Variability in American English s-retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem

By Adam Baker, Diana Archangeli, Jeff Mielke. Language Variation and Change, 2011

111 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Individual-level contact limits phonological complexity: Evidence from bunched and retroflex /ɹ/ (2016, background): “For more conventional phonological patterns like the cases of /l/ allophony that we reported, the original koineization-like events would likely have occurred at the inception of sound change, which is notoriously difficult to observe (Weinreich et al. 1968, Janda & Joseph 2003b, Baker et al. 2011).”
Amphichronic Explanation and the Life Cycle of Phonological Processes (2015, background): “Baker et al. (2011) propose a somewhat similar account of stabilization in which outlying tokens also play a key role, but their model additionally emphasizes sociolinguistic heterogeneity within the speech community.”
Contextualizing /s/ retraction: Sibilant variation and change in Washington D.C. African American Language (2021, background): “Finally, Baker et al. (2011) identified that the “nonretractors” in their data have =stɹ= COGs at 48.6% of the distance between their =s= and =ʃ= categories; all speakers here exceed this benchmark, meaning that all of the CORAAL:DCB speakers show a greater degree of retraction than the…”