Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Time and thyme are not homophones: A closer look at Gahl’s work on the lemma-frequency effect, including a reanalysis

Time and thyme are not homophones: A closer look at Gahl’s work on the lemma-frequency effect,... <p>Abstract:</p><p>‘<i>Time</i> and <i>thyme</i> are not homophones’, a 2008 article by Susanne Gahl published in <i>Language</i>, reports a frequency effect differentiating the durations of homophones, for example, <i>time</i> vs. <i>thyme</i>. The article is of fundamental theoretical relevance, as the finding reported has significant implications for research on homophones and the effects of frequency in general. As I show in the present paper, however, the main analysis in Gahl 2008 does not provide quantitative evidence for the effect. The same is true of a follow-up study (Gahl 2009). I provide here a reanalysis based on the original data set, which shows that the frequency effect reported in the original article is real.</p> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Language Linguistic Society of America

Time and thyme are not homophones: A closer look at Gahl’s work on the lemma-frequency effect, including a reanalysis

Lohmann, Arne
Language , Volume 94 (2) – Jun 16, 2018
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/linguistic-society-of-america/i-time-i-and-i-thyme-i-are-small-class-caps-not-small-homophones-a-RJPH6FQD7J

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Linguistic Society of America
Copyright
Copyright © Linguistic Society of America.
ISSN
1535-0665

Abstract

<p>Abstract:</p><p>‘<i>Time</i> and <i>thyme</i> are not homophones’, a 2008 article by Susanne Gahl published in <i>Language</i>, reports a frequency effect differentiating the durations of homophones, for example, <i>time</i> vs. <i>thyme</i>. The article is of fundamental theoretical relevance, as the finding reported has significant implications for research on homophones and the effects of frequency in general. As I show in the present paper, however, the main analysis in Gahl 2008 does not provide quantitative evidence for the effect. The same is true of a follow-up study (Gahl 2009). I provide here a reanalysis based on the original data set, which shows that the frequency effect reported in the original article is real.</p>

Journal

Language – Linguistic Society of America

Published: Jun 16, 2018

There are no references for this article.