The paper is concerned with the morpheme-final inter-consonantal T/D deletion in Standard British English. Its main aim is to explore some new ways of modeling this phenomenon and to test several new variables. Among the innovations suggested in the study are separate treatments of /t/ and /d/ as dependent variables, analysis of so-called neutralized contexts, testing of several previously unstudied predictors (including usage-based predictors), recategorization of most of the traditional formal linguistic predictors, and a proposition of a new articulatory-gestural model of T/D deletion. It is concluded that the strongest constraints on T/D deletion are the presence of the following consonant (a phonetic predictor) and the influence of /CC/-sequence text frequency (a usage-based predictor). The results of the study show that although the traditional (formal) linguistic predictors play a prominent role in T/D deletion, this process cannot be adequately explained without taking into account the frequency of occurrence and the mutual interplay of language patterns.
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XLM Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://natcorp.ox.ac.uk
3.
BayleyRobert. 1994. Consonant cluster reduction in Tejano English. Language Variation and Change6(3). 303-326.
4.
BehrensHeike. 2009. Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics47(2). 383-411.
5.
BoersmaPaulWeeninkDavid. 2016. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 6.0.13. Retrieved 10February2016 from http://www.praat.org/.
6.
BrowmanCatherine P.GoldsteinLouis. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology6(2). 201-251.
7.
BrowmanCatherine P.GoldsteinLouis. 1990. Gestural specification using dynamically- defined articulatory structures. Journal of Phonetics18. 299-320.
8.
BrowmanCatherine P.GoldsteinLouis. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica49(3-4). 155-180.
9.
BybeeJoan. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In BarlowMichaelKemmerSuzanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 65-85. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
10.
BybeeJoan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BybeeJoan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change14(3). 261-290.
12.
BybeeJoan. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In HoffmanThomasTrousdaleGraeme (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49-69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
BybeeJoanBecknerClay. 2009. Usage-based theory. In HeineBerndNarrogHeiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 827-855. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
CoetzeeAndries W.KawaharaShigeto. 2013. Frequency biases in phonological variation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory31(1). 47-89.
15.
CruttendenAlan2014. Gimson’s pronunciation of English. 8th edn.New York: Routledge.
16.
FasoldRalph W.1972. Tense marking in Black English. A linguistic and social analysis. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
17.
FuchsRobertMaxwellOlga. 2016. The effects of mp3 compression on acoustic measurements of fundamental frequency and pitch range. In BarnesJonBrugosAlejnaShattuck-HufnagelStefanieVeilleuxNanette (eds.), Proceedings of speech prosody 8. Available at http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/SpeechProsody_2016/.
18.
GahlSusanneGarnseySusan M.2004. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language80(4). 748-775.
19.
GuyGregory R.1980. Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In LabovWilliam (ed.), Locating language in time and space, 1-36. New York: Academic Press.
20.
GuyGregory R.1991. Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change3(1). 1-22.
21.
GuyGregory R.1996. Form and function in linguistic variation. In GuyGregory R.BaughJohnSchiffrinDeborahFeaginCrawford (eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov, vol. 1, Variation and change in language and society, 221-252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22.
GuyGregory R.BobergCharles. 1997. Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change9(2). 149-164.
23.
GuyGregory R.BoydSally. 1990. The development of a morphological class. Language Variation and Change2(1). 1-18.
24.
HazenKirk. 2011. Flying high above the social radar: Coronal stop deletion in modern Appalachia. Language Variation and Change23(1). 105-137.
25.
HoffmanMichol F.WalkerJames A.2010. Ethnolects and the city: Ethnic orientation and linguistic variation in Toronto English. Language Variation and Change22(1). 37-67.
26.
JohnsonDaniel E.2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass3(1). 359-383.
27.
JonesDaniel. 2011. Cambridge English pronouncing dictionary. 18th edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
JurafskyDanielBellAlanGregoryMichelleRaymondWilliam D.2000. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In BybeeJoanHopperPaul (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 229-254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29.
Just the Word (an online collocation dictionary). 2016. www.just-the-word.com (August2015–February2016).
30.
KráľÁbel. 2005. Pravidlá slovenskej výslovnosti. Systematika a ortoepický slovník. Martin: Matica slovenská.
31.
LabovWilliam. 1989. The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change1(1). 85-97.
32.
LabovWilliam. 1997. Resyllabification. In HinskensFransvan HoutRoelandWetzelsW. Leo (eds.), Variation, change and phonological theory, 145-179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
33.
LabovWilliam. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2, Social factors. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
34.
LacosteVéronique. 2012. Phonological variation in rural Jamaican schools. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35.
MachačPavel & Radek Skarnitzl. 2009. Principles of phonetic segmentation. Prague: Nakladatelství Epocha.
36.
McCarthyJohn. 1986. OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry17(2). 207-263.
37.
MilroyLesleyGordonMatthew. 2003. Sociolinguistics. Method and interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.
38.
MittererHolgerErnestusMirjam. 2006. Listeners recover /t/s that speakers reduce: Evidence from /t/-lenition in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics34(1). 73-103.
39.
MyersJamesGuyGregory R.1997. Frequency effects in variable lexical phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics4(1). 215-227.
40.
NakagawaShinichiSchielzethHolger. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution4(2). 133-142.
41.
Oxford collocations dictionary for students of English. 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
PatrickPeter L.1991. Creoles at the intersection of variable processes: -t,d deletion and past-marking in the Jamaican mesolect. Language Variation and Change3(2). 171-189.
43.
RaymondWilliam D.DautricourtRobinHumeElizabeth. 2006. Word-internal /t, d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change18(1). 55-97.
44.
Santa AnaOtto. 1992. Chicano English evidence for the exponential hypothesis: A variable rule pervades lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change4(3). 275-288.
45.
Santa AnaOtto. 1996. Sonority and syllable structure in Chicano English. Language Variation and Change8(1). 63-89.
46.
SelyaArielle S.RoseJennifer S.DierkerLisa C.HedekerDonaldMermelsteinRobin J.2012. A practical guide to calculating Cohen’s f2, a measure of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Frontiers in Psychology3. 111.
47.
SmithJenniferDurhamMercedesFortuneLiane. 2009. Universal and dialect-specific pathways of acquisition: Caregivers, children, and t/d deletion. Language Variation and Change21(1). 69-95.
48.
van SonRob J. J. H.2005. A study of pitch, formant, and spectral estimation errors introduced by three lossy speech compression algorithms. Acta Acustica united with Acustica91(4). 771-778.
49.
TagliamonteSaliBaayenHarald R.2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change24(2). 135-178.
50.
TagliamonteSaliTempleRosalind. 2005. New perspectives on an ol’ variable: (t, d) in British English. Language Variation and Change17(3). 281-302.
51.
TempleRosalind. 2009. (t,d): The variable status of a variable rule. In JonesO. ParkerPayneElinor (eds.), Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics12. 145-170.
