Cover not available
Part of
When Data Challenges Theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structure
Edited by Davide Garassino and Daniel Jacob
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 273] 2022
► pp. 115–146

How alternatives are created

Specialized background knowledge affects the interpretation of clefts in discourse

 | University of Freiburg | KU Leuven
 | University of Freiburg Center for Cognitive Science
 | University of Freiburg Center for Cognitive Science
Standard theories of focus expressed by cleft structures, for instance (Beaver & Clark 2008; Krifka 2007), assume that the motivation for the use of focus is discourse relevance: focus establishes an answer to the question under discussion (Roberts 2004: 216). This account, however, lacks a theory of how alternative sets are generated in real discourse. We present a study in the non-cumulative self-paced reading moving-window paradigm that tackles this problem by measuring how manipulating the context preceding German es-clefts influences alternative generation. Our results illustrate the interplay between discourse relevance and individual relevance in this process, in that cleft sentences only receive a contrastive focal reading in contexts where the readers are in a position to previously generate an alternative set.
Keywords: information structure, clefting, focus, German, background knowledge
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Focus and alternatives
    • 2.1What is focus?
    • 2.2The anaphoric character of alternative sets
    • 2.3How are alternatives generated in discourse?
    • 2.4Hypotheses
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Design
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Data elimination procedures
    • 4.2Analysis
    • 4.3Description of results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.273.04ros
References (111)
References
Altmann, Gerry T. M. & Kamide, Yuki. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73(3): 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bar, Moshe (ed). 2009. Predictions in the Brain: Using Our Past to Prepare for the Future [Thematic issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society]. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J. 2008. Pragmatic expectations and linguistic evidence: Listeners anticipate but do not integrate common ground. Cognition 109(1): 18–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben, Walker, Steven, Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen, Singmann, Henrik, Dai, Bin, Grothendiekt, Gabor & Green, Peter. 2016. lme4. R package version 1.1–12. < [URL]> (18 June 2021).
Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity. How Focus Determines Meaning. Malden-Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blau, Ulrich. 1978. Die dreiwertige Logik der Sprache. Ihre Syntax, Semantik und Anwendung in der Sprachanalyse. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blok, Peter I. & Eberle, Kurt. 1999. What is the alternative? The computation of focus alternatives from lexical and sortal information. In Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Peter Bosch & Rob A. van der Sandt (eds), 105–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borreguero Zuloaga, Margarita. 2016. Elementi anaforici e frasi scisse nei testi giornalistici contemporanei. In La lingua variabile nei testi letterari, artistici e funzionali contemporanei (1915–2014): analisi, interpretazione, traduzione. Atti del XIII Convegno della Società Internazionale di Linguistica e Filologia Italiana. Palermo (22–24 settembre 2014), Giovanni Ruffino (ed), 529–542. Firenze: Franco Cesati.Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah. 2009. Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language 61(2): 171–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, Gunlogson, Christine & Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2008. Addressees distinguish shared from private information when interpreting questions during interactive conversation. Cognition 107(3): 1122–1134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2010. Towards a typology of focus realization. In Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Féry (eds), 177–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Byram Washburn, Mary, Kaiser, Elsi & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 2019. The English it-cleft: No need to get exhausted. In Questions in Discourse, Klaus von Heusinger, Edgar Onea & Malte Zimmermann (eds), 198–236. Leiden-Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2004. Relevance Theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 633–656. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chamber, Craig G., Tanenhaus, Michael K., Eberhard, Kathleen M., Filip, Hana & Carlson, Greg N. 2002. Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 47(1): 30–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamber, Craig G., Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Magnuson, James S. 2004. Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30(3): 687–696.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Ruijter, Jan & Cummins, Chris. 2013. Modelling expectations about dialogue acts. Paper presented at DETEC2013. Tübingen.
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2014. Cleft constructions in a contrastive perspective. Towards an operational taxonomy. In Frequency, Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and Germanic. Contrastive, Corpus-Based Studies, Anna-Maria De Cesare (ed), 9–48. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria & Garassino, Davide. 2015. On the status of exhaustiveness in cleft sentences: An empirical and cross-linguistic study of English also-/only-clefts and Italian anche-/solo-clefts. Folia Linguistica 49(1): 1–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cesare, Anna-Maria, Garassino, Davide, Agar Marco, Rocío, Albom, Ana & Cimmino, Doriana. 2016. Sintassi marcata dell’italiano contemporaneo in prospettiva contrastiva con il francese, lo spagnolo, il tedesco e l’inglese. Uno studio basato sulla scrittura dei quotidiani online. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1984. The pragmatics of it-clefts and wh-clefts. Lingua 64(4): 251–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Studies in Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degen, Judith. 2013. Alternatives in Pragmatic Reasoning. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.
Destruel, Emilie. 2012. The French c’est-cleft: An empirical study on its meaning and use. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9. Selected papers from CSSP 2011, Christopher Piñón (ed), 95–112. Paris: University of Paris Diderot 7.Google Scholar
. 2013. The French C’est-cleft: Empirical Studies of its Meaning and Use. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Destruel, Emilie & DeVeaugh-Geiss, Joseph. 2018. On the interpretation and processing of exhaustivity: Evidence of variation in English and French clefts. Journal of Pragmatics 138: 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dufter, Andreas & Jacob, Daniel. 2009. Introduction. In Focus and Background in Romance Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 1–18. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filik, Ruth, Paterson, Kevin B. & Liversedge, Simon P. 2009. The influence of only and even on online semantic interpretation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16: 678–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filik, Ruth, Paterson, Kevin B. & Sauermann, Antje. 2011. The influence of focus on eye movements during reading. In Oxford Handbook on Eye Movements, Simon P. Liversedge, Iain Gilchrist & Stefan Everling (eds), 925–943. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraundorf, Scott H., Benjamin, Aaron S. & Watson, Duane G. 2013. What happened (and what did not): Discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language 69(3): 196–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garassino, Davide. 2016. Using cleft sentences in Italian and English. A multifactorial analysis. In Current Issues in Italian, Romance and Germanic Non-canonical Word Orders. Syntax – Information Structure – Discourse Organization, Anna-Maria De Cesare & Davide Garassino (eds), 181–204. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. This volume. Translation as a source of pragmatic interference? An empirical investigation of French and Italian cleft sentences. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
García García, Marco & Uth, Melanie (eds). 2018. Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garvey, Catherine & Caramazza, Alfonso. 1974. Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 459–464.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker & Wiechmann, Daniel. 2012. W(h)-Clefts im Deutschen und Englischen: eine quantitative Untersuchung auf Grundlage des Europarl-Korpus. In Deutsch im Sprachvergleich: Grammatische Kontraste und Konvergenzen, Lutz Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds), 333–362. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Alternatives in framing and decision making. Mind and Language 28: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart & van der Sandt, Rob A. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gotzner, Nicole & Spalek, Katharina. 2017. The role of contrastive and non-contrastive alternatives in the interpretation of focus particles. Discourse Processes 54: 638–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The life and times of focus alternatives: Tracing the activation of alternatives to a focused constituent in language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 13. DOI logo
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & James L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, part II. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Joy E. & Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2004. Pragmatic effects on reference resolution in a collaborative task: evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Science 28: 105–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanna, Joy E., Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Trueswell, John C. 2003. The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 49(1): 43–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hausser, Roland & Zaefferer, Dietmar. 1979. Questions and answers in a context-dependent Montague grammar. In Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, Franz Guenthner & Siegfried J. Schmidt (eds), 339–358. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy & Fadden, Lorna. 2007. The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English. In The Grammar-Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel, Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski (eds), 49–76. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, Michael Barlow, Daniel P. Flickinger & Michael T. Wescoat (eds), 114–125. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna, Grodner, Daniel & Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2008. The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference. Cognition 108(3): 831–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hull, Robert D. 1975. A semantics for superficial and embedded questions in natural language. In Formal Semantics of Natural Language, Edward L. Keenan (ed), 35–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husband, E. Matthew & Ferreira, Fernanda. 2016. The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(2): 217–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, Daniel. 2015. Anaphorische Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik – Text – Rhetorik. In Informationsstrukturen im Kontrast: Strukturen, Kompositionen und Strategien, Séverine Adam, Daniel Jacob & Michael Schecker (eds), 101–122. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2010. Investigating the consequences of focus on the production and comprehension of referring expressions. International Review of Pragmatics 2: 266–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Yuki. 2008. Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4): 647–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen. 2018. The information structure of French il y a clefts and c’est clefts: A corpus-based analysis. Linguistics 56: 513–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Kertz, Laura, Rohde, Hannah & Elman, Jeffrey L. 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25: 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Christina S. 2008. Processing presupposition: Verifying sentences with ‘only’. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14(1): 213–226.Google Scholar
2012. Generating Alternatives: Interpreting Focus in Discourse. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.
Kim, Christina S., Gunlogson, Christine, Tanenhaus, Michael & Runner, Jeffrey. 2008. Focus alternatives and contextual domain restriction: A visual world eye-tracking study on the interpretation of ‘only’. In Proceedings of SuB13, Arndt Riester & Torgrim Solstad (eds), 261–274. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, Caroline Fery & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 287–319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Working Papers of the SFB632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. This volume. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Meibauer, Jörg. 2012. What is a context? Theoretical and empirical evidence. In What is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges, Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer & Petra B. Schumacher (eds), 9–32. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musan, Renate. 2010. Informationsstruktur. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, Mante S., Otten, Marte & Van Berkum, Jos J. A. 2007. Who are you talking about? Tracking discourse-level referential processing with event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19(2): 228–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otten, Marte & Van Berkum, Jos J. A. 2008. Discourse based lexical anticipation during language processing: Prediction or priming? Discourse Processes 45(6): 464–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Does working memory capacity affect the ability to predict upcoming words in discourse? Brain Research 1291: 92–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paterson, Kevin B., Liversedge, Simon P., Filik, Ruth, Juhasz, Barbara J., White, Sarah J. & Rayner, Keith. 2007. Focus identification during sentence comprehension: evidence from eye movements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(10): 1423–1445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54(4): 883–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. < [URL]> (18 June 2021).
Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riester, Arndt & Baumann, Stefan. 2013. Focus triggers and focus types from a corpus perspective. Dialogue & Discourse 4(2): 215–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riester, Arndt, Brunetti, Lisa & De Kuthy, Kordula. 2018. Annotation guidelines for Question under Discussion and information structure. In Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages. Studies in Prosody and Syntax, Evangelia Adamou, Katharina Haude & Martine Vanhove (eds), 403–443. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 2004. Context in dynamic interpretation. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 197–220. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2012 [1996]. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 1–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roggia, Carlo Enrico. 2009. Le frasi scisse in italiano. Struttura informativa e funzioni discorsive. Genève: Slatkine.Google Scholar
Rohde, Hannah & Levy, Roger. 2011. Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition 118(3): 339–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Focus. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed), 271–297. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2005. Don’t interpret focus! Why a presuppositional account of focus fails and how a presuppositional account of givenness works. In Proceedings of SuB9, Emar Maier, Corien Bary & Janneke Huitink (eds), 370–384. Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre of Semantics.Google Scholar
Scappini, Sophie-Anne. 2006. Etude du dispositif d’extraction en ‘c’est…qu’, différenciation entre une relative en ‘c’est…qu’ et une proposition clivée. PhD dissertation, Université de Provence.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AVOIDF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2): 141–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Fanselow, Gisbert. 2011. Focus and the exclusion of alternatives: On the interaction of syntactic structure with pragmatic inference. Lingua 121(11): 1693–1706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spalek, Katharina, Gotzner, Nicole & Wartenburger, Isabell. 2014. Not only the apples: Focus sensitive particles improve memory for information-structural alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language 70: 68–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Spivey, Michael J., Tanenhaus, Michael K., Eberhard, Kathleen M. & Sedivy, Julie C. 2002. Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology 45: 447–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 447–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stark, Elisabeth. 2014. Frequency, form and function of cleft constructions in the Swiss SMS corpus. In Frequency, Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and Germanic. Contrastive, Corpus-Based Studies, Anna-Maria De Cesare (ed), 325–344. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1959. Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Sturt, Patrick, Sanford, Anthony, Steward, Andrew & Dawydiak, Eugene. 2004. Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the Change-Detection Paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11(5): 882–888. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Trueswell, John C. 1995. Sentence comprehension. In Speech, Language, and Communication. Handbook of Perception and Cognition, Joanne L. Miller, Peter D. Eimas, Edward C. Carterette & Morton P. Friedman (eds), 217–262. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tichy, Pavel. 1978. Questions, answers, and logic. American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 275–284.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, Jos J. A. 2008. The electrophysiology of discourse and conversation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics, Michael J. Spivey, Marc Joanisse & Ken McRae (eds), 589–614. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 1999. Intonation and Information Structure. Habilitationsschrift, University of Konstanz.
. 2002. Information structure and the partition of sentence meaning. In Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague n.s. / Prague Linguistic Circle Papers 4, Eva Hajicová, Petr Sgall, Jirí Hana & Tomáš Hoskovec (eds), 275–305. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1990. Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Discourse Particles, Werner Abraham (ed), 37–84. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Current issues in the theory of focus. In Semantik. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 804–824. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Lin, Bastiaansen, Marcel, Yang, Yufang & Hagoort, Peter. 2011. The influence of information structure on the depth of semantic processing: How focus and pitch accent determine the size of the N400 effect. Neuropsychologia 49(5): 813–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance Theory. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 607–632. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zondervan, Albert J. 2007. Experiments on QUD and focus as a contextual constraint on scalar implicature calculation. In Semantics and Pragmatics. From Experiment to Theory, Uli Sauerland & Kazuko Yatsushiro (eds), 94–110. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
2010. Scalar Implicatures or Focus: An Experimental Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.
Zwaan, Rolf A., Langston, Mark C. & Graesser, Arthur C. 1995. The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science 6(5): 292–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf A. & Radvansky, Gabriel A. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123: 162–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf A. & Rapp, David N. 2006. Discourse Comprehension. In Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd edn., Matthew J. Traxler & Morton A. Gernsbacher (eds), 725–764. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Trotzke, Andreas
2023. Non-Canonical Questions, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.