Morphonotactic and phonotactic processing in German-speaking adults

A computational approach to morphonotactics: evidence from German

“…An additional psycholinguistic study on German consonant clusters and vowel-consonant sequences using the method of Visual Sequence Targeting experiments with Viennese adults investigates whether a given sound or sound sequence is retrieved earlier or more accurately when it is immediately preceded or followed by a morpheme boundary, compared to when it is part of a monomorphemic unit (Korecky-Kröll et al, 2014). The results show general reaction time advantages for sequences included in items containing morpheme boundaries.…”

“…Morphonotactic clusters are thereby assigned a morphological function in processing (Korecky-Kröll et al, 2014), which is assumed to facilitate processing and acquisition of complex consonantal structures (for acquisition, see Kamandulyte, 2006;Freiberger, 2007;Zydorowicz, 2007Zydorowicz, , 2009Zydorowicz, , 2010 and, with a different approach, Marshall and van der Lely, 2006).…”

Assessing the effect of ambiguity in compositionality signaling on the processing of diphones

“…Clearly, (3b) is not exactly the same since by design we do not actually consider purely phonotactic cluster types. However, we think that (3b) is nevertheless an interesting extension of what has been tested frequently in morphonotactic research (Korecky-Kröll et al, 2014). Moreover it relates to within-type comparison studies of the processing of morphonotactic and phonotactic clusters (cf.…”

“…Dressler and Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (2006: 83) postulate the following hypothesis with regard to the relationship between the position of a given diphone 2 on the lexicality scale and its ability to signal morphological complexity, which has come to be known as the Strong Morphonotactic Hypothesis (SMH; cf. Korecky-Kröll et al, 2014;Calderone et al, 2014;[Authors]), although Dressler and Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (2006) did not actually coin this term in this very paper: The SMH figures centrally in morphonotactic research, and numerous attempts have been made to test it drawing on data from language acquisition (Freiberger et al, 2011), diachronic linguistics (Dressler et al, 2010), experimental research (Korecky-Kröll et al, 2014;Leykum et al, 2015a), or by means of computational modeling (Calderone et al, 2014). The authors of these studies, however, have not always tested the same hypothesis, as it seems.…”

“…The processing of sound sequences, and that of word-internal consonant sequences in particular, have been argued to depend, among other factors, on the morphology of words they are embedded in: some diphones, such as /ld/ or /nd/, occur across morpheme boundaries (call+ed, wan+ed) as well as morpheme internally (cold, wand), while others are restricted to a single morphological environment (/md/ as in seem+ed, and /mp/ as in lamp, respectively). This has been suggested in turn to affect their acquisition and diachronic development (Dressler et al, 2010;Korecky-Kröll et al, 2014;Leykum et al, 2015a;Zydorowicz, 2007). This work aims at assessing the influence of morphological status of consonantal sequences on the ease of their processing in speech perception.…”