Variability in American English s-retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem

Abstract

Although formulated by Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog in 1968, the actuation problem has remained an unsolved problem in understanding sound change: if sound change is conceived as the accumulation of coarticulation, and coarticulation is widespread, how can some speech communities resist phonetic pressure to change? We present data from American English s-retraction that suggest a partial solution. S-retraction is the phenomenon in which /s/ is realized as an [ʃ]-like sound, especially when it occurs in an /stɹ/ cluster (‘street’ pronounced more like [ʃtɹit] than like [stɹit]). The speech of English speakers judgednotto exhibit s-retraction shows a large coarticulatory bias in the direction of retraction. Further, there is also substantial interspeaker variation in the extent of this bias. We propose that this interspeaker variation, coupled with the coarticulatory bias, facilitates the initiation of sound change. In this account, sound change begins when a listener accidentally interprets an extreme case of a phonetic effect as an articulatory target and then adjusts her own speech in response. This adoption of a new target requires phonetic variation that predates the change. Thus, sound change is predicted to be biased toward phonetic effects that exhibit interspeaker variability, and if sound change requires an accident that is rare, then sound change itself is correctly predicted to be rare as well.

Relationship between individual differences in speech processing and cognitive functions

“…It is well established in sociolinguistic studies that the phonological system of any language is constantly undergoing some form of change (Labov, 1994, and references therein). This usually protracted phenomenon is realized in the form of variable patterns of perception and production across individuals in a community that is assumed to be otherwise linguistically homogeneous (Baker, Archangeli, & Mielke, 2011;Beddor, 2009;Koenig, Lucero, & Perlman, 2008). Therefore, the present investigation aims to understand individual variations in speech processing, particularly the mismatch between perception and production emerging from an ongoing sound change with respect to internal factors of cognitive abilities.…”

Cognitive basis of individual differences in speech perception, production and representations: The role of domain general attentional switching

“…Previous studies have identified several aspects of systematic heterogeneity among individuals, e.g., speech perception (Beddor, 2009), speech production (Baker, Archangeli, & Mielke, 2011), the mapping between perception and production (Stevens & Reubold, 2014) and cognitive processing style (Yu, 2010), which have elucidated how sound change occurs and progresses within a particular community. For instance, Beddor (2009) has proposed that sound change can arise from idiosyncratic perception grammar; specifically, individual variation in perceptual analysis of coarticulatory variation would result in variation in phonological representations.…”

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

“…At least two pre-conditions would have to be met for post-aspiration to be imitated and to be spread within the speech community or, in other words, for the sound change to be actuated: First, the longer VOT needs acoustically to be sufficiently distinct in order to be perceived as a different production target (see Baker et al, 2011). Second, post-aspiration should not be perceived as a deviant /sC/-token because then, post-aspiration would be filtered out and would not be imitated by the listener when he becomes speaker (Garrett & Johnson, 2013).…”

“…Why should a listener take up a pronunciation form that deviates from what he usually hears? Baker et al (2011) suggest that sound change arises from the individual differences in coarticulation among speakers, arguing that "if every speaker produces essentially the same amount of coarticulation, then there is nothing to imitate in the first place" (Baker et al, 2011, p. 350). Only if the phonetic effect of coarticulation is large enough and perceptible can the listener interpret it as a different production target, and only then can it be imitated.…”

“…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).…”