Syntactic and semantic contributions of pitch accents during sentence comprehension

Syntactic, semantic, and prosodic cues all establish expectations that guide sentence comprehension. In the prosodic domain, pitch accents can assign contrastive focus and resolve a syntactically ambiguous phrase. However, can prosodic focus marking (by pitch accenting) influence the interpretation of a sentence in the presence of syntactic and semantic cues? Our auditory experiment revolved around the sentence (in German) “Yesterday the policeman arrested the thief, not the murderer”. A pitch accent on either POLICEMAN or THIEF placed one of those arguments in contrastive focus with the ellipsis structure ("the murderer”). The two contrasted arguments could contain violations: in the syntax condition, the grammatical case of the article in the ellipsis structure mismatched the focused constituent in the main clause (nominative vs. accusative). In the semantic condition, the thematic roles of the contrasted words were incongruent (typical agent vs. patient roles of “arrest”). Visual comprehension questions probed the agent/patient role of the arguments in the sentence (subject or object), followed by a button-press response. Reaction times showed that if the pitch accent marked syntactic information that mismatched the syntactic information in the ellipsis structure, responses were delayed. The direction of the semantic effect depended on the focused noun. The response patterns showed that participants were led by the syntactic information to make their syntactic judgements, despite a conflicting expectation established by prosody. The experiment shows that pitch accents establish a syntactic expectation during sentence comprehension. However, these expectations are overwritten by incoming syntactic information to yield an interpretation of the sentence

Pitch accents create dissociable syntactic and semantic expectations during sentence processing

The language system uses syntactic, semantic, as well as prosodic cues to efficiently guide auditory sentence comprehension. Prosodic cues, such as pitch accents, can build expectations about upcoming sentence elements. This study investigates to what extent syntactic and semantic expectations generated by pitch accents can be dissociated and if so, which cues take precedence when contradictory information is present. We used sentences in which one out of two nominal constituents was placed in contrastive focus with a third one. All noun phrases carried overt syntactic information (case-marking of the determiner) and semantic information (typicality of the thematic role of the noun). Two experiments (a sentence comprehension and a sentence completion task) show that focus, marked by pitch accents, established expectations in both syntactic and semantic domains. However, only the syntactic expectations, when violated, were strong enough to interfere with sentence comprehension. Furthermore, when contradictory cues occurred in the same sentence, the local syntactic cue (case-marking) took precedence over the semantic cue (thematic role), and overwrote previous information cued by prosody. The findings indicate that during auditory sentence comprehension the processing system integrates different sources of information for argument role assignment, yet primarily relies on syntactic information

Differential contributions of inferior frontal gyrus subregions to sentence processing guided by intonation

Auditory sentence comprehension involves processing content (semantics), grammar (syntax), and intonation (prosody). The left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) is involved in sentence comprehension guided by these different cues, with neuroimaging studies preferentially locating syntactic and semantic processing in separate IFG subregions. However, this regional specialisation has not been confirmed with a neurostimulation method. Consequently, the causal role of such a specialisation remains unclear. This study probed the role of the posterior IFG (pIFG) for syntactic processing and the anterior IFG (aIFG) for semantic processing with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in a task that required the interpretation of the sentence's prosodic realisation. Healthy participants performed a sentence completion task with syntactic and semantic decisions, while receiving 10 Hz rTMS over either left aIFG, pIFG, or vertex (control). Initial behavioural analyses showed an inhibitory effect on accuracy without task-specificity. However, electric field simulations revealed differential effects for both subregions. In the aIFG, stronger stimulation led to slower semantic processing, with no effect of pIFG stimulation. In contrast, we found a facilitatory effect on syntactic processing in both aIFG and pIFG, where higher stimulation strength was related to faster responses. Our results provide first evidence for the functional relevance of left aIFG in semantic processing guided by intonation. The stimulation effect on syntactic responses emphasises the importance of the IFG for syntax processing, without supporting the hypothesis of a pIFG-specific involvement. Together, the results support the notion of functionally specialised IFG subregions for diverse but fundamental cues for language processing