Prosodic and syntactic focus in speech processing in Mandarin Chinese

<p>It is well established that focus plays an important role in facilitating language processing, i.e., focused words are recognised faster and remembered better. In addition, more recent research shows that alternatives to a word (e.g., sailor as an alternative to captain) are more activated when listeners hear the word with contrastive prominence (e.g., ‘The captain put on the raincoat) (bold indicates contrastive prominence). The mechanism behind these processing advantages is focus. Focus has two broad conceptions in relation to its effect on language processing: focus as updating the common ground and focus as indicating alternatives. Considerable psycholinguistic evidence has been obtained for processing advantages consistent with the first conception, and this evidence comes from studies across a reasonably wide range of languages. But the evidence for the second conception only comes from a handful of closely related languages (i.e., English, Dutch and German). Further, it has largely been confined to contrastive accenting as a marker of focus. Therefore, it is not clear if other types of focus marking (e.g., clefts) have similar processing effects. It is also not known if all this is true in Mandarin, as there is very little research in these areas in Mandarin. Mandarin uses pitch expansion to mark contrastive prominence, rather than the pitch accenting found in Germanic languages. Therefore, the investigation of Mandarin expands our knowledge of these speech processing effects to a different language and language family. It also expands our knowledge of the relative roles of prosody and syntax in marking focus and in speech processing in Mandarin, and in general. This thesis tested how different types of focus marking affect the perception of focus and two aspects of language processing related to focus: the encoding and activation of discourse information (focused words and focus alternatives). The aim was to see whether there is a link between the relative importance of prosodic and syntactic focus marking in Mandarin and their effectiveness in these aspects of language processing. For focus perception, contrastive prominence and clefting have been claimed to mark focus in Mandarin, but it has not been well tested whether listeners perceive them as focus marking. For the first aspect of processing, it is not yet clear what cues listeners use to encode focused information beyond prominence when processing a discourse. For the second aspect, there has been rapidly growing interest in the role of alternatives in language processing, but little is known regarding the effect of clefting. In addition, it is not clear whether the prosodic and syntactic cues are equally effective, and again little research has been devoted to Mandarin. Therefore, the following experiments were conducted to look at these cues in Mandarin. Experiment 1, a norming study, was conducted to help select stimuli for the following Experiments 2, 3, 4A and 4B. Experiment 2 investigated the relative weights of prosodic and syntactic focus cues in a question-answer appropriateness rating task. The findings show that in canonical word order sentences, the focus was perceived to be on the word that was marked by contrastive prominence. In clefts where the prominence and syntactic cues were on the same word, that word was perceived as being in focus. However, in ‘mismatch’ cases, e.g., 是[船长]F 穿上的[雨衣]F ‘It was the [captain]F who put on the [raincoat]F’ (F indicates focus), the focus was perceived to be on raincoat, the word that had contrastive prominence. In other words, participants weighted prosodic cues more highly. This suggests that prosodic prominence is a stronger focus cue than syntax in Mandarin. Experiment 3 looked at the role of prosodic and syntactic cues in listeners’ encoding of discourse information in a speeded ‘false alternative’ rejection task. This experiment shows that false alternatives to a word in a sentence (e.g., sailor to captain in ‘The captain put on the raincoat’) were more easily rejected if captain was marked with prosodic cues than with syntactic cues. This experiment shows congruent results to those of Experiment 2, in that prosodic cues were more effective than syntactic cues in encoding discourse information. It seems that a more important marker of focus provides more effective encoding of discourse information. Experiments 4A and 4B investigated the role of prosodic and syntactic focus cues in the activation of discourse information in Mandarin, using the cross-modal lexical priming paradigm. Both studies consistently show that prosodic focus marking, but not syntactic focus marking, facilitates the activation of identical targets (e.g., captain after hearing ‘The captain put on the raincoat’). Similarly, prosodic focus marking, but not syntactic focus marking, primes alternatives (e.g., sailor). But focus marking does not prime noncontrastive associates (e.g., deck). These findings, together with previous findings on focus particles (e.g., only), suggest that alternative priming is particularly related to contrastive prominence, at least in languages looked at to date. The relative priming effects of prosodic and syntactic focus cues in Experiments 4A and 4B are in line with their relative weights in Experiments 2 and 3. This thesis presents a crucial link between the relative weights of prosodic and syntactic cues in marking focus, their degrees of effectiveness in encoding discourse information and their ability to activate discourse information in Mandarin. This research contributes significantly to our cross-linguistic understanding of prosodic and syntactic focus in speech processing, showing the processing advantages of focus may be common across languages, but what cues trigger the effects differ by language.</p>

Prosodic and syntactic focus in speech processing in Mandarin Chinese

<p>It is well established that focus plays an important role in facilitating language processing, i.e., focused words are recognised faster and remembered better. In addition, more recent research shows that alternatives to a word (e.g., sailor as an alternative to captain) are more activated when listeners hear the word with contrastive prominence (e.g., ‘The captain put on the raincoat) (bold indicates contrastive prominence). The mechanism behind these processing advantages is focus. Focus has two broad conceptions in relation to its effect on language processing: focus as updating the common ground and focus as indicating alternatives. Considerable psycholinguistic evidence has been obtained for processing advantages consistent with the first conception, and this evidence comes from studies across a reasonably wide range of languages. But the evidence for the second conception only comes from a handful of closely related languages (i.e., English, Dutch and German). Further, it has largely been confined to contrastive accenting as a marker of focus. Therefore, it is not clear if other types of focus marking (e.g., clefts) have similar processing effects. It is also not known if all this is true in Mandarin, as there is very little research in these areas in Mandarin. Mandarin uses pitch expansion to mark contrastive prominence, rather than the pitch accenting found in Germanic languages. Therefore, the investigation of Mandarin expands our knowledge of these speech processing effects to a different language and language family. It also expands our knowledge of the relative roles of prosody and syntax in marking focus and in speech processing in Mandarin, and in general. This thesis tested how different types of focus marking affect the perception of focus and two aspects of language processing related to focus: the encoding and activation of discourse information (focused words and focus alternatives). The aim was to see whether there is a link between the relative importance of prosodic and syntactic focus marking in Mandarin and their effectiveness in these aspects of language processing. For focus perception, contrastive prominence and clefting have been claimed to mark focus in Mandarin, but it has not been well tested whether listeners perceive them as focus marking. For the first aspect of processing, it is not yet clear what cues listeners use to encode focused information beyond prominence when processing a discourse. For the second aspect, there has been rapidly growing interest in the role of alternatives in language processing, but little is known regarding the effect of clefting. In addition, it is not clear whether the prosodic and syntactic cues are equally effective, and again little research has been devoted to Mandarin. Therefore, the following experiments were conducted to look at these cues in Mandarin. Experiment 1, a norming study, was conducted to help select stimuli for the following Experiments 2, 3, 4A and 4B. Experiment 2 investigated the relative weights of prosodic and syntactic focus cues in a question-answer appropriateness rating task. The findings show that in canonical word order sentences, the focus was perceived to be on the word that was marked by contrastive prominence. In clefts where the prominence and syntactic cues were on the same word, that word was perceived as being in focus. However, in ‘mismatch’ cases, e.g., 是[船长]F 穿上的[雨衣]F ‘It was the [captain]F who put on the [raincoat]F’ (F indicates focus), the focus was perceived to be on raincoat, the word that had contrastive prominence. In other words, participants weighted prosodic cues more highly. This suggests that prosodic prominence is a stronger focus cue than syntax in Mandarin. Experiment 3 looked at the role of prosodic and syntactic cues in listeners’ encoding of discourse information in a speeded ‘false alternative’ rejection task. This experiment shows that false alternatives to a word in a sentence (e.g., sailor to captain in ‘The captain put on the raincoat’) were more easily rejected if captain was marked with prosodic cues than with syntactic cues. This experiment shows congruent results to those of Experiment 2, in that prosodic cues were more effective than syntactic cues in encoding discourse information. It seems that a more important marker of focus provides more effective encoding of discourse information. Experiments 4A and 4B investigated the role of prosodic and syntactic focus cues in the activation of discourse information in Mandarin, using the cross-modal lexical priming paradigm. Both studies consistently show that prosodic focus marking, but not syntactic focus marking, facilitates the activation of identical targets (e.g., captain after hearing ‘The captain put on the raincoat’). Similarly, prosodic focus marking, but not syntactic focus marking, primes alternatives (e.g., sailor). But focus marking does not prime noncontrastive associates (e.g., deck). These findings, together with previous findings on focus particles (e.g., only), suggest that alternative priming is particularly related to contrastive prominence, at least in languages looked at to date. The relative priming effects of prosodic and syntactic focus cues in Experiments 4A and 4B are in line with their relative weights in Experiments 2 and 3. This thesis presents a crucial link between the relative weights of prosodic and syntactic cues in marking focus, their degrees of effectiveness in encoding discourse information and their ability to activate discourse information in Mandarin. This research contributes significantly to our cross-linguistic understanding of prosodic and syntactic focus in speech processing, showing the processing advantages of focus may be common across languages, but what cues trigger the effects differ by language.</p>

Effects of attentional focus cues on lower extremity kinematics during inside of the foot soccer trap among expert soccer players

Numerous studies have demonstrated improved performance results for sport skills through attentional focus instructions. However, few studies have examined the effects of cueing on expert kinematic performance, and this is the first to assess cueing’s kinematic effects on expert soccer players performing .common techniques This study assessed the lower extremity kinematics of an inside of the foot soccer trap via motion capture cameras under different attentional focus cues to analyze how the cues affect the movement pattern among expert performers. 10 NCAA Division 1 soccer players trapped a launched ball on a scoring mat after receiving coaching cues inducing an internal, external, holistic, or control focus of attention. Statistical analysis revealed movement differences between the internal and external cue conditions for the ankle and knee joints during the movement. The difference at the knee was a steeper flexion followed by a correction and, at the ankle, a steeper flexion, both during the internal cue condition. Attentional focus cues inducing a conscious control of the movement may disrupt the movement patterns of highly skilled expert performers. Coaches should be acutely aware of the language they use in instruction, even among expert performers.

Attentional Focus and Individuals’ Perceptions: A Systematic Review

Although multiple review studies have supported the superior effects of an external compared with internal focus, these reviews are based on performance outcomes. Currently, the literature lacks knowledge regarding the effects of external/internal foci on individuals’ perceptions, which may provide further explanations for how attentional focus affects performance. Therefore, the present study conducted a systematic review of survey/questionnaire data of participants’ thoughts and emotions from laboratory studies. The authors used ERIC, SPORTDiscus, PsycArticle, CINAHL Plus, Health Source Nursing Academic edition, and PubMed search engines. Literature specific to external/internal focus effects on motor learning or performance were reviewed (N = 37). The results showed that participants generally adhered to the assigned attentional focus instruction and there was a trend that preference may affect the attentional focus effects, but the results were inconsistent regarding if attentional focus cues affected the magnitude of adherence and mental demands. There were substantial differences in methodologies and theoretical issues of measuring these data. Future studies should adopt inferential statistics, choose theoretically relevant questions in a priori manner, or, at minimum, propose a hypothesis for the selected question.

Neuromuscular Mechanisms Underlying Changes in Force Production during an Attentional Focus Task

We examined the effects of attentional focus cues on maximal voluntary force output of the elbow flexors and the underlying physiological mechanisms. Eleven males participated in two randomized experimental sessions. In each session, four randomized blocks of three maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) were performed. The blocks consisted of two externally and two internally attentional focus cued blocks. In one of the sessions, corticospinal excitability (CSE) was measured. During the stimulation session transcranial magnetic, transmastoid and Erb’s point stimulations were used to induce motor evoked potentials (MEPs), cervicomedullary MEP (CMEPs) and maximal muscle action potential (Mmax), respectively in the biceps brachii. Across both sessions forces were lower (p = 0.024) under the internal (282.4 ± 60.3 N) compared to the external condition (310.7 ± 11.3 N). Muscle co-activation was greater (p = 0.016) under the internal (26.3 ± 11.5%) compared with the external condition (21.5 ± 9.4%). There was no change in CSE. Across both sessions, force measurements were lower (p = 0.033) during the stimulation (279.0 ± 47.1 N) compared with the no-stimulation session (314.1 ± 57.5 N). In conclusion, external focus increased force, likely due to reduced co-activation. Stimulating the corticospinal pathway may confound attentional focus. The stimulations may distract participants from the cues and/or disrupt areas of the cortex responsible for attention and focus.

The use of multiple externally directed attentional focus cues facilitates motor learning

Attentional focus research consistently suggests that the use of an external focus of attention improves motor learning and performance relative to an internal focus. It appears, however, that external focus cues are not frequently adopted in applied sport settings. One issue that may contribute to this disparity relates to variability in how cues are employed in research and practice. Experimental research tends to use a single-cue approach, while in sports, athletes often sample several cues within the same practice. A limitation of the single-cue approach is that attentional focus effects could be due either to focus direction (internal vs. external) or to the relative effectiveness of a particular cue (e.g. an effective externally focused cue vs. an ineffective internally focused cue). This study tested whether external focus benefits generalize to situations in which participants use multiple cues of the same type throughout acquisition. Volunteers ( N = 22) learned a dart throwing task while using three internally or externally focused cues. Results indicated an external focus led to lower error scores during acquisition and a delayed retention test ( p’s < .05). These results demonstrate that the external focus benefit generalizes to situations where a performer uses multiple cues.