Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T05:39:09.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fifty years of change to prevocalic definite article allomorphy in Australian English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2022

Felicity Cox
Affiliation:
Centre for Language Sciences, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University felicity.cox@mq.edu.au
Joshua Penney
Affiliation:
Centre for Language Sciences, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University joshua.penney@mq.edu.au
Sallyanne Palethorpe
Affiliation:
Centre for Language Sciences, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University sallyanne.palethorpe@mq.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The English definite article has two major allomorphs: prevocalic /ðiː/ and preconsonantal /ðə/. Recent studies have shown changes to definite article allomorphy in some English varieties. Younger speakers, particularly from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, often use /ðə/ prevocalically rather than /ðiː/. The prevocalic definite article (PVDA) /ðiː/ facilitates management of vowel hiatus because it supports the emergence of [j] in preventing vowel adjacency (e.g. the ash [ðiːjœʃ]). An alternative strategy for separating adjacent vowels is glottalisation or glottal stop ([ðiːʔœʃ]). Few studies have explored the relationship between the vowel in the PVDA and hiatus management during the process of change. We report a diachronic analysis of Australian English (AusE) PVDA and associated hiatus management across a 50-year period (∼1960s to ∼2010s) and a synchronic analysis of present-day speakers from mainstream (MS) and non-mainstream (non-MS) (diverse) backgrounds using two read-sentence contexts. The aim is to provide insight into the process of change and factors that may influence its progression. Speech data from adolescents recorded in 1959/1960 were compared with recordings from Mainstream AusE-speaking (MS) young people recorded in the 2010s. Results showed significantly greater incidence of schwa in the PVDA and hiatus-breaking glottalisation in the modern data, particularly amongst females. The synchronic analysis comparing present-day MS and non-MS speakers showed increased use of glottalisation in females and non-MS speakers. Additionally, acoustic analysis showed more schwa-like productions in the PVDA by non-MS speakers. Of key importance in both analyses is that glottalisation was more prevalent than schwa, possibly indicating glottalisation triggered the change.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Phonetic Association
Figure 0

Figure 1 Waveform and spectrogram of the phrase the airfield produced with glottalised phonation at the hiatus juncture, shown in red box.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Waveform and spectrogram of the phrase the airfield produced with a full glottal stop (and glottalised phonation) at the hiatus juncture, shown in red box.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Waveform and spectrogram of the phrase the airfield produced with a glide at the hiatus juncture, shown in red box.

Figure 3

Figure 4 Proportions of items with hiatus resolved by glottalisation in female and male speakers in the archival (1960s – left panel) and modern (2010s – right panel) data. Error bars represent 95$\%$ confidence intervals. For descriptive purposes, grey portions represent items produced with V1 schwa and black portions represent items produced with V1 /iː/.

Figure 4

Table 1 Proportion of items produced by female speakers in the diachronic analysis with V1 /iː/ and /ə/ according to whether glottalisation was present or absent.

Figure 5

Table 2 Proportion of items produced by male speakers in the diachronic analysis with V1 /iː/ and /ə/ according to whether glottalisation was present or absent.

Figure 6

Figure 5 Proportions of items with hiatus resolved by glottalisation in female (left panel) and male (right panel) speakers in V2 /eː/ and /ɐ/ contexts. Error bars represent 95$\%$ confidence intervals. For descriptive purposes, grey portions represent items produced with V1 schwa and black portions represent items produced with V1 /iː/.

Figure 7

Figure 6 Proportions of items with hiatus resolved by glottalisation in mainstream (MS, left panel) and non-mainstream (non-MS, right panel) speakers in V2 /eː/ and /ɐ/ contexts. Error bars represent 95$\%$ confidence intervals. Grey portions represent items produced with V1 schwa. Black portions represent items produced with V1 /iː/.

Figure 8

Figure 7 F1 and F2 values (Hz) for V1 vowels (black, solid fill) and reference /iː/ vowels in ‘speed’ according to accent group (MS = mainstream, left panels; non-MS = non-mainstream, right panels) and gender (females, upper panels; males, lower panels).

Figure 9

Figure 8 Boxplots showing Euclidean distance between reference /iː/ and V1 for mainstream (MS) and non-mainstream (non-MS) speakers in two V2 contexts. Lower values represent more /iː/-like V1.

Figure 10

Table A1 Summary of Type III tests on GLMER model to analyse use of glottalisation to resolve hiatus diachronically.

Figure 11

Table A2 Model summary of GLMER to analyse use of glottalisation to resolve hiatus diachronically.

Figure 12

Figure A1 Stacked bars illustrating the proportion of glottalised and non glottalised items produced for V1 /iː/ and /ə/ for females and males across time periods. Black portions represent items produced with schwa and glottalisation; white portions represent items produced with schwa and no glottalisation; dark grey portions represent items produced with /iː/ and glottalisation; light grey portions represent items produced with /iː/ and no glottalisation.

Figure 13

Table A3 Summary of Type III tests on GLMER model to analyse use of glottalisation to resolve hiatus synchronically.

Figure 14

Table A4 Model summary of GLMER to analyse use of glottalisation to resolve hiatus synchronically.

Figure 15

Figure A2 Violin plots illustrating the proportion of each speaker’s productions that were produced with glottalisation. Data points represent individual speakers. A value of 1.00 represents that a speaker produced glottalisation to resolve hiatus categorically.

Figure 16

Figure A3 Stacked bars illustrating the proportion of glottalised and non glottalised items produced for V1 /iː/ and /ə/ for females and males across accent groups. Black portions represent items produced with schwa and glottalisation; white portions represent items produced with schwa and no glottalisation; dark grey portions represent items produced with /iː/ and glottalisation; light grey portions represent items produced with /iː/ and no glottalisation.

Figure 17

Table A5 Proportion of items produced by female speakers in the synchronic analysis with V1 /iː/ and /ə/ according to accent group, V2 context, and whether glottalisation was present or absent.

Figure 18

Table A6 Proportion of items produced by male speakers in the synchronic analysis with V1 /iː/ and /ə/ according to accent group, V2 context, and whether glottalisation was present or absent.

Figure 19

Table A7 Summary of Type III tests on LMER model to analyse Euclidean distance from /iː/ in ‘speed’ for each V1 item.

Figure 20

Table A8 Model summary of LMER to analyse Euclidean distance from /iː/ in ‘speed’ for each V1 item.