Vowel harmony is a phenomenon in which the vowels in a word share some features (e.g., frontness vs. backness). It occurs in several families of languages (e.g., Turkic and Finno-Ugric languages) and serves as an effective segmenting cue in continuous speech and when reading compound words. The present study examined whether vowel harmony also plays a role in visual word recognition. We chose Turkish, a language with four front and four back vowels in which approximately 75% of words are harmonious. If vowel harmony contributes to the formation of coherent phonological codes during lexical access, harmonious words will reach a stable orthographic-phonological state more rapidly than disharmonious words. To test this hypothesis, in Experiment 1, we selected two types of monomorphemic Turkish words: harmonious (containing only front vowels or back vowels) and disharmonious (containing front and back vowels)—a parallel manipulation was applied to the pseudowords. Results showed faster lexical decisions for harmonious than disharmonious words, whereas vowel harmony did not affect pseudowords. In Experiment 2, where all words were harmonious, we found a small but reliable advantage for disharmonious over harmonious pseudowords. These findings suggest that vowel harmony helps the formation of stable phonological codes in Turkish words, but it does not play a key role in pseudoword rejection.
AltanA.KayaU.HohenbergerA. (2016). Sensitivity of Turkish infants to vowel harmony in stem-suffix sequences: Preference shift from familiarity to novelty. In B. Haznedar & F. N. Ketrez (Eds.), The acquisition of Turkish in childhood (pp. 29–56). John Benjamins. https://www.bu.edu/bucld/files/2016/09/BUCLD_Proceedings_2016_01_25_altan1.pdf
2.
BalotaD. A.YapM. J.CorteseM. J.HutchisonK. A.KesslerB.LoftisB.NeelyJ. H.NelsonD. L.SimpsonG. B.TreimanR. (2007). The English Lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014
3.
BerentI.ShimronJ.VakninV. (2001). Phonological constraints on reading: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 644–665. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2760
4.
BertramR.PollatsekA.HyönäJ. (2004). Morphological parsing and the use of segmentation cues in reading Finnish compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.005
5.
BıyıklıM. (2020). Turkish glossary production and meaning in the inherit of Turkish culture: Comparative analysis of seventeen Turkish language dictionaries. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(4), 2051–2066. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.549882
6.
BrysbaertM.StevensM. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10
7.
BürknerP.-C. (2017). Brms: An R package for Bayesian Multilevel Models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
8.
De JongR.LiangC.-C.LauberE. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.731
9.
DufauS.GraingerJ.ZieglerJ. C. (2012). How to say “no” to a nonword: A leaky competing accumulator model of lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(4), 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026948
Fernández-LópezM.DavisC. J.PereaM.MarcetA.GómezP. (2021). Unveiling the boost in the sandwich priming technique. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(7), 1382–1393. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211055097
12.
FrostR. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.1.71
13.
GimenesM.NewB. (2015). Worldlex: Twitter and blog word frequencies for 66 languages. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 963–972. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0621-0
14.
GoldsmithJ. A. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Blackwell.
15.
GomezP. (2012). Mathematical models of the lexical decision task. In AdelmanJ. (Ed.), Visual word recognition (Volume 1): Models and methods, orthography and phonology (pp. 70–89). Psychology Press.
16.
GomezP.PereaM.RatcliffR. (2013). A diffusion model account of masked versus unmasked priming: Are they qualitatively different?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(6), 1731–1740. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032333
17.
GraingerJ.HolcombP. J. (2009). Watching the word go by: On the time-course of component processes in visual word recognition. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 128–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00121.x
18.
HarrisonD. K.DrasM.KapiciogluB. (2002). Agent-based modeling of the evolution of vowel harmony. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 32, 217–236.
19.
KabakB.ManiwaK.KazaninaN. (2010). Listeners use vowel harmony and word-final stress to spot nonsense words: A study of Turkish and French. Laboratory Phonology, 1(1), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1515/labphon.2010.010
20.
KetrezF. N. (2013). Harmonious cues for speech segmentation: A cross-linguistic corpus study on child-directed speech. Journal of Child Language, 41(2), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000912000724
21.
KeuleersE.BrysbaertM. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 627–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
22.
KhalilzadehA. (2010). Vowel harmony in Turkish. Karadeniz Araştırmaları, 24, 141–150.
MintzT. H.WalkerR. L.WeldayA.KiddC. (2018). Infants’ sensitivity to vowel harmony and its role in segmenting speech. Cognition, 171, 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.020
25.
PeirceJ.GrayJ. R.SimpsonS.MacAskillM.HöchenbergerR.SogoH.KastmanE.LindeløvJ. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
26.
PereaM.HyönäJ.MarcetA. (2022). Does vowel harmony affect visual word recognition? Evidence from Finnish. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(12), 2004–2014. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000907
RatcliffR.GomezP.McKoonG. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.111.1.159
29.
RatcliffR.SmithP. L.BrownS. D.McKoonG. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
32.
RoseS.WalkerR. (2011). Harmony systems. In GoldsmithJ.RiggleJ.YuA. (Eds.), Handbook of phonological theory (2nd ed., pp. 240–290). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch8
33.
SohnH. M. (2001). The Korean language. Cambridge University Press.
34.
StoneG. O.Van OrdenG. C. (1994). Building a resonance framework for word recognition using design and system principles. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(6), 1248–1268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.6.1248
35.
SuomiK.McqueenJ. M.CutlerA. (1997). Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(3), 422–444. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.2495
36.
TukeyJ. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley.
37.
Van den BerghD.TuerlinckxF.VerdonckS. (2020). DstarM: An R package for analyzing two-choice reaction time data with the D*M method. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 521–543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01249-7
Van OrdenG. C. (1987). A rows is a rose: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory & Cognition, 15(3), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197716
40.
Van OrdenG. C.GoldingerS. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(6), 1269–1291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.6.1269
41.
VroomenJ.TuomainenJ.de GelderB. (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
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
