MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1680135890

Regional variation in the allophones of CANADIAN ENGLISH

2011· article· en· W1680135890 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Charles Boberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormantNova scotiaVariation (astronomy)Settlement (finance)Word listLinguisticsAmerican EnglishInflectionWord (group theory)Point (geometry)Regional variationHistoryVarieties of EnglishRange (aeronautics)Inflection pointVowelGeographyMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPolitical scienceArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on regional variation in the phonetic realization of /æ/, or "short-a", the vowel of bat, bad, band and bag, in Canadian English (CE).Labov (1991) called /æ/ one of two "pivot points" that determine the larger patterns of vowel shifting that serve to differentiate regional varieties of North American English at the phonetic level.These are variables of phonemic contrast in the front and back corners of the lower vowel space: in the back, the potential contrast is between /a/ (l o t ) and /o/ (t h o u g h t ); in the front, it is between lax /æ/ (TRAP), the main development of Middle English short /a/, and what Labov labels /æh/, a tensed variant that occurs before voiceless fricatives, like its British "broad-a" counterpart (b a t h ), as well as before variable sets of voiced obstruents and nasals.CE has only one phoneme in each corner, so that t r a p and b a t h both have /æ/ and l o t and t h o u g h t both have /a/.The latter lack of contrast is referred to as the low-back merger, and has been suggested as the structural impetus for what Labov, Ash and Boberg (2006) found to be the main distinguishing phonetic characteristic of CE in comparison with adjacent American varieties, the Canadian Vowel Shift (Clarke, Elms and Youssef 1995).The Canadian Shift involves the lowering and retraction of the short front vowels /i, e, æ/ (k i t , d r e s s and t r a p ), led by the retraction of /æ/, first noted by Esling and Warkentyne (1993), into the low-central space made vacant by the low-back merger (American dialects without this merger tend to have /a/ in this position, blocking any retraction of /æ/).Labov et al. (2006) find that among the dialects with a single low-front phoneme there are three main allophonic systems.In the U.S. Inland North, the whole /æ/ class is tensed, rising to mid-front position.Much of the Midland and West exhibit a "nasal system", in which /æ/ is regularly tensed and raised before nasals (/æN/, e.g.band, ram), so that pre-nasal tokens form a distinct set from the rest of the distribution (e.g.bat, bad), which remains in low-front position.CE is characterized by a "continuous short-a system", in which allophones of /æ/ form a phonetic continuum along the low-front margin of the vowel space, from low-front bat to raised and fronted band.Crucial in this classification is the behavior of /æ/ before /g/ (bag).In "nasal" systems, /æg/ is lax, remaining with the rest of the /æ/ distribution; in Canada, by contrast, /æg/ shows an intermediate degree of tensing, distinct from both the more advanced tensing of /æN/ and the absence of tensing in bat or bad.Further research with a Canadian focus, reported here and in Boberg (2008Boberg ( , 2010)), finds that this is a simplification, obscuring important regional differences.While this "continuous" system does apply across the country, it is realized slightly differently in each region.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207