Synopsis: phonological variation in the Americas and the Caribbean

We attempt to survey and systematize the phonetic and phonological variability that can be observed in North America and the Caribbean. No fundamental distinction is drawn between dialectal and creole varieties beforehand – such a division has been questioned in recent research, and it would seem to be even less called for on the level of phonetics and phonology than on the level of morphosyntax, where, based on earlier research, the presupposition of existing differences seems more justified. In categorizing the wide range of possible pronunciation phenomena, I start out from the listing of feature categories as suggested originally to future contributors, and I adopt a categorization scheme based upon traditional articulatory classifications. Basically, I distinguish between vowels, consonants, and prosodic features. Given that most of the variability to be observed concerns vowels, this broad category needs to be further subdivided, although any such categorization on the basis of observed variation turns out to be problematic: Given that processes of diphthongization/ monophthongization, lengthening/shortening (or blurring of quantity distinctions), fronting/backing, and raising/lowering are almost ubiquitous, any categorization is bound to leak. Hence, for purely practical reasons, to enable comparisons on a global scale in the present context, I employ an RP-based scheme of vowel types, distinguishing between “short” vowels (which can also be called “checked”, many of which are also “lax”), “long” (or free, frequently described as tense) vowels, diphthongs, and unstressed vowels. As a general reference system in this project context, it was decided (and authors were instructed) to employ Wells’ (1982) system of “lexical sets”, meant to identify vowel types in specific contexts without having to go into the knotty issue of whether or not these are phonemic in any given variety. I am grateful to the contributors to this volume for having accepted this procedure despite the fact that in the American academic context this system is less widely accepted (and perhaps more difficult to accommodate) than in a British-based perspective. It should also be noted that this system was not imposed slavishly. Contributors were advised and authorized to adopt and expand it when this was felt to be necessary for a reliable coverage of their respective variety, i.e. either to use some of the items which Wells suggests in a “reserve list” or to replace target words by others of their own choice. This was felt to be necessary especially in the cases of creole varieties, where some of Wells’ key word are not lexicalized (but the respective vowel can be identified using an alternative lexical item) or where the phonological system of sounds, in the perspective of the English superstrate input, has been restructured substantially.

The following discussion starts out from authors’ responses to a feature list of possible phonetic processes that I devised and that was provided to the contributors as a stimulus for these categorizations; this feature list underlies the interactive phonological maps on the accompanying CD-ROM. Further details and comparative statements are then based upon the articles in this volume. By necessity, a survey of the present kind needs to ignore many aspects and to abstract from idiosyncracies to reach a more global picture. Readers interested in phonetic details and distributional specifics are warned to be cautious, to take the statements below with a grain of salt, and to check the original sources for more accurate and locally relevant information.