Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:42:29.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analogy, Frequency, and Sound Change. The Case of Dutch Devoicing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

Johan De Schryver ,
Anneke Neijt ,
Pol Ghesquière  and
Mirjam Ernestus
Johan De Schryver*
Affiliation:
Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel
Anneke Neijt
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
Pol Ghesquière
Affiliation:
University of Leuven
Mirjam Ernestus
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen/Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
*
Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (University College Brussels), Department of Applied Linguistics, Koningsstraat 336, B-1030 Brussels, Belgium, [johan.deschryver@hubrussel.be]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the roles of phonetic analogy and lexical frequency in an ongoing sound change, the devoicing of fricatives in Dutch, which occurs mainly in the Netherlands and to a lesser degree in Flanders. In the experiment, Dutch and Flemish students read two variants of 98 words: the standard and a nonstandard form with the incorrect voice value of the fricative. Dutch students chose the non-standard forms with devoiced fricatives more often than Flemish students. Moreover, devoicing, though a gradual process, appeared lexically diffused, affecting first the words that are low in frequency and phonetically similar to words with voiceless fricatives.*

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 159 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anttila, Raimo. 1977. Analogy. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archambault, Danièle, & Maneva, Blagovesta. 1996. Devoicing in post-vocalic Canadian-French obstruants. International Proceedings of Spoken Language Processing 1996. Montréal: Laboratoire de Phonétique, Université de Montréal, 1533–1536. Retrieved October 8, 2007 from http://www.asel.udel.edu/icslp/cdrom/vol3/834/a834.pdf.Google Scholar
Baayen, Rolf Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard, & Gullikers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Balota, David A., Pilotti, Maura, & Cortese, Michael J.. 2001. Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory and Cognition 29. 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benware, Wilbur Alan. 1996. Processual change and phonetic analogy: Early New High German [s] > [sch]. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 8. 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergem, Dick Robert van. 1995. Acoustic and lexical vowel reduction. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Borden, Gloria J., Harris, Katherine S., & Raphael, Lawrence J.. 2003. Physiology, acoustics, and perception of speech. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincot Williams & Williams.Google Scholar
Bree, Cor van. 1996. Historische taalkunde. Leuven, Amersfoort: Acco.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo, Friedman, Jerome H., Olshen, Richard A., & Stone, Charles J.. 1984. Classification and regression trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth International Group.Google Scholar
Broecke, Marcel van den & Heuven, Vincent van. 1979. One or two velar fricatives in Dutch. Anniversaries in phonetics. Studia gratulatoria dedicated to Hendrik Mol, 51–67. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, Steve. 2002. Skousen's analogical approach as an exemplar-based model for categorization. Analogical modeling, ed. by Skousen, Royal, Lonsdale, Deryle & Parkinson, Dilworth B., 51–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, William S. 1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74. 829–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CollinsBeverley, & Inger Mees Beverley, & Inger Mees. 1981. The sounds of English and Dutch. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, Ton, Roelofs, Ardi, & Fieuws, Steffen. 1995. Orthographic effects on phoneme monitoring. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 49. 264–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Docherty, Gerard James. 1992. The timing of voicing in British English obstruents. (Netherlands Phonetics Archives, 9.) Berlin: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddington, David. 2000. Analogy and the dual-route model of morphology. Lingua 110. 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam. 2000. Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch. A corpus-based study of the phonology-phonetics interface. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, & Baayen, Rolf Harald. 2001. Choosing between the Dutch pasttense suffixes -te and -de. Linguistics in The Netherlands 2001, ed. by Wouden, Ton van der, & Hoop, Helen de, 81–93. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, Rolf Harald. 2003. Predicting the unpredictable: The phonological interpretation of neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79. 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, Rolf Harald. 2004. Analogical effects in regular past tense production in Dutch. Linguistics 42. 873–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Mak, Willem Marinus. 2005. Analogical effects in the reading of Dutch verb forms. Memory and Cognition 33. 1160–1173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fidelholz, James L. 1975. Word frequency and vowel reduction in English. Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 200–213. ed. by Grossman, Robin, San, James, & Vance, Timothy, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Flege, James Emil & Jr, William Samuel Brown. 1982. The voicing contrast between English /p/ and /b/ as a function of stress and position in utterance. Journal of Phonetics 10. 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerritsen, Marinel, & Jansen, Frank. 1980. Word frequency and lexical diffusion in dialect borrowing and phonological change. Dutch studies. Studies in Dutch phonology, vol. 4, ed. by Zonneveld, Wim, Coetsem, Frans van, & Robinson, Orrin W., 31–54. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen D., Luce, Paul A., Pisoni, David B., & Marcario, Joanne K.. 1992. Form-nased priming in spoken word recognition: The roles of competition and bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology 18. 1211–1238.Google ScholarPubMed
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Bremmer, Rolf Hendrik. 1983. Voiced fricatives in Dutch: Sources and present-day usage. North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 2. 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggard, Mark. 1978. The devoicing of voiced fricatives. Journal of Phonetics 6. 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallé, Pierre, Chéreau, Céline & Segui, Juan. 2000. Where is the /b/ in absurde? It is in French listeners' minds. Journal of Memory and Language 43. 618–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Anita Berit. 2001. Lexical diffusion as a factor of phonetic change: The case of Modern French nasal vowels. Language Variation and Change 13. 209–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2003. Analogical change. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian & Janda, Richard, 441–460. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. Current progress in historical linguistics, ed. by Christie, William M., 95–105. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Jesus, Luis M.T. & Shadle, Christine H.. 2002. A parametric study of the spectral characteristics of European Portuguese fricatives. Journal of Phonetics 30. 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JongeneelenGerrit, H Gerrit, H. [undated.] Lambert ten Kate and the origin of 19th-century historical linguistics. Available at: http://members.fortunecity.com/vvdghj/KV/tenkate.htm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. The phonological basis of sound change. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D., 313–342. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail, Velde, Hans van de, & Hout, Roeland van. 2003. An acoustic study of Standard Dutch /v/, /f/, /z/, and /s/. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2003, ed. by Cornips, Leonie & Fikkert, Paula, 93–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail, Velde, Hans van de, & Hout, Roeland van. 2005. Acoustic contributions to sociolinguistics: Devoicing of /v/ and /z/ in Dutch. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 10.2, ed. by Baranowski, Maciej, Hall, Damien, Horesh, Uri, Sanchez, Tara, & Wagner, Suzanne Evans, 143–155. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kloeke, Gesinus Gerhardus. 1927. De Hollandsche Expansie in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 1998. Regularity of sound change through lexical diffusion: A study of s > h > Ø in Gondi dialects. Language Change and Variation 10. 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krott, Andrea. 2001. Analogy in morphology. The selection of linking elements in Dutch compounds. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1981. Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Language 57. 267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol.1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lachs, Lorin, McMichael, Kipp, & Pisoni, David B.. 2003. Speech perception and implicit memory: Evidence for detailed episodic encoding. Rethinking implicit memory, ed. by Bowers, Jeffrey & Marsolek, Chad, 149–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi. 2000. Introduction. Analogy, levelling, markedness. Principles of change in phonology and morphology, ed. by Lahiri, Aditi, 1–14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, John. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1992. Historical linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian. 2004. Voices from the past. A diachronic perspective on voicing. Folia Linguistica 28. 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogura, Mieko. 1995. The development of Middle English ī and ū: A reply to Labov (1992, 1994). Diachronica 12. 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. The production of speech, ed. by MacNeilage, Peter, 189–216. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. Language change. Contributions to the study of its causes, ed. by Breivik, Leif Egil & Håkon, Erns, 173–189. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 2003. Phonetics and historical phonology. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by. Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D., 669–686. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oliveira, Marco Antonio de. 1991. The neogrammarian controversy revisited. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 89. 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60. 320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 1994. Southern English glide deletion revisited. American Speech 69. 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 2001. Lexical diffusion, lexical frequency, and lexical analysis. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul, 123-136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 2002. Lexical diffusion and competing analyses of sound change. Studies in the history of the English language: A millennial perspective, ed. by Stockwell, Robert & Minkova, Donka, 231–243. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1994. Syllable structure and word structure: A study of triconsonantal clusters in English. Papers in Laboratory Phonology III, ed. by Keating, Patricia, 68–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pirello, Karen, Blumstein, Sheila E., & Kurowski, Kathleen. 1997. The characteristics of voicing in syllable-initial fricatives in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101. 3754–3765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reenen, Pieter van & Jongkind, Anke. 2005. One or two phonemes: /⊘/ - /u/ in Old French, /s/ - /z/ in Dutch and Frisian. New solutions to an old problem. Linguistic informatics—State of the art and the future, ed. by Kawaguchi, Yuji, Zaima, Susumu, Takagaki, Toshihiro, Shibano, Kohji, & Usami, Mayumi, 9–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885. Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggramatiker. Schuchardt, the neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change, ed. by Vennemann, Theo & Wilbur, Terence H., 1972, 1–38. [English translation, 39–72.] Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S. & Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 1979. Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 5. 546–554.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 2002. Issues in analogical modeling. Analogical modeling, ed. by Skousen, Royal, Lonsdale, Deryle, & Parkinson, Dilworth B., 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slis, Iman Hans, & Heugten, Marieke van. 1989. Voiced-voiceless distinction in Dutch fricatives. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1989, ed. by Bennis, Hans & Kemenade, Ans van, 123–132. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Caroline L. 1997. The devoicing of /z/ in American English: Effects of local and prosodic context. Journal of Phonetics 25. 471–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, Rob J. J. H. van, & Pols, Louis C. W.. 2003. Information structure and efficiency in speech production. Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech 2003), 769–772. Geneva, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, Rob J. J. H. van & Santen, Jan P. H. van. 2005. Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: A case for efficient communication. Speech Communication 47. 100–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth, BurtonSheila Blumstein, Laura Glicksman, Martha Sheila Blumstein, Laura Glicksman, Martha, & Kurowski, Kathleen. 1992. Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of voicing in fricatives and fricative clusters. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 91. 2979–3000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturtevant, Edgar Howard. 1917. Linguistic change. An introduction to the historical study of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus & Hambly, Gail. 1985. The influence of orthography on phonological representations in the lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language 24. 320–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velde, Hans van de. 1996. Variatie en verandering in het gesproken Standaard-Nederlands. 1935–1993. Doctoral dissertation. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Velde, Hans. van de, & Hout, Roeland van. 2001. The devoicing of fricatives in a reading task. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, ed. by Wouden, Ton van der & Broekhuis, Hans, 225–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. Schuchardt, the neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change, ed. by Vennemann, Theo & Wilbur, Terence H., 181–202. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Jo & Hageman, Gorik. 2007. De verstemlozing van fricatieven in Vlaanderen. Nederlandse Taalkunde 12. 139–152.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, Michael S., Luce, Paul A., Charles-Luce, Jan, & Kemmerer, David. 1997. Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech 40. 47–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, William S.-Y. 1969. Competing changes as cause of residue. Language 45. 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weijnen, Antonius Angelus. 1966. Nederlandse dialectkunde. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Weijnen, Antonius Angelus. 1969. Lautgeschichte und Wortfrequenz. Actes du Xe Congrès International des Linguistes, 453–462. Bucarest: Académie de la République socialiste de Roumanie.Google Scholar
Wulf, Douglas J. 2002. Applying analogical modeling to the German plural. Analogical modeling, ed. by Skousen, Royal, Lonsdale, Deryle, & Parkinson, Dilworth B., 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar