Prefixes repel stress in reading aloud: Evidence from surface dyslexia

Abstract

This study examined the importance of prefixes as sublexical cues for stress assignment during reading aloud English disyllabic words. In particular, we tested the hypothesis that prefixes repel stress (Rastle & Coltheart, 2000) by investigating the likelihood with which patients with surface dyslexia assign second-syllable stress to prefixed words. Five such patients were presented with three types of disyllabic words for reading aloud: 'regular' prefixed words with weak-strong stress pattern (e.g., remind); 'irregular' prefixed words with strong-weak stress pattern (e.g., reflex); and non-prefixed words with strong-weak stress pattern (e.g., scandal). Results showed that all five patients frequently regularized the strong-weak prefixed words by pronouncing them with second syllable stress. These regularization errors provide strong evidence for the functional role of prefixes in stress assignment during reading. Additional computational simulations using the rule-based algorithm for pronouncing disyllables developed by Rastle and Coltheart (2000) and the CDP++ model of reading aloud (Perry et al., 2010) allowed us to evaluate how these two opponent approaches to reading aloud fare in respect of the patient data.

Cues to stress assignment in reading aloud.

“…This state of affairs is clearly nonoptimal as our lack of knowledge limits the depth with which these populations can be assessed. Further, there is evidence that both developmental (e.g., Dulay & Hanley, 2015 ; Paizi, Zoccolotti, & Burani, 2011 ) and acquired (e.g., Ktori et al, 2016 ) dyslexics make stress errors when reading words aloud; it seems likely that sublexical cues to stress assignment will influence such individuals’ nonword reading aloud performance. Our findings provide the first step toward a full description of the sublexical computation of stress in reading aloud, thus paving the way for the fuller assessment of these individuals in future.…”

“…This gap is especially notable in languages with a stress-free system, such as English, where stress has neither a fixed position within the word nor is marked by the use of diacritics. Fortunately, this narrow focus has begun to change with a growing body of empirical work (e.g., Arciuli & Cupples, 2006, 2007; Arciuli, Monaghan, & Ševa, 2010; Chateau & Jared, 2003; Jared & Seidenberg, 1990; Ktori et al, 2016; Mousikou et al, 2017; Sulpizio et al, 2015; Yap & Balota, 2009) and computational modeling (e.g., Jouravlev & Lupker, 2015a; Perry et al, 2010; Rastle & Coltheart, 2000; Ševa et al, 2009) focused on stimuli with more than one syllable.…”

“…The association between prefixes and final stress is also evident when patients with acquired surface dyslexia attempt to read disyllabic prefixed words aloud. In such cases, these patients tend to make stress errors (e.g., reading the word reflex with second-syllable stress; Ktori, Tree, Mousikou, Coltheart, & Rastle, 2016 ). Finally, it has been argued across a number of experiments that syllables with greater orthographic weight (i.e., as defined by the number of letters) and/or syllables with redundant letters tend to attract stress (e.g., the final “te” in roulette , Kelly, Morris, & Verrekia, 1998 ; Mousikou et al, 2017 ).…”

Stress assignment in reading aloud in Spanish

“…This is exactly what Rastle and Coltheart found for low-frequency (LF) words (Experiment 3), suggesting that stress is assigned through a nonlexical mechanism, at least for LF words. In line with these findings, Ktori, Tree, Mousikou, Coltheart, and Rastle (2015) reported that patients with surface dyslexia commit regularization errors and assign second-syllable stress to prefixed words. Therefore, although stress assignment may be mainly lexical, nonlexical mechanisms may still be playing a role, even in languages without stress marks.…”

Q2Stress: A database for multiple cues to stress assignment in Italian

“…Importantly, the role of both beginnings and endings in stress assignment seems to be independent from the morphological properties of those units (Arciuli & Cupples, 2006. That said, it is known that affixes either repel or attract stress (e.g., Jarmulowicz, Taran, & Hay, 2008;Ktori, Tree, Mousikou, Coltheart, & Rastle, 2016;Rastle & Coltheart, 2000), suggesting an important role for morphology in stress assignment.…”