Advertisement

The Implicit Prosody of Corrective Contrast Primes Appropriately Intonated Probes (for Some Readers)

  • Shari R. Speer
  • Anouschka Foltz
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 46)

Abstract

Two visual-to-auditory cross-modal priming experiments looked for evidence of a link between the implicit prosodic contour readers generated during silent reading and the explicit prosodic contour of a subsequently presented auditory probe word. Pairs of text sentences that contained corrective contrasts (e.g., Jacquelyn didn’t pass the test. Belinda passed the test) were immediately followed by probes pronounced with pitch accent patterns consistent (BELINDA) or inconsistent (belinda) with the corrective contrast in the read text. Participants were grouped according to individual differences in their pitch accent production while reading aloud in an independent task. Pitch accent production patterns were shown to correlate with the performance in the cross-modal task, providing initial evidence about the content of the auditory image produced as inner speech during silent reading.

Keywords

Individual differences Contrastive pitch accent Implicit prosody Inner speech Cross-modal priming 

References

  1. Abramson, M. (2007). The written voice: Implicit memory effects of voice characteristics following silent reading and auditory presentation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 105, 1171–1186.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby, J., & Clifton, C. Jr., (2005). The prosodic property of lexical stress affects eye movements during silent reading. Cognition, 96, B89–B100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, D. J. (2013). Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In S.-A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 9–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergmann, A., & Ito, K. (2007). Attachment of ambiguous RCs: A production study. Talk given at the 13th annual conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP), Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  7. Bergmann, A., & Ito, K. (2009). Production and comprehension of interpretation-driven versus input-driven speech. Poster presented at 22nd annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Bergmann, A., & Speer, S. R. (2007a). On priming by implicit prosody. Poster presented at the 20th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Bergmann, A., & Speer, S. R. (2007b). More on priming by implicit prosody. Poster presented at the 13th annual conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP), Turku, Finland.Google Scholar
  10. Bergmann, A., Ito, K., & Maday, K. (2008). Order effects in production and comprehension of prosodic boundaries. Talk given at TIE3: The third TIE conference on tone and intonation, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  11. Bock, J. K., & Mazzella, J. R. (1983). Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 11, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bolinger, D. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language, 37, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bolinger, D. (1986). Intonation and its parts. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  14. Breen, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2011). Stress matters: Effects of anticipated lexical stress on silent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Breen, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2013). Stress matters revisited: A display change experiment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(10), 1896–1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chafe, W. (1974). Language and consciousness. Language, 50, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and points of view. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–56). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernández, E. M., & Bradley, D. (1999). Length effects in the attachment of relative clauses in English. Poster presented at the 12th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 285–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. NELS, 32, 113–132.Google Scholar
  22. Foltz, A., Maday, K., & Ito, K. (2011). Order effects in production and comprehension of prosodic boundaries. In S. Frota, G. Elordieta, & P. Prieto (Eds.), Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension (pp. 39–68). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirose, Y. (1999). Resolving reanalysis ambiguity in Japanese relative clauses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Hirschberg, J. (2008). Pragmatics and intonation. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. Howell, P., & Kadi-Hanifi, K. (1991). Comparison of prosodic properties between read and spontaneous speech. Speech Communication, 10, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hwang, H., & Schafer, A. J. (2009). Constituent length affects prosody and processing for a dative NP ambiguity in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2006). Using interactive tasks to elicit natural dialogue. In P. Augurzky & D. Lenertova (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  28. Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 541–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446.Google Scholar
  30. Jun, S.-A. (2010). The implicit prosody hypothesis and overt prosody in English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 1201–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jun, S.-A., & Kim, S. (2004). Default phrasing and attachment preferences in Korean. Proceedings of INTERSPEECH-ICSLP, Jeju, Korea.Google Scholar
  32. Jun, S.-A., & Koike, C. (2003). Default prosody and RC attachment in Japanese. Talk given at the13th Japanese-Korean Linguistics Conference, Tucson, AZ. [Published in Japanese-Korean Linguistics 3, 41_53, CSLI, Stanford, in 2008].Google Scholar
  33. Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & Schafer, A. J. (2011). Situationally independent prosody. Laboratory Phonology, 2(1), 35–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Terken, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). Deaccentuation of words representing given information: Contributions of persistence of grammatical function and surface position. Language and Speech, 37, 125–145.Google Scholar
  37. Vasishth, S., Agnihotri, R. K., Fernández, E. M., & Bhatt, R. (2004). Noun modification preferences in Hindi. In The Proceedings of Seminar on Construction of Knowledge, Vidya Bhawan Education Resource Centre, Udaipur, India, pp. 160–171.Google Scholar
  38. Wijnen, F. (2004). The implicit prosody of jabberwocky and the relative clause attachment riddle. In H. Quené & V. van Heuven (Eds.), On speech and language. Studies for Sieb G. Nooteboom (pp. 169–178). Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoeksschool Taalwetenschap. (LOT Occasional Series 2).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.School of Linguistics and EnglishBangor University LanguageBangor, GwyneddUK

Personalised recommendations