Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2004. The varieties of English spoken in the Southeast of England: Morphology and syntax”. In Kortmann et al. (eds.), A handbook of varieties of English (Vol. 2), 1367-88.

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Luc Boltanski. 1975. Le Fétichisme de La Langue. Actes de La Recherche En Sciences Sociales 1(4), 2–32.

Childs, Claire. 2013. „I couldn’t really put [mə] finger on it“: Phonetic realisations of the possessive singular ‚my‘ in Tyneside English”. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics.

Drager, Katie K. 2011. Sociophonetic variation and the lemma. Journal of Phonetics (Vol.39), 694-707.

Gahl, Susanne. 2008. Time and Thyme Are not Homophones: The Effect of Lemma Frequency on Word Durations in Spontaneous Speech. Language 84(3), 474-496.

Grama, James, Mechler, Johanna, Bauernfeind, Lea, Eiswirth, Mirjam. E., and Buchstaller, Isabelle. (2023). Post-educator relaxation in the U-shaped curve: Evidence from a panel study of Tyneside (ing). Language Variation and Change, 1–26.

Moelders, Anne-Marie. Under Review. Navigating the vernacular across the life-span: A panel study of the phonetic realization of the first person possessive. Under review at English Language and Linguistics.

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven & Wagner (Eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology VII, 101-139.

This paper presents an acoustic analysis of the first possessive (1POS), which can be realized as [maɪ], [mi], [mə], and [mɑ] in the North-East of England (Childs 2013). To date, the research has focused on the turnover of variants in real and apparent time (Childs 2013, Moelders under review): Trend data shows that [mɑ] is currently replacing [mi] across time in Tyneside (Moelders under review). Detailed analysis reveals that proportional differences in the realization of the variable are contingent on social factors: some speakers, especially those working in healthcare, draw on the covert prestige of [mi] to index a stance of local belonging and carries covert prestige as it allows speakers to do local identity work, fostering a joint sense of belonging. Meanwhile, speakers in language-sensitive occupations (such as educators, see Grama et al. 2023) orient away from stigmatized [mi] while they are part of the marché scolaire (Bourdieu & Boltanski 1975) but relax back into vernacularity as they leave the profession. Less attention has been paid to variation in the phonetic realization of 1POS. The present study fills that gap by exploring a panel sample of 27 speakers aged 19 to 72 from Tyneside in the North-East of England.
Our analysis follows previous research suggesting that systematic variation is encoded at the level of the lemma (e.g., Drager 2011). Gahl (2008) refuted the assumption that homophones should, as they are defined as having the same acoustic realization, be realized in the exact same way regardless of their meaning or function. As a result of phonetic differences in homophone pairs in which one meaning/function is used more frequently than its counterpart, Gahl suggests that acoustic information is stored individually in a speaker’s mind for different lemmas. To this end, we investigate the phonetic profile of 1POS and the extent to which lemma-specific realizations of 1POS [mi] are different from the first-person accusative object (1OBJ) [mi]. Auditory coding of approximately 1,500 tokens is combined with the acoustic analysis of F1 and F2 (measurements taken at 10% intervals) over the trajectory of the vowel.
Preliminary results indicate that the acoustic realization of [mi] differs depending on its function as 1POS or 1OBJ. When fulfilling the role of 1OBJ, the onset of [mi] is longer than when acting as 1POS, which results in a tendency of longer vowel duration, suggesting shortening of the lemma/word of higher frequency.
These findings, which are fully in line with Gahl (2008), support exemplar based models of processing, which assume that lemmas/words are stored with acoustic information (e.g., Pierrehumbert 2002). Moreover, our analysis contributes a fine-grained acoustic analysis to the discussion about whether [mi] is either a phonetic realization of 1POS (as argued by Childs 2013) or whether it should be interpreted as “an extension of the object form” of possessive me (Anderwald 2004:177).