Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T12:04:13.717Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue true

A multivariate spatial analysis of vowel formants in American English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2013

Jack Grieve*
Affiliation:
Centre for Forensic Linguistics, School of Languages and Social Science, Aston University, Birmingham, UK
Dirk Speelman
Affiliation:
Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics Research Unit, Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Dirk Geeraerts
Affiliation:
Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics Research Unit, Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
*
*Address for correspondence: Jack Grieve, Lecturer in Forensic Linguistics, Centre for Forensic Linguistics, School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, Aston Triangle B4 7ET, Birmingham, UK. Email j.grieve1@aston.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper presents the results of a multivariate spatial analysis of thirty-eight vowel formant variables measured in 236 cities from across the contiguous United States, based on the acoustic data from the Atlas of North American English. The results of the analysis both confirm and challenge the results of the Atlas. Most notably, while the analysis identifies similar patterns as the Atlas in the West and the Southeast, the analysis finds that the Midwest and the Northeast are distinct dialect regions that are considerably stronger than the traditional Midland dialect region identified in the Atlas. The analysis also finds evidence that a vowel shift is actively shaping the language of the Western United States.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

References

Carver, Craig M. 1987. American regional dialects. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Conn, Jeffrey C. 2000. The story of /ae/ in Portland. Portland, OR: Portland State University thesis. Google Scholar
Di Paolo, Marianna. 1988. Pronunciation and categorization in sound change. In Ferrara, K., Brown, B., Walters, K. & Baugh, J. (eds), Linguistic Change and Contact: Sixteenth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation, 8492. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Fought, Carmen. 1999. A majority sound change in a minority community: /u/-fronting in Chicano English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 523.Google Scholar
Fridland, Valerie. 2008. Patterns of /uw/, /upsilon/, and /ow/ fronting in Reno, Nevada. American Speech 83: 432454.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 1982. Dialektometrie; Prinzipien und Methoden des Einsatzes der numerischen Taxonomie im Bereich der Dialektgeographie. Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 2006. Recent advances is Salzburg dialectometry. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21: 411435.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew J. 2002. Investigating chain shifts and mergers. In Chambers, J., Trudgill, P. & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds), The handbook of language variation and change, 245266. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2009. A corpus-based regional dialect survey of grammatical variation in written Standard American English. San Francisco, AZ: Northern Arizona University dissertation. Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2011. A regional analysis of contraction rate in written standard American English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 514546.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2012. A statistical analysis of regional variation in adverb position in a corpus of written standard American English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 3972.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2013. A statistical comparison of regional phonetic and lexical variation in American English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8: 82107.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack, Speelman, Dirk & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2011. A statistical method for the identification and aggregation of regional linguistic variation. Language Variation and Change 23: 193221.Google Scholar
Jr.Hair, Joseph F. Black, William C. Babin, Barry J. Anderson, Rolph E. Tatham, Ronald L. 2006. Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2004. The western vowel shift in Northern Arizona. Unpublished Manuscript. http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~lhlew/index.html, Accessed 8 July, 2013 .Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2005. One shift, two groups: When fronting alone is not enough. In M. Baranowski, U. Horesh, K. Evans & G. Nguyen (eds), Selected papers from NWAV 32: 105116. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 10.2.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert J. 2004. Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Moonwomon, Birch, Bremner, Sue, Luthin, Herb, Van Clay, Mary, Lerner, Jean & Corcoran, Hazel. 1987. It's not just valley girls: A study of California English. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis & H. Filip (eds), Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 117127. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Koops, Christian. 2010. /u/-fronting is not Monolithic: Two types of fronted /u/ in Houston anglos. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16. Article 14. http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol16/iss2/14.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans. 1949. Word geography of the eastern United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2004. Principles of linguistic change, internal factors. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, P. A. P. 1948. The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 37: 243251.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2006. Identifying linguistic structure in aggregate comparison. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21: 463476.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John & Heeringa, Wilbert J. 2009. Measuring dialect differences. In Auer, P. & Schmidt, J. E. (eds), Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic varaition, Vol. 1: Theories and Methods (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 30.1), 550567. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Odland, John D. 1988. Spatial autocorrelation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Ord, J. K. & Getis, Arthur. 1995. Local spatial autocorrelation statistics: Distributional issues and an application. Geographical Analysis 27: 286306.Google Scholar
Prokić, Jelena & Nerbonne, John. 2008. Recognizing groups among dialects. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 1: 153172.Google Scholar
Séguy, Jean. 1971. La relation entre la distance spatiale et la distance lexicale. Revue de linguistique romane 35: 335357.Google Scholar
Séguy, Jean. 1973. La dialectométrie dans l'Atlas linguistique de la Gascogne. Revue de linguistique romane 37: 124.Google Scholar
Ward, Joe H. Jr. 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58: 236244.Google Scholar
Ward, Michael. 2003. Portland Dialect Study: The Fronting of /ow, u, uw/ in Portland, Oregon. Portland, OR: Portland State University thesis.Google Scholar
Wieling, Martijn & Nerbonne, John. 2010. Hierarchical bipartite spectral graph partitioning to cluster dialect varieties and determine their most important linguistic features. TextGraphs-5 Workshop on Graph-Based Methods for NLP 16: 3341.Google Scholar