Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:13:50.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An acoustic analysis of the vowels of Hawai‘i English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2016

M. Joelle Kirtley
Affiliation:
University of Hawaiʻi at Mā[email protected]
James Grama
Affiliation:
University of Hawaiʻi at Mā[email protected]
Katie Drager
Affiliation:
University of Hawaiʻi at Mā[email protected]
Sean Simpson
Affiliation:
Georgetown [email protected]

Abstract

This paper provides an acoustic phonetic description of Hawai‘i English vowels. The data comprise wordlist tokens produced by twenty-three speakers (twelve males and eleven females) and spontaneous speech tokens produced by ten of those speakers. Analysis of these vowel tokens shows that while there are similarities between Hawai‘i English and other dialects, the particular combination of vowel realizations in Hawai‘i English is unique to this dialect. Additionally, there are characteristics of the Hawai‘i English vowel system that are not found in other English dialects. These findings suggest that Hawai‘i English is a unique regional variety that warrants further description.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2016 

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.)

References

Adank, Patti, Roel, Smits & Hout, Roeland van. 2004. A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116 (5), 30993107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avis, Walter S. 1972. The phonemic segments of an Edmonton idiolect. In Davis, Lawrence M. (ed.), Studies in linguistics in honor of Raven I. McDavid, Jr., 239250. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Baranowski, Maciej. 2007. Phonological variation and change in the dialect of Charleston, South Carolina (Publication of the American Dialect Society 92). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bigham, Douglas S. 2010. Correlation of the low-back vowel merger and TRAP-retraction. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15 (2), 2131.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1973. Canadian raising. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 18, 113135.Google Scholar
Clarke, Sandra, Elms, Ford & Youssef, Amani. 1995. The third dialect of English: Some Canadian evidence. Language Variation and Change 7, 209228.Google Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G., Pisoni, David B. & Jong, Kenneth de. 2005. Acoustic characteristics of the vowel systems of six regional varieties of American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118 (3), 16611676.Google Scholar
Cox, Felicity. 1999. Vowel change in Australian English. Phonetica 56, 127.Google Scholar
Coye, Dale F. 2009. Dialect boundaries in New Jersey. American Speech 84 (4), 414452.Google Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron J. 2011. Weakening resistance: Progress toward the low back in New York State. Language Variation and Change 23, 315345.Google Scholar
Drager, Katie. 2012. Pidgin and Hawaiʻi English: An overview. International Journal of Language, Translation, and Intercultural Communication 1 (1), 6173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Where do ethnolects stop? International Journal of Bilingualism 12, 2542.Google Scholar
Ferragne, Emmanuel & Pellegrino, François. 2010. Formant frequencies of vowels in 13 accents of the British Isles. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 40 (1), 134.Google Scholar
Fox, Robert A. & Jacewicz, Ewa. 2009. Cross-dialectal variation in formant dynamics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126 (5), 26032618.Google Scholar
Fridland, Valerie. 2001. The social dimension of the Southern Vowel Shift: Gender, age and lass. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (2), 233253.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew J. 2004. The West and Midwest: Phonology. In Kortmann, Bernd, Schneider, Edgar W., Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend & Upton, Clive (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English: A multimedia reference tool, vol. 1, 338350. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew J. 2006. Tracking the low back merger in Missouri. In Murray, Thomas Edward & Simon, Beth Lee (eds.), Language variation and change in the American Midland: A new look at ‘Heartland’ English. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 5768.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren. 2009. Ethnicity and phonetic variation in a San Francisco neighborhood. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Cox, Felicity & Evans, Zoe. 1997. An acoustic phonetic study of broad, general, and cultivated Australian English vowels. Australian Journal of Linguistics 17 (2), 155184.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Kleber, Felicitas & Reubold, Ulrich. 2011. The contributions of the lips and the tongue to the diachronic fronting of high back vowels in Standard Southern British English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41 (2),137156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Drager, Katie & Thomas, Brynmor. 2013. Using nonsense words to investigate vowel merger. English Language and Linguistics 17 (2), 241269.Google Scholar
Hillenbrand, James, Clark, Michael & Nearey, Terrance. 2000. Effects of consonant environment on vowel formant patterns. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109, 748763.Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Moonwomon, Birch, Bremmer, Sue, Luthin, Herb, Clay, Mary Van, Lerner, Jean & Corcoran, Hazel. 1987. It's not just the valley girls: A study of California English. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13 (BLS 13), 117128.Google Scholar
Irons, Terry Lynn. 2007. On the status of the low back vowels in Kentucky English: More evidence of merger. Language Variation and Change 19, 137180.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Robert & Grama, James. 2012. Chain shifting and centralization in California vowels: An acoustic analysis. American Speech 87 (1), 3956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Noel J. 1993. Hawaii: Islands under the influence. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul, Cheshire, Jenny, Fox, Sue & Torgensen, Eivind. 2007. Linguistic innovators: The English of adolescents in London (Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-23-0680). Swindon: ESRC.Google Scholar
Koops, Christian. 2010. /u/-fronting is not monolithic: Two types of fronted /u/ in Houston Anglos. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16 (2), 113122.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change , vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. Atlas of North American English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maclagan, Margaret, Watson, Catherine I., Harlow, Ray, King, Jeanette & Keegan, Peter. 2009. /u/ fronting and /t/ aspiration in Māori and New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 21, 175192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olive, Joseph, Greenwood, Alice & Coleman, John. 1993. Acoustics of American English speech: A dynamic approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Reinecke, John E. & Tokimasa, Aiko. 1934. The English dialect of Hawaii. American Speech 4858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Sarah. 2004. The role of style and identity in the development of Hawaiian Creole. In Escure, Geneviève & Schwegler, Armin (eds.), Creoles, contact, and language change: Linguistic and social implications, 120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roeder, Rebecca V. & Gardner, Matt Hunt. 2013. The phonology of the Canadian Shift revisited: Thunder Bay & Cape Breton. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19 (2), 161170.Google Scholar
Sakoda, Kent & Siegel, Jeff. 2008. Hawai‘i Creole: Phonology. In Burridge, Kate & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Varieties of English 3: The Pacific and Australasia, 210233. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sato, Charlene. 1985. Linguistic inequality in Hawaii: The post-Creole dilemma. In Wolfson, Nessa & Manes, Joan (eds.), Language of inequality, 255272. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sato, Charlene. 1993. Language change in a creole continuum: Decreolization? In Hyltenstam, Kenneth & Viberg, Ake (eds.), Progression and regression in language: Sociocultural, neuropsychological, and linguistic perspectives, 122143. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 2000. Substrate influence in Hawai‘i Creole English. Language in Society 29 (2), 197236.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2008. Scottish English: Phonology. In Kortmann, Bernd & Upton, Clive (eds.), Varieties of English 1: The British Isles, 4870. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stueber, Ralph K. 1964. Hawai‘i: A case study in development education 1778–1960. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. 2001. An acoustic analysis of vowel variation in New World English. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Torgersen, Eivind, Kerswill, Paul & Fox, Susan. 2006. Ethnicity as a source of changes in the London vowel system. In Hinskens, Frans (ed.), Language variation – European perspectives: Selected papers from The Third International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE3), Amsterdam, June 2005, 249263. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Michael. 2003. Portland dialect study: The fronting of /o w, u, u w/ in Portland, Oregon. MA thesis, Portland State University.Google Scholar
Watson, Catherine I. & Harrington, Jonathan. 1999. Acoustic evidence for dynamic formant trajectories in Australian English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106 (1), 458468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, Catherine I., Maclagan, Margaret & Harrington, Jonathan. 2000. Acoustic evidence for vowel change in New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 12, 5168.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar