Variation and assimilation in German - Institut für Phonetik
Variation and assimilation in German - Institut für Phonetik
Variation and assimilation in German - Institut für Phonetik
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
554 COENEN, ZWITSERLOOD, AND BOÈLTE<br />
TABLE 4<br />
Experiment 2: Mean RTs <strong>in</strong> ms <strong>and</strong> error percentages (<strong>in</strong> parentheses) as a function of<br />
conditions<br />
for 350 ms. Each list conta<strong>in</strong>ed 108 experimental trials <strong>and</strong> 108 spoken<br />
llers with pseudoword targets, half of which were form-related to their<br />
primes. In addition, there were 40 warm up trials. The procedure was the<br />
same as <strong>in</strong> Experiment 1, except that there was no break. The experiment<br />
lasted about 20 m<strong>in</strong>utes.<br />
Results<br />
Legality of <strong>assimilation</strong><br />
Direction<br />
Phonologically legal Phonologically illegal<br />
<strong>and</strong> type Context Unchanged Changed Unchanged Changed<br />
Regressive Viable 527 (4.9) 628 (7.4) 537 (1.9) 664 (12.6)<br />
place Control 619 (6.2) 619 (4.3) 673 (5.8) 666 (9.7)<br />
Progressive Viable 544 (1.9) 639 (9.4) 546 (1.6) 633 (5.6)<br />
place Control 648 (8.3) 636 (9.0) 636 (6.8) 630 (4.8)<br />
Progressive Viable 519 (1.9) 599 (4.5) 534 (3.2) 618 (8.0)<br />
voice Control 614 (4.5) 616 (3.7) 671 (8.8) 650 (7.6)<br />
Data from two participants <strong>and</strong> three item sets were excluded from<br />
analyses because of high error rates, <strong>and</strong> from one item set because of<br />
technical problems. In addition, only item sets that performed satisfactorily<br />
<strong>in</strong> the pretest were <strong>in</strong>cluded. Incorrect answers <strong>and</strong> reaction times above<br />
1500 ms were discarded. As <strong>in</strong> Experiment 1, List was <strong>in</strong>cluded as a factor<br />
<strong>in</strong> the subject analyses (Pollatsek & Well, 1995). The overall mean error<br />
rate was 5.9%. Mean reaction times <strong>and</strong> error rates for all material groups<br />
<strong>and</strong> conditions are shown <strong>in</strong> Table 4. For <strong>in</strong>formation on t-tests for prim<strong>in</strong>g<br />
effects see Appendix C.<br />
Regressive place <strong>assimilation</strong>, phonologically legal. The effect of Test/<br />
Control was signicant for F 1(1, 53) ˆ 20.785, p < .001, but not for F 2(1,<br />
10) ˆ 1.236, p ˆ .292. 6 The ma<strong>in</strong> effect for Change was signicant with<br />
F 1(1, 53) ˆ 32.473, p < .001, <strong>and</strong> marg<strong>in</strong>al for F 2(1, 10) ˆ 4.207, p ˆ .067.<br />
The <strong>in</strong>teraction was also signicant: F 1(1, 53) ˆ 22.391, p < .001; F 2(1, 10)<br />
ˆ 4.974, p ˆ .050. There were no effects on errors. The <strong>in</strong>teraction shows<br />
that while unchanged items (wort) showed a sound prim<strong>in</strong>g effect of 92 ms,<br />
6 Only 11 of 18 item sets were tested <strong>in</strong> this material group, which reduced power <strong>in</strong> the<br />
analysis.