Underspecified vowels

There are no underspecified vowels in the JamE of the type already noted for JamC. The result is that JamC words with such vowels have JamE cognates in which they are absent. This is demonstrated by the following examples.

Assuming as we do a derivation based on the JamC lexical form, there would also be the cases like JamC /tap/ ‘stop’, /tik/ ‘stick’, which would first have an initial /sV/ syllable produced as part of the process of conversion to English. Only then could the deletion of the underspecified V take place.

Our suggestion that at least some speakers do function from a JamC lexical input, applying conversion rules to these inputs, is supported by the example below involving two phonologically variant JamE forms for the word ‘cement’ and ‘suppose’. The vowels /i/ and /u/ in the JamC items /siment/ and /supuoz/ have a distribution which is typical of the JamC underspecified V. There is evidence that at least some speakers apply, in the case of these items, the regular deletion of underspecified Vs to the first vowel in the JamC item. This can be seen in the second variant of each of these words presented below.

Some speakers are aware of English norms in relation to the words ‘cement’ and ‘suppose’, in particular how the words are spelt in that language. This awareness is likely to cause them to treat the vowel of the first syllable in the presumed JamC inputs, /sVment/ and /sVpuaz/, as lexical exceptions. The JamC underspecified vowel, phonetically [i] or [u], should not be deleted to produce /sC/ consonant clusters in JamE. For speakers who do not have this as a lexically marked exception to their JamC to JamE conversion rule, the less socially acceptable JamE options, /sment/ and /spooz/, are produced. Speakers who do not apply the underspecified V deletion rule in these cases are likely in their JamC lexicon to have fully specified vowels for these items. This possibility is suggested by the question-marked JamC representations in the examples above.