No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Is [nuz] really the new [njuz]? Yod dropping in Toronto English
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 November 2022
Abstract
This article investigates yod dropping, i.e. the loss of the onglide after the coronals /t, d, n/, in Toronto English. Previous research has shown that this change is almost complete in Canadian English. However, most work has drawn on self-reported data rather than actual speech, and few studies have taken word frequency into consideration, although it has been shown to play a major role during earlier stages of the change. Combining auditory and acoustic analysis of production data from 20 speakers from the Greater Toronto Area, this study confirms that the change towards the yod-less pronunciation is largely complete. As in other varieties, there is considerable acoustic overlap between test words that historically had yod (new) and those that did not (too). This highlights the need to move away from predetermined cut-off points for determining yod presence, which are common in previous work, and find diagnostics that will allow us to distinguish between yod retention and /u/-fronting, another change that is currently underway in Canadian English (see also Roeder et al. 2018). Possible solutions are discussed.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
I gratefully acknowledge financial support from the government of Ontario and the University of Toronto Department of Linguistics (Ontario Trillium Scholarship 2016–20, SSHRC Institutional Grants 2017–18 and 2018–19). Earlier versions of this article were presented at NWAV 48, the 2019 Montreal–Ottawa–Toronto Phonetics/Phonology Workshop and the 2019 Buffalo–Toronto Workshop. I would like to thank Yoonjung Kang, Jessamyn Schertz, Jack Chambers, Nathan Sanders, Márton Sóskuthy, Thomas St Pierre, Lex Konnelly, Pocholo Umbal, Jessica Jeung, the LVC Research Group at the University of Toronto, Patrick Honeybone and several anonymous reviewers for feedback on the ideas presented here. All remaining errors are my own. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Timothy Gadanidis, Daniel Milway, Julianne Doner and Zoe McKenzie for their help with recruitment, and to Alexandra D'Arcy, Erin Hall, Pocholo Umbal and Ruth Maddeaux for sharing research findings and materials with me. Finally, I would like to thank the International Society for the Linguistics of English for recognizing an earlier version of this article with the 2019 Richard M. Hogg award and to the ISLE 6 organizing committee for inviting me to present my findings at their conference.
References
Baayen, Harald R., Richard Piepenbrock, & Leon Gulikers, . 1995. CELEX 2 LDC96L14 (version 2). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Baranowski, Maciei. 2017. Class matters: The sociolinguistics of goose and goat in Manchester English. Language Variation and Change 29(3), 301–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2004. The dialect topography of Montreal. English World-Wide 25(2), 171–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2011. Reshaping the vowel system: An index of phonetic innovation in Canadian English. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from NWAV 39 17(2), article 4.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2018. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 6.0.43). http://praat.orgGoogle 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. Behavior Research Methods 41(4), 977–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 65–86. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1998. Social embedding of changes in progress. Journal of English Linguistics 26(1), 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2002. Yod-dropping in an English accent. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 6(3), 4–11.Google Scholar
Clarke, Sandra. 1993. The Americanization of Canadian pronunciation: A survey of palatal glide usage. In Clarke, Sandra (ed.), Varieties of English around the world: Focus on Canada, 85–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clarke, Sandra. 2006. Nooz or nyooz? The complex construction of Canadian identity. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51(2–3), 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rosario-Martinez, Helios. 2015. phia: Post-hoc interaction analysis (R package version 0.2-1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=phiaGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2012. The written questionnaire as a sociolinguistic data gathering tool: Testing its validity. Journal of English Linguistics 40(1), 74–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endangered Language Alliance Toronto. n.d. Toronto's Languages. https://elalliance.com/toronto-languages/Google Scholar
Fought, Carmen. 1999. A majority sound change in a minority community: /u/-fronting in Chicano English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridland, Valerie & Bartlett, Kathy. 2006. The social and linguistic conditioning of back vowel fronting across ethnic groups in Memphis, Tennessee. English Language and Linguistics 10(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, Robert J. 2004. The survey of Vancouver English: A sociolinguistic study of urban Canadian English. Kingston, ON: Queen's University.Google Scholar
Hall, Erin & Maddeaux, Ruth. 2020. /u/-fronting and /æ/-raising in Toronto families. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from NWAV 47 25(2), article 7.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2011. The completion of a sound change in California English. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 807–10. Hong Kong: ICPhS Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Kleber, Felicitas & Reubold, Ulrich. 2008. Compensation for coarticulation, /u/-fronting, and sound change in Standard Southern British: An acoustic and perceptual study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123(5), 2825–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, Sarah & Midgley, Jonathan. 2005. Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four age groups of speakers. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35(2), 182–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Pierrehumbert, Janet B., Walker, Abby & LaShell, Patrick. 2015. Tracking word frequency effects through 130 years of sound change. Cognition 139(1), 83–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffman, Michol. 2016. ‘Back to front’: The role of ethnicity in back vowel fronting in Toronto English. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 45. Vancouver, BC.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(2), article 14.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra & Christensen, Per B.. 2017. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Linguistic factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nylvek, Judith A. 1992. Is Canadian English in Saskatchewan becoming more American? American Speech 67(3), 268–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, Thompson W. & Baker, Paul M.. 1984. Linguistic insecurity in Winnipeg. Language in Society 13(3), 337–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Jonathan W. 2007. PsychoPy – Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162(1–2), 8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, Betty S. 1981. Lexical diffusion and Southern tune, duke, news. American Speech 56(1), 72–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 1994. Southern English glide deletion revisited. American Speech 56(1), 72–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pringle, Ian. 1985. Attitudes to Canadian English. In Greenbaum, Sidney (ed.), The English language today: Public attitudes to English, 183–205. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for statistical computing.Google Scholar
Roeder, Rebecca, Onosson, Sky & D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2018. Joining the Western region: Sociophonetic shift in Victoria. Journal of English Linguistics 46(2), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Henry. 2013. The sounds of language: An introduction to phonetics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scargill, Matthew Henry. 1974. Modern Canadian English usage: Change and reconstruction. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stewart.Google Scholar
Serendiak, Janelle & D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2015. Old njooz or new njooz? A diachronic look at yod dropping. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Dialect Society, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
Sóskuthy, Márton, Foulkes, Paul, Hughes, Vincent & Haddican, Bill. 2018. Changing words and sounds: The roles of different cognitive units in sound change. Topics in Cognitive Science 10, 787–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Umbal, Pocholo. 2021. Filipinos front too! A sociophonetic analysis of Toronto English /u/-fronting. American Speech 96(4), 397–423.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. 1982. Accents of English, vol. 1: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, Howards B. 1999. The Ottawa survey of Canadian English. Kingston, ON: Queen's University.Google Scholar