Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Alternative Sets in Language Processing

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

  • 244 Accesses

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Beck, S., & Vasishth, S. (2009). Multiple focus. Journal of Semantics, 26, 159–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (1995). Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25, 653–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (2010). Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 38, 740–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, B., & Tagliapietra, L. (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1024–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byram-Washburn, M. (2013). Narrowing the Focus: Experimental Studies on Exhaustivity and Contrast. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemla, E., & Singh, R. (2014). Remarks on the experimental turn in the study of scalar implicature. Language and Linguistics Compass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 303–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrova, D. (2012). Neural Correlates of Prosody and Information Structure. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groeningen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drenhaus, H., Zimmermann, M., & Vasishth, S. (2011). Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24, 320–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falaus, A. (2013). Introduction: Alternatives in semantics and pragmatics. In A. Falaus (Ed.), Alternatives in semantics (pp. 1–35). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19, 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraundorf, S., Watson, D., & Benjamin, A. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how contrastive contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory & Language, 63, 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M., & Faust, M. (1991). The role of suppression in sentence comprehension. Advances in Psychology, 77, 97–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 8(3), 183–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Grice, P. (1991). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J. (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husband, E. M., & Ferreira, F. (2016). The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, E. (2011). Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1625–1666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 669–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Keshet, E. (2006). Scalar implicatures with alternative semantics. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 16, pp. 88–101).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C. (2012). Generating Alternatives: Interpreting Focus in Discourse. Ph.D. thesis, University of Rochester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics – an international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Krifka, M. (1992). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik (pp. 17–53). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1993). Focus and presupposition in dynamic interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 10, 269–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marty, P., & Chemla, E. (2013). Scalar implicatures: Working memory and a comparison with ‘only’. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, Y. (1995). The conversational condition on horn scales. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 21–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D., Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M., & Butterfield, S. (2006). Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 146–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, I. (2004). Association with focus and choice functions-a binding approach. Research on Language and Computation, 2, 463–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. thesis, Massachussets Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schwarzschild, R. (1999). Givenness, avoidf and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 141–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, C. (2004). On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 21, 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Von Stechow, A. (1991). Focusing and backgrounding operators. Discourse Particles, 6, 37–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. (2006). Givenness and locality. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) (Vol. 16, pp. 295–312).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. (2012). Focus and givenness: A unified approach. Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, 102–147.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

    Nicole Gotzner

Authors
  1. Nicole Gotzner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gotzner, N. (2017). Conclusions. 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_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52761-1_7

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation