Advertisement

Theoretical and Empirical Background

  • Nicole Gotzner
Chapter
  • 174 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition book series (PSPLC)

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical and empirical background to this book. The first part of this chapter presents the relevant theoretical concepts. Starting out with the notion of focus in alternative semantics, I will turn to the prosodic realization of focus, the grammar of association with focus, and different groups of focus particles. I will then compare the inferences triggered by focus particles to that of bare focus marking and I will discuss pragmatic factors that might influence the perception of contrast. The second part of this chapter discusses previous findings on the role of focus structure in language processing and the representation of focus alternatives. Starting from early work on focus processing, it is shown that most previous work was devoted to focus effects on prominence, not taking into account the role of focus in evoking alternatives. Finally, a few previous studies are discussed which provide evidence that focus alters the representation of informational-structural alternatives.

Keywords

Focus particles Prosodic focus Alternative semantics Contrast Focus structure Language processing 

References

  1. Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almor, A., & Eimas, P. (2008). Focus and noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alter, K., Mleinek, I., Rohe, T., Steube, A., & Umbach, C. (2001). Kontrastprosodie in Sprachproduktion und -perzeption. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 77, 59–79.Google Scholar
  4. Bartels, C., & Kingston, J. (1994). Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 2973–2973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumann, S., Grice, M., & Steindamm, S. (2006). Prosodic marking of focus domains – categorical or gradient. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006 (pp. 301–304).Google Scholar
  6. Beaver, D., & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (1995). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25, 653–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (2010). Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 38, 740–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blok, P., & Eberle, K. (1999). What is the alternative? The computation of focus alternatives from lexical and sortal information. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 105–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1024–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byram-Washburn, M. (2013). Narrowing the Focus: Experimental Studies on Exhaustivity and Contrast. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  12. Calhoun, S. (2009). What makes a word contrastive? Prosodic, semantic and pragmatic perspectives. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehé, & A. Wichmann (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface (Studies in Pragmatics) (Vol. 8, pp. 53–78). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  13. Carlson, K., Dickey, M., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2009). Information structure expectations in sentence comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 114–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chevallier, C., Noveck, I., Nazir, T., Bott, L., Lanzetti, V., & Sperber, D. (2008). Making disjunctions exclusive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1741–1760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cowles, H. W. (2003). Processing Information Structure: Evidence from Comprehension and Production. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  16. Cowles, H. W. (2012). The psychology of information structure. In M. Krifka & R. Musan (Eds.), The expression of information structure (Vol. 5, pp. 287–318). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. (1976). Phoneme-monitoring reaction times as a function of preceding intonation contour. Perceptual Psychophysiology, 20, 56–60.Google Scholar
  18. Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory & Language, 56, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraundorf, S., Watson, D., & Benjamin, A. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how contrastive contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory & Language, 63, 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gotzner, N., & Spalek, K. (2014). Exhaustive inferences and additive presuppositions; the interplay of focus operators and contrastive intonation. In Proceedings of the European Summer School of Language, Logic and Computation.Google Scholar
  23. Gotzner, N., Wartenburger, I., & Spalek, K. (2016). The impact of focus particles on the recognition and rejection of contrastive alternatives. Language and Cognition, 8, 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grice, M., & Baumann, S. (2002). Deutsche intonation und gtobi. Linguistische Berichte, 191, 267–298.Google Scholar
  25. Gundel, J. K., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and focus. In The handbook of pragmatics (Vol. 175, p. 196) London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in montague english. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.Google Scholar
  27. Horn, L. (1969). A presuppositional approach to ‘only’ and ‘even’. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 5, pp. 98–107).Google Scholar
  28. Husband, E. M., & Ferreira, F. (2016). The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ito, K., Speer, S., & Beckman, M. (2004). Informational status and pitch accent distribution in spontaneous dialogues in English. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004.Google Scholar
  30. Ito, K., & Speer, S. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory & Language, 58, 541–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kaiser, E. (2011). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1625–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Katz, J., & Selkirk, E. (2011). Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language, 87, 771–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim, C. (2012). Generating Alternatives: Interpreting Focus in Discourse. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  35. Kiss, K. É. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klin, C., Weingartner, K., Guzmán, A., & Levine, W. (2004). Readers’ sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution. Memory & Cognition, 32, 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krahmer, E., & Swerts, M. (2001). On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication, 34, 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krifka, M. (1992). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik (pp. 17–53). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krifka, M. (2007). Basic notions of information structure. In C. Féry, G. Fanselow, & M. Krifka (Eds.), The notions of information structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) (Vol. 6, pp. 13–55). Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  41. Kripke, S. A. (2009). Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kügler, F., & Gollrad, A. (2015). Production and perception of contrast: The case of the rise-fall contour in German. Frontiers in psychology, 6.Google Scholar
  43. Molnár, V. (2002). Contrast-from a contrastive perspective. Language and Computers, 39, 147–161.Google Scholar
  44. Morris, R. K., & Folk, J. R. (1998). Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1313–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Norris, D., Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M., & Butterfield, S. (2006). Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 146–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Onea, E., & Beaver, D. (2011). Hungarian focus is not exhausted. In E. Cormany, S. Ito, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 19, pp. 342–359).Google Scholar
  47. Osaka, M., Nishizaki, Y., Komori, M., & Osaka, N. (2002). Effect of focus on verbal working memory: Critical role of the focus word in reading. Memory & Cognition, 30, 562–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  49. Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Repp, S. (2010). Defining ‘contrast’ as an information-structural notion in grammar. Lingua, 120, 1333–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Repp, S. (to appear). Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara (Eds.), OUP handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rochemont, M. (2013). Discourse new, f-marking, and normal stress. Lingua, 136, 38–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rochemont, M. S. (1986). Focus in generative grammar (Vol. 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  55. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sanford, A., Price, J., & Sanford, A. (2009). Enhancement and suppression effects resulting from information structuring in sentences. Memory & Cognition, 37, 880–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanford, A., Sanford, A., Molle, A., & Emmott, C. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwarz, F. (2014). Presuppositions vs. asserted content in online processing. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions. studies in theoretical psycholinguistics (Vol. 45). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Schwarzschild, R. (1999). Givenness, avoidf and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Selkirk, E. (2002). Contrastive focus vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002.Google Scholar
  61. Selkirk, E. (2008). Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of “discourse-new”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55, 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Silverman, K. E., Beckman, M. E., Pitrelli, J. F., Ostendorf, M., Wightman, C. W., Price, P., et al. (1992). Tobi: A standard for labeling English prosody. In Proceedings of the ICSLP (Vol. 2, pp. 867–870).Google Scholar
  63. Sturt, P., Sanford, A., Stewart, A., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 882–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Umbach, C. (2001). Restriktion der Alternativen. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 77, 165–198.Google Scholar
  65. Umbach, C. (2004). On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 21, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  67. von Stechow, A. (1991). Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Discourse particles (pp. 37–84).Google Scholar
  68. Wagner, M., & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 905–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ward, P., & Sturt, P. (2007). Linguistic focus and memory: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition, 35, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Watson, D., Gunlogson, C., & Tanenhaus, M. (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in on-line comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science, 32, 1232–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weber, A., Braun, B., & Crocker, M. W. (2006). Finding referents in time: Eye-tracking evidence for the role of contrastive accents. Language and Speech, 49, 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Gotzner
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations