Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:00:20.178Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing claims of a usage-based phonology with Liverpool English t-to-r1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2011

LYNN CLARK  and
KEVIN WATSON
LYNN CLARK
Affiliation:
Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YL, [email protected]
KEVIN WATSON
Affiliation:
School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The variable phenomenon in which /t/ can be realized as a tap or rhotic approximant in varieties of Northern British English (commonly referred to as t-to-r, Wells 1982: 370) has received some attention in English linguistics as debates have appeared over how best to model its phonology (e.g. Carr 1991; Docherty et al. 1997; Broadbent 2008). The occurrence of t-to-r seems to be constrained by the preceding and following phonological environment in a largely systematic way and so it is often accounted for within a rule-based model of grammar. Problematically, however, the rule does not apply blindly across the board to all words which fit the specified phonological pattern. Instead, t-to-r shows evidence of being lexically restricted, and this fact has recently encouraged a usage-based interpretation. Until now, there has been relatively little attempt to test the usage-based thesis directly with fully quantified data gleaned from naturally occurring conversation. This article investigates the extent to which certain usage-based predictions can account for variation attested in t-to-r in Liverpool English. Using oral history interviews with Liverpool English speakers born in the early 1900s, we examine the usage-based predictions first proposed by Broadbent (2008) that t-to-r is more likely in (a) high-frequency words and (b) high-frequency phrases. There is some support for the importance of lexical frequency as a motivating factor in the use of t-to-r, but our data do not fully support either of these claims wholesale. We suggest that t-to-r is not constrained simply by word frequency or phrase frequency alone, but by a combination of both. Finally, we explore the possibility of employing notions from Cognitive Grammar such as schema strength (e.g. Taylor 2002; Bybee 1995: 430) in our interpretation of these data.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 523 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Abramowicz, Łukasz. 2007. Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: Frequency and recency effects in (ing). Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13 (2), 26–37.Google Scholar
Alba, Joseph W. & Hasher, Lynn. 1983. Is memory schematic? Psychological Review 93, 203–31.Google Scholar
Adelson, Beth. 1984. When novices surpass experts: The difficulty of a task may increase with expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 10, 483–95.Google Scholar
Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Asprey, Esther. 2008. The sociolinguistic stratification of a connected speech process – the case of the T to R rule in the Black Country. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 13, 109–40.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard & Gulikers, Leon. 2005. The CELEX lexical database (release 2) [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of 333 Pennsylvania [Distributor]. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Frederic Charles. 1932. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2009. Lexical storage and phonological change. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.), The nature of the word: Studies in honour of Paul Kiparsky, 487–506. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2003. On the gradience of the dative alternation. MS available to download: www.stanford.edu/~bresnan/download.htmlGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, Judith. 2008. t to r in West Yorkshire English. English Language and Linguistics 12 (1), 141–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, Jerome S. 1957. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review 64, 123–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10 (5), 425–55.CrossRefGoogle 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, 261–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82 (4), 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37 (4), 575–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Carr, Phillip. 1991. Lexical properties of post-lexical rules: Postlexical derived environment and the Elsewhere Condition. Lingua 85, 255–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Lynn & Trousdale, Graeme. 2009. The role of frequency in phonological change: Evidence from TH-fronting in east-central Scotland. English Language and Linguistics 13 (1), 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron. 2008. The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 14 (1), 97–106.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerard J., Foulkes, Paul, Milroy, James, Milroy, Lesley & Walshaw, David. 1997. Descriptive adequacy in phonology: A variationist perspective. Journal of Linguistics 33, 275–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Susan T. & Morling, Beth A.. 1996. Schemas/schemata. In Manstead, Antony S. R. & Hewstone, Miles (eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology, 489–94. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerard. 2006. The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34 (4), 409–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1999. Lexical frequency and rhythm. In Darnell, Mike, Moravcsik, Edith A., Newmeyer, Frederick J., Noonan, Michael & Wheatley, Kathleen M. (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics: General papers, 329–58. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John & Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. A tale of two cities: London glottalling and New York City tapping. The Linguistic Review 7, 251–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39 (6), 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Evert, Stefan, Smith, Nicholas, Lee, David & Prytz, Ylva Berglund. 2008. Corpus linguistics with BNCWeb – a practical guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, William (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, 96–105. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2007. Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, Keith & Mullennix, John W. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing, 145–65. San Diego: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Barlow, Michael. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, vii–1. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Israel, Michael. 1994. Variation and the usage-based model. In Beals, Katherine, Denton, Jeanette, Knippen, Robert, Melnar, Lynette, Suzuki, Hisami & Zeinfeld, Erica (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory, 165–79.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonological theory. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1983. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application, vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald.W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Luchins, Abraham S. 1942. Mechanization in problem solving. Psychological Monographs 54 (6), whole no. 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, Jean Matter. 1984. Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 289–341. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marchant, Garry, Robinson, John, Anderson, Urton & Schadewald, Michael. 1991. Analogical transfer and expertise in legal reasoning. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 48, 272–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, Hazel. 1977. Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, Nicole M. & Alibali, Martha W. (2002). A strong schema can interfere with learning: The case of children's typical addition schema. In Gray, Wayne D & Schunn, Christian D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 661–6. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1994. Knowledge of variation. In Beals, Katherine, Denton, Jeanette, Knippen, Robert, Melnar, Lynette, Suzuki, Hisami & Zeinfeld, Erica (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory, 232–56.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. J. (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory Phonology VII, 101–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Hazel. 2008. Mechanisms, motivations and outcomes of change in Morley (Leeds) English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David. E. 1984. Schemata and the cognitive system. In Wyer, Robert S. J. and Srull, Thomas K. (eds.), Handbook of social cognition, 161–88. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David. E. & Ortony, Andrew. 1977. The representation of knowledge in memory. In Anderson, Richard C., Spiro, Rand J. & Montague, William E. (eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge, 99–135. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schützwohl, Achim. 1998. Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 24, 1182–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndyke, Perry W. & Hayes-Roth, Barbara. 1979. The use of schemata in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognitive Psychology 11, 82–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 439–67. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Voss, James F., Vesonder, Gregg T. & Spilich, George J.. 1980. Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19, 651–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Kevin. 2007. Liverpool English. Journal of the International Phonetics Association, 37 (3), 351–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Kevin & Clark, Lynn. 2010. ‘t-to-r’ in British English: Word frequency, constructions, and sociolinguistics. Paper presented at New Ways of Analysing Variation (NWAV) 39, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Wells, John. C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles D. 2004. Universal Grammar, statistics, or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 451–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed