Skip to main content
Log in

The Basis of the Syllable Hierarchy: Articulatory Pressures or Universal Phonological Constraints?

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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).

  2. The ANOVA was conducted because of its resilience to moderate deviations from normality (Glass et al. 1972; Martin and Games 1977; Harwell et al. 1992; Lix et al. 1996).

  3. 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.

  4. 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).

  5. 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.

  6. 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 \(p>0.21\)).

  7. 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 \(p>0.21\)).

  8. The neighborhood measures were obtained from the Speech and Hearing Lab Neighborhood Database (Nusbaum et al. 1984), and the bigram measures were based on Kučera and Francis (1967) database, excluding words that contain apostrophes, hyphens or spaces.

References

  • Abler, W. L. (1989). On the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems. Journal of Social and Biological Systems, 12(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berent, I. (2013). The phonological mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(7), 319–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berent, I., Lennertz, T., & Balaban, E. (2012a). Language universals and misidentification: A two way street. Language and Speech, 55(3), 311–330.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berent, I., Lennertz, T., & Rosselli, M. (2012b). Universal linguistic pressures and their solutions: Evidence from Spanish. The Mental Lexicon, 7(3), 275–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Smolensky, P., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2009). Listeners’ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology, 26(1), 75–108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besner, D., & Davelaar, E. (1982). Basic processes in reading: Two phonological codes. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 36(4), 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galantucci, B., Fowler, C. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2006). The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatsopoulos, N. G., & Suminski, A. J. (2011). Sensing with the motor cortex. Neuron, 72(3), 477–487.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hitch, G., & Baddeley, A. (1976). Verbal reasoning and working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28(4), 603–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Y. (2003). Perceptual similarity in loanword adaptation: English postvocalic word-final stops in Korean. Phonology, 20(2), 219–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiman, G. M. (1975). Speech recoding in reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(4), 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, B. A. (1975). Vocalization and suppression effects in sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(3), 304–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, A. M., & Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition, 21(1), 1–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacNeilage, P. (2008). The origin of speech. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. (1978). Speech recoding in silent reading. Memory & Cognition, 6(2), 108–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, J., & Walsh, V. (2007). Transcranial magnetic stimulation. Current Biology, 17(6), R196–R199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. (2008). Sound level protrusions as physical correlates of sonority. Journal of Phonetics, 36(1), 55–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, A. G. (2011). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(16), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanes, J. N., & Donoghue, J. P. (2000). Plasticity and primary motor cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23(1), 393–415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamási, K., & Berent, I. (2014). Sensitivity to Phonological Universals: The case of stops and fricatives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(4), 359–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iris Berent.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9510-2

Keywords

Navigation