Six cross-modal lexical decision tasks with priming probed listeners’ processing of the geminate–singleton contrast in Bengali, where duration alone leads to phonemic contrast ([pata] ‘leaf’ vs. [pat:a] ‘whereabouts’), in order to investigate the phonological representation of consonantal duration in the lexicon. Four form-priming experiments (auditory fragment primes and visual targets) were designed to investigate listeners’ sensitivity to segments of conflicting duration. Each prime derived from a real word ([kʰɔm]/[gʰenː]) was matched with a mispronunciation of the opposite duration (*[kʰɔmː]/*[gʰen]) and both were used to prime the full words [kʰɔma] (‘forgiveness’) and [gʰenːa] (‘disgust’) respectively. Although all fragments led to priming, the results showed an asymmetric pattern. The fragments of words with singletons mispronounced as geminates led to equal priming, while those with geminates mispronounced as singletons showed a difference. The priming effect of the real-word geminate fragment was significantly greater than that of its corresponding nonword singleton fragment. In two subsequent semantic priming tasks with full-word primes a stronger asymmetry was found: nonword geminates (*[kʰɔmːa]) primed semantically related words ([marjona] ‘forgiveness’) but singleton nonword primes (*[gʰena]) did not show priming. This overall asymmetry in the tolerance of geminate nonwords in place of singleton words is attributed to a representational mismatch and points towards a moraic representation of duration. While geminates require a mora which cannot be derived from singleton input, the additional information in geminate nonwords does not create a similar mismatch.
AbramsonA. S. (1986). Distinctive length in initial consonants: Pattani Malay. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 79, S27.
2.
AbramsonA. S. (1987). Word-initial consonant length in Pattani Malay. In GamkrelidzeT. V. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 68–70). Tallinn, Estonia: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian SSR.
3.
AbramsonA. S. (1999). Fundamental frequency as cue to word-initial consonant length: Pattani Malay. In OhalaJ. J.HasegawaY.OhalaM.GranvilleD.BaileyA. C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 591–594). Berkeley, CA: University of California.
4.
Abu-SalimI. M. (1980). Epenthesis and geminate consonants in Palestinian Arabic. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences (University of Illinois, Urbana), 10(2), 1–11.
BaileyT.PlunkettK. (2002). Phonological specificity in early words. Cognitive Development, 17(2), 1267–1284.
7.
BalotaD. APilottiM.CorteseM. J. (2001). Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory and Cognition, 29(4), 639–647.
8.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2011). PRAAT: Doing Phonetics by Computer (ver. 5.2.26). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Institute for Phonetic Sciences.
9.
BölteJ.CoenenE. (2000). Domato primes paprika: Mismatching words activate semantic and phonological representations. Proceedings of the workshop on Spoken Word Access Processes (SWAP). MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
10.
BölteJ.CoenenE. (2002). Is phonological information mapped onto semantic information in a one-to-one manner?Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 384–397.
11.
CatfordJ. C. (1977). Fundamental problems in phonetics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
12.
ChatterjiS. K. (1926). Origin and development of the Bengali language. Calcutta, India: Calcutta University Press (reprinted by Rupa & Co., Calcutta, 1975).
13.
Chomsky, N. & Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
14.
CornellS. A.LahiriA.EulitzC. (2011). “What you encode is not necessarily what you store”: Evidence for sparse feature representations from mismatch negativity. Brain Research, 1394, 79–89.
15.
CornellS. A.LahiriA.EulitzC. (2013). Inequality across consonantal contrasts in speech perception: Evidence from mismatch negativity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 757–772.
16.
CusackR.CarlyonR. P. (2003). Perceptual asymmetries in audition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 713–725.
17.
DavisS. (2011). Geminates. In van OostendorpM.EwenC. J.HumeE.RiceK. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 837–859). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
18.
DrewsE. (1996). Morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processing, 11, 629–634.
19.
EulitzC.LahiriA. (2004). Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4), 577–583.
20.
FelderV.Jönsson-SteinerE.EulitzC.LahiriA. (2009). Asymmetric processing of lexical tonal contrast in Swedish. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 71(8), 1890–1899.
21.
Fitzpatrick-ColeJ. (1996). Reduplication meets the phonological phrase in Bengali. Linguistic Review, 13(3-4), 305–356.
22.
ForsterK. I. (1999). The microgenesis of priming effects in lexical access. Brain and Language, 68(1-2), 5–15.
23.
FriedrichC.LahiriA.EulitzC. (2008). Neurophysiological evidence for under-specified lexical representations: Asymmetries with word initial variations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1545–1559.
24.
GaskellM. G.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613–656.
25.
GaskellM. G.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1999). Ambiguity, competition, and blending in spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 23, 439–462.
26.
GaskellM. G.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2001). Lexical ambiguity resolution and spoken word recognition: Bridging the gap. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(3), 325–349.
27.
GaskellM. G.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (2002). Representation and competition in the perception of spoken words. Cognitive Psychology, 45(2), 220–266.
28.
GowD. W. (2003). Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 65(4), 575–590.
HankamerJ.LahiriA.KoremanJ. (1989). Perception of consonant length: Voiceless stops in Turkish and Bengali. Journal of Phonology, 17, 283–298.
31.
HayesB. (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology. Language, 62(2), 321–351.
32.
HayesB. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 253–306.
33.
HuraS. L.LindblomB.DiehlR. (1992). On the role of perception in shaping phonological assimilation rules. Language and Speech, 35, 59–72.
34.
HymanL. (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.
35.
JohnsonK. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization. In JohnsonK.MullennixJ. W. (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145–166). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36.
KenstowiczM. (1970). On the notation of vowel length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics, 3, 73–113.
37.
KenstowiczM.PyleC. (1973). On the phonological integrity of geminate clusters. In KenstowiczM.KisseberthC. (Eds). Issues in phonological theory (pp. 27–43). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
38.
KenstowiczM.KisseberthC. (1979). Generative phonology. New York, NY: Academic Press.
39.
KingstonJ.KawaharaS.ChamblessD.MashD.Brenner-AlsopE. (2009). Contextual effects on the perception of duration. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 297–320.
40.
KraehenmannA. (2011). Initial Geminates. In van OostendorpM.EwenC. J.HumeE.RiceK. (Eds). The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 1124–1146). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
41.
KristoffersonG. (2000). The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
KuhlP. K.MillerJ. D. (1978). Speech perception by the chinchilla: Voiced–voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants. Science, 190, 69–72.
43.
LahiriA. (2012). Asymmetric phonological representations of words in the mental lexicon. In CohnA. C.FougeronC.HuffmanM. K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology (pp. 146–161). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44.
LahiriA.HankamerJ. (1988). The timing of geminate consonants. Journal of Phonetics, 16(3), 327–338.
45.
LahiriA.KoremanJ. (1988). Syllable quantity and stress in Dutch. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, VII, 217–228.
46.
LahiriA.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245–294.
47.
LahiriA.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1992). Lexical processing and phonological representation. In LaddR. D.DochertyG. (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II (pp. 229–254). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
LahiriA.ReetzH. (2002). Underspecified recognition. In GussenhovenC.WarnerN. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology VII (pp. 637–677). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
49.
LahiriA.ReetzH. (2010). Distinctive features: Phonological underspecification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 44–59.
50.
LebenW. (1980). A metrical analysis of length. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 497–509.
51.
LiskerL. (1958). The Tamil occlusive: Short vs. long or voiced vs. voiceless?Indian Linguistics, Turner Jubilee Volume l, 294–301.
52.
ManiN.PlunkettK. (2010). Does size matter?: Graded sensitivity to vowel mispronunciations of familiar words. Journal of Child Language, 38, 606–627.
53.
Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1990). Activation, competition and frequency in lexical access. In AltmannG. T. M. (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 148–172). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
54.
MayorJ.PlunkettK. (2014). Infant word recognition: Insights from TRACE simulations. Journal of Memory and Language, 71(1), 89–123.
55.
McCarthyJ. J. (1982). Prosodic templates, morphemic templates, and morphemic tiers. In van der HulstH.SmithN. (Eds). The structure of phonological representations (linguistic models 2) (pp. 191–223). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.
56.
McClellandJ. L.ElmanJ. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.
57.
MeyerD.SchvaneveldtR. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.
58.
MittererH.CsépeV.BlomertL. (2006). The role of perceptual integration in the recognition of assimilated word forms. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology59(8), 1395–1424.
59.
MohananK. P.MohananT. (1984). Lexical phonology and the consonant system of Malayalam. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 575–602.
60.
MossH. E.OstrinR. K.TylerL. K.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1995). Accessing different types of lexical semantic information: Evidence from priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21(4), 863–883.
61.
MüllerJ. S. (2001). The phonetics and phonology of word-initial geminates. Doctoral dissertation: Ohio State University, OH.
62.
NäätänenR.PaavilainenP.ReinikainenK. (1989). Do event-related potentials to infrequent decrements in duration of auditory stimuli demonstrate a memory trace in man?Neuroscience Letters, 107, 347–352.
63.
PayneE. M. (2005). Phonetic variation in Italian consonant gemination. Journal of the International Phonetics Association, 35(2), 153–181.
64.
PayneE. M. (2006). Non-durational indices in Italian geminate consonants. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 36(1), 83–95.
65.
PerlmutterD. (1995). Phonological quantity and multiple association. In: GoldsmithJ. (Ed.). The Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 307–317). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
66.
PhillipsC.PellathyT.MarantzA.YellinE.WexlerK.PoeppelD.McGinnisM.RobertsT. (2000). Auditory cortex accesses phonological categories: An MEG mismatch study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(6), 1038–1055.
67.
PierrehumbertJ. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In BybeeJ.HopperP. (Eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137–157). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
68.
PierrehumbertJ. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In GussenhovenC.WarnerN. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology VII (pp. 101–140). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
69.
PittM. A. (2009). How are the pronunciation variants of spoken word recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(1), 19–36.
70.
PyleC. (1971). On the treatment of length in phonology. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Illinois.
71.
RaizadaR. D. S.PoldrackR. A. (2007). Selective amplification of stimulus differences during categorical processing of speech. Neuron, 56(4), 726–740.
72.
RanbomL. J.ConnineC. M. (2007). Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2), 273–298.
73.
ReetzH.KleinmannA. (2008). Multi-subject hardware for experiment control and precise reaction time measurement. In SoléM. J.RecasensD.RomeroJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1489–1492). Barcelona, Spain.
RiadT. (2014). The phonology of Swedish. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
76.
RidouaneR. (2010). Geminates at the junction of phonetics and phonology. In FougeronC.KuhnertB.ImperioM.ValleeN. (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonetics 10 (pp. 61–90), Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
77.
RobertsA. C.WetterlinA.LahiriA. (2013). Aligning mispronounced words to meaning: Evidence from ERP and reaction time studies. The Mental Lexicon 8(2), 140–163.
78.
RobertsA. C.KotzorS.WetterlinA.LahiriA. (2014). Asymmetric processing of durational differences - electrophysiological investigations in Bengali. Neuropsychologia58, 88–98.
79.
SAS (2012). JMP® 10. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
80.
ScharingerM.LahiriA. (2010). Height differences in English dialects: Consequences for processing and representation. Language and Speech, 53(2), 245–272.
81.
ScheinB.SteriadeD. (1986). On geminates. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 697–744.
82.
SchützK.SchendzielarzI.ZwitserloodP.VorbergD. (2007). Nice wor_ if you can get the wor_: Subliminal semantic and form priming in fragment completion. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 520–532.
83.
SeguiJ.MehlerJ.FrauenfelderU. H.MortonJ. (1982). The word frequency effect and lexical access. Neuropsychologia, 20(6), 615–627.
84.
SharmaA.DormanM. F. (1999). Cortical auditory evoked potential correlates of categorical perception of voice-onset time. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 106(2), 1078–1083.
85.
TagliapietraL.McQueenJ. M. (2010). What and where in speech recognition: Geminates and singletons in spoken Italian. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 306–323.
86.
TopintziN. (2008). On the existence of moraic onsets. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 26, 147–184.
87.
TreismanA.GormicanS. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95(1), 15–48.
88.
WarrenP.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1987). Continuous uptake of acoustic cues in spoken word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 262–275.
89.
WarrenP.Marslen-WilsonW. D. (1988). Cues to lexical choice: Discriminating place and voice. Perception and Psychophysics, 43, 21–30.
90.
WheeldonL. R.WakslerR. (2004). Phonological underspecification and mapping mechanisms in the speech recognition lexicon. Brain and Language, 90, 401–412.
91.
ZimmererF.ScharingerM.ReetzH. (2011). When BEAT becomes HOUSE: Factors of word final /t/-deletion in German. Speech and Communication, 53(6), 941–954.
92.
ZwitserloodP. (1996). Form priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 589–596.
