Quotation marks are a tool to refer to the linguistic form of an expression. For instance, in cases of so-called pure quotation as in “Hanover” has three syllables, they point to the syllabic characteristics of the name of the town of Hanover. Cases of this nature differ from sentences like Hanover is a town in New Hampshire, in which Hanover is used denotationally and, thus, refers to the town of Hanover itself. Apart from quotation marks, other means such as italics, bold, capitalization, or air quotes represent potential means to signal a non-stereotypical use of an item in the written or gestural mode. It is far less clear, however, whether acoustic correlates of quotation marks exist. The present contribution aims at investigating this issue by focusing on instances of quotation, in which the conventionalized name of a lexical concept is highlighted by means of quotation marks, either together with or without an additional lexical quotational marker, such as so-called, on the lexical level (cf. The so-called “vuvuzela” is an instrument from South Africa vs. The “vuvuzela” is an instrument from South Africa). The data clearly show that quotation marks are pronounced, primarily triggering a lengthening effect, independently of whether they appear together with or without a name-informing context. The results of the experiments are interpreted against the background of a pragmatic implementation of quotation marks in general as well as in spoken discourse in particular.

Studies have challenged the assumption that different types of word-final s in English are homophonous. On the one hand, affixal (e.g. laps) and non-affixal s (e.g. lapse) differ in their duration; on the other hand, variation exists across several types of affixal s (e.g. between the plural (cars) and genitive plural (cars’)). This line of research was recently expanded in a study in which an interesting side effect appeared: the s was longer if followed by a past tense verb (e.g. The pods/odds eventually dropped), in comparison to a following present tense verb (e.g. The old screens/jeans obviously need replacing.). Put differently, the s became longer in the absence of overt morphosyntactic agreement, where it was mostly the sole plurality marker in the sentence. The objective of the present article is to examine whether this effect can be replicated in a more controlled setting. Having considered a large number of potential confounding variables in a reading experiment, we found an effect in the expected direction, one that is compatible with the literature on the impact that predictability has on duration. We interpret this finding against the background of the role of fine acoustic detail in language.

The alveolar fricative occurs in word-final position in English in different grammatical functions. Nominal suffixes may indicate plurality (e.g. cars), genitive case (e.g. car’s) or plurality and genitive case in cumulation (e.g. cars’). Further, there are the third person singular verbal suffix (e.g. she fears) and the cliticized forms of the third person singular forms of have and be (e.g. she’s been lucky; she’s friendly). There is also non-affixal s (e.g. freeze (noun)). Against the standard view that all these types are homophonous, several empirical studies have shown that at least some of the fricatives listed can actually be differentiated in their duration. The present article expands this line of research and considers a further case, which has not been included in previous analyses: pluralia-tantum nouns (e.g. goggles). We report on a carefully controlled reading study in which native speakers of British English produced pluralia-tantum and comparable regular-plural nouns (e.g. toggles). The duration of the word-final fricative was measured, and it was found that the two do not systematically differ in this acoustic parameter. The new data are interpreted in comparison to relevant previous studies, and against the background of the similarities of pluralia-tantum and regular-plural nouns.

Using data from two empirical studies, the present article investigates whether German adjective-noun compounds are inherently more appropriate to function as naming units or kind terms than the corresponding phrases. In the first experiment, it was tested whether subjects prefer a non-lexicalized compound (e.g., Kurzcouch, short_couch) or the respective non-lexicalized phrasal counterpart (e.g., kurze Couch, short couch) in order to express a novel complex lexical concept (e.g., It is a very specific couch that is 1.30 meters short because it is designed only for children up to this size.). In the second test, subjects rated on a scale how well the compounds and phrases expressed the newly created concepts. The findings of the two studies support the idea that compounds are better naming candidates than phrases. It is claimed that the effect derives from the specific formal nature of compounds and has consequences for the processing and mental representation of the two construction types.

No abstract