Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:37:10.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation and opacity in Singapore English consonant clusters*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2008

Arto Anttila ,
Vivienne Fong ,
Štefan Beňuš  and
Jennifer Nycz
Arto Anttila
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Vivienne Fong
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Štefan Beňuš
Affiliation:
Constantine the Philosopher University & Slovak Academy of Sciences
Jennifer Nycz
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Singapore English consonant clusters undergo phonological processes that exhibit variation and opacity. Quantitative evidence shows that these patterns are genuine and systematic. Two main conclusions emerge. First, a small set of phonological constraints yields a typological structure (T-order) that captures the quantitative patterns, independently of specific assumptions about how the grammar represents variation. Second, the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that phonological opacity has only one source: the interleaving of phonology and morphology.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , August 2008 , pp. 181 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Anttila, Arto (2006). Variation and opacity. NLLT 24. 893–944.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto (2007). Variation and optionality. In de Lacy (2007). 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto (to appear). Gradient phonotactics and the Complexity Hypothesis. NLLT.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto & Andrus, Curtis (2006). T-Orders. Available as ROA-873 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive. Software available (May 2008) at http://www.stanford.edu/~anttila/research/software.html.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto & Yu Cho, Young-mee (1998). Variation and change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104. 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto, Fong, Vivienne, Beňuš, Štefan & Nycz, Jennifer (2004). Deriving consonant cluster phonotactics: evidence from Singapore English. NELS 34. 89–103. Also available as ROA-649 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric (2005). Antigemination, assimilation and the determination of identity. Phonology 22. 279–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bao, Zhiming (1998). The sounds of Singapore English. In Foley, Joseph, Kandiah, Thiru, Bao, Zhiming, Gupta, Anthea, Alsagoff, Lubna, Lick, Ho, Wee, Lionel, Talib, Ismail & Bokhorst-Heng, Wendy (eds.) English in new cultural contexts: reflections from Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press. 127–151.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (1999). Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 45–86.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2008). Praat: a system for doing phonetics by computer (version 5.0.32). http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène (2000). Consonant cluster phonotactics: a perceptual approach. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (ed.) (2007). The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2005). Speech perception and phonological contrast. In Pisoni, David & Remez, Robert (eds.) The handbook of speech perception. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 156–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, Vivienne (2004). The verbal cluster. In Lim (2004b). 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1993). Harmonic phonology. In Goldsmith, John (ed.) The last phonological rule: reflections on constraints and derivations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 21–60.Google Scholar
Gupta, Anthea F. (1995). Singapore English: pronunciation. Speech and Hearing Association (Singapore) Newsletter, November/December 1995.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Jacobs, Haike (1998). Understanding phonology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual: the case of final stop deletion. In Labov, William (ed.) Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press. 1–36.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991a). Explanation in variable phonology: an exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991b). Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3. 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce & Zuraw, Kie (2003). OTSoft 2.1. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth (1998). Metathesis in phonological theory: the case of Leti. Lingua 104. 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth (1999). The role of perceptibility in consonant/consonant metathesis. WCCFL 17. 293–307.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). On the sources of opacity in OT: coda processes in German. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model. In Johnson, Keith & Mullennix, John (eds.) Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego: Academic Press. 145–165.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1995). Cyclic vs. non-cyclic constraint evaluation. Phonology 12. 397–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles (1977). Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. In Yang, I.-S. (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1994). An OT perspective on phonological variation. Handout from Rutgers Optimality Workshop 1993 and New Ways of Analyzing Variation 1994, Stanford University. Available (May 2008) at http://www.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/nwave94.pdf.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2003). Finnish noun inflection. In Nelson, Diane & Manninen, Satu (eds.) Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics. Stanford: CSLI. 109–161.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1997). Resyllabification. In Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland & Wetzels, W. (eds.) Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leow, B. G. (2001). Census population 2000 statistical release 2: education, language, and religion. Singapore: Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
Lim, Laureen (2007). Doing t/d deletion Singapore style. Paper presented at NWAV 36, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa (2004a). Sounding Singaporean. In Lim (2004b). 19–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Lisa (ed.) (2004b). Singapore English: a grammatical description. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Lisa & Foley, Joseph (2004). English in Singapore and Singapore English. In Lim (2004b). 1–18.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1999). Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16. 331–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Prosodic morphology I: constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms, University of Massachusetts & Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249–384.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1992). Describing the phonology of non-native varieties of a language. World Englishes 11. 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2004). Non-computable functions in Optimality Theory. In McCarthy, John (ed.) Optimality Theory in phonology: a reader. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poedjosoedarmo, Gloria (2000). A description of the English pronunciation of young educated Singaporeans: a study in multidimensional variation. In Brown, Adam, Deterding, David & Ee Ling, Low (eds.) The English language in Singapore: research on pronunciation. Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics. 65–75.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2002a). Entailed ranking arguments. Ms, Rutgers University. Available as ROA-500 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2002b). Arguing Optimality. In Carpenter, Angela, Coetzee, Andries & de Lacy, Paul (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory II. Amherst: GLSA. 269–304.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2006). Implication and impossibility in grammatical systems: what it is and how to find it. Ms, Rutgers University. Available as ROA-880 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (2007). The pursuit of theory. In de Lacy (2007). 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel (2004). A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Lg 80. 475–531.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2000). Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17. 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. (2003). The dynamics of New Englishes: from identity construction to dialect birth. Lg 79. 233–281.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2001). Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 219–250.Google Scholar
Tay, Mary (1982). The uses, users and features of English in Singapore. In Pride, J. B. (ed.) New Englishes. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 51–70.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard (1981). Concreteness in generative phonology: evidence from French. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wee, Lionel & Ansaldo, Umberto (2004). Nouns and noun phrases. In Lim (2004b). 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar