Chapter1 TheScopeofthisVolume

_____________________________

ThisthirdvolumeofPrinciplesofLinguisticChangehasabroaderscope thanthefirsttwo.Volume1investigatedtheinternalfactorsthatcontrolchange beginningwithareviewofcompletedchangesinthehistoricalrecordand continuingwithstudiesofchangeinprogress.Volume2lookedatthesocial factorsgoverninglinguisticchange,searchingforthesociallocationofthe leadersofchange,largelythroughadetailedstudyofthePhiladelphiaspeech community.Volume3pursuestheoriginsofchangeandthedrivingforcesthat leadtoitsfinalcompletion.Itsperspectiveisconsiderablybroaderthanthatof earliervolumes,drawinguponaviewoflinguisticchangeonacontinentalscale throughtherecentlycompletedAtlasofNorthAmericanEnglish(Labov,Ashand Boberg2006;henceforth,ANAE).Inthisenterprise,Volume3engagesthe

cognitiveandculturalfactorsthatdeterminethecourseofchange. 1.1. Cognitive and cultural factors Thecognitivefactorsreferredtohereconcerntheabilityofthelanguage learnertodetectandgraspcommunitypatternsinthesocialenvironmentand modifylinguisticbehaviortofitthatpattern.Culturalfactorsrefertothebroader patternsofbeliefandbehaviorthatareassociatedwiththelinguisticpattern. Bothcognitiveandculturalfactors,asusedhereinthestudyoflinguisticchange, depend upon a view of language as social behavior rooted in community practices,wheretheobjectofstudyisthespeechcommunity,ratherthanthe individual speaker. It is a concept distinct from that of many linguists who conceiveoflanguageasthepropertyoftheindividual,situatedinthebrainsof individualspeakers(Fillmore,KemplerandWang1979).Fromthispointofview, hespeechcommunityisanimpreciselydefinedcollectionofindividualswith grammarsthatareonlymoreorlesssimilar.Insuchaperspective,theindividual idiolectisthemostclearlydefinedobjectoflinguisticstudy. Theviewoflanguagepresentedinthisvolumeisthereverse.Following theapproachoutlinedinWeinreichetal.1968,languageisseenasanabstract patternlocatedinthespeechcommunity,exteriortotheindividual.Thehuman languagefaculty,anevolutionarydevelopmentrootedinhumanphysiology,is thenviewedasthecapacitytoperceive,reproduceandemploythispattern.It followsthatlinguisticchangeischangeinthepatternofthespeechcommunity,

notintheindividual.Inthisperspectivetheindividualdoesnotexistasa linguisticentity.Rather,individualsareseenastheproductoftheintersecting socialpatternscreatedbytheirsocialhistories. Thecognitiveabilitytograspthesesocialpatternsisnotconstantacross thelifespan,butisconcentratedinanarrowagerange.Whenchildrenlearn theirfirstlanguagefromtheircaretakers,theirlanguagelearningabilityisata maximum.Buttheirviewofsocialdifferencesinlinguisticpatternsdoesnot expanduntiltheymovebeyondtheinfluenceoftheirimmediatefamily.Thereis considerableevidencetoindicatethatanativelikecommandofalinguistic patterndifferentfromthatfirstlearnedispossibleonlyforchildrenwhomove intothenewcommunitybeforetheageofnineorten. InthestudyoftheNewYorkCitydialect,childrenwhospentthefirsthalf oftheirformativeyears413inthecitydisplayedthecharacteristicNYCpattern, butnotthosewhoarrivedafter9yearsofage(Labov2006:111).Oyama1973also foundthatchildrenofItalianbackgroundwhoarrivedinNewYorkCitybefore theageof9showedthatbasicpattern.InthestudyofthePhiladelphiadialect, PaynefoundthatchildrenwhohadcometoPhiladelphiabeforetheageof9 acquiredthecharacteristicPhiladelphiasoundchanges,butnotthosewho movedthereatalaterage(Payne1976,1980).ChildreninthenewEnglishtown ofMiltonKeynesshowedthetypicalpatternoftheirparentsatage4but acquiredthenewcommunitypatternattheageof8(Kerswill1996,Williamsand

Kerswill1999). Though910isacriticalageforlearningnewcommunitypatterns,this doesnotimplythatthelanguagelearningmechanismselfdestructsatthatage.It seemsratherthatitistheproportionoftheformativeyearsexposedtothenew systemthatcounts.ThuschildrenwhomovedintoPhiladelphiaattheageof8 didnotacquirePhiladelphiaphonologyintheyearthatremainedbefore9.Their behaviorutwheninterviewedatage1317,showedtheresultsof58yearsof exposuretothenewsystem. Whenchangeisoccurringrapidly,localchildrenareinthesamesituation asimmigrants.Havinglearnedtheirparentssystem,theymustadjusttothe newcommunitysystembetweentheagesof5and17.Themostpreciseevidence onearlylanguagelearningofachangingpatterncomesfromtherealtime studiesoftheshiftfromapicaltouvular/R/inMontrealFrench(Sankoff, BlondeauandCharity2003,SankoffandBlondeau2007).Of11speakersbetween age15and20in1971,6hadreplacedthe100%apical/r/oftheirparentswith 90100%uvular/R/.Fouroftheothershadacquiredavariableuseofmorethan 20%/R/in1971butwentontoacategoricaluseof/R/bythetimetheywere restudiedin1984.Itisclearthat,theformativeperiodcanextendtoearly adulthoodforsomevariables. Thelargestbodyofevidenceontheacquisitionofcommunitypatterns comesfromANAE.ThevowelsystemsofNorthAmericanEnglilshwerestudied

byasampleof762subjects,representingallcitieswithapopulationofover 50,000.Itwasnotpossibletoconfinethestudytospeakerswhoseparentswere localtothearea,sinceinmanyregionsoftheSouthandWesttheyformavery smallpercentageofthepopulation.Thefirsttwospeakerswhoansweredtheir telephoneandansweredYestothequestionDidyougrowupin(thecity beingstudied)?wereacceptedasrepresentativeofthatcity.Giventhemobility oftheAmericanpopulation,itwasinevitablethatalargeproportionofthese subjectsgrewupinhouseholdswhereadialectwasspokenquitedifferentfrom thesurroundingcommunity.Ifweaddtothistheinfluenceoffriendsand neighborswhowerenotlocal,onemightexpectthattheendresultwouldbe mapsofapepperandsaltpatterninwhichthelocaldialectwasobscuredby individualvariation.Instead,theAtlasshowsremarkablyuniformdisplays. Measuresofhomogeneity(percentwithintheisoglossthatareX)and consistency(percentofallXwithintheisogloss)arealmostallabove.8(ANAE Ch11;seeFigures5.5,5.19,10.3inthisvolume). Withinthespeechcommunity,changeinprogressisreflectedbythe steadyadvanceofyoungerspeakersoverolderspeakerswithineachsocial group.ThisincrementationwithinsocialclassescanbeseeninFigures9.5,9.6, and9.10,whichtracetheacquisitionofthenewerpatternsbyyouthasthey increasthelevelsofsoundchangethattheyacquiredinfirstlanguagelearning.

1.2. Convergence and divergence Effortstounderstandhumanlanguageoverthepasttwocenturiesmay sharplydividedintotwodistinctundertakings.Bothspringfroman acknowledgmentthatlanguage,likethespeciesthatusesit,hadasingleorigin. Giventhatperspective,onetaskistodiscoverthoseconstantpropertiesof languagethatreflecttheinnatebiologicalendowmentofthespecies,the languagefaculty.Theother,equallychallengingtaskistodiscoverthecausesof thepresentdiversityamongthelanguagefamiliesoftheworld.Aspartofa generalredirectiontowardsanhistoricalperspectiveontheunderstandingof language,thisvolumewillfocusontheproblemofdivergence:howlinguistic systemsthatwereoncethesamehavecometobedifferent. Themerefactofdiversityisusuallynotachallengetoourunderstanding, evenwhenwecannottracethehistoricalpathforsuchdivergence.Whentwo groupsofspeakersbecomeseparatedovertimebymigrationtodistantparts, andcommunicationbetweenthemisdrasticallyreduced,weexpecttheir linguisticsystemstodiverge.Themanysourcesofvariationinvocabulary, grammarandphonologywillinevitablyleadthemtodriftapart.Wearenot surprisedthatthephonologyofEnglish,transplantedfromcontinentalEuropein the5hcentury,isnowmuchdifferentfromtheWestGermanicofFrisianorlow German.Onewouldnotexpectthatthesamelexicalreplacementsthatoperateat therateof15%permillenniumaspredictedbyglottochronologywouldoccuron

bothsidesoftheEnglishChannel.Thenormalworkofhistoricallinguisticsis thendevotedtodescribingthedivergencethatfollowsfromreducedcontact,and extractingthegeneralprinciplesthatdeterminewhatformanddirectionthe divergencewilltake. Whensuchdistantrelativesconvergeonparallelpaths,wearesurprised, andpuzzled.TrudgillsstudiesoftheconvergenceofpostcolonialEnglish dialectsisacaseinpoint(2002). Ontheotherhand,wearenotsurprisedwhenneighboringdialects converge.Thediffusionoflinguisticfeaturesacrossdialectshasbeenstudiedin considerabledetailbyTrudgill(1986)andmorerecentlyreviewedbyAuerand Hinskens(1996).Theyshowhowtheeffectsofdialectcontactleadtothe reductionofdialectdiversityintheformofdialectleveling,orinmoreextreme cases,koinization,theformationofnewpatternsofanhistoricallymixedbut synchronicallystabledialect(Trudgill1986:107).Bloomfieldsprincipleof accommodationleadsustoexpectsuchdialectleveling (1) Everyspeakerisconstantlyadaptinghisspeechhabitstothoseofhis interlocutors(1933:476). However,whentwogroupsofspeakerslivingsidebyside,indaily communication,begintospeakdifferentlyfromoneanother,weencountera typeofdivergencethatcallsforanaccounting.Tosumup, (2a) Whentwospeechcommunitiesareseparatedsothatcommunication

betweenthemisreduced,thendivergenceisexpected,andanydegreeof convergencerequiresanexplanation. (2b) Whentwospeechcommunitiesareincontinuouscommunication, linguisticconvergenceisexpectedandanydegreeofdivergencerequires anexplanation. Thisvolumewillconfronttheproblemofexplanationforanumberofchangesof thetype(2b),astheyaredescribedintheANAE. 1.3. The Darwinian Paradox again Aninquiryintothecausesofdivergencereturnsustotheissueraisedin Chapter1ofthesecondvolumeofthisseries,theDarwinianparadoxrepeated hereas(3): (3)Theevolutionofspeciesandtheevolutionoflanguageareidenticalin form,althoughthefundamentalmechanismoftheformerisabsentin thelatter. Thefundamentalmechanismreferredtohereisnaturalselection.Many recenteffortstorelatelinguisticevolutiontobiologicalevolutionhave introducedtheconceptoftherelativefitnessofcompetinglinguisticgrammars (Blevins2004,LegateandYang2007).However,nogreatprogresshasbeen madeindefiningthisconceptintermsofaconcreteadvantagethatleadsto reproductivesuccess.DarwincitedMaxMllersargumentthatwordsbecame better(morefit)astheybecameshorter,butthevastmajorityoflinguistshave beenskepticalofsuchclaims.Amongthemanylinguistscitedinchapter1of

volume2,thepositionofPaulonthefunctionalityofsoundchangeis prototypical:

(4)...thesymmetryofanysystemofformsmeetsinsoundchangean incessantandaggressivefoe.Itishardtorealizehowdisconnected, confused,andunintelligiblelanguagewouldgraduallybecomeifit hadpatientlytoendureallthedevastationsofsoundchange (1891:202). Paulsevaluationofsoundchangeisbasedonitsrelationtothe fundamentalcommunicativefunctionoflanguage:toconveyinformationabout thestatesofaffairsacrosstemporalandspatialdimensions.Onecanindeedfind manyanalogiesbetweensocialvariationandcommunicativeactsamongnon humanspecies,inthesignalingofterritoriality,localandpersonalidentity,and accommodationintermsofdominationandsubmission(CheneyandSeyfarth 1990,2007).However,anunderstandingofhumanlanguagedemandsan accountingofhowlinguisticchangeanddiversityrelatetotheuniquecapacityof humanlanguagetoconveytruthconditionalinformationandsoadapt successfullytorealworldconditions.Chapters2and3willreportobservations andexperimentsthatevaluatetheeffectofthesoundchangesdiscussedin volumes1and2onthecapacitytotransmitinformationacrossandwithinthe community.Theresultsconfirmthepredictionofseriousinterferencewiththat

capacity.Totheextentthatwefindthatlanguagechangeinterfereswith communication,wewillhavetoagreewithPaulinrejectingMllersnave optimismontheoperationofnaturalselectioninlanguagechange. Onewayofsalvagingthefunctionalityofchangeistoarguethatchange optimizeseaseofcommunication,respondingtothePrincipleofLeastEffort

(5)Itissafetosaythatwespeakasrapidlyandwithaslittleeffortaspossible, approachingalwaysthelimitwhereourinterlocutorsaskustorepeatour utterance,andthatagreatdealofsoundchangeisinsomewayconnected withthisfactor.(Bloomfield1933:386).

MostofthechangesreferredtobyBloomfieldarecasesoflenitionthat reducephoneticinformation,mergersthatsimplifytheinventory,orinterlocking allophonicchangesthatdisruptthetransparencyofphonemicrelations(seealso Jespersen1921,Saussure1949).Allsuchcasesleadtoalossofcontrast,which seemsnormalandpredictable,asinthecaseofvowelreduction.Theunstressed vowelsofEnglish,likemostotherlanguages,occupyasmallerareaof phonologicalspacethanstressedvowels,havesmallermarginsofsecurity available,andmaintainfewercontrastivecategories. Thechainshiftsstudiedinvolume1andthechangesinthePhiladelphia vowelsystemthatarethemainfocusofvolume2donotasawholeinvolve lenition,butratherexhibitfortition,anincreaseineffort.Thegeneralraising of//intheInlandNorththatinitiatedtheNorthernCitiesShiftinvolves

lengthening,frontingandraising,andbreakingintotwomoraeofequallength (ANAECh.13).Southernbreakingofthesamevowelinvolvesthecreationofa triphthongthatmovesfromalowfrontsteadystatetoahighfrontglideand backtoalowcentraltarget.LondonandNewYorkdevelopmentof/ay/ involvesasteadystateof60msecinlowbackposition,ashifttoapointof inflectioninlowcentralposition,andafinalglidetoahighfronttarget.Oncethe natureoftheseshiftsandtheirvigorousdevelopmentinrealandapparenttime isclearlydefined,thePrincipleofLeastEffortrecedesintothebackground,and theirimpactoncomprehensionreturnstotheforeground. 1.4. The argument of this volume PartA(chapters24)looksdirectlyattheconsequencesofsoundchange forcrossdialectalcomprehension.Theobservationsandexperimentsreported allleadtotheconclusionthattheconsequencesofsoundchangeinterfere severelywiththeprimaryfunctionofthelinguisticsystem,thetransmissionof information.Itthenbecomesevenmoreurgenttosearchfortheorigins,causes anddrivingforcesbehindlinguisticchange. PartBexaminesthelifehistoryoflinguisticchange,beginningwiththe TriggeringEventsinchapter5.Chapter6reviewsandrevisestheGoverning Principlesofchangethatwerefirstlaunchedinvolume1.Chapter7dealswith ForksintheRoad,locatingthosechoicepointswherechangecangoineitherone directionoranother.Chapter8thendealswithDivergence,theconditionsunder

whichtwoneighboringdialectsinfullcommunicationbecomemoredifferent fromeachotherovertime. Chapter9confrontstheproblemoflocatingtheDrivingForcesbehind change,consideringthemanysocialandculturalfactorsthathavebeen associatedwithparticularchanges:localidentity,genderasymmetry,reference groups,andcommunitiesofpractice.Againitisthegreatextentanduniformity oftheNCSthatoffersthemostseverechallengetolocalexplanation.Chapters 10and11searchforlargerscaleideologicalcorrelatesoftheNCSinYankee CulturalImperialism,beginningwiththestrikingcoincidenceoftheNCSwiththe BlueStatesinthepresidentialelectionsof2000and2004.Chapter12observes thatalmostallfeaturesofcurrentlanguagesaretheEndpointsofcompleted changes,andaimsatanaccountofhowsuchendpointsareachieved. PartCreturnstoaconsiderationofthebasicunitofchange,pursuing furtherthequestionsraisedinvolume1.Chapter13,WordsFloatingontheSurface ofSoundChange,returnstotheregularityissue,takingadvantageofthemassive ANAEdatabasetosearchforlexicaleffectsinsoundchange.Theresultssupport theNeogrammarianviewofchangeasaffectingallwordsinwhichaphoneme appears,yetthereremainslightfluctuationsfromwordtowordthatremainto beaccountedfor.Chapter14raisesthequestionastowhethertheallophoneisa morefundamentalunitofchangethanthephoneme,andlooksforevidenceof allophonicchainshifting.Negativeresultsofthisinquiryleadstoaneffortto

estimatetheextentofthebindingforcewhichholdsallophonestogetherinthe courseofchange.

PartDdistinguishesbetweentheTransmissionandDiffusionoflinguistic change.Transmissionisseenastheproductofchildrenscognitivecapacitiesas languagelearners,thebasicprocessthatisresponsibleforbothstabilityandthe regularityofchangewithinthespeechcommunity.Diffusionacrossspeech communities,ontheotherhand,isseenastheproductofthemorelimited learningcapacityofadults.Becauseadultsacquirelanguageinalessregularand faithfulmannerthanchildrendo,theresultsofsuchlanguagecontactfoundto belessregularandlessconsistentthantransmissionwithinthecommunity. Chapter15dealswithdiffusionacrossgeographicallyseparatecommunities; chapter16withdiffusionacrosssegregatedcommunalgroupswithinthespeech community.

1.5. The English vowel system and the major chain shifts of North America THESUBSYSTEMSOFINITIALPOSITION.Mostchaptersinthisvolumewill makereferencetooneormoreofthemajorchainshiftsthatareresponsiblefor theincreasingdivergenceofNorthAmericandialectregions.Themechanism andmotivationofthesechainshiftsisbestapproachedthroughtheconceptof subsystem,thedomainofthegeneralprinciplesofchainshifting(Volume1,56).

Figure1.1showsthefeaturegovernedorganizationofEnglishvowelsinthe initialpositionfromwhichcurrentsoundchangesdepart. 1Vowelsaredivided intotwomajorcategories,longandshort.Thisdistributiondependsupona vocabularydistributionthatisinvariantacrossdialectsandindependentof phoneticrealization:longvowelsappearinfree(wordfinal)orchecked(word nonfinal)position,whileshortvowelsappearonlyincheckedposition.Thisis thebinarynotationcommontomostphonologicaltreatmentofEnglish:long vowelsareanalyzedasbimoraicwiththesecondmoraasa[consonantal, vocalic]glide.Thispermitsthemajorgeneralization:nowordsendwitha [+vocalic,consonantal]segment.Thethreevowelsubsystemsaredividedinto twoupglidingsets,distinguishedbythedirectionoftheirglides,andone ingliding.2Thesubsystemsareorganizedbyatrinarydimensionofheight3anda

ThisdisplaydiffersfromthatofANAECh.2inthattheinglidingvowels

areheredividedbythefront/backdimensionthroughtheinclusionof/h/in initialposition(seebelow).

Theexpressionlongandinglidingvowelsreferstothefactthat

membersofthissetarenormallymonophthongalinloworlowermidposition, butglidetowardsacentertargetwhentheirnucleusisinuppermidorhigh position..

3

Formoreabstractanalyses,heightcanbeanalyzedastwobinary

binarydimensionoffronting.Invariousdialects,theinventoryofthese subsystemsisalteredthroughshortening,lengthening,diphthongization, monophthongization,andmergeracrosssubsystems.Changeintheinventory withinasubsysteminitiateschainshiftinginthedirectionofmaximum dispersion. The/h/notationforthelongandinglidingvowelsidentifiesasubsetthat playsanessentialroleinthedynamicsofEnglishsoundchange.The/h/glideis realizedphoneticallyaslengthforlowvowelsandasthe[]inglideformidand highvowels.4 TheANAEnotationisusefulforallEnglishdialectsthatunderwent diphthongizationoftheE.M.E.highandmidlongvowels/i:,e:,u:,o:/.The chiefconsequenceofthisdiphthongizationisthattheybecomeintegratedinto subsetswiththetruediphthongs/ay,oy,aw/andsoparticipateinchain shiftswiththem.ThisismostevidentintheSouthernShifttobedescribed

features[high,low]asinChomskyandHalle1968,orasannarydimension toreflectlowerlevelsoundchangesasinLabov1966,Trudgill1974,LYS1972.
4

Theuseofhtodesignatethissubsetiswidespreadintheexpressiveset

oflongandinglidingwords(yeah,bah,hah,rahrah)andgenerallytoindicatethe vocalizationof/r/(pahkthecahintheHahvadyahd)andtheresultsof monophthongizationof/ay/intheSouth(mah,ahm,raht)and/aw/in Pittsburgh(dahntahn).

below,commontotheSouthernU.S.,southernEngland,Australia,NewZealand andSouthAfrica. Figure1.1isnotausefulnotationforthedialectswhichdidnotdevelop suchdiphthongization,asforexampleScots,CaribbeanEnglish,traditional upperclassCharlestonEnglish,orformsofAmericanEnglishwithGermanor Scandinaviansubstrate(Wisconsin,Minnesota,easternPennsylvania).Dialects withmonophthongallongvowelshaveadifferentphonologicalhierarchyand donotparticipateinthevariousshiftstobedescribedhere,butmoveinother directions.5Thebinarynotationdoesnotthereforeprovideaninitialpositionfor allEnglishdialectsanddoesnotpredictthedirectionsofchangeinthosewhich donotshowglides/y/and/w/inhiatus(VtoVtransitions). ManyoftheoppositionsshowninFigure1.1willplayamajorroleinthe discussionsofsoundchangeinthechapterstofollow.Afewcommentsonthe featuresofNorthAmericanEnglishthatmotivatethisframeworkmaybehelpful here.Intheshortvowelsubset,thelowbackphonemeisshownas/o/,even thoughitisanunrounded[]inmostNorthAmericandialects.However,the originalbackrounded[]isretainedinEasternNewEngland,Canadaand

Forexample,somespeakersinWisconsinhavedevelopedthelong

monohthongs/u:/and/o:/toinglidingvowels,whicharehardforspeakersof otherdialectstorecognize.TheirpoleisidentifiedwithPaulbyspeakersofother dialects(fromexploratoryinterviewsofWL).

westernPennsylvania(afterthemergerwith/oh/)andwehavenoreasonto thinkthattheunroundingprocessevertookplaceinthosedialects,asitdidin westernNewEngland.Unroundingof/o/playsamajorroleinthe reconstructionofthehistoryoftheNorthernCitiesShiftinPartB. Theoppositionof/iw/and/uw/wasforsometimeastable consequenceofthelossofthe/y/glideaftercoronalsindew,tune,tutor,suit,etc. (KenyonandKnott1953),opposingdew[du]todo[du].ANAEshowsthatthis oppositionremainsstronginonlyafewareas,butthemergerisamajor componentofthehistoryofthecontinentalwidefrontingof/uw/aspresented inChapter7onTriggeringEvents. Inrpronouncingdialects,theVhsubsetconsistsoftwolargeclasseswith limiteddistribution,/ah/and/oh/.The/ah/classiscenteredonasmallsubset (father,ma,pa,bra,spa)withtheaccretionofanenormousnumberofloanwords asforeignawords(taco,pajama,Rajah,Fujiyama;seeBoberg1997).Itwillalso includepalm,calmandbalmwhenthe/l/inthesewordsisnotpronounced.In EasternNewEngland,/ah/includesasubsetofthebroadaclassofSouthern BritishEnglish(half,aunt,past). FormuchofNorthAmerica,where/o/doesnotmergewith/oh/,it mergeswith/ah/.6Itwillbearguedthatboththemergerof/o/and/ah/and
6

Theearlieroppositionofbombandbalmwith/o/and/ah/isallbut

goneoutsideofEasternNewEngland,wherebotherrhymeswithfather.Onthe

themergerof/o/and/oh/representthemigrationof/o/tothesubsetoflong andinglidingvowels,withtheconsequentacquisitionofphonologicallength (LabovandBaranowski2006).ThethirdmemberoftheVhsubset,/h/,is indicatedinonlyafewwordsthatshow(forsomedialects)theoppositionof short//inhave,Samtolongandingliding/h/inhalve,salve,Salmon.7This oppositionisamplifiedintheshortasplitinNewYorkCityandtheMid Atlanticstates,discussedindetailinChapter16andelsewhere.Inrlessdialects, thelongandinglidingsubsetisofcoursegreatlyexpandedtoinclude/ih,eh, uh/inhere,there,moor,etc.

Figure1.1ainsertsintotheframeworkofFigure1.1,thewordclasslabels ofJ.C.Wells(1982),whicharefamiliartomanyreadersintheBritishtradition.A moredetaileddefinitionandhistoryofthewordclassesofFigure1.1isgivenin Chapter2ofANAE.

boundaryofthesetwomergers,Johnson2006findsalmostnotraceofspeakers withathreewayoppositionof/o/,/ah/and/oh/.Elsewhere,theANAEdata isdefectiveonthispoint,andthereareindicationsofdifferentdistributions for/ah/and/o/whichneedtobeexploredmoredeeply.

7

Theincreasingtendencytopronounce/l/inthesecondandthirdwords

furtherreducesthecontrast.

SHORT

LONG Upgliding Front Back upgliding Vy front back iy ey oy ay beat bait boy bite upgliding Vw front back iw uw ow aw suit boot boat bout

Ingliding

V nucleus front high i mid e low high mid low bit bet bat back u o put but pot

Vh front back h oh ah boug halv e ht father

Figure1.1a.OrganizationofNorthAmericanEnglishvowelsininitialposition

LONG SHORT Upgliding Front Back upgliding Vy front back

FLEEC E FACE

Ingliding

V nucleus front high mid low

KIT

back
FOOT

upgliding Vw fron back t

GOOS E GOAT

Vh fron back t

DRES S TRAP

STRU T LOT

CHOIC E PRICE

THOUGH T FATHER

MOUT H

Figure1.1a.ANAEvowelcategoriesidentifiedwithJ.C.Wells(1982)word classes.

PHONOLOGICALSPACE.Theconnectionbetweentheabstractcategoriesof Figure1.1andourdescriptionsofcurrentsoundchangesisthroughtheir realizationinaphonologicalspacethatishereportrayedbythefirsttwoformant valuesoftheresonantportionofthesoundwave.Theouterlimitsofthisspace aredefinedbytheouterlimitsofformantvalues,andtheinternalorganization bydistancefromthatperiphery.The[peripheral]dimensionwasfirst introducedinLabov,YaegerandSteiner1972[LYS],whereitwasfoundthatthe vowelsystemsandsoundchangesofWestGermaniclanguagesshowed peripheralandnonperipheraltracksinbothfrontandbackregions.Inchain shifts,vowelswerefoundtorisealongtheperipheraltrackandfallalongthe nonperipheraltrack.Chapter6reviewstheevidenceforthisanalysisandtestsit bythesuperpositionofthemeanvaluesofallvowelsfor21NorthAmerican dialectsbasedonthe130,000measurementsofANAEvowels(Figure6.17).The conclusionisthatperipheralityisdefinedintermsofformantvaluesforhigh andmidvowels,butnotforlowvowels,wheredurationmaybethemajorfactor. TheendresultistheviewofphonologicalspaceinFigure1.2.

Figure1.2.StructureofWestGermanicphonologicalspace

INSERTIONOFNORTHAMERICANENGLISHSUBSYSTEMSINTOPHONOLOGICAL
SPACE.Thegeneralprinciplesofchainshifting(PLC1,Ch5,6)andthelargescale

acousticinvestigationofChapter6showthatininitialpositionthelong subsystemsarelocatedontheperipheraltrackandtheshortsubsystemonthe nonperipheraltrack.ThusFigure1.3insertstheabstractschemataofFigure1.1 intothephonologicalspaceofFigure1.2.

Figure1.3.InsertionofNorthAmericanvowelsubsystemsintoWestGermanic phonologicalspace

THEMAJORNORTHAMERICANCHAINSHIFTS.TheNorthernCitiesShift [NCS]involvestherotationofsixvowelsshowninFigure1.4.TheNCSinvolves thegeneraltensing,raisingandfrontingof//,thefrontingof/o/,the loweringandfrontingof/oh/,thefallingandbackingof/e/,andthebackingof //.8Themostadvancedversionsshowthereversaloftherelativepositions

8

ThefirstevidencefortheNCSisfoundinanunpublishedpaperof

Fasold(1969)whichshowedthefirsttwostages.TheNCSwasfirstnamedand thefirstfivestagesidentifiedasachainshiftinLabov,Yaeger&Steiner1972. Thebackingof//wasfirstidentifiedinEckert1986.SeealsoGordon2000, 2001,Evansetal.2006,,PlichtaandRakerd2002,Jones2003.

of/e/and//,thefrontbackalignmentof/e/and/o/andthereversalofthe relativepositionsof/o/and//. TheorderingofeventsintheNCSisamatterofongoinginvestigation. Chapter5willshowthatthegeneralraisingof//inwesternNewYorkState wasatriggeringeventfortheshift.Yettheunroundingof/o/inNewYorkState maybeconsideredapreconditionforthisgeneralraisingof//.Boberg2001 pointsoutthatseveralpreconditionsfortheNCSarefoundinsouthwestern NewEngland(seealsoANAEsection14.2,andMap14.9).

. Figure1.4.TheNorthernCitiesShift

TheSouthernShiftisinitiatedbythemonophthongizationof/ay/, followedbytheloweringandbackingofthenucleusof/ey/andthetensing, raisingandfrontingof/e/,followedbytheloweringandbackingofthenucleus of/iy/,andthetensing,raisingandfrontingof/i/.9

9

TheSouthernShifthaslongbeenrecognizedasachainshiftinits

realizationsinSouthernEngland(Sivertsen1960,LYS),AustraliaandNew

Figure1.5.TheSouthernShift.

TheCanadianShiftisinitiatedbythelowbackmergerof(o)and(oh)in lowermidbackposition,closetocardinal[].Thiswasfollowedbythebacking of//tolowcentralposition[a]andthebackingandloweringof/e/.Insome systems,themovementof/e/isonlytotheback,thusappearingasaparallel backingratherthanachainshift.10Morerecentstudieshaveconfirmedtheinitial Zealand(Mitchell&Delbridge1965),whereitismostofteninitiatedbythe backingandraisingofthenucleusof/ay/.InLabov1991,theSouthernShiftwas shownasincludingthefrontingof/uw/and/ow/,butinANAEthisis recognizedasanindependentphenomenon,commontotheMidlandandthe South.
10

TheCanadianShiftwasfirstreportedbyClark,ElmsandYoussefin

1995.SeealsoDeDecker2000,Boberg2005,Hollett2006,Hagawara2006,and RoederandJarmasz2009.

findingthatlowering(and/orbacking)of/i/isinvolvedaswell.

, Figure1.6.TheCanadianShift ThePittsburghShift,firstreportedinANAE,representsadifferent responsetothelowbackmerger.InPittsburgh,asinCanada,thelowback mergertakesplaceinlowermidbackposition,butinsteadofashiftof//into thespacevacated,weobserveadownwardmovementof//.

Figure1.7.ThePittsburghShift

TheBackShiftBefore/r/isfoundwidelyintheMidlandandSouththe SoutheasternSuperregion(ANAECh1719).Itappearstobeinitiatedbythe

backingandraisingof/ahr/tolowermidbackposition[:r],whichis completedinPhiladelphiaforallagesandsocialgroups,followedbythe upwardshiftof/ohr/(longsincemergedwith/hr/). Thisshiftresemblesthemostcommonpatternofvowelshiftingin WesternEuropediscussedinHaudricourtandJuilland1949andMartinet1955 andwhereitisfrequentlyaccompaniedbythefrontingof/o/and/u/.Sinceno NorthAmericandialectshowsfrontingofbackvowelsbefore/r/,/ohr/fullyor partiallymergeswith/uhr/.11ArowofcommunitiesalongtheEastern Seaboardshowaparallelraisingof/oh/,butnocouplingofthiswitha movementof/ah/hasbeendemonstrated,andinmanyareas/oh/isinstead lowering.

Figure1.8.TheBackShiftBefore/r/

TheBackUpglideShiftisaphenomenonpeculiartotheSouth,a
11

Thestatusofthismergerisdifficulttodetermine,asmany/uhr/words

varylexicallywith/ohr/:pour,poor,tour,whore,etc.

phonologicalreinterpretationofthefrontingof/aw/thatisgeneralacrossthe Southeasternsuperregion.ItrepresentsthelogicinitiatedbytheSouthern developmentofongopenotoabackupglidingform[o]insteadofaningliding form[]asinotherareas.Theshift to [] must have followed the lengthening of short o before voiceless fricatives and velar nasals in lost, song, etc. Among younger speakers, theroundednucleustendstogivewaytoanunroundedoneasaform ofnucleusglidedifferentiation.Theresultis [], which would be identical with the phonetic reflex of /aw/ in the North. However, the diphthong /aw/ is realized with a fronted nucleus in the South, [o, o, eo], a development which justifies the phonemic categorization of the /aw/ of initial position as /w/ in the framework of Figure 1.1. The same development of /aw/ in the Midland does not support rewriting /aw/ as /w/.

Figure1.9.TheBackUpglideShift Theseschematicviewsofthemajorchainshiftswillbeapointofreferenceforall thechapterstofollow.