Abstract
Beattie (1984) has criticized a previous study by Power (1983) which failed to find evidence for cognitive rhythms in a large sample of speech. Beattie's main criticisms were based on the contention that monologue speech and speech produced with an additional cognitive load were highly unnatural and that only speech produced in natural conversations will display such rhythms. In contrast, it is argued that monologue speech and speech produced with an additional task are commonplace in everyday life. It is also pointed out that previous research has not restricted the provenance of cognitive rhythms to natural conversation. In fact, Beattie's focus on the issue of naturalness leads him to ignore or evade a number of crucial questions raised in the earlier paper.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
