Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 269–296

Syllable Monitoring in Internally and Externally Generated English Words

  • Jane L. Morgan
  • Linda R. Wheeldon


The ability of English speakers to monitor internally and externally generated words for syllables was investigated in this paper. An internal speech monitoring task required participants to silently generate a carrier word on hearing a semantically related prompt word (e.g., reveal—divulge). These productions were monitored for prespecified target strings that were either a syllable match (e.g., /dai/), a syllable mismatch (e.g., /daiv/), or unrelated (e.g., /hju:/) to the initial syllable of the word. In all three experiments the longer target sequence was monitored for faster. However, this tendency reached significance only when the longer string also matched a syllable in the carrier word. External speech versions of each experiment were run that yielded a similar influence of syllabicity but only when the syllable match string also had a closed structure. It was concluded that any influence of syllabicity found using either task reflected the properties of a shared perception-based monitoring system.

Sequence monitoring internal speech speech monitor 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bradley, D. C., Sanchez-Casas, R. M., & Garcia-Albea, J. E. (1993). The status of the syllable in the perception of Spanish and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 197-233.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, J., & Yallop, C. (1990). An introduction to phonetics and phonology. Cambridge, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Cutler, A. (1986). Phonological structure in speech recognition. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 161-178.Google Scholar
  4. Cutler, A. (1997a). The syllable's role in the segmentation of stress languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 839-845.Google Scholar
  5. Cutler, A. (1997b). The comparative perspective on spoken-language processing. Speech Communication, 21, 3-15.Google Scholar
  6. Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (1986). The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of English and French. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 385-400.Google Scholar
  7. Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 113-121.Google Scholar
  8. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283-321.Google Scholar
  9. Dell, G. S. (1988). The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connectionist model. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 124-142.Google Scholar
  10. Fallows, D. (1981). Experimental evidence for English syllabification and syllable structure. Journal of Linguistics, 17, 309-317.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick, J., & Wheelden, L. R. (2000). Phonology and phonetics in psycholinguistic models of speech perception. In N. Burton-Roberts, P. Carr, & G. Docherty (Eds.). Conceptual and empirical foundations of phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Frauenfelder, U. H., & Kearns, R. K. (1996). Sequence monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 665-673.Google Scholar
  13. Frazier, L. (1987). Structure in auditory word recognition. Cognition, 25, 157-187.Google Scholar
  14. Gussenhoven, C. (1986). English plosive allophones and ambisyllabicity. Gramma, 10, 119-141.Google Scholar
  15. Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kolinsky, R. (1998). Spoken word recognition: A stage-processing approach to language differences. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1-40.Google Scholar
  17. Lahiri, A. (1999). Speech recognition with underspecified features. In Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. (lcPhS99), San Francisco, (Vol. 1, pp. 715-718).Google Scholar
  18. Lahiri, A. (2000). Phonology: Structure, representation and process. In L. R. Wheeldon (Ed.), Aspects of language production. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  19. Laver, J. D. M. (1980). Monitoring systems in the neurolinguistic control of speech production. In V. A. Fromkin (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41-104.Google Scholar
  21. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Levelt, W. J. M., Roclofs, A., & Meyer, A. J. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 1-75.Google Scholar
  23. Levelt, W. J. M., & Wheeldon, L. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50, 239-269.Google Scholar
  24. MacKay, D. G. (1992). Awareness and error detection: New theories and research paradigms. Consciousness and Cognition, 1, 199-225.Google Scholar
  25. MacNeilage, P. F. (1998). The frame/content theory of evolution of speech production. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 21, 499-546.Google Scholar
  26. Mehler, J., Dommergues, J. Y., Frauenfelder, U., & Segui, J. (1981). The syllable's role in speech segmentation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 20, 298-305.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, A. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding of successive syllables of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 524-545.Google Scholar
  28. Meyer, A. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding on language production: Phonological encoding inside a syllable. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 69-89.Google Scholar
  29. Motley, M. T., Camden, C. T., & Baars, B. J. (1982). Covert formulation and editing of anomalies in speech production: Evidence from experimentally elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 21, 578-594.Google Scholar
  30. Norris, D., & Cutler, A. (1985). Juncture detection. Linguistics, 23, 689-705.Google Scholar
  31. Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1997). The possible-word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 191-243.Google Scholar
  32. Pardo, J. S., & Fowler, C. A. (1997). Perceiving the causes of coarticulatory acoustic variation: Consonant voicing and vowel pitch. Perception and Psychophysics, 59, 1141-1152.Google Scholar
  33. Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77, 97-131.Google Scholar
  34. Roelofs, A. (1997a). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 61, 249-284.Google Scholar
  35. Roelofs, A. (1997b). Syllabification in speech production: Evaluation of WEAVER. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 657-693.Google Scholar
  36. Santiago, J., MacKay, D. G., Palma, A., & Rho, C. (2000). Sequential activation processes in producing words and syllables: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 1-44.Google Scholar
  37. Schiller, N. O. (1999). Masked syllable priming of English Nouns. Brain and Language, 68, 300-305.Google Scholar
  38. Schiller, N. O. (2000). Single word function in English: The role of subsyllabic units during phonological encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 512-528.Google Scholar
  39. Sebastian-Gallés, N., Dupoux, E., Segui, J., & Mehler, J. (1992). Contrasting syllabic effects in Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 18-32.Google Scholar
  40. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1992). The role of word structure in segmental serial ordering. Cognition, 42, 213-259.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, K. L., & Pitt, M. A. (1999). Phonological and morphological influences in the syllabification of spoken words. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 199-222.Google Scholar
  42. Strange, W., Verbrugge, R. R. Shankweiler, D. P., & Edman, T. R. (1976). Consonant environment specifies vowel identity. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 213-224.Google Scholar
  43. Titone, D., & Connine, C. M. (1997). Syllabification strategies in spoken word processing: Evidence from phonological priming. Psychological Research, 60, 251-263.Google Scholar
  44. Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (1990). Toward an understanding of English syllabification. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 66-85.Google Scholar
  45. Vroomen, J., & de Gelder, B. (1994). Speech segmentation in Dutch: No role for the syllable. In Proceedings of the 1994 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Vol. 3, pp. 1135-1138 (Yokohama, Japan).Google Scholar
  46. Wheeldon, L. R., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1995). Monitoring the time-course of phonological encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 311-334.Google Scholar
  47. Wheeldon, L. R., & Morgan, J. L. (2002). Phoneme monitoring in internal and external speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 503-535.Google Scholar
  48. Zwitserlood, P., Schriefers, H., Lahiri, A., & van Donselaar, W. (1993). The role of syllables in the perception of spoken Dutch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 19, 260-271.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane L. Morgan
    • 1
  • Linda R. Wheeldon
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of BirminghamUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations