Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T22:34:06.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic ambiguity resolution and the prosodic foot: Cross-language differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2006

CONRAD PERRY ,
MAN-KIT KAN ,
STEPHEN MATTHEWS  and
RICHARD KWOK-SHING WONG
CONRAD PERRY
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology
MAN-KIT KAN
Affiliation:
University of Hong Kong
STEPHEN MATTHEWS
Affiliation:
University of Hong Kong
RICHARD KWOK-SHING WONG
Affiliation:
Hong Kong Institute of Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study we examined syntactic ambiguity resolution in two different Chinese languages, Cantonese and Mandarin, which are relatively similar grammatically but very different phonologically. We did this using four-character sentences that could be read using two, two-syllable sequences (2-2) or a structure where the first syllable could be read by itself. The results showed that when both potential readings were semantically congruent, Mandarin speakers had a strong preference for the 2-2 structure and they preferred that structure much more than Cantonese speakers did. We attribute this to Mandarin having a more dominant bisyllabic prosodic foot than Cantonese. When the 2-2 meaning was semantically incongruent, however, the alternative structure was preferred by both Mandarin and Cantonese speakers. Overall, the results suggest that, in silent reading tasks and semantically neutral conditions, the prosodic foot is generated automatically and can affect syntactic choices when ambiguity arises.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 301 - 333
Copyright
2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Bates E., Chen S., Li P., Opie M., & Tzeng O.1993. Where is the boundary between compounds and phrases in Chinese? A reply to Zhou et al. Brain and Language, 45, 94– 107.Google Scholar
Bates E., Devescovo A., & D'Amico S.1999. Processing complex sentences: A cross linguistic study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 69– 123.Google Scholar
Bauer R. S., & Benedict P. K.1997. Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs(Vol. 102). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Boersma P., & Hayes B.2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 45– 86.Google Scholar
Boland J. E.1997. The relationships between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 423– 484.Google Scholar
Chao Y. R.1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Chen M. Y.2000. Tone sandhi: Patterns across Chinese dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng C.-C.1997. Measuring relationship among dialects: DOC and related resources. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 2, 41– 72.Google Scholar
Cohen M. A., & Grossberg S.1986. Neural dynamics of speech and language coding: Developmental programs, perceptual grouping, and competition for short-term memory. Human Neurobiology, 5, 1– 22.Google Scholar
Cuetos F., & Mitchell D. C.1988. Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73– 105.Google Scholar
Cuetos F., Mitchell D. V., & Corley M. M. B.1996. Parsing in different languages. In M. Cerreiras, J. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sebastian-Galles (Eds.), Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145– 187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duanmu S.2002. The phonology of standard Chinese. New York: Oxford University Press.
Duanmu S.2004. Left-headed feet and phrasal stress in Chinese. Cahiers de Linguistique–Asie Orientale, 33, 65– 103.Google Scholar
Feng S.2001. Prosodic structure and compound words in Classical Chinese. In J. Packard (Ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation: Morphology, phonology and the lexicon in modern and ancient Chinese (Vol. 1997, pp. 197– 260). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Feng S.2002. Lincom studies in Asian linguistics: Vol. 44. The prosodic syntax of Chinese. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Flynn C.2004. Intonation in Cantonese. Munich: Lincom.
Fodor J. D.1998. Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285– 319.Google Scholar
Fodor J. D.2002. Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 32. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
Frazier L.1979. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Hayes B.1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lu J. M.1997. On semantic directionality analysis [Guanyu yuyi zhixiang fengxi]. Forum on Chinese Linguistics [Zhongguo Yuyanxue Luncong], 1, 34– 48.Google Scholar
Ma Q. Z.1998. Categories in Chinese semantic grammar [Hanyu yuyi yufa fanzhou wenti]. Beijing: Beijing University of Language and Culture Press.
Matthews S., & Yip V.1994. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
McCarthy J., & Prince A.1993. Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction(Tech. Rep. RuCCS-TR-3). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science.
Packard J. L.2000. The morphology of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selkirk E.1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 563– 605.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel S., & Turk A. E.1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 193– 247.Google Scholar
Shih C.-L.1986. The prosodic domain of tone sandhi in Chinese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Smolensky P.2000. Grammar-based connectionist approaches to language. Cognitive Science, 23, 589– 613.Google Scholar
Trueswell J. C., Tanenhaus M. K., & Garnsey S. M.1994. Semantic influences on parsing: use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285– 318.Google Scholar
Wong W. Y. P., Chan M. K.-M., & Beckman M. E.2004. An autosegmental-metrical analysis and prosodic annotation conventions for Cantonese. In A. S. Jun (Ed.). Prosodic typology—The phonology of intonation and phrasing (pp. 271– 300). New York: Oxford University Press.
Xing F. Y.1995. The study of Chinese grammar [Hanyu yufaxue]. Changchun, China: North-East Normal University Press [Dongbei Shifan Daxue Chubanshe].
Xu T. Q.2000. On language [Yuyan lun]. Changchun, China: North-East Normal University Press [Dongbei Shifan Daxue Chubanshe].
Yip M.1993. Cantonese loanword phonology and optimality theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2, 261– 291.Google Scholar