Individuele verschillen in de fonologisering van taalverandering

References

1. Baker, A., D.Archangeli & J.Mielke (2011). Variability in American English sretraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem. Language Variation and Change23, 347-374.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Beddor, P.S. (2015). The relation between language users’ perception and production repertoires. In: The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (red.). Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVIII). Glasgow: University of Glasgow.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Beddor, P.S., A.W.Coetzee, W.Styler, K.B.McGowan & J.E.Boland (2018). The time course of individuals’ perception of coarticulatory information is linked to their production: Implications for sound change. Language94, 931-968.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2007). Diachronic phonology. In: P.de Lacy (red.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 497-517.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2015). Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In: P.Honeybone & J.Salmons (red.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 374-399.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Berns, J. & H.Jacobs (2012). A first glance at the role of length in production and perception of diphthongs before Dutch coda l. Linguistics in the Netherlands29, 15-26.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Boersma, P. (2011). A programme for bidirectional phonology and phonetics and their acquisition and evolution. Bidirectional Optimality Theory180, 33-72.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Boersma, P. & D.Weenink (2016). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (versie 6.0.21). http://www.praat.org/
9. Booij, G. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Botma, B., K.Sebregts & D.Smakman (2012). The phonetics and phonology of Dutch mid vowels before /l/. Laboratory Phonology3, 273-297.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Fruehwald, J. (2013). The phonological influence on phonetic change. Proefschrift University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Gussenhoven, C. (1993). The Dutch foot and the chanted call. Journal of Linguistics29, 37-63.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Hamann, S. (2009). The learner of a perception grammar as a source of sound change. In: P.Boersma & S.Hamann (red.), Phonology in perception. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 111-149.
    [Google Scholar]
14. van der Harst, S. (1996). The vowel space paradox: A sociophonetic study on Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Heeringa, W. & H.Van de Velde (2018). Visible Vowels: a tool for the visualization of vowel variation. In: I.Skadina & M.Eskevich (red.), Proceedings of the CLARIN Annual Conference 2018, 8-10 October 2018, Pisa, Italy. Pisa: CLARINERIC, 124-127.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Hyman, L.M. (1976). Phonologization. In: A.Juilland (red.). Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Saratoga: Anima Libri, 407-418.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Hyman, L.M. (2013). Enlarging the scope of phonologization. In: A.C.L.Yu (red.). Origins of sound change: approaches to phonologization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3-28.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Lo, S. & S.Andrews (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology6, 1171.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Nesbitt, M. (2023). Phonological emergence and social reorganization: Developing a nasal /æ/ system in Lansing, Michigan. Language Variation and Change35, 273-297.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Ohala, J.J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In: C.S.Masek, R.A.Hendrick & M.F.Miller (red.), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 17: Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 178-203.
    [Google Scholar]
21. van Oostendorp, M. (2000). Phonological projection: A theory of feature content and prosodic structure. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Pinget, A.C.H. (2015). The actuation of sound change. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
23. ScruccaL., M.Fop, T.B.Murphy & A.E.Raftery (2016) mclust 5: clustering, classification and density estimation using Gaussian finite mixture models. The R Journal8(1), 289-317.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Stevens, M. & J.Harrington (2014). The individual and the actuation of sound change. Loquens1(1), e003.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Stroop, J.P.A. (1998). Poldernederlands: Waardoor het ABN verdwijnt. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
    [Google Scholar]
26. van der Torre, E.J. (2003). Dutch sonorants: The role of place of articulation in phonotactics. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Van de Velde, H. (1996). Variatie en verandering in het gesproken Standaard-Nederlands. Proefschrift Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Van de Velde, H., A.C.H.Pinget, C.Voeten & D.Demolin (2021). Laboratory Sociolinguistics: a new approach to language variation. In K.Franco, S.De Pascale, L.Rosseel, G.Kristiansen & W.Zhang (red.), Cognitive sociolinguistics revisited. Berlin:. De Gruyter, 557-571.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Vavrek, M.J. (2011). fossil: palaeoecological and palaeogeographical analysis tools. Palaeontologia Electronica14, 1T. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/238/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
30. Voeten, C.C. (2020). The adoption of sound change: Synchronic and diachronic processing of regional variation in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Voeten, C.C. (2021a). How long is ‘a long term’ for sound change? The effect of duration of immersion on the adoption of ongoing sound change. Language Dynamics and Change12(1), 28-77.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Voeten, C.C. (2021b). Individual differences in the adoption of sound change. Language and Speech64(3), 705-741.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Watt, D.J.L. (2000). Phonetic parallels between the close-mid vowels of Tyneside English: Are they internally or externally motivated?Language Variation and Change12, 69-101.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Weinreich, U., W.Labov & M.Herzog (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Wood, S.N. (2017). Generalized additive models: An introduction with R (2nd edition). New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Young, S., G.Evermann, M.Gales, T.Hain, D.Kershaw, X.Liu, G.Moore, J.Odell, D.Ollason, D.Povey, V.Valtchev & P.Woodland (2002). The HTK book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Engineering Department.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Yu, A.C.L. (2010). Perceptual compensation is correlated with individuals’ “autistic” traits: Implications for models of sound change. PloS One5, e11950.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Yu, A.C.L. (2013). Individual differences in socio-cognitive processing and the actuation of sound change. In: A.C.L.Yu (red.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 201-227.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Zonneveld, W. & M.Trommelen (1980). Egg, onion, ouch! On the representation of Dutch diphthongs. In: W.Zonneveld, F.van Coetsem & O.W.Robinson (red.). Studies in Dutch Phonology. ’s Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 265-292.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Zwaardemaker, H. & L.P.H.Eijkman (1924). Leerboek der phonetiek: Inzonderheid met betrekking tot het Standaard-Nederlands. Haarlem: De erven F. Bohn.
    [Google Scholar]