Phonological theories differ as to whether phonological knowledge is abstract (e.g., phonemic), concrete (e.g., exemplar-based), or some combination of the two. The abstractness/concreteness of phonological knowledge was examined by analyzing the process of /r/-sandhi in two corpora of spoken English. Two predictions of exemplar-based theories were examined: the extent to which a word manifests a particular sound pattern like /r/-deletion should be influenced by (1) its lexical frequency and (2) its distribution in the language with respect to the sound pattern’s conditioning environment. Lexical frequency was found to influence /r/-sandhi in a corpus of rhotic American English but not in a corpus of predominantly non-rhotic British English. No effect of a word’s long-term distribution was found in either corpus. These results support theories proposing that phonological knowledge is both word-specific and abstract and indicate that speakers do not store all phonetic detail that is in principle available to them. The factors that may favor the use of word-specific versus abstract representations are discussed.
AbramowiczŁ. (2007). Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: Frequency and recency effects in (ing). Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 26–37.
2.
AlwanA.NarayananS.HakerK. (1997). Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data. Part II. The rhotics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 1078–1089.
3.
BaayenR. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.
5.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftisB.. . . TreimanR. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
6.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
7.
BarrasW. (2011). The sociophonology of rhoticity and r-sandhi in East Lancashire English. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
BellA.BrenierJ. M.GregoryM.GirandC.JurafskyD. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 92–111.
10.
BloomfieldL. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt.
11.
BoersmaP. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341–345.
12.
BonniciL. M. (2010). Variation in Maltese English: The interplay of the local and global in an emerging postcolonial variety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, California.
13.
BuchwaldA.MiozzoM. (2011). Finding levels of abstraction in speech production: Evidence from sound-production impairment. Psychological Science, 22, 1113–1119.
14.
BybeeJ. (2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change, 14, 261–290.
15.
BybeeJ. (2012). Patterns of lexical diffusion and articulatory motivation for sound change. The initiation of sound change: Perception, production and social factors, 211–234.
16.
BybeeJ. L. (2000) The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In BarlowM.KemmerS. (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 65–85). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
17.
BybeeJ. B. (2012). Patterns of lexical diffusion and articulatory motivation for sound change. In SoléM.-J.RecasensD. (Eds.), The initiation of sound change. Perception, production, and social factors (pp. 211–234). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
18.
ChandV. (2010). Postvocalic (r) in urban Indian English. English World-Wide, 31, 1–39.
ChomskyN.HalleM. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
21.
ClarkL.WatsonK. (2011). Testing claims of a usage-based phonology with Liverpool English t-to-r. English Language and Linguistics, 15, 523–547.
22.
ClopperC. G. (2011). Checking for reliability. In Di PaoloM.Yaeger-DrorM. (Eds.), Sociophonetics: A student’s guide (pp. 188–197). London, UK: Routledge.
23.
CoetzeeA. W.KawaharaS. (2013). Frequency biases in phonological variation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 31, 47–89.
24.
ColemanJ.Baghai-RavaryL.PybusJ.GrauS. (2012) Audio BNC: The audio edition of the Spoken British National Corpus. Retrieved from http://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/AudioBNC
25.
ColemanJ.LibermanM.KochanskiG.YuanJ.GrauS.CieriC.…BurnardL. (2011). Mining years and years of speech. Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford.
26.
DaviesM. (2004–) BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/
27.
De OliveiraM. A. (1991). The Neogrammarian controversy revisited. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 89, 93–105.
28.
DelattreP. (1965). Comparing the phonetic features of English, French, German and. Spanish: An interim report. Heidelberg, Germany: Julius Groos.
29.
DelattreP.FreemanD. C. (1968). A dialect study of American r’s by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics, 44, 29–68.
30.
DeshmukhN.GanapathirajuA.GleesonA.HamakerJ.PiconeJ. (1998). Resegmentation of Switchboard. Paper presented at the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Sydney, Australia.
31.
DinkinA. J. (2008). The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation. In TaubererJ.EilamA.MacKenzieL. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14.1) (pp.97–106). Philadelphia, PA: Penn Linguistics Club. Retrieved fromhttp://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol14/iss1/8/
32.
DormannC. F.ElithJ.BacherS.BuchmannC.CarlG.CarréG.…LautenbachS. (2012). Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography, 36, 27–46.
33.
FeaginC. (1990). The dynamics of a sound change in Southern States English: From r-less to r-ful in three generations. In EdmondsonJ. A.FeaginC.MühlhäuslerP. (Eds.), Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space. A Festschrift for Charles-James N. Bailey (pp. 129–146). Arlington, TX: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington.
34.
FinleyS. (2013). Generalization to unfamiliar talkers in artificial language learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 780–789.
35.
FruehwaldJ. (2008, November). Evaluation and simulation of exemplar theoretic -t/-d deletion. Talk presented at NWAV37, Houston, TX.
36.
GahlS. (2008). “Time” and “thyme” are not homophones: Word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84, 474–496.
37.
GahlS.YaoY.JohnsonK. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 789–806.
38.
GickB. (1999). A gesture based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology, 16, 29–54.
39.
GoldingerS. D. (1996). Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1166–1183.
40.
GoldrickM.Ross BakerH.MurphyA.Baese-BerkM. (2011). Interaction and representational integration: Evidence from speech errors. Cognition, 121, 58–72.
41.
GormanK. (2010). The consequences of multicollinearity among socioeconomic predictors of negative concord in Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 16(2). Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol16/iss2/9
42.
GuyG. R. (1991). Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change, 3, 1–22.
43.
HayJ.SudburyA. (2005). How rhoticity became /r/-sandhi. Language, 81, 799–823.
44.
HeselwoodB.PlugL.TickleA. (2008) Assessing rhoticity: Auditory and psychoacoustic methods. Paper presented at 13th International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, Leeds, United Kingdom.
45.
HooperJ. B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In ChristieW. (Ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics (pp. 96–105). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.
46.
IrwinP.NagyN. (2007). Bostonians’ /r/ speaking: A quantitative lookat (R) in Boston. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13. 135–147.
47.
JaegerT. F.KleinschmidtD. (2014). Regression and mixed effects models. Talk presented at the 15th Australasian International Speech Science & Technology Conference, Canterbury, New Zealand.
48.
JohnsonD. E. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb Standard: Introducing Rbrul for Mixed-Effects Variable Rule Analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 359–383.
49.
JohnsonK. (1996). Speech perception without speaker normalization. In JohnsonK.MullenixJ. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
50.
LabovW. (1972). The social stratification of (r) in New York City department stores. In LabovW. (Ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns (pp. 43–54). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
51.
LabovW. (1981). Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language, 57, 267–308.
52.
LabovW. (1994). Principles of linguistic change, Vol. 1: Internal factors. Malden, UK: Blackwell.
53.
LabovW. (2006). A sociolinguistic perspective on sociophonetic research. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 500–515.
54.
LabovW.AshS.BobergC. (2006). Atlas of North American English: Phonology and phonetics. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
55.
LabovW.CohenP.RobinsC.LewisJ. (1968). A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Cooperative Research Report no. 3288, vol. 1. New York, NY: Columbia University.
56.
LadefogedP.MaddiesonI. (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
57.
LassR. (1997). Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58.
LawsonE.Stuart-SmithJ.ScobbieJ. M.Yaeger-DrorM.MaclaganM. (2011). Analyzing liquids. In Di PaoloM.Yaeger-DrorM. (Eds.), Sociophonetics: A students guide (pp. 72–86). New York, NY: Routledge.
59.
LeeO.KapatsinskiV. (submitted). Frequency effects in morphologization of Korean /n/-epenthesis.
60.
LehisteI. (1962). Acoustical characteristics of selected English consonants. Ann Arbor, MI: Communication Sciences Laboratory, University of Michigan.
61.
LeskienA. (1876). Declination im Slavisch-Lituaischen und Germanischen. Leipzig, Germany: Hirzel.
62.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
63.
LinS.BeddorP. S.CoetzeeA. W. (2014). Gestural reduction, lexical frequency, and sound change: A study of post-vocalic /l/. Laboratory Phonology, 5, 9–36.
64.
LindauM. (1985). The story of /r/. In FromkinV. (Ed.), Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged (pp. 157–168). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
65.
LonerganJ.CoxF. (2008). Is there any evidence of rhoticity in historical Australian English? In de BeuzevilleL.PetersP. (Eds.), From the Southern Hemisphere: Parameters of language variation. E-Proceedings of the 2008 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/7096
66.
LundK.BurgessC. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208.
67.
McCarthyJ. J. (1993). A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 38, 169–195.
68.
McMahonA. S. (1994). Understanding language change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
69.
McMahonA.FoulkesP.TollfreeL. (1994). Gestural representation and lexical phonology. Phonology, 11, 277–316.
70.
NagyN.IrwinP. (2010). Boston (r): Neighbo(r)s nea(r) and fa(r). Language Variation and Change, 22, 241–278.
71.
NeuH. (1980). Ranking of constraints on /t,d/ deletion in American English: A statistical analysis. In LabovB. (Ed.), Locating language in time and space. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Academic Press.
72.
OguraM. (1995). The development of Middle English I and u: A reply to Labov (1992, 1994). Diachronica, 12, 31–53.
73.
OsthoffH.BrugmannK. (1878). Morphologische Untersuchungen auf den Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, I. Leipzig. [Translated in Lehmann, 1967.]
74.
PaterJ. (2000). Nonuniformity in English stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology, 17(2), 237–274.
75.
PaterJ. (2010). Morpheme-specific phonology: Constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In ParkerS. (ed.), Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation (pp. 123–154). London: Equinox.
76.
PhillipsB. (1984). Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language, 60, 320–342.
77.
PhillipsB. S. (2006). Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
78.
PiercyC. (2012). A transatlantic cross-dialectal comparison of non-prevocalic /r/. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 18(2). Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol18/iss2/10
79.
PierrehumbertJ. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In GussenhovenC.WarnerN. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
80.
PierrehumbertJ. (2006). The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 516–530.
81.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In BybeeJ.HopperP. (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
82.
PittM. A.JohnsonK.HumeE.KieslingS.RaymondW. (2005). The Buckeye corpus of conversational speech: Labeling conventions and a test of transcriber reliability. Speech Communication, 45, 89–95.
83.
PlugL.OgdenR. (2003) A parametric approach to the phonetics of postvocalic /r/ in Dutch. Phonetica, 60, 159–186.
84.
PortR. F. (2010). Rich memory and distributed phonology. Language Sciences, 32, 43–45
85.
RaymondW. D.DautricourtR.HumeE. (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.
86.
RecasensD. (2004). The effect of syllable position on consonant reduction (evidence from Catalan consonant clusters). Journal of Phonetics, 32, 435–453.
87.
RenwickM. E.Baghai-RavaryL.TempleR.ColemanJ. S. (2013, June). Assimilation of word-final nasals to following word-initial place of articulation in United Kingdom English. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Acoustical Society of America, 19.
88.
RomaniC.GalluzziC.BurecaI.OlsonA. (2011). Effects of syllable structure in aphasic errors: Implications for a new model of speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 151–192.
89.
SankoffD. (1975). VARBRUL version 2. Unpublished program and documentation.
90.
ScobbieJ. M. (2006). ‘(r) as a variable. In BrownK. (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of language and linguistics. (2nd Edition, Vol. 14, pp. 337–344). Oxford: Elsevier.
91.
ScobbieJ. M. (2007). Biological and social grounding of phonology: Variation as a research tool. Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 225–228.
92.
ScobbieJ. M.SebregtsK. (2011). Acoustic, articulatory and phonological perspectives on rhoticity and /r/ in Dutch. In FolliR.UlbrichC. (Eds.), Interfaces in linguistics: New research perspectives (pp. 257–277). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
93.
Stuart-SmithJ. (2003). The phonology of Modern Urban Scots. In CorbettJ. J.McClureD.Stuart-SmithJ.(Eds.), The Edinburgh companion to Scots (pp. 110–137). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
94.
Stuart-SmithJ. (2007). A sociophonetic investigation of postvocalic /r/ in Glaswegian adolescents. Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 1449–1452.
95.
TammingaM. (2013). Sound change without frequency effect: Ramifications for phonological theory. Paper presented at the 31st meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Phoenix, Arizona.
96.
TiedeM. K.BoyceS. E.HollandC. K.ChoeK. A. (2004). A new taxonomy of American English /r/ using MRI and ultrasound. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 2633–2634.
97.
TrudgillP.GordonE. (2006). Predicting the past: Dialect archaeology and Australian English rhoticity. English World-Wide, 27, 235–246.
98.
Van de VeldeH.van HoutR. (Eds.) (2001). r–atics: Sociolinguistic, phonetic and phonological characteristics of /r/. Etudes & Travaux 4. Brussels, Belgium: Institut des Langues Vivantes et de Phonétique, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
WangW. S.-Y. (1969). Competing sound changes as a cause of residue. Language, 45, 9–25.
101.
WellsJ. C. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
102.
WestburyJ. R.HashiM.LindstromM. J. (1998). Differences among speakers in lingual articulation for American English /ɹ/. Speech Communication, 26, 203–226.
103.
WesterM.KessensJ. M.CucchiariniC.StrikH. (1998). Selection of pronunciation variants in spontaneous speech: comparing the performance of man and machine. In DuezD. (Ed.), Proceedings of the ESCA workshop ‘SPoSS 98 - Sound Patterns of Spontaneous Speech: Production and Perception, pp. 157–160.
104.
Yaeger-DrorM.KendallT.FoulkesP.WattD.OddieJ.HarrisonP.KavanaghC. (2009). Trained listener judgments of rhoticity in English: What R we hearing?Paper presented at the 83rd meeting of the LinguisticsSociety of America, January, San Francisco, CA.
105.
YuanJ.LibermanM. (2008). Speaker identification on the SCOTUS corpus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 3878.
