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


In this last chapter, I provide a summary of all findings and discuss the current data in relation to previous studies. I will further describe the relevance of the findings for theoretical debates on focus alternatives and inference processing and show possible applications of the experimental paradigms used here. Subsequently, I discuss the relevance of the findings for research on language processing. Finally, I provide some general conclusions from the research presented here.


Focus particles Focus intonation Alternative semantics Structured meaning Givenness Multiple focus Scalar implicatures 


  1. Beck, S., & Vasishth, S. (2009). Multiple focus. Journal of Semantics, 26, 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (1995). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25, 653–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (2010). Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 38, 740–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Byram-Washburn, M. (2013). Narrowing the Focus: Experimental Studies on Exhaustivity and Contrast. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  7. Chemla, E., & Singh, R. (2014). Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature. Language and Linguistics Compass.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 303–351.Google Scholar
  11. Dimitrova, D. (2012). Neural Correlates of Prosody and Information Structure. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groeningen.Google Scholar
  12. Drenhaus, H., Zimmermann, M., & Vasishth, S. (2011). Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falaus, A. (2013). Introduction: Alternatives in semantics and pragmatics. In A. Falaus (Ed.), Alternatives in semantics (pp. 1–35). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Gernsbacher, M., & Faust, M. (1991). The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. Advances in Psychology, 77, 97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 8(3), 183–206.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Gotzner, N., & Spalek, K. (in Revision). The life and times of focus alternatives: Tracing the activation of alternatives to a focused constituent in language comprehension.Google Scholar
  20. Grice, P. (1991). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hirschberg, J. (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kaiser, E. (2011). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1625–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 669–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaup, B., & Zwaan, R. A. (2003). Effects of negation and situational presence on the accessibility of text information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 439.Google Scholar
  27. Keshet, E. (2006). Scalar implicatures with alternative semantics. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 16, pp. 88–101).Google Scholar
  28. Kim, C. (2012). Generating Alternatives: Interpreting Focus in Discourse. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  29. Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics – an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  30. Krifka, M. (1991). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 1, pp. 127–158).Google Scholar
  31. Krifka, M. (1992). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik (pp. 17–53). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krifka, M. (1993). Focus and presupposition in dynamic interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 10, 269–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marty, P., & Chemla, E. (2013). Scalar implicatures: Working memory and a comparison with ‘only’. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matsumoto, Y. (1995). The conversational condition on horn scales. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 21–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norris, D., Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M., & Butterfield, S. (2006). Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 146–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reich, I. (2004). Association with focus and choice functions-a binding approach. Research on Language and Computation, 2, 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  38. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwarz, F. (2014). Presuppositions vs. asserted content in online processing. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions. Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics (Vol. 45). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Schwarzschild, R. (1999). Givenness, avoidf and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swinney, D. A., Onifer, W., Prather, P., & Hirshkowitz, M. (1979). Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences. Memory & Cognition, 7, 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tomlinson, J. M., Jr., Bailey, T. M., & Bott, L. (2013). Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps. Journal of Memory & Language, 69, 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Umbach, C. (2004). On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 21, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Von Stechow, A. (1981). Topic, focus and local relevance. In W. Klein & W. Levelt (Eds.), Crossing the boundaries in linguistics (pp. 95–130). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Von Stechow, A. (1991). Focusing and backgrounding operators. Discourse Particles, 6, 37–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wagner, M. (2006). Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 16, pp. 295–312).Google Scholar
  47. Wagner, M. (2012). Focus and givenness: A unified approach. Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, 102–147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Gotzner
    • 1
  1. 1.Humboldt UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations