SSLE: Standard Sri Lankan English. SST: Standard Spoken Tamil. T: Tamil. WS: Written ... 3.4.1 Case study participants: The linguistic profile ..... http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/Pages/Activities/Reports/5cph2011/Table28.pdf.
!" #$ % #$ & %
' ( #$ "& ) * + & ,- . " ( / ,# " 0
1 ( ( "
2 3 1 (4""(!""& ( !"0 5 6 ( "
!
! " # $ !% ! & $ ' ' ($ ' # % % ) %* %' $ ' + " % & ' ! # $, ( $ - . ! "- ( %
. % % % % $ $ $ - -
- - / / $$$ 0 1"1"#23."
4& )*5/ +) * !6 !& 7!8%779:9& % ) 2 ; ! * & / - 4& )*5/ +) "3 " & :=9>
Rohini Chandrica Widyalankara
Dialectal variation in Sri Lankan English pronunciation: An acoustic analysis
To my granddaughter
Amaya Amerakoon
1RWDWLRQDOFRQYHQWLRQVDEEUHYLDWLRQVDQG General phonemic symbols Notational conventions [ ] Allophonic transcription to indicate sounds from a phonetic point of view // Phonemic transcription to indicate sounds from a phonological point of view § This sign is followed by a cross reference ~ In free variation with The system of Romanization abc: Italicized letters denote graphemic representations of lexis Geminates are represented by a sequence of identical consonants. Abbreviations BE/SBE: This book uses BE as a general appellation of British English but SBE when referring to Standard British English pronunciation. L1: First language L2: Second language 2$/' 2[IRUG$GYDQFHG/HDUQHUV¶'LFWLRQDU\(LJKWKHGLWLRQ OVSLE: Other Varieties of Sri Lankan English S: Sinhala SAE: South Asian English SLE: Sri Lankan English SS: Spoken Sinhala SSBE: Standard Southern British English SSLE: Standard Sri Lankan English SST: Standard Spoken Tamil T: Tamil WS: Written Sinhala WT: Written Tamil
General phonemic symbols Consonants
Vowels IPA
Examples
IPA
Examples bad
ݞ
cup
b
ܤ
arm
d
did
æ
cat
f
find
e
met
g
give
ԥ
away
h
how
ܮ:
turn
j
yellow
ܼ
hit
k
cat
i:
see
l
leg
ܥ
hot
m
man
ܧ:
call
n
no
ݜ
put
ƾ
sing
u:
blue
p
pet
aܼ
five
r
red
aݜ
now
s
sun
eܼ
say
ݕ
she
ܼܧ
boy
t
tea
eԥ
where
c
check
ܼԥ
near
ș
think
ݜԥ
pure
ð
this
ԥݜ
no
v
voice
w
wet
z
zoo
ݤ
pleasure
ܱ
just
Wࡧ voiceless dental stop Gࡧ voiced dental stop ݔvoiceless retroflex fricative ݁ unrounded allophone of the rounded /u/ in spoken Tamil
Long vowels are denoted with a colon following the vowel letter. For example /a:/
Contents List of tables List of figures Appendices 1. Introduction 1.1 Sociolinguistic dynamics 1.2 Typology of SLE bilingualism 1.3 The importance of acoustic documentation 1.4 Contact linguistic dynamics 2. Causal factors for nativization of pronunciation: Influence form vernaculars 2.1 Markedness and associated theories 2.2 Influence of Sinhala and Tamil on S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilingual pronunciation 2.3 Influence of Sinhala and Tamil on common deviations from SSLE in OVSLE bilingual pronunciation 2.4 Unique features in T/OVSLE bilingual pronunciation 2.5 Construction of a taxonomy for dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation 3. Methodology 3.1 Research question and background on Documentary Linguistics 3.2 Research instruments and participants 3.2.1 Instrument I: Questionnaires 3.2.2 Instrument II: Word List for pronunciation elicitations 3.2.3 Instrument III: Shortlisted words for acoustic recordings 3.3 Participant selection procedure for acoustic documentation 3.3.1 Shortlisting final populations for acoustic documentation 3.3.1.1 The SSLE user population 3.3.1.2 Rationale for OVSLE user classification 3.4 Case study selection procedures 3.4.1 Case study participants: The linguistic profile 3.4.1.1 The SSLE speaker case study subjects 3.4.1.2 The OVSLE speaker case study subjects 3.4.1.2.1 The selection procedure 3.4.1.2.2 OVSLE speaker case study profiles 3.4.1.2.3 Occurrence of the target deviations from i
vii ix xii 1 2 4 5 8
10 11 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 25
SSLE and OVSLE case study identity 3.4.1.2.4 Word tokens for elicitation and OVSLE case study identity 3.5 Procedure for acoustic recordings of lexical elicitations 4. Acoustic evidence for dialectal variation in SLE 4.1 Criteria for acoustic recordings 4.2 Corpus I: 5 selected lexical tokens with identified norm forming features of SSLE pronunciation in comparison to SBE 4.2.1 Retreat of the SBE diphthongs /ei/ and /ԥݜ/ to the unmarked /e:/ and /o:/ respectively 4.2.1.1 The use of the long vowel /e:/ in SSLE instead of the diphthong /ei/ in SBE 4.2.1.1.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word say SSLE: /se:/ 4.2.1.2 The use of the long vowel /o:/ in SSLE for the diphthong /ԥݜ/ in SBE 4.2.1.2.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word boat SSLE: /bo:ݚ/ 4.2.2 The emergence of the dental stops /Wࡧ and /Gࡧ / in SSLE for the SBE dental fricatives ș and /ð/ 4.2.2.1 The emergence of the dental stop /Wࡧ for the SBE dental fricative ș 4.2.2.1.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word think SSLE: /Wࡧ ܼƾN/ 4.2.2.2 The use of the dental stop Gࡧ / for the SBE dental fricative /ð/ 4.2.2.2.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word this SSLE: /Gࡧ ܼs/ 4.2.3 The emergence of the voiceless palatal fricative /ݕ/ in SSLE for the SBE voiced /ݤ/ 4.2.3.1 The use of voiceless palatal fricative /ݕ/ instead of the voiced /ݤ/ in SBE 4.2.3.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word pleasure SSLE: /pleݕԥ/ 4.3 Corpus II: Seven selected lexical tokens each with a target pronunciation deviation from SSLE in bilingual users of OVSLE ii
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42
43 44 45
4.3.1 Comparison of vowel formants 4.3.1.1 The back vowels /o/ and /ܧ/ of SSLE 4.3.1.2 Contrasting /o/ and /ܧ/ 4.3.1.2.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word pot SSLE: /pݚܧ/ 4.3.1.2.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word pot OVSLE: /poݚ/ 4.3.2 Substitution for an alien superstrate phoneme + retreat to the unmarked: /f/ to /p/ 4.3.2.1 Comparison of Expense of Effort in /p/ and /f/ 4.3.2.2 Confusion of /p/ and /f/: OVSLE 4.3.2.2.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word profit SSLE: /prܧfܼݚ/ 4.3.2.2.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word profit OVSLE: /frܧfܼݚ/ 4.3.3 Free variation between /ݕ/ and /s/: OVSLE 4.3.3.1 The free variation of /ݕ/ and /s/ in Sinhala and ҋ being a grantha letter in Tamil and their effect on OVSLE pronunciation 4.3.3.1.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word sunshine SSLE: /sݞnݕain/ 4.3.3.1.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word Sunshine OVSLE: /ݞݕnݕain/; [ݞݕnsain] 4.3.4 Insertion of the lax front close vowel /ܼ/ before consonant clusters beginning with /s/: OVSLE 4.3.4.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word school SSLE: /sku:l/ 4.3.4.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word school OVSLE: /ܼsku:l/ 4.3.5 Emergence of /s/ and /ܱ/ for /z/ in word onset position: OVSLE 4.3.5.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word zero SSLE: /zi:ro/ 4.3.5.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word zero OVSLE: /si:ro/, [ܱi:ro] 4.3.6 Word mid /ܼ/epenthesis 4.3.6.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word film SSLE: /fܼlm/ iii
46 47 48
50 51 52 53 54 55 56
57 58 59 60 62
64
4.3.6.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word film OVSLE: /pܼlܼm/, /flܼm/ 4.3.7 Word mid Syllable omission Library: OVSLE 4.3.7.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word library: SSLE: /laibrԥrܼ/ 4.3.7.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word library OVSLE: /laibrܼ/ 4.4 Corpus III: Nine selected target pronunciation deviations from SSLE in bilingual users of T/OVSLE which are not evidenced in S/OVSLE bilinguals 4.4.1 Second language learner lexical pronunciation and interference from loanword phonology 4.4.2 Emergence of /æ/ Æ /ܤ/ in slap: T/OVSLE 4.4.2.1 Formants of the vowels /ܤ/æ/and/ܭ/ 4.4.2.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word slap, SSLE /slæp/
65 66 67
68 70 72
73
4.4.2.3 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word slap: OVSLE: S/OVSLE /slæp/, T/OVSLE [slܤS] 4.4.2.4 Documentation of some irregularities in OVSLE: /æ/Æ/ܤ/, /ܭ/ 4.4.3 Emergence of [b] Æ[p] in T/OVSLE bilinguals 4.4.3.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word blouse, SSLE: /blaus/ 4.4.3.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word blouse, OVSLE: S/OVSLE /blaus/; T/OVSLE [plaus] 4.4.4 Emergence of []ܩÆ[ ]ݚin T/OVSLE bilinguals 4.4.4.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word accident SSLE: /æksܼܩԥnݚ/ 4.4.4.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word accident OVSLE: S/OVSLE [æksܼܩԥn]; T/OVSLE [akcܼݚԥn] 4.4.5 Substitution of [k] for [g] in T/OVSLE bilinguals 4.4.5.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word Ganeshan SSLE: /gܤQH ݕԥQ/ 4.4.5.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word Ganeshan OVSLE: S/ OVSLE /gܤQH VԥQ/;T/OVSLE[kܤQH VԥQ] 4.4.6 Substitution of [s]Æ [c] in T/OVSLE bilinguals 4.4.6.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word s iv
74 76 77 78 79 80
82 83
85
upport SSLE: /sԥpo:ݚ/ 4.4.6.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word support OVSLE: S/OVSLE /ݞݕpo:ݚ/;T/OVSLE [cݞpo:]ݚ 4.4.7 /h/ omission in T/OVSLE bilinguals 4.4.7.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word hopeless SSLE: /ho:plԥs/ 4.4.7.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word hopeless OVSLE: S/OVSLE /hܧ:plԥs/; T/OVSLE [o:plԥs] 4.4.8 Word onset /W/ omission in T/OVSLE bilinguals 4.4.8.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word train SSLE: /ݚre:n/ 4.4.8.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word train OVSLE: S/OVSLE /ݚre:n/; T/OVSLE [re:n] 4.4.9 Word final [݁] epenthesis 4.4.9.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word silk SSLE: /sܼlk/ 4.4.9.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word silk OVSLE: S/OVSLE /sܼlܼk/; T/OVSLE [sܼlܼk݁], [sܼlܼkk݁] 4.4.10 Word mid /j/ epenthesis 4.4.10.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word mail: SSLE /me:l/ 4.4.10.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word Mail OVSLE: S/OVSLE /me:l/ and T/OVSLE [mejܼl] 5. Discussion and Conclusions 5.1 Parity in the influence of Sinhala and Tamil phonological grammars in selected core SSLE norm forming features 5.2 Parity in the influence of Sinhala and Tamil phonological grammars in common deviations from SSLE in OVSLE populations 5.3 Disparity in the influence of Sinhala and Tamil phonological grammars identifying deviations from SSLE and S/OVSLE in T/OVSLE populations 5.4 Summary of the documented acoustic analysis 5.5 Research question and acoustic evidence 5.5.1 Corpus I ± Acoustic evidence for five norm forming features of SSLE 5.5.2: Corpus II ± Acoustic evidence for 7 areas of parity in v
86 87 88
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
100
104 107 109 110
deviation from SSLE norms in users of OVSLE pronunciation 5.5.3: Corpus III ± Acoustic evidence for 10 areas of divergence in users of OVSLE pronunciation 5.6 Conclusion
112 113
Bibliography
116
vi
111
Tables Table 1: Population aged 10 years and over, by ability to read and write languages by ethnic group (2011) Table 2: Selected core norms of SSLE pronunciation for compiling lexical tokens in the test instrument for acoustic documentation Table 3: Selected common deviations from SSLE pronunciation in OVSLE populations for compiling lexical tokens in the test instrument for acoustic documentation. Table 4: Selected deviations from SSLE pronunciation unique in T/OVSLE populations for compiling lexical tokens in the test instrument for acoustic documentation Table 5: Instrument II - Lexical tokens for testing target deviations from SSLE in S/SLE and T/SLE bilinguals Table 6: Word tokens for acoustic recordings Table 7: Selected criteria for classifying SSLE pronunciation Table 8: Occurrence of the target deviations from SSLE in OVSLE case study subjects Table 9: Word tokens for elicitation and OVSLE case study identity Table 10: Core norm forming paradigms of SSLE selected for investigation Table 11: Contrasting the diphthong inventories of SBE, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil Table 12: Average Rate of Change in Hz/sec for the diphthong /ei/ by a British speaker (Deterding, 2000: 97) Table 13: Average Rate of Change in Hz/sec for the monophthong /e:/ in two SSLE case study participants Table 14: The average Rate of Change in Hz/sec for the monophthong /o:/ by two SSLE case study participants Table 15: Contrasting the consonant inventories of RP: ș and /ð/, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil: /Wࡧ and /Gࡧ / Table 16: Contrasting the consonant inventories of RP: /ݤ/, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil: /ݕ/ Table 17: Evidence for parity in core norm forming pronunciation areas selected by this study in S/SSLE, T/SSLE bilinguals Table 18: Contrasting the inventories of the back vowels /o/, /ܧ/ and /ܥ/ in RP, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil vii
4 6
7 18 19 23 27 28 31 32 34 35 38 39 43 45
46
Table 19: The allophones of Tamil Table 20: Contrasting the consonant inventories of /z/ in RP, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil Table 21: Contrasting pan-Asian Learner English user pronunciation with loanword assimilation in Tamil/ Learner English bilinguals Table 22: Contrasting the vowel inventories for /æ/ and /ܤ/ of RP, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil Table 23: Contrasting the consonant inventories of /p/ and /b/ in RP, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil
55 60 71 72 76
Table 24: Contrasting the consonant inventory for /ܩ/ and /ݚ/ of RP, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil Table 25: Contrasting the consonant inventory for /k/ and /g/ of RP, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil Table 26: The allophones of c in Tamil Table 27: Contrasting the consonant inventories of /h/ in RP, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil
79 82 86 87
Table 28: Parity in Sinhala and Tamil phonological grammar as a causal factor for the emergence of five selected core norms in SSLE pronunciation Table 29: Parity in Sinhala/Tamil phonological grammar as a causal factor for the emergence of seven selected common pronunciation deviations from SSLE in users of OVSLE Table 30: Unique characteristics of the phonological grammar of Tamil as a causal factor for the emergence of ten selected deviations from SSLE and S/OVSLE pronunciation Table 31: Summary of the documented acoustic analysis Table 32: Dialect definition through binarily specifiable features in acoustic files: Corpus I Table 33: Dialect definition through binarily specifiable features n acoustic files: Corpus II Table 34: Dialect definition through binarily specifiable features in acoustic files: Corpus III
viii
99
100
104 107 110 111 112
Figures Figure 1: A suggested taxonomy of dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation Figure 2: Comparing formant movements /ei/ vs /e:/ Figure 3: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for say: SSLE /se:/ Figure 4: Comparing formant movements /ԥݜ/ vs /o:/ Figure 5: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for boat: SSLE /bo:ݚ/ Figure 6: A spectral slice for the dental fricative ș Figure 7: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for think: SSLE /Wࡧ ܼƾN/ Figure 8: Annotated spectrogram and waveform file for /ð/ Figure 9: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for this: SSLE /Gࡧ ܼs/ Figure 10: Comparison of acoustic files for /ݤ/ and/ݕ/ Figure 11: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for pleasure: SSLE /pleݕԥ/ Figure 12: Contrasting the formants for the vowels /ܧ/ and /o/ Figure 13: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for pot: SSLE /pݚܧ/ Figure 14: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for pot: OVSLE /poݚ/ Figure 15: Comparison of acoustic files for /p/ and /f/ Figure 16: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for profit: SSLE Figure 17: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for profit: OVSLE /frܧfܼݚ/ Figure 18: Comparison of acoustic files for /s/ and /ݕ/ Figure 19: Annotated spectrogram and waveform file for sunshine: SSLE /sݞnݕain/ Figure 20: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for Sunshine: OVSLE /ݞݕnݕain/ Figure 21: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for school: SSLE /sku:l/ Figure 22: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for school: OVSLE /ܼsku:l/ ix
15 33 34 35 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 47 48
49 51 52 53 54 56
58 59
Figure 23: Comparison of acoustic files for /s/, /z/ and /ܱ/ Figure 24: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for zero: SSLE /zi:ro/ Figure 25: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for zero: OVSLE /si:ro/, [ܱi:ro] Figure 26: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for film: SSLE /fܼlm/ Figure 27: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for film: OVSLE /pܼlܼm/, /flܼm/
61 62 63 64 65
Figure 28: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for library SSLE /laibrԥrܼ/ Figure 29: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for Library: OVSLE, omission of the syllable /rԥ/ OVSLE: /laibrܼ/ Figure 30: Spectral slices and formants of the vowels /ܤ/æ/and/ܭ/ Figure 31: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for slap:SSLE /slæp/ Figure 32: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files forslap: OVSLE
67
/slæp/, [slܤS]
74
Figure 33: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for January: OVSLE /ܱܤQԥݜԥUܼ/, [ܱܭnԥݜԥrܼ] Figure 34: Comparison of acoustic files for /p/and /b/ Figure 35: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for blouse: SSLE /blaus/ Figure 36: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for blouse: OVSLE/blaus/ [plaus] Figure 37: Comparison of acoustic files for /t/and /d/ Figure 38: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for accident: SSLE Figure 39: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for accident: OVSLE Figure 40: Comparison of acoustic files for /k/and /g/ Figure 41: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for Ganeshan: SSLE /gܤQH ݕԥQ/ Figure 42: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for Ganeshan: OVSLE /gܤQH VԥQ/; [kܤQH VԥQ] Figure 43: Comparison of acoustic files for /s/, /ݕ/and/c/ Figure 44: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for support: SSLE /sԥpo:ݚ/ Figure 45: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for support: x
68 73
75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
OVSLE /ݞݕpo:ݚ/[cݞpo:]ݚ Figure 46: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for hopeless: SSLE /ho:plԥs/ Figure 47: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for hopeless: OVSLE /hܧ:plԥs/, [o:plԥs] Figure 48: Comparison of acoustic files for /t/, /r/ Figure 49: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for train: SSLE /ݚre:n/ Figure 50: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for train: OVSLE /ݚre:n/, [re:n] Figure 51: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for silk: SSLE /sܼlk/ Figure 52: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for silk: OVSLE /sܼlܼk/, [sܼlܼk݁], [sܼlܼkk݁] Figure 53: Spectral file for /j/ in a jV context Mannell (2008) Figure 54: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for mail: SSLE /me:l/ Figure 55: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for mail:
88 89 90
91 93 94 95 96
OVSLE /me:O/, [mejܼl]
97
Figure 56: A taxonomy for dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation
114
xi
Appendices Appendix A: Recorded lemma in literature which give rise to pronunciation deviations from SSLE in OVSLE bilinguals and sources Appendix B: Recorded lemmas which give rise to pronunciation deviations from SSLE and S/OVSLE in T/OVSLE bilinguals and sources Appendix C: Questionnaire- Schematic evaluation of bilingual profiles: Sinhala/Sri Lankan English Appendix D: Questionnaire- Schematic evaluation of bilingual profiles: Tamil/Sri Lankan English $SSHQGL[( 5HVSRQGHQW¶VOLVWRIZRUGVIRUSURQXQFiation measurements $SSHQGL[) 'DWDFROOHFWRU¶VZRUGOLVWIRr pronunciation measurements $SSHQGL[* 'DWDFROOHFWRU¶VDVVHVVPHQWRI6/(SURQXQFLDWLRQLQ Sinhala/SLE or Tamil/SLE bilinguals Appendix H: Guidelines for data collection Appendix I: Vowels and formant values for General American English pronunciation Appendix J: Measurements of the vowels of Standard Southern British English pronunciation
xii
123 124 125 126 127 129 130 132 133 134
An acoustic analysis of selected norm forming and norm deviating pronunciation characteristics in dialects of Sri Lankan English :KHQWKHIXJLWLYHVRI(SKUDLPVDLGµ/HWPHJRRYHU¶WKHPHQRI*LOHDGVDLGXQWR KLPµ$UWWKRXDQ(SKUDLPLWH"¶,IKHVDLGµ1D\¶WKHQVDLGWKH\ XQWRKLP µ6D\QRZ 6KLEEROHWK¶ DQG KH VDLG µ6LEEROHWK¶ IRU KH FRXOG QRW IUDPH WR SURQRXQFH LW ULJKW then they laid hold on him and slew him at the fords of Jordan. (Judges 12: 5-6) Introduction 1.1 Sociolinguistic dynamics Confirmation of the prevalence of the sociolinguistic phenomenon dialectal variation in pronunciation as far back as in biblical times is aptly conveyed through the above extract from Judges. According to Kemmer (2011) the dialect1 of the Ephraimites lacked the phoneme /ݕ/ while the dialect of the Gileadites did include such a phoneme. Thus /ݕ/ was a marked phoneme in the language specific markedness constraint rankings of the dialect of Ephraimites. Retreating to the unmarked /s/ in the enunciation of the word Shibboleth2 (/ܼݕbԥlԥș/)3 an Ephraimite µVDLGSibboleth for he could not frame to pronounce LW ULJKW¶. This political importance of dialectal variation in pronunciation has not waned since then. Within the sociolinguistic sphere of Sri Lanka Gunesekera (2005) identifies two main dialectal divisions in Sri Lankan English (SLE): a norm forming acrolect Standard SLE (SSLE) and Other Varieties of SLE (OVSLE) which create the µ3RVWFolonial Identity of 6UL /DQNDQ (QJOLVK¶ 7KH PRVW VDOLHQW OLQJXLVWLF IHDWXUH which denies parity to these sociolects is pronunciation. Phonological deviations grant a prestigious identity to the user of SSLE and acts as an exclusionary 1
A dialect is a speech variety of a language which is characteristic of a particular group of speakers who is set off from others. This variety is distinguished from other varieties of the same language by features of the phonology (phonetics and pronunciation), grammar, and usage of vocabulary (Oxford English Dictionary, online links: http://dictionary.oed.com/ and http:// dictionary.reference.com/). Most language varieties used by a speech population are roofed by a related standard variety. 2 According to Kemmer (2011) the word shibboleth originated from the Hebrew word shibbólet which means either ear of grain or flowing stream and is used as a linguistic password. It symbolizes a way of speaking that is used by one set of people to identify another person as a member or a non-member of a particular group. 3 Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Eighth edition (2010). 1
mechanism for the users of OVSLE ZKRDUHVWUDWLILHGDVµWKH\ZKRFRXOGQRWIUDPH to pronounce it righW¶2QHSKRQRORJLFDOIHDWXUHZKLFKLGHQWLILHVthe user of OVSLE is the substitution of /s/ for /ݕ/ which was a fatal mistake for the Ephraimites µZKR FRXOG QRW IUDPH WR SURQRXQFH¶ 6KLEEROHWK DQG LQVWHDG µVDLG 6LEEROHWK¶. But sociolinguistically WKH DGDJH µZKHQ D SKRQHPH LV QRW DYDLODEOH WKH OHDUQHU ZLOO substitute some other phone from the native stRFN¶ /DGR EHDUVSURRIWKDW such substitutions are natural, nonelective and nonvolitional and spring from disparities in the language specific marked constraint rankings of two languages in contact settings. Literature bears evidence to attest that most phonological conventions which are recognized as distinctive features in the dialects of SLE: SSLE and OVSLE are no fortuitous occurrences. They are, according to linguists (Fernando, C. 1976; Fernando, S. 1988; Gunesekera, 2005; Kandiah, 1965, 1981), the products of a systemic nativization of British English (BE) pronunciation by the speaker of Sinhala/Tamil in Sri Lanka. These nativized pronunciation patterns, in their ultimate origin are the results, particularly, of the speaker of Sinhala/Tamil4 reorganizing the VRXQGVRI(QJOLVKE\µVXEVWLWXWLQJWKHPRUHIDPLOLDUFRPIRUWDEOHVRXQGV¶ )HUQDQGR 1988: 72) for the unfamiliar, in the process of becoming a bilingual. The domino effect created culminates in the fossilization of linguistic items, rules and subsystems Sinhala/Tamil speakers retain when they attempt to operate in English. This process has resulted in the formation of the unique phonological structure which consists of an important component of the µ3RVWcolonial identity of Sri Lankan EnJOLVK¶ (Gunesekera, 2005). 1.2 Typology of SLE bilingualism Sri Lanka is a multiethnic nation with a multilinguistic construct. In Sri Lanka there are two main vernaculars: Sinhala and Tamil. According to Gunesekera (2005: 4
This study, for all discussions on Tamil sought extensive guidance and input from three consultants who hold first degrees in Linguistics/Tamil, are T/SSLE bilinguals with Tamil as their L1. This was deemed necessary as I am an S/SSLE bilingual with Sinhala as my first language with a rudimentary understanding of Tamil. Consultant 1: Kavitha Rajarathnam, B. A. (Hons.) in Linguistics, University of Peradeniya; M. A. in Linguistics, University of Kelaniya. Lecturer, Department of Linguistics, University of Kelaniya. 2. Vijitha Sivapalan, B. A. (Hons.) in Tamil, University of Peradeniya. Assistant Lecturer, Department of Linguistics, University of Kelaniya. 2
123) within the bilingual speech communities a minority considers SSLE as their first language (L1). Thus for the majority of Sri Lankans Sinhala or Tamil is L1 and SLE is the second language (L2) in their code repertoire. The latter consists of Sinhala/Sri Lankan English (S/SLE) and Tamil/Sri Lankan English (T/SLE) bilingual speech populations. The main influence on S/SLE pronunciation is the language specific markedness constraint ranking of Sinhala. The T/SLE bilingual is a user of µ7DPLO (QJOLVK¶DFRLQDJHE\*XQHVHNHUD 2005: 37) whRVWDWHVWKDWLWµVKRZVWKHLQIOXHQFH RI 7DPLO RQ (QJOLVK¶ LELG $V µ7DPLO (QJOLVK¶ µVKRZV WKH LQIOXHQFH RI 7DPLO RQ (QJOLVK¶UHFRJQLWLRQLVIRU DOOELOLQJXDOSRSXODWLRQVZKRVH(QJOLVKLVLQIOXHQFHGE\ Tamil: the ethnically Tamil and a majority of the ethnically Muslim bilinguals. According to the 2011 census the estimated % population of Sri Lanka by ethnic group is as follows: Estimated % population of Sri Lanka by ethnic group (2011) Sinhalese Sri Lanka Tamil Indian Tamil Sri Lanka Moor Burgher Malay Other
74.9 11.2 4.2 9.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
Source: Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka. Census of Population and Housing (2011) Population by ethnic group according to districts, 2012: A2.5
In the above statistics the total Tamil speech population = Sri Lanka Tamil + Indian Tamil + the majority of the Sri Lanka Moor and Malay populations. This roughly approximates 24.8% of the total population of Sri Lanka. Bilingualism is multifarious in the Sri Lankan population as the following statistics exemplify. Literacy in a given language is predominantly determined by ethnic affiliations of the person.
5
(Retrieved 2 February, 2013). http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=pop42&gp=Activities&tpl =3 3
Table: 1 Population aged 10 years and over, by ability to read and write languages by ethnic group (2011)
Ethnic group All groups Sinhala Sri Lanka Tamil Indian Tamil Sri Lanka Moor Burgher Malay All Other
Population 10 years Literacy (%) and over Sinhala Tamil English 16,782.244 79.4 26.5 30.5 12,646,686 96.4 5.0 30.7 1,855,696 17.4 94.0 24.0 683,871 19.7 86.1 18.8 1,500,834 39.9 94.9 39.7 32,187 79.5 22.4 98.2 41,412 80.4 97.6 67.0 21,558 61.4 40.5 75.0
Source: Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka (2011)6
As indicated in the table above literacy of Tamil is very high not only in the Tamil communities but also in Sri Lanka Moors and Malays (94.9% and 97.6% respectively) and a significant percentage (39.7 and 80.4% respectively) of them have literacy in Sinhala. Note that literacy in Tamil is a low 5.0% in the Sinhala populations. Furthermore the literacy in English documented above does not signify the use of one dialect. Though many scholars have qualitatively analyzed dialectal variation of Sri Lankan English, codified endonorms for SSLE pronunciation and identified deviations which characterize users of OVSLE acoustic documentation has been neglected. 1.3 The importance of acoustic documentation Himmelmann (2006: 5) VWDWHVWKDWµlanguage documentation is concerned with the methods, tools, and theoretical underpinnings for compiling a representative and lasting multipurpose record of a natural language or one of its varieties¶. He further states that these primary data compiled in a structured corpus have to be made 6
The above table of provisional data was obtained from Ms. A. Egodawatta, Statistician, Department of Census and Statistics through personal communication on 10 January, 2014. It is an extract from Table 28 which can be retrieved from: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/Pages/Activities/Reports/5cph2011/Table28.pdf 4
accessible by various types of annotations and commentary (ibid: 11). Moreover according to -DVVHP µWKHQXPEHURIODQJXDJHVZKLFKKDYHEHHQDQDO\]HG E\WKHPHWKRGVRIDFRXVWLFSKRQHWLFVLVVWLOOYHU\VHYHUHO\OLPLWHG¶7KXVWRILOOLQWKLV void in Sri Lankan English this book conducts a comparative scrutiny of phonetic manifestations where different realizations of the same lexical unit by case study subjects are recorded and analyzed. A representative population of case study subjects for the emergence of identified pronunciation features is scouted and shortlisted through field observation. Variation of pronunciation as used by the members of speech communities is examined devoid RISDVVLQJµSUHVFULSWLYHMXGJPHQWVDERXWKRZZHOOWKH\VSHDNRUKRZWKH\VKRXOGRU VKRXOG QRW EH XVLQJ WKHLU ODQJXDJH¶ 5LFNIRUG 1). Additionally as sociolinguists should also e[DPLQHµWKHPLFUROHYHORIWKHLQGLYLGXDOSURQXQFLDWLRQ¶ (Hudson, 1996: 2) acoustic recordings of word token elicitations construct waveform and spectrographic information on core areas of pronunciation variation across SSLE and OVSLE speech populations and within OVSLE speech populations. Thus under investigation in this acoustic documentation is the sociolinguistic phenomenon dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation. Does the osmosis of the disparity in the language specific markedness constraint rankings of Sinhala and Tamil into SLE pronunciation diversely influence the Sinhala/Tamil bilingual speech populations symptomizing dissection in dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation? 1.4 Contact linguistic dynamics Contact linguistic dynamics between the language specific markedness constraint rankings of the historical input variety BE and the two vernaculars of the country: Sinhala and Tamil has resulted in the creation of a prestigious, norm forming variety SSLE and OVSLE. All these varieties espouse some norms of BE. The diversity of these varieties of SLE is more robustly evidenced in pronunciation than in grammar and vocabulary, in the segmental more than the supra segmental. Thus the focus of this book is on lexical phonology where diverse realization of segmental tokens in lexicon nullifies the homogenizing of SLE pronunciation. Within the speech populations of SLE the following typology is identified: 1. Adherence to SSLE phonological norms due to the influence of the parity in language specific markedness constraints of Sinhala/Tamil identifies Sinhala/Sri Lankan English (S/SSLE) and Tamil/Sri Lankan English (T/SSLE) 5
bilingual speech communities respectively. They, together, form one entity in the typology: the user of SSLE. The table below records the 5 norm forming deviations from SBE pronunciation in the user of SSLE shortlisted from Gunesekera (2005: 121) for the purpose of acoustic documentation which constructs corpus I in this study. Table 2: Selected core norms of SSLE pronunciation for compiling lexical tokens in the test instrument for acoustic documentation
2. A more intense influence from the vernaculars differentiates the OVSLE from the SSLE speech populations. Here too the parity in language specific markedness constraints of Sinhala/Tamil generates common areas of deviation from SSLE recorded by Gunesekera (2005: 126). Listed in Table 3 below are pronunciation deviations from SSLE selected for acoustic documentation which forms corpus II. Table 3: Selected common deviations from SSLE pronunciation in OVSLE populations for compiling lexical tokens in the test instrument for acoustic documentation.
6
3. Several distinctive language specific markedness constraints unique to Tamil influence the branching out of the user of Tamil/Other Variety of SLE (T/OVSLE) from the Sinhala/Other Variety of SLE (S/OVSLE) bilingual speech communities. These differential characteristics reflect areas other than the common areas of deviation from SSLE pronunciation norms identified in Table 3 above. Surveying literature on Tamil/Learner English bilingualism (Karunakaran, 2010; Narasimhan, 2001; Sivapalan et al., 2010) Table 4 below compiles 10 pronunciation characteristics unique in T/OVSLE populations and constructs corpus III. Table 4: Selected deviations from SSLE pronunciation unique in T/OVSLE populations for compiling lexical tokens in the test instrument for acoustic documentation
Analyzed recordings of controlled stimulus auditory elicitations collated with a compilation of transliterations and acoustic files detailing the phonetic realization of target segmental features in lexical tokens yield acoustic evidence for dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation. The examined speech populations consist of representative case study participants across S/SSLE, T/SSLE, S/OVSLE, T/OVSLE bilingual populations.
7
2 Causal factors for nativization of pronunciation: Influence form vernaculars 2.1 Markedness and associated theories Markedness theory has contributed to a general understanding of the tendencies of simplification adopted by weak L2 learners of English during phonological realization of lexis. The feature-evaluation of this study is restricted to phonological markedness. According to Broselow (1984) Markedness theory states that there are phonological universals which are phonological patterns common to all known languages. They are divided into two categories unmarked, (common and regularly occurring phenomena), or inversely, as being marked (distinctive and unique phenomena). Stating that Markedness is one of the most widely used concepts in phonology Hume (2010: 80) adds the following to markedness descriptors. Unmarked natural general simple more frequent acquired earlier more phonetically variable articulatorily simple universal Ubiquitous
Marked less natural specialized complex less frequent acquired later less phonetically variable DUWLFXODWRULO\GLI¿FXOW language-VSHFL¿F parochial
The Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; 2¶*UDG\ HW DO LQYHVWLJDWHV W\SRORJLFDO XQLYHUVDOV E\ FRPSDULQJ WKH UHODWLYH markedness of structures in the L1 and the L2 of a bilingual as a phonological relationship between two sounds of a binary-valued (for example voiced-voiceless) category. Linguists Pallier et al (2004), Rowe and Legvine (2011) too classify sounds in terms of binary pairs that contrast in markedness. Amongst them Rowe and Levine (2011: 84) define markedness as a contrast in complexity of the sounds in binary pairs and state the following, One member of each pair would be designated as unmarked while the other is marked. The unmarked member of the pair would be considered more basic or natural than the other member. The marked member of the pair therefore would be thought of as more complicated, less expected to occur, and less 8
plausible. For instance, in the pair composed of the bilabial stops, /b/ and /p/, /p/ may be thought of as more basic than /b/. This is based on the fact that /p/ is unvoiced and /b/ is voiced. That is, /b/ can be considered to be /p/ plus voice. Phonological analysis conducted in most theoretical frameworks, past and present, routinely invoke segmental markedness constraints in languages which results in emergence of the unmarked. The theoretical underpinning for markedness parameters is classified as follows: Marked Aspirates Fricatives Diphthongs Voiced obstruents Complex syllable margins (onsets and codas) 6. Violates the SSP 7. Non-anterior consonants 8. Lower back vowels 9. Less rounded vowels 10. Higher vowels 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Unmarked Unaspirates Stops Monophthongs Voiceless obstruents Simple syllable margins
Source Sloat et al -doKubozono Sloat et al Eckman
Abides by the SSP Anterior7 consonants Higher back vowels More rounded vowels Low-front vowels
Yavas Sloat et al De Lacy Eckman -do-
(1978) (2001) (1978) (1977) (2006) (1978) (2006a) (1977)
Additionally the above classification signifies the validity of the Expense of Effort tenet of Markedness (Kirchner, 2001) which claims that greater articulatory effort equates to greater markedness. Articulatory effort is defined as the amount of energy required to move from one articulatory gesture to the next. Based on these tenets of Markedness Theory the influence of Sinhala and Tamil on SLE bilingual pronunciation resulting in dialectal deviation is analyzed.
7
Phonemes formed at the alveolar ridge or anywhere in front of it. front of mouth = [+anterior] back of mouth = [±anterior] 9
2.2 Influence of Sinhala and Tamil on S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilingual pronunciation Several SSLE norms which deviate from the donor SBE pronunciation are the resultants of the influence of Sinhala/Tamil diglossic practices. For example, according to Karunatillake (2001) in Sinhala the familiar phonological practice ಫwherever an aspirated stop is found written it is equated phonemically with the FRUUHVSRQGLQJ XQDVSLUDWHG VWRS¶ is due to retreat to the unmarked phoneme. This diglossic practice influences pronunciation of SBE word initial stops [p h], [th] and [kh]. Thus the deaspiration of these plosives, a norm in SSLE identified by Gunesekera (2005: 120), is argued as due to the transference of a familiar practice in Sinhala. Similarly in Sri Lankan Tamil these aspirated sounds do not carry a phonemic value. According to Gair (1998: 194) µTamil lacks aspirates¶ in its phonemic inventory. Thus influenced by the markedness of aspirated sounds in their L1s the S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilinguals deaspirate the word initial plosive aspirates of SBE. Furthermore the use of the long monophthongs for the diphthongs /eܼ/ and /oݜ/ too is retreating from the marked, unfamiliar to the unmarked familiar. Contrasted with SBE both Sinhala and Tamil have only two diphthongs: /ai/ and /au/. As a result the SBE diphthongs /ei/ and /oݜ/ are high in the markedness in the phonological grammars of Sinhala and Tamil. Thus less expense of effort is identified as a causal factor for this nativization and markedness too places all diphthongs at a higher level of difficulty in pronunciation than monophthongs. This retreat is a codified norm in SSLE pronunciation. Retreating to the unmarked in the enunciation of consonant sounds /șèݤ/due to their nonoccurrence in the Sinhala and Tamil phonological structures too are features of SSLE pronunciation. Provision of acoustic evidence for 5 codified norms of SSLE pronunciation identified by Gunesekera, (2005: 126) and the parity in the adherence to the norms in S/SSLE and T/SSLE speech populations is an objective of this study. This objective selects the 5 core endonorms of SSLE (§ see Table 2) for acoustic investigation. These are deviations from SBE pronunciation which symptomize faithfulness to the language specific markedness of Sinhala/Tamil in SSLE user bilinguals. Utilizing contrastive analysis of spectra, formant settings and waveforms this objective assembles evidence that areas of parity in the markedness ranking of the phonologies of Sinhala/Tamil influenced the S/SSLE, T/SSLE case study 10
participants to be unfaithful to SBE pronunciation in these 5 core endonorms of SSLE. The parity in the adherence to the norms in S/SSLE and T/SSLE speech populations is examined across 22 word token elicitations. This endeavour aims to validate the representation of these two populations as one entity in the dialectal taxonomy of SLE pronunciation. 2.3 Influence of Sinhala and Tamil on common deviations from SSLE in OVSLE bilingual pronunciation During the diglossic transference from codified written norms of Literary Tamil to Standard Spoken Tamil Schiffman (2001: 18) and Matiki (2010: 395) identify a number of phonological processes that include retreat to simple syllables, devoicing, monophthongization, vowel lowering, epenthesis and deletion. Similarly literature on the evolution of the phonology of Sinhala and its diglossic nature (Chandralal, 2010; Dharmadasa, 2011; Gair, 1998; Gunasekara, 1891; Karunatillake, 1989; 2001) provides evidence that retreat to simple syllables, devoicing, monophthongization, vowel lowering, epenthesis and deletion are common pronunciation practices occurring at a high frequency in Sinhala discourse too. The transference of these diglossic practices to SLE pronunciation is evidenced in S/OVSLE and T//OVSLE bilinguals. Confronted with the absence of phonemes too these bilinguals retreat to the unmarked. For example the following pronunciation features are evidenced in S/OVSLE and T//OVSLE bilinguals. 1. /ܧ/ is a marked phoneme in both Sinhala and Tamil. This leads to the confusion between /ܧ/ and the unmarked familiar /o/. 2. Infiltration of the alien phone /f/ in English into the discourse of Sinhala necessitated the inclusion of its orthographic representation in the Sinhala alphabet but yet causes pronunciation difficulties such as substitution of /p/ for /f/ and over use of /f/ in Written and Spoken Sinhala. In Tamil the ancient symbol aaytam is added into modern orthography specifically to denote the alien sounds /f/ and /z/. When placed before the grapheme denoting /p/ and the grantha letter for j the aaytam forms the sounds /f/ and /z/ respectively. For example, the combination aaytam + /p/ represents 11
the corresponding fricative /f/, borrowed from SBE into the periphery of Tamil phonology. Karunakaran (2010), Narasimhan (2001) and Sivapalan, et al (2010) state that in T/learner English users substitution of /p/ for /f/ is a common feature. 3. The orthographic free variation of /s/, /ݕ/ and /ݔ/ in Written Sinhala and the coalescence of the two sibilants /ݕ/ and /ݔ/ with the dental sibilant /s/ in Spoken Sinhala when transferred to SLE discourse identifies a common deviation from SSLE in OVSLE speech populations. Karunatillake (2001: 14) states that there was a coalescence of the three sibilants /s/, /ݕ/ and /ݔ/ with the dental sibilant /s/ in all positions within a word in Old Sinhala SKRQRORJ\ µ7KH SKRQHPLF FRQVHTXHQFH RI WKLV FKDQJH LV WKH loss of the three-ZD\ FRQWUDVW DPRQJ GHQWDO UHWURIOH[ SDODWDO VLbilants of Old Indo Aryan in Old Sinhala¶ Influenced by this diglossic practice in Sinhala the S/OVSLE bilinguals confuse and free vary the emergence of /s/ and /ݕ/ in SLE discourse. In Tamil [s] and [ ]ݕare allophones of /c/. Though letters from the grantha script can be used to represent these sounds, the grapheme for /c/ is used very often in orthography. Rules of phonological grammar in Tamil identify the correct emergence in lexical pronunciation. Devoid of such rules when pronouncing English lexica the T/OVSLE bilinguals confuse and free vary the emergence of [s] ~ []ݕ. 4. The diglossic practice of inserting the lax front close vowel /ܼ/ before word onset consonant clusters commencing with /s/, expressly in loanwords from Sanskrit is a feature in spoken Sinhala and Tamil. These dispreferred onset clusters are marked syllables in both languages. Thus to resolve the difficulty, the speakers of Sinhala and Tamil insert an epenthetic /ܼ/ to break up the illicit cluster and transforms it to a word initial Vs- cluster which is simple and unmarked. Encountering a complex and thus marked syllable margin in English lexica the OVSLE bilinguals, retreat to the unmarked making the syllable margin convert to a legal form in the Sinhala/Tamil. 12
The Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eckman, 1977) recognizes that these modifications are due to the degree of difference in markedness in the syllables of the two languages. Complex syllable margins (complex onsets and codas) of English which are marked in Spoken Sinhala and Tamil are converted to simple syllable margins by OVSLE bilinguals. 5. /z/ emerging as /s/ in all positions The voiced alveolar fricative /z/ is an absent phoneme in Sinhala and Tamil. Thus retreating to the unvoiced binary equivalent /s/ in all positions of an English word is a feature commonly shared by S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE bilinguals. 6. Word mid epenthesis In Sinhala and Tamil complex word mid and coda clusters are prohibited. Thus the adherence to the sonority sequencing principles of Sinhala and Tamil results in syllable omission and mid word vowel epenthesis. These selected practices identify OVSLE pronunciation. Literature on SLE pronunciation states that the above influences from Sinhala and Tamil are not symptomatic in SSLE pronunciation. These six deviations from endonorms of SSLE commonly shared by S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE populations construct corpus II (§ see Table 3) for acoustic investigation. These are deviations from SBE pronunciation symptomize a more intense faithfulness to the language specific markedness of Sinhala and Tamil in OVSLE user bilinguals. In sum the influence of identified areas of parity in the language specific markedness constraint ranking in Sinhala and Tamil above are causal factors for common deviations from SSLE pronunciation in S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE bilingual speech populations. But there are unique features in Tamil which identify a multitude of disparities between the phonologies of Sinhala and Tamil. 2.4 Unique features in T/OVSLE bilingual pronunciation Tamil has some inherent language specific markedness constraints (when compared to the two other languages of this study Sinhala and English) which disallow and hinder the mapping of source language word phonology in a contact situation. Such an emergence of the unmarked is evidenced during the pronunciation 13
of English words by T/OVSLE bilinguals. Another case in point is that one grapheme in Tamil giving rise to multiple allophones leading to confusion in identifying the correct phone in English lexical pronunciation. The sociolinguistic existence of dialectal variation is strongly evidenced within the T/SLE speech communities in Sri Lanka. The T/SLE speech community, akin to the S/SLE speech community, consists of T/SSLE bilinguals and users of an OVSLE. But what is clearly indicated through analysis is that in a number of characteristics identified in the area of pronunciation T/OVSLE bilinguals differ from the S/OVSLE speech community. What is witnessed is that overlapping areas in Sinhala and Tamil phonologies result in the parity in the S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilinguals¶ adherence to norms of SSLE (§ 2.2). The six common deviations from SSLE in OVSLE bilinguals (§ 2.3) identified by Gunesekera (2005: 126) too are due to the influence of similarity in these phonologies. But a contrastive analysis of the Tamil and SLE phonologies provides confirmation that the influence of Tamil on T/OVSLE bilingual pronunciation is more extensive than the influence of Sinhala in S/OVSLE bilingual pronunciation. The occurrence of ethnographically demarcated further pronunciation deviations in T/OVSLE bilinguals results in the identification of phonemic and phonotactic repairs done to English lexicon identifying unique pronunciation deviations from SSLE in T/OVSLE bilingual speakers. These areas of diversification from SSLE and S/OVSLE users stipulate that the T/OVSLE dialect is a viable separate entity in the taxonomy of dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation. Corpus III (§ Table 4) lists the characteristics unique to T/OVSLE bilingual pronunciation which denotes the influence of the language specific markedness constraint rankings of Tamil on 10 selected areas of pronunciation. Based on the above diversity in the speech populations of SLE a taxonomy is constructed to facilitate the formation of a research question which will be examined through acoustic documentation in this book. 2.5 Construction of a taxonomy for dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation In this endeavour of tracing the evolution of the taxonomy of dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation and the influence of the vernaculars the focus is on speech communitLHV7KHFODVVLFDOVWDWHPHQWE\+\PHV WKDWµ7KHQDWXUDOXQLWIRU 14
VRFLROLQJXLVWLFWD[RQRP\«LVQRWWKHODQJXDJHEXWWKHVSHHFKFRPPXQLW\¶SURYLGHV validation. Figure 1: A suggested taxonomy of dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation SLE pronunciation in bilingual speech populations
Influenced by Sinhala
Influenced by Tamil
S/SLE bilingual speech community
Deviates from SSLE pronunciation norms
T/SLE bilingual speech community
Establishes and adheres to SSLE
Deviates from SSLE pronunciation norms
+
+
Deviates from T/OVSLE pronunciation in ten identified areas
Deviates from S/OVSLE pronunciation in ten identified areas
S/OVSLE speech populations
S/SSLE + T/SSLE
SSLE speech populations
T/OVSLE speech populations
Based on the above taxonomy the research question below examines one causal factor for dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation: the influence of the language specific markedness constraint rankings of the two languages Sinhala and Tamil. 15
3. Methodology 3.1Research question and background on Documentary Linguistics Research question: How does a selected population of case study subjects identified as S/SSLE, T/SSLE, S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE bilinguals acoustically differ in the enunciation of selected lexical tokens with a target phonemic/phonotactic feature? This empirical investigation finds validation through the field of Documentary Linguistics. Himmelmann (2006) defines Documentary Linguistics as a field of linguistics concerned with the methods, tools, and theoretical underpinnings for compiling a representative and lasting multipurpose record of a natural language or one of its varieties. Identifying the importance of Documentary Linguistics Himmelmann (2006: 15) further states that its main focus concerns the collection and analysis of an array of primary language data. In the context of this study data collection and analysis consist of systematic recording, annotation and acoustic scrutiny of the spoken language lexical samples collected from case study participants. The explicit concern in Documentary Linguistics is its accountability. The primary data generate transparency in the evaluation of linguistic analyses. Furthermore it satisfies the need for archiving. Documentary linguists identify the close cooperation with and direct involvement of the speech community as another important feature in documenting. Active and collaborative work with community members, both as producers of language material and as co-researchers, is a core feature in Documentary Linguistics. In addition documentation outputs are multifunctional for linguistic research. For instance the recordings of pronunciation deviations within the SLE speech communities identify and provide representative acoustic evidence for the diversity in the lexical pronunciation between SSLE speech communities and users of OVSLE. Sociolinguistically the output documents the pronunciation deviations across two ethnolinguistic speech communities: S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE bilinguals. Furthermore the waveform files and spectrograms are analyzed and processed so it can be understood by researchers of other disciplines and does not require any prior knowledge of the language in question. Thus Documentary Linguistics and language documentation which is the practical aspect of the discipline bring together theory and fieldwork data 16
collections while applying current ethical and collaborative approaches. Tench (1996) introduces a methodology which outlines steps for pronunciation documentation. Out of these two steps which are relevant to this empirical investigation are selected to construct the methodology for acoustic documentation. According to Tench (1996) the researchers must first, study a contrastive overlay of the two pronunciation systems, to determine what is potentially problematic ± vowels, consonants, consonant clusters etc. Then they should record several subjects reading a list of words that contain the potential problem. The first is fulfilled as a contrastive overlay of the relevant vowel, diphthong or consonant inventories of SBE, SSLE Sinhala and Tamil is provided in this book prior to acoustic analysis of each identified feature. The second, record several subjects reading a list of words that contain the potential problem, is conducted through documentation of lexical pronunciation of SSLE, S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE bilingual case study subjects. Prior to recording, careful analysis was utilized to shortlist words that contain evidence for validating the diversity in the pronunciation features identified in the corpora. Thus taxonomy of dialects of SLE is acoustically examined. Evidence is provided through annotated, time-aligned, primary audio recordings. Each annotation is directly aligned to audio recording and combines linguistic analysis with the immediacy of a primary recording. 3.2 Research instruments and participants This study consists of 3 research instruments an initial participant population of 100 and 15 case study subjects. 3.2.1 Instrument I: Questionnaires Instrument I consisted of two questionnaires evaluating the bilingual status of the participants. The participant population for instrument I consisted of 50 S/SLE and 50 T/SLE bilinguals who were respondents to two questionnaires: Schematic evaluation of bilingual profiles: Sinhala/Sri Lankan English (Appendix C) and Schematic evaluation of bilingual profiles: Tamil/Sri Lankan English Bilingual (Appendix D) respectively. The completion of instrument I was followed by instrument II where pronunciation diversity identified the S/SSLE and S/OVSLE populations in the S/SLE bilinguals. Similarly within the T/SLE participants T/SSLE and T/OVSLE was classified. 17
3.2.2 Instrument II: Word List for pronunciation elicitations This research instrument was compiled from lexicon obtained from literature as representing features of OVSLE pronunciation. Appendix A: Recorded lemma in literature which give rise to pronunciation deviations from SSLE in OVSLE bilinguals and sources lists the initial selections and the final list n = 27 of randomly shortlisted word tokens from literature on SLE for pronunciation elicitations. The lexica for investigating the 10 unique pronunciation deviations from SSLE and S/OVSLE in T/OVSLE bilinguals (§ Table 4) were obtained from literature on Tamil bilingualism. Appendix B: Recorded lemmas which give rise to pronunciation deviations from SSLE and S/OVSLE in T/OVSLE bilinguals and sources compiles lemma (n = 23) for pronunciation elicitations. Table 5: Instrument II - Lexical tokens for testing target deviations from SSLE in S/SLE and T/SLE bilinguals
18
The target phonological feature in each lexicon is relatively easy to perceive and define and could be specified binarily for their variety discrimination load. Furthermore the tokens were evaluated for word frequency for English through the Brown Corpus (Francis and Kucera, 1982) and the selected instrument consists of high frequency words. The final compilation of Instrument II consisted of 50 words which examined 17 areas of deviation from SSLE. These 17 areas consists of 7 common pronunciation deviations from SSLE identified by Kandiah (1965, 1980); Fernando, C. (1976); Fernando, S. (1988); Gunesekera (2005) and 10 unique pronunciation deviations from SSLE and S/SSLE compiled from literature on characteristics of T/learner English user pronunciation compiled from Narasimhan (2001), Yang (2010) and Karunakaran (2010). The shortlisting of word tokens was through a random sampling procedure of words cited as examples for learner English user pronunciation in the above studies. 3.2.3 Instrument III: Shortlisted words for acoustic recordings Table 6: Word tokens for acoustic recordings
19
The words in the above table were shortlisted from Table 5: Instrument II for testing target phoneme/phonotactic features in the case study elicitations. The criteria for selection was to fulfil three aims of this study which is to provide evidence for the following: S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilinguals unite in their adherence to the norms of SSLE; T/OVSLE bilinguals and S/OVSLE bilinguals share common deviations from norms of SSLE; T/OVSLE bilinguals deviate from S/OVSLE and S/OVSLE bilinguals due to further faithfulness to unique markedness constraint rankings of Tamil. 3.3 Participant selection procedure for acoustic documentation The procedure had the participants completing the questionnaire and facing an interview where data collectors evaluated pronunciation elicitations. 10 data collectors formed 5 panels. The data collectors were staff members of the English Language Teaching Unit (University of Kelaniya). They were graduates who had read English as a subject with post graduate qualifications in Linguistics. In all data collecting procedures I instructed and supervised the personnel involved and was a parallel data collector. Each member of the data collecting team had exposure to Linguistics, could transcribe using IPA and was sensitive to pronunciation deviations from SSLE. Their word list had the target deviation in pronunciation highlighted (Appendix F). Other deviations which might occur were noted down against the word. Each data collector was provided the following material. Appendix E 5HVSRQGHQW¶VOLVWRIZRUGVIRUSURQXQFLDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWV Appendix F: 'DWDFROOHFWRU¶VZRUGOLVWIRUSURQXQFLDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWV Appendix G: 'DWD FROOHFWRU¶V assessment of SLE pronunciation in S/SLE or T/SLE bilinguals Appendix H: Guidelines for data collection Each respondent was interviewed by a panel of two data collectors. On arrival at the examining locale the respondents handed over their completed questionnaires and read the 50 word list (Appendix E) provided to them. They were required to pronounce each word with maximum clarity. The two data collectors recorded whether the target deviation from SSLE was evidenced in the pronunciation of each word. The perceptive accuracy was dependent on both data collectors perceiving evidence for the target deviation from SSLE in a participant. 20
3.3.1 Shortlisting final populations for acoustic documentation Firstly the investigative procedure restricted the selection, based on the information given in the questionnaires, to respondents who self-claimed that they were S/SLE and T/SLE bilinguals. 3 respondents claimed SLE was their L1 and thus were eliminated. Then the requirement criteria calculated the self-assessed overall proficiency and skills in Sinhala/Tamil and English in the remaining 97 participants. LQWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH UHMHFWHG GXH WR GDWD FROOHFWRUV¶ SHUFHSWLYH GLVDJUHHPHQW RQ the target feature being present in the pronunciation of the respondent. Thus the final population statistics was n = 100 ± (3 + 8) = 89. From the 89 participants 4 had to be eliminated due to lack of core data in the questionnaires/elicitation forms leaving a population of 85. This population consisted of 47 S/SLE and 38 T/SSLE bilinguals. 3.3.1.1 The SSLE user population Aiming to identify the S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilinguals from the population of 47 S/SLE and 38 T/SSLE bilinguals the elicitation documentation of these participants were scrutinized. 10/47 S/SLE and 9/38 T/SLE bilinguals did not evidence pronunciation deviations from SSLE in all the 50 word elicitations. They were recognized as users of SSLE. Thus n = 37 for the S/OVSLE participant population while for the T/OVSLE n = 29. A further rationale perfected this selection. 3.3.1.2 Rationale for OVSLE user classification The following four core variables obtained from deviations from SSLE norms recorded in literature were the instruments for final identification prior to shortlisting S/OVSLE (n = 37) and T/OVSLE (n = 29) participants for acoustic documentation. The selected populations had to evidence at least two of the following core deviations from SSLE to be shortlisted as users of OVSLE. 1. Confusion of /o/ and /ܧ/ and overuse of /ܧ/ 2. Confusion of /p/ and /f/ and over use of /f/ 3. Free variation between /ݕ/ for /s/ 4. Insertion of lax front close vowel /ܼ/ before word onset consonant clusters commencing with /s/ Eight lexica were selected for each of the above categories in instrument II and of the eight the participant had to evidence at least 4 target characteristics to be shortlisted as a user of OVSLE. 21
The first shortlisting resulted in S/OVSLE: n = 37 and T/OVSLE: n = 29 participants selected. Then for acoustic documentation the shortlisting procedure was selective or purposive sampling. 3.4 Case study selection procedures 3.4.1 Case study participants: The linguistic profile 3.4.1.1 The SSLE speaker case study subjects From the 10 S/SSLE and 9 T/SSLE bilinguals who did not evidence pronunciation deviations from SSLE in the 50 word elicitations 1 S/SSLE and 1 T/SSLE bilingual were randomly selected as case study subjects for acoustic documentation. Case studies (CS) 1 and 2: Subjects for the acoustic recordings of SSLE pronunciation. Both case study participants were obtained under the defining criteria that they were speakers SSLE. CS 1 is an S/SSLE bilingual while CS 2 is a T/SSLE bilingual. They identified themselves as equvilinguals but stated that their respective mother tongues, Sinhala/Tamil, were the dominant language. CS 1: An S/SSLE bilingual, 23 years of age residing in Colombo, Sri Lanka with primary secondary education in Sinhala medium. She is an English medium undergraduate and was identified by a panel of 4 as a user of SSLE. Zero knowledge of Tamil. CS 2: A T/SSLE bilingual, 21 years of age who resides in Jaffna, Sri Lanka and obtained primary, secondary education in English medium in Jaffna. A panel of 4 identified her as a user of SSLE. Has a rudimentary understanding of Spoken Sinhala. The following table lists the word tokens selected to examine the parity in the emergent norm forming deviations from SBE pronunciation which classifying SSLE pronunciation.
22
Table 7: Selected criteria for classifying SSLE pronunciation.
3.4.1.2 The OVSLE speaker case study subjects 3.4.1.2.1 The selection procedure Following the shortlisting of S/OVSLE: n = 37 and T/OVSLE: n = 29 undergraduate participants for acoustic documentation the procedure utilized selective or purposive sampling for the selection of 13 OVSLE speaker case study subjects. But the procedure was unable to identify T/OVSLE case study subjects for three areas of deviation from SSLE and S/OVSLE bilingual pronunciation. These T/OVSLE case study subjects (CS 5, CS 9 and CS 12) were scouted from outside the main locale which was the University of Kelaniya. 23
This selection was conducted through the collaborative input and long term observations of 10 field assistants who scouted for habitual users of identified area/s of OVSLE pronunciation. Three of the scouts were Tamil, two Muslim and 5 Sinhala in ethnicity. 10 S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE case study participants were obtained from the undergraduate population of this study. After shortlisting they were scouted by the temporary assistant lecturers and this researcher to ascertain whether they habitually used the identified pronunciation deviation. The contribution of the field assistants was of importance to the identification of case studies and their scouting was within the locale of the university as well as outside within the Western Province, Sri Lanka. Outside field observation was required in three instances where an identified unique T/OVSLE feature was not present within the undergraduate populations. The identification of the case studies with these three unique T/OVSLE features took over six months of scouting, more than one month of conducting the questionnaire-interview procedures prior to acoustic documentation. The mode was purposive sampling. The ethnic taxonomy in the case study sample is a requirement of this investigation. Thus the multi ethnic group of field assistants perceptively observed the selected deviations in the OVSLE bilingual case study participants and assisted the field acoustic recordings which were done under maximum sound disturbance control conditions. All OVSLE case study subjects were required to read the 50 word list (Appendix E) for the second time. The basic criterion for selection was the evidencing of all four deviations from SSLE which construct the core variables: o/ܧ, f/p, s/ݕ, ܼ+s. Then the participants were selected based on the occurrence of one or more of the target pronunciation deviations from SSLE (§ 1-17 in Table 6). Though some of the participants had a low proficiency in English their ability to read high frequency words was tested prior to selection. Two elicitation procedures required provision of prior triggering. In CS 11: T/OVSLE bilingual speaker who was specifically selected for the pronunciation of the token support as [cݞpo:t] WKH TXHVWLRQ µZKR ZLOO \RX VXSSRUW LQ WKH HOHFWLRQ"¶ JHQHUDWHG WKH DQVZHU µ, VXSSRUW [cݞpo:t] BBBBBB¶ 7KHQ VKH ZDV DVNHG WR UHSHDW WKH word for recording. In CS 5 the elicitation for zero was obtained through the presentation of the numeral along with the word token. She was told to name the numeral in English.
24
3.4.1.2.2 OVSLE speaker case study profiles The OVSLE speaker case study subjects range from CS 3 to CS 15. CS 3: S/OVSLE bilingual specifically selected for s/ ݕconfusion in the word token sunshine /ݞݕnݕain/ and syllable omission in the token library which was pronounced as /laibrܼ/, she is a female undergraduate from Pollonnaruwa, Sri Lanka, 22 years of age with Sinhala medium education. This participant records the following core areas of deviation from SSLE: o/ܧ, f/p, i+s and z/s. No knowledge of Tamil. CS 4: T/OVSLE bilingual who is a female undergraduate from Ampara, Sri Lanka, Muslim in ethnicity, 23 years of age with Tamil medium education. She has receptive skills in Sinhala and was selected for satisfying the basic requirement of this study by evidencing the following deviations from SSLE: o/ܧ, d/t. f/p, s/ݕ, i+s, syllable omission and epenthesis. She was specifically selected for the emergence of the word token accident as [akcܼtԥn]. CS 5: T/OVSLE bilingual specifically selected for z Æ ܱ in the word token zero which was enunciated as [ܱi:ro]. Other deviations perceived were that the word token silk was pronounced as [sܼlܼk݁] and mail as [mejܼl] with word mid /j/ epenthesis. She is a female from Jaffna, Sri Lanka, at present with relatives in Colombo 14, Tamil in ethnicity, 42 years of age, Tamil medium education up to secondary level with very low proficiency in English with limited speech production. Zero knowledge of Sinhala. CS 6: S/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for the pronunciation of the token sunshine as /ݞݕnsain/. She is a female undergraduate from Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, Sinhala in ethnicity, 24 years of age, Sinhala medium education. CS 6 evidences the following core deviations from SSLE: o/ܧ, f/p, ܼ+s and syllable omission. No knowledge of Tamil. CS 7: S/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for the pronunciation of the token slap as /slæp/ but January as /ܱܤQԥݜԥUܼ/ Furthermore the use of/ܼ/ epenthesis in the word film and accident emerging as /æksܼܩԥn/ were noted. She is a female undergraduate from Gampaha, Sri Lanka, Sinhala in ethnicity, 22 years of age with Sinhala medium education with average proficiency in English. Rudimentary knowledge of Tamil. CS 8: T/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for the pronunciation of the token January as [ܱܭnԥݜԥrܼ] evidencing /æ/ Æ /ܭ/ 25
substitution. She is a female undergraduate from Jaffna, Tamil in ethnicity, 24 years of age, Tamil medium education. Evidenced the following deviations from SSLE: o/ܧ, f/p, s/ݕ, i+s and æ Æ ܭ. No knowledge of Sinhala. CS 9: T/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for the pronunciation of the token blouseas[plaus] with /b/ to /p/substitution and silk as [sܼlܼkk݁] which indicate an intense influence from Tamil. She is a female from Ampara residing in Colombo at present, Tamil in ethnicity, 35 years of age, Tamil medium education up to grade 10 and with low proficiency in English. No knowledge of Sinhala. CS 10: T/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for the /h/ omission in hopeless and for the pronunciation of the token Ganeshan as [kܤQH VԥQ]. She is a female undergraduate from Kaluthara, Muslim in ethnicity, 21 years of age, Tamil medium education. Basic knowledge of Sinhala. CS 11: T/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for the pronunciation of the token support as [cݞpo:t] with /s/ substituted with /c/ and for the word mid epenthesis of /j/ in the word mail where the pronunciation emerged as [mejܼl]. She is a female undergraduate from Colombo, Muslim in ethnicity, 22 years of age, Tamil medium education to grade 11, with low proficiency in English. She has a basic knowledge of Sinhala. CS 12: T/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for the pronunciation of the token train as [re:n] evidencing the omission of the word initial /t/. She is a female from Jaffna residing in Colombo 12 at present, Tamil in ethnicity, 37 years of age, Tamil medium education with a fair knowledge of English. She has receptive skill of speech in Sinhala. CS 13: S/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for evidencing metathesis the pronunciation of the token film as /flܼm/. She is a female undergraduate from Kurunegala, Sri Lanka, Sinhala in ethnicity, 22 years of age with Sinhala medium education with average proficiency in English. No knowledge of Tamil. CS 14: T/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for the pronunciation of the token film as [pܼlܼm] with /ܼ/ epenthesis between the word final consonantsShe is a female undergraduate from Galle, Sri Lanka, Muslim in ethnicity, 21 years of age, Tamil medium education. She has a basic knowledge of Sinhala. 26
C 15: S/OVSLE bilingual speaker specifically selected for the pronunciation of the token silk as /sܼlܼk/.She is a female undergraduate from Badulla, Sri Lanka, Sinhala in ethnicity, 23 years of age with Sinhala medium education with average proficiency in English. Basic knowledge of Tamil. 3.4.1.2.3 Occurrence of the target deviations from SSLE and OVSLE case study identity All case study subjects were first interviewed to obtain output for pronunciation elicitations of the core 50 words in this study which were categorized under Appendix E: 5HVSRQGHQW¶VOLVWRIZRUGVIRUSURQXQFLDWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWV. Results are recorded in the table below. Table 8: Occurrence of the target deviations from SSLE in OVSLE case study subjects
27
Not tested 3.4.1.2.4 Word tokens for elicitation and OVSLE case study identity After the identification of the case study subjects word tokens as specified in the table below were allocated to them for acoustic recordings. CS 1 and 2 provide acoustic files for SSLE norms of pronunciation for all 22 word tokens (§ see Table 7) and construct the contrastive group for the OVSLE case study population.
Table 9: Word tokens for elicitation and OVSLE case study identity
3.5 Procedure for acoustic recordings of lexical elicitations A PowerPoint representation of 22 English lexical items, each with a targeted phoneme or phonotactic construction, obtained from literature as creating pronunciation deviations in S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE bilinguals was used as an 28
instrument. The lexical properties are evaluated for word frequency for English through the Brown Corpus (Francis and Kucera, 1982) and are selected from the high frequency words. Recordings are done in laboratory conditions and a few elicitations in the field under maximum sound interference control conditions. Through language documentation procedures more scientific evidence for selected pronunciation features is accrued through word token elicitations of case study participants who are representatives for S/SSLE, T/SSLE; S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE bilinguals. The documented acoustic analyses provide annotated spectrograms and waveform files. These annotated spectrograms and waveform files compile corpora. 4. Acoustic evidence for dialectal variation in SLE Acoustic theory (Hay et al., 2006; Hillenbrand et al., 2006; Jassem, 2009) leads to the prediction that through speech recordings the source signals can be modelled as independent from the filter characteristics of the vocal tract. This is fundamental to acoustic phonetics, to formant-based speech synthesis, and to linear predictive coding which allows formants to be tracked digitally. A sound file is a visual representation of acoustic signals. These signals are displayed through waveform files with degrees of amplitude at various frequencies. Amplitude is the magnitude of the wave: how high it goes on the y-axis. The intensity of each component is shown by the degree of darkness (Ladefoged, 2006: 185) Spectrograms record frequency in Hz and are used to visualize formants. According to Ladefoged (2001, 2006) formants are the distinguishing or meaningful frequency components of human speech. For example the information that is required to distinguish between vowels can be represented purely quantitatively by the frequency content of the vowel formants. Ladefoged (2006: 182) further states that the formant with the lowest frequency is called F1, the second F2, and the third F3. On the spectrograms formants appear as the darkest areas. Acoustically, formants are the frequency regions of greatest intensity and the lines indicate formants changing over time. The frequency of a formant can satisfactorily be given by the frequency of its center. This study uses the software Praat to document acoustic files. According to Styler (2012) Praat identifies how many formants it will find, and how spread out those formants will be within a spectrogram. In all formant values for vowels cited for comparison purposes the sources of this study are Hayes (2013) (see Appendix I) and 'HWHUGLQJ¶V measurements of the vowels of Standard Southern British 29
English (SSBE) pronunciation8 (Appendix J). 'HWHUGLQJ¶V FRUSXV FRQWDLQV WKH pronunciation of five male and five female BBC broadcasters and the average values for formants for the male and female speakers are listed. The need for two sources arise due to 1. Absence of formants for the vowel /o/, the short vowels /ܧ/and / ܤin most listing in literature which are recorded in Hayes (2013). The table demonstrates vowels as pronounced by Bruce Hayes an American male. 2. Deterding (1990: 49) records a female/male differenciation in SSBE vowel enunciation and in the listing the gender difference is notable. Furthermore Kent (1997), Ladefoged (2006), Seikel et al (2005) declare that there is speaker-dependence to some extent in formant values. They state that the actual values of the formant frequencies will depend on the head size (or vocal tract length) of the speaker. But they concur that the values of the frequencies of F1 and F2 are sufficient to distinguish most vowel contrasts in most languages. 4.1 Criteria for acoustic recordings In individual audio-recording sessions of lexical elicitations of the 22 English lexical items (§ Table 6) each with a targeted phoneme or phonotactic construction was conducted utilizing Praat. Each acoustic file is annotated using Charis Sil, a font which is compatible with the software Pratt. The annotated spectrogram and waveform files provide statistics on frequency, time duration, phonemic boundaries and shows the formants F1, F2 and F3. The frequency ranges were adjusted to suit the clarity of a target phoneme in the spectra. It would be a high 8000 Hz for /s/ but a low 5000 Hz for vowels such as /o/. The lexical item on the right hand side of the file, adjacent to the annotating tier, records the word the speaker sees on the screen. To obtain the necessary data for analysis, speech recordings were made from a pool of 15 subjects. They were all healthy adults who had no known speech pathologies. The speakers were asked to keep a distance of 10-12 inches from the microphone. The recording of the lexical tokens were done using the Nundo speech processing software. In most instances a professional recording studio was chosen to 8
Handbook of the International Phonetic Association Page 4 states that Standard Southern British English (where 'Standard' should not be taken as implying a value judgment of 'correctness') is the modern equivalent of what has been called 'Received Pronunciation' (RP). It is an accent of the South East of England which operates as a prestige norm there and (to varying degrees) in other parts of the British Isles and beyond. 30
record the tokens but some elicitations were done in a field environment where maximum control was used to avoid disturbances. The equipment consisted of an integrated noise free Audiotechnica microphone. The spectrograms and waveform files of the recorded speech tokens were analyzed with Praat version 4.6.27. The window shape is Gaussian. 4.2 Corpus I: 5 selected lexical tokens with identified norm forming features of SSLE pronunciation (Gunesekera, 2005: 121, 122) in comparison to SBE This corpus aims to 1. Acoustically validate the emergence of five core norm forming SSLE characteristics codified by Gunesekera (2005: 121) in SSLE users. 2. Illustrate that there is parity in the two S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilinguals of this study in six common deviations from SSLE as the retreat to the unmarked is from the parity in markedness constraint rankings of their diverse L1s Sinhala and Tamil. Participants: The recorded files compare the elicitations of lexical tokens obtained from CS 1 and 2: an S/SSLE and a T/SSLE bilingual speaker. The 5 selected norm forming features of SSLE (Gunesekera, ibid) with the selected lexical tokens are as follows. Table 10: Core norm forming paradigms of SSLE selected for investigation
The main causal factor for the deviation from SBE pronunciation in the above core areas is the faithfulness to the language specific markedness constraints of Sinhala/Tamil which mark the SBE /eܼ, ԥ ݜè ș ݤ/ in their respective 31
phonological grammars. Thus influenced separately by their respective L1s, Sinhala and Tamil, the S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilinguals evidence the emergence of the unmarked /e:, o:, Gࡧ , Wࡧ , ݕ/for the marked phonemes in their respective L1s. The parity in the emergence is due to the influence of the commonalities in the overlay of the phonologies of Sinhala and Tamil. Confirmation of the parity is compiled through acoustic evidence drawn from CS 1 and 2 who are S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilinguals respectively.
4.2.1 Retreat of the SBE diphthongs /ei/ and /ԥݜ/ to the unmarked /e:/ and /o:/ respectively Markedness places all diphthongs at a higher level of difficulty in pronunciation than monophthongs which are easier to produce (Kubozono, 2001). This is due to the fact that diphthongs consist of sequences of two adjacent vowels pronounced together, the two vocalic elements being members of the same syllable. As illustrated in the table below Sinhala and Tamil diphthong inventories, in parity, signify the presence of only two diphthongs /ai/ and /aݜ/. Thus /eܼ/ and /ԥݜ/ are marked in the vernaculars. Table 11: Contrasting the diphthong inventories of SBE, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil
Thus the nativization process of SBE pronunciation results in the two diphthongs /ei/ and /ԥݜ/ undergo gliding omission. Thus these two diphthongs are realized in SSLEas/e:/ and /o:/. This is retreat to the unmarked as the organs of speech have to perform perceptible movement for a diphthong whereas for a vowel they remain approximately stationary.
32
Furthermore according to (Deterding, 2000: 96) µif a vowel is indeed realized as a long monophthong random variation would predict that the unchanging quality of the vowel is measured with a small positive Rate of Change¶. The long monophthong /e:/ in the pronunciation of the token say by both S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilingual speaker exhibited a positive ROC, as shown in Table 13 below, evidencing that the enunciations contained the long vowel /e:/ instead of the SBE diphthong /ei/. Table 13: Average Rate of Change in Hz/sec for the monophthong /e:/ in two SSLE case study participants Bilingual speaker /e:/ S/SSLE say T/SSLE
Start F1 (Hz) 224 288
End F1 (Hz) 232 295
Change (Hz) 08 07
Duration (sec) 0.162 0.180
ROC (Hz/sec) +49.3 +38.8
What is evidenced through the positive average ROCs in the above table is that the SSLE speaker substitutes the long vowel /e:/ when compared against the negative ROC recorded in Table 12 for the diphthong /ei/ by a British speaker. Notice the parity in the positive emergence of the long vowel in S/SSLE and T/SSLE subjects. Thus the above documentations provide acoustic evidence for a norm forming feature of SSLE codified by Gunesekera (2005: 121) µWKHXVHRIWKHORQJYRZHOH instead of the S%(GLSKWKRQJHL¶. 4.2.1.2 The use of the long vowel /o:/ in SSLE for the diphthong /ԥݜ/ in SBE Figure 4: Comparing formant movements /ԥݜ/ vs /o:/ (Mannell, 2008) (b) Long vowel /o:/ (a) Diphthong /ԥݜ/
35
Source: Sectional spectral slices from Mannell (2008) (Retrieved on January 04, 2013). http://clas.mq.edu.au/acoustics/vowels/vowel_v00/v00_hode.html and horde.html9
Theory (Deterding, 2000; Ladefoged, 2006; Styler, 2012) on spectral analysis states that front vowels have F2 closer to F3 than to F1. Note that in the mid vowel /ԥ/ the F2 is straddled at roughly equal distance by F3 and F1 while in the back vowel /o:/ the F2 is closer to F1 than to F3. In the following documentations scrutiny is on the pronunciation of the orthographic combination oa in the token boat which emerges in SBE as /ԥݜ/. /ԥݜ/ can be classified as a closing diphthong and Deterding (2000: 97) records its average ROC = -1387 Hz/sec in a British speaker. 4.2.1.2.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word boat SSLE: /bo:ݚ/ Figure 5: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for boat: SSLE /bo:ݚ/ (a) S/SSLE bilingual speaker (b) T/SSLE bilingual speaker burst (CS 2) /bo:ݚ/ (CS 1) /bo:ݚ/
A stop is an oral occlusive, a consonant in which the vocal tract is blocked so that all airflow ceases. The silent interval during the occlusion is seen as a light band on the spectrum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_consonant 9
The release burst which is seen in the waveform is indicated by the dark band following the light band in the spectra.
The sample word on the website is horde. Though the pronunciation in OALD (2010) is /hܧ:d/ Mannell (2008) records it as /ho:d/ and provides the spectral slice for /o:/. 36
Disussing F2 frequencies Ladefoged (ibid) states that they are higher for front vowels lower for back vowels. /o/ is a half close back vowel in SSLE (Gunesekera, 2005: 117). Note the low F1 and the low F2 which defines /o/. Notice that there is a dip in F2 in the above files unlike in the formants for /o/ in Figure 4. According to Hayward (2000) plosives modify the placement of formants in the surrounding vowels. Note that in the above files /o:/ is couched between 2 plosives. Drawing attention to the two consonants /b/ and /ݚ/ in the spectrograms above according to Styler (2012) voiced consonants such as /b/ contrary to the voiceless, show strong acoustic energy at a very low frequency. This corresponds to the vibrating of the vocal cords. Since the pronunciation of voiceless consonants such as /ݚ/ does not involve vibrating of the vocal cords, this strong band is not found at the bottom of their spectra. Also note the periodicity10 in voiced /b/ and the aperiodic dark noise of /ݚ/ in the waveforms and the high amplitude of 11 /o/. Deterding (2000) states that the voiced bilabial /b/ has the weakest burst in plosives. Thus it is hardly seen, when compared to /ݚ/ in the above waveforms. Notice 10
Periodic waves repeat some portion over and over again. In speech, this reflects the vibrations of the vocal folds during voicing. Aperiodic waves are random rather than repetitive. Darkness is amplitude, the aperiodic sounds normally have a dark shape. Source: http://clas.mq.edu.au/acoustics/waveforms/speech_waveforms.html The following is the waveform of the utterance not got room for, with periodic and aperiodic activity.
In the above illustration along the x-axis the waveform measurement is time and the y-axis measures amplitude. 11 According to Truax (2001) amplitude is the maximum displacement of a periodic wave. It is also the height of a wave and is used to describe the instantaneous value of a varying waveform. Amplitude is also related to the energy of the wave. 37
the complete silent interval during the occlusion of the voiceless /ݚ/ which is indicated by the light band on the spectra followed by a release burst which is seen in the waveforms and is indicated by the dark area in the spectra. But the most important measurement in this instant is the average ROC for the monophthong /o:/ which is given below. Table 14: The average Rate of Change in Hz/sec for the monophthong /o:/ by two SSLE case study participants
Bilingual speaker S/SSLE T/SSLE
Boat /o:/
Start F1 (Hz) 339 459
End F1 (Hz) 396 498
Change (Hz) 57 39
Duration ROC (sec) (Hz/sec) 0.131 +435 0.114 +342
Compare the ROCs for /o:/ of the SSLE users with /ԥݜ/ of SBE for which Deterding (2000: 97) records an average ROC = -1387 Hz/sec. The positive ROC in the SSLE users denotes that the diphtongization is lacking. Notice the parity in the positive emergence of the long vowel in S/SSLE and T/SSLE subjects. Thus this study presents DFRXVWLF HYLGHQFH IRU µWKH XVH RI WKH ORQJ YRZHO R instead of the SBE diphthong /ԥݜ/¶ in SSLE (Gunesekera, 2005: 121). 4.2.2 The emergence of the dental stops /Wࡧ and /Gࡧ / in SSLE for the SBE dental fricatives ș and /ð/ As illustrated in the table below ș and /ð/ are marked phonemes in SSLE. Markedness theory states that a marked fricative in the constraint ranking of a language retreats to an unmarked plosive in contact situations. In this instant the retreat is influenced by the unmarkedness of /Wࡧ and /Gࡧ / in the two vernaculars Sinhala and Tamil. Thus what is witnessed is that influenced by the language specific markedness rankings of Sinhala and Tamil the retreat of the marked SBE dental fricatives ș and /ð/ to the unmarked dental stops /Wࡧ and /Gࡧ / in SSLE. Expense of Effort, a tenet in the Markedness Theory too validates such a retreat. The interdental fricatives ș and /ð/ require a higher expense of effort than the dental plosives /Wࡧ and /Gࡧ /. Thus ș and /ð/ are higher in markedness than /Wࡧ and /Gࡧ /.
38
Table 15: Contrasting the consonant inventories of RP: ș and /ð/, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil: /Wࡧ and /Gࡧ / RP Roach (2004: 243)
Sinhala Wasala, Gamage (2005: 474)
Wࡧ
Wࡧ 12
Tamil Gair et al (2005: xix)
Gࡧ
Gࡧ 13
[Gࡧ ]
SSLE Gunesekera (2005: 117)
Wࡧ
ș ð
Acoustic evidence for this retreat to the unmarked is compiled below. 4.2.2.1 The emergence of the dental stop /Wࡧ for the SBE dental fricative ș The annotated spectrogram and waveform files and the formant settings in the spectrogram in the elicitation for think bear evidence for the codification by Gunesekera (2005) that the dental voiceless fricative ș of SBE (șܼƾN/) is substituted as a voiceless dental plosive /Wࡧ / (/Wࡧ ܼƾN/) at word initial position by the SSLE user. This feature is given credence by the S/SSLE as well as the T/SSLE case study subjects. Figure 6: A spectral VOLFHIRUWKHGHQWDOIULFDWLYHș
Source: Extract from http://metaphorlookout.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/praat consonants-the-bigvoicedunvoiced-test (Retrieved on January 04, 2013).
12 13
Wasala, Gamage (2005: 474) denote the dental plosive as /t/ Wasala, Gamage (2005: 474) denote the dental plosive as /d/ 39
In the above spectrograms the emergence of the dental voiceless plosive /Wࡧ / at the initial position of the word think is evidenced. The aperiodicity of the waveform LQGLFDWHVLW¶VDYRLFHOHVVVRXQGThe spectrograms show the word onset to be a stop rather than a fricative. The complete silent interval during the occlusion of the stop is indicated by the lack of activity on the spectra and the following release burst which is noticed in the waveform and the dark band in the spectrogram. There are no noticeable frequencies in higher region to show that it is a fricative. Note that the chaotic mix of random frequencies signifying the friction in the fricative ș (§ see Figure 6) is not evidenced in the plosive /Wࡧ / of the SSLE speaker CS 1. But in the pronunciation of CS 2 a slight fricative chaos is evidenced in the formants of the spectrogram. As /Wࡧ / and /ș are both voiceless there are no strong bottom bands. Also note that the F1 values for ș and /Wࡧ / straddle the 1000 Hz range. Thus the annotated spectrogram and waveform files provide DFRXVWLFHYLGHQFHIRUµWKHXVHRIWKHdental stop /Wࡧ / in SSLE for of the dental fricative /ș LQ6%(¶ *XQHVHNHUD Furthermore the lack of strong bottom bands in /Wࡧ / and /ș is of importance as their voiced counterparts /ð/ and /Gࡧ /documented below are differentiated through the lower frequency of F1. 4.2.2.2 The use of the dental stop /Gࡧ / for the SBE dental fricative /ð/ Following is a Spectrogram and waveform file for /ð/. Figure 8: Spectrogram and waveform file for /ð/
Source: Extract from http://metaphorlookout.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/praat-consonants-the-bigvoicedunvoiced-tesW(Retrieved on January 04, 2013). 41
binary equivalents in contact situations. In this instant the retreat is influenced by the unmarkedness of voiceless /ݕ/ in the two vernaculars Sinhala and Tamil which is the binary equivalent to the voiced /ݤ/ in SBE. Thus what is witnessed is the retreat of the SBE voiced /ݤ/ to the unmarked voiceless /ݕ/ in SSLE. Table 16: Contrasting the consonant inventories of RP: /ݤ/, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil: /ݕ/
Acoustic evidence for this emergence is provided below. 4.2.3.1 The use of voiceless palatal fricative /ݕ/ instead of the voiced /ݤ/ in SBE Figure 10 below contrasts spectrogram and waveform files for /ݤ/ and/ݕ/. Figure 10: Comparison of acoustic files for /ݤ/ and/ݕ/
Source: Extracts from http://clas.mq.edu.au/acoustics/waveforms/speech_waveforms.html (Retrieved on January 04, 2013).
According to Ladefoged (2006: 194) /ݕ/the voiceless counterpart of /ݤ/isalmost as dark with a centre at 2500 Hz. As illustrated above the spectral slice /ݕ/ has no strong band at the bottom and have more formants which are more confused than in 43
The dark aperiodic and the high amplitude waves on the waveform of /ݕ/, especially in CS 1, indicate that there is a lot of acoustic energy being produced. In CS 2 the acoustic energy generated for /ݕ/ is less. In sum note the parity in the emergence of the unmarked in the two S/SSLE and T/SSLE case study participants in the core pronunciation areas selected for documentation in this book. Table 17: Evidence for parity in core norm forming pronunciation areas selected by this study in S/SSLE, T/SSLE bilinguals
Thus acoustic validation for the emergence of five core norm forming SSLE characteristics codified by Gunesekera (2005: 121) in SSLE users is provided by the above spectrographic and wave form analyses. This parity in the retreat to the unmarked is due to the overlap in the markedness constraint rankings for the above SBE sounds in their L1s Sinhala and Tamil. This evidence adds further justification to the suggested unitary position S/SSLE and T/SSLE bilinguals in the taxonomy of dialectal variation in SLE pronunciation. 4.3 Corpus II: Seven selected lexical tokens each with a target pronunciation deviation from SSLE (Gunesekera, 2005: 126) in bilingual users of OVSLE This section provides documentation of pronunciation for seven selected lexical tokens. Each of them is pronounced by S/SSLE, T/SSLE, S/OVSLE, T/OVSLE bilingual participants for contrastive purposes. One feature: word mid syllable omission, is added to the six features identified in a prior listing (§ see Table 3) by this study. This addition was done through long term observation which identified word mid syllable omission as a pronunciation feature in the OVSLE populations of University of Kelaniya. 45
4.3.1 Comparison of vowel formants Hayes (2013), Kent (1997), 2¶&RQQRU and Styler (2012) set down the following as general rules of vowel formants: 1. A close vowel and an open vowel, respectively describe the jaw as open or closed. Vowel height is inversely correlated to F1 thus higher the F1 value, the lower (more open) the vowel. 2. F2 denotes the frontness of the vowel. Back vowels have low F2 frequencies while front vowels have high F2 frequencies. 3. F3 indicates the exolabial quality of a vowel. Catford (1988: 150) states that exolabial rounding involves vertical compression of the corners of the mouth, µOHDYLQJ D VPDOO FHQWUDO FKDQQHO EHWZHHQ WKH OLSV RI D VOLW-OLNH ÀDW HOOLSWLFDO shape rather than actually round.This gesture is exolabial since it involves the outer surface of the lipV¶ /DGHIRJHG DQG 0DGGLHVRQ VXJJHVW WKDW µXsually front vowels are more rounded than back vowels and the higher a back vowel is, the more intense the rounding. According to Ladefoged (2006: 188) µOLSURXQGLQJLVJHQHUDOO\FKDUDFWHUL]HGE\WKHORZHULQJRIWKHVHFRQGDQGWKLUG formants. 4.3.1.1 The back vowels /o/ and /ܧ/ of SSLE Both /ܧ/ and /o/ are back vowels in SSLE (Gunesekera, 2005: 117) the contrast is in the open/close positions and roundness of the vowels. /o/ which is a half close vowel in SSLE (ibid) will have a lower F1 formant than the mid vowel /ܧ/. In contrast while the vowels /o/ and /o:/ are absent in SBE the presence of /ܥ/ the nearly open, back, weakly rounded vocoid is evidenced as indicated in the table below. Table 18: Contrasting the inventories of the back vowels /o/, /ܧ/ and /ܥ/ in RP, SSLE, Sinhala and Tamil
46
Against this background the pronunciation for the word pot is examined for S/SSLE and T/SSLE parity and OVSLE deviation from SSLE pronunciation norms. 4.3.1.2.1 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word pot SSLE: /pݚܧ/ Figure 13: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for pot: SSLE /pݚܧ/ (a) S/SSLE bilingual speaker) (b) T/SSLE bilingual speaker (CS 1) /pݚܧ/ (CS 2) /pݚܧ/
The formant settings in Hz for the vowel /ܧ/: CS 1 CS 2 F1 F2 F3 F1 F2 F3 508 1234 3684 544 1222 3732 In Hayes (2013) (Appendix I) F1 for /ܧ/ it is 541Hz. Note the parity in the emergence of /ܧ/ where the faithfulness is aligned to SBE as /ܧ/ is a marked vowel in Sinhala and Tamil. 4.3.1.2.2 Documentation of the pronunciation of the word pot OVSLE: /poݚ/ In Hayes (2013) (Appendix I) F1 for /o/ it is 406Hz. Observe the lower F1 when compared to /ܧ/ and also note the lowering of F2 and F3. This reflects the strong affinity to the markedness constraint rankings of the L1s and a retreat to the unmarked. 48
Figure 14: Annotated spectrogram and waveform files for pot: OVSLE /poݚ/ (a) S/OVSLE bilingual speaker (b) T/OVSLE bilingual speaker (CS 3) /poݚ/ (CS 4) /poݚ/
The formant settings in Hz for the vowel /o/: (a) S/OVSLE bilingual speaker F1 F2 F3 400 1111 3550
(b) MDT/OVSLE bilingual speaker F1 F2 F3 436 1143 3483
Comparing the average formants of the back vowels /o/ and /ܧ/: F1 F2 F3 Average /o/ OVSLE: 418 1127 3516 Hz 526 1178 3708 Hz Average /ܧ/ SSLE: These findings clearly specify that the word pot is pronounced by SSLE participants as /pݚܧ/ and OVSLE participants as /poȗ/. What is acoustically validated are *XQHVHNHUD¶V 121) observations that µLQ 66/( R DQG /ܧ/ are distinct SKRQHPHV¶and µFRQIXVLRQEHWZHHQRDQG /ܧ/¶identifies a deviation from norms of SSLE. Thus the codification of the back vowels /o/ and /ܧ/ in SSLE by Gunesekera (2005: 117) is confirmed as in all four case study participants for the enunciation of the vowel in the token pot they emerged as vowels less open and more rounded than the SSBE vowel /ܥ/. 49
4.3.2 Substitution for an alien superstrate phoneme + retreat to the unmarked: /f/ to /p/ Historical evidence illustrate that the infiltration of an alien phone, SBE /f/ into the discourse of Sinhala and Tamil has caused pronunciation difficulties to S/OVSLE and T/OVSLE bilinguals. Thus they resort to the practice of retreat to the unmarked /p/ due to the resistance generated towards the transfer of the alien superstrate /f/. This resistance is generated as a result of the asymmetric language specific rankings of SBE and Sinhala and Tamil phonological grammars and the preference for less expense of effort. 4.3.2.1 Comparison of Expense of Effort in /p/ and /f/ /f/ is a labio-dental fricative and the substitution /p/ is a bilabial stop. Fricatives are different from stops in that they are made by the lower lips moving towards the upper teeth forming a constriction that does not completely obstruct the flow of air out of the mouth. Furthermore fricatives result in the generation of a turbulent airflow. Stops are sounds that are produced by completely stopping the flow of air in the oral cavity. The feature continuant distinguishes stops from fricatives. Fricatives are +continuant while stops are ± continuant&OHPHQWV VWDWHWKDWµ&RQWLQXDQWV are formed with a vocal tract configuration allowing the airstream to flow through the mid saggital region of the oral tract and stops are produced with a sustained occlusion LQWKLVUHJLRQ¶7KXV%RHUVPD FRQFOXGHVµIULFDWLYHVDUHFRPSOH[VLQFHWKH correct spatial relationship between the active and passive articulators must be very precisely controlOHG LQ RUGHU WR PDLQWDLQ WXUEXOHQW DLUIORZ¶ $FFRUGLQJ WR
