Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:34:28.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Gregory R. Guy
Affiliation:
York University

Abstract

The variable lexical phonology proposed in Guy (1991) predicts an exponential relationship among rates of retention in word classes of different derivational histories. A class of words that satisfies the structural description of a variable rule at an early lexical level of derivation will undergo multiple operations of the rule and, therefore, exponentially reduced rates of retention, compared to a class of forms that only satisfies the structural description of the rule at the end of the derivation and thus is subject to its operation only once. For the case of English -t,d deletion, it is postulated that monomorphemic words (e.g., mist) are exposed to the deletion rule three times in a derivation, whereas semiweak past tense forms (e.g., left) are exposed twice, and regular past tense forms (e.g., missed) undergo the rule but once.

The present article explores the consequences of this model for other variable constraints on a rule, such as the preceding and following segment constraints on -t,d deletion. Word-internal constraints, because they are present throughout the derivation, are shown to have quantitatively different patterns than external constraints, as the latter affect the rule only in its final, post-lexical operation. Four specific quantitative predictions are derived from the model to elucidate this distinction between internal and external constraints, and empirical data are presented to confirm the predictions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Cedergren, Henrietta J. & Sankoff, David. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50:333355.CrossRefGoogle 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. 136.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1989). MacVarb application and user documentation. Stanford: Stanford University, Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1990). Explanation in a variable phonology: -t,d deletion. Paper presented at NWAVE-XIX,University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991). Explanation in a variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3:122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I. S. (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 391.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1:8598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, C. (1984). The linguistic constraints on a variable process: /t,d/ deletion in Sydney speech. BA Honours thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Roberts, Julia. (1991). t/d deletion in preschool children. Paper presented at Child Language Research Forum,Stanford University.Google Scholar
Santa, Ana Otto. (1991). Phonetic simplification processes in the English of the barrio. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger, Wolfram, Walt & Riley, W. (1968). Field techniques in an urban language study. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar