Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:31:20.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How salient is the nurse~square merger?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2013

KEVIN WATSON  and
LYNN CLARK
KEVIN WATSON
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New [email protected], [email protected]
LYNN CLARK
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports the results of an experimental investigation into listeners' evaluative reactions towards the nurse~square merger in the north-west of England, in an attempt to shed light on its salience. Although speakers across England's north-west have a nurse~square merger, its realisation differs: in Liverpool, speakers typically merge to a mid front [ɛː], while speakers from St Helens, just 20km further east, merge to a mid central [ɜː]. To test listeners' responses to each variant, we presented two groups of listeners from each of these localities with read sentence data from a single speaker. The speaker was from the north-west of England and had a centralised nurse~square vowel in his native accent (representing the St Helens model). To achieve a matched-guise, the original nurse~square vowels were acoustically manipulated to give the impression of fronting (representing the Liverpool model). Listeners from Liverpool and St Helens were asked to react to guises along the status dimension, and their reaction was measured in real-time using bespoke audience response software administered via the web. The novelty in this approach is that it can be used not only to show that listeners do indeed react to the guises, but also to examine precisely when this reaction takes place. Our results show that (a) overall, speakers with a nurse~square merger are not rated highly on the status dimension, regardless of whether they have a merger to a front or central vowel; (b) listeners' real-time reactions can be correlated with instances of nurse and square; and (c) listeners' responses to nurse can be different from responses to square. We discuss these results in relation to the salience of this merger in particular and to salience in general. We suggest that the salience of nurse and square is related to the local social context and the micro-linguistic context in which they appear.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 2: Phonological mergers in English , July 2013 , pp. 297 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Economic and Social Research Council, grant number RES-061-25-0458. We would also like to thank the audiences at the conference of the International Society for the Linguistics of English (ISLE), held in Boston, USA in June 2011, and the 13th New Zealand Language and Society conference, held in Auckland in November 2012. Finally we thank Rob Drummond, Nicolai Pharao, Margaret Maclagan and Paul Kerswill for providing detailed and helpful feedback on this article.

References

Baranowski, Maciej. This volume. On the role of social factors in the loss of phonemic distinctions. English Language and Linguistics 17, 271–95.Google Scholar
Barras, William. 2006. The square–nurse merger in Greater Manchester: The impact of social and spatial identity on phonological variation. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 1987. Markedness and salience in second language acquisition. Language Learning 37, 385–407.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan. 2008. English dialects in the north of England: Phonology. In Kortmann, Bernd & Upton, Clive (eds.), Varieties of English: The British Isles, 122–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2006. Listener perceptions of sociolinguistic variables: The case of (ing). Unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2008. I'll be the judge of that: Diversity in social perceptions of (ING). Language in Society 37, 637–59.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas & Bishop, Hywel. 2007. Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11, 74–103.Google Scholar
De Lyon, Hillary B. 1981. A sociolinguistic study of aspects of the Liverpool accent. Unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Garrett, Peter, Nikolas, Coupland & Williams, Angie. 2003. Investigating language attitudes: Social meanings of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard & Powesland, Peter F.. 1975. Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, Maclagan, Margaret & Hay, Jennifer. 2007. The ONZE corpus. In Beal, Joan C., Corrigan, Karen P. & Moisl, Hermann (eds.), Models and methods in the handling of unconventional digital corpora, vol. 2: Diachronic corpora, 82–104. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick & Watson, Kevin. In press. Salience and the sociolinguistics of Scouse spelling: Exploring the phonology of the Contemporary Humorous Localised Dialect Literature of Liverpool. English World-Wide.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul & Watson, Kevin. 2007. ‘The invasion of the biggest pest since the cockroach, yes, the Scouser’: Exploring language ideologies and relationships between regions in England's north-west. Invited panel session at the Regions and Regionalism in and Beyond Europe conference, 17–19 September, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul & Williams, Ann. 2002. ‘Salience’ as an explanatory factor in language change: Evidence from dialect levelling in urban England. In Jones, Mari C. & Esch, Edith (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors, 81–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Killick, Rebecca & Eckley, Idris. Under review. Changepoint: An R package for changepoint analysis. Available online: www.lancs.ac.uk/~killick/Pub/KillickEckley2011.pdfGoogle Scholar
Killick, Rebecca, Eckley, Idris, Ewans, Kevin & Jonathan, Philip. 2010. Detection of changes in variance of oceanographic time-series using changepoint analysis. Ocean Engineering 37, 1120–6.Google Scholar
Kwon, D. W., Ko, K., Vannucci, Marina, Reddy, A. L. N. & Kim, S.. 2006. Wavelet methods for the detection of anomalies and their application to network traffic analysis. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 22, 953–69.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of language change: Social factors. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, Ravindranath, Maya, Weldon, Tracey, Baranowski, Maciej & Nagy, Naomi. 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15, 431–63.Google Scholar
Lambert, Wallace, Hodgson, Richard, Gardner, Robert & Fillenbaum, Samual. 1960. Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60, 44–51.Google Scholar
Leach, Hannah & Watson, Kevin. In prep. The perception of northern English accents by local and non-local listeners.Google Scholar
Lio, Pietro & Vannucci, Marina. 2000. Wavelet change-point prediction of transmembrane proteins. Bioinformatics 16, 376–82.Google Scholar
Lorist, Monicque M. & Snel, Jan. 1997. Caffeine effects on perceptual and motor processes. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 102, 401–14.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2006. Introducing Sociolinguistics. London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Chris. 2007. Northern English dialects: A perceptual approach. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, Herber & Fiorentino, Dary. 2000. A review of the literature on the effects of low doses of alcohol on driving-related skills. Report DOT HS 809 028. Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
Perron, Pierre & Yabu, Tomoyoshi. 2009. Testing for shifts in trend with an integrated or stationary noise component. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 27, 369–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podesva, Robert J. 2006. Phonetic detail in sociolinguistic variation. Unpublished PhD. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Reeves, Jaxk, Chen, Jien, Wang, Xiaolan, Lund, Robert & QiQi, Lu. 2007. A review and comparison of changepoint detection techniques for climate data. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 6, 900–15.Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew, Brice, Carolyn, Leach, Anna, Tilley, Meurig & Williamson, Susan. 2004. Effects of upper respiratory tract illnesses in a working population. Ergonomics 47, 363–9.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer, Durham, Mercedes & Fortune, Lisa. 2007. Community, caregiver and child in the acquisition of variation in a Scottish dialect. Language Variation and Change 19, 63–99.Google Scholar
Tipton, Philip. 2006. The nurse~square merger in three south Lancashire towns: A cognitive and usage-based approach to linguistic variation. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warren, Paul & Hay, Jennifer. 2006 Using sound change to explore the mental lexicon. In Fletcher-Flinn, Claire & Haberman, Gus (eds.), Cognition, language and development: Perspectives from New Zealand, 101–21. Bowen Hills, Queensland: Australian Academic Press.Google Scholar
Watson, Kevin & Clark, Lynn. Forthcoming. Exploring listeners' real-time reactions to regional accents. Language Awareness.Google Scholar
Watson, Kevin, Darbyshire, Mark & Clark, Lynn. In prep. The nurse~square merger in north-west England.Google Scholar
Welford, Alan Traviss. 1980. Choice reaction time: Basic concepts. In Welford, A. T. (ed.), Reaction times, 73–128. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wells, John. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar