Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun;51(3):597-626.
doi: 10.1007/s10936-022-09871-x. Epub 2022 Apr 2.

Is Phonology Embodied? Evidence from Mechanical Stimulation

Affiliations

Is Phonology Embodied? Evidence from Mechanical Stimulation

Iris Berent et al. J Psycholinguist Res. 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Across languages, certain syllables are systematically preferred to others (e.g., plaf > ptaf). Here, we examine whether these preferences arise from motor simulation. In the simulation account, ill-formed syllables (e.g., ptaf) are disliked because their motor plans are harder to simulate. Four experiments compared sensitivity to the syllable structure of labial- vs. corona-initial speech stimuli (e.g., plaf > pnaf > ptaf vs. traf > tmaf > tpaf); meanwhile, participants (English vs. Russian speakers) lightly bit on their lips or tongues. Results suggested that the perception of these stimuli was selectively modulated by motor stimulation (e.g., stimulating the tongue differentially affected sensitivity to labial vs. coronal stimuli). Remarkably, stimulation did not affect sensitivity to syllable structure. This dissociation suggests that some (e.g., phonetic) aspects of speech perception are reliant on motor simulation, hence, embodied; others (e.g., phonology), however, are possibly abstract. These conclusions speak to the role of embodiment in the language system, and the separation between phonology and phonetics, specifically.

Keywords: Abstraction; Embodiment; Motor simulation; Phonology; Sonority; Speech perception; Syllable structure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Experimental design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Sensitivity to the syllable hierarchy for labial and coronal stimuli under motor stimulation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The effect of motor stimulation on response to labials and coronals
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The effect of the syllable hierarchy on sensitivity (d’) and response time for Russian and English speakers
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
The effect of motor stimulation on response time to monosyllables
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
The effect of motor stimulation on sensitivity to the syllable structure of labial- and coronal-initial stimuli
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
The effect of the syllable hierarchy on sensitivity (d’) and response time for Russian and English speakers
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
The effect of motor stimulation and place of articulation on Russian participants
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
The effect of motor stimulation and place of articulation on (across language)
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
The hypothesized role of motor simulation in speech perception. The processed hypothesized to rely on motor simulation are highlighted by the gray area

References

    1. Andan Q, Bat-El O, Brentari D, Berent I. Anchoring is amodal: Evidence from a signed language. Cognition. 2018;180:279–283. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.07.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Anwyl-Irvine AL, Massonnié J, Flitton A, Kirkham N, Evershed JK. Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods. 2020;52(1):388–407. doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barsalou LW. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008;59:617–645. doi: 10.1007/s00426-019-01269-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barsalou LW, Kyle Simmons W, Barbey AK, Wilson CD. Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2003;7(2):84–91. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bat-El O. The sonority dispersion principle in the acquisition of Hebrew word final codas. In: Parker S, editor. The sonority controversy. Mouton de Gruyter; 2012. pp. 319–344.

LinkOut - more resources