Expressive Sibilant Retraction (ESR) in North Norwegian changes an /s/ to the corresponding postalveolar fricative [ʂ] in certain pragmatic contexts. For example, the verb skubbe, ‘to shove’, may alternate as shown in (1). In Supplementary file 1, I provide for each North Norwegian example the nearest equivalent in bokmål, the most widely used standard written variety of Norwegian.

Whereas [skʉba] in (1a) is neutral, the realization [ʂkʉba] in (1b), with the postalveolar fricative, dramatizes the action as involving significant acceleration or force.1 The two examples are otherwise structurally identical.

A similar expressive process has been described for the Urban East Norwegian (UEN) variety in the earlier literature by Larsen (1907) and Broch (1927). Exactly as these researchers describe for UEN, ESR in North Norwegian may only apply where the phonological contrast between /s/ and /ʂ/ is otherwise neutralized. In word-initial position before a vowel, where the two sounds contrast, ESR cannot apply. Thus, marking infelicitous applications of ESR with an exclamation mark <!>, /saːɡa/, ‘sawed’ cannot be realized ! [ʂaːɡa] (with the intended meaning ‘sawed forcefully’). An adequate account of ESR must first explain the connection between these phonological restrictions on its application (form) and its expressive function. Second, it must provide an account of what ESR expresses, and how. For example, it is clear that ESR in North Norwegian is not an all-purpose intensive. Thus, (2b) is not an acceptable intensive version of (2a).

Neither Larsen nor Broch provide an account of the interpretations of ESR for UEN beyond simply listing certain emotional nuances, which in the case of (Broch 1927: 154) include “contempt, anger, a feeling of power, boldness or admiration, a hint of intimacy, degrees of emphasis”.2 The present study shows that the interpretations of ESR are in fact constrained, and vary depending on whether they attach to actions/events, objects or states/properties. The pattern of variation allows us to crystallize a core meaning and an account of the form-function relation.

An immediate question that ESR raises is whether it is part of the grammar or not. On the face of it, ESR resembles a morphological process that introduces, or perhaps reintroduces, a contrast between /s/ and /ʂ/ in word-initial position before a consonant. This account would make ESR the source of a marginal contrast, since there is no lexical contrast between these sibilants in this environment. However, I shall argue that ESR does not belong to the grammar (morphology or phonology), but is instead part of the communication system, specifically, a multimodal post-phonological component that integrates speech with conversational gestures, including manual, facial and spoken gestures. The current account of ESR may thus cast light on expressive phenomena in general, suggesting a way of dealing with at least one type of apparent marginal contrast.

Although found in UEN and other varieties throughout Norway, this article will draw on examples from North Norwegian. I offer a few brief comments here to place North Norwegian in its wider sociolinguistic setting. UEN is the dominant spoken variety of Norwegian, the educated varieties of which are described by Kristoffersen (2000). Although centered on Oslo, UEN is widely spoken in population centers throughout Norway and many towns have significant clusters of UEN speakers. The social dominance of UEN is such that children of UEN-speaking parents throughout Norway frequently target, acquire and grow up using UEN regardless of the ambient variety, despite the comparatively high traditional regard that regional dialects in Norway enjoy. Most regional urban centers have developed varieties with pronounced regional features, but which are increasingly leveled towards UEN in terms of lexis and idiom, morphology and segmental phonology.

The organization of the rest of this paper is as follows. Section 2 lays out the phonological background, the lexical and phonological sources of postalveolar consonants in North Norwegian, and an analysis framed in Optimality Theory (OT). Section 3 describes the problems of a morphological analysis of ESR and lays the foundations for an account of ESR as a spoken gesture. Section 4 provides an account of the different interpretations of ESR depending on whether it indexes an action or event, object, or state/property. Section 5 attempts to trace the relationships between these interpretations and identify a semantic core for ESR. Finally, section 6 concludes.

There are a number of descriptions of North Norwegian, including dialect surveys (Elstad 1982; Jahr & Skare 1996), grammatical descriptions of specific varieties (Iversen 1918; Christiansen 1933; Brekke 2000), sociolinguistic work (Nesse 2008), and vocabularies (Dragøy 2001). For information on Norwegian dialects in general, I refer the reader to the works by Christiansen (1946–1948), Haugen (1976), Sandøy (1996), Papazian & Helleland (2005), and Skjekkeland (2005).

The table in (3) shows a representative consonant inventory for North Norwegian.

Although phonetic realization and lexical distribution vary, the North Norwegian vowel inventory in (4) is, systemically speaking, little different to UEN. The vowel transcribed here as /a/ is a low, open, front vowel, generally rendered with the symbol <æ> in works dealing with Norwegian. The North Norwegian vowel, however, is closer to cardinal vowel 4 (Jones 1967), warranting a departure from this tradition.

Norwegian has a contrast between three coronal fricatives, alveolar /s/, postalveolar /ʂ/ (inaccurately dubbed ‘retroflex’), and a ‘palatal’ fricative, transcribed here as /ɕ/.3 Minimal triplets are shown in (5).

While there is agreement that /s/ is lamino-alveolar, Kristoffersen (2000: 23) writes regarding UEN that “the precise articulatory properties of [ʂ] […] are somewhat unclear”. Historically, the postalveolar fricative /ʂ/ derives from two sources: s in a palatal environment, and the cluster rs, also a synchronic source of [ʂ] when r+s results from combining morphemes. The former includes sk before a front vowel (e.g. ski /ʂiː/, ‘ski’), and the clusters sj (e.g. sjø /ʂøː/, ‘sea’), and skj (e.g. skjå /ʂoː/, ‘shed’). Kristoffersen then raises the question whether speakers in fact distinguish the postalveolar fricatives that derive from these two different sources, for example as [ʃ], from s+palatal, and [ʂ], from rs. Although Larsen (1907) claims the existence of a distinction, which was still made sixty years later by older speakers according to Sivertsen (1967: 79), present-day UEN and North Norwegian would appear to have merged the two. Thus, for Endresen (1985: 77; 1991: 54), there is only one postalveolar fricative, which he describes as having apico-postalveolar place of articulation and tongue grooving.

Although traditionally designated ‘retroflex’, there is in general no curling of the tongue tip upwards in the articulation of this sound. The apico-postalveolar constriction is instead achieved by withdrawing the tongue tip into the front of the body of the tongue, which results in anterior bunching and additional narrowing between the lamina and the palato-alveolar region (see Laver 1994: 141). The post-alveolar fricative is also enhanced by lip protrusion, as is the case for /ʃ/ in English and German (cf. Stevens & Keyser 1989).

Now we turn to the phonological distribution of /s/ and /ʂ/. Word-initially before a consonant the distinction between /s/ and /ʂ/ is neutralized (Sibilant Place Neutralization). In general, only lamino-alveolar /s/ is permitted in this environment, as shown in (6).

Before the nonpalatal lateral,4 however, which in the present variety of North Norwegian is realized across the board as postalveolar [ɭ], the contrast is neutralized to /ʂ/. Prelateral Sibilant Retraction is illustrated in (7).

An OT analysis of these facts is straightforward (for introductions to this framework, see Prince & Smolensky 2004; McCarthy 2008). Since there is in general a distinction between alveolar and postalveolar consonants, the faithfulness constraint that requires preservation of the underlying contrast between them, IDENT[postalveolar] in (8), must outrank the markedness constraint that penalizes postalveolar consonants in the output, *[postalveolar] in (9).

The tableaux in (10) and (11) show how this works for underlying alveolar and postalveolar sibilants in pre-vocalic position, where the contrast is preserved.

To deal with the neutralization pattern in (6), there must be some other markedness constraint *[_σʂC, shown in (12), that dominates IDENT[postalveolar].

Tableaux for alveolar and postalveolar sibilants in this position are shown in (13) and (14). Both /sC-/ and /ʂC-/ in the input are mapped to [sC-] in the output, the input ʂC-cluster unfaithfully so.

In order to account for the neutralization pattern in (7), the specific markedness constraint *[_σsɭ given in (15) must dominate the more general constraint *[_σʂC, as shown in the tableaux in (16) and (17).

As (16) and (17) show, both /s/ and /ʂ/ are mapped by the grammar onto [ʂ] preceding the lateral.

Another source of postalveolar [ʂ] is the application of the Retroflex Rule (Kristoffersen 2000: 87ff.; Stausland Johnsen 2012), a coalescence process found throughout most of Central Scandinavia, an area that includes the East and, for certain shared innovations, the North of Norway. Alveolar consonants /t d n s (l)/ coalesce with a preceding /ɾ/ to give the corresponding postalveolars [ʈ ɖ ɳ ʂ (ɭ)]. In the absence of a following alveolar consonant, an underlying /ɾ/ surfaces faithfully, as shown in the examples in (18).

The coalescence pattern in North Norwegian is illustrated in (19). In the first example, the /s/ stands in prevocalic position, where it contrasts with /ʂ/.

The Retroflex Rule also applies where the /s/ is the first member of a cluster, as shown in (20).

Coalescence also applies preceding /ʂ/, as shown in (21). The process is not vacuous, since the /ɾ/ fails to surface.

In sum, the postalveolar fricative [ʂ] has both lexical and phonological sources in North Norwegian. There is a contrast between /s/ and /ʂ/ in prevocalic position, but in syllable onset position before a consonant, this distinction is neutralized, in general to [s] (Sibilant Place Neutralization), but to [ʂ] before a lateral (Prelateral Sibilant Retraction). Postalveolar [ʂ] may also result from coalescence with a preceding /ɾ/ (Retroflex Rule).

The third source of [ʂ], Expressive Sibilant Retraction (ESR), is neither lexical nor phonological. This leaves two possibilities: ESR is either a morphological process or a communicative spoken gesture.

ESR may index actions/events, objects and states/properties. One of each is illustrated in examples (22) to (24), with the indexed word shown in bold.

We might preliminarily gloss the meaning of ESR as ‘intensive’, but this is very misleading, since it suggests rather freer distribution than we in fact find. An ‘intensive’ gloss gives the impression that ESR is a type of modifier, when its essential nature is performative.

In this section I seek to establish the gestural nature of ESR against the alternative view that it is an expressive morphological process. On the gestural interpretation, ESR is a communicative phenomenon that recruits phonetic resources in such a way as to appear to reverse or violate phonological rules. On the second interpretation, ESR interacts with the phonological grammar, overriding phonological neutralization rules. My argument for a gestural account leads into a discussion of the relation between the form and function of ESR and an attempt to identify a core ‘meaning’ underlying the patterned variation of its interpretations. The morphological account may stipulate this variation, but it is not equipped to explain it.

Kendon (2004; 2017) distinguishes five pragmatic functions of conversational gestures, two of which are relevant here: referential and modal. A referential gesture bears on the proposition expressed in the utterance, while a modal gesture enacts a response: generally, but not necessarily, that of the speaker. An example of the latter would be the facial shrug (Bavelas, et al. 2014), which signals personal disengagement (Debras 2017). The function of ESR is, I claim, essentially modal, although something close to referential interpretations may arise in context.

In the most general sense, ESR serves to amplify the performance of an utterance. It generally signals heightened engagement or vehemence, with one exception described in Section 4.4, where we discuss ESR as a gestural marker of ‘reflective distance’. Within the ‘heightened engagement’ context it is possible to distinguish two more specific meanings, one associated with actions or events, the other with objects. ESR indexes actions as carried out with accelerated movement or impressive force, and objects as obtrusive. In quasi-referential terms, these meanings resemble, respectively, adverbial and adjectival modifiers. However, this is not quite right, and is perhaps fundamentally wrong. The essentially modal nature of ESR consists in that it is a performance of acceleration/force or obtrusive presence, not an intensive modifier. Actions/events are dealt with in Section 4.1, and objects in 4.2. Section 4.3 deals with states and properties.

Because of its use in expressive contexts, ESR is difficult to elicit in a controlled way. The examples presented draw on observations made in over twenty years of living and working as a linguist in North Norway and represent a combination of spontaneously heard utterances, examples elicited during interviews with native speakers, and test utterances devised by me in order to test the limits of its use. All examples have been checked with native speakers of North Norwegian in my circle.

In their accounts of ESR in UEN, both Larsen (1907) and Broch (1927) attempt to explain the link between ESR’s distribution and its expressive function. Larsen was the first to propose that ESR may be related in some way to the non-expressive, phonologically regular retraction of /sl/ to [ʂɭ] (Prelateral Sibilant Retraction) illustrated in (7) above, which is also characteristic of this variety (see Haugen 1942; Jahr 1985; and Kristoffersen 2000: 102ff. for recent discussion). Broch follows him in this assessment, but the two differ in how they see ESR acquiring its meaning. While Larsen sees a role for sound symbolism or articulatory feedback, Broch (1927: 155f.) favors a social constructionist account. Broch proposes that ESR be understood as the generalization, to sC-clusters, of Prelateral Sibilant Retraction, which was a salient group marker of the Oslo working class at the time he wrote. Broch claims that it is this, rather than anything sound symbolic, that is exploited in the expressive extension of the postalveolar fricative to other word-initial preconsonantal environments. The North Norwegian facts cast doubt on both these accounts, since they indicate that the use of ESR is highly constrained even when phonological factors are taken into account. Broch’s account in particular does not lead us to expect to see the restrictions that we do. ESR is not a general-purpose intensive, but affords a small range of context-dependent meanings. This fact I argue is best explained by a gestural account.

In Section 4 I showed how ESR may index actions/events, objects, states/properties, and evaluations of states of affairs. The interpretations that attach to each differ. With the exception of the ‘reflective distance’ interpretation discussed in Section 4.4, these meanings have in common that they signal heightened engagement on the part of the speaker. With states, this seems to be the only meaning. With actions, however, ESR conveys an impression of acceleration or force, and with objects, a sense of obtrusive presence. These interpretations would furthermore appear to be complementary. For example, certain actions, such as those expressed by the verbs shown in (49), may characteristically trigger aversion, and yet ESR is not possible here.

The complementarity raises the question whether these meanings of ESR are conventionalized separately for each context, or whether it is possible to identify a semantic core underpinning them all. What follows is somewhat speculative, but I will argue that this is possible.10

Since spoken gestures utilize the same channel as spoken linguistic units, our analysis of the meaning should consider how the gesture relates to speech norms as well as its inherent properties, making the question of a semantic core a two-dimensional one.

First, ESR constitutes a deviation from a particular communicative norm, in this case, conformity with the phonetic targets given by Sibilant Place Neutralization. An adequate account of ESR must be able to relate its expressive function to the fact that it may only apply where the distinction between alveolar /s/ and postalveolar /ʂ/ is neutralized. As mentioned above, a verb form like [saːɡa] saga, ‘sawed’, may not undergo ESR to give ! [ʂaːɡa], with the intended meaning ‘sawed forcefully’. ESR also never applies word-internally, where before a consonant the contrast between /s/ and /ʂ/ is largely preserved, e.g. /ʋast/, ‘waistcoat’ vs. /ʋaʂt/, ‘worst’; /bask/, ‘flail, flap (IMP)’ vs. /baʂk/, ‘inhospitable, hardened’. I argue that ESR’s very deviation from the targets given by Sibilant Place Neutralization momentarily directs attention to the non-linguistic gesture, signaling an intent on the part of the speaker to communicate something of heightened significance.11

Second, we must consider the intrinsic properties of the gesture itself. The most straightforward possible interpretation of retraction of the tongue tip is that it enacts backward movement or withdrawal, for example, of some other part of the body, in much the same way that raising or lowering the larynx may iconically enact upward and downward movement of another object. Additional plausibility for this claim comes from recent evidence of a neutrally encoded congruence in the direction of manual and mouth actions, such that backward hand movements are preferentially associated with retraction of the tongue (Vainio et al. 2018). See also Sidhu & Pexman (2017) for further relevant discussion.

It is possible that the accelerative and obtrusive interpretations that attach to actions/events and objects derive from this more basic meaning of ‘withdrawal’. Retraction of the tongue tip may enact preparatory movement for using, say, the hand or arm in a throwing or striking action. The accelerative interpretation would thus result from a metonymic connection between the biomechanical phases of movement. When it indexes an object, ESR does not map onto an action or event in the world. Under this condition, ESR may instead enact rejection behavior in the speaker with respect to the indexed object, or perhaps withdrawal in aversion. In this context, negative implicatures become highly relevant in a way that they do not with actions/events or states. If ESR enacts physical repulsion of an obtrusive object, it is possible to see how this meaning derives from the accelerative one by adding a further metonymic connection.

With a state or property, neither the accelerative nor obtrusive interpretation is relevant, with the result that the interpretation defaults to one of ‘heightened engagement’, which is implied in both the accelerative and obtrusive interpretations. Preparatory movement, preparation to engage in the world in some unspecified way, may thus be the first link in the chain.

This leaves the ‘reflective distance’ interpretation discussed in 4.4. In this case, ESR does not seem to index a particular object or predicate, but a speaker’s positive (but self-distancing) evaluation of a state of affairs. It is possible that tongue-tip retraction enacts no more than a withdrawal, which may lead to inferences that the speaker is distancing themselves from what they are saying, engaging in reflection, irony, and so on. Withdrawal, then, may constitute the most basic meaning of the ESR gesture: tongue tip withdrawal iconically enacts the withdrawal of some other part of the body.

Table 1 summarizes the proposed relationships between context (state of affairs, state/property, action/event, and object) and meaning, and the relation between the hypothesized core iconic meaning of ESR, its metonymically derived context-dependent meanings, and additional implicatures that may derive from these.

At least one key question remains unanswered, however. It is striking that for each type of context, it is the most specific meaning that is required. Thus, when ESR indexes actions/events and objects, the meaning obtained is never simply heightened engagement, although there is nothing in what we have said that rules this out. Actions/events must trigger the accelerative interpretation, and objects must trigger the obtrusive one (which I have argued here may be the enactment of motor repulsion, which would include within it the enactment of accelerated movement). I leave the resolution of this issue to future research.

Alveolar /s/ and postalveolar /ʂ/ contrast in North Norwegian, but the contrast is neutralized word-initially before another consonant (Sibilant Place Neutralization). In an apparent reversal, or violation, of the phonological rule, Expressive Sibilant Retraction (ESR) maps /s/ onto the corresponding postalveolar fricative [ʂ] in expressive contexts in precisely the environment where neutralization applies. Since ESR adds meaning, it is tempting to analyse it as a morphologically derived marginal contrast. In this paper, however, I have argued that this phenomenon is not linguistic, but communicative, and best understood as a ‘spoken gesture’ (Okrent 2002). ESR nevertheless exploits deviation from canonical phonological structure to draw attention to the tongue-tip retraction gesture. The core meaning of ESR proposed here is ‘withdrawal’, which gives rise to more specific interpretations depending on whether the gesture is used to index an action/event, object, state/property, or state of affairs. This paper provides an account of the relationship between these interpretations as well as the relationship between its form and function, substantially adding to the early accounts of more or less the same phenomenon in Oslo Norwegian by Larsen (1907) and Broch (1927). My hope is that this account of ESR may be a possible model for describing and explaining other cases of “expressive phonology” in other languages by enriching our understanding of spoken gesture and the relations between linguistic and post-linguistic communicative processes.

The additional file for this article can be found as follows: