The implicit prosody hypothesis and overt prosody in english

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1201-1233

  Jun, Sun Ah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Default phrasing; Implicit prosody; Overt prosody; Read aloud

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BOOK; HUMAN; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; PERCEPTION; PHONETICS; PITCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; SPEECH;

EID: 77957812572     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.503658     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Allbritten, D., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 714-735.
2. Augurzky, P. (2006). Attaching relative clauses in German: The role of implicit and explicit prosody in sentence processing. MPI Series in Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences 77. Leipzig, Germany.
3. Ayers, G. (1994). Discourse functions of pitch range in spontaneous and read speech. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, 44, 1-49.
4. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2009). lme4: Linear mixed effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-32. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package-lme4
6. Beckmann, M. E., & Ayers-Elam, G. (1997). Guidelines for ToBI Labeling. Unpublished ms. Version 3. Ohio State University.
7. Beckman, M. E., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). The ToBI annotation conventions. Unpublished ms. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
8. Bergmann, A., Armstrong, M., & Maday, K. (2008). Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish: A production study. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2008, Campinas, Brazil.
9. th annual conference on architectures and mechanisms for language processing (AMLaP), Turku, Finland, Aug, 24-27.
10. Bookheimer, S. Y., Zeffiro, T. A., Blaxton, T., Gaillard, W., & Theodore, W. (1995). Regional cerebral blood flow during object naming and word reading. Human Brain Mapping, 3, 93-106.
11. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A(3), 664-695.
12. Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (2000). The failure to use gender information in parsing: A comment on van Berkum, Brown, and Hagoort (1999). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 453-466.
13. Carlson, K., Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 58-81.
14. Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36, 353-372.
15. Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eye-tracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory and Cognition, 27(5), 826-833.
16. Caspers, J., & van Heuven, V. J. (1993). Effects of time pressure on the phonetic realization of the Dutch accent-lending pitch rise and fall. Phonetica, 50, 161-171.
17. Clifton, C. J., Carlson, K., & Frazier, L. (2002). Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech, 45, 87-114.
18. Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73-105.
19. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1995). An investigation of late closure: The role of syntax, thematic structure, and pragmatics in initial and final interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1303-1321.
20. Deevy, P. L. (1999). The Comprehension of English subject-verb agreement. Appendix L: Word by word self-paced reading study materials: Agreement in subject relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
21. Deevy, P. L. (2000). Agreement checking in comprehension: Evidence from relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 69-79.
22. th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York, March 18-20.
23. Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
24. Fernández, E. M., & Bradley, D. (1999). Length effects in the attachment of relative clauses in English. Poster presented at the 12th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York.
25. th AMLAP (http://amlap.psy.gla.ac.uk/programme/node29.html), Glasgow, August 25-27.
26. Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. (1990). The use of verb information in syntactic parsing: A comparison of evidence from eye-movements and segment-by-segment self-paced reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 555-568.
27. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 285-319.
28. Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. NELS, 32, 113-32.
29. Fougeron, C., & Jun, S.-A. (1998). Rate effects on French intonation: Prosodic organization and phonetic realization. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 45-69.
30. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
31. Frazier, L. (1990). Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism? In D. A. Balota, G. G. Flores d'Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 303-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1997). Construal: Overview, motivation, and some new evidence. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 277-295.
34. Frazier, L., Clifton, C. Jr., & Carlson, K. (2004). Don't break, or do: prosodic boundary preferences. Lingua, 114(1), 3-27.
35. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
36. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1988). Parameterizing the language system: Left- vs. right- branching within and across languages. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
37. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., Canseco-Gonzales, E., & Hickock, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.
38. Gilboy, E., & Sopena, J.-M. (1996). Segmentation effects in the processing of complex noun pronouns with relative clauses. In M. Carreiras, J. E. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sebastian (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 191-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Gilboy, E., Sopena, J.-M., Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition, 54, 131-167.
40. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in German. In D. Hillert (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 293-312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
41. Hirose, Y. (1999). Resolving reanalysis ambiguity in Japanese relative clauses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, New York.
42. Hirschberg, J., & Avesani, C. (2000). Prosodic disambiguation in English and Italian. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Intonation: Analysis, modelling, and technology (pp. 87-96). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
43. Howell, P., & Kadi-Hanifi, K. (1991). Camparison of prosodic properties between read and spontaneous speech material. Speech Communication, 10(2), 163-169.
44. Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(7), 702-714.
45. Jun, S.-A. (2003a). Prosodic phrasing and attachment preferences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(2), 219-249.
46. Jun, S.-A. (2003b). The effect of phrase length and speech rate on prosodic phrasing. Proceedings of the international congress of phonetic sciences, Barcelona, Spain: 483-486.
47. Jun, S.-A. (2006). Intonational Phonology of Seoul Korean Revisited. Japanese-Korean Linguistics 14 Stanford: CSLI. [Also printed in UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 104: 14-25]
48. Jun, S.-A. (2007). The intermediate phrase in Korean intonation: Evidence from sentence processing. In C. Gussenhoven & T. Riad (Eds.), Tones and tunes: Studies in word and sentence prosody. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
49. Jun, S.-A., & Kim, S. (2004). Default phrasing and attachment preferences in Korean. Proceedings of INTERSPEECH-ICSLP, Jeju, Korea.
50. th Japanese-Korean Linguistics Conference, Tucson, AZ. [Published in Japanese-Korean Linguistics 3, 41-53, CSLI, Stanford, in 2008]
51. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Woolley, J. D. (1982). Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228-238.
52. Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1997). Relative clause attachment: Non-determinism in Japanese Parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 247-254.
53. Kamide, Y., Mitchell, D. C., Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1998). Relative clause attachment ambiguity: Further evidence from Japanese. Poster presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Rutgers.
54. Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15-47.
55. Kjelgaard, M. M., & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153-194.
56. Krivokapiç, J. (2007). Prosodic planning: Effects of phrasal length and complexity on pause duration. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 162-179.
57. Ladd, D. R., Faulkner, D., Faulkner, H., & Schepman, A. (1999). Constant ''segmental anchoring'' of F0 movements under changes in speech rate. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 1543-1554.
58. Lovric, N., Bradley, D., & Fodor, J. D. (2000). RC attachment in Croatian with and without preposition. Poster presented at the AMLaP Conference, Leiden.
59. Lovric, N., Bradley, D., & Fodor, J. D. (2001). Silent prosody resolves syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from Croatian. Presented at the SUNY/CUNY/NYU Conference, Stonybrook, NY.
60. Maynell, L. A. (1999). Effect of pitch accent placement on resolving relative clause ambiguity in English. Poster at the 12th CUNY Conference, New York.
61. Mitchell, D. C. (1994). Sentence parsing. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 375-409). New York: Academic Press.
62. Mitchell, D. C., Corley, M. M. B., & Garnham, A. (1992). Effects of context in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a discourse-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(1), 69-88.
63. Miyamoto, E. T., Nakamura, M., & Takahashi, S. (2004). Processing relative clauses in Japanese with two attachment sites. In K. Moulton & M. Wolf (Eds.), Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistics Society 34 (pp. 441-452). Amherst: GLSA.
64. Papadopoulou, D., & Calhsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 501-528.
65. Price, P., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 2956-2970.
66. Pynte, J., & Colonna, S. (2000). Decoupling syntactic parsing from visual inspection: The case of relative clause attachment in French. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 529-547). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
67. Pynte, J., Colonna, S., & Gola, C. (2003). Can an ''unnatural'' prosody help parsing? Poster presented at the 9th AMLaP, Glasgow, August 25-27.
68. Quinn, D., Abdelghany, H., & Fodor, J. D. (2000). More evidence of implicit prosody in silent reading: French, English and Arabic relative clauses. Poster presented at 13th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing.
69. R Development Core Team (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
70. Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
71. Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). Visual and linguistic processing during eye fixations in reading. In F. Ferrreira & J. Henderson (Eds.), The interface of language, vision and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 59-104). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
72. Rasinski, T. (2006). Issues and trends in literacy: Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704-706.
73. Rietveld, A. C. M., & Gussenhoven, C. C. (1987). Perceived speech rate and intonation. Journal of Phonetics, 15, 273-285.
74. Schafer, A., Speer, S., Warren, P., & White, S. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 169-182.
75. Schafer, A., Speer, S., & Warren, P. (2005). Prosodic influences on the production and comprehension of syntactic ambiguity in a game-based conversation task. In M. K. Tanenhaus & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.), Approaches to studying world situated language use (pp. 209-225). Cambridge: MIT Press.
76. Selkirk, E. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371-405.
77. Selkirk, E. (2000). The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment (studies presented to Gösta Bruce) (pp. 231-262). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
78. Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C., Price, P., Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). ToBI: A standard for labeling English prosody. Proceedings of international conference on spoken language processing, 2, 867-870.
79. Silverman, K., Blaauw, E., Spitz, J., & Pitrelli, J. (1992). A prosodic comparison of spontaneous speech and read speech. Proceedings of international conference on spoken language processing, 2, 1299-1302.
80. Snedeker, J., & Casserly, E. (2010). Is it all relative? Effects of prosodic boundaries on the comprehension and production of attachment ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1234-1264.
81. Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 103-130.
82. Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate the immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 191-196.
83. Steinhauer, K., & Freiderici, A. D. (2001). Prosodic boundaries, comma rules, and brain responses: The closure positive shift in ERPs a universal marker for prosodic phrasing in listeners and readers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 267-295.
84. 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, 64-81.
85. Taylor, S. E. (2006). Fluency in silent reading. Huntington Station, NY: Taylor Associates/Communications, Inc. Retrieved from www.readingplus.com
86. Traxler, M. J. (2007). Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1107-1121.
87. Traxler, M. J. (2009). A hierarchical linear modeling analysis of working memory and implicit prosody in the resolution of adjunct attachment ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 491-509.
88. Truckenbrodt, H. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 219-255.
89. Vasishth, S., Agnihotri, R. K., Fernández, E. M., & Bhatt, R. (2004). Noun modification preferences in Hindi. In The Proceedings of Seminar on Construction of Knowledge, Vidya Bhawan Education Resource Centre, Udaipur, India, pp. 160-171.
90. Watson, D., & Gibson, E. (2004). The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 713-755.
91. Wijnen, F. (2004). The implicit prosody of jabberwocky and the relative clause attachment riddle. In H. Quené & V. van Heuven (Eds.), On speech and language. Studies for Sieb G. Nooteboom (pp. 169-178). Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoeksschool Taalwetenschap. (LOT Occasional Series 2).
92. Zagar, D., Pynte, J., & Rativeau, S. (1997). Evidence for early-closure attachment on first-pass reading in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A(2), 421-438.
93. Zu, Y., Li, A., & Li, Y. (2006). Speech rate effects on production features. Report of Phonetic Research: 141-144. Beijing, P. R. China: Phonetics Laboratory, Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.