Onthehistoricaloriginofmarginalcontrasts:CanadianraisinginIllinois
JoséI.Hualde,TatianaLuchkina,ChistopherD.Eager,SarahLittle
UniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign
Whereasitisprobablytruethatinstancesofmarginalorquasi-phonemic
contrastsaretobefoundineverylanguage[5],[7],[8],[14],itisalsotruethatinany
languagephonemicanalysisisforthemostpartstraightforward.Aquestionthat
arises,then,ishowquasi-phonemiccontrastsdevelop.Hereweareconcernedwith
contrastsbetweensoundsthatarepartiallyincomplementarydistribution,where,
furthermore,individualspeakerswithinasinglespeechcommunitydifferinthe
categorizationofspecificlexicalitemsandinthestrengthoftheirintuitions.These
casesinclude,forinstance,thediphthong-hiatussyllabificationcontrastinCastilian
Spanish[1],[9],[15)andthe/aɪ/vs/ʌɪ/contrastinsomevarietiesofNorth
American[2],[3],[4],[6],[10],[13],andScottishEnglish[14].
Wewillfocusonthe/aɪ/vs/ʌɪ/contrastinChicagolandEnglish,forwhichwe
haveundertakenbothproductionandperceptionexperiments(weincludealso
participantsfromCentralIllinoisforcomparison).Kilbury[12]offersadescription
ofhisownChicagoidiolect,providingminimalandnear-minimalpairs.Preliminary
observationshowsthatspeakersfromChicago,however,varyconsiderablyintheir
awarenessofthecontrastandperhapsinitsdistributionandimplementation.
Participantswereaskedtoreadsentencescontaining95wordswiththetarget
diphthong,including15wordswithat-flap(e.g.writer)and15wordswithad-flap
(e.g.rider),aswellasadditionalsentencesconstructedtotesttheeffectsof
followingcontextonthreeothervowels.AsshowninFig.1(for15Chicagoland
participants),afollowingvoicelessconsonantandalsoafollowingt-flapconditions
ahighervowelandahigherglidethanafollowingvoicedconsonant.Inparticular,
thenucleusofthediphthonghasahigherF1befored-flapthanbeforet-flap(p<
.001).DifferenceswerealsofoundbetweenthesetwocontextsinglideF2(p<.002),
butnotinduration,althoughthedifferenceinthedurationofthediphthong
precedingothervoicedvsvoicelessconsonantsishighlysignificant(p<.0001).That
is,vowelqualitydifferencesbetweenthetwopre-flapcontextsaremaintainedin
spiteofalackofdurationaldifferentiation,showingthatthevowelqualitycontrast
hasbeenphonologized.Forcomparison,anANOVAon/eɪ/inpre-flapcontexts(e.g.
trader/traitor)didnotrevealanysignificantdifferencesinformantsorduration.
Whenweconsidereachspeakerseparately,itisapparentthatforallofthem
voicelessconsonantstendtoconditionhigherrealizationsthanvoicedones.
Regardingthetwopre-flapcontexts,ontheotherhand,thereissubstantial
variationamongspeakers,rangingfromalmostcompleteseparationtoextensive
overlap.Incomparison,CentralIllinoisspeakersdonotshowanysignificant
contrastbetweenthetwopre-flapcontextsandalsoshowextensiveoverlapbefore
othervoicedvsvoicelessconsonants.
Inourperceptionstudy,35participantswerepresentedwithpairsofwordsona
computerscreenandwereaskedtoidentifythewordtheyheardbypressingakey.
Thetwooptionsgivenwerealwaysapotentialminimalpair.BesidestheTarget
items(e.g.writer/rider),Easy(e.g.write/ride)andDifficult(homophones,e.g.
petal/pedal)pairswereused.Theitemswereextractedfromtheproduction
experimentandsplicedontoacarrierphrase.Datafrom4speakerswereusedfor
thestimuli.ReactiontimesweresignificantlyhigherforTargetthanforEasyor
Difficultitems.AccuracyforTargetitemswassomewhathigherthanchance:61.8%
(cf.Easy=91.1%,Difficult=48.1%).Amixedeffectsregressionanalysisshowsthat
nucleusF1andglideF2predictthepatternsofresponsesandthattherelative
frequencyofeachpairmemberalsohadaneffect.
Weconcludethatthe/aɪ/vs/ʌɪ/contrastis“quasi-phonemic”atthelevelofthe
speechcommunity.Inthecontextbeforeanalveolarflap,speakersdifferinthe
consistencywithwhichadifferenceisimplementedandpossiblyalsointhelexical
distributionofthediphthongs.Thisisalsomanifestedinperception,wheregreater
uncertaintyaboutpossiblecontrastscauseslongerreactiontimesthanbothfor
othercontrastsandforhomophonicpairs,aswellasonlymoderatesuccessinword
identificationwithoutacontext.
InEnglish,vowelsareconsiderablyshorterbeforevoicelessconsonantsthanin
othercontexts.Forthediphthong/aɪ/,reduceddurationproducesadecreaseinthe
phoneticdistancebetweennucleusandglide.Insomedialects,includingChicago,
thisdifferenceinqualityhasbeenexaggerated,promotingacontrastbasedonthe
natureoftheunderlyingconsonantsbeforeflappedalveolarstops,whereno
quantitydifferenceisfound.Theresultingsurfaceopacityinthedistributionfavors
thecategorizationofthetwodiphthongsascontrastive,allowingforfurtherchanges
intheirlexicaldistribution.
Ithasbeenarguedthatfull-fledgedphonemicsplitsrequiretheexistenceofa
priorstagewithdistinctallophonesincomplementarydistribution[11].Phonemic
splittakesplacewhentheconditioningcontextissubsequentlylostinsound
change.Marginalcontrastsofthetypeconsideredherearisebythesame
evolutionarymechanism,exceptthattheconditioningenvironmentisstillpresentin
thelexicalitemswherethecontrastarose.Consequently,thedistributionofthe
semi-contrastingcategoriesisrelativelypredictable.
glide
nucleus
Figure1.MeanF1andF2valuesof/ai/nucleusandglidebyfollowingcontext(voicedconsonant,
voicedlessconsonant,d-flap,t-flap).Left,female(n=10);right,male(n=5).
References
[1]Cabré,T.&Prieto,P.2006.“ExceptionalhiatusesinSpanish”.In:Colina,S.&
Martínez-Gil,F.(eds.),Optimality-TheoreticAdvancesinSpanishPhonology,pp.
205-238.JohnBenjamins:Amsterdam&Philadelphia.
[2]Chambers,J.K.1989.“CanadianRaising:Blocking,fronting,etc.”American
Speech64:75-88.
[3]Chambers,J.K.2006.“CanadianRaisinginretrospectandprospect”.Canadian
JournalofLinguistics51(2/3):105-118.
[4]Fruehwald,J.2008.“Thespreadofraising:Opacity,lexicalization,anddiffusion”.
UniversityofPennsylvaniaWorkingPapersinLinguistics14(2):83-92.
[5]Goldsmith,J.1995.“Phonologicaltheory”.InJohnA.Goldsmith(ed.),The
handbookofphonologicaltheory,1–23.Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.
[6]Hall,K.C.2005.“Definingphonologicalrulesoverlexicalneighbourhoods:
EvidencefromCanadianRaising”.Proceedingsofthe24thWestCoastConference
onFormalLinguistics,ed.J.Aldereteetal.,191-199.Somerville,MA:Cascadilla
ProceedingsProject.
[7]Hall,K.C.2013.“Atypologyofintermediatephonologicalrelations”.The
LinguisticReview33.2:215-275.
[8]Hualde,J.I.2005.“Quasi-phonemiccontrastsinSpanish”.ProceedingsofWCCFL
23,374–398.Somerville,MA:CascadillaPress.
[9]Hualde,J.I.&Prieto,M.2002.“OntheDipthong/HiatusContrastinSpanish:
SomeExperimentalResults.”Linguistics40.2:217-34
[10]Idsardi,W.2006.“CanadianRaising,opacityandrephonemization”.Canadian
JournalofLinguistics51(2/3):21-28.
[11]Janda,Richard.2003.“‘Phonologization’asthestartofdephonetization—Or,on
soundchangeanditsaftermath:Ofextension,generalization,lexicalizationand
morphologization”.In:BrianD.Joseph&RichardD.Janda,eds.,Thehandbookof
historicallinguistics,pp.401-422.Malden,MA:Blackwell.
[12]Kilbury,J.1983.“Talkingaboutphonemics:Centralizeddiphthongsina
Chicago-areaidiolect”.In:Agard,F.,Kelley,G.,Makkai,A.&Makkai,V.B.,eds.,
EssaysinHonorofCharlesF.Hockett,336-341.Leiden:Brill.
[13]Moreton,E.&Thomas,E.2007.“OriginsofCanadianRaisinginvoiceless-coda
effects:Acaseofphonologization”.In:Cole,J.&Hualde,J.I.,eds.,Laboratory
Phonology9,37-63.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.
[14]Scobbie,J.M.&Stuart-Smith,J.2008.“Quasi-phonemiccontrastandthe
indeterminacyofthesegmentalinventory:examplesfromScottishEnglish”.In:
Avery,P.,B.E.Dresher&K.Rice(eds.),Contrastinphonology:Perceptionand
acquisition,pp.87-113.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.
[15]Simonet,M.2005.“Prosodyandsyllabificationintuitionsof[CiV]sequencesin
CatalanandSpanish.”In:Frota,S.,M.J.Freitas&M.Vigário(eds.),Prosodies,pp.
247-267.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.