Expectations about upcoming discourse referents
Effects of pitch accents and focus particles in German language production
In: International Review of PragmaticsSearch for other papers by Nicole Gotzner in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Katharina Spalek in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
In the current study, we explore how different information-structural devices affect which referents conversational partners expect in the upcoming discourse. Our main research question is how pitch accents (H*, L+H*) and focus particles (German nur ‘only’ and auch ‘also’) affect speakers’ choices to mention focused referents, previously mentioned alternatives or new, inferable alternatives. Participants in our experiment were presented with short discourses involving two referents and were asked to orally produce two sentences that continue the story. An analysis of speakers’ continuations showed that participants were most likely to mention a contextual alternative in the condition with only and the L+H* conditions, followed by H* conditions. In the condition with also, in turn, participants mentioned both the focused/accented referent and the contextual alternative. Our findings highlight the importance of information structure for discourse management and suggest that speakers take activated alternatives to be relevant for an unfolding discourse.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Arnold, Jennifer E., Elsi Kaiser, Jason Kahn and Lucy Kim. 2013. Information structure: linguistic, cognitive, and processing approaches. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4: 403–413.
-
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: 255–278.
-
Bartels, Christine and John Kingston. 1994. Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95: 2973–2993.
-
Baumann, Stefan, Martine Grice and Susanne Steindamm. 2006. Prosodic marking of focus domains—categorical or gradient. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2006: 301–304. Dresden: TUD Press.
-
Beaver David, I. and Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity. How Focus Determines Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.
-
Braun, Bettina and Lara Tagliapietra. 2010. The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 1024–1043.
-
Byram-Washburn, Mary. 2013. Narrowing the focus: experimental studies on exhaustivity and contrast. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
-
Calhoun, Sasha. 2009. What makes a word contrastive? Prosodic, semantic and pragmatic perspectives. In N. Barth, D. Weingarten and A. Wichmann (eds), Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics: Research at the Interface, 53–78. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
-
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Cole, Jennifer, Jose Hualde, Caroline Smith, Christopher Eager, Timothy Mahrt and Ricardo Napoleão de Souza. 2019. Sound, structure and meaning: the bases of prominence ratings in English, French and Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 75: 113–147.
-
Cutler, Anne, Delphine Dahan and Wilma van Donselaar. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: a literature review. Language and Speech 40: 141–201.
-
Dahan, Delphine, Michael Tanenhaus and Craig Chambers. 2002. Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 292–314.
-
Gotzner, Nicole. 2017. Alternative Sets in Language Processing: How Focus Alternatives Are Represented in the Mind. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Gotzner, Nicole. 2019. The role of focus intonation in implicature computation: a comparison with only and also. Natural Language Semantics 27: 189–226.
-
Gotzner, Nicole and Katharina Spalek. 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, https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12310
-
Gotzner, Nicole, Katharina Spalek and Isabell Wartenburger. 2013. How pitch accents and focus particles affect the recognition of contextual alternatives. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society: 2434–2440. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
-
Gotzner, Nicole, Isabell Wartenburger and Katharina Spalek. 2016. The impact of focus particles on the recognition and rejection of contrastive alternatives. Language and Cognition 8: 59–95.
-
Grice, Martine, Simon Ritter, Henrik Niemann and Timo B. Roettger. 2017. Integrating the discreteness and continuity of intonational categories. Journal of Phonetics 64: 90–107.
-
Gundel, Jeanette K. and Thorstein Fretheim. 2004. Topic and focus. The Handbook of Pragmatics 2004: 175–196.
-
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Husband, E. Matthew and Fernanda Ferreira. 2016. The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31: 217–235.
-
Ito, Kiwako and Shari R. Speer. 2008. Anticipatory effects of intonation: eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 541–573.
-
Ito, Kiwako, Shari R. Speer and Mary Beckman. 2004. Informational status and pitch accent distribution in spontaneous dialogues in English. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004: 279–282. Aix: SProSIG.
-
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVA s (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 434–446.
-
Kaiser, Elsi. 2010. Investigating the consequences of focus on the production and comprehension of referring expressions. International Review of Pragmatics 2: 266–297.
-
Kaiser, Elsi. 2011. Focusing on pronouns: consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 1625–1666.
-
Katz, Jonah and Elisabeth Selkirk. 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 14: 771–816.
-
Kim, Christina S., Christine Gunlogson, Michael Tanenhaus and Jeffrey Runner. 2015. Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives. Cognition 139: 28–49.
-
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
-
Krahmer, Emiel and Marc Swerts. 2001. On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication 34: 391–405.
-
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Additive particles under stress. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 8: 111–128.
-
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276.
-
Kügler, Frank and Anja Gollrad. 2015. Production and perception of contrast: the case of the rise-fall contour in German. Frontiers in Psychology 4, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01254
-
Lenth, Russell. 2020. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.4.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
-
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
-
Pierrehumbert, Janet and Julia Hirschberg. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Repp, Sophie. 2010. Defining ‘contrast’ as an information-structural notion in grammar. Lingua 120: 1333–1345.
-
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. PhD dissertation, MIT.
-
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 1–42.
-
Roessig Simon, Doris Mücke and Martine Grice. 2019. The dynamics of intonation: categorical and continuous variation in an attractor-based model. PLoS ONE 14, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216859
-
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. The Handbook of Phonological Theory 1: 550–569.
-
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2002. Contrastive focus vs. presentational focus: prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002: 643–646. Aix: Université de Provence.
-
Singh, Raj, Evelina Fedorenko, Kyle Mahowald and Edward Gibson. 2015. Accommodating presuppositions is inappropriate only in implausible contexts. Cognitive Science 40: 607–634.
-
Steedman, Mark. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic inquiry 31: 649–689.
-
Steedman, Mark. 2014. The surface-compositional semantics of English intonation. Language 24: 2–57.
-
Sudhoff, Stefan. 2010. Focus particles and contrast in German. Lingua 120: 1458–1475.
-
Tomlinson, John, Nicole Gotzner and Lewis Bott. 2017. Intonation and pragmatic enrichment: how intonation constrains ad-hoc scalar inferences. Language and Speech 60: 200–224.
-
Wagner, Michael and Duane G. Watson. 2010. Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: a review. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 905–945.
-
Watson, Duane, Christine Gunlogson and Michael Tanenhaus. 2008. Interpreting pitch accents in on-line comprehension: H* vs. L+H*. Cognitive Science 32: 1232–1244.
-
Weber, Andrea, Bettina Braun and Matthew Crocker. 2006. Finding referents in time: eye-tracking evidence for the role of contrastive accents. Language and Speech 49: 367–392.
-
Yan, Mengzhu and Sasha Calhoun. 2019. Priming effects of focus in Mandarin Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01985
-
Zimmermann, Malte and Edgar Onea. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121: 1651–1670.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 599 | 66 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 40 | 3 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 73 | 8 | 4 |
Expectations about upcoming discourse referents
Effects of pitch accents and focus particles in German language production
In: International Review of PragmaticsSearch for other papers by Nicole Gotzner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Katharina Spalek in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
In the current study, we explore how different information-structural devices affect which referents conversational partners expect in the upcoming discourse. Our main research question is how pitch accents (H*, L+H*) and focus particles (German nur ‘only’ and auch ‘also’) affect speakers’ choices to mention focused referents, previously mentioned alternatives or new, inferable alternatives. Participants in our experiment were presented with short discourses involving two referents and were asked to orally produce two sentences that continue the story. An analysis of speakers’ continuations showed that participants were most likely to mention a contextual alternative in the condition with only and the L+H* conditions, followed by H* conditions. In the condition with also, in turn, participants mentioned both the focused/accented referent and the contextual alternative. Our findings highlight the importance of information structure for discourse management and suggest that speakers take activated alternatives to be relevant for an unfolding discourse.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 599 | 66 | 16 |
| Full Text Views | 40 | 3 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 73 | 8 | 4 |