Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:49:13.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical frequency as a scalar variable in explaining variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Richard J. File-Muriel
Richard J. File-Muriel*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between lexical frequency and s-lenition in Barranquillero Spanish, looking at lexical frequency as a scalar variable. A quantitative analysis of /s/ in words of different lexical frequencies, in which productions from a reading task were submitted to auditory acoustical analysis, reveals that the single most important factor in s-lenition is lexical frequency. Speakers tend towards a full articulation of /s/ in low-frequency words, while weakening it in high-frequency words. This study addresses three questions: Do subtle differences in lexical frequency influence how sounds are produced synchronically? What are the advantages of considering lexical frequency in scalar terms as opposed to a categorical variable (high vs. low-frequency)? What is the relationship between lexical frequency and other linguistic factors?

Résumé

Résumé

Cette étude examine le rapport entre la fréquence lexicale et l’atténuation du /s/ en espagnol barraquillero, tout en considérant la fréquence lexicale comme une variable scalaire. Une analyse quantitative du /s/ dans des mots de différentes fréquences lexicales au cours de laquelle des productions provenant d’un exercice de lecture ont été soumises à une analyse auditive, révèle que le facteur le plus important est la fréquence lexicale. Les locuteurs ont tendance à articuler complètement le /s/ dans les mots de basse fréquence, alors qu’ils l’atténuent dans les mots de haute fréquence. Cette étude considère trois questions: Est-ce que des différences minimes dans la fréquence lexicale influencent la façon dont les sons sont produits synchroniquement? Quels sont les avantages de considérer la fréquence lexicale en termes scalaires plutôt que comme catégorie variable (haute fréquence par opposition à basse fréquence)? Quel est le rapport entre la fréquence lexicale et les autres facteurs linguistiques?

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2010 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alba, Orlando. 1982. Función del acento en el proceso de elisión de la /s/ en la República Dominicana. In El Español del Caribe: Ponencias del VI Simposio de Dialectología, ed. Alba, Orlando, 17–26. Santiago: Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra.Google Scholar
Borden, Gloria J. and Gay, Thomas. 1979. Temporal aspects of articulatory movements for /s/-stop clusters. Phonetica 36:21–31.Google Scholar
Brown, Earl. 2008. A usage-based account of syllable and word-final /s/ reduction in four dialects of Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, The University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Brown, Esther. 2006. The effects of discourse context on phonological representation. Paper read at the Linguistic Society of America Meeting. Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
Brown, Esther L. and Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2003. Spanish /s/: A different story from beginning (initial) to end (final). In A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use: Selected papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), ed. Nuñez-Cedeno, Rafael, 21–38. Chicago: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2000a. Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In Laboratory Phonology V: Language acquisition and the lexicon, ed. Broe, Michael and Pierrehumbert, Janet, 250–268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2000b. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Usage-based models of language, ed. Kemmer, Suzanne and Barlow, Michael, 65–85. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14:261–290.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 602–623. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82:711–733.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36:1–22.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Díaz Campos, Manuel and File-Muriel, Richard J.. 2004. The effect of phonetic factors in the perception of phonological variation: An experimental study of internal constraints of syllable-final /s/. Poster presented at Laboratory Phonology 9, Champaign-Urbana.Google Scholar
File-Muriel, Richard J. 2007. The role of lexical frequency and phonetic context in the weakening of syllable-final lexical /s/ in the Spanish of Barranquilla, Colombia. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
File-Muriel, Richard J. 2008. Lexical frequency as a scalar variable. Poster presented at the Linguistics Society of America, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1979. Autosegmental phonology. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle, Raymond, Williams D., Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, and Jurafsky, Daniel. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Chicago Linguistic Society 35:151–166.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Current progress in historical linguistics: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. Christie, William M., 96–105. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2004. Massive reduction in conversational American English. Spontaneous speech: Data and analysis. In Proceedings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium, ed. Yoneyama, Kiyoko and Maekawa, Kikuo, 29–54. Tokyo, Japan, The National International Institute for Japanese Language.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2:85–138.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17:1–15.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2003. Words floating on the surface of sound change. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 32. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Mendez Dosuna, Julián. 1985. La duración de S en los grupos SP, ST, SK: A propósito del orden regular de difusión en algunos cambios fonéticos. In Symbolae Ludovico Mitxelena Septuagenario Oblatae, ed. Luis Melena, José, 647–655. Vitoria, Spain: Universidad del País Vasco.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley and Gordon, Matthew J. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79:682–707.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Laboratory Phonology VII, ed. Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha, 101–139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1979. Function and process in a variable phonology. Doctoral disseration, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1986. Acondicionamiento gramatical de la variación fonológica en un dialecto puertorriqueño. In Estudios sobre la fonología del Español del Caribe, ed. Núñez Cedeño, Rafael A., Páez Urdaneta, Iraset and Guitart, Jorge M., 95–107. Caracas: Ediciones La Casa de Bello.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique général. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885. Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Oppenheim.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Martin F. 1970. Duration of /s/ in /s/-plosive blends. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 47:1143–1144.Google Scholar
Stewart, Miranda. 1999. The Spanish language today. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, Michael S. and Rodríguez, Eva. 2005. Neighborhood density effects in spoken word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders 3:64–73.Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1932. Selected studies of the principle of relative frequency in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar