Coalescent assimilation across word-boundaries in American English and in Polish English

Kamil Kaźmierski; Ewelina Wojtkowiak; Andreas Baumann

doi:10.1515/rela-2016-0012

Authors

Kamil Kaźmierski Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Ewelina Wojtkowiak
Andreas Baumann Universität Wien

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2016-0012

Keywords:

casual speech phonology, corpus phonology, foreign language acquisition, coalescent assimilation, glottalization

Abstract

Coalescent assimilation (CA), where alveolar obstruents /t, d, s, z/ in word-final position merge with word-initial /j/ to produce postalveolar /tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ/, is one of the most wellknown connected speech processes in English. Due to its commonness, CA has been discussed in numerous textbook descriptions of English pronunciation, and yet, upon comparing them it is difficult to get a clear picture of what factors make its application likely. This paper aims to investigate the application of CA in American English to see a) what factors increase the likelihood of its application for each of the four alveolar obstruents, and b) what is the allophonic realization of plosives /t, d/ if the CA does not apply. To do so, the Buckeye Corpus (Pitt et al. 2007) of spoken American English is analyzed quantitatively. As a second step, these results are compared with Polish English; statistics analogous to the ones listed above for American English are gathered for Polish English based on the PLEC corpus (Pęzik 2012). The last section focuses on what consequences for teaching based on a native speaker model the findings have. It is argued that a description of the phenomenon that reflects the behavior of speakers of American English more accurately than extant textbook accounts could be beneficial to the acquisition of these patterns.

References

Avery, P. and S. Ehrlich. 1992. Teaching American English pronunciation. (Oxford handbooks for language teachers). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Batliner, A., Kompe, R., Kiesling, A., Mast, M., Niemann, H. and E. Noth. 1998. M ˆ Syntax + Prosody: A syntactic±}prosodiclabelling scheme for large spontaneous speech databases. Speech Communication 25, 193–222.
Google Scholar

Booth, G. D., Niccolucci, M. J. and E. G. Schuster. 1994. Identifying proxy sets in multiple linear regression: an aid to better coeffi cient interpretation. – US Dept of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Google Scholar

Bowen, J. D. 1975. Patterns of English pronunciation. Rowley: Newbury House.
Google Scholar

Box, G. E. P. and D. R. Cox 1964. An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 26(2). 211–252.
Google Scholar

Bronstein, A. J. 1960. The pronunciation of American English. New York: Appleton-Centruy-Crofts.
Google Scholar

Carr, P. 1999. English phonetics and phonology. An introduction. Malden: Blackwell.
Google Scholar

Christensen, R. H. B. 2015. ordinal - Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2015, 1-21. Available from: http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/
Google Scholar

Collins, B. and I. M. Mees 2013. Practical phonetics and phonology: A resource book for students. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Cohen, J. 1968. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin 70, 213–220.
Google Scholar

Cruttenden, A. 2014. Gimson’s pronunciation of English. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Davidson L. 2011. Characteristics of stop releases in American English spontaneous speech. Speech Communication 53, 1042–1058.
Google Scholar

Hyndman R. J. and Y. Khandakar. 2008. Automatic time series forecasting: the forecast package for R. Journal of Statistical Software 26(3), 1–22. Available from: http://ideas.repec.org/a/jss/jstsof/27i03.html
Google Scholar

Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Ladefoged, P. and K. Johnson. 2011. A course in phonetics. [6th edition]. Boston: Wadsworth.
Google Scholar

Pęzik, P. 2012. Towards the PELCRA Learner English Corpus. In P. Pęzik (ed.), Corpus data across languages and disciplines, 33–42. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Google Scholar

Pitt, M.A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E. and E. Fosler-Lussier. 2007. Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech (2nd release). Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.
Google Scholar

Podesva, R. J., Reynolds, J., Callier, P. and J. Baptiste. 2015. Constraints on the social meaning of released /t/: A production and perception study of U.S. politicians. Language Variation and Change 27, 59–87.
Google Scholar

Redi L. and S. Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2001. Variation in the realization of glottalization in normal speakers. Journal of Phonetics 29, 407-429.
Google Scholar

Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2016. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.14. Available from http://www.praat.org/ [Accessed:] 11 February 2016.
Google Scholar

Roach, P. 2009. English phonetics and phonology: a practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/
Google Scholar

Shockey, L. 2003. Sound patterns of spoken English. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Google Scholar

Sloetjes, H. and P. Wittenburg. 2008. Annotation by category — ELAN and ISO DCR. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).
Google Scholar

Sobkowiak, W. 2001. English phonetics for Poles. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.
Google Scholar

Venables, W. N. and B. D. Ripley. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S. Fourth Edition. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-95457-0
Google Scholar

Zsiga, E. C. 2013. The sounds of language. An introduction to phonetics and phonology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Google Scholar