Resistance

edit

According to Labov, Ash, and Boberg,[1] the merger in North America is most strongly resisted in three regions:

In the three American regions above, sociolinguists have studied three phonetic shifts that can explain their resistance to the merger. The first is the fronting of /ɑ/ found in the Inland North; speakers advance the LOT vowel /ɑ/ as far as the cardinal [a] (the open front unrounded vowel), thus allowing the THOUGHT vowel /ɔ/ to lower into the phonetic environment of [ɑ] without any merger taking place.[2] The second situation is the raising of the THOUGHT vowel /ɔ/ found in the New York City, Philadelphia and Baltimore accents, in which the vowel is raised and diphthongized to [ɔə⁓oə], or, less commonly, [ʊə], thus keeping that vowel notably distinct from the LOT vowel /ɑ/.[2] The third situation occurs in the South, in which vowel breaking results in /ɔ/ being pronounced as upgliding [ɒʊ], keeping it distinct from /ɑ/.[2] None of these three phonetic shifts, however, is certain to preserve the contrast for all speakers in these regions. Some speakers in all three regions, particularly younger ones, are beginning to exhibit the merger despite the fact that each region's phonetics should theoretically block it.[3][4][5]

African American Vernacular English accents have traditionally resisted the cotcaught merger, with LOT pronounced [ɑ̈] and THOUGHT traditionally pronounced [ɒɔ], though now often [ɒ~ɔə]. Early 2000s research has shown that this resistance may continue to be reinforced by the fronting of LOT, linked through a chain shift of vowels to the raising of the TRAP, DRESS, and perhaps KIT vowels. This chain shift is called the "African American Shift".[6] However, there is still evidence of AAVE speakers picking up the cotcaught merger in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,[7] in Charleston, South Carolina,[8] Florida and Georgia,[9] and in parts of California.[9]

  1. ^ Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006), pp. 56–65
  2. ^ a b c Labov, Ash & Boberg (2006), chpt. 11
  3. ^ Irons, Terry Lynn (April 25, 2007). "On the status of low back vowels in Kentucky English: More evidence of merger". Language Variation and Change. 19 (2): 137–180. doi:10.1017/S0954394507070056. ISSN 1469-8021.
  4. ^ Fox, Michael J. (2016). "The Structural Antagonism and Apparent-time Change of the Northern Cities Shift and the Low Back Vowel Merger in Northwestern Wisconsin". New Ways of Analyzing Variation.
  5. ^ Haddican, Bill; Johnson, Daniel Ezra; Newman, Michael; Kim, Faith (2016). "The Diffusion of the Low Back Merger in New York City" (PDF).
  6. ^ Thomas, Erik R. (September 2007). "Phonological and Phonetic Characteristics of African American Vernacular English: Phonological and Phonetic Characteristics of AAVE". Language and Linguistics Compass. 1 (5): 450–475. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00029.x.
  7. ^ Eberhardt (2008).
  8. ^ Baranowski (2013).
  9. ^ a b Jones (2020), p. 165.