Variation and assimilation in German - Institut für Phonetik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

548 COENEN, ZWITSERLOOD, AND BOÈLTE words. However, this difference also failed signicance: t 1(89) ˆ 1.595, p ˆ .114; t 2(11) ˆ 1.169, p ˆ .267. We will come back to this question. Taken together, the results support a speech recognition system that analyses deviations in connection with phonological context. When assimilation is licensed by a following segment, lexical access is only mildly affected (wort mal: 91 ms vs. a worp mal: 61 ms). The same change in unviable context leads to a strong decrease in priming, relative to the unchanged condition (wort kurz: 97 ms vs. worp kurz: 29 ms). The next section investigates whether such minimal changes have to meet the rules of assimilation in speech production. Are changes in place of assimilation restricted to [coronal] or is a comparable minimal deviation in other place features equally tolerated in word recognition? Regressive place assimilation, phonologically illegal. The main effect for Change was signicant for F 1(1, 84) ˆ 15.785, p < .001 and F 2(1, 15) ˆ 5.448, p ˆ .034. Illegally changed words (run: 26 ms) reduced the priming effect to approximately one third, compared to unchanged words (rum: 83 ms). The main effect for Context was not signicant (both F < 1), nor was the interaction: F 1(1, 84) ˆ 1.250, p ˆ .267; F 2(1, 15) ˆ 1.267, p ˆ .278. Whereas there was clear facilitation for unchanged primes (rum: 83 ms), priming for illegally changed items (run: 26 ms) was only reliable by participants (see Appendix B). In accordance to the reaction time data, far more errors occurred in the changed (9.3%) than in the unchanged condition (2.4%). Clearly, the results for illegal regressive assimilation are different from those for legal assimilation. When changes are illegal, it does not matter whether the phonological context is congruent with the change. This is in accordance with underspecication theory, since the changed features are regarded as specied. The—not completely reliable—overall priming effect for illegally changed words was comparable to the effect for legal assimilation in unviable contexts (26 and 29 ms, see above). Facilitation and effect trends in such conditions can be attributed to general form overlap between primes and targets. It seems that the mismatching segment merely reduced the priming effect instead of inhibiting lexical access. In the next section we turn to changes at word onset. The beginnings of words are supposed to be even more intolerant of deviations (Marslen- Wilson & Zwitserlood, 1989), but legality of word-onset deviations has not yet been investigated. Progressive place assimilation, phonologically legal. Effects for this material group were very similar to the preceding group. The main effect of Change was signicant, with F 1(1, 87) ˆ 18.889, p < .001; F 2(1, 17) ˆ
ASSIMILATION IN GERMAN 549 8.660, p ˆ .009. Unchanged words (not: 78 ms) facilitated reactions to targets four times as much as changed items (mot: 17 ms). The effect of Context failed signicance: F 1(1, 87) ˆ 1.999, p ˆ.161; F 2(1, 17) ˆ 2.492, p ˆ .133. The interaction was also not signicant (both F < 1). There were twice as many errors in the changed (8.3%) than in the unchanged condition (3.8%). In contrast to unchanged words (not: 78 ms), changed items (mot: 17 ms) did not produce reliable facilitation (see Appendix B). The results differ considerably from those for legal regressive place assimilation. Apparently, small changes at word onset prevent reliable access to lexical representations, independent of phonological context. One has to keep in mind that progressive place assimilation does sometimes occur, but hardly ever at word onset, as was tested here. As such, the data are in agreement with the facts of speech production. They also support evidence from the comprehension domain for a privileged status of word onsets (Marslen- Wilson, 1993; Marslen-Wilson & Zwitserlood, 1989). The data are not so easily reconciled with underspecication, given that a feature such as [coronal] is unspecied. This exact same feature that can be assimilated without much costs in the regressive situation cannot be changed in the progressive situation. Although underspecication theory explains assimilation phenomena as they naturally occur in speech production, and although place assimilation is rarely found at word onset, the theory has to provide ways to account for the fact that assimilation at word onset is treated as a mispronunciation by the listener. Progressive place assimilation, phonologically illegal. The factor Change was signicant, with F 1(1, 86) ˆ 21.846, p < .001, F 2(1, 17) ˆ 11.728, p ˆ .003. Unchanged items (mehl: 89 ms) primed more than four times as much as illegally changed items (nehl: 20 ms). There was no effect of Context (both F < 1). The interaction of Change and Context was signicant for F 1(1, 86) ˆ 4.242, p ˆ .042 but not for F 2(1 17) ˆ 2.486, p ˆ .133. The interaction shows a cross-over pattern. On the one side, there is an unexpected difference in effect size for unchanged words in viable (tat mehl: 99 ms) and unviable contexts (gab mehl: 78 ms), as was the case for legal progressive place assimilation. It is again unclear what the nature of this difference is, which failed signicance for t 1(91) ˆ 1.858, p ˆ .066 and t 2(17) ˆ 1.390, p ˆ .183. On the other side, there is a 11 ms difference in the opposite direction between changed items (viable, tat nehl: 14 ms; unviable, gab nehl: 25 ms), which was far from being signicant (both t < 1). As to the individual priming effects, the 14 ms effect was not signicant, while the 25 ms effect was reliable (see Appendix B). As in the other material groups, the changed conditions had about twice as many
Page 1 and 2: LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES, 2
Page 3 and 4: ASSIMILATION IN GERMAN 537 ( a hopb
Page 5 and 6: ASSIMILATION IN GERMAN 539 showed t
Page 7 and 8: therefore tested progressive place
Page 9 and 10: The complete material set was spoke
Page 11 and 12: started with a short warning tone.
Page 13: ASSIMILATION IN GERMAN 547 Figure 1
Page 17 and 18: The overall 86 ms facilitation effe
Page 19 and 20: material groups were tested. In the
Page 21 and 22: ASSIMILATION IN GERMAN 555 changed
Page 23 and 24: ASSIMILATION IN GERMAN 557 word ons
Page 25 and 26: ASSIMILATION IN GERMAN 559 our chan
Page 27 and 28: ASSIMILATION IN GERMAN 561 Marslen-
Page 29 and 30: APPENDIX B Experiment 1 t-test valu

Variation and assimilation in German - Institut für Phonetik

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?