Gemination and degemination in English affixation Investigating the interplay between morphology, phonology and phonetics Sonia Ben Hedia language Studies in Laboratory Phonology 8 science press Studies in Laboratory Phonology Chief Editor: Martine Grice Editors: Doris Mücke, Taehong Cho In this series: 1. Cangemi, Francesco. Prosodic detail in Neapolitan Italian. 2. Drager, Katie. Linguistic variation, identity construction, and cognition. 3. Roettger, Timo B. Tonal placement in Tashlhiyt: How an intonation system accommodates to adverse phonological environments. 4. Mücke, Doris. Dynamische Modellierung von Artikulation und prosodischer Struktur: Eine Einführung in die Artikulatorische Phonologie. 5. Bergmann, Pia. Morphologisch komplexe Wörter im Deutschen: Prosodische Struktur und phonetische Realisierung. 6. Feldhausen, Ingo & Fliessbach, Jan & Maria del Mar Vanrell. Methods in prosody: A Romance language perspective. 7. Tilsen, Sam. Syntax with oscillators and energy levels. 8. Ben Hedia, Sonia. Gemination and degemination in English affixation: Investigating the interplay between morphology, phonology and phonetics. ISSN: 2363-5576 Gemination and degemination in English affixation Investigating the interplay between morphology, phonology and phonetics Sonia Ben Hedia language science press Ben Hedia, Sonia. 2019. Gemination and degemination in English affixation: Investigating the interplay between morphology, phonology and phonetics (Studies in Laboratory Phonology 8). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/221 © 2019, Sonia Ben Hedia Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This book is the revised version of the author’s PhD dissertation Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, 2018 (D61) ISBN: 978-3-96110-188-7 (Digital) 978-3-96110-189-4 (Hardcover) ISSN: 2363-5576 DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3232849 Source code available from www.github.com/langsci/221 Collaborative reading: paperhive.org/documents/remote?type=langsci&id=221 Cover and concept of design: Ulrike Harbort Typesetting: Felix Kopecky Proofreading: Amir Ghorbanpour, Andreas Hölzl, Aniefon Daniel, Brett Reynolds, Esther Yap, Guohua Zhang, Ivica Jeđud, Janina Rado, Jean Nitzke, Jeroen van de Weijer, Ludger Paschen Fonts: Linux Libertine, Libertinus Math, Arimo, DejaVu Sans Mono Typesetting software:Ǝ X LATEX Language Science Press Unter den Linden 6 10099 Berlin, Germany langsci-press.org Storage and cataloguing done by FU Berlin Contents Acknowledgments vii 1 Introduction 1 2 Gemination 5 2.1 Geminates .............................. 5 2.2 Morphological geminates ...................... 7 2.3 Phonological representation of geminates ............. 10 2.4 Gemination in English ....................... 13 2.4.1 Assumptions ........................ 13 2.4.2 Previous empirical work .................. 16 3 The Affixes under investigation 23 3.1 Description of the affixes ...................... 24 3.1.1 The prefix un- ........................ 24 3.1.2 The prefix in- ........................ 26 3.1.2.1 Negative in- ................... 27 3.1.2.2 Locative in- ................... 28 3.1.3 The prefix dis- ........................ 30 3.1.4 The suffix -ly ........................ 32 3.2 Comparison of the affixes ...................... 33 3.3 Scope of gemination across affixes ................. 38 4 Morphological gemination: Implications for theory 41 4.1 Overview ............................... 41 4.2 Formal linguistic theories ...................... 43 4.2.1 Lexical Phonology ..................... 43 4.2.2 Newer stratal approaches ................. 48 4.2.3 The prosodic word ..................... 53 4.3 Psycholinguistic approaches to morphological processing .... 61 4.3.1 Decomposability ...................... 63 4.3.2 Morphological informativeness .............. 73 Contents 4.4 Speech production models ..................... 77 4.5 Summary: Theoretical implications ................ 81 5 General method 85 5.1 Corpus studies vs. experimental studies on speech production . 86 5.2 Composition of the data sets .................... 88 5.2.1 Corpus study ........................ 88 5.2.2 Experimental study ..................... 90 5.2.3 Overview of the data sets ................. 93 5.3 Acoustic analyses .......................... 95 5.3.1 Manual versus automatic segmentation ......... 95 5.3.2 Ensuring validity ...................... 97 5.3.2.1 The development of strict segmentation criteria 97 5.3.2.1.1 The nasals in un- and in-prefixed words ................. 98 5.3.2.1.2 The fricative in dis-prefixed words . 99 5.3.2.1.3 The lateral in -ly-suffixed words ... 99 5.3.2.2 Intensive training of the annotators ...... 102 5.3.2.3 Segmenting a proportion of the data twice .. 102 5.3.2.4 Testing the influence of the annotator on the segmentation statistically ............ 103 5.4 Statistical analyses .......................... 103 5.5 Coding of the variables ....................... 107 5.5.1 Variables of interest .................... 108 5.5.1.1 Environment ................... 108 5.5.1.2 Semantic transparency ............. 111 5.5.1.3 Semantic transparency rating ......... 112 5.5.1.4 Type of base ................... 113 5.5.1.5 Relative frequency ............... 113 5.5.1.6 Semantic similarity (LSA) ............ 114 5.5.1.7 Affix ....................... 114 5.5.2 Noise variables: Phonetic factors ............. 115 5.5.2.1 Consonant-specific factors ........... 115 5.5.2.2 Duration of the preceding segment ...... 115 5.5.2.3 Speech rate .................... 116 5.5.2.4 Word length ................... 116 5.5.3 Noise variables: Phonological factors ........... 117 5.5.3.1 Accentuation .................. 117 ii Contents 5.5.3.2 Position ..................... 118 5.5.3.3 Stress ....................... 118 5.5.4 Noise variables: Lexical factors .............. 120 5.5.4.1 Word form frequency .............. 120 5.5.5 Overview of variables ................... 120 6 Corpus study 123 6.1 Methodology ............................. 123 6.1.1 Sampling .......................... 123 6.1.2 The decomposability rating ................ 126 6.1.3 Annotation ......................... 129 6.2 Decomposability ........................... 129 6.2.1 The relation between decomposability measures ..... 130 6.2.2 The segmentability of the affixes: A comparison ..... 134 6.2.3 Summary .......................... 141 6.3 Duration ............................... 142 6.3.1 Analyses ........................... 142 6.3.2 Overview .......................... 144 6.3.3 The prefix un- ........................ 147 6.3.3.1 Absolute duration ................ 147 6.3.3.2 Relative duration ................ 150 6.3.3.3 Summary ..................... 151 6.3.4 The prefix in- ........................ 152 6.3.4.1 Absolute duration ................ 152 6.3.4.2 Relative duration ................ 156 6.3.4.3 Summary ..................... 158 6.3.5 The prefixes un- and in- .................. 158 6.3.6 The prefix dis- ........................ 160 6.3.6.1 Absolute duration ................ 160 6.3.6.2 Relative duration ................ 168 6.3.6.3 Summary ..................... 171 6.3.7 The suffix -ly ........................ 173 6.3.7.1 Absolute duration ................ 173 6.3.7.2 Relative duration ................ 175 6.3.7.3 Summary ..................... 176 6.3.8 Duration summary in corpus study ............ 176 6.3.9 Discussion .......................... 181 iii Contents 7 Experimental study 185 7.1 Methodology ............................. 185 7.1.1 Stimuli ............................ 185 7.1.1.1 un- ........................ 187 7.1.1.2 in- ......................... 188 7.1.1.3 im- ........................ 189 7.1.1.4 dis- ........................ 190 7.1.1.5 -ly ........................ 191 7.1.2 Experimental set-up .................... 193 7.1.2.1 Reading task ................... 193 7.1.2.2 Decomposability rating ............. 196 7.1.3 Participants ......................... 196 7.1.4 Processing of the sound files ................ 196 7.1.5 Processing of the rating data ................ 197 7.1.6 Variable coding ....................... 199 7.2 Decomposability ........................... 201 7.2.1 The relation between decomposability measures ..... 201 7.2.2 The segmentability of the affixes: A comparison ..... 205 7.2.3 Summary .......................... 207 7.3 Duration ............................... 208 7.3.1 Analyses ........................... 208 7.3.2 Overview .......................... 210 7.3.3 The prefix un- ........................ 212 7.3.3.1 Complex model ................. 212 7.3.3.2 Complete model ................. 215 7.3.3.3 Summary ..................... 216 7.3.4 The prefix in- ........................ 217 7.3.4.1 The allomorph /ɪn/: Complex model ...... 217 7.3.4.2 The allomorph /ɪn/: Complete model ..... 222 7.3.4.3 The allomorph /ɪm/: Complex model ..... 225 7.3.4.4 The allomorph /ɪm/: Complete model ..... 230 7.3.4.5 Summary ..................... 231 7.3.5 The prefixes un- and in- .................. 233 7.3.6 The prefix dis- ........................ 236 7.3.6.1 Complex model ................. 236 7.3.6.2 Complete model ................. 238 7.3.6.3 Summary ..................... 239 iv Contents 7.3.7 The suffix -ly ........................ 240 7.3.7.1 Complex model ................. 240 7.3.7.2 Complete model ................. 245 7.3.7.3 Summary ..................... 247 7.3.8 Duration summary in experimental study ........ 248 8 Summary and discussion 253 8.1 Decomposability