Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:39:44.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nooz or nyooz?: The Complex Construction of Canadian Identity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Sandra Clarke
Sandra Clarke*
Affiliation:
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the diffusion of a phonological feature, namely the deletion of palatal glides in words such as news, tune, duke, and student. Within Canada, the conservative glided and innovative glideless pronunciations are no longer viewed as carrying, respectively, British versus American affiliation. One observes a steep generational decline in glide usage, with older, and especially upper-middle-class, females, resisting this change. This contrasts with broadcast media, where the overall glide usage rate is high: national media adopt the glided variant to a greater degree than their local counterparts; moreover, male media personnel display more glide retention than females. Both variants index different social meanings: the glided variant is associated with cultural erudition but is nevertheless not the formal target for all groups. Thus, the two variants hold different appeal for different segments of the population, and both are viewed as a prestige target within the same speech community.

Résumé

Résumé

Nons examinons la diffusion d’un trait phonologique, notamment l’effacement de la semi-voyelle dans des mots comme news, tune, duke et student. Au Canada, les prononciations conservatrices (avec semi-voyelle) et innovatrices (sans semi-voyelle) n’évoquent plus une affiliation respectivement britannique ou américaine. On observe un déclin rapide d’une génération à l’autre dans l’usage de la semi-voyelle: les locutrices plus âgées résistent à ce changement, particulièrement celles de classe moyenne supérieure. Par contre, l’usage de la semi-voyelle est élevé dans les médias: les médias nationaux adoptent la variante avec semi-voyelle plus que leurs compères locaux; de plus, ce sont les hommes oeuvrant dans ce secteur qui adoptent la variante avec semi-voyelle plus fréquemment que leurs collègues féminines. Les deux prononciations évoquent des significations sociales divergentes: la variante avec semi-voyelle est associée à une érudition culturelle mais elle n’est pas pour autant la cible de registre formel de tous les groupes. En somme, les deux variantes sont valorisées de façon différente par divers sous-groupes, et les deux variantes portent le statut de prestige à l’intérieur d’une même communauté linguistique.

Type
Linguistic Identity
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 51 , Issue 2-3: Canadian English in a Global Context , November 2006 , pp. 225 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2006

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

Avis, Walter. 1954. Speech differences along the Ontario-United States border. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 1:13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, and Tillery, Jan. 1997. The effects of methods on results in dialectology. English World-Wide 18:35–63.Google Scholar
Barber, Katherine, ed. 1998. The Canadian Oxford dictionary. Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bayard, Donn. 1990. “God help us if we all sound like this”: Attitudes to New Zealand and other English accents. In New Zealand ways of speaking English, ed. Bell, Allan and Holmes, Janet, 67–96. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bayard, Donn, Weatherall, Ann, Gallois, Cynthia, and Pittam, Jeffery. 2001. Pax Americana? Accent attitudinal evaluations in New Zealand, Australia and America. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5:22–49.Google Scholar
Buckner, Philip. 1993. Whatever happened to the British Empire? Presidential address to the Canadian Historical Association, (http://www.cha-shc.ca/bilingue/addresses/1993.htm) (accessed April 22, 2005).Google Scholar
Chambers, J.K. 1998. Social embedding of changes in progress. Journal of English Linguistics 26:3–35.Google Scholar
Chambers, J.K. 2004. ‘Canadian dainty’: The rise and decline of Briticisms in Canada. In Legacies of colonial English: Studies in transported dialects, ed. Hickey, Raymond, 224–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Sandra. 1993. The Americanization of Canadian pronunciation: A survey of palatal glide usage. In Focus on Canada, ed. Clarke, Sandra, 85–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2003. Introduction: Sociolinguistics and globalisation. In Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: Sociolinguistics and globalisation, ed. Coupland, Nikolas, 465–172.Google Scholar
Dodds de Wolf, Gaelan, Gregg, Robert J., Harris, Barbara P., Scargill, Matthew T., Courtney, R., and Sawczak, D., eds. 1997. Gage Canadian dictionary. Toronto: Gage Educational Publishing.Google Scholar
Fabricius, Anne. 2002. Ongoing change in modern RP: Evidence for the disappearing stigma of t-glottalling. English World-Wide 23:115–136.Google Scholar
Gregg, Robert J. 2004. The Survey of Vancouver English 1976-1984: Methodology, planning, implementation and analysis. In The survey of Vancouver English: A sociolinguistic study of urban Canadian English, ed. Wolf, Gaelan Dodds de, Fee, Margery, and McAlpine, Janice, 1–138. Kingston, ON: Strathy Language Unit, Queen’s University. [1984.]Google Scholar
Kushner, Eva. 2003. English as global language: Problems, dangers, opportunities. Diogenes 50:17–23.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Landsberg, Michele. 1980. “Toozday” scrapes my nerves raw. Toronto Star, June 6, section C. Quoted in Chambers 1998.Google Scholar
Meechan, Marjory. 1996. One of us says milk and the other says melk: Lax vowel lowering in Canadian English. Paper read at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 25, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
Mele Marrero, Margarita, and Marrero, Andres Rodriguez. 2002. Una lengua para un mundo sin lengua [A language for a world without a language]. Revista de Filología de la Universidad de La Laguna 20:193–203.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam, and Niedzielski, Nancy. 2003. The globalisation of vernacular variation. In Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: Sociolinguistics and globalisation, ed. Coupland, Nikolas, 534–555.Google Scholar
Orkin, Mark M. 1970. Speaking Canadian English: An informal account of the English language in Canada. Toronto: General Publishing.Google Scholar
Owens, Thompson W., and Baker, Paul M.. 1984. Linguistic insecurity in Winnipeg: Validation of a Canadian index of linguistic insecurity. Language in Society 13:337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitts, Ann. 1986. Flip-flop prestige in American tune, duke, news . American Speech 61:130–138.Google Scholar
Pringle, Ian. 1985. Attitudes to Canadian English. In The English language today: Public attitudes to English, ed. Greenbaum, Sidney, 183–205. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Robinson, John, Lawrence, Helen, and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2001. GoldVarb 2001: A multivariate analysis application for Windows. URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb/ Google Scholar
Scargill, M.H. 1974. Modern Canadian English usage: Linguistic change and reconstruction. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1:179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wassink, Alicia Beckford, and Dyer, Judy. 2004. Language ideology and the transmission of phonological change. Journal of English Linguistics 32:3–30.Google Scholar
Wells, J.C. 1982. Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram. 2002. Die deutsche Sprache im Spannungsfeld zwischen Fremd- und Selbstbestimmung [The German language between subjugation and self-determination]. Lebende Sprachen 47:145–149.Google Scholar
Woods, Howard B. 1999. The Ottawa survey of Canadian English. Kingston, ON: Strathy Language Unit, Queen’s University.Google Scholar