Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:56:25.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comprehensive model of phonological variation: grammatical and non-grammatical factors in variable nasal place assimilation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2016

Andries W. Coetzee
Andries W. Coetzee*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan and North-West University
*
E-mail: coetzee@umich.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The past two decades have seen the development of several constraint-based models of phonological grammar that can handle variable phenomena. Most of these models, however, are purely grammatical, and do not allow for the contribution of non-grammatical factors towards determining the frequency structure of variation. This paper reviews different approaches to phonological variation, focusing on how grammatical and non-grammatical factors co-determine patterns of variation. Based on this review, a model is developed that incorporates influences from both grammatical and non-grammatical factors. The proposed model is grammar-dominant, in the sense that grammar defines the space of possible variation while non-grammatical factors only contribute towards the frequency with which the grammar determined forms are observed. Following Coetzee & Kawahara (2013), the model is developed in a version of noisy Harmonic Grammar that allows non-grammatical factors to scale the weights of faithfulness constraints up or down.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , August 2016 , pp. 211 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

I want to express my appreciation to the many people with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss the ideas that went into this project, in particular my colleague Pam Beddor. I also acknowledge the help of Emily Reimann and Anthony Natoci in running the experiments for this project. This paper has benefited greatly from the input of three reviewers, an associate editor and the editors of Phonology. Reasonable reviewers and an effective editorial team are a pleasure to work with.

References

REFERENCES

Anttila, Arto (1997). Deriving variation from grammar. In Hinskens, et al. (1997). 35–68.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto & Andrus, Curtis (2006). T-orders. Ms, Stanford University. Available as ROA-873 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie (2001). Phonological variation and Optimality Theory: evidence from word-initial vowel epenthesis in Vimeu Picard. Language Variation and Change 13. 253–303.Google Scholar
Bane, Max (2011). Deriving the structure of variation from the structure of non-variation in the English dative alternation. WCCFL 28. 42–50.Google Scholar
Barry, Martin C. (1985). A palatographic study of connected speech processes. Cambridge Papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics 4. 1–16.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M., Maechler, Martin & Bolker, Ben (2013). Package ‘lme4’ (Version 0.999999-2): linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4.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. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 117–141.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Evans-Romaine, David (1995). Acoustic-perceptual factors in phonological assimilations: a study of syllable-final nasals. Rivista di Linguistica 7. 145–174.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21. 43–58.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 45–86.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Pater, Joe (2016). Convergence properties of a Gradual Learning Algorithm for Harmonic Grammar. In McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (eds.) Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox. 389–434.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (2013). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 5.3.56). http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Lg 82. 711–733.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta J. & Sankoff, David (1974). Variable rules: performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Lg 50. 333–355.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2004). What it means to be a loser: non-optimal candidates in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2006). Variation as accessing ‘non-optimal’ candidates. Phonology 23. 337–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2009a). An integrated grammatical/non-grammatical model of phonological variation. In Kang, Young-Se, Yoon, Jong-Yurl, Yo, Hyunkyung, Tang, Sze-Wing, Kang, Yong-Soon, Jang, Youngjun, Kim, Chul, Kim, Kyoung-Ae & Kang, Hye-Kyung (eds.) Current issues in linguistic interfaces. Vol. 2. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa. 267–294.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2009b). Phonological variation and lexical frequency. NELS 38:1. 189–202.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. (2012). Variation: where laboratory and theoretical phonology meet. In Cohn, Abigail C., Fougeron, Cécile & Huffman, Marie K. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 62–76.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Kawahara, Shigeto (2013). Frequency biases in phonological variation. NLLT 31. 47–89.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe (2008). Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna and Arabic. NLLT 26. 289–337.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pater, Joe (2011). The place of variation in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 401–434.Google Scholar
Darcy, Isabelle, Ramus, Franck, Cristophe, Anne, Kinzler, Katherine & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2009). Phonological knowledge in compensation for native and non-native assimilation. In Kügler, Frank, Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) Variation and gradience in phonetics and phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 265–309.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark (2008–). The corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2004). Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21. 145–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2006). Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dilley, Laura C. & Pitt, Mark A. (2007). A study of regressive place assimilation in spontaneous speech and its implications for spoken word recognition. JASA 122. 2340–2353.Google Scholar
Dilley, Laura C. & Pitt, Mark A. (2010). Altering context speech rate can cause words to appear and disappear. Psychological Science 21. 1664–1670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, Lucy & Hardcastle, William J. (2002). Categorical and gradient properties of assimilation in alveolar to velar sequences: evidence from EPG and EMA data. JPh 30. 373–396.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.) (2006). Exemplar-based models in linguistics . Special issue. The Linguistic Review 23. 213–379.Google Scholar
Gaskel, M. Gareth & Marslen-Wilson, William D. (1996). Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22. 144–158.Google Scholar
Gaskel, M. Gareth & Marslen-Wilson, William D. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24. 380–396.Google Scholar
Gaskel, M. Gareth & Marslen-Wilson, William D. (2001). Lexical ambiguity resolution and spoken word recognition: bridging the gap. Journal of Memory and Language 44. 325–349.Google Scholar
Gerrits, E. & Schouten, M. E. H. (2004). Categorical perception depends on the discrimination task. Perception and Psychophysics 66. 363–376.Google Scholar
Gow, David W. Jr (2001). Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 45. 133–159.Google Scholar
Gow, David W. Jr & McMurray, Bob (2007). Word recognition and phonology: the case of English coronal place assimilation. In Cole, Jennifer & Hualde, José Ignacio (eds.) Laboratory phonology 9. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 173–199.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991). Explanation in variable phonology: an exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3. 1–22.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379–440.Google Scholar
Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland & Wetzels, W. Leo (eds.) (1997). Variation, change and phonological theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hura, Susan L., Lindblom, Björn & Diehl, Randy L. (1992). On the role of perception in shaping phonological assimilation rules. Language and Speech 35. 59–72.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen (2007). The locus of variation in weighted constraint grammars. Poster presented at the workshop ‘Variation, gradience and frequency in phonology’, Stanford University. Available (May 2016) at http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jesney/Jesney2007Variation.pdf.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & McDaniel, Chad K. (1979). On the logic of variable rules. Language in Society 8. 151–187.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul E. (1985). A sociophonetic study of connected speech processes in Cambridge English: an outline and some results. Cambridge Papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics 4. 1–39.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Lg 45. 715–762.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1. 85–97.Google Scholar
Li, David Cheng-Huan & Kaiser, Elsi (2012). Accounting for speech rate in spoken word recognition. Interspeech 2012: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association. 2009–2012.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, Guion, Susan, Hura, Susan L., Moon, Seung-Jae & Willerman, Raquel (1995). Is sound change adaptive? Rivista di Linguistica 7. 5–36.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. NELS 24. 333–379.Google Scholar
Mendoza-Denton, Norma, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (2003). Probabilistic sociolinguistics: beyond variable rules. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.) Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 97–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew (2007). Review of Tobias Scheer (2004). A lateral theory of phonology. Vol. 1: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lingua 118. 425–434.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. (2003). Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Lg 79. 682–707.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G. (1981). Speech rate and segmental perception or the role of words in phoneme identification. In Myers, Terry, Laver, John & Anderson, John (eds.) The cognitive representation of speech. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 143–150.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1990). The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.) Papers in laboratory phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 258–275.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van (1997). Style levels in conflict resolution. In Hinskens et al. (1997). 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe (2009). Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33. 999–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark A., Dilley, Laura C., Johnson, Keith, Kieling, S., Raymond, William D., Hume, Elizabeth & Fosler-Lussier, E. (2007). Buckeye corpus of conversational speech. 2nd release. Columbus: Ohio State University. www.buckeyecorpus.osu.edu.Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark A. & Samuel, Arthur G. (1993). An empirical and meta-analytic evaluation of the phoneme identification task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 19. 699–725.Google Scholar
Port, Robert F. (1977). The influence of tempo on stop closure duration as a cue for voicing and place. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR-51/52. 59–73.Google 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
Raymond, William D., Dautricourt, Robin & Hume, Elizabeth (2006). Word-internal /t, d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change 18. 55–97.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David (2005). Variable rules. In Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J. & Trudgill, Peter (eds.) Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society. 2nd edn. Vol. 2. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 1150–1162.Google Scholar
Sonderegger, Morgan (2012). Phonetic and phonological dynamics on reality television. PhD, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Sonu, Mee, Arai, Takayuki, Tajima, Keiichi & Kato, Hiroaki (2013). Effect of speaking rate variation on the perception of singleton and geminate consonants in Japanese by native and Korean listeners. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Acoustical Society of America 19. Available at http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/133/5/10.1121/1.4805975.Google Scholar
Wang, Marilyn D. & Bilger, Robert C. (1973). Consonant confusion in noise: a study of perceptual features. JASA 54. 1248–1266.Google Scholar
Zimmerer, Frank, Reetz, Henning & Lahiri, Aditi (2009). Place assimilation across words in running speech: corpus analysis and perception. JASA 125. 2307–2322.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl (1996). Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Coetzee supplementary material

Coetzee supplementary material 1

Download Coetzee supplementary material(File)
File 1.1 KB