(2019) analysed durational differences between types of S by means of an implementation of naïve discriminative learning ( Ramscar and Yarlett, 2007 Ramscar et al., 2010 Baayen et al., 2011). Other accounts, e.g., standard feed-forward theories of morphology-phonology interaction (e.g., Chomsky and Halle, 1968 Kiparsky, 1982) or prosodic phonology (e.g., Booij, 1983 Selkirk, 1996 Goad, 1998, 2002), do not offer a satisfying explanation for such durational differences, either. Traditional models of speech production come with the assumption of having no morphological information in phonetic processing ( Levelt et al., 1999 Roelofs and Ferreira, 2019 Turk and Shattuck-Hufnagel, 2020), thus rendering an explanation on the basis of differing morphological categories improbable. Most importantly, none of the aforementioned studies on the matter of word-final S was able to explain found differences on a theoretical level. (2020) on word-final S in pseudowords confirmed the pattern of durational differences found previously only in corpus studies. That is, only recently a study by Schmitz et al. However, their results are mostly not as clear as those by previous corpus studies. Experimental studies ( Walsh and Parker, 1983 Hsieh et al., 1999 Seyfarth et al., 2017 Plag et al., 2020) confirm durational differences between different types of S. Corpus studies ( Zimmermann, 2016 Plag et al., 2017) found that non-morphemic word-final S shows longest acoustic durations, followed by suffixes, which in turn are followed by clitics. Such effects were shown for seemingly homophonous lexemes ( Gahl, 2008 Drager, 2011), for free and bound variants of stems ( Kemps et al., 2005a, b), and for prefixes ( Ben Hedia and Plag, 2017 Ben Hedia, 2019).įor the level of individual segments, a number of studies have shown that the acoustic realisation of word-final /s/ and /z/ (henceforth S) in English depends on its morphological status and category. Many studies on the acoustic properties of phonologically homophonous elements have shown unexpected effects of their morphological structure on their phonetic realisation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |