Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 8 – uploaded by Caroline Wiltshire

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 8. Coda cluster production in TB-IE varieties The clusters that are more frequently produced in the coda tend to be less marked; they follow the sonority sequencing generalization (Selkirk 1984),

Table 8 Coda cluster production in TB-IE varieties The clusters that are more frequently produced in the coda tend to be less marked; they follow the sonority sequencing generalization (Selkirk 1984),

Related Figures (14)

Miap1. Nagaland, Mizoram, and surrounding states and countries
Miap1. Nagaland, Mizoram, and surrounding states and countries
Table 1. Consonant inventory of General Indian English (CIEFL 1972) For the TB languages, descriptions of the L1 phonologies range from the Pho- netic Reader series of CIIL for Angami and Ao (Ravindran 1974; Gurubasave- Gowda 1972), to M. Litt. and Ph.D. theses written by native speakers for Mizo (Chhangte 1986; Lalrindiki 1989, 1992), to a recent acoustic phonetic descrip- tion of aspects of Ao (Coupe 2003). Thus, there is enough descriptive work to begin to evaluate the role of transfer. A consonant inventory for each is given below (tab. 2-4); note that they share certain properties, such as lacking retro- flexes and contrasting voiceless aspirated and voiceless unaspirated stops.
Table 1. Consonant inventory of General Indian English (CIEFL 1972) For the TB languages, descriptions of the L1 phonologies range from the Pho- netic Reader series of CIIL for Angami and Ao (Ravindran 1974; Gurubasave- Gowda 1972), to M. Litt. and Ph.D. theses written by native speakers for Mizo (Chhangte 1986; Lalrindiki 1989, 1992), to a recent acoustic phonetic descrip- tion of aspects of Ao (Coupe 2003). Thus, there is enough descriptive work to begin to evaluate the role of transfer. A consonant inventory for each is given below (tab. 2-4); note that they share certain properties, such as lacking retro- flexes and contrasting voiceless aspirated and voiceless unaspirated stops.
Table 2. Consonant inventory of Angami (Ravindran 1974)’ Table 3. Consonant inventory of Ao (Coupe 2003)
Table 2. Consonant inventory of Angami (Ravindran 1974)’ Table 3. Consonant inventory of Ao (Coupe 2003)
Table 4. Consonant inventory of Mizo (Chhangte 1986)
Table 4. Consonant inventory of Mizo (Chhangte 1986)
Table 5. The use of [w], [v] and [v] in TB-IEs vs. Gujarati English
Table 5. The use of [w], [v] and [v] in TB-IEs vs. Gujarati English
Table 6. Realizations of the rhotic in TB-IEs and Gujarati English
Table 6. Realizations of the rhotic in TB-IEs and Gujarati English
Table 7. Word final devoicing in TB-IE varieties VU1TIAGIItS At all. We find that a phonotactic requiring coda obstruents to be voiceless is largely followed in TB-IE; thus, while GIE makes a contrast between voiced and voiceless stops, fricatives, and affricates word-finally, TB-IE usually has only the voiceless (see tab. 7). For Mizo, this appears to be transfer, because Mizo allows voicing of obstruents to contrast in onsets but not in coda. How- ever, for Ao it is unclear whether this is transfer from their L1, because Ao does not have voiced stops or affricates in their inventory. Despite this lack of voiced obstruents, Ao speakers almost always make a contrast in the voicing of obstruents word-initially in English, so their acquired voicing contrast is position-dependent. As for Angami speakers, their L1 does not allow codas at all, hence they are not transferring a phonotactic allowing only voiceless obstruents in this position.
Table 7. Word final devoicing in TB-IE varieties VU1TIAGIItS At all. We find that a phonotactic requiring coda obstruents to be voiceless is largely followed in TB-IE; thus, while GIE makes a contrast between voiced and voiceless stops, fricatives, and affricates word-finally, TB-IE usually has only the voiceless (see tab. 7). For Mizo, this appears to be transfer, because Mizo allows voicing of obstruents to contrast in onsets but not in coda. How- ever, for Ao it is unclear whether this is transfer from their L1, because Ao does not have voiced stops or affricates in their inventory. Despite this lack of voiced obstruents, Ao speakers almost always make a contrast in the voicing of obstruents word-initially in English, so their acquired voicing contrast is position-dependent. As for Angami speakers, their L1 does not allow codas at all, hence they are not transferring a phonotactic allowing only voiceless obstruents in this position.
Compared to the target GIE system, the basic L1 vowel systems are simpler. The vowel system of Mizo is the only one of the three that has a length contrast. It has been described as including five simple vowels with long and short ver- sions of each, with the symbols given as: [i:, i, ui, u, €, €, 91, 9, ai, a] according to Chhangte (1986), while Lalrindiki (1989) describes the low vowel as central.!” The Angami and Ao systems are equally simple in quality contrasts, and, in addition, lack the length contrast found in Mizo. For Ao, Gurubasave-Gowda (1972) describes the Chungli dialect as including the vowels [i, uw, u, e, 0, a], with the low vowel listed as back, while Coupe (2003) describes the Mongsen dialect as including [i, u, u, a, a], with the low vowel as central. The two de- scribe [ur] and [tt] in the same way, as high, central, and unrounded. In Coupe’s (2003) description, /u/ has the allophones [u, 0], while /i/ has the allophones li, e], so that the dialects do not greatly differ phonetically. Ravindran (1974) describes the Kohima dialect of Angami in a way that resembles Ao; that is, his Angami inventory contains [i, e, u, 0, a, a], with the low vowel between central and back. Again, there is no length contrast. However, all three languages are described as permitting many vowel sequences and diphthongs.
Compared to the target GIE system, the basic L1 vowel systems are simpler. The vowel system of Mizo is the only one of the three that has a length contrast. It has been described as including five simple vowels with long and short ver- sions of each, with the symbols given as: [i:, i, ui, u, €, €, 91, 9, ai, a] according to Chhangte (1986), while Lalrindiki (1989) describes the low vowel as central.!” The Angami and Ao systems are equally simple in quality contrasts, and, in addition, lack the length contrast found in Mizo. For Ao, Gurubasave-Gowda (1972) describes the Chungli dialect as including the vowels [i, uw, u, e, 0, a], with the low vowel listed as back, while Coupe (2003) describes the Mongsen dialect as including [i, u, u, a, a], with the low vowel as central. The two de- scribe [ur] and [tt] in the same way, as high, central, and unrounded. In Coupe’s (2003) description, /u/ has the allophones [u, 0], while /i/ has the allophones li, e], so that the dialects do not greatly differ phonetically. Ravindran (1974) describes the Kohima dialect of Angami in a way that resembles Ao; that is, his Angami inventory contains [i, e, u, 0, a, a], with the low vowel between central and back. Again, there is no length contrast. However, all three languages are described as permitting many vowel sequences and diphthongs.
Although the data is too limited to allow tests of statistical significance, some tendencies seem worthy of further investigation. The vowel inventories for all groups of speakers are likely to be smaller than those of other Indian Eng- lishes, as several vowels listed above do not appear to be distinct. Charts of the formant values, using F1 plotted against F2-F1 to give an indication of height and backness for each L1 group, reveal potential overlaps in vowel qualities for the target words. These are shown above the L1 vowel sets for comparison. a ee ee a i a: ee ee: ee n ee, | The “Indian English” of Tibeto-Burman language speakers 29:
Although the data is too limited to allow tests of statistical significance, some tendencies seem worthy of further investigation. The vowel inventories for all groups of speakers are likely to be smaller than those of other Indian Eng- lishes, as several vowels listed above do not appear to be distinct. Charts of the formant values, using F1 plotted against F2-F1 to give an indication of height and backness for each L1 group, reveal potential overlaps in vowel qualities for the target words. These are shown above the L1 vowel sets for comparison. a ee ee a i a: ee ee: ee n ee, | The “Indian English” of Tibeto-Burman language speakers 29:
Figure 3. Formant values of Ao L1 females’ vowels in English, and the L1 vowel sys- tem (Gurubasave-Gowda 1972, for Chungli dialect) [he “Indian English” of Tibeto-Burman language speakers 29°
Figure 3. Formant values of Ao L1 females’ vowels in English, and the L1 vowel sys- tem (Gurubasave-Gowda 1972, for Chungli dialect) [he “Indian English” of Tibeto-Burman language speakers 29°
Figure 4. Formant values of Mizo L1 females’ vowels in English, and the L1 vowel system (Chhangte 1986)
Figure 4. Formant values of Mizo L1 females’ vowels in English, and the L1 vowel system (Chhangte 1986)
Related topics:
Cognitive ScienceSecond Language AcquisitionPhonologyPhoneticsLinguistic Geography
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved