Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Testing claims of a usage-based phonology with Liverpool English t-to-r1

  • LYNN CLARK (a1) and KEVIN WATSON (a2)
Abstract

The variable phenomenon in which /t/ can be realized as a tap or rhotic approximant in varieties of Northern British English (commonly referred to as t-to-r, Wells 1982: 370) has received some attention in English linguistics as debates have appeared over how best to model its phonology (e.g. Carr 1991; Docherty et al. 1997; Broadbent 2008). The occurrence of t-to-r seems to be constrained by the preceding and following phonological environment in a largely systematic way and so it is often accounted for within a rule-based model of grammar. Problematically, however, the rule does not apply blindly across the board to all words which fit the specified phonological pattern. Instead, t-to-r shows evidence of being lexically restricted, and this fact has recently encouraged a usage-based interpretation. Until now, there has been relatively little attempt to test the usage-based thesis directly with fully quantified data gleaned from naturally occurring conversation. This article investigates the extent to which certain usage-based predictions can account for variation attested in t-to-r in Liverpool English. Using oral history interviews with Liverpool English speakers born in the early 1900s, we examine the usage-based predictions first proposed by Broadbent (2008) that t-to-r is more likely in (a) high-frequency words and (b) high-frequency phrases. There is some support for the importance of lexical frequency as a motivating factor in the use of t-to-r, but our data do not fully support either of these claims wholesale. We suggest that t-to-r is not constrained simply by word frequency or phrase frequency alone, but by a combination of both. Finally, we explore the possibility of employing notions from Cognitive Grammar such as schema strength (e.g. Taylor 2002; Bybee 1995: 430) in our interpretation of these data.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Jerome S. Bruner 1957. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review 64, 123–52.

Joan Bybee . 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10 (5), 425–55.

Joan Bybee . 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82 (4), 711–33.

Joan Bybee . 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Joan Bybee & Joanne Scheibman . 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37 (4), 575–96.

Phillip Carr . 1991. Lexical properties of post-lexical rules: Postlexical derived environment and the Elsewhere Condition. Lingua 85, 255–68.

Gerard J. Docherty , Paul Foulkes , James Milroy , Lesley Milroy & David Walshaw . 1997. Descriptive adequacy in phonology: A variationist perspective. Journal of Linguistics 33, 275310.

Paul Foulkes & Gerard Docherty . 2006. The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34 (4), 409–38.

Michael Hammond . 1999. Lexical frequency and rhythm. In Mike Darnell , Edith A. Moravcsik , Frederick J. Newmeyer , Michael Noonan & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics: General papers, 329–58. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

John Harris & Jonathan Kaye . 1990. A tale of two cities: London glottalling and New York City tapping. The Linguistic Review 7, 251–74.

Jennifer Hay . 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39 (6), 1041–70.

Paul Kiparsky . 1982. Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.

Ronald W. Langacker 1991. Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Abraham S. Luchins 1942. Mechanization in problem solving. Psychological Monographs 54 (6), whole no. 248.

Garry Marchant , John Robinson , Urton Anderson & Michael Schadewald . 1991. Analogical transfer and expertise in legal reasoning. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 48, 272–90.

Janet B. Pierrehumbert 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In J. Bybee & P. J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Perry W. Thorndyke & Barbara Hayes-Roth . 1979. The use of schemata in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognitive Psychology 11, 82106.

James F. Voss , Gregg T. Vesonder & George J. Spilich . 1980. Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19, 651–67.

Charles D. Yang 2004. Universal Grammar, statistics, or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 451–6.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

English Language & Linguistics
  • ISSN: 1360-6743
  • EISSN: 1469-4379
  • URL: /core/journals/english-language-and-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×