Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 41, Issue 5, pp 387–408 | Cite as

Lexical and Prosodic Effects on Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution in Aphasia

  • Gayle DeDe
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether and when individuals with aphasia and healthy controls use lexical and prosodic information during on-line sentence comprehension. Individuals with aphasia and controls (n = 12 per group) participated in a self-paced listening experiment. The stimuli were early closure sentences, such as “While the parents watched(,) the child sang a song.” Both lexical and prosodic cues were manipulated. The cues were biased toward the subject- or object- of the ambiguous noun phrase (the child). Thus, there were two congruous conditions (in which both lexical cues and prosodic cues were consistent) and two incongruous conditions (in which lexical and prosodic cues conflicted). The results showed that the people with aphasia had longer listening times for the ambiguous noun phrase (the child) when the cues were conflicting, rather than consistent. The controls showed effects earlier in the sentence, at the subordinate verb (watched or danced). Both groups showed evidence of reanalysis at the main verb (sang). These effects demonstrate that the aphasic group was sensitive to the lexical and prosodic cues, but used them on a delayed time course relative to the control group.

Keywords

Syntactic ambiguity resolution Aphasia On-line sentence processing Prosody 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams B. C., Clifton C., Mitchell D. C. (1998) Lexical guidance in sentence processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 5: 265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum S. R., Dwivedi V. D. (2003) Sensitivity to prosodic structure in left- and right-hemisphere-damaged individuals. Brain and Language 87: 278–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum S. R., Pell M. (1999) The neural bases of prosody: Insights from lesion studies and neuroimaging. Aphasiology 13: 581–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berndt R. S., Mitchum C. C., Haendiges A. N. (1996) Comprehension of reversible sentences in “agrammatism”: A meta-analysis. Cognition, 58: 289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berndt R. S., Mitchum C. C., Wayland S. C. (1997) Patterns of sentence comprehension in aphasia: A consideration of three hypotheses. Brain and Language, 60: 197–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blodgett, A. (2004). The interaction of prosodic phrasing, verb bias, and plausibility during spoken sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  7. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2007). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 4.6.12) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
  8. Caplan D., Baker C., Dehaut F. (1985) Syntactic determinants of sentence comprehension in aphasia. Cognition 21: 117–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caplan, D., DeDe, G., Waters, G., & Michaud, J. Effects of domain-general and domain-specific cognitive abilities on age-related changed in comprehension of sentences with relative clauses (submitted).Google Scholar
  10. Caplan D., Waters G. S. (2003) On-line syntactic processing in aphasia: Studies with auditory moving windows presentation. Brain and Language 84: 222–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caplan D., Waters G. S., DeDe G., Michaud J., Reddy A. (2007) A study of syntactic processing in aphasia I: Behavioral aspects. Brain and Language 101: 103–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caramazza A., Zurif E. B. (1976) Dissociation of algorithmic and heuristic processes in language comprehension: Evidence from aphasia. Brain and Language 3: 572–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen J. D., MacWhinney B., Flatt M., Provost J. (1993) PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research: Methods, Instruments, and Computers 25: 257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeDe G. (2010) Lexical-pragmatic and prosodic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39(4): 345–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeDe, G. (2008). Lexical, pragmatic, and prosodic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution in younger, older, and aphasic adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.Google Scholar
  16. Deloche G., Seron X. (1981) Sentence understanding and knowledge of the world: Evidence from a sentence-picture matching task performed by aphasic patients. Brain and Language 14: 57–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dick F., Bates E., Wulfeck B., Utman J. A., Dronkers N., Gernsbacher M. A. (2001) Language deficits, localization, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasic patients and neurologically intact individuals. Psychological Review, 108: 759–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2001). The frequency of major sentence types over discourse levels: A corpus analysis (Vol. 13, no. 1). Department of Cognitive Science, UCSD.Google Scholar
  19. Dickey M. W., Thompson C. K. (2004) The resolution and recovery of filler-gap dependencies in aphasia: Evidence from on-line anomaly detection. Brain and Language 88: 108–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunn L. M., Dunn L. M. (1997) Peabody picture vocabulary task (3rd ed.). American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, MNGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferreira F., Clifton C. Jr. (1986) The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 25: 348–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferreira F., Anes M. D., Horine M. D. (1996a) Exploring the use of prosody during language comprehension using the auditory moving windows technique. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(2): 274–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferreira F., Henderson J. M., Anes M. D., Weeks P. A. Jr., McFarlane D. K. (1996b) Effects of lexical frequency and syntactic complexity in spoken language comprehension: Evidence from the auditory moving windows technique. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Folstein M. F., Folstein S. E., McHugh P. R. (1975) “Mini-Mental State”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research 12: 189–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frazier L., Clifton C. (1996) Construal. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Frazier L., Rayner K. (1982) Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14: 178–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gahl S. (2002) Lexical biases in aphasic sentence comprehension: An experimental and corpus linguistic study. Aphasiology 16: 1173–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gahl S., Menn L., Ramsberger G., Jurafsky D., Elder E., Rewega M., Holland A. (2003) Syntactic frame and verb bias in aphasia: Plausibility judgments of undergoer-subject sentences. Brain and Cognition 53: 223–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garnsey S. M., Pearlmutter N. J., Myers E., Lotocky M. A. (1997) The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 58–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goodglass H., Kaplan E., Barresi B. (2000) Boston diagnostic aphasia examination (3rd ed.). Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Grodzinsky Y. (2000) The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23: 1–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haarmann H. J., Kolk H. H. (1991) Syntactic priming in Broca’s aphasics: Evidence for slow activation. Aphasiology 5: 247–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harford E. R., Dodds E. (1982) Hearing status of ambulatory senior citizens. Ear and Hearing 3(3): 105–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaplan E., Goodglass H., Weintraub S. (2001) Boston naming test. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  35. Kemper S., Liu C. J. (2007) Eye movements of young and older adults during reading. Psychology and Aging 22(1): 84–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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: 153–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacDonald M. C., Pearlmutter N. J., Seidenberg M. S. (1994) Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101: 676–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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: 73–87Google Scholar
  39. Masson M. E. J., Loftus G. R. (2003) Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 57: 203–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Menn L., Reilly K. F., Hayashi M., Kamio A., Fujita I., Sasanuma S. (1998) The interaction of preserved pragmatics and impaired syntax in Japanese and English aphasic speech. Brain and Language 61: 183–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell D. C. (1987) Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In: Coltheart M. (eds) Attention and performance XII. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 601–618Google Scholar
  42. Nagel H. N., Shapiro L. P., Tuller B., Nawy R. (1996) Prosodic influences on the resolution of temporary ambiguity during on-line sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25: 319–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pell M., Baum S. R. (1997) Unilateral brain damage, prosodic comprehension deficits, and acoustic cues to prosody. Brain and Language 57: 195–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perkins J. M., Baran J. A., Gandour J. (1996) Hemispheric specialization in processing intonational contours. Aphasiology 10: 343–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pickering M. J., van Gompel R. P. G. (2006) Syntactic parsing. In: Traxler M., Gernsbacher M. A. (eds) Handbook of psycholinguistics. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 455–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pynte J., Prieur B. (1996) Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 165–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Russo K. D., Peach R. K., Shapiro L. P. (1998) Verb preference effects in the sentence comprehension of fluent aphasic individuals. Aphasiology 12: 537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schepman, A. H. B. C. (1997). Prosody and on-line parsing. D.Phil Thesis, University of Sussex. Downloading available from: http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~astrid/thesisdownload.html.
  49. Shapiro L. P., Gordon B., Hack N., Killackey J. (1993a) Verb-argument structure processing in complex sentences in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language 45: 423–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shapiro L. P., Nagel H. N., Levine B. A. (1993b) Preferences for a verb’s complements and their use in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 96–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shapiro L. P., Levine B. A. (1990) Verb processing during sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language 38: 21–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Snedeker S., Yuan J. (2008) Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults). Journal of Memory and Language 58(2): 574–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Speer S. R., Kjelgaard M. M., Dobroth K. M. (1996) The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Staub A. (2007) The parser doesn’t ignore transitivity, after all. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33: 550–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swaab T., Brown C., Hagoort P. (1998) Understanding ambiguous words in sentence contexts: Electrophysiological evidence for delayed contextual selection in Broca’s aphasia. Neuropsychologia 36: 737–761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tabachnick B., Fidell L. (2001) Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon, USAGoogle Scholar
  57. Thompson C. K., Choy J. (2009) Pronominal resolution and gap filling in agrammatic aphasia: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 38: 255–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Titone D. A., Koh C. K., Kjelgaard M. M., Bruce S., Speer S. R., Wingfield A. (2006) Age-related impairments in the revision of syntactic misanalyses: Effects of prosody. Language and Speech 49: 75–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trueswell J., Tanenhaus M. K. (1994) Towards a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In: Clifton C., Frazier L., Rayner K. (eds) Perspectives in sentence processing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 155–180Google Scholar
  60. Van Gompel R. P. G., Pickering M. J. (2001) Lexical guidance in sentence processing: A note on Adams, Clifton, & Mitchell (1998). Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8: 851–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker J. P., 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: 169–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Warren P., Grabe E., Nolan F. (1995) Prosody, phonology, and closure ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 457–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Waters G. S., Caplan D. (2001) Age, working memory, and on-line syntactic processing in sentence comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 16: 128–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waters G. S., Caplan D. (2004) Verbal working memory and on-line syntactic processing: Evidence from self-paced listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 57A: 129–163Google Scholar
  65. Zurif E. B., Swinney D., Prather P., Solomon J., Bushnell C. (1993) An on-line analysis of syntactic processing in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language 45: 448–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing SciencesUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations