In several models of speech production (see, e.g., Fromkin 1971; Harley 1984; Levelt 1989, 1995; Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer 1999; Roelofs 1997), the role of phonetics is rather limited and acoustic differences between phonologically identical words are typically not expected. However, over the years, more and more evidence has suggested that fine acoustic detail plays a more prominent role within language, and that approaches permitting a more flexible interaction between phonetic and other types of information represent a serious alternative (see, e.g., Pierrehumbert 2001, 2002).
Evidence comes from different areas. At the morphology-phonetics interface, it has been shown that forms (e.g., word-final s in English) are uttered differently if they are affixal (e.g., laps) as opposed to the same form that is non-affixal (e.g., lapse) (see, e.g., Plag et al. 2017; Seyfarth et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2012). At the syntax-phonetics interface, Sereno and Jongman’s (1995) analysis revealed that one and the same item (e.g., answer) is realized differently depending on whether it is used as a noun or verb (but see Lohmann 2020 for a different conclusion). Moreover, morpho-syntactic features like number seem to be expressed in the acoustic output as well, as recently shown in two studies on German singular-plural syncretism (Schlechtweg & Heinrichs 2020; Schlechtweg, Heinrichs, and Linnenkohl 2020). Next, classical homophones such as time and thyme do not seem to be expressed with exactly the same pronunciation in that the high-frequency meaning (time) differs from its low-frequency counterpart (thyme) in duration (see, e.g., Conwell 2018; Gahl 2008; Lohmann 2018). Finally, an example at the interface between semantics/pragmatics and phonetics is the observation that words are articulated differently if they are mentioned, with mentioning being expressed through the presence of quotation marks around an item, in comparison to their simple denotational use (see Schlechtweg & Härtl 2020).
The meeting aims at bringing together researchers who work on the interface between phonetics and other (linguistic) domains or aspects, such as, e.g., phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, or pragmatics. Contributions focusing on speech production and/or perception and connecting empirical findings to theoretical issues are welcome.
References
Conwell, Erin. 2018. Token frequency effects in homophone production: An elicitation study. Language and Speech 61(3). 466−479.
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. In Victoria A. Fromkin (ed.), Speech errors as linguistic evidence (1973, Janua Linguarum 77), 215−242. The Hague: Mouton. (Reprinted from Language 47(1), 27−52).
Gahl, Susanne. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84(3). 474−496.
Harley, Trevor A. 1984. A critique of top-down independent levels models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science 8. 191−219.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1995. The ability to speak: From intensions to spoken words. European Review 3(1). 13−23.
Levelt, Willem J. M., Ardi Roelofs, & Antje S. Meyer. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1−75.
Lohmann, Arne. 2018. Time and thyme are NOT homophones: A closer look at Gahl’s work on the lemma frequency effect including a reanalysis. Language 94(2), e180−e190.
Lohmann, Arne. 2020. No acoustic correlates of grammatical class: A critical re-examination of Sereno & Jongman (1995). Phonetica 77. 429-440.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45), 137−157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (Phonology and Phonetics 4−1), 101−140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag, Ingo, Julia Homann, & Gero Kunter. 2017. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics 53. 181−216.
Roelofs, Ardi. 1997. The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition 64. 249−284.
Schlechtweg, Marcel, & Holden Härtl. 2020. Do we pronounce quotation? An analysis of name-informing and non-name-informing contexts. Language and Speech 63(4). 769-798.
Schlechtweg, Marcel, & Melina Heinrichs. 2020. The acoustics of number: Duration differences in singular-plural syncretism. Unpublished manuscript.
Schlechtweg, Marcel, Melina Heinrichs, & Marcel Linnenkohl. 2020. Differences in acoustic detail: The realization of syncretic nouns in German. To appear in Marcel Schlechtweg (ed.), The learnability of complex constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 345), 39−62. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Sereno, Joan A., & Allard Jongman. 1995. Acoustic correlates of grammatical class. Language and Speech 38(1). 57−76.
Seyfarth, Scott, Marc Garellek, Gwendolyn Gillingham, Farrell Ackerman, & Robert Malouf. 2018. Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(1). 32−49.
Smith, Rachel, Rachel Baker, & Sarah Hawkins. 2012. Phonetic detail that distinguishes prefixed from pseudo-prefixed words. Journal of Phonetics 40. 689−705.
Evidence comes from different areas. At the morphology-phonetics interface, it has been shown that forms (e.g., word-final s in English) are uttered differently if they are affixal (e.g., laps) as opposed to the same form that is non-affixal (e.g., lapse) (see, e.g., Plag et al. 2017; Seyfarth et al. 2018; Smith et al. 2012). At the syntax-phonetics interface, Sereno and Jongman’s (1995) analysis revealed that one and the same item (e.g., answer) is realized differently depending on whether it is used as a noun or verb (but see Lohmann 2020 for a different conclusion). Moreover, morpho-syntactic features like number seem to be expressed in the acoustic output as well, as recently shown in two studies on German singular-plural syncretism (Schlechtweg & Heinrichs 2020; Schlechtweg, Heinrichs, and Linnenkohl 2020). Next, classical homophones such as time and thyme do not seem to be expressed with exactly the same pronunciation in that the high-frequency meaning (time) differs from its low-frequency counterpart (thyme) in duration (see, e.g., Conwell 2018; Gahl 2008; Lohmann 2018). Finally, an example at the interface between semantics/pragmatics and phonetics is the observation that words are articulated differently if they are mentioned, with mentioning being expressed through the presence of quotation marks around an item, in comparison to their simple denotational use (see Schlechtweg & Härtl 2020).
The meeting aims at bringing together researchers who work on the interface between phonetics and other (linguistic) domains or aspects, such as, e.g., phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, or pragmatics. Contributions focusing on speech production and/or perception and connecting empirical findings to theoretical issues are welcome.
References
Conwell, Erin. 2018. Token frequency effects in homophone production: An elicitation study. Language and Speech 61(3). 466−479.
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1971. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. In Victoria A. Fromkin (ed.), Speech errors as linguistic evidence (1973, Janua Linguarum 77), 215−242. The Hague: Mouton. (Reprinted from Language 47(1), 27−52).
Gahl, Susanne. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84(3). 474−496.
Harley, Trevor A. 1984. A critique of top-down independent levels models of speech production: Evidence from non-plan-internal speech errors. Cognitive Science 8. 191−219.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1995. The ability to speak: From intensions to spoken words. European Review 3(1). 13−23.
Levelt, Willem J. M., Ardi Roelofs, & Antje S. Meyer. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1−75.
Lohmann, Arne. 2018. Time and thyme are NOT homophones: A closer look at Gahl’s work on the lemma frequency effect including a reanalysis. Language 94(2), e180−e190.
Lohmann, Arne. 2020. No acoustic correlates of grammatical class: A critical re-examination of Sereno & Jongman (1995). Phonetica 77. 429-440.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45), 137−157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (Phonology and Phonetics 4−1), 101−140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plag, Ingo, Julia Homann, & Gero Kunter. 2017. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics 53. 181−216.
Roelofs, Ardi. 1997. The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition 64. 249−284.
Schlechtweg, Marcel, & Holden Härtl. 2020. Do we pronounce quotation? An analysis of name-informing and non-name-informing contexts. Language and Speech 63(4). 769-798.
Schlechtweg, Marcel, & Melina Heinrichs. 2020. The acoustics of number: Duration differences in singular-plural syncretism. Unpublished manuscript.
Schlechtweg, Marcel, Melina Heinrichs, & Marcel Linnenkohl. 2020. Differences in acoustic detail: The realization of syncretic nouns in German. To appear in Marcel Schlechtweg (ed.), The learnability of complex constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 345), 39−62. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Sereno, Joan A., & Allard Jongman. 1995. Acoustic correlates of grammatical class. Language and Speech 38(1). 57−76.
Seyfarth, Scott, Marc Garellek, Gwendolyn Gillingham, Farrell Ackerman, & Robert Malouf. 2018. Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(1). 32−49.
Smith, Rachel, Rachel Baker, & Sarah Hawkins. 2012. Phonetic detail that distinguishes prefixed from pseudo-prefixed words. Journal of Phonetics 40. 689−705.