Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-x25dq Total loading time: 0.199 Render date: 2022-01-17T02:29:01.840Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Effects of lexical semantics on acoustic prominence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

MOLLY L. LEWIS*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
DUANE G. WATSON
Affiliation:
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
*
Address for correspondence: Molly L. Lewis, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Jordan Hall (Building 420), Stanford, CA 94305. e-mail: mll@stanford.edu

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 364, 12811289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergen, B., Lau, A., Narayan, S., Stojanovic, D., & Wheeler, K. (2010). Body part representations in verbal semantics. Memory and Cognition, 38(7), 969981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945985). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2005). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.5.14) [Computer program]. Online: <http://www.praat.org/>.
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (2000). The mind doesn’t work that way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Glover, S., Rosenbaum, D. A., Graham, J., & Dixon, P. (2004). Grasping the meaning of words. Experimental Brain Research, 154, 103108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1B14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, E. K., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Ways of looking ahead: hierarchical planning in language production. Cognition, 129, 544652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Science, 36(5), 329347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pülvermuller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V. V., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2005). Functional links between motor and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 793797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team (2010). R: a language and environment for statistical computing [computer software manual]. Vienna. Online: <http://www.r-project.org/>.PubMed
Shintel, H., Nusbaum, H. C., & Okrent, A. (2006). Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 167177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High-level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Geng, J. J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65, 235241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 905945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Effects of lexical semantics on acoustic prominence
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Effects of lexical semantics on acoustic prominence
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Effects of lexical semantics on acoustic prominence
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *