Skip to main content Accessibility help

Cut (n) and cut (v) are not homophones: Lemma frequency affects the duration of noun–verb conversion pairs



This paper tests whether lemma frequency impacts the duration of homographic noun–verb homophones in spontaneous speech, e.g. cut (n)/cut (v). In earlier research on effects of lemma frequency (e.g. Gahl 2008), these pairs of words were not investigated due to a focus on heterographic homophones. Theories of the mental lexicon in both linguistics and psycholinguistics differ as to whether these word pairs are assumed to have shared or separate lexical representations. An empirical analysis based on spontaneous speech from the Buckeye corpus (Pitt et al. 2007) yields the result that differences in lemma frequency affect the duration of the N/V pairs under investigation. First, this finding provides evidence for N/V pairs having separate representations and thus supports models of the mental lexicon in which lexical entries are specified for word class. Second, the result is at odds with an account of ‘full inheritance’ of frequency across homophones and consequently with speech production models implementing inheritance effects via a shared form representation for homophonous words. The findings are best accounted for in a model that assumes completely separate lexical representations for homophonous words.


Corresponding author

Author’s address: Department of English and American Studies, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Universitätsstrasse 1, 40225,


Hide All

I thank the members of the Research Unit ‘Spoken Morphology’, and in particular Peter Indefrey and Frauke Hellwig, for helpful feedback on this study. I am grateful to Benjamin Tucker for sharing his Praat scripts for the Buckeye corpus. Furthermore, I wish to thank Gero Kunter for discussing operationalization questions in testing the lemma frequency effect with me, and Ingo Plag and Thomas Berg for commenting on previous versions of this paper. I furthermore thank the audience at the 173rd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in Boston. Moreover, three anonymous reviewers deserve to be thanked for helpful comments. Funding for this study by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged (grant LO-2135/1-1).



Hide All
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, R. & van Rijn, H.. 2001. WebCelex, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Online resource.
Baayen, R. Harald, Milin, Petar & Ramscar, Michael. 2016. Frequency in lexical processing. Aphasiology 30.11, 11741220.
Barner, David & Bale, Alan. 2002. No nouns, no verbs: Psycholinguistic arguments in favor of lexical underspecification. Lingua 112, 771791.
Barr, Dale J., Levy, Roger, Scheepers, Christoph & Tily, Harry J.. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68.3, 255278.
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steven. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4.
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baxter, Doreen M. & Warrington, Elizabeth K.. 1985. Category specific phonological dysgraphia. Neuropsychologia 23.5, 653666.
Bell, Alan, Jurafsky, Daniel, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia, Gregory, Michelle & Gildea, Daniel. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113.2, 10011024.
Biedermann, Britta & Nickels, Lyndsey. 2008. Homographic and heterographic homophones in speech production: Does orthography matter? Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 44.6, 683697.
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David J. M.. 2016. Praat. Doing phonetics by computer, version 6.0.14.
Bonin, Patrick & Fayol, Michel. 2002. Frequency effects in the written and spoken production of homophonic picture names. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 14.3, 289313.
Box, George & Cox, David. 1964. An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 26.2, 211252.
Bram, Barli. 2011. Major total conversion in English: The question of directionality. Ph.D. thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.
Brysbaert, Marc & New, Boris. 2009. Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41.4, 977990.
Brysbaert, Marc, New, Boris & Keuleers, Emmanuel. 2012. Adding part of speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods 44.4, 991997.
Caramazza, Alfonso, Costa, Albert, Miozzo, Michele & Bi, Yanchao. 2001. The specific-word frequency effect: Implications for the representation of homophones in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27.6, 14301450.
Caramazza, Alfonso & Hillis, Argye E.. 1991. Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain. Nature 349, 788790.
Cohn, Abby, Brugman, Johann, Crawford, Clifford & Joseph, Andrew. 2005. Lexical frequency effects and phonetic duration of English homophones: An acoustic study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118, 2036.
Conwell, Erin. 2015. Neural responses to category ambiguous words. Neuropsychologia 69, 8592.
Conwell, Erin. 2016. Prosodic disambiguation of noun/verb homophones in child-directed speech. Journal of Child Language 44.3, 734751.
Davies, Mark. 2014. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–2012 [Full-Text Corpus Data, Version of 2014].
Don, Jan. 2004. Categories in the lexicon. Linguistics 42, 931956.
Farrell, Patrick. 2001. Functional shift as category underspecification. English Language and Linguistics 5.1, 109130.
Frisson, Steven & Pickering, Martin J.. 1999. The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25.6, 13661383.
Foraker, Stephani & Murphy, Gregory L.. 2012. Polysemy in sentence comprehension: Effects of meaning dominance. Journal of Memory and Language 67.4, 407425.
Gahl, Susanne. 2008. Timeand Thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84.3, 474496.
Gahl, Susanne. 2009. Homophone duration in spontaneous speech: A mixed-effects model. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report 1, 279298.
Guion, Susan G. 1995. Word frequency effects among homonyms. Texas Linguistic Forum 35, 103116.
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20, Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hillis, Argye E. & Caramazza, A.. 1995. Representation of grammatical categories of words in the brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7.3, 396407.
Jescheniak, Jörg & Levelt, Willem J.. 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20.4, 824843.
Jescheniak, Jörg D., Meyer, Antje S. & Levelt, Willem J. M.. 2003. Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech production: Comments on Caramazza, Costa, et al. (2001) and new experimental data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29.3, 432438.
Jurafsky, Daniel. 2003. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Hay, Jennifer, Bod, Rens & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics, 3995. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan & Girand, Cynthia. 2002. The role of the lemma in form variation. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology VII, 134. Berlin/New York: Mouton/de Gruyter.
Kittredge, Audrey K., Dell, Gary S., Verkuilen, Jay & Schwartz, Myrna F.. 2008. Where is the effect of frequency in word production? Insights from aphasic picture-naming errors. Cognitive Neuropsychology 25.4, 463492.
Klein, Devorah E. & Murphy, Gregory L.. 2001. The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language 45.2, 259282.
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per Bruun & Bojesen Christensen, Rune Haubo. 2014. lmerTest.
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology 2nd edn. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lefcheck, Jonathan S. & Freckleton, Robert. 2016. piecewiseSEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7.5, 573579.
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, Willem J. M., Roelofs, Ardi & Meyer, Antje S.. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.1, 175.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax. Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis & Siegel, Laura (eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, 201225. Penn Graduate Linguistics Society.
Middleton, Erica L., Chen, Qi & Verkuilen, Jay. 2015. Friends and foes in the lexicon: Homophone naming in aphasia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 41.1, 7794.
Miozzo, Michele & Caramazza, Alfonso. 2005. The representation of homophones: Evidence from the distractor-frequency effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31.6, 13601371.
Pitt, Mark A., Dilley, Laura, Johnson, Keith, Kiesling, Scott, Raymond, William, Hume, Elizabeth & Fosler-Lussier, Eric. 2007. Buckeye corpus of conversational speech, 2nd release. Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.
Plag, Ingo, Homann, Julia & Kunter, Gero. 2017. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics 53.1, 181216.
Princeton University 2010. ‘About WordNet’. WordNet. Princeton University.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1990. A comprehensive grammar of the English language, 8th impression, standard edn. London/New York: Longman.
R Development coreteam 2011. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Sorensen, John M., Cooper, William E. & Paccia, Jeanne M.. 1978. Speech timing of grammatical categories. Cognition 6.2, 135153.
Tucker, Benjamin V. & Brenner, Daniel. 2016. Massive auditory lexical decision: Going big in the auditory domain, Talk held at Mental Lexicon 2016, Ottawa.
Turk, Alice E. & White, Laurence. 1999. Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics 27.2, 171206.
Velasco, Daniel García. 2009. Conversion in English and its implications for Functional Discourse Grammar. Lingua 119.8, 11641185.
Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D.. 2002. Modern applied statistics with s, 4th edn. New York: Springer.
Whalen, D. H. 1991. Infrequent words are longer in duration than frequent words. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90, 2311.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Cut (n) and cut (v) are not homophones: Lemma frequency affects the duration of noun–verb conversion pairs



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.