Options
An acoustic investigation of the segmental features of educated Brunei English speech
Author
Salbrina Haji Sharbawi
Supervisor
Deterding, David
Goh, Christine Chuen Meng
Abstract
There is a dearth of publications on the phonetics and phonology of Brunei English (BrunE). To date, there have only been four published works investigating the sounds of this English variety and out of the four, only one incorporated the use of acoustic measurements.
The present study provides an in-depth instrumental investigation of the segmental features of educated BrunE speech. Its objectives are three-fold: first, it contributes to the literature on the phonetics of BrunE; second, it aims to investigate the extent of the reliability of acoustic measurements in describing a language variety; and third, it examines the feasibility of describing an emerging English variety on its own terms without reference to an inner circle variety such as British English (BrE).
Comparison is, however, made to Singapore English (SgE). This is because it has been suggested that an English lingua franca with shared pronunciation features is developing in the Southeast Asian region. As such, comparison to SgE allows us to assess the relationship between these two English varieties, and thereby place BrunE within the context of the Southeast Asian Englishes.
After the literature review, methodology and description of data, the experimental section of this dissertation is divided into three chapters: rhoticity (Chapter Four), consonants (Chapter Five) and vowels (Chapter Six). The chapter on consonants is further divided into four sections: dental fricatives, final consonant clusters, Lvocalization and voice onset time (VOT). The chapter on vowels is divided into monophthongs and the diphthongs FACE and GOAT. The findings of the present study show that there are several similarities in the pronunciation features between BrunE and SgE. However, there are also some differences. Some of these dissimilarities are attributed to the first languages of the subjects as well as to the different stages in development of the two English varieties.
The study also finds that acoustic measurements are not always reliable in describing some pronunciation features. They prove to be reliable in investigating VOT and monophthongs but do not seem to work so well in the investigation of rhoticity, dental fricatives, final consonant clusters and L-vocalization. As for diphthongs, measurements help provide a reasonable overview of the degree of diphthongal movement but they are less valuable in describing the quality of individual tokens.
Another finding of this study is that describing an emerging English variety on its own terms is possible, though having an inner circle variety as a reference point can be beneficial particularly for values such as VOT and the degree of diphthongal movement. In an attempt to avoid prescribing to how a sound ‘should’ be pronounced, Wells’ lexical keywords are used for the vowels instead of phonetic symbols. As the lexical sets are too complex for the description of BrunE vowels, a modified approach is adopted by having a reduced number of lexical sets. However, problems are still encountered in the analysis because these keywords work on the assumption that the lexical sets are fixed, and they seem to be based entirely on the pronunciation of an inner circle variety.
The present study provides an in-depth instrumental investigation of the segmental features of educated BrunE speech. Its objectives are three-fold: first, it contributes to the literature on the phonetics of BrunE; second, it aims to investigate the extent of the reliability of acoustic measurements in describing a language variety; and third, it examines the feasibility of describing an emerging English variety on its own terms without reference to an inner circle variety such as British English (BrE).
Comparison is, however, made to Singapore English (SgE). This is because it has been suggested that an English lingua franca with shared pronunciation features is developing in the Southeast Asian region. As such, comparison to SgE allows us to assess the relationship between these two English varieties, and thereby place BrunE within the context of the Southeast Asian Englishes.
After the literature review, methodology and description of data, the experimental section of this dissertation is divided into three chapters: rhoticity (Chapter Four), consonants (Chapter Five) and vowels (Chapter Six). The chapter on consonants is further divided into four sections: dental fricatives, final consonant clusters, Lvocalization and voice onset time (VOT). The chapter on vowels is divided into monophthongs and the diphthongs FACE and GOAT. The findings of the present study show that there are several similarities in the pronunciation features between BrunE and SgE. However, there are also some differences. Some of these dissimilarities are attributed to the first languages of the subjects as well as to the different stages in development of the two English varieties.
The study also finds that acoustic measurements are not always reliable in describing some pronunciation features. They prove to be reliable in investigating VOT and monophthongs but do not seem to work so well in the investigation of rhoticity, dental fricatives, final consonant clusters and L-vocalization. As for diphthongs, measurements help provide a reasonable overview of the degree of diphthongal movement but they are less valuable in describing the quality of individual tokens.
Another finding of this study is that describing an emerging English variety on its own terms is possible, though having an inner circle variety as a reference point can be beneficial particularly for values such as VOT and the degree of diphthongal movement. In an attempt to avoid prescribing to how a sound ‘should’ be pronounced, Wells’ lexical keywords are used for the vowels instead of phonetic symbols. As the lexical sets are too complex for the description of BrunE vowels, a modified approach is adopted by having a reduced number of lexical sets. However, problems are still encountered in the analysis because these keywords work on the assumption that the lexical sets are fixed, and they seem to be based entirely on the pronunciation of an inner circle variety.
Date Issued
2010
Call Number
PE3502.B7 Sal
Date Submitted
2010