Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 1941–1947 | Cite as

Paying the meter: Effect of metrical similarity on word lengthening

  • Brett R. MyersEmail author
  • Duane G. Watson
Brief Report

Abstract

Language has a rhythmic structure, but little is known about the mechanisms that underlie how it is planned. Traditional models of language production assume that metrical and segmental planning occur independently and in parallel (Roelofs & Meyer Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(4), 922–939, 1998). We test this claim in two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants completed an event-description task in which a disyllabic target word shared segmental overlap with a prime that either had matching or nonmatching lexical stress. Participants lengthened words in trials with both segmental and metrical overlap, which could either be the result of metrical interference or having uttered a prime with similar segmental realizations. To adjudicate between these possibilities, Experiment 2 included segmentally distinct word pairs with either matching or nonmatching stress. Participants again showed lengthening in trials with both segmental and metrical overlap, but no lengthening from metrical overlap alone. These data suggest that the acoustic-phonetic similarity of the initial syllables of the prime and target creates competition that leads to word lengthening. These are consistent with production models in which segmental and metrical structures are tightly bound at the point of phonological encoding.

Keywords

psycholinguistics motor planning/programming phonology speech production 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sarah Bibyk, Andrés Buxó-Lugo, Cassandra Jacobs, and Reyna Gordon for theoretical and methodological contributions to this work, and Michael West, Joseph Barnette, Jordan Spencer, and Yiran Chen for assistance with data collection and analysis. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1557097. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. This work was additionally supported by the Vanderbilt Trans-Institutional Programs, the Program for Music, Mind, and Society at Vanderbilt, and the Vanderbilt University Department of Psychology and Human Development.

References

  1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (R Package Version 1.1-10) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org
  2. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, T. (1990). The differential sensitivity of consonant and vowels to stress. Language Sciences, 12, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2017). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.37) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/
  5. Buxó-Lugo, A., Jacobs, C. L., & Watson, D. G. (2018). The world is not enough to explain lengthening of phonological competitors.  https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6fnwa
  6. Fraundorf, S. H., Diaz, M. I., Finley, J. R., Lewis, M. L., Tooley, K. M., Isaacs, A. M., … Brehm, L. (2014). CogToolbox for MATLAB [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/maplelab/cogtoolbox.html
  7. Guenther, F. H. (2014). Auditory feedback control is involved at even sub-phonemic levels of speech production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 44–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hickok, G. (2014). The architecture of speech production and the role of the phoneme in speech processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29, 2–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacobs, C. L., Yiu, L. K., Watson, D. G., & Dell, G. S. (2015). Why are repeated words produced with reduced durations? Evidence from inner speech and homophone production. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keating, P., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2002). A prosodic view of word form encoding for speech production. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 101, 112–156.Google Scholar
  11. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D., (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36(14), 1–16. (ECVP Abstract Supplement)Google Scholar
  12. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. MacKay, D. G. (1970). Spoonerisms: The structure of errors in the serial order of speech. Neuropsychologia, 8, 323–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Myers, B., & Watson, D. (2018). The role of meter in word lengthening. Retrieved from https://osf.io/zk4qv
  15. O’Seaghdha, P. G., & Marin, J. W. (2000). Phonological competition and cooperation in form related priming: Sequential and nonsequential processes in word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2016). Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pitt, M. A., & Samuel, A. G. (1990). The use of rhythm in attending to speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 564–573.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1998). Metrical structure in planning the production of spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(4), 922–939.Google Scholar
  20. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2001). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object database: Color and texture improve object recognition. Journal of Vision, 1, 413a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schiller, N.O., Jansma, B., Peters, J., & Levelt, W. (2006). Monitoring metrical stress in polysyllabic words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1–3), 112–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sevald, C. A., & Dell, G. S. (1994). The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition, 53, 91–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1986). The representation of phonological information during speech production planning: Evidence from vowel errors in spontaneous speech. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 117–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1987). The role of word-onset consonants in speech production planning: New evidence from speech error patterns. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174–215.Google Scholar
  26. Watson, D. G., Buxó-Lugo, A. S., & Simmons, D. C. (2015). The effect of phonological encoding on word duration: Selection takes time. In L. Frazier & E. Gibson (Eds.), Explicit and implicit prosody in sentence processing (Vol. 46, pp. 85–98). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yiu, L. K., & Watson, D. G. (2015). When overlap leads to competition: Effects of phonological encoding on word duration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1701–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtolaryngologyVanderbilt University Medical CenterNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and Human DevelopmentVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations