Skip to main content
×
Home

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
References
Hide All
Abramowicz Łukasz. 2007. Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: Frequency and recency effects in (ing). Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13 (2), 2637.
Alba Joseph W. & Hasher Lynn. 1983. Is memory schematic? Psychological Review 93, 203–31.
Adelson Beth. 1984. When novices surpass experts: The difficulty of a task may increase with expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 10, 483–95.
Allport Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Asprey Esther. 2008. The sociolinguistic stratification of a connected speech process – the case of the T to R rule in the Black Country. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 13, 109–40.
Baayen R. Harald, Piepenbrock Richard & Gulikers Leon. 2005. The CELEX lexical database (release 2) [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of 333 Pennsylvania [Distributor]. Philadelphia, PA.
Bartlett Frederic Charles. 1932. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Booij Geert. 2009. Lexical storage and phonological change. In Hanson Kristin & Inkelas Sharon (eds.), The nature of the word: Studies in honour of Paul Kiparsky, 487506. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bresnan Joan & Nikitina Tatiana. 2003. On the gradience of the dative alternation. MS available to download: www.stanford.edu/~bresnan/download.html
Broadbent Judith. 2008. t to r in West Yorkshire English. English Language and Linguistics 12 (1), 141–68.
Bruner Jerome S. 1957. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review 64, 123–52.
Bybee Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10 (5), 425–55.
Bybee Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
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.
Bybee Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82 (4), 711–33.
Bybee Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee Joan & Scheibman Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37 (4), 575–96.
Carnie Andrew. 2002. Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell
Carr Phillip. 1991. Lexical properties of post-lexical rules: Postlexical derived environment and the Elsewhere Condition. Lingua 85, 255–68.
Clark Lynn & Trousdale Graeme. 2009. The role of frequency in phonological change: Evidence from TH-fronting in east-central Scotland. English Language and Linguistics 13 (1), 3355.
Dinkin Aaron. 2008. The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 14 (1), 97106.
Docherty Gerard J., Foulkes Paul, Milroy James, Milroy Lesley & Walshaw David. 1997. Descriptive adequacy in phonology: A variationist perspective. Journal of Linguistics 33, 275310.
Fiske Susan T. & Morling Beth A.. 1996. Schemas/schemata. In Manstead Antony S. R. & Hewstone Miles (eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology, 489–94. Oxford: Blackwell.
Foulkes Paul & Docherty Gerard. 2006. The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34 (4), 409–38.
Hammond Michael. 1999. Lexical frequency and rhythm. In Darnell Mike, Moravcsik Edith A., Newmeyer Frederick J., Noonan Michael & Wheatley Kathleen M. (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics: General papers, 329–58. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Harris John & Kaye Jonathan. 1990. A tale of two cities: London glottalling and New York City tapping. The Linguistic Review 7, 251–74.
Hay Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39 (6), 1041–70.
Hoffmann Sebastian, Evert Stefan, Smith Nicholas, Lee David & Prytz Ylva Berglund. 2008. Corpus linguistics with BNCWeb – a practical guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Hooper Joan. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie William (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, 96105. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hudson Richard A. 2007. Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson Keith & Mullennix John W. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing, 145–65. San Diego: Academic Press
Kemmer Suzanne & Barlow Michael. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow Michael & Kemmer Suzanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, vii1. Stanford: CSLI.
Kemmer Suzanne & Israel Michael. 1994. Variation and the usage-based model. In Beals Katherine, Denton Jeanette, Knippen Robert, Melnar Lynette, Suzuki Hisami & Zeinfeld Erica (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory, 165–79.
Kenstowicz Michael. 1994. Phonological theory. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.
Kiparsky Paul. 1982. Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Labov William. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Langacker Ronald W. 1983. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application, vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker Ronald W. 1991. Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker Ronald.W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow Michael & Kemmer Suzanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 163. Stanford: CSLI.
Luchins Abraham S. 1942. Mechanization in problem solving. Psychological Monographs 54 (6), whole no. 248.
Mandler Jean Matter. 1984. Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Manning Christopher D. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. In Bod Rens, Hay Jennifer & Jannedy Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 289341. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marchant Garry, Robinson John, Anderson Urton & Schadewald Michael. 1991. Analogical transfer and expertise in legal reasoning. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 48, 272–90.
Markus Hazel. 1977. Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2, 6378.
McNeil Nicole M. & Alibali Martha W. (2002). A strong schema can interfere with learning: The case of children's typical addition schema. In Gray Wayne D & Schunn Christian D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 661–6. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pierrehumbert Janet B. 1994. Knowledge of variation. In Beals Katherine, Denton Jeanette, Knippen Robert, Melnar Lynette, Suzuki Hisami & Zeinfeld Erica (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory, 232–56.
Pierrehumbert Janet B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee J. & Hopper P. J. (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pierrehumbert Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory Phonology VII, 101–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Richards Hazel. 2008. Mechanisms, motivations and outcomes of change in Morley (Leeds) English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of York.
Rumelhart David. E. 1984. Schemata and the cognitive system. In Wyer Robert S. J. and Srull Thomas K. (eds.), Handbook of social cognition, 161–88. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rumelhart David. E. & Ortony Andrew. 1977. The representation of knowledge in memory. In Anderson Richard C., Spiro Rand J. & Montague William E. (eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge, 99135. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schützwohl Achim. 1998. Surprise and schema strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 24, 1182–99.
Taylor John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thorndyke Perry W. & Hayes-Roth Barbara. 1979. The use of schemata in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognitive Psychology 11, 82106.
Tottie Gunnel. 1991. Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English. In Kastovsky Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 439–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Voss James F., Vesonder Gregg T. & Spilich George J.. 1980. Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19, 651–67.
Watson Kevin. 2007. Liverpool English. Journal of the International Phonetics Association, 37 (3), 351–60.
Watson Kevin & Clark Lynn. 2010. ‘t-to-r’ in British English: Word frequency, constructions, and sociolinguistics. Paper presented at New Ways of Analysing Variation (NWAV) 39, San Antonio.
Wells John. C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yang Charles D. 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? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 8
Total number of PDF views: 93 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 231 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 13th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.