DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Prosodic Disambiguation of Low versus High Syntactic Attachment across Lexical Biases in English

  • Received : 2012.02.20
  • Accepted : 2012.03.15
  • Published : 2012.03.31

Abstract

In this study, the prosodic disambiguation of the syntactic attachment differences was investigated in relation to the effect of lexical bias. Speech materials were composed of N1-conj-N2-PP phrases such as "walkers and runners with dogs." The results show that the use of durational pattern is dominant over the pitch pattern to differentiate the attachment differences. The characteristic pitch contour was the rise and fall over N1 and N2 in the high attachment. The pitch contour in the low attachment was the rise and fall over N2 and N3 although the frequency of such patterns was lower for the low attachment case. For the durational pattern, the lengthening in the N2 region plays a significant role in the disambiguation of the syntactic attachments. The interaction between the lexical bias and the syntactic attachment was not statistically significant in the duration data.

Keywords

References

  1. Carlson, K., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic boundaries and adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language. 45, 58-81. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2762
  2. Cooper, W. E., and Sorensen, J. M. (1977). Fundamental frequency contours at syntactic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 62 (3), 683-692. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381556
  3. Cutler, A., Dahan, D., and van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40(2), 141-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099704000203
  4. Ferreira, F. (1993). Creation of prosody during sentence production. Psychological Review. 100(2), 233-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.233
  5. Lehiste, I., Olive, J. P., and Streeter, L. (1976). Role of duration in disambiguating syntactically ambiguous sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 60, 1199-1202. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381180
  6. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Warren, P., Grenier, P., and Lee, C. S. (1992). Prosodic Effects in Minimal Attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 45A, 73-87.
  7. O'Malley, M. H., Kloker, B. R., and Dara-Abrams, B. (1973). Recovering parentheses from spoken algebraic expressions. IEEE Transations on Audio and Electroacoustics. 21(3), 217-220. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAU.1973.1162449
  8. Price, P. J., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., and Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 2956-2970. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.401770
  9. Scott, D. R. (1981). Duration as a cue to the perception of a phrase boundary. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 71, 996-1007.
  10. Streeter, L. (1978). Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 64, 1582-1592. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.382142
  11. Wightman, C. W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M., & Price, P. J. (1991). Semgmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 91, 1707-1717.
  12. Wagner, M. and Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes. 25(7/8/9), 905-945. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690961003589492
  13. Warren, P. (1996). Prosody and Parsing: An Introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes. 11 (1/2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696387204
  14. Warren, P. (1985). The temporal organization and perception of speech. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, UK.
  15. Watson, D., and Gibson E. (2004). The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes. 19(6), 713-755. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000070