Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:52:19.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the role of token frequency in phonological change: evidence from TH-Fronting in east-central Scotland1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

LYNN CLARK  and
GRAEME TROUSDALE
LYNN CLARK
Affiliation:
Linguistics and English Language, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Dugald Stewart Building, 3 Charles Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AD, Scotland, UKL.Clark-8@sms.ed.ac.uk, Graeme.Trousdale@ed.ac.uk
GRAEME TROUSDALE
Affiliation:
Linguistics and English Language, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Dugald Stewart Building, 3 Charles Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AD, Scotland, UKL.Clark-8@sms.ed.ac.uk, Graeme.Trousdale@ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research on frequency effects in phonology suggests that word frequency is often a significant motivating factor in the spread of sound change through the lexicon. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the exact nature of the relationship between phonological change and word frequency. This article investigates the role of lexical frequency in the spread of the well-known sound change TH-Fronting in an under-researched dialect area in east-central Scotland. Using data from a corpus of conversations compiled over a two-year period by the first author, we explore how the process of TH-Fronting is complicated in this community by the existence of certain local variants which are lexically restricted, and we question to what extent the frequency patterns that are apparent in these data are consistent with generalisations made in the wider literature on the relationship between lexical frequency and phonological change.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 33 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramowicz, Lukasz. 2006. Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: frequency and recency effects in (ing). Paper presented at NWAV 35, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard & Gulikers, Léon, 1995. The CELEX lexical database (release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania [Distributor].Google Scholar
Bayley, Robert. 2002. The quantitative paradigm. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter & Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 117–41. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Borgatti, Stephen P., Everett, Martin G. & Freeman, Linton C.. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Kemmer, Suzanne & Barlow, Michael (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 65–86. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14, 261–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Language 82 (4), 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organisation of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chirrey, Deborah. 1999. Edinburgh: descriptive material. In Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerard (eds.), Urban voices: Accent studies in the British Isles, 223–9. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Clark, Lynn. 2008. Re-examining vocalic variation in Scottish English: A Cognitive Grammar approach. Language Variation and Change 20 (3), 255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Lynn. In prep. Variation, change and the usage-based approach. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Clark, Lynn & Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Phonological variation in a Scottish community: Methods and theory in cognitive sociolinguistics. Paper presented at the symposium Approaches to Variation and Change in English, Otto-Friedrich-Universität, Bamberg.Google Scholar
Collins, Allan M. & Loftus, Elizabeth. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82, 407–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vaus, David A. 2002. Analysing social science data. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron. 2008. The real effect of word frequency on phonological variation. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 14 (1), 97–106.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity at Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerard J.. 2006. The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34 (4), 409–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle 2007. The cognitive reality of frequent verb–noun combinations: An empirical study. Paper presented at the 10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC), Jagiellonian University, Krakow.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1988. Advanced varbrul analysis. In Ferrara, Kathleen, Brown, Becky, Walters, Keith & Baugh, John (eds.), Linguistic change and contact, 124–36. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1993. The quantitative analysis of linguistic variation. In Preston, Dennis (ed.), American dialect research, 223–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39 (6), 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Baayen, Harold, 2002. Parsing and productivity. In Booij, Gert E. & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001, 203–35. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2007. Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Barlow, Michael. 2000. A usage-based conception of language. In Kemmer, Suzanne & Barlow, Michael (eds.), Usage-based models of language, vii–xxviii. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 2003. Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. In Britain, David & Cheshire, Jenny (eds.), Social dialectology. In honour of Peter Trudgill, 223–43. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunter, Gero. 2007. Within-speaker and between-speaker variability in compound stress assignment. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English (ICLCE), University of Toulouse.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2006. A sociolinguistic perspective on sociophonetic research. Journal of Phonetics 34, 500–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon & Boberg, Charles. 2006. Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. A usage-based model. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 127–61. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Kemmer, Suzanne and Barlow, Michael (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–64. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Macafee, Caroline. 1983. Varieties of English around the world: Glasgow. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mather, James Y. & Speitel, Hans-Henning. 1986. The linguistic atlas of Scotland, vol. III: Phonology. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Mathews, Tanya. 2005. Discourses of intergroup distinctiveness among adolescent girls. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60, 320–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 1998. British vs. American -ate and -ator: convergence, divergence, and the lexicon. American Speech 73, 160–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1980. The notion of the plural in Puerto Rican Spanish: Competing constraints on (s) deletion. In Labov, William (ed.), Locating language in time and space, 55–67. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pukli, Monika. 2007. Vowels in Scottish English: Durational patterns and the Scottish Vowel Length Rule. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English (ICLCE), University of Toulouse.Google Scholar
Robinson, Christine. 2005. Changes in the dialect of Livingston. Language and Literature 14 (2), 181–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Eric. 2005. Goldvarb X. Available to download at http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GV_index.htm.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. Does frequency in text really instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? Paper presented at the 10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC), Jagiellonian University, Krakow.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2008. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.), The nature of the word, 151–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane & Tweedie, Fiona. 2000. Accent change in Glaswegian: A sociophonetic investigation (Final report to the Leverhulme Trust) (F/179/AX).Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane & Timmins, Claire. 2006. The role of the lexicon in TH- Fronting in Glaswegian. In Caie, Graham D., Hough, Carole & Wotherspoon, Irené (eds.), The power of words: Essays in lexicography, lexicology and semantics, 171–84. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine. E. 2007. Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19, 101–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. 1982. Accents of English, vol. 2: The British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Anne & Kerswill, Paul. 1999. Dialect levelling: Change and continuity in Milton Keynes, Reading and Hull. In Foulkes, Paul & Docherty, Gerard J. (eds.), Urban voices, 141–62. London: Arnold.Google Scholar