G ENERAL D ISCUSSION
5.5 The P350 Effect
5.5.2 P350 Effect and Semantic Priming
Having sorted this out, we set out to test the hypothesis that the P350 component reflects automatic brain processes of lexical activation. Our reasoning was that if the P350 amplitude indeed reflected the level of lexical activation in a modality independent processing system, and if it was not dependent on phonological overlap between prime and target, then we should be able to observe a similar effect in semantic instead of phonological fragment priming.
5.5.2.1 Behavioural Semantic Priming Experiments on Segment Processing As already outlined in Chapter 3, several behavioural studies have found evidence for sensitivity to subphonetic differences in semantic priming (cf. Connine, Blasko
& Wang, 1994; Andruski, Blumstein & Burton, 1994; Bölte & Coenen, 2002).
Connine et al. (Connine, Blasko & Wang, 1994) obtained semantic priming of a visual target word, using ambiguous prime words (e.g. with a VOT between dime and time). Similarly, Andruski et al. (Andruski, Blumstein & Burton, 1994) got graded amounts of semantic priming with progressively shortened VOT of word initial stop consonants. Bölte and Coenen (2002) showed that semantic priming was sensitive to the number of features that were altered in a prime word. Lexical decision responses to a visual target word (e.g. monkey) were equally fast when this was preceded by a semantically related word (e.g. gorilla) or by a pseudoword with one feature change (e.g. *korilla), slower after a change of several features (e.g. *torilla) and slowest in a control condition. Lahiri and van Coillie (1999)
went one step further and showed that semantic priming does not only depend on the number, but also on the kinds of features that are changed and on their respective representations in the mental lexicon. Responses to visual target words (e.g. Sand, ‘sand’) were facilitated, if a coronal consonant in the prime word (e.g. n in Düne, ‘dune’) was replaced by a non-coronal consonant (e.g. *Düme).
Responses (e.g. to Kratzer, ‘scratch’) were not facilitated if a non-coronal consonant (e.g. m in Schramme, ‘scratch’) was replaced by a coronal one (e.g.
*Schranne).
5.5.2.2 P350-like Effects in Semantic Priming Studies
Several authors (Nobre & McCarthy, 1994; Kiefer, Weisbrod, Kern, Maier &
Spitzer, 1998; Hill, Strube, Roesch-Ely & Weisbrod, 2002; Dien, Frishkoff, Cerbone & Tucker, 2003) have reported findings of left frontal or temporal deflections in semantic priming experiments, that resembled the P350 in the direction of the effect as well as in the time window they showed up in. These findings gave us confidence to examine the P350 effect in the cross-modal fragment priming design and see whether it would also show up in semantic priming, which would strengthen the hypothesis of lexical activation reflection and additionally would considerably enhance our freedom in designing EEG studies that try to tap into featural representations in the mental lexicon.
In a semantic list priming experiment Nobre and McCarthy (1994) presented participants with a list of nouns and asked them to press a button whenever they encountered a body part name in the list. Some of the non-body-part words were semantically related to the preceding word in the list (e.g. chalk – crayon) and some were unrelated (e.g. child – tree). EEG responses to semantically primed words (e.g. crayon) diverged from the others (e.g. chalk, child, tree) starting at 220ms post stimulus onset. The N400 had its most negative peak at 364 ms over midline central and occipital regions. This peak was smaller for semantically primed words (e.g. crayon). At 316 ms there was another ERP peak over left fronto-temporal sites, which was enhanced by semantic priming and distinct from the later N400 with respect to temporal and spatial characteristics and with respect to the direction of the effect. The amplitudes of this fronto-temporal ERP at 316ms were most negative for semantically primed words, resulting in the same pattern as we would expect for the P350 component. Similar to the interpretation of the P350, the authors interpreted this early effect as a reflection of lexical or semantic access while the N400 was assumed to reflect postlexical associative or integrative processes.
Kiefer et al. (Kiefer, Weisbrod, Kern, Maier & Spitzer, 1998) and Hill et al. (Hill, Strube, Roesch-Ely & Weisbrod, 2002) also obtained frontal ERP effects besides the usual N400 effect in visual semantic priming with lexical decisions on the target word. When word pairs were not semantically related, there was an N400-like negative deflection at centro-parietal sites, which was not there for semantically related pairs. However, starting at 380 ms, Kiefer and colleagues found that ERPs to related targets showed a pronounced left lateralized fronto-temporal negative deflection that was less expressed in the unrelated condition.
Again, this pattern remarkably resembled the P350 and possibly reflected the same process. Hill and colleagues instead observed a right inferior effect around 310 ms, with more negative values for semantically related than for unrelated targets.
Although this effect is not reported for the left hemisphere, corresponding ERP waveforms on the left side look very similar to those on the right for this so-called N310 effect.
Finally, Dien et al. (Dien, Frishkoff, Cerbone & Tucker, 2003) presented participants with a sentence one word at a time. The last word of each sentence was either semantically congruent or incongruent (e.g. John took the dog for a drive).
They report an N400 effect between 300 and 500ms with more negative amplitudes for incongruous sentence endings, and a so-called N300 with more negative amplitudes for congruent endings. The N300 peaked between 330 and 410 ms at left-lateralized fronto-temporal sites. Once more this reminds of the P350 component. In contrast to Nobre and McCarthy (1994), the authors interpret the N300 as an ERP index of post-lexical semantic processing.
In sum, four studies report frontal effects (three of them lateralized to the left hemisphere) in semantic priming that are distinct from the N400 and display more negative amplitudes for the semantically related or congruent as compared to unrelated or incongruent words. These effects have been inconsistently interpreted by the authors as either reflecting lexical/semantic access (Nobre & McCarthy, 1994) or post-lexical semantic processing (Dien, Frishkoff, Cerbone & Tucker, 2003). Still, they all considerably resemble the P350 effect found in phonological priming and give reasons to hope for such a P350 effect in cross modal semantic fragment priming.
5.5.2.3 Semantic Cross Modal Fragment Priming Study
The study shortly summarized here was designed to resemble as closely as possible previous P350 studies, with the only difference that semantic priming rather than phonological priming was employed. Therefore, the design was again cross modal
with auditory prime stimuli and visual target words. Furthermore, the prime stimuli did not consist of a whole word, but only of a word’s first syllable. Three conditions were used. In the so-called identity condition, the prime fragment was the first syllable of the following target word (e.g. grosch – GROSCHEN, “cent”), in the semantically related condition, the prime fragment was the first syllable of a semantically related word (e.g. mün – GROSCHEN, mün- from ‘Münze’, “coin”), and in the control condition the first syllable of an unrelated word preceded the target item (e.g. blu – GROSCHEN, blu- from ‘Blume’, “flower”). For the identity condition we expected the most negative P350 amplitude, since the target should be the most activated in this condition, while we expected least negative amplitudes for the control condition with no lexical pre-activation of the target word. The interesting condition was the semantically related condition, in which the prime fragment should activate the lexical representation of the target word, which should be reflected in a more negative (than control) P350 amplitude, provided that this component depicts lexical activation of the target item independent of the kind of priming used. Among others, Zwitserlood and Schriefers (1995) have already shown that cross modal semantic fragment priming per se works (i.e. in plain behavioural designs). They presented auditory sentences terminating in a word fragment (e.g. “You are now going to listen to cap-“), followed by a visual target word on which a lexical decision was performed.
Reaction times were faster to semantically related targets (e.g. ship, semantically related to cap-tain) than to unrelated target words. In a behavioural prestudy we also assured that the stimulus-pairs we used in the EEG experiment lead to semantic priming in the fragment priming design. The behavioural data collected later during the EEG experiment no longer showed evidence of semantic priming.
Only responses to the identical condition were facilitated as compared to responses in the control condition. There was no difference in response time between the semantic priming condition and the control condition. This is not particularly worrysome in light of previous differences between reaction time results gained in behavioural versus EEG experiments. However, ERP amplitudes showed neither a P350 nor an N400 effect for the semantic priming condition. Therefore, we could not conclude that the missing P350 effect was due to an insensitivity of this component to semantic priming. It could as well be the case that semantic priming failed to occur in the first place or was too weak to show up in the P350 or N400.
We therefore suggest a replication of this study with full word rather than fragment priming, possibly resembling the study by Lahiri and van Coillie (1999) in design.
This should be a safer way to obtain semantic priming.
We suggest to further explore the P350 effect as well as the assumptions of the FUL model in several methodologically varied studies, testing the effects of full word versus fragment priming, word versus pseudoword primes, interstimulus intervals of different lengths, phonological versus semantic priming, consonantal versus vocalic versus tonal variations, etc. This will provide a better understanding of the methods used in psycholinguistic research and the scope of underlying mental processes they depict. Furthermore, it will give valuable answers to questions of speech processing and the mental representation of language.
6 R EFERENCES
Anderson, L. (1990). Ett barns wäg till accent 1 [A child’s way to accent 1].
Göteborg: University of Göteborg, Department of Linguistics.
Andruski, J.E., Blumstein, S.E., & Burton, M. (1994). The effect of subphonetic differences on lexical access. Cognition, 52, 163-187.
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behaviour:
Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
Berg, P. & Scherg, M. (1994). A multiple source approach to the correction of eye artifacts. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 90, 229-241.
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2006). Praat. Doing phonetics by computer (ver.
4.6.29). Amsterdam: Institute for Phonetic Sciences.
Bölte, J. & Coenen, E. (2002). Is phonological information mapped onto semantic information in a one-to-one manner? Brain and Language, 81, 384-397.
Bruce, G. (1977). Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Lund: Gleerup.
Bruce, G. & Hermans, B. (1999). Word tone in Germanic languages. In: H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. (pp. 605-658). Berlin: Mouton.
Caramazza, A. (1996). The brain’s dictionary. Nature, 380, 485-486.
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English (SPE). New York:
Harper & Row.
Clements, G.N. & Hume, E. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds.
In: J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 245-306). Oxford: Blackwell.
Connine, C.M., Blasko, D.G., & Wang, J. (1994). Vertical similarity in spoken word recognition: Multiple lexical activation, individual differences and the role of sentence context. Perception and Psychophysics, 56, 624-636.
Connine, C.M., Titone, D., Deelman, T., & Blasko, D. (1997). Similarity mapping in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 463-480.
Cooper, N., Cutler, A., & Wales, R. (2002). Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: Evidence from native and non-native listeners. Language and Speech, 45, 207-228.
Cornell, S., Lahiri, A., & Eulitz, C. (subm.). What you encode is not necessarily what you store: An MMN study of phonological processing. submitted to Journal of Memory and Language.
Cutler, A. & Chen, H-C. (1997). Lexical Tone in Cantonese spoken-word processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 165-179.
Cutler, A. & Otake, T. (1999). Pitch accent in spoken-word recognition in Japanese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 1877-1888.
Cutler, A. & Donselaar, W. van (2001). Voornaam is not (really) a homophone:
Lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech, 44, 171-195.
Dahan, D., Magnuson, J.S., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Hogan, E.M. (2001).
Subcategorical mismatches and the time course of lexical access: Evidence for lexical competition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 507-534.
Damasio, H., Grabowski, T.J., Tranel, D., Hichwa, R.D., & Damasio, A.R. (1996).
A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature, 380, 499-505.
Davidson, R.J., Jackson, D.C., & Larson, C.L. (2000). Human Electroencephalography. In: J.T. Cacioppo, L.G. Tassinary & G.G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology, 2nd edition (pp. 27-52). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dien, J., Frishkoff, G.A., Cerbone, A., & Tucker, D.M. (2003). Parametric analysis of event-related potentials in semantic comprehension: evidence for parallel brain mechanisms. Cognitive Brain Research, 15, 137-153.
Domahs, U., Wiese, R., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008).
The processing of German word stress: evidence for the prosodic hierarchy.
Phonology, 25, 1-36.
Donselaar, W. van, Koster, M., & Cutler, A. (2005). Exploring the role of lexical stress in lexical recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 251-273.
Drews, E. (1996). Morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processing, 11, 629-634.
Efremova, I.B., Fintoft, K., & Ormestad, H. (1963). Intelligibility of tonic accents.
Phonetica, 10, 203-212.
Elert, C.C. (1972). Tonality in Swedish: Rules and a list of minimal pairs. In: E. S.
Firchow, K. Grimstad, N. Hasselmo & W. A. O’Neil (Eds.), Studies for Einar Haugen (pp. 151-173). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Elman, J.L. (1991). Distributed representations, recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7, 195-225.
Endresen, R.T. (1977). An alternative theory of stress and tonemes in Eastern Norwegian. NTS, 31, 21-46. (reprinted in 1983, in Jahr & Lorentz (Eds.), pp.
362-387).
Engstrand, O., Williams, K., & Strömqvist, S. (1991).Acquisition of the Swedish tonal word accent contrast. In. Actes du XIIième Congrès International des Sciences Phonétiques, (pp. 324-327) Université Aix-Marseille.
Eulitz, C. & Lahiri, A. (2003). Phonological system modulates the sensitivity of phonetic contrasts. Supplement to the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31.
Eulitz, C. & Lahiri, A. (2004). Neurobiological evidence for abstract phonological representations in the mental lexicon during speech recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 577-583.
Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., & Coles, M.G.H. (2000). Event-related brain potentials.
Methods, theory, and applications. In: J.T. Cacioppo, L.G. Tassinary & G.G.
Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology, 2nd edition (pp. 53-84).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fant, G. (1973). Speech sounds and features. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Felder, V. (2006). Examining featural underspecification of Tongue Height in German mid vowels: an EEG study. University of Konstanz: Diplomarbeit.
Felder, V., Friedrich, C.K., Lahiri, A., & Eulitz, C. (2008). Unterspezifikation von Vokalhöhe im mentalen Lexikon – Ereigniskorrelierte Potentiale versus Verhaltensdaten. In V. Felder (Chair): Der Teufel sitzt im Detail – Wieviel phonologische Spezifikation braucht das Lexikon? Symposium conducted at the 50. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen, Marburg, Germany.
Felder, V., Jönsson-Steiner, E., Eulitz, C., & Lahiri, A. (subm.). More is less in processing Swedish tone. Submitted to Attention, Perception and Psychophysics.
Felder, V., Lahiri, A., Eulitz, C., & Friedrich, C.K. (subm.). Losers are kicked out late: An ERP analysis of competition in spoken word recognition. Submitted to Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
Frauenfelder, U., Scholten, M., & Content, A. (2001). Bottom-up inhibition in lexical selection: Phonological mismatch effects in spoken word recognition.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 583-607.
Friedrich, C.K. (2005). Neurophysiological correlates of mismatch in lexical access. BMC Neuroscience, 6.
Friedrich, C.K., Alter, K., & Kotz, S.A. (2001). An electrophysiological response to different pitch contours in words. NeuroReport, 12, 3189-3191.
Friedrich, C.K., Kotz, S.A., Friederici, A.D., & Alter, K. (2004a). Pitch modulates lexical identification in spoken word recognition: ERP and behavioural evidence. Cognitive Brain Research, 20, 300-308.
Friedrich, C.K., Kotz, S.A., Friederici, A.D., & Gunter, T.C. (2004b). ERPs reflect lexical identification in word fragment priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 541-552.
Friedrich, C.K., Eulitz, C., & Lahiri, A. (2006). Not every pseudoword disrupts word recognition: An ERP study. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2.
Friedrich, C.K., Lahiri, A., & Eulitz, C. (2008). Neurophysiological evidence for underspecified representations: Asymmetries with word initial variations.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1545-1559.
Friedrich, C.K., Schild, U., & Röder, B. (2009). Electrophysiological indices of word fragment priming allow characterizing neural stages of speech recognition. Biological Psychology, 80, 105-113.
Gandour, J.T., Wong, D., Hsieh, L., Weinzapfel, B., Lancker, D. van, & Hutchins, G.D. (2000). A crosslinguistic PET study of tone perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 207-222.
Gandour, J.T., Xu, Y., Wong, D., Dzemidzic, M., Lowe, M., Li, X., & Tong, Y.
(2003). Neural correlates of segmental and tonal information in speech perception. Human Brain Mapping, 20, 185-200.
Gandour, J.T. (2006). Tone: Neurophonetics. In: K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.), Vol. 12, (pp. 751-760). Oxford: Elsevier.
Gaskell, M.G. (2007). Statistical and connectionist models of speech perception and word recognition. In: G. Altmann, P. Bloom, A. Caramazza & P. Levelt (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 55-69). Oxford:
University Press.
Gaskell, M.G. & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1996). Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 144-158.
Gaskell, M.G. & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613-656.
Gaskell, M.G. & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1999). Ambiguity, competition, and blending in spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 23, 439-462.
Gaskell, M.G. & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2001). Lexical ambiguity resolution and spoken word recognition: Bridging the gap. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 325-349.
Ghini, M (2001). Asymmetries in the Phonology of Miogliola. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldinger, S.D. (1996). Auditory lexical decision. Language and Cognitive Processing, 11, 559-567.
Goldinger, S.D. (1998). Echoes of Echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access.
Psychological Review, 105, 251-279.
Gow, D.W. Jr. (2001). Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 133-159.
Gow, D.W. Jr. (2002). Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 163-179.
Gussenhoven, C. & Bruce, G. (1999). Word prosody and intonation. In: H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp. 233-271). Berlin: Mouton.
Gussenhoven, C. (2005). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge University Press.
Halle, M., Vaux, B., & Wolfe, A. (2000). On feature spreading and the representation of place of articulation. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 387-444.
Hannemann, R. (2008). Deficient speech repaired: Evidence from event related brain responses. University of Konstanz: Doctoral Dissertation.
Haugen, E. & Joos, M. (1952). Tone and intonation in East Norwegian. Acta Philologica Scandianavica, 22, 41-61. (reprinted in 1983, in Jahr &
Lorentz (Eds.), pp. 179-201).
Haugen, E. (1967). On the rules of Norwegian tonality. Language, 43, 185-202.
Hedelin, P. (1997). Norstedts svenska uttalslexikon. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Hellquist, B. & Olsson, B. (1981). Grav och akut accent I barnspak [Grave and acute accent in child language]. In: G. Bruce (Ed.): Tema prosodi (Praktisk lingvistik #6, pp. 6-19). Lund: University of Lund: Department of Linguistics.
Higgins, E.T., Rholes, C.R., & Jones, C.R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.
Hill, H., Strube, M., Roesch-Ely, D., & Weisbrod, M. (2002). Automatic vs.
controlled processis in semantic priming – differentiation by event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 44, 197-218.
Hoel, T. (1981). An intonation analysis of the Oslo dialect. In: T. Fretheim (Ed.):
Nordic Prosody II (pp. 96-110). Trondheim: Tapir.
Honbolygó, F., Csépe, V., & Ragó, A. (2004). Suprasegmental speech cues are automatically processed by the human brain: a mismatch negativity study.
Neuroscience Letters, 363, 84-88.
Hyman, L. (2000). Tone systems. In: M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher
& W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (pp. 1367-1379). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Inkelas, S. (1994). Archiphonemic underspecification: An optimization approach to the phonological description of morphemes. Manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. In: K.
Yoneyama & K. Maekawa (Eds.), Spontaneous Speech: Data and Analysis. Proceedings of the 1st Session of the 10th International Symposium (pp. 29-54). Japan: The International Institute for Japanese Language.
Kabak, B. (2007). Hiatus resolution in Turkish: An underspecification account.
Lingua, 117, 1378-1411.
Kiefer, M., Weisbrod, M., Kern, I., Maier, S., & Spitzer, M. (1998). Right hemisphere activation during indiredt semantic priming: evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 64, 377-408.
Klatt, D.H. (1989). Review of selected models of speech perception. In W.D.
Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 169-226).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kleinmann, A. & Reetz, H. (2006). Xmod. University of Konstanz.
Krashen, S. (1976). Cerebral asymmetry. In H. Whitaker & M. Whitaker (Eds.), Studies in Neurolinguistics (vol. 2) (pp. 157-191). New York: Academic Press.
Kristoffersen, G. (2000). The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kristoffersen, G. (2006). Tonal melodies and tonal alignment in East Norwegian.
In: G. Bruce & M. Horne (Eds.): Nordic Prosody IX (pp. 157-166).
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K.D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.
Lahiri, A. (1999). Speech recognition with phonological features. The XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco.
Lahiri, A. (2000). Phonology: structure, representation, and process. In: L.
Wheeldon (Ed.), Aspects of language production (pp. 165-225). East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Lahiri, A. & Evers, V. (1991). Palatalisation and coronality. In: C. Paradis &
Pruner, J.-F. (Eds.), The special status of coronals: Internal and external evidence (pp. 79-100). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lahiri, A. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: a phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245-294.
Lahiri, A. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1992). Lexical processing and phonological representation. In: G. J. Docherty & D. R. Ladd (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody (pp. 229-254).
Cambridge: University Press.
Lahiri, A. & Coillie, S. van (1999). Non-mismatching features in language comprehension. Manuscript, University of Konstanz.
Lahiri, A. & Reetz, H. (2002). Underspecified recognition. In: C. Gussenhoven &
N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7 (pp. 637-675). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lahiri, A.,Wetterlin, A., & Jönsson-Steiner, E. (2005). Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 28, 61-96.
Lahiri, A., Wetterlin, A., & Jönsson-Steiner, E. (2006). Scandinavian lexical tone:
Prefixes and Compounds. In: G. Bruce & M. Horne (Eds.): Nordic Prosody IX (pp. 167-173). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Lahiri, A. & Reetz, H. (in press). Distinctive features: Phonological underspecification in processing. Journal of Phonetics.
Lancker, D. van, & Fromkin, V. (1973). Hemispheric specialization for pitch and tone: Evidence from Thai. Journal of Phonetics, 1, 101-109.
Linell, P. (1972). Remarks on Swedish morphology. Report No. RUUL1.
Department of Linguistics, Uppsala University.
Department of Linguistics, Uppsala University.