Skip to main content Accessibility help

Effects of lexical semantics on acoustic prominence

  • MOLLY L. LEWIS (a1) and DUANE G. WATSON (a2)


This paper explores the representations underlying lexical semantics. In particular, we test whether a word’s meaning can affect a word’s articulation. In Experiment 1, participants produced high-effort (e.g., yelling) and low-effort (e.g., chatting) words that are semantically related to articulation, as well as words that are semantically unrelated to articulation (e.g., kicking). We found that vocal words were produced with greater intensity than non-vocal words. In Experiment 2, we explored the specificity of this effect by investigating how words semantically related to the mouth, but unrelated to vocalization (e.g., chewing) were articulated. Analyses revealed that mouth words did not differ from controls, and we replicated the vocal effects from Experiment 1, suggesting fine-grain motor activation from lexical semantics. Experiment 3 revealed that the semantics of a verb influences the prosodic intensity of a sentence prior to the onset of the verb. Together, these data suggest aspects of lexical meaning influence prosody, and that motor representations may underlie lexical semantics.


Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: Molly L. Lewis, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Jordan Hall (Building 420), Stanford, CA 94305. e-mail:


Hide All
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 364, 12811289.
Bedny, M., & Caramazza, A. (2011). Perception, action, and word meanings in the human brain: the case from action verbs. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224, 8195.
Bergen, B., Lau, A., Narayan, S., Stojanovic, D., & Wheeler, K. (2010). Body part representations in verbal semantics. Memory and Cognition, 38(7), 969981.
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945985). New York: Academic Press.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2005). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.5.14) [Computer program]. Online: <>.
Boulenger, V., Roy, A., Paulignan, Y., Deprez, V., Jeannerod, M., & Nazir, T. (2006). Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 16071615.
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Konopka, A. E. (2008). Little houses and casa pequenas: message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish. Cognition, 109, 274280.
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009) Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977990.
Buccino, G., Riggio, L., Melli, G., Binkofski, F., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: a combined TMS and behavioral study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(3), 355363.
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234272.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. New York: Mouton.
Fischer, M., & Zwaan, R. (2008). Simulated language: a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 825850.
Fodor, J. (2000). The mind doesn’t work that way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Garrett, M. F. (1975). The analysis of sentence production. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 133177). New York: Academic Press.
Garrett, M. F. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In Butterworth, B. (Ed.), Language production, Vol. 1: speech and talk (pp. 177220). London: Academic Press.
Glover, S., Rosenbaum, D. A., Graham, J., & Dixon, P. (2004). Grasping the meaning of words. Experimental Brain Research, 154, 103108.
Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1B14.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301307.
Lee, E. K., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Ways of looking ahead: hierarchical planning in language production. Cognition, 129, 544652.
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Science, 36(5), 329347.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Postle, N., McMahon, K., Ashton, R., Meredith, M., & De Zubicaray, G. (2008). Action word meaning representations in cytoarchitectonically defined primary and premotor cortices. Neuroimage, 43(3), 634644.
Pülvermuller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V. V., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2005). Functional links between motor and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 793797.
R Development Core Team (2010). R: a language and environment for statistical computing [computer software manual]. Vienna. Online: <>.
Shintel, H., Nusbaum, H. C., & Okrent, A. (2006). Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 167177.
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High-level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205246.
Spivey, M. J., & Geng, J. J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65, 235241.
Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 905945.


Effects of lexical semantics on acoustic prominence

  • MOLLY L. LEWIS (a1) and DUANE G. WATSON (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed