Synchronic evidence for diachronic pathways of change: /g/-deletion and the life cycle of phonological processes George Bailey University of Manchester @grbails FWAV - 29th June 2017
1. Introduction Velar nasal plus Diachrony and synchrony The life cycle 2. Conversational data Methodology Results 3. Elicitation task Methodology Results 4. Conclusion Summary 2
Velar nasal plus (Wells 1982: 365) Presence of post-nasal /g/ in varieties spoken in the North West and • West Midlands of England Birmingham (Thorne 2003); Cannock (Heath 1980); Liverpool • (Knowles 1973); West Wirral (Newbrook 1999); Manchester (Schleef et al. 2015); Cheshire (Watts 2005); the Black Country (Mathisen 1999; Asprey 2015) Well-attested in dialectological literature but the nature of its variation is • comparatively understudied Envelope of variation can be split into two distinct environments: • [ ɪ n] [ ɪ ŋ ] [ ɪ ŋ g] (ing) e.g. think ing (ng) [V ŋ ] [V ŋ g] e.g. wro ng 3
1. Introduction Velar nasal plus Diachrony and synchrony The life cycle 2. Conversational data Methodology Results 3. Elicitation task Methodology Results 4. Conclusion Summary 4
Diachrony and synchrony Historical origin and development of post-nasal /g/-deletion has been • discussed in detail Claimed that this rule, which deletes coda /g/ after nasals, follows the ‘life • cycle of phonological processes’ (Bermúdez-Otero 2013) The life cycle makes strong predictions about how this rule should behave • synchronically, which have yet to be tested This talk aims to: • show how diachronic provide synchronic accounts of /g/-deletion evidence to support can explain its synchronic theories of its diachronic variation development It also explores the mechanisms behind what appears to be a recent • innovation in pre-pausal position 5
1. Introduction Velar nasal plus Diachrony and synchrony The life cycle 2. Conversational data Methodology Results 3. Elicitation task Methodology Results 4. Conclusion Summary 6
The life cycle of phonological processes (Bermúdez-Otero & Trousdale 2012) phonologisation : speech > phonetics • stabilisation : phonetics > phonology • domain narrowing : phrase-level > word-level > • stem-level 1. P HRASE - LEVEL : can see the whole phrase she didn’t want to sing aloud 2. W ORD - LEVEL : can only see the word itself she didn’t fancy herself as a singer anymore 3. S TEM - LEVEL : can only see the stem she didn’t fancy herself as a sing -er anymore 7
The life cycle: diachronic predictions • Deletion in sing|| / sing tunes when rule reaches phrase-level • Deletion in sing it only when rule reaches word-level • Deletion in singer only when rule reaches stem-level • Deletion never occurs in finger* Surface form of underlying / ŋ g/ Level Language variety/ Stage reached sing ǁ register finger sing-er sing it by rule sing tunes 0 [ ŋ g] [ ŋ g] [ ŋ g] [ ŋ g] - Early Modern English 1 [ ŋ g] [ ŋ g] [ ŋ g] [ ŋ ] phrase Elphinston (formal) 2 [ ŋ g] [ ŋ g] [ ŋ ] [ ŋ ] word Elphinston (colloquial) 3 [ ŋ g] [ ŋ ] [ ŋ ] [ ŋ ] stem Present Day English Adapted from Bermúdez-Otero (2011: 2024) 8
The life cycle: synchronic predictions Synchronic implication under a cyclic analysis: • more ‘levels’ that meet the rule’s criteria = more chances to apply during • the phonological derivation = higher application rate on the surface /t,d/-deletion (Guy 1991) and /l/-darkening (Turton 2014, 2017) have been • analysed under similar frameworks Higher probability of deletion finger singer sing it sing || sing tunes _V _#V _#|| _#C /f ɪ ŋ .g ə / /s ɪ ŋ g/ /s ɪ ŋ g/ /s ɪ ŋ g/ /s ɪ ŋ g/ Stem-level /f ɪ ŋ .g ə / /s ɪ ŋ .g ə / /s ɪ ŋ g/ /s ɪ ŋ g/ /s ɪ ŋ g/ Word-level /f ɪ ŋ .g ə / /s ɪ ŋ .g ə / /s ɪ ŋ .g ɪ t/ /s ɪ ŋ g/ /s ɪ ŋ g.t ʃ u ː nz/ Phrase-level Chances to apply: 0 1 2 3 9
1. Introduction Velar nasal plus Diachrony and synchrony The life cycle 2. Conversational data Methodology Results 3. Elicitation task Methodology Results 4. Conclusion Summary 10
Methodology Quantitative approach using twenty- • four sociolinguistic interviews conducted with North Western speakers ‣ two speakers recorded in 1971 Blackburn for a real-time component Manchester Stratified by age and sex (all ‘working • class’ speakers) Dependent variable coded auditorily • for [g]-presence/absence Mixed-effects logistic regression using • lme4 in R, with speaker and word as random factors • 941 tokens of (ng) The Linguistic Atlas of England - Orton et al. 1978
1. Introduction Velar nasal plus Diachrony and synchrony The life cycle 2. Conversational data Methodology Results 3. Elicitation task Methodology Results 4. Conclusion Summary 12
Life cycle’s predictions Morphophonological effects 100% Prediction: correlation between • surface rate of application and 75% Average rate of / ɡ /-deletion the number of cyclic levels in N which it had chance to apply 150 200 Turns out to be the strongest 50% • 250 predictor of [g]-presence 300 R 350 one chance : 19% deletion • 25% two chances : 46% deletion • three chances : 67% • 0% deletion one two three Number of cyclic domains in which / ɡ /-deletion can apply 13
Life cycle’s predictions Morphophonological effects BegleyJ BethS BruceG ChrisT ConnorL DaveJ 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% FeliciaD FrankE GloriaJ GraceG GrahamR HarryG 100% 75% 50% Rate of / ɡ /-deletion 25% Life cycle's 0% predictions JimmyC LillyR MaryB MikeM MollyF TanyaC not met 100% met 75% 50% 25% 0% one two three TheaS WadeT WandaJ WendyJ WillowA 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% one two three one two three one two three one two three one two three Number of cyclic domains in which / ɡ /-deletion can apply
Life cycle’s predictions Cycle-specific deletion rates • Variation corollary of the Russian Doll Theorem • “if a phonological process π shows a rate of application x in a small embedded domain α , then π will apply at a rate equal to or greater Phrase level than x in a wider cyclic domain β .” (Turton 2013: 11) (pre-consonantal) • The deletion rule is ‘younger’, and should apply at lower rates, in more embedded domains 77% deletion rate • cf. Guy (1991) who does not stipulate cycle-specific Word level 125,507 deletion rates for /t,d/ and instead assumes equal rate [g] 33% deletion rate of application 0.2317 541,678 Stem level 0.7683 [g] 19% deletion rate ø 0.6694 416,171 809,200 0.3306 [g] 0.8092 ø 267,522 1,000,000 0.1908 ø 190,800
Life cycle’s predictions Cycle-specific deletion rates • Assuming each domain’s deletion rule follows a traditional ’S-shaped’ curve 100% of language change, there is evidence that the word-level rule is much closer to the stem-level rule in time pl 75% • Supports the simulations of Lignos Rate of application (2012), who shows that word-level deletion is very susceptible to domain 50% narrowing • Represents a more general trend of wl coda-targeting processes in Modern 25% English being particularly vulnerable to domain narrowing at the word-level, sl due to the language’s ‘impoverished’ inflectional system (Bermúdez-Otero 2013) 0% Earlier Later Time 16
Life cycle’s predictions Morphophonological effects 100% 100% A purely cyclic account of /g/- • deletion would predict comparable behaviour in pre- 75% pausal and pre-consonantal 75% Average rate of / ɡ /-deletion Chances environments to apply N Rate of / ɡ /-deletion 1 150 ‣ the [g] can not resyllabify 2 200 3 as an onset in any cyclic 50% 250 50% domain 300 N R 350 150 ‣ the rule has three chances 180 to apply in both 25% 210 25% We actually find high rates of • deletion pre-consonantally 0% (as predicted), but extremely 0% one two three low rates pre-pausally (not Number of cyclic domains in which / ɡ /-deletion can apply _V _#V _#C _#|| predicted) (e.g. singer) (e.g. sing it) (e.g. sing tunes) (e.g. sing.) Morphophonological environment
Life cycle’s predictions Morphophonological effects BegleyJ BethS BruceG ChrisT ConnorL DaveJ 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% FeliciaD FrankE GloriaJ GraceG GrahamR HarryG 100% Chances Average rate of / ɡ /-deletion 75% to apply 50% 1 25% 2 0% 3 JimmyC LillyR MaryB MikeM MollyF TanyaC 100% Curvilinear R 75% pattern 50% no 25% yes 0% _V _#V _#C _#|| TheaS WadeT WandaJ WendyJ WillowA 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% _V _#V _#C _#|| _V _#V _#C _#|| _V _#V _#C _#|| _V _#V _#C _#|| _V _#V _#C _#|| Morphophonological environment
Recommend
More recommend
