20th Century Vowel Variation in Columbus, OH: A New Perspective (or, the Canadian Shift in Columbus?) David Durian Department of Linguistics The Ohio State

20th Century Vowel Variation in Columbus, OH: A New Perspective (or, the Canadian Shift in Columbus?)

David DurianDepartment of LinguisticsThe Ohio State University

The Century of Language Change in Columbus, OH (CLCC) Project

Goals of Today’s Study

Document patterns of vocalic variation and change over the course of the 20th Century in Columbus, OH

Document these patterns in the speech of blue collar and white collar speakers to determine what impact social class has had on the patterns over time

Add to the growing body of research involving instrumental analyses of historical patterns of vowel variation and change in North American Midland Cities

Previous Studies of Columbus /Central Ohio Vowel Variation Thomas ([1989]/1993); (2001); (2004); (2006) Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006) Hartman-Keiser, et al. (1997) Durian & Smith (2005) Durian, Dodsworth & Schumacher (in press) Durian, Schumacher & Reynard (2007) Frazer (1978)--Impressionistic Analysis Kurath (1930)--Impressionistic Analysis Dodsworth (2005)--Worthington, OH Results Thomas (1996)--Johnstown, OH Results Clopper, Pisoni & de Jong (2005)--Midland speech

Three Issues Remaining Unresolved in Previous Studies 1) Lack of sufficient audio recorded data from

informants born before 1930 to facilitate robust comparative instrumental analysis of patterns of vowel variation over time Bulk of previous instrumental studies have focused on

speakers born 1930-1985 2) Data have been obtained from speakers of

different social class backgrounds in different studies, making systematic comparisons on the impact of class challenging

Three Issues Remaining Unresolved in Previous Studies 3) In instrumental analyses, different

researchers have used different approaches to obtaining measurements of vowel variation

Resolving The Issues

Analyze and instrumentally compare patterns of vowel variation obtained from speakers born throughout the 20th Century using audio recorded data

Analyze and compare data obtained from speakers of both blue and white collar backgrounds

Obtain measurements from similar points in the vowels analyzed to facilitate direct comparisons among speakers

Variables to Be Discussed Today

Raising and lowering of the nucleus of /ae/ in non-pre-nasal and non-pre-velar environments (BAT)

Retraction of the nucleus of /E/ in non-pre-nasal environments (BET)

Retraction of the nucleus of /I/ in non-pre-nasal environments (BIT)

(Are the three covariantly interrelated in Columbus?)

Study Population

22 representative vowel systems obtained from 22 European American informants

All native English speaking, lifelong Columbus residents All save 5 raised in the Columbus Central City Area

One informant (born 1896) raised in a non-suburban “periphery” portion of the larger Columbus metropolitan area

Remaining 4 informants (all born 1983-1985) raised in Central City area until later childhood years (ages 8-12), then moved to geographically close surrounding suburbs

Central City Columbus and Close Surrounding Suburbs(Definition of Central City Columbus Based on Description Provided in Hunker, 2001)

Canal Winchester

= Central City

= “Periphery Area”

= Suburbs

Study PopulationGenerationGroup

Birth Years # of informants

Sex/Class Background

GEN1 (Pre-WW I) 1896-1908 3 1 blue collar male [Thomas (2001)]1 white collar male [LANCS]1 white collar female [DARE*]

GEN2 (Pre-WW II) 1925-1937 4 1 blue collar male1 white collar male1 blue collar female1 white collar female

GEN3 (Post-WW II) 1949-1967 7 1 blue collar male2 white collar males2 blue collar females [1 from DARE*]2 white collar females

GEN4 (Post-Viet Nam Conflict)

1976-1985 8 2 blue collar males2 white collar males2 blue collar females2 white collar females

*Conversational portions of Dictionary of American Regional English interviews used for the purposes of this analysis.

Operationalization of “Collar Color” 10 blue collar speakers; 12 white collar speakers Social class defined using emergent categorization schema, based on

speaker perceptions of “color color” as elicited from speakers during the course of the study

Objective quantification of “collar color” in the study determined using the following measures:

Occupation of informant Occupation of informant’s parents and grandparents (if known) Highest level of education completed by informant and their parents (if known) If above information not discussed during an interview

Average income level of residents, and property value for homes owned by residents, for the area in which the speaker was raised during their formative years

Blue collar occupations (e.g., factory worker, HVAC repair person, food service employee)

White collar occupations (e.g., administrative secretary, librarian, lawyer, college dean)

Methods

All tokens extracted from casual interview style speech Typical interview length 60 minutes, although some were shorter

and some longer (Range: 15 minutes to 75 minutes) 10 tokens of each vowel class extracted from each speaker All vowels measured from tokens occurring in environments which:

Did not occur before a nasal or /r/ or /l/ Did not occur following /l/ or /r/ Tokens included in the BAT class also exclude following velars

Data first transformed to BARK using the formula provided by Tranmuller (1990)

Data then normalized using the z-score technique (Lobanov, 1971) Mean of the 10 tokens’ normalized values used as plot points in all

plots

Vowel Plots

In our plots:

Vowels classes presented as diphthongs use: A point extracted at 25% of the vowel’s duration to represent nuclei

targets A point extracted at 75% of the vowel’s duration to represent glide

targets

Vowels classes presented as monophthongs use: A point extracted at 50% of the vowels duration to represent nuclei

(equivalent to using measurements taken at steady state)

Normalized values are plotted in z-score units (z-score as in standard deviation, not to be confused with “Z” as in BARK units)

Sex Generation 1 2 3 4

=female white collar

= male blue collar

Older Younger

White Collar

Blue Collar

1 2 3 4

Generation

Nucleus Color



= male blue collar

Female

Male

Nucleus Shape

BAT, BAN, and BAG in Columbus

As discussed in previous studies (e.g., Thomas, [1989]/1993, 2001; Hartman-Keiser, et al., 1997; Labov, Ash & Boberg, 2006) /ae/ shows raising pre-nasally (BAN) in Columbus

Although not shown in the plots today, all informants (continue to) show some degree of raising for BAN, regardless of generational group

With the exception of speakers showing continuous /ae/ systems, BAG typically shows similar raising or lowering behavior to BAT (see Labov, Ash & Boberg, 2006 for more details)

As with BAN, BAG is not shown in the following plots



= male blue collar



= male blue collar

Generation 1 Trends:a) “Falling Diphthong*”Higher Nucleus/Lower and Downward Inglide

* [ɛæ] in more strongly diphthongal realizations[æ] in more strongly monophthongal realizations



= male blue collar

Generation 1 Trends:a) “Falling Diphthong”Higher Nucleus/Lower and Downward Inglide



= male blue collar



= male blue collar

Generation 2 Trends:

a) Continued “Falling Diphthong”Realizations



= male blue collar


a) Continued “Falling Diphthong”Realizations

b) Blue Collar Woman ShowsContinuous System



= male blue collar


a) Continued “Falling Diphthong”Raising (with Some Breaking)

b) Blue Collar Woman ShowsContinuous Raising


a) Continued “Falling Diphthong” Realizations



= male blue collar






b) Retraction of the Nucleus among Some Speakers (towards BOT)



= male blue collar




Informant born 1956Generation 3 Trends:





= male blue collar







c) Mild “Rising Diphthong**” Realizations among White Collar Men (Lower Nucleus/ Higher and Rising Inglide)

** [æɛ] in more strongly diphthongal realizations; [æ] with variable retraction toward BOT in more strongly monophthongal realizations

Informants born 1962 and 1967



= male blue collar


a) “Rising Diphthong” Realizations among Almost All Speakers



= male blue collar



b) Residual “FallingDiphthong” Realizations Found Only among Blue Collar Speakers



= male blue collar



b) Residual “FallingDiphthong” Realizations Found Only among Blue Collar Speakers

c) Some Nucleus Retraction



= male blue collar



= male blue collar



= male blue collar



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Nucleus Lowering and Retraction among Generation 3 Women



= male blue collar




= male blue collar




= male blue collar

Trends: a) Nucleus Lowering and Retraction among Generation 3 Women b) Stronger Retraction among White Collar Women



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Mild Nucleus Raising and Fronting among Generation 4 Women



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Mild Nucleus Raising and Fronting among Generation 4 Women b) Stronger Raising among White Collar Women



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Nucleus Raising and Fronting among Generation 4 Women b) Stronger Raising among White Collar Women



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Nucleus Raising and Fronting among Generation 4 Women b) Stronger Raising among White Collar Women Trends: a) BET shows very mild retraction for White Collar Generation 2 Male



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Nucleus Raising and Fronting among Generation 4 Women b) Stronger Raising among White Collar Women Trends: a) BET shows very mild retraction for White Collar Generation 2 Male



= male blue collar

Trends: a) BET remains cardinal for Blue Collar Generation 1, 2, and 3 Males



= male blue collar




= male blue collar




= male blue collar

Trends: b) Retraction among Generation 3 White Collar Men



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Further Retraction among Generation 4 White Collar Men



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Further Retraction among Generation 4 White Collar Men b) Mild Raising and Some Retraction among Blue Collar Men



= male blue collar

Man with raised BAT nucleus

Men with “Rising Diphthong” BAT (with retracted nuclei)

BET in Relationship to BAT among Generation 4 (b. 1976-1985)

BAT (“rising diphthong” with retracted nucleus)

BET (raised and mildly fronted nucleus)

Women[White Collar Speakers Lead]

Men[White Collar Speakers Lead] BAT (“rising diphthong” with

retracted nucleus)

BET (retracted nucleus)



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Trend toward some retraction of BIT across time for White Collar Females through Generation 3



= male blue collar




= male blue collar




= male blue collar

Trends: b) Non-retraction of BIT among Generation 2 and 3 Blue Collar Females



= male blue collar

Trends: b) Non-retraction of BIT among Generation 2 and 3 Blue Collar Females



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Reversal of retraction among White Collar Generation 4 Females



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Reversal of retraction among White Collar Generation 4 Femalesb) Continued fronting among Blue Collar Generation 4 Females



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Reversal of retraction among White Collar Generation 4 Femalesb) Continued fronting among Blue Collar Generation 4 Femalesc) Some lowering also found among Blue Collar Generation 4 Females



= male blue collar

Trends: a) BIT shows retraction trend for Generation 2 and 3 White Collar Males



= male blue collar




= male blue collar




= male blue collar

Trends: b) However, no retraction found among Generation 2 and 3 Blue Collar Males



= male blue collar




= male blue collar




= male blue collar

Trends: a) Raising and some retraction of BIT found for Blue Collar Generation 4 Males



= male blue collar

Trends: a) Raising and some retraction of BIT found for Blue Collar Generation 4 Malesb) Retraction of BIT continues among some White Collar Generation 4 Males



= male blue collar

Blue Collar Generation 4 Men with “Falling Diphthong” BAT and raised BET nucleus

White Collar & Blue Collar Generation 3 & 4 Menwith “Rising Diphthong” BAT (with retracted nuclei) and retracted BET nuclei

BIT in Relationship to BAT and BET among Generation 4 (b. 1976-1985)


BET (raised and mildly fronted nucleus)

Women[White Collar Speakers Lead]

BIT (mildly fronted nucleus)

BIT in Relationship to BAT and BET among Generation 4 (b. 1976-1985)


Men[White Collar Speakers Lead]

BIT (mild retraction of the nucleus)

BET (retracted nucleus)

Some Final Thoughts

Also taking into consideration that these same men also show either “close” realization or merger of BOT and BOUGHT (not shown today, but see Ash (2006) for more details)

Some Final Thoughts

Also taking into consideration that these same men also show either “close” realization or merger of BOT and BOUGHT (not shown today, but see Ash (2006) for more details)

And that speakers in Columbus show the historical merger of BOTHER (/a:/) and BOT…

The Canadian Shift in Columbus?

We conclude that Generation 3 and 4 men may be showing evidence of the Canadian Shift in Columbus

The Canadian Shift (Clarke, et al., 1995; Boberg, 2005, 2008; Labov, et al. 2006) involves: Retraction of the nucleus of BAT Retraction of the nucleus of BET Retraction of the nucleus of BIT Historical merger of BOTHER and BOT Merger or near-merger of BOT and BOUGHT


If this is the case, movement toward the Canadian Shift in Columbus appears to be led by White Collar men Some Generation 4 Blue Collar men do show more robust

Canadian Shifting than Generation 4 White Collar men But White Collar Men show stronger patterns of Canadian

Shifting over time (across generational groups)


Assuming this is the case, at least three questions remain:

1) Are the White Collar men in this pilot study representative of the larger population of White Collar Generation 3 and 4 men? Given the small n of the speaker groups in this study, this trend

requires further confirmation with a larger data set (This will be addressed for Columbus in Durian (forthcoming))

However, note also the results of Bigham (2009) in cites located in Southern Illinois, where essentially the same pattern of shift was also found to be occurring in another part of the U.S. Midland (Columbus is a U.S. Midland city)


2) Why do men show stronger movement toward Canadian Shift, but not women?

3) Is Canadian Shift the “Northern Cities Shift” of the U.S. Midland, U.S. West, and Canada? (California Shift (e.g., Eckert, 2004; Hall-Lew,2009)=Canadian

Shift, as suggested by Boberg’s (2009) Canadian data?)

Additional Results

Results for variables not discussed today, as well as individual speaker raw Hz plots, will be posted online at:

http://www.ling.osu.edu/~ddurian/CLCC/

with further discussion to be made available in my dissertation (Durian, forthcoming)

These include fronting of the nuclei of /uw/ (SHOES /BOOT), /ow/ (BOAT), and /aw/ (BOUT)





Thanks For the sharing of data: Erik Thomas, Joan Hall and the folks at DARE, Bill

Kretzschmar on behalf of LANCS, Mark Pitt and the Buckeye Corpus folks, and all the Columbusites willing to do interviews with me during 2004-2008

For general advice and/or helpful comments: Cynthia Clopper, Don Winford,

Mary Beckman, Charles Boberg, Erik Thomas, Brian Joseph, Beth Hume, Kathryn Campbell-Kibler, Julie McGory, Changelings, and Phonies

For assistance in locating 1920-1930s born Columbusites: Emily Dorrian, Don Winford, and the folks at the Lennox Station and Fifth Ave Starbucks

For general assistance in battling the pink robots: Jenn Schumacher, Missy Reynard, Andrew Smith, Daniel Durian, Malcah Yeager-Dror, David Dowty, Chris Brew, Mary Rose, Bridget Smith, Ila Nagar, Julia Papke, Salena Sampson, Angelo Costanzo, Hope Dawson, Abby Walker, Patrick Reidy, Teresa Pratt, Victoria Cook, Robin Dodsworth, Sonya Fix, and Toni Keys

Documents

20th Century Vowel Variation in Columbus, OH: A New Perspective (or, the Canadian Shift in Columbus?) David Durian Department of Linguistics The Ohio State