Cover not available
Part of
Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics: New approaches to variability and change
Edited by Susanne Flach and Martin Hilpert
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 105] 2022
► pp. 68–89

Rhoticity in Southern New Zealand English

An acoustic analysis of the QuakeBox database

| University of Hildesheim
| University of Hildesheim
Though generally considered a non-rhotic variety, New Zealand English (NZE) shows some variation in terms of rhotic vowel colouring, mainly observed in southern New Zealand speakers. The current study uses an acoustic approach to a new audio-visual database, the UC Canterbury QuakeBox (Walsh et al. 2013) to account for variation in the degree of rhotic vowel colouring in southern NZE speakers. Identifying all nurse vowels in the data of eight representative speakers with interview transcripts, auditory perception, and a Praat-based acoustic analysis, rhotic vowel colouring is subsequently rated based on third formant (F3) realization. Results show that southern speakers display rhotic vowel colouring to varying degrees. A mixed-effects model and qualitative interpretation of key speakers further suggest an age-based cline of rhoticity with younger speakers converging on the non-rhotic standard, indicating that this rhotic vowel colouring in Southern speakers may be due to resistance to dialect levelling rather than ongoing differentiation.
Keywords: New Zealand English, rhoticity, r-colouring, sociophonetic analysis, vowel change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Rhoticity in NZE
  • 2.Historical influences and status of NZE
  • 3.Variation in spoken NZE regarding rhoticity
  • 4.The UC QuakeBox database: Project information and general suitability as a linguistic corpus
  • 5.Research questions and methodology
    • 5.1Research questions
    • 5.2Methodology
  • 6.Analysis and results
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Rhoticity in NZE: Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.105.03sch
References (33)
References
Adank, Patti, Smith, Roel & van Hout, Roeland. 2004. A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116: 3099–3107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asprey, Esther C. 2007. Investigating residual rhoticity in a non-rhotic accent. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 78–101.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Christopher M. 1992. Regional variation in New Zealand English: the case of Southland. New Zealand English Newsletter 6: 5–15.Google Scholar
2003. The Southland Variety of New Zealand English: Postvocalic /r/ and the bath Vowel. PhD dissertation, University of Otago.
Bauer, Laurie. 1997. Attempting to trace Scottish influence on New Zealand English. In Englishes around the world, Vol. 2: Caribbean, Africa, Asian, Australasia. Studies in Honour of Manfred Görlach [Varieties of English around the World 19], Edgar W. Schneider (ed.), 257–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Warren, Paul. 2008. New Zealand English: Phonology. In Varieties of English, 3: The Pacific and Australasia. Kate Burridge & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 39–63. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan & Holmes, Janet. 1991. New Zealand. In English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Jenny Cheshire (ed.), 153–168. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyce, Suzanne. E., Hamilton, Sarah M., Scholl, Leah M. & Schmidlin, Sue. 2013. Defining the acoustic targets for correct production of /r/. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language Hearing Association Convention, Atlanta GA.
Campbell, Heather & McAllister Byun, Tara. 2017. Deriving individualised /r/ targets from the acoustics of children’s non-rhotic vowels. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 32(1): 70–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Lynn, MacGougan, Helen, Hay, Jennifer & Walsh, Liam. 2016. ‘Kia ora. This is my earthquake story.’ Multiple applications of a sociolinguistic corpus. Ampersand 3: 13–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delattre, Pierre. 1951. The physiological interpretation of sound spectrograms. PMLA 66(5): 864–875. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delattre, Pierre, Liebermann, Alvin, Cooper, Franklin S. & Gerstmann, Louis J. 1952. An experimental study of the acoustic determinants of vowel color: Observations on one- and two-formant vowels synthesized from spectrographic pattterns. Word 8(3): 195–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeborn, Dennis, French, Peter & Langford, David. 1993. Varieties of English: An Introduction to the Study of Language (2nd edn). London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, Campbell, Lyle, Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret, Sudbury, Andrea & Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New Zealand English: Its Origins and Evolution. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagiwara, Robert. 1995. Acoustic Variation of American /r/ as Produced by Women and Men. PhD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret, & Gordon, Elizabeth. 2008. New Zealand English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Hayward, Katrina. 2000. Experimental Phonetics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heselwood, Barry & Plug, Leendert. 2011. The role of F2 and F3 in the perception of rhoticity: Evidence from listening experiments. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII) (August), 867–870. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1948. Acoustic phonetics. Language 24(2): 5–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2013. The Language of Life and Death: The Transformation of Experience in Oral Narrative. New York NY: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2003. Phonetic Data Analysis: An Introduction to Fieldwork and Instrumental Techniques. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Johnson, Keith. 2015. A Course in Phonetics (7th edn). Belmont CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Moag, Rodney F. 1992. The life cycle of non-native Englishes: A case study. In The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd edn), Braj B. Kachru (ed.), 233–252. Chicago IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Nieto-Castanon, Alfonso, Guenther, Frank H., Perkell, Joseph H. & Curtin, Hugh D. 2005. A modeling investigation of articulatory variability and acoustic stability during American English /r/ pronunciation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117(5): 3196–3212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English. Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schützler, Ole. 2010. Statistical approaches to hierarchical data in sociophonetics: The case of variable rhoticity in Scottish Standard English. In CAMling 2010. Proceedings of the 6th Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research. Chris Cummings, Chi-Hé Elder, Thomas Godard, Morgan Macleod, Elaine Schmidt & George Walkden (eds), 148–158. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research (CILR).Google Scholar
Sharbawi, Salbrina & Deterding, David. 2010. Rhoticity in Brunei English. English World-Wide 31(2): 121–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2007. A sociophonetic investigation of postvocalic /r/ in Glaswegian adolescents. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences ICPhS XVI, 6–10 August 2007, Saarbrücken, Germany, 1449–1452. Saarbrücken: Saarland University.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter, Gordon, Elizabeth, Lewis, Gillian & Maclagan, Margaret. 2000. Determinism in new-dialect formation and the genesis of New Zealand English. Journal of Linguistics 36(2): 299–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter & Hannah, Jean. 1982. International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. 2002. International English. A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English (4th edn). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Walsh, Liam, Hay, Jennifer, Bent, Derek, Grant, Liz, King, Jeanette, Millar, Paul, Papp, Victoria & Watson, Paul. 2013. The UC QuakeBox Project: Creation of a community-focused research archive. New Zealand English Journal 27: 20–32.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English, I: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar