Cover not available
Part of
Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse
Edited by Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal and Adriana Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 305] 2019
► pp. 229–252

Chapter 8
Expectation changes over time

How long it takes to process focus imposed by German sogar

| Heidelberg University Language and Cognition Lab, Heidelberg University
| Heidelberg University Language and Cognition Lab, Heidelberg University
Focus-sensitive particles (FP) are assumed to guide comprehenders’ attention by focalizing constituents and contrasting them to a set of alternatives (Blakemore 2002). However, here we show that the effect the German FP sogar asserts is not uniform across different sentences. We then present findings from a visual world study (Huettig et al. 2011) which show that, when the FP induces a high degree of expectation change during incremental online comprehension, visual attention to focalized targets is delayed. This suggests that (1) the system attempts to integrate the FP into the situation model immediately, but that (2) a full model update, including the calculation of new predictions about upcoming linguistic material is cognitively demanding in high expectation change contexts.
Keywords: focus particles, visual world paradigm, German, predictive processing, sogar, situation model
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Focus particles
  • 3.Overview of the experiments in the current study
    • 3.1Experiment 1: Determining the degree of expectation change
      • 3.1.1Method: Participants, stimuli, design
      • 3.1.2Results
      • 3.1.3Discussion
    • 3.2Experiment 2: Online processing of expectation change induced by sogar
      • 3.2.1Method: Participants, stimuli, design
      • 3.2.2Results: Data treatment and analysis
      • 3.2.3Discussion
  • 4.General discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 6 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.305.08ger
References (30)
References
Altmann, Gerry T. M., and Yuki Kamide. 1999. “Incremental Interpretation at Verbs: Restricting the Domain of Subsequent Reference.” Cognition 73 (3): 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Gerry T. M. and Yuki Kamide. 2004. “Now you see it, now you don’t: Mediating the Mapping between Language and the Visual World.” In: The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World, ed. by John Henderson, and Fernanda Ferreira, 347–386. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry T. M., and Jelena Mirkovic. 2009. “Incrementality and Prediction in Human Sentence Processing.” Cognitive Science 33 (4): 583–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J. 2008. “Analyzing ‘Visual World’ Eyetracking Data Using Multilevel Logistic Regression.” Journal of Memory and Language 59 (4): 457–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J. Tily. 2013. “Random Effects Structure for Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing: Keep it Maximal.” Journal of Memory and Language 68 (3): 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Roger M. 1974. “The Control of Eye Fixation by the Meaning of Spoken Language: A New Methodology for the Real-time Investigation of Speech Perception, Memory, and Language Processing.” Cognitive Psychology 6 (1): 84–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crocker, Mathew W., Pia Knoeferle, and Marshall R. Mayberry. 2010. “Situated Sentence Processing: The Coordinated Interplay Account and a Neurobehavioral Model.” Brain and Language 112 (3): 189–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, Christine. 2004. “Fokuspartikeln und Informationsgliederung im Deutschen.” In Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, ed. by Werner Abraham, Winfried Boeder, Peter Eisenberg, Catherine Fabricius-Hansen, Hubert Haider, Ewald Lang, Jacques Lerot, Vladimir P. Nedjalkov, Susan Olsen, and Gert Webelhuth, vol. 69. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Eberhard, Kathleen, Michael J. Spivey-Knowlton, Julie Sedivy, and Michael K. Tanenhaus. 1995. “Eye Movements as a Window into Real-time Spoken Language Processing in Natural Contexts.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24: 409–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filik, Ruth, Kevin B. Paterson, and Simon P. Liversedge. 2009. “The Influence of only and even on On-line Semantic Interpretation.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16: 678–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filik, Ruth, Kevin B. Paterson, and Antje Sauermann. 2011. “The Influence of Focus on Eye Movements during Reading.” In The Oxford Handbook of Eye Movements, ed. by Simon P. Liversedge, Iain D. Gilchrist, and Stefan Everling, 925–942. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gergely, György. 1992. “Focus-based Inferences in Sentence Comprehension.” In Lexical Matters, ed. by Ivan Sag, and Anna Szabolcsi, 47–65. Stanford: Stanford Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Huettig, Falk, Jost Rommers, and Antje S. Meyer. 2011. “Using the Visual World Paradigm to Study Language Processing: A Review and Critical Evaluation.” Acta Psychologica 137 (2): 151–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Yuki, Gerry T. M. Altmann, and Sarah L. Haywood. 2003. “The Time-course of Prediction in Incremental Sentence Processing: Evidence from Anticipatory Eye Movements.” Journal of Memory and Language 49 (1): 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles. A Comparative Perspective. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel, and María Victoria Escandell Vidal. 2004. “Semántica conceptual/semántica procedimental.” In V Congreso de Lingüística General, ed. by Milka Villayandre Llamazares, 1727–1738. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
LimeSurvey: An Open Source survey tool, LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany [online: [URL].]
Loureda, Óscar, and Esperanza Acín. 2010. “Cuestiones candentes en torno a los marcadores del discurso en español.” In Los estudios sobre marcadores del discurso en español, hoy, ed. by Óscar Loureda Lamas, and Esperanza Acín Villa, 7–59. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Matin, Ethel, K. Shao, and Kenneth Boff. 1993. “Saccadic Overhead: Information Procesing Time with and without Saccades.” Perception and Psychophysics 53: 372–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mirman, Daniel. 2014. Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization using R. Pennsylvania: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Ni, Weija, Stephen Crain, and Donald Shankweiler. 1996. “Sidestepping Garden Paths: The Contribution of Syntax, Semantics and Plausibility in Resolving Ambiguities.” Language and Cognitive Processes 11: 283–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paterson, Kevin B., Simon P. Liversedge, Ruth Filik, Barbara J. Juhasz, Sarah J. White, and Keith Rayner. 2007. “Focus Identification during Sentence Comprehension: Evidence from Eye Movements.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60: 1423–1445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paterson, Kevin B., Simon P. Liversedge, and Geoffrey Underwood. 1999. “The Influence of Focus Operators on Syntactic Processing of ‘short’ Relative Clause Sentences.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 52 (A): 717–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portolés, José. 2010. “Los marcadores del discurso y la estructura informativa.” In Los estudios sobre marcadores del español, hoy, ed. by Óscar Loureda, and Esperanza Acín, 281–325. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Portolés Lázaro, José. 2007. “Escalas informativas aditivas: Pruebas del español.” Spanish in Context 4 (2): 135–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats Edward. 1985. Association with Focus. Phd diss., Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Sedivy, Julia C., Michael K. Tanenhaus, Craig G. Chambers, and Gregory N. Carlson. 1999. “Achieving Incremental Semantic Interpretation through Contextual Representation.” Cognition 71: 109–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gerwien, Johannes
2019. The interpretation and prediction of event participants in Mandarin verb-final active and passive sentences. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 3:2 ► pp. 257 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.