Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 201–227 | Cite as

Morphological embedding and phonetic reduction: the case of triconstituent compounds

  • Gero KunterEmail author
  • Ingo Plag
Article

Abstract

In this paper we propose that the internal bracketing of a word with more than two morphemes is reflected in the phonetic implementation. We hypothesize that embedded forms show more phonetic reduction than forms at higher structural levels (‘Embedded Reduction Hypothesis’). This paper tests the prediction of the Embedded Reduction Hypothesis with triconstituent compounds. The analysis of the durational properties of almost 500 compound tokens shows that there is a lengthening effect on the non-embedded constituent, and a shortening effect on the adjacent embedded constituent. Yet, this predicted effect of embedding interacts with other lexical factors, above all the bigram frequency of the embedded compound. At a theoretical level, these effects mean that the durational properties of the cross-boundary constituents are indicative of the hierarchical structure and of the strength of the internal boundary of triconstituent compounds. Hence, morphological structure is reflected in the speech signal.

Keywords

English Compound Embedding Reduction Duration 

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effect modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. London: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2013). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 5.3.41). Computer program. Retrieved 1 March 2013 from http://www.praat.org/.
  7. Bullon, S. (Ed.) (2002). Longman dictionary of American English. Your complete guide to American English. White Plains: Longman. Google Scholar
  8. Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byrd, D., Krivokapić, J., & Lee, S. (2006). How far, how long: on the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(3), 1589–1599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  11. Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 450 million words. 1990–present. http://www.americancorpus.org.
  12. Dressler, W. U. (1985). On the predictiveness of Natural Morphology. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 321–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ernestus, M., & Warner, N. (2011). An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 253–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farnetani, E., Torsello, C. T., & Cosi, P. (1988). English compound versus non-compound noun phrases in discourse: an acoustic and perceptual study. Language and Speech, 31(2), 157–180. Google Scholar
  15. Giegerich, H. (2009). The compound stress myth. Word Structure, 2, 1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanique, I., & Ernestus, M. (2012). The role of morphology in acoustic reduction. Lingue E Linguaggio, 2012(2), 147–164. Google Scholar
  17. Hanique, I., Ernestus, M., & Schuppler, B. (2013). Informal speech processes can be categorical in nature, even if they affect many different words. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(3), 1644–1655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hay, J. (2007). The phonetics of ‘un’. In J. Munat (Ed.), Lexical creativity, texts and contexts (pp. 39–57). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hay, J., & Plag, I. (2004). What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(3), 565–596. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hay, J. B. (2003). Causes and consequences of word structure. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  21. Hirschberg, J. (2002). Communication and prosody: functional aspects of prosody. Speech Communication, 36(1), 31–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hornby, A. S. (Ed.) (1983). Oxford student’s dictionary of American English. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic Relations between words: evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaisse, E. M., & Shaw, P. A. (1985). On the theory of Lexical Phonology. Phonology, 2(01), 1–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kemps, R. J. J. K., Wurm, L. H., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(1–2), 43–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations (pp. 131–176). Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  28. Klatt, D. H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: acoustic and perceptual evidence. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59(5), 1208–1221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klatt, D. H., & Cooper, W. E. (1975). Perception of segment duration in sentence contexts. In A. Cohen & S. G. Nooteboom (Eds.), Structure and process in speech perception (pp. 69–89). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kösling, K. (2013). Prominence assignment in English triconstituent compounds. PhD thesis, Universität Siegen, Siegen. Google Scholar
  31. Kösling, K., Kunter, G., Baayen, H. R., & Plag, I. (2013). Prominence in triconstituent compounds: pitch contours and linguistic theory. Language and Speech, 56(4), 529–554. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kösling, K., & Plag, I. (2009). Does branching direction determine prominence assignment? An empirical investigation of triconstituent compounds in English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(2), 201–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kunter, G. (2011). Compound stress in English—the phonetics and phonology of prosodic prominence. Linguistische Arbeiten: Vol. 539. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kunter, G. (2015). Coquery: A corpus query tool. http://www.coquery.org.
  35. Kunter, G., & Plag, I. (2007). What is compound stress? In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken (pp. 1005–1008). Google Scholar
  36. Lehiste, I. (1972). The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 2018–2024. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38. Google Scholar
  38. Liberman, M. Y., & Prince, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(2), 249–336. Google Scholar
  39. Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  40. Oller, D. K. (1973). The effect of position in utterance on speech segment duration in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54(5), 1235–1247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plag, I. (2006). The variability of compound stress in English: structural, semantic, and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics, 10(1), 143–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plag, I., & Baayen, H. (2009). Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language, 85(1), 109–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(4), 2561–2569. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2006). Effects of word frequency on the acoustic durations of affixes. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Spoken Language (INTERSPEECH 2006), Pittsburg, PA (pp. 953–956). Google Scholar
  45. Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., Baayen, R. H., & Booij, G. (2010). Morphological effects in fine phonetic detail: the case of Dutchigheid. In C. Fougeron (Ed.), Laboratory phonology 10, Phonology and phonetics (pp. 511–531). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  46. Shatzman, K. B., & McQueen, J. M. (2006). Segment duration as a cue to word boundaries in spoken-word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(1), 1–16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sluijter, A. M., & van Heuven, V. J. (1996). Acoustic correlates of linguistic stress and accent in Dutch and American English. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Philadelphia, PA, October 3–6 (Vol. 3, pp. 630–633). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, R., Baker, R., & Hawkins, S. (2012). Phonetic detail that distinguishes prefixed from pseudo-prefixed words. Journal of Phonetics, 40(5), 689–705. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sproat, R. (1993). Looking into words. In S. Hargus & E. M. Kaisse (Eds.), Studies in lexical phonology (pp. 173–195). San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  50. Sproat, R., & Fujimura, O. (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics, 21, 291–311. Google Scholar
  51. Summers, d. (Ed.) (2000). Longman advanced American dictionary. Harlow: Longman. Google Scholar
  52. Trask, L. (1996). A dictionary of phonetics and phonology. London: Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar
  53. Turk, A. E., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2000). Word-boundary-related duration patterns in English. Journal of Phonetics, 28(4), 397–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turk, A. E., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2007). Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics, 35(4), 445–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turk, A. E., & White, L. (1999). Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics, 27(2), 171–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White, L. (2014). Communicative function and prosodic form in speech timing. Speech Communication, 63–64, 38–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wightman, C. W., Shattuck Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M., & 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zirkel, L. (2010). Prefix combinations in English: structural and processing factors. Morphology, 20(1), 239–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.English Language and Linguistics Heinrich-Heine-Universität DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations