Publications

Abstract

Contrastive pitch accents can mark sentence elements occupying parallel roles. In “Mary kissed John, not Peter”, a pitch accent on Mary or John cues the implied syntactic role of Peter. Van der Burght, Friederici, Goucha, and Hartwigsen (2021) showed that listeners can build expectations concerning syntactic and semantic properties of upcoming words, derived from pitch accent information they heard previously. To further explore these expectations, we attempted a partial replication of the original German study in Dutch. In the experimental sentences “Yesterday, the police officer arrested the thief, not the inspector/murderer”, a pitch accent on subject or object cued the subject/object role of the ellipsis clause. Contrasting elements were additionally cued by the thematic role typicality of the nouns. Participants listened to sentences in which the ellipsis clause was omitted and selected the most plausible sentence-final noun (presented visually) via button press. Replicating the original study results, listeners based their sentence-final preference on the pitch accent information available in the sentence. However, as in the original study, individual differences between listeners were found, with some following prosodic information and others relying on a structural bias. The results complement the literature on ellipsis resolution and on interindividual variability in cue weighting.

Abstract

Using a novel version of the picture-word interference paradigm, Momma, Buffinton, Slevc, and Phillips (2020, Cognition) showed that word class constrained which words competed with each other for lexical selection. Specifically, in speakers of American English, action verbs (as in she’s singing) competed with semantically related action verbs (as in she’s whistling), but not with semantically related action nouns (as in her whistling). Similarly, action nouns only competed with semantically related action nouns, but not with action verbs. As this pattern has important implications for models of lexical access and sentence generation, we conducted a conceptual replication in Dutch. We found a semantic interference effect, however, contrary to the original study, no evidence for a word class constraint. Together, the results of the two studies argue for graded rather than categorical word class constraints on lexical selection.

Abstract

Prosodic prominence can enhance memory for the prominent words. This mnemonic benefit has been linked to listeners’ allocation of attention and deeper processing, which leads to more robust semantic representations. We investigated whether, in addition to the well-established effect at the semantic level, there was a memory benefit for prominent words at the phonological level. To do so, participants (48 native speakers of Dutch), first performed an accent judgement task, where they had to discriminate accented from unaccented words, and accented from unaccented pseudowords. All stimuli were presented in lists. They then performed an old/new recognition task for the stimuli. Accuracy in the accent judgement task was equally high for words and pseudowords. In the recognition task, performance was, as expected, better for words than pseudowords. More importantly, there was an interaction of accent with word type, with a significant advantage for accented compared to unaccented words, but not for pseudowords. The results confirm the memory benefit for accented compared to unaccented words seen in earlier studies, and they are consistent with the view that prominence primarily affects the semantic encoding of words. There was no evidence for an additional memory benefit arising at the phonological level.