Descriptive adequacy in phonology: a variationist perspective

Abstract

This paper offers a variationist critique of aspects of phonological theory and method, focusing on advances in descriptive methods and highlighting the problems that need to be addressed in explaining phonological variation. On the one hand, socially situated language samples which have been systematically collected and analysed constitute a legitimate -indeed often vital -source of evidence to be utilised by linguists for assessing and refining theoretical models. On the other hand, variationists cannot operate in isolation from theoretical concerns, and can benefit from an evaluation of the competing theoretical frameworks available to them.The paper begins with a brief review of the philosophical foundations underlying the tension between ' external ' and ' internal ' methodology. We then focus on a particular phonological example -glottalisation in English. We demonstrate that phonological models of this can be complemented by systematic and accountable data collection and analysis of the kind associated with sociolinguistics. It is suggested that the patterns of variation produced by speakers are significantly more complex than has been indicated in the phonological literature. Consequently, these approaches can be usefully expanded and extended as theoretical models. We discuss some desiderata for extending the range of phonological models, focusing chiefly on the need to account for variability and change in language.

Dialect acquisition of glottal variation in /t/: Barbadians in Ipswich

“…R England speakers -and for that matter, East Anglians also have distinctive rhythm, vowel lengthening, shortening and reduction (Trudgill 1999: 124). ntonational ech, though s that prepausal turn-final utterances may favour released stops, and Local et al (1986) and Docherty et al (1997) show that the salient absence of glottals here serves as a turn-delimitation device in Newcastle, while Baker (2002) Still, if upon reexamination -using instrumental methods, and finergrained distinctions (Fabricius 2002) -following environment does remain a major constraint, answers will be required for these questions, at least:…”

“…In the er types of laryngealisation, but exclude all forms including released [t], regardless of voicing, and zero (complete elision). The phonetic variants noted but excluded from our tabulations thus take in apical stops that are aspirated, unreleased, collapse these cases since they lie on a continuum, and some studie variable do so, we distinguish them at the coding stage; th discussed further in Docherty et al (1997). In providing rich des …”

Testing claims of a usage-based phonology with Liverpool Englisht-to-r

“…However, one of the drawbacks of the methods typically employed in (generative) theoretical linguistics, such as linguistic intuition and anecdotal data collection, is that they lack the means to empirically validate their claims. In the case of Tyneside English, Docherty et al (1997) collected a sizeable corpus of conversation and word-list data from 32 native Tynesiders, stratified by age and socioeconomic class, and so were able to put to the test the issues raised in the theoretical phonology literature.…”

“…The arguments set out in Carr (1991) with respect to the ordering of t-to-r and t-glottalling are therefore difficult to maintain. Docherty et al (1997) argue that many of the predictions of generative phonology (especially Carr 1991 andHarris &Kaye 1990) are problematic because they do not accurately predict variation. However, little is offered in the way of an alternative approach.…”

“…t-to-r, which Wells (1982: 370) describes as 'a widespread but stigmatised connected speech process in the middle and far north (of England)', has received some attention in English linguistics as debates have appeared over how best to model the phonology of the phenomenon (cf. Carr 1991; Docherty et al 1997;Broadbent 2008). The problem for phonological theory is this: on the one hand, t-to-r seems to be constrained by the preceding and following phonological environment in a largely systematic way, so it is often accounted for within a rule-based model of grammar.…”