Investigating Iraqi EFL Learners` Use of Prosodic indicators for ambiguity Resolution
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31185/wjfh.Vol22.Iss3/Pt1.1763Keywords:
relative clauses, relative clause attachment, ambiguity resolution, prosody, sentence processingAbstract
Prosody plays a critical role in resolving structural ambiguities in speech. This study investigates Iraqi EFL learners` sentence processing mechanisms by determining whether or to what degree sensitivity to prosody might influence how relative clause attachment ambiguity is resolved. In order to do this, 42 undergraduate Iraqi EFL learners completed two tasks: a silent-reading task to identify the learners` default preference for relative clause attachment, and a listening task to examine the effect of different types of prosodic information, such as prosodic boundary and focal prominence on relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution. A mixed method research design, where the data is analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively, is adopted in this study. The findings reveal low attachment preference is the default preference. Moreover, the study showed that the learners are not sensitive to different types of prosodic information during relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution; they always preferred low attachment interpretation.
Downloads
References
References
Alexander, L. G. ( 1988). Longman English Grammar. Longman English
Group, United Kingdom.
Baek, H., and Yun, J. (2018). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactically ambiguous
phrases in Korean. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 88, 89-100.
Baek, H. (2019). A cross-linguistic comparison on the use of prosodic
cues for ambiguity resolution. Acoustical Society of America
Clifton, C., Carlson, K. and, and Frazier, L. (2002). Informative prosodic
boundaries. Language and Speech, 45(2), 87-114.
Clifton, C., and Duffy, S. (2001). Sentence and text comprehension: Roles of
linguistic structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 167-196.
Colovic-Markovic, J. (2018). Teaching Relative Clauses. 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0790.
Cuetos, F., Mitchell, D. C., and Corley, M. (1996). Parsing in different languages.
In M. Carreiras, J. E. Garcia-Albea, & N. Sebastian-Galles (Eds.),
Language processing in Spanish (pp. 145-187). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Dekydtspotter, L., Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2006). The comparative
fallacy in L2 processing research. In M. Grantham O’Brien, C. Shea,
& J. Archibald (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff Conference (pp. 33-40). Cascadilla.
Dussias, P. (2003). The effect of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 529-557.
Fernandez, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing. John Benjamins.
Fernandez, E. M. (2007). How might rapid serial visual presentation of text affect the
prosody projected implicitly during silent reading? Conferencias do VCongresso
Internacional da Associacao Brasiliera de Linguistica 5: 117-54.
Fodor, J. D. (1998). Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-
319.
Fodor, J. A. (2000). The mind does not work this way. MIT Press.
Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In M. Hirotani
(Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32 (pp. 113-132). GSLA.
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies.
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of Connecticut.
Frazier, L., Carlson, K., and Clifton, C. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to
language comprehension. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10(6),
244-249.
Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., and Hickok, G. (1996).
Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59, 23-59.
Hemforth, B., Fernandez, S., Clifton. C., Frazier, L., Konieczny, L., and Walter.,
M. (2015). Relative clause attachment in German, English, Spanish
and French: Effects of position and length. Lingua, 166, 43-64.
Jun, S. A. (2003). Prosodic phrasing and attachment preferences. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 32(2), 219-249.
Jun, S. A., and Bishop, J. (2015). Prominence in Relative Clause Attachment:
Evidence from Prosodic Priming. In L. Frazier & E. Gibson (Eds.),
Explicit and implicit prosody in sentence processing: Studies in honor of
Janet Dean Fodor. Vol. 46 of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics
(pp. 217-240). New York: Springer.
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural
language. Cognition, 2, 15-47.
Kjelgaard, D., and Speer, S. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the
resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of
Memory and Language, 40, 153-194.
Lee, E. K., and Watson, D. G. (2011). Effects of pitch accents in attachment ambiguity
resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(2), 262-297.
Marina, Y. S. and Mikhael, L. ( 2023). Relative processing and attachment resolution
across languages: Tatar-Russian-English trilinguals.
https://doi.org/10.3390/langauges9010018
Nespor, M., and Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2013). Longman dictionary of language teaching
and applied linguistics. Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833835
Schafer, A., Carter, J., Clifton, C., and Frazier, L. (1996). Focus in relative clause
construal. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 135-163.
Teira, C. and Igoa, J. M. ( 2007). The prosody-syntax relationship in sentence
processing. Anuario de Psicologia 38 (1): 45-96.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 م.م. مثنى علي حسين (مؤلف)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
