Literature DB >> 11523275

Prosodic boundaries, comma rules, and brain responses: the closure positive shift in ERPs as a universal marker for prosodic phrasing in listeners and readers.

K Steinhauer1, A D Friederici.   

Abstract

Just as the false comma in this sentence, shows punctuation can influence sentence processing considerably. Pauses and other prosodic cues in spoken language serve the same function of structuring the sentence in smaller phrases. However, surprisingly little effort has been spent on the question as to whether both phenomena rest on the same mechanism and whether they are equally efficient in guiding parsing decisions. In a recent study, we showed that auditory speech boundaries evoke a specific positive shift in the listeners' event-related brain potentials (ERPs) that indicates the sentence segmentation and resulting changes in the understanding of the utterance (Steinhauer et al., 1999a). Here, we present three ERP reading experiments demonstrating that the human brain processes commas in a similar manner and that comma perception depends crucially on the reader's individual punctuation habits. Main results of the study are: (1) Commas can determine initial parsing as efficiently as speech boundaries because they trigger the same prosodic phrasing covertly, although phonological representations seem to be activated to a lesser extent. (2) Independent of the input modality, this phrasing is reflected online by the same ERP component, namely the Closure Positive Shift (CPS). (3) Both behavioral and ERP data suggest that comma processing varies with the readers' idiosyncratic punctuation habits. (4) A combined auditory and visual ERP experiment shows that the CPS is also elicited both by delexicalized prosody and while subjects replicate prosodic boundaries during silent reading. (5) A comma-induced reversed garden path turned out to be much more difficult than the classical garden path. Implications for psycholinguistic models and future ERP research are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11523275     DOI: 10.1023/a:1010443001646

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res        ISSN: 0090-6905


  26 in total

1.  Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension.

Authors:  A J Schafer; S R Speer; P Warren; S D White
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2000-03

2.  Lexical integration: sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information.

Authors:  A D Friederici; K Steinhauer; S Frisch
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1999-05

3.  Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words.

Authors:  C Van Petten; M Kutas
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1991-01

4.  Processing syntactic relations in language and music: an event-related potential study.

Authors:  A D Patel; E Gibson; J Ratner; M Besson; P J Holcomb
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Prosodic form and parsing commitments.

Authors:  S M Watt; W S Murray
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  1996-03

6.  Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses.

Authors:  A D Friederici; K Steinhauer; A Mecklinger; M Meyer
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.251

7.  Event-related brain potentials and case information in syntactic ambiguities.

Authors:  J M Hopf; J Bayer; M Bader; M Meng
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: an analysis with event-related potentials.

Authors:  A Mecklinger; H Schriefers; K Steinhauer; A D Friederici
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1995-07

9.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.

Authors:  M Kutas; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Science       Date:  1980-01-11       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: first-pass and second-pass parsing processes.

Authors:  A D Friederici; A Mecklinger
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  1996-01
View more
  33 in total

1.  An event-related fMRI study of syntactic and semantic violations.

Authors:  A J Newman; R Pancheva; K Ozawa; H J Neville; M T Ullman
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2001-05

2.  FMRI reveals brain regions mediating slow prosodic modulations in spoken sentences.

Authors:  Martin Meyer; Kai Alter; Angela D Friederici; Gabriele Lohmann; D Yves von Cramon
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  The pace of prosodic phrasing couples the listener's cortex to the reader's voice.

Authors:  Mathieu Bourguignon; Xavier De Tiège; Marc Op de Beeck; Noémie Ligot; Philippe Paquier; Patrick Van Bogaert; Serge Goldman; Riitta Hari; Veikko Jousmäki
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2012-01-03       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Perception of phrase structure in music.

Authors:  Thomas R Knösche; Christiane Neuhaus; Jens Haueisen; Kai Alter; Burkhard Maess; Otto W Witte; Angela D Friederici
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Response of anterior temporal cortex to syntactic and prosodic manipulations during sentence processing.

Authors:  Colin Humphries; Tracy Love; David Swinney; Gregory Hickok
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension.

Authors:  Thomas A Farmer; Morten H Christiansen; Padraic Monaghan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-08-01       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  The parser doesn't ignore intransitivity, after all.

Authors:  Adrian Staub
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Recognition of affective prosody in brain-damaged patients and healthy controls: a neurophysiological study using EEG and whole-head MEG.

Authors:  Boris Kotchoubey; Jochen Kaiser; Vladimir Bostanov; Werner Lutzenberger; Niels Birbaumer
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.282

9.  Effects of Lexical Variables on Silent Reading Comprehension in Individuals With Aphasia: Evidence From Eye Tracking.

Authors:  Gayle DeDe
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Pushed aside: Parentheticals, Memory and Processing.

Authors:  Brian Dillon; Charles Clifton; Lyn Frazier
Journal:  Lang Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.331

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.