Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T03:08:18.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsidering the variable context

A phonological argument for (t) and (d) deletion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2020

Jenny Amos Open the ORCID record for Jenny Amos [Opens in a new window] ,
Jonathan R. Kasstan Open the ORCID record for Jonathan R. Kasstan [Opens in a new window]  and
Wyn Johnson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Final consonant cluster simplification, or what variationists have traditionally labelled (t, d)-deletion, remains one of the most well studied variables in the analysis of English (e.g. Labov, 2001: 13). In this body of work, (t, d)-deletion refers to the process whereby /t/ or /d/ can be omitted in word final Ct or Cd coda clusters (e.g. last, mind). However, despite the attention paid to this feature of connected speech, very little (if any) focus has been dedicated to the complementary distribution of the coronal stops /t/ and /d/ in monomorphemic final clusters, as well as other phonological influences, such as the effect of intonational boundaries (IBs) on deletion patterns. This has led to a consistent practice of analysing (t, d) as a single linguistic variable, instead of considering the value of their separation, based on both sound linguistic reasoning and empirical evidence. After a brief review of current literature on multivariate analyses of (t, d)-deletion, this paper presents a socio-phonologically oriented research design that has been used to gather data from a peripheral southeastern variety of English. We martial these data to illustrate how (t) and (d) can be modelled as distinct dependent variables that are sensitive to particular factor groups: we focus in particular on the role of IBs in the deletion process.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 36 , Special Issue 3: Special Issue: Language in the South of England , September 2020 , pp. 6 - 13
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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

Amos, J. 2011. ‘A sociophonological analysis of Mersea Island English: An investigation of the diphthongs (aʊ), (aɪ) and (ɔɪ).’ PhD dissertation. Essex: University of Essex.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J., Fox, S., Kerswill, P. & Torgersen, E.. 2015. ‘Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: Linguistic innovation in London.’ Sociolinguistica, 22(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasold, R. W. 1972. Tense Marking in Black English. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. 1980. ‘Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion.’ In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. 1991. ‘Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints.’ Language Variation and Change, 3(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. R. 2014. ‘Linking usage and grammar: Generative phonology, exemplar theory, and variable rules.’ Lingua, 142, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. R. & Boberg, C. 1997. ‘Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle.’ Language Variation and Change, 9(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. R. & Boyd, S. 1990. ‘The development of a morphological class.’ Language Variation and Change, 2(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, K. 2011. ‘Flying high above the social radar: Coronal stop deletion in modern Appalachia.’ Language Variation and Change, 23(2), 105–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D E. 2009. ‘Getting off the Goldvarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis.’ Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1989. ‘The child as linguistic historian.’ Language Variation and Change, 1(1), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pavlík, R. 2017. ‘Some new ways of modeling T/D deletion in English.’ Journal of English Linguistics, 45(3), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santa Ana, A. O. 1992. ‘Chicano English evidence for the exponential hypothesis: A variable rule pervades lexical phonology’. Language Variation and Change, 4, 275–288.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, A. O. 1996. ‘Sonority and syllable structure in Chicano English.’ Language Variation and Change, 8(1) 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. & Temple, R. 2005. ‘New perspectives on an ol’ variable: (t,d) in British English.’ Language Variation and Change 17(3), 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temple, R. 2009. ‘(t,d): The variable status of a variable rule.’ Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology & Phonetics, 12, 145–170.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. & Fasold, R. W. 1974. The Study of Social Dialects in the United States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar