Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:44:00.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-linguistic differences in prosodic cues to syntactic disambiguation in German and English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2012

MARY GRANTHAM O'BRIEN ,
CARRIE N. JACKSON  and
CHRISTINE E. GARDNER
MARY GRANTHAM O'BRIEN*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
CARRIE N. JACKSON
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
CHRISTINE E. GARDNER
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
*
Mary Grantham O'Brien, Department of Germanic, Slavic and East Asian Studies, University of Calgary, C208 Craigie Hall, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada. E-mail: mgobrien@ucalgary.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined whether late-learning English–German second language (L2) learners and late-learning German–English L2 learners use prosodic cues to disambiguate temporarily ambiguous first language and L2 sentences during speech production. Experiments 1a and 1b showed that English–German L2 learners and German–English L2 learners used a pitch rise and pitch accent to disambiguate PP-attachment sentences in German. However, the same participants, as well as monolingual English speakers, only used pitch accent to disambiguate similar English sentences. Taken together, these results indicate the L2 learners used prosody to disambiguate sentences in both of their languages and did not fully transfer cues to disambiguation from their first language to their L2. The results have implications for the acquisition of L2 prosody and the interaction between prosody and meaning in L2 production.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 27 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albritton, D. W., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 714–735.Google Scholar
Atterer, M., & Ladd, D. R. (2004). On the phonetics and phonology of “segmental anchoring” of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, A. S. (2007). The form, function and distribution of high rising intonation in Southern Californian and Southern British English. PhD dissertation, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Beach, C. M., Katz, W. F., & Skowronski, A. (1996). Children's processing of prosodic cues for phrasal interpretation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 1148–1160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckman, M. E., & Hirschberg, J. (1994). The ToBI annotation conventions. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi/annotation_conventions.htmlGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2009). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 5.1.21) [Computer program]. Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Braun, B. (2006). Phonetics and phonology of thematic contrast in German. Language and Speech, 49, 451–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, W. E., & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2000). Quantitative assessment of second language learners’ fluency by means of automatic speech recognition technology. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 989–999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutler, A. (2009). Greater sensitivity to prosodic goodness in nonnative than in native listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3522–2525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daly, N., & Warren, P. (2001). Pitching it differently in New Zealand English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H., & Wempe, T. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 385–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dekydtspotter, L., Donaldson, B., Edmonds, A. C., Fultz, A. L., & Petrusch, R. A. (2008). Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English–French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 453–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., Thomson, R. I., & Rossiter, M. J. (2009). The relationship between L1 fluency and L2 fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2004). Second language fluency: Judgments on different tasks. Language Learning, 54, 655–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, P. (2008). Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, P., Benders, T., & Lipski, S. C. (2009). Native, nonnative, and L2 perceptual cue weighting for Dutch vowels: The case of Dutch, German, and Spanish listeners. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 452–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, E. (2005). The prosody produced by Spanish–English bilinguals: A preliminary investigation and implications for sentence processing. Revista da ABRALIN, 4, 109–141.Google Scholar
Féry, C. (2005). Laute und leise Prosodie [Loud and quiet prosody]. In Blüdhorn, H. (Ed.), Institut für deutsche Sprache Jahrbuch 2005 (pp. 164–183). Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Bohn, O.-S., & Jang, S. (1997). Effects of perception on nonnative speakers’ production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 437–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fultz, A. (2007). Prosody in syntactic ambiguation in English–French interlanguage. In Chan, H., Jacob, H., & Kapia, E. (Eds.), BUCLD: Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 32, pp. 394–405). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Goethe-Institut. (2004). Einstufungstest [Placement test]. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from http://www.goethe.de/cgi-bin/einstufungstest/einstufungstest.plGoogle Scholar
Grosser, W. (1997). On the acquisition of tonal and accentual features of English by Austrian learners. In James, A. & Leather, J. (Eds.), Second language speech: Structure and process (pp. 211–228). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, U. (2003). Prosody in second language speech production: The role of the native language. Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen, 32, 133–151.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Nonnative speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasselgren, A. (2002). Learner corpora and language testing. In Granger, S., Hung, J., & Petch-Tyson, S. (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 143–173). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoffman, L., & Rovine, M. J. (2007). Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist: Foundations and illustrative examples. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoyte, K. J., Brownell, H., & Wingfield, A. (2009). Components of speech prosody and their use in detection of syntactic structure by older adults. Experimental Aging Research, 35, 129–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, F. T. (2008). Categorical data analyses: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 387–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jilka, M. (2000). The contribution of intonation to the perception of foreign accent: Identifying intonational deviations by means of F0 generation and resynthesis. Arbeitspapiere des Instituts für Maschinelle Sprachchverarbeitung, 6 (3), n.p.Google Scholar
Jilka, M. (2007). Different manifestations and perceptions of foreign accent in intonation. In Trouvain, J. & Gut, U. (Eds.). Nonnative prosody: Phonetic description and teaching practice (pp. 77–96). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, S., & Speer, S. (2005). Effects of prosodic boundaries on syntactic disambiguation. Studia Linguistica, 59, 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. S., & Kim, S.-H. (2001). Remarks on Korean speaker's realization of English intonation: Focusing on declarative sentences. Journal of the Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 5, 187–207.Google Scholar
Kjelgaard, M. M., & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing: Evidence from German. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraljic, T., & Brennen, S. E. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology, 50, 194–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreft, I. G.G., de Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. S. (2007). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehiste, I., Olive, J. P., & Streeter, L. A. (1976). The role of duration in disambiguation in disambiguating syntactically ambiguous sentences. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60, 1199–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1998). Systemic constraints and adaptive change in the formation of sound structure. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Knight, C. (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases (pp. 242–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lingel, S., Pappert, S., & Pechman, T. (2006). The prosody of German pp-attachment ambiguities: Evidence from production and perception. Poster presented at the 12th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP), Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Lingel, S., Scheepers, C., Mohr, S., & Pechmann, T. (2007). The influence of prosody and verb placement on resolving global PP-attachment ambiguities in German: A visual-world study. Poster presented at the 20th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
Mennen, I. (2004). Bi-directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speakers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics, 32, 543–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mennen, I. (2007). Phonological and phonetic influences in nonnative intonation. In Trouvain, J. & Gut, U. (Eds.), Nonnative prosody: Phonetic description and teaching practice (pp. 53–76). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. (1995). Nonsegmental factors in foreign accent: Rating of foreign speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1994). Evaluations of foreign accent in extemporaneous and read material. Language Testing, 11, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Oxford University Press. (2009). Oxford Online Placement Test. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from www.oxfordenglishtesting.comGoogle Scholar
Pennington, M. C., & Ellis, N. E. (2000). Cantonese speakers’ memory for English sentences with prosodic cues. Modern Language Journal, 84, 372–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. (2006). Intonation deutscher Regionalsprachen [Intonation of German regional languages]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, T., & Cansin, D. (1988). Factors influencing the foreign accent. Canadian Modern Language Review, 44, 334–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, P. J, Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 90, 2956–2970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pynte, J., & Prieur, B. (1996). Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 165–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binominal data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Ramírez Verdugo, D. (2002). Nonnative interlanguage intonation systems: A study based on a computerized corpus of Spanish learners of English. ICAME Journal, 26, 115–132.Google Scholar
Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, S. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguationin in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 169–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 Tanenhaus, M. & Trueswell, J. (Eds.), Approaches to studying world situated language use: Psycholinguistic, linguistic and computational perspectives on bridging the product and action tradition (pp. 209–226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1982). Duration as a cue to the perception of a phrase boundary. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71, 996–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scuffil, M. (1982). Experiments in comparative intonation: A case study of English and German. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (2005). Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Frota, S., Vigario, M., and Freitas, J. (Eds.), Prosodies: With special reference to Iberian languages (pp. 11–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedeker, J., & Yuan, S. (2008). Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults). Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 574–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soderstrom, M., Seidl, A., Kemler Nelson, D. G., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2003). The prosodic bootstrapping of phrases: Evidence from prelinguistic infants. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition, 55, 227–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Straub, K. A. (1997). The production of prosodic cues and their role in the comprehension of syntactically ambiguous sentences. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Streeter, L. (1978). Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 1582–1592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temple, L. (2000). Second language learner speech production. Studia Linguistica, 54, 288–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, M. D., & Cutler, A. (2009). Cross-language differences in cues for speech segmentation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 367–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, D., Breen, M., & Gibson, E. (2006). The role of syntactic obligatoriness in the production of intonational boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1045–1056.Google ScholarPubMed
Watson, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Intonational phrasing and constituency in language production and comprehension. Studia Linguistica, 59, 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2006). First-language phonotactics in second-language listening. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 597–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wennerstrom, A. (1994). Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of nonnative speakers. Applied Linguistics, 15, 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar