Vowels In Unstressed Syllables Research Articles

Rhythm in the Kingdom: a variationist analysis of speech rhythm in Tongan English

This article presents an analysis of speech rhythm in Tongan English, an emergent variety spoken in the Kingdom of Tonga. The normalised Pairwise Variability Index (nPVI-V) is used to classify the variety and determine the social and stylistic constraints on variation in a corpus of conversational and reading passage data with 48 speakers. Findings reveal a greater tendency towards stress-timing in speakers of the emergent local elite, characterised by white-collar professions and high levels of education, and those with a high index of English use. Variation is discussed as a consequence of proficiency, language contact and L1 transfer. An acoustic analysis of vowels in unstressed syllables of eight speakers confirms that lack of vowel centralisation (higher F1) is an underlying linguistic mechanism leading to more syllable-timed speech. Stark interspeaker variation was identified, highlighting the need to proceed with caution when classifying L2 Englishes based on speech rhythm.

Is secondary stress phonetically real for second-language learners? Evidence from Japanese-accented English

Speakers of a non-stress language such as Japanese often have difficulty producing lexical stress distinctions in languages such as English. Distinguishing primary-stressed versus unstressed syllables may be difficult, but distinctions involving secondary stress may be even more challenging. Some studies report that Japanese learners of English (JE) do not distinguish secondary-stressed and unstressed syllables in terms of vowel duration and quality whereas native American English speakers (AE) do. However, the data are limited and inconclusive. To resolve this issue, the present study asked AE and two groups of JE differing in English proficiency to produce 83 English words that exhibit stress shift, e.g., phótogràph-phòtográphic-photógraphy and conducted acoustic analysis of vowels in corresponding positions, which have the same consonantal context but differ in stress level. Preliminary results indicate that JE frequently produce devoiced vowels in unstressed syllables, particularly in phonetic environments similar to where devoicing occurs in Japanese. Devoicing, however, does not seem to occur in secondary-stressed syllables, suggesting that JE might distinguish secondary-stressed and unstressed syllables with respect to devoicing. Results from duration and formant analysis will also be reported and discussed in relation to theories of native-language influences on second-language speech learning. [Work supported by JSPS.]

Quality and duration of unstressed vowels in Polish

Polish is considered to be a language with no phonological vowel reduction in unstressed syllables. If vowel reduction does not have a phonological function, unstressed vowels are expected to be relatively stable in their quality and duration compared to stressed vowels. However, previous reports have suggested that Polish unstressed vowels may indeed undergo some processes of spectral and durational reduction. In this study, 23 speakers of Polish produced all 6 Polish vowels in /dV’dVdV/ frames using reiterant speech. The results showed that all vowels in unstressed syllables exhibited some changes in formant frequencies relative to vowels in stressed syllables. The greatest magnitude of reduction was observed for central /a/, and back /ɔ/ and /u/. Unstressed vowels were also shorter than stressed vowels with a ratio of 1.45. These results show that, although Polish unstressed vowels are not phonologically reduced, they are not immune to natural reduction processes caused by unstressed positions.

Phonetic realization of vowel reduction in Brazilian Portuguese

This study explored the phonetic realization of vowel reduction in Brazilian Portuguese, which reportedly exhibits raising of non-high vowels in unstressed syllables. Specifically, we tested the influence of speech rate on the realization of /a/ in five prosodic positions: word-initial pretonic, medial pretonic, tonic, medial posttonic, and final posttonic. The results showed that, while both speech rate and prosodic position had a clear effect on the phonetic duration of vowels, F1 values were far better predicted by the vowel’s prosodic position (non-posttonic vs. posttonic), although some effects of speech on F1 were observed in vowels at word edges. Correlations between phonetic duration and F1 were statistically significant but generally weak in all positions. We argue these findings suggest that vowel reduction in Brazilian Portuguese primarily reflects phonological patterning rather than phonetic undershoot, although phonetic reduction is also apparent. We discuss the results in the context of cross-linguistic studies of vowel reduction, and the relation between phonetics and phonology.This study explored the phonetic realization of vowel reduction in Brazilian Portuguese, which reportedly exhibits raising of non-high vowels in unstressed syllables. Specifically, we tested the influence of speech rate on the realization of /a/ in five prosodic positions: word-initial pretonic, medial pretonic, tonic, medial posttonic, and final posttonic. The results showed that, while both speech rate and prosodic position had a clear effect on the phonetic duration of vowels, F1 values were far better predicted by the vowel’s prosodic position (non-posttonic vs. posttonic), although some effects of speech on F1 were observed in vowels at word edges. Correlations between phonetic duration and F1 were statistically significant but generally weak in all positions. We argue these findings suggest that vowel reduction in Brazilian Portuguese primarily reflects phonological patterning rather than phonetic undershoot, although phonetic reduction is also apparent. We discuss the results in the context of cros...

The redundancy of self-organization as an explanation of English spelling

The redundancy of self-organization as an explanation of English spelling Geoffrey Sampson Kristian Berg and Mark Aronoff (2017; henceforth B&A) use historical data on the spellings of various English suffixes to argue for the role of ‘self-organization’ as a process by which system emerges spontaneously in an unregulated linguistic domain. They argue that choices of spelling for given phonological suffixes gradually settled down in such a way that spellings became indicators of part of speech. This is an attractive idea, but B&A’s data fail to support it, because they do not adequately consider the availability of other explanations. Data cannot constitute evidence for a novel theory, if they are already convincingly accounted for independently of that theory. This, I believe, applies to most if not all spellings cited by B&A. Many are explainable in terms of phonological detail, or of the nature of education during the relevant period; some have more specialized explanations. B&A discuss four cases: the suffixes -ous, -ic, -al, and -y, together (in each of the four cases) with suffixes that are phonologically similar but spelled differently. To keep the length of this commentary within bounds, I do not deal exhaustively with every example word cited by B&A. I begin by showing that for their first case, -ous, all of their data are convincingly accounted for by explanations independent of ‘self-organization’. Then from B&A’s three other cases I pick out examples that introduce considerations different in kind from those already discussed. I do not claim to be able to ‘explain away’ every last one of B&A’s data. But that is to be expected, considering that I do not have (and perhaps no one has) an ideally complete knowledge of the evolution of English spelling and English pronunciation (particularly the pronunciation of vowels in unstressed syllables). However, the proportion of B&A’s examples not accounted for by any of the principles I discuss is not large enough, I believe, to leave the case for self-organization persuasive. B&A introduce the -ous case by displaying a table (their Table 2, p. 45) that lists alternative graphic patterns for words that they regard as sharing a common phonological suffix,1 which they transcribe as /ɨs/. (1) <ous> as in hazardous, nervous <us> bonus, genius <is> glottis, tennis <ess> hostess, princess <ice> office, service B&A note (p. 41) that the CELEX database used for their research makes a phonetic distinction between [ǝs] as in nervous and [ɪs] as in office, but they see that as not relevant because ‘[t]his distinction is not justified phonetically in many varieties of English’; they suggest, citing Flemming and Johnson (2007), that in American English the distinction only occurs in the special case of pairs like Rosa’s, roses. However, what matters for B&A’s argument is not the phonology of any present-day English dialect, but that of the language during the period when spelling conventions were still evolving. [End Page e43] (For -ous and all but one of the other phonological suffixes discussed by B&A, the endpoint of the period they consider is 1710.) One cannot assume that this resembled present-day American English in the relevant respect, considering that in standard British Received Pronunciation (RP) the five graphic patterns listed above correspond to at least three different phonological patterns. A. C. Gimson (1967) gives hazardous, nervous, bonus, and genius with /ǝs/; glottis, tennis, office, and service with /is/; princess with /es/ (thus not wholly unstressed); and hostess with /is/ but /es/ as a ‘less frequent’ variant. Failure to distinguish the reduced vowels of tennis and office from those of hazardous and nervous is unusual in Britain, as demonstrated by the fact that it is a striking feature of the speech of Tony Blair, prime minister from 1997 to 2007, which otherwise conforms to RP norms.2 B&A’s decision to ignore the contrast between [ǝs] and [ɪs] would be justified if American English reflected the original position in this case and RP usage were innovative. For some of the obvious phonological differences between the two dialects, that is so, but here the truth...

Phonetic realization of English lexical stress by native (L1) Bengali speakers compared to native (L1) English speakers

English lexical stress is acoustically related to combination of duration, intensity, fundamental frequency (F0) and vowel quality. At phonetic level, the current study investigates L1 Bengali speakers’ acoustic manipulation of English lexical stress to produce English lexical stress contrast. This study compares the use of these correlates in the production of English lexical stress contrasts by 10 L1 English and 20 L1 Bengali speakers. The result showed that, although L1 Bengali speakers did use all four acoustic correlates to distinguish stressed from unstressed syllables, they produced significantly less native-like stress patterns. In particular, there was a significant difference in formant patterns across speaker groups, where L1 Bengali speakers produced English like vowel reduction in some unstressed syllables, but in other cases, L1 Bengali speakers had tendency to either not reduce or incorrectly reduce vowels in unstressed syllables. The results suggest that L1 Bengali speakers’ production of English lexical stress contrast is influenced by L1 language experience and L1 phonology.

The phonetics–phonology interface: Representations and methodologies ed. by Joaquín Romero and María Riera

Reviewed by: The phonetics–phonology interface: Representations and methodologies ed. by Joaquín Romero and María Riera Felicitas Kleber The phonetics–phonology interface: Representations and methodologies. Ed. by Joaquín Romero and María Riera. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2015. Pp. xxi, 288. ISBN 9789027248541. $149 (Hb). This book presents thirteen papers from the 5th Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia (PaPI) conference in June 2011 in Tarragona, Spain. These papers were selected because they ‘showcase… the thematic and methodological richness of the work presented at the 2011 meeting…that goes beyond the Romance realm’ (vii) and because they ‘represent a multifaceted cross section of current work on the phonetics-phonology interface’ (xix). The majority of the papers focus on Romance languages, but many will nonetheless be of interest to phoneticians and laboratory phonologists working on other languages. The volume includes papers from leading experts in the field as well as junior scientists and is intended for experienced researchers. The thirteen papers are organized into four parts and are preceded by the editors’ introduction, which gives a critical overview of the past and current state of research and frames the following chapters in a very detailed and useful way. In particular, the editors highlight how the papers address the book’s ‘goal of deepening our understanding of the phonetics-phonology interface’ (xix) and suggest broader implications that are not always apparent in the individual papers. The first part is on ‘First and second language acquisition’ and opens with a review chapter by Catherine T. Best entitled ‘Devil or angel in the details? Perceiving phonetic variation as information [End Page 247] about phonological structure’. The author reviews earlier research in which variation was typically viewed as noise that needs to be factored out in order to unveil the abstract phonological structure; she then convincingly argues in favor of the role of phonetic variation in the acquisition of phonological structure. Best draws upon growing evidence suggesting that language learners of all ages benefit from variation in production and thus in perception when shaping their first and second language (L2) phonologies. With their study on ‘Effects of Spanish use on the production of Catalan vowels by early Spanish-Catalan bilinguals’, Joan Carles Mora, James L. Keidel, and James E. Flege contribute to two issues in L2 research, namely language dominance and age of bilingualism. They show that production of and exposure to Catalan and Spanish shape the ways in which the Catalan mid-vowel contrasts are maintained or merged—potentially leading to a change. Variation is again mentioned as an important factor but is not addressed directly in the otherwise careful acoustic analysis. In ‘Cues to dialectal discrimination in early infancy: A look at prosodic, rhythmic and segmental properties in utterances from two Catalan dialects’, Marta Ortega-Llebaria and Laura Bosch compare durational (i.e. rhythmic) measures with the distribution of vowels in unstressed syllables, which differs in the two dialects. The aim was to disentangle possible acoustic effects that may have helped five-month-olds in a previous pilot study to discriminate eastern from western Catalan dialects. The findings point to vocalic rather than rhythmic differences. The paper might have made reference to the wealth of literature that is critical of rhythmic measures (as, for example, addressed by Nava and Goldstein in this volume) and that has demonstrated the difficulty of grouping languages (and even more so dialects) according to simple rhythm typologies (e.g. Grabe & Low 2002, Arvaniti 2009). Given that many dialects differ foremost in vocalic features (e.g. English varieties), it is indeed worthwhile to further investigate the extent to which young infants pick up on these cues. In ‘Phonology versus phonetics in loanword adaptations: A reassessment of English vowels in French’, Sharon Peperkamp investigates French listeners’ perception of American English vowels presented within the original context (flanked by labial consonants) or in isolation. The author compares the results to on-line adaptations of French speakers to the same CVC stimuli that were obtained in a previous study. Different responses to spliced (where listeners could not compensate for coarticulatory effects) vs. unspliced vowels (where...

English lexical stress produced by native (L1) Bengali speakers compared to native (L1) English speakers: an acoustic study

English lexical stress is acoustically related to combination of duration, intensity, fundamental frequency (F0) and vowel quality. Errors in any or all of these correlates could interfere with production of the stress contrast, but it is unknown which correlates are most difficult for L1 Bengali speakers to acquire. This study compares the use of these correlates in the production of English lexical stress contrasts by 10 L1 English and 20 L1 Bengali speakers. The results showed that L1 Bengali speakers produced significantly less native like stress patterns, although they used all four acoustic correlates to distinguish stressed from unstressed syllables. L1 English speakers reduced vowel duration significantly more in the unstressed vowels compared to L1 Bengali speakers and degree of intensity and F0 increase in stressed vowels by L1 English speakers was higher than that by L1 Bengali speakers. There were also significant differences in formant patterns across speaker groups, such that L1 Bengali speakers produced English like vowel reduction in certain unstressed syllables, but in other cases, L1 Bengali speakers had tendency to either not reduce or incorrectly reduce vowels in unstressed syllables. The results suggest that L1 Bengali speakers' production of English lexical stress contrast is influenced by L1 language experience and L1 phonology.

Differential effects of instruction on the development of second language comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation: The case of inexperienced Japanese EFL learners

The current study examined in depth the effects of suprasegmental-based instruction on the global (comprehensibility) and suprasegmental (word stress, rhythm, and intonation) development of Japanese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL). Students in the experimental group ( n = 10) received a total of three hours of instruction over six weeks, while those in the control group ( n = 10) were provided with meaning-oriented instruction without any focus on suprasegmentals. Speech samples elicited from read-aloud tasks were assessed via native-speaking listeners’ intuitive judgments and acoustic analyses. Overall, the pre-/post-test data showed significant gains in the overall comprehensibility, word stress, rhythm, and intonation of the experimental group in both trained and untrained lexical contexts. In particular, by virtue of explicitly addressing first language / second language linguistic differences, the instruction was able to help learners mark stressed syllables with longer and clearer vowels; reduce vowels in unstressed syllables; and use appropriate intonation patterns for yes/no and wh-questions. The findings provide empirical support for the value of suprasegmental-based instruction in phonological development, even with beginner-level EFL learners with a limited amount of second-language conversational experience.

Unstressed Vowels in German Learner English: An Instrumental Study

This study investigates the production of vowels in unstressed syllables by advanced German learners of English in comparison with native speakers of Standard Southern British English. Two acoustic properties were measured: duration and formant structure. The results indicate that duration of unstressed vowels is similar in the two groups, though there is some variation depending on the phonetic context. In terms of formant structure, learners produce slightly higher F1 and considerably lower F2, the difference in F2 being statistically significant for each learner. Formant values varied as a function of context and orthographic representation of the vowel.

PRODUCTION OF ENGLISH LEXICAL STRESS BY PERSIAN EFL LEARNERS

This study examines the phonetic properties of lexical stress in English produced by Persian speakers learning English as a foreign language. The four most reliable phonetic correlates of English lexical stress, namely fundamental frequency, duration, intensity, and vowel quality were measured across Persian speakers’ production of the stressed and unstressed syllables of five English disyllabic stress pairs which differed only in the location of stress, such as contract (noun)/ contract (verb). Results showed that Persian speakers’ use of the prosodic cues to lexical stress, that is fundamental frequency, duration, and intensity was comparable to the use of the same cues by American English speakers for both the stressed and unstressed syllables. There were, however, significant differences in formant frequency patterns (as the phonetic correlates of vowel quality) across the two language groups, such that Persian speakers did not manage to approximate the target native-like productions of the majority of the vowels in the experimental data both in the stressed or unstressed conditions. This observation supports the proposal made by Flege and Bohn  (1989), namely that L2 learners acquire L1 patterns of vowel reduction only after they have acquired English-like patterns of prosodic cues to stress (F0, duration and intensity), and that their inability to reduce vowels in unstressed syllables does not influence their ability to employ prosodic cues to lexical stress contrast. As will be discussed at the end, the results shall have implications for material developers and EFL teachers.

M. Petkevičiaus katekizmo (1598 m.) tarmė

THE DIALECT OF M. PETKEVIČIUS CATECHISM (1598)SummaryThe article deals with the dialect of the Lithuanian Calvinist Catechism published by M. Petkevičius (Pietkiewicz) in 1598. The analysis is focused on the main dialect features peculiar to the Catechism and the dialect itself is localized as belonging to the vicinity of Kėdainiai (see plan in Baltistica, VI, 2, p. 229). Some minor features of other dialects (East High Lithuanian, possibly Samogitian) are dealt with as well. The scope of change of the dialect under consideration (from the 16th century up to our days) is analysed.It is stated that in the environs of Kėdainiai at the end of the 16th century the nasal vowels were still retained, the consonants k, g, š, ž, č, (dž) alone were more clearly palatalized before the vowels of the e-type, the distribution of en, in ‖ ę, į and ł ‖ l was more archaic than it is now. Of the later dialect innovations the following are more important: monophthongization of uo and ie and the reduction of long vowels in unstressed syllables, the loss of many relic forms, e. g. dual, illative, adessive, allative, supine, athematic verbs, the levelling of various doublet and parallel forms, e. g. the root deiv- and diev-, the suppletive paradigm of the third personal prounoun, the smoothing of declension types, the loss of pronominal adjectives, many vivid vocabulary changes.A great influence of the Kėdainiai dialect on Lithuanian writings of the 16th and 17th centu­ries is emphasized.

M. Petkevičiaus katekizmo (1598 m.) tarmė

THE DIALECT OF M. PETKEVICIUS CATECHISM (1598) Summary The article deals with the dialect of the Lithuanian Calvinist Catechism published by M. Petkevicius (Pietkiewicz) in 1598. The analysis is focused on the main dialect features peculiar to the Catechism and the dialect itself is localized as belonging to the vicinity of Kėdainiai (see plan in Baltistica, VI, 2, p. 229). Some minor features of other dialects (East High Lithuanian, possibly Samogitian) are dealt with as well. The scope of change of the dialect under consideration (from the 16th century up to our days) is analysed. It is stated that in the environs of Kėdainiai at the end of the 16th century the nasal vowels were still retained, the consonants k , g , s , ž , c , ( dž ) alone were more clearly palatalized before the vowels of the e -type, the distribution of en, in ‖ e , į and l ‖ l was more archaic than it is now. Of the later dialect innovations the following are more important: monophthongization of uo and ie and the reduction of long vowels in unstressed syllables, the loss of many relic forms, e. g. dual, illative, adessive, allative, supine, athematic verbs, the levelling of various doublet and parallel forms, e. g. the root deiv- and diev-, the suppletive paradigm of the third personal prounoun, the smoothing of declension types, the loss of pronominal adjectives, many vivid vocabulary changes. A great influence of the Kėdainiai dialect on Lithuanian writings of the 16th and 17th centu­ries is emphasized.

Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen By Klaus J. Kohler (review)

234 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 57, NUMBER 1 (1981) and Joan Maling's general proposals on Gapping and Conjunction Reduction. Bach's (1971) revised hypothesis regarding word order is examined , showing why Bach rejected his earlier position on SOV order in favor ofSVO. Indirect questions are discussed and a very superficial look at historical linguistics is taken,just enough to establish VSO as a respectable alternative. VSO is compared to SOV and SVO in the final chapter, which covers Passive, There-Insertion (es gibt), Subject and Negative Raising, Dative constructions and more. B does a good job throughout the book of postulating possible derivations of SOV- and SVO-based sentences which are then compared in detail with VSO derivations. B shows that the VSO base, in conjunction with the prefield concept, is able to account for German sentences more easily than either SOV or SVO bases. The book concludes that, based on the evidence examined, VSO is a viable and perhaps preferable alternative to SOV and SVO. [Karen Hunold, Berkeley.] Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. By Klaus J. Kohler. (Grundlagen der Germanistik, 20.) Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1977. Pp. 251. DM25.00. Kohler's book, completed in 1975, discusses these topics in successive chapters: the subject matter of phonetics in general; the problem of a standard German language; descriptive categories for phonetics; the basis of phonology; types and uses of symbol systems; and a systematic phonetic description of German, including suprasegmentals. The last chapter comprises about one-third of the total book. K bases his exposition on empirical data, rather than on the transcriptions of standard pronouncing dictionaries such as Duden and Siebs. The variety of German investigated is labeled 'dialect-neutral', based on north German pronunciation. Data are obtained from several recent projects in both East and West Germany , aimed at obtaining a representative sample of spoken German from various stylistic levels. In this respect, K's treatment represents a welcome 'deviation' from other accounts of standard German phonology. Phonetics and phonology are discussed as one, and here K's work represents a contribution to 'concrete phonology': 'Phonetic substance and phonological structure are not in opposition, but stand in a reciprocal relation to one another' (11). The trappings of generative phonology, in all its manifestations, are dismissed as 'paper phonology'. K defends the biuniqueness condition of American structuralism , but without retaining its heuristic procedures . For K, a phonological description should capture just the regularities of production and reception in a language, and this means that the phonological level should be as close to the 'surface' as possible. Procedurally, the linguist moves from one partial analysis to the next with constant 'post-editing', the goal being to posit the minimal number of segments with maximum generalization. K's commitment to the biuniqueness condition, and his rejection of morphophonemics in the investigation ofphoneticsphonology , has several consequences for the analysis of German: thus all syllable-final obstruents on the phonetic level are related to voiceless phonemes. The final consonant in Bund is ItI. Again, the basic vowel opposition is length rather than tenseness. K justifies this view in part by asserting that short tense vowels in unstressed syllables are a fiction ofnormative dictionaries. Hence tense vowels alone are long—except when subject to phonotactic shortening, as in the rapid pronunciation of certain weakly-stressed forms. As a whole, K's book is well-written, with a minimum of arcane symbols and terminology. One oddity is his use of 'low' for vowels like /i u/ and 'high' for IaI, with no explanation. K's last section on 'sentence phonetics' doesjustice to his commitment to empirical speech data as the basis of investigation; it gives a comprehensive overview of assimilation, elision, and length reduction which few studies of German have undertaken. [Wilbur A. Benware, University of California, Davis.] Tempus og tidsreferanse: Tidsdeiksis i norsk. By Kjell Ivar Vannebo. Oslo: Novus, 1979. Pp. 563. Kr. 122.00. This comprehensive account of the linguistic expression of time reference in Norwegian builds on previous descriptions of Norwegian tense, on recent work on tense in closely related languages (especially English and German), and on original work by the author. 'Tense' is in- ...

Have Got, a Pattern Preserver

T HE 'HAVE GOT' WHICH SUBSTITUTES FOR have has for the past four centuries been performing a valuable function in the English language. It, therefore, should be cleared of the charges of being 'redundant' or 'illogical,' which are frequently made by its critics.1 The use of have got for have in sentences like 'I have got two hands' is evidently a resolution of a conflict between two factors in English: stress and syntax. This theory for the rise of have got is proposed: have got was substituted for have to strengthen the subject + verb construction in the place where, through reduction of stress on have, that construction was not clearly signaled. That place was in utterances like 'I've two hands'; that is, where have occurred in its simple-present form as a 'full' verb but was reduced in stress. Have got for have is first documented clearly in the late sixteenth century: the Oxford English Dictionary under get cites passages from Shakespeare; Jespersen gives quotations from Marlowe and Dekker;2 Rice has slightly earlier but equivocal citations from Sir Thomas More and Latimer.3 The very lack of earlier instances refutes another theory for the rise of the substitution. The substance of that theory, which was presented at least a century ago, in Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms, and is still popular, is that, because have was frequently used as an auxiliary, people felt a need for another word to express or emphasize the idea of 'possess.' That theory simply ignores history: have had been used for many centuries both as an auxiliary and as a full verb meaning 'possess' before the substitution arose. No, it was not the use of have as an auxiliary that brought forth have got. The substitution arose from a change in stress patterns in early Modern English. According to Wyld, 'at least as early as the middle of the fifteenth century vowels in unstressed syllables were shortened, reduced, or confused, very much as in Colloquial English at the present time.'4 For example, the word honorable had primary stress, as today, on the first syllable, but the other vowels were not reduced to schwa until, say, the fifteenth century. Furthermore, by the sixteenth century, there was not only reduction of vowels to schwa within words, but sometimes loss of schwa. For example,