These data indicate that overall there are three phonetically distinct laterals in Scottish Gaelic, and the acoustic data support previous descriptions that these laterals are velarised, palatalised, and alveolar. In general this system is used by speakers of different generations in different locations. However, there are large inter-speaker differences in the production of phonemically palatalised laterals, with some speakers producing laterals with no palatality, or palatal glides with no laterality. Palatalised laterals are produced less often by younger speakers and least often by young people in Glasgow. Two speakers with substantial exposure to varieties of Gaelic spoken in rural Lewis produced very high rates of palatalised lateral production. The spread of data suggests that the lateral categories overall may be becoming less distinct over time, with the older speakers maintaining very distinct categories, and younger speakers less so.
These results indicate that although the triple-lateral system of Gaelic is present across younger populations as a whole, this may not be the case in the future. The palatalised lateral in particular may be in the process of eventually losing the palatal and/or the lateral aspects of its production, though currently some speakers display a wide range of productions from laterals with no palatality to palatal glides with no laterality. I have suggested this change
is due to indirect influence from contact with English, potentially coupled with the fact that, as evidence from Romance suggests, palatalised/palatal laterals appear liable to change. In English a variety of lateral sounds are produced, which are often very similar to the Gaelic alveolar and velarised laterals. There is no English equivalent for the Gaelic palatalised lateral however, and this may be the reason this Gaelic sound is liable to variation and change.
There is also some evidence to suggest influence from English at the phonetic level as well:
the young Lewis speakers produced velarised laterals with a higher F2-F1 than the other speakers, and this is similar to values expected from the reportedly ‘clear’ /l/ in Lewis English.
Similarly, the young Glasgow speakers produced alveolar laterals with very low F2-F1, which may be similar to the reportedly ‘dark’ /l/ in Glasgow English.
Vocalic variation, change, and identity
7.1 Introduction
The aim of this thesis is to examine the sociophonetic outcome of language revitalisation measures. This chapter takes a gradient phonetic approach to analysing variation in the Gaelic vowel [0] and Scottish English vowel [0]. The motivation for this analysis was provided in a previous study, Nance (2011), which found differences between middle-aged and young adult speakers of Lewis Gaelic in the vowel [0]. The study suggested this was evidence of change across subsequent generations. I felt variation in this vowel therefore merited further investigation across the larger dataset in this thesis. While this analysis concentrates primarily on variation in Gaelic, some analysis was also conducted on the participants’ English to assess the contact influence of this language.
The research questions and hypotheses addressed in this chapter are:
1. QUESTIONAre there intergenerational differences between speakers in Lewis?
HYPOTHESIS In a previous study, Nance (2011), I found generational differences in word-list data between older and younger speakers in Lewis. Older speakers produced backer [0] and younger speakers produced fronter [0]. This will be confirmed in the data from interviews here.
2. QUESTIONIs there evidence of a distinct variety of Glasgow Gaelic which is different from traditional Lewis Gaelic?
HYPOTHESIS Glasgow Gaelic and Lewis Gaelic will be different, due to different community structures and contact with different local Englishes.
3. QUESTIONDoes vocalic variation pattern with local identity affiliations?
HYPOTHESIS The ethnographic research conducted in the Glasgow school revealed community of practice distinctions of relevance to the students. Previous research into communities of practice in majority language contexts has found linguistic variation and community of practice affiliation pattern together. This may also be the case in Glasgow Gaelic. Ethnographic research conducted on the Isle of Lewis revealed the
133
salient local distinction between people from Stornoway and people from elsewhere on the island. This distinction may also be reflected in vowel productions.
4. QUESTIONWhat are the reasons for any differences between speaker groups in these data?
HYPOTHESIS Differences between the Glasgow and Lewis speakers may be the result of contact with different local Englishes. Any differences found among the Glasgow students might be due to a range of contact influences: contact with different teachers at different primary schools, or contact with different Englishes in Glasgow suburbs.
Also, the home background of the students (Gaelic-speaking or not) might affect pronunciation. Alternatively, linguistic variation might have other social indexical value such as community of practice affiliation, or origin from the ‘town’ or ‘country’ among Lewis young people.
Section 7.2 discusses previous work on this vowel in Gaelic, and work of relevance conducted on English. Section 7.3 describes the phonetic methodology used for investigating this vowel. Section 7.4 describes the results of the analyses. Sections 7.5 and 7.6 discuss the results and conclusions from this analysis.
Results suggest intergenerational differences in Lewis vowel productions, as well as differences between Lewis and Glasgow young people. Among the Glasgow speakers there are differences between the female communities in [0] production, but not among the male groups. These results are discussed with reference to the previous literature on change in the vowel /u/, notions of local identity within the community of practice framework, and the social context of Gaelic as an endangered and revitalised language in contact with English.