Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 491–512

Lexical and Metrical Stress in Word Recognition: Lexical or Pre-lexical Influences?

  • Louisa M. Slowiaczek
  • Emily G. Soltano
  • Hilary L. Bernstein
Original Paper

Abstract

The influence of lexical stress and/or metrical stress on spoken word recognition was examined. Two experiments were designed to determine whether response times in lexical decision or shadowing tasks are influenced when primes and targets share lexical stress patterns (JUVenile–BIBlical [Syllables printed in capital letters indicate those syllables receiving primary lexical stress.]). The results did not support an effect of lexical stress on the organization of lexical memory. In Experiment 3 primes and targets whose first syllables shared lexical stress only (MUDdy–PASta), metrical stress only (alTHOUGH–PASta), both cues (LECtern–PASta), or neither cue (conTROL–PASta) revealed no priming effect. However, targets whose first syllables were strong were responded to faster than targets whose first syllables were weak. Experiment 4 manipulated the metrical stress patterns of bi-syllabic primes and targets. Targets with strong–weak metrical stress patterns were responded to more quickly than those with strong–strong or weak–strong patterns. Although the priming paradigm did not reveal an influence of lexical and metrical stress on the organization of lexical memory, the data do support an influence of strong syllables on the processing of auditorily presented words.

Keywords

Lexical stress Metrical stress Spoken word processing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balota D.A., Chumbley J.I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340–357Google Scholar
  2. Baum S. (2002). Word recognition in individuals with left and right hemisphere damage: The role of lexical stress. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach C.M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 644–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bock K., Mazzella J.R. (1983). Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 11, 64–76Google Scholar
  5. Bolinger D. (1981). Two kinds of vowels, two kinds of rhythm. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics ClubGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins A.M., Loftus E.F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82, 407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connine C.M., Clifton C. Jr., Cutler A. (1987). Effects of lexical stress on phonetic categorization. Phonetica 44, 133–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, 207–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cutler A. (1976). Phoneme monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour. Perception and Psychophysics 20, 55–60Google Scholar
  10. Cutler A. (1986). Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech 29, 201–220Google Scholar
  11. Cutler A. (1989). Auditory lexical access: Where do we start?. In: Marslen-Wilson W. (Eds), Lexical representation and process. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, pp. 342–356Google Scholar
  12. Cutler A. (1990). Exploiting prosodic probabilities in speech segmentation. In: Altmann G. (eds), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge MA, MIT Press, pp. 105–121Google Scholar
  13. Cutler A. (1996). Prosody and the word boundary problem. In: Morgan J.L., Demuth K. (eds), Signal to syntax: Bootsrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 87–99Google Scholar
  14. Cutler A., Butterfield S. (1992). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 218–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cutler A., Clifton C.E. Jr. (1985). The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In: Bouma H., Bouwhuis D.G. (eds), Attention and performance X. Hillsdale NJ, Erlbaum, pp. 183–196Google Scholar
  16. Cutler A., Dahan D., van Donselaar W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 40, 141–201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cutler A., Norris D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14: 113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engdahl E. (1978). Stress and rhythm in speech production and perception. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  19. Fear B.D., Cutler A., Butterfield S. (1995). The strong/weak syllable distinction in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97: 1893–1904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferreira F. (1993). Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review 100, 233–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fourakis M. (1991). Tempo, stress and vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90: 1816–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gay T. (1978). Physiological and acoustic correlates of perceived stress. Language and Speech 21, 347–355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Grosjean F. (1980). Spoken word recognition process and the gating paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics 28, 267–283Google Scholar
  24. Hamburger M.B., Slowiaczek L.M. (1996). Phonological priming reflects lexical competition in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 3, 520–525Google Scholar
  25. Hamburger M.B., Slowiaczek L.M. (1999). On the role of bias in dissociated phonological priming effects: A reply to Goldinger (1999). Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 6, 352–355Google Scholar
  26. van Heuven V.J. (1985). Perception of stress pattern and word recognition: Recognition of Dutch words with incorrect stress position. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78, S21 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  27. Kreiman J. (1982). Perception of sentence and paragraph boundaries in natural conversation. Journal of Phonetics 10, 163–175Google Scholar
  28. Kučera H., Francis W.N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence RI, Brown University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehiste I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Lehiste I., Olive J., Streeter L. (1976). Role of duration in disambiguating syntactically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 60, 1199–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindfield K.C., Wingfield A., Goodglass (1999). The contribution of prosody to spoken word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics 20, 395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marslen-Wilson W.D. (1984). Function and process in spoken word recognition. In: Bouma H., Bouwhuis D.G. (eds), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes. Hillsdale N.J., Erlbaum, pp. 125–150Google Scholar
  33. McQueen J.M., Norris D., Cutler A. (1994). Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 621–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer D.H., Schvaneveldt R.W., Ruddy M.G. (1975). Loci of contextual effects in visual word recognition. In: Rabbit P.M.A., Dornic S. (eds), Attention and Performance V. San Diego CA, Academic Press, pp. 98–118Google Scholar
  35. Neely J.H. (1976). Semantic Priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Evidence for facilitatory and inhibitory processes. Memory and Cognition 4, 648–654Google Scholar
  36. Neely J.H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In: Besner D., Humphreys G. (eds), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition. Hillsdale NJ, Erlbaum, pp. 264–336Google Scholar
  37. Norris D.G. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition 52, 189–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norris D.G., McQueen J.A., Cutler A. (1995). Competition and segmentation in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21: 1209–1228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quene H., Koster M.L. (1998). Metrical segmentation in Dutch: Vowel quality or stress?. Language and Speech 41: 185–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Radeau M., Morais J., Dewier A. (1989). Phonological priming in spoken word recognition: Task effects. Memory & Cognition 17, 525–535Google Scholar
  41. Schneider W., Eshman A., Zuccolotto A. (2002). E-Prime Reference Guide. Pittsburgh, Psychology Software ToolsGoogle Scholar
  42. Slowiaczek L.M. (1990). Effects of lexical stress in auditory word recognition. Language and Speech 33, 47–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Slowiaczek L.M. (1991). Stress and context in auditory word recognition. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20, 465–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slowiaczek L.M. (1994). Semantic priming in a single-word shadowing task. American Journal of Psychology 107, 245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Slowiaczek L.M., Hamburger M.B. (1992). Prelexical facilitation and lexical interference in auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18: 1239–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slowiaczek L.M., McQueen J.M., Soltano E.G., Lynch M. (2000). Phonological representations in prelexical speech processing: Evidence from form-based priming. Journal of Memory and Language 43, 530–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slowiaczek L.M., Pisoni D.B. (1986). Effects of phonological similarity on priming in auditory lexical decision. Memory & Cognition 14, 230–237Google Scholar
  48. Small L.H., Simon S.D., Goldberg J.S. (1988). Lexical stress and lexical access: Homographs versus nonhomographs. Perception and Psychophysics 44, 272–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Swerts M., Geluykens R. (1994). Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and Speech 37, 21–43Google Scholar
  50. Taft L.A. (1984). Prosodic constraints and lexical parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  51. Vroomen J., De Gelder B. (1995). Metrical segmentation and lexical inhibition in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21: 98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vroomen J., De Gelder B. (1997). Activation of embedded words in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23: 710–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vroomen J., Van Zon M., De Gelder B. (1996). Cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperceptions and word spotting. Memory and Cognition 24, 744–755Google Scholar
  54. Wingfield A., Goodglass H., Lindfield K.C. (1997). Word recognition from acoustic onsets and offsets: Effects of cohort size and syllabic stress. Applied Psycholinguistics 18: 85–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wingfield A., Lindfield K.C., Goodglass H. (2000). Effects of age and hearing sensitivity on the use of prosodic information in spoken word recognition. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 43, 915–925Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louisa M. Slowiaczek
    • 1
  • Emily G. Soltano
    • 2
  • Hilary L. Bernstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBowdoin CollegeBrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Worcester State CollegeWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations