It´s all about the rhythm - A neurocognitive approach towards the Rhythm Rule in German and English

The aim of the present doctoral thesis is to gain deeper insight into the cognitive processing of rhythmically irregular structures in form of stress clashes and stress lapses in comparison to structures that follow the Rhythm Rule. Although stress clashes and stress lapses are allowed and hence pre...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Henrich, Karen
Contributors: Domahs, Ulrike (Prof. Dr.) (Thesis advisor)
Format: Dissertation
Published: Philipps-Universität Marburg 2015
Germanistische Sprachwissenschaft
Online Access:PDF Full Text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

1. Goldsmith (Ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 1). Oxford: Blackwell, 550 – 569.

2. Beckman, M. E. (1992). Evidence for speech rhythms across languages. In Y.

3. Tohura, E. Vatikiotis-Bateson, & Y. Sagisaka (Eds.), Speech Perception, Production and Linguistic Structure. Tokyo: OMH Publishing Co., 457 – 463.

4. Vogel, I., Bunnell, T. H., & Hoskins, S. (1995). The phonology and phonetics of the Rhythm Rule. In B. Connell & A. Arvaniti (Eds.), Phonology and Phonetic Evidence: Papers in Laboratory Phonology (Vol. 4). New York: Cambridge University Press, 111 – 127.

5. Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. REFERENCES 104

6. Ladd, D.R., 1996. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

7. Cooper, G., & Meyer, L. B. (1960). The Rhythmic Structure of Music. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

8. Dehé, N., 2002. Particle Verbs in English: Syntax, Information Structure and In- tonation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

9. Jessen, M. (1999). German. In: H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 515 – 545.

10. Plag, I. (1999). Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

11. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K.G.D., Ferraro, V., 2002. Good-enough representations in lan- guage comprehension. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11 (1), 11–15.

12. Magne, C., Astésano, C., Aramaki, M., Ystad, S., Kronland-Martinet, R., Besson, M., 2007. Influence of syllabic lengthening on semantic processing in spoken French: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Cereb. Cortex 17, 2659–2668.

13. Baumann, S., Riester, A., 2012. Referential and lexical givenness: semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In: Gorka, E., Prieto, P. (Eds.), Prosody and Meaning. In- terface Explorations, 25. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, New York, pp. 119–162.

14. Schön, D., Magne, C., & Besson, M. (2004). The music of speech: music facilitates pitch processing in language. Psychophysiology, 41, 341 – 349.

15. 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. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 10 (6), 717–733.

16. Hoen, M., Dominey, P.F., 2000. ERP analysis of cognitive sequencing: a left anterior negativity related to structural transformation processing. NeuroReport 11 (14), 3187–3191.

17. Eulitz, C., & Obleser, J. (2007). Perception of acoustically complex phonological features in vowels is reflected in the induced brain-magnetic activity. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3(26), 1 – 9. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-3-26

18. Koelsch, S., & Sammler, D. (2008). Cognitive Components of Regularity Processing in the Auditory Domain. PLoS ONE 3 (7): e2650. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002650

19. Wang, L., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., Yang, Y., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Information structure influences depth of syntactic processing: Event-related potential evidence for the Chomsky illusion. PLoS One, 7(10), e47917. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047917

20. Jost, K., Beinhoff, U., Henninghausen, E., Rösler, F., 2004. Facts, rules, and strategies in single-digit multiplication: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cogn. Brain Res. 20, 183–193.

21. Bolinger, D. L. (1958). A theory of pitch accent in English. Word, 14, 109 – 149.

22. Breen, M., Fedorenko, E., Wagner, M., Gibson, E., 2010. Acoustic correlates of in- formation structure. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25 (7), 1044–1098.

23. Picton, T. W. (1992). The P300 Wave of the Human Event-Related Potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 9(4), 456 – 479.

24. Schumacher, P., Baumann, S., 2010. Pitch accent type affects the N400 during re- ferential processing. NeuroReport 21 (9), 618–622.

25. Domahs, U., Wiese, R., Knaus, J., 2015. Word prosody in focus and non-focus po- sition: an ERP-study on the interplay of prosodic domains. In: Vogel, R., van de Vijver, R. (Eds.), Rhythm in Cognition and Grammar – A Germanic Perspective (Trends in Linguistics). de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 137–164.

26. Auer, P., & Uhmann, S. (1988). Silben-und akzentzählende Sprachen: Literaturüberblick und Diskussion. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 7(2), 214 – 259.

27. Abecasis, D., Brochard, R., Granot, R., Drake, C., 2005. Differential brain response to metrical accents in isochronous auditory sequences. Music Percept. 22 (3), 549–562.

28. Bresnan, J. (1972). Stress and Syntax: A Reply. Language, 48, 326 – 342.

29. Giegerich, H. J. (1985). Metrical Phonology and Phonological Structure: German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30. Birch, S., Rayner, K., 1997. Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Mem. Cogn. 25 (5), 653–660.

31. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.

32. Pike, K. L. (1945). The intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

33. Domahs, U., Klein, E., Huber, W., & Domahs, F. (2013b). Good, bad and ugly word stress–fMRI evidence for foot structure driven processing of prosodic violations. Brain and Language, 125(3), 272 – 282. REFERENCES 103

34. Schmidt-Kassow, M., Kotz, S.A., 2009. Event-related brain potentials suggest a late interaction of meter and syntax in the P600. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 21 (9), 1693–1708.

35. Rothermich, K., Schmidt-Kassow, M., Schwartze, M., Kotz, S.A., 2010. Event-related potential responses to metric violations: rules versus meaning. NeuroReport 21, 580–584.

36. Friedrich, C.K., Kotz, S.A., Friederici, A.D., Alter, K., 2004. Pitch modulates lexical identification in spoken word recognition: ERP and behavioral evidence. Cogn. Brain Res. 20, 300–308.

37. Neuhaus, C., & Knösche, T. R. (2006). Processing of rhythmic and melodic gestalts: an ERP study. Music Perception, 24(2), 209 – 222.

38. Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental Phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.

39. Wang, L., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., Yang, Y., & Hagoort, P. (2011). The influence of information structure on the depth of semantic processing: How focus and pitch accent determine the size of the N400 effect. Neuropsychologia, 49, 813 – 820.

40. Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M.K., Chambers, C.G., 2002. Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 47 (2), 292–314.

41. van Donselaar, W., Koster, M., & Cutler, A. (2005). Exploring the role of lexical stress in lexical recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 251 – 273.

42. Cutler, A., Foss, D.J., 1977. On the role of sentence stress in sentence processing. Lang. Speech 20, 1–10.

43. Cutler, A., Fodor, J.A., 1979. Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition 7, 49–59.

44. Henrich, K., Alter, K., Wiese, R., Domahs, U., 2014. The relevance of rhythmical al- ternation in language processing: an ERP study on English compounds. Brain Lang. 136, 19–30.

45. Shapiro, K., & Beum, R. (1965). A prosody handbook. New York: Harper and Row. REFERENCES 107

46. Koelsch, S., Gunter, T., Friederici, A., Schröger, E., 2000. Brain indices of music processing: " Nonmusicians " are musical. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12 (3), 520–541.

47. Huynh, H., Feldt, L.S., 1976. Estimation of the box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomised block and split-plot designs. J. Educ. Stat. 1 (1), 69–82.

48. Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1989). On clashes and lapses. Phonology, 6, 69 – 116.

49. Domahs, U., Wiese, R., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Schlesewsky, M., 2008. The processing of German word stress: evidence for the prosodic hierarchy. Pho- nology 25, 1–36.

50. Friedrich, C. K., Alter, K., & Kotz, S. A. (2001). An electrophysiological response to different pitch contours in words. NeuroReport, 12, 3189 – 3191.

51. Kaiser, J., & Lutzenberger, W. (2004). Frontal gamma-band activity in magnetoencephalogram during auditory oddball processing. NeuroReport, 15, 2185 – 2188.

52. Schmidt-Kassow, M., Kotz, S.A., 2009b. Attention and perceptual regularity in speech. NeuroReport 20, 1643–1647.

53. Arvaniti (Eds.), Phonology and Phonetic Evidence: Papers in Laboratory Phonology (Vol. 4). New York: Cambridge University Press, 128 – 140.

54. Birch, S., Clifton, C.E., 1995. Focus, accent, and argument structure: effects on lan- guage comprehension. Lang. Speech 38, 365–391.

55. Domahs, U., Kehrein, W., Knaus, J., Wiese, R., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Event- related Potentials Reflecting the Processing of Phonological Constraint Violations. Language and Speech, 52(4), 415 – 435.

56. Mattys, S.L., 2000. The perception of primary and secondary stress in English. Percept. Psychophys. 62, 253–265.

57. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1986). An introduction to English Prosody. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

58. Luck, S. J. (2005) An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique.

59. Kiparsky, P. (1966). Über den deutschen Akzent. In: Untersuchungen über Akzent und Intonation im Deutschen (Studia Grammatica VII). Akademie-Verlag: Berlin, 69 – 98.

60. Bolinger, D. L. (1965). Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Order. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

61. Chafe, W., 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In: Li, C. (Ed.), Subject and Topic. Academic Press, New York, pp. 25–56.

62. Koelsch, S., Schmidt, B. H., & Kansok, J. (2002). Influences of musical expertise on the ERAN: an ERP-study. Psychophysiology, 39, 657 – 663. REFERENCES 105

63. Féry, C., Krifka, M., 2008. Information structure: notional distinctions, ways of ex- pression. In: van Sterkenburg, P. (Ed.), Unity and Diversity of Languages. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 123–136.

64. Marie, C., Magne, C., Besson, M., 2011. Musicians and the metric structure of words. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23 (2), 294–305.

65. Roach, P. (1982). On the distinction between 'stress-timed' and 'syllable-timed' languages. In D. Crystal (Ed.) Linguistic Controversies, Essays in linguistic theory and practice. London: Arnold, 73 – 79.

66. Selkirk, E., 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, London.

67. Truckenbrodt, H. (2006). Phrasal Stress. In K. Brown (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics (2 nd edition, Vol. 9). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 572 – 579.

68. Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic Phonology (Studies in Generative Grammar 28). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

69. Prince, A. S. (1983). Relating to the Grid. Linguistic Inquiry, 14(1), 19 – 100.

70. Selkirk, E., 1995. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. In: Goldsmith, J.A. (Ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (Blackwell Handbooks in Lin

71. Sie soll das neue Autokennzeichen anbringen.

72. Sie soll das neue Biberbettlaken waschen.

73. Sie soll das neue Erdnussöl abfüllen.

74. Sie soll das neue Fachwerkhaus ausbauen.

75. Sie soll das neue Flüssigwaschmittel einkaufen.

76. Sie soll das neue Handballfeld einweihen.

77. Sie soll das neue Klettersteigeisen mitnehmen.

78. Sie soll das neue Sammlerwertzeichen einrahmen.

79. Sie soll das neue Spieluhrwerk einbauen.

80. Sie soll das neue Tafelquellwasser trinken.

81. Sie soll das neue Vollkornbrot backen.

82. Sie soll das neue Wehrdienstamt schließen.

83. Sie soll den neuen Autoscheinwerfer einschalten.

84. Sie soll den neuen Backsteinweg pflastern.

85. Sie soll den neuen Christbaumschmuck aufhängen.

86. Sie soll den neuen Denkmalschutz einhalten.

87. Sie soll den neuen Eislaufkurs leiten.

88. Sie soll den neuen Fallschirmsprung meistern.

89. Sie soll den neuen Firmenbriefträger einstellen.

90. Sie soll den neuen Firmenpostboten anrufen.

91. Sie soll den neuen Fußballbund leiten.

92. Sie soll den neuen Gartenmaikäfer fangen.

93. Sie soll den neuen Glühweinstand öffnen.

94. Sie soll den neuen Heizölpreis ausrechnen.

95. Sie soll den neuen Hochschulchor einladen.

96. Sie soll den neuen Kreuzbandriss schonen.

97. Sie soll den neuen Minibackofen anmachen.

98. Sie soll den neuen Rotweinfleck auswaschen.

99. Sie soll den neuen Segelflughafen meiden.

100. Sie soll den neuen Sonderkraftwagen einparken.

101. Sie soll den neuen Steinzeitmenschen aufbahren.

102. Sie soll den neuen Tennisweltmeister küren.

103. Sie soll den neuen Wohnheimplatz abgeben.

104. Sie soll den neuen Zahnarztstuhl aufbauen. REFERENCES 101

105. Sie soll den neuen Zimmerduftspender aufstellen.

106. Sie soll die neue Armbanduhr einstellen.

107. Sie soll die neue Damenstrumpfhose anziehen.

108. Sie soll die neue Dauerbaustelle abfahren.

109. Sie soll die neue Eisenbratpfanne testen.

110. Sie soll die neue Fördergrundschule einweihen.

111. Sie soll die neue Hausmannskost kochen.

112. Sie soll die neue Kühlschranktür abwischen.

113. Sie soll die neue Kirchturmuhr umstellen.

114. Sie soll die neue Landessparkasse umbauen.

115. Sie soll die neue Lederhandtasche nähen.

116. Sie soll die neue Lesestichprobe anfordern.

117. Sie soll die neue Plastiktrinkflasche abwaschen.

118. Sie soll die neue Schenkelschlagader abbinden.

119. Sie soll die neue Schneeballschlacht regeln.

120. Sie soll die neue Seilbahnfahrt zahlen.

121. Sie soll die neue Sondermaßnahme prüfen.

122. Sie soll die neue Sprengstoffart mischen.

123. Sie soll die neue Straßenmalkreide kaufen.

124. Sie soll die neue Vollwertkost aufessen.

125. Stimuli condition NO SHIFT (pentasyllabic condition)

126. Grabe, E., & Warren, P. (1995). Stress shift: Do speakers do it or do listeners hear it? In B. Connell & A. Arvaniti (Eds.), Phonology and phonetic evidence: Papers in laboratory phonology (Vol. 4). New York: Cambridge University Press, 95 – 110.

127. Abercrombie, D. (1965). Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.

128. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

129. Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., Gulikers, L., 1995. The CELEX lexical database. Release 2 [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

130. Cruttenden, A., 2006. The de-accenting of given information: a cognitive universal?. In: Bernini, G., Schwartz, M. (Eds.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter, The Hague, pp. 311–356.

131. Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1995). The importance of phonological transcription in empirical approaches to " stress shift " versus " early accent " : comments on Grabe and Warren, and Vogel, Bunnell and Hoskins. In B. Connell & A.

132. Dogil, G. (1999). The phonetic manifestation of word stress in Lithuanian, Polish, German and Spanish. In: H. van der Hulst (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 273 – 311.

133. Knaus, J., Wiese, R., Janßen, U., 2007. The processing of word stress: EEG studies on task-related components. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 709–712.

134. Bohn, K., Knaus, J., Wiese, R., Domahs, U., 2011. The status of the rhythm rule within and across word boundaries in German. In: Proceedings of the 17th Interna- tional Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Hong Kong, China, pp. 332–335.

135. Brochard, R., Abecasis, D., Potter, D., Ragot, R., Drake, C., 2003. The tick-tock of our internal clock: direct brain evidence of subjective accents in isochronous se- quences. Psychol. Sci. 14 (4), 362–366.

136. Prince, E.F., 1992. The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In: Mann, W., Thompson, S. (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund Raising Text. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 295–325.

137. Sweet, H. (1875/76). Words, logic, and grammar. Transactions of the Philological Society, 1875-1876, 470 – 503.

138. Horne, M. (1990). Empirical evidence for a deletion formulation of the rhythm rule in English. Linguistics, 28, 959 – 981.

139. Böcker, K. B. E., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., Vroomen, J., Brunia, C. H. M., & de Gelder, B. (1999). An ERP correlate of metrical stress in spoken word recognition. Psychophysiology, 36, 706 – 720.

140. Tervaniemi, M., Kruck, S., De Baene, W., Schröger, E., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. (2009). Top-down modulation of auditory processing: effects of sound context, musical expertise and attentional focus. European Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 1636 – 1642.

141. Cutler, A., Norris, D., 1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 14 (1), 113–121.

142. Kelly, M. H., & Bock, J. K. (1988). Stress in Time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 389 – 403.

143. Pitt, M.A., Samuel, A.G., 1990. The use of rhythm in attending to speech. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 16 (3), 564–573.

144. Ries, J. (1907). Die Wortstellung im Beowulf. Halle/Saale: Niemeyer.

145. Büring, D., 2013. Syntax, information structure and prosody. In: den Dikken, M.

146. Gimson, A. C. (1962). An introduction to the Pronunciation of English. New York: St. Martin's Press.

147. Heim, S., Alter, K., 2006. Prosodic pitch accents in language comprehension and production: ERP data and acoustic analyses. Acta Neurobiol. Exp. 66, 55–68.

148. Kager, R. (1995). The metrical theory of word stress. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 367 – 402.

149. Tilsen, S. (2011). Metrical regularity facilitates speech planning and production. Laboratory Phonology, 2(1), 185 – 218.

150. Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

151. Liberman, M., Prince, A., 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguist. Inq. 8 (2), 249–336.

152. Hayes, B. (1984). The Phonology of Rhythm in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 15(1), 33 – 74.

153. Dresher, B. E., & Lahiri, A. (1991). The Germanic Foot: Metrical coherence in Germanic. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(2), 251 – 286.

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

155. Breen, M., & Clifton, C. Jr. (2011). Stress matters: Effects of anticipated lexical stress on silent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 153 – 170.

156. Grosjean, F., Gee, J.P., 1987. Prosodic structure and spoken word recognition. Cog- nition 25, 135–155.

157. Kelly, M. H. (1988). Rhythmic alternation and lexical stress differences in English. Cognition, 30, 107 – 137.

158. Cooper, W. E., & Eady, S. J. (1986). Metrical phonology in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 369 – 384.

159. Geiser, E., Ziegler, E., Jancke, L., Meyer, M., 2009. Early electrophysiological corre- lates of meter and rhythm processing in music perception. Cortex 45, 93–102.

160. Rothermich, K., Schmidt-Kassow, M., Kotz, S.A., 2012. Rhythm's gonna get you: regular meter facilitates semantic sentence processing. Neuropsychologia 50, 232–244.

161. Bohn, K., Knaus, J., Wiese, R., Domahs, U., 2013. The influence of rhythmic (ir)reg- ularities on speech processing: evidence from an ERP study on German phrases. Neuropsychologia 51 (4), 760–771.

162. Nazzi, T., Ramus, F., 2003. Perception and acquisition of linguistic rhythm by infants. Speech Commun. 4, 233–243.

163. Temporal regularity effects on pre-attentive and attentive processing of deviance. Biological Psychology, 87, 146 – 151.

164. Núñez-Peña, M.I., Honrubia-Serrano, M.L., 2004. P600 related to rule violation in an arithmetic task. Cogn. Brain Res. 18 (2), 130–141.

165. Rothermich, K., Kotz, S.A., 2013. Predictions in speech comprehension: fMRI evi- dence on the meter-semantic interface. NeuroImage 70, 89–100.

166. Sanford, A.J., Sturt, P., 2002. Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6 (9), 382–386.

167. Jusczyk, P.W., 1999. How infants begin to extract words from speech. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3 (9), 323–328.

168. Domahs, U., Genc, S., Knaus, J., Wiese, R., & Kabak, B. (2013a). Processing (un)predictable word stress: ERP evidence from Turkish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3), 335 – 354.

169. Tomlinson, J. M. Jr., Liu, Q., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). The perceptual nature of stress shifts. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(9), 1046 – 1058.

170. Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 21 – 58.

171. Chafe, W., 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

172. Sie soll den neuen Rettungshubschrauber anfordern.

173. Schlüter, J. (2005). Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

174. Wagner, P., & Fischenbeck, E. (2002). Stress perception and production in German Stress Clash Environments. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002, Aix en Provence, France. REFERENCES 108