Skip to main content
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Weak Lips? A Possible Merger of /i:/ and /y:/ in Gothenburg

  • and
Published/Copyright: May 2, 2019
Phonetica
From the journal Phonetica Volume 77 Issue 4

Abstract

Background/Aims: This study investigates a possible merger in the early stages between /i:/ and /y:/ among young speakers in Gothenburg, Sweden. Methods: (1) A large-scale online perception experiment testing listeners’ abilities to identify the two vowels and (2) acoustic analysis of 705 vowels from 19 speakers. Results: The perception study shows that listeners classify the horizontally centralized /y:/ as /i:/, both in isolated vowel items and in items containing the full word. This indicates that /y:/ is moving into the perceptual space of /i:/. Listeners also classify the unmerged /y:/ as /i:/ when listening to [y:] in isolation, indicating that lip rounding is a perceptually weak feature, for this centralized vowel, in this variety. The acoustic analysis shows that /i:/ tends to be produced as [ɨ:], and that there is no acoustic difference between /i:/ and /y:/ in measurements correlated with the first two formants, i.e. lip rounding is the most important distinctive feature. Conclusion: Results point in the direction of an incipient vowel merger, following a merger-by-approximation model. These results indicate a lack of perceptual strength of an articulatory feature in the disappearing phoneme, namely lip rounding, and the consequent perceptual similarities between the horizontally centralized [ɨ:] and /y:/.

verified

*Johan Gross, Division of Educational Science and Languages, University West, Gustava Melins gata 2, SE–461 32 Trollhättan (Sweden), E-Mail johan.gross@hv.se

References

1 Adank, P., van Hout, R., & Smits, R. (2004). An acoustic description of the vowels of Northern and Southern Standard Dutch.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(3), 1729–1738. 10.1121/1.17792710001-4966Search in Google Scholar PubMed

2 Andersson, L.-G. (2006). Hur Göteborgskan växte fram. [How the Gothenburg dialect was formed] In K.Nelson, A.Larsson, & L. O.Lööf (Eds.),Göteborg förr och nu [Gothenburg then and now]. Göteborg: Rundqvists.Search in Google Scholar

3 ÅSUB (1999): Ålänningarna och deras identitet: En enkätundersökning av ÅSUB våren 1999. http://www.asub.ax/sites/www.asub.ax/files/reports/rapport_1999_07_7.pdf. Mariehamn: ÅSUBSearch in Google Scholar

4 Audacity(R) software is copyright (c) 1999-2014 Audacity Team. [Web site: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/. It is free software distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License.] The name Audacity(R) is a registered trademark of Dominic Mazzoni.Search in Google Scholar

5 Björseth, B. (1957). Göteborgsspråket [The Gothenburg language.]. Stockholm: Norstedts.Search in Google Scholar

6 BjörstenS, EngstrandO (1999): Swedish ‘damped’ /i:/ and /y:/: Experimental and typological observations, ICPhS99 – 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, August, San Fransisco, USA, Proceedings, pp.1957-1960.Search in Google Scholar

7 BoersmaP, WeeninkD (2017): Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.26, retrieved 2 March 2017 from http://www.praat.org/Search in Google Scholar

8 Eckert, P., & Labov, W. (2017). Phonetics, phonology and social meaning.Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(4), 467–496. 10.1111/josl.122441360-6441Search in Google Scholar

9 Eklund, I., & Traunmüller, H. (1997). Comparative study of male and female whispered and phonated versions of the long vowels of Swedish.Phonetica, 54(1), 1–21. 10.1159/0002622070031-8388Search in Google Scholar

10 Elert, C.-C. (2000). Allmän och svensk fonetik [General and Swedish phonetics.]. 8th ed.). Stockholm: Norstedts.Search in Google Scholar

11 Gross, J. (2018). Segregated vowels: Language variation and dialect features among Gothenburg youth.Language Variation and Change, 30(3), 315–336. 10.1017/S09543945180001690954-3945Search in Google Scholar

12 GuyG (1990): The sociolinguistic types of language change. Diacronica VII:1,47-67. 10.1075/dia.7.1.04guySearch in Google Scholar

13 HarrisonP (2013): Making accurate formant measurements: an empirical investigation of the influence of the measurement tool, analysis settings and speaker on formant measurements. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.Search in Google Scholar

14 HeroldR (1990): Mechanisms of merger: The implementation and distribution of the low back merger in Eastern Pennsylvania, Ph.D dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Search in Google Scholar

15 Herold, R. (1997). Solving the Actuation Problem: Merger and Immigration in Eastern Pennsylvania.Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 165–189. 10.1017/S09543945000018610954-3945Search in Google Scholar

16 Holmberg, B. (1976). Språket i Göteborg [The language in Gothenburg.]. Stockholm: Esselte Studium.Search in Google Scholar

17 IvarsA-M (2015): Dialekter och småstadsspråk: Svenskan i Finland - i dag och i går 1:1 (Skrifter / utgivna av Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland, 798). Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland.Search in Google Scholar

18 JacobiI (2009): On variation and change in diphthongs and long vowels of spoken Dutch. Ph.D dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar

19 KendallT, ThomasE R (2014): Vowels: Vowel manipulation, normalisation, and plotting in R. R package, [Computer program]. version 1.2-1, 2014, retrieved from http://ncslaap.lib.ncsu.edu/tools/norm/Search in Google Scholar

20 Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

21 Labov, W., Karen, M., & Miller, C. (1991). Near-Mergers and the Suspension of Phonemic Contrast.Language Variation and Change, 3(1), 33–74. 10.1017/S09543945000004420954-3945Search in Google Scholar

22 Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

23 LeinonenT (2010): An acoustic analysis of vowel pronunciation in Swedish dialects. Ph.D dissertation, University of Groningen.10.5617/osla.101Search in Google Scholar

24 LennigM (1978): Acoustic measurement of linguistic change: The modern Paris vowel system, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Search in Google Scholar

25 Maclagan, G. E., & Gordon, E. (1996). Out of the AIR and into the EAR: Another view of the New Zealand diphthong merger.Language Variation and Change, 8(1), 125–147. 10.1017/S09543945000010950954-3945Search in Google Scholar

26 Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753459Search in Google Scholar

27 McCloyD (2017): Package ‘phonR’, [Computer program]. Version 1.0-7, retrieved 5 February 2017 from http://drammock.github.io/phonR/Search in Google Scholar

28 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

29 Riad, T. (2014). The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

30 Schötz, S., Frid, J., Gustafsson, L., & Löfqvist, A. (2013). Functional Data Analysis of Tongue Articulation in Palatal Vowels: Gothenburg and Malmöhus Swedish /i: y: ʉ:/, INTERSPEECH 2013 – 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, August 25-29, Lyon, France. Proceedings, 3, 1325–1329.Search in Google Scholar

31 SundbergE (1993): Dialekten i Ålands nordöstra skärgård. Mariehamn: Ålands högskolaSearch in Google Scholar

32 Trudgill, P., & Foxcroft, T. (1978). On the sociolinguistics of vocalic mergers: Transfers and approximations in East Anglia. In P.Trudgill (Ed.),Sociolinguistic patterns in British English (pp. 69–79). London: Edwin Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

  1. 1

    This initial analysis contained examples of all of the long vowel tokens in Swedish (apart from /e:/ and /o:/): /i: y: ʉ: ɛ: ø: ɑ: u:/, plus the pre-rhotic allophones [æ: œ:]. 5,184 vowels were analysed, and the analysis is presented in more detail in Gross (2018).

  2. 2

    The results from the listener test regarding the distractors have not been analysed.

  3. 3

    Lip rounding has some effect on the first two formants and thereby on PC1 and PC2. We cannot be 100% sure that the lip rounding does not affect /y:/ to alter its acoustic appearance.

  4. 4

    “Velar pinch” is a term used to describe the rise of F2 and fall of F3 immediately before and after velar plosives.

  5. 5

    See Tables 1 and 2 for explanations of bracketing.

  6. 6

    (iɨ) was more likely to be classified as <e> than the other categories, and (yy) was more likely to be classified as <u> than the other categories.

  7. 7

    One anonymous reviewer suggested giving more prominence to the sequentiality of the merging process: while we do not have the diachronic data or previous research to support this, it is not unlikely that the centralization is a prerequisite to the merger. Hopefully, this can be answered through further diachronic studies.

Received: 2018-01-15
Accepted: 2019-02-19
Published Online: 2019-05-02
Published in Print: 2020-07-01

© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Further Section
  2. Front & Back Matter
  3. Publisher's Note
  4. Publisher's Note
  5. Research Article
  6. Focus Marking and Prosodic Boundary Strength in French
  7. Weak Lips? A Possible Merger of /i:/ and /y:/ in Gothenburg
  8. Book Discussion
  9. J.M. Levis, Intelligibility, Oral Communication, and the Teaching of Pronunciation, Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series, Vol. 27, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018
  10. Research Article
  11. Vowel-to-Vowel Coarticulation in Spanish Nonwords
  12. Discussion
  13. Review of Klaus J. Kohler, Communicative Functions and Linguistic Forms in Speech Interaction, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 156, Cambridge University Press, 2018
  14. Publications Received for Review
  15. Publications Received for Review
https://doi.org/10.1159/000499107

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Further Section
  2. Front & Back Matter
  3. Publisher's Note
  4. Publisher's Note
  5. Research Article
  6. Focus Marking and Prosodic Boundary Strength in French
  7. Weak Lips? A Possible Merger of /i:/ and /y:/ in Gothenburg
  8. Book Discussion
  9. J.M. Levis, Intelligibility, Oral Communication, and the Teaching of Pronunciation, Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series, Vol. 27, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018
  10. Research Article
  11. Vowel-to-Vowel Coarticulation in Spanish Nonwords
  12. Discussion
  13. Review of Klaus J. Kohler, Communicative Functions and Linguistic Forms in Speech Interaction, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 156, Cambridge University Press, 2018
  14. Publications Received for Review
  15. Publications Received for Review
Downloaded on 21.4.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1159/000499107/html
Scroll to top button