Paying the meter: Effect of metrical similarity on word lengthening
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.
Keywordspsycholinguistics motor planning/programming phonology speech production
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.
- 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
- 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/
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D., (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36(14), 1–16. (ECVP Abstract Supplement)Google Scholar
- Myers, B., & Watson, D. (2018). The role of meter in word lengthening. Retrieved from https://osf.io/zk4qv
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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