Syntax in music and language: The role of cognitive control L. Robert Slevc (
[email protected]) Department of Psychology, University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 USA Jason G. Reitman (
[email protected]) Wesleyan University Middletown, CT 06459 USA Brooke M. Okada (
[email protected]) Department of Psychology, University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 USA Abstract electrophysiological response characteristic of a violation of linguistic syntax (the left anterior negativity, or LAN) is The relationship between structural (or syntactic) processing in music and in language is not yet clear. Evidence indicating reduced when linguistic syntactic violations are paired with that these two processes are shared conflicts with other results a concurrent music-syntactic irregularity (Koelsch, Gunter, suggesting that they are largely distinct. These conflicting Wittfoth, & Sammler, 2005). Similarly, sung complex findings suggest that musical and linguistic processing may sentences are especially difficult to understand when critical share some, but not all, underlying processes, raising the regions are sung out-of-key (Fedorenko, Patel, Casasanto, question of what exactly those shared processes might be. Winawer, & Gibson, 2009). Two experiments tested the idea that one shared process is cognitive control by pairing manipulations of musical Other behavioral evidence comes from on-line sentence structure with the Stroop task, a standard test of cognitive processing paradigms, where readers’ slowed processing of control. Manipulations of harmonic expectancy, but not of temporary syntactic ambiguities is especially pronounced timbral expectancy, interacted with Stroop interference when the disambiguating word is paired with a harmonically effects, suggesting that cognitive control is at least one unexpected chord (Slevc, Rosenberg, & Patel, 2009; also specific process underlying shared syntactic processing in see Hoch, Poulin-Charronnat, & Tillmann, 2011, for related music and language.