Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-16T17:39:04.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Compiling a Speech Corpus of German English: Rhoticity and the BATH Vowel

from III - Domains and Features of English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2019

By
Sandra Jansen  and
Christian Langstrof
Edited by
Raymond Hickey
Raymond Hickey
Affiliation:
Universität Duisburg–Essen
Get access

Summary

The investigation of structured variation in native communities lies at the center of language variation and change studies which was introduced by Labov (1963; 1966 [2006]). Since the 1960s this quantitative approach has been highly influential in understanding variation and language change processes by investigating production and perception of language use (cf. e.g. Langstrof 2009; Hay and Drager 2010; Jansen 2019).

Type
Chapter
Information
English in the German-Speaking World , pp. 229 - 249
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baayen, Harald 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barras, William 2018. Residual rhoticity and emergent r-sandhi in the North West and South West of England: Different approaches to hiatus-resolution? In Braber, Natalie and Jansen, Sandra (eds) Sociolinguistics in England. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 363–392.Google Scholar
Becker, Kara and Wing-mei Wong, Amy 2010. The short-a system of New York City English: An update. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (Article 3).Google Scholar
Berns, Margie 1995. English in the European Union. English Today 11(3): 3–11.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo, Friedman, Jerome H., Olshen, R. A. and Stone, Charles J. 1983. CART: Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, Sarah and Kautzsch, Alexander 2017. Towards an integrated approach to postcolonial and non-postcolonial Englishes. World Englishes 36(1): 104–126.Google Scholar
Davydova, Julia and Buchstaller, Isabelle 2015. Expanding the circle to Learner English: Investigating quotative marking in a German student community. American Speech 90(4): 441–478.Google Scholar
Dickerson, Lonna 1974. Internal and External Patterning of Phonological Variability in the Speech of Japanese Learners of English. Toward a Theory of Second Language Acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Dickerson, Wayne 1976. The psycholinguistic unity of language learning and language change. Language Learning 26: 215–231.Google Scholar
Drummond, Rob 2015. Non-native Northern English. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.) Researching Northern Englishes. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Durham, Mercedes 2014. The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Lingua Franca Context. Second Language Acquisition. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Edwards, Alison 2011. Introducing the corpus of Dutch English. English Today 27(3): 10–14.Google Scholar
Edwards, Alison 2016. English in the Netherlands. Functions, Forms and Attitudes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Forsberg, Julia, Mohr, Susanne and Jansen, Sandra 2019. “The goal is to enable students to communicate”: Communicative competence and target varieties in TEFL practices of Sweden and Germany. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(1): 31–60.Google Scholar
Fromont, Robert and Hay, Jennifer 2008. ONZE Miner: The development of a browser-based research tool. Corpora 3: 173–193.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. 1989. An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gnevsheva, Ksenia 2015. Style-shifting and intra-speaker variation in the vowel production of nonnative speakers of New Zealand English. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 1(2): 135–156.Google Scholar
Gnutzmann, Claus, Jakis, Jenny and Rabe, Frank 2015. Communicating across Europe. What German students think about multilingualism, language norms and English as a lingua franca. In Linn, Andrew R., Bermel, Neil and Ferguson, Gibson (eds) Attitudes towards English in Europe. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, 165–191.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylvaine 2003. The International Corpus of Learner English: A New Resource for Foreign Language Learning and Teaching and Second Language Acquisition Research. TESOL Quarterly 37(3): 538–546.Google Scholar
Gut, Ulrike 2009. Non-Native Speech. A Corpus-Based Analysis of Phonological and Phonetic Properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Harris, John 2013. Wide-domain r-effects in English. Journal of Linguistics 49(2): 329–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer and Drager, Katie 2010. Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48(4): 865–892.Google Scholar
Henderson, Alice, Frost, Dan, Tergujeff, Elina, Kautzsch, Alexander, Murphy, Deirdre, Kirkova-Naskova, Anastazija, Waniek-Klimczak, Ewa, Levey, David, Cunningham, Una and Curnick, Lesley 2012. “English Pronunciation Teaching in Europe Survey”. Factors inside and outside the classroom. Research in Language 10(1): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond 2007. Irish English. History and Present-Day Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilgendorf, Suzanne K. 2007. English in Germany: Contact, spread, and attitudes. World Englishes 26(2): 131–148.Google Scholar
Himmel, Marie-Christin and Kabak, Bariş 2016. The loss and variable realization of /r/ in a rhotic language: Evidence from post-pubescent exposure to non-rhoticity. Paper presented at the 13th Old World Conference in Phonology, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Jansen, Sandra 2019. Change and stability in goose, goat and foot. Back vowel dynamics in Carlisle English. English Language and Linguistics 23(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, Keith and Mullennix, John (eds) Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego: Academic Press, 145–165.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outercircle. In Quirk, Randoph and Widdowson, Henry G. (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–30.Google Scholar
Kautzsch, Alexander 2017. The Attainment of an English Accent. British and American Features in Advanced German Learners. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kennedy Terry, Kristen M. 2017. Contact, context and collocation: The emergence of sociostylistic variation in L2 French learners during study abroad. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(3): 553–578.Google Scholar
Kohler, K.J. 1995. Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19: 273–306.Google Scholar
Labov, William [1966] 2006. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change: Vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langstrof, Christian 2009. On the role of vowel duration in the New Zealand English front vowel shift. Language Variation and Change 21: 437–453.Google Scholar
Langstrof, Christian 2014. Sociophonetic Learning in L1 and L2. Postdoctoral thesis, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Norma, Mendoza-Denton, Hay, Jennifer and Jannedy, Stefanie 2003. Probabilistic sociolinguistics: Beyond variable rules. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds) Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 97–138.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam and Schleef, Erik 2012. Variation, contact and social indexicality in the acquisition of (ing) by teenage migrants. Journal of Sociolinguistics 16(3): 398–416.Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi and Irwin, Patricia 2010. Boston (r): Neighbo(r)s nea(r) and fa(r). Language Variation and Change 22(2): 241–278.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja 2004. Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching in Sinclair, John (ed.) How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 125–152.Google Scholar
Piercy, Caroline 2011. One /a/ or two?: Observing a phonemic split in progress in the Southwest of England. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (Article 10).Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds) Frequency Effects and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 137–157.Google Scholar
Rindal, Ulrikke Elisabeth 2010. Constructing identity with L2: Pronunciation and attitudes among Norwegian learners of English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(2): 240–261.Google Scholar
Rindal, Ulrikke Elisabeth and Piercy, Caroline 2013. Being ‘neutral’? English pronunciation among Norwegian learners. World Englishes 32(2): 211–229.Google Scholar
Schleef, Erik, Meyerhoff, Miriam and Clark, Lynn 2011. Teenagers’ acquisition of variation: A comparison of locally-born and migrant teens’ realisation of English (ing) in Edinburgh and London. English World-Wide 32(2): 206–236.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, Devyani and Sankaran, Lavanya 2011. Cognitive and social forces in dialect shift: Gradual change in London Asian speech. Language Variation and Change 23(3): 399–428.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane, Timmins, Claire and Tweedie, Fiona 2007. “Talking jockney”? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 221–260.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane 2004. Scottish English: Phonology. In Kortmann, Bernd, Burridge, Kate, Schneider, Edgar, Mesthrie, Rajend and Upton, Clive (eds) A Handbook of Varieties of English: Vol. 1: Phonology. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 47–67.Google Scholar
Tarone, Elaine 1982. Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning 32: 69–84.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William and Herzog, Marvin 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfred and Malkiel, Yakov (eds) Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 97–195.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×