Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-zlj4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T10:54:46.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interspeaker covariation in Philadelphia vowel changes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2019

Meredith Tamminga*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania

Abstract

The paper asks whether six ongoing vowel changes in Philadelphia English show interspeaker covariation. In a sample of 66 young white women, pairwise correlations are significant only between three changes that have previously been observed to show parallel diachronic trajectories of change reversal, whereas changes that do not exhibit this diachronic pattern do not show covariation. I propose that the interspeaker covariation in this subset of the changes in progress arises from a shared social motivation for the change reversals that is not shared by the other changes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number 1627972, “Cognitive characteristics of the leaders of language change.” I am indebted to many research assistants for their contributions to this project, especially graduate students Wei Lai, Lacey Wade, and Robert Wilder and lab manager Elisha Cooper. I am also grateful to Bill Labov for his detailed feedback, to Dave Embick for conversations that led me to this topic in the first place, to audiences at UC Davis, Stanford University, New York University, Northwestern University, and the Third Edinburgh Symposium in Historical Phonology for their comments on the ideas contained here, and to several very constructive anonymous reviewers. Of course, all remaining errors are my own.

References

REFERENCES

Auer, Peter. (1997). Co-occurrence restrictions between linguistic variables: A case for social dialectology, phonological theory, and variation studies. In Variation, Change, and Phonological Theory, Hinskens, F., van Hout, R., and Wetzels, W.L. (Eds.), 6999. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.146.05aueGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. (2015). Fitting linear mixed- effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1):148.10.18637/jss.v067.i01Google Scholar
Becker, Kara. (2016). Linking community coherence, individual coherence, and bricolage: The co-occurrence of (r), raised BOUGHT and raised BAD in New York City English. Lingua 172–173:8799.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.017Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc & New, Boris. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavioral Research Methods 41(4):977–90.10.3758/BRM.41.4.977Google Scholar
Conn, Jeffrey. (2005). Of “moice” and men: The evolution of male-led sound change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
DeCamp, David. (1971). Implicational scales and sociolinguistic linearity. Linguistics 9(73):3043.10.1515/ling.1971.9.73.30Google Scholar
Fruehwald, Josef. (2013). The phonological influence on phonetic change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Gregersen, Frans & Pharao, Nicolai. (2016). Lects are perceptually invariant, productively variable: A coherent claim about Danish lects. Lingua 172–173:2644.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.001Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (2013). The cognitive coherence of sociolects: How do speakers handle multiple sociolinguistic variables? Journal of Pragmatics 52:6371.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.019Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. & Hinskens, Frans. (2016). Linguistic coherence: Systems, repertoires and speech communities. Lingua 172–173:19.10.1016/j.lingua.2016.01.001Google Scholar
van Hout, Roeland. (1989). De structuur van taalvariatie: Een sociolinguistisch onderzoek naar het stadsdialect van Nijmegen. Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 1. Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2. Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2006 [1966]). The Social Stratification of English in New York City (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618208Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, & Boberg, Charles. (2006). The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110167467Google Scholar
Labov, William & Rosenfelder, Ingrid. (2011). “The Philadelphia Neighborhood Corpus of LING 560 Studies, 1972–2010.” With support of NSF contract 921643.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Rosenfelder, Ingrid & Fruehwald, Josef. (2013). One hundred years of sound change in Philadelphia: Linear incrementation, reversal, and reanalysis.” Language 89(1):3065.Google Scholar
Ma, Roxana & Herasimchuk, Eleanor. (1972). Speech styles in Puerto Rican bilingual speakers: A factor analysis of co-variation of phonological variables. In Advances in the Sociology of Languages, Fishman, J.A. (Ed.), II:268–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maclagan, Margaret A., Gordon, Elizabeth & Lewis, Gillian. (1999). Women and sound change: Conservative and innovative behavior by the same speakers. Language Variation and Change 11:1941.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helene & Mannila, Heikki. (2011). The diffusion of language change in real time: Progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation and Change 23: 143.Google Scholar
Newlin-Łukowicz, Luiza. (2016). Co-occurrence of sociolinguistic variables and the construction of ethnic identities. Lingua 172–173:100115.Google Scholar
Oushiro, Livia. (2016). Social and structural constraints in lectal cohesion. Lingua 173–173:116–30.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.015Google Scholar
Oushiro, Livia & Guy, Gregory R. (2015). The effect of salience on co-variation in Brazilian Portuguese. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 21(2).Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R. & McNair-Knox, Faye. (1994). Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (Eds.), 235–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfelder, Ingrid, Fruehwald, Josef, Evanini, Keelan & Yuan, Jiahong. (2011). FAVE Program Suite [Forced Alignment and Vowel Extraction]. University of Pennsylvania. fave.ling.upenn.edu.Google Scholar
Sneller, Betsy. (2015). A community divided: co-occurrence in retreat from local features. Poster presented at the 10th UK Language Variation and Change Conference, University of York, UK, Sept. 2.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane & Timmins, Claire. (2010). The role of the individual in language variation and change. In Language and Identities, Llamas, Carmen & Watt, Dominic (Eds.), 3954. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thorburn, Jennifer. (2014). Dialect development in Nain, Nunatsiavut: Emerging English in a Canadian aboriginal community. Ph.D. dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans. (2008). Linguistic change and stabilization in the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Waters, Cathleen & Tagliamonte, Sali. (2017). Is one innovation enough? Leaders, covariation, and language change. American Speech 92(1):2340.10.1215/00031283-4153186Google Scholar
Wells, John C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar