The Connection Between Focus and Implicatures: Investigating Alternative Activation Under Working Memory Load

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

Abstract

The function of focus is to activate alternatives which are used to compute the inferences arising from an utterance. The present research examines the relationship between the activation of alternatives and the computation of implicatures from an online language processing perspective. In particular, the authors test the activation of alternatives under working memory load, comparing intonational focus (different accent types: H* and L+H*) and overt focus operators (only and also). Their data show that contrastive focus intonation (L+H*) does not help alternative access under working memory load while it has been found to facilitate alternative access without a concurrent working memory task in Gotzner et al. (Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, 2013, pp 2434–2440). In the case of the focus particle only alternatives are grammatically required and listeners showed an increased processing difficulty in accessing alternatives mentioned in the context. The authors discuss the implications of these findings on the role of focus intonation in activating alternatives and inference processing. In particular, they argue that part of the processing cost observed in implicature computation is due to the need to activate and contextually restrict a set of alternatives.

Keywords

Focus operators Alternative semantics Contrastive intonation Exhaustive inferences Implicatures 

References

  1. Abusch, D. 2002. Lexical Alternatives as a Source of Pragmatic Presuppositions. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), vol. 12, 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Alter, K., I. Mleinek, T. Rohe, A. Steube, and C. Umbach. 2001. Kontrastprosodie in Sprachproduktion und-Perzeption. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 77: 59–79.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, D.J., R. Levy, C. Scheepers, and H.J. Tily. 2013. Random Effects Structure for Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing: Keep it Maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3): 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates, D.M., and D. Sarkar. 2007. Lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using s4 Classes.Google Scholar
  5. Beaver, D., and B. Clark. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bott, L., and I. Noveck. 2004. Some Utterances are Underinformative: The Onset and Time Course of Scalar Inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51(3): 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bott, L., T.M. Bailey, and D. Grodner. 2012. Distinguishing Speed from Accuracy in Scalar Implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language 66(1): 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun, B., and L. Tagliapietra. 2010. The Role of Contrastive Intonation Contours in the Retrieval of Contextual Alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 1024–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byram-Washburn, M. 2013. Narrowing the Focus: Experimental Studies on Exhaustivity and Contrast. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  10. Chafe, W. 1976. Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View in Subject and Topic. In Symposium on Subject and Topic.Google Scholar
  11. Chemla, E., and R. Singh. 2014. Remarks on the Experimental Turn in the Study of Scalar Implicature, Part I. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(9): 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chevallier, C., I.A. Noveck, T. Nazir, L. Bott, V. Lanzetti, and D. Sperber. 2008. Making Disjunctions Exclusive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(11): 1741–1760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chierchia, G. 2004. Scalar Implicatures, Polarity Phenomena, and the Syntax/Pragmatics Interface. Structures and Beyond 3: 39–103.Google Scholar
  14. Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conway, A., M.J. Kane, M.F. Bunting, D.Z. Hambrick, O.R. Wilhelm, and R.W. Engle. 2005. Working Memory Span Tasks: A Methodological Review and User’s Guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12(5): 769–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Neys, W., and W. Schaeken. 2007. When People are More Logical Under Cognitive Load: Dual Task Impact on Scalar Implicature. Experimental Psychology 54(2): 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Degen, J., and M.K. Tanenhaus. 2015. Processing Scalar Implicature: A Constraint-Based Approach. Cognitive Science 39(4): 667–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dieussaert, K., S. Verkerk, E. Gillard, and W. Schaeken. 2011. Some Effort for Some: Further Evidence that Scalar Implicatures are Effortful. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64(12): 2352–2367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Domaneschi, F., E. Carrea, C. Penco, and A. Greco. 2014. The Cognitive Load of Presupposition Triggers: Mandatory and Optional Repairs in Presupposition Failure. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(1): 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraundorf, S.H., D.G. Watson, and A.S. Benjamin. 2010. Recognition Memory Reveals Just How Contrastive Contrastive Accenting Really Is. Journal of Memory and Language 63: 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glenberg, A.M., M. Meyer, and K. Lindem. 1987. Mental Models Contribute to Foregrounding During Text Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 26(1): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gotzner, N. 2015. Establishing Alternative Sets. Ph.D. Thesis, Humboldt University.Google Scholar
  23. Gotzner, N., and K. Spalek. 2014. Exhaustive Inferences and Additive Presuppositions: The Interplay of Focus Operators and Contrastive Intonation. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI Workshop on Formal and Experimental Pragmatics, ed. J. Degen, M. Franke, and N. Goodman, 7–13.Google Scholar
  24. Gotzner, N., K. Spalek, and I. Wartenburger. 2013. How Pitch Accents and Focus Particles Affect the Recognition of Contextual Alternatives. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, and I. Wachsmuth, 2434–2440. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  25. Gotzner, N., I. Wartenburger, and K. Spalek. 2016. The Impact of Focus Particles on the Recognition and Rejection of Contrastive Alternatives. Language and Cognition 8(01): 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grice, P.H. 1975. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3: 41–58.Google Scholar
  27. Grodner, D.J., N.M. Klein, K.M. Carbary, and M.K. Tanenhaus. 2010. Some, and Possibly all, Scalar Inferences are Not Delayed: Evidence for Immediate Pragmatic Enrichment. Cognition 116(1): 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groenendijk, J.A., and M.J. Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Huang, Y.T., and J. Snedeker. 2009. Online Interpretation of Scalar Quantifiers: Insight into the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Cognitive Psychology 58(3): 376–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Husband, E.M., and F. Ferreira. 2016. The Role of Selection in the Comprehension of Focus Alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31: 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. König, E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krahmer, E., and M. Swerts. 2001. On the Alleged Existence of Contrastive Accents. Speech Communication 34: 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuznetsova, A., P.B. Brockhoff, and R.H.B. Christensen. 2015. lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 2.0-29. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.
  34. Marty, P.P., and E. Chemla. 2013. Scalar Implicatures: Working Memory and a Comparison with Only. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marty, P.P., E. Chemla, and B. Spector. 2013. Interpreting Numerals and Scalar Items Under Memory Load. Lingua 133: 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  37. Pierrehumbert, J., and J. Hirschberg. 1990. The Meaning of Intonational Contours in the Interpretation of Discourse. In Intentions in Communication, ed. P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rooth, M. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  39. Rooth. M. 1992. A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Journal of Semantics 1: 1–42.Google Scholar
  40. Schwarz. F. 2015. Presuppositions vs. Asserted Content in Online Processing. In Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions, 89–108. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Schwarz, F., C. Clifton, and L. Frazier. 2008. Strengthening or: Effects of Focus and Downward Entailing Contexts on Scalar Implicatures. UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  42. Selkirk. E. 2002. Contrastive Focus vs. Presentational Focus: Prosodic Evidence from Right Node Raising in English. In International Conference Speech Prosody 2002.Google Scholar
  43. Singh, R., E. Fedorenko, K. Mahowald, and E. Gibson. 2015. Accommodating Presuppositions is Inappropriate in Implausible Contexts. Cognitive Science. doi:10.1111/cogs.12260.Google Scholar
  44. Tomlinson, J.M., and L. Bott. 2013. How Intonation Constrains Pragmatic Inference. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, and I. Wachsmuth, 3569–3575. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  45. Tomlinson, J.M., T.M. Bailey, and L. Bott. 2013. Possibly All of that and then Some: Scalar Implicatures Are Understood in Two Steps. Journal of Memory and Language 69(1): 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Turner, M.L., and R.W. Engle. 1989. Is Working Memory Capacity Task Dependent? Journal of Memory and Language 28(2): 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Rooij, R., and K. Schulz. 2004. Exhaustive Interpretation of Complex Sentences. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13(4): 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Watson, D., C. Gunlogson, and M. Tanenhaus. 2008. Interpreting Pitch Accents in On-line Comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science 32: 1232–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Gotzner
    • 1
  • Katharina Spalek
    • 2
  1. 1.Leibniz Center Allgemeine SprachwissenschaftBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Humboldt University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations