Display options
Share it on

Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2015 May 28;30(5):606-619. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.966122. Epub 2014 Sep 24.

Reduction in Prosodic Prominence Predicts Speakers' Recall: Implications for Theories of Prosody.

Language, cognition and neuroscience

Scott H Fraundorf, Duane G Watson, Aaron S Benjamin

Affiliations

  1. University of Pittsburgh, 608 Learning Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Telephone: +1 (412) 624-7029. [email protected].
  2. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 E Daniel St., Champaign, IL, 61820. Telephone: +1 (217) 333-0280. [email protected].
  3. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 E Daniel St., Champaign, IL, 61820. Telephone: +1 (217) 333-6822. [email protected].

PMID: 26594647 PMCID: PMC4652584 DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2014.966122

Abstract

Repeated words are often reduced in prosodic prominence, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. The present study contrasted two theories: does prosodic reduction reflect the choice of a particular linguistic form, or does ease of retrieval within the language production system lead to facilitated, less prominent productions? One test of facilitation-based theories is suggested by findings on human memory: Whether a second presentation of an item benefits later memory is predicted by the item's availability at the time of the second presentation. If prosodic reduction partially reflects facilitated retrieval, it should predict later memory. One naïve participant described to another participant routes on a map. Critical items were mentioned twice. Following the map task, the speaker attempted written recall of the mentioned items. As expected, acoustic intensity of the second mentions predicted later recall in the same way that difficulty of retrieval has in other tasks. This pattern suggests that one source of prosodic reduction is facilitation within the language production system.

Keywords: discourse; language production; prominence; prosody; recall

References

  1. J Mem Lang. 2010 Oct 1;63(3):367-386 - PubMed
  2. Psychol Aging. 2012 Mar;27(1):88-98 - PubMed
  3. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Aug;118(2):1038-54 - PubMed
  4. Lang Speech. 2004;47(Pt 1):31-56 - PubMed
  5. Mem Cognit. 2006 Mar;34(2):268-76 - PubMed
  6. Mem Cognit. 2010 Dec;38(8):1137-46 - PubMed
  7. Am Psychol. 1990 Sep;45(9):1043-56 - PubMed
  8. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Jun;19(3):505-12 - PubMed
  9. Psychol Rev. 2007 Jan;114(1):152-76 - PubMed
  10. Lang Cogn Process. 2010 Jan 1;25(7-9):905-945 - PubMed
  11. J Mem Lang. 2011 May 1;64(4):289-298 - PubMed
  12. Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2015;30(1-2):88-102 - PubMed
  13. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 May;40(3):829-43 - PubMed
  14. Psychol Bull. 2006 May;132(3):354-80 - PubMed
  15. Cogn Psychol. 2010 Nov;61(3):228-47 - PubMed
  16. Science. 2008 Feb 15;319(5865):966-8 - PubMed
  17. Cognition. 2008 Mar;106(3):1548-57 - PubMed
  18. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:621-47 - PubMed
  19. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Aug;143(4):1526-40 - PubMed
  20. J Mem Lang. 2004 Aug;51(2):247-250 - PubMed
  21. Science. 1967 Oct 27;158(3800):532 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support