Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:05:03.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The cognitive status of stød

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Sara Juul Clausen  and
Line Burholt Kristensen
Sara Juul Clausen
Affiliation:
Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 120, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. [email protected], [email protected]
Line Burholt Kristensen
Affiliation:
Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 120, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. [email protected], [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The Danish prosodic phenomenon stød is associated with a specific range of suffixes including the singular definite suffixes -en and -et. Diachronically, as well as distributionally, stød is related to Swedish/Norwegian accent 1, but unlike accent 1, stød is seen as phonetically and phonologically marked. Keeping in mind the cross-distribution between phonetic/phonological markedness and distributional patterns, we investigate here whether stød is also related to accent 1 when it comes to cognitive markedness. We present the results of a psycholinguistic study in which participants attended to words that were either appropriate combinations of prosody (stød vs. non-stød) and suffix (singular definite -en/-et vs. plural indefinite -e) or mismatches between prosody and suffix. Participants gave slower and more inaccurate responses to mismatches. This effect of mismatch was most pronounced for words with non-stød stems, indicating that the cognitive markedness status of stød corresponds to that of accent 2.

Keywords

Danishprosodypsycholinguisticsresponse time (RT)stød
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 38 , Special Issue 2: Prosody in the Nordic Languages , October 2015 , pp. 163 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2015 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Azuma, Tamiko & van Orden, Guy C.. 1997. Why SAFE is better than fast: The relatedness of a word's meaning affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 484–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2003. Prosody, productivity and word structure: The stød pattern of Modern Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26, 5–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2005. The Phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2008. Stød, diachrony and the non-stød model. In Barnes, Michael, Bremmer, Rolf H. Jr., Lerchner, Gotthard & Nielsen, Hans F. (eds.), North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE), vol. 54/55, 147–189. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Basbøll, Hans. 2013. Ordskemaet og Ikke-Stød. In Duncker, Dorthe, Hansen, Anne Mette & Skovgaard-Petersen, Karen (eds.), Betydning og Forståelse. Festskrift til Hanne Ruus, 137–148. København: Københavns Universitet, Selskab for Nordisk Filologi.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat: A system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5 (9/10), 341–345.Google Scholar
Brink, Lars, Lund, Jørn, Heger, Steffen & Jørgensen, Jens Normann. 1991. Den Store Danske Udtaleordbog. København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Clark, Andy. 2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (3), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language 15 (2), 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grønnum, Nina. 2005. Fonetik og fonologi – almen dansk, 3. udgave. København: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jastrzembski, James E. 1981. Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology 13 (2), 278–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, Wetterlin, Alison & Jönsson-Steiner, Elisabet. 2005. Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28, 61–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, Wetterlin, Alison & Jönsson-Steiner, Elisabet. 2006. Scandinavian lexical tone: Prefixes and compounds. In Bruce, Gösta & Horne, Merle (eds.), Nordic Prosody IX, 167–175. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
McArthur, Tom. 2013. The Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Misyak, Jennifer B., Christiansen, Morten H. & Tomlin, J. Bruce. 2010. Sequential expectations: The role of prediction-based learning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (1), 138–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, Peter Juul. 2012. Morphology Reconsidered: Theoretical Issues and Studies in Nonfinite Verbforms in Danish. Ph.D. dissertation, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Peirce, Jonathan W. 2007. PsychoPy – Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162 (1), 8–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quist, Pia. 2015. Stødgrænsen. Dialekt.dk, Nordisk Forskningsinstitut, University of Copenhagen. http://dialekt.ku.dk/dialekter/eksempler/navneorenes_koen/stodgransen/ (accessed 11 January 2015).Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 1998. The origin of Scandinavian tone accents. Diachronica XV (1), 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riad, Tomas. 2000. The origin of Danish stød. In Lahiri, Aditi (ed.), Analogy, Levelling, Markedness: Principles of Change in Phonology and Morphology, 261–300. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rischel, Jørgen. 2008. Morphemic tone and word tone in Eastern Norwegian. In Grønnum, Nina, Gregersen, Frans & Basbøll, Hans (eds.), Sound Structure in Language, 167–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roll, Mikael, Horne, Merle & Lindgren, Magnus. 2010. Word accents and morphology – ERPs of Swedish word processing. Brain Research 1330, 114–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roll, Mikael, Söderström, Pelle & Horne, Merle. 2011. The marked status of accent 2 in Central Swedish. 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII), Hong Kong, 1710–1713.Google Scholar
Roll, Mikael, Söderström, Pelle & Horne, Merle. 2013. Word-stem tones cue suffixes in the brain. Brain Research 1520, 116–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Söderström, Pelle, Roll, Mikael & Horne, Merle. 2012. Processing morphologically conditioned word accents. The Mental Lexicon 7, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetterlin, Alison & Lahiri, Aditi. 2012. Tonal alternations in Norwegian compounds. The Linguistic Review 29 (2), 279–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Medical Association. 2002. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Nursing Ethics 9 (1), 105–109.Google Scholar