This article gives a detailed analysis of devoicing of the voiced fricatives /v/, /z/, /y/ in two varieties of Standard Dutch: Southern Standard Dutch (as spoken in Belgium) and Northern Standard Dutch (as spoken in The Netherlands). The study is based on archived recordings of radio broadcasts from 1935 to 1993. First, our study shows a divergence between Southern and Northern Standard Dutch in the pronunciation of voiced fricatives in this period. In The Netherlands there is a strong tendency towards devoicing, but in Belgium this tendency is very weak. Second, this study offers insight into the linguistic path of this change: partially voiced compromise variants play an important role, and devoicing is favored in word-initial position. Finally, our study shows the benefits of a retrospective trend study on the basis of radio recordings. In comparison with traditional real-time studies, it offers more insight into the social and linguistic embedding of changes in progress. Its results are also more reliable than those of apparent-time research.

The article models the spread of linguistic change by taking precise account of the ages of the acquirers and transmitters of change. Several studies, some original, are reviewed in order to address the following questions: “What types of linguistic feature can an individual acquire at different ages?” “How much influence do people of different ages exert on the speech of other individuals?” The article is organized around three key interlocutor combinations: parent-infant/young child, peer group-preadolescent, and older adolescent/adult-adolescent. The studies suggest that borrowings are the easiest to acquire, while lexically unpredictable phonological changes are the most difficult. In between are Neogrammarian changes and morphologically conditioned features. The age of the speaker is critical; only the youngest children acquire the “hardest” features. However, adolescents may be the most influential transmitters of change. A difficulty hierarchy for the acquisition of second dialect features is then presented; it is suggested that this predicts the nature of linguistic change found under different sociolinguistic conditions. The approach presented here allows for a more detailed understanding of the spread of linguistic change.

This study examines the use of object relative pronouns by native (NS) and nonnative (NNS) speakers of Standard American English. Three hypotheses were tested: (1) relative pronoun choice by NNSs will differ from that of NSs, principally because of prescriptive grammar instruction abroad; (2) wh, that, and zero froms will be used variably by both NSs and NNSs, depending on the function of the object and the human/nonhuman status of its antecedent; and (3) increased exposure to native speaking environments will cause a shift toward NS norms of use by NNSs. Half the subjects were given a preference task and asked to mark the relative pronoun variants they would be most likely to use in speech and in writing. The other subjects were given a production task in which sentences were combined to produce relativization. The data and varbrul2 analyses supported all three hypotheses: NNSs used all forms roughly equally in speaking but preferred Wh in writing, whereas NSs favored That or no pronoun. A shift away from Wh was also evident in NNSs after extended exposure to NS English.

Although English relative clauses have been the subject of considerable research, few quantitative studies have traced their development over an extended period of time. The present study focuses on factors governing the choice of relative markers in restrictive relative clauses with relativized subjects from the 16th century to the present day, using both spoken and written data, and including non-standard and regional varieties. The study examines claims by Romaine (1982) that the wh-strategy has not affected spoken English, and that no major qualitative changes have occurred in the relative system since the early 16th century. The results, however, show that these claims are not correct: a major event occurred in the 17th century which had a significant impact on spoken and written English. Many areas are identified which merit further research.