The California Vowel Shift in a Rural Inland Community

Robert J. Podesva, Jeremy Calder, Hsin-Chang Chen, Annette D’Onofrio, Isla Flores Bayer, Seung Kyung Kim, and Janneke Van Hofwegen

2 September 2013

Ideologies about California •  Coastal Los Angeles

representative of entire state •  Concerns with appearances and

driving routes •  Distinctive way of speaking

•  GOOSE fronting •  Stuart, Julian

•  GOAT fronting •  roads, Bernardino, coma

Introduction Research Question •  To what extent do speakers in Shasta County – an inland, non-urban

community in the North – participate in the California Vowel Shift (CVS)?

Claims •  Older components of the shift are robustly attested in Shasta County

and may be markers of the variety. •  Newer components are more strongly socially stratified and index a

distinctively urban Californian character type. •  We propose an account for how the social meaning of the shift has

influenced the trajectory of change.

San Francisco Bay Area Podesva 2011 Hall-Lew 2009, 2011 Eckert 2008 Mendoza-Denton 2008 Moonwomon 1987 Luthin 1987 Los Angeles Metro Area/Santa Barbara Grama & Kennedy 2009 Fought 1999 Hagiwara 1997

Goals of Project •  Address dearth of work on non-urban, non-coastal areas of state •  Capture Californians’ experiences in their own words Data Collection •  Different field site each year (3 so far) •  ‘Scouting’ trip to make contacts •  10-15 students/faculty visit site (September) for about 2 weeks •  ‘Snowball sampling,’ mixed demographics •  Roughly 130 sociolinguistic interviews per site •  Word lists, map tasks

2010: Merced

2012: Bakersfield

2011: Redding

2013: Analysis Retreat

Major Migration Patterns 1930s: ‘Dust Bowl’ migration 200,000 migrants from Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Arkansas

California Vowel Shift (CVS)

THOUGHT

GOAT

FOOT

GOOSE

DRESS

FACE

KIT

FLEECE

TRAP LOT

TOO BOOT POOL

TOE BOAT BOWL

BOUGHT

BOT BAN BAT

BEET

vowels under investigation here

30 Interviewees

15 Country-oriented 15 Town-oriented

8 Female 7 Male 7 Female 8 Male

19 - 69 20 - 86 18 - 73 18 - 63

Sample

Country Orientation

Not intentionally sampled this way; emerged as a salient distinction

Criteria

•  Did they live outside of the town of Redding (rural area)?

•  Do they express preferences for the rural lifestyle?

•  Do they express discomfort/disdain with city living?

•  Do they make their livelihood from agricultural/rural pursuits?

“SF ain’t Nor-Cal” “Them city laws”

North-South Border

Data Analysis •  All interviews orthographically transcribed in Transcriber •  Praat TextGrids created using University of Pennsylvania FAVE aligner •  Hand-corrected (up to) 25 tokens for each vowel class per speaker •  F1 and F2 measured for each token (N > 6,000) via Praat script •  Bark transformed Hz values, normalized with Watt and Fabricius (2002) •  Degree of shifting calculated as distance from each token to the mean

of a stable, non-shifting reference vowel

•  Statistical analysis: mixed effects linear regression model on distance

•  Fixed factors: age, sex, orientation •  Random effects: speaker, word, preceding and following environments

Euclidean distance •  BOOT - BEET (BOOT fronting) •  TOO - BEET (TOO fronting) •  BAN - BEET (BAN raising) •  BOT - BOUGHT (BOT-BOUGHT mrgr) •  BOUGHT - BOT (BOT-BOUGHT mrgr)

F2 distance •  BOAT - BEET (BOAT fronting) •  BAT - BEET (BAT backing) •  TOOK - BEET (TOOK fronting) •  BOOK - BEET (BOOK fronting) •  TOE - BEET (TOE fronting)

BOT-BOUGHT Merger: effects of age

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

Amber_Reynolds

BEET

BOT

POOL

BOUGHT

Amber 19 F Town

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.81.

41.

21.

00.

8

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

John_Felch

BEET

BOT

POOL

BOUGHT

John 86 M Town

•  BOT and BOUGHT are in the process of merging and are almost entirely merged.

BOT-BOUGHT Merger: effects of orientation

Both Townies and Countryfolk merge BOT and BOUGHT.

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

town

BEET

BOT

POOL

BOUGHT

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.81.

61.

41.

21.

00.

80.

6

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

country

BEET

BOT

POOL

BOUGHT

Town Country

BOOT Fronting: effects of age, orientation, and gender

TOO Fronting:

•  younger front more

BOOT Fronting:

•  younger front more •  among Countryfolk, younger

males front more •  no Townie gender difference

Town Country

M

F

M

F

BOOT Fronting

The fronting of the high back vowels, TOO and BOOT, is well established in Redding.

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

Cindy_Hansen

BOOTBEET

BOT

POOL

TOO

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

Nolan_Barnhart

BOOTBEET

BOT

POOLTOO

Nolan 20 M Country

Cindy 59 F Country

BOAT Fronting: effects of age and orientation

TOE Fronting: BOAT Fronting:

M

F

Country

Town

•  younger front more •  age effect stronger among males •  countryfolk front more

•  younger front more •  countryfolk front more •  age effect stronger

among countryfolk

BOAT Fronting

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.81.

41.

21.

00.

8

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

Francis_Albertson

BOAT

BEET

BOT

POOL

TOE

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

Nolan_Barnhart

BOAT

BEET

BOT

POOL

TOE

The fronting of the mid back vowels, TOE and BOAT, is not as advanced in Redding as that of the high back vowels.

Nolan 20 M Country

Francis 68 F Town

•  BAN raising more prevalent among younger speakers

BAN Raising:

•  BAT backing more prevalent among younger speakers

BAT Backing:

BAT-BAN Split: effects of age

BAT Backing: effects of orientation

•  Age effect stronger among Country-oriented speakers

BAN Raising:

•  Townies back more than Country-oriented speakers

BAT Backing:

Country

Town

BAT-BAN Split: Shasta County compared to urban areas

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

Ashley_Willits

BAN

BAT

BEET

BOT

POOL

18 F Town

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.81.

41.

21.

00.

8

Variant: ModWFF2/S(F2)

F1/S

(F1)

Meredith_Dunlap

BAN

BAT

BEET

BOT

POOL

37 F Town Rachel

(Eckert 2008)

“Probably the last, like, 5 years.”

The BAT-BAN split is attested in Redding, particularly among the youngest Townies…

…but it is not as advanced as it is in urban areas, like San Jose.

Summary of Findings BOT-BOUGHT merger §  The merger has reached completion in Redding. §  Countryfolk on the whole are slightly less merged. BOOT and TOO fronting §  Younger people front BOOT and TOO more. §  Both TOO and BOOT are fronting. BOAT and TOE fronting §  Younger people front BOAT and TOE more. §  Countryfolk front BOAT and TOE more than Townies. BAT-BAN split §  Younger people raise BAN and back BAT more. §  Younger Countryfolk raise BAN the most. §  Townies back BAT more than Countryfolk.

Summary of Findings BOT-BOUGHT merger §  The merger has reached completion in Redding. §  Countryfolk on the whole are slightly less merged. BOOT and TOO fronting §  Younger people front BOOT and TOO more. §  Both TOO and BOOT are fronting. BOAT and TOE fronting §  Younger people front BOAT and TOE more. §  Countryfolk front BOAT and TOE more than Townies. BAT-BAN split §  Younger people raise BAN and back BAT more. §  Younger Countryfolk raise BAN the most. §  Townies back BAT more than Countryfolk.

One way to look at dialects: in terms of geography

Southern

Northern Cities Californian

Canadian

Another way to look at dialects: in terms of people

Fractal Recursivity

Irvine and Gal (2000: 38) “Fractal recursivity involves the projection of an opposition, salient at some level of relationship, onto some other level. For example, intragroup oppositions might be projected outward onto intergroup relations, or vice versa.”

Intragender

Intergender male

more masculine

less masculine

female

high pitch low pitch Recursivity and Pitch

California

Urban Not Urban

Town Country

Not California

United States

California

Redding

Most speakers exhibit old components of CVS (BOT-BOUGHT merger; BOOT fronting).

New components of CVS (BAT-BAN split) are not as advanced in Redding as in more urban areas of CA.

Townies back BAT more than Countryfolk.

Less Shifted More Shifted Recursivity and California vowels

new shift

‘Californian’

BOT-BOUGHT merger, BOOT fronting

California Character Types Surfers, Valley Girls, Slackers

‘urban’ ‘fun’ ‘laid-back’

NTH ORDER

old shift

BAT backing

Social meanings of the California vowel shift

Southern Vowels in California Countryfolk front BOAT and TOE more than Townies. •  The fronting of this vowel is a feature of both Californian and Southern

varieties of American English. Do Countryfolk lead in fronting because they exhibit features of the Southern vowel shift?

Younger Countryfolk lead in the raising of BAN. •  Bigham (2005) argues that the raising of BAN is a reflex of the raising

of BEN (a component of the PIN-PEN merger). We have impressionistically observed the PIN-PEN merger in Redding, as well as the other three towns we have visited.

“I still have another ten years to go….”

Conclusion Main Points 1.  Dialects index character types and character traits in addition to

region. 2.  In the course of change, dialects are first associated with salient

character types, and only afterwards become seen as regional markers.

Next Steps 1.  Other field sites 2.  Other ethnic groups 3.  Morphosyntactic features 4.  Other phonetic features

•  Southern vowel shift •  Realization of /s/ •  Creaky voice •  Rhythm

Thank you!

podesva@stanford.edu

C O M M E N T S? Q U E S T I O N S ?

Many thanks to Penny Eckert for funding this project, our interviewees for their time, and the rest of the Voices of California Shasta County Team: Eric Acton, Ellie Ash, Sam Bowman, Penny Eckert, Roey Gafter, Kate Geenberg, Jason Grafmiller, Ed King, John Rickford, Tyler Schnoebelen, and Jessica Spencer. Thanks also to Jane Stuart-Smith and audiences at Stanford Sociolunch, the University of Lethbridge, and the Sound Change Actuation Workshop at the University of Chicago for valuable feedback.

BOT-BOUGHT Merger: Model

Est.   MCMC mean  

HPD 95lowe

r  

HPD 95uppe

r  

pMCMC   Pr(>|t|)  

(Intercept)   0.08   0.0824   0.0502   0.1126   0.0001   0  

age   0.0006   0.0006   0.0001   0.0011   0.0172   *  

sexmale   0.0025   0.0015   -0.018   0.021   0.881   n.s.  

orientationtown   -0.0246   -0.025   -0.0456   -0.0046   0.0174   *  

BOOT Fronting: Models TOO Fronting: Est.   MCMC

mean  HPD95 lower  

HPD95 upper   pMCMC   Pr

(>|t|)  

(Intercept)   0.1617   0.1602   0.0947   0.2259   0.0001   0  

age   0.002   0.002   0.0012   0.0029   0.0001   ***  

orienttown   0.0191   0.0185   -0.0165   0.0545   0.3006   n.s.  

sexM   0.0026   0.0021   -0.0311   0.0368   0.9014   n.s.  

BOOT Fronting: Est.   MCMC

mean  HPD95 lower  

HPD95 upper   pMCMC   Pr

(>|t|)  

(Intercept)   0.3875   0.3845   0.3225   0.45   0.0001   0  

I(age-mean(age))   0.0081   0.0084   0.0062   0.0106   0.0001   0  

sexF   0.0094   0.0109   -0.0572   0.077   0.7406   n.s.  

orientationtown   0.0952   0.0957   0.036   0.1558   0.0018   *  

I(age-mean(age)):sexF   -0.0063   -0.0065   -0.0098   -0.0033   0.0002   **  

I(age-mean(age)):orienttown   -0.0053   -0.0053   -0.0083   -0.0021   0.0024   **  

sexF:orienttown   -0.0344   -0.0379   -0.119   0.0467   0.3664   n.s.  

I(age-mean(age)):sexF:orienttown   0.0053   0.0053   0.0009   0.0094   0.0152   *  

BOAT Fronting: Models TOE Fronting:

BOAT Fronting:

Est.   MCMC mean  

HPD95 lower  

HPD95 upper  

pMCMC   Pr(>|t|)  

(Intercept)   0.4647   0.4654   0.429   0.5029   0.0001   0  

sexmale   0.0174   0.0165   -0.0093   0.0437   0.2234   n.s.  

I(age-mean(age))   0.0035   0.0036   0.0025   0.0046   0.0001   ***  

orienttown   0.0372   0.0376   0.0083   0.0637   0.0084   *  

I(age-mean(age)):orienttown)   -0.0019   -0.0019   -0.0033   -0.0005   0.0056   *  

Est.   MCMC mean  

HPD95 lower  

HPD95 upper  

pMCMC   Pr(>|t|)  

(Intercept)   0.4647   0.4687   0.411   0.5288   0.0001   0  

age   0.0016   0.0015   0.0006   0.0025   0.0012   **  

sexmale   -0.0907   -0.0926   -0.1604   -0.022   0.0126   *  

orienttown   0.0479   0.047   0.0174   0.0761   0.002   **  

age:sexmale   0.0021   0.0021   0.0007   0.0034   0.0044   **  

BAT-BAN Split: Models BAN Raising:

BAT Backing:

Est.   MCMC mean  

HPD95 lower  

HPD95 upper  

pMCMC   Pr(>|t|)  

(Intercept)   0.3637   0.364   0.3008   0.4264   0.0001   0  

I(age-mean(age))   0.0045   0.0045   0.0027   0.0062   0.0001   ***  

orienttown   0.0429   0.0415   -0.0046   0.0861   0.076   0.1388  

sexmale   0.0457   0.0461   0.0024   0.0896   0.0414   +  

I(age-mean(age)):orienttown   -0.0028   -0.0028   -0.0051   -0.0006   0.015   +  

Est.   MCMC mean  

HPD95 lower  

HPD95 upper  

pMCMC   Pr(>|t|)  

(Intercept)   0.3223   0.3234   0.2879   0.3573   0.0001   0  

age   -0.0013   -0.0013   -0.0018   -0.0007   0.0001   ***  

sexmale   -0.0106   -0.0101   -0.0314   0.0113   0.348   0.4392  

orientationtown   0.022   0.0222   -0.0002   0.0441   0.053   +