Abstract
This paper discusses the influence of stationary (non-fluctuating) noise on processing and understanding of sentences, which vary in their syntactic complexity (with the factors canonicity, embedding, ambiguity). It presents data from two RT-studies with 44 participants testing processing of German sentences in silence and in noise. Results show a stronger impact of noise on the processing of structurally difficult than on syntactically simpler parts of the sentence. This may be explained by a combination of decreased acoustical information and an increased strain on cognitive resources, such as working memory or attention, which is caused by noise. The noise effect for embedded sentences is less than for non-embedded sentences, which may be explained by a benefit from prosodic information.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bader M., Bayer J. (2006) Case and linking in language comprehension: Evidence from German. Springer, Berlin
Bader M., Häussler J. (2010) Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua 120(3): 717–762
Bader M., Meng M. (1999) Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28: 121–143
Bader M., Meng M., Bayer J., Hopf J.-M. (2000) Syntaktische Funktions-Ambiguitäten im Deutschen: Ein Überblick. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 19(1): 34–102
Boothroyd A., Nittrouer S. (1988) Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84: 101–114
Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. (2006a) The role of contrast in the local licensing of scrambling in German: Evidence from online comprehension. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18: 1–43
Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. (2006b) Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject–object ambiguities in language comprehension. Brain Research 1098(1): 139–152
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. (2009) Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bronkhorst A. (2000) The cocktail party phenomenon: A review of research on speech intelligibility in multiple-talker conditions. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 86: 117–128
Bronkhorst A. W., Brand T., Wagener K. (2002) Evaluation of context effects in sentence recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111: 2874–2886
Caplan D., Waters G. S. (1999) Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 77–94
Croft W. (1990) Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Daneman M., Carpenter P. A. (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19: 450–466
Deutscher Wortschatz. Universität Leipzig. http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de (as of Jan. 12, 2011).
de Vincenzi M. (1998) Reanalysis aspects of movement. In: Fodor J. A., Ferreira F. (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 47–71
Dillon, L. M. (1995). The effect of noise and syntactic complexity on listening comprehension. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, University of British Columbia. Vancouver.
dos Santos Sequeira S., Specht K., Hämäläinen H., Hugdahl K. (2008) The effects of background noise on dichotic listening to consonant–vowel syllables. Brain and Language 107(1): 11–15
Eisenberg P. (2006a) Das Wort: Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik Band 1 (3rd ed.). Metzler, Stuttgart
Eisenberg P. (2006b) Der Satz: Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik Band 2 (3rd ed.). Metzler, Stuttgart
Frazier L. (1985) Syntactic complexity. In: Dowty D., Karttunen L., Zwicky A. (Eds.), Natural language parsing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–189
Frazier L. (1987) Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In: Coltheart M. (Ed.), The psychology of reading. Erlbaum, Hove, pp 559–586
Frazier L., Flores d’Arcais G. (1989) Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language 28: 331–344
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
Friederici A., Kotz S., Scott S., Obleser J. (2010) Disentangling syntax and intelligibility in auditory language comprehension. Human Brain Mapping 31: 448–457
Friedmann N., Gvion A. (2003) Sentence comprehension and working memory limitation in aphasia: A dissociation between semantic-syntactic and phonological reactivation. Brain and Language 86: 23–39
Friedmann N. P., Miyake A. (2005) Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods 37(4): 581–590
Gibson E. (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76
Gibson E. (2000) The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In: Miyashita Y., Marantz A., O’Neil W. (Eds.), Image, language, brain. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 95–126
Gordon P. C., Hendrick R., Levine W. H. (2002) Memory load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 13(5): 425–430
Greenberg J. (1966) Universals of language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Grodzinsky Y. (2000) The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23: 1–21
Grodzinsky Y. (2005) Syntactic dependencies as memorized sequences in the brain. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 50: 241–266
Haarmann H. J., Kolk H. H. (1994) On-line sensitivity to subject-verb agreement violations in Broca’s aphasics: The role of syntactic complexity and time. Brain and Language 46: 493–516
Hemforth, B. (1993). Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. Sankt Augustin: Infix.
Just M. A., Carpenter P. A. (1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 99: 122–149
Kaan E. (2002) Investigating the effects of distance and number interference in processing subject-verb dependencies: An ERP study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31: 165–193
Kalikow D. N., Stevens K. N., Elliott L. L. (1977) Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 61(5): 1337–1351
Kamide Y., Scheepers C., Altmann G. T. M. (2003) Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32: 37–55
Kilborn K., Moss H. (1996) Word monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 689–694
Kjellberg A. (2004) Effects of reverberation time on the cognitive load in speech communication: Theoretical considerations. Noise and Health 7(25): 11–21
Kollmeier B., Wesselkamp M. (1997) Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102(4): 2412–2421
Lewis R., Vasishth S. (2005) An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29: 375–419
Lewis R. L., Vasishth S., van Dyke J. A. (2006) Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10: 447–454
Lyxell B., Rönnberg J. (1993) The effects of background noise and working memory capacity on speechreading performance. Scandinavian Audiology 22: 67–70
Marslen-Wilson W., Tyler L. K. (1980) The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8: 1–71
Martin C. R., Shelton J. R., Yaffee L. S. (1994) Language processing and working memory: Neuropsychological evidence for separate phonological and semantic capacities. Journal of Memory and Language 33: 83–111
Mattys S. L., Brooks J., Cooke M. (2009) Recognizing speech under a processing load: Dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cognitive Psychology 59: 203–243
McElree B., Foraker S., Dyer L. (2003) Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language 48: 67–91
Müller S. (2010) Grammatiktheorie. Stauffenburg Verlag, Stuttgart
Pappert S., Pechmann T. (2012) The impact of case and prosody on the availability of argument structures. In: Lamers M., de Swart P. (Eds.), Case, word order, and prominence: Psycholinguistic and theoretical approaches to argument structure. Springer, Berlin, pp 173–186
Plomp R., Mimpen A. M. (1979) Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 18: 43–52
Rizzi L. (1990) Relativized minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge
Rönnberg J., Rudner M., Lunner T., Zekveld A. A. (2010) When cognition kicks in: Working memory and speech understanding in noise. Noise and Health 12: 263–269
Salisbury D. F., Desantis M. A., Shenton M. E., McCarley R. W. (2002) The effect of background noise on P300 to suprathreshold stimuli. Psychophysiology 39: 111–115
Schriefers H., Friederici A. D., Kühn K. (1995) The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 499–520
Shapiro L. P., Zurif E., Grimshaw J. (1987) Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition 27: 219–246
Shapiro L.P., Zurif E.B., Grimshaw J. (1989) Verb processing during sentence comprehension: Contextual impenetrability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18(2): 223–243
Uslar, V. N., Brand, T., Hanke, M., Carroll, R., Ruigendijk, E., Hamann, C., et al. (2010). Does sentence complexity interfere with intelligibility in noise? Evaluation of the Oldenburg Linguistically and Audiologically Controlled Sentence Test (OLACS). In Proceedings of interspeech (pp. 2482–2485). Makuhari, Chiba, Japan.
Uslar V., Ruigendijk E., Hamann C., Brand T., Kollmeier B. (2011) How does linguistic complexity influence intelligibility in a German audiometric sentence intelligibility test?. International Journal of Audiology 50: 621–631
Wagener K., Kühnel V., Kollmeier B. (1999a) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I: Design des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie/ Audiological Acoustics 38: 4–15
Wagener K., Brand T., Kollmeier B. (1999b) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die Deutsche Sprache II: Optimierung des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie/ Audiological Acoustics 38: 44–56
Wagener K., Brand T., Kollmeier B. (1999c) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache III: Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Zeitschrift für Audiologie/ Audiological Acoustics 38: 86–95
Wagener K., Josvassen J., Ardenkjær R. (2003) Design, optimization and evaluation of a Danish sentence test in noise. International Journal of Audiology 42(1): 10–17
Weskott, T., Hörnig, R., Fanselow, G., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Strong contextual licensing of German marked OVS word order. Poster presented at the 15th Annual Conference of Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP). Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. September 7–9, 2009. Barcelona.
Wingfield A., Peelle J. E., Grossman M. (2003) Speech rate and syntactic complexity as multiplicative factors in speech comprehension by young and older adults. Aging and Neuropsychological Cognition 10: 310–322
Wingfield A., McCoy S. L., Peelle J. E., Tun P. A., Cox L. C. (2006) Effects of adult aging and hearing loss on comprehension of rapid speech varying in syntactic complexity. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 17: 487–497
Yampolsky S., Waters G., Caplan D., Matthies M., Chiu P. (2002) Effects of acoustic degradation on syntactic processing: Implications for the nature of the resource system used in language processing. Brain & Cognition 48(2–3): 617–625
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carroll, R., Ruigendijk, E. The Effects of Syntactic Complexity on Processing Sentences in Noise. J Psycholinguist Res 42, 139–159 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9213-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9213-7