Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityA H*-specified suffix such as –ar in lekar‘games’ would hence be expected to producean ungrammatical word if combined with astem associated with a clashing L*. The wordwould have to be reprocessed, which would bereflected in a P600 effect. No such effect wouldbe expected for suffixes that usually co-occurwith Accent 1, such as –en in leken ‘the game’,since they are assumed to be unspecified forword accent.Roll et al. (2009c) found the expected dissociationwhen they compared 160 sentencescontaining words with either the H*-specifiedsuffix –ar or the unspecified suffix –en, andstems phonetically associated with a H* or aL*, obtained by cross-splicing. The effectswere compared with another 160 sentencescontaining words involving declension errors,such as lekor or leket, which have 1 st and 5 thdeclension instead of 2 nd declension suffixes,and therefore yield a clash between the lexicalspecification of the suffix and the stem. Theresults were similar for declension mismatchingwords and words with a H*-specifying suffixinaccurately assigned an Accent 1 L* (Figure5). In both cases, the mismatching suffix gaverise to a P600 effect at 450 to 900 ms that wasstronger in the case of declension-mismatchingsuffixes. The combination of the lexically unspecifiedsingular suffix –en and a H* did notyield any P600 effect, since there was no specification-mismatch,although –en usually cooccurswith Accent 1.Figure 5. ERPs for the Accent 2-specifying pluralsuffix –ar (L*PL), the word accent-unspecifieddefinite singular suffix –en (L*SG), as well the inappropriatelydeclining –or (L*DECL) and –et(L*NEU), combined with a stem associated withAccent 1 L*. The clash of the H*-specification of –ar with the L* of the stem produced a P600 similarto that of the declension errors at 450–900 ms.The study showed that a lexicalized prosodicfeature has similar effects on morphologicalprocessing as other lexicalized morphologicalfeatures such as those related to declensionmarking.Summary and conclusionsIn the present contribution, two prosodic featureswith different degrees of grammaticalizationand their influence on language processinghave been discussed. It was suggested that aSwedish left-edge boundary tone has arisenfrom the grammaticalization of the physicalconditions on speech production represented byGussenhoven’s (2002) Production Code.Probably stemming from a rise naturally associatedwith the beginning of phrases, the tonehas become associated with the syntactic structurethat is most common in spoken languageand most expected at the beginning of an utterance,namely the main clause. The tone has alsobeen assigned a specific location, the last syllableof the first prosodic word. When hearingthe tone, speakers thus increase the activationof main clause structure.However, the tone does not seem to be fullygrammaticalized, i.e. it does not seem to beable to override syntactic cues to subordinationin situations where both main and subordinateembedded clauses occur. Even when hearingthe tone, speakers seem to be nevertheless biasedtowards subordinate clause structure afterhearing the subordinate conjunction att ‘that’and a sentence adverb in preverbal position inthe embedded clause. However, embeddedmain clauses are easier to process in the contextof a left-edge boundary tone. Thus we can assumethat the H tone activates main clausestructure. Further, the boundary tone influencedacceptability judgments, but only in the absenceof word order variation in the test sentences.The combination of syntactic cues suchas the conjunction att and subordinate word order(S–SAdv–V) thus appears to constitute decisivecues to clause structure and cancel outthe potential influence the initial H could havehad in reprocessing an embedded clause as amain clause.A fully grammaticalized prosodic featurewas also discussed, Swedish Accent 2, whoseassociation with the stem is accounted for by aH* lexically specified for certain suffixes, e.g.plural –ar (Riad, in press). When the H*-specification of the suffix clashed with a L*70
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universityinappropriately associated with the stem in thetest words, the words were reprocessed, as reflectedin a P600 effect in the ERPs. Significantlylower acceptability judgments confirmedthat the effect was due to the ungrammaticalform of these test words. Similar effects wereobtained for declension errors.The results reviewed in this paper indicatethat prosodic features with a low degree ofgrammaticalization can nevertheless influenceprocessing of speech by e.g. increasing the activationof a particular syntactic structure without,however, inhibiting the activation of parallelcompeting structures. The studies involvingthe semi-grammaticalized left-edge boundarytone show clearly how prosodic cues interactwith syntactic cues in the processing of differentkinds of clauses. In the processing of subordinateembedded clauses, syntactic cues wereseen to override and cancel out the potentialinfluence of the prosodic cue (H boundarytone). In embedded main clauses, however, theprosodic cue facilitated the processing of wordorder. In contrast to these results related to theleft-edge boundary tone, the findings from thestudy on word accent processing show how thiskind of prosodic parameter has a much differentstatus as regards its degree of grammaticalization.The Swedish word accent 2 was seen toaffect morphological processing in a way similarto other morphological features, such as declensionclass, and can therefore be regarded asfully lexicalized.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by grant 421-2007-1759 from the Swedish Research Council.ReferencesGennari, M. and MacDonald, M. C. (2008)Semantic indeterminacy of object relativeclauses. Journal of Memory and Language58, 161–187.Gussenhoven, C. (2002) Intonation and interpretation:Phonetics and phonology. InSpeech Prosody 2002, 47–57.Horne, M. (1994) Generating prosodic structurefor synthesis of Swedish intonation. WorkingPapers (Dept. of Linguistics, LundUniversity) 43, 72–75.Horne, M., Hansson, P., Bruce, G. Frid, J.(2001) Accent patterning on domain-relatedinformation in Swedish travel dialogues. InternationalJournal of Speech Technology 4,93–102.Lück, M., Hahne, A., and Clahsen, H. (2006)Brain potentials to morphologically complexwords during listening. Brain Research1077(1), 144–152.Ohala, J. J. (1993) The phonetics of soundchange. In Jones C. (ed.) Historical linguistics:Problems and perspectives, 237–278.New York: Longman.Osterhout, L. and Holcomb, P. J. (1992) Eventrelatedbrain potentials elicited by syntacticanomaly. Journal of Memory and Language31, 785–806.Riad, T. (1998) The origin of Scandinaviantone accents. Diachronica 15(1), 63–98.Riad, T. (in press) The morphological status ofaccent 2 in North Germanic simplex forms.In Proceedings from Nordic Prosody X,Helsinki.Rischel, J. (1963) Morphemic tone and wordtone i Eastern Norwegian. Phonetica 10,154–164.Roll, M. (2006) Prosodic cues to the syntacticstructure of subordinate clauses in Swedish.In Bruce, G. and Horne, M. (eds.) Nordicprosody: Proceedings of the IXth conference,Lund 2004, 195–204. Frankfurt amMain: Peter Lang.Roll, M., Horne, M., and Lindgren, M. (2009a)Left-edge boundary tone and main clauseverb effects on embedded clauses—An ERPstudy. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22(1), 55-73.Roll, M., Horne, M., and Lindgren, M. (2009b)Activating without inhibiting: Effects of anon-grammaticalized prosodic feature onsyntactic processing. Submitted.Roll, M., Horne, M., and Lindgren, M. (2009c)Effects of prosody on morphological processing.Submitted.71
Page 1 and 2:
Department of LinguisticsProceeding
Page 3 and 4:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 41 and 42: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 69: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227:
Department of LinguisticsPhonetics
show all

Proceedings Fonetik 2009 - Institutionen för lingvistik

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?