View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Marking Stress ExPLICitly in Written English Fosters Rhythm in the Reader's Inner Voice

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Marking Stress ExPLICitly in Written English Fosters Rhythm in the Reader's Inner Voice
Language: English
Authors: Gross, Jennifer, Winegard, Bo, Plotkowski, Andrea R.
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. Jul-Sep 2018 53(3):305-321.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Oral Language, Poetry, Prediction, Linguistic Theory, Intonation, Suprasegmentals, English, Language Rhythm, Phonology, Sustained Silent Reading, Language Styles, Comparative Analysis, Phonemes, Predictor Variables, Academic Achievement, Reading Difficulties, English (Second Language), Second Language Learning, Experimental Groups, Control Groups, Inner Speech (Subvocal)
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.198
ISSN: 0034-0553
Abstract: Spoken English has a stress-alternating rhythm that is not marked in its orthography. In two experiments, the authors evaluated whether stylistic alterations to print that marked stress pulses fostered the rendering of rhythm (experiment 1) and stress (experiment 2) during silent reading. In experiment 1, silent readers rated the helpfulness of the stylistic alterations appearing in the last line of poems. In experiment 2, silent readers rated the helpfulness of the stylistic alterations appearing in heteronyms embedded in prose. As predicted by linguistic theories, when the stylistic alterations mapped onto the rhythmic pulses of the poems, and the lexically stressed syllables of the heteronyms, silent readers rated these alterations as more helpful compared with the incongruous conditions. In experiment 2, readers' inner voices were more tuned to the prosodic nuances of the first syllable than the second in the bisyllabic heteronyms. This prosodic tuning for the first syllable in a word was likely afforded by the strong tendency for stress to appear word-initially. In addition, the stylistically marked stress was viewed as more helpful in the early half of the sentence, when readers likely recruited more bottom-up processes. In both experiments, prior exposure to poetry was related to a refined prosodic awareness. In experiment 2, exposure to poetry predicted participants' prosody sensitivity, after controlling for the other predictors of academic achievement. The authors' ongoing studies are evaluating whether marking stress explicitly in written English might aid struggling readers and late speakers of English.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1183262
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH4g6l5qgTIgAbct4pgL4FsAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPAp_xNJJcvOqlMLOgIBEICBmtWtS0e285zktT0db56FMlRO57RqodWDeUtjAgYr4BNMf2xv3stZ0Mlr-ac0bR5eLgIVma3HH1FrET30agGP0MCYI2aEropwRWGR393CsEUefNAHUSi7wk034r4nGyDBa_sTKp5k0iXZgTdXUr9i0OMIyzPW1YhEU2jsfrI3T1OEITJ-fPe6r7tKxe43gsZ_buC27f8QtFOikaA=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0130362295;[nrnu]01jul.18;2025Apr04.08:25;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0130362295-1">Marking Stress ExPLICitly in Written English Fosters Rhythm in the Reader's Inner Voice </title> <p>Abstract: Spoken English has a stress‐alternating rhythm that is not marked in its orthography. In two experiments, the authors evaluated whether stylistic alterations to print that marked stress pulses fostered the rendering of rhythm (experiment 1) and stress (experiment 2) during silent reading. In experiment 1, silent readers rated the helpfulness of the stylistic alterations appearing in the last line of poems. In experiment 2, silent readers rated the helpfulness of the stylistic alterations appearing in heteronyms embedded in prose. As predicted by linguistic theories, when the stylistic alterations mapped onto the rhythmic pulses of the poems, and the lexically stressed syllables of the heteronyms, silent readers rated these alterations as more helpful compared with the incongruous conditions. In experiment 2, readers’ inner voices were more tuned to the prosodic nuances of the first syllable than the second in the bisyllabic heteronyms. This prosodic tuning for the first syllable in a word was likely afforded by the strong tendency for stress to appear word‐initially. In addition, the stylistically marked stress was viewed as more helpful in the early half of the sentence, when readers likely recruited more bottom‐up processes. In both experiments, prior exposure to poetry was related to a refined prosodic awareness. In experiment 2, exposure to poetry predicted participants’ prosody sensitivity, after controlling for the other predictors of academic achievement. The authors’ ongoing studies are evaluating whether marking stress explicitly in written English might aid struggling readers and late speakers of English.</p> <p>Decoding; Fluency; Prosody; Phonics; phonemic awareness; phonological awareness; Research methodology; Evidence‐based; College/university students</p> <p>The English writing system is a printed representation of its spoken language. Written English is based on an alphabetic system that maps letters in print to sounds in spoken English. Understanding the difference between cat and rat and between lice and rice is an indicator of alphabetic literacy in English. Mastering the letter–sound correspondences (a marker of phonological awareness) is a powerful cipher when learning to read (Patterson & Coltheart, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref1">46</reflink>] ; Perfetti & Bell, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref2">47</reflink>] ; Van Orden & Kloos, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref3">65</reflink>] ). Skilled reading reflects more than the mastery of letter–sound correspondences, however. Becoming a fluent reader requires an understanding of the prosody of English (Clin, Wade‐Woolley, & Heggie, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref4">15</reflink>] ; Dowhower, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>] ; Holliman, Wood, & Sheehy, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>] ; Miller & Schwanenflugel, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref7">41</reflink>] ; Schreiber, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref8">52</reflink>] ; Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Kuhn, Wisenbaker, & Stahl, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref9">54</reflink>] ; Whalley & Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref10">69</reflink>] ). Prosody is the vocal properties of speech, including stress, rhythm, timing, and emphasis. For example, the difference in meaning between “A rat chased my cat?” and “A rat chased your cat!” is conveyed by prosody. Markers of prosodic fluency include reading with appropriate pausing and phrasing, phrase‐final lengthening, intonation contours, and stress assignment (Dowhower, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref11">18</reflink>] ; National Reading Panel, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref12">42</reflink>] ).</p> <p>From early readers to adults, prosody sensitivity plays a role in reading. In 5‐ and 6‐year‐olds, prosody sensitivity uniquely predicted reading, after controlling for vocabulary knowledge, phonological awareness, and morphological awareness (Holliman et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>] ). Third graders’ knowledge of lexical prosody when reading aloud from a typical textbook was a significant predictor of oral reading fluency and good reading comprehension (Schwanenflugel & Benjamin, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref14">53</reflink>] ). For example, young readers displayed knowledge of lexical prosody when they placed stress in the appropriate place for the noun and verb forms of words such as recall and showed syllable stress shifting when suffixes were added (e.g., ARtist vs. arTIStic). Third graders also displayed knowledge of lexical compound contrasts when reading aloud words such as BLACKbird compared with BLACK and BIRD. In high school students, skill in prosodic production predicted reading comprehension among students matched on decoding ability (Breen, Kaswer, Van Dyke, Krivokapić, & Landi, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>] ). Specifically, high school students with poor reading comprehension consistently produced weaker duration cues to mark the appropriate syntactic structure.</p> <p>Prosodic awareness also predicted reading achievement in adult readers (Wade‐Woolley & Heggie, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref16">68</reflink>] ). Common measures of prosodic awareness (e.g., identifying the number of syllables in a multisyllabic word, identifying which syllable contains the main beat of the word) might be confounded with working memory. Thus, Chan and Wade‐Woolley ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>] ) evaluated the unique contributions of working memory and prosodic awareness to word reading and reading comprehension in adults. Both executive function and prosodic awareness were related to word reading and reading comprehension. Yet, after controlling for working memory, prosodic awareness still accounted for adults’ word‐reading abilities (Chan & Wade‐Woolley, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>] ). Thus, across development, prosody sensitivity is related to reading abilities.</p> <p>Although many features of spoken language (e.g., words, syntax) are easily mapped onto their written counterparts, written English does not explicitly represent the prosodic features of stress and rhythm (Fudge, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref19">23</reflink>] ; Treiman & Kessler, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref20">64</reflink>] ). Faced with the paucity of cues, fluent readers must infer stress and rhythm when reading aloud (Goswami et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref21">24</reflink>] ; Nespor & Vogel, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref22">44</reflink>] ; Schreiber, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref23">52</reflink>] ). According to linguistic theories (Chomsky & Halle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref24">14</reflink>] ; Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref26">56</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref27">57</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref28">58</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref29">59</reflink>] ) and behavioral data (Breen & Clifton, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref30">9</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref31">10</reflink>] ; Kelly & Bock, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref32">33</reflink>] ), the ideal English sentence has a metrical rhythm created by an alternating pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables. In the typical English sentence, weak function words (e.g., the, will, her) alternate with the stronger syllables of content words (e.g., BOAT,TIger,BUTterfly; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref33">56</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref34">59</reflink>] ) to create the canonical rhythm of English. According to Koriat, Kreiner, and Greenberg ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref35">38</reflink>] ), readers use morphosyntactic cues (e.g., distinguishing between function and content words) to establish the structural and prosodic frame of a sentence, prior to analyzing the meaning of the sentence.</p> <p>Historically, the rhythm of English was regarded as the simple by‐product of the linear arrangements of words with static stress points. In this view, stress was regarded as an intractable feature of syllables (i.e., [+ stress], [− stress]; Chomsky & Halle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>] ). For example, because the third syllable in the word MissisSIPpi is stress marked, that syllable receives the most prominence when pronounced. This view assumed that stress was fixed and predictable. Assuming that stress was invariant, traditional approaches to explain stress assignment in English looked for rules that could illuminate its lawfulness (e.g., Chomsky & Halle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref37">14</reflink>] ). In some languages, stress assignment is highly predictable. For example, in Spanish, words ending in a vowel, ‐n, or ‐s receive stress on the penultimate (next to the last) syllable, as in espinacas and tomate (Hualde & Nadeu, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref38">29</reflink>] ). Exceptions to these rules are unequivocally marked in the orthography by diacritical marks (e.g., bróculi, espárragos; Hualde & Nadeu, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>] ). In Hungarian, stress always appears on the first syllable in a word (Siptár & Törkenczy, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref40">60</reflink>] ). In English, stress is less lawful. In response, educators outlined the regularities that exist, while presenting a lengthy list of exceptions (Fudge, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>] ). Nonetheless, approximately 85% of content words begin with a strong stress on the first syllable (Cutler & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref42">17</reflink>] ). This strong, statistical tendency is used by adult listeners (Cutler & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>] ; Vroomen, Tuomainen, & de Gelder, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref44">66</reflink>] ) and infant listeners (Jusczyk, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref45">32</reflink>] ) when parsing spoken English. It is unknown whether this statistical tendency is used in silent reading.</p> <p>In contemporary linguistics, stress is viewed as dynamic rather than as an immutable property of syllables. For example, stress in English can actively shift within a word when affixes are added, as when the word POLitic becomes poLITical (Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref46">39</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref47">56</reflink>] ). Stress shifts can reflect subtle differences in meaning. Consider the difference among BLUEbird (a specific type of bird known for its blue plumage), “that's a BLUE bird” (the Sesame Street character, Big Bird, after a mishap with a can of blue spray paint), and “every blue BIRD” (any bird that is blue). Speakers say “BOOK” and “BAG” to refer to these specific items, yet they say “BOOKbag” to refer to a specific type of satchel carried by school‐age children. In the case of heteronyms, stress is phonemic. The stress alternations in heteronyms yield different pronunciations with unique meanings for identically spelled words (e.g., “fresh PROduce at the store,” “need to proDUCE more widgets”). Yet, the lack of predictability on the placement of English stress is not restricted to heteronyms.</p> <p>Stress assignment in English reaches across word boundaries. The rhythm rule (Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref48">39</reflink>] ; Nespor & Vogel, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref49">44</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref50">56</reflink>] ) is hypothesized to be the mechanism that maintains the ideal, stress‐alternating rhythm in English. Beats in a sentence can be added, moved, or deleted to prevent stress clashes (sequences of adjacent, stressed syllables). For example, the last syllable in the word TennesSEE receives stress. The word AIR receives stress. When spoken as the phrase “TennesSEE + AIR,” the stress pattern in TennesSEE is reversed, yielding “TENnessee AIR” (Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref51">39</reflink>] ). Similarly, to avoid the stress clash of two, adjacent strong syllables, the words thirTEEN and MEN spoken in isolation become “THIRteen MEN” when spoken as a phrase (Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref52">56</reflink>] ). In short, the rhythm rule extends hierarchically within and across words to preserve the canonical, alternating meter in English.</p> <p>Consistent with the rhythm rule (Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref53">39</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref54">56</reflink>] ), corpus studies of formal and conversational English, as well as of written and spoken English, have revealed a tendency toward rhythmic alternation within and across words. Kelly and Bock ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref55">33</reflink>] ) analyzed the rhythmic properties of a diverse set of spoken words from corpora, including parent–child interactions, trial testimony, college lectures, the Watergate tapes, and conversations between twins, couples, and adults. To understand the rhythmic properties of written text, the team analyzed corpora from Bartlett's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>] ) Familiar Quotations, a collection of phrases, passages, and proverbs from ancient to modern literature. The canonical rhythm of English was more likely to occur in written than spoken communication and in formal than conversational English. Providing converging experimental evidence, Kelly and Bock found that speakers adjusted the stress patterns of bisyllabic pseudowords (e.g., colvane) within sentences to create rhythmic alternation. Participants were more likely to place stress on the first syllable of pseudowords when they followed a word with weak stress (e.g., “Planes will COLvane pilots”). In contrast, when a word with strong stress preceded the pseudowords, the pseudowords were pronounced with a weak–strong pattern (e.g., “The pins colVANE balloons”). The speakers adjusted lexical stress in a range of pseudowords to create an alternating rhythm across an utterance.</p> <p>Extending such findings to other languages, oral and silent readers of German made syntactic parsing decisions that preserved the language's preferences for the alternation of strong and weak syllables (Kentner, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref57">34</reflink>] ). Like English, German's stress‐alternating rhythm is not explicitly marked in its orthography. When unprepared oral readers placed stress on an ambiguous German word, the placement of stress was influenced by the immediate rhythmic environment (i.e., the lexical stress of the following word). Specifically, these unprepared oral readers defaulted to avoiding stress clashes that spanned across words. In prepared reading conditions, in which oral readers had access to the disambiguating portion of the sentence before starting to read aloud, readers were unaffected by the immediate rhythmic environment and placed the stress to signal the appropriate meaning of the ambiguous word. Converging evidence was found by using eye‐tracking measures, which revealed that unprepared, silent readers were incrementally building a stress‐alternating prosody.</p> <p>The rhythmic alternation biases observed in German oral readers (Kentner, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref58">34</reflink>] ) are consistent with the construction–integration model of reading (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref59">36</reflink>] ). In theory, reading comprehension is an ongoing, joint interaction between text‐based information and the situation model formed as the reader integrates the text with relevant prior knowledge. Early in a sentence, letter decoding and word recognition draw heavily on information arriving from the sensory systems (i.e., bottom‐up or data‐driven processing). For example, recognizing words in a sentence activates word meanings in memory, and lexical stress may be stored as part of the words in the mental lexicon (Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref60">56</reflink>] ). By recruiting top‐down processes (e.g., prior knowledge, beliefs, goals, expectations, word frequencies), the reader constructs an interpretation of the words and phrases on the page (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>] ; Treiman, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref62">63</reflink>] ). Unprepared readers appeared to be data driven as they iteratively construct a stress‐alternating rhythm early in the sentence, whereas prepared readers adjusted the rhythm in light of relevant knowledge (Kentner, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref63">34</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Thus, how readers use stress to create the canonical rhythm of English when reading aloud is becoming well understood. Yet, do these same processes occur in silent reading? That is, do silent readers of English render stress and rhythm in their inner voices? The notion that silent reading is accompanied by a voice in the head is long‐standing (Huey, 1908/[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref64">30</reflink>] ). According to the implicit prosody hypothesis (Fodor, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref65">21</reflink>] ), silent readers project a prosodic pattern onto a sentence to guide syntactic processing (Fodor, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref66">22</reflink>] ). In theory, the projected prosody is presumed to be identical to the overt prosody for that sentence in a comparable context (Fodor, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref67">22</reflink>] ). Consistent with the implicit prosody hypothesis, detailed phonological information is activated during silent reading (e.g., Abramson & Goldinger, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>] ; Ashby & Clifton, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>] ; McCutchen, Bell, France, & Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref70">40</reflink>] ; Van Orden & Kloos, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref71">65</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Emerging evidence suggests that silent readers represent in the inner voice the prosodic features of phrasing (Bader, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref72">5</reflink>] ; Hwang & Schafer, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref73">31</reflink>] ), lexical stress (Ashby & Clifton, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>] ; Ashby & Rayner, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>] ), meter (Breen & Clifton, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref76">9</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref77">10</reflink>] ), and focal stress (Gross, Millett, Bartek, Bredell, & Winegard, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref78">25</reflink>] ), consistent with the implicit prosody hypothesis (Fodor, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref79">22</reflink>] ). By observing eye movements, Ashby and Clifton found that polysyllabic words with two stressed syllables were read more slowly and received more fixations than did polysyllabic words with one stressed syllable. Longer reading times for words such as FUNdaMENtal compared with words such as sigNIFicant are consistent with the longer pronunciation times for stressed compared with unstressed syllables in spoken English (Chomsky & Halle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref80">14</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref81">56</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Breen and Clifton's ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref82">9</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref83">10</reflink>] ) silent readers formed expectations about the stress patterns of noun–verb heteronyms (e.g., ABstract [noun], abSTRACT [verb]) appearing in limericks and garden path sentences. Reading times were slower when expectations regarding prosody were not upheld. For example, reading times suffered when heteronyms appearing in garden path sentences were syntactically biased to have a noun interpretation (e.g., ABstract) yet had to be prosodically disambiguated as a verb (e.g., “The brilliant abSTRACT the…”). Compatibly, there were longer latencies in the limerick condition when the stress placement on the heteronym was inconsistent with the rhythm. For example, reading times were longer for “There once was a penniless PEASant [strong/weak] / who went to his master to preSENT [weak/strong]” than for “There once was a penniless PEASant [strong/weak] / who could not afford a nice PRESent [strong/weak].” Thus, silent readers formed a metrical representation that guided their syntactic representations.</p> <p>In addition to lexical stress and meter, silent readers appear to stress‐mark newsworthy content, consistent with the implicit prosody hypothesis. English speakers (Bolinger, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref84">8</reflink>] ; Nava & Zubizarreta, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref85">43</reflink>] ; Rooth, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref86">49</reflink>] ; Schafer, Speer, Warren, & White, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref87">51</reflink>] ) and expressive readers (Cooper, Eady, & Mueller, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref88">16</reflink>] ; Eady & Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>] ; Schwanenflugel, Westmoreland, & Benjamin, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref90">55</reflink>] ) acoustically emphasize new or important content. Thus, Gross and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref91">25</reflink>] ) tested how contextual newness might implicitly influence the inner voice. Silent readers were predicted to give higher helpfulness ratings for the final sentences of a paragraph when new or important content was emphatically marked and previously given information was not, compared with incongruously matched stimuli. As predicted, silent readers in experiment 1 preferred capital‐emphasized, newsworthy content (“James stole the BRACELET”) when the just read story left the reader wondering what was stolen. Readers preferred “JAMES stole the bracelet” when left wondering who the thief was. Experiment 2 generalized the findings to newsworthy function words and to a different behavioral measure, reaction time. As predicted, “He CAN” was judged more quickly and accurately following “Can he swim?” whereas “HE can” was judged more quickly and accurately following “Who can swim?” The stylistic alterations used by Gross and colleagues to mark stress in print may bridge the bottom‐up and top‐down processes involved in reading (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref92">36</reflink>] ; Kintsch & Mross, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref93">37</reflink>] ; Rumelhart & McClelland, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref94">50</reflink>] ). Moreover, the stylistic alterations that mark stress in print may be particularly helpful in the early part of sentences when bottom‐up processes dominate (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref95">36</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The stylistic alterations used by Gross and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref96">25</reflink>] ) could be used to test hypotheses about individual differences in rhythm and stress extraction during silent reading. There is emerging evidence for individual differences in the syntactic, and accompanying prosodic, analyses of sentences. Consider the sentence “The maid of the princess who scratched herself in public was terribly embarrassed.” The key question is, Who scratched herself in public, the maid or the princess? English and Dutch readers with high‐span working memory capacities chunked more information by attaching scratching to the maid after treating the entire subject of the sentence (up to the verb was) as a cohesive unit. English and Dutch readers with low‐span working memory capacities attached scratching to the princess after forming chunks in the middle of the sentence (Swets, Desmet, Hambrick, & Ferreira, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref97">62</reflink>] ). The ongoing syntactic and prosodic analyses performed during silent reading were more affected by the reader's working memory capacity than by the preferences of the reader's native language (Ferreira & Karimi, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref98">20</reflink>] ; Swets et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref99">62</reflink>] ).</p> <p>In sum, spoken and written English have a canonical rhythm created by an alternating pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables. The rhythm of English is not simply the by‐product of the concatenation of words with given stress points. Rather, the stress‐alternating rhythm of English is dynamic and responsive to contextual conditions. Stress and rhythm are not marked in English's orthography. Skilled users of English must infer stress, and the stress‐alternating preferences of its language, when writing and reading aloud. Emerging evidence reveals that silent readers render prosodic features in their inner voices. Extrapolating from linguistic theories of the stress‐alternating preferences of spoken English (Chomsky & Halle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref100">14</reflink>] ; Fudge, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref101">23</reflink>] ; Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref102">39</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref103">56</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref104">57</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref105">58</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref106">59</reflink>] ), we evaluated whether stylistic alterations to print that mark rhythm (experiment 1) and lexical stress (experiment 2) help our silent readers hear the beat of English in their inner voices. We examined prosody sensitivity as an individual difference variable (Ferreira & Karimi, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref107">20</reflink>] ; Swets et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref108">62</reflink>] ). As previously discussed, Chan and Wade‐Woolley ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref109">13</reflink>] ) found that after controlling for working memory, prosodic awareness still accounted for adults’ word reading. We tested hypotheses about what educational experiences promote greater awareness of rhythm and stress in written English. We speculated that greater exposure to poetry and better academic skill more generally would be linked to greater awareness of prosody.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-2">Experiment 1</hd> <p>The primary goal of experiment 1 was to investigate whether silent readers represent rhythm when translating print to a speech‐based code. The reading material in experiment 1 was formal poems, a form of writing based on rhythms. Poetic rhythm is created by the careful arrangements of stressed and unstressed syllables into patterns (Pinsky, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref110">48</reflink>] ), whereby the words and the rhythm are inseparable. Consider the arrangement of stressed and unstressed syllables into a strong–weak rhythm in the poem “Peter, Peter, pumpkin‐eater, / Had a wife and couldn't keep her; / He put her in a pumpkin shell / And there he kept her very well” (Opie & Opie, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref111">70</reflink>] , p. 410).</p> <p>To mark the stress pulses in print, we changed the appearance of text in accordance with Norman's ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref112">45</reflink>] ) four design principles. A well‐designed interface (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref113">1</reflink>) exploits existing knowledge, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>) is perceptually obvious, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref115">3</reflink>) gives clues to facilitate easy interaction, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref116">4</reflink>) eases the transfer of what is known to a new context (Norman, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref117">45</reflink>] ). We borrowed the use of capital letters, bolding, and enlargement of text to convey stress from existing practices, such as pronunciation in dictionaries (e.g., aioli = /ahy‐OH‐lee/) and comic strips (e.g., “OUCH!”), meeting principle 1. These stylistic[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref118">4</reflink>] alterations are easily distinguished from unaltered text (principle 2). The stylistic alterations give rise to the phenomenological impression of a raised voice when reading (e.g., “CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?”; principle 3) and ease the reader's rendering of stress from memory (principle 4).</p> <p>Under the guise of judging a poet's tinkering with ways to improve the pleasure of reading poetry, participants were asked to rate the overall helpfulness of the stylistic alterations placed on the last line of the poems. The two‐ and four‐line poems began in plain text (e.g., “‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves”). In the final line of each poem, the stylistic alterations either congruously mapped onto the stress pulses (e.g., “Will BE a TOTter'd WEED of SMALL worth HELD”; congruent condition) or incongruously mapped onto unstressed syllables (e.g., “WILL be A totTER'D weed OF small WORTH held”; incongruent condition).[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref119">5</reflink>]</p> <p>To examine the generality of prosodic rhythm effects in silent reading, three meters were used (trochaic, iambic, and anapestic) to mirror the undulating rhythms of spoken English (one or two weakly stressed syllables alternating with strongly stressed syllables; Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref120">39</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref121">59</reflink>] ). The poem about pumpkin‐fond Peter is written in a trochaic meter, whereby a stressed syllable is followed by an unstressed syllable (“PEter, PEter, PUMPkin EATer”). An iambic meter consists of an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable (e.g., “The MAN is SMALL”). An anapestic meter consists of two unstressed syllables followed by one stressed syllable (e.g., “And the HOUSE is the PLACE”). Extrapolating from linguistic theories of the regular stress patterning in English (Chomsky & Halle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref122">14</reflink>] ; Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref123">39</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref124">56</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref125">57</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref126">58</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref127">59</reflink>] ) and behavioral data (Breen & Clifton, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref128">9</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref129">10</reflink>] ; Kelly & Bock, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref130">33</reflink>] ; Kentner, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref131">34</reflink>] ), we predicted that silent readers would rate the stylistic alterations appearing on the last line of the poem as more helpful when it marked the rhythm (stress pulses) of the poem, compared with the dissonant, incongruous condition (for sample stimuli, see Table ; for the complete list, see Appendix ; all of the appendixes are available as supporting information for the online version of this article).</p> <p>Sample Poetry Stimuli in Experiment</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="3"><tr><th>Trochaic meter example</th><th>Iambic meter example</th><th>Anapestic meter example</th></tr><tr><td>“Piping down the valleys wild”</td><td>“‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves”</td><td>“Fled foam underneath us, and around us, a wandering and milky smoke”</td></tr><tr><td>“PIPing SONGS of PLEASant MUsic” (beat congruous)</td><td>“Did GYRE and GIMble IN the WABE” (beat congruous)</td><td>“As high as the saddle‐girth, covering away from our glances the tide”</td></tr><tr><td>“PipING songs OF pleasANT muSIC” (beat incongruous)</td><td>“DID gyre AND gimBLE in THE wabe” (beat incongruous)</td><td>“And those that fled, and that followed, from the foam‐pale distance broke”</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>“The imMORtal deSIRE of imMORtals we SAW in their FACES, and SIGHED” (beat congruous)</td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>“The IMmortal DEsire of IMmortals WE saw in THEIR faces, AND sighed” (beat incongruous)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The second goal was to examine prosody sensitivity as an individual difference variable. As previously discussed, individual differences in prosody sensitivity were related to differences in working memory capacity (Chan & Wade‐Woolley, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref132">13</reflink>] ; Ferreira & Karimi, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref133">20</reflink>] ; Swets et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref134">62</reflink>] ). Silent readers with less working memory capacity were found to be more likely to pause midsentence, and these breaks influenced the ongoing prosodic analyses (Ferreira & Karimi, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref135">20</reflink>] ). After controlling for differences in executive function, prosodic awareness accounted for individual differences in adults’ word‐reading abilities (Chan & Wade‐Woolley, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref136">13</reflink>] ). Therefore, we reasoned that college readers with a refined, prosodic inner voice as measured by our experimental task would have higher scores on measures used to forecast academic achievement in college. We further reasoned that those who had more exposure to poetry would have a more refined awareness of prosody and better memory for our poetry selections.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-3">Method</hd> <hd id="AN0130362295-4">Participants</hd> <p>Fifty‐eight students enrolled in introductory psychology courses at a public university in the Great Lakes region of the United States received course credit for their participation. Fifty‐seven participants were native English speakers, and one participant was a native Spanish speaker. Seven participants reported fluency in languages in addition to English (four in Spanish, one in French, one in Arabic, and one in American Sign Language).</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-5">Stimuli</hd> <p>Twenty‐four experimental stimuli were excerpts from published poetry (<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref137">20</reflink>) or poems written by the investigators (four). The stimuli included eight poems for each rhythm (iambic, trochaic, and anapestic). For each rhythm, four poems were composed of two lines, and four poems were composed of four lines. In formal poetry, there can be inconsistencies in the beat patterns (Attridge, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref138">4</reflink>] ). Such rhythm irregularities were more common in our excerpts from longer poems than shorter ones. We allowed up to two deviations from the predicted meter in each poem. Only the final line of a poem was stylistically altered to be either congruous or incongruous with the poem's meter. The number of stylistically altered syllables was held constant across both the congruous and incongruous versions of a poem. Syllabification and stress assignment were verified via Dictionary.com. Participants read only one version of each poem, determined randomly, while satisfying the constraint of an equal number of congruous and incongruous trials. To compute prosody sensitivity, we subtracted each subject's average ratings of incongruent trials from ratings of congruent trials.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-6">Design</hd> <p>The study was a 3 × 2 × 2 experimental design with meter type (trochaic, iambic, or anapestic), length of poem (two or four lines), and congruous versus incongruous mapping of stylistic alterations onto the implicit meter of the poems. Helpfulness ratings were the dependent variable. For the three independent variables, levels were measured within participants and stimuli.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-7">Measures</hd> <p>Seven forced‐choice primer trials were designed to familiarize participants with the idea of stylistically marked stress by asking them to decide which of two usages of capitalization was better (e.g, “LAbor/laBOR,” “Sam needed to practice shooting his bow with greater acCURacy/ACcuracy”). No performance feedback was furnished at any time during the experiment.</p> <p>The poetry memory test comprised 24 multiple‐choice questions, with one question per poem. Our test should not be construed as a typical reading comprehension test. Our poetry memory test was notably challenging because it probed participants’ verbatim memories for specific words or phrases. Our selection of poems did not necessarily present a complete idea or coherent message, because the poems were chosen on the basis of their meter rather than content. Some of the poetry selections may have been familiar to the readers, yet many selections were likely unfamiliar to them (see Appendix ).</p> <p>As a proxy of prior exposure to poetry, we created a poet recognition test. Like its inspiration, the author recognition test (Stanovich & West, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref139">61</reflink>] ), the poet recognition test is a checklist of 60 names. Thirty‐two of the names were targets (famous poets), and 28 were foils (culturally salient figures, such as actors, political figures, and comedians). Participants were instructed to identify the poets from nonpoets and warned that guessing could be easily detected. Our poet recognition test, like the author recognition test, was scored as the number of correct identification of authors (hits) minus the number of incorrect identification of foils (see Appendix ).</p> <p>The demographic questionnaire asked participants to report their score on a U.S. college standardized admissions screening test known as the ACT. ACT scores served as a proxy of individual differences in academic achievement. The demographic questionnaire also asked participants to report their cumulative grade point average (GPA), and the number of poems they read in the last year as an index of exposure to poetry. The number of poems read in the last year was coded as 1 for 10 or fewer, 2 for 11–20, 3 for 21–30, and 4 for 31 or more.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-8">Procedure</hd> <p>A story introduced the task. Participants were told that a creative, prize‐winning poet decided to stylistically highlight parts of words to enhance the reading of poetry, yet it took a little bit of tinkering for the author to decide where to use this new technique. For example, the new technique seemed to work in “The ITsy BITsy SPIder….” In contrast, the new technique did not seem to work in “HumpTY DumpTY sat ON….” The finished book featuring the new technique to enhance the reading experience was sent to the editor. Yet, during electronic transit, a computer virus corrupted the book by inserting random stylistic changes to the poems. Playing the role of the editor, the participants’ job was to sort out the mess by judging the virus‐corrupted, unhelpful alterations from the intentional, helpful alterations of the poems by using the 5‐point scale with the endpoints labeled “unhelpful” and “helpful.” Participants were cautioned to read all poems carefully in preparation for the poetry memory test at the end of the session.</p> <p>After consenting to participate and reading the cover story, participants completed the tasks in the following order: the primer trials, the poems, the poet recognition test, the poetry memory test, and the demographic questionnaire.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-9">Results and Discussion</hd> <p>Our findings are consistent with the experimental hypothesis derived from linguistic theory: Stylistic alterations of the text that congruously mapped onto the stress‐alternating rhythm of poems were rated as more helpful, compared with poems in the incongruously mapped condition, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref140">1</reflink>, 57) = 83.5, p < .0001, by subjects, and F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref141">1</reflink>, 18) = 112.7, p < .0001, by items. There were no main effects for type of meter or poem length and no interactions involving any factors (see Table ).</p> <p>Descriptive Statistics for Helpfulness Ratings for Poetry Stimuli in Congruous and Incongruous Conditions in Experiment 1</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="8"><tr><th>Incongruous</th><th>Congruous</th></tr><tr><th>By subjects</th><th>By stimuli</th><th>By subjects</th><th>By stimuli</th></tr><tr><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th></tr><tr><td>Trochaic meter</td></tr><tr><td>Example: “PipING songs OF pleasANT muSIC”</td><td>Example: “PIPing SONGS of PLEASant MUsic”</td></tr><tr><td>Two‐line poems</td></tr><tr><td>2.28</td><td>1.27</td><td>2.60</td><td>0.32</td><td>4.00</td><td>0.89</td><td>3.96</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>Four‐line poems</td></tr><tr><td>2.56</td><td>1.21</td><td>2.56</td><td>0.30</td><td>3.58</td><td>1.13</td><td>3.63</td><td>0.40</td></tr><tr><td>Iambic meter</td></tr><tr><td>Example: “DID gyre AND gimBLE in THE wabe”</td><td>Example: “Did GYRE and GIMble IN the WABE”</td></tr><tr><td>Two‐line poems</td></tr><tr><td>2.51</td><td>1.06</td><td>2.52</td><td>0.36</td><td>3.57</td><td>1.04</td><td>3.49</td><td>0.26</td></tr><tr><td>Four‐line poems</td></tr><tr><td>2.50</td><td>1.07</td><td>2.49</td><td>0.19</td><td>3.20</td><td>1.46</td><td>3.66</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>Anapestic meter</td></tr><tr><td>Example: “The IMmortal DEsire of IMmortals”</td><td>Example: “The imMORtal deSIRE of imMORtals”</td></tr><tr><td>Two‐line poems</td></tr><tr><td>2.56</td><td>1.11</td><td>2.71</td><td>0.33</td><td>3.64</td><td>1.03</td><td>3.53</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>Four‐line poems</td></tr><tr><td>2.31</td><td>1.08</td><td>2.39</td><td>0.32</td><td>3.63</td><td>0.93</td><td>3.59</td><td>0.40</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note 1 The minimum for each is 1, and the maximum for each is 5.</p> <p>Using Pearson correlational analyses, we explored the relations between performance on the experimental task (a measure of prosody sensitivity) and the poet recognition test, the frequency of reading poems, the poetry memory test, self‐reported ACT scores, and self‐reported cumulative GPA (see Table ). Our correlational analyses were likely underpowered because of the small sample size (n = 58).</p> <p>Correlations in Experiment 1</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="7"><tr><th>Variable</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr><tr><td>1. Prosody sensitivity</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Poems read last year</td><td>.28</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Poetry memory test</td><td>.18</td><td>.35</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. Poet recognition test (Hits − Foils)</td><td>.14</td><td>.36</td><td>.32</td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5. ACT scores</td><td>−.06</td><td>.11</td><td>−.01</td><td>.29</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td>6. GPA</td><td>−.30</td><td>−.17</td><td>−.14</td><td>−.11</td><td>.20</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>M</td><td>1.17</td><td>1.21</td><td>13.4</td><td>6.78</td><td>24.9</td><td>3.10</td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td>1.07</td><td>1.0</td><td>3.09</td><td>3.40</td><td>3.35</td><td>0.44</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum</td><td>−2.0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>20</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum</td><td>3.50</td><td>4</td><td>19</td><td>16</td><td>34</td><td>3.89</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 *p < .05. **p < .001.</p> <p>We hypothesized that exposure to poetry would cultivate a refined awareness of prosody. Consistent with this prediction, participants with greater prosody sensitivity read more poems in the last year and had higher GPAs. Suggesting that our poet recognition test has construct validity, those who read more poems in the last year performed better on the poet recognition test and the poetry memory test. Moreover, performing better on the poet recognition test was correlated with performing better on the poetry memory test. Higher ACT scores were correlated with better performance on the poet recognition test, consistent with the findings of Stanovich and West ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref142">61</reflink>] ). Prosody sensitivity, unexpectedly, was not related to higher ACT scores. Because of the small sample size, the results of the correlational analyses should be viewed as tentative.</p> <p>In summary, as predicted from linguistic theories (Chomsky & Halle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref143">14</reflink>] ; Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref144">39</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref145">56</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref146">57</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref147">58</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref148">59</reflink>] ) and behavioral data (Breen & Clifton, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref149">9</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref150">10</reflink>] ; Kelly & Bock, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref151">33</reflink>] ; Kentner, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref152">34</reflink>] ), when the stylistic alterations mapped onto the beat of the poems, participants rated these alterations as more helpful, compared with alterations in the incongruous condition. These findings robustly generalized across all three meters. Correlation analyses revealed that a refined sensitivity to prosody was correlated with reading more poems in the last year and higher GPAs. Reading more poems in the last year was also related to better performance on the poet recognition test and the poetry memory test. Recognizing more poets hidden among foils was correlated with better performance on the poetry memory test and higher ACT scores.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-10">Experiment 2</hd> <p>The first goal of experiment 2 was to investigate whether adult readers represent lexical stress in their inner voices when translating print to a speech‐based code. As previously discussed, third graders showed an understanding of lexical prosody when reading aloud (Schwanenflugel & Benjamin, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref153">53</reflink>] ). Under the guise of helping an author's tinkering with ways to improve the pleasure of reading prose, participants were asked to judge the helpfulness of the stylistic alterations. In the congruous condition, the stylistic alterations of print mapped onto the stressed syllables in the heteronyms (e.g., “the science PROJect,” “proJECT the film”). In the incongruous condition, the stylistic alterations mapped onto the unstressed syllables in the heteronyms (e.g., “the science proJECT,” “PROject the film”). In theory, helpfulness ratings should be higher when the stylistic alterations mapped onto the stressed syllables in the heteronyms (e.g., “To conTEST his grade, Sam questioned his instructor about a response scored incorrectly”), compared with the incongruous condition (e.g., “To generate a reputation as a reBEL, Mark added scandalous content to his novel”). As suggested by these examples, the stylistic alterations appeared as bolded capitals in experiment 2.</p> <p>Because of the statistical tendency for stress to appear word‐initially (Cutler & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref154">17</reflink>] ), our readers’ inner voices may be tuned to the prosodic nuances of the first syllable (e.g., “fresh PROduce”) more than the second syllable (e.g., “proDUCE steam”). Therefore, our second goal was to evaluate this tuning difference by assessing whether silent readers gave a larger rating difference between the congruent and incongruent conditions when making judgments about the first syllable compared with the second syllable in the bisyllabic heteronyms.</p> <p>Our third goal was to explore whether prosody sensitivity interacted with the bottom‐up and top‐down processes in text comprehension (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref155">36</reflink>] ; Kintsch & Mross, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref156">37</reflink>] ; Rumelhart & McClelland, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref157">50</reflink>] ). Kentner ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref158">34</reflink>] ) found that early in a sentence, unprepared readers were data driven as they iteratively constructed a stress‐alternating rhythm. In our experiment, participants read stress‐alternating heteronyms appearing in sentences without the benefit of prior context. Thus, we reasoned that our readers’ inner voices would be more tuned to the benefit afforded by stylistic alterations of text in the early part of sentences when bottom‐up processes dominate, compared with the later part of sentences when top‐down processes dominate. Thus, the difference between ratings in the congruent and incongruent conditions should be larger early in a sentence compared with late in the sentence.</p> <p>The fourth goal of experiment 2 was to replicate and extend the findings of individual differences in prosody sensitivity. Correlational analyses examined relations between prosody sensitivity and other individual differences, including exposure to poetry and measures predictive of academic achievement (i.e., reading comprehension, ACT scores, vocabulary scores). Extrapolating from Schwanenflugel and Benjamin's ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref159">53</reflink>] ) finding that children with good lexical prosody had good reading comprehension abilities, we reasoned that our college readers with a refined inner voice for the stress alternations in heteronyms would have higher reading comprehension scores and higher scores on the tests used to forecast academic achievement, when compared with students who performed less well on our experimental task. As revealed in experiment 1, we speculated that prosody sensitivity would be related to exposure to poetry.</p> <p>The research team conducted two replications (studies 1 and 2) of the experiment to check for the robustness of the findings.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-11">Method</hd> <hd id="AN0130362295-12">Participants</hd> <p>All enrolled in introductory psychology courses at a public university in the Great Lakes region of the United States, 482 students received course credit for their participation. Seventeen participants were late speakers of English.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-13">Stimuli</hd> <p>The experimental stimuli were 20 bisyllabic heteronyms appearing in sentences. Across the experimental conditions, care was taken to control for factors that could influence the reading difficulty of the sentences. Thus, the sentences in which heteronyms occurred were matched on number of syllables in a sentence, number of words in a sentence, and reading level (see Table ). The Flesch–Kincaid grade level (Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, & Chissom, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref160">35</reflink>] ) built in to Microsoft Office Word was used to determine the reading level. This measure renders a reading level score to indicate the appropriateness of the text for specific grade levels in the United States. Thus, a score of 8 indicates that the text is appropriate for eighth‐grade readers and above. The reading levels of the experimental stimuli on the Flesch–Kincaid grade‐level test ranged from 9.9 to 12.6.</p> <p>Sample of a Heteronym's Sentences Matched on Words, Syllables, and Reading Level Across the Experimental Conditions of Syllable Location (First or Second), Place in the Sentence (Early or Late), and Stress Marking (Congruous or Incongruous)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="2"><tr><th>Heteronym: conduct (15 words, 28 syllables, reading level of 12.2)</th></tr><tr><th>First</th><th>Second</th></tr><tr><td>Early</td></tr><tr><td>Congruous: “Because of their CONduct, Robert and Timothy are obligated to perform community service this week.”</td><td>Congruous: “Because of the leader's failure to properly conDUCT, the violinists trailed behind the percussion section.”</td></tr><tr><td>Incongruous: “Because of their conDUCT, Robert and Timothy are obligated to perform community service this week.”</td><td>Incongruous: “Because of the leader's failure to properly CONduct, the violinists trailed behind the percussion section.”</td></tr><tr><td>Late</td></tr><tr><td>Congruous: “Robert and Timothy are obligated to perform community service this week because of their CONduct.”</td><td>Congruous: “The violinists trailed behind the percussion section because of the leader's failure to properly conDUCT.”</td></tr><tr><td>Incongruous: “Robert and Timothy are obligated to perform community service this week because of their conDUCT.”</td><td>Incongruous: “The violinists trailed behind the percussion section because of the leader's failure to properly CONduct.”</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0130362295-14">Design</hd> <p>A partial Latin square design was used to place the 20 heteronyms into the 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design with the independent variables of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref161">1</reflink>) syllable location (first or second in the heteronym), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref162">2</reflink>) place in sentence (early or late), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref163">3</reflink>) stress marking (congruous or incongruous mapping). For the three independent variables, levels were measured within participants and stimuli.</p> <p>Table  shows how the experimental conditions were distributed across studies 1 and 2 and sessions 1 and 2. The design of the experiment was constrained by the small number (i.e., 20) of bisyllabic heteronyms available for study. Twenty stress‐alternating heteronyms yielded 40 stimuli. Both meanings of each heteronym were presented in each replication study, with only one meaning presented at each session, to minimize effects of prior exposure. For example, if pro′duce (noun) appeared at session 1, then produce′ (verb) appeared at session 2. A fully crossed design contains eight experimental conditions, and in both experiments, all eight experimental conditions were represented. Yet, at each session, only four of the eight conditions were represented. Five stimuli were presented in each of the eight conditions. Heteronyms were randomly assigned to experimental conditions at session 1. Because of the constraints just described, the assignment of a stimulus in session 1 constrained where the stimulus was placed in session 2. The pairwise comparisons for three independent variables (syllable location, place in sentence, and stress marking) had 10 stimuli, resulting in nine degrees of freedom. Thus, in the analyses reported here, there is some unavoidable confounding of words with conditions (for a complete list of stimuli, see Appendix ).</p> <p>The Schedule of How the Experimental Conditions of Syllable Location (First or Second), Place in the Sentence (Early or Late), and Stress Marking (Congruous or Incongruous) Were Distributed Across Studies and Sessions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="3"><tr><th>Study</th><th>Session</th><th>Conditions</th></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>First, early, congruous</td></tr><tr><td>Second, late, incongruous</td></tr><tr><td>First, early, incongruous</td></tr><tr><td>Second, late, congruous</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Second, early, incongruous</td></tr><tr><td>First, late, congruous</td></tr><tr><td>Second, early, congruous</td></tr><tr><td>First, late, incongruous</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>Second, early, incongruous</td></tr><tr><td>First, late, congruous</td></tr><tr><td>First, early, incongruous</td></tr><tr><td>Second, late, congruous</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>First, early, congruous</td></tr><tr><td>Second, late, incongruous</td></tr><tr><td>Second, early, congruous</td></tr><tr><td>First, late, incongruous</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Students participated in the experiments on two occasions (sessions 1 and 2), separated by several months. The substantial delay between sessions was chosen to minimize the impact of judgments made at session 1 on judgments made at session 2. Temporal separation has been shown to reduce carryover effects and increase the independence of guesses (Vul & Pashler, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref164">67</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Participants rated the stylistic alterations on a 7‐point scale, with 7 as helpful and 1 as unhelpful. The change from a 5‐point scale in experiment 1 to a 7‐point scale in experiment 2 was motivated by the presumption that judging stress alternations in heteronyms would be more difficult than judging stress alternations in poems. The 7‐point scale gave participants a greater range to express their judgments of helpfulness for the more difficult task.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-15">Measures</hd> <p>A 20‐item multiple‐choice reading comprehension test was administered. The questions were based on the heteronym sentences, with the correct answer as one of the four options (see Appendix ). The reading comprehension test was designed to measure higher level comprehension rather than simple, rote recognition. To minimize rote recognition, the comprehension questions mostly contained synonyms of the heteronyms in lieu of the original words.</p> <p>As in experiment 1, the poet recognition test was administered, and participants were asked to indicate the names of poets hidden among foils.</p> <p>To measure individual differences in academic achievement, we selected two 18‐item true/false vocabulary tests from MyVocabulary.com. The tests can be used to prepare for the SAT, which is a standardized test commonly used in college admissions in the United States. MyVocabulary.com grants permission to use the vocabulary tests for educational purposes. On the tests, participants had to decide whether each vocabulary word was used properly in the sentence (e.g., “Mark needs to legally PREVARICATE when he signs documents before a notary,” “Tom gave his uncle a FALLACIOUS statement when he yawned nine times in a row but said he had slept well”; see Appendix ).</p> <p>The demographic questionnaire asked participants to report whether English was their first language, and their scores on the ACT (a widely used measure of academic ability).</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-16">Procedure</hd> <p>The story that introduced the experimental task in experiment 1 was modified for experiment 2. Participants were told that a prize‐winning author had decided to try a new technique in her latest book. The author believed that CAP‐highlighting parts of the text might enhance the reading experience, yet it took a little bit of tinkering for the author to decide where to use this new technique. The use of capital letters in “It's a BIRD, it's a PLANE, it's SUPERMAN!” seemed to work. In contrast, the use of caps in “Get OUT OF my way!” did not seem to work. The finished book featuring the new technique to enhance the reading experience was sent to the editor. Yet, during electronic transit, the book was corrupted by a virus that inserted nonintentional instances of capitals. Playing the role of the editor, participants were asked to sort out the mess by judging virus‐corrupted, nonintentional caps from intentional, helpful caps. Participants were told that they would complete a reading comprehension test based on the author's book at the end of the session. No performance feedback was furnished at any time.</p> <p>Similar to experiment 1, nine forced‐choice training stimuli were used to familiarize participants with the stylistic alterations by asking participants to decide which one of the two usages was better.</p> <p>At session 1, during the initial weeks of the semester, students consented to participate in the experiment, read a cover story, completed the forced‐choice training stimuli, judged the helpfulness of the placement of the bolded caps in 20 heteronyms in sentences, and recognized the names of poets hidden among foils on the poet recognition test. At session 2, students consented to participate in the experiment, read a cover story, completed the forced‐choice training stimuli, judged the helpfulness of the placement of the bolded caps in 20 heteronyms in sentences, completed the reading comprehension test, completed the SAT vocabulary tests, and answered a brief demographic questionnaire.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-17">Results and Discussion</hd> <p>The results reported here combine the data sets from the two replications (studies 1 and 2). Consistent with linguistic theory, there was a main effect of congruency, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref165">1</reflink>, 481) = 157.6, p < .0001, by subjects, and F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref166">1</reflink>, 9) = 247.8, p < .0001, by items. When there was a match between the stylistic alterations and the stress pulse in the heteronym, the stylistic alterations were viewed as more helpful (mean [M] = 4.4, standard deviation [SD] = 0.8), compared with the mismatched stimuli (M = 3.7, SD = 1.0; see Table ).</p> <p>Descriptive Statistics for Heteronym Stimuli in Congruous and Incongruous Conditions in Experiment 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="9"><tr><th>Experimental condition</th><th>By subjects</th><th>By stimuli</th></tr><tr><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Minimum</th><th>Maximum</th><th>M</th><th>SD</th><th>Minimum</th><th>Maximum</th></tr><tr><td>Congruous condition</td></tr><tr><td>Early in sentence/first‐syllable stress</td><td>4.6</td><td>1.2</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>4.6</td><td>0.3</td><td>4.2</td><td>5.3</td></tr><tr><td>Early in sentence/second‐syllable stress</td><td>4.4</td><td>1.3</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>4.4</td><td>0.2</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Late in sentence/first‐syllable stress</td><td>4.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>4.5</td><td>0.3</td><td>4.0</td><td>5.0</td></tr><tr><td>Late in sentence/second‐syllable stress</td><td>4.2</td><td>0.9</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>4.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>3.7</td><td>4.4</td></tr><tr><td>Incongruous condition</td></tr><tr><td>Early in sentence/first‐syllable stress</td><td>3.5</td><td>1.2</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>3.5</td><td>0.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>Early in sentence/second‐syllable stress</td><td>4.1</td><td>1.3</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>4.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>3.8</td><td>4.4</td></tr><tr><td>Late in sentence/first‐syllable stress</td><td>3.5</td><td>1.3</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>3.5</td><td>0.3</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td>Late in sentence/second‐syllable stress</td><td>3.9</td><td>1.3</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>3.9</td><td>0.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>4.7</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Because most English words have a stressed, initial syllable (Cutler & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref167">17</reflink>] ; Vroomen et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref168">66</reflink>] ), we expected larger differences in helpfulness ratings between congruous and incongruous conditions for the first syllable (e.g., “demanding lecture CONtent”) than for the second syllable (e.g., “Amy feels conTENT”). As predicted, there was a main effect of syllable location (first vs. second) in the heteronyms, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref169">1</reflink>, 481) = 37.5, p < .0001, by subjects, and F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref170">1</reflink>, 9) = 9.4, p < .01, by items; and an interaction between stress marking and syllable location (first vs. second), F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref171">1</reflink>, 481) = 93.8, p < .0001, by subjects, and F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref172">1</reflink>, 9) = 15.9, p < .01, by items. Readers rated the congruous, stylistic alterations as more helpful when they occurred in the first syllable (, σ = 1.0) than when they occurred in the second syllable (, σ = 0.9), F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref173">1</reflink>, 481) = 29.7, p < .01 by subjects, and F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref174">1</reflink>, 9) = 8.1, p < .05 by items. This tuning of the inner voice robustly generalized to the mismatched conditions. Our readers gave significantly lower ratings of helpfulness when the incongruous mapping occurred in the first syllable (, σ = 1.1) than in the second (, σ = 1.1), F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref175">1</reflink>, 481) = 125.5, p < .0001 by subjects, and F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref176">1</reflink>, 9) = 20.9, p < .001 by items.</p> <p>Extrapolating from the construction–integration model of reading (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref177">36</reflink>] ), we reasoned that our silent readers’ inner voices would be more tuned to the impact of the stylistic alterations when placed early in the sentence when bottom‐up processes dominate, compared with late in the sentence when top‐down processes dominate. The interaction between place in the sentence (early or late) and syllable location (first vs. second) provided support for our prediction, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref178">1</reflink>, 481) = 6.2, p < .01, by subjects, and F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref179">1</reflink>, 9) = 5.5, p < .05, by items. The main effect of place in the sentence was significant in the by‐subjects analyses, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref180">1</reflink>, 481) = 12.1, p < .001, ; and marginally significant in the by‐items analyses, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref181">1</reflink>, 9) = 3.8, p = .08, . Planned comparisons revealed that stylistically marked lexical stress early in the sentence was rated as more helpful (, σ = 1.1) than when late in the sentence , σ = 0.8), F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref182">1</reflink>, 481) = 7.4, p < .01 by subjects, and F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref183">1</reflink>, 9) = 6.7, p < .05 by items. Yet, our readers rated the incongruous conditions equally unhelpful in the early (, σ = 1.1) and late in the sentence placements (, σ = 1.0), F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref184">1</reflink>, 481) = 7.4, p < .01 by subjects, and F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref185">1</reflink>, 9), p < .30 by items. Perhaps not surprising, stress‐inducing text alterations that mapped onto unstressed syllables were consistently viewed as unhelpful regardless of where they appeared in the sentence.</p> <p>A three‐way interaction among syllable location, place in sentence, and stress marking was significant by subjects, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref186">1</reflink>, 481) = 8.8, p < .05, ; but not by items (p = .7). Therefore, it was not analyzed further.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref187">6</reflink>]</p> <p>Correlational analyses explored the relation between prosody sensitivity (performance on our experimental task) and the other measures that commonly correlate with academic achievement (self‐reported ACT score, SAT vocabulary test, and reading comprehension). Prosody sensitivity was calculated separately for the two experimental sessions (1 and 2). As predicted, students with a refined awareness of prosody had higher reading comprehension scores, higher self‐reported ACT scores, and higher SAT vocabulary scores, when compared with students with less refined awareness (see Table ).</p> <p>Correlations in Experiment 2</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="7"><tr><th>Variable</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th></tr><tr><td>1. Prosody sensitivity at session 1</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Poet recognition test at session 1</td><td>.19</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Reading comprehension test at session 2</td><td>.16</td><td>.21</td><td>–</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4. SAT vocabulary test at session 2</td><td>.24</td><td>.26</td><td>.38</td><td>–</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5. ACT score at session 2</td><td>.30</td><td>.24</td><td>.19</td><td>.35</td><td>–</td><td /></tr><tr><td>6. Prosody sensitivity at session 2</td><td>.63</td><td>.22</td><td>.31</td><td>.28</td><td>.34</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>M</td><td>0.67</td><td>8.9</td><td>10.4</td><td>25.4</td><td>24.0</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td>1.2</td><td>5.7</td><td>4.0</td><td>4.7</td><td>3.7</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum</td><td>−2.1</td><td>−6.0</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>15</td><td>−3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum</td><td>6.0</td><td>32</td><td>20</td><td>36</td><td>35</td><td>6.0</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 p < .001.</p> <p>Replicating study 1, performance on the poet recognition test was related to prosody sensitivity measured at both sessions. Additionally, performance on the poet recognition test was strongly related to vocabulary skills and reading comprehension.</p> <p>We evaluated whether performance on the poet recognition test was uniquely related to prosody sensitivity when measures of individual differences in academic achievement were controlled statistically. After controlling for self‐reported ACT scores (β = 0.21, p < .0001), reading comprehension (β = 0.08, p = .10), and SAT vocabulary scores (β = 0.15, p < .01), the poet recognition test still accounted for a significant variance in prosody sensitivity (β = 0.09, R<sups>2</sups> change = .01, p < .05) at session 1. The full regression equation at time 1 was significant, with an R<sups>2</sups> of .127, F(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref188">4</reflink>, 458) = 17.7, p < .0001. At session 2, after controlling for self‐reported ACT scores (β = 0.24, p < .0001), reading comprehension (β = 0.22, p = < .0001), and SAT vocabulary scores (β = 0.10, p < .05), the poet recognition test marginally significantly accounted for variance in prosody sensitivity (β = 0.09, R<sups>2</sups> change = .01, p = .052). The full regression equation was significant, with an R<sups>2</sups> of .201, F(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref189">4</reflink>, 458) = 28.7, p < .0001. Thus, we found some support that exposure to poetry may cultivate an inner voice for the rhythm of English, including the stress‐alternating rhythm in heteronyms.</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-18">General Discussion</hd> <p>The canonical rhythm of English is created by the succession of one or two weakly stressed syllables alternating with strongly stressed syllables (Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref190">39</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref191">59</reflink>] ). Infant‐directed speech is an exaggerated example of the singsong prosody of the English language (Bryant & Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref192">12</reflink>] ). Although the English writing system is a printed representation of its spoken language, the orthography of English does not explicitly represent the prosodic features of rhythm and stress (Fudge, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref193">23</reflink>] ; Treiman & Kessler, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref194">64</reflink>] ). When confronted with the paucity of cues, the expressive reader must successfully render these prosodic features from memory informed by context. Just as English speakers and fluent oral readers hear a beat created by alternations between stressed and unstressed syllables, we investigated whether silent readers preserved this rhythm in their inner voices.</p> <p>Extrapolating from linguistic theories of the stress‐alternating preferences of spoken English (Chomsky & Halle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref195">14</reflink>] ; Fudge, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref196">23</reflink>] ; Liberman & Prince, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref197">39</reflink>] ; Selkirk, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref198">56</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref199">57</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref200">58</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref201">59</reflink>] ), we evaluated whether stylistic alterations to print that mark rhythm (experiment 1) and lexical stress (experiment 2) could help our silent readers hear the beat of English in their inner voices. To saliently, and intuitively, mark stress pulses in print, we consulted Norman's ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref202">45</reflink>] ) interface design principles before deciding on capital letters, bolding, and enlargement. In experiment 1, we focused on alternating rhythms of English that span phrases and sentences across three poetic meters (iambic, trochaic, and anapestic). In experiment 2, we focused on the stress alternations of English that subtly occur within bisyllabic heteronyms. We suspected that perceiving the local stress alternation within one word would be more challenging than discerning meter across at least two lines of text. In both experiments, when the stylistic alterations mapped onto the beat of the poems (experiment 1) and the lexically stressed syllable in the heteronyms (experiment 2), participants rated these alterations as more helpful, compared with the incongruous conditions. Our findings suggest that marking stress explicitly in written English helped readers render a rhythmic inner voice.</p> <p>The results of experiment 2 offer some additional hints about the potential impact of marking stress explicitly in written English. We predicted, and found, that our readers’ inner voices were more tuned to the prosodic nuances in the first syllable (e.g., “SUBject of a research paper”) compared with the second syllable (e.g., “I must obJECT”). This tuning difference likely results from the fact that most English words have a stressed, initial syllable (Cutler & Carter, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref203">17</reflink>] ; Vroomen et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref204">66</reflink>] ). Additionally, consistent with the construction–integration model of reading (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref205">36</reflink>] ), silent readers’ inner voices were more attuned to the impact of the stylistic alterations that congruously marked syllable stress early in the sentences when bottom‐up processes dominate, compared with late in the sentence when top‐down processes dominate. Our findings complement Kentner's ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref206">34</reflink>] ) findings that stress‐alternating prosody is incrementally built in in German readers. A reviewer of an earlier draft of this article suggested an alternative explanation for our findings: Prosody sensitivity lessens as a sentence unfolds because spoken prosody (pitch and volume) diminishes as the speaker runs out of air. Of course, this speech mechanism would have to generalize to silent reading.</p> <p>The current experiments also revealed insights into individual differences in prosody sensitivity in that the canonical rhythm of written English was better detected by some readers than by others. Exposure to poetry forecasted a refined sensitivity to prosody in both experiments. Exposure to the rhythms in formal poetry may promote a polished inner voice for the stress‐alternating preferences in English, including the dynamic rhythm of heteronyms. In experiment 2, the poet recognition test predicted participants’ sensitivity to prosody, even after controlling for other strong predictors of prosody sensitivity, such as indicators of academic achievement. Of course, there are alternative explanations. Individuals with a cultivated sensitivity to the rhythm of English may be drawn to poetry. The underlying mechanism for these correlates could be individual differences in working memory (Chan & Wade‐Woolley, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref207">13</reflink>] ), which was not measured in our studies. Correlational data do not reveal causal mechanisms, nor do they reveal the influence of third variables (e.g., volume of reading, reading acumen).</p> <p>Our poet recognition test could potentially serve as a quick screen for individual differences in exposure to poetry. We modeled our test after the author recognition test (Stanovich & West, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref208">61</reflink>] ), which is a measure of print exposure that is less vulnerable to social desirability effects than is asking participants about their reading habits. Stanovich and West found that performance on the author recognition test predicted word‐reading skills in adults, after controlling for other predictors of word recognition (e.g., orthographic and phonological abilities). Compatibly, we found that performance on the poet recognition test was correlated with ACT scores in both experiments 1 and 2. Moreover, the poet recognition test was related to reading more poems in the last year and performing well on the poetry memory test in experiment 1, suggesting that our poet recognition test has construct validity.</p> <p>There are potential limitations to our research. First, we can never know for certain whether we manipulated the inner voice that is believed to accompany silent reading (Huey, 1908/[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref209">30</reflink>] ). Fodor ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref210">22</reflink>] ) noted that the role of prosody in silent reading is hard to prove. Silent readers are thought to project prosodic patterns onto text, and these projections can only be indirectly observed (via helpfulness ratings, eye tracking, reaction time, and event‐related potentials). Second, the integrity of our findings assumes a direct link between emphatic stylistic alterations and implicit emphasis in the reader's inner voice. It is possible that our readers were responding to other linguistic features that systematically covaried with our experimental manipulations of prosodic meter. Nonetheless, our claims about a rhythmic inner voice are strengthened by testing specific predictions drawn from linguistic theory, by exploiting different stimuli (e.g., poems with different meters, heteronyms in prose), and by generalizing our previous research in silent reading on focus prosody (Gross et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref211">25</reflink>] ) to prosodic meter and lexical stress. Third, the design of our experiments cannot tease apart interference and facilitation effects, because the experimental design lacks a plain text control condition. We do not have a plain text condition because our primary dependent variable, helpfulness ratings, cannot be applied to plain text. Nonetheless, the lack of a plain text control condition opens the possibility that the observed differences in helpfulness ratings might reflect only interference in the incongruent condition, only facilitation in the congruent condition, or both. That our effects might only reflect interference is plausible, as rhythmic irregularities in natural speech were particularly costly (interfering) to ongoing language processing by listeners (Bohn, Knaus, Wiese, & Domas, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref212">7</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Our ongoing experiments are evaluating whether beginning readers, struggling readers, or late speakers of English might benefit from marking stress explicitly in written English. We recently found that the proper melody of heteronyms when silently reading was undetected by some college students who had low ACT scores or learned English as a second language (Gross, Plotkowski, & Winegard, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref213">26</reflink>] ). Beginning or struggling readers might benefit from reading lessons that draw a more explicit link between the rhythm in speech and the rhythm in writing. Stress‐alternating rhythms are easily found in children's books and nursery rhymes, although inconsistencies in the prevalent meter are common. Consider the appearance of the trochaic meter in a popular book by Dr. Seuss ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref214">72</reflink>] ): “ONE fish / TWO fish / RED fish / BLUE fish” and “SOME have TWO feet / and SOME have FOUR. / SOME have SIX feet / and SOME have MORE” (n.p.). A trochaic rhythm also appears in the nursery rhyme “TWINkle, TWINkle, LITtle STAR.” The dactylic and iambic meters co‐occur in a childhood favorite: “HICKory, DICKory, DOCK [dactylic] / The MOUSE ran UP the CLOCK [iambic]” (Opie & Opie, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref215">70</reflink>] , p. 244). Dr. Seuss ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref216">71</reflink>] ) wrote the book Yertle the Turtle in anapestic meter (e.g., “And toDAY, the great YERtle, that MARvelous HE, / Is KING of the MUD. That is ALL, he can SEE” (p. 39).</p> <p>For our next project, we will evaluate whether young readers’ prosodic awareness might benefit from seeing the stress pulses of the different rhythms materialized in their literature. Our prosody training manipulation will begin with simple rhythms (iambic and trochaic) to scaffold the learning of more difficult rhythms (dactylic and anapestic). A similar prosody training intervention is underway with late speakers of English and struggling adult readers.</p> <p>To conclude, the interface of the English orthography is underspecified with regard to rhythm and stress. A long‐term goal is to investigate the feasibility of developing a free application for use with smart devices that would transform ordinary text to stylistically enhanced text. Can YOU iMAGine an APP that HELPS you HEAR the RHYTHm of TEXT?</p> <hd id="AN0130362295-19">Supporting Information</hd> <p>• Appendix A: Stimuli in Experiment 1</p> <p>• Appendix B: Poetry Memory Test Used in Experiment 1</p> <p>• Appendix C: Poet Recognition Test With Poets Highlighted</p> <p>• Appendix D: Stimuli in Experiment 2</p> <p>• Appendix E: Reading Comprehension Test Used in Experiment 2, With the Correct Answers as Option A</p> <p>• Appendix F: True/False SAT Vocabulary Tests Used in Experiment 2</p> <ref id="AN0130362295-20"> <title>Notes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref116" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>The stylistic alterations to text should not be confused with an alternate meaning of stylistic, the linguistic and tonal style of text. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref72" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>To mark congruent and incongruent stress pulses in the stimuli used in experiment 1, font enlargement from 12 point to 16 point with bolding was used. Because Reading Research Quarterly's design template could not accommodate larger font sizes in the examples furnished in this article, capital letters are used in lieu of enlargement. See the accompanying appendixes in the online version of this article to see how the stimuli were rendered in our experiments. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref56" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>When three independent replications of the experiment were analyzed, the three‐way interaction among syllable location, place in sentence, and stress marking was not significant, F(1, 598) = 0.59, p = .4, ηP2=.001 by subjects, and F(1, 14) = 0.51, p = .5, ηP2=.03 by items. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0130362295-21"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref68" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Abramson, M., & Goldinger, S.D. (1997). What the reader's eye tells the mind's ear: Silent reading activates inner speech. Perception & Psychophysics, 59(7), 1059–1068. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205520 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref69" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Ashby, J., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2005). The prosodic property of lexical stress affects eye movements during silent reading. Cognition, 96(3), B89–B100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.006 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref75" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Ashby, J., & Rayner, K. (2004). Representing syllable information during silent reading: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(3), 391–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000233 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Attridge, D. (1995). Poetic rhythm: An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In J.D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics: Vol. 21. Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 1–46). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Bartlett, J. (1937). Familiar quotations (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref212" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Bohn, K., Knaus, J., Wiese, R., & Domas, U. (2013). The influence of rhythmic (ir)regularities on speech processing: Evidence from an ERP study on German phrases. Neuropsychologia, 51(4), 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.006 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref84" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Bolinger, D. (1978). Intonation across languages. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 2: Phonology (pp. 471– 524). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref30" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Breen, M., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2011). Stress matters: Effects of anticipated lexical stress on silent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.11.001 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref31" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Breen, M., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2013). Stress matters revisited: A boundary change experiment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(10), 1896–1909. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.766899 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref15" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Breen, M., Kaswer, L., Van Dyke, J.A., Krivokapić, J., & Landi, N. (2016). Imitated prosodic fluency predicts reading comprehension ability in good and poor high school readers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 10–26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01026 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref192" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Bryant, G.A., & Barrett, H.C. (2007). Recognizing intentions in infant‐directed speech: Evidence for universals. Psychological Science, 18(8), 746–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01970.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref17" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Chan, J.S., & Wade‐Woolley, L. (2016). Explaining phonology and reading in adult learners: Introducing prosodic awareness and executive functions to reading ability. Journal of Research in Reading. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12083 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref24" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York, NY: Harper & Row. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref4" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Clin, E., Wade‐Woolley, L., & Heggie, L. (2009). Prosodic sensitivity and morphological awareness in children's reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.05.005 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref88" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Cooper, W.E., Eady, S.J., & Mueller, P.R. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77(6), 2142–2156. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref42" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Cutler, A., & Carter, D.M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech & Language, 2(3/4), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2308(87)90004-0 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref5" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Dowhower, S.L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency's unattended bedfellow. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849109543497 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref89" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Eady, S.J., & Cooper, W.E. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80(2), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.394091 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref98" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Ferreira, F., & Karimi, H. (2015). Prosody, performance, and cognitive skill: Evidence from individual differences. In L. Frazier & E. Gibson (Eds.), Explicit and implicit prosody in sentence processing: Studies in honor of Janet Dean Fodor (pp. 119–132). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref65" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Fodor, J.D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 285–319. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023258301588 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref66" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Fodor, J.D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd conference of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 1, pp. 113–132). Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref19" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Fudge, E. (1984). English word‐stress. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref21" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Goswami, U., Wang, H.‐S., Cruz, A., Fosker, T., Mead, N., & Huss, M. (2011). Language‐universal sensory deficits in developmental dyslexia: English, Spanish, and Chinese. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21453 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref78" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Gross, J., Millett, A.L., Bartek, B., Bredell, K.H., & Winegard, B. (2014). Evidence for prosody in silent reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.67 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref213" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Gross, J., Plotkowski, A.R., & Winegard, B. (2015, May). In the melody of the reader's inner voice, heteronyms are tricky. Poster session presented at the 27th annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, New York, NY. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref13" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Holliman, A.J., Gutiérrez Palma, N., Critten, S., Wood, C., Cunnane, H., & Pillinger, C. (2017). Examining the independent contribution of prosodic sensitivity to reading and spelling in early readers. Reading and Writing, 30(3), 509–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9687-z </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref6" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Holliman, A.J., Wood, C., & Sheehy, K. (2010). Does speech rhythm sensitivity predict children's reading ability 1 year later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018049 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref38" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Hualde, J.I., & Nadeu, M. (2014). Rhetorical stress in Spanish. In H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues (pp. 228–252). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref64" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Huey, E.B. (1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading: With a review of the history of reading and writing and of methods, texts, and hygiene in reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1908) </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref73" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Hwang, H., & Schafer, A.J. (2009). Constituent length affects prosody and processing for a dative NP ambiguity in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(2), 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-008-9091-1 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref45" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Jusczyk, P.W. (1997). Finding and remembering words: Some beginnings by English‐learning infants. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6(6), 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772947 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref32" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Kelly, M.H., & Bock, J.K. (1988). Stress in time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.3.389 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref57" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Kentner, G. (2012). Linguistic rhythm guides parsing decisions in written sentence comprehension. Cognition, 123(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.012 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref160" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P., Jr., Rogers, R.L., & Chissom, B.S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy‐enlisted personnel (Research Branch Report No. 8‐75). Millington: Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref59" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top‐down and bottom‐up effects in comprehension: The CI. Discourse Processes, 39(2/3), 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651676 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref93" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Kintsch, W., & Mross, E.F. (1985). Context effects in word identification. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(3), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90032-4 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref35" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Koriat, A., Kreiner, H., & Greenberg, S.N. (2002). The extraction of structure during reading: Evidence from reading prosody. Memory & Cognition, 30(2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195288 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref25" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Liberman, M., & Prince, A.S. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(2), 249–336. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref70" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>McCutchen, D., Bell, L.C., France, I.M., & Perfetti, C.A. (1991). Phoneme‐specific interference in reading: The tongue‐twister effect revisited. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/747733 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref7" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P.J. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary school children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 336–354. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.4.2 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref12" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence‐based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00‐4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, National Institutes of Health. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref85" type="bt">43</bibl> <bibtext>Nava, E. & Zubizarreta, M.L. (2010). Deconstructing the nuclear stress algorithm: Evidence from second language speech. In N. Erteschik‐Shir & L. Rochman (Eds.), The sound patterns of syntax (pp. 291–316). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib44" idref="ref22" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref112" type="bt">45</bibl> <bibtext>Norman, D.A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Doubleday. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref1" type="bt">46</bibl> <bibtext>Patterson, K.E., & Coltheart, V. (1987). Phonological processes in reading: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 421–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib47" idref="ref2" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>Perfetti, C.A., & Bell, L. (1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90017-E </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref110" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>Pinsky, R. (1988). The sounds of poetry: A brief guide. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" idref="ref86" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref94" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89(1), 60–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.60 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref87" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Schafer, A.J., Speer, S.R., Warren, P., & White, S.D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005192911512 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref8" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Schreiber, P.A. (1991). Understanding prosody's role in reading acquisition. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849109543496 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref14" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>Schwanenflugel, P.J., & Benjamin, R.G. (2016). Lexical prosody as an aspect of oral reading fluency. Reading and Writing, 30(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9667-3 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib54" idref="ref9" type="bt">54</bibl> <bibtext>Schwanenflugel, P.J., Hamilton, A.M., Kuhn, M.R., Wisenbaker, J.M., & Stahl, S.A. (2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.119 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib55" idref="ref90" type="bt">55</bibl> <bibtext>Schwanenflugel, P.J., Westmoreland, M.R., & Benjamin, R.G. (2015). Reading fluency skill and the prosodic marking of linguistic focus. Reading and Writing, 28(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9456-1 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib56" idref="ref26" type="bt">56</bibl> <bibtext>Selkirk, E. (1986). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib57" idref="ref27" type="bt">57</bibl> <bibtext>Selkirk, E. (1995a). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J.A. Goldsmith (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib58" idref="ref28" type="bt">58</bibl> <bibtext>Selkirk, E. (1995b). The prosodic structure of function words. In J. Beckman, L.W. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), Papers in optimality theory (pp. 439–470). Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib59" idref="ref29" type="bt">59</bibl> <bibtext>Selkirk, E. (2000). The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment (pp. 231–261). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib60" idref="ref40" type="bt">60</bibl> <bibtext>Siptár, P., & Törkenczy, M. (2007). The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib61" idref="ref139" type="bt">61</bibl> <bibtext>Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. https://doi.org/10.2307/747605 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib62" idref="ref97" type="bt">62</bibl> <bibtext>Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D.Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 136(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib63" idref="ref62" type="bt">63</bibl> <bibtext>Treiman, R. (2001). Reading. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees‐Miller (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of linguistics (pp. 664–672). Oxford, England: Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib64" idref="ref20" type="bt">64</bibl> <bibtext>Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2005). Writing systems and spelling development. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 120–134). Oxford, England: Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib65" idref="ref3" type="bt">65</bibl> <bibtext>Van Orden, G.C., & Kloos, H. (2005). The question of phonology and reading. In M.S. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 61–78). Malden, MA: Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib66" idref="ref44" type="bt">66</bibl> <bibtext>Vroomen, J., Tuomainen, J., & de Gelder, B. (1998). The roles of word stress and vowel harmony in speech segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2548 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib67" idref="ref164" type="bt">67</bibl> <bibtext>Vul, E., & Pashler, H. (2008). Measuring the crowd within: Probabilistic representations within individuals. Psychological Science, 19(7), 645–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02136.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib68" idref="ref16" type="bt">68</bibl> <bibtext>Wade‐Woolley, L., & Heggie, L. (2015). Implicit knowledge of word stress and derivational morphology guides skilled readers’ decoding of multisyllabic words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.947647 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib69" idref="ref10" type="bt">69</bibl> <bibtext>Whalley, K., & Hansen, J. (2006). The role of prosodic sensitivity in children's reading development. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(3), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00309.x </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <hd id="AN0130362295-22">Literature Cited</hd> <ulist> <item>70 Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1997). The Oxford dictionary of nursery rhymes (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.</item> <item>71 Seuss, Dr. (T.S. Geisel). (1958). Yertle the Turtle and other stories. New York, NY: Random House.</item> <item>72 Seuss, Dr. (T.S. Geisel). (1960). One fish two fish red fish blue fish. New York, NY: Random House.</item> </ulist> <aug> <p>By Jennifer Gross; Bo Winegard and Andrea R. Plotkowski</p> <p></p> <p>JENNIFER GROSS (corresponding author) is a professor of psychology at Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan, USA; email grossj@gvsu.edu.</p> <p>BO WINEGARD is a graduate student of psychology at Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA; email winegard@psy.fsu.edu.</p> <p>ANDREA R. PLOTKOWSKI was a student at Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan, USA, when this research was conducted. She is now a clinical audiologist at Ear, Nose & Throat Consultants of East Tennessee, Knoxville, USA; email andreaplotkowski@gmail.com.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref216"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1183262
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Marking Stress ExPLICitly in Written English Fosters Rhythm in the Reader's Inner Voice
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gross%2C+Jennifer%22">Gross, Jennifer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Winegard%2C+Bo%22">Winegard, Bo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Plotkowski%2C+Andrea+R%2E%22">Plotkowski, Andrea R.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. Jul-Sep 2018 53(3):305-321.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Oral+Language%22">Oral Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Poetry%22">Poetry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prediction%22">Prediction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Linguistic+Theory%22">Linguistic Theory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intonation%22">Intonation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Suprasegmentals%22">Suprasegmentals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Rhythm%22">Language Rhythm</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonology%22">Phonology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sustained+Silent+Reading%22">Sustained Silent Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Styles%22">Language Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonemes%22">Phonemes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Difficulties%22">Reading Difficulties</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experimental+Groups%22">Experimental Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Control+Groups%22">Control Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inner+Speech+%28Subvocal%29%22">Inner Speech (Subvocal)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.198
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Spoken English has a stress-alternating rhythm that is not marked in its orthography. In two experiments, the authors evaluated whether stylistic alterations to print that marked stress pulses fostered the rendering of rhythm (experiment 1) and stress (experiment 2) during silent reading. In experiment 1, silent readers rated the helpfulness of the stylistic alterations appearing in the last line of poems. In experiment 2, silent readers rated the helpfulness of the stylistic alterations appearing in heteronyms embedded in prose. As predicted by linguistic theories, when the stylistic alterations mapped onto the rhythmic pulses of the poems, and the lexically stressed syllables of the heteronyms, silent readers rated these alterations as more helpful compared with the incongruous conditions. In experiment 2, readers' inner voices were more tuned to the prosodic nuances of the first syllable than the second in the bisyllabic heteronyms. This prosodic tuning for the first syllable in a word was likely afforded by the strong tendency for stress to appear word-initially. In addition, the stylistically marked stress was viewed as more helpful in the early half of the sentence, when readers likely recruited more bottom-up processes. In both experiments, prior exposure to poetry was related to a refined prosodic awareness. In experiment 2, exposure to poetry predicted participants' prosody sensitivity, after controlling for the other predictors of academic achievement. The authors' ongoing studies are evaluating whether marking stress explicitly in written English might aid struggling readers and late speakers of English.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1183262
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1183262
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.198
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 305
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Oral Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Poetry
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prediction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Linguistic Theory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intonation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Suprasegmentals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Rhythm
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sustained Silent Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonemes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Difficulties
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experimental Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Control Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inner Speech (Subvocal)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Marking Stress ExPLICitly in Written English Fosters Rhythm in the Reader's Inner Voice
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gross, Jennifer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Winegard, Bo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Plotkowski, Andrea R.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1