1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 9, 2023
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 9, 2023

The Actuation Problem

Abstract

The actuation problem asks why a linguistic change occurs in a particular language at a particular time and space. Responses to this problem are multifaceted. This review approaches the problem of actuation through the lens of sound change, examining it from both individual and population perspectives. Linguistic changes ultimately actuate in the form of idiolectal differences. An understanding of language change actuation at the idiolectal level requires an understanding of () how individual speaker-listeners’ different past linguistic experiences and physical, perceptual, cognitive, and social makeups affect the way they process and analyze the primary learning data and () how these factors lead to divergent representations and grammars across speakers-listeners. Population-level incrementation and propagation of linguistic innovation depend not only on the nature of contact between speakers with unique idiolects but also on individuals who have the wherewithal to take advantage of the linguistic innovations they encountered to achieve particular ideological projects at any given moment. Because of the vast number of contingencies that need to be aligned properly, the incrementation and propagation of linguistic innovation are predicted to be rare. Agent-based modeling promises to provide a controlled way to investigate the stochastic nature of language change propagation, but a comprehensive model of linguistic change actuation at the individual level remains elusive.

Keyword(s): actuation, agent-based modeling, cognitive processing style, incrementation, individual differences, propagation, sound change
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-101336
2023-01-17
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/9/1/annurev-linguistics-031120-101336.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-101336&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Babel M. 2012. Evidence for phonetic and social selectivity in spontaneous phonetic imitation. J. Phonet. 40:1177–89
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker A, Archangeli D, Mielke J. 2011. Variability in American English s-retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem. Lang. Var. Change 23:3347–74
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bang H-Y, Sonderegger M, Kang Y, Clayards M, Yoon T-J. 2011. The emergence, progress, and impact of sound change in progress in Seoul Korean: implications for mechanisms of tonogenesis. J. Phonet. 66:120–44
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beddor PS. 2009. A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language 85:4785–832
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Beddor PS, Coetzee A, Styler W, McGowan K, Boland J. 2018. The time course of individuals' perception of coarticulatory information is linked to their production: implications for sound change. Language 94:931–68
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bermúdez-Otero R. 2020. The initiation and incrementation of sound change: community-oriented momentum-sensitive learning. Glossa J. Gen. Linguist. 5:1121
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Blevins J. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  8. Blevins J, Wedel A. 2009. Inhibited sound change: an evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica 26:143–83
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bloomfield L. 1933. Language New York: H. Holt & Co.
  10. Carignan C, Coretta S, Frahm J, Harrington J, Hoole P et al. 2021. Planting the seed for sound change: evidence from real-time MRI of velum kinematics in German. Language 97:2333–64
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chodroff E, Wilson C 2018. Predictability of stop consonant phonetics across talkers: between-category and within-category dependencies among cues for place and voice. Linguist. Vanguard 4:S220170047
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Clayards M. 2018a. Differences in cue weights for speech perception are correlated for individuals within and across contrasts. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 144:EL172
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Clayards M. 2018b. Individual talker and token variability in multiple cues to stop voicing. Phonetica 75:11–23
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Coetzee AW, Beddor PS, Shedden K, Styler W, Wissing D. 2018. Plosive voicing in Afrikaans: differential cue weighting and sound change. J. Phonet. 66:185–216
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cohn A. 1993. Nasalization in English: phonology or phonetics. Phonology 10:143–81
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dediu D, Moisik SR. 2019. Pushes and pulls from below: anatomical variation, articulation and sound change. Glossa J. Gen. Linguist. 4:17
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dmitrieva O, Llanos F, Shultz AA, Francis AL. 2015. Phonological status, not voice onset time, determines the acoustic realization of onset f0 as a secondary voicing cue in Spanish and English. J. Phonet. 49:177–95
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dodsworth R. 2019. Bipartite network structures and individual differences in sound change. Glossa J. Gen. Linguist. 4:161
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dodsworth R, Benton RA. 2020. Language Variation and Change in Social Networks: A Bipartite Approach London: Routledge
  20. Eckert P. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  21. Eckert P. 2019. The individual in the semiotic landscape. Glossa J. Gen. Linguist. 4:114
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Escudero P, Boersma P. 2004. Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 26:551–85
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Francis AL, Ciocca V, Wong VK, Chan JK. 2006. Is fundamental frequency a cue to aspiration in initial stops?. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120:52884–95
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Francis AL, Kaganovich N, Discoll-Huber C. 2008. Cue-specific effects of categorization training on the relative weighting of acoustic cues to consonant voicing in English. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124:21234–51
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gal S, Irvine JT. 2019. Signs of Difference: Language and Ideology in Social Life Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  26. Ganong WF. 1980. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 6:110–25
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Garrett A, Johnson K 2013. Phonetic biases in sound change. Origins of Sound Change: Approaches to Phonologization ACL Yu 51–97 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Halle M, Stevens K. 1971. A note on laryngeal features. MIT Res. Lab. Electron. Q. Prog. Rep. 101:198–213
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hanson HM. 2009. Effects of obstruent consonants on fundamental frequency at vowel onset in English. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125:1425–41
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Harrington J, Kleber F, Reubold U. 2008. Compensation for coarticulation, /u/-fronting, and sound change in standard southern British: an acoustic and perceptual study. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123:52825–35
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Harrington J, Kleber F, Reubold U, Schiel F, Stevens M. 2018. Linking cognitive and social aspects of sound change using agent-based modeling. Top. Cogn. Sci. 10:4707–28
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Harrington J, Schiel F. 2017. /u/-fronting and agent-based modeling: the relationship between the origin and spread of sound change. Language 93:2414–45
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Haugen E. 1966. Dialect, language, nation. Am. Anthropol. 68:4922–35
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hombert J-M, Ohala JJ, Ewan WG. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55:137–58
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hyman L 1976. Phonologization. Linguistic Studies Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg A Juilland 407–18 Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Idemaru K, Holt LL, Seltman H. 2012. Individual differences in cue weight are stable across time: the case of Japanese stop lengths. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132:63950–64
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Kang Y. 2014. Voice Onset Time merger and development of tonal contrast in Seoul Korean stops: a corpus study. J. Phonet. 45:176–90
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kapnoula EC, Winn MB, Kong EJ, Edwards J, McMurray B. 2017. Evaluating the sources and functions of gradiency in phoneme categorization: an individual differences approach. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 43:1594–611
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kapnoula EE. 2016. Individual differences in speech perception: sources, functions, and consequences of phoneme categorization gradiency PhD Thesis, Univ. Iowa Iowa City:
  40. Keyser SJ, Stevens KN 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language 82:33–63
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kingston J 2007. Segmental influences on F0: automatic or controlled?. Tones and Tunes, Vol. 2: Experimental Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody C Gussenhoven, T Riad 171–201 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyte
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kingston J, Diehl RL. 1994. Phonetic knowledge. Language 70:3419–54
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kirby JP 2013. The role of probabilistic enhancement in phonologization. Origins of Sound Change: Approaches to Phonologization ACL Yu 228–46 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kirby JP. 2014. Incipient tonogenesis in Phnom Penh Khmer: computational studies. Lab. Phonol. 5:195–230
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kirby JP. 2018. Onset pitch perturbations and the cross-linguistic implementation of voicing: evidence from tonal and non-tonal languages. J. Phonet. 71:326–54
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Kirby JP, Ladd DR. 2016. Effects of obstruent voicing on vowel F0: evidence from “true voicing” languages. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 140:2400–11
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kirby JP, Sonderegger M. 2015. Bias and population dynamics in the actuation of sound change. arXiV:1507.04420 [cs.CL]
  48. Klatt DH 1986. The problem of variability in speech recognition and in models of speech perception. Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes JS Perkell, DH Klatt 300–19 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kong EJ, Edwards J. 2016. Individual differences in categorical perception of speech: cue weighting and executive function. J. Phonet. 59:140–57
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Labov W. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 1: Internal Factors Oxford, UK: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Labov W. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2: Social Factors Malden, MA: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Labov W. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83:2344–87
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Labov W, Ash S, Ravindranath M, Weldon T, Nagy N 2011. Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor. J. Sociolinguist. 15:4431–63
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ladefoged P. 1967. Three Areas of Experimental Phonetics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  55. Lehet M, Holt LL. 2017. Dimension-based statistical learning affects both speech perception and production. Cogn. Sci. 41:S4885–912
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Levon E 2014. Categories, stereotypes, and the linguistic perception of sexuality. Lang. Soc. 43:539–66
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Li FF. 2013. The effect of speakers' sex on voice onset time in Mandarin stops. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133:142–47
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Lindblom B, Guion S, Hura S, Moon S-J, Willerman R. 1995. Is sound change adaptive?. Riv. Linguist. 7:5–36
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Löfqvist A, Baer T, McGarr NS, Story RS. 1989. The cricothryoid muscle in voicing control. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85:1314–21
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Lundeborg I, Larsson M, Wiman S, McAllister AM. 2012. Voice onset time in Swedish children and adults. Logop. Phoniatr. Vocology 37:3117–22
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Maegaard M, Pharao N 2021. Features, meanings, and indexical fields. Social Meaning and Linguistic Variation: Theorizing the Third Wave L Hall-Lew, E Moore, R Podesva 203–21 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Massaro DW, Cohen MM. 1983. Phonological constraints in speech perception. Percept. Psychophys. 34:338–48
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Mielke J, Baker A, Archangeli D. 2016. Individual-level contact limits phonological complexity: evidence from bunched and retroflex //. Language 92:1101–40
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Milroy L. 1980. Language and Social Networks Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  65. Milroy L. 2002. Off the shelf or under the counter? On the social dynamics of sound changes. Studies in the History of the English Language, Vol. III: Managing Chaos: Strategies for Identifying Change in English CM Cain, G Russom 149–72 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Munson B, McDonald EC, DeBoe NL, White AR. 2006. The acoustic and perceptual bases of judgments of women and men's sexual orientation from read speech. J. Phonet. 34:2202–40
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Nielsen K. 2011. Specificity and abstractness of VOT imitation. J. Phonet. 39:2132–42
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Oh E. 2011. Effects of speaker gender on voice onset time in Korean stops. J. Phonet. 39:59–67
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Ohala JJ. 1973. Explanations for the intrinsic pitch of vowels Mon. Intern. Memo., Phonol. Lab., Univ. Calif. Berkeley:
  70. Ohala JJ. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior178–203 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Ohala JJ 1993. The phonetics of sound change. Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives C Jones 237–78 London: Longman
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Ohala JJ 1994. The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice pitch. Sound Symbolism L Hinton, J Nichols, JJ Ohala 325–47 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Ohala M, Ohala JJ. 1991. Reply to commentators.. Phonetica 48:271–74
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Ou J, Yu ACL. 2021. Neural correlates of individual differences in speech categorization: evidence from subcortical, cortical, and behavioral measures. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 37:3269–84
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Ou J, Yu ACL, Xiang M. 2021. Individual differences in categorization gradience as predicted by online processing of phonetic cues during spoken word recognition: evidence from eye movements. Cogn. Sci. 45:3e12948
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Paul H. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle, Ger: M. Niemayer
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Peng J-F, Mei Chen L, Lee C-C 2014. Voice onset time of initial stops in Mandarin and Hakka: effect of gender. Taiwan J. Linguist. 21:163–80
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Peterson GE, Barney HL. 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 24:175–84
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Pharao N, Maegaard M, Møller J, Kristiansen T 2014. Indexical meanings of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: social perception of a phonetic variant in different linguistic contexts. Lang. Soc. 43:11–31
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Phillips J, Resnick P. 2019. Masculine toughness and the categorical perception of onset sibilant clusters. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 145:EL574
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Pinget A-F. 2015. The Actuation of Sound Change Utrecht, Neth: LOT
  82. Podesva RJ, Hofwegen JV 2016. /s/exuality in small-town California: gender normativity and the acoustic realization of /s/. Language, Sexuality, and Power: Studies in Intersectional Linguistics E Levon, RB Mendes 16–88 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Ramsammy M 2018. The phonology-phonetics interface in constraint-based grammar: gradience, variability, and phonological change. The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory S Hannahs, ARK Bosch Abingdon, UK: Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675428
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Reddy BMS, Kumar NM, Sreedevi N. 2013. Voice onset time across gender and different vowel contexts in Telugu. Lang. India 14:12252–63
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Sachs J, Lieberman P, Erickson D. 1973. Anatomical and cultural determinants of male and female speech. Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects RW Shuy, RW Fasold 74–84 Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Schertz J, Cho T, Lotto A, Warner N 2015. Individual differences in phonetic cue use in production and perception of a non-native sound contrast. J. Phonet. 52:183–204
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Shultz AA, Francis AL, Llanos F. 2012. Differential cue weighting in perception and production of consonanat voicing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132:EL95
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Smith BJ, Mielke J, Magloughlin L, Wilbanks E. 2019. Sound change and coarticulatory variability involving English //. Glossa J. Gen. Linguist. 4:163
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Solé M-J 2007. Controlled and mechanical properties in speech: a review of the literature. Experimental Approaches to Phonology M-J Solé, PS Beddor, M Ohala 302–21 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Sóskuthy M. 2015. Understanding change through stability: a computational study of sound change actuation. Lingua 163:40–60
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Stanford JN, Kenny LA. 2013. Revisiting transmission and diffusion: an agent-based model of vowel chain shifts across large communities. Lang. Var. Change 25:2119–53
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Stevens M, Harrington J. 2014. The individual and the actuation of sound change. Loquens 1:1e003
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Stevens M, Harrington J. 2016. The phonetic origins of /s/-retraction: acoustic and perceptual evidence from Australian English. J. Phonet. 58:118–34
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Stevens M, Harrington J, Schiel F. 2019. Associating the origin and spread of sound change using agent-based modelling applied to /s/-retraction in English. Glossa J. Gen. Linguist. 4:18
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Svantesson J-O, House D. 2006. Tone production, tone perception and Kammu tonogenesis. Phonology 23:309–33
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Vorperian HK, Wang S, Schimek EM, Durtschi RB, Kent RD et al. 2011. Developmental sexual dimorphism of the oral and pharyngeal portions of the vocal tract: an imaging study. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 54:995–1010
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Wade L, Lai W, Tamminga M. 2021. The reliability of individual differences in VOT imitation. Lang. Speech 64:3576–93
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Walkden G 2017. The actuation problem. The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax A Ledgeway, I Roberts 403–24 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Weinreich U, Labov W, Herzog M 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for Historical Linguistics W Lehmann, Y Malkiel 95–188 Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Whiteside SP, Marshall J. 2001. Developmental trends in voice onset time: some evidence for sex differences. Phonetica 58:196–210
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Yu ACL. 2010. Perceptual compensation is correlated with individuals' “autistic” traits: implications for models of sound change. PLOS ONE 5:8e11950
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Yu ACL 2013. Individual differences in socio-cognitive processing and the actuation of sound change. Origins of Sound Change: Approaches to Phonologization ACL Yu 201–27 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Yu ACL. 2021. Toward an individual difference perspective on phonologization. Glossa J. Gen. Linguist. 6:114
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Yu ACL. 2022. Perceptual cue weighting is influenced by the listener's gender and subjective evaluations of the speaker: the case of English stop voicing. Front. Psychol. Lang. Sci. 13:840291
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Yu ACL, Abrego-Collier C, Sonderegger M. 2013. Phonetic imitation from an individual-difference perspective: subjective attitude, personality, and “autistic” traits. PLOS ONE 8:9e74746
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Zhang X, Holt LL. 2018. Simultaneous tracking of coevolving distributional regularities in speech. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 44:111760–79
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-101336
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error