The Interplay between Prosody and Syntax in Sentence Processing: The Case of Subject- and Object-control Verbs

This study addresses the question whether prosodic information can affect the choice for a syntactic analysis in auditory sentence processing. We manipulated the prosody (in the form of a prosodic break; PB) of locally ambiguous Dutch sentences to favor one of two interpretations. The experimental items contained two different types of so-called control verbs (subject and object control) in the matrix clause and were syntactically disambiguated by a transitive or by an intransitive verb. In Experiment 1, we established the default off-line preference of the items for a transitive or an intransitive disambiguating verb with a visual and an auditory fragment completion test. The results suggested that subject- and object-control verbs differently affect the syntactic structure that listeners expect. In Experiment 2, we investigated these two types of verbs separately in an on-line ERP study. Consistent with the literature, the PB elicited a closure positive shift. Furthermore, in subject-control items, an N400 effect for intransitive relative to transitive disambiguating verbs was found, both for sentences with and for sentences without a PB. This result suggests that the default preference for subject-control verbs goes in the same direction as the effect of the PB. In object-control items, an N400 effect for intransitive relative to transitive disambiguating verbs was found for sentences with a PB but no effect in the absence of a PB. This indicates that a PB can affect the syntactic analysis that listeners pursue.

[1]  Anja Hahne,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potentials While Encountering Semantic and Syntactic Constraint Violations , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  M. Kutas,et al.  Psycholinguistics Electrified II (1994–2005) , 2006 .

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

[4]  J. Thayer,et al.  The continuing problem of false positives in repeated measures ANOVA in psychophysiology: a multivariate solution. , 1987, Psychophysiology.

[5]  Lynne C Nygaard,et al.  Resolution of lexical ambiguity by emotional tone of voice. , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[6]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Prosody-driven Sentence Processing: An Event-related Brain Potential Study , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[8]  D. Swinney,et al.  Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  Bernard Comrie,et al.  REFLECTIONS ON SUBJECT AND OBJECT CONTROL , 1985 .

[10]  Dorothee J. Chwilla,et al.  Monitoring in language perception: Evidence from ERPs in a picture–sentence matching task , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[11]  Karsten Steinhauer Electrophysiological correlates of prosody and punctuation , 2003, Brain and Language.

[12]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  The Neural Integration of Speaker and Message , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[13]  C. Clifton,et al.  Focus in Relative Clause Construal , 1996 .

[14]  A. Friederici,et al.  Word category and verb–argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing , 2004, Cognition.

[15]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Role of the Corpus Callosum in Speech Comprehension: Interfacing Syntax and Prosody , 2007, Neuron.

[16]  Lesley Stirling,et al.  Does Prosody Support or Direct Sentence Processing , 1996 .

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

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

[19]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Introduction. Models and Measurements in the Study of Prosody , 1983 .

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

[21]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1992,45A (1) 73-87 Prosodic Effects in Minimal Attachment , 2022 .

[22]  E. Grabe,et al.  Prosody, phonology and parsing in closure ambiguities , 1995 .

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

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

[25]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. , 1994 .

[26]  A D Friederici,et al.  Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[27]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Influence of Prosodic Information on the Processing of Split Particles: ERP Evidence from Spoken German , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[28]  Cheryl M. Beach,et al.  The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations☆ , 1991 .

[29]  A D Friederici,et al.  Prosodic Boundaries, Comma Rules, and Brain Responses: The Closure Positive Shift in ERPs as a Universal Marker for Prosodic Phrasing in Listeners and Readers , 2001, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[30]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Prosody: Models and measurements , 1983 .

[31]  L. Streeter Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary perception. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  A. Friederici,et al.  Verb Argument Structure Processing: The Role of Verb-Specific and Argument-Specific Information☆☆☆ , 2000 .