Book contents
- Complex Words
- Complex Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Advances in Morphology
- Part I Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
- Part II Structure of Complex Words
- Part III Corpus-Based Case Studies
- 13 Competition between Synthetic NN Compounds and NN.gen Phrasal Nouns in Polish
- 14 An S Is an ’S, or Is It? Plural and Genitive Plural Are Not Homophonous
- 15 The Role of Word-Formation Families and Subfamilies in the Organization of German Diminutive Compounds
- 16 Semantic Patterns in Noun-to-Verb Conversion in English
- 17 Onomatopoeia
- 18 Dingsbums and Thingy
- Index
- References
14 - An S Is an ’S, or Is It? Plural and Genitive Plural Are Not Homophonous
from Part III - Corpus-Based Case Studies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020
Book contents
- Complex Words
- Complex Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction: Advances in Morphology
- Part I Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
- Part II Structure of Complex Words
- Part III Corpus-Based Case Studies
- 13 Competition between Synthetic NN Compounds and NN.gen Phrasal Nouns in Polish
- 14 An S Is an ’S, or Is It? Plural and Genitive Plural Are Not Homophonous
- 15 The Role of Word-Formation Families and Subfamilies in the Organization of German Diminutive Compounds
- 16 Semantic Patterns in Noun-to-Verb Conversion in English
- 17 Onomatopoeia
- 18 Dingsbums and Thingy
- Index
- References
Summary
Recent research on the acoustic properties of S-final words in English has revealed unexpected effects of morphology on phonetic realization, especially on acoustic duration (Zimmermann 2016, Plag et al. 2017, Seyfarth et al. 2017, Tomaschek et al. 2019). In this paper, we investigate 462 plural tokens and 417 genitive-plural tokens elicited in a production experiment. The statistical analyses show that plural S is significantly shorter than genitive-plural S. The duration effect is, however, not restricted to the final S, but extends over the whole word. We find that word-form frequency is predictive of duration, resulting in shorter durations for (the more frequent) plurals, and longer durations for (the less frequent) genitive plurals.The empirical findings also have implications for morphological theory. Word-form frequency effects for regularly inflected words in speech production are at odds with theories in which only morphologically irregular words, or highly frequent regular words, are assumed to be stored (e.g. Pinker 1999, Alegre & Gordon 1999). The word-form frequency effect can be more naturally accounted for in word-and-paradigm models of morphology (e.g. Matthews 1974, Blevins 2016), in which individual word-forms may have representations in a network of morphologically related forms.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Complex WordsAdvances in Morphology, pp. 260 - 292Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Alegre, M. and Gordon, P. (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y., Shafaei-Bajestan, E. and Blevins, J. P. (2019). The discriminative lexicon: a unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de)composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity, 1, 1–39.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. and Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, K. (2009). MuMIn: Multi-model inference. Software package. http://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/mumin.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. and Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C. and Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 92–111. https://doi.org10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003.Google Scholar
Ben Hedia, S. (2019). Gemination and Degemination in English Affixation: Investigating the Interplay between Morphology, Phonology and Phonetics, Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ben Hedia, S. and Plag, I. (2017). Gemination and degemination in English prefixation: phonetic evidence for morphological organization. Journal of Phonetics, 62, 34–49.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2018). Stratal phonology. In Hannahs, S. J. and Bosch, A., eds., Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory, London, UK: Routledge, pp. 100–134.Google Scholar
Blazej, L. J. and Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2015). Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 50–68.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Computer program. Version 6.0.14. www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P. and Cox, D. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 26, 211–252.Google Scholar
Brewer, J. (2008). Phonetic Reflexes of Orthographic Characteristics in Lexical Representation, PhD dissertation, Tucson: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Caselli, N. K., Caselli, M. K. and Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2016). Inflected words in production: Evidence for a morphologically rich lexicon. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 432–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, C. (2014). Probabilistic reduction and probabilistic enhancement. Morphology, 24(4), 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, C. (2015). Context and paradigms: two patterns of probabilistic pronunciation variation in Russian agreement suffixes. The Mental Lexicon, 10(3), 313–338.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2013). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (full text on CD): 440 million words, 1990–2012. www.corpusdata.org/.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.Google Scholar
Engemann, U. M., Plag, I. and Zimmermann, J. (2019). Morphological boundaries and stem duration in English: replicating experimental results with corpus data. Poster presented at 12th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 27–30 June 2019, Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Gahl, S. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: the effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2006). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, M., Baker, H. R., Murphy, A. and Baese-Berk, M. (2011). Interaction and representational integration: evidence from speech errors. Cognition, 121(1), 58–72. https://doi.org10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.006.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M. and Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. L. and Hopper, P. J., eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemps, R., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R. and Baayen, R. H. (2005). Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: the case of Dutch noun plurals. Memory and Cognition, 33(3), 430–446.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I.-S., ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL, 3-91, Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kisler, T., Reichel, U. and Schiel, F. (2017). Multilingual processing of speech via web services. Computer Speech & Language, 45, 326–347.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59(5), 1208–1221.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. and Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee-Kim, S.-I., Davidson, L. and Hwang, S. (2013). Morphological effects on the darkness of English intervocalic /l/. Laboratory Phonology, 4(2), 475–511. https://doi.org10.1515/lp-2013-0015.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A. and Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Lohmann, A. (2018). Time and thyme are not homophones: a closer look at Gahl’s work on the lemma-frequency effect, including a reanalysis. Language, 94(2), e180–e190.Google Scholar
Lohmann, A. and Conwell, E. (2020). Phonetic effects of grammatical category: how category-specific prosody and token frequency impact the acoustic realization of nouns and verbs. Journal of Phonetics, 78, 100939. doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.100939.Google Scholar
Lõo, K., Järvikivi, J., Tomaschek, F., Tucker, B. V. and Baayen, R. H. (2018). Production of Estonian case-inflected nouns shows whole-word frequency and paradigmatic effects. Morphology, 28(1), 71–97.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word Structure, London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H. and Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F., Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002). Inflectional morphology and related matters. In Huddleston, R. D. and Pullum, G. K., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1565–1619.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E. and Fosler-Lussier, E. (2007). Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech, 2nd release, Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (1998). Morphological haplology in a constraint-based morpho-phonology. In Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R., eds., Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages, Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 199–215.Google Scholar
Plag, I. and Ben Hedia, S. (2018). The phonetics of newly derived words: testing the effect of morphological segmentability on affix duration. In Arndt-Lappe, S., Braun, A., Moulin, C. and Winter-Froemel, E., eds., Expanding the Lexicon: Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity, and Ludicity (The Dynamics of Wordplay v.5), Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 93–116. www.anglistik.hhu.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Fakultaeten/Philosophische_Fakultaet/FG_2373/Publikationen/3_VAR/BenHedia/Plag___Ben_Hedia_2018.pdf.Google Scholar
Plag, I., Homann, J. and Kunter, G. (2017). Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics, 53(1), 181–216.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Rose, D. (2017). Predicting Plurality: An Examination of the Effects of Morphological Predictability on the Learning and Realization of Bound Morphemes, PhD dissertation, Christchurch: University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Russel, K. (1997). Optimality theory and morphology. In Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, D. T., eds., Optimality Theory: An Overview, Malden, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 102–133.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S., Garellek, M., Gillingham, G., Ackerman, F. and Malouf, R. (2018). Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(1), 32–49.Google Scholar
Smith, R., Baker, R. and Hawkins, S. (2012). Phonetic detail that distinguishes prefixed from pseudo-prefixed words. Journal of Phonetics, 40(5), 689–705.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. (1993). Looking into words. In Hargus, S. and Kaisse, E. M., eds., Studies in Lexical Phonology, San Diego: San Diego Academic Press, pp. 173–195.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. and Fujimura, O. (1993). Allophonic variation in English/l/and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics, 21(3), 291–311.Google Scholar
Sugahara, M. and Turk, A. (2004). Phonetic reflexes of morphological boundaries at a normal speech rate. In Bel, B. and Marlien, I., eds., Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 2004, 353–356.Google Scholar
Sugahara, M. and Turk, A. (2009). Durational correlates of English sublexical constituent structure. Phonology, 26(3), 477–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Hendrix, P. and Baayen, R. H. (2018). Strategies for addressing collinearity in multivariate linguistic data. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 249–267.Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Plag, I., Ernestus, M. and Baayen, R. H. (2019). Modeling the duration of word-final S in English with naive discriminative learning. Journal of Linguistics, 1–39. doi:10.1017/S0022226719000203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Tucker, B. and Baayen, R. H. (submitted). How is anticipatory coarticulation of suffixes affected by linguistic proficiency?Google Scholar
Turk, A. and Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2014). Timing in talking: what is it used for, and how is it controlled? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1658), 1–13.Google Scholar
Van Borsel, J. and De Maesschalck, D. (2008). Speech rate in males, females, and male-to-female transsexuals. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 22(9), 679–685.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N. and Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus, 4th ed., New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Wightman, C. W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M. and Price, P. J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91(3), 1707–1717.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, J. (2016). Morphological status and acoustic realization: findings from New Zealand English. In Carignan, C. and Tyler, M. D., eds., Proceedings of the 16th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, Sydney: University of Western Sydney, pp. 6–9.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, J., Rose, D., Bürkle, D. and Watson, K. (2017). The role of predictability and sub-phonemic detail in speech perception: English has-clitic [s] vs. plural [s]. Paper presented at Old World Conference on Phonology 2017, 20–22 February 2017, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1975). Settling on an underlying form: the English inflectional endings. In Cohen, D. and Wirth, J. R., eds., Testing Linguistic Hypotheses, New York: Wiley, pp. 129–185.Google Scholar