Misplaced stress on prosody: A reply to Black and Byng

Misplaced stress on prosody: A reply to Black and Byng

The recent claim by Black and Byng (1986) that lexical access in reading is subject to prosodic constraints is examined and found to be unsupported. The evidence from impaired reading which Black and Byng report is based on poorly controlled stimulus materials and is inadequately analysed and report...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cognitive neuropsychology 1989-01, Vol.6 (1), p.67-83
Hauptverfasser: Cutler, Anne, Howard, David, Patterson, Karalyn E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 83
container_issue 1
container_start_page 67
container_title Cognitive neuropsychology
container_volume 6
creator Cutler, Anne
Howard, David
Patterson, Karalyn E.
description The recent claim by Black and Byng (1986) that lexical access in reading is subject to prosodic constraints is examined and found to be unsupported. The evidence from impaired reading which Black and Byng report is based on poorly controlled stimulus materials and is inadequately analysed and reported. An alternative explanation of their findings is proposed, and new data are reported for which this alternative explanation can account but their model cannot. Finally, their proposal is shown to be theoretically unmotivated and in conflict with evidence from normal reading.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/02643298908253285
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_02643298908253285</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>58122729</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-2a45d0f0f3e2138ad4697f37e802730c02c53a061ffd7ce1f66892da812f1c183</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kDtPwzAUhS0EEqXwA9g8sQWurxPbQSxtVR5SEQvMluUHCqRxsFOh_HtSlQ0x3eF-39HRIeSSwTUDBTeAouRYqxoUVhxVdURmrBRlAQLlMZnt_8UElKfkLOcPAKgQYEbEc5P71ljvaB6Sz5nGjvYp5ujGW7qgyfftSIdIlxP0SU3n6HLs3s_JSTBt9he_d07e7tevq8di8_LwtFpsCsslDgWasnIQIHCPjCvjSlHLwKVXgJKDBbQVNyBYCE5az4IQqkZnFMPALFN8Tq4OuVOlr53Pg9422fq2NZ2Pu6yriUSJ9QSyA2in7jn5oPvUbE0aNQO9X0j_WWhy7g5O04WYtuY7ptbpwYxtTCGZzjZZ8__1H9ajaVc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>58122729</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Misplaced stress on prosody: A reply to Black and Byng</title><source>Taylor &amp; Francis Journals Complete</source><creator>Cutler, Anne ; Howard, David ; Patterson, Karalyn E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cutler, Anne ; Howard, David ; Patterson, Karalyn E.</creatorcontrib><description>The recent claim by Black and Byng (1986) that lexical access in reading is subject to prosodic constraints is examined and found to be unsupported. The evidence from impaired reading which Black and Byng report is based on poorly controlled stimulus materials and is inadequately analysed and reported. An alternative explanation of their findings is proposed, and new data are reported for which this alternative explanation can account but their model cannot. Finally, their proposal is shown to be theoretically unmotivated and in conflict with evidence from normal reading.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0264-3294</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-0627</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/02643298908253285</identifier><identifier>CODEN: COGNEP</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</publisher><ispartof>Cognitive neuropsychology, 1989-01, Vol.6 (1), p.67-83</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC 1989</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-2a45d0f0f3e2138ad4697f37e802730c02c53a061ffd7ce1f66892da812f1c183</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-2a45d0f0f3e2138ad4697f37e802730c02c53a061ffd7ce1f66892da812f1c183</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02643298908253285$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02643298908253285$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,59647,60436</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cutler, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howard, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, Karalyn E.</creatorcontrib><title>Misplaced stress on prosody: A reply to Black and Byng</title><title>Cognitive neuropsychology</title><description>The recent claim by Black and Byng (1986) that lexical access in reading is subject to prosodic constraints is examined and found to be unsupported. The evidence from impaired reading which Black and Byng report is based on poorly controlled stimulus materials and is inadequately analysed and reported. An alternative explanation of their findings is proposed, and new data are reported for which this alternative explanation can account but their model cannot. Finally, their proposal is shown to be theoretically unmotivated and in conflict with evidence from normal reading.</description><issn>0264-3294</issn><issn>1464-0627</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1989</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kDtPwzAUhS0EEqXwA9g8sQWurxPbQSxtVR5SEQvMluUHCqRxsFOh_HtSlQ0x3eF-39HRIeSSwTUDBTeAouRYqxoUVhxVdURmrBRlAQLlMZnt_8UElKfkLOcPAKgQYEbEc5P71ljvaB6Sz5nGjvYp5ujGW7qgyfftSIdIlxP0SU3n6HLs3s_JSTBt9he_d07e7tevq8di8_LwtFpsCsslDgWasnIQIHCPjCvjSlHLwKVXgJKDBbQVNyBYCE5az4IQqkZnFMPALFN8Tq4OuVOlr53Pg9422fq2NZ2Pu6yriUSJ9QSyA2in7jn5oPvUbE0aNQO9X0j_WWhy7g5O04WYtuY7ptbpwYxtTCGZzjZZ8__1H9ajaVc</recordid><startdate>19890101</startdate><enddate>19890101</enddate><creator>Cutler, Anne</creator><creator>Howard, David</creator><creator>Patterson, Karalyn E.</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19890101</creationdate><title>Misplaced stress on prosody: A reply to Black and Byng</title><author>Cutler, Anne ; Howard, David ; Patterson, Karalyn E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c372t-2a45d0f0f3e2138ad4697f37e802730c02c53a061ffd7ce1f66892da812f1c183</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1989</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cutler, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howard, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patterson, Karalyn E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Cognitive neuropsychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cutler, Anne</au><au>Howard, David</au><au>Patterson, Karalyn E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Misplaced stress on prosody: A reply to Black and Byng</atitle><jtitle>Cognitive neuropsychology</jtitle><date>1989-01-01</date><risdate>1989</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>67</spage><epage>83</epage><pages>67-83</pages><issn>0264-3294</issn><eissn>1464-0627</eissn><coden>COGNEP</coden><abstract>The recent claim by Black and Byng (1986) that lexical access in reading is subject to prosodic constraints is examined and found to be unsupported. The evidence from impaired reading which Black and Byng report is based on poorly controlled stimulus materials and is inadequately analysed and reported. An alternative explanation of their findings is proposed, and new data are reported for which this alternative explanation can account but their model cannot. Finally, their proposal is shown to be theoretically unmotivated and in conflict with evidence from normal reading.</abstract><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1080/02643298908253285</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0264-3294
ispartof Cognitive neuropsychology, 1989-01, Vol.6 (1), p.67-83
issn 0264-3294
1464-0627
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_02643298908253285
source Taylor & Francis Journals Complete
title Misplaced stress on prosody: A reply to Black and Byng
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T07%3A35%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Misplaced%20stress%20on%20prosody:%20A%20reply%20to%20Black%20and%20Byng&rft.jtitle=Cognitive%20neuropsychology&rft.au=Cutler,%20Anne&rft.date=1989-01-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=67&rft.epage=83&rft.pages=67-83&rft.issn=0264-3294&rft.eissn=1464-0627&rft.coden=COGNEP&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/02643298908253285&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E58122729%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=58122729&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true