Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

1 Issue per year

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

A survey of experimental evidence for diachronic change

Chelsea Sanker
Published Online: 2018-03-24 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0039

Abstract

There are synchronic sources of data that can provide an additional line of evidence which may be useful in reconstructing sound changes: patterns of sound change in progress and experimentally induced changes, variation in production, natural errors in production and perception, experimentally elicited errors in perception and production, and experiments and simulations of iterated learning. This article surveys existing studies that have made use of such evidence in support of sound changes and reviews limitations of experimental methods and factors to consider when designing experiments to use these parallels to inform sound change. To demonstrate the parallels between patterns in synchronic data and sound changes, a sample typology of diachronic developments was compared with patterns of categorical errors from experimentally elicited misperception in adverse listening conditions and errors of perception and production in natural speech. All of these correlations are highly significant, demonstrating the potential of such synchronic data as a source of parallels to provide evidence for reconstructed sound changes.

Keywords: laboratory phonology; sound change; typology

References

  • Abondolo, Daniel (ed.). 1998. The Uralic languages. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Albright, Adam & Bruce Hayes. 2002. Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization. In Michael Maxwell (ed.), Proceedings of the sixth meeting of the ACL special interest group in computational phonology, 8–69. Cambridge: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Anttila, Arto. 2007. Variation and optionality. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 519–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Babel, Molly. 2012. Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. Journal of Phonetics 40. 177–189.Google Scholar

  • Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan Niecisław. 1974. An attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations (originally pub. 1895). In Edward Stankiewicz (ed.), A Baudouin de Courtenay anthology: The beginnings of structural linguistics, 144–212. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Beddor, Patrice Speeter. 2009. A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language 85(4). 785–821.Google Scholar

  • Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Rena Krakow & Louis Goldstein. 1986. Perceptual constraints and phonological change: A study of nasal vowel height. Phonology Yearbook 3. 197–217.Google Scholar

  • Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Anthony Brasher & Chandan Narayan. 2007. Applying perceptual methods to the study of phonetic variation and sound change. In Maria-Josep Solé, Patrice Speeter Beddor & Manjari Ohala (eds.), Experimental approaches to phonology, 127–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bond, Zinny. 1999. Slips of the ear: Errors in the perception of casual conversation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Bond, Zinny & Larry Small. 1983. Voicing, vowel, and stress mispronunciations in continuous speech. Perception & Psychophysics 34(5). 470–474.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Broersma, Mirjam & Odette Scharenborg. 2010. Native and non-native listeners? Perception of English consonants in different types of noise. Speech Communication 52. 980–995.Google Scholar

  • Browman, Catherine. 1980. Perceptual processing: Evidence from slips of the ear. In Victoria Fromkin (ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand, 213–230. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Browman, Catherine & Louis Goldstein. 1991. Gestural structures: Distinctiveness, phonological processes, and historical change. In Ignatius Mattingly and Michael Studdert-Kennedy (eds.), Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception, 313–338. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Browman, Catherine & Louis Goldstein. 1995. Gestural syllable position effects in American English. In Fredericka Bell-Berti & Lawrence Raphael (eds.), Producing speech: Contemporary issues, 19–33. Woodbury, NY: AIP Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14. 261–290.Google Scholar

  • Chang, Steve, Madelain Plauché & John Ohala. 2001. Markedness and consonant confusion asymmetries. In Elizabeth Hume & Keith Johnson (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology, 79–101. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Coetzee, Andries & Joe Pater. 2011. The place of variation in phonological theory. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn. 401–434. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Comrie, Bernard. 2001. Typology and the history of language. In Walter Bisang (ed.), Aspects of typology and universals, 21–35. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Cutler, Anne. 1981. The reliability of speech error data. Linguistics 19. 561–582.Google Scholar

  • Cutler, Anne, Andrea Weber, Roel Smits & Nicole Cooper. 2004. Patterns of English phoneme confusions by native and non-native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(6). 3668–3678.Google Scholar

  • Delattre, Pierre. 1946. Stages of Old French phonetic changes observed in modern Spanish. Publications of the Modern Language Association 61(1). 7–41.Google Scholar

  • Dubno, Judy & Harry Levitt. 1981. Predicting consonant confusions from acoustic analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69(1). 249–261.Google Scholar

  • England, Nora. 1994. Autonomia de los idiomas Mayas: Historia e identidad. 2nd edn. Guatemala: Cholsamaj.Google Scholar

  • Fay, David & Anne Cutler. 1977. Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 505–520.Google Scholar

  • Festen, Joost & Reinier Plomp. 1990. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(4). 1725–1736.Google Scholar

  • Fortson, Benjamin. 2010. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. 2nd edn. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Foulkes, Paul. 1997. Historical laboratory phonology: Investigating /p/ > /f/ > /h/ changes. Language and Speech 40. 249–276.Google Scholar

  • Foulkes, Paul & Marilyn Vihman. 2015. First language acquisition and phonological change. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), Handbook of historical phonology, 289–312. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fowler, Carol, Catherine Best & Gerald McRoberts. 1990. Young infants’ perception of liquid coarticulatory influences on following stop consonants. Perception and Psychophysics 48(6). 559–570.Google Scholar

  • Fromkin, Victoria. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47(1). 27–52.Google Scholar

  • Ganong, William III. 1980. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 6(1). 110–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Garrett, Andrew & Keith Johnson. 2013. Phonetic bias in sound change. In Alan Yu (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, 51–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grammont, Maurice. 1933. Traité de phonétique. Paris: Librarie Delgrave.Google Scholar

  • Greenlee, Mel & John Ohala. 1980. Phonetically motivated parallels between child phonology and historical sound change. Language Sciences 2(2). 283–308.Google Scholar

  • Guion, Susan Guignard. 1998. The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization. Phonetica 55(1–2). 18–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Haden, Ernest. 1938. The physiology of French consonant changes: A study in experimental phonetics. Language 14(4). 7–117.Google Scholar

  • Hajek, John. 1997. Universals of sound change in nasalization. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Hamed, Mahé Ben & Sébastien Flavier. 2009. A database for deriving diachronic universals. In Monique Dufresne, Fernande Dupuis & Etleva Vocaj (eds.), Historical linguistics 2007: Selected papers from the 18th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 6–11 August 2007, 259–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Harrington, Jonathan. 2007. Evidence for the relationship between synchronic variability and diachronic change in the Queen’s annual Christmas broadcasts. In Jennifer Cole & José Ignacio Hualde (eds.), Laboratory phonology 9, 209–252. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Helfer, Karen & Ruth Huntley. 1991. Aging and consonant errors in reverberation and noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90(4). 1786–1796.Google Scholar

  • Hombert, Jean-Marie, John Ohala & William Ewan. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language Society of America 55(1). 37–58.Google Scholar

  • Kawasaki, Haruko. 1986. Phonetic explanation for phonological universals: The case of distinctive vowel nasalization. In John Ohala & Jeri Jaeger (eds.), Experimental phonology, 81–103. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Kirby, James. 2014. Incipient tonogenesis in Phnom Penh Khmer: Computational studies. Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 5(1). 195–230.Google Scholar

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. The phonological basis of sound change. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 311–342. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Kishon-Rabin, Liat & Judith Rosenhouse. 2000. Speech perception test for Arabic-speaking children. Audiology 39(5). 269–277.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Kogan, Leonid. 2011. Proto-semitic phonetics and phonology. In Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael Streck & Janet Watson (eds.), The Semitic languages: An international handbook, 54–151. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kraljic, Tanya & Arthur Samuel. 2005. Perceptual learning for speech: Is there a return to normal? Cognitive Psychology 51. 141–178.Google Scholar

  • Kümmel, Martin. 2007. Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Kümmel, Martin. 2015. The role of typology in historical phonology. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), Handbook of historical phonology, 121–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 2010. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Levitt, Andrea & Alice Healy. 1985. The role of phoneme frequency, similarity, and availability in the experimental elicitation of speech errors. Journal of Memory and Language 24. 717–733.Google Scholar

  • Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In William Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modeling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Mann, Virginia & Bruno Repp. 1980. Influence of vocalic context on perception of the [ʃ]-[s] distinction. Perception & Psycophysics 28(3). 213–228.Google Scholar

  • Marin, Stefania & Marianne Pouplier. 2010. Temporal organization of complex onsets and codas in American English: Testing the predictions of a gestural coupling model. Motor Control 14(3). 380–407.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Marslen-Wilson, William & Alan Welsh. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 10. 29–63.Google Scholar

  • Martin, James & H. Timothy Bunnell. 1981. Perception of anticipatory coarticulation effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69(2). 559–567.Google Scholar

  • Meringer, Rudolf. 1908. Aus dem Leben der Sprache: Versprechen, Kindersprache, Nachahmungstrieb. Berlin: B. Behr’s Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Meringer, Rudolf & Karl Mayer. 1895. Versprechen und Verlesen: Eine Psychologische-Linguistische Studie. Stuttgart: Göschen’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar

  • Meyer, Julien, Laure Dentel & Fanny Meunier. 2013. Speech recognition in natural background noise. PLoS One 8(11). e79279.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Miller, George & Patricia Nicely. 1955. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27(2). 338–352.Google Scholar

  • Moreton, Elliott & Erik Thomas. 2007. Origins of Canadian Raising in voiceless-coda effects: A case study in phonologization. In Jennifer Cole & José Ignacio Hualde (eds.), Laboratory phonology 9, 37–64. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Mowrey, Richard & Ian MacKay. 1990. Phonological primitives: Electromyographic speech error evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 88(3). 1299–1312.Google Scholar

  • Myers, Scott & Benjamin Hansen. 2007. The origin of vowel length neutralization in final position: Evidence from Finnish speakers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 157–193.Google Scholar

  • Nielsen, Kuniko. 2011. Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. Journal of Phonetics 39. 132–142.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John. 1974. Experimental historical phonology. In John Anderson & Charles Jones (eds.), Historical Linguistics II: Theory and description in phonology. Proceedings of the First International Linguistic Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburg, 2nd–7th September 1973, 353–389. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Carrie Masek, Roberta Hendrick & Mary Frances Miller (eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior, 278–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John. 1993a. Sound change as nature’s speech perception experiment. Speech Communication 13. 155–161.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John. 1993b. The phonetics of sound change. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 237–278. New York: Longman Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John. 1997. Aerodynamics of phonology. In Proceedings of the 4th Seoul International Conference on Linguistics, 11–15 Aug 1997, 92–97.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John. 2003. Phonetics and historical phonology. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 669–686. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Ohala, John & Mariscela Amador. 1981. Spontaneous nasalization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69: S54.Google Scholar

  • Ohde, Ralph & Donald Sharf. 1977. Order effect of acoustic segments of VC and CV syllables on stop and vowel identification. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 20. 543–554.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Paul, Hermann. 1886. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 2nd edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Phatak, Sandeep, Andrew Lovitt & Jont Allen. 2008. Consonant confusions in white noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124(2). 1220–1233.Google Scholar

  • Pickett, J. M. 1957. Perception of vowels heard in noises of various spectra. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29(5). 613–620.Google Scholar

  • Plauché, Madelaine. 2001. Acoustic cues in the directionality of stop consonant confusions. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Plauché, Madelaine, Christina Delogu & John Ohala. 1997. Asymmetries in consonant confusion. In George Kokkinakis, Nikos Fakotakis & Evangelos Dermatas (eds.), Proceedings of Eurospeech ’97: Fifth European conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Rhodes, Greece, September 22–25, Vol. 4, 2187–2190. ISCA Archive.Google Scholar

  • Reali, Florencia & Thomas Griffiths. 2009. The evolution of frequency distributions: relating regularization to inductive biases through iterated learning. Cognition 111. 317–328.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Recasens, Daniel. 2012. A phonetic interpretation of the sound changes affecting dark /l/ in Romance. In Daniel Recasens & Maria-Josep Solé (eds.), The initiation of sound change: Perception, production, and social factors, 57–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Redford, Melissa & Randy Diehl. 1999. The relative distinctiveness of initial and final consonants in CVC syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106(3). 1555–1565.Google Scholar

  • Rensch, Calvin. 1976. Comparative Otomanguean phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar

  • Rousselot, Pierre-Jean. 1901–1908. Principes de phonétique expérimentale. Paris: Welter.Google Scholar

  • Sanker, Chelsea. 2015. Patterns of misperception of Arabic consonants. In Anna Jurgensen, Hannah Sande, Spencer Lamoureux, Kenny Baclawski & Alison Zerbe (eds.), Proceedings of the forty-first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 7–8, 2015, 447–471. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

  • Sanker, Chelsea. 2016a. Patterns of misperception of Arabic guttural and non-guttural consonants. Ithaca: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Sanker, Chelsea. 2016b. Phonetic features of the PIE ‘laryngeals’: Evidence from misperception data of modern postvelars. In David Goldstein, Jamison Stephanie & Vine Brent (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th UCLA Indo-European Conference, 163–181.Google Scholar

  • Sankoff, Gillian & Hélèn Blondeau. 2007. Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83(3). 560–588.Google Scholar

  • Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Dennis Klatt. 1979. The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: Evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 41–55.Google Scholar

  • Simpson, Andrew. 2002. Gutturals in diachronic perspective: The case of pharyngeal merger and loss in Semitic and beyond. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Singh, Sadanand & John Black. 1966. Study of twenty-six intervocalic consonants as spoken and recognized by four language groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39(2). 372–387.Google Scholar

  • Smith, Kenny & Elizabeth Wonnacott. 2010. Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning. Cognition 116. 444–449.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Solé, Maria-Josep. 2007. The stability of phonological features within and across segments: The effect of nasalization on frication. In Pilar Prieto, Joan Mascaró & Maria-Josep Solé (eds.), Segmental and prosodic issues in Romance phonology, 41–65. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Soli, Sigfrid & Phipps Arabie. 1979. Auditory versus phonetic accounts of observed confusions between consonant phonemes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66(1). 46–59.Google Scholar

  • Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2004. Phonetics and philology: Sound change in Italic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sweet, Henry. 1874. The history of English sounds. London: Trübner.Google Scholar

  • Tang, Kevin. 2015. Naturalistic speech perception. London: University College London dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Thurgood, Graham & Randy LaPolla (eds.). 2003. The Sino-Tibetan languages. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • van den Broecke, Marcel & Louis Goldstein. 1980. Consonant features in speech errors. In Victoria Fromkin (ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand, 47–65. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • van Engen, Kristin & Ann Bradlow. 2007. Sentence recognition in native- and foreign-language multi-talker background noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121(1). 519–526.Google Scholar

  • Verschuure, Johannes & Michael Brocaar. 1983. Intelligibility of interrupted meaningful and nonsense speech with and without intervening noise. Perception & Psychophysics 33(3). 232–240.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Vogelin, Charles, Florence Vogelin & Kenneth Hale. 1962. Typological and comparative grammar of Uto-Aztecan: I (Phonology). Baltimore: Waverly Press.Google Scholar

  • Wahlen, Douglas. 1989. Vowel and consonant judgments are not independent when cued by the same information. Perception and Psychophysics 46(3). 284–292.Google Scholar

  • Warren, Paul, Jen Hay & Brynmor Thomas. 2007. The loci of sound change effects in recognition and perception. In Jennifer Cole & José Ignacio Hualde (eds.), Laboratory phonology 9, 87–112. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Wang, Marilyn & Robert Bilger. 1973. Consonant confusions in noise: A study of perceptual features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 54(5). 1248–1266.Google Scholar

  • Wedel, Andrew. 2012. Lexical contrast maintenance and the organization of sublexical contrast systems. Language and Cognition 4. 319–355.Google Scholar

  • Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Winfred Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

  • Wolff, John. 2010. Proto-Autronesian phonology with glossary. Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications.Google Scholar

  • Yu, Alan. 2007. Understanding near mergers: The case of morphological tone in Cantonese. Phonology 24. 187–214.Google Scholar

  • Yu, Alan. 2015. The role of experimental investigation in understanding sound change. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), Handbook of historical phonology, 410–428. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-07-13

Accepted: 2017-08-30

Published Online: 2018-03-24


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 4, Issue 1, 20170039, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0039.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in