» Articles » PMID: 28710697

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

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Psychology
Date 2017 Jul 16
PMID 28710697
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Across languages, certain syllable types are systematically preferred to others (e.g., [Formula: see text] lbif, where [Formula: see text] 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., [Formula: see text]), 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.

Citing Articles

Neural evidence suggests phonological acceptability judgments reflect similarity, not constraint evaluation.

Avcu E, Newman O, Ahlfors S, Gow Jr D Cognition. 2022; 230:105322.

PMID: 36370613 PMC: 9712273. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105322.


Is Phonology Embodied? Evidence from Mechanical Stimulation.

Berent I, Platt M J Psycholinguist Res. 2022; 51(3):597-626.

PMID: 35366747 PMC: 8976511. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-022-09871-x.

References
1.
Berent I, Brem A, Zhao X, Seligson E, Pan H, Epstein J . Role of the motor system in language knowledge. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(7):1983-8. PMC: 4343166. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1416851112. View

2.
Zhao X, Berent I . Universal Restrictions on Syllable Structure: Evidence From Mandarin Chinese. J Psycholinguist Res. 2015; 45(4):795-811. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-015-9375-1. View

3.
Berent I, Lennertz T, Balaban E . Language universals and misidentification: a two-way street. Lang Speech. 2012; 55(Pt 3):311-30. PMC: 3481201. DOI: 10.1177/0023830911417804. View

4.
Galantucci B, Fowler C, Turvey M . The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 13(3):361-77. PMC: 2746041. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193857. View

5.
Sanes J, Donoghue J . Plasticity and primary motor cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2000; 23:393-415. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.393. View