Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:59:38.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using the Tolerance Principle to predict phonological change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2019

Betsy Sneller ,
Josef Fruehwald  and
Charles Yang
Betsy Sneller
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Josef Fruehwald
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Charles Yang
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Language acquisition is a well-established avenue for language change (Labov, 2007). Given the theoretical importance of language acquisition to language change, it is all the more important to formulate clear theories of transmission-based change. In this paper, we provide a simulation method designed to test the plausibility of different possible transmission-based changes, using the Tolerance Principle (Yang, 2016) to determine precise points at which different possible changes may become plausible for children acquiring language. We apply this method to a case study of a complex change currently in progress: the allophonic restructuring of /æ/ in Philadelphia English. Using this model, we are able to evaluate several competing explanations of the ongoing change and determine that the allophonic restructuring of /æ/ in Philadelphia English is mostly likely the result of children acquiring language from mixed dialect input, consisting of approximately 40% input from speakers with a nasal /æ/ split. We show that applying our simulation to a phonological change allows us to make precise quantitative predications about the progress of this change. Moreover, it forces us to reassess intuitively plausible hypotheses about language change, such as grammatical simplification, in a quantitative and independently motivated framework of acquisition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank the audiences at MFM 2016 in Manchester, FWAV 2016 in New York City and NWAV 2016 in Vancouver for their feedback on earlier versions of this project. The project has benefited greatly from comments by three anonymous reviewers. This research was funded in part by National Science Foundation grants BCS-1251437 and BCS-162.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stephen, & Kiparsky, Paul. (1973). Elsewhere in Phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ash, Sharon. (2002). The Distribution of a Phonemic Split in the Mid-Atlantic Region: Yet More on Short A. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 8 (3): Article 2. http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol8/iss3/2.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald & Renouf, Antoinette. (2018). Linguistic Society of America Chronicling the Times: Productive Lexical Innovations in an English Newspaper. Linguistic Society of America. https://www.jstor.org/stable/416794” 72 (1): 69–96.Google Scholar
Becker, Kara & Wong, Amy. (2009). The Short-a System of New York City English: An Update. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15 (2):1–12.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. (2007). Diachronic Phonology. In de Lacy, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press. 497–517.Google Scholar
Boberg, Charles & Strassel, Stephanie. (2000). Short-a in Cincinnati: A Change in Progress. Journal of English Linguistics 28:108–126.Google Scholar
Bosch, Laura & Sebastián-Gallés, Núria. (2003). Simultaneous Bilingualism and the Perception of a Language-Specific Vowel Contrast in the First Year of Life. Language and Speech 46:217–243.Google Scholar
Brody, Stefanie. (2011). Transmissions of Philadelphia Short-a: The Changing Gravity of ‘Planets.’ MA Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (1995). Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10 (5):425–455.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, Mehler, Jacques, Norris, Dennis & Sequi, Juan. (1989). Limits on Bilingualism. Nature 340:229–230.Google Scholar
Durian, David. (2012). A New Perspective on Vowel Variation across the 19th and 20th Centuries in Columbus, OH. Columbus: Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles. (1972). Short A in Philadelphia English. In Smith, M. E. (ed.), Studies in Linguistics in Honor of George L. Trager. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 259–274.Google Scholar
Fisher, Sabriya, Prichard, Hilary & Sneller, Betsy. (2015). The Apple Doesn't Fall Far from the Tree: Incremental Change in Philadelphia Families. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21 (2): Article 7. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol21/iss2/7/.Google Scholar
Fogle, Deena. (2008). Expansion or Approximation: The Low-Back Merger in Indianapolis. Presented at the 37th Meeting of the New Ways of Analyzing Variation Conference in Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lauren. (2014). The St. Louis Corridor: Mixing, Competing, and Retreating Dialects. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Fruehwald, Josef, Gress-Wright, Jonathan, & Wallenberg, Joel. (2013). Phonological Rule Change: The Constant Rate Effect. In Kan, S., Moore-Cantwell, C., & Staubs, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen. (1998). Echoes of Echoes? An Episodic Theory of Lexical Access. Psychological Review 105 (2):251–279.Google Scholar
Grainger, Jonathan. (1990). Word Frequency and Neighborhood Frequency Effects in Lexical Decision and Naming. Journal of Memory and Language 29 (228–244). https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90074-A.Google Scholar
Hall-Lew, Lauren, Cardoso, Amanda, Kemenchedjieva, Yova, Wilson, Kieran, Purse, Ruaridh & Saigusa, Julie. (2010). San Francisco English and the California Vowel Shift. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 9, 1–10.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, Carla & Newport, Elissa. (2005). Regularizing Unpredictable Variation: The Roles of Adult and Child Learners in Language Formation and Change. Language Learning and Development 1 (2):151–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2005.9684215.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, Carla & Newport, Elissa. (2009). Getting It Right by Getting It Wrong: When Learners Change Languages. Cognitive Psychology 59 (1): 30–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001.Google Scholar
Jarmulowicz, Linda. (2002). English Derivational Suffix Frequency and Children's Stress Judgments. Brain and Language 81 (1–3):192–204. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2517.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. (1998). Tensing and Laxing of Short ‘a’ in New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. (2010). Stability and Change along a Dialect Boundary: The Low Vowels of Southeastern New England. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. (2000). Creating a New Town Koine: Children and Language Change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 29 (1):65–115.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. (1995). The Phonological Basis of Sound Change. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory. Hoboken: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kwon, Soohyun. (2013). Productivity of short-a tensing rule in Philadelphia. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1989). The Exact Description of a Speech Community. In Fasold, R. & Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Language Change and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–57.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2007). Transmission and Diffusion. Language 83:344–87.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2015). Influence of Higher Education on Local Phonology Corpus.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. (2006). The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, William & Fisher, Sabriya. (2015). African American Phonology in a Philadelphia Community. In Bloomquist, J., Green, L. J., & Lanehart, S. L. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of African American Language. 1–27. Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199795390.013.34.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Fisher, Sabriya, Gylfadottir, Duna, Henderson, Anita & Sneller, Betsy. (2016). Competing Systems in Philadelphia Phonology.” Language Variation and Change 28 (03): 273–305. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394516000132.Google Scholar
Labov, William & Rosenfelder, Ingrid. (2013). Philadelphia Neighborhood Corpus. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Rosenfelder, Ingrid & Fruehwald, Josef. (2013). One Hundred Years of Sound Change in Philadelphia: Linear Incrementation, Reversal and Reanalysis. Language 89:30–65.Google Scholar
Lignos, Constantine. (2013). Modeling Words in the Mind. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Niyogi, Partha & Berwick, Robert. (1996). A Language Learning Model for Finite Parameter Spaces. Cognition 61 (1–2):161–193.Google Scholar
Payne, Arvilla C. (1980). Factors Controlling the Acquisition of the Philadelphia Dialect by Out-of-State Children. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. (2003). Probabilistic Phonology: Discrimination and Robustness. In Bod, R., Hay, J., and Jannedy, S. (eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics. 177–228. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plunkett, Kim & Marchman, Virginia. (1991). U-Shaped Learning and Frequency Effects in a Multi-Layered Perception: Implications for Child Language Acquisition. Cognition 38 (1):43–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90022-V.Google Scholar
Richter, Caitlin. (2018). Learning Allophones: What Input is Necessary? In Bertolini, A. B. & Kaplan, M. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 659–672.Google Scholar
Segui, Juan, Mehler, Jacques, Frauenfelder, Uli & Morton, John. (1982). The word frequency effect and lexical access. Neuropsychologia 20 (6): 615–627.Google Scholar
Sneller, Betsy. (2018). Mechanisms of Phonological Change. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (2004). New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea & Nagy, William. (1989). The Acquisition of English Derivational Morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 649–667.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne E, Nesbitt, Monica & Savage, Matt. (2016). Reversal and Re-Organization of the Northern Cities Shift in Michigan. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 22 (2).Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. (2000). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6%7B_%7D837.pdf.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. (2002). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. (2016). The Price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar