Abstract
This paper provides an introduction to the papers in this special issue on the sociophonetics of /s/. We begin by reviewing some of the principal findings on variation in the production and perception of /s/, summarizing studies in sociolinguistics, experimental phonetics, and laboratory phonology. We go on to identify similarities in the meanings associated with /s/ variation cross-linguistically, and briefly describe how theories of sound symbolism may help us to account for these patterns. We conclude this introductory article with a summary of the contributions to the special issue and a discussion of how together these articles help us to better understand that origin and trajectory of socially meaningful sociophonetic variation.
References
Behrens, Susan & Sheila Blumstein. 1988. Acoustic characteristics of English voiceless fricatives: A descriptive analysis. Journal of Phonetics 16. 295–298.10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30504-2Search in Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin. 2004. The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80. 290–311.10.1353/lan.2004.0056Search in Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Maurice. 1895. On assimilation and adaptation in congeneric classes of words. The American Journal of Philology 16. 409–434.10.2307/288280Search in Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn. 2011. Intersecting variables and perceived sexual orientation in men. American Speech 86. 52–78.10.1215/00031283-1277510Search in Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Search in Google Scholar
Diffloth, Gérard. 1994. i:big,a: small. In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 107–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511751806.008Search in Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 1996. Vowels and nail polish: The emergence of linguistic style in the preadolescent heterosexual marketplace. In Natasha Warner, Jocelyn Ahlers, Leela Bilmes, Monica Oliver, Suzanne Wertheim & Melinda Chen (eds.), Gender and belief systems: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Women and Language Conference, 183–190. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group.Search in Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2010. Affect, sound symbolism and variation. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 70–80.Search in Google Scholar
Fant, Gunnar. 1973. Speech sounds and features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Flipsen, Peter, Jr., Lawrence Shriberg, Gary Weismer, Heather Karlsson & Jane McSweeny. 1999. Acoustic characteristics of/s/in adolescents. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 42. 663–677.10.1044/jslhr.4203.663Search in Google Scholar
Forrest, Karen, Gary Weismer, Paul Milenkovic & Ronald Dougall. 1988. Statistical analysis of word-initial voiceless obstruents: Preliminary data. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84. 115–124.10.1121/1.396977Search in Google Scholar
Fuchs, Susanne & Martine Toda. 2010. Do differences in male versus female/s/reflect biological or sociophonetic factors? In Susanne Fuchs, Martine Toda & Marzena Zygis (eds.), Turbulent sounds: An interdisciplinary guide, 281–302. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226584.281Search in Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2002. Intonation and interpretation: Phonetics and phonology. In Bernard Bel & Isabelle Marlien (eds.), Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Speech Prosody, 47–57. Aix-en-Provence: ProSig & Université de Provence Laboratoire Parole et Langage.Search in Google Scholar
Haan, Judith. 2002. Speaking of questions: An exploration of Dutch question intonation. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Hamano, Shoko. 1994. Palatalization in Japanese sound symbolism. In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 148–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511751806.011Search in Google Scholar
Haynie, Hannah, Claire Bowern & Hannah LaPalombara. 2014. Sound symbolism in the languages of Australia. PlosONE 9. e92852.10.1371/journal.pone.0092852Search in Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols & John Ohala (eds.). 1994. Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511751806Search in Google Scholar
Hughes, George & Morris Halle. 1956. Spectral properties of fricative consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 28. 303–310.10.1121/1.1908271Search in Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Sound symbolic value of the vowel i. In Linguistica: Selected papers in English, French and German, 283–303. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1991. Differential effects of speaker and vowel variability on fricative perception. Language and Speech 34. 265–279.10.1177/002383099103400304Search in Google Scholar
Jongman, Allard, Ratree Wayland & Selena Wong. 2000. Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108. 1252–1263.10.1121/1.1288413Search in Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 1994. Modern Greek ts: Beyond sound symbolism. In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 222–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511751806.015Search in Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul & Ann Williams. 2000. Creating a new town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 29. 65–115.10.1017/S0047404500001020Search in Google Scholar
Levon, Erez. 2014. Categories, stereotypes and the linguistic perception of sexuality. Language in Society 43. 539–566.10.1017/S0047404514000554Search in Google Scholar
Linville, Sue Ellen 1998. Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men’s speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedcia. 50. 35–48.10.1159/000021447Search in Google Scholar
Munson, Benjamin, Elizabeth McDonald, Nancy DeBoe & Aubrey White. 2006. The acoustic and perceptual bases of judgements of women and men’s sexual orientation from read speech. Journal of Phonetics 34. 202–240.10.1016/j.wocn.2005.05.003Search in Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1933. Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. The American Journal of Psychology 45. 53–75.10.2307/1414186Search in Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1984. An ethological perspective on common cross–language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica 41. 1–16.10.1159/000261706Search in Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1994. The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice pitch. In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 325–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511751806.022Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Saunders. 1932. Collected papers, vol. 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, Gordon E. & Harold Barney. 1952. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24. 175–184.10.1121/1.1906875Search in Google Scholar
Pharao, Nicolai, Marie Maegaard, Janus Møller & Tore Kristiansen. 2014. Indexical meanings of [s+] among Copenhagen youth: Social perception of a phonetic variant in different linguistic contexts. Language in Society 43. 1–31.10.1017/S0047404513000857Search in Google Scholar
Schwartz, Martin. 1968. Identification of speaker sex from isolated, voiceless fricatives. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 43. 1178–1179.10.1121/1.1910954Search in Google Scholar
Shadle, Christine. 1990. Articulatory-acoustic relationships in fricative consonants. In William Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 187–209. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_8Search in Google Scholar
Shadle, Christine. 1991. The effect of geometry on source mechanisms of fricative consonants. Journal of Phonetics 19. 409–424.10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30332-8Search in Google Scholar
Shadle, Christine, Pierre Badin & André Moulinier. 1991. Towards the spectral characteristics of fricative consonants. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 3. 42–45.Search in Google Scholar
Shinohara, Kazuko & Shigeto Kawahara. 2012. A cross–linguistic study of sound symbolism: The images of size. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 36. 396–410.10.3765/bls.v36i1.3926Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1994. Relative motivation in denotational and indexical sound symbolism of Wasco–Wishram Chinookan. In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 40–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511751806.004Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23. 193–229.10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2Search in Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Strand, Elizabeth A. 1999. Uncovering the role of gender stereotypes in speech perception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18. 86–99.10.1177/0261927X99018001006Search in Google Scholar
Strevens, Peter. 1960. Spectra of fricative noise in human speech. Language and Speech 3. 32–49.10.1177/002383096000300105Search in Google Scholar
Stuart–Smith, Jane. 2007. Empirical evidence for gendered speech production:/s/in Glaswegian. In Jennifer Cole & José Ignacio Hualde (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 9, 65–86. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Patrick & Zachary Estes. 2011. Sound symbolic naming of novel objects is a graded function. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64. 2392–2404.10.1080/17470218.2011.605898Search in Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1978. Size–sound symbolism. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, Volume 2: Phonology, 525–556. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Winfred Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Woodworth, Nancy. 1991. Sound symbolism in proximal and distal forms. Linguistics 29. 273–300.10.1515/ling.1991.29.2.273Search in Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn. 2008. Why dat now?: Linguistic–anthropological contributions to the explanation of sociolinguistic icons and change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12. 432–452.10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00375.xSearch in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction: Tracing the origin of /s/ variation
- Variability in /s/ among transgender speakers: Evidence for a socially grounded account of gender and sibilants
- The development of gender-specific patterns in the production of voiceless sibilant fricatives in Mandarin Chinese
- The substance of style: Gender, social class and interactional stance in /s/-fronting in southeast England
- Implicit and explicit gender priming in English lingual sibilant fricative perception
- The embedded indexical value of /s/-fronting in Afrikaans and South African English
- On the influence of coronal sibilants and stops on the perception of social meanings in Copenhagen Danish
- Tracing the indexicalization of the notion “Helsinki s”
- Comment: The most perfect of signs: Iconicity in variation
- Publications received between 2 June 2016 and 1 June 2017
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Introduction: Tracing the origin of /s/ variation
- Variability in /s/ among transgender speakers: Evidence for a socially grounded account of gender and sibilants
- The development of gender-specific patterns in the production of voiceless sibilant fricatives in Mandarin Chinese
- The substance of style: Gender, social class and interactional stance in /s/-fronting in southeast England
- Implicit and explicit gender priming in English lingual sibilant fricative perception
- The embedded indexical value of /s/-fronting in Afrikaans and South African English
- On the influence of coronal sibilants and stops on the perception of social meanings in Copenhagen Danish
- Tracing the indexicalization of the notion “Helsinki s”
- Comment: The most perfect of signs: Iconicity in variation
- Publications received between 2 June 2016 and 1 June 2017