Slide 1

Outward bound: Language as a property of the speech community

Poznan 2010

William Labov

University of Pennsylvania

This paper is an effort to define the target of the language learner: asking, what are the data that the child attends to in the process of becoming a native speaker? In so doing, we will necessarily be engaged in the more general effort to define language itself. The argument to be advanced here is that the human language learning capacity is aimed at the acquisition of the general pattern used in the speech community. The end result is a high degree of uniformity in both the categorical and variable aspects of language production, where individual variation is reduced below the level of linguistic significance.

1

WL home pagewww.ling.upenn.edu/~labov

The central dogma of sociolinguistics:

The community is conceptually and analytically prior to the individual.

In linguistic analysis, the behavior of an individual can be understood only through the study of the social groups of which he or she is a member.

. This work strongly supports the central dogma of sociolinguistics CLICK that the community is conceptually and analytically prior to the individual. CLICK This means that in linguistic analysis, the behavior of an individual can be understood only through the study of the social groups of which he or she is a member. Following the approach outlined in Weinreich et al. 1968, language is seen as an abstract pattern located in the speech community and exterior to the individual. Language is a social fact, in the sense of Durkheim: CLICK

3

Durkheims social facts

. . .ways of behaving, thinking and feeling, exterior to the individual, which possess a power of coercion by which they are imposed on him (1937, p. 5, my translation)

The human language faculty, an evolutionary development rooted in human physiology, is then viewed as the capacity to perceive, reproduce and employ this pattern

The opposing view, well established in the thinking of many students of the speech community, is that the individual constructs an idiolectal grammar on the basis of the particular set of input data to which he or she is exposed in the formative years. Since the language learning mechanism is not programmed to delete idiosyncratic constructs, the end result is that each language learner winds up with a particular version of the grammar based on individual experience. The speech community is then seen as a vague average or assembly of these idiolectal variants. To understand how the language learning mechanism works from this perspective, we have to examine its operation in the individual learner.

.

his enthusiasm for the individual is not a new development. CLICK Durkheim notes

4

Durkheim on individualists

. . . the word compelling, by which we define [social facts], has a risk of irritating the zealous partisans of an absolute individualism. As they believe that the individual is perfectly autonomous, they feel that the individual is diminished each time that it seems that he does not act entirely by himself. (Durkheim 1937:6).

Although the critique of the idiolect in Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 was widely accepted, the desire to focus on the individual recurs with striking regularity, even among sociolinguists.

5

The individual as primary input

The linguist should be able to pin-point the development of a language as a result of individual choices, and that the sociolinguist should try to relate changes in social structure to changes in individual cultural values as expressed through speech in social interaction. Individual behavior is thus seen as the proper starting point for sociolinguistic investigation.

Janet Holmes, Sociolinguistics and the Individual

Similarly, Hymes 1979 would give foundational status to individual differences as a vantage point from which to study language in general. Le Page and Tabouret Keller (1985) see language as essentially idiosyncratic. Language is for them the linguistic repertoire of the individual; the individual is the locus of his language. (P. 116). Johnstones book on The Sociolinguistic Individual (1996) is devoted to the argument that we should think about language from the perspective of the individual speaker, rather than the perspective of the social aggregate or the abstract linguistic system

6

The general perspective put forward here. . .

The general perspective put forward here reinforces the contrary view. It is argued that the individual does not exist as a unit of linguistic analysis. Though the recordings and judgments of sociolinguistic research are gathered from individual speakers, their idiosyncratic behavior is not our focus, but rather the extent to which they respond to wider community patterns.

The compulsion for the language learner to turn outward may be thought of as the result of a competition between two types of language learning.

In one type each individual forms a grammar that is informed primarily by the initial input and is the unique product of individual experience.

The other type is programmed to keep smoothing the result with data from following contacts (up to a certain limit). This second type is outwardly bound, in the sense that it takes the community pattern as prior to the individual pattern. The suggestion here is that from an evolutionary point of view, the second type will survive, and has survived, at the expense of the first.

[I will first review some of the evidence for the outwardly bound character of the language learner. We will then turn to the uniformity that is the end result of this character of language learning, considering first the uniform patterns of the metropolitan speech communityand then uniformity at an even larger scale of regional dialects involving as many as thirty or forty million speakers. Such regional uniformity makes it more difficult to account for the diversity of structure across regions and the sharpness of the boundaries between them.

Ill conclude by attempting to state the conditions that give rise to such divergence, particularly between communities whose speakers are in close and continuous contact with each other.]

7

What is to be learned?

1. What comes first. The learner copies faithfully the forms first acquired and makes minimal modification thereafter

Lets begin by looking at five possible answers to the question: what is to be learned?

. 1. What comes first. The learner copies faithfully the forms first acquired and makes minimal modification thereafter. This the type of learning that is similar to imprinting in birds.

All of the available evidence points in the opposite direction for human beings. In fact, we have massive evidence that children will reject their first acquired pattern if it violates the demand of the learning system for generality..

8

What is to be learned?

2. Everything. Within the critical period, the learner is sensitive to each exposure and continually modifies the linguistic system in proportion to the frequency of each type observed in interaction.

). A second possibility is that (within the critical period), the learner is sensitive to each exposure and continually modifies the linguistic system in proportion to the frequency of each type observed in interaction, thus arriving at a malleable frequency of forms, rule application or ranking of constraints or mean values of continuous variables like vowels or voice onset time. Some evidence can be found of this mode of learning, where the persistence of parents influence can be detected throughout later changes.

9

What is to be learned?

3. What is local. The learner is oriented towards the linguistic forms of a given social group with which he or she is in contact.

3. What is to be learned: what is local (selected). The learner may be oriented to acquire the linguistic forms of a given social group. This is the common mechanism advanced to explain sociolinguistic variation by orientation to the norms associated with gender, social class, and communities of practice. There is no doubt that social motivation is associated with the growth of diversity within the community, and this presentation will not challenge those findings. However, in this presentation, findings on common directions of change across all such groups will lead to the search for other principles of language learning beyond the influence of local norms

10

What is to be learned?

4. What is new. When the language learners perceive change in progress. they are oriented to acquire new forms in preference to the old.

5. What is to be learned: what is new when the language learner perceives change in progress. they are strongly oriented to acquire the new forms in preference over the old. This proposal is motivated by the uniformity of the direction of change across metropolitan communities and regional dialects.

11

What is to be learned?

5. What is general. Language learners exhibit a preference for forms and patterns that are the general medium of communication across all subgroups of the speech community.

4. What is to be learned: what is general (smoothing). The proposal to be advanced in this paper is that language learners exhibit a preference for forms and patterns that are the general medium of communication across all subgroups of the community. The proposal is motivated by two types of findings. First, that children have the capacity to identify and reject idiosyncratic or foreign elements in their caregivers speech in favor of the general pattern of the speech community. Second, that large metropolitan speech communities exhibit a geographic and structural uniformity that cannot be explained in any other way.

12

1. Evidence against imprinting: children do not acquire non-native features from their parents.

King-of-Prussia. . .

Our best view the of this matter can be drawn from the study of the new town of King of Prussia by Payne (1976), where half of the population was drawn from metropolitan Philadelphia and half from out-of-state communities with very different vowel systems in Massachusetts, New York, Cleveland

14

Acquisition of Philadelphia variables by children of out-of-state families in King of Prussiaby age of arrival

from Payne 1976

15

.

The majority of children who spent at least half of their formative years in Philadelphia acquired the Philadelphia vowel variables. This diagram shows the percent of those who acquired five of the Philadelphia variables, partially acquired, or retained the parental pattern. [discuss the five variables and the age factor

Milton Keynes. . .

This shows the location of Kerswill and Williams research in Milton Keynes, composed of inmigrants from many different areas of England (Williams and Kerswill 1999, Kerswill and Williams 2000). Milton Keynes did not exist in 1971, but grew to 123,000 in 1981 and 176,000 in 1991. Three quarters of its residents came from the southeastern England: 35% from London, 32% from other southern counties, but only 3% from the immediate sub-region within 15 minutes drive. This project was elegantly and carefully designed to record the phonology of 8 boys and 8 girls in each of three age levels: 4, 8 and 12 years old, together with the caretakers of each, a total of 96 speakers. The new Milton Keynes dialect that arose was a distinct entity: it combined the some features of London and the home counties with some remnants of the local dialect

Though the childrens acquisition of language begins with their mothers vernacular, a competing pattern emerged in this new community which drew children away from their parents original model.

16

Development of local phonetic forms for the GOAT vowel in Milton Keynes by age. [From Kerswill and Williams 1994].

Kerswill and Williams provide a profile for the development of /ow/, the GOAT vowel, across three age levels of children together with the mean scores for their female caretakers. Figure 3 shows the frequencies of three groups of variants: back upgliding vowels with a central or back nucleus; front vowels with rounded glides, and front vowels with unrounded glides. The four-year-olds show the same distribution as their caretakers, while the eight and twelve-year-olds have shifted to the front nuclei with rounded glides. Clearly the eight year olds no longer take their parents vowel systems as the target for language learning.

17

Caretakersu,,(o:)3.537.360.04 year oldsu,,(o:)13.530.255.78 year oldsu,,(o:)12.953.633.312 year oldsu,,(o:)3.068.628.2

Percent

The Lower East Side of New York City

The pattern seen with relative influence of competing dialects is repeated with even greater clarity when the caretakers are not native speakers of the dominant language of the speech community. With the massive immigration into the U.S. from southern and eastern Europe in the late 19th century, large numbers of children acquired English in households where the caretakers were native speakers of Italian, Polish, Yiddish, Greek, and other languages other than English. It was a common conception that somehow the dialect of New York City was influenced by these mother-tongues. However, the influence of parents language is regularly found to be the least of all sociolinguistic forces operating on childrens language in North America. In some way that is not yet fully understood, children have the capacity to detect at an early age the fact that their parents language is not fully representative of the speech community and so is not the proper target for their language learning.

When we consider the major social factors that influence language acquisition, a common-sense projection would look to the most closely tied to languagethat is, the language spoken in the home, and the ethnic membership associated with this language. But in one study after another, we find that this expectation is defeated. We typically find that the significant independent variables in studies of the speech community are gender, age, social class, neighborhood, and (if we cross racial lines), race. In the U.S., linguistically associated ethnicity, when it does appear, is the weakest of all.

18

. Phonological variables for subjects with foreign- and native-born parents in New York City

This appeared most dramatically in a comparison that I made between second and third generation Jewish New Yorkers in the raising of the variables (h) and (oh). Table 2 shows the two generations for upper middle class Jewish younger men, and working class Jewish older women.

There were no significant differences between generations in the raising of (h). This is the phonetic shift that follows the tensing of short-a in words like bad, man, last and bath from [] to [:] to [e:]. Furthermore, as the small t-test values show, there were no significant differences between the 2nd and 3rd generations in the raising of (oh) in coffee, talk, off from [] to [o:] to [u:]. In other words, the target for language learning was the same for children whose parents were speakers of Yiddish and those whose parents were native speakers of the New York City dialect.

19

Upper class Chestnut Hill

WicketSt. Kensington

Pitt St.: So. Phila

Mallow St. Overbrook

Nancy Drive King of Prussisa

Clark St. So. Phila

The Philadelphia Neighborhood Study [N=120]

Stepwise regression of second formant of F2 of /aw/ in the Philadelphia Neighborhood Study with gender, age, social class, neighborhood and ethnicity factors..N=112. Adjusted r2 = 56.6

VariableCoefficientProbability

Female 122 0.0001

Age (*25 years)-120 0.0001

Upper working class 138 0.0026

Wicket St. neighborhood 171 0.0007

Pitt St. neighborhood 101 0.0329

Italian -14 0.804

Jewish -94 0.293

Irish 16 0.776

WASP -25 0.681

German-174 0.029

Generation in U.S. 1.6 0.945

this table shows the results of a multiple regression of the fronting of /aw/ one of the new and vigorous changes affecting the Philadelphia speech community, accounting for 56% of the variance in the Neighborhood Study of 112 speakers. Gender, age, upper working class status, and residence in two of the oldest settled working class neighborhoods are significant effects on the progress of this change. I have added the ethnic dimensions of this population to demonstrate their absence of significance. Italian, Jewish, Irish, Wasp membership all fail to affect linguistic behavior in this and other cases. Only German appears to be significant at the .05 level. This negative effect on fronting of -174 is the least likely to be the result of linguistic influence, since the German settlement was the earliest and dates back four or five generations. As in New York City, one is more likely to find a non-English mother tongue among the second and third generation of Italian and Jewish immigrants. I have also added generational status to the list of independent variables: it is not significant, confirming the equivalence of second and third generations found in the New York City study.

21

Seekonk. . .

CLICK Childrens acquisition of change from above can be observed most clearly in Johnsons study of the spread of the low back merger in eastern Massachusetts (2010). Here there is no issue of consciously assigned prestige, but rather a linguistically motivated consequence of contact with children from other regions

22

. In the region of eastern Massachusetts around Boston, there is a complete merger of /o/ and /oh/ in cot and caught, Otto and auto, etc. the LOT and THOUGHT classes while in the region of Rhode Island surrounding Providence, this distinction is maintained. Despite the general tendency of mergers to expand at the expense of distinctions (Herzogs corollary to Gardes principle), Johnson found that this boundary was stable across two or three adult generations.

He studied 14 families in the border town of Seekonk, where the youngest generation has shown a rapid shift towards the merger.

23

Low back vowel systems in Seekonk children by grade and parental system. Elementary schools: A = Aitkin, M = Martin, N = North. (Johnson 2010: Fig. 5.3)

. CLICK [Discuss horizontal and vertical axes and symbols.] CLICK In grades 2-6 there is a solid belt of 10 black symbols indicating complete merger, while older children maintain the distinct system of the community and younger children have not completely emerged from the influence of their parents

24

2. Averaging: remains of parental influence on childrens changing pattern

A dramatic view of the disconnect between parents and children is found whena pidgin language, with no native speakers shifts to a creole as a generation of children grow up with this as their first language. Bickerton treats these as linguistically orphaned, forced to use their naked language learning ability from scratch because they do not recognize their parents speech as legitimate language.

25

kk

26

Reduction of future bai ( < baimbye) in Tok Pisin

ParentChild

em bai i-goem b-i-go

he will gohe will go

Sankoff studied this process in the development of the future marker BAI of Tok Pisin. Adults tended to give this formative secondary stress, realizing He will go as /em bai i-go/, while children tended to reduce /bai/ to [b] or even [b].

27

Percent secondary stress on future marker BAI by parents and children (source: G. Sankoff).

CLICK Figure 7 shows the reduction in secondary stress of bai in this community

from parents at 35 to 70% to children at 5 to 45%. However, the lines connecting parents to children remain parallel, indicating that parental differential input is maintained even when children have absorbed the new community norms.

28

3. The acquisition of the local

Marthas Vineyard

30

Index of Centralization on Marthas Vineyard as a symbol of local identity

Persons Attitude towardsCentralization index the island (ay)(aw)

40Positive 63 62

19Neutral 32 42

6Negative 09 08

31

The Northern Cities Shift

head

desk

bosses

busses

block

socks

mat

32

Local development of the backing of // in but, bunk, in Belten high school in the suburbs of Detroit (Eckert 2000)

Backing of / / in but, bunk, etc. by gender and social group in Belten high school in the suburbs of Detroit (Table 5.7, Eckert 2000).

Burnout girls Burnout boysJock girlsJock boys

.79 .63 .22.30

Factor weights for advanced tokens of backed //

Local development of the fronting of // in but, bunk, etc. in Farmer City, Illinois high school (Habick 1980) ,

Distribution of fronting of // in but, bunk, etc by social groups in Farmer City, Illinois (based on Table 9-2, Habick 1980)

Distance from /e/

Group Overlapped Close Far

Burnout6 30

Redneck3 61

Parents1 24

Grandparents0 15

Kentucky0 07

5. The acquisition of the new

Montreal. . .

A dramatic shift from parents to children can be located in Sankoff and Blondeaus study of the shift of apical to uvular /r/ in their real-time re-study of Montreal in 1971 and 1984. The new uvular form spread geographically from the Quebec City area, but was also identified with continental standard French.

38

All intermediate speakers under 20 in 1971 were categorical [R]-users by the age of 33 in 1984

39

Louise L.

Louis-Pierre R.

Guy T.

Paul D.

Figure 5 shows the percent uvular /r/ for the same group of speakers by age, with blue symbols showing percent [R] in 1971 and the red symbols in 1984. Black arrows connect the 1971 and 1984 values of speakers who increased their use of the uvular variant over this period. [CLICK] At upper left are eight black triangles representing adolescents who had achieved 100% uvular (r) by 1971,

39

Putative trajectories for speakers under 20 in 1971 who were already categorical [R]-users

40

Since their parents were part of a community that was close to 100% apical (r), and based on the direct evidence of interviews in which parents of these young people were also recorded as 100% apical speakers, we infer that 100% apical would have been their model in early L1 acquisition. However it is clear that the majority of adolescent speakers in 1971 had taken as their target a form of /r/ quite distinct from that of their parents and achieved consistent control over this uvular form. By 1984, all speakers under 30 had done so

40

The split between tense and lax short-a in Philadelphia

Tensing of short-a in Philadelphia in closed syllables

pttk

bddg

mn

fs

vz

Short-a is tensed before front nasals and voiceless fricatives, Archtypical is /n/. But only in closed syllables.

42

Tense Lax

panpanningpanel

hamhamminghammer

planplanningplanet

fanfanningflannel

Lexical diffusion of short-a tensing in Philadelphia

The syllables may be closed with a consonant or an inflectional boundary, but not in open syllable words like

43

Lexical diffusion of tensing of planet among adults and children in Philadelphia (Roberts and Labov 1995)

44

Lexical diffusion of planet among younger and older children in Philadelphia (Roberts and Labov 1995)

45

5. The acquisition of the general

Proportion of t,d deletion for eleven members of the Jets in single interviews

Labov, Cohen, Robins and Lewis 1968

Proportion deleted of monomorphemic t,d clusters before consonants and vowels for eleven members of the Jets.

_K20.026.021.038.042.030.017.015.021.011.012.010.09.09.08.011.08.07.01.04.01.02.00.950.9615384615384620.8571428571428570.9473684210526310.8333333333333330.9333333333333330.9411764705882350.61.01.00.916666666666667_V20.026.021.038.042.030.017.015.021.011.012.010.09.09.08.011.08.07.01.04.01.02.00.70.5555555555555560.4444444444444440.250.3636363636363640.50.5714285714285711.00.50.00.5

Number of tokens

Proportion deleted

Lexical diffusion of short-a before /d/ in Philadelphia

Tensing of short-a in Philadelphia in closed syllables

pttk

bddg

mn

fs

vz

mad, bad glad

Short-a is tensed before front nasals and voiceless fricatives, Archtypical is /n/. But only in closed syllables.

50

Tensing and laxing of short a before /d/ in the spontaneous speech of 112 adults in the Philadelphia Neighborhood Study, including speakers from all social classes

Tense Lax

bad143 0

mad 73 0

glad 18 1

sad 014

dad 010

CLICK This is a table of the use of these words in spontaneous speech for the 112 speakers in all ten of the neighborhoods studied from upper class Chestnut Hill to lower working class Kensington. There is one exception: a laxed value of glad. We have yet to understand how such uniformity across neighborhoods and social classes is achieved.

51

5. Expansion of the new to the general

The raising of Philadelphia /ey/ in closed syllables in made, pain, etc.

Mean F1 and F2 for vowels with age coefficient in the Philadelphia Neighborhood Study 1973-1979 (Labov 2001)

Head of arrow = estimated value for speakers 25 years younger than the mean; tail of arrow for speakers 25 years older than the mean.

Scatterplot of the fronting of (eyC) by age and socioeconomic class, with partial regression lines for social classes, from the Philadelphia Neighborhood Study 1972-1979 [N=112].

The individual creates his systems of verbal behavior so as to resemble those common to the group or groups with which he wishes from time to time to be identified, to the extent that:

(a) he is able to identify those groups

(b) his motives are sufficiently clear-cut and powerful

(c) his opportunities for learning are adequate

(d) his ability to learn -- that is, to changes his habits where necessary -- is unimpaired.

--R. Le Page & A. Tabouret-Keller, Acts of Identity (1985)

Raising of /ey/ for Jean M., 60, Philadelphia [2006]

iy

ey

ay

oy

Scatterplot of the fronting of (eyC) by age and socioeconomic class, with partial regression lines for social classes, from the Philadelphia Neighborhood Study 1972-1979 [N=112].

2207

30

The Northern Cities Shift

head

desk

bosses

busses

block

socks

mat

60

The UD measure of the Northern Cities Shift

bunk

60

61

The UD measure of the Northern Cities Shift

bunk

61

62

U.S. at Night: u in bunk

The Inland North vs. the Midland: short u in bunk

Syracuse

Milwaukee

Flint

Columbus

Evansville

Terre Haute

Indianapolis

62

Uniformity of the Inland North as defined by four coinciding isoglosses. Black symbols: speakers satisfying the UD criterion: // is backer than /o/. White symbols: /o/ is backer than //

Percent non-local answering telephone in four city/regions (ANAE Table 14.3)

San DiegoTexasNY, PAMidwest0.7692307692307690.6341463414634150.4871794871794870.238095238095238

Per cent non-local

65

Backing and fronting of // in STRUT by age in the Inland North [blue] and the Midland [red]

d

d

65

What is to be learned?

The general

The new

The local

The local

The parental

This then is a schematic map of what is to be learned. At a central core is the parental pattern, the first language, which as we have seen is largely overwritten but may survive as a marginal effect in the over-all averaging. Then there is the attraction of the local peer group or reference group, which has been found to be a linguistic reality. But in the long run, this turns out to be a minor ripple in the large current of new linguistic change. Finally, we find the tendency for the new to expand to the general: that parental, local and new influences are all dominated by drive of the language learner to avoid the idiosyncrasies of local groups and acquire a form of language that is most useful in general communication.

This does not mean that everyone in North America is speaking a general or standard pronunciation. On the contrary, these new waves of sound change are limited to vast regions which are becoming progressively more different from each other. The general is defined in many ways by language learners; but as in many areas of Europe, it is defined as regional in preference to local. At an earlier period, the same unifying tendency extended to the limits of the village, the town or the city.

The study of linguistic variation is sometimes pursued as a way of showing how different people are from one another. And it is perfectly true that the larger our data base becomes, the more often will statistical analysis reveal subtle differences among subgroups of the population. I have tried to turn the focus away from those minor subdivisions and ask us to account for the breathtaking uniformities that result from the outward orientation of the language learning faculty. Though we have much to learn from micro-analysis, we have more to learn from our efforts to grasp the larger picture.

On the whole, we cannot doubt the importance of studying linguistic variation in face-to-face interaction. Recent ethnographic work has illuminated our understanding of how linguistic influence flows across social networks, and how the face-to-face negotiation of personal identity accelerates the shift of targets in the course of change in progress. But the larger uniformities shown here, in both the slope of variation and the structural base for variation, require further inquiry into what the language learner must know. The problem was confronted by Fridland (2000) when her study of Memphis showed the same trend of glide weakening of /ay/ across white and black populations, though there was very little communication between them. Searching for the social base for such uniformity, she argued that these shared practices do not necessarily require individuals social cohesion but merely require shared historical experience and a strongly circumscribing environment that places speakers in a similar social position relative to the external social world. These are the cultural factors that the cognitive apparatus of the language learner must grasp. The same argument would apply to the uniformity of the direction of linguistic change in metropolitan communities like Philadelphia and in the Inland North as a whole.

We then have gained some idea of what is to be learned, and how the language learner looks outward to master the broader community patterns. Along with those uniformities we find abrupt discontinuities between black and white, North and Midland, Canada and the U.S. But we do not know enough about how the great divisions between these regional dialects are maintained. Somehow, high school students in Midland cities must understand that the peers they meet from Northern cities are not models of linguistic influence: they are playing a different game with different rules and different stakes. For each such division, we can search for a first explanation in the absence of communication among language learners. Given no such discontinuity, explanation may be found in the compatibility or incompatibility of the linguistic structures involved. The third possibility is inhibition from opposing cultural values associated with these linguistic differences. This is the main topic of Chapters 10 and 11 of the 3rd volume of Principles of Linguistic Change, about to appear but also on my home page, .

[There is one concrete direction for research that may lead to greater understanding of this metropolitan uniformity. Our studies of social networks identify the importance of weak ties in identifying the leaders of linguistic change and diffusion, a topic which came up at our morning session on change and variation. We see this from studies within the primary social networks. But we have not followed the flow of linguistic influence across weak ties by recording the broader interactions that might be the conduits of linguistic influence across metropolitan areas. We identify block captains in our local neighborhoods but we have not recorded the meetings that bring block captains together across the city. We have recorded conversations among basketball players, but not the exchanges between teams; we have not followed the linguistic consequences of interstate competition. ]

This presentation has put forward the concept that language is developed and evolved as an instrument for wider communication and the language learner is dominated by that framework for learning. Some language features are coopted as symbols of local identity and may grow and expand to serve that function. But the larger pattern is that the new overwhelms the local and the new expands to the limits of that general speech community that is the target of the language learner.

.

66

Border identification based on currency flux. Blue = modularity maximum. Links are drawn from the frequency with which they appear in shortest-path tree clustering. Red =height in the clustering tree. (from Thiemann et al. 2010, Figure 4b).

North/Midland

The meddling Yankee

Taxed with being busybodies and meddlars, apologists own that the instinct for meddling, as divine as that of self-reservation, runs in the Yankee blood; that the typical New Englander was entirely unable, when there were wrongs to be corrected, to mind his own business.

--Power, Richard Lyle. 1953. Planting corn Belt Culture: The Impress of the Upland Southerner and Yankee in the Old Northwest. Indianapolis; Indiana Historical Society.

68

Yankee ideology and American reform movements

Imbued with the notion that their was a superior vision, Yankees dutifully accepted their responsibility for the moral and intellectual life of the nation and set about to do what needed to be done, with or without an invitation from the uneducated, the undisciplined, the disinterested, or the unmotivated

Cultural uplift Yankee style also meant attacking sin and sloth. The initial settlement of Iowa coincided with three very active decades for American reform movements. Health fads, prison reform, womens rights, crusades for new standards of dress---the northern states teemed with advocates of one cause or another

Most important among the reform movements of the day were the issues of abolition and temperance

--Morain, Thomas J. 1988. Prairie Grass Roots: An Iowa Small Town in the Early Twentieth century. The Henry A. Wallace Series on Agricltural History and Rural Studies. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

69

The individualism of the Upland Southerner

The [Upland] Southerner was, by Yankee standards, content to let matters take their course, content to let others alone and he wished to be left alone.

Lacking the New Englanders zeal for improvement and reform, he could enjoy rest with a free conscience. -- Charles S. Sydor

70

A Yankee view of the Upland Southerner

In McLean County, Illinois, the Northerner thought of the Southerner as a lean, lank, lazy creature, burrowing in a hut, and rioting in whiskey, dirt and ignorance

--History of McLean County 1879:97

71

Westward settlement streams as shown by building material. Source: Kniffen and Glassie 1966: Fig.27.

Distribution of political cultures in North America (from Kilpinen 2009, based on Elazar 1972, Fig. 11distinct from the general population.

Elazars political cultures

Moralistic. This group expects the government to help people achieve good lives. Governmental service is "public service." The community can intervene in private affairs if it serves communal goals.

Individualistic. This group views government in utilitarian, individualist terms. Politics is a business, like any other, which is dominated by "firms" (parties). Government should not interfere much in individuals' lives.

Traditionalistic.This group combines hierarchical views of society with ambivalence about the "government-as-marketplace." Popular participation is scarcely important in comparison with elite participation. There is also a strong preference to maintain the status quo, as evidenced by the South's general resistance to the Civil Rights movement.

--Elazar, Daniel J. 1972. American Federalism: A View from the States. 2nd edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Cognition

What is said

How it is said

Social factors

(directly observable)

Sociolinguistic Monitor

(storage and correlation)

Cultural factors

(abstract polarities)

(variable behavior)

Age, gender, ethnicity, race, neighborhood

Jocks, Burnouts

North/Midland

Grammatical analysis

Payne, Arvilla. 1976. The acquisition of the phonological system of a second dialect. U. of Pennsylvania dissertation.

76

Payne, Arvilla. 1976. The acquisition of the phonological system of a second dialect. U. of Pennsylvania dissertation.

77

Some further conditions on the tensing of short-a in Philadelphia

a. Function word constraint: Function words with simple codas (an, and, I can) are lax while corresponding content words are tense (tin can, hand, add), while cant with a complex coda, remains tense. This preserves the contrast of tense cant vs. lax can in environments where the /t/ is elided or neutralized.

b. Irregular verbs. The irregular verbs ran, swam, began are lax.

c. Open syllable constraint: Short-a is lax in open syllables, yielding tense ham, plan, pass, but lax hammer, planet, passive).

d Inflectional boundary closing: Syllables are closed by inflectional boundaries, so that tense forms include planning as well as plan, staffer as well as staff,

e. Learned words: Many learned or late-learned words with short-a in tense environments are lax: alas, carafe.

79

Similarities and differences between Philadelphia features and those of families places of origin

(aw)(ay)(uw)(ow)(oy)uhrer,aeh NYC+---++-Mass-----+-Cleveland OH-------Binghamton NY-------Scranton PA--++---Western PA+-++++-Upstate PA--??-+-Kansas--??---

80

Percent glottal stop or zero for intervocalic /t/ in Milton Keynes by age and style. [from Kerswill and Williams 1994: Table 6].

Second formant of /o/ by age in the North and in the Midland

Payne, Arvilla. 1976. The acquisition of the phonological system of a second dialect. U. of Pennsylvania dissertation.

83

84

The Inland North vs. the Midland: cot vs. caught

Syracuse

Milwaukee

Columbus

Evansville

Terre Haute

Indianapolis

Buffalo

Kenosha

The Inland North vs. the Midland: the contrast of cot and caught

Detroit

84

85

The UD measure of the Northern Cities Shift: cud is further back than cod

85

The acquisition of the Philadelphia vowel system by children of out-of-state parents

(aw)(ay)(uw)(ow)(oy)Acquired40%50%52%68%60%Partially acquired40%44%48%32%30%Retained parental pattern20%6%0010%Number of childrenneeding to learn variable(20)(34)(25)(25)(20)

Payne, Arvilla. 1976. The acquisition of the phonological system of a second dialect. U. of Pennsylvania dissertation

86

.

87

Percent deletion of all final monomorphemic clusters by African American struggling readers, 3-5th grade

So. California

Philadelphia

Atlanta

0.04.05.05.06.07.09.09.010.011.012.013.015.022.02.05.05.06.06.07.012.014.017.051.043.05.06.030.014.040.022.07.022.030.09.014.026.022.048.015.031.024.080.020.079.034.052.067.075.049.041.050.00.025.020.060.016.6666666666666671.4285714285714311.1111111111111144.4444444444444490.027.2727272727272725.023.0769230769230826.666666666666674.54545454545454650.020.020.016.6666666666666666.6666666666666571.4285714285714366.6666666666666528.5714285714285752.9411764705882449.0196078431372574.41860465116280.050.033.3333333333333357.1428571428571460.063.6363636363636357.1428571428571440.9090909090909150.022.2222222222222257.1428571428571446.1538461538461559.090909090909152.0833333333333426.6666666666666719.3548387096774237.572.570.062.025316455696261.7647058823529444.2307692307692223.8805970149253761.3333333333333320.4081632653061263.4146341463414650.0

No of tokens

Percent deletion of final

0 0 0 0 0 01.03.05.05.06.06.06.07.08.08.09.010.011.012.012.012.014.014.016.019.019.068.0196.07.08.010.063.013.098.064.04.013.028.039.022.013.01.021.040.0105.095.053.0100.033.3333333333333320.00.050.033.3333333333333333.3333333333333371.4285714285714325.050.022.2222222222222240.045.4545454545454550.025.016.6666666666666664.285714285714378.5714285714285775.052.6315789473684221.0526315789473761.7647058823529445.4081632653061242.8571428571428525.020.073.0158730158730146.1538461538461571.4285714285714339.062550.076.9230769230769371.4285714285714369.2307692307692368.1818181818181776.92307692307693100.028.5714285714285735.042.8571428571428542.1052631578947332.0754716981132

No. of tokens

Percent deletion of final

103.056.088.048.046.060.0103.0128.078.093.0117.0157.048.5436893203883555.3571428571428677.2727272727272764.5833333333333441.3043478260869555.0000000000000159.2233009708737753.9062583.3333333333333465.5913978494623752.1367521367521452.86624203821656

No. of tokens

Percent deletion of final

1.03.06.06.06.06.08.08.08.08.09.013.00.00.03.08.011.013.014.016.015.018.031.017.025.017.018.020.06.018.046.020.022.029.053.044.035.051.075.063.035.040.043.043.066.035.079.0109.0106.037.00.033.3333333333333316.6666666666666616.6666666666666650.016.6666666666666612.512.575.025.055.555555555555567.6923076923076920.00.033.333333333333330.036.3636363636363730.769230769230777.14285714285714231.2533.3333333333333350.048.3870967741935541.1764705882352952.047.0588235294117638.888888888888950.066.6666666666666561.1111111111111152.1739130434782525.031.8181818181818224.1379310344827632.075471698113247.7272727272727254.2857142857142833.3333333333333344.046.0317460317460351.4285714285714240.067.4418604651162767.4418604651162757.5757575757575837.1428571428571432.9113924050632945.8715596330275246.2264150943396229.729729729729730 0 0 0 0 01.03.05.05.06.06.06.07.08.08.09.010.011.012.012.012.014.014.016.019.019.068.0196.07.08.010.063.013.098.064.04.013.028.039.022.013.01.021.040.0105.095.053.0100.033.3333333333333320.00.050.033.3333333333333333.3333333333333371.4285714285714325.050.022.2222222222222240.045.4545454545454550.025.016.6666666666666664.285714285714378.5714285714285775.052.6315789473684221.0526315789473761.7647058823529445.4081632653061242.8571428571428525.020.073.0158730158730146.1538461538461571.4285714285714339.062550.076.9230769230769371.4285714285714369.2307692307692368.1818181818181776.92307692307693100.028.5714285714285735.042.8571428571428542.1052631578947332.0754716981132

No. of tokens

Percent deletion of final

Socially dictated rejection of first acquired patterns

These results confirm the central thesis of this discussion: that language learners in the United States take as their target the system of the broader speech community in preference to the system that they first acquired from caretakers in the earliest years. This finding merges with the Doctrine of First Effective Settlement (Zelinsky 1992): that the cultural pattern of the first settlers of an area determines the development that follows, even when large numbers of newcomers arrive with very different patterns of their own.

The communal orientation of language learning is seen in speech communities throughout the world and is most visible in small speech communities with a high degree of exogamy. When there is a high proportion of out-marriage, women arriving from a different dialect or language area will be providing children with an initial linguistic model radically different from that of the community. Though there may be some pressure on mothers to adapt to the local norms, in many cases that adaptation will be quite limited. A noteworthy case is that of the Sui people in Guangxi province in southwest Chinas studied by Stanford 2008 . North and South dialects of Sui differ markedly in lexicon, tone and with particular salience in first singular pronouns (North j2, South ju2). Stanford finds that women from the South who marry into North households maintain their Southern pattern almost perfectly, and children acquire a significant amount of this matrilect in their initial language learning period of 3 to 5 years of age. However, the fathers dialect is firmly established as the target of language learning in this community. Children above five are ridiculed for any use of their mothers speech pattern, and by age five to seven, children use the patrilectal forms. Stanfords study of eight children shows almost consistent patrilectal forms at age ten and consistent performance among adolescents.

90

Language learning target bound to fathers system among the Sui

me2 tsop7 ni4ow1tsop7pu4

notbe-likemothershouldbe-likefather

Stanford, James N. 2009. "Eating the food of our place": Sociolinguistic loyalties in multidialectal Sui villages. Language in Society 38:287-310.

This patrilectal norm is available for public discussion; there is a stereotyped saying applied to speech:

91

Northern 1st sg. Pronoun j2 vs. Southern ju2

He only says j2. If he said ju2 people would laugh at him, You speak like your mother. They would laugh, and he would be embarrassed. Hes not willing to speak like his mother. He speaks like his father. (p. 572)

They said j2. If they said ju2, then others would scold them. You eat our food, but you arent like us.

A South-speaking married woman living in the North said of her 14 year old son:

Anoher woman said of her children

Stanfords thesis is that the language learning of Sui children is directed to a particular group of speakers. Here the group of women from any outlying dialect or children influenced by them are excluded as models. This is one of many specific cultural configurations that the language learning capacity will confront. The target of language learning can be culturally determined, rather than follow automatically a preference for peers over parents. The Sui case makes explicit some of the mechanisms that lead to uniform behavior and suggests that the selection of the target group may also be defined by social processes in New York City and Philadelphia as well.

92

2. Evidence for averaging: remnants of parental influence

Distinctness scores for Attleboro 8th grade subjects cross tabulated by parents dialect origins (Johnson 2010)

distinct mother merged mother

distinct father2.59 (N=24)0.83 (N=6)

merged father1.67 (N=6)0.70 (N=37

One might think that the new peer group pattern simply replaced the original system learned from ones parents. But although parents influence may be eroded, there is reason to think that it is not completely eliminated as children mature. In some cases we can trace the persistence of the waning influence of parents by comparing the relative influence of mothers and fathers. Since female caretakers are the primary source for first language learning, we can expect the effect of having a mother with a distinct system would outweigh the effect of a father with a distinct system. CLICK Table 6 is drawn from Johnsons School Survey in another border town, Attleboro, where children responded to seven minimal pairs as same or different. Having a mother who makes the distinction (but a father who doesnt) yields CLICK twice as a high a distinctness score as the reverse situation.CLICK The result leans in the direction opposite from the categorical adoption of the fathers pattern in Sui society.

The New England study gives us a concrete view of the gradual erosion of parental influence in favor of the new community pattern. Johnson explores the hypothesis that this new pattern is the result of inmigration of children from the merged area, and Yang (2009) provides the calculation that no more than 20% of children with merged systems would be required to effect this sudden change. The general picture is that the language learning system is open to new learning in a continual process of smoothing the old data with incoming new.

Perhaps the most

94

age of arrival

504030201000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ChildrenParents

Age

Mr. & Mrs. D.

WD

SD

Mrs. W. Mr. W.

CW

JM

Mrs. M.

LZLX

Mr. X

Mr. T.Mrs. Z.Correlation of childrenand parents: r = .61

PT Mrs. T.

% s

econ

dary

str

ess

on B

AI

Chart2161616161616161617171717181818181818191920202020232323232424242425252525272727272828292936363636383840404040414145454848535356562929292929292929303030303131313131313232333333333636363637373737383838384040404041414242494949495151535353535454585861616666

Panel 71

Panel 84

0.21

0.64

0.99

1

0.73

1

0.07

0.92

1

0.48

1

1

0.03

0.075

0.07

1

0.01

0.05

0.61

0.68

0.03

0.88

0.16

0.17

0.94

0.72

0.77

0.12

0.17

0

0.48

0.96

0.95

1

1

0.895

0.995

0.06

0.87

1

1

0.99

1

0.07

0.01

0.65

1

0.01

0.05

0.66

0.98

0.06

0.96

0.09

0.19

0.99

0.83

0.97

0.13

0.66

0.01

0.79

rev.Oct'03Panel and Trend, 71 and 84M.L.spkr.nopseudoAge 84Age 71score71score845464"Paul" D.29160.218492Louis-Pierre R.29160.6420100"Roch" T.29160.9919717549Claire R.29161071"Lise" L.30170.732238"Lise" R.301716846Marcel V.31180.07514"Christine" Q.31180.923193Ginette T.311815388"Guy" T.32190.486713Ghislain N.3320174112Thrse R.33201552Michel L.36230.034583"Ronald" M.36230.07597Lysiane B.37240.079534Manon R.3724192"Paul" G.38250.01146Marc P.38250.059565Arthur L.40270.618425Christian B.40270.68127David S.-M.41280.03558Louise C.42290.888167"Micheline" B.49360.164711Rolande P.49360.171615Henriette N.51380.947066Diane R.53400.721819Pierrette B.53400.77351Rita C.54410.1256104Alain L.58450.171790"Donat" M.614807175Joseph R.66530.485184Laurette R.695620100"Roch" T.29160.965464"Paul" D.29160.958492Louis-Pierre R.291617549Claire R.29161071"Lise" L.30170.8952238"Lise" R.30170.9956846Marcel V.31180.06514"Christine" Q.31180.873193Ginette T.311815388"Guy" T.321916713Ghislain N.33200.9974112Thrse R.332014583"Ronald" M.36230.07552Michel L.36230.0197Lysiane B.37240.659534Manon R.3724192"Paul" G.38250.01146Marc P.38250.059565Arthur L.40270.668425Christian B.40270.98127David S.-M.41280.06558Louise C.42290.964711Rolande P.49360.098167"Micheline" B.49360.191615Henriette N.51380.991819Pierrette B.53400.837066Diane R.53400.97351Rita C.54410.1356104Alain L.58450.661790"Donat" M.61480.017175Joseph R.66530.795184Laurette R.6956Age 71Panel 71Panel 84160.21160.64160.99161170.73171180.07180.92181190.48201201230.03230.075240.07241250.01250.05270.61270.68280.03290.88360.16360.17380.94400.72400.77410.12450.17480530.4856290.96290.95291291300.895300.995310.06310.87311321330.99331360.07360.01370.65371380.01380.05400.66400.98410.06420.96490.09490.19510.99530.83530.97540.13580.66610.01660.7969

rev.Oct'0300000000000000000000000000000000

Pierre D.

Guy T.

Christian B.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sheet200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Pierre D.

Guy T.

Christian B.

score71

score84

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sheet300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1984

Lysiane B.

John R.

Andr L.

7 speakers 1971

5 speakers 1971

4 speakers 1984

6 speakers

11 speakers 1971

Paul D.

10 speakers 1984

Chantal Q.

Guy T.

Christian B.

Louis-Pierre R.

Louise L.

Pierrette B.

Alain L.

Diane R.

Panel 71

Panel 84

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Panel 71

Panel 84

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Panel and Trend, 71 and 84M.L.spkr.nopseudoAge 84Age 71score71score845464"Paul" D.291621%8492"Louis-Pierre" R.291664%20100"Roch" T.291699%7549"Claire" R.2916100%071"Lise" L.301771%2238"Lise" R.3017100%6846"Marcel" V.31187%514"Christine" Q.311894%3193Ginette T.3118100%5388"Guy" T.321998%6713"Ghislain" N.3320100%74112Thrse R.3320100%552"Michel" L.36233%4583"Ronald" M.36239%97"Lysiane" B.37247%9534" Manon" R.3724100%92"Paul" G.38251%146"Marc" P.38253%9565"Arthur" L.402759%8425"Christian" B.402775%127"David" S.-M.41283%558"Louise" C.422988%8167"Micheline" B.493616%4711"Rolande" P.493617%1615"Henriette" N.513894%7066"Diane" R.534073%1819"Pierrette" B.534077%351"Rita" C.544112%56104"Alain" L.584517%1790"Donat" M.61480%7175"Joseph" R.665348%5184"Laurette" R.695683%92"Paul" G.38251%514"Christine" Q.311885%146Marc P.38255%97Lysiane B.372448%558Louise C.422996%4711Rolande P.49369%6713Ghislain N.332099%1615Henriette N.513899%1819Pierrette B.534083%8425Christian B.402798%127David S.-M.41286%9534Manon R.3724100%2238"Lise" R.301799%6846Marcel V.31186%7549Claire R.2916100%351Rita C.544113%552Michel L.36231%5464"Paul" D.291698%9565Arthur L.402767%7066Diane R.534097%8167"Micheline" B.493619%071"Lise" L.301789%7175Joseph R.665378%4583"Ronald" M.36230%5184Laurette R.695675%5388"Guy" T.3219100%1790"Donat" M.61481%8492Louis-Pierre R.2916100%3193Ginette T.3118100%20100"Roch" T.291696%56104Alain L.584569%74112Thrse R.3320100%Age 71Panel 71Panel 841664%16100%1653%1699%1771%17100%187%1894%18100%1998%20100%20100%239%233%24100%247%251%253%2775%2759%283%2988%3616%3617%3894%4073%4077%4517%480%5348%5683%4112%29100%29100%2998%2996%3089%3099%316%3185%31100%32100%3399%33100%360%361%37100%3748%381%385%4098%4067%416%4296%4919%499%5199%5397%5383%5869%611%6678%6975%5413%Age 71UMC 71LMC 71WC 71UMC 84LMC 84WC 8420100%2775%24100%187%16100%2759%4073%36.516%5348%1664%20100%1894%2988%35.517%1653%239%5683%1998%18100%4517%251%253%247%3894%4077%283%17100%4112%233%1771%480%15.599%3399%4098%37100%316%29100%4067%5397%4919%6678%29100%33100%3185%4296%499%2998%35.50%6975%32100%31100%5869%381%385%3748%5199%5383%416%3099%5413%36.51%3089%611%2996%

1616161616161616171717171818181818181919202020202323232324242424252525252727272728282929363636363838404040404141454548485353565629292929292929293030303031313131313132323333333336363636373737373838383840404040414142424949494951515353535354545858616166666969

1984

Lise B.

John R.

Andr L.

7 speakers 1971

5 speakers 1971

4 speakers 1984

6 speakers

11 speakers 1971

Pierre D.

10 speakers 1984

Louis-Pierre R.

Chantal Q.

Louise L.

Denise R.

Claude B.

Lucie C.

Panel 71

Panel 84

0.21

0.64

0.99

1

0.73

1

0.07

0.92

1

0.48

1

1

0.03

0.075

0.07

1

0.01

0.05

0.61

0.68

0.03

0.88

0.16

0.17

0.94

0.72

0.77

0.12

0.17

0

0.48

0.96

0.95

1

1

0.895

0.995

0.06

0.87

1

1

0.99

1

0.07

0.01

0.65

1

0.01

0.05

0.66

0.98

0.06

0.96

0.09

0.19

0.99

0.83

0.97

0.13

0.66

0.01

0.79

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

UMC 71

LMC 71

WC 71

UMC 84

LMC 84

WC 84

Age

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Chart2161616161616161617171717181818181818191920202020232323232424242425252525272727272828292936363636383840404040414145454848535356562929292929292929303030303131313131313232333333333636363637373737383838384040404041414242494949495151535353535454585861616666

Panel 71

Panel 84

0.21

0.64

0.99

1

0.73

1

0.07

0.92

1

0.48

1

1

0.03

0.075

0.07

1

0.01

0.05

0.61

0.68

0.03

0.88

0.16

0.17

0.94

0.72

0.77

0.12

0.17

0

0.48

0.96

0.95

1

1

0.895

0.995

0.06

0.87

1

1

0.99

1

0.07

0.01

0.65

1

0.01

0.05

0.66

0.98

0.06

0.96

0.09

0.19

0.99

0.83

0.97

0.13

0.66

0.01

0.79

rev.Oct'03Panel and Trend, 71 and 84M.L.spkr.nopseudoAge 84Age 71score71score845464"Paul" D.29160.218492Louis-Pierre R.29160.6420100"Roch" T.29160.9919717549Claire R.29161071"Lise" L.30170.732238"Lise" R.301716846Marcel V.31180.07514"Christine" Q.31180.923193Ginette T.311815388"Guy" T.32190.486713Ghislain N.3320174112Thrse R.33201552Michel L.36230.034583"Ronald" M.36230.07597Lysiane B.37240.079534Manon R.3724192"Paul" G.38250.01146Marc P.38250.059565Arthur L.40270.618425Christian B.40270.68127David S.-M.41280.03558Louise C.42290.888167"Micheline" B.49360.164711Rolande P.49360.171615Henriette N.51380.947066Diane R.53400.721819Pierrette B.53400.77351Rita C.54410.1256104Alain L.58450.171790"Donat" M.614807175Joseph R.66530.485184Laurette R.695620100"Roch" T.29160.965464"Paul" D.29160.958492Louis-Pierre R.291617549Claire R.29161071"Lise" L.30170.8952238"Lise" R.30170.9956846Marcel V.31180.06514"Christine" Q.31180.873193Ginette T.311815388"Guy" T.321916713Ghislain N.33200.9974112Thrse R.332014583"Ronald" M.36230.07552Michel L.36230.0197Lysiane B.37240.659534Manon R.3724192"Paul" G.38250.01146Marc P.38250.059565Arthur L.40270.668425Christian B.40270.98127David S.-M.41280.06558Louise C.42290.964711Rolande P.49360.098167"Micheline" B.49360.191615Henriette N.51380.991819Pierrette B.53400.837066Diane R.53400.97351Rita C.54410.1356104Alain L.58450.661790"Donat" M.61480.017175Joseph R.66530.795184Laurette R.6956Age 71Panel 71Panel 84160.21160.64160.99161170.73171180.07180.92181190.48201201230.03230.075240.07241250.01250.05270.61270.68280.03290.88360.16360.17380.94400.72400.77410.12450.17480530.4856290.96290.95291291300.895300.995310.06310.87311321330.99331360.07360.01370.65371380.01380.05400.66400.98410.06420.96490.09490.19510.99530.83530.97540.13580.66610.01660.7969

rev.Oct'0300000000000000000000000000000000

Pierre D.

Guy T.

Christian B.

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sheet200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Pierre D.

Guy T.

Christian B.

score71

score84

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sheet300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1984

Lysiane B.

John R.

Andr L.

7 speakers 1971

5 speakers 1971

4 speakers 1984

6 speakers

11 speakers 1971

Paul D.

10 speakers 1984

Chantal Q.

Guy T.

Christian B.

Louis-Pierre R.

Louise L.

Pierrette B.

Alain L.

Diane R.

Panel 71

Panel 84

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Panel 71

Panel 84

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Panel and Trend, 71 and 84M.L.spkr.nopseudoAge 84Age 71score71score845464"Paul" D.291621%8492"Louis-Pierre" R.291664%20100"Roch" T.291699%7549"Claire" R.2916100%071"Lise" L.301771%2238"Lise" R.3017100%6846"Marcel" V.31187%514"Christine" Q.311894%3193Ginette T.3118100%5388"Guy" T.321998%6713"Ghislain" N.3320100%74112Thrse R.3320100%552"Michel" L.36233%4583"Ronald" M.36239%97"Lysiane" B.37247%9534" Manon" R.3724100%92"Paul" G.38251%146"Marc" P.38253%9565"Arthur" L.402759%8425"Christian" B.402775%127"David" S.-M.41283%558"Louise" C.422988%8167"Micheline" B.493616%4711"Rolande" P.493617%1615"Henriette" N.513894%7066"Diane" R.534073%1819"Pierrette" B.534077%351"Rita" C.544112%56104"Alain" L.584517%1790"Donat" M.61480%7175"Joseph" R.665348%5184"Laurette" R.695683%92"Paul" G.38251%514"Christine" Q.311885%146Marc P.38255%97Lysiane B.372448%558Louise C.422996%4711Rolande P.49369%6713Ghislain N.332099%1615Henriette N.513899%1819Pierrette B.534083%8425Christian B.402798%127David S.-M.41286%9534Manon R.3724100%2238"Lise" R.301799%6846Marcel V.31186%7549Claire R.2916100%351Rita C.544113%552Michel L.36231%5464"Paul" D.291698%9565Arthur L.402767%7066Diane R.534097%8167"Micheline" B.493619%071"Lise" L.301789%7175Joseph R.665378%4583"Ronald" M.36230%5184Laurette R.695675%5388"Guy" T.3219100%1790"Donat" M.61481%8492Louis-Pierre R.2916100%3193Ginette T.3118100%20100"Roch" T.291696%56104Alain L.584569%74112Thrse R.3320100%Age 71Panel 71Panel 841664%16100%1653%1699%1771%17100%187%1894%18100%1998%20100%20100%239%233%24100%247%251%253%2775%2759%283%2988%3616%3617%3894%4073%4077%4517%480%5348%5683%4112%29100%29100%2998%2996%3089%3099%316%3185%31100%32100%3399%33100%360%361%37100%3748%381%385%4098%4067%416%4296%4919%499%5199%5397%5383%5869%611%6678%6975%5413%Age 71UMC 71LMC 71WC 71UMC 84LMC 84WC 8420100%2775%24100%187%16100%2759%4073%36.516%5348%1664%20100%1894%2988%35.517%1653%239%5683%1998%18100%4517%251%253%247%3894%4077%283%17100%4112%233%1771%480%15.599%3399%4098%37100%316%29100%4067%5397%4919%6678%29100%33100%3185%4296%499%2998%35.50%6975%32100%31100%5869%381%385%3748%5199%5383%416%3099%5413%36.51%3089%611%2996%

1616161616161616171717171818181818181919202020202323232324242424252525252727272728282929363636363838404040404141454548485353565629292929292929293030303031313131313132323333333336363636373737373838383840404040414142424949494951515353535354545858616166666969

1984

Lise B.

John R.

Andr L.

7 speakers 1971

5 speakers 1971

4 speakers 1984

6 speakers

11 speakers 1971

Pierre D.

10 speakers 1984

Louis-Pierre R.

Chantal Q.

Louise L.

Denise R.

Claude B.

Lucie C.

Panel 71

Panel 84

0.21

0.64

0.99

1

0.73

1

0.07

0.92

1

0.48

1

1

0.03

0.075

0.07

1

0.01

0.05

0.61

0.68

0.03

0.88

0.16

0.17

0.94

0.72

0.77

0.12

0.17

0

0.48

0.96

0.95

1

1

0.895

0.995

0.06

0.87

1

1

0.99

1

0.07

0.01

0.65

1

0.01

0.05

0.66

0.98

0.06

0.96

0.09

0.19

0.99

0.83

0.97

0.13

0.66

0.01

0.79

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

UMC 71

LMC 71

WC 71

UMC 84

LMC 84

WC 84

Age

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sheet1Adults 8-80Chidren 3-51974-771990N%N%All _NV2560.0425057planet171813493Janet304137hammer30284Children 3:2 to 3:10 [N=7]Children 3:11 to 4:11 [N=10]N%N%All _NV1325213060planet60907496Janet20542110hammer14714068.6463.3678525466071.042.967410.89.2202.118.92164.815.28073.1421.869512.631578947468.2914617369

Sheet2

Sheet3

Sheet1Adults 8-80Chidren 3-51974-771990N%N%All _NV2560.0425057planet171813493Janet304137hammer30284Children 3:2 to 3:10 [N=7]Children 3:11 to 4:11 [N=10]N%N%All _NV1325213060planet60907496Janet20542110hammer14714068.6463.3678525466071.042.967410.89.2202.118.92164.815.28073.1421.869512.631578947468.2914617369

Sheet2

Sheet3

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

0 20 40 60 80 100

Age

Fro

nting o

f /a

w/

(F2)

LWCUWCLMCMMCUMCUCLinear (LWC)Linear (UWC)Linear (LMC)Linear (MMC)Linear (UMC)Linear (UC)

Chart10(aw)(aw)(aw)(ay)(ay)(ay)(uw)(uw)(uw)(ow)(ow)(ow)(oy)(oy)(oy)

Age 0-4

Age 5-9

Age 10-14

variables

% of children

Total acquisition of phonetic variables by age of arrival (natural speech)

0.6

0.4

0

0.65

0.5

0

0.7

0.58

0.66

0.7

0.67

0

0.7

0.63

0

phoneticNatural speech(aw)(ay)(uw)(ow)(oy)Acquired40%50%52%68%60%Partially acquired40%44%48%32%30%Not acquired20%6%0010%Number of childrenneeding to learn variable-20-34-25-25-20Word lists(aw)(ay)(uw)(ow)(oy)Acquired35%47%72%80%50%Partially acquired50%41%20%16%40%Not acquired15%12%8%4%10%Number of childrenneeding to learn variable-20-34-25-25-20

phonetic

Acquired

Partially acquired

Not acquired

Variables

% of children

Acquisition of phonetic variables, natural speech

mergers

Acquired

Partially acquired

Not acquired

Variables

% of Children

Acquisition of phonetic variables, word lists

AgeofArrivalMerry-Murr