Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-pjp64 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T08:21:46.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

td-deletion in British English: New evidence for the long-lost morphological effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2020

Maciej Baranowski
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester
Danielle Turton
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyzes td-deletion, the process whereby coronal stops /t, d/ are deleted after a consonant at the end of the word (e.g., best, kept, missed) in the speech of 93 speakers from Manchester, stratified for age, social class, gender, and ethnicity. Prior studies of British English have not found the morphological effect—more deletion in monomorphemic mist than past tense missed—commonly observed in American English. We find this effect in Manchester and provide evidence that the rise of glottal stop replacement in postsonorant position in British English (e.g., halt, aunt) may be responsible for the reduction in the strength of this effect in British varieties. Glottaling blocks deletion, and, because the vast majority of postsonorant tokens are monomorphemic, the higher rates of monomorpheme glottaling dampens the typical effect of deletion in this context. These findings indicate organization at a higher level of the grammar, while also showing overlaid effects of factors such as style and word frequency.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Derivation of t/d-deletion, based on Guy (1991a, 1991b), taken from Turton (2016)

Figure 1

Table 2. GLMM for best model, including number of tokens for each predictor and rates of deletion for factor levels. Positive numbers reflect more deletion, negative numbers more retention. Random effects of word (sd = 0.68) and speaker (sd = 0.50). AIC = 12480

Figure 2

Figure 1. Deletion rates by following segment. Dotted line separates consonants from pause and vowel.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Deletion and preceding segment.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Deletion rates across linguistic predictors of morphological class.

Figure 5

Figure 4. Deletion rates by voicing of cluster.

Figure 6

Table 3. Rates of deletion across different social predictors.

Figure 7

Figure 5. Realization of /t/ in -nt and -lt clusters by generation.

Figure 8

Figure 6. Deletion across different speech styles (language refers to contexts where speakers are specifically discussing language).

Figure 9

Figure 7. Deletion rates by frequency from SUBTLEX UK (Zipf-scaled).