Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:55:20.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Near-mergers and the suspension of phonemic contrast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

William Labov ,
Mark Karen  and
Corey Miller
William Labov
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Mark Karen
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Corey Miller
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1972, Labov, Yaeger, and Steiner reported a series of “near-mergers” that have since proved to be difficult to assimilate to the standard conception of the phoneme and that challenged our current understanding of how language production is related to perception and learning (Labov, Yaeger, & Steiner, 1972). In these situations, speakers consistently reported that two classes of sounds were “the same,” yet consistently differentiated them in production. Labov (1975a) suggested that this phenomenon was the explanation for two “falsely reported mergers” in the history of English, where word classes were said to have merged and afterward separated. It appears that sound change may bring two phonemes into such close approximation that semantic contrast between them is suspended for native speakers of the dialect, without necessarily leading to merger. This article reports on further observations of near-mergers, which confirm their implications for both synchronic and diachronic issues, and presents the results of experiments that show how phonemic contrast is suspended for an entire community.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 33 - 74
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

Bailey, G. & Ross, G. (forthcoming). The evolution of a vernacular. To appear in Ihailainen, O. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on the History of Linguistics 6. London: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. (1926). A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2:153–164.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1964). The logical basis of linguistic theory. In Lunt, Horace G. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. London: Mouton. 914–1008.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, Marianna. (1988). Pronunciation and categorization in sound change. In Ferrara, K. et al. (eds.), Linguistic change and contact: NWAV XVI. Austin: University of Texas, Department of Linguistics. 84–92.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, Marianna & Faber, Alice. (1990). Phonation differences and the phonetic content of the tense-lax contrast in Utah English. Language Variation and Change 2:155–204.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles C., & Pike, Kenneth. (1949). Co-existent phonemic systems. Language 25:29–50.Google Scholar
Garde, Paul. (1961). Réflexions sur les différences phonétiques entre les langues slaves. Word 17:34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18:54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, Stevan (ed.). (1987). Categorical perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, John. (1985). Phonological variation and change: Studies in Hiberno-Irish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Herold, Ruth. (1990). Mechanisms of merger: The implementation and distribution of the low back merger in Eastern Pennsylvania. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hindle, Donald. (1978). Approaches to vowel normalization in the study of natural speech. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic. 161–172.Google Scholar
Hubbell, Allan F. (1962). The pronunciation of English in New York City. Consonants and vowels. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Janson, Tore & Schulman, Richard. (1983). Non-distinctive features and their use. Journal of Linguistics 19:321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1949). A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part I: Sounds and spellings. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, Lawrence. (1981). Essays on moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans & McDavid, Raven I. Jr (1961). The pronunciation of English in the Atlantic States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1975a). On the use of the present to explain the past. In Heilmann, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguists. Bologna: Il Mulino. 825–851.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1975b). What is a linguistic fact? Lisse: Peter de Ridder and New York: Humanities.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1988). The judicial testing of linguistic theory. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Language in context: Connecting observation and understanding. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 159–182.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Yaeger, Malcah & Steiner, Richard. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Liberman, Alvin, Harris, K., Hoffman, H. & Griffith, B. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phonemic boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54:358–368.Google Scholar
Milroy, James, & Harris, John. (1980). When is a merger not a merger? The MEAT/MATE problem in a present-day English vernacular. English World-Wide 1:199–210.Google Scholar
Moulton, William. (1962). The sounds of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1980). A falsely reported merger in eighteenth century English: A study of diachronic variation. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 221–250.Google Scholar
Orton, Harold, & Dieth, Eugen. (1962–1967). Survey of English dialects. Leeds: E. J. Arnold & Son.Google Scholar
Patterson, W. H. (1880). A glossary of words in use in the counties of Antrim and Down. London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Peterson, Gordon E., & Barney, Harold L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. JASA 24:175–184.Google Scholar
Pisoni, David. (1971). On the nature of categorical perception of speech sounds. (Status Report on Speech Research SR-27). New Haven: Haskins Laboratories.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voegelin, C. F., & Harris, , Zellig, S. (1951). Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95:322–329.Google Scholar
Wetmore, Thomas. (1959). The low-central and low-back vowels in the English of the Eastern United States (Publication of the American Dialect Society 32). University: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar