A series of experiments was carried out to investigate the syllable affiliation of intervocalic consonants following short vowels, long vowels, and schwa in Dutch. Special interest was paid to words such as letter [l∊[UNKNOWN]t] “id.,” where a short vowel is followed by a single consonant. On phonological grounds one may predict that the first syllable should always be closed, but earlier psycholinguistic research had shown that speakers tend to leave these syllables open. In our experiments, bisyllabic word forms were presented aurally, and participants produced their syllables in reversed order (Experiments 1 through 5), or repeated the words inserting a pause between the syllables (Experiment 6). The results showed that participants generally closed syllables with a short vowel. However, in a significant number of the cases they produced open short vowel syllables. Syllables containing schwa, like syllables with a long vowel, were hardly ever closed. Word stress, the phonetic quality of the vowel in the first syllable, and the experimental context influenced syllabification. Taken together, the experiments show that native speakers syllabify bisyllabic Dutch nouns in accordance with a small set of prosodic output constraints. To account for the variability of the results, we propose that these constraints differ in their probabilities of being applied.
ADAMS, M.J. (1981). What good is orthographic redundancy? In O. J. L. Tzeng & H. Singer (eds.), Perception of print: Reading research in experimental psychology (pp. 197–221). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
BAGEMIHL, B. (1995). Language games and related areas. In J. A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 697–712). Cambridge, Oxford: Blackwell.
3.
BAILEY, C.-J. N. (1978). Gradience in English syllabization and a revised concept of unmarked syllabization.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
4.
BERGEM, D. van. (1995). Acoustic and lexical vowel reduction. Ph. D. dissertation. Amsterdam: IFOTT (Studies in language and language use; 16).
5.
BOOIJ, G. (1995). The phonology of Dutch.Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.
6.
BOOIJ, G. E., HAMANS, C., VERHOEVEN, G., BALK, F., & van MINNEN, C. H. (1979). Spelling Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
7.
BRADLEY, D.C., SÁNCHEZ-CASAS, R.M., & GARCÍA-ALBEA, J.E. (1993). The status of the syllable in the perception of Spanish and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 197–233.
8.
BROWMAN, C.P., & GOLDSTEIN, L. (1992). “Targetless” schwa: An articulatory analysis. In G. J. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II. Gesture, segment, prosody (pp. 26–56). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
9.
COWAN, N., LEAVITT, L.A., MASSARO, D.W., & KENT, R.D. (1982). A fluent backward talker. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 48–53.
10.
COWAN, N., BRAINE, M.D. S., & LEAVITT, L.A. (1985). The phonological and metaphonological representation of speech: Evidence from fluent backward talkers. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 679–698.
11.
CROMPTON, A. (1981). Syllables and segments in speech production. Linguistics, 19, 663–716.
12.
DELL, G. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in speech production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.
13.
DERWING, B.L. (1992). A “pause-break” task for eliciting syllable boundary judgements from literate and illiterate speakers: Preliminary results for five diverse languages. Language and Speech, 35, 219–235.
14.
FALLOWS, D. (1981). Experimental evidence for English syllabification and syllable structure. Journal of Linguistics, 17, 309–317.
15.
FOWLER, C.A., TREIMAN, R., & GROSS, J. (1993). The structure of English syllables and polysyllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 115–140.
16.
GIEGERICH, H.J. (1992). English phonology: An introduction.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GILLIS, S., & de SCHUTTER (1996). Intuitive syllabification: Universals and language specific constraints. Journal of Child Language, 23, 487–514.
18.
GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1986). English plosive allophones and ambisyllabicity. Gramma, 10, 119–141.
19.
HALLE, M., & MOHANAN, K.P. (1985). Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 57–116.
20.
HOARD, J.E. (1971). Aspiration, tenseness, and syllabification in English. Language, 47, 133–140.
21.
HOMBERT, J.M. (1973). Speaking backwards in Bakwiri. Studies in African Linguistics, 4, 227–236.
22.
HOMBERT, J.M. (1986). Word games: Some implications for analysis of tone and other phonological constructs. In J. J. Ohala & J. J. Jaeger (eds.), Experimental phonology (pp. 175–186). Orlando: Academic Press.
23.
HOOLE, P., MOOSHAMMER, C., & TILLMANN, H.G. (1994). Kinematic analysis of vowel production in German. Proceedings of the third International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 53–56) (ICSLP 1994), Yokohama.
24.
HULST, H. van der (1984). Syllable structure and stress in Dutch.Dordrecht, Cinnaminson: Foris.
25.
HULST, H. van der. (1985). Ambisyllabicity in Dutch. In H. Bennis & F. Beukema (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985 (pp. 57–66). Dordrecht, Cinnaminson: Foris.
26.
ITÔ, J. (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 217–259.
27.
JAKIMIK, J., COLE, R.A., & RUDNICKY, A.I. (1985). Sound and spelling in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 165–178.
28.
KAGER, R. (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch.Dordrecht, Providence, RI: Foris.
29.
KAGER, R. (1992). Dutch schwa in moraic phonology. In M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske, & K. Deaton (eds.), Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 2. The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics & Phonology (pp. 241–255). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
30.
KAGER, R., & ZONNEVELD, W. (1985–1986). Schwa, syllables, and extrametricality in Dutch. The Linguistic Review, 5, 197–221.
31.
KAHN, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Ph.D. dissertation. New York and London: Garland, 1980.
32.
KOOPMANS-van BEINUM, F.J. (1980). Vowel contrast reduction: An acoustic and perceptual study of Dutch vowels in various speech conditions. Ph.D. dissertation. Amsterdam: Academische Pers B.V.
33.
LAHIRI, A., & KOREMAN, J. (1988). Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch. In H. Borer (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 217–228). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
34.
LASS, R. (1976). English phonology and phonological theory: Synchronic and diachronic studies.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
35.
LEFKOWITZ, N. (1991). Talking backwards, looking forwards: The French language game Verlan. Tübingen: Narr.
36.
LEHISTE, I. (1972). The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 2018–2024.
37.
LEVELT, W.J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation.Cambridge, London: MIT Press.
38.
LEVELT, W.J. M., & WHEELDON, L. (1994). Do speakers have a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50, 239–269.
39.
LEVIN, J. (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
40.
McCARTHY, J.J., & PRINCE, A.S. (1993). Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. To appear as Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
41.
McQUEEN, J.M., NORRIS, D., & CUTLER, A. (1994). Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 621–638.
42.
MEHLER, J., DOMMERGUES, J.Y., FRAUENFELDER, U., & SEGUI, J. (1981). The syllable's role in speech segmentation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 298–305.
43.
MEYER, A. S. (in press). Word form generation in language production. In H. Peeters, W. Hulstijn, & P. van Lieshout (Eds.), Speech production and fluency disorders.
44.
NAKATANI, L.H., & DUKES, K.D. (1977). Locus of segmental cues for word juncture. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 62, 714–719.
45.
NOOTEBOOM, S.G. (1972). Production and perception of vowel duration: A study of durational properties of vowels in Dutch. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Utrecht.
46.
NORRIS, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189–234.
47.
PIERREHUMBERT, J., & NAIR, R. (1995). Word games and syllable structure. Language and Speech, 38, 77–114.
48.
POLS, L.G. W. (1977). Spectral analysis and identification of Dutch vowels in monosyllabic words. Ph.D. dissertation. Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam.
49.
PULGRAM, E. (1970). Syllable, word, nexus, cursus.The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
50.
RAMERS, K.H. (1988). Vokalquantität und -qualität im Deutschen. [Vowel quantity and quality in German].Tübingen: Niemeyer.
51.
RAMERS, K.H. (1992). Ambisilbische Konsonanten im Deutschen [Ambisyllabic consonants in German]. In P. Eisenberg, K.H. Ramers, & H. Vater (eds.), Silbenphonologie des Deutschen [Syllable phonology of German] (pp. 246–283). Tübingen: Narr.
52.
ROELOFS, A. (1996). Serial order in planning the production of successive morphemes of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 854–876.
53.
ROELOFS, A., & MEYER, A. S. (in press). Metrical structure in planning the production of spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
54.
SCHILLER, N.O. (submitted). The effect of visually masked syllable primes on the naming latencies of words and pictures.
55.
SCHILLER, N.O., MEYER, A.S., BAAYEN, R.H., & LEVELT, W.J. M. (1996). A comparison of lexeme and speech syllables in Dutch. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 3, 8–28.
56.
SCHUTTER, G. de, & COLLIER, R. (1986). Intuïtieve syllabisering in het Nederlands [Intuitive syllabification in Dutch]. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 79, 441–452.
57.
SCHUTTER, G. de, & GILLIS, S. (1994). Intuïtieve syllabisering in de taalverwerving: Een vergelijking van vijf- en achtjarigen [Intuitive syllabification in language acquisition: A comparison between five- and eight-year-olds]. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics, 80.
58.
SEIDENBERG, M.S. (1987). Sublexical structures in visual word recognition: Access units or orthographic redundancy? In M. Coltheart (ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 245–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
59.
SEIDENBERG, M.S., & TANENHAUS, M.K. (1979). Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human, Learning and Memory, 5, 546–554.
60.
SELKIRK, E.O. (1982). The syllable. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (eds.), The structure of phonological representations.Part II (pp. 337–383). Dordrecht: Foris.
61.
SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S. (1979). Speech errors as evidence for a serial-ordering mechanism in sentence production. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merill Garrett (pp. 295–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62.
SHATTUCK-HUFNAGEL, S. (1983). Sublexical units and suprasegmental structure in speech production planning. In P. F. MacNeilage (ed.), The production of speech (pp. 109–136). New York: Springer.
63.
SLIS, I.H., & van HEUGTEN, M. (1989). Voiced-voiceless distinction in Dutch fricatives. In H. Bennis & A. van Kemenade (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1989 (pp. 123–132). Dordrecht, Providence, RI: Foris.
64.
TREIMAN, R. (1983). The structure of spoken syllables: Evidence from novel word games. Cognition, 15, 49–74.
65.
TREIMAN, R. (1986). The division between onsets and rimes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 476–491.
66.
TREIMAN, R., & DANIS, C. (1988). Syllabification of intervocalic consonants. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 87–104.
67.
TREIMAN, R., FOWLER, C.A., GROSS, J., BERCH, D., & WEATHERSTON, S. (1995). Syllable structure or word structure? Evidence for onset and rime units with disyllabic and trisyllabic stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 132–155.
68.
TREIMAN, R., & KESSLER, B. (1995). In defense of an onset-rime syllable structure for English. Language and Speech, 38, 127–142.
69.
TREIMAN, R., & ZUKOWSKI, A. (1990). Toward an understanding of English syllabification. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 66–85.
70.
TREIMAN, R., & ZUKOWSKI, A. (1996). Children's sensitivity to syllables, onsets, rimes, and phonemes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 193–215.
71.
TROMMELEN, M. (1984). The syllable in Dutch: With special reference to diminutive formation.Dordrecht, Cinnaminson: Foris.
72.
TRUBETZKOY, N.S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie [Characteristics of phonology]6. Auflage. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.
73.
VENNEMANN, T. (1970). The German velar nasal: A case for abstract phonology. Phonetica, 22, 65–81.
74.
VENNEMANN, T. (1982). Zur Silbenstruktur der deutschen Standardsprache. In T. Vennemann (ed.), Silben, Segmente, Akzente [Syllables, segments, accents] (pp. 261–305). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
75.
VENNEMANN, T. (1986). Neuere Entwicklungen in der Phonologie [More recent developments in phonology].Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
76.
VENNEMANN, T. (1994). Universale Nuklearphonologie mit epiphänomenaler Silbenstruktur [Universal nuclear phonology with epi-phenomenal syllable structure]. In K.H. Ramers, H. Vater, & H. Wode (eds.), Universale phonologische Strukturen und Prozesse [Universal phonological structures and processes] (pp. 7–54). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
77.
WIESE, R. (1988). Silbische und lexikalische Phonologie: Studien zum Chinesischen und Deutschen [Syllabic and lexical phonology: Studies in Chinese and German].Tübingen: Niemeyer.
78.
WIESE, R. (1996). The phonology of German.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
79.
ZONNEVELD, W. (1993). Schwa, superheavies, stress, and syllables in Dutch. The Linguistic Review, 10, 61–110.
80.
ZWITSERLOOD, P., SCHRIEFERS, H., LAHIRI, A., & van DONSELAAR, W. (1993). The role of syllables in the perception of spoken Dutch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 260–271.
