La contribución de la prosodia en las ambigüedades de adjunción

Authors

  • Celia Teira Celia Teira UNED
  • José Manuel Igoa Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7557/1.11.3.6489

Keywords:

ambiguity; prosody; attachment; relative clauses; comprehension; locality principles.

Abstract

Ambiguous relative clauses with two possible antecedent nouns have been widely studied in Spanish since they cast doubt on the universality of syntactic parsing principles. Current research suggests that there is an early contribution of prosodic information in the disambiguation of this kind or sentences in oral comprehension and production tasks. In this paper we present two comprehension experiments of locally ambiguous relative clauses with two possible attachment sites in Spanish, in which different prosodic parameters were manipulated to yield either congruous or incongruous pairings of prosody and syntax, with the aim of testing their influence on listeners’ attachment preferences of the ambiguous clause and on their response times. Additionally, fundamental frequency (F0) and temporal (pause distribution) prosodic parameters were manipulated in different subexperiments so as to assess their separate contribution to participants’ performance. Our results confirm an effective and relatively early use of prosodic information by listeners during language processing. In particular, congruous prosody with syntax generally facilitates participants’ responses, though this effect was found to vary across the two attachment options. Finally, F0 and temporal prosodic features were found to make a similar contribution to participants’ responses, with few occasional differences between them.

References

Aguilar, M., Ferré, P., Gavilán, J.M., Hinojosa, J.A. & Demestre, J. (2021). The actress was on the balcony, after all: Eye-tracking locality and PR-availability effects in Spanish. Cognition 211:104624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104624

Beach, C. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language 30, pp. 644-663. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90030-N

Beckman, M. E.; Díaz-Campos, M.; McGory, J. T. & Morgan, T. A. (2002). Intonation across Spanish, in the Tones and Break Indices framework. Probus 14 (1), pp. 9-37. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2002.008

Belinchón, M., Igoa, J.M. & Rivière, Á. (1992). Psicología del lenguaje. Investigación y teoría. Madrid, Trotta.

Bennett, R. & Elfner, E. (2019). The syntax-prosody interface. Annual Review of Linguistics 5, pp. 151-171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012503

Biau, E., Fromont, L. & Soto-Faraco, S. (2017). Beat Gestures and Syntactic Parsing: An ERP Study. Language Learning 68. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12257

Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2003). PRAAT. Universidad de Ámsterdam. Available at http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat

Carlson, K., Clifton, Ch. & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic Boundaries in Adjunct Attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 45, pp. 58-81. Available at https://people.umass.edu/cec/prosodicboundaries.pdf https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2762

Carreiras, M., Salillas, E., & Barber, H. (2004). Event-related potentials elicited during parsing of ambiguous relative clauses in Spanish. Cognitive Brain Research 20 (1), pp. 98-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.01.009

Cooper, W. E. & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980). Syntax and Speech. Cambridge MA., Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674283947

Cuetos, F. & Mitchell, D. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30, pp. 73-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90004-2

Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. NY, Harper & Row.

de la Cruz-Pavía, I. & Elordieta, G. (2015). Prosodic phrasing of relative clauses with two possible antecedents in Spanish: a comparison of Spanish native speakers and L1 Basque bilingual speakers. Folia Linguistica 49(1), pp. 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0006

Fernández, E.M. & Smith Cairns, H. (Eds.). (2018). The Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford, Wiley Blackwell.

Féry, C. (2017). Intonation and prosodic structure. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139022064

Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27(2), pp. 285–319. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023258301588

Fodor, J. D. (2002). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. International Conference on Speech Prosody (ISCA-2002). France, Aix-en-Provence.

Forster, K. I. & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 35(1), pp. 116–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195503

Fraga, I., García-Orza, J. & Acuña, J.C. (2005). La desambiguación de oraciones de relativo en gallego: Nueva evidencia de adjunción alta en lenguas romances. Psicológica 26, pp. 243-260.

Frazier, L. & Gibson, E. (Eds.). (2015). Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing. Studies in honor of Janet Dean Fodor. Berlin, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12961-7

Frazier, L. & Clifton, C., Jr. (1996). Construal. Cambridge MA,The MIT Press.

Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14, pp. 178-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90008-1

Frazier, L., Clifton, Ch. & Carlson, K. (2004). Don’t break, or do: prosodic boundary preferences. Lingua 114, pp. 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00044-5

Fromont, L.A., Soto-Faraco, S. & Biau, E. (2017). Searching High and Low: Prosodic Breaks Disambiguate Relative Clauses. Frontieres in Psychology 8:96. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00096

Gilboy, E., Sopena, J. M., Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1995). Argument structure and association preferences in Spanish and English complex NPs. Cognition 54, pp. 131-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00636-Y

Grillo, N. & Costa, J. (2014). A novel argument for the Universality of Parsing principles. Cognition 133(1), pp.156-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.019

Hemforth, B., Fernández, S., Clifton, C, Frazier, L., Konieczny, L. & Walter, M. (2015). Relative clause attachment in German, English, Spanish and French: Effects of position and length. Lingua 166, pp. 46-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.010

Igoa, J. M., Carreiras, M. & Meseguer, E. (1998). A study on late closure in Spanish: Principle-grounded vs. frequency-based accounts of attachment preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology 51A(3), pp. 561–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755775

Kjelgaard, M. & Speer, J. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary Syntactic Closure Ambiguity. Journal of Memory and language 40 (2), pp. 153-194. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2620

Kubozono, H. (1989). Syntactic and rhythmic effects of downstep in Japanese. Phonology 6, pp. 39-67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000944

Ladd, R. (2014). Simultaneous Structure in Phonology. Oxford, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199670970.001.0001

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 45, pp. 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749208401316

Mitchell, D.C. (2004). On-line methods in language processing: Introduction and historical review. En M. Carreiras & C. Clifton (Eds.). The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond. UK, Routledge Psychology Press. pp. 15–32.

Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). La prosodia. Madrid, Visor.

Pozniak, C., Hemforth, B., Haendler, Y., Santi, A., & Grillo, N. (2019). Seeing events vs. entities: The processing advantage of pseudo relatives over relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 107, pp. 128–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.04.001

Pratt, E. (2018). Prosody in sentence processing. En E.M. Fernández & H. Smith Cairns (Eds.) The Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford, Wiley Blackwell. pp. 365-391. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829516.ch16

Pratt, E., & Fernández, E. M. (2016). Implicit prosody and cue-based retrieval: L1 and L2 agreement and comprehension during reading. Frontiers in Psychology 7, Article 1922. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01922

Pynte, J. & Prieur, B. (1996). Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 11 (1/2), pp.165-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696387259

Ramírez-Sarmiento, A. (2016). ERP signatures of attachment height variations in English and Spanish. [Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Delaware]. Repositorio de tesis de la Universidad de Delaware. Available at http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/ 19716/21146.

Sanford, A.J., Sturt, P., Moxey, L., Morrow, L. & Emmott, C. (2004). Production and comprehension measures in assessing plural object formation. En M. Carreiras & C. Clifton (Eds.). The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eye-tracking, ERP and beyond. UK, Routledge Psychology Press. pp.151–166.

Selkirk, E. (2003). Sentence phonology. En W. William Frawley & W. Bright (Eds.) The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Turk, A. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25 (2), pp. 193-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708572

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 (2), pp. 249-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708573

Speer, S. & Blodgett, A. (2006). Prosody. En M.J. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (Eds.) Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam, Elsevier-Academic Press. pp. 505-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50014-6

Stetie, N. A. (2021). Cláusulas relativas con doble antecedente nominal en español: un recorrido experimental. Cuadernos de Lingüística Hispánica 38: e13367. https://doi.org/10.19053/0121053X.n38.2021.13367

Stirling, L. & Wales, R. (1996). Does prosody support or Direct Sentence Processing? Language and Cognitive Processes 11 (1/2), pp. 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909696387268

Teira, C. & Igoa, J. M. (2007). Relaciones entre la prosodia y la sintaxis en el procesamiento de oraciones. Anuario de Psicología 38 (1), pp. 45-69.

Vaissière, J. (2005). Perception of intonation. En D. Pisoni, D. & R. Remez (Eds.) The handbook of speech perception. Oxford, Blackwell. pp. 236-263. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757024.ch10

Veldhuis, D. & Kurvers, J. (2012). Offline segmentation and online language processing units: The influence of literacy. Written Language and Literacy 15, pp. 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.15.2.03vel

Watt, S. & Murray, W. (1996). Prosodic form and parsing commitments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25 (2), pp. 291-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708575

Wesseling, W. & van Son, R. (2007). The importance of Prosody for TRP Projection [en línea]. Amsterdam: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. Seminar on Prosody.

Yao, B. & Scheepers, C. (2018). Direct speech quotations promote low relative-clause attachment in silent reading of English. Cognition 176, pp. 248-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.017

Yu, M., Sommers, B., Yin, Y. & Yan, G. (2019). Effects of Implicit Prosody and Semantic Bias on the resolution of ambiguous Chinese phrases. Frontiers in Psychology 10, Art. 1308. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01308

Downloads

Published

2022-12-09

How to Cite

Celia Teira, C. T., & José Manuel Igoa. (2022). La contribución de la prosodia en las ambigüedades de adjunción. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 11(3), 379–410. https://doi.org/10.7557/1.11.3.6489