Kowal, SabineO'Connell, Daniel C.2019-01-082019-01-0819850023-8309https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/handle/11303/8894http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-8023Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.In response to the Power (1983) - Beattie (1984) controversy, a more general critique of the construct of cognitive rhythms is presented. It is argued that the term itself is a misnomer, that the relevance of articulation rate has been neglected, that fluent and hesitant phases of cognitive rhythms have been assessed both subjectively and intuitively, that the speech-production model underlying the concept is simplistic, and that the empirical evidence is based on an extraordinarily small corpus which has been described inadequately in the research literature.en400 Sprachecognitive rhythmsarticulation rateArticle1756-6053