1887
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Recent work on the acoustic properties of complex words has found that morphological information may influence the phonetic properties of words, e.g. acoustic duration. Paradigm uniformity has been proposed as one mechanism that may cause such effects. In a recent experimental study Seyfarth et al. (2017) found that the stems of English inflected words (e.g. ) have a longer duration than the same string of segments in a homophonous mono-morphemic word (e.g. ), due to the co-activation of the longer articulatory gesture of the bare stem (e.g. ). However, not all effects predicted by paradigm uniformity were found in that study, and the role of frequency-related phonetic reduction remained inconclusive. The present paper tries to replicate the effect using conversational speech data from a different variety of English (i.e. New Zealand English), using the QuakeBox Corpus (Walsh et al. 2013). In the presence of word-form frequency as a predictor, stems of plurals were not found to be significantly longer than the corresponding strings of comparable non-complex words. The analysis revealed, however, a frequency-induced gradient paradigm uniformity effect: plural stems become shorter with increasing frequency of the bare stem.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20023.eng
2021-10-08
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, R. Harald
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. Harald, W. Levelt, Robert Schreuder & Mirjam Ernestus
    (2007) Paradigmatic structure in speech production. InProceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago linguistic society, vol.43, 1–29. Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R. Harald & Elnaz Shafaei-Bajestan
    (2019) languageR: Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=languageR (20April 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barton, Kamil
    (2009) MuMIn: multi-model inference. r-forge.r-project.org/projects/mumin/
  5. Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag
    (2015) The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bell, Alan, Jason M. Brenier, Michelle Gregory, Cynthia Girand & Dan Jurafsky
    (2009) Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language60(1). 92–111. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bell, Alan, Daniel Jurafsky, Eric Fosler-Lussier, Cynthia Girand, Michelle Gregory & Daniel Gildea
    (2003) Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Acoustical Society of America113(2). 1001–1024. 10.1121/1.1534836
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1534836 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bell, Melanie J., Sonia Ben Hedia & Ingo Plag
    (2019) How morphological structure affects phonetic realization in English compound nouns. 10.1007/s11525‑020‑09346‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-020-09346-6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ben Hedia, Sonia
    (2019) Gemination and degemination in English affixation: Investigating the interplay between morphology, phonology and phonetics. Studies in Laboratory Phonology. doi:  10.5281/zenodo.3232849 (30September 2019).
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3232849 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ben Hedia, Sonia & Ingo Plag
    (2017) Gemination and degemination in English prefixation: Phonetic evidence for morphological organization. Journal of Phonetics62. 34–49. doi:  10.1016/j.wocn.2017.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bethin, Christina Y.
    (2012) On paradigm uniformity and contrast in Russian vowel reduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory30(2). 425–463. 10.1007/s11049‑012‑9166‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9166-4 [Google Scholar]
  12. Blazej, Laura J. & Ariel M. Cohen-Goldberg
    (2015) Can We Hear Morphological Complexity Before Words Are Complex?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance41(1). 50–68. doi:  10.1037/a0038509
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038509 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
    (2015) Praat: doing Phonetics by Computer. (Version 6.0.08). www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bonami, Olivier, Gilles Boyé, Matthew Baerman, Oliver Bond & Andrew Hippisley
    (2019) Paradigm uniformity and the French gender system. Perspectives on morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, to appear.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Braver, Aaron
    (2014) Imperceptible incomplete neutralization: Production, non-identifiability, and non-discriminability in American English flapping. Lingua152. 24–44. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Burzio, Luigi
    (1998) Multiple correspondence. Lingua. Elsevier104(1–2). 79–109. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(97)00025‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00025-9 [Google Scholar]
  17. Byrd, D., J. Krivokapic & S. Lee
    (2006) How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. Journal Of The Acoustical Society Of America120(3). 1589–1599. doi:  10.1121/1.2217135
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2217135 [Google Scholar]
  18. Byrd, Dani
    (1994) Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Communication15(1–2). 39–54. doi:  10.1016/0167‑6393(94)90039‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(94)90039-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Caselli, Naomi K., Michael K. Caselli & Ariel M. Cohen-Goldberg
    (2016) Inflected words in production: Evidence for a morphologically rich lexicon. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology69(3). 432–454. 10.1080/17470218.2015.1054847
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1054847 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cohen, Clara
    (2014) Probabilistic reduction and probabilistic enhancement. Morphology24(4). 291–323. doi:  10.1007/s11525‑014‑9243‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-014-9243-y [Google Scholar]
  21. Dell, Gary S.
    (1986) A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological review. American Psychological Association93(3). 283. 10.1037/0033‑295X.93.3.283
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283 [Google Scholar]
  22. Eddington, David
    (2006) Paradigm uniformity and analogy: The capitalistic versus militaristic debate. International Journal of English Studies6(2). 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Engemann, U. Marie & Ingo Plag
    (2020) Paradigm uniformity effects in spontaneous speech. submitted to The Mental Lexicon.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Engemann, U. Marie, Ingo Plag & Julia Zimmermann
    (2019) Paradigmatic effects in speech production: Do bare stems influence the pronunciation of suffixed forms?InMoProc 2019 – International Morphological Processing Conference. Tübingen, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ernestus, Mirjam & Harald Baayen
    (2007) Paradigmatic effects in auditory word recognition: The case of alternating voice in Dutch. Language and Cognitive Processes. Routledge22(1). 1–24. doi:  10.1080/01690960500268303
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500268303 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ernestus, Mirjam & R. Harald Baayen
    (2006) The functionality of incomplete neutralization in Dutch: The case of past-tense formation. (Ed.) L. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen & C. T. Best. LabPhon8. 27–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fougeron, C. & P. A. Keating
    (1997) Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America101(6). 3728–3740. 10.1121/1.418332
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418332 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg
    (2011) Multivariate linear models in R. An R Companion to Applied Regression. Los Angeles: Thousand Oaks.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Frazier, Melissa
    (2006) Output-output faithfulness to moraic structure: Evidence from American English. InPROCEEDINGS-NELS, vol.36, 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fromont, Robert & Jennifer Hay
    (2012) LaBB-CAT: an Annotation Store. InProceedings of Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop, 113–117. Australasian Language Technology Associatio. labbcat.sourceforge.net/ (6May 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gafos, Adamantios I.
    (2006) Dynamics in grammar: Comment on Ladd and Ernestus & Baayen* Adamantios I. Gafos. Laboratory phonology8(4). 51.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gafos, Adamantios I. & Angela Ralli
    (2002) Morphosyntactic features and paradigmatic uniformity in two dialectal varieties of the island of Lesvos. Journal of Greek linguistics2(1). 41–73. 10.1075/jgl.2.03gaf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jgl.2.03gaf [Google Scholar]
  33. Gahl, Susanne
    (2008) “Time” and “thyme” are not homophones: the effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language84(3). 474–496. 10.1353/lan.0.0035
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0035 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gahl, Susanne, Yao Yao & Keith Johnson
    (2012) Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language66(4). 806. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldrick, Matthew
    (2006) Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsychological evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes. Routledge21(7–8). 817–855. doi:  10.1080/01690960600824112
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960600824112 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2014) Phonological processing: The retrieval and encoding of word form information in speech production. InThe Oxford handbook of language production, 228–244. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldrick, Matthew & Sheila E. Blumstein
    (2006) Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters. Language and Cognitive Processes. Taylor & Francis21(6). 649–683. 10.1080/01690960500181332
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500181332 [Google Scholar]
  38. Goldrick, Matthew, H. Ross Baker, Amanda Murphy & Melissa Baese-Berk
    (2011) Interaction and representational integration: Evidence from speech errors. Cognition121(1). 58–72. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  39. Green, Christopher R.
    (2009) Paradigm uniformity in Luwanga derived nouns. In6th World Congress on African Linguistics, Cologne, Germany. August, 17–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hay, Jennifer
    (2003) Causes and Consequences of Word Structure (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2007) The phonetics of ‘un.’ Lexical creativity, texts and contexts39–57. 10.1075/sfsl.58.09hay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.58.09hay [Google Scholar]
  42. Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik, Carolin Strobl & Achim Zeileis
    (2020) party: A Laboratory for Recursive Partytioning. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=party (20April 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Jurafsky, Daniel, Alan Bell, Michelle Gregory & William D. Raymond
    (2001) Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. InFrequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language, Vol. 45), 229–254. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/tsl.45.13jur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.13jur [Google Scholar]
  44. Kemps, Rachel J. J. K., Mirjam Ernestus, Robert Schreuder & R. Harald Baayen
    (2005) Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: the case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory & Cognition33(3). 430. 10.3758/BF03193061
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193061 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kenstowicz, Michael & Hyang-Sook Sohn
    (2008) Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast: Korean liquid verb stems. Phonological Studies11. 99–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kiparsky, Paul
    (2015) Stratal OT: A Synopsis and FAQs. InCapturing phonological shades within and across languages, 2–44. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Klatt, Dennis H.
    (1976) Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America59(5). 1208–1221. doi:  10.1121/1.380986
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.380986 [Google Scholar]
  48. Labov, William
    (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Laks, Lior, Evan-Gary Cohen & Stav Azulay-Amar
    (2016) Paradigm uniformity and the locus of derivation: The case of vowel epenthesis in Hebrew verbs. Lingua170. 1–22. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lee-Kim, Sang-Im, Lisa Davidson & Sangjin Hwang
    (2013) Morphological effects on the darkness of English intervocalic /l/. Laboratory Phonology4(2). 475–511. doi:  10.1515/lp‑2013‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2013-0015 [Google Scholar]
  51. Levelt, Willem J. M., Ardi Roelofs & Antje S. Mayer
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences22(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27269195_A_theory_of_lexical_access_in_speech_production. 10.1017/S0140525X99001776
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99001776 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lohmann, Arne
    (2017) Phonological properties of word classes and directionality in conversion. Word Structure. Edinburgh University Press The Tun-Holyrood Road, 12 (2f) Jackson’s Entry …10(2). 204–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. (2018) Cut (n) and cut (v) are not homophones: Lemma frequency affects the duration of noun–verb conversion pairs. Journal of Linguistics54(4). 753–777. doi:  10.1017/S0022226717000378
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226717000378 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lõo, Kaidi, Juhani Järvikivi, Fabian Tomaschek, Benjamin V. Tucker & R. Harald Baayen
    (2018) Production of Estonian case-inflected nouns shows whole-word frequency and paradigmatic effects. Morphology28(1). 71–97. doi:  10.1007/s11525‑017‑9318‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-017-9318-7 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mackenzie, Sara, Erin Olson, Meghan Clayards & Michael Wagner
    (2018) North American/l/both darkens and lightens depending on morphological constituency and segmental context. Laboratory Phonology. Ubiquity Press9(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Marian, Viorica
    (2012) CLEARPOND: Cross-Linguistic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities. United States, North America: Public Library of Science (PLoS).
    [Google Scholar]
  57. McMillan, Corey T., Martin Corley & Robin J. Lickley
    (2009) Articulatory evidence for feedback and competition in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes. Routledge24(1). 44–66. doi:  10.1080/01690960801998236
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801998236 [Google Scholar]
  58. Park, Sunwoo
    (2006) Paradigm uniformity effects in Korean phonology. PhD dissertation, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Peterson, R. R. & P. Savoy
    (1998) Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Plag, Ingo & Sonia Ben Hedia
    (2018) The phonetics of newly derived words: Testing the effect of morphological segmentability on affix duration.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Plag, Ingo, U. Marie Engemann & Gero Kunter
    (2018a) The effect of morphological boundaries on stem vowel duration in English. In40. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. (2018b) The effect of morphological boundaries on stem vowel duration in English. InLabPhon 16 – Variation, development and impairment: Between phonetics and phonology. Lisbon: Association for Laboratory Phonology.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Plag, Ingo, Julia Homann & Gero Kunter
    (2017) Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics53(1). 181–216. 10.1017/S0022226715000183
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226715000183 [Google Scholar]
  64. Plag, Ingo, Arne Lohmann, Sonia Ben Hedia & Julia Zimmermann
    (2020a) An <s> is an <s’>, or is it? Plural and genitive-plural are not homophonous. InTo appear in Livia Körtvélyessy & Pavel Stekauer (eds.) Complex Words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108780643.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108780643.015 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2020b) What is the difference between _boys_ and_boys’_? The phonetics of plural vs. genitive-plural in English and its implications for morphological theory. In19th International Morphology Meeting. Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pluymaekers, Mark, Mirjam Ernestus & R. Harald Baayen
    (2005a) Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica. Karger Publishers62(2–4). 146–159. 10.1159/000090095
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000090095 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2005b) Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America118(4). 2561–2569. 10.1121/1.2011150
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2011150 [Google Scholar]
  68. Pluymaekers, Mark, Mirjam Ernestus, R. Harald Baayen & Geert Booij
    (2010) Morphological effects on fine phonetic detail: The case of Dutch-igheid. (Ed.) C. Fougeron, B. Kühnert, M. D’Imperio & N. Vallée. Laboratory phonology10. 511–531.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (Version 3.2.1). Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Raffelsiefen, Renate
    (2004) Paradigm Uniformity Effects Versus Boundary Effects. InParadigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267712.001.0001/acprof-9780199267712-chapter-9 (10April 2019) 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267712.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267712.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ramig, Lorraine A. & Ringel, Robert L.
    (1983) Effects of Physiological Aging on Selected Acoustic Characteristics of Voice. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association26(1). 22–30. doi:  10.1044/jshr.2601.22
    https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2601.22 [Google Scholar]
  72. Rapp, B. & M. Goldrick
    (2000) Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological review. 10.1037/0033‑295X.107.3.460
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.460 [Google Scholar]
  73. Rebrus, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
    (2005) Uniformity and contrast in the Hungarian verbal paradigm. na.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Riehl, Anastasia K.
    (2003) American English flapping: Perceptual and acoustic evidence against paradigm uniformity with phonetic features. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory15(271–337).
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Roettger, T. B.
    (2014) Assessing incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German. Journal of Phonetics43. 11. 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  76. Roettger, Timo B., Bodo Winter, S. Grawunder, J. Kirby & M. Grice
    (2014) Assessing incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German. Journal of Phonetics43. 11–25. doi:  10.1016/j.wocn.2014.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  77. Schmitz, Dominic, Ingo Plag & Dinah Baer-Henney
    (2020) How real are acoustic differences between different types of final /s/ in English? Evidence from pseudowords. In19th International Morphology Meeting. Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Seyfarth, Scott, Marc Garellek, Gwendolyn Gillingham, Farrell Ackerman & Robert Malouf
    (2017) Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience33(1). 32–49. 10.1080/23273798.2017.1359634
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1359634 [Google Scholar]
  79. Seyfarth, Scott, Jozina Vander Klok & Marc Garellek
    (2019) Evidence against interactive effects on articulation in Javanese verb paradigms. Psychonomic bulletin & review1–7. 10.3758/s13423‑019‑01637‑2
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01637-2 [Google Scholar]
  80. Skoog Waller, Sara, Mårten Eriksson & Patrik Sörqvist
    (2015) Can you hear my age? Influences of speech rate and speech spontaneity on estimation of speaker age. Frontiers in Psychology. Frontiers 6. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00978. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00978/full (22April 2020).
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00978 [Google Scholar]
  81. Sproat, Richard & Osamu Fujimura
    (1993) Allophonic variation in English/l/and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of phonetics21(3). 291–311. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)31340‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31340-3 [Google Scholar]
  82. Steriade, Donca
    (2000) Paradigm Uniformity and the Phonetics-Phonology Boundary. (Ed.) EditedMichael Broe & Janet Pierrehumbert. Papers in Laboratory Phonology5.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Tabain, Marija
    (2003) Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: articulatory results. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America113(5). 2834–2849. 10.1121/1.1564013
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1564013 [Google Scholar]
  84. Tomaschek, Fabian, Peter Hendrix & R. Harald Baayen
    (2018) Strategies for addressing collinearity in multivariate linguistic data. Journal of Phonetics71. 249–267. doi:  10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  85. Tomaschek, Fabian, Ingo Plag, Mirjam Ernestus & R. Harald Baayen
    (2019) Modeling the duration of word-final S in English with Naive Discriminative Learning. submitted to Journal of Linguistics. 10.31234/osf.io/4bmwg
    https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4bmwg [Google Scholar]
  86. Torreira, Francisco & Mirjam Ernestus
    (2009) Probabilistic effects on French [t] duration. In10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2009), 448–451. Causal Productions Pty Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Tucker, Benjamin V. & Mirjam Ernestus
    (2016) Why we need to investigate casual speech to truly understand language production, processing and the mental lexicon. The mental lexicon. John Benjamins11(3). 375–400. 10.1075/ml.11.3.03tuc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.3.03tuc [Google Scholar]
  88. Van Oostendorp, Marc
    (2008) Incomplete devoicing in formal phonology. Lingua. Elsevier118(9). 1362–1374. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  89. Walsh, Liam, Jen Hay, Derek Bent, Jeanette King, Paul Millar, Viktoria Papp & Kevin Watson
    (2013) The UC QuakeBox Project: Creation of a community-focused research archive. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/15635 (20November 2018).
  90. Wightman, Colin W., Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, Mari Ostendorf & Patti J. Price
    (1992) Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America91(3). 1707–1717. doi:  10.1121/1.402450
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.402450 [Google Scholar]
  91. Winter, Bodo & Timo B. Roettger
    (2011) The nature of incomplete neutralization in German: Implications for laboratory phonology. Grazer Linguistische Studien76. 55–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Zee, Tim
    (2019) Morphological effects on the acoustics of Dutch /s/. In15. Phonetik und Phonologie Tagung. Düsseldorf, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Zimmermann, Julia
    (2016) Morphological Status and Acoustic Realization: Findings from NZE. InC. Carignan & M. D. Tyler (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 6–9. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Zuraw, Kie & Sharon Peperkamp
    (2015) Aspiration and the gradient structure of English prefixed words. InICPhS.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20023.eng
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20023.eng
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): acoustic duration; articulation; morphology; paradigm uniformity; phonetic reduction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error