Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:39:58.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Gregory R. Guy
Gregory R. Guy
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Variationist treatments of phonological processes typically provide precise quantitative accounts of the effects of conditioning environmental factors on the occurrence of the process, and these effects have been shown to be robust for several well-studied processes. But comparable precision in theoretical explanation is usually elusive, at the current state of the discipline. That is, the analyst is usually unable to say why the parameters should have the particular values that they do, although one can often explain relative ordering of environments. This article attempts to give a precise explanation — in the form of a quantitative theoretical prediction — of one robust quantitative observation about English phonology. The reduction of final consonant clusters (often called -t,d deletion) is well-known to be conditioned by the morphological structure of a target word. Deletion applies more in monomorphemic words (e.g., mist) than in inflected words (e.g., missed). In the theory of lexical phonology, these classes of words are differentiated by derivational history, acquiring their final clusters at different levels of the morphology. The theory further postulates that rules may apply at more than one level of the derivation. If -t,d deletion is treated as a variable rule with a fixed rate of application (p0) in a phonology with this architecture, then higher rates of application in underived forms (where the final cluster is present underlyingly and throughout the derivation) are a consequence of multiple exposures to the deletion rule, whereas inflected forms (which only meet the structural description of the rule late in the derivation) have fewer exposures and lower cumulative deletion. This further allows a precise quantitative prediction concerning surface deletion rates in the different morphological categories. They should be related as an exponential function of p0, depending on the number of exposures to the rule. The prediction is empirically verified in a study of -t,d deletion in seven English speakers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 1 - 22
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

Bayley, R. (1991). Variation theory and second language learning. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. & Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50:333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. A. (1972). Tense marking in Black English. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Guy, G. 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. 1–36.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. (1989). MacVarb application and user documentation. Stanford: Stanford University, Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. & Boyd, S. (1990). The development of a morphological class. Language Variation and Change 2:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. (1989). Towards a lexical analysis of sound change in progress. Journal of Linguistics 25:35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I. S. (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. In Ewens, C. J. & Anderson, J. M. (eds.), Phonology yearbook 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 85–138.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45:715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1:85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W., Cohen, P., Robins, C. & Lewis, J. (1968). A study of the nonstandard English of Black and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City (Cooperative Research Report No. 3288). Washington DC: U.S. Office of Education.Google 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. B. A. Honours thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Neu, H. (1980). Ranking of constraints on /t,d/ deletion in American English: A statistical analysis. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 37–54.Google Scholar
Rousseau, P. & Sankoff, D. (1978). Advances in variable rule methodology. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic. 57–69.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. (1978). Probability and linguistic variation. Synthese 37:217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Labov, W. (1979). On the uses of variable rules. Language in Society 8:189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santa Ana, O. (1991). Phonetic simplification processes in the English of the Barrio. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–195.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar