A Reader in Sociophonetics

248 Dennis R. Preston

areas of southeastern Michigan, and that group (USM) leads in comprehen-
sion. Although it is weaker in production in rural southern Michigan (RSM),
those speakers appear equal to urban residents in comprehension, but the
rural Mid-Michigan (MM) group lags behind. It is possible to conclude from
these data that local people more intensely involved in linguistic change are
better comprehenders of even single word exemplars of that change. This is
similar to the ¿ ndings of Labov and Ash (1997), who found a local advan-
tage, although it was better expressed when tokens were embedded in carrier
phrases. This ¿ nding is, however, different from that of Plichta (2004), who
found that locals did not continue to interpret advanced resynthesized tokens
of an NCS vowel as the same as less advanced ones unless those words were
embedded in carrier phrases.
In both these earlier studies, however, the nonlocals were not geographi-
cally close to the center of the change; they were from completely different
speech areas (e.g., Chicago or Philadelphia hearers listening to Birmingham
speakers or Upper Peninsula Michigan speakers listening to increasingly
advanced tokens of an NCS vowel).
The second question asked in the present study addressed demographic
characteristics of the hearers, and Tables 10.2 and 10.4 suggest that there are
such features that prefer comprehension:

Ethnicity—European American

Sex—female

Age—younger

Status—middle

As much previous work has shown, these are the characteristics of speakers
most advanced in the shift.
The third question asked if vowels were misunderstood as “pre-shift” or
“post-shift” items. For example, imagine a case of /͑/ backing (along track

Table 10.4 Overall Correct Responses for Status and Age Groups (MM, ASM, and

AASM only)

Age Young Middle Older

61 55 49

Status Middle Working

60 54