Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch plural nouns

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 430-446

  Kemps, Rachèl J J K ^a,c   Ernestus, Mirjam ^a   Schreuder, Robert ^b   Baayen, R Harald ^a,b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; PHONETICS; RECOGNITION; SPEECH; SPEECH ARTICULATION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VERBAL MEMORY; NETHERLANDS; SEMANTICS;

CUES; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; NETHERLANDS; PHONETICS; SEMANTICS; SPEECH; VOCABULARY;

EID: 26944463534     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193061     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. ALEGRE, M., & GORDON, P. (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory & Language, 40, 41-61.
2. ARONOFF, M. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. BAAYEN, R. H., BURANI, C., & SCHREUDER, R. (1997). Effects of semantic markedness in the processing of regular nominal singulars and plurals in Italian. In G. E. Booij & J. v. Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 13-34). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. BAAYEN, R. H., DIJKSTRA, T., & SCHREUDER, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 94-117.
5. BAAYEN, R. H., MCQUEEN, J., DIJKSTRA, T., & SCHREUDER, R. (2003). Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In R. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure In language processing (pp. 355-390). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
6. BAAYEN, R. H., PIEPENBROCK, R., & VAN RIJN, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
7. BAAYEN, R. H., SCHREUDER, R., DE JONG, N. H., & KROTT, A. (2002). Dutch inflection: The rules that prove the exception. In S. Nooteboom, F. Weerman, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Storage and computation in the language faculty (pp. 61-92). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
8. BERTRAM, R., LAINE, M., BAAYEN, R.-H., SCHREUDER, R., & HYÖNÄ, J. (1999). Affixal homonymy triggers full-form storage even with inflected words, even in a morphologically rich language. Cognition, 74, B13-B25.
9. BOERSMA, P., & WEENINK, D. J. M. (1996). PRAAT: A system for doing phonetics by computer, Version 3.4 (Rep. 132). Amsterdam: Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam. Available at http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.
10. BOOIJ, G. E. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, Clarendon Press.
11. BYBEE, J. L. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. CAMBIER-LANGEVELD, T. (2000). Temporal marking of accents and boundaries. Amsterdam: LOT.
13. DAVIS, M. H., MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D., & GASKELL, M. G. (2002). Leading up the lexical garden-path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 218-244.
14. DRESSLER, W. U., MAYERTHALER, W., PANAGL, O., & WURZEL, W. U. (1987). Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
15. FOWLER, C. A. (1977). Timing control in speech production. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
16. GOLDINGER, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.
17. JOHNSON, K. (1997). The auditory/perceptual basis for speech segmentation. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 50, 101-113.
18. LAHIRI, A., & MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245-294.
19. LEHISTE, I. (1972). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. LINDBLOM, B., & RAPP, K. (1973). Some temporal regularities of spoken Swedish. PILUS (Papers from the Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm), 21, 1-59.
21. LORCH, R. F., & MYERS, J. L. (1990). Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 149-157.
22. MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D. (1990). Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 148-172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. MARSLEN-WILSON, W. D., MOSS, H. E., & VAN HALEN, S. (19%). Perceptual distance and competition in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 1376-1392.
24. MCCARTHY, J. J., & PRINCE, A. (1993). Generalized alignment. In G. E. Booij & J. v. Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 79-154). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
25. MCCLELLAND, J. L., & ELMAN, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
26. MUNHALL, K., FOWLER, C., HAWKINS, S., & SALTZMAN, E. (1992). "Compensatory shortening" in monosyllables of spoken English. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 225-239.
27. NOOTEBOOM, S. G. (1972). Production and perception of vowel duration: A study of the durational properties of vowels in Dutch. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.
28. NORRIS, D. G. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234.
29. PIERREHUMBERT, J. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology VII (pp. 101-140). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
30. PINHEIRO, J. C., & BATES, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS: Statistics and computing. New York: Springer-Verlag.
31. PISONI, D. B., & LUCE, P. A. (1987). Acoustic-phonetic representation in word recognition. Cognition, 25, 21-52.
32. RAAIJMAKERS, J. G. W., SCHRIJNEMAKERS, J. M. C., & GREMMEN, F. (1999). How to deal with "the language-as-fixed- effect-fallacy": Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory & Language, 41, 416-426.
33. SALVERDA, A., DAHAN, D., & MCQUEEN, J. (2003). The role of prosodic boundaries in the resolution of lexical embedding in speech comprehension. Cognition, 90, 51-89.
34. SCHREUDER, R., DE JONG, N. H., KROTT, A., & BAAYEN, R. H. (1999). Rules and rote: Beyond the linguistic either-or fallacy. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 1038-1039.
35. SERENO, J., & JONGMAN, A. (1997). Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition, 25, 425-437.
36. WAALS, J. (1999). An experimental view of the Dutch syllable. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.