Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:16:33.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New contrast acquisition: methodological issues and theoretical implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2013

JENNIFER NYCZ
JENNIFER NYCZ*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, 1437 37th St NW, Washington, DC 20057, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents data on the acquisition of the low back vowel contrast by native speakers of Canadian English who have moved as adults to the New York City region, examining how these speakers who natively possess a single low back vowel category have acquired the low back vowel distinction of the new ambient dialect. The speakers show remarkable first dialect stability with respect to their low back vowel system, even after many years of new dialect exposure: in minimal pair contexts, nearly all of the speakers continue to produce and perceive a single vowel category. However, in word list and conversational contexts, the majority of speakers exhibit a small but significant phonetic difference between words like cot and caught, reflecting the separation of these word classes in the new dialect to which they are exposed; moreover, the realization of these words shows frequency effects consistent with a lexically gradual divergence of the two vowels. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for theories of phonological representation and change, as well as their methodological implications for the study of mergers- and splits-in-progress.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 2: Phonological mergers in English , July 2013 , pp. 325 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Apects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard & van Rijn, Hedderik. 1993. The CELEX lexical database. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas & Sarkar, Deepayan. 2008. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes. http://cran.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2 (3), 153–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2008. English in Canada: Phonology. In Schneider, Edgar W. (ed.), Varieties of English: The Americas and the Caribbean, vol. 2, 144–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Church, Barbara A. & Schacter, Daniel L.. 1994. Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: Implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20, 521–33.Google ScholarPubMed
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
Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2, 225–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. & Hume, Elizabeth. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 245–306. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cole, Ronald A., Coltheart, Max & Allard, Fran. 1974. Memory of a speaker's voice: Reaction time to same- or different-voiced letters. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 26, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gafos, Adamantios. 2002. A grammar of gestural coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 269–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen D. 1998. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review 105, 251–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldsmith, John A. 1979. The aims of autosegmental phonology. In Dinnsen, Daniel A. (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 202–22. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Herzog, Marvin. 1965. The Yiddish language in northern Poland. Bloomington and The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Hintzman, Douglas L. 1986. ‘Schema abstraction’ in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 93, 411–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintzman, Douglas L., Block, Richard A. & Inskeep, Norman R.. 1972. Memory for mode of input. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11, 741–9.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1962. Selected writings, vol. 1. The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2010. Stability and change along a dialect boundary: The low vowels of southeastern New England. Publications of the American Dialect Society 95. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization. In Johnson, Keith & Mullennix, John W. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing, 145–66. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kučera, Henry & Francis, W. Nelson. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1st edition.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of linguistic change: Cognitive and cultural factors. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change: A multimedia reference tool. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Karen, Mark & Miller, Corey. 1991. Near-mergers and the suspension of phonemic contrast. Language Variation and Change 3, 33–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Yaeger, Malcah & Steiner, Richard. 1972. A quantitative study of sound change in progress. Philadelphia, PA: US Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2003. Phonetic data analysis: An introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Susanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1967. Every word has its own history. Glossa 1, 137–49.Google Scholar
Mullennix, John W., Pisoni, David B. & Martin, Christopher S.. 1988. Some effects of talker variability on spoken word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85, 365–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Dennis, McQueen, James & Cutler, Anne. 2003. Perceptual learning in speech. Cognitive Psychology 47, 204–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygaard, Lynne C. & Pisoni, David B.. 1998. Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 60, 355–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, Hermann. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer. [English translation of 2nd (1886) edition: Principles of the history of language, trans. H. A. Strong. College Park: McGrath Publishing Company, 1970.]Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60, 320–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.), Laboratory phonology 7, 101–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2003. Probabilistic phonology: Discrimination and robustness. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 177–228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2006. The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics 34, 516–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, Jose C. & Bates, Douglas M.. 2000. Mixed-effect models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schacter, Daniel L. & Church, Barbara A.. 1992. Auditory priming: Implicit and explicit memory for words and voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18, 915–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell: 114–75.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1969. Principles of phonology, trans. Christiane A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Originally published 1939 as Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter & Foxcroft, Nina. 1978. On the sociolinguistics of vocalic mergers: Transfer and approximation in East Anglia. In Trudgill, Peter (ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns in British English, 69–79. London: Edwin Arnold.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert & Cooper, Justin. 1999. Introduction to linguistic field methods. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew. 2004. Category competition drives contrast maintenance within an exemplar-based production/perception loop. In Goldsmith, John A. & Wicentowski, Richard (eds.), Proceedings of the seventh meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology, vol. 7, 1–10. ACL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew. 2006. Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23, 247–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar