Effects of cooperating and conflicting prosody in spoken english garden path sentences: ERP evidence for the boundary deletion hypothesis

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 2731-2751

  Pauker, Efrat ^a   Itzhak, Inbal ^a   Baum, Shari R ^a   Steinhauer, Karsten ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BRAIN; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONFLICT; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MUSIC; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPEECH; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS; SPEECH; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84860389441     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: 15308898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2011.21610     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In J. D. Fodor & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 1-46). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
2. Beach, C. M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 644-663.
3. Beckman, M. E. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17-67.
4. 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.
5. Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113, 787-821.
6. Clifton, C., Carlson, K., & Frazier, L. (2002). Informative prosodic boundaries. Language and Speech, 45, 87-114.
7. Coulson, S., King, J., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain responses to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21-58.
8. Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141-201.
9. Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise!.Surprise? Psychophysiology, 18, 493-513.
10. 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.
11. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319.
12. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 559-586). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Frazier, L., Carlson, K., & Clifton, C. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 244-249.
14. Frazier, L., Carminati, M. N., Cook, A. E., Majewski, H., & Rayner, K. (2006). Semantic evaluation of syntactic structure: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 99, B53-B62.
15. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
16. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 178-210.
17. Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78-84.
18. Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476-507.
19. Friederici, A. D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 305-323.
20. Gorrell, P. (1995). Syntax and parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press.
22. Hwang, H., & Steinhauer, K. (in press). Phrase length matters: The interplay between implicit prosody and syntax in Korean 'garden path' sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
23. Itzhak, I., Pauker, E., Drury, J. E., Baum, S. R., & Steinhauer, K. (2010). Event-related potentials show online influence of lexical biases on prosodic processing. NeuroReport, 21, 8-13.
24. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 98-110.
25. Kerkhofs, R., Vonk, W., Schriefers, H., & Chwilla, D. (2007). Discourse, syntax, and prosody: The brain reveals an immediate interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1421-1434.
26. Kerkhofs, R., Vonk, W., Schriefers, H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2008). Sentence processing in the visual and auditory modality: Do comma and prosodic break have parallel functions? Brain Research, 1224, 102-118.
27. Kjelgaard, M. M., & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153-194.
28. Knoesche, T. R., Neuhaus, C., Haueisen, J., Alter, K., Maess, B., Witte, O. W., et al. (2005). Perception of phrase structure in music. Human Brain Mapping, 24, 259-273.
29. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11, 99-116.
30. Kutas, M., van Petten, C. K., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 659-724). New York: Academic Press.
31. Li, W., & Yang, Y. (2009). Perception of prosodic hierarchical boundaries in Mandarin Chinese sentences. Neuroscience, 158, 1416-1425.
32. Liu, B. L., Wang, Z. N., & Jin, Z. (2010). The effects of punctuations in Chinese sentence comprehension: An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23, 66-80.
33. Männel, C., & Friederici, A. D. (2009). Pauses and intonational phrasing: ERP studies in 5-month-old German infants and adults. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1988-2006.
34. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Warren, P., Grenier, P., & Lee, C. S. (1992). Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 73-87.
35. Mietz, A., Toepel, U., Ischebeck, A., & Alter, K. (2008). Inadequate and infrequent are not alike: ERPs to deviant prosodic patterns in spoken sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 104, 159-169.
36. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
37. Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 786-803.
38. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806.
39. Pannekamp, A., Toepel, U., Alter, K., Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Prosody-driven processing: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 407-421.
40. Price, P. J., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 90, 2956-2970.
41. Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, S. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 29, 169-182.
42. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 103-130.
44. Staub, A. (2007). The parser doesn't ignore intransitivity, after all. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 550-569.
45. Steinhauer, K. (2003). Electrophysiological correlates of prosody and punctuation. Brain and Language, 86, 142-164.
46. Steinhauer, K., Abada, S. H., Pauker, E., Itzhak, I., & Baum, S. R. (2010). Prosody-syntax interactions in aging: Event-related potentials reveal dissociations between on-line and off-line measures. Neuroscience Letters, 472, 133-138.
47. Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 191-196.
48. Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Prosodic boundaries, comma rules, and brain responses: The closure positive shift in ERPs as a universal marker of prosodic phrasing in listeners and readers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 267-295.
49. Walker, J., Fongemie, K., & Daigle, T. (2001). Prosodic facilitation in the resolution of syntactic ambiguities in subjects with left and right hemisphere damage. Brain and Language, 78, 169-196.
50. Watson, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Intonational phrasing and constituency in language production and comprehension. Studia Linguistica, 53, 279-300.
51. Wilson, M. P., & Garnsey, S. M. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368-392.
52. Wolff, S., Schlesewsky, M., Hirotani, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language, 107, 133-157.