+ - 0:00:00
Notes for current slide
Notes for next slide

Variability of word-final /ɔ̃/ in Greater Poland Polish

Poznań Linguistic Meeting 2018

Kamil Kaźmierski & Marta Szlandrowicz

September 13th, 2018

1 / 32

Frequency in Favoring Conditioning (FFC)

2 / 32

Is knowledge of variation stored?

  • Abstractionists: No, only abstract units are stored (Levelt et al. 1999).
3 / 32

Is knowledge of variation stored?

  • Abstractionists: No, only abstract units are stored (Levelt et al. 1999).

  • Rich storage: So what about frequency effects, such as Bybee (2000)?

3 / 32

Is knowledge of variation stored?

  • Abstractionists: No, only abstract units are stored (Levelt et al. 1999).

  • Rich storage: So what about frequency effects, such as Bybee (2000)?

  • A: Well, word-form frequencies are available for online computation.

3 / 32

Is knowledge of variation stored?

  • Abstractionists: No, only abstract units are stored (Levelt et al. 1999).

  • Rich storage: So what about frequency effects, such as Bybee (2000)?

  • A: Well, word-form frequencies are available for online computation.

  • RS: OK, but what about lemma frequency effects, like time vs. thyme (Gahl 2008)?

3 / 32

Is knowledge of variation stored?

  • Abstractionists: No, only abstract units are stored (Levelt et al. 1999).

  • Rich storage: So what about frequency effects, such as Bybee (2000)?

  • A: Well, word-form frequencies are available for online computation.

  • RS: OK, but what about lemma frequency effects, like time vs. thyme (Gahl 2008)?

  • A: Uhm...

3 / 32

Is knowledge of variation stored?

  • Abstractionists: No, only abstract units are stored (Levelt et al. 1999).

  • Rich storage: So what about frequency effects, such as Bybee (2000)?

  • A: Well, word-form frequencies are available for online computation.

  • RS: OK, but what about lemma frequency effects, like time vs. thyme (Gahl 2008)?

  • A: Uhm...

  • RS: And what about typical environment effects like Eddington & Channer (2010), Brown & Raymond (2012) or Seyfarth (2014)?

3 / 32

Is knowledge of variation stored?

  • Abstractionists: No, only abstract units are stored (Levelt et al. 1999).

  • Rich storage: So what about frequency effects, such as Bybee (2000)?

  • A: Well, word-form frequencies are available for online computation.

  • RS: OK, but what about lemma frequency effects, like time vs. thyme (Gahl 2008)?

  • A: Uhm...

  • RS: And what about typical environment effects like Eddington & Channer (2010), Brown & Raymond (2012) or Seyfarth (2014)?

  • A: ...

3 / 32

Transition to next slide: "So what are these effects?"

Bybee, Joan. 2000. The Phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from Lexical Diffusion.

~lexical frequency has affected pre-r schwa-deletion in English, and t/d deletion in English

Effect of typical environment

  • Eddington & Channer (2010): word-final /t/ glottalizes more often in words that typically are followed by consonant-initial words
4 / 32

Effect of typical environment

  • Eddington & Channer (2010): word-final /t/ glottalizes more often in words that typically are followed by consonant-initial words

  • Brown & Raymond (2012): words that typically occur after non-high vowels more often lost word-inifial /f/

4 / 32

Effect of typical environment

  • Eddington & Channer (2010): word-final /t/ glottalizes more often in words that typically are followed by consonant-initial words

  • Brown & Raymond (2012): words that typically occur after non-high vowels more often lost word-inifial /f/

  • Seyfarth (2014): typically predictable words reduce even in unpredictable contexts

4 / 32

Effect of typical environment

  • Eddington & Channer (2010): word-final /t/ glottalizes more often in words that typically are followed by consonant-initial words

  • Brown & Raymond (2012): words that typically occur after non-high vowels more often lost word-inifial /f/

  • Seyfarth (2014): typically predictable words reduce even in unpredictable contexts

  • Frequency in Favoring Conditioning (FFC) (Bybee 2017)

4 / 32

  • Such effects are pooled together in Bybee 2017 and, and she named the relevant factor 'FFC'

  • In this paper: FFC effect on a regional variant

Realization of /ɔ̃/ within words

Realisation Position Example
[ɔw̃] word-finally; before fricatives, except alveolo-palatal idą [idɔw̃]; wąska [vɔw̃ska]
[ɔw̃] ~ [ɔj̃] after a “hard” C, before alveolo-palatal fricatives wąsik [vɔw̃ɕik] ~ [vɔj̃ɕik]
[ɔj̃] after a “soft” C, before alveolo-palatal fricatives (na) wiązie [vjɔj̃ʑe]
[ɔ] or [ɔ̃] before l or w plunąłem [plunɔwɛm]
[ɔm] before bilabial stops or affricates ząbek [zɔmbɛk]
[ɔn] before dental stops or affricates kąt [kɔnt]
[ɔn] or [ɔṇ] before alveolar stops and affricates rączka [rɔṇʨka]
[ɔɲ] before alveolo-palatal affricates piąć [pjɔɲt͡ʂ]
[ɔŋ] before (post-palatal or) velar stops mąka[mɔŋka]
5 / 32

Realization of /ɔ̃/ within words

Realisation Position Example
[ɔw̃] word-finally; before fricatives, except alveolo-palatal idą [idɔw̃]; wąska [vɔw̃ska]
[ɔw̃] ~ [ɔj̃] after a “hard” C, before alveolo-palatal fricatives wąsik [vɔw̃ɕik] ~ [vɔj̃ɕik]
[ɔj̃] after a “soft” C, before alveolo-palatal fricatives (na) wiązie [vjɔj̃ʑe]
[ɔ] or [ɔ̃] before l or w plunąłem [plunɔwɛm]
[ɔm] before bilabial stops or affricates ząbek [zɔmbɛk]
[ɔn] before dental stops or affricates kąt [kɔnt]
[ɔn] or [ɔṇ] before alveolar stops and affricates rączka [rɔṇʨka]
[ɔɲ] before alveolo-palatal affricates piąć [pjɔɲt͡ʂ]
[ɔŋ] before (post-palatal or) velar stops mąka[mɔŋka]
6 / 32

before fricatives - realised with a glide

Realization of /ɔ̃/ within words

Realisation Position Example
[ɔw̃] word-finally; before fricatives, except alveolo-palatal idą [idɔw̃]; wąska [vɔw̃ska]
[ɔw̃] ~ [ɔj̃] after a “hard” C, before alveolo-palatal fricatives wąsik [vɔw̃ɕik] ~ [vɔj̃ɕik]
[ɔj̃] after a “soft” C, before alveolo-palatal fricatives (na) wiązie [vjɔj̃ʑe]
[ɔ] or [ɔ̃] before l or w plunąłem [plunɔwɛm]
[ɔm] before bilabial stops or affricates ząbek [zɔmbɛk]
[ɔn] before dental stops or affricates kąt [kɔnt]
[ɔn] or [ɔṇ] before alveolar stops and affricates rączka [rɔṇʨka]
[ɔɲ] before alveolo-palatal affricates piąć [pjɔɲt͡ʂ]
[ɔŋ] before (post-palatal or) velar stops mąka[mɔŋka]
7 / 32

before stops and affricates - realised with a homorganic stop

Realization of /ɔ̃/ within words

Realisation Position Example
[ɔw̃] word-finally; before fricatives, except alveolo-palatal idą [idɔw̃]; wąska [vɔw̃ska]
[ɔw̃] ~ [ɔj̃] after a “hard” C, before alveolo-palatal fricatives wąsik [vɔw̃ɕik] ~ [vɔj̃ɕik]
[ɔj̃] after a “soft” C, before alveolo-palatal fricatives (na) wiązie [vjɔj̃ʑe]
[ɔ] or [ɔ̃] before l or w plunąłem [plunɔwɛm]
[ɔm] before bilabial stops or affricates ząbek [zɔmbɛk]
[ɔn] before dental stops or affricates kąt [kɔnt]
[ɔn] or [ɔṇ] before alveolar stops and affricates rączka [rɔṇʨka]
[ɔɲ] before alveolo-palatal affricates piąć [pjɔɲt͡ʂ]
[ɔŋ] before (post-palatal or) velar stops mąka[mɔŋka]
8 / 32

before l or w - realised with plain oral vowel

Word-final /ɔ̃/ in Greater Poland Polish

9 / 32

Prescriptive norm:

[ɔw̃]

łodzią [ˈwɔdʑɔw̃]

‘boat-INS.SG’

Nasal stopping:

[ɔm]

łodzią [ˈwɔdʑɔm]

‘boat-INS.SG’

10 / 32

we will refer to as nasal stopping

Actual speakers show variation between the two variants.

łodzią [ˈwɔdʑɔw̃]

‘boat-INS.SG’

łodziom [ˈwɔdʑɔm]

‘boat-DAT.PL’

11 / 32

When the prescriptive norm is followed, such contrasts are maintained.

łodzią [ˈwɔdʑɔm]

‘boat-INS.SG’

łodziom [ˈwɔdʑɔm]

‘boat-DAT.PL’

12 / 32

When nasal stopping is used consistently, such contrasts are neutralized.

łodzią [ˈwɔdʑɔw̃]

‘boat-INS.SG’

łodziom [ˈwɔdʑɔw̃]

‘boat-DAT.PL’

13 / 32

When nasal stopping is avoided - such contrasts are also netrualized (through 'hypercorrection')

"Pomagamy dziecią / Oddajemy Jeżycą"

You could give more examples from Biedrzycki 1978

Change in progress?

Witaszek-Samborska (1985)

  • nasal stopping is 'common' (powszechne) among educated speakers
  • for 23 / 43 speakers stopping exclusive or almost exclusive variant

Kaźmierski et al. (in press)

  • stopping rate among Poznań university students: 25%
  • only for 3 out of 14 speakers prevalence > 50%
14 / 32

1) Don't read all numbers, stick to the gist: For Witaszek-Samborska stopping very frequent (only a little less for the iddle generation), Kaźmierski et al. - rather rare.

2) Current study: all speakers in the same age group, so the question of change can't be addressed directly (no real-time data available here).

3) Also reflect: perhaps different levels of formality/different elicitation tasks,

Education and formality

Baranowska, Karolina. 2018. "Nasal vowels in English and Polish. A comparative analysis and a sociolinguistic study". MA thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University.

15 / 32

1) The highest percentage of stopping overall in the Vocational group.

2) In the 'Higher' group, in 'Formal', stopping drops almost to zero (5%)

3) Style-shifting visible for all educational groups, perhaps except for primary

4) Present study: all subjects university students, formality the same for all

Research questions

RQ1 (Descriptive): Does the initial sound of following words influence the likelihood of nasal stopping?

16 / 32

Research questions

RQ1 (Descriptive): Does the initial sound of following words influence the likelihood of nasal stopping?

RQ2 (Theoretical): Does FFC influence the likelihood of nasal stopping?

16 / 32

FFC = Frequency in Favoring Conditioning

Method

17 / 32

Source of data

Greater Poland Spoken Corpus

wa.amu.edu.pl/korpuswlkp

(Kul & Zydorowicz)

18 / 32

Speakers (N = 64)

19 / 32

20 / 32

21 / 32

Coding

  • outcome: manually as glide or stop (= nasal stopping)
22 / 32

Coding

  • outcome: manually as glide or stop (= nasal stopping)
  • pause: manually as present or absent
22 / 32

Coding

  • outcome: manually as glide or stop (= nasal stopping)
  • pause: manually as present or absent
  • Frequency in Favoring Conditioning from SUBTLEX-PL
    • no. of hits in favoring / in unfavoring conditioning
    • lowest: piszą, różnią, mówią
    • highest: traktują, przypominają, należą
22 / 32

Coding

  • outcome: manually as glide or stop (= nasal stopping)
  • pause: manually as present or absent
  • Frequency in Favoring Conditioning from SUBTLEX-PL
    • no. of hits in favoring / in unfavoring conditioning
    • lowest: piszą, różnią, mówią
    • highest: traktują, przypominają, należą
  • favoring_environment:
    • yes: są bloki /sɔ̃blɔki/
    • no: są spoko /sɔ̃spɔkɔ/
22 / 32

Coding

  • outcome: manually as glide or stop (= nasal stopping)
  • pause: manually as present or absent
  • Frequency in Favoring Conditioning from SUBTLEX-PL
    • no. of hits in favoring / in unfavoring conditioning
    • lowest: piszą, różnią, mówią
    • highest: traktują, przypominają, należą
  • favoring_environment:
    • yes: są bloki /sɔ̃blɔki/
    • no: są spoko /sɔ̃spɔkɔ/
  • frequency discretized based on SUBTLEX-PL
    • low: e.g. trzymają, amerykańską, biegają
    • middle: e.g. całą, grupą, mieszkają
    • high: e.g. są, tą, mają
22 / 32

/dɪˈskriːtʌɪzd/

Example 1: Nasalized glide [-ɔw̃]

mieszkają [-ɔw̃]

23 / 32

no discernible difference in intensity between a vowel and a glide

Example 2: Nasal stop [-ɔm]

moją [-ɔm]

24 / 32

Results

25 / 32

Nasal stopping rate: 53%

26 / 32

Little influence of location or gender

27 / 32
  • the overall rate of nasal stopping around 50%, (higher than Baranowska - more informal??)
  • location and gender don't seem to matter

Environment matters when no pause

pauseyes:favoringyes β = -1.44, p < .001

28 / 32

FFC matters for low and mid freq. words

29 / 32

Frequency matters

30 / 32

Conclusions

RQ1 (Descriptive): Does the initial sound of following words influence the likelihood of nasal stopping?

31 / 32

Conclusions

RQ1 (Descriptive): Does the initial sound of following words influence the likelihood of nasal stopping?

✓ Yes (but only when there is no pause)

31 / 32

Conclusions

RQ1 (Descriptive): Does the initial sound of following words influence the likelihood of nasal stopping?

✓ Yes (but only when there is no pause)

RQ2 (Theoretical): Does FFC influence the likelihood of nasal stopping?

31 / 32

Conclusions

RQ1 (Descriptive): Does the initial sound of following words influence the likelihood of nasal stopping?

✓ Yes (but only when there is no pause)

RQ2 (Theoretical): Does FFC influence the likelihood of nasal stopping?

✓ Yes (but in an interaction with lexical frequency)

31 / 32

Thank you!

Frequency in Favoring Conditioning affects probability of nasal stopping: evidence for rich storage.

kamil.kazmierski@wa.amu.edu.pl

m.szlandrowicz@wp.pl

32 / 32

Frequency in Favoring Conditioning (FFC)

2 / 32
Paused

Help

Keyboard shortcuts

↑, ←, Pg Up, k Go to previous slide
↓, →, Pg Dn, Space, j Go to next slide
Home Go to first slide
End Go to last slide
Number + Return Go to specific slide
b / m / f Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode
c Clone slideshow
p Toggle presenter mode
t Restart the presentation timer
?, h Toggle this help
Esc Back to slideshow