Cover not available

Article In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2026
Edited by Remco Knooihuizen, Marloes Oomen and Alex Reuneker
[Nota Bene 3:2] 2026

Morphological status mediates effects of segmental deletion on comprehension

ORCiD logo with link | Radboud University
 | Radboud University
 | Radboud University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Although recent studies have shown that morphological status affects the pronunciation of segments, very little is known about how this pronunciation variation affects comprehension. We investigated how [n] deletion affected the comprehension of Dutch verbs in which -/ən/ either formed the plural suffix or was part of the verb stem in the singular form. An auditory lexical decision experiment revealed that listeners responded slower to pronunciations variants in which [n] was deleted but only when they heard a singular verb. Additionally, for certain singular verbs, we found that [n] deletion resulted in more mistakes. We conclude that pronunciation variants that occur more frequently in a certain morphological category are easier to recognize if they are encountered in words belonging to that morphological category. These findings support word comprehension models in which pronunciation variants are stored in lexical or morphological representations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Background
    • 1.2The present research
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Accuracy
    • 3.2Response Time
  • 4.Discussion
  • Supplementary materials and data archive
  • Acknowledgements
  • Author queries
  • References
References (17)
References
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1996). The CELEX lexical database. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y. Y., Shafaei-Bajestan, E., & Blevins, J. P. (2019). The discriminative lexicon: A unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de) composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity 2019(1), 4895891. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (1999). The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ten Bosch, L., Boves, L., & Mulder, K. (2019). Analyzing reaction time and error sequences in lexical decision experiments. In Proc. Interspeech 20191, 2280–2284.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brand, S., & Ernestus, M. (2018). Listeners’ processing of a given reduced word pronunciation variant directly reflects their exposure to this variant: Evidence from native listeners and learners of French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 71(5), 1240–1259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goeman, T. (2001). Morfologische Condities op n-behoud en n-deletie in dialecten van Nederland. Taal & Tongval 141, 52–88.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
INT (2010). CHN N-grams (Version 1.0) [Data set]. [URL]
Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods 42(3), 643–650. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McElreath, R. (2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological review 115(2), 357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, I., Homann, J., & Kunter, G. (2017). Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics 53(1), 181–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ranbom, L. J., & Connine, C. M. (2007). Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 571, 273–298. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitz, D. (2022). Production, perception, and comprehension of subphonemic detail: Word-final /s/ in English. Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitz, D., Baer-Henney, D., & Plag, I. (2021). The duration of word-final /s/ differs across morphological categories in English: Evidence from pseudowords. Phonetica 78(5–6), 571–616. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Zwitserlood, P., & Roelofs, A. (1991). The identification of morphologically complex spoken words: Continuous processing or decomposition?. Journal of Memory and Language 30(1), 26–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, H., & Van Hout, R. (2000). N-deletion in reading style. Linguistics in the Netherlands 17(1), 209–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing 27(5), 1413–1432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue