CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/20212021062
CoDAS
Original Article

Are prosodic effects on sentence comprehension dependent on age?

Talita Fortunato-Tavares; Richard G. Schwartz; Claudia Regina Furquim de Andrade; Derek Houston; Klara Marton

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212021062 CoDAS, vol.35, n2, e20210062, 2023
PDF
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 714

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Purpose

to investigate prosodic boundary effects on the comprehension of attachment ambiguities in Brazilian Portuguese and to test two hypotheses relying on the notion of boundary strength: the absolute boundary hypothesis (ABH) and the relative boundary hypothesis (RBH). Manipulations of prosodic structure influence how listeners interpret syntactically ambiguous sentences. However, the role of prosody in spoken language comprehension of sentences has received limited attention in languages other than English, particularly from a developmental perspective.

Methods

Twenty-three adults and 15 children participated in a computerized sentence comprehension task involving syntactically ambiguous sentences. Each sentence was recorded in eight different prosodic forms with acoustic manipulations of F0, duration and pause varying the boundary size to reflect predictions of the ABH and RBH.

Results

Children and adults differed in how prosody influenced their syntactic processing and children were significantly slower than adults. Results indicated that interpretation of sentences varied according to their prosodic forms.

Conclusion

Neither the ABH or the RBH explained how children and adults who speak Brazilian Portuguese use prosodic boundaries to disambiguate sentences. There is evidence that the way prosodic boundaries influence disambiguation varies cross-linguistically.

Keywords

Child Language; Prosody; Syntax; Syntactic Ambiguity; Sentence Comprehension

Referencias

  1. Deniz ND, Fodor JD. Timing of syntactic and rhythmic effects on ambiguity resolution in turkish: a phoneme restoration study. Lang Speech. 2020;63(4):832-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0023830919894614 PMid:31868561.
  2. Carvalho A, Christophe A, Dautriche I, Lin I. Phrasal prosody constrains syntactic analysis in toddlers. Cognition. 2017;163:67-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.018 PMid:28288369.
  3. Kolberg L, de Carvalho A, Babineau M, Havron N, Fiévet A-C, Abaurre B, et al. “The tiger is hitting! the duck too!” 3-year-olds can use prosodic information to constrain their interpretation of ellipsis. Cognition. 2021;213:104626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104626 PMid:33593594.
  4. Caccia M, Lorusso ML. When prosody meets syntax: the processing of the syntax-prosody interface in children with developmental dyslexia and developmental language disorder. Lingua. 2019;224:16-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.03.008
  5. Dinçtopal Deniz N, Fodor JD. Phrase lengths and the perceived informativeness of prosodic cues in Turkish. Lang Speech. 2017;60(4):505-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0023830916665653 PMid:29216811.
  6. Watson D, Gibson E. Intonational phrasing and constituency in language production and comprehension. Stud Linguist. 2005;59(2–3):279-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2005.00130.x
  7. Clifton C Jr, Carlson K, Frazier L. Informative prosodic boundaries. Lang Speech. 2002;45(2):87-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00238309020450020101 PMid:12613557.
  8. Carlson K, Clifton C Jr, Frazier L. Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. J Mem Lang. 2001;45(1):58-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2762
  9. Beckman ME, Hirschberg J. The ToBI annotation conventions. Ohio: Ohio State University; 1994.
  10. Snedeker J, Casserly E. Is it all relative? Effects of prosodic boundaries on the comprehension and production of attachment ambiguities. Lang Cogn Process. 2010;25(7-9):1234-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960903525499
  11. Mitterer H, Kim S, Cho T. The role of segmental information in syntactic processing through the syntax–prosody interface. Lang Speech. 2021;64(4):962-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0023830920974401 PMid:33307954.
  12. Diehl JJ, Friedberg C, Paul R, Snedeker J. The use of prosody during syntactic processing in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Dev Psychopathol. 2015;27(3):867-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414000741 PMid:25156911.
  13. Choi Y, Trueswell JC. Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: evidence for developing control in sentence processing. J Exp Child Psychol. 2010;106(1):41-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003 PMid:20163806.
  14. Snedeker J, Trueswell J. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: effects of speaker awareness and referential context. J Mem Lang. 2003;48(1):103-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00519-3
  15. Monnin P, Grosjean F. Les structures de performance en français: caractérisation et prédiction. Annee Psychol. 1993;93(1):9-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/psy.1993.28679
  16. Magalhães J, Maia M. Pistas prosódicas implícitas na resolução de ambigüidades sintáticas: um caso de adjunção de atributos. Rev ABRALIN. 2017;5(1-2):143-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/rabl.v5i1/2.52642
  17. Fodor JD. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In: NELS 32: Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society; 2002; Amherst, MA. Proceedings. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts; 2002.
  18. Snedeker J, Yuan S. Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults). J Mem Lang. 2008;58(2):574-608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.08.001 PMid:19190721.
  19. Fortunato-Tavares T, Schwartz R, Marton K, de Andrade C, Houston D. Prosodic boundary effects on syntactic disambiguation in children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res Online. 2018;61(5):1188-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0036 PMid:29800355.
  20. ABEP: Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa. Critério Brasil [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 11]. Available from: http://www.abep.org/criterio-brasil
  21. Andrade CRF, Lopes DMB, Fernandes FDM, Wertzner HF. ABFW: teste de linguagem infantil nas áreas de fonologia, vocabulário, fluência e pragmática. Barueri: Pró-Fono; 2011.
  22. Brown L, Sherbenou RJ, Johnsen SK. TONI4 Test of Nonverbal Intelligence Fourth Edition [Internet]. Austin: PRO-ED; 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 11]. Available from: https://www.proedinc.com/Products/13410/toni4-test-of-nonverbal-intelligencefourth-edition.aspx
  23. Fortunato-Tavares T, Andrade CRF, Befi-Lopes D, Limongi SO, Fernandes FDM, Schwartz RG. Syntactic comprehension and working memory in children with specific language impairment, autism or Down syndrome. Clin Linguist Phon. 2015;29(7):499-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2015.1027831 PMid:25901467.
  24. Fortunato-Tavares T, Andrade CRF, Befi-Lopes DM, Hestvik A, Epstein B, Tornyova L, et al. Syntactic structural assignment in Brazilian Portuguese-Speaking Children with specific language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(4):1097-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0215) PMid:22232402.
  25. Fortunato-Tavares T, Howell P, Schwartz RG, Andrade CRF. Children who stutter exchange linguistic accuracy for processing speed in sentence comprehension. Appl Psycholinguist. 2017;38(2):263-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000187
  26. Schafer A, Carlson K, Clifton H Jr, Frazier L. Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: disambiguating embedded questions. Lang Speech. 2000;43(1):75-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00238309000430010301
  27. Frazier L, Carlson K, Clifton C Jr. Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;10(6):244-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.002 PMid:16651019.
  28. Shepherdson P, Oberauer K. Pruning representations in a distributed model of working memory: a mechanism for refreshing and removal? Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1424(1):221-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13659 PMid:29683491.
  29. Kail R, Park Y-S. Processing time, articulation time, and memory span. J Exp Child Psychol. 1994;57(2):281-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1994.1013 PMid:8169582.
  30. Huang YT, Hollister E. Developmental parsing and linguistic knowledge: reexamining the role of cognitive control in the kindergarten path effect. J Exp Child Psychol. 2019;184:210-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.005 PMid:31040025.
     
64077a22a95395593a7361c3 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Electrónico)
CoDAS ©2024 Todos los derechos reservados.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections