focus association revealed in reading times et al.pdf · 2 1 theory: the focus association...

1

FOCUS ASSOCIATION

REVEALED IN READING TIMES

Barbara Tomaszewicz, Joanna Błaszczak, Roumyana PanchevaUniversity of Cologne/University of Wrocław University of Wrocław University of Southern [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

LCQ 2015Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of Quantification

Budapest, October 16-17, 2015

2

1 Theory: The Focus Association MechanismA focus associator is an expression whose contribution to the meaning of a sentence depends on the position of sentence focus (indicated by prosodic prominence). (1) a. John only bought Mary a [CAKE]F

‘John bought Mary nothing else but a cake.’

b. John only bought [MAry]F a cake.

‘John bought no one else but Mary a cake.’





3





The focus structure introduces a presupposition about the context (Rooth 1992, 1996).(2) a. In St. Petersburg, officers always escorted [balleRInas]F.

‘Whenever officers escorted somebody, they escorted ballerinas.’

b. In St. Petersburg, [Officers]F always escorted ballerinas.

‘Whenever ballerinas were escorted by somebody,

they were escorted by officers.’










4










The value of the (implicit) domain variable of a quantificational expression (only, always) is determined with respect to the focus structure of the sentence (Rooth 1992, 1996, von Fintel 1994).










The value of the (implicit) domain variable of a quantificational expression (only, always) is determined with respect to the focus structure of the sentence (Rooth 1992, 1996, von Fintel 1994).

Domain Restriction

(i) John always gave Mary a cake when he visited her.

• The adverb always contributes universal quantificationover time intervals.

Domain Restriction



⟦when John visited Mary⟧ = λt [John visited Mary at t]

⟦alwaysC John gave Mary a cake⟧ = 1 iff∀t∈C [John gave Mary a cake at t]

‘all time intervals are such that John gives Mary a cake at them’

Domain Restriction



⟦when John visited Mary⟧ = λt [John visited Mary at t]

⟦alwaysC John gave Mary a cake⟧ = 1 iff∀t∈C [John gave Mary a cake at t]

‘all time intervals are such that John gives Mary a cake at them’

• Domain restriction in (i) is provided explicitly:

C {t: John visited Mary at t}

Domain Restriction

• C can be determined by discourse congruence

• The focus structure introduces a presupposition about the context: a set of relevant alternatives is retrivable from the context.

Domain Restriction



(ii) John gave [Mary]F a cake.

Focal presupposition:

There is a set of individuals whom John gave a cake.

Domain Restriction



(ii) John gave [Mary]F a cake.

Focal presupposition:

There is a set of individuals whom John gave a cake.

• The presupposition is introduced at LF by the focus interpretation operator: ~ (Rooth 1985, 1992, 1996: The Presuppositional Theory of Focus)

Focus Interpretation Operator ~ has its own restrictor C’

Focus Interpretation Operator ~ has its own restrictor C’

“Where φ is a syntactic phrase and C’ is a syntactically covert semantic variable, [φ ∼ C’] introduces the presupposition that C’ is a subset of ⟦φ⟧f containing ⟦φ⟧o and at least one other element.” (Rooth 1996, (20))

(iii) a. [[John gave [Mary]F a cake ] ~ C’]

b. ⟦John⟧f = {⟦John⟧o}

c. ⟦[Mary]F⟧f = De = {Mary, Ann, Bill …}

d. ⟦gave⟧f ={⟦gave⟧o}

e. ⟦John gave [Mary]F a cake⟧f = {p: x [p = λw. John gave x a cake in w]}

f. C’ {p: x [p = λw. John gave x a cake in w]}

(focal presupposition)

Contextual/Anaphoric licensing of focus

• C’ ⟦α⟧f and being a free variable, C’ is anaphoric in nature.

• C’ is licensed when there is an antecedent β s.t.:

• ⟦β⟧o ⟦α⟧f (Rooth 1992, p. 89)

(1) a. Who did John give a cake?

b. John gave [Mary]F a cake.

(2) a. [TP Whoi did John give ti a cake]

b. ⟦2a⟧o = {p: x [p = λw. John gave x a cake in w]}

c. ⟦2a⟧o ⟦1b⟧f

Focus association mechanism

• The presence of ~ has the benefit of removingthe need for any construction specific rules for focus effects on quantifiers.


• The presence of ~ has the benefit of removing the need for any construction specific rules for focus effects on quantifiers.

• Condition on focus association (Rooth 1992, von Fintel 1994)

C ⟦α⟧f , or C ⟦α⟧f ,

where C is the restrictor of a quantificational adverband α the sister to ~


(1)a. John only gave [Mary]F a cheap gift.

‘John gave no one else but Mary a cheap gift.’

b. John only gave Mary a [cheap]F gift.

‘John gave Mary no other kind of gift but a cheap gift.’


(1)a. John only gave [Mary]F a cheap gift.

‘John gave no one else but Mary a cheap gift.’

b. John only gave Mary a [cheap]F gift.

‘John gave Mary no other kind of gift but a cheap gift.’

(2)a. [Only C] [[~ C’] [TP John gave [Mary]F a cheap gift]]

b. C’ ⟦TP⟧f {p: x[John gave x a cheap gift]}

(focal presupposition)

c. C ⟦TP⟧f (condition on focus association)

d. ⟦(2a)⟧= λw. ∀p[(p ∈ C p ≠ ⟦John gave Mary a cheap gift⟧) → ¬p(w)]

Domain restriction & focus association

• Irrespective of the presence of ~, the domain variable of a quantifier, C, can be contextually resolved (Rooth 1992) = focus effects optional.

• For cases where operators require phonological focus, focus association needs to be lexically encoded (Rooth 1992, Beaver and Clark 2008).

e.g. ⟦only VP⟧o = λw[only (w, ⟦VP⟧o, ⟦VP⟧f)]

Optional vs. Obligatory focus association

Beaver & Clark 2008 (p. 178)

Context: At the ceremony, some soldiers salute and others fire a round in the air. Some do both. What about Kim and Sandy?

a. Kim always [SALUTES]F because Sandy always does.

(can mean: ‘Kim salutes at every ceremony because Sandy salutes at every ceremony.’)

C {t: [Sandy is at a ceremony at t]}






C {t: [Sandy is at a ceremony at t]} Contextually supplied!






C {t: [Sandy is at a ceremony at t]}

b. *Kim only [SALUTES]F because Sandy only does.

(cannot mean: ‘Kim salutes (and does nothing else) because Sandy salutes (and does nothing else).’)

Contextually supplied!

22

2 Theory: Two types of Focus Association

Obligatory focus association encoded in the lexical semantics of the focus sensitive expressions (e.g., only, even) (Beaver & Clark 2008)

Optional/free focus association resulting from contextual setting of the restrictor of a quantificational operator (e.g., always, most). Accordingly, in the absence of a context that licenses (narrow) focus (Rooth 1992), optionally associating operators can be restricted by purely pragmatic relevance.

2 Theory: Two types of Focus Association

Obligatory focus association encoded in the lexical semantics of the focus sensitive expressions (e.g., only, even) (Beaver & Clark 2008)

Optional/free focus association resulting from contextual setting of the restrictor of a quantificational operator (e.g., always, most). Accordingly, in the absence of a context that licenses (narrow) focus (Rooth 1992), optionally associating operators can be restricted by purely pragmatic relevance.

23

3 Empirical question

How do the two types of focus-associating expressions affect expectations in online sentence processing?



24



Expressions that obligatorily associate with focus can be predicted to create an expectation for the presence of focus in their scope during incremental semantic processing.



Expressions that obligatorily associate with focus can be predicted to create an expectation for the presence of focus in their scope during incremental semantic processing.

25



Expressions that obligatorily associate with focus can be predicted to create an expectation for the presence of focus in their scope during incremental semantic processing. But what happens in the case of expressions that only optionally associate with focus as indicated by various syntactic and semantic diagnostics?



Expressions that obligatorily associate with focus can be predicted to create an expectation for the presence of focus in their scope during incremental semantic processing. But what happens in the case of expressions that only optionally associate with focus as indicated by various syntactic and semantic diagnostics?

26

4 Prior experiments on Only

Experimental evidence that when a sentence is read without a preceding context, it receives a ‘wide focus’ reading (Birch & Clifton 1995, Bader & Meng 1999, Stolterfoht & Bader 2004):

(1) [John bought cakes]F.

When only is added, during silent reading narrow focus is assigned to cakes for two reasons: (i) only requires a focus associate, and (ii) the constituent cakes is thedefault location for nuclear stress.

(2) John only bought [CAkes]F.

27


Stolterfoht et al. (2007) and Carlson (2013) showed that only facilitates the processing of focus structures during silent reading.

(3) [Am Dienstag hat der Direktor [den Schüler]F

on Tuesday has the principal.Nom the pupil.Acc

getadelt]F,und nicht [den Lehrer]F.

criticized, and not the teacher.Acc

at ellipsis site the processor needs to revise wide focus to matching narrow focus

28

4 Prior experiments on Only(3) [Am Dienstag hat der Direktor [den Schüler]F

on Tuesday has the principal.Nom the pupil.Acc

getadelt]F,und nicht [den Lehrer]F.


at ellipsis site the processor needs to revise wide focus to matching narrow focus

(4) Am Dienstag hat der Direktor nur [den Schüler]F

on Tuesday has the principal.Nom only the pupil.Acc

getadelt, und nicht [den Lehrer]F.


at ellipsis site the processor has already encountered matching narrow focus

29


Stolterfoht et al. (2007): ERP signature for revision processes at ellipsis site (3) vs. (4).

Carlson (2013): difference in reading times at ellipsis site.

Only is widely assumed to obligatorily associate with focus (Rooth 1985, Tancredi 1990, Krifka 1992, Beaver and Clark 2008, a.o)

30

5 Our Experiment: Self-paced Reading (Polish)

We compared the effects of obligatory associating only(Rooth 1985, Tancredi 1990, Krifka 1992, a.o) vs. optionally associating many (Herburger 1997) and most (Heim 1999).


We compared the effects of obligatory associating only(Rooth 1985, Tancredi 1990, Krifka 1992, a.o) vs. optionally associating many (Herburger 1997) and most (Heim 1999).

31

BASELINE:(1) Fotografowie ucałowali rzeźbiarzy na powitanie, a nie malarzy.

photographers.Nom kissed sculptors.Acc for greeting and not painters.Acc

‘Photographers kissed sculptors for greeting, and not painters.’ Only:

(2) Fotografowie ucałowali tylko rzeźbiarzy na powitanie, a nie malarzy.photographers.Nom kissed only sculptors.Acc for greeting and not painters.Acc

‘Photographers kissed only sculptors for greeting, and not painters.’ Most:

(3) Fotografowie ucałowali najwięcej rzeźbiarzy na powitanie, a nie malarzy.photographers.Nom kissed most sculptors.Acc for greeting and not

painters.Acc

‘Photographers kissed more sculptors for greeting than they kissed anybody else, and not painters.’

Many:(4) Fotografowie ucałowali wielu rzeźbiarzy na powitanie, a nie malarzy.

photographers.Nom kissed many sculptors.Acc for greeting and not painters.Acc

‘Photographers kissed many sculptors for greeting, and not painters.’

BASELINE:(1) Fotografowie ucałowali rzeźbiarzy na powitanie, a nie malarzy.

photographers.Nom kissed sculptors.Acc for greeting and not painters.Acc

‘Photographers kissed sculptors for greeting, and not painters.’ Only:

(2) Fotografowie ucałowali tylko rzeźbiarzy na powitanie, a nie malarzy.photographers.Nom kissed only sculptors.Acc for greeting and not painters.Acc

‘Photographers kissed only sculptors for greeting, and not painters.’ Most:

(3) Fotografowie ucałowali najwięcej rzeźbiarzy na powitanie, a nie malarzy.photographers.Nom kissed most sculptors.Acc for greeting and not

painters.Acc

‘Photographers kissed more sculptors for greeting than they kissed anybody else, and not painters.’

Many:(4) Fotografowie ucałowali wielu rzeźbiarzy na powitanie, a nie malarzy.

photographers.Nom kissed many sculptors.Acc for greeting and not painters.Acc

‘Photographers kissed many sculptors for greeting, and not painters.’

32


• The use of Polish allowed us for a direct comparison between only, many and most, because

(i) case marking indicates that ‘sculptors’ is the syntactic associate in (2)-(4), therefore any differences in ellipsis resolution can be attributed to the processing of focus structure; Ambiguity in English: ‘Photographers kissed sculptors for greeting, and not painters.’

(ii) in Polish the focus on ‘sculptors’ in (3) yields a superlative reading that is unavailable in English or German (as indicated by the translation). Pancheva and Tomaszewicz (2012) propose that this reading arises via focus association.


• The use of Polish allowed us for a direct comparison between only, many and most, because

(i) case marking indicates that ‘sculptors’ is the syntactic associate in (2)-(4), therefore any differences in ellipsis resolution can be attributed to the processing of focus structure; Ambiguity in English: ‘Photographers kissed sculptors for greeting, and not painters.’

(ii) in Polish the focus on ‘sculptors’ in (3) yields a superlative reading that is unavailable in English or German (as indicated by the translation). Pancheva and Tomaszewicz (2012) propose that this reading arises via focus association.

Most: Polish vs. English

John bought Mary the most expensive cake.

(i) ‘John bought Mary the cake that was more expensive thanany other cake.’ Absolute Reading




(ii) ‘John bought Mary a more expensive cake than anyone else bought her.’ Relative Reading





(iii) ‘John bought Mary a more expensive cake than he bought for anyone else.’ Relative Reading





(iii) ‘John bought Mary a more expensive cake than he bought for anyone else.’ Relative Reading

[JOhn]F bought Mary the most expensive cake.

Readings: (i), (ii) but not (iii)

John bought [MAry]F the most expensive cake.

Readings: (i), (i) but not (ii)


John bought Mary the most expensive [CAKE]F.



(i) ‘John bought Mary the cake that was more expensive than any other cake.’ Absolute




Unavailable reading:

(iv) ‘John bought Mary a more expensive cake than anything else he bought her.’ Relative




Unavailable reading:

(iv) ‘John bought Mary a more expensive cake than anything else he bought her.’ Relative

Compare with only:

John only gave [MAry]F a cheap cake.

John only gave Mary a [CHEAP]F cake.

John only gave Mary a cheap [CAKE]F.


Jan kupił Marii naj-droższe ciastko.

Jan bought for-Mary est-expensive cake

4 Readings: (i) Absolute, (ii) Relative, (iii) Relative, (iv) Relative.

“Split superlative”:

Context: Jan went to buy various expensive sweets for Maria.

[NajDROższe1]Topic Jan kupił Marii t1 [CIAstko]Focus

est-expensive Jan bought for-Mary cake

1 Reading: (iv) Relative.

Polish vs. EnglishComparing “split superlative” and only:

Context: Jan went to buy various sweets for Maria.

a. Drogiei Jan kupił jej tylko ti [CIAstko]F

expensive Jan bought her only cake

‘Jan bought her sweets of which only the cake was expensive.’

b. Jan kupił jej tylko [drogie CIAstko]F

Jan bought her only expensive cake

‘Jan bought her only an expensive cake and nothing else.’

Many optionally associates with focus

Facts parallel for English and Polish:

a. Photographers kissed many [sculptors]F.

‘A large proportion of those kissed by photographers were sculptors’.

b. Photographers kissed many sculptors.

‘Photographers kissed a large proportion of sculptors’.

Self-Paced Reading Task

• Word-by-word presentation of the materials on the computer screen where participants advance at their own pace to the next word by pressing a button.

• Times of each button press are recorded.

• Longer RTs are interpreted as reflecting a higher level of processing difficulty.

• After the final word of each sentence, a yes/no comprehension question appears.

44

------------------- ------- ------------ --- ------------ ---- ---- -----------

45

Photographers ------- ------------ --- ------------ ---- ---- -----------

46

------------------- kissed ------------ --- ------------ ---- ---- -----------

47

------------------- ------- sculptors --- ------------ ---- ---- -----------

48

------------------- ------- ------------ for greeting, ---- ---- -----------

49

------------------- ------- ------------ --- ------------ and not -----------

50

------------------- ------- ------------ --- ------------ ---- ---- painters.

51

Our Materials

Fotografowie ucałowali …

photographers kissed

… (__/tylko/najwięcej/wielu) rzeźbiarzy

__/only/most/many sculptors

… na powitanie, a nie malarzy, …

for greeting, and not painters

… ponieważ wystawa promowała rzeźbiarstwo.

because exhibition promoted sculpture.

Our Materials









Spillover Region

Our Materials









Spillover Region

Regions of Interest

Regions of Interest

55


• 24 experimental items, 36 fillers. Moving-window self-paced reading task (Linger). A phrase consisted either of a single word, a preposition and a noun, or all the words making up a connective. The presence of the adverbial mitigated against any recency effects where the last constituent of the clause creates an expectation for the upcoming discourse.• 36 native speakers of Polish, undergraduate students


• 24 experimental items, 36 fillers. Moving-window self-paced reading task (Linger). A phrase consisted either of a single word, a preposition and a noun, or all the words making up a connective. The presence of the adverbial mitigated against any recency effects where the last constituent of the clause creates an expectation for the upcoming discourse.• 36 native speakers of Polish, undergraduate students

56

PredictionsWe predicted a difficulty in the processing of the ellipsisin the Baseline condition (longer reading times at the ellipsis site) Contrasts: Only faster than Baseline, Most faster than Baseline, Many faster than Baseline.

PredictionsWe predicted a difficulty in the processing of the ellipsisin the Baseline condition (longer reading times at the ellipsis site) Contrasts: Only faster than Baseline, Most faster than Baseline, Many faster than Baseline.

57

Predictions We did not have specific predictions for direct

comparison between Only, Most, Many. If we demonstrate that there is no slow-down in Most

and Many conditions, as opposed to Baseline, we can attribute this effect to the processing of narrow focus if the same experiment shows a facilitative effect of focus in Only vs. Baseline.

Predictions We did not have specific predictions for direct

comparison between Only, Most, Many. If we demonstrate that there is no slow-down in Most

and Many conditions, as opposed to Baseline, we can attribute this effect to the processing of narrow focus if the same experiment shows a facilitative effect of focus in Only vs. Baseline.

58

Results

59

Resid RTs at “because”One-Way ANOVAs, main effect of sentence type: F1(3, 105) = 4.511, p = .005 by subjects; F2(2.19, 50.3) = 3.029, p[HF] = .053 by items Planned comparisons: Only vs. Baseline F1(1,35)=11.350, p = .002; F2(1,23)=6.831, p = .016Many vs. Baseline F1(1,35)=3.359, p = .075; F2(1,23)=1.634, p = .214Most vs. Baseline F1(1,35)=2.111, p = .155; F2(1,23)=.867, p = .361

60

Resid RTs at “exhibition”One-Way ANOVAs, main effect of sentence type:F1(2.47, 86.3) = 3.729, p[HF] = .02; F2(2.75, 63.28) = 4.623, p[HF]= .007Planned comparisons : Only vs. Baseline F1(1,35)=10.221, p = .003; F2(1,23)=15.009, p <.001Many vs. Baseline F1(1,35)=4.603, p = .039; F2(1,23)=4.422, p = .047Most vs. Baseline F1(1,35)=2.887, p = .098; F2(1,23)=4.838, p = .038

61

Results & ConclusionWe find the predicted contrasts. Most and manycreate an expectation for narrow focus, allowing for easier resolution of ellipsis, as does only.

Results & ConclusionWe find the predicted contrasts. Most and manycreate an expectation for narrow focus, allowing for easier resolution of ellipsis, as does only.

62

Results & ConclusionWe find the predicted contrasts. Most and manycreate an expectation for narrow focus, allowing for easier resolution of ellipsis, as does only. The effect is slower with most/many compared to only, likely reflecting differences between obligatory and optional/free focus association.

Results & ConclusionWe find the predicted contrasts. Most and manycreate an expectation for narrow focus, allowing for easier resolution of ellipsis, as does only. The effect is slower with most/many compared to only, likely reflecting differences between obligatory and optional/free focus association.

63

Results & Conclusion The processing bias for narrow focus with mostand many indicates that optional focus association is not on par with contextual domain restriction of quantifiers (von Fintel 1994),

Results & Conclusion The processing bias for narrow focus with mostand many indicates that optional focus association is not on par with contextual domain restriction of quantifiers (von Fintel 1994),

64

Results & Conclusion The processing bias for narrow focus with mostand many indicates that optional focus association is not on par with contextual domain restriction of quantifiers (von Fintel 1994), i.e. the processing of a set of focus alternatives is lexically triggered and not merely the result of the fact that the restrictor variable tends to be resolved to focus alternatives that are contextually salient.

Results & Conclusion The processing bias for narrow focus with mostand many indicates that optional focus association is not on par with contextual domain restriction of quantifiers (von Fintel 1994), i.e. the processing of a set of focus alternatives is lexically triggered and not merely the result of the fact that the restrictor variable tends to be resolved to focus alternatives that are contextually salient.

65

Funding: NSF DDIG Award #1430803 - Doctoral Dissertation Research

References:Beaver, David and Brady Clark (2008). Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning.

Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Carlson, Katy (2013). The Role of Only in Contrasts In and Out of Context, Discourse Processes,

50:4, 249-275.von Fintel, Kai. (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst.Heim, Irene (1999). Notes on superlatives. Ms., MIT. Herburger, Elena. (1997). Focus and Weak Noun Phrases. Natural Language Semantics 5, 53–

78.Krifka, Manfred. (1992). A Framework for Focus–Sensitive Quantification. In Proceedings from

Semantics and Linguistic Theory II, ed. Chris Barker and David Dowty, 215–36, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Pancheva, Roumyana and Barbara M. Tomaszewicz. (2012). Cross-linguistic Differences in Superlative Movement out of Nominal Phrases. Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Nathan Arnett and Ryan Bennett, 292-302. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings.

Rooth, Mats. (1985). Association with Focus. University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.

Rooth, Mats. (1992). A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1.Stolterfoht, Britta, Angela D. Friederici, Kai Alter, Anita Steube (2007). Processing focus

structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects. Cognition, 104, 565–590.

Tancredi, Christopher D. (1990). Not only even, but even only. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Thank you!

66

Appendix

• The presuppositional theory of focus of Rooth(1992, 1996) contrasts with the structured meanings approach of Krifka (1991), where operators can directly access focus structure as specified in their semantics.

• On the presuppositional theory, the focus alternatives are computed in a separate dimension of meaning, and they do not directly enter the computation of the asserted content (the two dimensional theory for asserted and presupposed meaning originates with Karttunenand Peters 1979). 67

focus association revealed in reading times et al.pdf · 2 1 theory: the focus association...

Documents