Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Dec 15:7:1922.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01922. eCollection 2016.

Implicit Prosody and Cue-based Retrieval: L1 and L2 Agreement and Comprehension during Reading

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Implicit Prosody and Cue-based Retrieval: L1 and L2 Agreement and Comprehension during Reading

Elizabeth Pratt et al. Front Psychol. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

This project focuses on structural and prosodic effects during reading, examining their influence on agreement processing and comprehension in native English (L1) and Spanish-English bilingual (L2) speakers. We consolidate research from several distinct areas of inquiry-cognitive processing, reading fluency, and L1/L2 processing-in order to support the integration of prosody with a cue-based retrieval mechanism for subject-verb agreement. To explore this proposal, the experimental design manipulated text presentation to influence implicit prosody, using sentences designed to induce subject-verb agreement attraction errors. Materials included simple and complex relative clauses with head nouns and verbs that were either matched or mismatched for number. Participants read items in one of three presentation formats (whole sentence, word-by-word, or phrase-by-phrase), rated each item for grammaticality, and responded to a comprehension probe. Results indicated that while overall, message comprehension was prioritized over subject-verb agreement computation, presentation format differentially affected both measures in the L1 and L2 groups. For the L1 participants, facilitating the projection of phrasal prosody onto text (phrase-by-phrase presentation) enhanced performance in agreement processing, while disrupting prosodic projection via word-by-word presentation decreased comprehension accuracy. For the L2 participants, however, phrase-by-phrase presentation was not significantly beneficial for agreement processing, and additionally resulted in lower comprehension accuracy. These differences point to a significant role of prosodic phrasing during agreement processing in both L1 and L2 speakers, additionally suggesting that it may contribute to a cue-based retrieval agreement model, either acting as a cue directly, or otherwise scaffolding the retrieval process. The discussion and results presented provide support both for a cue-based retrieval mechanism in agreement, and the function of prosody within such a mechanism, adding further insight into the interaction of retrieval processes, cognitive task load, and the role of implicit prosody.

Keywords: L2 reading; agreement; comprehension; cue-based retrieval; implicit prosody; prosody.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Mean grammaticality ratings (1 = “very bad,” 6 = “perfect”) for participant groups (L1, Top; L2, Bottom) for simple and complex materials, as a function of presentation format (SENTENCE, WORD, PHRASE). Error bars are participant-based standard errors.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Mean comprehension accuracy (% correct) for participant groups (L1, Top; L2, Bottom) for simple and complex materials, for each presentation format (SENTENCE, WORD, PHRASE) as a function of comprehension target (Relative Clause, Other). Error bars are participant-based standard errors.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abney S. P., Johnson M. (1991). Memory requirements and local ambiguities of parsing strategies. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 20 233–250. 10.1007/BF01067217 - DOI
    1. Badecker W., Kuminiak F. (2007). Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: evidence from gender and case in Slovak. J. Mem. Lang. 56 65–85. 10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.004 - DOI
    1. Badecker W., Lewis R. L. (2007). “A new theory and computational model of working memory in sentence production: agreement errors as failures of cue-based retrieval,” in Paper Presented at the 20th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference (La Jolla, CA: University of California at San Diego; ).
    1. Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., Tily H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. 68 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bock K., Cutting J. C. (1992). Regulating mental energy: performance units in language production. J. Mem. Lang. 31 99–127. 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90007-K - DOI

LinkOut - more resources