A Coarticulatory Path to Sound Change

Abstract

Although coarticulatory variation is largely systematic, and serves as useful information for listeners, such variation is nonetheless linked to sound change. This article explores the articulatory and perceptual interactions between a coarticulatory source and its effects, and how these interactions likely contribute to change. The focus is on the historical change VN (phonetically, Ṽ N) Ͼ Ṽ , but with more general attention to how a gesture associated with a source segment comes to be reinterpreted as distinctively, rather than coarticulatorily, associated with a nearby vowel or consonant. Two synchronic factors are hypothesized to contribute to reinterpretation: (i) articulatory covariation between the duration of the coarticulatory source (here, N) and the temporal extent of its effects (Ṽ ), and (ii) perceived equivalence between source and effect. Experimental support for both hypotheses is provided. Additionally, the experimental data are linked to the historical situation by showing that the contextual conditions that trigger (i) and (ii) parallel the conditions that historically influence phonologization of vowel nasalization.*

On the nature of the perception-production link: Individual variability in English sibilant-vowel coarticulation

“…Finally, as noted earlier, an increasing number of studies has argued for the importance of understanding individual variation in perception and production as a means to understand sound change actuation (Baker et al, 2011;Beddor, 2009;Dimov, Katseff, & Johnson, 2012;Garrett & Johnson, 2013;Mielke, Baker, & Archangeli, 2016;Stevens & Harrington, 2014;Yu, 2010Yu, , 2013Yu, , 2016Zellou, 2017). As coarticulation-induced variation in speech is often assumed to be a major source of phonetic precursors to sound change and sound patterns (Ohala, 1993a(Ohala, , 1993b, our findings suggest that some individuals within the same speech community are more advanced in reifying contextspecific variation in speech production than others and this progression is mirrored in the individuals' perceptual behavior as well.…”

“…Various scholars have argued in recent years that sound change actuation might come about as a result of interactions between individuals with different perceptual and/or articulatory targets for the 'same' sound category (Baker, Archangeli, & Mielke, 2011;Yu, 2013Yu, , 2016 or different tendencies to attach social meaning to linguistic differences (Garrett & Johnson, 2013). Beddor (2009), for example, argued that listeners can be accurate perceivers who attend to coarticulatory information available to them in the input signal but nonetheless have different perceptual weightings (or phonological grammars) in terms of how they use coarticulation to signal the presence (or not) of the coarticulation trigger in the signal. Various scholars, most prominently Ohala (1993b), have argued that listeners who fail to compensate for coarticulatory effects properly would lead to sound change.…”

“…The importance for understanding the link between speech perception and production is all the more relevant to language and speech researchers in light of an increasing number of reported cases of variability in the perceptual compensation for coarticulation across individuals. Beddor (2009), for example, found a great deal of individual variability in the perception of nasalization in VNC sequences in American English. She suggested that the variability might stem from differences in perceptual grammar across individuals.…”

On the Origin of Post-Aspirated Stops: Production and Perception of /s/ + Voiceless Stop Sequences in Andalusian Spanish

“…Following Hyman (1976Hyman ( , 2013 phonologization is defined as the exaggeration of a phonetic effect "beyond what can be considered universal" (Hyman, 2013, p. 6). The use of such an exaggerated phonetic effect in the perception of a phonological contrast-in the absence of pre-aspiration or [s]-would then indicate that postaspiration in Andalusian Spanish is to a certain degree phonologized (see Baker et al, 2011;Beddor, 2009;Kirby, 2014, for similar accounts of phonologization).…”

Perturbing the community grammar: Individual differences and community-level constraints on sociolinguistic variation

“…A growing line of inquiry in the area of sound change research concerns whether and how individual differences play a role in actuating changes. In a review of the literature, Stevens & Harrington (2014) identify four types of individual differences that may initiate sound change: (i) articulatory differences in how speakers produce sounds; (ii) cognitive differences in how listeners perceive sounds; (iii) differences in how speakers link perception and production (Beddor 2009;; and (iv) the extent to which individuals are sensitive to the range of variation they hear over their lifetimes (which may itself be driven by individual differences in susceptibility to imitation). Several of these types of differences are addressed in this special issue; for instance, the contributions by Smith et al (This volume) and Dediu & Moisik (This volume) demonstrate that individuals can differ in subtle ways in how they articulate particular sounds (i), and the contribution by Yu (This volume) addresses individual differences in how speakers identify and categorize sounds (ii).…”