Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:02:09.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolution of medial /t/ over realand remembered time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jennifer Hay and
Paul Foulkes
Jennifer Hay*
Affiliation:
University of Canterbury
Paul Foulkes*
Affiliation:
University of York
*
Hay, New Zealand Institute of Language, Brain and Behaviour, and Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800 Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand [jen.hay@canterbury.ac.nz]
Hay, New Zealand Institute of Language, Brain and Behaviour, and Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800 Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand [jen.hay@canterbury.ac.nz]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article follows a change in pronunciation of word-medial intervocalic /t/ in New Zealand English, as it unfolds over 120 years. Data are analyzed in the context of questions about the role of experience-based lexical representations and their potential impact on the time course of sound change in progress. Three major results are reported. First, frequent words lead the change. Second, the distributions of individual words affect their participation in the change: words favored by younger speakers are produced with newer variants. Finally, the topic of conversation affects which variant is favored: older topics elicit older variants. Together, these findings provide evidence that phonetic distributions of word-level representations are implicated in the course of sound change.

Keywords

sound changeNew Zealand Englishlexical frequencytopiclexical representationexemplar theoryepisodic memory

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 92 , Issue 2 , June 2016, pp. 298 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This research was made possible by a Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund Grant and a Rutherford Discovery Fellowship to JH, a University of Canterbury Erskine Fellowship to PF, and a Leverhulme Trust Visiting Professorship awarded to PF on behalf of JH. We are very grateful to the following people for discussions, feedback, and other contributions: Robert Fromont, Ghada Khattab, Abby Walker, Anne Cutler, Pat LaShell, Mike Peek, Janet Pierrehumbert, Márton Sóskuthy, Gerry Docherty, Vince Hughes, members of NZILBB, and the referees and editors of Language. We particularly thank Pat LaShell for help with the R code that automated the process described in §3.3. The article uses data from the Canterbury Corpus, which was collected by members of the NZ English class of the Linguistics Department, University of Canterbury; and the Mobile Unit, which was collected by the Mobile Disc recording Unit of the NZ Broadcasting Service. It also utilizes word-frequency statistics from the Intermediate Archive, for which the data were collected by Rosemary Goodyear, Lesley Evans, and members of the ONZE team. The work done by members of the Origins of New Zealand English Project (ONZE) in preparing the data, making transcripts, and obtaining background information is also acknowledged. The two authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Akaike, Hirotugu. 1974. Anew look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19. 6. 716–23. DOI: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aylett, Matthew, and Turk, Alice. 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47. 31–56. DOI: 10.1177/00238309040470010201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard; and Gulikers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Baker, Rachel E., and Bradlow, Ann R.. 2009. Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language and Speech 52. 391–413. DOI: 10.1177/0023830909336575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, Michael, and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.) 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin; and Bolker, Ben. 2011. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package (Version 0. 999375-42). Online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1986. Notes on New Zealand English phonetics and phonology. English World-Wide 7. 225–58. DOI: 10.1075/eww.7.2.04bau.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Kara. 2009. /r/and the construction of place identity on New York City’s Lower East Side. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13. 634–58. DOI: 10.1111/j.14679841.2009.00426.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Alan, Brenier, Jason m., Gregory, Michelle, Girand, Cynthia; and Jurafsky, Daniel. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60. 92–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Alan, Jurafsky, Daniel, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia, Gregory, Michelle; and Gildea, Daniel. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113. 1001–24. DOI: 10.1121/1.1534836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, Allan. 1977. The language of radio news in Auckland: A sociolinguistic study of style, audience and subediting variation. Auckland: University of Auckland dissertation.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13. 145–204. DOI: 10.1017/S004740450001037X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow & Kemmer, 65–85.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14. 261–90. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394502143018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack К. 1992. Dialect acquisition. Language 68. 673–705. DOI: 10.2307/416850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, Nick, Tenenbaum, Joshua В.; and Yuille, Alan. 2006. Probabilistic models of cognition: Conceptual foundations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10. 287–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.007.Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, Matthew Y., and Wang, William S.-Y.. 1975. Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language 51. 255–81. DOI: 10.2307/412854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clopper, Cynthia G., and Pierrehumbert, Janet В.. 2008. Effects of semantic predictability and regional dialect on vowel space reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124. 1682–88. DOI: 10.1121/1.2953322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, Anne. 2010. Abstraction-based efficiency in the lexicon. Laboratory Phonology 1. 301–18. DOI: 10.1515/labphon.2010.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron. 2008. The real effect of word frequency on phonological variation. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 97–106. Online: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol14/iss1/8/.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerard J., and Foulkes, Paul. 2014. An evaluation of usage-based approaches to the modelling of sociophonetic variability. Lingua 142. 42–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fiasson, Romain. 2013. Allophonic imitation within and across word positions. Christchurch: University of Canterbury dissertation.Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul. 2010. Exploring social-indexical variation: A long past but a short history. Laboratory Phonology 1. 5–39. DOI: 10.1515/labphon.2010.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, Paul, and Docherty, Gerard J.. 2007. Phonological variation in England. Language in the British Isles, ed. by Britain, David, 52–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, Paul, and Hay, Jennifer. 2015. The emergence of sociophonetic structure. The handbook of language emergence, ed. by MacWhinney, Brian and O’Grady, William, 292–313. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol a., and Housum, Jonathan. 1987. Talkers’ signaling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 26. 489–504. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(87)90136-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromont, Robert, and Hay, Jennifer. 2008. ONZE Miner: The development of a browser-based research tool. Corpora 3. 173–93. DOI: 10.3366/E1749503208000142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromont, Robert, and Hay, Jennifer. 2012. LaBB-CAT: An annotation store. Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop, 113–17. Dunedin: University of Otago.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84. 474–96. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine; and Coupland, Nikolas (eds.) 1991. Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen. 1997. Words and voices: Perception and production in an episodic lexicon. Talker variability in speech processing, ed. by Johnson, Keith and Mullennix, John, 33–66. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, Campbell, Lyle, Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret, Sudbury, Andrea; and Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New Zealand English: Its origins and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, and Maclagan, Margaret. 2008. Regional and social differences in New Zealand English: Phonology. Varieties of English, vol. 3: The Pacific and Australasia, ed. by Burridge, Kate and Kortmann, Bernd, 64–76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, Maclagan, Margaret; and Hay, Jennifer. 2007. The ONZE corpus. Creating and digitizing language corpora, vol. 2: Diachronic databases, ed. by Beal, Joan C., Corrigan, Karen P., and Moisl, Hermann L., 82–104. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Palethorpe, Sallyanne; and Watson, Catherine. 2000. Monophthongal vowel changes in Received Pronunciation: An acoustic analysis of the Queen’s Christmas broadcasts. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 30. 63–78. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100300006666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah, and Smith, Rachel. 2001. Polysp: A polysystemic, phonetically-rich approach to speech understanding. Rivista di Linguistica 13. 99–188. Online: http://linguistica.sns.it/RdL/13.1/Hawkins_Smith.pdf.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, and Drager, Katie. 2010. Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48. 865–92. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2010.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Jannedy, Stefanie; and Mendoza-Denton, Norma. 1999. Oprah and/ay/: Lexical frequency, referee design, and style. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), San Francisco, 1389–92.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Pierrehumbert, Janet, Walker, Abby; and LaShell, Pat. 2015. Tracking word frequency effects through 130 years of sound change. Cognition 139. 83–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, Janet. 1994. New Zealand flappers: An analysis of ‘t’ voicing in New Zealand English. English World-Wide 15. 195–224. DOI: 10.1075/eww.15.2.03hol.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1995. Two fort: Flapping and glottal stops in New Zealand English. Te Reo 38. 53–72.Google Scholar
Horvath, Barbara. 2008. Australian English: Phonology. Varieties of English, vol. 3: The Pacific and Australasia, ed. by Burridge, Kate and Kortmann, Bernd, 89–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, Peter, Barry, William; and Vinson, David. 2006. Strength of British English accents in altered listening conditions. Perception and Psychophysics 68. 139–53. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jescheniak, Jörg d., and Levelt, Willem J. Μ.. 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20. 824–43. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.824.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. Talker variability in speech processing, ed. by Johnson, Keith and Mullennix, John, 145–65. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark, and McDougall, Kirsty. 2009. The acoustic character of fricated/t/in Australian English: A comparison with/s/and/J/. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 39. 265–89. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100309990132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan; and Girand, Cynthia. 2002. The role of the lemma in form variation. Laboratory phonology 7, ed. by Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha, 3–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 3: Cognitive factors. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachs, Lorin, McMichael, Kipp; and Pisoni, David. 2003. Speech perception and implicit memory: Evidence for detailed episodic encoding. Rethinking implicit memory, ed. by Bowers, Jeffrey S. and Marsolek, Chad J., 215–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lavoie, Lisa Μ. 2001. Consonant strength: Phonological patterns and phonetic manifestations. New York: Garland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, Robert. 2009. Sociolinguistic constructions of identity among adolescent males in Glasgow. Glasgow: University of Glasgow dissertation.Google Scholar
Local, John. 2003. Variable domains and variable relevance: Interpreting phonetic exponents. Journal of Phonetics 31. 321–39. DOI: 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00045-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, Jessica, and Walker, Abby. 2013. Football versus football: Effect of topic on/r/realization in American and English sports fans. Language and Speech 56. 443–60. DOI: 10.1177/0023830912453132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maye, Jessica, Weiss, Daniel J.; and Aslin, Richard N.. 2008. Statistical phonetic learning in infants: Facilitation and feature generalization. Developmental Science 11.12234. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00653.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maye, Jessica, Werker, Janet F.; and Gerken, LouAnn. 2002. Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition 82.B101-B111. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00157-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLennan, Conor t., and Luce, Paul A.. 2005. Examining the time course of indexical specificity effects in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31. 306–21. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.306.Google ScholarPubMed
Mendoza-Denton, Norma. 2008. Homegirls: Language and cultural practice among Latina youth gangs. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munson, Benjamin. 2007. Lexical characteristic mediate the influence of sex and sex typicality on vowel-space size. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Saarbrücken, 885–88. Online: http://www.icphs2007.de/conference/Papers/1012/1012.pdf.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert Μ. 1988. Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14. 700–708. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.14.4.700.Google Scholar
Nygaard, Lynne С., and Lunders, Erin R.. 2002. Resolution of lexical ambiguity by emotional tone of voice. Memory and Cognition 30. 583–93. DOI: 10.3758/BF03194959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogden, Richard. 2012. The phonetics of talk in interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Language and Speech 55. 3–11. DOI: 10.1177/0023830911433559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, David, and Connine, Cynthia Μ.. 2001. Variant frequency in flap production. Phonetica 58. 254–75. DOI: 10.1159/000046178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, Betty. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60. 320–42. DOI: 10.2307/413643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty. 1999. The mental lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. Brain and Language 68. 104–9. DOI: 10.1006/brln.1999.2104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. Frequency effects and the emergence of lexical structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul, 137–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory phonology 7, ed. by Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha, 101–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2003. Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46. 115–54. DOI: 10.1177/00238309030460020501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2006. The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics 34. 516–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2006.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prebble, Sally С., Addis, Donna-Rose; and Tippett, Lynette J.. 2013. Autobiographical memory and sense of self. Psychological Bulletin 139. 815–40. DOI: 10.1037/a0030146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team. 2012. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., and McNair-Knox, Faye. 1994. Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, ed. by Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward, 235–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N.; and Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274. 1926–28. DOI: 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sankoff, Gillian, and Blondeau, Hélène. 2007. Language change across the lifespan:/r/in Montreal French. Language 83. 560–88. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2007.0106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarborough, Rebecca A. 2010. Lexical and contextual predictability: Confluent effects on the production of vowels. Laboratory phonology 10, ed. by Fougeron, Cécile, Kühnert, Barbara, D’Imperio, Mariapola, and Vallée, Nathalie, 557–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885. Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Oppenheim. [Reproduced in translation as ‘On sound laws: Against the Neogrammarians’. Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change, ed. by Vennemann, Theo and Wilbur, Terence H.. Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1972.].Google Scholar
Schwarz, Gideon E. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6. 461–64. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott. 2014. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133. 140–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sivertsen, Eva. 1960. Cockney phonology. Oslo: Oslo University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Rachel, and Hawkins, Sarah. 2012. Production and perception of speaker-specific phonetic detail at word boundaries. Journal of Phonetics 40. 213–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SÓSKUTHY, Marton. 2013. Phonetic biases and systemic effects in the actuation of sound change. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Strand, Elizabeth A. 1999. Uncovering the role of gender stereotypes in speech perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18. 86–99. DOI: 10.1177/0261927X99018001006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strand, Elizabeth A., and Johnson, Keith. 1996. Gradient and visual speaker normalization in the perception of fricatives. Natural language processing and speech technology: Results of the 3rd KOVENS conference, Bielefeld, October 1996, ed. by Gibbon, Dafydd, 14–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Erik R. 2002. Sociophonetic applications of speech perception experiments. American Speech 77. 115–47. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-77-2-115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollfree, Laura. 2001. Variation and change in Australian English consonants. English in Australia, ed. by Blair, David C. and Collins, Peter, 45–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1969 [1939]. Principles of phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tulving, Endel. 2002. Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology 53. 1–25. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vine, Bernadette. 1999. Americanisms in the New Zealand English lexicon. World Englishes 18. 13–22. DOI: 10.1111/1467-971X.00118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Abby, and Hay, Jennifer. 2011. Congruence between ‘word age’ and ‘voice age’ facilitates lexical access. Laboratory Phonology 2. 219–37. DOI: 10.1515/labphon.2011.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, John С. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, Walt, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 2006. American English. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1905. The English dialect grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard A. 2004. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology 6, ed. by Local, John, Ogden, Richard, and Temple, Rosalind, 75–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yaeger-Dror, Malcah. 1996. Phonetic evidence for the evolution of lexical classes: The case of a Montreal French vowel shift. Towards a social science of language, ed. by Guy, Gregory, Feagin, Crawford, Baugh, John, and Schiffrin, Deborah, 263–87. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zipf, George К. 1929. Relative frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 15. 1–95. DOI: 10.2307/310585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar