The phoneme s is being replaced by the voiceless postalveolar fricative in the US
the verdict
INSUFFICIENT LEANING
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says
Linguistic sources discuss /s/-retraction and sibilant variation in American English pointing toward some conditioned or partial phonetic shifts, but do not establish a general replacement of the phoneme s by the voiceless postalveolar fricative across the US.
Frontiers | Immediate Integration of Coarticulatory Cues for /s/-Retraction in American English
#### Psychology of Language
Published inFrontiers in Communication 1.6 impact factor3 citescore
Part of a Research TopicFuzzy Boundaries: Ambiguity in Speech Production and Comprehension57k views12 articles
## ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Commun., 24 May 2022
Sec. Psychology of Language
Volume 7 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.858520
# Immediate Integration of Coarticulatory Cues for /s/-Retraction in American English
- JBJacob B. Phillips *
Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States
Article metrics
View details
## Abstract
Coarticulatory “noise” has long been presumed to benefit the speaker at the expense of the listener. However, recent work has found that listeners make use of that variation in real time to aid speech processing, immediately integrating coarticulatory cues as soon as they become available. Yet sibilants, sounds notable for their high degree of context-dependent variability, have been presumed to be unavailable for immediate integration, requiring that listeners hold all cues in a buffer until all relevant
# About [s] being replaced by the voiceless postalveolar fricative in the US
Tags: phonetics, sound-change, sociophonetics
- Score: 5
- Views: 446
- Answers: 3
- Answered: yes
- Asked by: Duarte Alfonso Martin (365 rep)
- Asked: 2019-01-02
- Edited: 2019-01-03
- Site: linguistics
## Question
I'm recently listening this replacement a lot on youtube, it's as if the practice is on the rising. Is it? what conditions such occurrence? Where in the US is it happening? And how did it all begin?
## Answers
### Answer by brass tacks (score: 4)
Without specific examples, it's hard to say what exactly you're hearing.
Different languages (or accents) have different boundaries for what exactly counts as /s/ vs. /ʃ/, so it's possible that the speakers you are hearing do not really "replace" their /s/ with [ʃ], but just use a pronunciation that sounds more like [ʃ] to you.
But it's also possible that they really are using [ʃ] (possibly even /ʃ/) where a typical reference English accent would have /s/. It is known that English /s/ can have retracted pronunciations; I haven't personally read a lot of the literature about this topic, but there seems to be a decent amount (maybe some of the
Contextualizing /s/ retraction: Sibilant variation and change in Washington D.C. African American Language | Language Variation and Change | Cambridge Core
Search
---
Institution Login
Search
Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-jhf8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-13T14:28:25.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
- English
- Français
# Contextualizing /s/ retraction: Sibilant variation and change in Washington D.C. African American Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2022
Show author details
---
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: kgunter@uoregon.edu
---
Article contents
- Abstract
- References
Get access
Share
Cite Rights & Permissions
---
## Abstract
Recent work has demonstrated an ongoing change across varieties of English in which /s/ retracts before consonants, particularly before /tɹ/ clusters (e.g., Lawrence, 2000; Shapiro, 1995; Stuart-Smith et al., 2019). Much of this work has focused on the social and linguistic distributions of /stɹ/ within single communities, without an examination of the broader sibilant space (e.g., /s/ and /ʃ/). Meanwhile, analyses across multiple corpora have shown that /s/ and
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.