Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-c4bhq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-16T23:20:29.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regional differences in the evolution of the merger of /ʃ/ and /ç/ in Luxembourgish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2021

François Conrad Open the ORCID record for François Conrad [Opens in a new window]
François Conrad*
Affiliation:
Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany/EU francois.conrad@germanistik.uni-hannover.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The merger of post-alveolar /ʃ/ and palatal /ç/ into alveolopalatal /ɕ/ has recently gained growing interest in sociophonetic research, especially in the Middle German dialect area. In Luxembourgish, a Continental West Germanic language, the sound change has been linked to age differences, while its origins remain unclear. Two studies with a regional focus are presented in this paper. The first study examines the merger in the Centre and the South of Luxembourg. The acoustic examination of both the spectral peak and the centre of gravity of a spoken data set of five minimal pairs embedded in read and orally translated sentences from 48 speakers (three generations (old generation, 65–91 years; middle generation, 40–64 years; young generation, 20–39 years; each generation, n = 16), men and women) reveals interesting results related to their regional background. In the old generation, the merger is further advanced in the speech of old men from the former mining region in the South compared to their peers in the Centre, the former leading this sound change. On the other hand, young speakers in both regions produce only alveolopalatal /ɕ/, the merger being complete in this generation. The second study presents exploratory data from the East and the North of the country. The analysis of this smaller sample (n = 6 speakers) reveals patterns similar to the central region. Pointing to language contact with Romance in the South as cradle and/or catalyser of the merger, these results not only give further clues as to the development in Luxembourg, but also add to a deeper understanding of sound changes in process in complex sibilant systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , April 2023 , pp. 29 - 46
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Phonetic Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bertrang, Alfred. 1921. Grammatik der Areler Mundart. Brüssel: M. Lamartin.Google Scholar
Bertrang, Alfred. 1936. Die sterbende Mundart. Vierteljahrsblätter für luxemburgische Sprachwissenschaft, Volks- und Ortsnamenkunde 7, 135–152.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Silke, Hamann. 2008. The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology 25(2), 217–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David, Weenink. 1992–2020. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.4.17). http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 24 April 2017).Google Scholar
Bruch, Robert. 1954. Das Luxemburgisch im Westfränkischen Kreis. Luxemburg: P. Linden.Google Scholar
Conrad, François. 2017. Variation durch Sprachkontakt. Lautliche Dubletten im Luxemburgischen (Luxemburger Studien 14). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, François. 2018. Der Zusammenfall von /ʃ/ > /ɕ/ < /ç/ im Luxemburgischen. Conference Phonetik und Phonologie im deutschsprachigen Raum (P&P 13), 29–32. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität & Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.+/ɕ/+<+/ç/+im+Luxemburgischen.+Conference+Phonetik+und+Phonologie+im+deutschsprachigen+Raum+(P&P+13),+29–32.+Berlin:+Humboldt-Universität+&+Leibniz-Zentrum+Allgemeine+Sprachwissenschaft.>Google Scholar
Dogil, Grzegorz. 1992. Phonologische Nachbarschaft trotz akustischer Ferne. Untersuchungen zur /ç/ – /ʃ/-Neutralisation im Saarland. In Maria Bonner (ed.), Nachbarschaften. Festschrift für Max Mangold (Beiträge zur Sprache im Saarland 11), 57–66. Saarbrücken: SDV.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope & Sally, McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmentaler, Michael & Peter, Rosenberg. 2015. Norddeutscher Sprachatlas (NOSA). Band 1: Regiolektale Sprachlagen (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 113.1). Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Forrest, Karen, Weismer, Gary, Milenkovic, Paul & Dougall, Ronald N.. 1988. Statistical analysis of word-initial voiceless obstruents: Preliminary data. The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 84, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilles, Peter. 1999. Dialektausgleich im Luxemburgischen. Zur phonetisch-phonologischen Fokussierung einer Nationalsprache (Phonai 44). Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilles, Peter. 2019. Using crowd-sourced data to analyse the ongoing merger of [ɕ] and [ʃ] in Luxembourgish. In Sasha, Calhoun, Paola, Escudero, Marija, Tabain & Paul, Warren (eds.), 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XIX), Melbourne, 1590–1594.Google Scholar
Gilles, Peter & Claudine, Moulin. 2003. Luxembourgish. In Ana, Deumert & Wim, Vandenbussche (eds.), Germanic standardization – past and present, 303–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilles, Peter & Jürgen, Trouvain. 2013. Luxembourgish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43(1), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew, Barthmaier, Paul & Sands, Kathy. 2002. A cross-linguistic acoustic study of voiceless fricatives. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 32, 141–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosse, Rudolf. 1957. Leipzigsch escha. Ein Lautwandel der obersächsischen Umgangssprache vor unseren Ohren. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 79, 181–190.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy A. 2013. Alveolopalatalization in central Germany as markedness reduction. Transactions of the Philological Society 112(2), 1–24.Google Scholar
Herrgen, Joachim. 1986. Koronalisierung und Hyperkorrektion. Das palatale Allophon des /ç/-Phonems und seine Variation im Westmitteldeutschen (Mainzer Studien zur Sprach- und Volksforschung 9). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Jannedy, Stefanie & Melanie, Weirich. 2014. Sound change in an urban setting: Category instability of the palatal fricative in Berlin. Laboratory Phonology 5(1), 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jannedy, Stefanie & Melanie, Weirich. 2017. Spectral moments vs. discrete cosine transformation coefficients: Evaluation of acoustic measures distinguishing two merging German fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142(1), 395–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, Daniel E. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1), 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jongman, Allard, Wayland, Ratree & Wong, Serena. 2000. Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108, 1252–1263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
König, Werner. 1989. Atlas zur Aussprache des Schriftdeutschen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Band 1 und 2). Ismaning: Hueber.Google Scholar
Kreymann, Martin. 1994. Aktueller Sprachwandel im Rheinland. Empirische Studie im Rahmen des Erp-Projektes (Rheinisches Archiv 133). Köln: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Ian, Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lenz, Alexandra N. 2003. Struktur und Dynamik des Substandards. Eine Studie zum Westmitteldeutschen (Wittlich/Eifel) (ZDL-Beiheft 125). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Levon, Erez, Marie, Maegaard & Nicolai, Pharao (eds.). 2017. The sociophonetics of /s/: Special issue of Linguistics 55(5). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
LSA Schmitt, [Ludwig E. (ed.)]. 1963. Luxemburgischer Sprachatlas. Laut- und Formenatlas. Von Robert Bruch (Deutscher Sprachatlas. Regionale Sprachatlanten 2). Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
LWB [Wörterbuchkommission, Luxemburger (ed.)]. 1950–1977. Luxemburger Wörterbuch, 5 Bände. Luxemburg: P. Linden.Google Scholar
Newton, Gerald. 1993. Allophonic variation in Luxembourgish palatal and alveolar-palatal fricatives: Discussion of an areal survey taken in 1979. In Flood, John L., Paul, Salmon, Olive, Sayce & Wells, Christopher J. (eds.), Das unsichtbare Band der Sprache: Studies in German language and linguistic history in memory of Leslie Seiffert (Stuttgarter Arbeiten zur Germanistik 280), 627–656. Stuttgart: Heinz.Google Scholar
Pompino-Marschall, Bernd. 2009. Einführung in die Phonetik, 3rd edn. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remacle, Louis. 1944. Les variations de l’H secondaire en Ardenne liégeoise. Lüttich.Google Scholar
Schanen, François & Jérôme, Lulling. 2003. Introduction à l’orthographe luxembourgeoise. Description systématisée de l’orthographe officielle luxembourgeoise telle qu’exposée en annexe de l’arrêté ministériel du 10/10/1975 et modifiée par les révisions proposées en annexe du règlement grand-ducal du 30/07/1999. Luxembourg: Conseil permanent de la langue luxembourgeoise.Google Scholar
Spangenberg, Karl. 1978. Eigenständige Merkmale der Umgangssprache und hyperkorrekte Interferenzen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Mundart und Literatursprache. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Wilhelm-Pieck-Universität Rostock (Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 27), 15–21.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2007. Empirical evidence for gendered speech production: /s/ in Glaswegian. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 9, 65–86.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Evelyn. 1996. Sprachgebrauch, Sprachvariation, Sprachwissen. Eine Familienstudie (VarioLingua 2). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Żygis, Marzena & Silke, Hamann. 2003. Perceptual and acoustic cues of Polish coronal fricatives. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XV), Barcelona, 395–398.Google Scholar