Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-rxvq6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-21T02:15:24.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Mirjam Ernestus  and
R. Harald Baayen
Mirjam Ernestus*
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
R. Harald Baayen*
Affiliation:
University of Nijmegen and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
*
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Wundtlaan 1, 6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlands [mirjam.ernestus@mpi.nl]
[Harald.Baayen@mpi.nl]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Among the most fascinating data for phonology are those showing how speakers incorporate new words and foreign words into their language system, since these data provide cues to the actual principles underlying language. In this article, we address how speakers deal with neutralized obstruents in new words. We formulate four hypotheses and test them on the basis of Dutch word-final obstruents, which are neutral for [voice]. Our experiments show that speakers predict the characteristics of neutralized segments on the basis of phonologically similar morphemes stored in the mental lexicon. This effect of the similar morphemes can be modeled in several ways. We compare five models, among them stochastic optimality theory and analogical modeling of language; all perform approximately equally well, but they differ in their complexity, with analogical modeling of language providing the most economical explanation.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 5 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Los Angeles: UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Allopenna, Paul D., Magnuson, James S.; and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 1998. Tracking the timecourse of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language 38. 419–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard; and Gulikers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Baumann, Monika. 1995. The production of syllables in connected speech. Nijmegen: Benda Drukkers.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1996. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, ms.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1999. The syllable, views and facts. Morpheme structure constraints and the phonotactics of Dutch. Studies in generative grammar 45, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Ritter, Nancy A., 53–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo, Friedman, Jerome H., Olshen, Richard A.; and Stone, Charles J. 1984. Classification and regression trees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth International Group.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, William S. 1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74. 829–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Allan M., and Loftus, Elizabeth F. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82. 407–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Beverly, and Mees, Inger. 1981. The sounds of English and Dutch. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, Gillis, Steven; and Durieux, Gert. 1994. The acquisition of stress, a data-oriented approach. Computational Linguistics 20. 421–51.Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, Zavrel, Jakub, van, Ko Sloot, der; and van, Antal Bosch, den. 2002. TiMBL: Tilburg memory based learner reference guide, version 4.2. Tilburg: Computational Linguistics Tilburg University.Google Scholar
De Jong, Nivja H., Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2000. The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes 15. 329–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, Bruce L. 1980. English pluralization: A testing ground for rule evaluation. Experimental linguistics, integration of theories and applications, ed. by Prideaux, Gary D., Derwing, Bruce L., and Baker, William J., 81–120. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddington, David. 2000a. Analogy and the dual-route model of morphology. Lingua 110. 281–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddington, David. 2000b. Spanish stress assignment within the analogical modeling of language. Language 76. 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam. 2000. Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch: A corpus-based approach of the phonology-phonetics interface. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, and Baayen, Harald. 2001. Choosing between the Dutch past-tense suffixes -te and -de. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, ed. by van, Ton Wouden, der and de Hoop, Helen, 81–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, and Baayen, Harald. 2002. The functionality of incomplete neutralization in Dutch: The case of past-tense formation. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, ms.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam, and Mak, Willem Marinus. 2002. Analogical effects in the reading of Dutch verb forms. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen, ms.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C., and Bremmer, R. H. Jr. 1983. Voiced fricatives in Dutch: Sources and present-day usage. North-Western European Language Evolution 2. 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos, and Jacobs, Haike. 1998. Understanding phonology. London: Arnold, Hodder Headline Group.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1970. The role of borrowing in the justification of phonological grammars. Studies in African Linguistics 1. 1–48.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Haike, and Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2000. Loan phonology: Perception, salience, the lexicon and OT. Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition, ed. by Dekkers, Joost, van, Frank Leeuw, der, and van, Jeroen Weijer, de, 192–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D. 1986. One rule or many? Sanskrit reduplication as fragmented affixation. Studies on Language Change (Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 34) 84–107.Google Scholar
Jongman, Allard, Sereno, Joan A., Raaijmakers, Marianne; and Lahiri, Aditi. 1992. The phonological representation of [voice] in speech perception. Language and Speech 35. 137–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joseph, Brian D. 1997. How general are our generalizations? What speakers actually know and what they actually do. ESCOL '96. Proceedings of the thirteenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. by Green, Anthony D. and Motopanyane, Virginia, 148–60. Ithaca: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Baayen, R. Harald; and Schreuder, Robert. 2001. Analogy in morphology: Modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics 39. 51–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 2003. Probabilistic approaches to syntax. Probability theory in linguistics, ed. by Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, in press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1993a. Prosodic morphology 1: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Amherst, MA and New Brunswick, NJ: University of Massachusetts and Rutgers University, ms.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1993b. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in optimality theory, ed. by Beckman, Jill L., Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18.) Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Moulton, William G. 1962. The vowels of Dutch: Phonetic and distributional classes. Lingua 11. 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakisa, Ramin, Plunkett, Kim; and Hahn, Ulrike. 2000. A cross-linguistic comparison of single and dual-route models of inflectional morphology. Models of language acquisition: Inductive and deductive approaches, ed. by Broeder, Peter and Murre, Jaap, 201–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A., and Mead, R. 1965. A simplex method for function minimization. Computer Journal 7. 308–13.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M. 1990. Relations between exemplar similarity and likelihood models of classification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 34. 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. The production of speech, ed. by MacNeilage, Peter F., 189–216. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisoni, David B., Nusbaum, Howard C., Luce, Paul A.; and Slowiaczek, Louisa M. 1985. Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication 4. 75–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Boulder, CO and New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder, ms.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, Meritt. 1975. A guide to the languages of the world. Stanford: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1987. Variable rules. Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, vol. 1, ed. by Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, and Mattheier, Klaus J., 984–97. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schreuder, Robert, and Baayen, R. Harald. 1995. Modeling morphological processing. Morphological aspects of language processing, ed. by Feldman, Laurie B., 131–54. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1993. Analogy and structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 2000. Analogical modeling and quantum computing. Los Alamos National Laboratory. Online: http://arXiv.org.Google Scholar
Slis, I. H., and Cohen, A. 1969. On the complex regulating the voiced-voiceless distinction 2. Language and Speech 12. 80–102,137–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slis, I. H., and van Heugten, M. 1989. Voiced-voiceless distinction in Dutch fricatives. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1989, ed. by Bennis, Hans and van Kemenade, Ans, 123–32. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van Reenen, Pieter, and Wattel, Evert. 1992. De uitspraak van /s/ en /z/ voor klinker in het Nederlands: Zes eeuwen variatie. De Binnenbouw van het Nederlands: een bundel artikelen voor Piet Paardekoper, ed. by Bennis, Hans and de Vries, Jan W., 291–306. Dordrecht: ICG Publications.Google Scholar
Warner, Natasha, Jongman, Allard, Sereno, Joan; and Kemps, Rachel. 2001. Sub-phonemic durational differences in production and perception. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, ms.Google Scholar
Woods, Arthur E., Fletcher, Paul; and Hughes, Anthony. 1986. Statistics in language studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonneveld, Wim. 1983. Lexical and phonological properties of Dutch voicing assimilation. Sound structures: Studies for Antonie Cohen, ed. by van, Marcel Broecke, den, van Heuven, Vincent, and Zonneveld, Wim, 101–35. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar