Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T01:59:39.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Form, function, and frequency in phonological variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2012

James A. Walker
James A. Walker*
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Formal and usage-based approaches to phonology make competing predictions that can be tested with variationist methodology. This paper investigates formal, functional, and frequency effects on (t/d)-deletion in Canadian English. Although initial results suggest a correlation between lexical frequency and deletion, once interaction and lexical effects are taken into account, only phonological and morphological factor groups are significant. Previous reports of frequency effects may result from different measurements of frequency and the contribution of overlapping factor groups. These results suggest that frequency does not operate monotonically but interacts dynamically with the lexicon.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , October 2012 , pp. 397 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

REFERENCES

Abramowicz, Lukasz. (2007). Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: Frequency and recency effects in (ing). University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from NWAV 35 13(2):27–37.Google Scholar
Agresti, Alan. (2002). An introduction to categorical data analysis. 2nd ed.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard & Gulikers, Leon. (1996). CELEX2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bayley, Robert. (2002). The quantitative paradigm. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (1994). Productivity, regularity and fusion: How language use affects the lexicon. In Singh, R. (ed.), Trubetzkoy's orphan: Proceedings of the Montreal Roundtable ‘Morphonology: Contemporary responses’ (Montreal, September 30 – October 2, 1994). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 247–269.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2000). The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 65–85.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, & Halle, Morris. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clements, Nick, & Hume, Elizabeth. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 245–306.Google Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron J. (2008). The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium 14(1):97–196.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. (1972). Tense marking in Black English: A linguistic and social analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. (1991). The quiet demise of variable rules. American Speech 66:3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
File-Muriel, Richard. (2010). Lexical frequency as a scalar variable in explaining variation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 55:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Nelson, & Kučera, Henry. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review 105:251–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldsmith, John A. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory 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. 1–36.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991a). Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991b). Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3:223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (2007). Lexical exceptions in variable phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Selected Papers from NWAV 35 13(2):109–119.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., & Boberg, Charles. (1997). Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change 9:149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., & Boyd, Sally. (1990). The development of a morphological class. Language Variation and Change 2:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, Kirk. (2011). Flying high above the social radar: Coronal stop deletion in modern Appalachia. Language Variation and Change 23:105–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Michol F., & Walker, James A. (2010). Ethnolects and the city: Ethnic orientation and linguistic variation in Toronto English. Language Variation and Change 22:37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3:359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith. (1997). Speech perception without speech normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, K. & Mullennix, J. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego: Academic Press. 145–165.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle, & Raymond, William D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. L. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2:85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45:715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1996). Resyllabification. In Hinskens, F., Hout, R. van & Wetzels, W. L. (eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 145–179.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2011). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 3: Cognitive factors. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Cohen, Philip, Robins, Clarence, & Lewis, John. (1968). A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Co-operative Research Report 3288. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Laks, Bertrand. (1992). La linguistique variationniste comme méthode. Langages 108:34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Myers, James, & Guy, Gregory R. (1997). Frequency effects in variable lexical phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: A Selection of Papers from NWAVE 25 4(1):216–227.Google Scholar
Nagy, Naomi, & Reynolds, Bill. (1997). Optimality theory and variable word-final deletion in Faetar. Language Variation and Change 9:37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. (1984). Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60:320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. (2006). Word frequency and lexical diffusion. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, C. & Warner, N. (eds.), Laboratory phonology VII. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 101–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2006). The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics 34:516–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, José C., & Bates, Douglas M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port, Robert. (2007). How are words stored in memory? Beyond phones and phonemes. New Ideas in Psychology 25:143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Smolensky, Paul. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. M.S. thesis, Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Smolensky, Paul. (2004) Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2.14). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., Ball, Arnetha, Blake, Renée, Jackson, Raina, & Martin, Nomi. (1991). Rappin on the copula coffin: Theoretical and methodological issues in the analysis of copula variation in African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 3:103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David. (1988). Variable rules. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N. & Mattheier, K. J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 984–997.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali, & Smith, Eric. (2005). GoldVarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. University of Ottawa/University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, Otto. (1992). Phonetic simplification processes in the English of the barrio: A cross-generational sociolinguistic study of the Chicanos of Los Angeles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, Otto. (1996). Sonority and syllable structure in Chicano English. Language Variation and Change 8:63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigley, Robert. (2003). The importance of interaction effects. Language Variation and Change 15:227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer, Durham, Mercedes, & Fortune, Liane. (2009). Universal and dialect-specific pathways of acquisition: Caregivers, children, and t/d deletion. Language Variation and Change 21:69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, & Temple, Rosalind. (2005). New perspectives on an ol' variable. Language Variation and Change 17:281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, & Walker, James A. (2009). On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that. Linguistics 47:1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, James A. (2000). Present accounted for: Prosody and aspect in early African American English. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Walker, James A. (2010). Variation in linguistic systems. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Young, Richard, & Bayley, Robert. (1996). VARBRUL analysis for second language acquisition research. In Preston, D. R. (ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 253–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar