The duration of morphemic and non-morphemic /s/ in English

Walsh, Thomas; Parker, Frank

doi:10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30816-2

Cited by 46 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have shown distinctions between morphemic and nonmorphemic segments. For example, Walsh and Parker (1983) reported that morphemic /s/ (e.g., laps) is longer in duration than nonmorphemic /s/ (e.g., lapse). Song, Demuth, Shattuck-Hufnagel, and Ménard (2013) also found an articulatory morphemic effect in monomorphemic versus bimorphemic word-final clusters (e.g., box /bks/ vs. rocks /aks/), using ultrasound methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic Investigations Into the Later Acquisition of Syllabic -esPlurals

Mealings

Cox

Demuth

2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic Investigations Into the Later Acquisition of Syllabic -esPlurals

Mealings

Cox

Demuth

2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, there are some previous studies available that have investigated the phenomenon that is the topic of the present paper: word-final S in English. 2 One early study of S is Walsh and Parker (1983). Walsh and Parker (1983) tested plural /s/ against non-morphemic /s/ in a reading experiment and found that the plural S had longer mean durations than non-morphemic S. The authors did not use a statistical test, nor did they use a multivariate statistical analysis with pertinent lexical and phonetic covariates.…”

Section: Final S In Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 One early study of S is Walsh and Parker (1983). Walsh and Parker (1983) tested plural /s/ against non-morphemic /s/ in a reading experiment and found that the plural S had longer mean durations than non-morphemic S. The authors did not use a statistical test, nor did they use a multivariate statistical analysis with pertinent lexical and phonetic covariates. A reanalysis of the data set using mixed effect regression and additional covariates carried out by the second author of the present study showed that the data do not bear out the effects that the authors claimed they did (Plag, 2014).…”

Section: Final S In Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the Duration of Word-Final S in English with Naive Discriminative Learning

Tomaschek¹,

Ernestus²,

Plag³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research on the acoustic realization of affixes has revealed differencesbetween phonologically homophonous affixes, for example the different kinds offinal [s] and [z] in English (Plag et al. 2017, Zimmermann 2016). Such resultsare unexpected and unaccounted for in widely-accepted post-Bloomfieldian item-and-arrangement models (Hockett, 1954), which separate lexical and post-lexicalphonology, and in models which interpret phonetic effects as consequences of different prosodic structure. This paper demonstrates that the differences in duration of English final S as a function of the morphological function it expresses (non-morphemic, plural, third person singular, genitive, genitive plural, cliticized has, and cliticized is) can be approximated by considering the support for these morphological functions from the words’ sublexical and collocational properties. We estimated this support using naive discriminative learning, and replicated previous results for English vowels (Tucker et al., 2019) indicating that segment duration is lengthened under higher functional certainty, but shortened under functional uncertainty. We discuss the implications of these results, obtained with wide learning network that eschews representations for morphemes and exponents, for models in theoretical morphology as well as for models of lexical processing.

show abstract

“…Previous durational studies of stems and a Level II suffix -s are consistent with the word-internal PWd-boundary hypothesis. Walsh & Parker (1983) found that the Level II suffix -s [s] in three suffixed words (wreck-s, lap-s and heart-s) was 10 to 12% (about 9 ms) longer than its monomorphemic counterpart in Rex, lapse and Hartz. Schwarzlose & Bradlow (2001) also found that stem-final consonants in four suffixed words ([k] in tack-s, tuck-s and mac-s and [t] in hurt-s) were 2 to 6 % (about 3 to 5 ms) longer than the penultimate segments [k] in tax, tux and max and [t] in Hertz.…”

Section: Relevant Findings From Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Durational correlates of English sublexical constituent structure

Sugahara

Turk

2009

Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates whether differences (a) in word-internal morphological structure and (b) in lexical stress patterns are reflected in prosodic constituent structure, by examining duration measurements in Scottish English. In Experiments 1 and 2, at a slow speech rate, stem-final rhymes followed by Level II suffixes were on average 4–6% longer than corresponding strings in monomorphemic words, and 7–8% longer than stem-final rhymes followed by Level I suffixes. These results are consistent with the view that stems preceding Level II suffixes are mapped onto prosodic words in the prosodic representation. Experiment 3 obtained no reliable durational differences, even at a slow speech rate, between the initial syllable rhymes of SS words and SW words, which does not provide evidence for the hypothesis that these different stress patterns are represented as differences in foot structure.

show abstract

The duration of morphemic and non-morphemic /s/ in English

Cited by 46 publications

References 2 publications

Acoustic Investigations Into the Later Acquisition of Syllabic -esPlurals

Acoustic Investigations Into the Later Acquisition of Syllabic -esPlurals

Modeling the Duration of Word-Final S in English with Naive Discriminative Learning

Durational correlates of English sublexical constituent structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About