabroadaftergraduationBen01,Ben02,Beth05and/orthey hadconcreteambitionsandsocialaspirations;forexample,Ben01wantedtobea pilot,Beth02,astudentofbiochemistry,wantedtobeadoctor,Beth05wantedtobe anambassador,andBeth06wantedtoeventuallyteachfuturenurses.Inaddition, Ben03andBeth03weretwoofonlythreestudentparticipants,thethirdonebeing Ben04,whogrewupinaworking-classhome.Bothstilllivedwiththeirparents andnotedtheyhadcloselocalfamilyties.Whilenoneofthesecircumstancesare inthemselvesdeterminativeofthelinguisticbehaviourofBen03andBeth03,a combinationofacertainlackofsocialambition,havingalreadysurpassedthesocial standingoftheirparentsbybeingtherstgenerationtogotocollege,andastrong attachmenttoNassauandtolocalsocialnetworksmayexplaininhindsighttheir strikingadherencetovernacularforms. Conversely,Art02,Art03andAda05showedupwardlinguisticmobilityinmap taskand/orcitationformspeech,thatistheirlinguisticrankingwashigherthan theirsocialranking.Intheabsenceofhighereducationoractualwealth,thesymbolicvalueofstandardEnglishmaybeexploitedtopursueorsignalsocialmobility, but,atrst,noobviouspatternpresentsitselfwhichcouldexplainthedeviant behaviourofthesespeakerscomparedtotheircohorts.Art02wasa23-year-old unskilledtechnician,Art03wasa40-year-oldporterandAda05wasa48-year-old formerwaitress.However,bothArt02andArt03revealedthattheyweresomewhat discontentwithwhattheyhadachievedinlifesofar.Art02hadclaimedtobea technician,butlateradmittedthathewasactuallytrainedasamassagetherapist. Foraboutthreeyears,hehadbeenworkingasamasseuronthebeach,oering massagesmainlytotourists,beforehedecidedtolookforemploymentelsewhere andwasonlyrecentlyhiredbyasmalllocalrmtohelpinstallairconditioning systems.Hehopedthat,oneday,hemightbeabletotrainasatechnician.Art03 wasinitiallysuspiciousofallpersonalquestionsandveryprotectiveofhisimage,but duringalongerconversationheeventuallybegantorelax.Hesaidhewasworking asaporteratasmall,moderatelyexpensivehotel,buthedidnotparticularlyenjoy it.Atonetimeinthepast,hehadbeenemployedasarecord-keeperatalocal

PAGE 294

268 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION bankandhedesperatelywantedtoreclaimapositionasanoceassistant.Hislack oftrainingandformaleducation,however,presentedarealobstacle,nowthatthe Nassaujobmarketwasushedwithhighlyeducated,youngindividuals,trainedat theCollegeofTheBahamasoratuniversityabroad.Ada05wasnotdiscontentwith hersituationinlife,butshesaidshewasataturningpoint.Herhusbandhadjust openedasmallshopnotfarfromBayStreetandshehadsubsequentlyquitherjob asawaitresstohelplaunchthebusiness.Ifeverythingworkedout,shewouldhave achievedherlife'sambition,havingdreamtaboutowningashopsincethearrivedin NassaufromCatIslandasateenager.Whatthesethreespeakershaveincommon andwhatsetsthemapartfromotherworking-classspeakersisthattheymayhave felttheneedtopursuesocialmobilityviasymbolicmeans.Havingnotyetfullled theirsocialaspirations,thesespeakersutilisedstandardnormsofpronunciationand theirassociationwitheducationandmoralauthoritytosignalthepositiononthe socialhierarchytheywishedtoattain. Inthiscontext,itisinterestingtonotethatAda05showedbyfarthemost extensivestyleshift.Whilesherankedlinguisticallyasthelowestspeakerinmap taskspeech,lowerthanwouldbepredictedfromhercurrentsocialrank,sheperformedadrasticshifttowardsmorestandard-likepronunciationsincitationform speech,wheresherankedamongmiddle-classspeakerswitharankingaverageof8.5. Ada05,thus,displayedanespeciallybroadrangeoflinguisticforms,whoseusewas governedbythestandardandnon-standardnormssheappliedtodierentstylistic contexts.Whilestyleshiftingmayperformanumberofsocialfunctionsand,from alinguisticperspective,enrichesaspeaker'scommunicativeskillset,extremestyle shiftingisoftenconsideredindicativeoflinguisticinsecurity.Whentalkingtoher husbandduringthemaptask,Ada05'spronunciationwasclearlypredominatedby non-standardforms.Uponbeingaskeddirectly,however,shedeniedherextensive linguisticrepertoire,claimingtoalwaysusestandardEnglish,evenwhentalkingto closefriendsandfamily.Thediscrepancybetweenherreportedandrecordedlanguageusemayindeedindicateacertaindegreeofinsecurity,inlinewithherpursuit ofupwardsocialmobilityviasymbolic,linguisticmeans.

PAGE 295

6.2.FOCUSONTHEINDIVIDUAL 269 6.2.2Phonologicalversusmorphologicalvariation Table6.4comparesthesocialrankingtothelinguisticrankingofspeakersinthe conversationaldataset.Speakerswererankedontwodierentlinguisticscales:The morphologicalscalePastinection"wasderivedfromtheratesofstandardpast inectionthespeakersdisplayedinchatmodeHackert,2004,185,217,whilethe phonologicalscalePronunciation"wasbasedonthespeakers'rankingaverage withrespecttothevariables 2u and 2i .Speakerpseudonymsprintedinbold pronunciationcolumnoritalicspastinectioncolumnindicatesizeableincongruitiesbetweenthespeakers'linguisticandsocialrankings.Incontrasttothe rankingofspeakersinmaptaskandcitationspeechreviewedintheprevioussection,thebroaddistinctionbetweenmiddle-class/petite-bourgeoisiespeakersand working-classspeakersintheconversationaldatacorrelateswellwiththeirranking onbothlinguisticscales:Thespeechofhigher-classparticipantsisrelativelyfocussed;higher-classspeakersoccupythetopranksonthelinguisticscales,onwhich working-classspeakersdonotgenerallyintrude.AnotableexceptiontothispatternareHenryandJeanne:Henryrankslowestamonghigher-classspeakersand Jeannerankshighestamongworking-classspeakers,thoughonlywithrespectto pronunciation. Themorphologicalandphonologicalscalesalsocoincideregardingthemoststandardspeaker,MrsSmith,andthemostnon-standardspeaker,Johnny.InHackert ,22,thesocialbackgroundof70+-year-oldMrsSmithisdescribedasuniqueto thespeakersinthesample.WhileformallysheonlyranksasPB-1onthesocialscale, herupbringingwithprivatetutoringandherlifeasanartisanandentrepreneur,with activecharitableworkandoccasionaltravelsabroad,clearlyreectselevatedsocial status.Respectabilitywasimportanttoherandshedeploredthedeclineofmoral valuesandcommunitystandards.Incontrast,linguisticallylow-rankingspeakers, including25-year-oldJohnny,tendedtoexpressdisdainfortheideologyofsocial mobilityanditsassociationwitheducation".Whileallotheryoungerspeakers receivedatleastsomesecondaryeducation,Johnnyleftschoolatage14,because, asheclaimed,therewasnotmuchmoretheteacherscouldhavetaughthim.He stilllivedwithhisparents,takingontheoccasionaloddjobsuchassellingpeanuts ornewspapersasabeachvendor,workingatachickenfarmorhelpinginconstruction.MrsSmithandJohnnyclearlyoerdierentvantagepointsonBahamian societyinNassau,andtheirrespectivesocialorientationtowardsstandard-versus

PAGE 296

270 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION Table6.4:Rankingofspeakersintheconversationaldata LinguisticrankingSocialranking Pastinection Pronunciation Rate Speaker Ranking Speaker SpeakerClass [%] average 78MrsSmith 3.0 SisterB, 1 SisterB , MS-6 63MrsMill MrsSmith 2 Jeanne 60Jeanne 3.5MrsMill 3 MrsSmithPB-1 48MrsWall 4.0 MrsWall, 4 MrsWallPB-2 45 SisterB Henry 5 MrsMillPB-3 41Sidney 6.0 Jeanne 6 George WC-2 36Carol 6.5George 7 Carol, WC-3 27 Shanae 8.0Carol 8 Sharon , 26 Henry 9.5Eddie 9 Sidney 21Albert 10.5 Shanae, 10 Eddie, WC-4 20 George Viola 11 Albert 18 Sharon 11.0Albert 12 Shanae , WC-5 13Eddie 12.0 Sharon 13 Viola 11Viola 13.5 Sidney 14 Henry , WC-6 10Johnny 15.0Johnny 15 Johnny non-standardnormsofbehaviourisreectedintheiruseofbothmorphologicaland stigmatisedphonologicalforms. WithrespecttotheindividualranksofspeakersotherthanMrsSmithand Johnny,however,thereappearstobeextensivevariability.Intermsofpronunciation,Henryshowedconsiderableupwardlinguisticmobility,andJeanne,Sharon andSidneyshoweddownwardmobility.Withrespecttopastinection,Shanaeand Henryshowedupward,andSisterB,GeorgeandSharonshoweddownwardmobility. Intheabsenceofrst-handknowledgeaboutthespeakers'socialcircumstances, experiences,expectationsandaspirations,itisdiculttodeterminewhichaspects intheirlivesorwhichcharacteristicstheymayhaveshared,whichmayhavecontributedtotheirlinguisticbehaviour.AsHackert,217-219argued,speakers whopresentedthemselvesaslinguisticallyupwardlymobileallsoughttodisplay respectabilityintheirinterviews,eitherforpragmaticorformoralreasons,anddid

PAGE 297

6.3.CROSS-VARIETALCOMPARISONOFVOWELVARIANTS 271 sobyutilisingthesymbolicvalueofstandardEnlgish,imbuedwithmoralauthority. Anumberofupwardlymobilespeakerspointedoutthattheywouldhavelikedto continuetheireducationpasttheprimarylevelandsome,suchasHenry,weretaking nightclassestoachievethisgoal.Speakerswhoshoweddownwardlinguisticmobility apparentlytendedtodisplaythemselvesasvictimsofexternalcircumstanceswhich hadthwartedwhateverambitionstheyhadoriginallyhad".Thephonological datadoesnotcontradictHackert'sinterpretation;thatis,noneoftheparticipants wasupwardlymobilewithrespecttopronunciationanddownwardlymobilewith respecttopastinection{orviceversa.Wheneveraspeaker'ssocialrankdiered drasticallyfromtheirrankonboththemorphologicalandthephonologicalscale, thedirectionofthecontrastwasthesame.Thus,Henry'sspeechwasmorestandard intermsofbothpastinectionandpronunciationthanwouldbeexpectedfromhis socialrank,andSharon'sspeechwasmorenon-standard. Tosumup,broaddivisionsofthesocialandlinguisticscalestendedtooverlapin thathigher-classspeakerswerefoundatthetopofboththemorphologicalandthe phonologicalscale,whileworking-classspeakersgenerallyoccupiedlowerranks.In addition,onbothlinguisticscales,MrsSmithandJohnnyrepresentedthestandard andnon-standardpoles,respectively.Whiletherankingsofotherspeakerswith respecttopastinectionandpronunciationdidnotalwayscoincide,whenspeakers showedconsiderablediscrepanciesintheirsocialandlinguisticrankingsforboth linguisticscales,theypointedinthesamedirection;thatisspeakersshowedeither upwardordownwardmobility,butneverboth. 6.3Cross-varietalcomparisonofvowelvariants Intable6.5,theapproximatephoneticrealisationsofselectedvowelsinurban BahamianspeechBlackNassauvian"arecomparedtoanumberofrelatedor associatedvarieties,includingblackandwhiteBahamianspeechonAbaco,the CaribbeanvarietiesBajan,TrinidadianCreoleandJamaicanCreole,andtheAmericanmainlandvarietiesGullah,AfricanAmericanVernacularEnglish,andoldfashionedSouthernwhitespeech.Thelattercategoryspecicallyfocussesonarchaicformsofruralwhitespeechwhichwereoncetypicalofeast-coastvarieties fromTidewaterVirginiatoLowCountryGeorgia;thisareawasoncepredominated

PAGE 298

272 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION byplantationcultureanditisassumedtobetheoriginofthemajorityofAmerican loyalistswholeftfortheBahamasaftertheAmericanRevolutionaryWar.Thechart reliesheavilyonthecontributionsto AHandbookofVarietiesofEnglish Schneideretal.,2004,includingBlake,ChildsandWolfram,Devonishand Harry,Edwards,Thomas,Weldon,andYoussefand James.Inaddition,theprolesofvowelsfoundinKurathandMcDavid ,ThomasandBailey,Thomas,andChildsetal.were consulted.Intheindividualentries,acommawasusedtomarkalternativerealisationswhichmaybesaidtocorrelatewithsocialclass,speechstyleorprestige; inthesecases,theright-mostvariantisthemostovertlyprestigiousandtheone preferredbyeducatedspeakersofhighsocialstatusinformalsituations.Atilde wasusedtomarkvariantswhosedistributionsdependonother,possiblylanguageinternal,factors,orwhosesocialdistributionshavenotbeenexplicitlydocumented bytherespectiveauthors.InthecolumnforArchaicwhiteSouthern"speech,some entriesweredividedbyslashes;theseindicatethatdierentvariantsoncepredominatedinthearearangingfromChesapeakeBay,TidewaterandPiedmontVirginia toPamlicoSoundinNorthCarolinarightthanintheareacentredaroundthe LowCountryofSouthCarolinaandGeorgialeft.Pre-voicedandpre-voiceless contextsofFACE,GOAT,MOUTHandPRICEweretreatedseparately,duetothe extensivevoicing-conditionedallophonyfoundinurbanBahamianspeech. IntermsoftherealisationoflowvowelsinTRAP,BATHandSTART,urban BahCpatternswithothercreolesintheCaribbean.Thereisalackofdistinctionof thesevowelsinthefront-backdimensionandtheymergespectrallyinalow,centralquality.Standard-nearvariantsofSTARTinurbanBahamianspeechshowa tendencytobebackedrelativetoTRAP,whichmaybeattributedtothecontinuedsocialpressureofexonormativemodelsofstandardEnglishofeitherBritishor Americanorigin.ThroughoutthedecadesfollowingindependencefromtheUnited Kingdom,theinuenceofAmericanStandardEnglishhashadconsiderableinuence ontheanglophoneCaribbeanregioningeneral.InurbanBahamianstandard-near speech,thismaybereectedintheincreaseofrhoticpronunciationsofSTARTas wellasNURSE.ThevowelinBATH,ontheotherhand,showslongerdurationsthan TRAP,correspondingcloselytoSTART,whichiscommonlythecaseinvarieties ofBritishEnglishincludingthestandardaccentRP.Therefore,theidentityofurbanBahamianandotherCaribbeanvarietiesasbroad-BATHaccentsmayindicate continuedalignmentwithBritishEnglishlanguageuse.

PAGE 299

6.3.CROSS-VARIETALCOMPARISONOFVOWELVARIANTS 273 Table6.5:Cross-comparisonofthelexicalincidenceofvowelvariantsinBahamianandrelatedorassociatedvarieties Lexicalset Bahamianvarieties Caribbeanvarieties Americanvarieties BlackBlackWhite BajanTrinCJamC GullahAAVEArchaicwhite NassauvianAbaconianAbaconian Southern TRAP aa a aa a 5 a Ea BATH a:,a: A: {{ a:a:a: a Ea START a:,A:rAA a:ra:a:r aA:A 6: STRUT 2OO 26 O: 28 O 222 O/2 LOT O OAA A 66 2 Oa,O 6 AAA 6 FACE-vd e:eiei iE E:,e: eie:ie,e: ee: eIe : e @/Ei FACE-vl e: ei samesame samesamesame samesamesame GOAT-vd o:ou8u o: o@o:uo,o: o oEo: ouo : o @/3u GOAT-vl o:,ou samesame samesamesame samesamesame NURSE 2I @i,3 3~33 7rO 2 3:o,@:r A 27 3 3~3I,3 CHOICE OIOIOI 2I oIOIai,Oi 5I OIOI oIOI oI o:E o:@ MOUTH-vd aOaO AOao aE 2u 2Uo OU8U aU OU 5UaOO /a8 aE MOUTH-vl Ou,au samesame samesamesame samesame 2u 30/ same PRICE-vd aIa: aAE Ai 2IaIai 5Ia: aA:e 6:e PRICE-vl a iai AiAi samesamesame same aI5i/ same

PAGE 300

274 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION ThevowelinSTRUTisbackedandroundedinthemoreradicalCaribbean creolesaswellasinold-fashionedwhitespeechoftheLowCountryofSouthCarolina andGeorgia.Today,themostwidespreadvariantofSTRUTinAmericanaswell asBritishEnglishaccentsisamorecentralandunroundedvariantcloseto [2] ;this isalsothemostprestigiousvariantinthemajorityofintermediatecreolevarieties oftheCaribbean.IntheBahamiancontext,STRUTvariesfromunrounded [2] in urbanblackspeechtorounded [O] inbothblackandwhitespeechonAbaco.Dueto thepresenceofbothvariantsinvarietiesoftheCaribbeanaswellasinassociated NorthAmericanaccents,itisdiculttoexplainthecontemporaryregionalvariation withintheBahamas.Childsetal.,whoanalysedthevowelsusedbyspeakers onAbaco,arguedthatAbaconianvarietieswerestronglyinuencedbyUSmainland varieties,becausetheloyalistswhoarrivedin1783foundtheislandcompletely emptyand,duetoitsisolation,Abacoinhabitantsrarelyparticipatedinmainstream Bahamianlife.Inaddition,theyclaimedthatblackBahamianvarietiesinNassau tendtobeabitmorevernacular"thanthoseofAbaco.Takentogether, theinformationavailableonSTRUTatpresentpointstowardsagreateranity ofBahamianvarietieswithAmericanmainlandvarieties,asthemostnon-standard variantofSTRUTisnotrounded,whileroundedvariantsmaybeattributedtothe inuenceofarchaicUSdialects. LOTisinvariablyproducedasamid,fairlybackandroundedvowelinurban Bahamianspeech,spectrallyclosetoTHOUGHT.InotherCaribbeanvarieties, basilectalvariantsofLOTmaybeproducedaslower,centralisedandunrounded, butthemostprestigiousformsintheCaribbeancontextingeneraltypicallyinvolve lip-rounding,apronunciationclearlydistinctfromLOTinmostNorthAmerican varieties,wherethevowelisroughlyrealisedas [A] .IntheBahamianvarietiesspokenonAbaco,LOTisapparentlyproducedasabackedandunroundedvowelin bothblackandwhitespeech,thatisthespectralqualitiesofLOTandTHOUGHT arenotidentical.ChildsandWolfram,440-441arguedthatthispattern correspondscloselytopronunciationsofLOTinAAVEandinSouthernwhiteUS speech,especiallyinthePamlicoSoundarea.It,thus,seemsthatwithrespect toLOTtheBahamasconstitutetheborderlandbetweenAmericanandCaribbean regionalvariants. ThroughouttheCaribbeanregion,monophthongalvariantsinbothFACEand GOATaregenerallythedefaultpronunciation,withdown-oringlidingvariants

PAGE 301

6.3.CROSS-VARIETALCOMPARISONOFVOWELVARIANTS 275 foundinmorebasilectalspeech.InBajan,upglidingvariantsaredescribedas afairlynewphenomenonwhichonlyoccursineducatedspeech.Thevowelsin FACEandGOATdisplaysomevariabilityintheBahamiancontext.InAbaconian speech,upglidingdiphthongsareapparentlythemostcommonvariantsforallspeakers,irrespectiveofethnicity,socialclassorlinguisticcontext.InurbanBahamian speech,exclusivelymonophthongalvariantswerefoundinpre-voicedcontexts,while diphthongalvariantsoccurredvariablyinpre-voicelesscontexts.Atrstglance,it wouldseemthattheBahamasagainrepresentthelinguisticborderlandbetweenthe AmericanandCaribbeanregion.Crucially,however,althoughCaribbeanvariants ofFACEandGOATwereinthepastandremainpredominantlymonophthongal, itisnotthecasethatvariantsinallAmericanaccentswerealwaysdiphthongal. Aswasdiscussedinsection4.1.2,monophthongisationofFACEandGOAToccurs inmanyvarietiesofEnglishcharacterisedbylanguagecontactsituations.Infact, allAmericanmainlandvarietieslistedintable6.5haveoroncehadmonophthongalvariants;inAAVE,monophthongalFACEandGOATwerethenorminthe late19thandearly20thcentury,whilemonophthongalvariantsinSouthernwhite speechwereoncefairlycommoninareaspredominatedbyplantationculturesuch astheLowCountryofSouthCarolinaandGeorgia.Consequently,therealisationof FACEandGOATasmonophthongsintheBahamiancontextdoesnotnecessarily implyhistoricalorindeedsocialanitywithotherCaribbeanvarieties,butreects ahistoryoflanguagecontact,whichBahamianvarietiessharewithbothCaribbean aswellasAmericanvarieties.Thevoicing-conditionedallophonyinFACEand GOATincontemporaryurbanBahamianspeechmayhavedevelopedastheresults ofreallocationofnon-standardmonophthongsandstandard-likeEnglishdiphthongs todierentcontextuallydenedallophonesofthesamephonemesduringthepast decades,whenBahCandnon-creolisedformsofEnglishcameintoincreasinglyregularcontactwitheachother.Non-creolisedformsofEnglishinthiscontextmay refertoStandardBritishandAmericanEnglishaswellasothervarietiesofpredominantlyNorthAmericanEnglish.Therelegationofupglidingvariantstopre-voiceless contextsmaybeexplainedwithrecoursetothephenomenonofperipheralisationof highoglidesbeforevoicelessconsonants,whichhasbeenobservedinanumberof Englishaccentsandmaybeaphoneticuniversalseesection4.1.2.2. IncontrasttomanybasilectalvarietiesofCaribbeancreolesandGullah,Bahamianvarietiesdonotshowafrontedandunroundedrstelementinthediphthong inCHOICE,andCHOICEisnotmergedwithPRICE.Inthisrespect,Bahamian

PAGE 302

276 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION speechisclosertonon-creolisedvarietiesofEnglish,butitalsosharesthisrelativelystandard,wide,back-to-frontglidingvariantwithotherintermediatecreoles oftheCaribbeanregionsuchasTrinC.Innon-standardurbanBahamianspeech,the spectralqualityofCHOICEmaybeclosetothatofNURSE,asNURSEisvariably producedasahigh-andfront-glidingdiphthongwithacentralorback,unrounded starting-point.WhilediphthongalNURSEis,thus,typicalofurbanBahC,itis conspicuouslyabsentfromotherCaribbeancreolesandfromvarietiesofEnglish spokenintheBritishIsles.Insection4.3.3,theoccurrenceofupglidingNURSEin anumberofmostlyarchaicNorthAmericanmainlandvarietieswasreviewedand, asindicatedintable6.5,adiphthongalvariantcloseto [3I] alsooncepredominated inwhiteworking-classspeechinthoseSouthernUSeast-coastareasfromwherethe majorityofBritishloyalistshailedwhocametotheBahamasaftertheAmerican RevolutionaryWar.ItseemsthatBahClikelyinheritedthespeechvariantviaits stronglinguisticconnectiontotheCarolinasandGeorgia.Whetherdiphthongal NURSEwasincommonuseinGullahatthetimeitwasimportedintotheBahamasisunclear.Weldon,196describedNURSEasalow,back,unrounded monophthong [A] incontemporaryGullah.Turner,20,originallypublished in1949,usedthesymbol [2] totranscribethevowelinwordssuchas bird and earth .TheonlyavailablesourceindicatingthatNURSEinGullahmaybe,ormay atonetimehavebeen,producedasadiphthongsimilartotheonefoundinBahC isHolm,310,whocitedpersonalcommunicationwithWilliamA.Stewart. IfdiphthongalNURSEonceindeedpredominatedinGullah,itmusthavedisappearedinGullahbeforeitdidsointhespeechofwhitespeakersinSouthCarolina andGeorgia,asTurnerwouldhaveotherwisementionedthisverynoticeable feature.Alternatively,BahCspeakerscouldhaveinheritedthediphthongalvariant fromwhiteimmigrantstotheBahamas,inwhichcase,however,itiscuriousthatit isfoundtodayonlyinthespeechofblackbutnotofwhiteBahamiansChildsand Wolfram,2004,439,andonlyinNassaubutnotonAbaco.Today,thediphthong inNURSEinurbanBahamianspeechissociallystigmatised,itsuserelegatedto informalcontextsoflanguageuse.Inaddition,rhoticpronunciationencroacheson BahamianproductionsofNURSE,presumablyduetothestronginuenceofthe pan-Americanstandard,andindeedthemajorityoftokensofNURSEproducedby thestudentparticipantsinthisstudywererhoticandfairlymonophthongal. TherealisationsofthevowelsinMOUTHandPRICEintheBahamiancontext showconsiderableregional,social,ethnic,andcontextualvariation,asissummarised

PAGE 303

6.3.CROSS-VARIETALCOMPARISONOFVOWELVARIANTS 277 intable6.5.Fromanecessarilysynchronicperspective,itisdiculttoexplainthe varyingpronunciationnormsinBahamianspeech.Childsetal.3attributethe frontedoglidesinMOUTHinthespeechofwhiteAbaconianstothepersistent inuenceoftheproductionsofwhiteimmigrantsfromoriginallythePamlicoSound area,whosetfootintheBahamasafterAmericanindependence.Glide-weakening inpre-voicedPRICEinAbaconianspeechislikelyarelativelynewphenomenon, possiblyspreadingfromblackandwhiteSouthernUSvarietiestotheneighbouring Bahamas.CanadianRaisinginurbanBahamianvarietiescouldhavebeentransportedtotheBahamasbywhiteloyalistsfromtheLowCountryofSouthCarolina andGeorgia,thatisfromareaswherepre-voicelessraisinghasbeendocumented in,meanwhilearchaic,whitesettlerdialectsseetable6.5.Itisunclearhowpatternspredominatinginwhitespeechcouldhaveaectedprimarilymesolectalforms ofBahC.However,CanadianRaisingcouldhavebeenthepreferredpatterninBahamianspeechmoregenerally,andupwardlymobilespeakerscouldhavegradually adaptedtheirpronunciationtoreectcontemporarystandardnormsthroughout the20thcentury,asaccesstoandpressurefromstandardEnglishincreased.Alternatively,pre-voicelessraisinginMOUTHcouldbetheresultofstandardEnglishinuencesonearlier,morebasilectalBahC.Non-fronted,raisedproductionsof MOUTHwithnucleiintherangeof [2 O] arecommonamongCaribbeancreoles andarealsofoundinGullahseetable6.5.Basedontheacousticevidenceofa Gullahspeakerbornin1844,BaileyandThomasshowedthatthiswasalso anacceptedrealisationofMOUTH150yearsago.Itseemsplausible,then,that whenearlierGullahwastransportedtotheBahamasabout200yearsago,MOUTH wasproducedasbackedandraised [Ou] inallcontexts.Withincreasedinterracial contact,educationandaccesstostandardandothernon-creolisedformsofEnglish throughoutthe20thcentury,anallophonicdistributioncouldhaveemergedbyreallocationastheresultofdialectcontact,adevelopmentsimilartowhatBritainand Trudgillproposedforpre-voicelessraisingintheBritishFens.Thisscenario couldalsoaccountfortherarepresenceofraisedtokensofMOUTHinpre-voiced contexts,someofwhichwerefoundinlower-classspeechintheconversationaldata. However,bothscenariosoutlinedaboveare,ofcourse,merelybasedonspeculation. CanadianRaisingcouldhavedevelopedindependentlyintheBahamasasithasin anumberofAmericanmainlandvarieties,startingoutasasubtlephoneticprocess, possiblyintheformofAsymmetricAssimilationseesection4.2.2.3,andevolving intoaphonologiseddistributionalpatternwithassociatedsocialmeanings.Inthe

PAGE 304

278 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION absenceofdiachronicdata,nodeniteanswercanbegivenatpresentastowhyand howthealternationtookrootintheurbanBahamiancontext. Inthissection,regionallydiagnosticvocalicvariantsinBahamianandinselected CaribbeanandAmericanmainlandvarietieswerecomparedanddiscussedwitha viewtosynchronicsimilaritiesandsharedprocessesaswellaslikelyhistoricalconnections.Whileitisprematuretodrawdeniteconclusionsabouttheexactroles anyofthevarietieslistedintable6.5mayhaveplayedorstillplayinshapingthevarietiesoftheBahamas,somevariantsdosuggesthistoricalandcontemporaryanity toblackandwhiteAmericanmainlandvarieties.IncaseswhereurbanBahamian speechpatternedwithotherCaribbeanvarieties,sharedvariantscouldgenerallybe accountedforbyasharedhistoricalconnectiontoBritishEnglishvarietiesorbya sharedhistoryoflanguagecontact.Similarities,whichseemobviousatrstglance, appeartobemostlycircumstantialinthesensethattheycanbeattributedtomediatingforcessharedthroughouttheCaribbeanregionratherthantodirectcontact betweentheBahamasandindividualCaribbeanterritories.Therefore,withrespect totherealisationofvowels,Bahamianspeechreectsabackgroundincreolisation withaBritishEnglishsuperstrate,butitisclosertoAmericanmainlandvarieties thantoCaribbeanvarieties. IthasbeenclaimedthatthestandardvarietyoftheBahamastiltstowardsthe US"McArthur,2002,240moresothanitdoesinotherCommonwealthnations intheCaribbean.Thisclaimcannotbesupportedbythendingsofthisstudy. WhileitisclearthatAmericanstandardformsimpactonthepronunciationnorms intheBahamaswithrespecttorhoticity,leadingtoincreasinglyrhoticpronunciationsbyBahamianspeakers,othernormsstillreecttheBritishratherthanthe Americanstandardmodel.Forexample,urbanBahamianspeechcanbedescribed asabroad-BATHaccent,andLOTisclearlyroundedandquitedistinctfromthe vowelinSTART/PALM.TheemergingBahamianstandardmodelofpronunciation incorporatesandcombinesfeaturesofboththeBritishandtheAmericanstandard, whileretainingsometypicallyBahamiancharacteristics. Intheprecedingparagraphs,itwasestablishedthaturbanBahamianspeech reectsastronghistoricalconnectiontoAmericanvarietiesofEnglish,whilelocal standardornear-standardpronunciationscannotbeaccountedforexclusivelybythe inuenceofcontemporaryformsofAmericanEnglish.Thesendings,however,must beunderstoodasapplyingspecicallytotheurbancontext,thatistolanguageuse

PAGE 305

6.3.CROSS-VARIETALCOMPARISONOFVOWELVARIANTS 279 inNassau,NewProvidence.Fromtable6.5,itisquiteclearthatBahamianvarieties spokenonAbacomaydierconsiderablyfromthosespokeninNassau.Ingeneral, AbaconianvarietiesseemclosertocontemporaryAmericanvarieties;forexample, LOTisunrounded,andPRICEshowspre-voicedglideweakeningasistypically foundinAAVEandinSouthernUSwhitespeech.Itisquitepossible,therefore,that dierentislandsintheBahamianarchipelago,dependingonhistoricalsettlement patternsaswellascontemporarydemographicsandsocialstructure,reectNorth AmericanandCaribbeaninuencestovaryingdegrees.

PAGE 306

280 CHAPTER6.GENERALDISCUSSION

PAGE 307

Chapter7 Conclusion Intheintroduction,thehopewasexpressedthatthisstudywouldproveusefultoresearchinthreedisciplines:creolestudies,sociolinguistics,andphonetics.Thework reportedhereaddstothecreolistliteraturebyprovidingadetailedanalysisofthe phoneticandphonologicalstructureofvowelsintheintermediatecreolelanguage spokenintheurbanBahamiancontext,andhowitrelatestorelatedand/orassociatedcreolisedandnon-creolisedvarietiesinNorthAmericaandintheCaribbean. IntermsoftheBahamas'positionatthelinguisticcrossroadsoftheAmericas,the resultsofthisstudyshowedthattheurbanBahCvowelsystemreectsabackground increolisationwithaBritishEnglishsuperstrate,butitisclosertoAmericanmainlandvarietiesthantoCaribbeanvarieties. Fromavariationistsociolinguisticperspective,thisstudyoersinsightintothe workingsofsocialandstylisticvariationinacreolespeechcommunity.Inparticular,itwasdemonstratedthat,insofarasallspeakerscanbeassumedtohave knowledgeofstandardnorms,thedistributionofstandardandnon-standardvariantsbysocialclassandspeechstylefollowsthesamegeneralpatternashasbeen observedforspeechcommunitiesinwhichnon-creolisednon-standardvarietiesof Englisharespoken.However,somenon-standardvariants,whichmaybereferred toasstereotyped,stigmatised,orload-bearing,maydisplaysharpsocialandstylistic stratication,whichistraditionallyassociatedwithvariationonthelevelofgrammar.Ingeneral,stylisticvariationtendedtobemorestableandextensivethan variationbysocialclass.Signicantvariationconditionedbythespeakers'gender wasrareanddidnotconsistentlyfollowthepatterninWesternspeechcommunities 281

PAGE 308

282 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION wherebyfemalespeakerstendtousemorestandardformsthanmalespeakers.Anothernding,whichmaybeofinteresttobothcreolistsandsociolinguists,concerns therelativedistributionofmorphologicalandstigmatisedphonologicalvariables acrossthesamesampleofspeakers.Itwasfoundthatthepolarvarietieswerequite focussedandthatvariationonthetwolinguisticlevelspatternedinverysimilar ways;thisindicatesthattheywerelikelyalsoevaluatedbyspeakersinverysimilar wayssothatphonologicalvariableshaveinprinciplethesamepotentialtoindex creolenessornon-standardnessasgrammaticalvariables. Fromtheperspectiveofphonetics,thisstudyoersarstacousticcharacterisationofvowelsusedinurbanBahamianCreole.Inaddition,thecloseanalysisof voicing-conditionedalternationsintherealisationofclosingdiphthongsalsoshowed thatpre-voicelessperipheralisationcharacterisedtheproductionsofallspeakers. MoretonandThomasinterpretedthisphenomenonaspre-voicelesshyperarticulation,apossiblyuniversalphoneticprocesswhichmayunderlythedevelopment ofsuchvoicing-conditionedallophoniesasCanadianRaising.Thisstudyprovided therstevidenceofthisphoneticprocessatworkinacreolisedvarietyofEnglish. Becausetheanalysesinthisthesisbroughttogethermethodsfromallofthese elds,thebodyofinformationacquiredwasquitelarge.Thereremainsmuchwhich maybeexaminedinmoredetailorfromadierentperspectiveatalatertime.For example,theconversationaltranscriptswereusedonlyforphoneticanalysisofvowels andfortheinvestigationofpastmarkingbyHackert,buttheycontaina wealthofinformationwhichmayproveusefulintheanalysisofdiscoursepatternsor ofcode-switchingandcode-mixingbehaviour.Likewise,themaptaskdatacollected wereanalysedonlywithrespecttotherealisationofvowelsegments,buttheelicited materialmayalsobeprotablyusedintheprosodicanalysisofdiscoursestructure andofotheraspectsofintonation.Inthefuture,theacousticproductionanalyses presentedhereshouldbecomplementedbyperceptionexperimentstodetermine whichmarkersofBahamianspeecharethemostsalientandtoshedlightonpotential soundchangesinprogress,whichwerebrieydiscussedinthisthesis.Itishoped thatthendingsreportedheremakefruitfulcontributionstovarioussubdisciplines intheeldoflinguistics.Inparticular,itishopedthattheysparkresearchinterest inthephoneticanalysisofcreolisedvarietiesofEnglish,whichhavebeenlargely ignoredinthisrespect,eventhoughtheyhavealottooer.

PAGE 309

Appendices A1Recordingmaterials TableA1.1:Completelistofwordsrecordedincitationform,groupedandordered bylexicalset Lexicalset Wordssubjectedtoanalysis Wordsremovedfromanalysis BATH bath,path,fast,basket4 dance,plant;cast,calf,castle,can't 6 CHOICE boys,poison,toys,joys, noise,noisy;Boyce,moist, toy-store,Joyce,choice,foist, hoist;boy,coy,toy,soy 17 {0 CLOTH boss,foster,cost3 moth;coee2 DRESS bed,fed,head;bet,pet5 Ben,pen,fen3 FACE bathe,fade,daisy,gaze, haze;bait,fate,date,gate, hate 10 {0 FLEECE bead,feed,heed;beat,feet, heat 6 {0 FOOT hood,good;put,foot,book5 {0 FORCE {0 board,doors;court,hoarse4 GOAT bows,toad,toes,code,hose; boat,dote,dose,goat,host 10 {0 GOOSE booze,food,who'd;boot, booth,hoot 6 tube,dune,news,suit4 continuedonnextpage 283

PAGE 310

284 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA1.1,continuedfrompreviouspage Lexicalset Wordssubjectedtoanalysis Wordsremovedfromanalysis KIT bid,ddle,hid;bit,t,hit6 bin,pin,n3 LOT pod,body,cod;pot,hot,cot6 bottle1 MOUTH powder,loud,thousand, cloud,cloudy,cows,how'd; spouse,mouse,south,doubt, couch,house 13 boughs;louse;pound,sound, down,town 6 NEAR {0 beer,pier,fear,hear4 NORTH {0 border,cord;torch,horse4 NURSE bird,murder;birth,person, rst,dirt,dirty,turtle,shirt, nurse,nursing,church,hurt, curse;purr,stir,sir 17 {0 PALM father,spas2 balm,palm,calm3 PRICE pies,died,tide,side,size, guide,hide;bite,dice,tight, sight,slice,kite,height 14 bind,nd,pine,ne,time5 SQUARE {0 bear,pear,fair,hair4 START bard,bars,hard,card,garden,cars;Bart,part,heart, cart 10 {0 STRUT bud,buzz;butt,bus,hut5 {0 THOUGHT paws,laws;bought,fought, caught,talk 6 daughter,haughty,call3 TRAP bad,pad,had;bat,fat,hat6 cad,cat,cab,gas4 Totaltypes 151 56

PAGE 311

A1.RECORDINGMATERIALS 285 FigureA1.1:Demographicquestionnaire

PAGE 312

286 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION FigureA1.2:Exampleofmaptaskelicitationmaterials:Map1

PAGE 313

A1.RECORDINGMATERIALS 287 FigureA1.3:Exampleofmaptaskelicitationmaterials:Map2

PAGE 314

288 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION A2Numberoftokensperspeaker TableA2.2:Numberoftypesandtokensforspeakersintheconversationaldata SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens AlbertBATHafter,last24 AlbertCHOICEboy,boys23 AlbertCLOTHcloth,Costley,loss,Moss,o57 AlbertDRESSbed,Betsy,dead,death,head,let ,nest,next,set 914 AlbertFACEbake,chasing,face,make,place ,say,shaking,snake,take 914 AlbertFLEECEbeat2,beaten,believe,deep,eat, eating,feeding,keep,leaf,leave,people ,sleep,sleeping,teacher,teeth 1518 AlbertFOOTbush,good,hook,look,looking,put 610 AlbertGOATboat,close,go4,know,no ,ocean,smoke,smoking,so ,supposed 1021 AlbertGOOSEfood,move,moving33 AlbertKITchicken,dierent,dizzy,sh,living,midwife,pick,sickness 811 AlbertLOTbother,doctor,doctors,dog, dosh,god,job,knock,lot, pot,shopping,stop 1218 AlbertMOUTHabout,house,houses,how, now,out,south 713 AlbertNURSEbird,curse,rst,heard,person, thirty,turbid 79 AlbertPALMfather12 AlbertPRICEbite,ght,ve,inside,light ,like,liking,night,pipe ,side 1019 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 315

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 289 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens AlbertSTARThard,market,park,part,shark ,start 69 AlbertSTRUTblood,couple,cut,mother ,much,other,up,ups 815 AlbertTHOUGHTcause,talk,talking34 AlbertTRAPasthma,back,bad,daddy, dash,had,happen,tackle,thatch 916 AlbertTotal132210 CarolBATHafter,bathroom,last,laughing ,past 59 CarolCHOICEboy,boys23 CarolCLOTHboss,bosses,cost34 CarolDRESSbed,head,let,level,next,pepper ,second,section,set,seven 1016 CarolFACEbaby,bacon,bathe2,cake,day, days,lady2,make,maybe, neighbours,papers,patience, place,state,take,taste 1630 CarolFLEECEbelieve,deep,even,keep,leaving, meat,need,people,sheep,speak 1015 CarolFOOTbook,books,cook,good, hood,looking,put 713 CarolGOATclothes,goat,jokey,mostly,no, smoke,smokehouse,spoke 811 CarolGOOSEdo,food,lose,newborn46 CarolKITbig,bit,kid,lick,lift,listen,live, living,Pitman 911 CarolLOTdog,dogs,god,gods,job,lock,lot, not,o,shot,sloppy,stop,top 1316 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 316

290 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens CarolMOUTHout,outlet,outlets,shouting, south,thousand 610 CarolNURSEbirthday,rst,person,preserve ,thirty,Thursday 610 CarolPALMfather11 CarolPRICEbesides,decide,ve,hide,icecream,inside,licence,like, Lyford,might,nice,night,tight, type 1422 CarolSTARTcar,card,cars,charge,garbage, March,part,parts,start 913 CarolSTRUTbuckle,bug,bus,couple,cousin ,custom,mother,mothers,muck, plus,smuggle 1115 CarolTHOUGHTcause,talk,talking,taught46 CarolTRAPback,bad,black,daddy, Gladstone,happen,happy,lab ,mad,maths,Nassau,Saturday ,splashing 1322 CarolTotal151233 EddieBATHafter3,last,laugh,pastor49 EddieCHOICEboy,poison24 EddieCLOTHcon,o,sausage,soft46 EddieDRESSbest,check,dead,head,lesson, let,mess 710 EddieFACEbake,cable,day,days,make, may,patient,save,say,take, taking,tape,tapes 1320 EddieFLEECEbeach,even,meat,need,peas,people,piece,see 811 EddieFOOTcook,foot,good,hook,look ,looking,put 712 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 317

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 291 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens EddieGOATboat,coat,oat,go,hotel, know,most,no,nose,open ,remote,snow,suppose 1323 EddieGOOSEfood,move,scoop34 EddieKITbig,bit,dish,fteen,sh,jitney, pitch,six,stick,ticket 1013 EddieLOTbother,copper,doc,doctor ,jockey,knocking,on,pocket, pop,pot,shop,shopping,stop,top 1424 EddieMOUTHhouse,now,out36 EddieNURSEchurch,rst,person,thirty46 EddiePRICEbeside,bite,ve,ies,light,like ,outside,side 811 EddieSTARThard,harder,marching,part,shark ,start 69 EddieSTRUTclub,couple,enough,love,much, up 610 EddieTHOUGHTtalk,talking24 EddieTRAPback,bad,Catholic,daddy, happen,mad,mash,Nassau ,pack,Patrick,saddle,shad,slack 1321 EddieTotal127203 GeorgeBATHafter,basket,glass,last,pass57 GeorgeCHOICEboys11 GeorgeCLOTHboss,lost,o,oce44 GeorgeDRESSbed,dead,death,Edgar,head ,heavy,next,said,second 915 GeorgeFACEbaby,base,case,day,days ,face,late,make,papers, place,places,stable,state, table,take,taking 1627 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 318

292 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens GeorgeFLEECEbeach,believe,cheat,feed,keep, leave,people,speak,these 912 GeorgeFOOTcook,cooking,foot,good,look, put 69 GeorgeGOATago,boat,boats,close,clothes, go,know,most,no,nose,open, toe 1220 GeorgeGOOSEfood2,lose,move35 GeorgeKITbig,bit,business,sh,x, xing,hit,listen,live,living,miss, Mitchell,niggers,pick,picture, sister,six,stick 1826 GeorgeLOTbody,bother,cop,doctor,doctors,dog,fox,got,hot,job ,jobs,jockey,lock,not,spot, stop,top 1725 GeorgeMOUTHhouse,mouth,now,out, south,thousand 611 GeorgeNURSEbirthday,burst,church,rst,further, herb,hurt,murder,person,search ,thirty 1114 GeorgePALMbaba,father23 GeorgePRICEbible,decide,died,ght,ve, hide,light,like,likes,might, nice,night,side 1321 GeorgeSTARTcard,charge,harbor,hard,heart, Margaret,marks,park,part 912 GeorgeSTRUTblood,bus,club,couple,cousin, cut,love,lovely,loving,lucky, mother,much,southern 1318 GeorgeTHOUGHTtalk,talking24 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 319

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 293 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens GeorgeTRAPback,bad2,bag,black,daddy ,happen,Nassau,Saturday,that 914 GeorgeTotal165248 HenryBATHafter,bath,pass33 HenryCHOICEboy,boyfriend24 HenryCLOTHo13 HenryDRESSbed,best,head,left,leg,let, lets,success 812 HenryFACEbaby,day,estate,face,late,make, maybe,naked,paid,pay,place, say,take 1320 HenryFLEECEcay,eating,evening,meet,people, these 67 HenryFOOTgood,look,put36 HenryGOATago,boat,close,go,load,most ,overload 711 HenryGOOSEfood,suit23 HenryKITbig,dierent,hip,hit,lick,sissy, six,sixty 810 HenryLOTcops,fox,knock,lock,lot,oclock, stop 79 HenryMOUTHabout,house,now,out,south57 HenryNURSEcertain,further,person35 HenryPRICEght,inside,knife,light,like,nice ,night,outside,side,size 1015 HenrySTARTcar,far,garden,part,start57 HenrySTRUTclub,clubs,love,other,southern, sudden,touch,up 810 HenryTHOUGHTtalk11 HenryTRAPback,bad,happen,mad,Nassau ,patting 69 HenryTotal98142 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 320

294 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens JeanneBATHasshole,bathroom,class,last, past 58 JeanneCHOICEboy,choice224 JeanneCLOTHo,soft23 JeanneDRESSaccept,ahead,check,head,instead, next,said,upset 811 JeanneFACEbaby,face,lady,make,making, neighbour,pay,plate,say,take ,today 1122 JeanneFLEECEbeat,eat,keep,keys,leave,meat, people 78 JeanneFOOTcook,good,hooking,look, looking,put,took 711 JeanneGOATclothes,go,goes,hotel,know, most,no,so,stove,suppose 1016 JeanneGOOSEfood,move,moving,soup47 JeanneKITbig,bitch,busy,fty,hit,kids,lick,listen,live,living,niggers,nitty, shit,shitty,sisters,sit 1620 JeanneLOTdog,forgot,Fox,god,got,knock ,lock,lot,not,pot,shop,stop ,top 1319 JeanneMOUTHabout,anyhow,house,how,loud, mouth,out 78 JeanneNURSEburst,certain,curse,dirty,rst ,heard,murder,person,purchase,reverse,third,thirteen 1219 JeannePALMfather12 JeannePRICEaside,bible,bite,ght,life,like,side78 JeanneSTARTarch,charging,March,mark,park,part, start 77 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 321

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 295 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens JeanneSTRUTbubble,bucket,cuss,enough,fuck, fucked,fucking,husband,love, mother,stud,stu,touch,ugly 1418 JeanneTHOUGHTbought,talk23 JeanneTRAPback,bad,black,habit,happens, mad,slap 710 JeanneTotal142204 JohnnyBATHafter,classes,fast,last,passing,passport,past 711 JohnnyCHOICEboy,choice,employ,poison47 JohnnyCLOTHboss,cost,o,oce48 JohnnyDRESScheck,chest,dead,let,next ,sexy,step,unless 814 JohnnyFACEday,lady,make,making, maybe,save,shake,take 822 JohnnyFLEECEdeep,leave,meat,people, piece,sleep,speak,teacher 815 JohnnyFOOTcook,good,hook,look,put58 JohnnyGOAToat,go,hotel,know,most, no,post,so 813 JohnnyGOOSEloose,shoes,two34 JohnnyKITbig,chicken,sh,x,kiss ,live,pick,picture,ship, sick,sixty,ticket 1221 JohnnyLOTbox,clock,hot,job,lot, mop,pop,shop 814 JohnnyMOUTHabout,house,how,mouse, now,out,south,thousand 814 JohnnyNURSEchurch,curse,rst,person ,shirt,t-shirts,thirty 712 JohnnyPRICEdive,ve,guys,ice,life,like ,nice,psycho,size 914 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 322

296 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens JohnnySTARTcards,cars,charge,heart,hearts ,smart,start 711 JohnnySTRUThustling,knucks,love,mother ,plus,stu,up 714 JohnnyTHOUGHTtalk,talking,thought36 JohnnyTRAPacting,back,black,hassle,hats, mad,match,Nassau,pack, snatch 1014 JohnnyTotal126222 MrsMillBATHafter,glass,last,laugh,pass56 MrsMillCHOICEboys,noisy,savoy33 MrsMillDRESSlet,med,met,neck,next,said68 MrsMillFACEable,aids,baby,bake, baking,basin,bathe,days,hate, major,make,neighbour, neighbours,paste,place,plays ,slaves,take 1837 MrsMillFLEECEbeach,beef,eating,leading,leaf, leave,measle,meat,need, needed,needle,peas,people,repeats,these 1521 MrsMillFOOTcook,good,look,push46 MrsMillGOATboat,boats,both,goat,know,most, no,so,stove,suppose,supposed,those 1218 MrsMillGOOSEshoes11 MrsMillKITbig,bigger,businesses,chicken,did, dierent,dig,fties,fty,sh, give,kick,kitchen,lick,live,sister,six,sixty,skip,skipping 2026 MrsMillLOTdoctor,doctors,got,hog,lot,oclock,o ,shop 89 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 323

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 297 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens MrsMillMOUTHallowed,cows,house,out47 MrsMillNURSEcertain,church,rst,heard ,merchants,person,research, thirty,Thursday 916 MrsMillPALMfather11 MrsMillPRICEClyde,decide,died,dies,ght, ve,life,light,like,night 1015 MrsMillSTARTArchie,cars,charcoal,garden,hard56 MrsMillSTRUTblood,bus,cousin,Dutch, love,lovers,mother,much,mud, shut,stu 1117 MrsMillTHOUGHTbought,Fawkes,saw,talking,thought 56 MrsMillTRAPback,bad,black,blacks,dad,daddy, dashing,happen,Nassau 911 MrsMillTotal146214 MrsSmithBATHafter,basket,classes,last,pass 59 MrsSmithCHOICEboys12 MrsSmithCLOTHboss,coee,o35 MrsSmithDRESScheck,head,left,leg,lessons,let, messed,next,pleasure,said 1012 MrsSmithFACEday,days,lady,made,maker, page,papers,pay,places,say, space,stayed,take 1325 MrsSmithFLEECEbelieve,leave,need,niece,people57 MrsSmithFOOTbook,Bouky,cook,good,goods, look,put,took 812 MrsSmithGOATago,boat,boats,clothes,go, know,low-cost,low-down,sew,so 1016 MrsSmithGOOSEdo,moved,too33 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 324

298 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens MrsSmithKITbig,bishop,bit,business,chicken,xed, live,pick,sick,six,stick,sti 1214 MrsSmithLOTbox,doctors,fox,got,job,knock, lot,lots,oclock2,shop,sloppy, stock,stop 1319 MrsSmithMOUTHhouse,lousy,now,out,shouting 59 MrsSmithNURSEcertain,church,rst,nursing, service,shirts,thirty,Thursdays 812 MrsSmithNURSE+/r/church,rst22 MrsSmithPALMfather12 MrsSmithPRICEaside,died,ve,life,light,like, nice,nicest,night,side,sight,tidy, type 1316 MrsSmithSTARTcards,cars,gardens,park,part, starch,start 78 MrsSmithSTRUTbus,butler,couple,cousin,cousins, cupboard,customs,cut,husband, mother,much,stu,subjects, sudden,tough 1518 MrsSmithTHOUGHTbought,saw,talk,taught, thought 57 MrsSmithTRAPactive,back,bad,Baptist,baptize,black,chat,daddy,fashion,happen ,hats,mad,mass,Nassau,plait 1518 MrsSmithTotal154216 MrsWallBATHafter,fast,half,last2,laugh, mask,pass,passing 812 MrsWallCHOICEboy,boys23 MrsWallCLOTHcloth,o24 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 325

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 299 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens MrsWallDRESSbed,best,dead,egg,every,fed,head ,left,let,message,met, nest,next,says 1420 MrsWallFACEbaby,cake,days,fables, lady,made,make,places,say ,shake,snake,table,take, taking,taste 1530 MrsWallFLEECEeast,feed,feet,knead,leaf,leave, meet,needed,sheep,sleep,sleeping, teeth 1215 MrsWallFOOTbook,bush,cook,foot,good, look,put 712 MrsWallGOATclose,dough,folk,ghost,go,goats, know,no,so 912 MrsWallGOOSEdo,food,moving35 MrsWallKITbig,business,chicken,clip,fty,kitchen ,liberty,lift,listen,live,lived,liver, mix,sick,sit 1518 MrsWallLOTbody,doctor,doctors,dogs,god, got,hot,lot,modern,oclock,pot, shop,stop,toee,top 1522 MrsWallMOUTHabout,house,now,out, outhouse,powder,souse,thousand 815 MrsWallNURSEbirth,certain2,rst,nurse, sturdy,thirty,Thursday 711 MrsWallPALMfather12 MrsWallPRICEbite,dice,died,eyes,ve, hide,inside,like,nice,night,outside,side,tonight 1319 MrsWallSTARThard,market,parch,part,smart, start 69 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 326

300 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens MrsWallSTRUTcousin,cut,husband,mother ,much,suck2,touch,tub, up 918 MrsWallTHOUGHTtalk,talking,taught34 MrsWallTRAPback,bad,bag,baptist,daddy ,fact,happen,happens,happy,hat ,ladder,mash,Nassau,sap,slap, slapping 1620 MrsWallTotal165251 ShanaeBATHafter,bathroom,class,fast, last,laughing,pass,passing,past 915 ShanaeCHOICEboy,boyfriend,boys35 ShanaeCLOTHboss,cough,coughing,o45 ShanaeDRESSbed,check,checking,dead, death,exwife,let,never,next,sets, step 1115 ShanaeFACEbaby,cable,cake,eight, made,maid,make2,makes, making,pacing,place,plate,save, say,take,taken,taste 1728 ShanaeFLEECEkeep,need,people,sheet, sleep,speak,teeth 711 ShanaeFOOTfoot,good,look,looking, looks,push,put 711 ShanaeGOATclose,clothes,know,no,over ,show,suppose,though 813 ShanaeGOOSEfood,move23 ShanaeKITbig,bit,dierent,fty,give,kicking,kids,living,sick,sit,six 1116 ShanaeLOTbother,clog,doctor,hot,lock ,lot,oclock,shop,shot,stop ,stopping 1117 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 327

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 301 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens ShanaeMOUTHhouse,now,out,thousand48 ShanaeNURSEburst,certain,church,rst, murder,nurse,person 710 ShanaePRICEalike,died,eyes,ght,ve,guys, inside,knife,life,light,like, might,nice,night,outside 1523 ShanaeSTARTCartwright,dark,far,hard,mark, start 68 ShanaeSTRUTblood2,couple,cousin,cut, discuss,love,lucky,mother, other,stu,sudden,tub,up 1320 ShanaeTHOUGHTtalk,talking,thought34 ShanaeTRAPadd,asthma,back,bad,bag, black,blacking,daddy,happen,mad 1015 ShanaeTotal148227 SharonBATHbath,bathroom,glasses,half,last, laughing,pastor 78 SharonCHOICEboy,boys,poison,voice46 SharonCLOTHboss,cost,lost,o45 SharonDRESSBecks,bed,best,checkers,dead, death,head,leg,lesson,let,met ,next,pebbles,said,sex 1522 SharonFACEbaby,Bakker,day,ladies, late,make,maybe,naked,neighbours,say,spade,station, take,taking,taste 1529 SharonFLEECEbeach,believe,deacon,Jesus ,keep,least,leave,meet, need,needle,people,piece,please,police,seat,sheet 1621 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 328

302 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens SharonFOOTbook,bush,foot,good,look ,push,put 712 SharonGOATboat,clothe,clothes,folks ,loaf,most,show,smoke,so,soda 1017 SharonGOOSEbooth,food23 SharonKITbig,bitch,city,dick,fty,g, sh,ts,give,liquor,listen,liver, nigger,pick,picture,shit,sick,sister, sit,split,stick 2127 SharonLOTadopt,block,body,dock,doctor ,dog,god,knock,lodge, lot,pocket,pot,sausage,shot ,stop,top 1627 SharonMOUTHhouse,mouth,out310 SharonNURSEburst,church,curse,Curtis, dirty,rst,nurse,person, search,Thursday,virgin 1118 SharonPALMfather,pa23 SharonPRICEalive,bite,died,dive,eyes,ght ,ve,guys,inside,knife, lied,life,light2,like,Lyford, night,nighttrain,tonight,types 1929 SharonSTARTcard,cardboard,hearts,market, shark,start 610 SharonSTRUTblood,blu,bucket,bucks,bug,club ,couple,cut,cutlass,judge, knuckle,knuckles,love,mother, plus,stu,sudden 1725 SharonTHOUGHTGunhawks,talk23 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 329

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 303 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens SharonTRAPback,bad,black,chap,daddy ,happen,jacks,match,Nassau,Saturday,slap 1116 SharonTotal188291 SidneyBATHafter,half,last,pass47 SidneyCHOICEboy,boys22 SidneyCLOTHo12 SidneyDRESSBecks,best,bet,dead,head, heading,left,leg,never,next,said ,setup,seven 1318 SidneyFACEacre,days,made,make,mason,paper,place,places,save, state,station,take,taking,today 1427 SidneyFLEECEbelieve,keep,need,people,see, speak,these 79 SidneyFOOTgood,look,put36 SidneyGOATclose,closest,clothes,most,so,those 68 SidneyGOOSEcoop,do,two33 SidneyKITbig,chicken,did,dip,fty,sh, hit,licks,live,middle,ship, six,sixty,ticket 1419 SidneyLOTblock,bog,job,knock,lot, oclock,stop,top 810 SidneyMOUTHabout,doubt,house,out, thousand,thousands 611 SidneyNURSEcertain,earthquake,rst,Percy, person,purchase,searching,thirty 812 SidneyPALMfather12 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 330

304 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens SidneyPRICEdespite,dice,died,dislike,ve, ight,life,lighthouse,like2,night ,side,slightly,spite 1318 SidneySTARTmarble,mark,part,pass46 SidneySTRUTdiscuss,dust,enough,Kentucky, luck,lucky,mother,much,mutton,setup,stuck,upper 1217 SidneyTHOUGHTtalk,talking24 SidneyTRAPAcklins,back,bad,bag,fat, fatten,happen,past 811 SidneyTotal129192 SisterBBATHafter,class,half,last,passing, pastor,path 710 SisterBCHOICEavoid,boy,boyfriend,boys,choice, enjoy,noise 79 SisterBCLOTHcoee,costume,coughs,o46 SisterBDRESSaccept,bed,bless,check,chest, death,head,left,let,medal,next, second,set,sex,text 1519 SisterBFACEbaby,bacon,day,eight,lady, maid,make,making,mason,nature, paper,pay,phase,save,say, table,take 1728 SisterBFLEECEbeat,beats,believe,believed,keep, leave,need,people,piece,release, teach,teachers,teeth 1316 SisterBFOOTbook,books,bushes,cook,foot, good,look,push,put,took 1016 SisterBGOATago,close,goatskin,hope,hoping, know,most,slow,soak,though 1011 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 331

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 305 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens SisterBGOOSEdo,food,goose,lose,move,shoot ,two 710 SisterBKITbig,bit,dierent,dig,x,give,hip, kiss,listen,live,pick,six,stick 1315 SisterBLOTbox,chop,doctor,god,job ,knock,lock,lot,oclock,stop, top 1117 SisterBMOUTHabout,cowbells,house,now,out 58 SisterBNURSEbirds,birth,certain,church ,circle,curse,deserve,rst ,further,heard,hurt,murder, nurse,nurses,person,search,serve, serving,sturdy,thirty 2030 SisterBPALMfather,fathers22 SisterBPRICEalike,bible,ve,guidance, hiking,inside,kites,life,like, nice,night,side 1220 SisterBSTARTdark,hard,heart,hearts,marble, marbles,market,part,start 911 SisterBSTRUTblood,bucket,couple,cousins, cut,enough,husband,judge,love, mother,mothers,study,stu,suck, tough 1518 SisterBTHOUGHTcaught,talk,talking,taught, thought 57 SisterBTRAPattach,back,backpack,baptize, chapters,collapse,daddy,fashion, happen,mad,Sabbath,slap 1217 SisterBTotal194270 ViolaBATHafter,fast,last,laugh,laughing ,pass,passport,past,pastor 914 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 332

306 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens ViolaCHOICEboy,joy,noise,poison,voice56 ViolaCLOTHo,oce,soft35 ViolaDRESSbed,bless,check,dead,devil, head,leg,next,pepper,second, set,setting,shed,special,test 1521 ViolaFACEbaby,cage,day,days,gates, maid,make,paper,pay, place,safety,save,say,snake, stay,table,take 1731 ViolaFLEECEbeach,keep,meet,need,see, seizure,sheet,speak,speaker,speed 1014 ViolaFOOTbush,bushy,foot,good,look ,looking,put 713 ViolaGOATboat,close,ghost,know,motor ,no,open,smoke,suppose, supposed 1016 ViolaGOOSEfood,shoot,two33 ViolaKITbig,bigger,bit,dierent,x,give ,live,liver,living,mix,pick, shit,sick,sister,skipping, stick 1624 ViolaLOTdoctor,god,hog,hopping, job,knock,knocking,lodge,lot,Moxey ,oclock,shop,stop,top 1421 ViolaMOUTHhouse,loud,mouth,now,out, south 69 ViolaNURSEbirds,certain,church,rst,further,hurt,nurse2,person,thirty 913 ViolaPRICEbite,ght,ve,hide,light,like ,nice,night,pipe 913 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 333

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 307 TableA2.2,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalsetItemsTypesTokens ViolaSTARTArcher,card,cards,dark, hard,heart,march,marching, mark,market,part,smart,start 1322 ViolaSTRUTblood,bucket,bus,Chub,couple ,guts,Kentucky,knucks,mother, much,smother,up 1217 ViolaTHOUGHTsaw,talk,talking35 ViolaTRAPback,backward,bad,bag,black ,clapping,daddy,fat,happen, Nassau,pack 1117 ViolaTotal172264 Grandtotal{3387 TableA2.3:Numberoftypesandtokensforspeakersinthemaptaskandcitation formdata SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Ada01BATH{{111 Ada01CHOICE55173439 Ada01CLOTH{{366 Ada01DRESS{{477 Ada01FACE58102634 Ada01FLEECE{{699 Ada01FOOT{{577 Ada01GOAT3681925 Ada01GOOSE{{599 Ada01KIT{{699 Ada01LOT{{61010 Ada01MOUTH711141930 Ada01NURSE711121829 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 334

308 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Ada01NURSE+/r/11578 Ada01PALM{{233 Ada01PRICE79131827 Ada01START{{688 Ada01STRUT{{599 Ada01THOUGHT{{81010 Ada01TRAP{{588 Ada01Total3551141237288 Ada02BATH{{41010 Ada02CHOICE614132236 Ada02CLOTH{{111 Ada02DRESS{{51111 Ada02FACE5961322 Ada02FLEECE{{71111 Ada02FOOT{{51010 Ada02GOAT4982736 Ada02GOOSE{{61111 Ada02KIT{{599 Ada02LOT{{61212 Ada02MOUTH1027122350 Ada02NURSE82591136 Ada02NURSE+/r/{{788 Ada02PALM{{244 Ada02PRICE720131939 Ada02START{{81313 Ada02START+/r/{{222 Ada02STRUT{{488 Ada02THOUGHT{{699 Ada02TRAP{{61111 Ada02Total40104135245349 Ada03BATH{{466 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 335

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 309 TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Ada03CHOICE710173343 Ada03CLOTH{{366 Ada03DRESS{{599 Ada03FACE613102841 Ada03FLEECE{{61313 Ada03FOOT{{51010 Ada03GOAT511103041 Ada03GOOSE{{61212 Ada03KIT{{61212 Ada03LOT{{61313 Ada03MOUTH720122444 Ada03NURSE814112034 Ada03NURSE+/r/1191516 Ada03PALM{{244 Ada03PRICE815142843 Ada03START{{102121 Ada03STRUT{{51111 Ada03THOUGHT{{61212 Ada03TRAP{{61111 Ada03Total4284153318402 Ada05BATH{{477 Ada05CHOICE69152534 Ada05CLOTH{{355 Ada05DRESS{{588 Ada05FACE36102834 Ada05FLEECE{{91313 Ada05FOOT{{51010 Ada05GOAT5992635 Ada05GOOSE{{61111 Ada05KIT{{61212 Ada05LOT{{51010 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 336

310 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Ada05MOUTH510122333 Ada05NURSE9104717 Ada05NURSE+/r/{{142626 Ada05PALM{{233 Ada05PRICE67132532 Ada05START{{91414 Ada05START+/r/{{344 Ada05STRUT{{577 Ada05THOUGHT{{71010 Ada05TRAP{{599 Ada05Total3451151283334 Art01BATH{{477 Art01CHOICE3391720 Art01CLOTH{{233 Art01DRESS{{51212 Art01FACE58103543 Art01FLEECE{{61111 Art01FOOT{{488 Art01GOAT46103137 Art01GOOSE{{61010 Art01KIT{{61212 Art01LOT{{477 Art01MOUTH610122232 Art01NURSE45238 Art01NURSE+/r/37101926 Art01PALM{{266 Art01PRICE78143038 Art01START+/r/{{61111 Art01STRUT{{51010 Art01THOUGHT{{477 Art01TRAP{{61212 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 337

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 311 TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Art01Total3247127273320 Art02BATH{{41010 Art02CHOICE68173442 Art02CLOTH{{366 Art02DRESS{{51010 Art02FACE58102937 Art02FLEECE{{61111 Art02FOOT{{51010 Art02GOAT45103338 Art02GOOSE{{61212 Art02KIT{{61212 Art02LOT{{51010 Art02MOUTH711132536 Art02NURSE3381316 Art02NURSE+/r/58112028 Art02PALM{{244 Art02PRICE912142840 Art02START{{122 Art02START+/r/{{91818 Art02STRUT{{599 Art02THOUGHT{{61111 Art02TRAP{{61212 Art02Total3955152319374 Art03BATH{{488 Art03CHOICE716163046 Art03CLOTH{{244 Art03DRESS{{588 Art03FACE715102843 Art03FLEECE{{71313 Art03FOOT{{599 Art03GOAT510102939 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 338

312 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Art03GOOSE{{688 Art03KIT{{61111 Art03LOT{{61111 Art03MOUTH817122037 Art03NURSE46{{6 Art03NURSE+/r/914142236 Art03PALM{{244 Art03PRICE1020142949 Art03START{{666 Art03START+/r/{{81010 Art03STRUT{{51010 Art03THOUGHT{{699 Art03TRAP{{61212 Art03Total5098150281379 Art04BATH{{477 Art04CHOICE723173356 Art04CLOTH{{366 Art04DRESS{{599 Art04FACE617103047 Art04FLEECE{{61010 Art04FOOT{{51010 Art04GOAT310103040 Art04GOOSE{{61111 Art04KIT{{61212 Art04LOT{{61212 Art04MOUTH929122554 Art04NURSE411{{11 Art04NURSE+/r/618173149 Art04PALM{{244 Art04PRICE1135142964 Art04START{{91313 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 339

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 313 TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Art04START+/r/{{677 Art04STRUT{{51111 Art04THOUGHT{{61212 Art04TRAP{{61111 Art04Total46143155313456 Art06BATH{{41010 Art06CHOICE719172948 Art06CLOTH{{366 Art06DRESS{{599 Art06FACE511103142 Art06FLEECE{{61212 Art06FOOT{{51010 Art06GOAT414103044 Art06GOOSE{{51111 Art06KIT{{61212 Art06LOT{{61313 Art06MOUTH716122238 Art06NURSE510122131 Art06NURSE+/r/2561015 Art06PALM{{244 Art06PRICE1124142953 Art06START{{81515 Art06START+/r/{{122 Art06STRUT{{51010 Art06THOUGHT{{61212 Art06TRAP{{61212 Art06Total4199149310409 Ben01BATH{{488 Ben01CHOICE716173248 Ben01CLOTH{{366 Ben01DRESS{{51010 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 340

314 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Ben01FACE611103041 Ben01FLEECE{{61212 Ben01FOOT{{51010 Ben01GOAT411103142 Ben01GOOSE{{61212 Ben01KIT{{61313 Ben01LOT{{61111 Ben01MOUTH719122443 Ben01NURSE{{111 Ben01NURSE+/r/816152844 Ben01PALM{{244 Ben01PRICE1223142750 Ben01START{{81414 Ben01START+/r/{{466 Ben01STRUT{{51010 Ben01THOUGHT{{61212 Ben01TRAP{{61111 Ben01Total4496151312408 Ben02BATH{{488 Ben02CHOICE713173447 Ben02CLOTH{{366 Ben02DRESS{{51010 Ben02FACE510103040 Ben02FLEECE{{61111 Ben02FOOT{{51010 Ben02GOAT311103041 Ben02GOOSE{{61111 Ben02KIT{{61212 Ben02LOT{{61212 Ben02MOUTH820122444 Ben02NURSE+/r/816173248 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 341

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 315 TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Ben02PALM{{244 Ben02PRICE1229142857 Ben02START{{222 Ben02START+/r/{{101818 Ben02STRUT{{51010 Ben02THOUGHT{{61212 Ben02TRAP{{61212 Ben02Total4399152316415 Ben03BATH{{499 Ben03CHOICE610173545 Ben03CLOTH{{366 Ben03DRESS{{51010 Ben03FACE56103238 Ben03FLEECE{{61111 Ben03FOOT{{51010 Ben03GOAT512102840 Ben03GOOSE{{61111 Ben03KIT{{61212 Ben03LOT{{61212 Ben03MOUTH818132341 Ben03NURSE+/r/512152537 Ben03PALM{{244 Ben03PRICE716142844 Ben03START{{101616 Ben03START+/r/{{333 Ben03STRUT{{51010 Ben03THOUGHT{{61212 Ben03TRAP{{61111 Ben03Total3674152308382 Ben04BATH{{488 Ben04CHOICE78173341 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 342

316 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Ben04CLOTH{{366 Ben04DRESS{{51313 Ben04FACE69103241 Ben04FLEECE{{61111 Ben04FOOT{{51010 Ben04GOAT6992534 Ben04GOOSE{{61212 Ben04KIT{{61212 Ben04LOT{{61212 Ben04MOUTH812122436 Ben04NURSE22124 Ben04NURSE+/r/67163340 Ben04PALM{{244 Ben04PRICE917142845 Ben04START{{233 Ben04START+/r/{{91717 Ben04STRUT{{51111 Ben04THOUGHT{{61212 Ben04TRAP{{61212 Ben04Total4464150320384 Beth02BATH{{477 Beth02CHOICE718173351 Beth02CLOTH{{355 Beth02DRESS{{51010 Beth02FACE612102739 Beth02FLEECE{{61111 Beth02FOOT{{51010 Beth02GOAT511102738 Beth02GOOSE{{61010 Beth02KIT{{61212 Beth02LOT{{61111 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 343

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 317 TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Beth02MOUTH815122338 Beth02NURSE+/r/922162648 Beth02PALM{{244 Beth02PRICE1025142752 Beth02START+/r/{{91717 Beth02STRUT{{51010 Beth02THOUGHT{{61111 Beth02TRAP{{61111 Beth02Total45103148292395 Beth03BATH{{477 Beth03CHOICE711173243 Beth03CLOTH{{366 Beth03DRESS{{599 Beth03FACE56103238 Beth03FLEECE{{61111 Beth03FOOT{{488 Beth03GOAT59102938 Beth03GOOSE{{51010 Beth03KIT{{61313 Beth03LOT{{61111 Beth03MOUTH610122333 Beth03NURSE11223 Beth03NURSE+/r/58173139 Beth03PALM{{244 Beth03PRICE718142745 Beth03START{{222 Beth03START+/r/{{101717 Beth03STRUT{{51010 Beth03THOUGHT{{61212 Beth03TRAP{{61212 Beth03Total3663152308371 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 344

318 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Beth05BATH{{488 Beth05CHOICE816162945 Beth05CLOTH{{377 Beth05DRESS{{51010 Beth05FACE616103147 Beth05FLEECE{{61212 Beth05FOOT{{599 Beth05GOAT517102946 Beth05GOOSE{{61010 Beth05KIT{{61212 Beth05LOT{{61111 Beth05MOUTH927122451 Beth05NURSE+/r/920173151 Beth05PALM{{244 Beth05PRICE1129142554 Beth05START{{111 Beth05START+/r/{{101818 Beth05STRUT{{51010 Beth05THOUGHT{{61212 Beth05TRAP{{61212 Beth05Total48125150305430 Beth06BATH{{488 Beth06CHOICE816172541 Beth06CLOTH{{366 Beth06DRESS{{588 Beth06FACE612102638 Beth06FLEECE{{61212 Beth06FOOT{{599 Beth06GOAT51581833 Beth06GOOSE{{455 Beth06KIT{{61111 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 345

A2.NUMBEROFTOKENSPERSPEAKER 319 TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Beth06LOT{{61010 Beth06MOUTH819122342 Beth06NURSE55{{5 Beth06NURSE+/r/718132038 Beth06PALM{{244 Beth06PRICE1124132246 Beth06START{{111 Beth06START+/r/{{101717 Beth06STRUT{{599 Beth06THOUGHT{{61111 Beth06TRAP{{61212 Beth06Total50109142257366 Beth07BATH{{466 Beth07CHOICE44142125 Beth07CLOTH{{244 Beth07DRESS{{599 Beth07FACE3692632 Beth07FLEECE{{61010 Beth07FOOT{{51010 Beth07GOAT5992433 Beth07GOOSE{{699 Beth07KIT{{61212 Beth07LOT{{61212 Beth07MOUTH714111933 Beth07NURSE410{{10 Beth07NURSE+/r/46152430 Beth07PALM{{244 Beth07PRICE610142333 Beth07START{{333 Beth07START+/r/{{101515 Beth07STRUT{{599 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 346

320 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA2.3,continuedfrompreviouspage SpeakerLexicalset MaptaskCitationformTotal TypesTokensTypesTokensTokens Beth07THOUGHT{{61111 Beth07TRAP{{61010 Beth07Total3359144261320 Grandtotal{1524{52586782 A3Linguisticrankingofspeakersacrossspeech styles TableA3.4:Linguisticrankingofspeakersacrossallspeechstyles,basedon 2u , i.e.therelativepositionwithrespecttoTRAPandGOOSEofthenucleusin pre-voicelessMOUTH,and 2i ,i.e.thedegreeofdiphthongisationofpost-labial NURSErelativetoCHOICE Style Social Speaker 2u : 2i :Ranking statuslogratiorankratiorankaverage Cit.formMS-3Beth07-2.1670.152.0 Cit.formMS-1,2Ben02-1.5960.1554.0 Cit.formWC-4Art03-1.290.1767.5 Cit.formMS-1,2Ben01-1.2340.1647.5 Cit.formMS-1,2Beth02-1.720.2598.0 Cit.formMS-1,2Beth05-1.4470.198.5 Cit.formMS-3Beth06-1.8240.2719.0 Cit.formWC-3Ada05-1.4650.26310.0 Cit.formWC-3Art04-1.1070.17710.5 Cit.formMS-1,2Ben04-1.2790.22110.5 MaptaskMS-1,2Ben02-1.4690.2811.0 MaptaskMS-1,2Beth05-0.9310.13111.5 Cit.formMS-3Beth03-0.8760.17414.0 MaptaskMS-1,2Ben04-1.1550.36617.0 Cit.formWC-4Art02-1.0730.39519.0 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 347

A3.LINGUISTICRANKINGOFSPEAKERSACROSSSPEECHSTYLES 321 TableA3.4,continuedfrompreviouspage Style Social Speaker 2u : 2i :Ranking statuslogratiorankratiorankaverage MaptaskMS-3Beth07-0.9350.2811819.0 Cit.formWC-3Art01-0.3370.11419.5 MaptaskMS-1,2Beth02-0.7270.19619.5 Cit.formMS-1,2Ben03-0.6470.18920.0 Cit.formWC-3Ada03-0.9980.41121.5 Cit.formWC-2Art06-1.1530.48721.5 MaptaskMS-1,2Ben01-0.8090.33921.5 MaptaskWC-4Art03-0.9930.42222.5 MaptaskMS-3Beth06-0.6780.2651522.5 Cit.formWC-4Ada02-0.8040.34923.0 MaptaskWC-4Art02-0.6940.29724.0 MaptaskWC-3Ada01-0.9350.57427.0 Convers.PB-1MrsSmith-0.9450.6227.5 Convers.MS-6SisterB-0.5290.39928.5 Convers.PB-3MrsMill-0.7630.5530.0 MaptaskWC-3Art04-0.4170.4130.5 Convers.MS-6Jeanne-1.0380.9114731.0 Cit.formWC-3Ada01-0.7370.57531.5 Convers.WC-6Henry-0.7790.70331.5 MaptaskWC-3Art01-0.420.52733.0 MaptaskWC-2Art06-0.380.43833.0 Convers.PB-2MrsWall-0.3950.49834.0 MaptaskMS-1,2Ben030.4450.34934.5 MaptaskWC-3Ada03-0.4180.77338.5 Convers.WC-2George-0.3260.70739.0 MaptaskMS-3Beth030.5030.45539.5 Convers.WC-3Carol-0.0670.76641.0 MaptaskWC-4Ada020.0470.71242.0 Convers.WC-4Eddie-0.0220.89343.5 MaptaskWC-3Ada050.0410.79644.0 Convers.WC-4Albert0.0340.94345.0 continuedonnextpage

PAGE 348

322 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSION TableA3.4,continuedfrompreviouspage Style Social Speaker 2u : 2i :Ranking statuslogratiorankratiorankaverage Convers.WC-5Viola0.0990.79545.0 Convers.WC-5Shanae0.9610.72645.5 Convers.WC-3Sharon0.0820.97247.0 Convers.WC-3Sidney0.3641.03148.5 Convers.WC-6Johnny1.1351.19651.0

PAGE 349

Bibliography Aceto,M..Whatarecreolelanguages?Analternativeapproachto theAnglophoneAtlanticworldwithspecialemphasisonBarbudanCreoleEnglish.In ContactEnglishesoftheEasternCaribbean,pages121{140.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Aceto,M.2004.EasternCaribbeanEnglish-derivedlanguagevarieties:phonology. InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C., editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages481{500. Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. Aceto,M.06.CaribbeanEnglishes.InKachru,B.B.,Kachru,Y.,andNelson, C.L.,editors, TheHandbookofWorldEnglishes.Oxford:Blackwell. Alleyne,M.. Comparative Afro-American: An historical-comparative study of English-based Afro-American dialects of the new World.AnnArbor:Karoma. Allsopp,R.. DictionaryofCaribbeanEnglishUsage.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Anderson,A.H.,Bader,M.,GurmanBard,E.,Boyle,E.,Doherty,G.,Garrod, S.,Isard,S.,Kowtko,J.,McAllister,J.,Miller,J.,Sotillo,C.,Thompson,H.S., andWeinert,R..TheHCRCMapTaskCorpus. Language and Speech, 34:351{366. Ansaldo,U.andMatthews,S.7.Deconstructingcreole:Therationale.In Ansaldo,U.,Matthews,S.,andLim,L.,editors, DeconstructingCreole,pages 1{18.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. 323

PAGE 350

324 BIBLIOGRAPHY AudacityTeamMembers. Audacity: Free, open source, cross-platform audio software for multi-track recording and editing.[Online].Available: http://www.audacityteam.org. Ayearst,M.1939.AnoteonCanadianspeech. AmericanSpeech,14:231{233. Bailey,B.L.1.JamaicanCreole:Candialectboundariesbedened?In Hymes,D.,editor, Pidginization and Creolization of Languages: Proceedings of a conference held at the University of th West Indies in Mona, Jamaica April 1968, pages341{348.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Bailey,G.andThomas,E.R.98.SomeaspectsofAfrican-AmericanVernacular Englishphonology.InMufwene,S.S.,Rickford,J.R.,Bailey,G.,andBaugh, J.,editors, African-American English: Structure, history and use,pages85{109. London/NewYork:Routledge. Bakker,P..Creolesandtypology:Problemsofsamplinganddenition. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages,29:437{455. Bakker,P.,Daval-Markussen,A.,Parkvall,M.,andPlag,I..Creolesare typologicallydistinctfromnon-creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 26:5{42. Bell,A..Styleasaudiencedesign. Language in Society,13:145{204. Bell,A.01.Backinstyle:Reworkingofaudiencedesign.InEckert,P.and Rickford,J.R.,editors, StyleandSociolinguisticVariation,pages139{169.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Bethel,N..BahamianKinshipandthePowerofWomen.Master'sthesis, CorpusChristiCollege,Cambridge. Bethel,N..Navigations:InsularityversuscosmopolitanismintheBahamas: Formalityandinformalityinthearchipelagicnation. SocialIdentities,8:237{ 253. Bickerton,D..Thenatureofacreolecontinuum. Language,49:640{669. Bickerton,D.. Dynamicsofacreolesystem.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

PAGE 351

BIBLIOGRAPHY 325 Blake,R..Bajan:phonology.InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann, B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C.,editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages501{507.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. Boersma,P.andWeenik,D.. PRAAT: Doing phonetics by computer.[Online].Available:http://www.praat.org. Britain,D..Dialectcontactandphonologicalreallocation:`CanadianRaising'intheEnglishFens. Language in Society,26:15{46. Britain,D.andTrudgill,P..Newdialectformationandcontact-induced reallocation:ThreecasestudiesfromtheEnglishFens. International Journal of English Studies,5:183{209. Bullington,B..Asmugglersparadise:CocainetrackingthroughtheBahamas. Crime, Law and Social Change,16:59{83. CaribbeanTourismOrganization. Individual Country Statistics: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bonaire.[Online].Available:http://www.onecaribbean.org. Carrington,L.D..ThestatusofcreoleintheCaribbean. CaribbeanQuarterly,45/3:41{51. Carter,H..VowellengthinAfro-American:Developmentorretention?In Mufwene,S.S.,editor, AfricanismsinAfro-AmericanLanguageVarieties,pages 328{345.Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress. Chambers,J.K..Canadianraising. Canadian Journal of Linguistics,18:113{ 135. Chambers,J.K..Canadianraising:Blocking,fronting,etc. American Speech, 64:75{88. Cheshire,J..Sexandgenderinvariationistresearch.In Chambers,J.K.,Trudgill,P.,andSchilling-Estes,N.,editors, TheHandbookofLanguageVariationandChange,pages423{443.Oxford: Blackwell.

PAGE 352

326 BIBLIOGRAPHY Childs,B.,Reaser,J.,andWolfram,W..Deningethnicvarietiesinthe Bahamas:Phonologicalaccommodationinblackandwhiteenclaves.InAceto, M.andWilliams,J.P.,editors, Eastern Caribbean Creoles and Englishes,pages 1{28.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Childs,B.andWolfram,W..BahamianEnglish:phonology.InSchneider, E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C.,editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages435{449.Berlin/New York:MoutondeGruyter. Clopper,C.G..Computationalmethodsfornormalizingacousticvoweldata fortalkerdierences. Language and Linguistics Compass,3:1430{1442. Craton,M.andSaunders,G.a. IslandersintheStream: A history of the Bahamian people. Vol. 1: From aboriginal times to the end of slavery.Athens: UniversityofGeorgiaPress. Craton,M.andSaunders,G.b. IslandersintheStream: A history of the Bahamian people. Vol. 2: From the ending of slavery to the twenty-rst century. Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress. Crother,J..Typologyanduniversalsinvowelsystems.InGreenberg,J.H., Ferguson,C.A.,andMoravcsik,E.A.,editors, UniversalsofHumanLanguage, pages93{152.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress. Crozier,A..TheScotch-IrishinuenceonAmericanEnglish. American Speech,59:310{331. Dailey-O'Cain,J..CanadianRaisinginamidwesternU.S.City. LanguageVariationandChange,9:107{120. DeRosario-Martnez,H.a. Analysinginteractionsofttedmodels.Rpackagevignette:phia,https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/phia/vignettes/phia.pdf. DeRosario-Martnez,H.15b. phia:Post-HocInteractionAnalysis.Rpackage version0.2-1,https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=phia. DeCamp,D..SocialandgeographicalfactorsinJamaicanDialect.InLePage, R.B.,editor, ProceedingsoftheConferenceonCreoleLanguageStudies,pages 61{84.London:Macmillan.

PAGE 353

BIBLIOGRAPHY 327 DeCamp,D.a.Implicationalscalesandsociolinguisticlinearity. Linguistics, 73:30{43. DeCamp,D.b.Towardsagenerativeanalysisofapost-creolespeechcontinuum.InHymes,D.,editor, Pidginization and Creolization of Languages: Proceedings of a conference held at the University of the West Indies in Mona, Jamaica April 1968,pages349{370.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. DeGra,M.,Bass,T.,andBerwick,R..Computationalphylogenetics,creolelanguages,andfamilyvalues.In PaperpresentedatInternationalCongressofLinguists,Geneva. DepartmentofEducation:HumanitiesSection. Primary Language Arts Scope and Sequence.[Online].Available: http://www.ministryofeducationbahamas.com. DepartmentofStatisticsofTheBahamas. 2010 Census of Population and Housing.[Online].Available:http://statistics.bahamas.gov.bs. Deterding,D..Measurementsofthe /eI/ and /@U/ vowelsofyoungEnglish speakersinSingapore.InBrown,A.,Deterding,D.,andLow,E.L.,editors, The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation,pages93{99. Singapore:SingaporeAssociationforAppliedLinguistics. Deuber,D.. EnglishintheCaribbean:Variation, style and standards in Jamaica and Trinidad.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Devonish,H.andHarry,O.G.004.JamaicanCreoleandJamaicanEnglish: phonology.InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,and Upton,C.,editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages 450{480.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. DiPaolo,M.andYaeger-Dror,M.,editors. Sociophonetics:Astudents'guide.London/NewYork:Routledge. Donnelly,J..BasilectalfeaturesofBahamianCreoleEnglish. College Forum, 9:17{34. Eckert,P..Thewholewoman:Sexandgenderdierencesinvariation. Language Variation and Change,1:245{267.

PAGE 354

328 BIBLIOGRAPHY Eckert,P..Thewavesofvariationstudy:Theemergenceofmeaninginthe studyofsociolinguisticvariation. Annual Review of Anthropology,41:87{100. Edwards,W.F..AfricanAmericanVernacularEnglish:phonology.InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C.,editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages383{392.Berlin/New York:MoutondeGruyter. Emeneau,M.B.1935.ThedialectofLunenburg,NovaScotia. Language,11:140{ 147. Escure,G.1.GenderrolesandlinguisticvariationintheBelizianCreole community.InCheshire,J.,editor, English around the World: Sociolinguistic perspectives,pages595{608.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Fabricius,A.,Watt,D.,andJohnson,D.E..Acomparisonofthreespeakerintrinsicvowelformantfrequencynormalizationalgorithmsforsociophonetics. Language Variation and Change,21:413{435. Ferguson,C..Diglossia. Word,15:325{340. Fielding,W.J.,Ballance,V.,Scriven,C.,McDonald,T.,andJohnson,P.. Thestigmaofbeing`Haitian'inTheBahamas. The College of The Bahamas Research Journal,14:38{50. Flege,J.E.995.Secondlanguagespeechlearning:Theory,ndingsandproblems. InStrange,W.,editor, Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in cross-language research,pages233{277.Baltimore:YorkPress. Flynn,N.andFoulkes,P..Comapringvowelformantnormalizationmethods. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences,Hong Kong. Foulkes,P.,Scobbie,J.,andWatt,D..Sociophonetics.InHardcastle,W.J., Laver,J.,andGibbon,F.E.,editors, TheHandbookofPhoneticSciences,pages 703{754.Malden/Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell. Fox,R.A.andJacewicz,E..Cross-dialectalvariationinformantdynamicsof americanenglishvowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,126:2603{ 2618.

PAGE 355

BIBLIOGRAPHY 329 Fridland,V.,Kendall,T.,andFarrington,C..DurationalandspectraldifferencesinAmericanEnglishvowels:Dialectvariationwithinandacrossregions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,136:341{349. Garrett,P.010. AttitudestoLanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Gay,T..Eectofspeakingrateondiphthongformantmovements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,44:1570{1573. Glinton-Meicholas,P.. Talkin'Bahamian.Nassau:GuanimaPress. Glinton-Meicholas,P..Talkin'OlStory:Abriefsurveyoftheoraltradition oftheBahamas. Encuentros,38:1{16. Gordon,D.. Class, Status and Social Mobility in Jamaica.Kingston:Institute ofSocialandEconomicResearch. Gordon,M.J..NewYork,Philadelphia,andothernortherncities:phonology. InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C., editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages282{299. Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. Graham,J.M..Interactioneects:Theirnatureandsomeposthocexplorationstrategies.In Papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association,Dallas,TX. Gregg,R.J..NotesonthepronunciationofCanadianEnglishasspoken inVancouver,BritishColumbia. JournaloftheCanadianLinguisticAssociation, 3:20{26. Gregg,R.J..ThediphthongsiandainScottish,Scotch-IrishandCanadian English. CanadianJournalofLinguistics,18:136{145. Gut,U..RelativemarkersinspokenStandardJamaicanEnglish.InHinrichs,L.andFarquharson,J.T.,editors, Variation in the Caribbean: From creole continua to individual agency,pages79{103.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins. Gut,U.andBayerl,P.S..Measuringthereliabilityofmanualannotations ofspeechcorpora.In ProceedingsofSpeechProsody,pages565{568,Nara.

PAGE 356

330 BIBLIOGRAPHY Guy,G.R.011.Language,socialclass,andstatus.InMesthrie,R.,editor, TheCambridgeHandbookofSociolinguistics,pages159{185.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Hackert,S.. Urban Bahamian Creole: System and Variation.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Hackert,S..BahamianCreole.InMichaelis,S.M.,Maurer,P.,Haspelmath, M.,andHuber,M.,editors, The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Vol. 1: English-based and Dutch-based Languages,pages127{138.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Hackert,S.andHolm,J.A.09.SouthernBahamian:TransportedAfrican AmericanVernacularortransportedGullah. College of the Bahamas Research Journal,15:12{21. Hackert,S.andHuber,M..Gullahinthediaspora:Historicalandlinguistic evidencefromtheBahamas. Diachronica,24:279{325. Harper,D.. OnlineEtymologyDictionary.http://www.etymonline.com/ index.php?term=Bahamas[Accessed:28October2016]. Harrington,J..Acousticphonetics.InHardcastle,W.J.,Laver,J., andGibbon,F.E.,editors, TheHandbookofPhoneticSciences,pages81{129. Malden/Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,2edition. Harrington,J.andCassidy,S.. TechniquesinSpeechAcoustics.Dordrecht: KluwerAcademicPublishers. Harrington,J.,Cox,F.,andEvans,Z..Anacousticphoneticstudyof broad,generalandcultivatedAustralianEnglishvowels. Australian Journal of Linguistics,17:155{184. Hay,J.andDrager,K..Sociophonetics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36:89{103. Hickey,R..StandardEnglishandstandardsofEnglish.InHickey,R., editor, StandardsofEnglish:CodiedVarietiesAroundtheWorld,pages1{33. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

PAGE 357

BIBLIOGRAPHY 331 Hillenbrand,J.,Getty,L.A.,Clark,M.J.,andWheeler,K..Acoustic characteristicsofAmericanEnglishvowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,97:3099{3111. Homann,T..TheBlackKenyanEnglishvowelsystem:Anacousticphonetic analysis. English World-Wide,32:147{173. Holm,J.A..AfricanfeaturesinWhiteBahamianEnglish. English World-Wide,1:45{65. Holm,J.A..OntherelationshipofGullahandBahamian. American Speech, 58:303{318. Holm,J.A..Semi-creolization:Problemsinthedevelopment oftheory.InNeumann-Holzschuh,I.andSchneider,E.W.,editors, DegreesofRestructuringinCreoleLanguages,pages19{40.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Holm,J.A.. AnIntroductiontoPidginsandCreoles.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Holm,J.A.andShilling,A.. Dictionary of Bahamian English.ColdSpring: LexikHouse. Holm,S..Asimplesequentiallyrejectivemultipletestprocedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics,6:65{70. Holt,Y.F.,Jacewicz,E.,andFox,R.A..Variationinvoweldurationamong southernafricanamericanenglishspeakers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,24:460{469. InternationalPhoneticAssociation. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association:A guide to the use of the InternationalPhoneticAlphabet.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. InternationalPhoneticAssociation. Full IPA Chart: Reproduction of the International Phonetic Alphabet. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/full-ipachart#ipachartkiel.

PAGE 358

332 BIBLIOGRAPHY Irvine,A..AgoodcommandoftheEnglishlanguage:Phonologicalvariation intheJamaicanacrolect. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages,19:41{76. Irvine,A..ContrastandconvergenceinStandardJamaicanEnglish:Ihe phonologicalarchitectureofthestandardinanideologicallybidialectalcommunity. World Englishes,27:9{25. Jacewicz,E.,Fox,R.A.,andSalmons,J..Voweldurationinthreeamerican englishdialects. American Speech,82-385. Johnson,D.E..GettingotheGoldVarbstandard:IntroducingRbrulfor mixed-eectsvariableruleanalysis. Language and Linguistics Compass,3:359{ 383. Jones,D.. AnOutlineofEnglishPhonetics.Cambridge:Heer,9edition. Joos,M..AphonologicaldilemmainCanadianEnglish. Language,18:141{ 144. Kent,R.D.andRead,C.. TheAcousticAnalysisofSpeech.Albany:Delmar,ThompsonLearning,2edition. Kisler,T.,Reichel,U.,Schiel,F.,Draxler,C.,Jackl,B.,andPorner,N..BAS speechsciencewebservices{anupdateoncurrentdevelopments.In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation LREC2016,Portoroz,Slovenia. Klatt,D.H..LinguisticusesofsegmentaldurationinEnglish:Acousticand perceptualevidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,59:1208{1221. Klein,T.B..Typologyofcreolephonology:Phonemeinventoriesandsyllable templates. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages,26:155{193. Kouwenberg,S.a.Creolestudiesandlinguistictypology:Part1. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages,25:173{186. Kouwenberg,S.b.Creolestudiesandlinguistictypology:Part2. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages,25:359{380.

PAGE 359

BIBLIOGRAPHY 333 Kretzschmar,Jr.,W.A.4.StandardAmericanEnglishpronunciation.In Schneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C., editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages257{269. Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. Kurath,H.andMcDavid,R.I.. Pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress. Kuznetsova,A.,BruunBrockho,P.,andHauboBojesenChristensen,R. . lmerTest:TestsinLinearMixedEectsModels.Rpackageversion2.030,https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest. Labov,W.. SociolinguisticPatterns.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress. Labov,W.. PrinciplesofLinguisticChange.Volume1:InternalFactors. Oxford:Blackwell. Labov,W.. PrinciplesofLinguisticChange.Volume2:SocialFactors.Oxford:Blackwell. Labov,W.. TheSocialStraticationofEnglishinNewYorkCity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2edition. Labov,W.,Ash,S.,andBoberg,C.. TheAtlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. Labov,W.,Cohen,P.,Robins,C.,andLewis,J.. AStudy of the Non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity. Labov,W.,Yaeger,M.,andSteiner,R.972. AQuantitative Study of SoundChange in Progress,Vol.1.Philadelphia:USRegionalurvey. Ladefoged,P.. ACourseinPhonetics.Boston:Heinle&Heinle,4edition. Lass,R.. TheShapeofEnglish:StructureandHistory.London:Dent. Lawlor,A..BahamianEnglishorBahamianCreole?Asociohistoricalinvestigation. TheInternationalJournalofBahamianStudies,8:1{12.

PAGE 360

334 BIBLIOGRAPHY Lehiste,I.. Suprasegmentals.Cambridge,MA:MITPress. Lindblad,P.01.CritiqueoftheIPAvowelquadrangle,especiallytheuseof vowelpointsinit. Working Papers,49:104{107. Maddieson,I.2013.Vowelqualityinventories.InDryer,M.S.andHaspelmath,M.,editors, TheWorldAtlasofLanguageStructuresOnline.Leipzig:Max PlanckInstituteforEvolutionaryAnthropology.Available:http://wals.info. Marascuilo,L.A.andLevin,J.R..Appropriateposthoccomparisonsfor interactionandnestedhypothesesinanalysisofvariancedesigns:Theelimination oftypeIVerrors. American Educational Research Journal,7:397{421. McArthur,T.. The Oxford Guide to World English.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. McWhorter,J.H..Theworld'ssimplestgrammarsarecreolegrammars. Linguistic Typology,5:125{166. McWhorter,J.H..Reviewarticle:Desconstructingcreole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages,23:289{306. Meyer,D.L..Misinterpretationofinteractioneects:AreplytoRosnow andRosenthal. Psychological Bulletin,110:571{573. Milroy,J..Variationin/ai/inNorthernBritishEnglish,withcomments onCanadianRaising. UniversityofPennsylvaniaWorkingPapersinLinguistics, 3:213{221. MinistryofEducation&Culture. Focus on the Future: White paper on education.NationalLibrary&InformationServies[Online].Available: http://www.bahamaslibraries.org. MinistryofTourism&Aviation. Bahamian Residents General Public Survey November 1-22, 2008: New Providence.[Online].Available: http://www.bahamaslibraries.org. Mohl,R.A..Blackimmigrants:Bahamiansinearlytwentieth-centuryMiami. TheFloridaHistoricalQuarterly,65:271{297.

PAGE 361

BIBLIOGRAPHY 335 Moreton,E..RealizationoftheEnglishpostvocalic[voice]contrastinF1 andF2. Journal of Phonetics,32:1{33. Moreton,E.andThomas,E.R..OriginsofCanadianRaisinginvoicelesscodaeects:Acasestudy.InCole,J.andHualde,J.I.,editors, Laboratory Phonology 9,pages37{64.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. Morrison,G.S..Theoriesofvowelinherentspectralchange.InMorrison, G.S.andAssmann,P.F.,editors, VowelInherentSpectralChange,pages31{47. Berlin/Heidelberg:Springer. Muhleisen,S..Is`BadEnglish'dyingout?Adiachroniccomparativestudyof attitudestowardscreoleversusstandardEnglishinTrinidad. PhilologieimNetz, 15:43{78. Muhleisen,S.02. Creole Discourse: Exploring prestige formation and change across Caribbean English-lexicon creoles.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Muhleisen,S.andWalicek,D.E..LanguageandgenderintheCaribbean:An overview. Sargasso Special Issue 2009-2009 I: Linguistic Explorations of Gender and Sexuality,pages15{30. Neumann-Holzschuh,I.andSchneider,E.W.,editorsa. DegreesofRestructuringinCreoleLanguages.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins. Neumann-Holzschuh,I.andSchneider,E.W.b.Introduction:'Degreesof restructuring'increolelanguages?InNeumann-Holzschuh,I.andSchneider, E.W.,editors, Degrees of Restructuring in Creole Languages,pages1{18.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Oenbring,R.andFielding,W..Youngadults'attitudestostandardandnonstandardEnglishinanEnglish-creolespeakingcountry:ThecaseoftheBahamas. Language,Discourse&Society,3:28{51. Ogura,M..ThedevelopmentofMiddleEnglishiandu:AreplytoLabov ,1994. Diachronica,12:31{53.

PAGE 362

336 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ogura,M.,Wang,W.S.-Y.,andCavalli-Sforza,L.L..Thedevelopmentof MiddleEnglishiinEngland:Astudyindynamicdialectology.InEckert,P., editor, NewWaysofAnalyzingSoundChange.NewYork:AcademicPress. Paradis,C..LaregledeCanadianRaisingetl'analyseenstructuresyllabique. CanadianJournalofLinguistics,25:35{45. Parkvall,M..Thesimplicityofcreoleinacross-linguisticperspective.InMiestamo,M.,Sinnemaki,K.,andKarlsson,F.,editors, LanguageComplexity:Typology,contact,change,pages265{285.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Patrick,P.L.a.Testingthecreolecontinuum. UniversityofPennsylvaniaWorkingPapersinLinguistics,6:109{120. Patrick,P.L.b. UrbanJamaicanCreole:VariationintheMesolect.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Patrick,P.L..SocialstatusandmobilityinurbanJamaicanPatwa.In Paper presented at the 13th Biennal Conference of the Society of Caribbean Linguistics, UniversityoftheWestIndiesatMona,Jamaica. Patrick,P.L..Pidgins,creoles,andvariation.InKouwenberg,S.andSingler,J.V.,editors, TheHandbookofPidginandCreoleStudies,pages461{487. Oxford:Blackwell. Picard,M..CanadianRaising:Thecaseagainstreordering. CanadianJournalofLinguistics,22:144{155. Plag,I..Creolesasinterlanguages:Phonology. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages,24:121{140. RCoreTeam. R:ALanguageandEnvironmentforStatisticalComputing. RFoundationforStatisticalComputing,Vienna,Austria. Reaser,J..AquantitativesociolinguisticanalysisofBahamiancopulaabsence:MorphosyntacticevidencefromAbacoIsland,TheBahamas. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages,19:1{40.

PAGE 363

BIBLIOGRAPHY 337 Reaser,J..BahamianEnglish.InSchreier,D.,Trudgill,P.,Schneider, E.W.,andWilliams,J.P.,editors, The Lesser-Known Varieties of English: An introduction,pages158{170.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Rickford,J.R..Standardandnon-standardlanguageattitudesinacreole continuum.In LanguageofInequality,pages145{159.Berlin/NewYork:Mouton Publishers. Rickford,J.R.. Dimensions of a Creole Continuum: History, Texts, and Linguistic Analysis of Guyanese Creole.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress. Rickford,J.R..SociolinguisticvariationinCane Walk:Aquantitativecasestudy.InCheshire,J.,editor, EnglisharoundtheWorld:Sociolinguisticperspectives,pages609{616.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Rickford,J.R.993.PhonologicalfeaturesinAfro-Americanpidginsandcreoles andtheirdiachronicsignicance:CommentsonthepapersbyHolmandCarter.In Mufwene,S.S.,editor, AfricanismsinAfro-AmericanLanguageVarieties,pages 346{363.Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress. Rickford,J.R..Implicationalscales.InChambers,J.K.,Trudgill,P.,and Schilling-Estes,N.,editors, TheHandbookofLanguageVariationandChange, pages142{167.Oxford:Blackwell. Romaine,S..Variationinlanguageandgender.InHolmes,J.andMeyerho,M.,editors, TheHandbookofLanguageandGender,pages98{118.Oxford: Blackwell. Schneider,E.W.a.Introduction:VarietiesofEnglishintheAmericasand theCaribbean.InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R., andUpton,C.,editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology, pages247{256.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. Schneider,E.W.b.Synopsis:PhonologicalvariationintheAmericasand theCaribbean.InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R., andUpton,C.,editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology, pages1075{1088.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.

PAGE 364

338 BIBLIOGRAPHY Schneider,E.W.. PostcolonialEnglish:Varietiesaroundtheworld.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Schneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C.,editors . A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology.Berlin/NewYork: MoutondeGruyter. Shewmake,E.F..Howtond[ 2I ]ineasternVirginia. AmericanSpeech, 20:152{153. Shilling,A..BahamianEnglish-anon-continuum?InDay,R.R.,editor, Issues in English Creoles: Papers from the 1975 Hawaii Conference,pages133{ 145.Heidelberg:Groos. Shilling,A..Hiddenroots:TheAfricanelementsinBahamianspeech. TheInternationalJournalofBahamianStudies,2:45{51. Sidnell,J..GenderandpronominalvariationinanIndo-Guyanesecreolespeakingcommunity. Language in Society,28:367{399. Smith,N.S.H..IngredientX:ThecommoncoreofAfricanwordsinthe Atlanticcreoles.In Paper presented at the Society of Pidgin and Creole Linguistics Conference,UniversityofWestminster,London. Smith,N.S.H..Creolephonology.InKouwenberg,S.andSingler,J.V.,editors, TheHandbookofPidginandCreoleStudies,pages98{129.Oxford:Blackwell. Strachan,I.G..Theaterinthebush:Arts,politicsandcommunityinthe Bahamas. SocialJustice,34:80{96. Sweet,H.. TheSoundsofEnglish:Anintroductiontophonetics.Oxford: ClarendonPress. Tagliamonte,S.A.. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation.Oxford:Blackwell. Thomas,E.R.991.TheoriginofCanadianraisinginOntario. CanadianJournalofLinguistics,36:147{170.

PAGE 365

BIBLIOGRAPHY 339 Thomas,E.R..Spectraldierencesin/ai/osetsconditionedbyvoicingof thefollowingconsonant. Journal of Phonetics,28:1{25. Thomas,E.R.. AnAcousticAnalysisofVowelVariationinNewWorldEnglish. Durham:DukeUniversityPress. Thomas,E.R..RuralSouthernwhiteaccents.InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge, K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C.,editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages300{324.Berlin/NewYork:Moutonde Gruyter. Thomas,E.R.. Sociophonetics: An introduction.Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan. Thomas,E.R.andBailey,G..ParallelsbetweenvowelsubsystemsofAfrican AmericanVernacularEnglishandCaribbeananglophonecreoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages,13:267{296. Thompson,K.A..Youthculture,diasporicaesthetics,andtheartofbeing seenintheBahamas. AfricanArts,44:26{39. Thompson,T.L..Rembering`TheContract':RecollectionsofBahamians. TheInternationalJournalofBahamianStudies,18:6{12. Trudgill,P..Sex,covertprestigeandlinguisticchangeintheurbanBritish EnglishofNorwich. Language in Society,1:179{195. Trudgill,P.74. TheSocialDierentiationofEnglishinNorwich.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Trudgill,P.. Dialects in Contact.Oxford:Blackwell. Trudgill,P.. SociolinguisticVariationandChange.Edinburgh:Edinburgh UniversityPress. Turner,L.D.. AfricanismsintheGullhDialect.Columbia:Universityof SouthCarolinaPress,2edition. Urwick,J..TheBahamianeducationalsystem:AcasestudyinAmericanization. Comparative Education Review,46:157{181.

PAGE 366

340 BIBLIOGRAPHY VanHerk,G.3.Barbadianlects:Beyondmeso.InAceto,M.andWilliams, J.P.,editors, ContactEnglishesoftheEasternCaribbean,pages241{264.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Vance,T.J..`CanadianRaising'insomedialectsofthenorthernUnited States. AmericanSpeech,62:195{210. Veatch,T.C.. English Vowels: The surface phonology and phonetic implementation in vernacular dialects.PhDthesis,UniversityofPennsylvania. Velupillai,V.. Pidgins,CreolesandMixedLanguages.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Wassink,A.B.a. ASociophoneticAnalysisofJamaicanVowels.PhDthesis, UniversityofMichigan. Wassink,A.B.b.Historiclowprestigeandseedsofchange:Attitudestoward JamaicanCreole. Language in Society,28:57{92. Wassink,A.B.01.ThemeandvariationinJamaicanvowels. Language Variation and Change,13:135{159. Wassink,A.B..Ageometricrepresentationofspectralandtemporalvowel features:Quanticationfovoweloverlapinthreelinguisticvarieties. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,119:2334{2350. Watt,D.andFabricius,A..Evaluationofatechniqueforimprovingthe mappingofmultiplespeakers'vowelspacesintheF1-F2plane. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics,9:159{173. Weldon,T.L..Gullah:phonology.InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge,K., Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C.,editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages192{207.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. Wells,J.C.. Accents of English.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Winford,D..TeacherattitudestowardlanguagevariationinaCreolecommunity. InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,8:45{75. Winford,D..Theconceptof`diglossia'inCaribbeancreolesituations. Language in Society,14:345{356.

PAGE 367

BIBLIOGRAPHY 341 Winford,D..TheCaribbean.InCheshire,J.,editor, English around the World: Sociolinguistic perspectives,pages565{584.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Winford,D.. PredicationinCaribbeanEnglishCreoles.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins. Winford,D..Re-examiningCaribbeanEnglishcreolecontinua. World Englishes,16:233{279. Winford,D.. AnIntroductiontoContactLinguistics.Oxford:Blackwell. Winkelmann,R.andRaess,G..Introducingawebapplicationforlabeling, visualizingspeechandcorrectingderivedspeechsignals.In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation,Reykjavik,Iceland. Wittenburg,P.,Brugman,H.,Russel,A.,Klassmann,A.,andSloetjes,H.. ELAN:Aprofessionalframeworkformultimodalityresearch.In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation LREC 2006,Genoa,Italy. Wolfram,W..SocialvarietiesofAmericanEnglish.InFinegan,E.andRickford,J.R.,editors, LanguageintheUSA:Themesforthetwenty-rstcentury, pages58{75.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Wolfram,W.andSchilling-Estes,N.. AmericanEnglish.Malden/Oxford: Blackwell. Yamada,N..OncharacterisingtheEnglishGreatVowelShift. Lingua, 62:43{69. Youssef,V.andJames,W.004.ThecreolesofTrinidadandTobago:phonology. InSchneider,E.W.,Burridge,K.,Kortmann,B.,Mesthrie,R.,andUpton,C., editors, A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 1: Phonology,pages508{524. Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter. Zimmerman,S.A.andSapon,S.M..Noteonvoweldurationseencrosslinguistically. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,30:152{153.