Advertisement

Prosodic Influences on Reading Syntactically Ambiguous Sentences

  • Markus Bader
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 21)

Abstract

In this chapter, I will propose a new account for the question of why only some local syntactic ambiguities lead to strong garden-path effects whereas others do not. This account is based on the observation that readers do not only compute syntactic structures during reading but also prosodic structures. These prosodic structures are a product of the process of phonological coding which normally accompanies silent reading. Due to the lack of a one-to-one mapping between syntactic and prosodic structures, recovery from a syntactic misanalysis may be accompanied by the need to replace the original prosodic structure or not. According to the prosodic constraint on reanalysis, the need to revise the original prosodic structure makes recovery from a syntactic misanalysis difficult. Empirical evidence for this claim comes from a series of three self-paced reading experiments which investigated the German variant of the English her-ambiguity. These experiments manipulated the prosodic structure of sentences by inserting focus operators (focus particles, sentence adverbials) into locally ambiguous sentences. Thereby it became possible to independently determine the contributions of syntactic and prosodic factors to reanalysis. The results show that for the ambiguitiy examined, garden-path effects can be predicted on prosodic grounds but not on syntactic grounds. This finding supports the claim that for certain kinds of syntactic ambiguities reanalysis is prosodically constrained.

Keywords

Reading Time Phonological Code Embed Clause Main Clause Ambiguous Sentence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann, G. & Steedman, M. 1988. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238.Google Scholar
  2. Bader, M. 1994. Sprachverstehen: Syntax und Prosodie beim Lesen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  3. Bader, M. 1996. On Reanalysis: Evidence from German. Unpublished manuscript, FriedrichSchiller-Universität Jena.Google Scholar
  4. Bader, M., Bayer, J., Hopf, J.-M., & Meng, M. 1996. Case-Assignment in processing German verbfinal clauses. Proceedings of the NELS 26 Workshop on Sentence Processing, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 9, 1–25.Google Scholar
  5. Bader, M. & Lasser, I. 1994. German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 225–242.Google Scholar
  6. Bader, M. & Meng, M. 1997. Subject-object ambiguities in embedded clauses—An across the board comparison. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  7. Bayer, J. 1996. Directionality and Logical Form. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Clifton, C. 1995. Thematic roles in sentence parsing. In J.M. Henderson, M. Singer, & F. Ferreira (eds.), Reading and Language Processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 94–118.Google Scholar
  9. Dresher, B.E. 1996. Introduction to metrical and prosodic phonology. In J.L. Morgan & K. Demuth (eds.), Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 41–54.Google Scholar
  10. Ferreira, F. & Henderson, J.M. 1991. Recovery from misanalysis of garden-path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.Google Scholar
  11. Ferreira, F. 1994. Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferreira, F. & Anes, M. 1994. Why study spoken language? In M.A. Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 33–56.Google Scholar
  13. Fodor, J.D. & Inoue, A. 1994. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–434.Google Scholar
  14. Frazier, L. 1978. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Conneticut, Storrs, CT. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  15. Frazier, L. 1987. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (ed.), Attention and Performance XII. The Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 559–586.Google Scholar
  16. Frazier, L. 1990. Exploring the architecture of the language-processing system. In G.M. Altmann (ed.), Cognitive Models of Speech Processing. Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 409–433.Google Scholar
  17. Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Frazier, L. Clifton, C. (this volume). Sentence reanalysis and visibility.Google Scholar
  18. Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.Google Scholar
  19. Gathercole, S.E. & Baddeley, A.D. 1993. Working Memory and Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Gibson, E.A.F. 1991. A Computational Theory of Human Linguistic Processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Available as Center for Machine Translation Technical Report CMU-CMT-91–125.Google Scholar
  21. Gibson, E., Hickok, G. & Schütze, C.T. 1994. Processing empty categories: A parallel approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 381–405.Google Scholar
  22. Giegerich, H.J. 1985. Metrical Phonology and Phonological Structure. German and English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gorrell, P. 1995. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inoue, A. & Fodor, J.D. 1995. Information-paced parsing of Japanese In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 9–63.Google Scholar
  25. Jacobs, J. 1983. Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  26. Jacobs, J. 1992. Neutral stress and the position of heads. In J. Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 4, 220–244.Google Scholar
  27. Just, M.A., Carpenter, P.A., & Wolley, J.D. 1982. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcus, M., Hindle, D., & Fleck, M. 1983. D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. Association for Computational Linguistics, 21, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marcus, M. & Hindle, D. 1990. Description theory and intonation boundaries. In G.M. Altmann (ed.), Cognitive Models of Speech Processing. Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 483–512.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, D.C. & Holmes, V.M. 1985. The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguitiy. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 54 2559.Google Scholar
  31. Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. 1989. On clashes and lapses. Phonology, 6, 69–116.Google Scholar
  32. Patterson, K.L. & Coltheart, V. 1987. Phonological processes in reading. A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (ed.), Attention and Performance XII. The Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 421–447.Google Scholar
  33. Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A. 1989. The Psychology of Reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rochemont, M.S. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Turk, A.E. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 193–247.Google Scholar
  35. Selkirk, E. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Selkirk, E. 1994. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 550–569.Google Scholar
  37. Slowiaczek, M. L. & Clifton, C. 1980. Subvocalization and reading for meaning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 573–582.Google Scholar
  38. Stechow, A. von 1991. Current issues in the theory of focus. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik. Ein Internationales Handbuch der Zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin: De Gruyter, 804–825.Google Scholar
  39. Stowe, L.A. 1986. Parsing Wh-constructions: evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weinberg, A. 1993. Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal commitment theory goes east. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 338–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wilkenfeld, D.C. 1985. Encoding Prosody in Silent Reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Ct.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Bader
    • 1
  1. 1.Friedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaGermany

Personalised recommendations