doi:

DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01137

Acta Psychologica Sinica (心理学报) 2017/49:9 PP.1137-1149

The cognitive processing of contrastive focus and its relationship with pitch accent


Abstract:
Information structure (IS) is a very important pragmatic concept in linguistics. It has been broadly studied in linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, etc. IS can be generally distinguished as focus/new information and background/given information. It is proper for focused/new information to receive accent. Recently, researchers have shown increasing interest in the neural mechanism of focus processing and its relationship with pitch accent. It was generally found that focus elicited a widely distributed positivity compared to background (non-focused) information in both visual and auditory domain, although these positivities varied in time course, amplitude and scalp distribution. As for its relationship with pitch accent, the results are complicated due to the variability in task (prosodic, semantic), language (German, Dutch, and Chinese, etc.), focus-marking device (context-question, pitch accent, it cleft structure, etc.), as well as information status (being new or given information).
The present study aims to investigate the processing of contrastive focus and its interaction with pitch accent at different positions using ERPs. We used a highly constraining question as context, which posited two single nouns (NP1 and NP2) at different positions (in the medial and end of clause) in the answer sentence as contrastive focus (new information, narrow focus). Twenty (nine males) healthy undergraduates participated in the experiment. The participants were told to listen carefully to each dialogue, and completed a sentence comprehension task. The EEG was recorded from 64 scalp channels using electrodes mounted in an elastic cap. Focus and accent related ERPs were calculated for a 1500 ms epoch including a 200 ms pre-critical words baseline.
It was found that focus evoked a larger positivity compared to non-focus at both positions. This was convinced by the statistical analysis result at both NP1 during 650-1300 ms, F(1, 19)=8.29, p < 0.05, ηp2=0.29, and NP2 during 550-1050 ms, F(1, 19)=14.45, p < 0.001, ηp2=0.38. Besides, accented words elicited a larger positivity than unaccented ones at both of NP1 (950-1150 ms), F(1, 19)=7.39, p < 0.05, ηp2=0.22, and NP2(1050-1400ms), F(1, 19)=8.04, p < 0.05, ηp2=0.30. Furthermore, missing accent on focus did not elicit any observable brain effect compared to accented focus at both positions in the lateral area, F(1, 19) < 1, ps > 0.05. At the end of the clause, however, accent on background information elicited a larger negativity (200-350 ms) compared to consistently unaccented background, F(1, 19)=10.84, p < 0.01, ηp2=0.38, while there was no significant difference between accented and unaccented focus, F(1, 19) < 1, p > 0.05.
Overall, the positive effect elicited by focus at both positions may reflect that listeners consume more cognitive resource to integrate focus to discourse compared to non-focus. Besides, accented words elicited a larger positivity than unaccented ones at both positions, indicating that prosodic prominence attracted more attention than unaccented information. Finally, accent on non-focus evoked a larger negativity compared to unaccented non-focus at the end of the clause. This result may reflect that listeners were sensitive to the information structure induced by pitch accent and the processing were influenced by the position of focus. In sum, the current results suggest that listeners make on-line use of both focus and pitch accent in various ways at different positions to build coherent representations of dialogues.

Key words:information structure,accent,focus,background

ReleaseDate:2017-10-20 02:10:44



Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus:The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748-765.

Baumann, S., & Schumacher, P. B. (2012). (De-)accentuation and the process of information status:Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Speech, 55, 361-381.

Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure:Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365-391.

Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (2002). Effects of varying focus and accenting of adjuncts on the comprehension of utterances. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 571-588.

Bögels, S., Schriefers, H., Vonk, W., & Chwilla, D. J. (2011). Pitch accents in context:How listeners process accentuation in referential communication. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2022-2036.

Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Language, 48, 633-644.

Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration:The role of inter-versus intrasentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 871-882.

Brédart, S., & Modolo, K. (1988). Moses strikes again:Focalization effect on a semantic illusion. Acta Psychologica, 67, 135-144.

Chao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. California:University of California Press.

Chen, L. J., Wang, L., & Yang, Y. F. (2014). Distinguish between focus and newness:An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 31, 28-41.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge:MIT.

Cooper, W. E., Eady, S. J. & Mueller, P. R. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77, 2142-2156.

Cowles, H. W., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M. (2007). Violations of information structure:An electrophysiological study of answers to Wh-questions. Brain and Language, 102, 228-242.

Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49-59.

Dimitrova, D., Stowe, L. A., Redeker, G., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2012). Less is not more:Neural responses to missing and superfluous accents in context. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 2400-2418.

Eady, S. J., Cooper, W. E., Klouda, G. V., Mueller, P. R., & Lotts, D. W. (1986). Acoustical characteristics of sentential focus:Narrow vs. broad and single vs. dual focus environments. Language and Speech, 29, 233-251.

Erteschik-Shir, N. (2007). Information structure:The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead:The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44, 491-505.

Friedman, D., Simson, R., Ritter, W., & Rapin, I. (1975). The late positive component (P300) and information processing in sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 38, 255-262.

Gundel, J. K. (1999). On different kinds of focus. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus:Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 293-305). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English:Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244.

Hruska, C., Alter, K., Steinhauer, K., & Steube, A. (2001). Misleading dialogs:Human's brain reaction to prosodic information. In C. Cave, I. Guaitella, & S. Santi (Eds.), Orality and gestures. Interactions et comportements multimodaux dans la communication (pp. 425-430). Paris:L'Hartmattan.

Hruska, C., & Alter, K. (2004). How prosody can influence sentence perception. In A. Steube (Ed), Information structure:Theoretical and empirical aspects (pp. 211-226). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.

Ito, K., & Garnsey, S. (2004). Brain responses to focus-related prosodic mismatch in Japanese. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody (pp. 609-612).

Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge:MIT Press.

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language:Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York:Oxford University Press.

Johnson, S. M., Breen, M., Clifton, C., & Morris, J. (2003). ERP investigation of prosodic and semantic focus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, (Suppl. 174), E157.

Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.

Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting:Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647.

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

Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form:Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Li, X. Q., Hagoort, P., & Yang, Y. F. (2008). Event-related potential evidence on the influence of accentuation in spoken discourse comprehension in Chinese. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 906-915.

Li, X. Q., Yang, Y. F., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Pitch accent and lexical tone processing in Chinese discourse comprehension:An ERP study. Brain Research, 1222, 192-200.

Li, X. Q., Yang, Y. F. (2013). How long-term memory and accentuation interact during spoken language comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 51(5), 967-978

Liu, D. Q., & Xu, L. J. (1998). Focus, background, theme and Chinese "lian" sentence. Studies of the Chinese Language, (4), 243-252.[刘丹青, 徐烈炯. (1998). 焦点与背景、话题及汉语"连"字句. 中国语文, (4), 243-252.]

Magne, C., Astésano, C., Lacheret-Dujour, A., Morel, M., Alter, K., & Besson, M. (2005). On-line processing of "pop-out" words in spoken French dialogues. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 740-756.

McCallum, W. C., Farmer, S. F., & Pocock, P. V. (1984). The effects of physical and semantic incongruites on auditory event-related potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 59, 477-488.

Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., Filik, R., Juhasz, B. J., White, S. J., & Rayner, K. (2007). Focus identification during sentence comprehension:Evidence from eye movements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1423-1445.

Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Rugg, M. D. (1985). The effects of semantic priming and word repetition on event-related potentials. Psychophysiology, 22, 642-647.

Sanford, A. J. S., Sanford, A. J., Molle, J., & Emmott, C. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42, 109-130.

Schirmer, A., Tang, S. L., Penney, T. B., Gunter, T. C., & Chen, H. C. (2005). Brain responses to segmentally and tonally induced semantic violations in Cantonese. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1-12.

Steedman, M. (1991). Structure and intonation. Language, 67, 260-296.

Stolterfoht, B., Friederici, A. D., Alter, K., & Steube, A. (2007). Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading:Differential ERP effects. Cognition, 104, 565-590.

Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations:An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882-888.

Toepel, U., Pannekamp, A., & Alter, K. (2007). Catching the news:Processing strategies in listening to dialogs as measured by ERPs. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3, 53.

Wang, L., Hagoort, P., & Yang, Y. F. (2009). Semantic illusion depends on information structure:ERP evidence. Brain Research, 1282, 50-56.