Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional

Journal of Neurolinguistics

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 320-337

  Drenhaus, Heiner ^a   Zimmermann, Malte ^b   Vasishth, Shravan ^b  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

ERP; German; Information structure; It clefts; Only foci

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EYE TRACKING; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; ONLINE SYSTEM; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE;

EID: 79651472913     PISSN: 09116044     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Akmajian A. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudo-cleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1970, 1:149-168.
2. Atlas J., Levinson S. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form. Radical Pragmatics., pages 1-62 1981, Academic Press, New York. P. Cole (Ed.).
3. Bader M. Prosodic influences on reading syntactically ambiguous sentences. Reanalysis in Sentence Processing 1998, 1-46.
4. Bates, D. and Sarkar, D. (2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.9975-11.
5. Beaver D., Clark B. Sense and Sensitivity: How focus Determines meaning 2008, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
6. Beringer, J. (1996). Experimental runtime system (erts). Technical report, TH Darmstadt.,.
7. Birch S., Rayner K. Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading. Memory and Cognition 2010, 38(6):740.
8. Birch S.L., Garnsey S.M. The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 1995, 34(2):232-267.
9. Birch S.L., Rayner K. Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory and Cognition 1997, 25(5):653-660.
10. Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 2006, 113(4):787-821.
11. Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M., Friederici A. Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: the role of inter-versus intrasentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2003, 29(5):871.
12. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on. Brain Research Reviews 2008, 59(1):55-73.
13. Carpenter P.A., Just M.A. Reading comprehension as the eyes see it. Cognitive processes in comprehension 1977, 109-139. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. M.A. Just, P.A. Carpenter (Eds.).
14. Coulson S., King J., Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 1998, 13(1):21-58.
15. Cowles, H. (2003). Processing information structure: Evidence from comprehension and production. PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego.
16. Cowles H., Kluender R., Kutas M., Polinsky M. Violations of information structure: an electrophysiological study of answers to wh-questions. Brain and Language 2007, 102(3):228-242.
17. Cutler E.A., Fodor J.A. Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition 1979, 7:49.
18. Declerck R. Studies on copular sentences, clefts, and pseudo-clefts Leuven. Symbolae Facultatis Litterarum et Philosophiae Lovaniensis. Series C, Linguistica 1988, vol. 5. Leuven University Press, Foris Publications Series, Belgium, Leuven.
19. Delin J., Oberlander J. Syntactic constraints on discourse structure: the case of it-clefts. Linguistics 1995, 33(3).
20. Donchin E., Coles M. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1988, 11(3):357-427.
21. Drenhaus H., beim Graben P., Saddy D., Frisch S. Diagnosis and repair of negative polarity constructions in the light of symbolic resonance analysis. Brain and Language 2006, 255-268.
22. Drenhaus H., Saddy D., Frisch S. Processing negative polarity items: when negation comes through the backdoor. Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and Computational Perspectives 2005, 145-165. Mouton de Gruyter (Studies in Generative Grammar 85), Berlin. S. Kepser, M. Reis (Eds.).
23. Kiss K.É Identificational focus vs. information focus. Language 1998, 74(2):245-273.
24. Kiss K.É The English cleft-construction as a focus phrase. Boundaries of Morphology and syntax 1999, 217-229. Benjamins, Amsterdam. L. Mereu (Ed.).
25. Fischler P., Bloom Childers D., Roucos S., Perry N. Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology 1983, 20:400-409.
26. Foraker S., McElree B. The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language 2007, 56(3):357-383.
27. Frazier L., Rayner K. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 1982, 14:178-210.
28. Frege G. Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens 1879, (L. Nebert, Halle a.S).
29. Friederici A., Frisch S. Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language 2000, 43(3):476-507.
30. Friederici A., Hahne A., Saddy D. Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Reseach 2002, 31(1):45-63.
31. Frisch S., Schlesewsky M. The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport 2001, 12(15):3391.
32. Frisch S., Schlesewsky M. The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 25(2):484-498.
33. Gelman A., Hill J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
34. Gunter T., Stowe L., Mulder G. When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology 1997, 34(6):660-676.
35. Halvorsen P.-K. Syntax and semantics of cleft sentences. Proceedings from the 12th Chicago Linguistic Society 1976.
36. Halvorsen, P.-K. (1978). The Syntax and Semantics of Cleft Constructions. PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
37. Hedberg N. The referential status of clefts. Language 2000, 76:891-920.
38. Heim I. Articles and definiteness. Handbook of Semantics. An international handbook of contemporary research, chapter Published in German as "Artikel und Definitheit" 1991, 487-535. W. de Gruyter, Berlin. A. Stechow, D. Wunderlich (Eds.).
39. Hoeks J., Stowe L., Doedens G. Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research 2004, 19(1):59-73.
40. Hofmeister P. Encoding effects on memory retrieval in language comprehension. Proceedings of CUNY conference 2009, University of Davis, Davis, CA.
41. Horn L.R. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. Papers from the 11th Annual Meeting of NELS 1981, 124-142. Amherst, (GLSA). V. Burke, J. Pustejovsky (Eds.).
42. Horn L.R. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. Proceedings of the Chicago linguistics Society 1969, Vol. 5:98-108.
43. Kaan E., Harris A., Gibson E., Holcomb P. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 2000, 15:159-201.
44. Karttunen L., Peters S. Conventional implicature. Syntax and semantics, presupposition 1979, Vol. 11. Academic Press, New York. C.-K. Oh, D.A. Dinneen (Eds.).
45. Kolk H., Chwilla D., van Herten M., Oor P. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 2003, 85(1):1-36.
46. König E. The meaning of focus particles. A comparative perspective 1991, Routledge, London.
47. Krifka M. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 2008, 55.
48. Kutas M., Federmeier K. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2000, 4(12):463-470.
49. Kutas M., Hillyard S. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
50. Kutas M., Hillyard S. Event-related potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory and Cognition 1983, 11:539-550.
51. Kutas M., Hillyard S. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307(5947):161-163.
52. Kutas M., van Petten C.K. Psycholinguistics electrified. Event-related brain potential investigations. Handbook of Psycholinguistics 1994, 83-133. Academic Press, San Diego. M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.).
53. Ladusaw W. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations 1980, New York and London, Garland.
54. Nieuwland M.S., Kuperberg G. When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science 2008, 19:1213-1218.
55. Novagk, R. (1998). Xrefa. tms porti-32/mrefa frontended data acquisition. Technical report, Max-Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience Leipzig.
56. Onea E., Beaver D. Hungarian focus is not exhausted. Proceedings of SALT 2009, 19.
57. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31:785-806.
58. Percus O. Prying open the cleft. Proceedings of NELS 1997, Vol. 37:337-351.
59. Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology 2007, 118(10):2128-2148.
60. Prince E.F. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 1978, 54:883-906.
61. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
62. Schulz K., van Rooij R. Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: the case of exhaustive interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 2006, 29:205-250.
63. Sedivy J., Carlson G., Tanenhaus M., Spivey-Knowlton M., Eberhard K. The cognitive function of contrast sets in processing focus constructions. IBM working papers of the Institute for Logic and Linguistics 1994, Heidelberg. P. Bosch, R. van der Sandt (Eds.).
64. Sharbrough F., Chartrian G.-E., Lesser R.P., Lüders H., Nuwer M., Picton T.W. American Electroencephalographic Society guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 1995, 8:200-202.
65. Singer M. Thematic structure and the integration of linguistic information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1976, 15(5):549-558.
66. Spector B. Scalar implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean reasoning. Questions in Dynamic semantics 2007, 225-250. Elsevier. M. Aloni, A. Butler, P. Dekker (Eds.).
67. Stolterfoht B., Bader M. Focus structure and the processing of word order variations in German. Information Structure: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects 2004, 259-275.
68. Stolterfoht B., Friederici A., Alter K., Steube A. Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects. Cognition 2007, 104(3):565-590.
69. van Berkum J., Hagoort P., Brown C. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 11(6):657-671.
70. van Berkum J., Zwitserlood P., Hagoort P., Brown C. When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17(3):701-718.
71. van Herten M., Kolk H., Chwilla D. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22(2):241-255.
72. Vasishth, S., Shaher, R., and Srinivasan, N. (2010). The role of clefting, word order and given-new ordering in sentence comprehension: Evidence from Hindi. accepted pending revisions by Journal of South Asian Linguistics.
73. von Fintel K. Would You believe it? The king of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value Intuitions). Descriptions and beyond: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays on definite and Indefinite descriptions and other related Phenomena 2001, Oxford University Press. A. Bezuidenhout, M. Reimer (Eds.).
74. von Fintel K., Matthewson L. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 2008.
75. Wedgwood D., Pethö G., Cann R. Hungarian 'focus position' and English it-clefts: The semantic underspecification of 'focus' readings 2006.