Southern varieties of English are known to be affected by the Southern Vowel Shift (SVS), which alters the positional relationship between the front tense/ lax system. However, previous work on the SVS generally limits its focus to steady state formant measures. Possible links between these shifts and dynamic trajectory distinctions have largely been unexplored despite widespread recognition that Southern vowels are dynamic in nature. The current article uses data from three Southern states (Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia) to ask to what extent does spectral onset position (the typical measure of SVS participation) correlate with internal spectral dynamics in the SVS. Analysis methods include a series of spectral measures (vector length, trajectory length, spectral rate of change and vector angle), which capture vowel inherent dynamics and vowel directionality. Results support the utility of looking at dynamic measures to better understand the fuller extent of vowel changes that occur with the SVS and lend support to recent calls to include nonstatic measures in sociophonetic analyses more generally. keywords: sociophonetics, spectral dynamics, Southern drawl, vowel inherent spectral change, regional variation Speech is not a static process, but an active one, and it is clear that many properties cannot be understood unless we examine their dynamic aspects. —Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996, 6) The southern vowel shift (SVS), a vocalic pattern characterizing English in the southeastern United States, has been well documented since Labov, Yaeger, and Steiner’s (1972) early acoustic work (e.g., Feagin 1986; Thomas 1989, 2001; Labov 1991, 1994, 2001; Fridland 1999, 2001, 2012; Dodsworth and Kohn 2012; Fridland and Kendall 2012, 2015; Kendall and Fridland 2012; Koops 2014). In brief, the SVS refers to a number of changes that affect several parts of the vowel system, including the acoustic repositioning of the front lax and tense vowel pairs /i / ~ /I/ and /e/ ~ /E/, high and mid Downloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article-pdf/93/2/186/534375/0930186.pdf by guest on 08 April 2019 Vowel Dynamics in the Southern Vowel Shift 187 back vowel fronting, and /aI/ monophthongization. The changes in the front vowel subsystem are particularly relevant in terms of distinguishing the contemporary Southern vowel system and will be the focus of the current work. The majority of sociophonetic research on vowels has focused on the first two formants (F1 and F2) and, in particular, static measurements of these formants at vowel nuclei. These are known to reflect primary cues to vowel identity (Labov, Yaeger, and Steiner 1972; Thomas 2001) and indeed represent key aspects of vowel quality. However, as the introductory Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996) quotation suggests, speech is an active process and its dynamic aspects need to be examined if we are to understand fully its properties. As such, recent sociophonetic work has considered a wider range of acoustic features in characterizing regional (and other) vowel differences (Fox and Jacewicz 2009; Wassink 2006, 2015). In this vein, the current project seeks to utilize measures that capture different aspects of vowel differences to better understand the role that dynamics play in the SVS. In folk linguistics, Southern speakers are often described as speaking with a “drawl,” characterized by slow speech and “drawn out vowels” (Preston 1986, 1989, 1993), suggesting dynamics are socially salient cues for Southern speech. While little sociolinguistic research has empirically examined the “Southern drawl” (Allbritten 2011; Koops 2014), this kind of folk commentary likely draws, at least somewhat, from an acoustic reality. In fact, the front lax vowels /I/ and /E/, two of the vowels often undergoing SVS changes, are found to have longer durations in the South when compared to other regions (Clopper, Pisoni, and de Jong 2005; Fox and Jacewicz 2009; Fridland, Kendall, and Farrington 2014), as well as exhibiting “breaking,” or becoming triphthongal (Feagin 1986; Allbritten 2011; Koops 2014). However, beyond sporadic mention of the Southern drawl (Sledd 1966; Feagin 1986, 1987; Wetzell 2000; Allbritten 2011) or studies of /aI/ monophthongization (Fridland 2003; Thomas 2003), very little linguistic work on Southern speech has focused on dynamics. The traditional characterization of the SVS is based on single point F1/F2 measures, usually in terms of a vowel nucleus or midpoint, despite wide acknowledgment that vowels in Southern speech are characterized by different dynamics than vowels elsewhere (Fridland 2012). It is surprising that there is a distinct lack of work done on vowel dynamic properties despite the potential relevance of trajectory information in maintaining phonemic distinctions for the front tense and lax vowel pairs (Kingston and Diehl 1994). This leads to the present project, which focuses on a primary research question: to what extent is the SVS characterized by differences that involve dynamics and not just vowel positions? The current analysis addresses this question about the role of dynamics in the SVS by applying a suite of quantitaDownloaded from https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article-pdf/93/2/186/534375/0930186.pdf by guest on 08 April 2019 american speech 93.2 (2018) 188 tive measures to production recordings from Southern speakers from three states with a focus on the front vowel subsystem. These measures capture (1) spectral onset position, (2) vowel inherent dynamics, and (3) glide directionality to examine how the SVS is characterized by vowel dynamics beyond typical nuclei measures. Results indicate that while single point measures can identify speakers as shifted or nonshifted, a number of other, nonstatic features also correlate with those measures, likely providing a more robust set of cues to Southern shifted speech. The quantitative measures that reflect dynamicity and glide direction, used together, provide a more complete encapsulation of what it means when we say a speaker has Southern shifted (SVS) vowels and better capture what specific linguistic cues are conveying the folk linguistic sense of “the drawl.” While our substantive focus here is on the dynamic properties of the SVS affected vowels, this work offers more evidence of the import of looking beyond F1/F2 measures for sociophonetic studies of vowels for other language varieties.

中文翻译：

---

南元音转换中的元音动力学

众所周知，南方变体英语受到南方元音移位 (SVS) 的影响，它改变了前紧张/松散系统之间的位置关系。然而，先前关于 SVS 的工作通常将其重点限制在稳态共振峰测量上。尽管人们普遍认识到南方元音本质上是动态的，但这些变化与动态轨迹区别之间可能存在的联系在很大程度上尚未得到探索。当前文章使用来自三个南部州（田纳西州、北卡罗来纳州和弗吉尼亚州）的数据来询问光谱起始位置（SVS 参与的典型度量）与 SVS 中的内部光谱动态相关的程度。分析方法包括一系列光谱测量（矢量长度、轨迹长度、光谱变化率和矢量角度），捕捉元音固有动态和元音方向性。结果支持查看动态测量的效用，以更好地了解 SVS 发生的元音变化的更全面程度，并支持最近的呼吁，以更普遍地将非静态测量包括在社会语音分析中。关键词：社会语音学，谱动态，南方拉长，元音固有谱变化，区域变化 语音不是一个静态的过程，而是一个活跃的过程，很明显，除非我们检查它们的动态方面，否则无法理解许多属性。— Ladefoged 和 Maddieson (1996, 6) 自 Labov、Yaeger 和 Steiner (1972) 的早期声学工作（例如 Feagin 1986 ; 托马斯 1989, 2001; Labov 1991, 1994, 2001年；弗里德兰 1999、2001、2012；Dodsworth 和 Kohn 2012；弗里德兰和肯德尔 2012、2015；肯德尔和弗里德兰 2012；库普斯 2014）。简而言之，SVS 是指影响元音系统几个部分的许多变化，包括前松和紧元音对 /i / ~ /I/ 和 /e/ ~ /E/、高音和 /E/ 的声学重新定位。 mid 来自 https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article-pdf/93/2/186/534375/0930186.pdf 由客人于 2019 年 4 月 8 日下载 南元音转换中的元音动力学 187 后元音前移，和 /aI/ 单音化。前元音子系统的变化与区分当代南方元音系统特别相关，将成为当前工作的重点。大多数关于元音的社会语音研究都集中在前两个共振峰（F1 和 F2）上，尤其是 元音核中这些共振峰的静态测量。众所周知，这些反映了元音身份的主要线索（Labov、Yaeger 和 Steiner 1972；Thomas 2001），并且确实代表了元音质量的关键方面。然而，正如 Ladefoged 和 Maddieson (1996) 的引言所暗示的那样，语音是一个主动的过程，如果我们要完全理解它的特性，就需要检查它的动态方面。因此，最近的社会语音工作在表征区域（和其他）元音差异时考虑了更广泛的声学特征（Fox 和 Jacewicz 2009；Wassink 2006，2015）。在这种情况下，当前的项目试图利用捕捉元音差异不同方面的措施来更好地理解动态在 SVS 中的作用。在民间语言学中，南方人经常被描述为说话“拖沓，”的特点是语速缓慢和“元音拉长”（Preston 1986, 1989, 1993），表明动态是南方语言的社会显着线索。虽然很少有社会语言学研究对“南方拖拉声”进行实证研究（Allbritten 2011；Koops 2014），但这种民间评论可能至少在某种程度上来自声学现实。事实上，与其他地区相比，前松元音 /I/ 和 /E/（两个经常发生 SVS 变化的元音）在南方的持续时间更长（Clopper、Pisoni 和 de Jong 2005；Fox 和Jacewicz 2009；Fridland、Kendall 和 Farrington 2014），以及展示“打破”或成为三元音（Feagin 1986；Allbritten 2011；Koops 2014）。然而，除了零星提到的南方拖拉声（Sledd 1966; Feagin 1986, 1987; Wetzell 2000; Allbritten 2011) 或 /aI/ 单音化研究 (Fridland 2003; Thomas 2003)，关于南方语言的语言学工作很少关注动态。SVS 的传统表征基于单点 F1/F2 测量，通常以元音核或中点为基础，尽管广泛承认南方语音中的元音与其他地方的元音具有不同的动态特征（Fridland 2012）。令人惊讶的是，尽管轨迹信息在保持前紧张元音和松散元音对的音位差异方面具有潜在的相关性，但明显缺乏对元音动态特性的研究（Kingston 和 Diehl 1994）。这导致了目前的项目，该项目侧重于一个主要研究问题：SVS 在多大程度上以涉及动态而不仅仅是元音位置的差异为特征？当前的分析通过应用一套从 https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-speech/article-pdf/93/2/186/534375/0930186.pdf 下载的 quantita 来解决有关动态在 SVS 中的作用的问题由客人于 2019 年 4 月 8 日发表的美国演讲 93.2 (2018) 188 项措施对来自三个州的南方演讲者的录音进行了重点关注前元音子系统。这些测量捕获 (1) 频谱起始位置、(2) 元音固有动态和 (3) 滑动方向性，以检查 SVS 如何通过超出典型核测量的元音动态来表征。结果表明，虽然单点测量可以将说话者识别为移位或非移位，但其他一些，非静态特征也与这些措施相关，可能为南移语音提供一组更可靠的线索。反映动态和滑行方向的定量测量一起使用，可以更完整地概括当我们说说话者具有南移 (SVS) 元音时的含义，并更好地捕捉哪些特定的语言线索正在传达“拉长。” 虽然我们在这里的实质性重点是 SVS 影响元音的动态特性，但这项工作提供了更多的证据，证明超越 F1/F2 措施对其他语言变体元音社会语音研究的重要性。当我们说说话者具有南移 (SVS) 元音时，提供更完整的含义，并更好地捕捉哪些特定的语言线索正在传达“拖拉音”的民间语言意义。虽然我们在这里的实质性重点是 SVS 影响元音的动态特性，但这项工作提供了更多的证据，证明超越 F1/F2 措施对其他语言变体元音社会语音研究的重要性。当我们说说话者具有南移 (SVS) 元音时，提供更完整的含义，并更好地捕捉哪些特定的语言线索正在传达“拖拉音”的民间语言意义。虽然我们在这里的实质性重点是 SVS 影响元音的动态特性，但这项工作提供了更多的证据，证明超越 F1/F2 措施对其他语言变体元音社会语音研究的重要性。