THE VOCALIC SYSTEM OF THE DIALECT OF IPIROS

Evia Kainada1 & Mary Baltazani1, 2 1University of Ioannina, 2University of Oxford

ekainada@cc.uoi.gr, mbaltaz@cc.uoi.gr

Abstract The vocalic system of Ipiros Greek is examined, using a semi-directed speech elicitation task, in an effort to enhance our knowledge of the phonetic/ phonological characteristics of Modern Greek dialects. Ipiros Greek exhibits unstressed mid-vowel raising, unstressed high-vowel deletion and rarely stressed mid-vowel diphthongization. The dialect’s vowel space is more compressed than that reported for Standard Modern Greek. All non-high vowels show a substantial amount of raising in unstressed positions, leading to mid vowels approximating high vowels in terms of height. Phonetics, phonology, vowel space, formants, vocalic deletion 1. Introduction The last few decades have seen increasing attention to the quantitative study of dialects, an enterprise that has led to detailed description and great understanding of inter-dialectal differences (e.g. Hughes et al. 2005; Trudgill & Hannah 2002; O’Rourke 2010; Jacewicz et al. 2007). Contrary to this trend, our knowledge of the phonetic and phonological characteristics of Modern Greek dialects is still rather limited and informed by older, mostly impressionistic analyses (e.g. Chatzidakis 1905; Papadopoulos 1927; Newton 1972; Browning 1991; Kontosopoulos 2000). The present paper investigates the acoustics of the vocalic system of a Northern Greek dialect, that of Ipiros Greek (henceforth IG) and provides insights into the frequency of phonological vocalic phenomena present in the dialect.

Past impressionistic phonological descriptions of Northern Greek dialects agree that they share three very common vocalic phenomena (Newton 1972; Kontosopoulos 1994), i.e., (a) unstressed high-vowel deletion, e.g. /ma'vrizi/ → [ma'vriz], (b) unstressed mid-vowel raising, e.g. /θesalo'nici/ → [θisalu'nic] and (c) stressed mid-vowel diphthongisation /mo'ro/ → [mu'rwo]. Despite the repeated acknowledgement of these phonological characteristics in the literature, no systematic, quantitative verification exists yet of the phonological landscape as it appears today. Studies such as Newton (1972), though quite detailed, give us a snapshot of dialects which is now more than forty years old and bound to be obsolete. More recent articles, such as Trudgill 2003, offer analyses which are valuable and systematic, but which are nonetheless based on data from older studies. It has been known for sometime now that the dialects in question are undergoing contraction (Malikouti-Drachman 2000), so the matter of documenting them and analyzing them quantitatively is quite urgent. Studies similar to the present one (see e.g. Loukina 2008 for a comparison across Athenian, Thessalian and Cypriot Greek; Christou & Baltazani 2010 for Ipiros Greek; Topintzi & Baltazani 2012 for Kozani Greek) will create good bases for a much needed dialectal atlas of Greek (Trudgill 2003).

Northern Greek dialects have been classified into three categories, mainly on the basis of the application of vowel deletion and vowel raising (Kontosopoulos 1994; Trudgill 2003): Extreme Northern dialects, which delete all unstressed high vowels and raise unstressed mid vowels; Northern dialects, which delete all unstressed high vowels in word final position and raise unstressed mid vowels; and Semi-northern dialects, which delete all unstressed high vowels in word final position, but do not raise unstressed mid vowels. The exact location of IG on this tripartite division in not clear and will form part of the present paper’s investigation.

According to previous acoustic analyses, one difference between the vocalic systems of SMG and IG is that in the latter, vowels do not occur in equidistant positions: the distance between mid and high vowels is smaller than that between mid and low vowels (Christou & Baltazani 2010). Another finding is that vocalic deletion is optional and gradient in its phonetic output and is asymmetric in terms of its frequency of application across vowels, since /u/ deletes more often than /i/ (Topintzi & Baltazani 2012). Finally, vocalic deletion has also been found to correlate with increased duration of the immediately preceding consonant (Topintzi & Baltazani 2012; also reported in Kainada & Baltazani 2013 for IG and Meneses & Albano 2013 for Brazilian Portuguese), or with increased duration and raising of the immediately preceding vowel, a finding that has been tentatively analysed as compensatory lengthening (Christou & Baltazani 2010). Note however that the aforementioned studies relied on a small number of speakers and studied either only stressed or only unstressed vowels (stressed vowels from two females in Christou & Baltazani 2010; unstressed vowels from one male in Topintzi & Baltazani 2012).

Our aim in this paper is to undertake a more systematic study of the acoustic characteristics of the vowels of IG, where we examine more speakers of both genders and compare both stressed and unstressed vowels to their SMG counterparts. To address the issue of this dialect’s classification within the broader class of Northern dialects we investigate the frequency of phenomena like vowel deletion, raising and diphthongization. Finally we try to determine whether the finding on vocalic lengthening in positions preceding deleted vowels reported in previous literature can be confirmed.

From a theoretical viewpoint, our findings on inter-dialectal research and variation can help shed light on issues relating to the typology of vowel spaces and theories of vowel dispersion (e.g. Liljencrants & Lindblom 1972; Trudgill 2009), theories of vowel reduction due to hypo-articulation (e.g. Lindblom 1983) and questions regarding the interface of phonetics and phonology, especially the nature of phonological phenomena and their acoustic manifestation.

In the remainder of this paper, we present the method of elicitation of our dataset (section 2), section 3 presents the frequency of occurrence of each of the three phonological phenomena in our speakers’ productions, the quality/vocalic space of female and make speakers of the dialect, and finally a preliminary investigation into the matter of what has been termed as compensatory lengthening, and section 4 summarises the main research findings and discusses them in view of their theoretical implications. 2. Procedure 2.1. Method

In order for the experiment to accomplish ‘ecological validity’ (term from Post & Nolan 2012), i.e. speech approximating natural communication in register with dialectal authenticity, and to avoid influences from SMG, the experimental design for collecting the present dataset formed a study on its own, and is presented more thoroughly in Kainada & Baltazani (2013). In particular, a major consideration has been to avoid an experimental setting that favored a convergence of the participants’ speech to the dominant culture (Speech Accommodation Theory, e.g. Bebee & Giles 1984; Giles et al. 1977; Giles & Philip 1979, Giles et al. 1991) and/or placed the fieldworker in a powerful position (observer’s paradox, Labov 1972:209).

The fact that IG speakers are exposed everyday to SMG, the dominant variety which is high in prestige, makes it essential and also challenging to design a proper experimental setting that will elicit dialectal productions from the participants. No written version of IG exists, therefore asking the participants to read a set of written sentences was bound to trigger their convergence to the dominant SMG and therefore not an option for the present experiment. We compared different experimental protocols to determine the best way of obtaining ecologically valid and linguistically meaningful results (for details see Kainada & Baltazani 2013). The subjects heard a question about a picture (Figure 1) e.g. “What is Yannis using to cut the onion with?” (Με τι κόβει ο Γιάννης το κρεµµύδι;) and were asked to answer in a full sentence using information from the depicted picture, e.g. “Yannis is cutting the onion with the knife”, (Ο Γιάννης κόβει το κρεµµύδι µε το µαχαίρι). The questions, which were recorded using a speaker of the IG dialect, were presented aurally to the subjects to avoid influences from SMG.

Figure 1. Photographs like the one depicted here were shown to subjects to elicit the target

experimental material. See text for details.

2.2. Participants and recordings Eight native NG speakers were recorded (4 females, 4 males, 45-70 years old). Recordings took place at the participant’s homes, or at a café the locals frequent (in a separate as much as possible quiet room). Recordings were made directly on a laptop using Audacity, v.2.0.4, as the recording software, set at 44100 sampling rate, and a Blue Yeti USB microphone set at cardioid direction. 2.3. Materials

We created 20 sentences, each with 2 words inducing deletion of the post-accentual vowel (deletion condition), matched with 20 sentences not involving deletion (non-deletion condition), resulting in a corpus of 640 words (20 sentences * 2 words * 2 conditions * 8 speakers).

The test words formed near-minimal pairs across the two conditions, e.g. ɾu'bini – ɾu'biɲa (‘ruby-rubies’), the former containing a potential deletion at the post-accentual vowel site (final [i]), which the latter lacked to facilitate comparison between minimal pairs. An example of the sentences is shown in Table 1. As word final syllables have been reported to be the most likely sites for unstressed high vowel deletion (Topintzi & Baltazani 2012), all target words carried penultimate stress words, and ended in –i for the deletion condition to maximize the possibility of [i] deletion.

The corpus was specifically designed to facilitate /i/ deletion as part of a bigger study on intonation (Baltazani & Kainada submitted). However, as this corpus also afforded a large number of vocalic tokens on which to assess the application of mid vowel raising and diphthongization, we decided to also include these in our measurements. Across all phenomena, we measured 3,272 vocalic tokens.

Table 1: Example of sentences designed to induce vocalic deletion (top) and not to (bottom). Final

syllables of target words are shown in bold.

Stimulus and expected response

Q: me pçon ðʝa'leʝi to 'ɾubini i e'leni? ‘Who is Eleni choosing the ruby with?’

R: i e'leni ðʝa'leʝi to 'ɾubini me to 'ʝani ‘Eleni is choosing the ruby with John’

Q: me pçon ðʝalèɣun ta ɾu'bìɲa ta ko'ɾitsça? ‘Who are the girls choosing the rubies with?’

R: ta ko'ɾitsça ðʝa'leɣun ta ɾub'iɲa me to ma'noli ‘The girls are choosing the rubies with Manolis’

2.4. Measurements All measurable vowels from the resulting corpus were manually segmented using Praat; highly coarticulated vowels, that we were not able to identify with certainty were not analysed, as were vowels that had substantial final lengthening or were part of hesitation or final devoicing. The location and boundaries of each vowel were marked, as well as the application of one of the three well-known phenomena expected to appear in the dialect, i.e. deletion, raising or diphthongization. The types of analyses we performed on the above dataset are the following:

• Frequency of occurrence of vocalic phenomena. We measured how often a specific potential phonological phenomenon actually applied, for example what percentage of unstressed /e/ tokens actually underwent raising. The purpose of this measurement was to determine the classification of this dialect among the proposed categories of Northern Greek (see section 1).

• F1 and F2 frequencies of stressed and unstressed vowels to facilitate the description of vowel spaces for this dialect and the comparison to SMG.

• Duration of vowels preceding target vowels, to test whether deletion of target vowels lengthens the vowel preceding them.

3. Results A corpus of 3,272 vocalic tokens were marked-up and analysed. Figure 2 shows the distribution of stressed and unstressed vowels. Unsurprisingly, unstressed vowels are more frequent, especially /i/ and /a/, and as has been repeatedly reported in the literature (Protopapas et al. 2012) very few instances of the vowel /u/ were found.

Figure 2: Stressed and unstressed vowel frequency.

All predicted phonological phenomena are attested in the dataset (Figure 3), however none of the phenomena applies as systematically as reported in past impressionistic studies. The most frequent phonological phenomenon in our dataset, /o/ raising, occurred only for 39% of the unstressed /o/ tokens while /e/ diphthongization occurred a mere 7%. All in all, high vowel deletion and mid vowel raising were attested for between 30% and 40% of the unstressed vowels, while diphthongization was uncommon. Figure 3: Percent application of each vocalic phenomenon in the dataset. Three phenomena are shown, deletions, raisings and diphthongisations (del, rais, and dip respectively). Blue portions show how often

the phenomenon applied in the dataset, e.g. /i/ deletion occurred 34% of the times.

The vowel space of IG is shown in Figure 4, left and right panel for females and males respectively. The green triangles represent values taken from Baltazani et al (to appear) for stressed vowels of Standard Modern Greek. Mean values for all vowels in stressed and unstressed position for both genders are shown in Table 2. Stressed IG vowels show typical distribution of the five-system vocalic space. However, a somewhat asymmetrical relation of mid vowels to high vs. low vowels is revealed, as in previous studies of Northern Greek dialects (Christou & Baltazani 2010). Unstressed vowels show non-high vowel raising, but there is no systematic centralization compared to stressed vowels. For male speakers, both round vowels have more central positions in the unstressed condition but no other vowel does. A difference is identified across males and females in /i-e/ in that females do not raise as much as males (Trudgill 1983; Cameron & Coates 1989; Chambers 1992). Finally, the whole vowel space seems raised in comparison to SMG, but this comparison needs to be treated with caution given the inconsistencies in formant values among Greek studies (Arvaniti 2008).

Figure 4: Vowel spaces for male and female speakers of IG. Green triangles are reference points for SMG taken from Baltazani et al (to appear).

Table 2: Mean values of F1 and F2 for IG’s five vowels broken down by stress and gender.

Male Female Stressed Unstressed Stressed Unstressed F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F2

a 658 1542 538 1553 747 1742 597 1720 e 475 1742 383 1802 582 2021 495 1972 i 357 1961 372 1936 444 2156 426 2163 o 510 1336 402 1473 604 1375 477 1471 u 401 1260 413 1527 434 1310 461 1369

The distribution of all vowels plotted in the vocalic space is shown, separately for

males and females as well as stressed and unstressed vowels in Figure 5. It is clear that in the stressed productions there is less overlap across vowels, especially for female speakers. The unstressed productions overlap substantially, again with males showing substantially more overlap than females, especially those of mid and high vowels. For the female speakers, the unstressed low /a/ vowel, although raised, remains partially distinct from /e/ and totally distinct from /o/.

Figure 5: Scatterplot of all vowels produced by all speakers in stressed and unstressed positions.

The same picture, as for Figure 5, stands when the data are broken down by speakers (Figure 6). Non-high vowel raising is the norm for all our speakers.

Figure 6: Scatterplot of each speaker’s vocalic distribution in stressed and unstressed positions.

Previous literature has reported that vowels preceding syllables with vocalic deletion tend to be longer than if no deletion had occurred. For example, the vowel /a/ in σπιτάκι /spi'taci/ ‘small home’ might be longer when the final /i/ is deleted [spi'tac]. While our dataset was specifically designed to elicit minimal pairs with /i/ deletion, as we showed earlier, deletion is not the norm in unstressed high vowels. This means that we did not manage to elicit a minimal pair, such as [spi'taci – spi'tac] for all our designed materials. We identified as many such minimal pairs as possible from the whole dataset of recordings, i.e. words that only differed in deletion of the final /i/,

but with similar prosodic position and associated tonal configuration, since these are factors known to influence the duration of associated vowels (Beckman & Edwards 1990, 1994; Byrd & Saltzman 2003; Turk & Dimitrova 2007; Kainada 2010 among many). Only 96 such instances were identified across speakers. From this dataset, the hypothesis that vowels preceding deletion tend to be longer does not seem to be confirmed (Figure 7). Still, the finding needs to be directly tested in a corpus designed to elicit such minimal pairs.

Figure 7: Duration of each vowel in positions preceding deletion (_C∅) or not (_CV) by speaker. Missing columns and vowels indicate that no minimal pairs were found.

4. Discussion Our investigation of the acoustic characteristics of the IG vocalic system revealed that although the system comprises the same five phonological vowel categories as SMG, the distribution of these vowels in the vocalic space is quite different in the two dialects. For both stressed and unstressed vowels the vocalic space of IG is more centralized in the F2 dimension compared to that reported for SMG in Lengeris (2012), Sfakianaki (2002) and Baltazani et al. (to appear). Moreover the non-high vowels occupy higher positions in the F1 dimension compared to their SMG counterparts. The positions of unstressed vowels in IG, moreover, are not equidistant: mid vowels are much closer to high vowels than to low ones.

The previously reported phenomenon of vocalic lengthening in syllables preceding deletion was not replicated in this dataset. A lengthening effect on the preceding consonant was identified instead, verifying Topintzi & Baltazani 2012. This finding indicates that some durational adjustments must be taking place in the face of upcoming vocalic deletion, but these questions should form the basis for further investigation, since our dataset was not specifically designed to test them.

One intriguing finding that emerged from our data is the variability of application of the three well-known vocalic phenomena occurring in IG, i.e. unstressed high

vowel deletion, unstressed mid vowel raising, and stressed mid vowel diphthongization. Contrary to previous assumptions in the impressionistic, phonological descriptions of Greek dialects, these phenomena do not apply every time the conditions favoring them appear. The least common phenomenon was diphthongization, while deletions and raisings occurred approximately 30%-40% of the times. Asymmetries across vowels were identified for vowel raising; /o/ seemed to raise somewhat more often than /e/, while such an asymmetry was not found between /i/ and /u/ deletion. Loukina (2008:323), in an acoustic comparison across Athenian, Thessalian and Cypriot Greek also reports that “the difference between the dialects often lies not in the presence or absence of a certain feature, but rather in the extent or frequency of use of this feature, especially in quick casual speech”.

One possible reason for the infrequent appearance of these phenomena in our data could be the reported contraction of Greek dialects and their convergence to SMG in general (Malikouti-Drachman 2000). Nonetheless, the dearth of quantitative studies on the frequency of application of vocalic phenomena renders the reliability of past impressionistic reports uncertain. It may well be that the classification of Northern Greek dialects on the basis of the vocalic phenomena (as mentioned in section 1) can lead to proliferation of categorisations when those are not needed. Our data repudiate all possible classifications of IG: as an extreme or a northern dialect, since not all vowels are deleted or raised and as a semi-northern dialect since it exhibits a substantial amount of raising. It appears more reasonable to assume a continuum of dialects more or less prone to exhibit these phenomena, within which IG would occur somewhere in the middle. We leave this question open for future research. Two further issues ensue on the basis of the current findings. The first relates to the target undershoot hypothesis (Lindblom 1983), a hypothesis often visited in studies similar to our own. According to the hypothesis, vowels do not reach their articulatory targets when they are shorter, leading to a centralization hypothesis whereby unstressed (shorter) vowels appear more centralized in the vowel space. This is not the case in IG, since in unstressed conditions the vocalic space was not centralized in comparison to stressed vowels, but raised; mid and low unstressed vowels moved to higher positions compared to stressed ones. In contrast, high vowels were not lowered and unstressed vowels had similar positions to stressed ones in the F1 axis. Second, the maximal dispersion hypothesis (Liljencrants & Lindblom 1972) suggests that the number of vowels in a vocalic system will affect their distribution in the vowel space, since vowels tend to be equidistant for perceptual clarity and therefore tend to be maximally dispersed. IG does not meet this expectation, since its mid vowels are realized very near the high ones. The differences found between the vocalic spaces of SMG and IG are in agreement with Trudgill’s (2009) revised hypothesis, that allows for non standard varieties to show asymmetrical distributions, contrary to standard varieties such as SMG, which are more prone to follow the maximal dispersion hypothesis.

One alternative explanation for the distribution of vowels in IG is language contact, which has been offered as one way to explain the acoustic characteristics of Thessalian Greek. A comparison between Thessalian Greek on one hand and languages that have been in extensive contact with it like Aromanian and Bulgarian on the other, has shown that all three share vowel reduction to the same extent (Loukina 2008). A comparison between IG and languages it has been historically in contact with, in search for an explanation of its vocalic system distribution is beyond the scope of our study but it is a plausible hypothesis worth exploring.

The acoustic data from the present paper contribute to our understanding of the vocalic system of Northern Greek dialects, while adding to the description of their phonology. A variety of questions remain for future research, one very prominent among them being a perceptual analysis of IG’s vocalic system. It is clear from the present paper that, especially in unstressed positions, the acoustic differences across mid and high vowels are very small. It should form a matter of future research to show how and whether these differences are employed by speakers of the dialect. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Giannis Themelis and Theofano Christou for their help with material recordings. This research was funded by a National Strategic Reference Framework fund (THALIS project “Vocalect”, project number 80800) to the second author, and by the National Scholarships Foundation as a post-doctoral grant to the first author. References Arvaniti, Amalia. 2007. “Greek phonetics: The state of the art.” Journal of Greek

Linguistics 8, 97-208. Baltazani, Mary and Evia Kainada. submitted. “Drifting without an anchor; how pitch

accents withstand vowel loss.” Language and Speech special issue, edited by Joseph Butler, Marisa Cruz and Marina Vigário.

Baltazani, Mary, Evia Kainada, Katerina Nikolaidis, Anna Sfakianaki, Angelos Lengeris, Eleni Tsiartsoni, Dimitris Papazachariou and Maria Giakoumelou. to appear. “Cross dialectal vowel spaces in Greek.” Poster presentation at 14th Laboratory Phonology.

Beckman, Mary E. and Jan Edwards. 1990. “Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency.” In Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and the Physics of Speech, edited by John Kingston & Mary Beckman, 152–178. Cambridge University Press.

Beckman, Mary E. and Jan Edwards. 1994. “Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories.” In Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form; Papers in Laboratory Phonology III, edited by Patricia A. Keating. Cambridge University Press.

Beebe, Leslie M. and Howard Giles. 1984. “Speech accommodation theories: a discussion in terms of second language acquisition.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46:5-32.

Browning, Robert. 1991. Medieval and Modern Greek [Η ελληνική γλώσσα µεσαιωνική και νέα]. 1st edition 1962, 2nd edition 1983; Greek edition 1991. Athens: Papadima Publications.

Byrd, Dani and Elliot Saltzman. 2003. “The elastic phrase: Modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening.” Journal of Phonetics 31(2): 149–180.

Chambers, Jack. 1992. “Linguistic Correlates of Gender and Sex.” English World Wide 13: 173-218.

Coates, Jen and Deborah Cameron. (eds.) 1989. Women in Their Speech Communities. London.

Chatzidakis, George. 1905. Medieval and Modern Greek A' [Μεσαιωνικά και Νέα Ελληνικά Α']. Athens: P.D. Sakellarios.

Christou, Theofano and Mary Baltazani. 2010. “The phonetic realisation of stressed vowels in the dialect of Kato Pedina in Ioannina.” In Studies in Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, edited by Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph, Pavlos Pavlou, Angela Ralli and Spyros Armosti, 15–26. Nicosia: Kykkos Cultural Research Centre.!!

Giles, Howard and Philip Smith. 1979. “Accommodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence.” In Language and Social Psychology, edited by Giles, Howard, St. Clair, Robert N. Baltimore: Basil Blackwell.

Giles, Howard, Richard Bourhis, and D. M. Taylor. 1977. “Toward a theory of language in ethnic group relations.” In Language Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, edited by Howard Giles, 307-349. Academic Press, London.

Giles, Howard, Justine Coupland and Nikolas Coupland. 1991. “Accommodation Theory: Communication, Context, and Consequence.” In Contexts of Accommodation, edited by Giles, Howard; Justine Coupland, Nikolas Coupland, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hughes, Arthur, Peter Trudgill and Dominic Watt. 2005. English accents and dialects. London: Edward Arnold. 4th edition.

Jacewicz, Ewa, Robert Allen Fox and Joseph Salmons. 2007. “Vowel space areas across dialects and gender.” Proceedings of the 16th International Congress on Phonetic Sciences, 1465-1468.

Kainada, Evia. 2010. “Pre- and post-boundary lengthening in Modern Greek.” In Proceedings of ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics 2010, 69-72, University of Athens.

Kainada, Evia & Baltazani, M. 2013. “Evaluating methods for eliciting dialectal speech.” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Modern Greek dialects and Linguistic Theory, edited by M. Janse, B. Joseph, A. Ralli and M. Bagriacik, 101-123.

Kontosopoulos, Nikos. 2000. Dialects and Idioms of Modern Greek [∆ιάλεκτοι και Ιδιώµατα της Νέας Ελληνικής]. 3rd Edition, Athens: Gregoris.

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolingustic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Lengeris, Angelos. 2012. “Phonetic vowel reduction in Standard Modern Greek”. In Z. Gavriilidou, A. Efthymiou, E. Thomadaki & P. Kambakis-Vougiouklis (eds), Selected papers of the 10th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Komotini/Greece: Democritus University of Thrace, 401-407.

Liljencrants, Johan and Bjorn Lindblom. 1972. “Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast.” Language 48: 839–862.

Lindblom, Bjorn. 1983. “Economy of speech gestures.” In The production of speech, edited by P. MacNeilage. Springer, NY.

Loukina, Anastasia 2008. Regional Phonetic Variation in Modern Greek. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.

Malikouti-Drachman, Angeliki 2000. Contraction des systèmes dialectiques [Συρρίκνωση διαλεκτικών συστηµάτων]. Χριστίδης, Α.-Φ. et al., επιµ. 2000. Η ελληνική γλώσσα και οι διάλεκτοί της / La langue grecque et ses dialectes. Αθήνα: ΥΠΕΠΘ & ΚΕΓ, 23-28.

Meneses, Fransisco and Eleonora Albano. 2013. “From devoicing to apocope: an acoustic study of poststressed high vowel lenition in Brazilian Portuguese.” Presentation at Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia 2013, Lisbon.

Newton, Brian. 1972. The Generative Interpretation of Dialect: A Study of Modern Greek Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Rourke, Erin. 2010. “Dialectal differences and the bilingual vowel space in Peruvian Spanish.” Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, edited by Marta Ortega-Llebaria, 20-30. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Papadopoulos, Anthimos. 1927. Grammar of Modern Greek Northern Idioms [Γραµµατική των Βορείων Ιδιωµάτων της Νέας Ελληνικής]. Athens: P.D. Sakellarios.

Post, Brechtje and Francis Nolan. 2012. “Data analysis for prosodic analysis of continuous speech and dialectal variation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology, edited by Abigail C. Cohn, Cecile Fougeron, & M. Huffman. Oxford: OUP.

Protopapas, Athanasios, Marina Tzakosta, Chalamandaris, Aimilios & Tsiakoulis, Pirros. 2012. “IPLR: an online resource for Greek word-level and sublexical information.” Language Resources and Evaluation 46: 449-359.

Sfakianaki, Anna. 2002. “Acoustics characteristics of Greek vowels produced by adults and children.” 14th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 383–394, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Topintzi, Nina and Mary Baltazani. 2012. “The acoustics of high-vowel loss in a Northern Greek dialect and typological implications.” In Consonant clusters and structural complexity, edited by Phil Hoole, L. Bombien, M. Pouplier, Ch. Mooshammer, and B. Kühnert. Interface Explorations series, Mouton de Gruyter, 373-402.

Trudgill, Peter. 1983. Sociolinguistics. An Introduction to Language and Society. Revised Edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Trudgill, Peter. 2003. “Modern Greek dialects: a preliminary classification.” Journal of Greek Linguistics 4: 45-64.

Trudgill, Peter. 2009. “Greek dialect vowel systems, vowel dispersion theory, and sociolinguistic typology.” Journal of Greek Linguistics 9: 165–182.

Trudgill, Peter. & Hannah, J. 2002. International English. London: Edward Arnold. 4th edition.

Turk, Alice and Snezhina Dimitrova. 2007. “English phrasal stress targets multiple, optional lengthening sites.” In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, edited by W. J. Barry & J. Trouvain, 1177–1180.