Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prosodic Boundaries, Comma Rules, and Brain Responses: The Closure Positive Shift in ERPs as a Universal Marker for Prosodic Phrasing in Listeners and Readers

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Allbritton, D. W., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 22, 714–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter, K., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1998). De-accentuation: linguistic environments and prosodic realizations. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, (Vol. 3) (pp. 551–554). Canberra: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association (ASSTA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M. (1994). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Stuttgart, Germany.

  • Bader, M. (1998). Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. In J. D. Feder and F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence Processing (pp. 1–46). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board compariso. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, R. S., & Coady, J. M. (1978). Psycholinguistic approaches to a theory of punctuation, Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 363–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, S., & Pell, M. (1999). The neural basis of speech prosody: Insights from lesion studies and neuroimaging. Aphasiology, 13, 581–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, C. M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 644–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, M. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergien, A. (1994). On the historical background of English punctuation. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 48, 243–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhme, G. (1995). Ist die Dudenregelung zur Interpunktion amtlich? Zur Geschichte der amtlichen Grundlagen der Zeichensetzung, Sprachwissenschaft, 20, 323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1978). Difficulties in auditory organization as a possible cause of reading backwardness, Nature London, 271, 746–747.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2000). The Interaction of prosodic, syntactic and semantic information during spoken sentence understanding: An electrophysiological investigation. Paper presented at the 13th Annual meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruthiaux, P. (1993). Knowing when to stop: Investigating the nature of punctuation. Language and Communication, 13, 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe, W. (1988). Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication, 5, 396–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chwilla, D. J., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1995). The N400 as a function of the level of processing. Psychophysiology, 32, 274–285.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W. E., & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980). Syntax and Speech. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40, 141–201.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donchin, E., & Coles, M. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudenredaktion. (1973/1996). Der Grosse Duden: Rechtsschreibung. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (1991) Recovery from misanalyses of garden path sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 725–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. (1978). Doctoral Dissertation. University of Connecticut.

  • Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII. (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50, 259–281.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb-argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First-pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157–176.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 305–323.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Frisch, S. (1999). Lexical integration: Sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Memory and Cognition, 27, 438–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., & Meyer, M. (1998). Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biological Psychology, 47, 193–221.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gandour, J. (2000) Frontiers of brain mapping of speech prosody. Brain and Language,71, 75–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gorrell, P. (1995). syntax and parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunter, T. C., Stowe, L. A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660–676.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERPmeasure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8,439–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. L. (1996). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Dundee, Scotland.

  • Hill, R. L., & Murray, W. S. (1997). Poster presented at the 10th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Santa Monica, California.

  • Hill, R. L., & Murray, W. S. (1998). Poster presented at the 11th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

  • Hopf, J.-M., Bayer, J., Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1998). Event-related brain potentials and case information in syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 264–280.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hruska, C., Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Steube, A. (2000). ERP effects of sentence accents and violations of the information structure. Poster presented at the 13th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, La Jolla, California.

  • Johnson, R. Jr. (1993). On the neural generators of the P300 component of the event-related potential. Psychophysiology,30, 90–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kjelgaard, M. M., & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potential reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes,9, 157–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. S., Tyler, L. K., Warren, P., Genier, P., & Lee, C. S. (1992). Prosodic effects in minimal attachment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition, 23, 477–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng, M., & Bader, M. (in press a). The role of syntactic features in syntactic ambiguity resolution. In M. DeVincenzi & V. Lombardo (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms of language processing in a multilingual perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

  • Meng, M., & Bader, M. (in press b). Mode of disambiguation and garden path strength: An investigation of subject-object ambiguities in German. Language and Speech.

  • Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Reading and syntactic analysis. In J. R. Beech & A. M. (Eds.), Colley cognitive approaches to reading (pp. 87–112). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D. C., & Holmes, V. M. (1985). The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 542–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S. H. (1986). Use of punctuation for pausing: Oral readings by German radio homilists. Psychological Research, 48, 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield, R. C. (1975). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterhout, L., & Hagoort, P. (1999). A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean you are part of the family: Counterarguments to Coulson, King and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, K. E., & Coltheart, V. (1987). Phonological processes in reading: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 209–214). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, A. D., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (1998). Processing syntactic relations in language and music: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 717–733.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (1994). Psycholinguistics and reading ability. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 849–894). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pynte, J., & Prieur, B. (1996). Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 165–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, E. D. (1997). The aprosodias. In T. E. Feinberg & M. J. Farah (Eds.), Behavioral Neurology and Neuropsychology (pp. 699–704). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, A. (1997). Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P., & White, S. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 169–182.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the selfteaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95–129.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, K., Beckman, M., Pitrelli, J., Ostendorf, M., wightman, C., Price, P., Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1992). ToBI: a standard for labeling English prosody. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Banff, 12–16 October.

  • Sonntag, G. P., & Portele, T. (1998). PURR-A method for prosody evaluation and investigation. Computer Speech and Language, 12, 437–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. R., Kjelgaard, M. M., & Dobbroth, K. M. (1996). The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 247–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1998). Don't blame it (all) on the pause: Further ERP evidence for a prosody-induced garden path in running speech. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Vol. 5, (pp. 2187–2190). Canberra: Australian Speech Science and Technology Association (ASSTA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999a). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 191–196.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999b). Written prosodic boundaries? Poster presented at the 12th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.

  • Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., Friederici, A. D., & Meyer, M. (1997). Probability and strategy: An ERP study on the processing of syntactic anomalies. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 44, 305–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeter, L. A. (1978). Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary location. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 1582–1592.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tecce, J. J., & Cattanach, L. (1987). Contingent negative variation (CNV), In E. Niedermeyer, & F. Lopes da Silva (Eds.), Electro-Encephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications and related fields (pp. 658–679). Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Petten, C., & Bloom, P. (1999). Speech boundaries, syntax and the brain. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 103–104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open-and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19, 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, P. (1999). Prosody and language processing. In S. Garrod & M. Pickering, (Eds.) Language processing (pp. 155–188). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, P., Grabe, E., & Nolan, F. (1995). Prosody, phonology, and parsing in closure ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 457–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, S. M., & Murray, W. S. (1996). Prosodic form and parsing commitment. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 291–318.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brain and Language Lab, Department of Neuroscience, Georgetown University, 3900 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington DC, 20007

    Karsten Steinhauer

  2. Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Postfach 500 355, D-04303, Leipzig, Germany

    Angela D. Friederici

Authors
  1. Karsten Steinhauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela D. Friederici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Steinhauer, K., Friederici, A.D. Prosodic Boundaries, Comma Rules, and Brain Responses: The Closure Positive Shift in ERPs as a Universal Marker for Prosodic Phrasing in Listeners and Readers. J Psycholinguist Res 30, 267–295 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010443001646

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010443001646

Search

Navigation