Is It All Relative? Effects of Prosodic Boundaries on the Comprehension and Production of Attachment Ambiguities

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Is It All Relative? Effects of Prosodic Boundaries on the Comprehension and Production of Attachment Ambiguities

Citable link to this page

. . . . . .

Title: Is It All Relative? Effects of Prosodic Boundaries on the Comprehension and Production of Attachment Ambiguities
Author: Snedeker, Jesse; Casserly, Elizabeth

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Snedeker, Jesse, and Elizabeth Casserly. 2010. Is it all relative? Effects of prosodic boundaries on the comprehension and production of attachment ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7-9): 1234-1264.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: While there is ample evidence that prosody and syntax mutually constrain each other, there is considerable uncertainty about the nature of this interface. Here, we explore this issue with prepositional phrase attachment ambiguities (You can \(feel_A\) the \(cat_B\) with the feather). Prior research has been motivated by two hypotheses: (1) the absolute boundary hypothesis (ABH) posits that attachment preferences depend on the size of the prosodic boundary before the ambiguous phrase (boundary B) and (2) the relative boundary hypothesis (RBH) links attachment to the relative size of boundary B and any boundary between the high and low attachment site (boundary A). However, few experiments test the unique predictions of either theory. Study 1 examines how syntax influences prosodic production. The results provide modest support for RBH and stronger support for ABH. In Study 2, we systematically vary the size of both boundaries in an offline comprehension task. We find that absolute boundary strength influences interpretation when relative boundary strength is held constant, and relative boundary strength influences interpretation when absolute boundary strength is held constant. Thus, our theory of the prosody syntax interface must account for effects of both kinds.
Published Version: doi:10.1080/01690960903525499
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#OAP
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9978128

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • FAS Scholarly Articles [6463]
    Peer reviewed scholarly articles from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University
 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters