Gemination And Degemination In English Affixation

In English, phonological double consonants only occur across morphological boundaries, for example, in affixation (e.g. in unnatural, innumerous). There are two possibilities for the phonetic realization of these morphological geminates: Either the phonological double is realized with a longer duration than a phonological singleton (gemination), or it is of the same duration as a singleton consonant (degemination). The present book provides the first large-scale empirical study on the gemination with the five English affixes un-, locative in-, negative in-, dis- and -ly. Using corpus and experimental data, the predictions of various approaches to the morpho-phonological and the morpho-phonetic interface are tested. By finding out which approach can account best for the gemination pattern of English affixed words, important implications about the interplay between morphology, phonology and phonetics are drawn.

In English, phonological double consonants only occur across morphological boundaries, for example, in affixation (e.g. in unnatural, innumerous). There are two possibilities for the phonetic realization of these morphological geminates: Either the phonological double is realized with a longer duration than a phonological singleton (gemination), or it is of the same duration as a singleton consonant (degemination). The present book provides the first large-scale empirical study on the gemination with the five English affixes un-, locative in-, negative in-, dis- and -ly. Using corpus and experimental data, the predictions of various approaches to the morpho-phonological and the morpho-phonetic interface are tested. By finding out which approach can account best for the gemination pattern of English affixed words, important implications about the interplay between morphology, phonology and phonetics are drawn.

In English, phonological double consonants only occur across morphological boundaries, for example, in affixation (e.g. in unnatural, innumerous). There are two possibilities for the phonetic realization of these morphological geminates: Either the phonological double is realized with a longer duration than a phonological singleton (gemination), or it is of the same duration as a singleton consonant (degemination). This work was published by Saint Philip Street Press pursuant to a Creative Commons license permitting commercial use. All rights not granted by the work's license are retained by the author or authors.

Preferences form a central concept of human categorization. They play an important role in disciplines ranging from psychology to economics and philosophy, from evolutionary biology to artificial intelligence, and, notably for this volume, in linguistics. This volume provides both theoretical and empirical contributions from linguistics to this interdisciplinary field of research.

Effects of morphological structure on phonetic detail present us with two challenges. The empirical challenge is that some predictors have produced inconsistent effects. The theoretical challenge is that it is unclear where morpho-phonetic effects originate from. Do speakers decompose words into morphemes? Or can such effects also originate from non-decompositional structure? This book investigates the durational properties of English derived words in four large-scale corpus studies. In the decompositional perspective, durations are modeled as a function of frequency and segmentability, prosodic structure, and affix informativeness. In the non-decompositional perspective, durations are modeled with predictors derived from linear discriminative learning networks. Results show that the decompositional predictors are far less reliable than previously thought. Meanwhile, some non-decompositional predictors model durations successfully. Discriminative learning is shown to be a promising alternative for modeling speech production. However, the book also demonstrates that many investigated predictors are conceptually interrelated. It ultimately cautions against taking the metaphors we use to describe these predictors as final explanations.

The complexities of speech production, perception, and comprehension are enormous. Theoretical approaches of these complexities most recently face the challenge of accounting for findings on subphonemic differences. The aim of the present dissertation is to establish a robust foundation of findings on such subphonemic differences. One rather popular case for differences in subphonemic detail is word-final /s/ and /z/ in English (henceforth S) as it constitutes a number of morphological functions. Using word-final S, three general issues are investigated. First, are there subphonemic durational differences between different types of word-final S? If there are such differences, how can they be accounted for? Second, can such subphonemic durational differences be perceived? Third, do such subphonemic durational differences influence the comprehension of S? These questions are investigated by five highly controlled studies: a production task, an implementation of Linear Discriminative Learning, a same-different task, and two number-decision tasks. Using not only real words but also pseudowords as target items, potentially confounding effects of lexical storage are controlled for. Concerning the first issue, the results show that there are indeed durational differences between different types of word-final S. Non-morphemic S is longest in duration, clitic S is shortest in duration, and plural S duration is in-between non-morphemic S and clitic S durations. It appears that the durational differences are connected to a word’s semantic activation diversity and its phonological certainty. Regarding the second issue, subphonemic durational differences in word-final S can be perceived, with higher levels of perceptibility for differences of 35 ms and higher. In regard to the third issue, subphonemic durational differences are found not to influence the speed of comprehension, but show a significant effect on the process of comprehension. The overall results give raise to a revision of various extant models of speech production, perception, and comprehension.

What happens phonetically in the production of stems in words such as days and daze? Do inflectional stems differ phonetically from monomorphemic words? Can these differences be perceived? This volume aims to answer these questions in a replication project by investigating data from two corpora and a production experiment, as well as by extending this research with two perception experiments. It investigates what happens phonetically in the stems of words that end in homophonous suffixes, and whether listeners can perceive these subtle phonetic differences. Two potential effects were termed; categorical paradigm uniformity, in which stems of words ending in [s, z] are expected to have longer durations if these words are morphologically complex (e.g. days is longer than daze), as well as gradient paradigm uniformity, in which the frequency of related words is expected to have an influence on paradigm members (e.g. day influences days). Findings from these studies contribute to a growing body of research in the field of morphophonetics.

Drawing on innovative research, the book reveals the wealth and breadth of the study of word-formation, both theoretically and empirically.

The creation of new lexical units and patterns has been studied in different research frameworks, focusing on either system-internal or system-external aspects, from which no comprehensive view has emerged. The volume aims to fill this gap by studying dynamic processes in the lexicon – understood in a wide sense as not being necessarily limited to the word level – by bringing together approaches directed to morphological productivity as well as approaches analyzing general types of lexical innovation and the role of discourse-related factors. The papers deal with ongoing changes as well as with historical processes of change in different languages and reflect on patterns and specific subtypes of lexical innovation as well as on their external conditions and the speakers’ motivations for innovating. Moreover, the diffusion and conventionalization of innovations will be addressed. In this way, the volume contributes to understanding the complex interplay of structural, cognitive and functional factors in the lexicon as a highly dynamic domain.