BRAIN POTENTIALS OF PROSODY-SYNTAX INTERACTION IN TURKISH İpek Pınar Bekar, Özgür Aydın, İclal Ergenç, Canan Kalaycıoğlu Ankara University, Department of Linguistics
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
The on-line processing of prosodic and syntactic information in many languages was investigated in previous (e.g. Steinhauer et al., 1999; Steinhauer, 2003; Eckstein and Friederici, 2005, 2006; Astésano et al., 2008). This study was aimed to represent the relationship of (in)dependency processes between prosodic and syntactic information in Turkish by using an auditorial online method of event-related potentials (ERP). The prosodic violation was manipulated in post-verbal position with focused constituent which is not allowed in Turkish (e.g. Erguvanlı, 1984; Kural, 1992; Göksel, 1998; Göksel, 2010; Güneş, 2013) and syntactic violation was created by case marking variations with accusative form and dative form (e.g. Hagoort, 2003; Kaan & Swaab, 2003).
Main Effect of PROSODY
Main Effect of SYNTAX
-2
-2
+2
+2
Right Anterior Negativity (RAN): ERP depicted a significantly important Early Negativity Effect between 150-350 ms for the main effect of prosody in nonfocusing position. This early negativity were very similar to Right Anterior Negativity Effect (RAN) which has referred in (e.g. Eckstein & Friederici, 2006) for auditorial language process. Early Negativity: There has found an Early Negativity (200-400 ms) and Late Positivity (550-750 ms) for the main effect of syntax in ERP waveforms which has served mostly in posterior regions. However, it is not certain to depict that this early negativity might be relevant to LAN Effect, or not.
Research Questions: a. Are there neurophysiological correlates of ‘prosodically marked focus’ in Turkish? b. Are there neurophysiological correlates of ‘syntax’ (‘case marking’) in Turkish? c. Is there a neurophysiological interaction effect between ‘syntax and prosody’ in post-verbal position in Turkish?
P600 which has served as a Late Positivity, has also a wide range effect which is elicited more in centro-parietal regions.
Prosody-Syntax INTERACTION Participants: 18 native right-handed Turkish speakers (male=7, female=11) between the ages of 18-35 (M=27,6111; SD=4,36751, SE=1,02943) without any neurological, hearing or language impairments.
When Prosody is CORRECT; -2
EEG Recording: EEG was recorded via Brainamp DC EEG-ERP system with 30 channels appropriated to 1020 systems. 30 Ag/AgCI electrodes were used. All electrodes were referenced to the average of two ear lobes as linked earlobes. EEG channels were amplified using a band-pass of 0.1 Hz-30 Hz, sampling in 500 Hz.
+2
ERP Analysis: EEG data were analyzed to EEGLab 13.1.1 and EEProbe in Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences of Neuro-Lab. a. Filtering (0.3 Hz high-pass filter and 25 Hz low-pass filter) b.Manual Rejection (strong muscle, sweating, drifts and technical artifacts) c. Independent Component Analysis (ICA) d. Segmentation (Creating epochs in 4 conditions) e. ERPs average for each condition (-200...1500 ms) f. Baseline Correction (0-200 ms) g. Final Manual Rejection (for remained artifacts) h. Statistical Analysis (Repeated Measures of ANOVA) Stimuli:
When Prosody is INCORRECT; -2
(CC) indicates prosodic and syntactic congruity; (CP) indicates only prosodic incongruity; (SC) indicates only syntactic incongruity; (SP) indicates syntactic and prosodic incongruity. All the critical noun phrases are in the sentence-final positions and written in bold and capital characters.
Topographic differences indicate that these two language processes are smoothly communicate major in early time windows (200-400 ms) and minor in late time windows (550-750 ms).
+2
Conditions
The 2 x 2 design study included four experimental conditions containing 50 sentences each (200 experimental + 100 filler).
Sample Sentences
PRO
SYN correct
bahçede in the garden garden-LOC
yıkadı halı-yı’ washed the carpet’ ] wash-PAST carpet-ACC
correct
CC
‘Ayşe [‘Ayşe Ayşe
bahçede in the garden garden-LOC
yıkadı HALI-YI’ washed the carpet’ ] wash-PAST carpet-ACC
incorrect
CP
‘Ayşe [‘Ayşe Ayşe ‘Ayşe [‘Ayşe carpet’ ] Ayşe ‘Ayşe [‘Ayşe carpet’ ] Ayşe
bahçede in the garden
yıkadı halı-ya’ washed to the
correct
garden-LOC bahçede in the garden
wash-PAST carpet-ACC yıkadı HALI-YA’ washed to the incorrect
garden-LOC
wash-PAST
SC
SP
When Prosody has an effect on Syntax; an interaction in early negativity and P600 windows becomes clear and the early negativity and P600 Effects are smaller when prosody is violated. Interaction were the basic question of this study, so it is worth to express that prosodic and syntactic features process in a dependent way rather than independent in neural network and electrophysiological responses to prosodic and syntactic violation are similar.
Mean
120 correct
100 incorrect
80 60
incorrect
carpet-ACC
40
Interstimulus (ISI)
20
+
Response
+
Procedure:
stimulus
300 experiment sentences were presented in a randomized order in 6 blocks of 50 trials. Participants were asked to press the left button if the sentence which they heard was correct and they were asked to press the right button, if the sentence was incorrect.
0
1500 ms
+
CC
+
CP
SC
3000 ms
+
2000 ms
500 ms
TASK: “Detect the correct and incorrect sentences”
•
REFERENCES: Astésano, C., Besson, M. and Alter, K. 2004. Brain potentials during semantic and prosodic processing in French. Cognitive Brain Research (18). 172-184. Eckstein, K. and Friederici, A.D. 2005. Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 130-143. Eckstein, K. and Friederici, A.D. 2006. Its early: event-related potential evidence for initial interaction of syntax and prosody in speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (18). 1696-1711. Erguvanlı, E., (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. University of California Press, Berkeley. Göksel, A. 2010. Focus in words ith truth values. Iberia, Vol. 2/1, 89-211. Göksel, A. (1998). Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish. In: Johanson, L. (Ed.), The Mainz Meeting Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 85–106. Güneş, G. 2013. On the Role of Prosodic Constituency in Turkish. In the Proceedings of WAFL8 MIT Working Papers in Linguistics , Umut Özge eds. Cambridge, MA. Hagoort, P. 2003. How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage (20). 18-19. Kaan, E. and Swaab, T.Y. 2003. Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: an electrophysiological differentiation, Journal of Neuroscience 15(1). 98110. Kural, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish. Ms, draft 1. UCLA. Steinhauer, K., Alter, K. and Friederici, A.D. 1999. Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature America (2). 191-196. Steinhauer, K. 2003. Electrophysiological correlates of prosody and punctuation. Brain and Language (86). 142-164.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This study is funded by TÜBİTAK 1001 Project: 112K394. (“Brain Functions of Phonologic Meaning Processing in Turkish Spoken Language: An ERP Study”).
SP
