This study explored whether the sound structure of Indian English (IE) varies with the divergent native languages of its speakers or whether it is similar regardless of speakers' native languages. Native Hindi (Indo-Aryan) and Telugu (Dravidian) speakers produced comparable phrases in IE and in their native languages. Naïve and experienced IE listeners were then asked to judge whether different sentences had been spoken by speakers with the same or different native language backgrounds. The findings were an interaction between listener experience and speaker background such that only experienced listeners appropriately distinguished IE sentences produced by speakers with different native language backgrounds. Naïve listeners were nonetheless very good at distinguishing between Hindi and Telugu phrases. Acoustic measurements on monophthongal vowels, select obstruent consonants, and suprasegmental temporal patterns all differentiated between Hindi and Telugu, but only 3 of the measures distinguished between IE produced by speakers of the different native languages. The overall results are largely consistent with the idea that IE has a target phonology that is distinct from the phonology of native Indian languages. The subtle L1 effects on IE may reflect either the incomplete acquisition of the target phonology or, more plausibly, the influence of sociolinguistic factors on the use and evolution of IE.

English, spoken as second/third language by millions of speakers of India (IE), differs from other varieties of English in terms of sound patterns. Most descriptions of IE have focused on the influence of native language on IE (Wiltshire and Harnsberger, 2006; Sirsa and Redford, submitted). Some studies have also pointed out that IE may be evolving into multiple varieties due to social and political pressures (Wiltshire, 2005), but so far dialectal differences have not been explored independently from L1 influences. The current study aimed to do just this. Regionally based segmental and suprasegmental differences were investigated in IE spoken by Hindi and Telugu speakers, with equal numbers of speakers of each L1 recruited from two geographical sites (Delhi and Hyderabad). Analysis of IE sound patterns indicated that speakers from Hyderabad had more fronted /u/ than Delhi speakers, whereas Delhi speakers had longer phrase-final lengthening then Hyderabad speakers. Speakers from the two sites also had different rhythm structures and speech rates. These results support the suggestion that IE is evolving into multiple varieties, and that these varieties are not simply a function of different L1s.

Indian English (IE), an official language of India, differs suprasegmentally and segmentally from other English dialects. This study explores whether IE sound structure varies with the divergent L1s of its speakers, as suggested by Wiltshire and Harnsberger (2006), or whether its sound structure is similar regardless of speakers L1. To investigate this question, measures of rate, rhythm, and final lengthening were taken in Hindi (Indo-Aryan), Telugu (Dravidian), and in IE, which was produced with native fluency by the same five Hindi and five Telugu speakers. Vowel and obstruent segments, common to all languages, were also extracted from the 13 stimulus phrases and acoustically analyzed. The results indicate some influence of the different L1s on IE rhythm structure and VOT, but none on IE speech rate, final lengthening, or vowel and /s/ production. Mostly, the results indicated that when language differences did exist (and there were many similarities across the languages), these were more likely to be between Hindi and IE or between Telugu and IE or between Hindi and Telugu than between the IE produced by speakers of different L1s. Such results suggest that IE is a pan-India dialect of English, not merely an L1 influenced L2 for Indians.

Language rhythm emerges from a combination of lexical and phrase-level prosody. This talk will review evidence from on-going and completed studies on the acquisition of English prosody in typically developing school-age children to show that the surprisingly protracted acquisition of English rhythm is due to the extended acquisition of phrase-level prosody rather than to immature lexical stress production. Cross-sectional and longitudinal data from 20 native American-English speaking children indicate that whereas adult-like rhythm may not be fully acquired until age 8, even the youngest children have mastered lexical stress. Unlike eight-year-olds, though, younger children show less reduced vowels in function words and a less robust pattern of phrase-final lengthening. We argue, based on evidence from a separate study on stress-shifting in 25 six-year-olds and 25 adults, that younger children have yet to fully integrate lexical patterns into phrase-level prosodic structures. A lack of complete integration between lexical and phrasal levels may account for the extended acquisition of prosodically conditioned vowel reduction, which in turn could account for the prolonged acquisition of English rhythm. [Work supported by NIH Grant R01 HD061458.]