Processing consequences of superfluous and missing prosodic breaks in auditory sentence comprehension

This ERP study investigates whether a superfluous prosodic break (i.e., a prosodic break that does not coincide with a syntactic break) has more severe processing consequences during auditory sentence comprehension than a missing prosodic break (i.e., the absence of a prosodic break at the position of a syntactic break). Participants listened to temporarily ambiguous sentences involving a prosody-syntax match or mismatch. The disambiguation of these sentences was always lexical in nature in the present experiment. This contrasts with a related study by Pauker, Itzhak, Baum, and Steinhauer (2011), where the disambiguation was of a lexical type for missing PBs and of a prosodic type for superfluous PBs. Our results converge with those of Pauker et al. (2011): superfluous prosodic breaks lead to more severe processing problems than missing prosodic breaks. Importantly, the present results extend those of Pauker et al. (2011) showing that this holds when the disambiguation is always lexical in nature. Furthermore, our results show that the way listeners use prosody can change over the course of the experiment which bears consequences for future studies.

[1]  G. Loftus Psychology Will Be a Much Better Science When We Change the Way We Analyze Data , 1996 .

[2]  Dorothee J. Chwilla,et al.  Monitoring in Language Perception , 2009, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[3]  Van Berkum,et al.  The neuropragmatics of 'simple' utterance comprehension: An ERP review , 2009 .

[4]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  The Role of Prosodic Breaks and Pitch Accents in Grouping Words during On-line Sentence Processing , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Discourse, Syntax, and Prosody: The Brain Reveals an Immediate Interaction , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  Ann Cutler,et al.  Prosody in the Comprehension of Spoken Language: A Literature Review , 1997, Language and speech.

[7]  Gina R. Kuperberg,et al.  Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax , 2007, Brain Research.

[8]  H. Kolk,et al.  Mediated Priming in the Lexical Decision Task: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials and Reaction Time , 2000 .

[9]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  The Interplay between Prosody and Syntax in Sentence Processing: The Case of Subject- and Object-control Verbs , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[10]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Journal of Memory and Language , 2001 .

[11]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Sentence processing in the visual and auditory modality: Do comma and prosodic break have parallel functions? , 2008, Brain Research.

[12]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The Mechanism Underlying Backward Priming in a Lexical Decision Task: Spreading Activation versus Semantic Matching , 1998 .

[14]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. , 2006, Psychological review.

[15]  Hyekyung Hwang,et al.  Phrase Length Matters: The Interplay between Implicit Prosody and Syntax in Korean “Garden Path” Sentences , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  H. Kolk,et al.  Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials , 2003, Brain and Language.

[17]  M. Balconi,et al.  Comprehending Semantic and Grammatical Violations in Italian. N400 and P600 Comparison with Visual and Auditory Stimuli , 2005, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[18]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[19]  Ellen F. Lau,et al.  A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400 , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[20]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Sentence processing: A tutorial review. , 1987 .

[21]  M. Kjelgaard,et al.  Prosodic Facilitation and Interference in the Resolution of Temporary Syntactic Closure Ambiguity , 1999 .

[22]  Carlos Gussenhoven,et al.  Transcription of Dutch intonation , 2005 .

[23]  L. Osterhout,et al.  The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2005 .

[24]  Mireille Besson,et al.  Brain potentials during semantic and prosodic processing in French. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[25]  Lee Osterhout,et al.  Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech , 1993 .

[26]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Prosodic Breaks in Sentence Processing Investigated by Event-Related Potentials , 2011, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[27]  Karsten Steinhauer,et al.  Effects of Cooperating and Conflicting Prosody in Spoken English Garden Path Sentences: ERP Evidence for the Boundary Deletion Hypothesis , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[28]  Hartmut Fitz,et al.  Getting real about Semantic Illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension , 2012, Brain Research.