Abstract
This chapter examines which specific elements are included in the set of alternatives. The leading research question is whether listeners determine alternatives based on general semantic priming mechanisms or whether they only consider contrastive alternatives, elements that can replace the expression in focus. Experiment 4 compares semantically related alternatives to general non-contrastive associates of a focused expression. [A detailed description of Experiment 4 is published in Gotzner and Spalek (Discourse Process, doi:10.1080/0163853X.2016.1148981, 2016).] [The data of Experiment 4 are published in Gotzner and Spalek (Discourse Process, doi:10.1080/0163853X.2016.1148981, 2016).] The results show that effects of focus particles are selective to alternatives which can replace the expression in focus. The second part of the chapter turns to the theoretical debate concerning the restriction of alternative sets. To address this debate, I present a further analysis of the unrelated items used in Experiment 3. [A version of Sect. 5.4 was published in the Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Gotzner, vol. 19, pp. 232–247, 2015). I designed the additional analysis presented in Sect. 5.4 as well as Experiment 4 and analyzed all results.] Overall, the results suggest that listeners consider a broader set of alternatives and that the notion of possible replacements is crucial in determining the relevant alternatives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Kristensen, Wang, Petersson, and Hagoort (2013) propose that prosodic focus marking recruits the networks involved in attention allocation.
- 2.
Note, however, that we are not investigating mutually exclusive alternatives on which the account by Wagner (2006) is based.
- 3.
A closer inspection of the targets used in previous studies shows that Braun and Tagliapietra (2010) used unrelated items that could replace the focused expression whereas in Husband and Ferreira (2016) the unrelated items could not replace the focused element s. In Byram-Washburn (2013), the unrelated items resembled our unmentioned alternatives (and were possible replacements).
- 4.
Since effects of focus particles on unrelated items were only observed in lexical decision experiments (but not in Probe Recognition Experiment 2), we only carried out such an additional analysis for Experiment 3.
References
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.
Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1024–1043.
Büring, D. (2008). What’s new (and what’s given) in the theory of focus? In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 34, pp. 403–423).
Byram-Washburn, M. (2013). Narrowing the Focus: Experimental Studies on Exhaustivity and Contrast. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.
Cohen, A. (1999). How are alternatives computed? Journal of Semantics, 16, 43–65.
Fraundorf, S., Watson, D., & Benjamin, A. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how contrastive contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory & Language, 63, 367–386.
Gotzner, N. (2015). What’s included in the set of alternatives? Psycholinguistic evidence for a permissive view. In E. Csipak & H. Zeijlstra (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, Göttingen (Vol. 19, pp. 232–247).
Gotzner, N., & Spalek, K. (2016). The role of contrastive and non-contrastive associates in the interpretation of focus particles. Discourse Processes, doi:10.1080/0163853X.2016.1148981.
Husband, E. M., & Ferreira, F. (2016). The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 217–235.
Katzir, R. (2013). A note on contrast. Natural Language Semantics, 21, 333–343.
Kim, C. (2012). Generating Alternatives: Interpreting Focus in Discourse. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester.
Krifka, M. (1998). Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 8, pp. 111–128).
Kristensen, L. B., Wang, L., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P. (2013). The interface between language and attention: Prosodic focus marking recruits a general attention network in spoken language comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 23, 1836–1848.
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 1–42.
Umbach, C. (2001). Restriktion der Alternativen. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 77, 165–198.
Wagner, M. (2006). Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 16, pp. 295–312).
Wagner, M. (2012). Focus and givenness: a unified approach. In Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure (pp. 102–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gotzner, N. (2017). What’s Included in the Set of Alternatives?. In: Alternative Sets in Language Processing. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52761-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52761-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52760-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52761-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)