Abstract
Across languages, certain syllable types are systematically preferred to others (e.g., \({ blif}\succ { bnif}\succ { bdif}\succ \) lbif, where \(\succ \) indicates a preference). Previous research has shown that these preferences are active in the brains of individual speakers, they are evident even when none of these syllable types exists in participants’ language, and even when the stimuli are presented in print. These results suggest that the syllable hierarchy cannot be reduced to either lexical or auditory/phonetic pressures. Here, we examine whether the syllable hierarchy is due to articulatory pressures. According to the motor embodiment view, the perception of a linguistic stimulus requires simulating its production; dispreferred syllables (e.g., lbif) are universally disliked because their production is harder to simulate. To address this possibility, we assessed syllable preferences while articulation was mechanically suppressed. Our four experiments each found significant effects of suppression. Remarkably, people remained sensitive to the syllable hierarchy regardless of suppression. Specifically, results with auditory materials (Experiments 1–2) showed strong effects of syllable structure irrespective of suppression. Moreover, syllable structure uniquely accounted for listeners’ behavior even when controlling for several phonetic characteristics of our auditory materials. Results with printed stimuli (Experiments 3–4) were more complex, as participants in these experiments relied on both phonological and graphemic information. Nonetheless, readers were sensitive to most of the syllable hierarchy (e.g., \({ blif}\succ { bnif}\succ { bdif}\)), and these preferences emerged when articulation was suppressed, and even when the statistical properties of our materials were controlled via a regression analysis. Together, these findings indicate that speakers possess broad grammatical preferences that are irreducible to either sensory or motor factors.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Our present discussion focuses on a strong version of the embodied motor theory of speech perception. According to that view, speech perception requires actual articulatory action (e.g., Schwartz et al. 2002). Other motor theories [e.g., Motor Theory by Liberman and Mattingly (1985) and the Direct Realist Theory (Fowler 1986)] allow for at least some abstraction of motor gestures (for reviews, see Diehl et al. 2004; Galantucci et al. 2006; Samuel 2011; Schwartz et al. 2002).
We removed 2 of the quartets (blif, bnif, bdif, lbif and twog, tmok, tpok, mtok), because the design of this and the following experiments requires that the quartets must be divided evenly across four lists.
Block order (i.e., whether the trial appeared in the first or second block of trials) is captured by the list factor (see Table 1 for details).
To further ascertain readers’ sensitivity to onset structure under suppression, we next tested for the effect of syllable type under the suppression condition, separately. Planned comparisons showed that blif-type syllables yielded significantly better sensitivity than bnif-type ones (\({ t1}(138)=3.20, p<0.002; { t2}(162)=3.01, p<0.003\)). Sensitivity to bnif-type syllables, in turn, was numerically higher than bdif-type onsets (both \(p>0.10, n.s.\)). This aspect of our findings is inconsistent with the motor embodiment account.
To further examine the effect of suppression, we further probed the suppression \(\times \) prime syllable \(\times \) list interaction, by analyzing the two experimental blocks separately. An inspection of the means showed that the effect of suppression was limited to monosyllabic primes in the first block.
In the first block of trials, the 2 suppression \(\times \) 2 prime syllable \(\times \) 4 onset type ANOVAs produced a significant main effect of suppression (\({ F1}(1,30)=8.87, p<0.006; { F2}(1,54)=21.19, p<0.0001\)) and a reliable interaction between suppression and prime syllable (\({ F1}(1,30)=5.65, p<0.03; { F2}(1,54)=16.08, p<0.0002\)). Planned comparisons showed that compared to control condition, suppression significantly decreased discrimination, but only when the prime was monosyllabic (\({ t1}(50)=3.78, p<0.0005; { t2}(88)=6.01, p<0.0001\)). When prime was disyllabic, responses to the control and suppression conditions did not differ significantly (the contrast was only marginally significant by items, \({ t2}(88)=1.9, p<0.07\); by participants, \(p=0.21, n.s.\)). In the second block, the 2 suppression \(\times \) 2 prime syllable \(\times \) 4 onset type ANOVAs showed no effect of suppression. There was no main effect of suppression (both \(F<1\)), nor was it modulated by prime syllable, or onset type (for interactions, all \(p>0.21\)).
The effect of suppression and onset type was examined for identical and nonidentical trials separately. For identical trials, the 2 suppression \(\times \) 2 prime syllable \(\times \) 4 onset type \(\times \) 2 list ANOVAs yielded a significant suppression \(\times \) list interaction (\({ F1}(1,30)=7.06, p<0.013; { F2}(1,54)=10.90, p<0.002\)). However, post-hoc comparisons found no significant effect of suppression in either block (all \(p>0.35\)). Likewise, none of the effects (main effect or interactions) involving the onset type factor were significant (all \(p>0.07\);). In the nonidentical trials, the 2 suppression \(\times \) 2 prime syllable \(\times \) 4 onset type \(\times \) 2 list ANOVA also exhibited a significant suppression \(\times \) list interaction (\({ F1}(1,30)=10.42, p<0.004; { F2}(1,54)=7.86, p<0.008\)), and it was further modulated by prime syllable (suppression \(\times \) prime syllable \(\times \) list interaction, \({ F1}(1,30)=5.86, p<0.03; { F2}(1,54)=4.33, p<0.05\)). We probed the 3-way interaction by investigating each block separately. The effect of suppression was not significant in either block (all \(p>0.16\)), and it was not reliably modulated by other factors (all \(p>0.23\)). Furthermore, the main effect of onset type was not significant in either block (all \(p>0.11\)), nor did it interact with any other factors (all \(p>0.21\)).
References
Abler, W. L. (1989). On the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems. Journal of Social and Biological Systems, 12(1), 1–13.
Acuna, B. D., Eliassen, J. C., Donoghue, J. P., & Sanes, J. N. (2002). Frontal and parietal lobe activation during transitive inference in humans. Cerebral Cortex, 12(12), 1312–1321.
Baddeley, A., Thompson, N., & Buchanan, M. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 575–589.
Berent, I. (2008). Are phonological representations of printed and spoken language isomorphic? Evidence from the restrictions on unattested onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(5), 1288–1304.
Berent, I. (2013). The phonological mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(7), 319–327.
Berent, I., Brem, A., Zhao, X., Seligson, E., Pan, H., Epstein, J., et al. (2015). Role of the motor system in language knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(7), 1983–1988. doi:10.1073/pnas.1416851112.
Berent, I., & Lennertz, T. (2010). Universal constraints on the sound structure of language: Phonological or acoustic? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 212–223.
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., & Balaban, E. (2012a). Language universals and misidentification: A two way street. Language and Speech, 55(3), 311–330.
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Jun, J., Moreno, M. A., & Smolensky, P. (2008). Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(14), 5321–5325.
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., & Rosselli, M. (2012b). Universal linguistic pressures and their solutions: Evidence from Spanish. The Mental Lexicon, 7(3), 275–305.
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Smolensky, P., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2009). Listeners’ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology, 26(1), 75–108.
Berent, I., Pan, H., Zhao, X., Epstein, J., Bennett, M. L., Deshpande, V., et al. (2014). Language universals engage Broca’s area. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095155.
Berent, I., & Perfetti, C. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two-cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review, 102(1), 146–184.
Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., & Vaknin, V. (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition, 104(3), 591–630.
Berent, I., Vaknin-Nusbaum, V., Balaban, E., & Galaburda, A. M. (2013). Phonological generalizations in dyslexia: The phonological grammar may not be impaired. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 30(5), 285–310.
Berent, I., Zhao, X., Balaban, E., & Galaburda, A. (2016). Phonology and phonetics dissociate in dyslexia: Evidence from adult English speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(9), 1178–1192.
Besner, D. (1987). Phonology, lexical access in reading, and articulatory suppression: A critical review. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39(3), 467–478.
Besner, D., & Davelaar, E. (1982). Basic processes in reading: Two phonological codes. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 36(4), 701–711.
Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bolognini, N., & Ro, T. (2010). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: Disrupting neural activity to alter and assess brain function. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(29), 9647–9650.
Bruderer, A. G., Danielson, D. K., Kandhadai, P., & Werker, J. F. (2015). Sensorimotor influences on speech perception in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1508631112.
Bybee, J. (2008). Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation. In Linguistic universals and language change (pp. 108–121). Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Clements, G. N. (2005). The role of features in phonological inventories. In C. C. E. Raimy (Ed.), Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonological theory (pp. 19–68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
D’Ausilio, A., Bufalari, I., Salmas, P., & Fadiga, L. (2012). The role of the motor system in discriminating normal and degraded speech sounds. Cortex, 48(7), 882–887.
D’Ausilio, A., Pulvermüller, F., Salmas, P., Bufalari, I., Begliomini, C., & Fadiga, L. (2009). The motor somatotopy of speech perception. Current Biology, 19(5), 381–385.
Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179.
Eiter, B. M., & Inhoff, A. W. (2008). Visual word recognition is accompanied by covert articulation: Evidence for a speech-like phonological representation. Psychological Research, 72(6), 666–674.
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448.
Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., Buccino, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: A TMS study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 15(2), 399–402.
Fowler, C. A. (1986). An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. Journal of Phonetics, 14(1), 3–28.
Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 361–377.
Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 237–288.
Glenberg, A. M., Havas, D., Becker, R., & Rinck, M. (2005). Grounding language in bodily states: the case for emotion. In R. Zwaan & D. Pecher (Eds.), The grounding of cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 115–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gómez, R. M., Berent, I., Benavides-Varela, S., Bion, R. A. H., Cattarossi, L., Nespor, M., et al. (2014). Language universal at birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(6), 5387–5841.
Greenberg, J. H. (1978). Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant sequences. In E. A. Moravcsik (Ed.), Universals of human language (Vol. 2, pp. 243–279). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Harwell, M. R., Rubinstein, E. N., Hayes, W. S., & Olds, C. C. (1992). Summarizing Monte Carlo results in methodological research: The one-and two-factor fixed effects ANOVA cases. Journal of Educational Statistics, 17(4), 315–339.
Hatsopoulos, N. G., & Suminski, A. J. (2011). Sensing with the motor cortex. Neuron, 72(3), 477–487.
Hitch, G., & Baddeley, A. (1976). Verbal reasoning and working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28(4), 603–621.
Kang, Y. (2003). Perceptual similarity in loanword adaptation: English postvocalic word-final stops in Korean. Phonology, 20(2), 219–274.
Kleiman, G. M. (1975). Speech recoding in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(4), 323–339.
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Dartmouth Publishing Group.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic books.
Lee, A. B., Mumford, D., & Huang, J. (2001). Occlusion models for natural images: A statistical study of a scale-invariant dead leaves model. International Journal of Computer Vision, 41(1/2), 35–59.
Lennertz, T. (2010). People’s knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from fricatives and stops. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University.
Lennertz, T., & Berent, I. (2015). On the sonority levels of fricatives and stops. The Mental Lexicon, 10(1), 88–132.
Levy, B. A. (1971). Role of articulation in auditory and visual short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(2), 123–132.
Levy, B. A. (1975). Vocalization and suppression effects in sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(3), 304–316.
Levy, B. A. (1978). Speech processing during reading. In A. Lesgold, J. Pellegrino, S. Fokkema, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21(1), 1–36.
Lix, L. M., Keselman, J. C., & Keselman, H. J. (1996). Consequences of assumption violations revisited: A quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 579–619.
Lukatela, G., Eaton, T., Sabadini, L., & Turvey, M. (2004). Vowel duration affects visual word identification: Evidence that the mediating phonology is phonetically informed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(1), 151–162.
MacNeilage, P. (2008). The origin of speech. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Maïonchi-Pino, N., de Cara, B., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2012). Are french dyslexic children sensitive to consonant sonority in segmentation strategies? Preliminary evidence from a letter detection task. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33(1), 12–23.
Martin, M. (1978). Speech recoding in silent reading. Memory & Cognition, 6(2), 108–114.
Martin, C. G., & Games, P. A. (1977). ANOVA tests for homogeneity of variance: Nonnormality and unequal samples. Journal of Educational statistics, 2(3), 187–206.
Möttönen, R., & Watkins, K. E. (2009). Motor representations of articulators contribute to categorical perception of speech sounds. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(31), 9819–9825.
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., & Davis, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report, 10(10), 357–376.
O’Shea, J., & Walsh, V. (2007). Transcranial magnetic stimulation. Current Biology, 17(6), R196–R199.
Parker, S. (2008). Sound level protrusions as physical correlates of sonority. Journal of Phonetics, 36(1), 55–90.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Wiley-Blackwell.
Pulvermüller, F., Huss, M., Kherif, F., del Prado Martin, F. M., Hauk, O., & Shtyrov, Y. (2006). Motor cortex maps articulatory features of speech sounds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(20), 7865–7870. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509989103.
Samuel, A. G. (2011). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(16), 1–24.
Sanes, J. N., & Donoghue, J. P. (2000). Plasticity and primary motor cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23(1), 393–415.
Schwartz, J.-L., Abry, C., Boë, L.-J., & Cathiard, M. (2002). Phonology in a theory of perception-for-action-control. In J. Durand & B. Laks (Eds.), Phonetics, phonology, and cognition (pp. 254–280). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tamási, K., & Berent, I. (2014). Sensitivity to Phonological Universals: The case of stops and fricatives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(4), 359–381.
Van Orden, G. C., Pennington, B. F., & Stone, G. O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97(4), 488–522.
Wilson, C., & Davidson, L. (2013). Bayesian analysis of non-native cluster production. In Proceedings of NELS (Vol. 40).
Wilson, C., Davidson, L., & Martin, S. (2014). Effects of acoustic-phonetic detail on cross-language speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 77, 1–24.
Zhao, X., & Berent, I. (2015). Universal restrictions on syllable structure: Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. doi:10.1007/s10936-015-9375-1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical Standards
This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Northeastern University.
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A: Monosyllabic Nonwords in Experimental Lists 1 and 2
List 1 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Large sonority rise | Small sonority rise | Sonority plateau | Sonority fall |
blif | bwif | bdif | lbif |
clim | cnim | cpim | lpim |
drif | dlif | dbif | rdif |
dwib | dmip | dgip | mdip |
drip | dnup | dbup | rdup |
glon | gmon | gbon | ifon |
gref | gmef | gbef | rgef |
kraf | kmaf | kpaf | rgaf |
clop | cmup | ctop | ltop |
cref | cmep | ctep | rkep |
praf | pnaf | ptaf | rpaf |
trok | tnok | tkok | rtok |
twaf | tmaf | tpaf | mtaf |
twuk | tnuk | tguk | mguk |
twog | tmok | tpok | mtok |
List 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Large sonority rise | Small sonority rise | Sonority plateau | Sonority fall |
brop | bnop | bdop | rgop |
crek | cnek | cteg | rtek |
drof | dlof | dgof | rdof |
dwup | dmup | dgup | mdup |
drish | dnish | dgish | rbish |
glep | gmep | gdep | lgep |
gwid | gmit | gbit | mgit |
klef | kmef | ktef | lkef |
crik | cnik | ctig | rkik |
cwug | cnuk | cpok | mcuk |
plik | pnik | pkik | ltik |
truf | tluf | tkuf | rtuf |
twep | tlep | tkep | mtep |
tref | tnef | tpif | rtef |
trap | tmap | tpap | rpap |
Appendix B: Monosyllabic Nonwords used in Experiments 1–4
Large sonority rise | Small sonority rise | Sonority plateau | Sonority fall |
---|---|---|---|
blif | bwif | bdif | lbif |
brɑp | bnɑp | bdɑp | rgɑp |
klim | knim | kpim | lpim |
krɛk | knɛk | ktɛg | rtɛk |
drif | dlif | dbif | rdif |
drɑf | dlɑf | dgɑf | rdɑf |
dwip | dmip | dgip | mdip |
dwʊp | dmʊp | dgʊp | mdʊp |
drʊp | dnʊp | dbʊp | rdʊp |
driʃ | dniʃ | dgiʃ | rbiʃ |
glɛp | gmɛp | gdɛp | lgɛp |
glɑn | gmɑn | gbɑn | lfɑn |
grɛf | gmɛf | gbɛf | rgɛf |
gwit | gmit | gbit | mgit |
klɛf | kmɛf | ktɛf | lkɛf |
kræf | kmæf | kpæf | rgæf |
krik | knik | ktig | rkik |
kwʊg | knʊk | kpɑk | mkʊk |
klɑp | kmʊp | ktɑp | ltɑp |
krɛp | kmɛp | ktɛp | rkɛp |
plik | pnik | pkik | ltik |
præf | pnæf | ptæf | rpæf |
trʊf | tlʊf | tkʊf | rtʊf |
twɛp | tlɛp | tkɛp | mtɛp |
trɑk | tnɑk | tkɑk | rtɑk |
twæf | tmæf | tpæf | mtæf |
trɛf | tnɛf | tpif | rtɛf |
twʊk | tnʊk | tgʊk | mgʊk |
træp | tmæp | tpæp | rpæp |
twɑg | tmɑk | tpɑk | mtɑk |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, X., Berent, I. The Basis of the Syllable Hierarchy: Articulatory Pressures or Universal Phonological Constraints?. J Psycholinguist Res 47, 29–64 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9510-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9510-2