17

研究論文

Using Prosodic Cues in Syntactic Processing: From the Perspective of
the English Proficiency and Working Memory Capacity ofJapanese EFL Learners
NAKANISHI, Hiroshi(Seinan Gakuin University)

1. Introduction
Many first language (L1) studies have demonstrated that prosody facilitates
the comprehension of spoken languages. For example, Speer et al. (1996) tested
temporally ambiguous sentences, such as “Whenever the guard checks the door it’slocked.” They concluded that syntactic processing is facilitated when the prosodic
boundary (indicated by “%”) matches the syntactic structure (e.g., “Whenever theguard checks the door % it’s locked”). However, syntactic processing interferes when
prosodic boundaries are placed at misleading points in the syntactic structure (e.g.,“Whenever the guard checks % the door it’s locked”). This is different from the baseline
prosody condition with an acoustically subtle boundary. Speer et al. (1996) suggested
that prosodic information is used not only for final interpretation but also to guide
initial syntactic processing. Furthermore, in their visual world eye-tracking study,
Snedeker and Trueswell (2003) showed that such prosodic cues are used to predict theupcoming syntactic structure. They did this by using sentences with globally
ambiguous structures, such as “Tap the frog with the flower.”
For studies of second language (L2) learners, Nakamura et al. (2015) suggested
that Japanese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners do not use prosodic
information for their syntactic analysis, which contradicts the findings for native
English speakers. These researchers found no difference between Japanese EFL
learners’ reaction times in comprehending the reduced relative clause under prosodic
boundary conditions (e.g., “The boy % insulted in the classroom % ran away from his
friend”), the reduced relative clause when there were no prosodic boundary conditions(e.g., “The boy, insulted in the classroom, ran away from his friend”), and an
unambiguous relative clause condition (e.g., “The boy, who was insulted in theclassroom, ran away from his friend”). Native English speakers, by contrast, could
understand the sentence faster in the prosodic boundary condition than in otherconditions. Furthermore, Nakanishi (2021) revealed that the degree of using prosodic
cues significantly differs according to a person’s English proficiency. In his experiment

NAKANISHI, Hiroshi

18

using the listening span test, participants were required to listen to object relative
clause sentences and remember the sentence’s final words. The recall score wasreflected as the efficiency of their working memory. The sentences were displayed
under three prosody conditions. The first was an appropriate prosody condition, where
the prosodic boundary was placed on the syntactic boundary (e.g., “The man thatmarried the woman % became her husband”). The second was the baseline condition,
where subtle prosodic information was given (e.g., “The boy that the volunteers
support is a young man”). The third was an inappropriate prosody condition, where theprosodic boundary was located on an erroneous parse (e.g., “The parents that help %the boy are older than he is”). The main results were that learners with highproficiency had better scores under the appropriate prosodic condition than learners
with low proficiency did. However, the recall scores in the listening span tests were notdifferent according to the user’s proficiency, regardless of the prosodic condition. Thissuggests that even high-proficiency learners exhaust their working memory resources
to process objective relative sentences even in the appropriate prosody condition, andthis makes retaining the final words of the sentence difficult.
Taken together, previous L2 studies showed that L2 learners, especiallylow-proficiency learners, have difficulty using prosodic cues in syntactic processing.
However, there is a remaining issue: The sentences in L2 studies were difficult forlearners to process. For example, the object relative clause sentences used in
Nakanishi (2021) were cognitively demanding (Gibson, 1998; Grodner & Gibson, 2005;
Hashimoto, 2011, 2012; Sakakibara & Yokokawa, 2015; Yokokawa et al., 2014).
Therefore, less proficient learners would exhaust their working memory in processing
object relative clause sentences, and they could not allocate their resources to direct
their attention to informative prosody. Therefore, this study uses a simpler syntactic
structure consisting of a subjective noun phrase and prepositional phrase as a subject
clause (e.g., “The suspect in the accident will be arrested”) with a view to exploring the
prosodic influence on syntactic processing for Japanese EFL learners in terms of theirproficiency and the efficiency of their working memory.
2. Research Questions
This study explores how Japanese EFL learners use prosodic cues to facilitate
syntactic processing in terms of their English proficiency and working memory
capacity. To this end, two research questions (RQs) are addressed:
RQ1: When prosodic boundaries match syntactic boundaries, is sentencecomprehension made easier, and thus, is working memory used more
efficiently compared with when prosodic boundaries are placed atmisleading points in syntactically structured sentences?

Using Prosodic Cues in Syntactic Processing: From the Perspective of
the English Proficiency and Working Memory Capacity of Japanese EFL Learners

19

RQ2: Does the degree of the result for RQ1 differ according to individual
English ability?
3. Method
3.1 Participants
A total of 58 Japanese EFL undergraduate and graduate students (9 male and49 female) participated in the study. Their proficiencies were measured using the
Oxford Online Placement Test (OOPT). Their scores ranged from 15 to 94 out of 120
possible marks (M = 49.27, S.D.= 17.44). When their scores were converted to the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), the 58
participants comprised 5 Beginner (A1), 17 Pre-Intermediate (A2), 28 Intermediate(B1), 6 Upper-Intermediate (B2), and 2 Advanced (C1) students.
3.2 Procedure
All participants completed three types of listening span tests under threedifferent prosodic conditions (see Section 3.3.1). They also completed the OOPT as
noted in Section 3.1. The listening span tests were administered by three groups, and
OOPTs were held individually.
3.3 Materials
3.3.1 Listening Span Test
On the listening span test, there were three types of tasks, each including 42
sentences (see Appendix). Type A was referred to as the “cooperating condition,” inwhich the prosodic boundary matched the syntactic structure. Type B was the“baseline condition,” where a subtle prosodic boundary was placed. Type C wasreferred to as the “conflicting condition,” in which the prosodic boundary was placed
where it conflicted with the syntactic structure. Examples of sentences defined as
Types A, B, and C are as follows (% indicates a prosodic boundary, / indicates a
syntactic boundary):(A) Cooperating condition:

The suspect in the accident %/ will be arrested.

(B) Baseline condition:

The guide for the tour knows the popular spot
well.

(C) Conflicting condition:

The husband of % the wife / is a very beautiful
woman.

Semantic judgment was incorporated into this task, so half the sentences were
semantically correct (e.g., “The suspect in the accident will be arrested”). Half wereincorrect (e.g., “The husband of the wife is a very beautiful woman”). The model sounds
were recorded by a female American native speaker of English at a speaking rate of

NAKANISHI, Hiroshi

20

approximately 152 words per minute. She was asked to record sentences under thethree conditions described above.
The length of pauses was manipulated by Praat (0.4 seconds) so that the lengthof the pause between A and C was not different. The wave form and pitch track of thesentences are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3.
The sentences were presented to listeners over a speaker. There were 3.5
second pauses between the sentences. The participants were required to listen to thesentence, write 〇 on the answer sheet if the sentence was semantically plausible or ×
if it was implausible, and remember the last word as quickly as possible. For all thelistening span tasks, these procedures were repeated until the end of the session was
indicated with a beep. The participants would then write down the final words of thesentences on the answer sheet.
As an example, under the three-sentence condition, the participants listened tothree sentences and memorized the final word of each sentence. At the end of thesession, they had to write the three final words on the answer sheet. Sentences were
presented to the participants in groups of two, three, four, and five sentences. Eachgroup had three sets. Therefore, they had to listen to 42 sentences in total. The
participants were asked to listen to increasingly longer sets of sentences until they had
listened to three sets of five sentences.
Following the procedure of Ushiro and Sakuma (2000), the time to recall the
final word in each sentence was increased by 5 seconds while increasing a set by one
sentence. For example, 20 seconds was given to recall the final words of four-sentences,and 25 seconds was given in the case of five sentences.
3.3.2 English Proficiency Test
The OOPT was implemented and conducted on the internet. It was used tomeasure the participants’ English fluency in reading and listening. Each question was
accompanied by three or four possible answers, only one of which was correct. There
was a time limit of 90 minutes.

Using Prosodic Cues in Syntactic Processing: From the Perspective of
the English Proficiency and Working Memory Capacity of Japanese EFL Learners

Figure 1

Condition A: The suspect in the accident will be arrested.

The

suspectin theaccident

will be arrested.

Figure 2

Condition B: The guide for the tour knows the popular spot well.

The guideforthe tour

knows

the

popular

spot

well.

Figure 3

Condition C: The husband of the wife is a very beautiful woman.

Thehusband

of

the

wife

is a very beautiful

woman.

21

NAKANISHI, Hiroshi

22

4. Method and Discussion
4.1. OOPT Listening Score by English Proficiency
The participants were divided into three groups according to their OOPT
listening scores (see Table 1). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA; F (2,171) =385.45, p < .01, ηp2 = .818) and post hoc Bonferroni multiple comparisons confirmedthat average listening scores were significantly different among the groups (p < 01).
The

high-proficiency

group

was

made

up

of

11

Intermediate

(B1),

6

Upper-Intermediate (B2), and 2 Advanced (C1) students. The middle-proficiency groupconsisted of 2 Pre-Intermediate (A2) and 17 Intermediate (B1) students. The
low-proficiency group was made up of 5 Beginner (A1) and 15 Pre-Intermediate (A2)students.
Table 1

Average listening score by English proficiency
High (n = 19)

Middle (n = 19)

Low (n = 20)

Ave.

62.37

45.16

26.95

S.D.

9.20

4.26

6.75

4.2. Listening Span Test score
4.2.1. Semantic Judgment Task Score by Prosody Condition
Table 2 illustrates the mean scores from the semantic judgment tasks byprosody condition. One-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect (F（2,171）= 6.23,

p < .01, η p2 = .068). The analysis of the main effect revealed that the scores ofcondition A were significantly higher than those of condition C (p < .01). In addition,
condition A tended to produce significantly better scores than condition B did (p= .069).
Table 2

Semantic judgment task score by prosody condition
A (Cooperating)

B (Baseline)

C (Conflicting)

Ave.

24.26

22.67

21.86

S.D.

4.20

3.73

3.83

4.2.2. Recall Score by Prosody Condition
Table 3 reveals the mean recall scores by prosody condition. One-way ANOVA
revealed a significant main effect (F (2,171) = 7.144, p < .01, ηp2 =.077). The analysis

Using Prosodic Cues in Syntactic Processing: From the Perspective of
the English Proficiency and Working Memory Capacity of Japanese EFL Learners

23of multiple comparison revealed that recall scores of condition A was significantly
better than those of condition C (p < .01) and condition B (p < .05).
Table 3

Recall score by prosody condition
A (Cooperating)

B (Baseline)

C (Conflicting)

Ave.

24.24

22.86

20.09

S.D.

5.89

5.96

6.23

4.3. Listening Span Scores by Proficiency
4.3.1. Semantic Judgment Task Score by Proficiency and Prosody Condition
Table 4 shows the mean scores of the semantic judgment task by proficiency
and prosody condition. A 3 (proficiency) × 2 (prosody) ANOVA revealed significant main
effects of proficiency (F (2,165）= 6.420, p < .01, ηp2 = .072) and prosody (F (2,165) =6.610, p < .01, η p2 = .074). The analysis of multiple comparisons on proficiency
revealed that the high-proficiency group scored significantly better than the
low-proficiency group (p < .01) did, and the middle proficiency group tended to produce
better scores than the low proficiency group did (p = .069). The analysis of multiple
comparisons on prosodic condition revealed that condition A produced significantly
higher scores compared with condition C (p < .01) and tended to produce higher scoresthan condition B did (p = .060). However, there were no significant interactions
between proficiency and prosody (F (4,165) = 4.242, n.s.,ηp2 = .008, n.s.).
Table 4

Semantic judgment task scores by proficiency and prosody condition
A (Cooperating)

B (Baseline)

C (Conflicting)

High

Mid

Low

High

Mid

Low

High

Mid

Low

Ave.

25.84

24.58

22.45

23.58

23.00

21.50

22.63

22.00

21.00

S.D.

5.00

3.86

3.02

3.70

4.15

3.19

3.17

2.81

3.37

4.3.2. Recall Scores by Proficiency and Prosody Condition
Table 5 illustrates the mean recall scores by proficiency and prosody condition.
A 3 (proficiency) × 2 (prosody) ANOVA revealed significant main effects of proficiency(F (2,165）= 8.38, p < .01, ηp2 = .092) and prosody (F (2,165）= 7.643, p < .01, ηp2= .085). The analysis of multiple comparisons revealed that the recall scores of thehigh-proficiency group were significantly better than those of the low-proficiency group

NAKANISHI, Hiroshi

24(p < .01), whereas the recall scores of the middle-proficiency group were significantly
better than those of the low-proficiency group (p < .01). However, there were no
significant interactions between proficiency and prosody (F (4,165)= .146, ns.,η p2=.004).
Table 5

Recall score by proficiency and prosody condition
A (Cooperating)

B (Baseline)

C (Conflicting)

High

Mid

Low

High

Mid

Low

High

Mid

Low

Ave.

25.42

25.58

21.85

24.32

24.58

19.85

21.58

20.79

18.00

S.D.

7.15

4.82

4.93

6.47

5.16

5.21

6.91

5.16

6.23

5. Discussion
The main purpose of this study is to explore whether Japanese EFL learners
use prosodic cues for sentence processing and whether they use working memory
resources efficiently, as well as the degree to which this differs according to individual
English proficiency. With this aim, listening span tests were implemented under three
types of prosodic conditions (Cooperating, Baseline, and Conflicting conditions).
RQ1 deals with whether sentences with cooperating prosody promotecomprehension and efficient functioning of working memory. The answer for RQ1 is yes.
The results of this study reveal that when prosodic and syntactic boundaries coincide,the comprehension rates (Table 2) and working memory scores (Table 3) are better
when the prosodic boundary is located at an inappropriate syntactic boundary. The
result is consistent with many previous L1 studies, which reveal the presence of a
prosodic boundary at an appropriate position that can facilitate syntactic processing(Speer et al., 1996). This study also reveals that Japanese EFL learners utilize
informative prosody for syntactic processing. Syntactic processing places a heavier
cognitive load on working memory resources compared with semantic and pragmatic
processing for Japanese EFL learners (Nakanishi & Yokokawa, 2011). Therefore, theuse of prosodic cues allows cognitive resources for syntactic processing, reserving theresources for retention of previously processed information.
RQ2 focuses on whether the degree of prosodic cue use in syntactic processing
and working memory efficiency relate to individual English proficiency. The answer for
the RQ2 is no. Table 4, which lists the listening comprehension scores, reveals that
there is no interaction between the variables of proficiency and prosody. However, thisresult is inconsistent with the Nakanishi (2021)’s study, which included higher, middle,
and lower proficiency groups. In this author’s results, the higher proficiency group

Using Prosodic Cues in Syntactic Processing: From the Perspective of
the English Proficiency and Working Memory Capacity of Japanese EFL Learners

25

achieved significantly better scores than the lower proficiency group did under thecooperating and conflicting prosodic conditions, whereas the middle proficiency groupobtained better scores than the lower proficiency group did under the conflicting
prosody condition.
There are two main differences between Nakanishi (2021)’s research and thisstudy. The first difference is that the proficiency of the participants in this study ismuch lower than in Nakanishi (2021)’s study, as shown in Table 6. The second
difference is the complexity of the sentence structures used in the listening span test.
As noted in the introduction section, the sentences used in Nakanishi (2021)—which
included the object relative clause as subject (e.g., “The man that married the woman
became her husband”)—were more cognitively demanding than the sentences in thisexperiment were; the latter included an initial noun phrase followed by a prepositional
phrase as subject (e.g., “The suspect in the accident will be arrested”).
Table 6

Average listening score by English proficiency in Nakanishi (2021)
Nakanishi (2021)

This study

High

MiddleLow

High

MiddleLow

Number

24

24

22

19

19

20

Ave.

75.46

53.50

40.77

62.37

45.16

26.95

S.D.

14.17

10.11

8.61

9.20

4.26

6.75

Under the cooperating condition (e.g., “The girl that the helpers support %/ isa young woman”), the high-proficiency participants in Nakanishi (2021)—whose
proficiencies were higher compared with the proficiencies of participants in thisstudy—performed better than the low-proficiency participants did. This means thatthe informative prosodic cues facilitated the syntactic processing more for thehigh-proficiency group than it did for the low-proficiency group. In contrast, in thisstudy—which used a simpler structure—the comprehension performances under thecooperating condition (e.g., “The suspect in the accident %/ will be arrested”) for highproficiency group were not different from those for the low-proficiency group (see Table4). This means that even the high-proficiency group could not fully utilize theinformative prosodic cues for sentence comprehension to the same degree as the
low-proficiency group could. It is difficult to conclude whether the proficiency
difference, complexity of the structure, or both brought about the different resultcompared with the previous study. However, it is possible that the easier syntactic
structure in this study, which needs less cognitive resources for processing, enabled all

NAKANISHI, Hiroshi

26

proficiency

groupstoutilize

informative

prosodic

information

for sentencecomprehension.
Under the conflicting prosody condition (e.g., “The runner that respects % theswimmers / can run fast”), the high- and middle-proficiency groups in Nakanishi (2021)
performed better than the low-proficiency group did. In contrast, under the conflicting
prosody condition in this study (i.e., “The husband of % the wife / is a very beautiful
woman”), the comprehension scores are not different according to the proficiency.
Even the high- and middle-proficiency groups in this study could not reach appropriate
interpretation. To correctly understand the sentence in the mismatch condition
between prosodic and syntactic structure, listeners are required to reanalyze the early
decision, which is guided by misleading prosody (Pauker et al., 2011). It can be said
that the syntactic processing ability for high and middle proficiency groups in thisstudy is not fully developed, so they tend to easily adopt the incorrect syntactic
analysis led by misplaced the prosodic boundary.
Regarding working memory efficiency, Table 5 reveals that there was nodifferent according to proficiency. In addition, Table 4 shows that comprehension
performance is not significantly different among prosodic conditions depending on
proficiency. This means that even the high proficiency group exhausted many working
memory resources for comprehension to the same extent as low proficiency group,leaving insufficient resources for the storage of target words.
6. Conclusion
This study revealed that regardless of their individual English proficiency,
Japanese EFL learners utilize prosodic cues to interpret relatively simple syntactic
sentences. Combining this study’s results with those of Nakanishi (2021), we can saythat more proficient learners are sensitive to mismatches between prosody andsyntactic structure. When they apprehend such a mismatch, they reanalyze earlier
decisions led by misleading prosodic boundary.
My future research will consider when and how prosodic cues are
implemented as Japanese EFL learners process syntactically ambiguous sentences.
This will contribute to further investigations of cognitive mechanism of L2 processing.
In addition, as an in-depth pedagogical study, the methodology of utilizing prosodic
cue-based sentences that accelerate the automatization of syntactic processing should
be explored. Prosody provides the syntactic structure of utterances (Frazier et al.,2006), the repeated exposure to syntactically complex sentences with cooperative
prosody greatly assists learners in the overall development of their syntactic
processing abilities.

Using Prosodic Cues in Syntactic Processing: From the Perspective of
the English Proficiency and Working Memory Capacity of Japanese EFL Learners

27

Acknowledgment
This study was partially supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (C), (PI: Hiroshi Nakanishi, No. 19K00855).
References
Frazier, L, Carlson, K, & Clifton, C. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language
comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(6), 244–249.
Gibson, E. A. F. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality and syntactic dependencies.

Cognition, 68, 1–76.
Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input.

Cognitive Science, 29, 261–291.
Hashimoto, K. (2011). Syntactic processing of L2 English relative clause sentences:
The Effect of proficiency. Annual Review of English language Education in Japan,

22, 95–110.
Hashimoto, K. (2012, March 27). The effect of semantic information on L2 relative

clause processing as a function of proficiency [Paper presentation]. Paper
presented at American Association for Applied Linguistics 2012, Boston, MA,
United States.
Nakamura, C., Arai, M., & Harada, Y. (2015). Effect of prosody on resolving reduced
relative clause ambiguity in L2 sentence processing. Proceedings of the 44th

Annual Meeting of the English Language Education Society of Japan, 60–67.
Nakanishi, H. (2021). Prosody zyoho ga listening span test no bunrikai tobunmatsutango saisei seiseki ni oyobosu eikyo nitsuite [The effects of prosody on
Japanese EFL learners’ listening span]. Seinan Journal of Foreign Language

Studies, 2(1), 1–16.
Nakanishi, H., & Yokokawa, H. (2011). Determinant processing factors of recall
performance in reading span tests: An empirical study of Japanese EFL learners.

JACET Journal, 53, 93–108.
Pauker, E., Itzhak, I., S., B., & Steinhauer, K. (2011). Effect of cooperating andconflicting prosody in spoken English garden path sentences: ERP evidence for theboundary deletion hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(10),2731–2751.
Sakakibara, K., & Yokokawa, H. (2015). Repeated exposure effects on Japanese EFL
learners' relative clause processing: Evidence from a self-paced reading
experiment. Journal of the Japan Society for Speech Sciences, 16, 36–58.
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J. (2003). Using prosody to avoid ambiguity: Effects of
speaker awareness and referential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(l), 103–130.

NAKANISHI, Hiroshi

28

Speer, S. R., Kjelgaard, M. M., & Dobroth, K. M. (1996). The influence of prosodic
structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of

Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 249–271.
Ushiro, Y., & Sakuma, Y. (2000). Modifying reading and listening span tests for group
testing. JLTA Journal, 3, 67–82.
Yokokawa, H., Sadato, N., & Yoshida, H. (Eds.). (2014). Gaikokugo unyou nouryoku haikani jyukutatsuka suruka: Gengo jyouhou syori no jidouka process wo saguru[How does foreign language proficiency develop?: Investigating the automatization
process of linguistic information processing]. Shohakusha.
Appendix
Sample Sentences for Types A–C.
Sample Sentences for Type A
The suspect in the accident will be arrested.
The prince of the country will become a king.
The dog of the actor drives his car by himself.
Sample Sentences for Type B
The husband of the woman is a strong lady.
The house of the lawyer has a lot of knowledge.
The magazine about the actress is sold at book stores.
Sample Sentences for Type C
The doctor in the hospital was built for the patients.
The pet of the writer had an idea for the next book.
The table in your house is the best place for sleeping.