Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 10:3 (2015) ► pp.313338
Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M
(2006) Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-­based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 231, 275–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aylett, M., & Turk, A
(2004) The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 31–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1191, 3048–3058. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, D.J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H.J
(2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S
(2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–7, http://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=lme4.Google Scholar
Bell, A., Brenier, J.M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D
(2009) Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 601, 92–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M., & Gildea, D
(2003) Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 1001–1024. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D
(2009) Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.1, retrieved 31 January 2009 from http://​www​.praat​.org.
Bürki, A., Ernestus, M., Gendrot., C., Fougeron, C., & Frauenfelder, U
(2011) What affects the presence versus absence of schwa and its duration: A corpus analysis of French connected speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(6), 3980–3991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, C
(2014) Probabilistic reduction and probabilistic enhancement. Morphology, 24(4), 291–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G
(1983) Hierarchies, targets, and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Ettlinger, M., & Johnson, K
(2009) Vowel discrimination by English, French and Turkish Speakers: Evidence for an exemplar-based approach to speech perception. Phonetica, 661, 222–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S
(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, S., Yao, Y., & Johnson, K
(2012) Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 789–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregory, M.L., Raymond, W.D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D
(2000) The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 35) (pp. 151–166). Chicago, IL.
Goldinger, S
(1998) Echoes of Echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. Psychological Review, 105(2), 51–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanique, I., & Ernestus, M
(2011) Final /t/ reduction in Dutch past-participles: The role of word predictability and morphological decomposability. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (Interspeech 2011) (pp. 2849–2852). Florence, Italy.
(2012) The role of morphology in acoustic reduction. Lingue e linguaggio, 11(2), 147–164.Google Scholar
Hanique, I., Schuppler, B., & Ernestus, M
(2010) Morphological and predictability effects on schwa reduction: The case of Dutch word-initial syllables. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual conference of the international speech communication association (Interspeech 2010) (pp. 933–936). Makuhari, Japan.
Hay, J
(2003) Causes and consequences of word structure. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, J., & Baayen, H
(2002) Parsing and productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001 (pp. 203–235). Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K
(1997) Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In K. Johnson & J.W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145–165). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Decisions and mechanisms in exemplar-based phonology. In M. J. Sole, P. Beddor, & M. Ohala (Eds.), Experimental approaches to phonology. In honor of John Ohala (pp. 25–40). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W.D
(2001) Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological studies in language 45) (pp. 229–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R.H
(2007) Morphological predictability and acoustic salience of interfixes in Dutch compounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1211, 2261–2271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuvšinskaja, J.M
(2012) Soglasovanie skazujemogo s podležaščim, vyražennym sčetnym obo­rotom. Problemy russkoj stilistiki po dannym NKRJ. Online at http://​studiorum​.ruscorpora​.ru​/stylistics​/oboroty​.html.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P
(1963) Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech, 6(3), 172–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J
(2012) OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Kostić, A., & Baayen, R.H
(2004) Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 941, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padgett, J., & Tabain, M
(2005) Adaptive dispersion theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica, 62(1), 14–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R.H
(2005) Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 621, 146–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://​www​.R​-project​.org/.
Schuppler, B., van Dommelen, W.A., Koreman, J., & Ernestus, M
(2012) How linguistic and probabilistic properties of a word affect the realization of its final /t/: Studies at the phonemic and sub-phonemic level. Journal of Phonetics, 401, 595–607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tily, H., & Kuperman, V
(2012) Rational phonological lengthening in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 132(6), 3935–3940. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Son, R., & Pols, L.C.W
(2003) How efficient is speech? Proceedings of the institute of phonetic sciences, 25 (pp. 171–184). Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
van Son, R.J.J.H., Bolotova, O., Lennes, M., & Pols, L.C.W
(2004) Frequency effects on vowel reduction in three typological different languages (Dutch, Finnish, Russian). In Proceedings of the 8th International conference on spoken language processing (Interspeech 2004) (pp. 1277–1280). Jeju Island, South Korea.
Walsh, M., Möbius, B., Wade, T., & Schütze, H
(2010) Multilevel exemplar theory. Cognitivie Science, 341, 537–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 13 other publications

Bell, Melanie J., Sonia Ben Hedia & Ingo Plag
2021. How morphological structure affects phonetic realisation in English compound nouns. Morphology 31:2  pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Cohen, Clara & Shinae Kang
2018. Flexible perceptual sensitivity to acoustic and distributional cues. The Mental Lexicon 13:1  pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer
2020. Complex Words, DOI logo
Luef, Eva Maria & Jong-Seung Sun
2020. Wordform-specific frequency effects cause acoustic variation in zero-inflected homophones. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 56:4  pp. 711 ff. DOI logo
Lõo, Kaidi, Fabian Tomaschek, Pärtel Lippus & Benjamin V. Tucker
2022. Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Effects in Estonian Spontaneous Speech. Language and Speech  pp. 002383092211070 ff. DOI logo
Plag, Ingo, Arne Lohmann, Sonia Ben Hedia & Julia Zimmermann
2020. An S Is an ’S, or Is It? Plural and Genitive Plural Are Not Homophonous. In Complex Words,  pp. 260 ff. DOI logo
Stein, Simon David & Ingo Plag
2021. Morpho-Phonetic Effects in Speech Production: Modeling the Acoustic Duration of English Derived Words With Linear Discriminative Learning. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Tang, Kevin & Ryan Bennett
2018. Contextual predictability influences word and morpheme duration in a morphologically complex language (Kaqchikel Mayan). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 144:2  pp. 997 ff. DOI logo
2021. Phonetic effects of morphology and context: Modeling the duration of word-final S in English with naïve discriminative learning. Journal of Linguistics 57:1  pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Tomaschek, Fabian & Michael Ramscar
2022. Understanding the Phonetic Characteristics of Speech Under Uncertainty—Implications of the Representation of Linguistic Knowledge in Learning and Processing. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Tomaschek, Fabian, Benjamin V. Tucker, Michael Ramscar & R. Harald Baayen
2021. Paradigmatic enhancement of stem vowels in regular English inflected verb forms. Morphology 31:2  pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Tucker, Benjamin V. & Yoichi Mukai
2023. Spontaneous Speech, DOI logo
Zee, Tim, Louis ten Bosch, Ingo Plag & Mirjam Ernestus
2021. Paradigmatic Relations Interact During the Production of Complex Words: Evidence From Variable Plurals in Dutch. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 february 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.