Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 1690–1696 | Cite as

Evidence against interactive effects on articulation in Javanese verb paradigms

  • Scott SeyfarthEmail author
  • Jozina Vander Klok
  • Marc Garellek
Brief Report


In interactive models of speech production, wordforms that are related to a target form are co-activated during lexical planning, and co-activated wordforms can leave phonetic traces on the target. This mechanism has been proposed to account for phonetic similarities among morphologically related wordforms. We test this hypothesis in a Javanese verb paradigm. In Javanese, one class of verbs is inflected by nasalizing an initial voiceless obstruent: one form of each word begins with a nasal, while its otherwise identical relative begins with a voiceless obstruent. We predict that if morphologically related forms are co-activated during production, the nasal-initial forms of these words should show phonetic traces of their obstruent-initial forms, as compared to nasal-initial wordforms that do not alternate. Twenty-seven native Javanese speakers produced matched pairs of alternating and non-alternating wordforms. Based on an acoustic analysis of nasal resonance and closure duration, we present good evidence against the original hypothesis: We find that the alternating nasals are phonetically identical to the non-alternating ones on both measures. We argue that interactive effects during lexical planning do not offer the best account for morphologically conditioned phonetic similarities. We discuss an alternative involving competition between phonotactic constraints and word-specific phonological structures.


Speech production Psycholinguistics Connectionist models Phonology 


Compliance with ethical standards

Open practices statement

The data and analysis script are available at The experiment was not pre-registered.


  1. Aronoff, M., Berg, K., & Heyer, V. (2016). Some implications of English spelling for morphological processing. The Mental Lexicon, 11(2), 164–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben Hedia, S., & Plag, I. (2017). Gemination and degemination in English prefixation: Phonetic evidence for morphological organization. Journal of Phonetics, 62, 34–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2019). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Retrieved from
  4. Brewer, J. B. (2008). Phonetic Reflexes of Orthographic Characteristics in Lexical Representation. ProQuest.Google Scholar
  5. Bürkner P. C. (2018). Advanced Bayesian Multilevel Modeling with the R Package brms. The R Journal. 10(1), 395-411. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpenter B., Gelman A., Hoffman M. D., Lee D., Goodrich B., Betancourt M., Brubaker M., Guo J., Li P., and Riddell A. (2017). Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software. 76(1).
  7. Chen, M. Y. (1997). Acoustic correlates of English and French nasalized vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(4), 2360–2370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho, T. (2001). Effects of morpheme boundaries on intergestural timing: Evidence from Korean. Phonetica, 58, 129--162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, S. (2005). “Capitalistic” versus “militaristic”: the paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In L. Downing, T. A. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory (pp. 107–121). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2006). The functionality of incomplete neutralization in Dutch: The case of past-tense formation. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 27–49.Google Scholar
  11. Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Intraparadigmatic effects on the perception of voice. In Voicing in Dutch (De)voicing: Phonology, Phonetics, and Psycholinguistics (pp. 153–173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gabry, J., Simpson, D., Vehtari, A., Betancourt, M., & Gelman, A. (2019). Visualization in Bayesian workflow. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 182(2), 389–402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gafos, A. (2006). Dynamics in grammar. In Goldstein, M. L., Whalen, D. H. and Best, C. (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 8: Varieties of Phonological Competence (pp. 51-79). Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
  14. Garellek, M., Ritchart, A., & Kuang, J. (2016). Breathy voice during nasality: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Phonetics, 59, 110–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrett, A. (2015). Sound change. In C. Bowern & B. Evans (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 227–248). Routledge. Retrieved from
  16. Goldrick, M. (2014). Phonological processing: The retrieval and encoding of word form information in speech production. In M. Goldrick, V. Ferreira, & M. Miozzo (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Production (pp. 228--244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goldrick, M., Baker, H. R., Murphy, A., & Baese-Berk, M. (2011). Interaction and representational integration: Evidence from speech errors. Cognition, 121(1), 58–72. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Gronau, Q.F., & Singmann, H. (2018). bridgesampling: Bridge Sampling for Marginal Likelihoods and Bayes Factors. R package version 0.6-0.
  19. Hall, T. A., & Scott, J. H. G. (2007). Inflectional paradigms have a base: evidence from s-Dissimilation in Southern German dialects. Morphology, 17(1), 151–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan, A. (2017). Incomplete Neutralization and the (A) symmetry of Paradigm Uniformity. In Aaron Kaplan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 319–328). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
  21. Kawahara, H., de Cheveigne, A., & Patterson, R. D. (1998). An instantaneous-frequency-based pitch extraction method for high-quality speech transformation: revised TEMPO in the STRAIGHT-suite. In ICSLP-1998.Google Scholar
  22. Lee-Kim, S.-I., Davidson, L., & Hwang, S. (2013). Morphological effects on the darkness of English intervocalic /l/. Laboratory Phonology, 4(2), 475--511. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mackenzie, S., Olson, E., Clayards, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). North American /l/ both darkens and lightens depending on morphological constituency and segmental context. Laboratory Phonology, 9(1), 13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicenboim, B., Roettger, T., & Vasishth, S. (2018). Using meta-analysis for evidence synthesis: The case of incomplete neutralization in German. Journal of Phonetics, 70, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Plag, I. (2014). Phonological and phonetic variability in complex words: An uncharted territory. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 26(2), 209--228.Google Scholar
  26. Port, R., & Crawford, P. (1989). Incomplete neutralization and pragmatics in German. Journal of Phonetics, 17, 257--282.Google Scholar
  27. R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  28. Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107(3), 460–499. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Robson, S. (2002). Javanese Grammar for Students, 2nd. Clayton: Monash Asia Inst.Google Scholar
  30. Roettger, T. B., Winter, B., Grawunder, S., Kirby, J., & Grice, M. (2014). Assessing incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German. Journal of Phonetics, 43, 11–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seyfarth, S., Garellek, M., Gillingham, G., Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. (2018). Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(1), 33–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shue, Y.-L., Keating, P., Vicenik, C., & Yu, K. (2011). VoiceSauce: A program for voice analysis. In Proceedings of ICPhS XVII (pp. 1846--1849).Google Scholar
  33. Smith, R., Baker, R., & Hawkins, S. (2012). Phonetic detail that distinguishes prefixed from pseudo-prefixed words. Journal of Phonetics, 40(5), 689–705. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stan Development Team (2018). RStan: the R interface to Stan. R package version 2.18.2.
  35. Strycharczuk, P., & Scobbie, J. M. (2016). Gradual or abrupt? The phonetic path to morphologisation. Journal of Phonetics, 59, 76--91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Styler, W. (2017). On the acoustical features of vowel nasality in English and French. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(4), 2469–2482. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. van Oostendorp, M. (2008). Incomplete devoicing in formal phonology. Lingua, 118(9), 1362–1374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vasishth, S., Beckman, M. E., Nicenboim, B., Li, F., & Kong, E. J. (2018). Bayesian data analysis in the phonetic sciences: A tutorial introduction. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Winter, B., & Roettger, T. (2011). The nature of incomplete neutralization in German. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 76, 55–76.Google Scholar
  40. Yuen, I., Davis, M. H., Brysbaert, M., & Rastle, K. (2010). Activation of articulatory information in speech perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(2), 592–597. Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Seyfarth
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jozina Vander Klok
    • 2
  • Marc Garellek
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian StudiesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations