Frequency effects in the production of Dutch deverbal adjectives and inflected verbs

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 26, Issue 4-6, 2011, Pages 683-715

  Bien, Heidrun ^a   Baayen, R Harald ^b   Levelt, Willem J M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Form level; Frequencies; Morphology; Production

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PHONEME; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 79957567753     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.511475     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ayala, J., & Martin, N. (2002). Decompositional effects in the production of compound words in aphasia. Brain and Language, 83, 81-83.
2. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412.
4. Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. F., & Schreuder, R. (2006).Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 496-512.
5. Baayen, R. H., Levelt, W. J. M., Schreuder, R., & Ernestus, M. (2008). Paradigmatic structure in speech production. Chicago Linguistics Society, 43(1), 1-29.
6. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM), Linguistic data consortium. University of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, Release 2.
7. Baayen, R. H., Tweedie, F. J., & Schreuder, R. (2002). The subjects as a simple random effect fallacy: Subject variability and morphological family effects in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language, 81, 55-65.
8. Balling, L., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from Danish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1159-1190.
9. Bates, D. M. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News, 5, 27-30.
10. Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2009). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 0.999375-32. Available from http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4
11. Bien, H., Levelt, W. J. M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Frequency effects in compound production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(49), 17876-1788.
12. Booij, G. E. (2002). The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Burani, C., & Caramazza, A. (1987). Representation and processing of derived words. Language & Cognitive Processes, 2, 217-227.
14. Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production: Vol. 2. Development, writing and other language processes (pp. 257-294). London: Academic Press.
15. Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: Reduction of don't in English. Linguistics, 37, 575-596.
16. Caramazza, A., & Miozzo, M. (1998). More is not always better. A response to Roelofs, Meyer, & Levelt. Cognition, 69, 231-241.
17. Cholin, J., Levelt, W. J. M., & Schiller, N. O. (2006). Effects of syllable frequency in speech production. Cognition, 99, 205-235.
18. Cholin, J., Schiller, N. O., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). The preparation of syllables in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 47-61.
19. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance 6. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.
21. Dohmes, P., Zwitserlood, P., & Bölte, J. (2004). The impact of semantic transparency of morphologically complex words on picture naming. Brain and Language, 90, 203-212.
22. Greenberg, J. H., & Jenkins, J. J. (1964). Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word, 20, 157-177.
23. Gumnior, H., Bölte, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2006). A chatterbox is a box: Morphology in German word production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 920-944.
24. Janssen, N., Bi, Y., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A tale of two frequencies: Determining the speed of lexical access in Mandarin Chinese and English compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7), 1191-1223.
25. Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 20, 824-843.
26. Jescheniak, J. D., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Specific word frequency is not all that counts in speech production. Reply to Caramazza et al. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 29, 432-438.
27. Kemps, R., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory and Cognition, 33, 430-446.
28. Kemps, R., Wurm, L., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: Comparatives and agent nouns in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 43-73.
29. Kessler, B., Treiman, R., & Mullennix, J. (2002). Phonetic biases in voice key response time measurements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 145-171.
30. Koester, D., Gunter, T. C., Wagner, S., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Morphosyntax, prosody, and linking elements: The auditory processing of German nominal compounds. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1647-1668.
31. Koester, D., & Schiller, N. O. (2008). Morphological priming in overt language production: Electrophysiological evidence from Dutch. NeuroImage, 42, 1622-1630.
32. Krott, A., Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (2001). Analogy in morphology: Modelling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics, 39(1), 51-93.
33. Kuperman, V., Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2006). Morphological predictability and acoustic salience of interfixes in Dutch compounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 2018-2024.
34. Laudanna, A., & Burani, C. (1985). Address mechanisms to decomposed lexical entries. Linguistics, 23, 775-792.
35. Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(23), 13464-13513.
36. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1-38.
37. Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear & Hearing, 19, 1-36.
38. Marslen-Wilson, W. (1990). Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing (pp. 148-172). Cambridge: MIT Press.
39. Melinger, A. (2003). Morphological structure in the lexical representation of prefixed words: Evidence from speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 335-362.
40. Meyer, A. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding of successive syllables of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 524-545.
41. Meyer, A. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding inside a syllable. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 69-89.
42. Meyer, A. S., Roelofs, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Word length effects in object naming: The role of a response criterion. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 131-147.
43. Mondini, S., Luzzatti, C., Saletta, P., Allamano, N., & Semenza, C. (2005). Mental representation of prepositional compounds: Evidence from Italian agrammatic patients. Brain and Language, 94, 178-187.
44. Moscoso delPrado Martín, F., Kostic, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94, 1-18.
45. Oldfield, R. C., & Wingfield, A. (1965). Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273-281.
46. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS, Statistics and Computing Series. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
47. Roelofs, A. (1996). Morpheme frequency in speech production: Testing WEAVER. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 135-154). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
48. Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249-284.
49. Roelofs, A., & Baayen, H. (2002). Morphology by itself in planning the production of spoken words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 132-138.
50. Scarborough, R. A. (2004, February 14-17). Degree of coarticulation and lexical confusability. Proceedings of the 29th meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2003, Berkeley, CA.
51. Schiller, N. O., Fikkert, P., & Levelt, C. C. (2004). Stress priming in picture naming: An SOA study. Brain and Language, 90, 231-240.
52. Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118-139.
53. Seva ld, C. A., & Dell, G. S. (1994). The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition, 3, 91-127.
54. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423.
55. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
56. Stemberger, J., & MacWhinney, B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition, 14, 17-26.
57. Tabak, W., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Producing inflected verbs: A picture naming study. The Mental Lexicon, 5(1), 22-46.
58. Van Son, R. J. J. H., & Pols, L. C. W. (2003). How efficient is speech? Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences, 25, 171-184.
59. Van Son, R. J. J. H., & Van Santen, J. P. H. (2005). Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: A case for efficient communication. Speech Communication, 47, 100-123.
60. Vitevitch, M. S. (2002). The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 735-747.
61. Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language & Cognitive Processes, 21, 760-770.
62. Zwitserlood, P., Bölte, J., & Dohmes, P. (2000). Morphological effects on speech production: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 563-591.