Prosodic effects in the production of structural ambiguities: Do they exist?

Maria Martzoukou, Despina Papadopoulou


The aim of the present study is to explore whether Greek adults, who are non-trained speakers and naïve to the purpose of the task, use distinguishable prosodic cues, while producing ambiguous sentences. We report on the findings from a production task conducted with 30 participants (15 females), which contained subject/object ambiguities. Results revealed that participants use prosodic cues to denote the subject or the object reading, but not consistently so in order to distinguish the two meanings. We argue that our findings are in line with the Syntax-Phonology mapping, according to which prosodic phrasing goes in tandem with syntactic segmentation, though prosodic phrasing was not consistently employed by our speakers to differentiate the two meanings of the ambiguous sentences.


language production, structural ambiguity, prosody

Full Text:



Allbritton, D.W., G. McKoon & R. Ratcliff. 1996. Reliability of prosodic cues for resolving syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 714-735.

Arvaniti, A. & M. Baltazani. 2000. GREEK ToBI: A system for the annotation of Greek speech corpora. Proceedings of Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2000), II. Athens: European Language Resources Association, 555-562.

Boersma, P. & D. Weenink. 2010. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Version 5.1.35, Computer program]. Retrieved June 10, 2010, from

Clifton, C., K. Carlson & L. Frazier. 2006. Tracking the what and why of speakers’ choices: Prosodic boundaries and the length of constituents. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13(5): 854-861.

Elyan, O. 1978. Sex differences in speech style. Women Speaking 4: 4-8.

Fitzsimons, M., N. Sheahan & H. Staunton. 2001. Gender and the integration of acoustic dimensions of prosody: Implications for clinical studies. Brain and Language 78(1): 94-108.

Ghini, M. 1993. Phi-formation in Italian: A new proposal. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 41-78.

Hillenbrand, J., L.A. Getty, M.J. Clark & K. Wheeler. 1995. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustica Society of America 97: 3099-3111.

Itô, J. & A. Mester. 1992. Weak layering and word binarity. Santa Cruz, California: Linguistics Research Center, Cowell College.

Itô, J. & A. Mester. 1995. Hierarchical alignment and binarity. Talk presented at TREND (University of California, Santa Cruz, April 1995) and GLOW (University of Tromsø, Norway, May 1995).

Kang, S. & S.R. Speer. 2004. Prosodic disambiguation of participle constructions in English. In Speech Prosody 2004, International Conference, Nara, Japan, 23-26 March.

Kjelgaard, M.M. & S.R. Speer. 1999. Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 153-194.

Kraljic, T. & S.E. Brennan. 2005. Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology 50: 194-231.

Lee, E.-K. & S. Garnsey. 2008. Prosodic boundaries and focal accents in processing ambiguous structures. Paper presented in Experimental and Theoretical Advances in Prosody. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, April 11-13, 2008.

Millotte, S., R. Wales & A. Christophe. 2007. Phrasal prosody disambiguates syntax. Language and cognitive processes 22(6): 898-909.

Portwood, M. 2000. Understanding developmental dyspraxia: A textbook for students and professionals. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Price, P.J., M. Ostendorf, S. Shattuck-Hufnagel & C. Fong. 1991. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90(6): 2956-2970.

Pynte, J. 1996. Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 165-192.

Schafer, A., K. Carlson, C.Jr. Clifton & L. Frazier. 2000a. Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech 43(1): 75-105.

Schafer, A., J. Carter, C. Clifton &. Frazier. 1996. Focus in relative clause construal. Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 135-163.

Schafer, A.J., S.R. Speer, P. Warren & S.D. White. 2000b. Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 169-182.

Selkirk, E.O. 1981. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In T. Fretheim (ed.), Nordic Prosody II. Trondheim: TAPIR, 111–140.

Selkirk, E.O. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 550-569.

Selkirk, E.O. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In G. Bruce & M. Horne (eds), Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 231-261.

Snedeker, J. & J. Trueswell. 2003. Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language 48: 103-130.

Speer, S.R., P. Warren & A.J. Schafer. 2011. Situationally independent prosodic phrasing. Laboratory Phonology 2(1): 35-98.

Spyropoulos, V. & A. Revithiadou. 2009. Subject chains in Greek and PF processing. In C.Halpert, J. Hartman & D. Hill (eds), Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop οn Greek Syntax and Semantics at MIT. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL Publications, 293-309.

Revithiadou, A. & V. Spyropoulos. 2011. Syntax-phonology interface. In N.C. Kula, B. Botma & K. Nasukawa (eds), Continuum Companion to Phonology. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 225-253.

Tree, J.E.F. & P.J.A. Meijer. 2000. Untrained speakers’ use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation and listeners’ interpretations. Psychological Research, 63: 1-13.

Truckenbrodt, H. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. PhD. Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Truckenbrodt, H. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219-255.

Whiteside, S.P. 1996. Temporal-based acoustic-phonetic patterns in read speech: Some evidence for speaker sex differences. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 26: 23-40.

Wu, K. & D.G. Childers. 1991. Gender recognition from the speech. Part I: Coarse analysis. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90: 1828-1840.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2016 Maria Martzoukou, Despina Papadopoulou

e-ISSN: 2529-1114

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, unless otherwise stated.