The Online Processing of Focus Information

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.06.003

Abstract

Abstract: According to the Alternative Semantics, focus is associated with the presence of a focus alternative set. Whether the presence of focus alternatives has any psychological reality, namely the online processing of focus and its alternatives, is the question addressed here. From a psycholinguistic perspective, the study addresses the following four issues: 1) the processing of foci itself, 2) the processing of focus alternatives, 3) the construction model of focus alternatives, and 4) the processing of different focus markers. The study has demonstrated that the processing of focus brings a deeper encoding of the foci itself and enhances the accessibility of focus alternatives in terms of encoding, comprehension and memory. Further efforts are needed to study the real time issues concerning the processing of focus and alternatives, especially its neurocognitive mechanism.

CLC Number:

H319

WANG Yuxia, CHANG Hui, CHEN Li. The Online Processing of Focus Information[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2016, 16(06): 13-18.

References

Almor, A.& P.Eimas. 2008. Focus and noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(2): 201-225.
Beaver, D.& B. Clark. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning [M].Oxford: Blackwell.
Birch, S.L.& S.M. Garnsey. 1995. The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 34:232-267.
Birch, S.L.& K. Rayner. 2010. Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading [J]. Memory & Cognition 38(6): 740-752.
Blok, P.I.& K. Eberle. 1999. What is the alternative? The computation of focus alternatives from lexical and sortal information [A]. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 105-119.
Braun, B.& L. Tagliapietra. 2010. The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes 25:1024-1043.
Bredart, S.& K. Modolo. 1988. Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion [J]. Acta Psychologica 67:135-144.
Byram, M., E. Kaiser & M.L. Zubizarreta.2011. Focus facilitation and non-associative sets [A]. In R. Artstein, M. Core, D. Devault, K. Georgila, E. Kaiser & A. Stent (eds.). SemDial 2011: Proceedings of the 15^thWorkshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue [C]. Los Angeles.94-102.
Byram, M.,E. Kaiser & M. Zubizarreta 2013. Focus inhibits Free Associates[R].Columbia, South California: Proceedings of the 26^th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
Carlson, K., C. Clifton & L. Frazier.2009. Nonlocal effects of prosodic boundaries [J]. Memory and Cognition 37: 1014-1025.
Chen, L., X. Li & Y. Yang. 2012. Focus, newness and their combination: processing of information structure in discourse [J/OL]. [2016-09-30]. PloS One 7(8):e42533.
Cowles, H.W., M. Walenski & R. Kluender. 2007. Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphora resolution: Topic, Contrastive Focus, and Pronouns [J]. Topoi 26:3-18.
Culter, A.& J. Fodor. 1979. Semantic focus and sentence comprehension [J]. Cognition 7(1):49-59.
Erickson, T.D.& M.E. Mattson. 1981. From words to meaning: a semantic illusion [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 20:540-551.
Fauconnier, G. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure [J]. Linguistic Inquiry 6:353-375.
Filik, R., K. Paterson & S. Liversedge. 2005. Parsing with focus particles in context: eye movements during the processing of relative clause ambiguities [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 53: 473-495.
Filik, R., K. Paterson & S. Liversedge. 2009. The influence of only and even on online semantic interpretation [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16(4): 678-683.
Fraundorf, S.H., D.G. Watson & A.S. Benjamin.2010. Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is [J]. Journal of Memory and Language63: 367-386.
Fraundorf, S.H., A.S. Benjamin & D.G. Watson.2013. What happened (and what did not): Discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 69:196-227.
Foraker, S.& B. McElree. 2007. The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations [J]. Journal of Memory & Language 56:357-383.
Gotzner, N., K. Spalek & I. Wartenburger. 2013a. How focus particles like ‘only' hamper the rejection of contrastive alternatives [R]. Columbia, South California:Proceedings of the 26^th Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
Gotzner, N., K. Spalek & I. Wartenburger.2013b. How pitch accents and focus particles affect the recognition of contextual alternatives [R].Berlin: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2013).
Gundel, J.K. 1999. On different kinds of focus [A]. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.).Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.293-305.
Horn, L.R. 1989. A natural history of negation[M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Husband, E.M. & F. Ferreira. 2012. Generating contrastive alternatives: Activation and suppression mechanisms[R]. New York, NY: Proceedings of the 25^th CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference.
Kay, P. 1990. Even [J]. Linguistics & Philosophy13:59-111.
Klin, C.M., K.M. Weingartner,A.E.Guzman & W.H. Levine. 2004. Reader's sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: how salience influences anaphor resolution [J]. Memory & Cognition 32:511-522.
Kim, C.,C. Gunlogson, M. Tanenhaus & J. R. Runner. 2015. Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives [J]. Cognition 139: 28-49.
König, E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective [M]. London: Routledge.
Krifka, M. 2007. Basic notions of information structure [A]. In C. Fery, G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (eds.).Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure 6 [C]. Postdam: Universita?tsverlag Potsdam. 13-56.
Kristensen, L.B., L. Wang, K.M.Petersson & P. Hagoort.2013. The interface between language and attention: Prosodic focus marking recruits a general attention network in spoken language comprehension [J]. Cerebral Cortex 23:1836-1848.
Ladd, D. R. 1996. Intonational Phonology [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, E.Y.& D. Watson. 2011. Effects of pitch accents in attachment ambiguity resolution[J]. Language and Cognitive Process 26(2):262-297.
Moravcsik, J.E.& A.F. Healy. 1998. Effect of syntactic role and syntactic prominence on letter detection [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 5:96-100.
Paterson, K., S. Liversedge,R. Filik, B. Juhasz, S. White & K. Rayner. 2007. Focus identification during sentence comprehension: evidence from eye movements [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(10):1423-1445.
Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation [J]. Natural Language Semantics(1): 75-116.
Sanford, A.J.S., A.J. Sanford, J. Molle & C. Emmott.2006. Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse [J]. Discourse Processes 42:109-130.
Sanford, A.J.S.,J. Price & A.J. Sanford. 2010. Enhancement and suppression effects resulting from information structure in sentence [J]. Memory & Cognition 37(6):880-888.
Schafer, A., J. Carter, C. Clifton & L. Frazier. 1996. Focus in relative clause construal [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes11(1/2):135-163.
Schafer, A., K. Carlson, C. Clifton & L. Frazier. 2000. Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: disambiguation embedded questions[J]. Language and Speech 43(1):75-105.
Spalek, K., N. Gotzner & I. Wartenburger. 2014. Not only the apples: Focus sensitive particles improve memory for information-structural alternatives[J]. Journal of Memory and Language 70:68-84.
Steedman, M. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface[J]. Linguistic Inquiry 31:649-689.
Sturt, P., A. J. Sanford,A. Stewart & E. Dawydiak. 2004. Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11: 882-888.
Van Deemter, K. 1999. Contrastive stress, contrariety, and focus[A]. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.).Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3-16.
Wang, L., P. Hagoort & Y. Yang. 2009. Semantic illusion depends on information structure: ERP evidence[J]. Brain Research 1282:50-56.
Wang, L., M.Bastiaansen, Y. Yang & P. Hagoort. 2011. The influence of information structure on the depth of semantic processing: How focus and pitch accent determine the size of the N400 effect[J]. Neuropsychologia49(5): 813-820.
Wang, L., M.Bastiaansen,Y. Yang & P. Hagoort. 2012. Information structure influences depth of syntactic processing: Event-related potential evidence for the Chomsky illusion [J/OL].[2016-10-09]. PLoS One 7(10): e47917.
Ward, P.& P. Sturt. 2007. Linguistic focus and memory: An eye movement study [J]. Memory & Cognition 35:73-86.
Zwaan, R.A.& G.A. Radvansky. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory [J]. Psychological Bulletin 123:162-185.
陈莉. 2016.现代汉语否定词的句法语义研究 [M]. 上海:学林出版社.
袁毓林.2008.反预期、递进关系和语用尺度的类型——“甚至”和“反而”的语义功能比较 [J]. 当代语言学10(2):109-121.

[1]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 35-41.
[2]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 72-81.
[3]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 82-91.
[4]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 92-96.
[5]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 97-102.
[6]	XU Ying, BI Yu, ZHANG Yaqing. A Review of Vocabulary and English for Specific Purposes Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 104-108.
[7]	GUO Hongjie, ZHANG Daqiu, DING Dong. An Integrated and Innovative Talents-fostering Model with Practices for FLL Discipline at Chinese Financial Universities in the New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 35-44.
[8]	PAN Haiying, LIU Shuling. Innovation and Development of College Foreign Languages Teaching in the Construction of New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 45-52.
[9]	MA Bingjun, CHANG Hui. Research on L2 Chinese Syntactic Processing: Theories and Empirical Studies [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 61-70.
[10]	TAO Jifen. POA-based Reading and Speaking Approach to Oral English Teaching [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 96-103.
[11]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 106-110.
[12]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 84-95.
[13]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 96-105.
[14]	Lihe HUANG. Foreign Language Teaching and Research in the Post- pandemic Era: A Multimodal Paradigm [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 75-85.
[15]	Yongyan ZHENG. Multilingual Research in a Post-COVID Era: Reflection and Prospection [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 64-74.