Cover not available
Part of
Advances in Sociophonetics
Edited by Chiara Celata and Silvia Calamai
[Studies in Language Variation 15] 2014
► pp. 97–136

Where and what is (t, d)?

A case study in taking a step back in order to advance sociophonetics

The variable deletion of /t,d/ in word-final clusters in English has garnered much attention from sociolinguists and, more recently, phonologists, most of whom model it as a binary variable phonological rule. This paper examines in detail some (t,d) clusters in York English and compares them with other word-final singleton and cluster consonants. In the light of the general literature on English, it explores an alternative view, that in at least one variety of British English “-t,d deletion” is in fact one of the common connected speech processes which apply at the boundaries between words. It thus underlines the importance for advances in sociophonetics of taking a step back to examine critically the basic units of analysis of variable rules.
Published online: 12 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.15.04tem
References (53)
References
Barry, Martin C. 1995. “A palatographic study of connected speech processes”. Cambridge Papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2010a. “Currently available data on English t/d-deletion fail to refute the classical modular feedforward architecture of phonology”. 18th Manchester Phonology Meeting , Manchester, 20th–22nd May 2010. [URL]
. 2010b. “Morphologically conditioned phonetics? Not proven!”. On Linguistic Interfaces (OnLI) II , Belfast, University of Ulster, 2nd December 2010. [URL]
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & Graeme Trousdale. 2011. “Pathways of phonological change.” [URL]
Bladon, R. Anthony, Caroline Henton & Brian Pickering. 1984. “Towards and auditory theory of speaker normalization.” Language and Communication 4: 59–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, Judith M. 1999. “A new approach to the representation of coronal segments.” Issues in Phonology: Papers from an International Workshop ed. by Stephen J. Hannahs & Mike Davenport, 1–25. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine & Louis M. Goldstein. 1990. “Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech”. Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech ed. by John Kingston & Mary E. Beckman, 341–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buizza, Emanuela. 2010. “Frication and affrication of /t/ in RP English”. Language at the University of Essex (LangUE) 2010 Proceedings ed. by Z. Absi, M. Althobaiti, V. Heyer, M. Ogawa, C. Patterson, & T. Soultatis, 16–28. [URL]
. 2011. “/t/ lenition in RP English spontaneous speech”. 8th UK Conference on Language Variation & Change , Edge Hill, 14th September 2011.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2002. “Word frequency and the context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change”. Language Variation and Change 14: 261–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, Andrees & Joe Pater. 2011. “The place of variation in phonological theory”. The Handbook of Phonological Theory ed. by John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu, 401–434. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crowdy, Steve. 1995. “The BNC spoken corpus”. Spoken English on Computer: Transcription, Mark-up and Applications ed. by Greg Myers, Geoffrey N. Leech & Jenny Thomas, 224–235. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 2008. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English . London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerard J. 1992. The Timing of Voicing in British English Obstruents . Berlin: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Docherty, Gerard J. & Paul Foulkes. 2005. “Glottal variants of /t/ in the Tyneside Variety of English: an acoustic profiling study”. A Figure of Speech ed. by William J. Hardcastle & Janet Beck, 173–197. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, Lucy & William J. Hardcastle. 2002. “Categorical and gradient properties of assimilation in alveolar to velar sequences: evidence from EPG and EMA data”. Journal of Phonetics 30: 373–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabricius, Anne. 2002. “Ongoing change in Modern RP: evidence for the disappearing stigma of t-glottaling”. English World-Wide 23: 115–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, Paul & Gerard J. Docherty. 2005. “The social life of phonetics and phonology.” Journal of Phonetics 34: 409–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory. 1991. “Explanation in variable phonology: an exponential model of morphological constraints”. Language Variation and Change 3: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory & Charles Boberg. 1997. “Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle”. Language Variation and Change 9: 149–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory & Sally Boyd. 1990. “The development of a morphological class”. Language Variation and Change 2: 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory, Jennifer Hay & Abby Walker. 2008. “Phonological, lexical and frequency factors in coronal stop deletion in early New Zealand English”. Laboratory Phonology 11 Conference , Wellington, 30th June – 2nd July 2008. [URL]
Hardcastle, William J. 1994. “Assimilation of alveolar nasals and stops in connected speech”. Studies in General and English Phonetics in Honour of Professor J. C. O’Connor ed. by Jack Windsor-Lewis, 49–67. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1992. “Comments on Chapter 10”. Papers in Laboratory Phonology II. Gesture, Segment, Prosody ed. by Gerard J. Docherty & Robert Ladd, 280–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hazen, Kirk. 2011. “Flying high above the social radar: coronal stop deletion in modern Appalachia”. Language Variation and Change 23: 105–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Jannette B. & Bruno H. Repp. 1981. “Is a stop consonant released when followed by another stop consonant?”. Haskins Status Reports in Speech Research 67/68: 71–82.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. “Some consequences of Lexical Phonology”. Phonology Yearbook 2: 85–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühnert, Barbara & Phil Hoole. 2004. “Speaker-specific kinematic properties of alveolar reductions in English and German”. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 18. 559–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtman, Karen. 2010. “Testing Articulatory Phonology: variation in gestures for coda /t/”. Illinois Language and Linguistic Society Conference 2 (ILLS2) , University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 29th May 2010.Google Scholar
Lodge, Ken R. 1984. Studies in the Phonology of Colloquial English . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Manuel, S. Y. (1995) “Speakers nasalize /ð/ after /n/, but listeners still hear /ð/”. Journal of Phonetics 23: 453–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, James. 1996. “The categorical and variable phonology of variable t-deletion in English”. International Workshop on Language Variation and Linguistic Theory , University of Nijmegen, 10th September 1995 (revised version). [URL]
Nolan, Francis J. 1992. “The descriptive role of segments: evidence from assimilation”. Papers in Laboratory Phonology II. Gesture, Segment, Prosody ed. by Gerard J. Docherty & Robert Ladd, 261–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. “Overview of English Connected Speech Processes”. Sound Patterns of Connected Speech. Description, Models and Explanation ed. by Adrian P. Simpson & Matthias Pätzold, 15–26. Kiel, Institüt für Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung.Google Scholar
Roberts, Julie. 1997. “Acquisition of variable rules: a study of (-t,d) deletion”. Journal of Child Language 24. 351–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robins, Robert H. 1970. “Aspects of prosodic analysis”. Prosodic Analysis ed. by Frank R. Palmer, 188–200. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Sali Tagliamonte & Eric Smith. 2011. GoldVarb Lion. A multivariate analysis application . [URL]
Santa Ana, Otto. 1992. “Chicano English evidence for the exponential hypothesis: a variable rule pervades lexical phonology”. Language Variation and Change 4. 275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuppler, Barbara, Wim van Dommelen, Jacques Koreman & Mirjam Ernestus. 2009. “Word-final [t] deletion: an analysis on the segmental and sub-segmental level”. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2009) , Brighton, 6–10 September 2009, 2275–2278.Google Scholar
Simpson, Adrain P. 1992. “Casual speech rules and what the phonology of connected speech might really be like”. Linguistics 30. 535–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer, Mercedes Durham & Liane Fortune. (2009). “Universal and dialect-specific pathways of acquisition: caregivers, children and t/d deletion”. Language Variation and Change 21. 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep. 2007. “Controlled and mechanical properties in speech. A review of the literature”. Experimental Approaches to Phonology ed. by Maria-Josep Solé, M.-J., Patrice Speeter Beddor & Manjari Ohala, 302–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2000. “Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary”. Papers in Laboratory Phonology V. Acquisition and the Lexicon ed. by Michael B. Broe & Janet Pierrehumbert, 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane, Claire Timmins & Fiona Tweedie. 2007. “Talkin’ Jockney: Accent change in Glaswegian”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11. 221–61.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 1998. “Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York”. Language Variation and Change DOI logo
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Rosalind A. M. Temple. 2005. “New perspectives on an ol’ variable: (t,d) in British English”. Language Variation and Change 17. 281–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temple, Rosalind A. M. 2000. “Now and then: the evolution of male-female differences in the voicing of consonants in two varieties of French”. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8. 193–204.Google Scholar
Ms. “Rethinking (t,d): a new ‘new look’ at a variable construc[t]”. [URL]
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, Benjamin V. & Natasha Warner. 2010. “What it means to be phonetic or phonological: the case of Rumanian nasals.” Phonology 27. 289–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 1969. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech . Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Identifying and interpreting variables”. American Dialect Research ed. by Dennis Preston, 193–221. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Cohn, Abigail C. & Margaret E. L. Renwick
2021. Embracing multidimensionality in phonological analysis. The Linguistic Review 38:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
MacKenzie, Laurel & Meredith Tamminga
2021. New and old puzzles in the morphological conditioning of coronal stop deletion. Language Variation and Change 33:2 ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Baranowski, Maciej & Danielle Turton
2020. td-deletion in British English: New evidence for the long-lost morphological effect. Language Variation and Change 32:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Villarreal, Dan, Lynn Clark, Jennifer Hay & Kevin Watson
2020. From categories to gradience: Auto-coding sociophonetic variation with random forests. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 11:1 DOI logo
Farrington, Charlie
2018. Incomplete neutralization in African American English: The case of final consonant voicing. Language Variation and Change 30:3 ► pp. 361 ff. DOI logo
Tanner, James, Morgan Sonderegger & Michael Wagner
2017. Production planning and coronal stop deletion in spontaneous speech. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 8:1 DOI logo
Forrest, Jon
2015. Community rules and speaker behavior: Individual adherence to group constraints on (ING). Language Variation and Change 27:3 ► pp. 377 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

audio

1. hot

2. eight

3. cut

4. sword

5. sword

6. did

7. pub

8. sick

9. cop

10. big

11. up

12.left

13. found

14. fucked

15. underground

16. left

17. told

18. think

19. ask

20. liked

21. pleased

22. knocked

23. reminded

24. delivered

25. vague

26. help

27. ask

28. landmarks

29. second-hand

30. booked

31. kept

32. left

33. first

34. stopped

35. saved

36. kept

37. left

38. old

39. thousand

40. unmanned

41. behind

42. told

43. secondhand

44. went

45. spoilt

46. knocked

47. like

48. help

49. camp

50. think

51. milk

52. project

53. except

54. contract

55. knocked

56. went

57. old-fashioned

58. old

59. lad

60. good

61. moved

62. lived

63. went

64. brought

65. sad

66. could

67. told

68. locked

69. sound

70. combined

71. last

72. kept

73. longest

74. shortest

75. cos

76. want

77. just

78. youngest

79. kept

80. found

81. pinched

82. lost

83. hand

84. handbrake

Footnote 25. weeks