The following chapters are structured as follows. Literature regarding syllable-final nasal mergers in Taiwan Mandarin and other relevant prosodic issues is
discussed in Chapter 2. Details of research methods, from data collection to data processing, are introduced in Chapter 3. Results and statistical analyses are presented
10
in Chapter 4. Discussion and conclusion are provided in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, respectively.
11
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides the overview of relevant studies. Section 2.1 reviews studies on the topics pertaining to syllable-final nasal mergers in Taiwan Mandarin.
Discrepancies among researchers in terms of merging directions are discussed together with social factors. Section 2.2 reviews studies on prosodic factors. Both prosodic prominence and prosodic phrasing are the focus of the current study.
2.1 Previous works regarding syllable-final nasal mergers
As early as 1985, Ing observed the instability and interchangeability of the syllable-final nasals in Taiwan Mandarin (i.e., /n/ and /ŋ/ might be pronounced as both [n] and [ŋ] when preceded by vowel /i/, /ə/ or /a/), and attributed the
mispronunciation to the effect of Min and a number of Chinese dialects on Mandarin.
In the same year, Kubler reported the replacement of [iŋ] and [əŋ] by [in] and [ən], respectively, in Taiwan Mandarin due to the lack of [iŋ] and [əŋ] in Min5. In spite of the inconsistent observations towards merging performance of the syllable-final nasals, the two studies ascribed their observations primarily to Min influence and triggered the subsequent wave of research on the topic.
2.1.1 Debate on merger types
Studies after Ing (1985) and Kubler (1985) further investigated the nasal mergers with elicited experimental data, but they did not reach an agreement on the
5 In Kubler (1985), Min was reported to have only the following vowel finals ending in [ŋ]: [iəŋ], [ɑŋ], [iɑŋ], [ɔŋ] and [iɔŋ]. According to Yuan et al. (2001), there are also five rhymes ending in /ŋ/, namely, /iŋ/, /aŋ/, /iaŋ/, /ɔŋ/ and /iɔŋ/. Although there is a discrepancy between Kubler (1985) and Yuan et al.
(2001), the symbols in Yuan et al. (2001) are phoneme labeling, and records in fieldwork data (e.g., Li, 2009, p.112 & p.120; Yuan et al., 2001, p.243) have reported a transitional /ᵊ/ between the /i/ and /ŋ/ of the /iŋ/ rhyme regardless of Chôan, Chiang, or Ē-bn̂g dialects.
12
merger direction. After Ing (1985), other studies no longer observed the nasal mergers under the condition of vowel /a/. While Tse (1992) found the dominance of /ŋ/ to [n]
mergers over /n/ to [ŋ] mergers and agreed with Kubler’s (1985) observation, Chen (1991) and C.C. Lin (2002), by contrast, reported an opposite merging direction, /n/ to [ŋ], when the nasal followed the vowel /i/.
Later on, studies focusing on social factors also appeared. Yueh (1992) was the first study that focused on a number of social factors, such as location, gender, and age, but their results showed no significant effect of any social factor. C.-w. Hung’s (2006) study of Kaohsiung residents was another research focusing on social factors, including gender, age, social class, ethnicity, and context (level of formality). Results indicated that age, social class, and context did have a significant influence on the variation of /ŋ/. Compared to the younger people (16 to 30 years old) and the older people (above 51 years old), those who aged between 31 and 50 produced the most prestigious forms [ŋ]. Higher social class, and more formal styles and contexts are influential in inhibiting the mergers. Gender is not a determinant factor since male speakers, senior female subjects, and lower-middle class subjects all produced many [n]. J. H.-T. Yang (2010) compared the nasal mergers of Taiwan Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin and reported the difference between the two places. Speakers from Taiwan seemed to show a high level of homogeneity. No regional difference was found in his subjects from Taiwan. The /ŋ/ to [n] merger was found to lead in Taiwan, whereas the /n/ to [ŋ] merger was reported to lead in China.
Yueh (1992), C.-w. Hung (2006) and J. H.-T. Yang (2010) all found the nasal mergers after vowel /i/ and /ə/ to be /ŋ/ to [n] direction, which supported Kubler’s point of view again. However, Hsu (Hsu 2006, Hsu & Tse 2007) found /in/ to [iŋ] and /əŋ/ to [ən] mergers, which provided another counter example to argue against Kubler,
13
but none of the social factors (age, gender, and ethnicity) in their work were statistically significant. The debate on merging directions of syllable final nasals could be summarized as follows: most researchers agreed with the merging direction after the vowel /ə/, i.e., /əŋ/ to [ən], but disagreed upon the merging direction after the vowel /i/ (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 Summary of debates on merging direction.
Merger types Studies
2.1.2 Evidence for regional difference
According to the abovementioned works (see Table 2.1), except for Ing (1985), there seemed to be two camps of researchers, who agreed on the merging direction after /ə/, but disagreed on the merging direction after /i/. One possible explanation for such discrepancies lies in regional variations, as subjects from different populations were recruited for these studies. Yueh (1992) was the first study attempting to survey regional difference. J. H.-T. Yang (2010) also recruited speakers form different parts of Taiwan. Unfortunately, no regional variations were found in the two studies.
However, later studies such as R. J.-m. Hung (2007) and Fon et al. (2011) pointed out that the contradictory results in merging direction were very likely to be caused by
14
regional and methodological differences. Fon et al.’s (2011) experiment recruited subjects from Taipei and southwestern Taiwan and suggested the /ŋ/ to [n] mergers in both regions and an additional /in/ to [iŋ] merger in Taipei.
Coming back to view the discrepancies, studies that reported the /in/ to [iŋ]
merger were Chen (1991), C. C. Lin (2002) and Hsu (Hsu 2006, Hsu & Tse 2007), which all used speakers from Taipei as their subjects. Such a coincidence further confirmed Fon et al.’s observation, i.e., the /in/ to [iŋ] merger was only found in Taipei. All the other studies, except for Ing (1985), only reported /ŋ/ to [n] mergers (C.-w. Hung, 2006; Tse, 1992; J. H.-T. Yang, 2010; Yueh, 1992). Even if Tse (1992), J. H.-T. Yang (2010) and Yueh (1992) enlisted Taipei residents as part of their
subjects, the result did not contradict with Fon et al. (2011), either. The regional difference between the north and the south was almost established.
Su (2012) further examined the social and contextual factors influencing the variation of /ŋ/, using data from 35 sociolinguistic interviews among college students in Taipei and Tainan. As a first trial using spontaneous speech, Su reproduced the regional difference in a different respect. Although the realization of /n/ was not discussed, regional split and gender difference could be seen from the merging rate of /iŋ/. Southerners and male speakers utilized the variant form [in] more frequently than their counterparts. In order to complement Su’s deficiency and to reduplicate Fon et al.’s finding, this study used a full set of vowel-nasal combinations with the main
vowel remaining in monophthongal vowel realization, so that the performance of nasal mergers in the opposite direction could also be covered. Although the effect of region is not the main focus of the current study, such a factor is still included since regional differences have been well established by recent studies (Fon et al., 2011; Su, 2012).
15
2.1.3 Possible generational difference
Previous studies gave different explanations for the existence of nasal mergers.
Some argued that they were due to negative transfer from Min (Ing, 1985; Kubler, 1985), others claimed that the mergers were neutral innovations by young speakers due to assimilation (C. C. Lin, 2002; Tse, 1992; Yueh, 1992), still others pointed out the possibility of a natural sound change inspired by historical rhyme books or dictionaries (Chen, 1991; Hsu & Tse, 2007). Ing (1985) and Kubler (1985) attributed the cause of the nasal mergers to the influence of Min, since it is the most influential substrate language in Taiwan. Tse (1992) and Yueh (1992) claimed that the /ŋ/ to [n]
mergers were the innovation favored by the younger generation because most of the younger generation acquired Mandarin as their first language, and both Mandarin monolingual and Mandarin-Min bilingual speakers showed a similar trend, suggesting no obvious effect from Min transfer. The rules could thus be best described as
frontness assimilation, as both /i/ and /ə/, as well as /n/, are produced in the front half of the vocal tract. C. C. Lin (2002), on the other hand, also regarded the mergers as an innovation, but his explanation was somewhat different due to the opposite direction of the /in/ → [iŋ] merger. Since both [ŋ] and [i] can be regarded as [+high], and both [n] and [ə] as [–high], he characterized the mergers as an [αhigh] assimilation.
These studies also reported different degrees of progression for different merging rules regardless of merging directions, implying a possible existence of generational difference. The processes of the /ŋ/ to [n] mergers were found to vary from those at the burgeoning stage (17-28% in Tse, 1992), to mergers-in-progress (32-43% in C.-w. Hung, 2006), to changes almost complete (95-97% in J. H.-T. Yang, 2010). As for the /in/ → [iŋ] and /əŋ/ → [ən] mergers, Chen (1991) claimed the
merging process to be more advanced for /in/ → [iŋ] than for /əŋ/ → [ən] among three
16
different age groups in his study, while Hsu (Hsu, 2006; Hsu & Tse, 2007) reported in the opposite way. Their older speakers showed lower merging rates for /in/ → [iŋ]
than for /əŋ/ → [ən], while no such difference was found for her younger speakers regardless of gender and language background. As a result, Hsu argued that /əŋ/ to [ən]
was the leading merger instead. Owing to the divergent findings in previous reports, this study aimed to investigate potential generational difference in more detail.