Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Geminate and singleton contrast in English affixed words

  • Yu, Hye Jeong (Department of English Language and Literature, Hanshin University)
  • Received : 2022.08.08
  • Accepted : 2022.09.15
  • Published : 2022.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper presents two experiments examining different gemination behavior of English affixes. Experiment 1 focused on geminates through affixation with im-, un-, -ness, and -ly. The English group articulated geminates with longer absolute and relative durations than singletons for im-, un-, and -ness, but there was no difference for -ly. This suggests that -ly words are more likely to be perceived as whole words, and that -ly is less decomposable. Furthermore, un- geminates exhibited longer absolute and preceding vowel durations than im- geminates, suggesting that im- is more decomposable than un-. However, the Korean group produced geminates with longer absolute and relative durations than singletons for all im-, un-, -ness, and -ly, and produced comparable absolute durations of im- and un- geminates. Experiment 2 investigated different gemination behaviors of locative and negative im- prefixes. The English group showed durational contrast between geminates and singletons only for negative im-, indicating that locative im- is not easily separated from stem. However, the Korean group produced longer absolute and relative durations for geminates than for singletons for both locative and negative im-. According to the findings of Experiments 1 and 2, affix decomposability is less likely to influence Korean speakers' English affix gemination, and spellings may have a greater influence.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

I sincerely thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insight full comments.

References

  1. Ahn, M. (2014). A comparative study on English nasal durationbetween native English speakers and Korean learners of English. The Journal of Studies in Language, 29(4), 749-771. https://doi.org/10.18627/JSLG.29.4.201403.749
  2. Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
  3. Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Ben Hedia, S. (2019). Gemination and degemination in English affixation: Investigating the interplay between morphology, phonology and phonetics. Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.
  5. Ben Hedia, S., & Plag, I. (2017). Gemination and degeminationin English prefixation: Phonetic evidence for morphological organization. Journal of Phonetics, 62, 34-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2017.02.002
  6. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2020). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 6.1.31) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
  7. Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2013). Towards a theory of multimorphemic word production: The heterogeneity of processing hypothesis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 1036-1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.759241
  8. Cruttenden, A. (2014). Gimson's pronunciation of English (8th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
  9. Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  10. Esposito, A., & Di Benedetto, M. G. (1999). Acoustical and perceptual study of gemination in Italian stops. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(4), 2051-2062. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428056
  11. Fallows, D. (1981). Experimental evidence for English syllabification and syllable structure. Journal of Linguistics, 17 (2), 309-317. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007027
  12. Halle, M. (1998). The stress of English words 1968-1998. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(4), 539-568. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438998553879
  13. Harris, J. (1994). English sound structure. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  14. Hay, J. (2003). Causes and consequences of word structure (1st ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
  15. Idemaru, K., & Guion, S. G. (2008). Acoustic covariants of length contrast in Japanese stops. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 38(2), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100308003459
  16. Kaye, A. S. (2005). Gemination in English. English Today, 21(2), 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078405002063
  17. Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3-91). Seoul, Korea: Hanshin.
  18. Kotzor, S., Molineaux, B. J., Banks, E., & Lahiri, A. (2016). "Fake" gemination in suffixed words and compounds in English and German. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(1), 356-367. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4955072
  19. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26.
  20. Ladefoged, P. (2006). A course in phonetics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.
  21. Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1996). The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  22. Lahiri, A., & Hankamer, J. (1988). The timing of geminate consonants. Journal of Phonetics, 16(3), 327-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30506-6
  23. Lee, J. K., & Seo, Y. (2019). A phonetic examination of phonological ambisyllabicity: Focusing on temporal and spectral characteristics. Linguistic Research, 36(1), 91-110. https://doi.org/10.17250/KHISLI.36.1.201903.004
  24. Lenth, R. V., Buerkner, P., Herve, M., Jung, M., Love, J., Miguez, F., Riebl, H., ... Singmannm, H. (2021). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. (version 1.6.1) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans
  25. Mohanan, K. P. (1986). The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  26. Oh, G. E. (2013a). Effects of boundary strength on geminate duration in English. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology, 19(3), 457-478. https://doi.org/10.17959/SPPM.2013.19.3.457
  27. Oh, G. E., & Redford, M. A. (2012). The production and phonetic representation of fake geminates in English. Journal of Phonetics, 40(1), 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.08.003
  28. Oh, K. Y. (2013b). Analysis of the implication relation between syllabification and phonetic realization in Korean speakers. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 21(4), 265-282. https://doi.org/10.24303/LAKDOI.2013.21.4.265
  29. Oh, K. Y. (2020). Complex analysis and proposal for verifying realization direction of geminates. The Journal of Studies in Language, 36(3), 373-395. https://doi.org/10.18627/JSLG.36.3.202011.373
  30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226715000183
  31. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.1.2) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
  32. Ridouane, R. (2010). Geminates at the junction of phonetics and phonology. In C. Fougeron, B. Kuhnert, M. D'Imperio, & N. Vallee (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 10 (pp. 61-90). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
  33. Rudes, B. A. (1977). Another look at syllable structure. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  34. Shin, S. H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Perception and production of English geminate consonants across word boundaries by Korean learners and native speakers of English. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology, 18(1), 85-110. https://doi.org/10.17959/SPPM.2012.18.1.85
  35. Sproat, R., & Fujimura, O. (1993). Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics, 21(3), 291-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31340-3
  36. Tomaschek, F., Plag, I., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2019). Phonetic effects of morphology and context: Modeling the duration of word-final S in English with naive discriminative learning. Journal of Linguistics, 57(1), 123-161.
  37. Trask, R. L. (1996). A dictionary of phonetics and phonology. London, UK: Routledge.
  38. Umeda, N. (1977). Consonant duration in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(3), 846-858. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381374
  39. Wells, J. C. (2008). Longman pronunciation dictionary: For upper intermediate-advanced learners (3rd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
  40. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
  41. Zimmermann, J. (2016, December). Morphological status and acoustic realization: Findings from New Zealand English. Proceedings of the 16th Australasian International Conferenceon Speech Science and Technology (pp. 201-204). Parramatta, Australia.