Constituent Length Affects Prosody and Processing for a Dative NP Ambiguity in Korean

  • Hyekyung Hwang
  • Amy J. Schafer


Two sentence processing experiments on a dative NP ambiguity in Korean demonstrate effects of phrase length on overt and implicit prosody. Both experiments controlled non-prosodic length factors by using long versus short proper names that occurred before the syntactically critical material. Experiment 1 found that long phrases induce different prosodic phrasing than short phrases in a read-aloud task and change the preferred interpretation of globally ambiguous sentences. It also showed that speakers who have been told of the ambiguity can provide significantly different prosody for the two interpretations, for both lengths. Experiment 2 verified that prosodic patterns found in first-pass pronunciations predict self-paced reading patterns for silent reading. The results extend the coverage of the Implicit Prosody Hypothesis [Fodor, J Psycholinguist Res 27:285–319, 1998; Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), NELS 32 (pp. 113–132). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 2002] to another construction and to Korean. They further indicate that strong syntactic biases can have rapid effects on the formulation of implicit prosody.


Prosody Korean Sentence production Sentence comprehension Reading 


  1. Aoshima S., Phillips C., Weinberg A. (2004). Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language 51: 23–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M., & Phillips, C. (2005). The source of bias for longer filler-gap dependences in Japanese. Paper Presented at the 18th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
  3. Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In F. Ferreira & J. D. Fodor (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  4. Blodgett, A. R. (2004). The interaction of prosodic phrasing, verb bias, and plausibility during spoken sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  5. Clifton, C., Carlson, K., & Frazier, L. (2006). Tracking the what and why of speakers’ choices: Prosodic boundaries and the length of constituents. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 854–861.Google Scholar
  6. Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Fernández, E. M., Bradley, D., Igoa, J. M., & Teira, C. (submitted). Prosodic phrasing patterns in English and Spanish sentences containing the relative clause attachment construction: Effects of language, length and placement.Google Scholar
  8. Fernández, E. M., Bradley, D., & Taylor, D. (under revision). Prosody and informativeness in the relative clause attachment ambiguity.Google Scholar
  9. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285–319. doi: 10.1023/A:1023258301588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), NELS 32 (pp. 113–132). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Carlson, K. (2004). Don’t break or do: Prosodic boundary preferences. Lingua, 114, 3–27. doi: 10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00044-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gee, J. P., & Grosjean, F. (1983). Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 411–458. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(83)90014-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N. J., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Cross-linguistic attachment preferences: Evidence from English and Spanish. Cognition, 59, 23–59. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00687-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (2002). Where pronouns and relative clauses differ: Information structure and binding preferences. Paper Presented at the 15th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Hirose, Y. (2003). Recycling prosodic boundaries. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 167–195. doi: 10.1023/A:1022448308035 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hwang, K., Schafer, A. J., & O’Grady, W. (to appear). Contrastive focus facilitates scrambling in Korean sentence processing. In S. Iwasaki (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 17. CSLI: Stanford.Google Scholar
  17. Jun, S. (1996). The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody: Intonational phonology and prosodic structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  18. Jun, S. (2000). K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labelling conventions, version 3. Speech Sciences, 7, 143–169.Google Scholar
  19. Jun, S. (2003). The effect of phrase length and speech rate on prosodic phrasing. In M. J. Solé, D. Recansens & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  20. Jun, S. (2006). Intonational phonology of Seoul Korean revisited. In T. J. Vance & K. Jones (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 14. CSLI: Stanford.Google Scholar
  21. Jun, S. (2007). The Intermediate phrase in Korean intonation: Its role in sentence processing. In C. Gussenhoven & T. Riad (Eds.), Tones and Tunes: Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Jun, S., & Kim, S. (2004). Default phrasing and attachment preferences in Korean. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH-ICSLP (International Conference on Spoken Language Processing), Jeju, Korea.Google Scholar
  23. Jun, S., & Koike, C. (2003). Prosody and attachment preference in Japanese: Production and perception. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Prosodic Interfaces, Nantes, France.Google Scholar
  24. Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D. C. (1999). Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 631–662. doi: 10.1080/016909699386211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kang, S., & Speer, S. R. (2003). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic clause boundaries in Korean. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), WCCFL 22 Proceedings (pp. 259–272). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kiaer, J. (2007). Processing and interfaces in syntactic theory: The case of Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London.Google Scholar
  27. Kim, H. (2004). The multiple sources of information in Korean sentence processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  28. Kitagawa, Y., & Fodor, J. D. (2006). Prosodic influence on syntactic judgments. In G. Fanselow, C. Fery, R. Vogel & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Koh, S. (1997). The resolution of the dative NP ambiguity in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 265–273. doi: 10.1023/A:1025021918198 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lovric, N. (2003). Implicit prosody in silent reading: Relative clause attachment in Croatian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
  31. Misono, Y., Mazuka, R., Kondo, T., & Kiritani, S. (1997). Effects and limitations of prosodic and semantic biases on syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 229–245. doi: 10.1023/A:1025065700451 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pynte, J., & Prieur, B. (1996). Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 165–191. doi: 10.1080/016909696387259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schafer, A. J., Carlson, K., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2000). Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech, 43, 75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., & Warren, P. (2005). Prosodic influences on the production and comprehension of syntactic ambiguity in a game-based conversation task. In M. Tanenhaus & J. Trueswell (Eds.), Approaches to studying world situated language use: Psycholinguistic, linguistic and computational perspectives on bridging the product and action tradition (pp. 209–225). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, S. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 169–182. doi: 10.1023/A:1005192911512 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Selkirk, E. O. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371–405.Google Scholar
  37. Selkirk, E. O. (2000). The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment (pp. 231–262). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  38. Truckenbrodt, H. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 219–255. doi: 10.1162/002438999554048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. (2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 284–307. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Venditti, J. J., Jun, S., & Beckman, M. E. (1996). Prosodic cues to syntactic and other linguistic structures in Japanese, Korean and English. In J. L. Morgan & K. D. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 287–311). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Watson, D., & Gibson, E. (2004). The relationship between intonational phrasing and syntactic structure in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 713–755. doi: 10.1080/01690960444000070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Centre for Research on Language, Mind and BrainMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics, 569 Moore HallUniversity of Hawai‘i at MānoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations