Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 16:1 (2021) ► pp.165198
Baayen, R. Harald
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, W. Levelt, Robert Schreuder & Mirjam Ernestus
(2007) Paradigmatic structure in speech production. In Proceedings from the annual meeting of the Chicago linguistic society, vol. 431, 1–29. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Elnaz Shafaei-Bajestan
(2019) languageR: Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics. [URL] (20 April 2020).
Barton, Kamil
(2009) MuMIn: multi-model inference. [URL]
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag
(2015) The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Jason M. Brenier, Michelle Gregory, Cynthia Girand & Dan Jurafsky
(2009) Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1). 92–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Alan, Daniel Jurafsky, Eric Fosler-Lussier, Cynthia Girand, Michelle Gregory & Daniel Gildea
(2003) Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Acoustical Society of America 113(2). 1001–1024. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, Melanie J., Sonia Ben Hedia & Ingo Plag
(2019) How morphological structure affects phonetic realization in English compound nouns. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ben Hedia, Sonia
(2019) Gemination and degemination in English affixation: Investigating the interplay between morphology, phonology and phonetics. Studies in Laboratory Phonology. DOI logo (30 September 2019).Google Scholar
Ben Hedia, Sonia & Ingo Plag
(2017) Gemination and degemination in English prefixation: Phonetic evidence for morphological organization. Journal of Phonetics 621. 34–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y.
(2012) On paradigm uniformity and contrast in Russian vowel reduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(2). 425–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blazej, Laura J. & Ariel M. Cohen-Goldberg
(2015) Can We Hear Morphological Complexity Before Words Are Complex? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41(1). 50–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
(2015) Praat: doing Phonetics by Computer. (Version 6.0.08). [URL]
Bonami, Olivier, Gilles Boyé, Matthew Baerman, Oliver Bond & Andrew Hippisley
(2019) Paradigm uniformity and the French gender system. Perspectives on morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Braver, Aaron
(2014) Imperceptible incomplete neutralization: Production, non-identifiability, and non-discriminability in American English flapping. Lingua 1521. 24–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
(1998) Multiple correspondence. Lingua. Elsevier 104(1–2). 79–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrd, D., J. Krivokapic & S. Lee
(2006) How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. Journal Of The Acoustical Society Of America 120(3). 1589–1599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrd, Dani
(1994) Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Communication 15(1–2). 39–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caselli, Naomi K., Michael K. Caselli & Ariel M. Cohen-Goldberg
(2016) Inflected words in production: Evidence for a morphologically rich lexicon. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(3). 432–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Clara
(2014) Probabilistic reduction and probabilistic enhancement. Morphology 24(4). 291–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary S.
(1986) A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological review. American Psychological Association 93(3). 283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, David
(2006) Paradigm uniformity and analogy: The capitalistic versus militaristic debate. International Journal of English Studies 6(2). 1–18.Google Scholar
Engemann, U. Marie & Ingo Plag
(2020) Paradigm uniformity effects in spontaneous speech. submitted to The Mental Lexicon.Google Scholar
Engemann, U. Marie, Ingo Plag & Julia Zimmermann
(2019) Paradigmatic effects in speech production: Do bare stems influence the pronunciation of suffixed forms? In MoProc 2019 – International Morphological Processing Conference. Tübingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Harald Baayen
(2007) Paradigmatic effects in auditory word recognition: The case of alternating voice in Dutch. Language and Cognitive Processes. Routledge 22(1). 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & R. Harald Baayen
(2006) The functionality of incomplete neutralization in Dutch: The case of past-tense formation. (Ed.) L. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen & C. T. Best. LabPhon 81. 27–49.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C. & P. A. Keating
(1997) Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(6). 3728–3740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg
(2011) Multivariate linear models in R. An R Companion to Applied Regression. Los Angeles: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Frazier, Melissa
(2006) Output-output faithfulness to moraic structure: Evidence from American English. In PROCEEDINGS-NELS, vol. 36, 1.Google Scholar
Fromont, Robert & Jennifer Hay
(2012) LaBB-CAT: an Annotation Store. In Proceedings of Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop, 113–117. Australasian Language Technology Associatio. [URL] (6 May 2019).
Gafos, Adamantios I.
(2006) Dynamics in grammar: Comment on Ladd and Ernestus & Baayen* Adamantios I. Gafos. Laboratory phonology 8(4). 51.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios I. & Angela Ralli
Gahl, Susanne
(2008) “Time” and “thyme” are not homophones: the effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84(3). 474–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanne, Yao Yao & Keith Johnson
(2012) Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 66(4). 806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew
(2006) Limited interaction in speech production: Chronometric, speech error, and neuropsychological evidence. Language and Cognitive Processes. Routledge 21(7–8). 817–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Phonological processing: The retrieval and encoding of word form information in speech production. In The Oxford handbook of language production, 228–244. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew & Sheila E. Blumstein
(2006) Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters. Language and Cognitive Processes. Taylor & Francis 21(6). 649–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew, H. Ross Baker, Amanda Murphy & Melissa Baese-Berk
(2011) Interaction and representational integration: Evidence from speech errors. Cognition 121(1). 58–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Christopher R.
(2009) Paradigm uniformity in Luwanga derived nouns. In 6th World Congress on African Linguistics, Cologne, Germany. August, 17–21.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer
(2003) Causes and Consequences of Word Structure (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
(2007) The phonetics of ‘un.’ Lexical creativity, texts and contexts 39–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik, Carolin Strobl & Achim Zeileis
(2020) party: A Laboratory for Recursive Partytioning. [URL] (20 April 2020).
Jurafsky, Daniel, Alan Bell, Michelle Gregory & William D. Raymond
(2001) Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language, Vol. 45), 229–254. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemps, Rachel J. J. K., Mirjam Ernestus, Robert Schreuder & R. Harald Baayen
(2005) Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: the case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory & Cognition 33(3). 430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Hyang-Sook Sohn
(2008) Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast: Korean liquid verb stems. Phonological Studies 111. 99–110.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
(2015) Stratal OT: A Synopsis and FAQs. In Capturing phonological shades within and across languages, 2–44. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Klatt, Dennis 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
(1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Laks, Lior, Evan-Gary Cohen & Stav Azulay-Amar
(2016) Paradigm uniformity and the locus of derivation: The case of vowel epenthesis in Hebrew verbs. Lingua 1701. 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee-Kim, Sang-Im, Lisa Davidson & Sangjin Hwang
(2013) Morphological effects on the darkness of English intervocalic /l/. Laboratory Phonology 4(2). 475–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M., Ardi Roelofs & Antje S. Mayer
(1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1). [URL]. DOI logo
Lohmann, Arne
(2017) Phonological properties of word classes and directionality in conversion. Word Structure. Edinburgh University Press The Tun-Holyrood Road, 12 (2f) Jackson’s Entry … 10(2). 204–234.Google Scholar
(2018) Cut (n) and cut (v) are not homophones: Lemma frequency affects the duration of noun–verb conversion pairs. Journal of Linguistics 54(4). 753–777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lõo, Kaidi, Juhani Järvikivi, Fabian Tomaschek, Benjamin V. Tucker & R. Harald Baayen
(2018) Production of Estonian case-inflected nouns shows whole-word frequency and paradigmatic effects. Morphology 28(1). 71–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, Sara, Erin Olson, Meghan Clayards & Michael Wagner
(2018) North American/l/both darkens and lightens depending on morphological constituency and segmental context. Laboratory Phonology. Ubiquity Press 9(1).Google Scholar
Marian, Viorica
(2012) CLEARPOND: Cross-Linguistic Easy-Access Resource for Phonological and Orthographic Neighborhood Densities. United States, North America: Public Library of Science (PLoS).Google Scholar
McMillan, Corey T., Martin Corley & Robin J. Lickley
(2009) Articulatory evidence for feedback and competition in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes. Routledge 24(1). 44–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Sunwoo
(2006) Paradigm uniformity effects in Korean phonology. PhD dissertation, Korea University, Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. R. & P. Savoy
(1998) Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo & Sonia Ben Hedia
(2018) The phonetics of newly derived words: Testing the effect of morphological segmentability on affix duration.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo, U. Marie Engemann & Gero Kunter
(2018a) The effect of morphological boundaries on stem vowel duration in English. In 40. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
(2018b) The effect of morphological boundaries on stem vowel duration in English. In LabPhon 16 – Variation, development and impairment: Between phonetics and phonology. Lisbon: Association for Laboratory Phonology.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Julia Homann & Gero Kunter
(2017) Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics 53(1). 181–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Arne Lohmann, Sonia Ben Hedia & Julia Zimmermann
(2020a) An <s> is an <s’>, or is it? Plural and genitive-plural are not homophonous. In To appear in Livia Körtvélyessy & Pavel Stekauer (eds.) Complex Words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b) What is the difference between _boys_ and_boys’_? The phonetics of plural vs. genitive-plural in English and its implications for morphological theory. In 19th International Morphology Meeting. Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, Mark, Mirjam Ernestus & R. Harald Baayen
(2005a) Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica. Karger Publishers 62(2–4). 146–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005b) Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(4). 2561–2569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pluymaekers, Mark, Mirjam Ernestus, R. Harald Baayen & Geert Booij
(2010) Morphological effects on fine phonetic detail: The case of Dutch-igheid. (Ed.) C. Fougeron, B. Kühnert, M. D’Imperio & N. Vallée. Laboratory phonology 101. 511–531.Google Scholar
R Core Team
(2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (Version 3.2.1). Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Raffelsiefen, Renate
(2004) Paradigm Uniformity Effects Versus Boundary Effects. In Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [URL] (10 April 2019) DOI logo
Ramig, Lorraine A. & Ringel, Robert L.
(1983) Effects of Physiological Aging on Selected Acoustic Characteristics of Voice. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 26(1). 22–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapp, B. & M. Goldrick
(2000) Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological review. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rebrus, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
(2005) Uniformity and contrast in the Hungarian verbal paradigm. na.Google Scholar
Riehl, Anastasia K.
(2003) American English flapping: Perceptual and acoustic evidence against paradigm uniformity with phonetic features. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 151(271–337).Google Scholar
Roettger, T. B.
(2014) Assessing incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German. Journal of Phonetics 431. 11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roettger, Timo B., Bodo Winter, S. Grawunder, J. Kirby & M. Grice
(2014) Assessing incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German. Journal of Phonetics 431. 11–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, Dominic, Ingo Plag & Dinah Baer-Henney
(2020) How real are acoustic differences between different types of final /s/ in English? Evidence from pseudowords. In 19th International Morphology Meeting. Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott, Marc Garellek, Gwendolyn Gillingham, Farrell Ackerman & Robert Malouf
(2017) Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(1). 32–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott, Jozina Vander Klok & Marc Garellek
(2019) Evidence against interactive effects on articulation in Javanese verb paradigms. Psychonomic bulletin & review 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skoog Waller, Sara, Mårten Eriksson & Patrik Sörqvist
(2015) Can you hear my age? Influences of speech rate and speech spontaneity on estimation of speaker age. Frontiers in Psychology. Frontiers 6. DOI logo. [URL] (22 April 2020).
Sproat, Richard & Osamu Fujimura
(1993) Allophonic variation in English/l/and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of phonetics 21(3). 291–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca
(2000) Paradigm Uniformity and the Phonetics-Phonology Boundary. (Ed.) Edited Michael Broe & Janet Pierrehumbert. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 51.Google Scholar
Tabain, Marija
(2003) Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: articulatory results. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(5). 2834–2849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomaschek, Fabian, Peter Hendrix & R. Harald Baayen
(2018) Strategies for addressing collinearity in multivariate linguistic data. Journal of Phonetics 711. 249–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomaschek, Fabian, Ingo Plag, Mirjam Ernestus & R. Harald Baayen
(2019) Modeling the duration of word-final S in English with Naive Discriminative Learning. submitted to Journal of Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torreira, Francisco & Mirjam Ernestus
(2009) Probabilistic effects on French [t] duration. In 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2009), 448–451. Causal Productions Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
Tucker, Benjamin V. & Mirjam Ernestus
Van Oostendorp, Marc
(2008) Incomplete devoicing in formal phonology. Lingua. Elsevier 118(9). 1362–1374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Liam, Jen Hay, Derek Bent, Jeanette King, Paul Millar, Viktoria Papp & Kevin Watson
(2013) The UC QuakeBox Project: Creation of a community-focused research archive. [URL] (20 November 2018).
Wightman, Colin W., Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, Mari Ostendorf & Patti J. Price
(1992) Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91(3). 1707–1717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, Bodo & Timo B. Roettger
(2011) The nature of incomplete neutralization in German: Implications for laboratory phonology. Grazer Linguistische Studien 761. 55–74.Google Scholar
Zee, Tim
(2019) Morphological effects on the acoustics of Dutch /s/. In 15. Phonetik und Phonologie Tagung. Düsseldorf, Germany.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Julia
(2016) Morphological Status and Acoustic Realization: Findings from NZE. In C. Carignan & M. D. Tyler (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, 6–9. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie & Sharon Peperkamp
(2015) Aspiration and the gradient structure of English prefixed words. In ICPhS.Google Scholar