The role of prosodic breaks and pitch accents in grouping words during on-line sentence processing

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 23, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 2447-2467

  Bögels, Sara ^a   Schriefers, Herbert ^a   Vonk, Wietske ^a,b   Chwilla, Dorothee J ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; SPEECH; WORD RECOGNITION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; PITCH PERCEPTION; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79960137006     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: 15308898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21587     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anderson, J. E., & Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Auditory and visual semantic priming using different stimulus onset asynchronies: An event-related brain potential study. Psychophysiology, 32, 177-190.
2. Astésano, C., Besson, M., & Alter, K. (2004). Brain potentials during semantic and prosodic processing in French. Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 172-184.
3. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium. Philadelphia, PA: Universi ty of Pennsylvania.
4. Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (1995). Effects of varying focus and accenting of adjuncts on the comprehension of utterances. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 571-588.
5. Bögels, S., Schriefers, H., Vonk, W., Chwilla, D. J., & Kerkhofs, R. (2010). The interplay between prosody and syntax in sentence processing: The case of subject- and object-control verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1036-1053.
6. Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113, 787-821.
7. Comrie, B. (1985). Reflections on subject and object control. Journal of Semantics, 4, 47-65.
8. Corpus Gesproken Nederlands. Version 2.0 (2006). Retrieved 13 May 2008. www.inl.nl/nl/corpora/corpus-gesproken-nederlands-(cgn).
9. Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 292-314.
10. Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 130-143.
11. Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). It's early: Event-related potential evidence for initial interaction of syntax and prosody in speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1696-1711.
12. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11-15.
13. Gussenhoven, C. (1999). On the limits of focus projection in English. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 43-55). Cambridge, MA: University Press.
14. Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (1994). Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. In K. Rayner, C. Clifton, & L. Frazier (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 45-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Heim, S., & Alter, K. (2006). Prosodic pitch accents in language comprehension and production: ERP data and acoustic analyses. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 66, 55-68.
16. Heim, S., & Alter, K. (2007). Focus on focus: The brain's electrophysiological response to focus particles and accents in German. In A. Spath (Ed.), Language, context and cognition: Interfaces and interface conditions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
17. Hruska, C., & Alter, K. (2004). Prosody in dialogues and single sentences: How prosody can influence speech perception. In A. Steube (Ed.), Language, context and cognition. Information structure: Theoretical and empirical aspects (pp. 211-226). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
18. Johnson, S. M., Clifton, C., Breen, M., & Morris, J. (2003). An ERP investigation of prosodic and semantic focus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(Suppl.), 174.
19. Kerkhofs, R., Vonk, W., Schriefers, H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2007). Discourse, syntax, and prosody: The brain reveals an immediate interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1421-1434.
20. Kerkhofs, R., Vonk, W., Schriefers, H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2008). Sentence processing in the visual and auditory modality: Docomma and prosodic break have parallel functions? Brain Research, 1224, 102-118.
21. 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.
22. Magne, C., Astésano, C., Lacheret-Dujour, A., Morel, M., Alter, K., & Besson, M. (2005). On-line processing of "pop-out" words in spoken French dialogues. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 740-756.
23. Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H. (2002). The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50-68.
24. Pannekamp, A., Toepel, U., Alter, K., Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Prosody-driven sentence processing: An event-related brain potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 407-421.
25. Pauker, E., Itzhak, I., Baum, S. R., & Steinhauer, K. (submitted). Co-operating and conflicting prosody in spoken English garden path sentences: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
26. Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447-475.
27. Pynte, J., & Prieur, B. (1996). Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 165-191.
28. Roll, M., Horne, M., & Lindgren, M. (2009). Left-edge boundary tone and main clause verb effects in syntactic processing in embedded clauses: An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 55-73.
29. Roll, M., Horne, M., & Lindgren, M. (2011). Activating without inhibiting: Left-edge boundary tones and syntactic processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1170-1179.
30. Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 191-196.
31. Stolterfoht, B., Friederici, A. D., Alter, K., & Steube, A. (2007). Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects. Cognition, 104, 565-590.
32. Toepel, U., Pannekamp, A., & Alter, K. (2007). Catching the news: Processing strategies in listening to dialogs as measured by ERPs. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 53.
33. Vissers, C. Th. W. H., Kolk, H. H. J., Van de Meerendonk, N., & Chwilla, D. J. (2008). Monitoring in language perception: Evidence from ERPs in a picture-sentence matching task. Neuropsychologia, 46, 967-982.
34. Warren, P., Grabe, E., & Nolan, F. (1995). Prosody, phonology and parsing in closure ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 457-486.