Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
Background/Aims: This paper examines the process of postvocalic voicing in the Spanish of Gran Canaria from the point of view of language change. A perception-production study was designed to measure the extent of variation in speaker productions, explore the degree to which production is affected by perception and identify variables that can be considered markers of sound change in progress. Methods: 20 native speakers of the dialect were asked to repeat auditory input data containing voiceless non-continuants with and without voicing. Results: Input voicing has no effect on output pronunciations, but voicing is highly variable, with both phonetic and social factors involved. Most importantly, a clear lenition pattern was identified based on such indicators as consonant duration, intensity ratio, absence of burst and presence of formants, with the velar /k/ as the most affected segment. Furthermore, strong social implications were identified: voicing degrees and rates depend both on the level of education and on the gender of the speaker. Conclusion: The results of the study suggest that the interplay of external and internal factors must be investigated more thoroughly to better address the question of phonetic variation and phonologisation of contrasts in the context of language change.
verified
References
1 Álvar, M., & Quilis, A. (1966). Datos acústicos y geográficos sobre la ch adherente de Canarias.Anuario de Estudios Atlanticos, 12(1), 337–343.0570-4065Search in Google Scholar
2 Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2018). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–17. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
3 Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Retrieved 10 February 2016 from http://www.praat.org/.Search in Google Scholar
4 Broś, K. (2016a). Between phonology and morphosyntax: voicing and spirantization in the Spanish of Gran Canaria. In E.Cyran & J.Szpyra (Eds.),Phonology, its faces and interfaces (pp. 173–200). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
5 Broś, K. (2016b). Stratum junctures and counterfeeding: Against the current formulation of cyclicity in Stratal OT. In Ch.Hammerly & B.Prickett(eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. 157–170.Search in Google Scholar
6 Cabrera Abreu, M., & Vizcaíno Ortega, F. (2010). Canarian Spanish Intonation. In P.Prieto & P.Roseano (Eds.),Transcription of Intonation of the Spanish Language (pp. 87–122). Munich: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar
7 Carrasco, P., Hualde, J. I., & Simonet, M. (2012). Dialectal differences in Spanish voiced obstruent allophony: Costa Rican versus Iberian Spanish.Phonetica, 69(3), 149–179. 10.1159/0003451990031-8388Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8 Cho, T. (2016). Prosodic boundary strengthening in the phonetics-prosody interface.Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(3), 120–141. 10.1111/lnc3.121781749-818XSearch in Google Scholar
9 Colantoni, L. & Marinescu, I. (2010). The scope of stop weakening in Argentine Spanish. In Ortega-Llebaria (ed.), Selected Proceedings 4th Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology. 100–114. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar
10 Dalcher, Ch. (2008). Consonant weakening in Florentine Italian: A cross-disciplinary approach to gradient and variable sound change.Language Variation and Change, 20(02), 275–316. 10.1017/S09543945080000210954-3945Search in Google Scholar
11 Dorta, J. (1997). Datos acústicos y percepcion de la /c/ adherente de Canarias y de la prepalatal castellana. In M.Almeida & J.Dorta (Eds.),Contribuciones al estudio de la lingüística hispánica (Homenaje al profesor Ramón Trujillo) (pp. 57–72). Barcelona: Montesinos.Search in Google Scholar
12 Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation.Language Variation and Change, 1(03), 245–267. 10.1017/S095439450000017X0954-3945Search in Google Scholar
13 Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. A. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(6), 3728–3740. 10.1121/1.4183320001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14 Fox, J. (2003). Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models.Journal of Statistical Software, 8(15), 1–27. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i15/10.18637/jss.v008.i151548-7660Search in Google Scholar
15 Guitart, J. (1978). Aspectos del consonantismo habanero: Reexamen descriptivo.Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española, 7, 95–114.Search in Google Scholar
16 Gurevich, N. (2004). Lenition and Contrast: The Functional Consequences of Certain Phonetically Conditioned Sound Changes. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
17 Guy, G. (2003). Variationist approaches to phonological change. In B.Joseph & R.Janda (Eds.),The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 369–400). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch8Search in Google Scholar
18 Herrera Santana, J. (1989). Sonorizacióm de oclusivas sordas en Tenerife. In J.Dorta & J.Herrera (Eds.),Tres estudios de Fonética (pp. 111–121). La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna.Search in Google Scholar
19 Herrera Santana, J. (1997). Estudio acústico de /p, t, c, k/ y /b, d, y, g/ en Gran Canaria. In M.Almeida & J.Dorta (Eds.),Contribuciones al estudio de la lingüística hispánica (Homenaje al profesor Ramón Trujillo) (pp. 73–86). Barcelona: Montesinos.Search in Google Scholar
20 Hualde, J. I., & Nadeu, M. (2011). Lenition and phonemic overlap in Rome Italian.Phonetica, 68(4), 215–242. 10.1159/0003343030031-8388Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21 Hualde, J.I., Nadeu, M. & M.Simonet (2010). Lenition and phonemic contrast in Majorcan Catalan. In Colina, Olarrea, Carvalho (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2009. Selected papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium. on Romance Languages. 63–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
22 Hualde, J. I., Simonet, M., & Nadeu, M. (2011). Consonant lenition and phonological recategorization.Laboratory Phonology, 2(2), 301–329. 10.1515/labphon.2011.0111868-6346Search in Google Scholar
23 Hume, E., & Johnson, K. (2001). A model of the interplay of speech perception and phonology. In E.Hume & K.Johnson (Eds.),The role of speech perception in phonology (pp. 3–26). New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004454095Search in Google Scholar
24 Jones, M. A. (1997). Sardinian. In M.Maiden & M.Parry (Eds.),The dialects of Italy (pp. 376–384). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
25 Labov, W. (1980). The social origin of sound change. In W.Labov (Ed.),Locating Language in Time and Space (pp. 251–266). New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
26 Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change.Language Variation and Change, 2(02), 205–254. 10.1017/S09543945000003380954-3945Search in Google Scholar
27 Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change.: Vol. 1. Internal Factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
28 Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change.: Vol. 2. External Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
29 Labov, W. (2006). A sociolinguistic perspective on sociophonetic research.Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 500–515. 10.1016/j.wocn.2006.05.0020095-4470Search in Google Scholar
30 Lavoie, L. (2001). Consonantal Strength: Phonological Patterns and Phonetic Manifestations. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203826423Search in Google Scholar
31 LewisA.M. (2001). Weakening of Intervocalic /ptk/ in Two Spanish Dialects: Toward the Quantification of Lenition Processes. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Search in Google Scholar
32 Lloyd, P. M. (1987). From Latin to Spanish. American Philosophical Society.Search in Google Scholar
33 Loporcaro, M. (2009). Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani. Bari: Laterza.Search in Google Scholar
34 Lucero, J. C., & Koenig, L. L. (2005). Phonation thresholds as a function of laryngeal size in a two-mass model of the vocal folds.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(5), 2798–2801. 10.1121/1.20749870001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed
35 Machuca AyusoM.J. (1997). Las obstruyentes no continuas del español: relación entre las categorías fonéticas y fonológicas en habla espontánea. PhD dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Search in Google Scholar
36 Marrero, V. (1986). Fonética estática y fonética dinámica en el habla de las Islas Canarias. PhD dissertation. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Search in Google Scholar
37 Martínez Celdrán, E. (1993). La percepción categorial de /b, p/ en espanol basada en las diferencias de duración.Estudios De Fonética Experimental, 5, 223–239.Search in Google Scholar
38 Martínez Celdrán, E. (2009). Sonorización de las oclusivas sordas en una hablante murciana: Problemas que plantea.Estudios De Fonética Experimental, 18, 253–271.Search in Google Scholar
39 Moreno Cabrera, J.C. (2000). La dignidad e igualdad de las lenguas: Crítica de la discriminación lingüística. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Search in Google Scholar
40 Morera, M. (1990). Unidad y variedad del espańol de Canarias. La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna.Search in Google Scholar
41 Nadeu, M., & Hualde, J. I. (2015). Biomechanically conditioned variation at the origin of diachronic intervocalic voicing.Language and Speech, 58(Pt 3), 351–370. 10.1177/00238309145547270023-8309Search in Google Scholar PubMed
42 Oftedal, M. (1985). Lenition in Celtic and in Insular Spanish. Universitetsforlaget Oslo.Search in Google Scholar
43 Ohala, J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In C. S.Masek, R. A.Hendrik, & M. F.Miller (Eds.),Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior. 178-203. Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: CLS.Search in Google Scholar
44 Ohala, J. (1983). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In P. F.MacNeilage (Ed.),The production of speech (pp. 189–216). New York: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978-1-4613-8202-7_9Search in Google Scholar
45 Ohala, J. (1990). The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. In J.Kingston & M.Beckman (Eds.),Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1. 258-275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627736.014Search in Google Scholar
46 Ortega-Llebaria, M. (2004). Interplay between phonetic and inventory constraints in the degree of spirantization of voiced stops: Comparing intervocalic /b/ and intervocalic /g/ in Spanish and English. In T. Face (Ed.), Laboratory approaches to Spanish phonetics and phonology (pp. 237–254). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
47 Parrell, B. (2010). Articulation from acoustics: Estimating constriction degree from the acoustic signal.Journal of the American Acoustical Society, 128(4), 2289. 10.1121/1.3508033Search in Google Scholar
48 Parrell, B. (2011). Dynamical account of how /b, d, g/ differ from /p, t, k/ in Spanish: Evidence from labials.Laboratory Phonology, 2(2), 423–449. 10.1515/labphon.2011.0161868-6346Search in Google Scholar PubMed
49 Prieto, P. (2007). Phonological phrasing in Spanish. In F.Martínez-Gil & S.Colina (Eds.),Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology (pp. 39–61). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.99.03priSearch in Google Scholar
50 Quilis, A. (1993). Tratado de fonética y fonología españolas. Madrid: Gredos.Search in Google Scholar
51 R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/Search in Google Scholar
52 Recasens, D. (2002). Weakening and strengthening in Romance revisited.Rivista di Linguistica, 14, 327–373.1120-2726Search in Google Scholar
53 Romero, J., Parrell, B. & M.Riera (2007). What distinguishes /p/, /t/, /k/ from /b/, /d/, /g/ in Spanish? Poster presented at Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia. Braga, Portugal.Search in Google Scholar
54 Shadle, C. H. (1997). The aerodynamics of speech. In W.Hardcastle & J.Laver (Eds.),The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 39–80). Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
55 Torreblanca, M. (1976). La sonorización de las oclusivas sordas en el habla toledana.Boletín De La Real Academia Española, 56, 117–146.Search in Google Scholar
56 Torreira, F., & Ernestus, M. (2011). Realization of voiceless stops and vowels in conversational French and Spanish.Laboratory Phonology, 2(2), 321–354. 10.1515/labphon.2011.0121868-6346Search in Google Scholar
57 Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of Norwich.Language in Society, 1(2), 175–195. 10.1017/S00474045000004880047-4045Search in Google Scholar
58 Trujillo, R. (1980). Sonorización de sordas en Canarias.Anuario Letras, 18, 247–254.Search in Google Scholar
59 Vennemann, T. (1988). Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
60 Zec, D. (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure.Phonology, 12(01), 85–129. 10.1017/S09526757000023960952-6757Search in Google Scholar
- 1
As suggested by a reviewer, it should be noted that in the case of Spanish we are talking about a second round of voicing from the historical perspective (Latin roots with intervocalic voiceless stops underwent voicing centuries ago, e.g. vita -> vida [biða] “life”), whereas in the case of Corsican, Sardinian or Central-Southern Italian the original Latin voiceless stops show variable voicing now.
- 2
It must be noted that in the Spanish of the Canary Islands, the prepalatal (or palato-alveolar) affricate has been reported to be produced as a palatal affricate [cç] or even stop [c], hence its voiced counterpart would be [ɟʝ] or [ɟ]. Depending on the study, the symbols and names used for the Canarian sound differ, which is why we decided to use IPA symbols for clarity. In our data, as in e.g. Dorta (1997), the affricate is often pronounced differently from the standard palato-alveolar [tʃ] found in Peninsular Spanish. Since pronunciations differ from one speaker to another, and the exact place and manner of articulation are outside the scope of this paper, we decided to use the [tʃ] symbol to refer to it and describe it as a prepalatal affricate in accordance with the Spanish-speaking literature. It should be noted, however, that the periods of closure and frication vary across speakers and depending on the degree of voicing. In general, our data show that females tend to produce a standard [tʃ] with a definite frication period and no voicing, whereas males typically produce a tenser variant whose frication period is shorter or even absent, with higher rates of voicing. The latter sound would be best referred to as “adherent ch” described by Álvar and Quilis (1966), Dorta (1997) and others.
- 3
An important reason for avoiding written language and using variable productions in the input is the fact that consonant weakening is stigmatised in the speech of the Canary Islands. This is subject to a heated debate, and various authors point to the rates of “correction,” teaching Canarians Peninsular Spanish pronunciations in schools and diffusing them as a model in the media (Moreno Cabrera, 2000; Morera, 1990).
- 4
The choice of the speaker was based on the fact that he was a definite frequent voicer. The gender of the speaker was not of our concern given that according to previous studies, voicing is quite consistent in all speakers, both males and females of different ages. Since the study was not primarily focused on accommodation or speaker discrimination, both genders were listening to one speaker. As noted by a reviewer, however, this might have influenced the results given that participants may have voiced more readily if they were of the same gender as the recorded speaker. We see this as a limitation of the study. Nevertheless, according to our results, input voicing neither influenced output voicing in general nor when the two genders are compared (neither males nor females accommodate to the speaker from the recording). The only significant effect was observed in the case of the prepalatal (see the Results section). The question of covert prestige or lack thereof and the corresponding behaviour of the participants should not be ignored, however. Unfortunately, although two of the females were the heaviest voicers among the participants of the study and hence seemed to have an idiolectal tendency to voice stops everywhere, we cannot rule out the possibility that at least some of the other females reacted to the input in a negative way and adjusted their pronunciations because the speaker was male (e.g., to differentiate themselves from him).
- 5
It is worth mentioning that Parrell (2010) compared the two indices used in this study with one more variable (maximum velocity), concluding that intensity ratio is the most reliable index as it shows the strongest correlation with articulatory data. Although it is unclear how the intensity ratio should be calculated based on Parrell’s presentation, the methodology is stated explicitly by other authors, e.g. Carrasco et al. (2012, p. 156) whose statistical analysis is based on “the intensity ratio resulting from dividing the two values [in decibels] (min/max) at the two points.”
- 6
The p for F values is given on the basis of a log likelihood test.
- 7
It should be noted that if no burst was visible but there was some energy or friction after the stop closure, this postclosure period was included in the constriction/consonant duration rather than considered to be a part of the onset of the following vowel.
- 8
We deem the prepalatal to be of low prestige given the big difference in voicing rates between males and females for this sound, as well as between the different levels of education. All females presented 0–10% of voicing for this sound except one who voiced all instances of the palatal and another one who voiced it 65% of the time; both have secondary school education only. Additionally, this sound is notorious (speakers are typically aware of “the special tʃ” from Gran Canaria), and women tend to produce it more neutrally (as a more prepalatal variant, with equal constriction and frication phases) as opposed to males whose productions are more tense, retracted and shorter (more stop-like).
- 9
The PPh abbreviation is used to refer to a minor phrase (phonological phrase), whose importance for Spanish has been argued for e.g. by Prieto (2007).
This paper is an extended version of a poster presentation given at OCP 14 in Düsseldorf, February 2017, which provided data on the voicing variable from Gran Canarian speaker productions. We would like to thank the conference participants for all their useful comments and suggestions concerning further developments of the study.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
