The Interplay of Visual and Prosodic Information in the Attachment Preferences of Semantically Shallow Relative Clauses

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 46)

Abstract

Many studies have investigated the attachment of relative clauses (RCs) modifying complex noun phrases (NPs). Cross-language differences in how ambiguous RCs are interpreted have been attributed to a number of factors, among which lexical semantics and prosody seem to play a special role. We report data from an experiment conducted in English using semantically shallow sentences that describe geometric shapes. The spoken sentences contained the ambiguity of interest and were paired with visual displays that contained two scenes. In the disambiguating conditions, only one of the scenes was compatible with the attachment of the RC as high or low. In the ambiguous condition, either scene could be chosen. Sentences were presented to participants with one of two prosodic contours: compatible with high attachment (phrasal break before the RC) or compatible with low attachment (phrasal break after the head noun in the complex NP). Participants’ interpretation preferences were assessed via their choice of the scene which disambiguated the interpretation of the RC; we additionally recorded participants’ eye movements as they performed the task. We discuss the interplay of prosodic and visual disambiguation in determining the attachment preferences of semantically shallow RCs.

Keywords

Relative clause attachment ambiguity Visual disambiguation Prosodic disambiguation Eye tracking English 

References

  1. Arai, M., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Scheepers, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54(3), 218–250. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augurzky, P. (2006). Attaching relative clauses in German: The role of implicit and explicit prosody in sentence processing. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
  3. Bergmann, C., Paulus, M., & Fikkert, P. (2012). Preschoolers’ comprehension of pronouns and reflexives: The impact of the task. Journal of Child Language, 39(4), 777–803. doi:10.1017/S0305000911000298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carreiras, M. (1992). Estrategias de análisis sintáctico en el procesamiento de frases: Cierre temprano versus cierre último. Cognitiva, 4, 3–27.Google Scholar
  5. De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. (1993). Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dussias, P. E., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(01), 101. doi:10.1017/S1366728906002847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Felser, C., Marinis, T., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Children’s processing of ambiguous sentences: A study of relative clause attachment. Language Acquisition, 11(3), 127–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernández, E. M. (2005). The prosody produced by Spanish-English bilinguals: A preliminary investigation and implications for sentence processing. Revista Da Abralin, 4(1), 109–141.Google Scholar
  10. Fernández, E. M. (2007). How might a rapid serial visual presentation of text affect the prosody projected implicitly during silent reading? In E. M. Fernández (Ed.), Conferências do V Congresso Internacional da Associaçao Brasiliera de Lingüistica, Vol. 5, pp. 117–154.Google Scholar
  11. Ferreira, F., & Karim, H. (this volume). Prosody and performance in language production. In L. Frazier & E. Gibson (Eds.), Explicit and implicit prosody in sentence processing.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 285–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fodor, J. D. (2002). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. In Proceedings of the SPEECH PROSODY 2002 Conference. Aix En Provence, France, April 2002.Google Scholar
  14. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59(1), 23–59. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00687-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gryllia, S., & Kügler, F. (2010). What does prosody tell us about relative clause attachment in German? Speech Prosody 2010, 100927:1–4. http://speechprosody2010.illinois.edu/papers/100927.pdf. Accessed: 24 Jan 2015.
  17. Huetting, F., Olivers, C. N. L., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2011). Looking, language, and memory: Bridging research from the visual world and visual search paradigms. Acta Psychologica, 137, 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. January, D., & Trueswell, J. C. (2007). Relative clause attachment ambiguities in the visual world. Poster presented at the 20th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Maas, A., & Russo, A. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events: Nature or culture? Psychological Science, 14(4), 296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maia, M., Fernández, E. M., Costa, A., & Lourenço-Gomes, M. do C. (2007). Early and late preferences in relative clause attachment in Spanish and Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 5-2/6-1, 227–250.Google Scholar
  21. O’Grady, W., Suguzi, T., & Yoshinaga, N. (2010). Quantifier spreading: Evidence from Japanese. Language Learning and Development, 6(2), 116–125. doi:10.1080/15475440903352799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sekerina, I. A., Stromswold, K., & Hestvik, A. (2004). How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns? Journal of Child Language, 31(1), 123–152. doi:10.1017/S0305000903005890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sekerina, I. A., Fernández, E. M., & Petrova, K. (2008). Присъединяване на структурно многоэначни подчинени иэречения в Ьългарския еэик (‘Processing of structurally ambiguous relative clauses in Bulgarian’). In S. Comati (Ed.), Bulgaristica—Studia et Argument: Festschrift für Ruselina Nitsolova zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 328–336). Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
  24. Shaked, A. (2009). Attachment ambiguities in Hebrew complex nominals: Prosody and parsing. New York: Graduate Center.Google Scholar
  25. Stoyneshka, I., Fodor, J. D., & Fernández, E. M. (2010). Phoneme restoration methods for investigating prosodic influences on syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 1265–1293. doi:10.1080/01690961003661192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Teira, C., & Igoa, J. M. (2007). The prosody-syntax relationship in sentence processing. Anuario de Psicología/The UB Journal of Psychology, 38(1), 45–69.Google Scholar
  28. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558–592. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2006). Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 157–166. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queens CollegeCity University of New YorkFlushingUSA
  2. 2.College of Staten IslandCity University of New YorkStaten IslandUSA
  3. 3.Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations