Cover not available
Part of
Language Variation - European Perspectives VII: Selected papers from the Ninth International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 9), Malaga, June 2017
Edited by Juan-Andrés Villena-Ponsoda, Francisco Díaz Montesinos, Antonio Manuel Ávila-Muñoz and Matilde Vida-Castro
[Studies in Language Variation 22] 2019
► pp. 27–52

Chapter 2
Of clocks, clouds and sound change

| Meertens Instituut and Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
The study of sound change has evolved from a heuristic tool for 19th century comparative historical reconstruction into the backbone of the rigid approach to language change developed by the Neogrammarians. In the course of the 20th and early 21st century it has become the main meeting point for a range of subdisciplines of linguistics (historical linguistics, dialectology, sociolinguistics, phonology, phonetics and cognitivist approaches to phonetic variation). This contribution sketches some of the main aspects of the approaches to sound change taken in the various corners of the field. By way of a synthesis a theory will be outlined in which three approaches to sound change dovetail to account for the huge and seemingly chaotic body of insights into the phenomenon. Empirical studies of instances of both historical and ongoing sound change in specific varieties of Dutch will serve to illustrate parts of the theory.
Keywords: awareness, Exemplar Theory, generative phonology, hyperdialectism, indicator, marker, stereotype, lexically diffuse sound change, lexical frequency effects, life cycle of sound change, (mis–)perception, Neogrammarians, opacity, Optimality Theory, style, Usage based phonology, variation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Neogrammarian legacy
  • 3.Formal theory: Generative phonology and Optimality Theory
    • 3.1The life cycle of sound change
    • 3.2Awareness
  • 4.Sociolinguistics
    • 4.1Exceptionlessness versus lexical diffuseness in the sociolinguistic study of sound change
  • 5.Cognitivist approaches
  • 6.Towards an integrated theory
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.22.02hin
References (65)
References
Almeida, Manuel. 2013. La frecuencia de las palabras en los proceses de variación y cambio. Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística (RSEL) 43 (2). 37–62.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1988. Center and periphery: Adoption, diffusion and spread. In J. Fysiak (ed.), Historical dialectology: Regional and social, 39–83. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 2006. Variation and opacity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24. 893–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2015. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In P. Honeybone and J. Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 374–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. London: Unwin.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine and Louis Goldstein. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49. 155–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82 (4). 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, use and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Patterns of lexical diffusion and articulatory motivation for sound change. In M. J. Solé and D. Recasens (eds.), The initiation of sound change: Perception, production, and social factors, 211–234. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries. 2008. Grammaticality and ungrammaticality in phonology. Language 84 (2). 218–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2017. Informativity and the actuation of lenition. Language 93 (3). 569–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinkin, Aron. 2008. The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 14 (1). 97–106.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1975. Methodisches zu Allegro-Regeln. In W. Dressler et al.. (eds.), Phonologica 1972, 219–234. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2009. Patterns of sound change. Slides for a class in a course on Historical Linguistics in the 2009 Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America, held at the University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Goossens, Jan. 1969. Strukturelle Sprachgeographie. Eine Einführung in Methodik und Ergebnisse. Heildelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory. 1991. Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3. 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddican, Bill, Foulkes, Paul, Vincent Hughes and Hazel Richard. 2013. Interaction of social and linguistic constraints on two vowel changes in northern England. Language Variation and Change 25 (3). 371–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinskens, Frans. 1992. Dialect levelling in Limburg. Structural and sociolinguistic aspects. PhD-thesis University of Nijmegen (revised and abridged version 1996, Niemeyer, Tübingen).Google Scholar
. 2004. Nieuwe regenboogkleuren. Jonge typen niet-standaardtaal en hun taalkundig belang . Inaugural address, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Retrieved from [URL].
. 2014. Despite or because of intensive contact? Internal, external and extralinguistic aspects of divergence in modern dialects and ethnolects of Dutch. In K. Braunmüller, S. Höder, and K. Kühl (eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact: Factors and mechanisms, 109–140. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2020. The expanding universe of the study of sound change. To appear in R. Janda, B. Joseph and B. Vance (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 2nd ed. Hoboken-Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard. 2003. ‘Phonologization’ as the start of dephonetization – or, on sound change and its aftermath: Of extension, generalization, lexicalization, and morphologization. In B. Joseph and R. Jansa (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 410–422. Malden MA-Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard and Brian Joseph. 2003. On language, change and language change – or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In B. Joseph and R. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 3–180. Malden MA-Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In K. Johnson, J. Mullennix (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing, 145–165. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara, Jennifer Andrus and Andrew Danielson. 2006. Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of “Pittsburghese”. Journal of English Linguistics 34 (2). 77–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 2012. Lexical diffusion and the regular transmission of language change in its sociohistorical context. In J. Hernández-Campoy and J. Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 408–426. Malden USA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 2011. Sociolinguistic approaches to language change: Phonology. In R. Wodak, B. Johnstone and P. Kerswill (eds.), The Sage handbook of sociolinguistics, 219–235. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 171–210. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1988. Phonological change. In F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, vol. 1, Linguistic theory: Foundations, 363–413. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 640–670. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kloeke, Gesinus. 1927. De Hollandsche expansie in de zestiende en zeventiende eeuw en haar weerspiegeling in de hedendaagsche Nederlandsche dialecten. Den Haag: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change (1/3). 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Language 57 (2). 267–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Principles of linguistic change. Volume 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2006. A sociolinguistic perspective on sociophonetic research. Journal of Phonetics (34). 500–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83 (2). 344–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luce, Paul and David Pisoni. 1998. Recognizing spoken words. The neighborhood activation model. Ear and hearing 19. 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moulton, William. 1961. Lautwandel durch innere Kausalität: Die Ostschweizerische Vokalspaltung. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, 28. 227–251.Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 2003. Phonetics and historical phonology. In B. Joseph and R. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 669–686. Malden MA-Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osthoff, Hermann and Karl Brugmann. 1878. Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: HirzelGoogle Scholar
Pappas, Panayiotis. 2006. Stereotypes and /n/ variation in Patra, Greece. Results from a pilot study. In F. Hinskens (ed.), Language variation – European perspective, 153–167. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1939. Kompromissvokal‘ und Lautwandel. Anglia 63. 88–99.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven and N. Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonology VII, 101–140. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1966. Of clocks and clouds. An approach to the problem of rationality and the freedom of man. St. Louis: Washington UniversityGoogle Scholar
Ramsammy, Michael. 2015. The life cycle of phonological processes: Accounting for dialectal microtypologies. Language and Linguistics Compass (9/1). 33–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regan, Brendan. 2017. The effect of dialect contact and social identity on fricative demerger. PhD-thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Robinson, Orrin and Frans van Coetsem. 1973. Review article of R. King, 1969, Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Lingua 31. 331–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheuringer, Hermann. 1992. Die grammatikalische Erklärung von Sprachvariation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikations-forschung. (ZPSK), 45 (5). 481–494.Google Scholar
Scheutz, Hannes. 2005. Aktuell stattfindender Lautwandel/Sound change in progress. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar and K. J. Mattheier (eds.), An international handbook of the science of language and society. Sociolinguistics, 2nd ed., 1704–1717. Vol. 2. Berlin-NewYork: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schleicher, August. 1861. Compendium der vergleichenden grammatik der indogermanischen sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Johannes. 1872. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, H.1885. Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. In Leo Spitzer (ed.), Hugo Schuchardt-Brevier. Ein Vademekum der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft, 51–87. Niemeyer, Halle.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Christoph. 2012. Rezenz als Faktor phonologischer Variation. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi) 166. 29–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidelmann, Erich. 1972. Lautwandel, Lautersatz und die Bedingungen des Sprachwandels. In A. Weiss (ed.), Dialekte im Wandel, 111–127. Göppingen: Göppinger Arbeiten zur Linguistik, 538.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23. 193–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swanenberg, Jos. 2009. Van alterande sorte. Brabants tussen dialect en standaardtaal. Tilburg: Universiteit van Tilburg.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1988. On the role of dialect contact and interdialect in linguistic change. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Historical dialectology. Regional and social, 547–563. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Reenen, Pieter and Michael Elias. 1998. Taalverschillen. Een werkboek over variatie en verandering in taal. Bussum: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Villena-Ponsoda, Juan-Andrés. 2001. La continuidad del cambio lingüístico. Granada: Universidad.Google Scholar
Wang, William. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45. 9–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zampaolo, André. 2016. Sibilant sound change in the history of Portuguese. An Information-theoretic approach. Diachronica 33 (4). 503–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zellou, Georgia and Meredith Tamminga. 2014. Nasal coarticulation changes over time in Philadelphia English. Journal of Phonetics, 47. 18–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar