Cover not available
Part of
The Continuity of Linguistic Change: Selected papers in honour of Juan Andrés Villena-Ponsoda
Edited by Matilde Vida-Castro and Antonio Manuel Ávila-Muñoz
[Studies in Language Variation 31] 2024
► pp. 36–55

Chapter 2
A Swedish merger

Production and perception of the short vowels /œ/ and /ɵ/

| Institute for Language and Folklore , Sweden
In Sweden, an ongoing sound change is resulting in the pronunciation of short /œ/ and short /ɵ/ becoming more similar. This chapter examines the relationship between the two sounds in the region of Uppland, situated in Central Sweden. It summarises the results of three tests conducted to investigate the informants’ production and perception of this sound change as well as their attitudes towards it. By combining the results of the production test with the informants’ categorisations in the perception test, the original study showed that those informants with a small phonetic distance between /œ/ and /ɵ/ in their own speech were better at categorising vowel stimuli correctly than the speakers who had a larger phonetic distance.
Keywords: sociophonetics, sound change, perception, vowel, phoneme merger, phonetics, dialectology, Swedish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Production test
    • 3.1Key results of the production test
    • 3.2Contextual effect
  • 4.Perception test
    • 4.1Discussion of the perception test
  • 5.Attitudinal test
  • 6.Comparison between production and perception
    • 6.1Results of the combined analysis
  • 7.Summarising discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.31.02wen
References (52)
References
Allwood, Jens. 2000. Talspråksfrekvenser. Frekvenser för ord och kollokationer i svenskt tal- och skriftspråk [Language frequencies. Frequencies for words and collocations in spoken and written Swedish] (Swedish Gothenburg papers in theoretical linguistics 21). Göteborg: Göteborg University.Google Scholar
Andersson, Roger & Mats Thelander. 1994. Internal migration, biography formation and linguistic change. In Bengt Nordberg (ed.), The sociolinguistics of urbanization. The case of the Nordic countries (Soziolinguistik und Sprachkontakt 7), 51–86. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, Frans Hinskens & Paul Kerswill (eds.). 2005. Dialect change. Convergence and divergence in European languages. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2022. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. [URL]. (16 May, 2022.)Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary. 1999. “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28(2). 203–‍223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks & burnouts. Social categories and identity in the high school. New York, NY & London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice. The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High (Language in Society 27). Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eriksson, Anders & Pär Wretling. 1997. How flexible is the human voice. A case study of mimicry. In George Kokkinakis, Nikos Fakotakis & Evangelos Dermatas (eds.), 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH’97), 1043–1046. Grenoble: European Speech Communication Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, Lisa. 2001. Absolutister, anpassare och andra – något om dialektens betydelse för ungdomars självbild [Absolutists, adapters and others – on the significance of dialect for young people’s self-image]. In Språk, kön och kultur: Rapport från fjärde konferensen om språk och kön, Göteborg den 6.–7. oktober 2000, 101–107.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2004. Investigating chain shifts and mergers. In Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 2), 244–266. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Anita Berit. 2006. Le rôle de la perception dans le changement phonétique – l’exemple des voyelles nasals du français parisien [The role of perception in phonetic change – the example of nasal vowels in Parisian French]. Unpublished manuscript from a colloquium in Louvain-la-Neuve 2006.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1996. Sociolinguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janson, Tore. 1983. Sound change in perception and production. Language 59. 18–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Sound change in perception. An experiment. In John Ohala & Jeri Jaeger (Eds.), Experimental phonology, 253–260. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2005. Speaker Normalization in Speech Perception. In David B. Pisoni & Robert E. Remez (eds.), The Handbook of Speech Perception, 363–389. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 1980. On the nature of contrast in phonology. Evidence from a phoneme merger in South-West Norwegian. Unpublished MPhil dissertation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore. 2015. The primary relevance of subconsciously offered attitudes. Focusing the language ideological aspect of sociolinguistic change. In Alexei Prikhodkine & Dennis R. Preston (eds.), Responses to language varieties: Variability, processes and outcomes, 85–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore & Jens N. Jørgensen. 2005. Subjective factors in dialect convergence and divergence. In Peter Auer, Frans Hinskens & Paul Kerswill (eds.), Dialect change. Convergence and divergence in European languages, 287–302. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuronen, Mikko. 2001. Acoustic character of vowel pronunciation in Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish. Working Papers in Linguistics 49. 94–97. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1981. Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language 57. 267–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors (Language in Society 20). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2: Social factors (Language in Society 29). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Mark Karan & Corey Miller. 1991. Near-mergers and the suspension of phonemic contrast. Language Variation and Change 3. 33–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1967. Three areas of experimental phonetics (Language and Language Learning 15). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In John Ohala & Jeri Jaeger (eds.), Experimental phonology, 13–44. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, Susan Guion, Susan Hura, Seung-Jae Moon & Raquel Willerman. 1995. Is sound change adaptive? Rivista di Linguistica / Italian Journal of Linguistics 7. 5–37.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1986. Patterns of sounds (Cambridge Studies in Speech Science and Communication). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Virginia & Bruno Repp. 1980. Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [Σ]–[s] distinction. Perception and Psychophysics 28. 213–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Kazuko & David Britain. 2003. Investigating the sociolinguistic gender paradox in a multilingual community: A case study from the Republic of Palau. The International Journal of Bilingualism 7(2). 127–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molina-García, Álvaro. 2019. Percepción y distancia acústica: La variación paramétrica individual en la escisión fonemática de /θ/ en el español andaluz. Datos de la ciudad de Málaga [Perception and acoustic distance: The individual parametric variation in phonemic split of /θ/ in Andalusian Spanish. Data of the city of Malaga]. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante 33. 111–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordberg, Bengt. 1971. En undersökning av språket i Eskilstuna [A study of the language in Eskilstuna]. Språkvård 1971(3). 7–15.Google Scholar
. 2001. Samma gamla tal [The same old speech]. Språkvård 2001(2). 31–41.Google Scholar
. 2005. /ö/, /u/ och liknande vokaler [/ö/, /u/ and similar vowels]. In Björn Melander et al.. (eds.), Språk i tid. Studier tillägnade Mats Thelander på 60-årsdagen (Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för Nordiska Språk vid Uppsala Universitet 67), 123–135. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Plauché, Madelaine, Cristina Delogu & John J. Ohala. 1997. Asymmetries in consonant confusion. In George Kokkinakis, Nikos Fakotakis & Evangelos Dermatas (eds.), 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH’97), 2187-2190. Grenoble: European Speech Communication Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preston, Dennis. 2004. Language with an attitude. In Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 39–66. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regan, Brendan. 2020. The split of a fricative merger due to dialect contact and societal changes. A sociophonetic study on Andalusian Spanish read-speech. Language Variation and Change 32(2). 159–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Røyneland, Unn. 2007. Språklege innovatørar og tradisjonalistar. Om kjønnsparadokset i sosiolingvistikken [Linguistic innovators and traditionalists. On the gender paradox in sociolinguistics]. In Gunnstein Akselberg & Johan Myking (eds.), Å sjå samfunnet gjennom språket (Heidersskrift til Helge Sandøy på 60-årsdagen), 179–189. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Simonsen, Hanne G., Inger Moen & Steve Cowen. 2008. Norwegian retroflex stops in a cross linguistic perspective. Journal of Phonetics 36. 385–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Julius O. 2011. Spectral audio signal processing. [URL]. (20 March, 2022.)Google Scholar
Ståhle, Carl Ivar. 1976. “Mötet uppnas på sundag” [“The meeting opens on Sunday”]. In Bertil Molde (ed.), Studier i dagens svenska (Skrifter utgivna av Nämnden för Svensk Språkvård 44), 1–15. Stockholm: Läromedelsförlagen.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth & Arthur House. 1963. Perturbation of vowel articulations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 6. 111–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sundgren, Eva. 2009. The varying influence of social and linguistic factors on language stability and change. The case of Eskilstuna. Language Variation and Change 21. 97–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thelander, Mats. 1985. Från blåknut till brakknut. Om provinsiella drag i flyttares språk. [From blåknut to brakknut. On regional features in the language of migrants]. Nysvenska Studier 63. 5–126.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut. 1981. Perceptual dimension of openness in vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69. 1465–1475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in contact (Language in Society 10). Oxford & New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
UPSID (UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database). [URL]. (17 September, 2021.)
Vallabha, Guatam & Betty Tuller. 2002. Systematic errors in the formant analysis of steady-state vowels. Speech Communication 38. 141–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veatch, Thomas. 2005. Near merger. [URL]. (17 September, 2021).Google Scholar
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan Andrés & Matilde Vida-Castro. 2004. The effect of social prestige on reversing phonological changes. Universal constraints on speech variation in southern Spanish. In Britt-Louise Gunnarsson et al.. (eds.), Language Variation in Europe: Papers from the Second International Conference on Language Variation in Europe, ICLaVE 2, 432 444. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Wenner, Lena. 2010. När lögnare blir lugnare. En sociofonetisk studie av sammanfallet mellan kort ö och kort u i uppländskan [When lögnare becomes lugnare. A sociophonetic study of the merger between short ö and short u in Uppland Swedish] (Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för Nordiska Språk vid Uppsala Universitet 80). Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
. 2019. Vokaler i förändring [Ongoing vowel change]. In Jenny Nilsson, Susanne Nylund Skog & Fredrik Skott (eds.), Sånt vi bara gör, 241 242. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walter. 1969. A sociolinguistic description of Detroit negro speech (Urban Language Series 5). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar