The role of phonemic and subphonemic cues in morphological learning
-
Dinah Baer-Henney
and
Dominic Schmitz
Abstract
Building upon recent discoveries highlighting the direct interplay between phonetics and morphology in production, perception, and comprehension, our study adds another dimension to this area of research: language learning. We use as template the case of English word-final /s/, where segment duration has been shown to serve as a critical cue for morphological category differentiation (non-morphemic, suffix, or clitic). In a study with German adults, employing an artificial language learning paradigm, we compared the ability to learn the distinction between singular and plural forms, where in one group, singular and plural were distinguished by phonemic content (/p/ vs. /f/), and in two other groups, singular and plural were distinguished by durational differences varying in length (/f/). The experimental design consisted of a training phase, followed by a number decision task involving new items. We employed a mouse-tracking paradigm, which allowed us to not only assess the success rate, but also analyze the reaction times and trajectories of participants’ responses in detail. Our findings reveal that the artificial language relying on the phonemic cues is learned easily, while learners of the artificial language relying on the subphonemic cues lag behind but apparently show signs of initial learning. Our results contribute to the understanding of the intricate relationship between phonetics and morphology, shedding light on the role of subphonemic information in linguistic categorization.
Data availability statement
Data and scripts are available at: https://osf.io/25tvh/
Ethics and consent
The present study was conducted in compliance with ethical guidelines and received formal approval from the Ethics Commission of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany.
Acknowledgements
We thank Jennifer Keller for her assistance with the design and recording of the stimuli. We thank Addison Blanchard-Rooney for collecting the data, and we thank him and Simon David Stein for providing feedback on the writing. Finally, we thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.
Authors’ contributions
Dinah Baer-Henney: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft; Dominic Schmitz: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – review and editing.
References
Arppe, A., Hendrix, P., Milin, P., Harald Baayen, R., Sering, T., & Shaoul, C. 2018. ndl: Naive discriminative learning [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ndl (R package version 0.2.18).Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y.-Y., Shafaei-Bajestan, E., & Blevins, J. P. 2019. The discriminative lexicon: A unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de)composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity, 2019, 1–39.10.1155/2019/4895891Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118 (3), 438.10.1037/a0023851Search in Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01Search in Google Scholar
Berent, I. 2013. The phonological mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17 (7), 319–327.10.1016/j.tics.2013.05.004Search in Google Scholar
Blazej, L. J., & Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. 2015. Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41 (1), 50.10.1037/a0038509Search in Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. 2018. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 6.0.40 [Computer software manual].Search in Google Scholar
Boll-Avetisyan, N., & Kager, R. 2016. Is speech processing influenced by abstract or detailed phonotactic representations? The case of the obligatory contour principle. Lingua, 171, 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.11.008Search in Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Buchmeier, M., Conrad, M., Jacobs, A. M., Bölte, J., & Böhl, A. 2011. The word frequency effect: A review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German. Experimental Psychology, 58 (5). https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000123Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2003. Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bürkner, P.-C. 2017. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80 (1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1998. On the nature, use, and acquisition of language. In Handbook of child language acquisition (pp. 33–54). Brill.10.1163/9789004653023_005Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row.Search in Google Scholar
Christophe, A., & Dupoux, E. 1996. Bootstrapping lexical acquisition: The role of prosodic structure. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.10.1515/tlir.1996.13.3-4.383Search in Google Scholar
Clayards, M., Gaskell, M. G., & Hawkins, S. 2021. Phonetic detail is used to predict a word’s morphological composition. Journal of Phonetics, 87, 101055.10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101055Search in Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Van Donselaar, W. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40 (2), 141–201.10.1177/002383099704000203Search in Google Scholar
Desai, R. 2002. Bootstrapping in miniature language acquisition. Cognitive Systems Research, 3 (1), 15–23.10.1016/S1389-0417(01)00040-7Search in Google Scholar
Dmitrieva, O. 2012. Geminate typology and the perception of consonant duration (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University.Search in Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013. Coding of nominal plurality (v2020.4) [Data set]. In M. S. Dryer M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591Search in Google Scholar
Echols, C. H., Crowhurst, M. J., & Childers, J. B. 1997. The perception of rhythmic units in speech by infants and adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 36 (2), 202–225.10.1006/jmla.1996.2483Search in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. 2020. Grundriss der deutschen grammatik: Band 1: Das wort. Springer.10.1007/978-3-476-05096-0_1Search in Google Scholar
Engemann, M., & Plag, I. 2021. Phonetic reduction and paradigm uniformity effects in spontaneous speech. The Mental Lexicon, 16 (1), 165–198.10.1075/ml.20023.engSearch in Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. 2005. Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780542000005Search in Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Jin, K.-s., & Scott, R. M. 2020. The developmental origins of syntactic bootstrapping. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12 (1), 48–77.10.1111/tops.12447Search in Google Scholar
Gahl, S. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84 (3), 474–496.10.1353/lan.0.0035Search in Google Scholar
Gahl, S., & Baayen, R. H. 2022. Time and thyme again: Connecting spoken word duration to models of the mental lexicon. Preprint. https://osf.io/2bd3rSearch in Google Scholar
Gahl, S., & Baayen, R. H. 2024. Time and thyme again: Connecting English spoken word duration to models of the mental lexicon. Language, 100 (4), 623–670.10.1353/lan.2024.a947037Search in Google Scholar
Gahl, S., & Yu, A. C. 2006. Introduction to the special issue on exemplar-based models in linguistics. Linguistic Review, 23, 213–216. https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.007Search in Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. 1990. The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition, 1 (1), 3–55.10.1207/s15327817la0101_2Search in Google Scholar
Grandon, B., Schlechtweg, M., & Ruigendijk, E. 2023. Processing of noun plural marking in German-speaking children: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Child Language, 1–28.10.1017/S0305000923000521Search in Google Scholar
Hedia, S. B., & Plag, I. 2017. Gemination and degemination in English prefixation: Phonetic evidence for morphological organization. Journal of Phonetics, 62, 34–49.10.1016/j.wocn.2017.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Heilig, O. 1898. Grammatik der ostfränkischen mundart des taubergrundes und der nachbarmundarten (Vol. 5). Breitkopf & Härtel.Search in Google Scholar
Höhle, B. 2009. Bootstrapping mechanisms in first language acquisition. Linguistics, 47 (2), 359–382.10.1515/LING.2009.013Search in Google Scholar
Hohlfeld, A., Martín-Loeches, M., & Sommer, W. 2015. Is semantic processing during sentence reading autonomous or controlled? Evidence from the N400 component in a dual task paradigm. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 11, 42. https://doi.org/10.5709/ACP-0170-2Search in Google Scholar
Hsieh, L., Leonard, L. B., & Swanson, L. 1999. Some differences between English plural noun inflections and third singular verb inflections in the input: The contributions of frequency, sentence position, and duration. Journal of Child Language, 26 (3), 531–543.10.1017/S030500099900392XSearch in Google Scholar
Johnson, E. K., & Seidl, A. 2008. Clause segmentation by 6-month-old infants: A crosslinguistic perspective. Infancy, 13 (5), 440–455.10.1080/15250000802329321Search in Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. 1997. The discovery of spoken language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Search in Google Scholar
Kemps, R. J., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. 2005a. Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory & Cognition, 33 (3), 430–446.10.3758/BF03193061Search in Google Scholar
Kemps, R. J., Wurm, L. H., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. 2005b. Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20 (1–2), 43–73.10.1080/01690960444000223Search in Google Scholar
Kieslich, P. J., & Henninger, F. 2017. Mousetrap: An integrated, open-source mouse-tracking package. Behavior Research Methods, 49 (5), 1652–1667. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0900-zSearch in Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In I.-S. Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL1 (pp. 3–91). Hanshin.Search in Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H., & Cooper, W. E. 1975. Perception of segment duration in sentence contexts. In A. Cohen & S. G. Nooteboom (Eds.), Structure and process in speech perception (pp. 69–89). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-81000-8_5Search in Google Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M. 1988. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua, 74 (4), 303–335.10.1016/0024-3841(88)90064-2Search in Google Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M. 1993. Schemata bei der pluralbildung im deutschen: Versuch einer kognitiven morphologie (Vol. 47). Tübingen: G. Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Kubozono, H. 2017. The phonetics and phonology of geminate consonants. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198754930.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. 2010. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123Search in Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. 2017. lmertest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13Search in Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22 (1), 1–38.10.1017/S0140525X99001776Search in Google Scholar
Lohmann, A. 2018. Time and thyme are not homophones: A closer look at Gahl’s work on the lemma-frequency effect, including a reanalysis. Language, 94 (2), e180–e190.10.1353/lan.2018.0032Search in Google Scholar
Machač, P., & Skarnitzl, R. 2009. Principles of phonetic segmentation. Epocha.Search in Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A. 1993. Signal detection theory as data analysis method and psychological decision model. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behaviorial sciences (pp. 21–57). Taylor & Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. 2005. Signal detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Maniwa, K., Jongman, A., & Wade, T. 2009. Acoustic characteristics of clearly spoken English fricatives. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125 (6), 3962–3973.10.1121/1.2990715Search in Google Scholar
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. 2012. Opensesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44 (2), 314–324.10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7Search in Google Scholar
Moran, S., McCloy, D., & Wright, R. (Eds.). 2014. Phoible online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved from http://phoible.org/Search in Google Scholar
Nazzi, T., Nelson, D. G. K., Jusczyk, P. W., & Jusczyk, A. M. 2000. Six-month-olds’ detection of clauses embedded in continuous speech: Effects of prosodic well-formedness. Infancy, 1 (1), 123–147.10.1207/S15327078IN0101_11Search in Google Scholar
Nixon, J. S. 2020. Of mice and men: Speech sound acquisition as discriminative learning from prediction error, not just statistical tracking. Cognition, 197, 104081.10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104081Search in Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. Typological Studies in Language, 45, 137–158.10.1075/tsl.45.08pieSearch in Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & MacWhinney, B. 1987. The bootstrapping problem in language acquisition. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, 399–441.Search in Google Scholar
Plag, I., Homann, J., & Kunter, G. 2017. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics, 53 (1), 181–216.10.1017/S0022226715000183Search in Google Scholar
Plag, I., Lohmann, A., Hedia, S. B., & Zimmermann, J. 2020. An <s> is an <s>, or is it? Plural and genitive-plural are not homophonous. In L. Körtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Complex words (pp. 260–292). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108780643.015Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/Search in Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. 1988. Behavioral studies of Pavlovian conditioning. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 11 (1), 329–352.10.1146/annurev.neuro.11.1.329Search in Google Scholar
Roelofs, A., & Ferreira, V. S. 2019. The architecture of speaking. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brains to behavior (pp. 35–50). MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/10841.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Schlechtweg, M., & Corbett, G. G. 2023. Is morphosyntactic agreement reflected in acoustic detail? The s duration of English regular plural nouns. English Language Linguistics, 27 (1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674322000223Search in Google Scholar
Schmitz, D. 2022. Production, perception, and comprehension of subphonemic detail: Word-final /s/ in English. Language Science Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schmitz, D., & Baer-Henney, D. 2024. Morphology renders homophonous segments phonetically different: Word-final /s/ in German. In Proceedings speech prosody 2024 (pp. 587–591). https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2024-119Search in Google Scholar
Schmitz, D., Baer-Henney, D., & Plag, I. 2021a. The duration of word-final /s/ differs across morphological categories in English: Evidence from pseudowords. Phonetica, 78 (5–6), 571–616.10.1515/phon-2021-2013Search in Google Scholar
Schmitz, D., Plag, I., Baer-Henney, D., & Stein, S. D. 2021b. Durational differences of word-final /s/ emerge from the lexicon: Modelling morpho-phonetic effects in pseudowords with linear discriminative learning. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.680889Search in Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S., Garellek, M., Gillingham, G., Ackerman, F., & Malouf, R. 2018. Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33 (1), 32–49.10.1080/23273798.2017.1359634Search in Google Scholar
Shatzman, K. B., & McQueen, J. M. 2006. Segment duration as a cue to word boundaries in spoken-word recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1–16.10.3758/BF03193651Search in Google Scholar
Smith, R., Baker, R., & Hawkins, S. 2012. Phonetic detail that distinguishes prefixed from pseudo-prefixed words. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 689–705. Retrieved from https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0095447012000356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.04.002Search in Google Scholar
Soderstrom, M., Seidl, A., Nelson, D. G. K., & Jusczyk, P. W. 2003. The prosodic bootstrapping of phrases: Evidence from prelinguistic infants. Journal of Memory and Language, 49 (2), 249–267.10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00024-XSearch in Google Scholar
Sohail, J., & Johnson, E. K. 2016. How transitional probabilities and the edge effect contribute to listeners’ phonological bootstrapping success. Language Learning and Development, 12 (2), 105–115.10.1080/15475441.2015.1073153Search in Google Scholar
Stan Development Team. 2024. RStan: The R interface to Stan. Retrieved from https://mc-stan.org/ (R package version 2.32.6)Search in Google Scholar
Strycharczuk, P., & Scobbie, J. M. 2016. Gradual or abrupt? The phonetic path to morphologisation. Journal of Phonetics, 59, 76–91.10.1016/j.wocn.2016.09.003Search in Google Scholar
Strycharczuk, P., & Scobbie, J. M. 2017. Whence the fuzziness? Morphological effects in interacting sound changes in Southern British English. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 8 (1), 1–21.10.5334/labphon.24Search in Google Scholar
Tang, K., & Baer-Henney, D. 2023a. Modelling L1 and the artificial language during artificial language learning. Laboratory Phonology. https://doi.org/10.16995/labphon.6460Search in Google Scholar
Tang, K., & Baer-Henney, D. 2023b. Modelling L1 and the artificial language during artificial language learning. Laboratory Phonology, 14 (1), 1–54. https://doi.org/10.16995/labphon.6460Search in Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Hendrix, P., & Baayen, R. H. 2018. Strategies for addressing collinearity in multivariate linguistic data. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.004Search in Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Plag, I., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. 2021. Phonetic effects of morphology and context: Modeling the duration of word-final s in English with naïve discriminative learning. Journal of Linguistics, 57 (1), 123–161.10.1017/S0022226719000203Search in Google Scholar
van de Vijver, R., & Baer-Henney, D. 2014. Developing biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 634.10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00634Search in Google Scholar
Walsh, T., & Parker, F. 1983. The duration of morphemic and non-morphemic /s/ in English. Journal of Phonetics, 11 (2), 201–206.10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30816-2Search in Google Scholar
Wanner, E., & Gleitman, L. R. 1982. Language acquisition: The state of the state of the art. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 3–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wellmann, C. 2023. Early sensitivity to prosodic phrase boundary cues: Behavioral evidence from German-learning infants (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universität Potsdam.Search in Google Scholar
Wellmann, C., Holzgrefe, J., Truckenbrodt, H., Wartenburger, I., & Höhle, B. 2012. How each prosodic boundary cue matters: Evidence from German infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 580.10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00580Search in Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 2000. The phonology of German. Oxford University Press, USA.Search in Google Scholar
Wulff, D. U., Kieslich, P. J., Henninger, F., Haslbeck, J. M. B., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. 2021. Movement tracking of psychological processes: A tutorial using mousetrap. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/v685rSearch in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, E. 2023. Non-segmental morphology. In P. Ackema, S. Bendjaballah, E. Bonet, & A. Fábregas (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to morphology (pp. 69–89). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119693604.morphcom054Search in Google Scholar
Zimmermann, J. 2016. Morphological status and acoustic realization. In Proceedings of the sixteenth Australasian international conference on speech science and technology (SST-2016) (pp. 201–204). ASSTA.Search in Google Scholar
Appendix
Singular items for the training and test phases. To form plural items in the phonemic group, the final f was replaced with a p. To form plural items in the phonetic groups, the final f was lengthened according to the group specific grammar.
| Training items | Test items, attested | Test items, unattested | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| subgroup 1 | subgroup 2 | subgroup 1 | subgroup 2 | subgroup 1 | subgroup 2 |
| gotɪf | nobɛf | getɑf | nibɑf | nibɑf | getɑf |
| lumɑf | kadʊf | lemɪf | kedɔf | kedɔf | lemɪf |
| mogɛf | dakʊf | magʊf | dukɛf | dukɛf | magʊf |
| tegɑf | nadɪf | tagɪf | nodɛf | nodɛf | tagɪf |
| galɔf | banʊf | golɛf | bonɪf | bonɪf | golɛf |
| milɛf | kenɔf | mulɔf | kanɪf | kanɪf | mulɔf |
| tolɑf | bedɑf | tulɛf | bidʊf | bidʊf | tulɛf |
| megɪf | nekʊf | gimɑf | nokɑf | nokɑf | gimɑf |
| talɪf | denɪf | legʊf | danʊf | danʊf | legʊf |
| gumɪf | bikɑf | mitɔf | bukɔf | bukɔf | mitɔf |
| gilʊf | budɔf | tomʊf | dabɛf | dabɛf | tomʊf |
| gemɔf | dibɔf | litɛf | kebɪf | kebɪf | litɛf |
| ligʊf | nikɛf | ||||
| matɛf | kibʊf | ||||
| timʊf | konɑf | ||||
| lomɛf | dubɑf | ||||
| letɔf | bokɪf | ||||
| mutɑf | nubɪf | ||||
| tugɔf | kudɛf | ||||
| latʊf | donɛf | ||||
Instructions.
| training instruction (German) | Das nun folgende Experiment hat zwei Teile. Im ersten Teil musst du nichts machen, außer gucken und aufmerksam zuhören. Du wirst in eine fremde Welt mit Fabelwesen und einer neuen Sprache entführt. Schau dir die Bilder an und höre aufmerksam, wie man in der Welt dazu sagt. |
| training instruction (English translation) | The following experiment has two parts. In the first part, you don’t have to do anything except watch and listen carefully. You will be whisked away to a strange world with mythical creatures and a new language. Look at the pictures and listen carefully to what they are called in this world. |
| test instruction (German) | Im nächsten Teil wollen wir mal gucken, ob Du die Begriffe den richtigen Bildern schon zuordnen kannst. Du kannst gleich loslegen. Klicke mit der Maus so schnell wie möglich auf das Bild, auf das der Begriff passt. Zwischendurch musst du dann immer zuerst zurück auf die Startposition gehen und einmal darauf klicken, dann beginnt die nächste Runde. |
| test instruction (English translation) | In the next part, let’s see if you can match the words to the right pictures. You can get started right away. Click with the mouse as quickly as possible on the picture that matches the word. In between, you always have to go back to the starting position and click on it once, then the next round begins. |
©2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
