↓ Skip to main content

Searching High and Low: Prosodic Breaks Disambiguate Relative Clauses

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Searching High and Low: Prosodic Breaks Disambiguate Relative Clauses
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00096
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren A. Fromont, Salvador Soto-Faraco, Emmanuel Biau

Abstract

During natural speech perception, listeners rely on a wide range of cues to support comprehension, from semantic context to prosodic information. There is a general consensus that prosody plays a role in syntactic parsing, but most studies focusing on ambiguous relative clauses (RC) show that prosodic cues, alone, are insufficient to reverse the preferred interpretation of sentence. These findings suggest that universally preferred structures (e.g., Late Closure principle) matter far more than prosodic cues in such cases. This study explores an alternative hypothesis: that the weak effect of prosody might be due to the influence of various syntactic, lexical-semantic, and acoustic confounding factors, and investigate the consequences of prosodic breaks while controlling these variables. We used Spanish RC sentences in three experimental conditions where the presence and position (following the first or second noun phrase) of prosodic breaks was manipulated. The results showed that the placement of a prosodic break determined sentence interpretation by changing the preferred attachment of the RC. Listeners' natural preference for low attachment (in the absence of break) was reinforced when a prosodic break was placed after the first noun. In contrast, a prosodic break placed after the second noun reversed the preferred interpretation of the sentence, toward high attachment. We argue that, in addition to other factors, listeners indeed use prosodic breaks as robust cues to syntactic parsing during speech processing, as these cues may direct listeners toward one interpretation or another.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Lecturer 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 8 20%
Psychology 8 20%
Arts and Humanities 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,695,859
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#19,286
of 31,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,690
of 422,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#331
of 457 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 457 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.