Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:07:47.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of lexical semantics on acoustic prominence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

MOLLY L. LEWIS  and
DUANE G. WATSON
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: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

situated cognitionembodied cognitionlanguage production
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 314 - 334
Check for updates
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

references

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 364, 1281–1289.Google Scholar
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, 81–95.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., Lau, A., Narayan, S., Stojanovic, D., & Wheeler, K. (2010). Body part representations in verbal semantics. Memory and Cognition, 38(7), 969–981.Google Scholar
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–985). 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/>..>Google Scholar
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), 1607–1615.Google 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, 274–280.Google 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), 977–990.Google 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), 355–363.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234–272.Google Scholar
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), 825–850.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. 133–177). 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. 177–220). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Glover, S., Rosenbaum, D. A., Graham, J., & Dixon, P. (2004). Grasping the meaning of words. Experimental Brain Research, 154, 103–108.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1–B14.Google Scholar
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307.Google Scholar
Lee, E. K., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Ways of looking ahead: hierarchical planning in language production. Cognition, 129, 544–652.Google Scholar
Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Science, 36(5), 329–347.Google Scholar
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), 634–644.Google Scholar
Pülvermuller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V. V., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2005). Functional links between motor and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 793–797.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2010). R: a language and environment for statistical computing [computer software manual]. Vienna. Online: <http://www.r-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Shintel, H., Nusbaum, H. C., & Okrent, A. (2006). Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 167–177.Google Scholar
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High-level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205–246.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Geng, J. J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65, 235–241.Google Scholar
Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 905–945.Google Scholar