Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-hd9dq Total loading time: 0.563 Render date: 2022-09-29T14:11:43.514Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

The processing of German word stress: evidence for the prosodic hierarchy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2008

Ulrike Domahs
Affiliation:
University of Marburg
Richard Wiese
Affiliation:
University of Marburg
Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig
Matthias Schlesewsky
Affiliation:
University of Marburg

Abstract

The present paper explores whether the metrical foot is necessary for the description of prosodic systems. To this end, we present empirical findings on the perception of German word stress using event-related brain potentials as the dependent measure. A manipulation of the main stress position within three-syllable words revealed differential brain responses, which (a) correlated with the reorganisation of syllables into feet in stress violations, and (b) differed in strength depending on syllable weight. The experiments therefore provide evidence that the processing of word stress not only involves lexical information about stress positions, but also (quantity-sensitive) information about metrical structures, in particular feet and syllables.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Alber, Birgit (1997). Quantity sensitivity as the result of constraint interaction. In Booij, Geert & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.) Phonology in progress: progress in phonology. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 145.Google Scholar
Alber, Birgit (2005). Clash, Lapse and Directionality. NLLT 23. 485542.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database. Release 2 [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bader, Markus (1996). Sprachverstehen: Syntax und Prosodie beim Lesen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böcker, Koen B. E., Bastiaansen, Marcel C. M., Vroomen, Jean, Brunia, Cornelis H. M. & de Gelder, Beatrice (1999). An ERP correlate of metrical stress in spoken word recognition. Psychophysiology 36. 706720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burzio, Luigi (1994). Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, Michael G. H. & Michael, D. Rugg (1995). Event-related brain potentials: An introduction. In Rugg, Michael D. & Coles, Michael G. H. (eds.) Electrophysiology of mind: event-related brain potentials and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 126.Google Scholar
Coulson, Seana, King, Jonathan W. & Kutas, Marta (1998a). Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 13. 2158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana, King, Jonathan W. & Kutas, Marta (1998b). ERPs and domain specificity: beating a straw horse. Language and Cognitive Processes 13. 653672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Anne & Clifton, Charles (1984). The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In Bouma, Herman & Bouwhuis, Don G. (eds.) Attention and performance X: control of language processes. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 183196.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne & van Donselaar, Wilma (2001). Voornaam is not (really) a homophone: lexical prosody and lexical access in Dutch. Language and Speech 44. 171195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, Anne & Norris, Dennis (1988). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14. 113121.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline (1998). German word stress in Optimality Theory. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2. 101142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. NELS 32. 113132.Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6. 7884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedrich, Claudia K., Alter, Kai & Kotz, Sonja A. (2001). An electrophysiological response to different pitch contours in words. Neuroreport 12. 31893191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedrich, Claudia K., Kotz, Sonja A., Friederici, Angela D. & Alter, Kai (2004). Pitch modulates lexical identification in spoken word recognition: ERP and behavioral evidence. Cognitive Brain Research 20. 300308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, LouAnn (1994). A metrical template account of children's weak syllable omissions from multisyllabic words. Journal of Child Language 21. 565584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, LouAnn (1996). Prosodic structure in young children's language production. Lg 72. 683712.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz (1985). Metrical phonology and phonological structure: German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François & Gee, James Paul (1987). Prosodic structure and spoken word recognition. Cognition 25. 135155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, Matthias, Say, Tessa, Kleingers, Michael, Clahsen, Harald & Münte, Thomas F. (1998). Human brain potentials to violations in morphologically complex Italian words. Neuroscience Letters 241. 8386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossi, Giordana, Coch, Donna, Coffey-Corina, Sharon, Holcomb, Phillip J. & Neville, Helen J. (2001). Phonological processing in visual rhyming: a developmental ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13. 610625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunter, Thomas C., Friederici, Angela D. & Schriefers, Herbert (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12. 556568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hahne, Anja & Friederici, Angela D. (2002). Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research 13. 339356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. LI 13. 227276.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1985). A metrical theory of stress rules. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der (ed.) (1999). Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
IPA Handbook (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: a guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janßen [Domahs], Ulrike (2003). Untersuchungen zum Wortakzent im Deutschen und Niederländischen. PhD thesis, University of Düsseldorf. Available (March 2008) at http://deposit.d-nb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=972217770.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael (1999). German. In van der Hulst (1999). 515545.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1995). The metrical theory of word stress. In Goldsmith, John (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 367402.Google Scholar
Kaltenbacher, Erika (1994). Typologische Aspekte des Wortakzents: zum Zusammenhang von Akzentposition und Silbengewicht im Arabischen und im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13. 2055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaus, Johannes, Wiese, Richard & Janßen [Domahs], Ulrike (2007). The processing of word stress: EEG studies on task-related processing. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken. 709712.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta & Federmeier, Kara D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4. 463470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, Marta, van Petten, Cyma K. & Kluender, Robert (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994–2005). In Traxler, Matthew & Gernsbacher, Morton (eds.) Handbook of psycholinguistics. 2nd edn. London: Elsevier. 659724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lattner, Sonja, Maess, Burkhard, Wang, Yunhua, Schauer, Michael, Alter, Kai & Friederici, Angela D. (2003). Dissociation of human and computer voices in the brain: evidence for a preattentive gestalt-like perception. Human Brain Mapping 20. 1321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, Willem J. M. (1999). Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3. 223232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, Willem J. M., Roelofs, Ardi & Meyer, Antje S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, Mark (1975). The intonational system of English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. LI 8. 249336.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1998). Prosodic Morphology. In Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold (eds.) The handbook of morphology. Oxford & Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 283305.Google Scholar
Mattys, Sven L. (2000). The perception of primary and secondary stress in English. Perception and Psychophysics 62. 253265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehler, Jacques, Jusczyk, Peter, Lambertz, Ghislaine, Halsted, Nilofar, Bertoncini, Josiane & Amiel-Tison, Claudine (1988). A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition 29. 143178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nazzi, Thierry, Bertoncini, Josiane & Mehler, Jacques (1998). Language discrimination by newborns: toward an understanding of the role of rhythm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24. 756766.Google ScholarPubMed
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Norris, Dennis, McQueen, James M. & Cutler, Anne (1995). Competition and segmentation in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21. 12091228.Google ScholarPubMed
Penke, Martina, Weyerts, Helga, Gross, Matthias, Zander, Elke, Münte, Thomas F. & Clahsen, Harald (1997). How the brain processes complex words: an event-related potential study of German verb inflections. Cognitive Brain Research 6. 3752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Picton, Terence W. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related brain potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 9. 456479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rugg, Michael D. (1984). Event-related potentials in phonological matching tasks. Brain and Language 23. 225240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. LI 11. 563605.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, Karsten, Alter, Kai & Friederici, Angela D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience 2. 191196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinhauer, Karsten & Friederici, Angela D. (2001). Prosodic boundaries, comma rules, and brain responses: the closure positive shift in ERPs as a universal marker for prosodic phrasing in listeners and readers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30. 267295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stolterfoht, Britta, Friederici, Angela D., Alter, Kai & Steube, Anita (2007). Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: differential ERP effects. Cognition 104. 565590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trommelen, Mieke & Zonneveld, Wim (1999). Dutch. In van der Hulst (1999). 492515.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1990). Syllable structure and simplex accent in modern standard German. CLS 26:2. 399412.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1991). Syllable structure and syllable cut prosodies in Modern Standard German. In Bertinetto, Pier, Kenstowicz, Michael & Loporcaro, Michele (eds.) Certamen Phonologicum II: papers from the 1990 Cortona Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. 211243.Google Scholar
Verleger, Rolf (1988). Event-related potentials and cognition: a critique of the context updating hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of P3. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11. 343356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Grey W., Cooper, R., Aldridge, V. J., McCallum, W. C. & Winter, A. L. (1964). Contingent negative variation: an electric sign of sensorimotor association and expectancy in the human brain. Nature 203. 380384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiese, Richard (1996). The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
48
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

The processing of German word stress: evidence for the prosodic hierarchy*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The processing of German word stress: evidence for the prosodic hierarchy*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The processing of German word stress: evidence for the prosodic hierarchy*
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? *