2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Nederlandse Taalkunde
  4. Volume 26, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

In Moroccan Dutch, /s/ has been claimed to be pronounced as retracted [s] (towards /ʃ/) in certain consonant clusters. Recently, retracted s-pronunciation has also been attested in endogenous Dutch. We tested empirically whether Moroccan Dutch [s] is indeed more retracted than endogenous Dutch [s] in relevant clusters. Additionally, we tested whether the inter-speaker variation of /s/ is smaller between Moroccan Dutch speakers than between endogenous Dutch speakers, as expected if retraction of /s/ would be used as identity marker in in-group conversations in Moroccan Dutch. The [s] realizations of 21 young, male Moroccan Dutch and 21 endogenous Dutch speakers were analyzed. Analyses of the spectral centre of gravity (CoG) show that both groups of speakers had more retracted pronunciations of [s] in typically retracting contexts than in typically non-retracting contexts. However, Moroccan Dutch speakers had higher CoG in both contexts than endogenous Dutch speakers, refuting the stronger retraction expected in Moroccan Dutch speakers. The inter-speaker variation was larger between Moroccan Dutch speakers than between endogenous-Dutch speakers, refuting the expected usage of /s/ retraction as a group identity marker.

© Sanne Ditewig, Laura Smorenburg, Hugo Quené & Willemijn Heeren
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.001.DITE
2021-12-01
2024-11-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13845845/26/3/NEDTAA2021.3.001.DITE.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.001.DITE&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Babel, M. (2009). Phonetic and social selectivity in speech accommodation. Berkeley: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Babel, M. (2012). Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics40, 177-189.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, A., D.Archangeli & J.Mielke (2011). Variability in American English s- retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem. Language Variation and Change23, 347-374.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, D., M.Maechler, B.Bolker & S.Walker (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67, 1-48.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boersma, P. & D.Weenink (2017). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.28. <http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/>
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Booij, G. (1999). The phonology of Dutch (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bortfeld, H. & S.Brennan (1997). Use and acquisition of idiomatic expressions in referring by native and nonnative speakers. Discourse Processes23, 119-147.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bourhis, R. & H.Giles (1977). The language of intergroup distinctiveness. In: H.Giles (ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. London: Academic Press, 119-135.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruder, M., D.Dosmukhambetov, J.Nerb & A.Manstead (2012). Emotional signals in nonverbal interaction: Dyadic facilitation and convergence in expressions, appraisals, and feelings. Cognition & emotion26, 480-502.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Collins, B. & I.Mees (2003). The phonetics of English and Dutch (Fifth revised edition). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Coupland, J., N.Coupland & H.Giles (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In: H.Giles, J.Coupland & N.Coupland (eds.), Contexts of accommodation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-68.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson’s pronunciation of English (8th ed.). Oxford: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Ditewig, S., A.C.H.Pinget & W.F.L.Heeren (2019). Regional variation in the pronunciation of /s/ in the Dutch language area. Nederlandse Taalkunde24, 195-212.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dorleijn, M. & J.Nortier (2006). Het Marokkaanse accent in het Nederlands: marker of indicator? In: T.Koole, J.Nortier & B.Tahitu (eds.). Artikelen van de vijfde sociolinguïstische conferentie. Delft: Eburon, 138-146.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Van Eerten, L. (2007). Over het corpus gesproken Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde12, 194-215.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Efron, B. & R. J.Tibshirami (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Evans, B. & P.Iverson (2007). Plasticity in vowel perception and production: a study of accent change in young adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America121, 3814-3816.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fox, R. & S.Nissen (2005). Sex-related acoustic changes in voiceless English fricatives. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research: JSLHR48, 753-765.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility. A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics15, 87-105.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Giles, H. (2016). Communication accommodation theory: negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Giles, H. & T.Ogay (2007). Communication accommodation theory. In: B.Whaley & W.Samter (eds.), Explaining communication : Contemporary theories and exemplars. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 293-310.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Giles, H. & J.Gasiorek (2013). Parameters of non-accommodation: Refining and elaborating communication accommodation theory. In: J.Forgas, J.László, & V.Orsolya Vincze (eds.), Social cognition and communication. New York, NY: Psychology Press, 155-172.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Goeman, T. & H.Van de Velde (2001). Linguistic and geographical co-occurrence constraints on /r/ and /ɣ/ in Dutch dialects. In: H.Van de Velde, R.Van Hout (red.), ‘r-atics: Sociolinguistic, phonetic and phonological characteristics of /r/. Bruxelles: ULB, 91-112.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldstein, H., W.Browne & J.Rasbash (2002). Partitioning variation in multilevel models. Understanding Statistics1, 223-231.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gordon, M., P.Barthmaier & K.Sands (2002). A cross-linguistic acoustic study of voiceless fricatives. Journal of the International Phonetic Association32, 141-174.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gries, S. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of psycholin-guistic research34, 365-399.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hinskens, F. (2011). Emerging Moroccan and Turkish varieties of Dutch: ethnolects or ethnic styles? In: F.Kern & M.Selting (eds.), Ethnic Styles of Speaking in European Metropolitan Areas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 103-131.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hinskens, F. (2014). Despite or because of intensive contact? : Internal, external and extralinguistic aspects of divergence in modern dialects and ethnolects of Dutch. In: K.Braunmüller, S.Höder & K.Kühl (eds.), Stability and Divergence in Language Contact: Factors and Mechanisms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 109-140.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hinskens, F. (2019). Ethnolects. Where language contact, language acquisition and dialect variation meet. Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistics Theory7, 1-27.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hinskens, F., R.Van Hout, P.Muysken & A.Van Wijngaarden (2020). Variation and change in grammatical gender marking: the case of Dutch ethnolects. Linguistics59, 75-100.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jaspers, J. (2011). Talking like a ‘zerolingual’: Ambiguous linguistic caricatures at an urban secondary school. Journal of Pragmatics43, 1264-1278.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Jokinen, K., K.Harada, M.Nishida & S.Yamamoto (2010). Turn-alignment using eye-gaze and speech in conversational interaction. In: Eleventh Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech). Makuhari, Japan, 2018-2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jongman, A., R.Wayland & S.Wong (2000). Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America108, 1252-1263.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kimbara, I. (2008). Gesture form convergence in joint description. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior32, 123-131.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kissine, M., H.Van de Velde & R.Van Hout (2003). An acoustic study of standard Dutch /v/, /f/, /s/ and /z/. In: L.Cornips, & P.Fikkert (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 93-104.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Koenig, L. L., C.H.Shadle, J.L.Preston & C.R.Mooshammer (2013). Toward improved spectral measures of /s/: Results from adolescents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing56, 1175-1189.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Krieken, E. (2004). Van immigratie tot ethnolect. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Labov, W. (2001). Social factors (= Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2). Malden (MA): Blackwell Publishers Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lawrence, W. P. (2000). Assimilation at a distance? American Speech75, 82-87.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Matarazzo, J. & A.Wiens (1973). Interview: research on its anatomy and structure. Chicago: Aldine.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Meel, L. (2016). The roots of ethnolects. A sociophonological study in Amsterdam and Nijmegen. Nijmegen: Radboud University.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Mourigh, K. (2017). Stance-taking through sibilant palatalisation in Gouda Moroccan Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde22, 421-446.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Muysken, P. (2013). Ethnolects of Dutch. In: F.Hinskens & J.Taeldeman (eds.), Language and Space: Dutch. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 739-761.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Newman, R., S.Clouse & J.L.Burnham (2001). The perceptual consequences of within-talker variability in fricative production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America109, 1181-1196.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Niederhoffer, K. & J.Pennebaker (2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology21, 337-360.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Nortier, J. & M.Dorleijn (2008). A Moroccan accent in Dutch: A sociocultural style restricted to the Moroccan community?International Journal of Bilingualism12, 125-142.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pardo, J. S., R.Gibbons, A.Suppes & R.M.Krauss (2012). Phonetic convergence in college roommates. Journal of Phonetics40, 190-197.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Quené, H. (2008). Multilevel modeling of between-speaker and within-speaker variation in spontaneous speech tempo. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America123, 1104-1113.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Quené, H., R.Orr & D.Van Leeuwen (2017). Phonetic similarity of /s/ in native and second language: Individual differences in learning curves. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America142, EL519–EL524.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Quené, H. & H.Van den Bergh (2004). On Multi-Level Modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication43, 103-121.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <http://www.R-project.org/>
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Reidy, P. F. (2016). Spectral dynamics of sibilant fricatives are contrastive and language specific. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America140, 2518-2529.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Rietveld, A.C.M. & V.J.Van Heuven (2013). Algemene fonetiek. Bussum: Coutinho.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Schweitzer, A. & N.Lewandowski (2013). Convergence of articulation rate in spontaneous speech. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech). Lyon, 525-529.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Smorenburg, L. & W.Heeren (2020). The distribution of speaker information in Dutch fricatives /s/ and /x/ from telephone dialogues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America147, 949-960.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Sternheim, A.-M. (2014). De invloed van etnische achtergrond op F0. Een onderzoek naarde F0 van sprekers met een Marokkaanse, Turkse en Nederlandse achtergrond. Unpublished internship report, Netherlands Forensic Institute, The Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Stevens, M. & J.Harrington (2016). The phonetic origins of s-retraction: Acoustic and perceptual evidence from Australian English. Journal of Phonetics58, 118-134.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Stuart-Smith, J., M.Sonderegger, R.Macdonald, J.Mielke, M.McAuliffe & E.Thomas (2019). Large-scale acoustic analysis of dialectal and social factors in English /s/-retraction. In: Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Melbourne, 1273-1277.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Thakerar, J. N. , H.Giles & J.Cheshire (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In: C.Fraser & K.R.Sherer (eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 205–255.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Van de Velde, H., M.Gerritsen & R.Van Hout (1996). The devoicing of fricatives in Standard Dutch: A real-time study based on radio recordings. Language Variation and Change8, 149-175.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Van der Vloed, D., J.Bouten, F.Kelly & A.Alexander (2018). NFI-FRIDA – Forensically realistic interdevice audio database and intial experiments. In: The 27th Annual Conference of the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics (IAFPA). Huddersfield (UK), 25-27.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Van der Vloed, D., F.Kelly & A.Alexander (2020). Exploring the effects of device variability on forensic speaker comparison using VOCALISE and NFI-FRIDA, a forensically realistic database. In: Proc. Odyssey 2020 The Speaker and Language Recognition Workshop, 402-407.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Zhang, Y. & H.Giles (2018). Communication accommodation theory. In: Y.Kim (eds.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 95-108.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.001.DITE
Loading
An acoustic-phonetic study of retraction of /s/ in Moroccan Dutch and endogenous Dutch
NedTaal 26, 315 (2021); https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.001.DITE
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.001.DITE
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2021.3.001.DITE
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): Moroccan Dutch; phonetic convergence; s-retraction; sociophonetics

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error