Article published in:
Germanic Heritage Languages in North America: Acquisition, attrition and change
Edited by Janne Bondi Johannessen † and Joseph C. Salmons
[Studies in Language Variation 18] 2015
► pp. 97–116

Heritage Language Obstruent Phonetics and Phonology

American Norwegian and Norwegian-American English

| University of Wisconsin–Madison
| University of Wisconsin–Madison
This chapter explores the acoustics and phonology of speech sounds produced by Norwegian heritage speakers in the Upper Midwest in Norwegian and to a lesser extent in English. The study reports work on acoustic differences in obstruents spoken by heritage speakers whose L1 and L2 are both ‘aspiration’ languages, namely Norwegian and American English, but which differ phonologically in other ways. Our focus falls in particular on laryngeal features, that is, the realization of the distinction between ‘voiced’ and ‘voiceless’ or ‘lenis’ and ‘fortis’ consonants, along with the closely related issue of durational contrasts in Norwegian. Building on Allen and Salmons (2012), we argue that the Norwegian and English spoken by Norwegian-American bilinguals will each show influence from the other language, but asymmetrically.
Keywords: aspiration, duration, laryngeal phonetics, laryngeal phonology, passive voicing, sonorant devoicing
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 20 August 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.18.04all
References
Allen, Brent
2011 “Laryngeal Phonology in Norwegian: Sonorant Devoicing.” Manuscript. University of Wisconsin – Madison.
Allen, Brent and Joseph Salmons
2012 “Obstruenters fonetikk og fonologi i amerikanorsk og norskamerikansk engelsk.” Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift [Norwegian Linguistics Journal] 30: 149–169.Google Scholar
Annear, L., E. Clare, A. Groh, T.C. Purnell, E. Raimy, M. Simonsen and J.C. Salmons
2011 Why do English speakers neutralize VOICING finally? Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV), Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Avery, Peter and William Idsardi
2001 “Laryngeal Dimensions, Completion and Enhancement.” In Distinctive Feature Theory, ed. by T. Alan Hall, 41–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill and Catherine Ringen
2009 “A Typological Investigation of Evidence for [sg] in Fricatives.” Paper Presented at the Manchester Phonology Meeting.
Bradley, Travis G
2002 “Gestural Timing and Derived Environment Effects in Norwegian Clusters.” In WCCFL 21 Proceedings, ed. by Line Mikkelsen and Christopher Potts, 43–56. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
2007 “Morphological Derived-Environment Effects in Gestural Coordination: A Case Study of Norwegian Clusters.” Lingua 117: 950–985. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew
1970 “Vowel Length Variation as a Function of the Voicing of Consonant Environment.” Phonetica 22: 129–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, Fred R. and Gregory K. Iverson
Forthcoming. “Second Language Acquisition and Phonological Change.” In The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology ed. by Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons Oxford Oxford University Press Crossref
Endresen, Rolf Theil
1989 Fonetikk: Ei elementær innføring. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fintoft, Knut
1961 “The Duration of Some Norwegian Speech Sounds.” Phonetica 7: 19–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flege, James E
1987 “The Production of ‘New’ and ‘Similar’ Phones in a Foreign Language: Evidence for the Effect of Equivalence Classification.” Journal of Phonetics 15: 47–65.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar
1953 The Norwegian Language in America (2 vols.). Madison: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hjelde, Arnstein
1992 Trøndsk talemål i Amerika. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
This volume. “Changes in a Norwegian Dialect in America.”
Honeybone, Patrick
2005 “Sharing Makes us Stronger: Process Inhibition and Segmental Structure.” In Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity, ed. by Philip Carr, Jacques Durand and Colin Ewen, 167–192. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
House, Arthur S. and Grant Fairbanks
1953 “The Influence of Consonant Environment Upon the Secondary Acoustical Characteristics of Vowels.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25: 105–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howell, Robert B
1993 “German Immigration and the Development of Regional Variants of American English: Using Contact Theory to Discover Our Roots.” In The German Language in America, ed. by Joseph Salmons, 190–212. Madison: Max Kade Institute.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory and Joseph Salmons
1995 “Aspiration and Laryngeal Representation in Germanic.” Phonology 12: 369–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “Glottal Spreading Bias in Germanic.” Linguistische Berichte 178: 135–151.Google Scholar
2003a “Laryngeal Enhancement in Early Germanic.” Phonology 20: 43–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003b “Legacy Specification in the Laryngeal Phonology of Dutch.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15(2): 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “On the Typology of Final Laryngeal Neutralization: Evolutionary Phonology and Laryngeal Realism.” Theoretical Linguistics 32: 205–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Domains and Directionality in the Evolution of German Final Fortition.” Phonology 24: 121–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Germanic Aspiration: Phonetic Enhancement and Language Contact.” Sprachwissenschaft 33(3): 257–278.Google Scholar
2011 “Final Devoicing and Final Laryngeal Neutralization.” In Companion to Phonology Volume 3, ed. by Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume and Keren Rice, 1622–1643. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi, Joel Priestley, Kristin Hagen, Tor Anders Åfarli and Øystein Alexander Vangsnes
2009 “The Nordic Dialect Corpus — An Advanced Research Tool.” In Proceedings of the 17th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics NODALIDA 2009, NEALT Proceedings Series, Volume 4, ed. by Kristiina Jokinen and Eckhard Bick, online at http://​beta​.visl​.sdu​.dk​/~eckhard​/nodalida​/paper​_26​.pdf.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi and Joseph Salmons
(eds) 2012 Norsk i Amerika. Special issue of the Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift / Norwegian Linguistics Journal 2.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay and Kenneth Stevens
2006 “Enhancement and Overlap in the Speech Chain.” Language 82: 33–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kristoffersen, Gjert
2000 The Phonology of Norwegian. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka
2011 “Phonemically Contrastive Fricatives in Old English?” English Language and Linguistics 15: 31–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moen, Per
1988 “The English Pronunciation of Norwegian-Americans in Four Midwestern States.” American Studies in Scandinavia 20: 105–121.Google Scholar
1991 “The Influence of a Norwegian Substratum on the Pronunciation of Norwegian-Americans in the Upper Midwest.” In Norsk språk i Amerika – Norwegian Language in America, ed. by Botolv Helleland, 97–115. Olso: Novus.Google Scholar
2001 “The English of Norwegian Americans in the Upper Midwest with Special Reference to the Substratum Effect on Syntax and Idioms.” In Global Eurolinguistics: European Languages in North America – Migration, Maintenance and Death, ed. by Sture Ureland, 243–264. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi and Alexei Kochetov
2011 “VOT Across the Generations: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Contact-Induced Change.” Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 6), Freiburg, Germany, June 29. http://​individual​.utoronto​.ca​/ngn​/research​/abstracts​/ICLaVe2011​_abstract​_NagyKochetov​.htm
Nützel, Daniel and Joseph Salmons
2011 “Language Contact and New Dialect Formation: Evidence from German in North America.” Language and Linguistics Compass 5: 705–717. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, G.E. and Ilse Lehiste
1960 “Duration of Syllable Nuclei in English.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32: 693–703. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piske, Thorsten, Ian R.A. MacKay and James E. Flege
2001 “Factors Affecting Degree of Foreign Accent in an L2: A Review.” Journal of Phonetics 29: 191–215. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Popperwell, R.G
1963 The Pronunciation of Norwegian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Purnell, Thomas, Joseph Salmons, Dilara Tepeli and Jennifer Mercer
2005 “Structured Heterogeneity and Change in Laryngeal Phonetics: Upper Midwestern Final Obstruents.” Journal of English Linguistics 33(4): 307–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ringen, Catherine and Wim A. Van Dommelen
2013 “Quantity and laryngeal contrasts in Norwegian.” Journal of Phonetics 41: 479–490. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, Jason
2009 “Understanding the Nature and Outcomes of Early Bilingualism: Romance Languages as Heritage Languages.” The International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2): 155–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simley, Anne
1930 “A Study of Norwegian Dialect in Minnesota.” American Speech 5: 469–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Ellen
2011 “Laryngeal Stop Systems in Contact: Connecting Present-Day Acquisition Findings and Historical Contact Hypotheses.” Diachronica 28: 225–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Sheila E. Blumenstein, Laura Glicksman, Martha Burton, and Kathleen Kurowski
1992 “Acoustic and Perceptual Characteristics of Voicing in Fricatives and Fricative Clusters.” Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 91: 2979–3000. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Coetsem, Frans
1988 Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Van Dommelen, Wim A. and Catherine Ringen
2007 “Intervocalic Fortis and Lenis Stops in a Norwegian Dialect.” Proceedings Fonetik 2007, Stockholm, May 30-June 1, 2007. Speech, Music and Hearing, Quarterly Progress and Status Report, TMH-QPSR 50: 5–8.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert
1998 “The Laryngeal Specifications of Fricatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 497–511. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winford, Donald
2005 “Contact-Induced Changes: Classification and Processes. Diachronica 22: 373–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, Samuel A. and Stanley M. Sapon
1958 “Note on Vowel Duration Seen Crosslinguistically.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 30: 152–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

No author info given
2019.  In Heritage Languages [Studies in Bilingualism, 58], Crossref logo
Hjelde, Arnstein
2015.  In Germanic Heritage Languages in North America [Studies in Language Variation, 18], ► pp. 283 ff. Crossref logo
Petersen, Jan Heegård, Gert Foget Hansen & Jacob Thøgersen
2020. Correlations between linguistic change and linguistic performance among heritage speakers of Danish in Argentina. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10:5 ► pp. 690 ff. Crossref logo
Pierce, Marc, Hans C. Boas & Karen A. Roesch
2015.  In Germanic Heritage Languages in North America [Studies in Language Variation, 18], ► pp. 117 ff. Crossref logo
Putnam, Michael T., Tanja Kupisch & Diego Pascual y Cabo
2018.  In Bilingual Cognition and Language [Studies in Bilingualism, 54], ► pp. 251 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.