(a) Gender (b) Education
Figure 7.8: Percentage (%) distribution of the NURSE vowel according to gender and education in E eme
7.2.3. The lettER vowel
The acoustic space of the lettER vowel for each speaker group is presented in Figures 7.9a and b below. In these figures, the mean F1-F2 frequencies of /ə/ for each group were drawn on S-transformed scales with F1/S(F1) on y- axis and F2-F1/S(F2-F1) on the x-axis. The red dots in each figure indicate the spaces for the males and those with basic education, whereas the blue indicate those of females and speakers with secondary education.
(a) Gender (b) Education
Figures 7.9: S-transformed mean frequency values of F1 and F2 of the /ə/ vowel of each gender and Education group across E e
0 20 40 60 80 100
Male Female
[eː] [ ː]
0 20 40 60 80 100
Basic Secondary
[eː] [ ː]
130
The spaces for the groups in both figures are seemingly similar; each speaker group has relatively four different positions for the lettER vowel. The number of tokens used for each variant by each group were converted into percentages and were presented in Figures 7.11a and b.
(a) Gender (b) Education
Figure 7.10: Percentage (%) distribution of the lettER vowel according to gender and education across E e
It is obvious that the groups are highly similar in their realisations of the lettER vowel. An independent sample t-test was performed to examine whether gender and education were variables affecting the realisations of the lettER vowel across the entire E e. The observed and expected results according to gender and education were highly similar and so were not considered significant. Meaning that when we consider the entire E e as a homogeneous group, gender and education are insignificant when it comes to the realisation of the lettER vowel. However, within E eme, gender has shown some significant effect (p<.021) and (p<.028) for the choice between [ə] and [ ]. While the male speakers showed more preference for [ə], their females seemed to have a higher preference for [ ] than their male counterparts. That is, the weak short mid central variant [ə], is likely to be dominated by male speakers, whereas the fully short relatively lowered variant [ ], is likely to be confined to female speakers. Below are figures illustrating the group by group distribution of the lettER in each dialect region.
0
131
(a) Gender (b) Education
Figure 7.11: Percentage (%) distribution of the lettER vowel according to gender and education in A lɔ
Figure 7.12: Percentage (%) distribution of the lettER vowel according to gender and education in E eme
7.2.4. Discussion
The results for both gender and Education groups across the entire E e, and in each dialect region are striking. For instance, looking at the results at a glance, one is tempted to conclude that gender, just like education, plays no significant role in the choice of any of the phonetic variants of /e/, / ː/ and /ə/, among the E e of Ghana, except the central realisation [ ː] of the DRESS which was strictly gender specific. It can be recalled that this variant [ ː], was regarded more or less as a male dominated variant;
0
132
that is when the entire E e was considered as one group. But this impression gradually diminished when the variables were examined in each dialect region. For instance, we can remember that in E eme, the central realisation [ ː], of both the DRESS and the NURSE were strictly dominated by male speakers. Their female counterparts, however, appeared to be moving for their retracted [e̠] and the fronted [eː] forms. Interestingly, in A lɔ, both genders seemed to have shown an equal preference for these variants just as it was for both Education groups in the entire E e. The lettER vowel exhibited similar characteristics: while gender and education showed no significant effects for all of its variants across the entire E e, the sample for E eme showed some significant effect [p<.021] for [ə] and [p<.028] for [ ]. Thus, whereas the males were moving for the standard prestige variant [ə], their females seemed to be going for the nonstandard form [ ]. The results might therefore be interpreted as follows:
(i) the use of the fronted [eː] and the retracted-mid [e̠] realisations of the NURSE and of the DRESS declined for males but increased for females as a function of dialect;
(ii) the use of the central [ ː] of the NURSE increased for males but declined for females as a function of dialect;
(iii) the use of the central [ ː] of the DRESS increased for males but declined for females in the entire E e;
(iv) the use of the central [ə] of the lettER increased for males but declined for females as a function of dialect;
(v) the use of the central [ ] of the lettER declined for males but increased for females as a function of dialect;
(vi) all speakers, irrespective of gender are likely to use the retracted-raised [ɪ] of the DRESS equally;
(vii) all speakers, irrespective of their levels of education are likely to use all the three RP vowels equally.
This is to say that among some of the groups, the use of [ ː] was recessive, while for others it was the retracted [e̠] and the fronted [eː]. This was true also of the variants [ə] and [ ], while the females in E eme appeared to be shifting away from the prestige variant [ə], their male counterparts might be said to be approximating to it.
It is interesting to find that while the men were moving away from the covert prestige realisations (i.e. [ ] and [eː]), their female counterparts were heading towards that
133
direction. Nonetheless, it signifies the direction in which the lettER and the NURSE vowels are heading towards among the E e; that is, if the perception that women are innovators and leaders of linguistic change is actually true. It is also important we recognise that similar findings have emerged from studies carried out in several other varieties of English, where men reportedly used standard speech whereas women used the nonstandard form. The results of the present study are therefore partly consistent with the general sex-preferential variation reported between men and women, where women have used one variable more frequently than men. They also suggest that gender and social class differentiation may work differently for men and women in different sociocultural settings (see also Nichols, 1983).
Note that researches in the western world, for instance, have consistently put women in the lead of standard speech. In Norwich, Trudgill (1974) reported that all women, regardless of their social standing used the standard prestige variant [ ] of the ‘-ing’
morpheme more than their male counterparts. Interestingly, middle-middle class women never used the nonstandard variant [n] at all; whereas lower-working class men used it almost all of the times. The social stratification of New York City English by Labov (1966), similarly put women, especially lower-middle class women (Macy’s), ahead of working class and upper-middle class speakers. This behaviour as mentioned earlier, is believed by some as insecurity of women about their own pronunciation;
women used standard speech to gain status they are denied (James 1996). There has also been the issue of hypercorrection of speech reported among women, a behaviour, Labov (1966) is certain, is due to women’s recognition of an exterior standard of correctness and their ‘insecurity’ about their own speech. The Macy’s from lower-middle class were most likely to be aware of the prestige forms; hence, accommodating to upper-middle class speech of their clients. Some are of the view that since women are universally granted less power than men, the use of standard speech allows them to sound less and to have a voice to protest against the traditional norms that place them in an inferior social position to men (James, 1996).
The preference for the nonstandard variants by the women contradicts some of these findings and, therefore forces one to question the general assumption that overt prestige speech is a preserve of women. The results might however agree with the fact that specific requirements of the type of talk in which speakers are engaged motivate the
134
use of a particular feature and not the other. Implying that the linguistic differences between males and females often reported in variation studies may not necessarily be the results of being a male or of being a female, several factors could account for this.
The differences and the overlapping in the speech of both genders and speakers from the two educational groups observed in the present study are thus not peculiar to the E e of Ghana alone.
7.3. Social network variation