Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., Filik, R., Juhasz, B. J., White, S. P.

0 downloads 4 Views 251KB Size Report
Dec 23, 2006 - However, it also can be shown, using a sentence such as (3), that it is not .... position adjoining either the direct or the indirect object in dative sentences ... replacive includes a preposition (e.g., to, as in but not to her father) it is ...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5987828

Focus identification during sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements Article  in  Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · November 2007 DOI: 10.1080/17470210601100563 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

25

156

6 authors, including: Simon Liversedge

Sarah J White

University of Central Lancashire

University of Leicester

243 PUBLICATIONS   7,298 CITATIONS   

57 PUBLICATIONS   2,648 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Eye Movements during Complex Information Processing in Autism Spectrum Disorder View project

Cognitive control in anxiety View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Liversedge on 15 May 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PQJE209998

TECHSET COMPOSITION LTD, SALISBURY, U.K.

12/23/2006

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 0000, 00 (0), 1 – 24

Focus identification during sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements Kevin B. Paterson University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Simon P. Liversedge University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Ruth Filik University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Barbara J. Juhasz Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA

Sarah J. White University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Keith Rayner University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA

Three eye movement experiments investigated focus identification during sentence comprehension. Participants read dative or double-object sentences (i.e., either the direct or indirect object occurred first), and a replacive continuation supplied a contrast that was congruous with either the direct or the indirect object. Experiments 1 and 2 manipulated focus by locating only adjacent to either the direct or indirect object of dative (Experiment 1) or double-object (Experiment 2) sentences. Reading-time effects indicated that the surface position of the focus particle influenced processing. In addition, Experiment 1 reading times were longer when the replacive was incongruous with the constituent that only adjoined, and particle position modulated a similar effect in Experiment 2. Experiment 3 showed that this effect was absent when only was omitted. We conclude that the surface position of a focus particle modulates focus identification during on-line sentence comprehension.

Although the assignment of focus in a sentence is recognized as an important aspect of semantic interpretation (e.g., Jackendoff, 1972; Krifka,

1992; Rooth, 1992), there have been few empirical investigations of its computation during language comprehension. In this paper, we report three

Correspondence should be addressed to Kevin Paterson, School of Psychology, Henry Wellcome Building, Lancaster Road, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 9HN, UK. Email: [email protected] This research was supported by Grant 12/S19168 from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and by Grant HD17246 from the National Institute of Health. We are grateful to Tim Slattery for his assistance in collecting the data reported in Experiment 1. We thank Ekkehard Ko¨nig for giving us useful advice. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their detailed and perceptive comments on earlier versions of the paper. # 0000 The Experimental Psychology Society http://www.psypress.com/qjep

1 DOI:10.1080/17470210601100563

PATERSON ET AL.

eye movement experiments investigating grammatical constraints on focus identification during written sentence comprehension. Focus either marks information that is newly asserted or indicates that a contrast is to be made between current information and its alternatives (Chomsky, 1971; Halliday, 1967; Jackendoff, 1972; Kiss, 1998; Rochemont & Culicover 1990; Rooth, 1992; Selkirk, 1995). Theoretical approaches to focus interpretation emphasize the role of prosody in marking a sentence’s focused syntactic constituent (e.g., Jackendoff, 1972; Kadmon, 2001; Selkirk, 1995), and although there is considerable debate concerning precisely how prosody indicates focus, it generally is agreed that focus correlates with a peak of prosodic prominence in a sentence. Thus, in a sentence such as MARY kissed Tom (with capitals indicating the peak of prosodic prominence), focus is assigned to Mary, and readers will understand the sentence to assert that it was Mary who kissed Tom, rather than some other contextually relevant person. Empirical research has shown that speech comprehension is easier when focused information is marked using prosody than when it is not (Birch & Clifton, 1995, 2002; Bock & Mazzella, 1983; Noteboom & Kruyt, 1987; Terken & Noteboom, 1987), that listeners perceive focused information more easily than nonfocused information (Cutler & Fodor, 1979; Hornby, 1974), and that memory for focused information is enhanced (Malt, 1985; Singer, 1976). Other studies have shown that using prosody to assign focus can influence how ambiguous sentences are interpreted (Schafer, Carlson, Clifton, & Frazier, 2000). It also has been widely observed (e.g., Jackendoff, 1972; Ko¨nig, 1991; Rooth, 1992) that function words termed focus particles (e.g., only, even, just, also, too) influence focus interpretation. These signal that a contrast is to be made between the referent of a sentential constituent and its alternatives, although the precise nature of this contrast depends on the particle’s lexical characteristics. Some, such as only and just, specify an exclusive contrast such that a property of the referent does not also belong to its alternatives, whereas others, such as even, also, and too, specify an additive contrast in

2

which the referent’s property is shared with its alternatives. For example, Only Mary kissed John means that Mary kissed John, and others did not, whereas Even Mary kissed John means that Mary, in addition to some others, kissed John. Jackendoff (1972) was the first to argue that particles such as only “associate with focus”, meaning that they often, but not always, are interpreted as specifying a contrast between the referent of a focused syntactic constituent and its alternatives. The sentences in (1) and (2) frequently are used to illustrate how the choice of focus can affect the interpretation of a sentence containing only: 1. Mary only introduced [Bill]F to Sue. 2. Mary only introduced Bill to [Sue]F. For these sentences, the focused constituent is indicated by brackets and the subscript F. The sentences differ only in terms of the distribution of focus, which is allocated to the direct object (Bill) in (1) and to the indirect object (Sue) in (2). If, as Jackendoff (1972) proposed, the particle usually associates with the focused constituent, then only should associate with the direct object in (1) and with the indirect object in (2). Consequently, (1) should be understood to mean that Bill alone was introduced to Sue, and (2) should mean that he was introduced to noone other than Sue. These examples illustrate that sentences that contain a focus particle but differ with respect to the distribution of focus can receive qualitatively different interpretations. However, it also can be shown, using a sentence such as (3), that it is not mandatory for the particle to associate with the focused constituent: 3. [Mary]F only introduced Bill to Sue. For this sentence, Mary is the focused constituent, but the sentence cannot be interpreted with only associating with it. Instead, readers are likely to associate only with either the direct or indirect object or the entire verb phrase (i.e., introduced Bill to Sue), despite none of these constituents being a recipient of focus. Jackendoff (1972) accounted for these interpretative preferences by proposing that grammatical constraints govern the range (or scope) over which

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

a focus particle can operate, such that it associates with a focused constituent within its range. Jackendoff did not define these constraints but other researchers, such as Reinhart (1999), have proposed that only ranges over constituents that it c-commands in a parse tree. Thus, when only is included in a sentence, it associates with a focused constituent within this syntactic domain. For Sentences 1–3, this stipulates that only associates with the direct object (i.e., Bill), the indirect object (i.e., Sue), or the verb phrase (i.e., introduced Bill to Sue) but cannot associate with the subject noun phrase (i.e., Mary). We investigated if readers employ this grammatical knowledge during normal sentence comprehension. Jackendoff’s (1972) suggested that prosody might contribute to focus identification in sentences containing focus particles by disambiguating the choice of focus within a syntactic domain. He argued that when prosody marks the focused constituent, the particle associates with this constituent if it is within its range; but if it marks a constituent that is outside of the particle’s range, then the sentence will be perceived as anomalous. However, and very importantly, explicit prosodic cues are absent in silent reading (but see Fodor, 2002). Consequently, other factors may play an important part in focus identification during written sentence comprehension, particularly the grammatical cues supplied by the surface position of the focus particle. Many focus particles, including only, occur freely in different syntactic positions in a sentence, and the flexibility in their placement affords a means of evaluating grammatical influences on their interpretation. As already observed, when only is in an adverbial position, as in (3), it can associate with the direct or indirect object or the entire verb phrase. Now consider variants of this sentence (e.g., 4 and 5) in which the particle adjoins either the direct or the indirect object: 4. Mary introduced Bill to only Sue. 5. Mary introduced only Bill to Sue. When the particle adjoins the indirect object (e.g., Sue in 4), it should associate with this constituent, as it alone is within the particle’s syntactic

domain. However, when it precedes the direct object (e.g., Bill in 5) the sentence has two grammatically permissible analyses. On one analysis, the particle associates with the direct object (e.g., Bill), but on the other it adjoins a constituent containing both postverbal phrases (e.g., Bill to Sue) and can associate with either the direct or the indirect object. If grammatical constraints influence focus identification, then (4) means that Bill was not introduced to anyone other than Sue, By contrast, when only associates with the direct object in (5), the sentence means that no-one other than Bill was introduced to Sue, but if it is analysed as adjoining a constituent containing both postverbal phrases, then the sentence will be ambiguous between these two interpretations. We adopted the working hypothesis that only associates locally, to the adjacent phrase, during sentence comprehension. This assumption enabled us to investigate whether the surface position of the particle informs the allocation of focus. Key questions are whether and when this information is employed in normal comprehension. Relatively few studies have directly investigated the cognitive processes underlying focus identification. Some researchers have used the focus sensitivity of only to investigate the development of linguistic constraints on sentence interpretation (e.g., Crain, Ni, & Conway, 1994; Paterson, Liversedge, Rowland, & Filik, 2003; Paterson, Liversedge, White, Filik, & Jaz, 2006; Philip & Lynch, 1999). For instance, Crain et al. argued that young children do not employ grammatical constraints to restrict the range of only, but that they instead interpret sentences with presubject only, such as Only the fireman is holding a hose, as having the same meaning as counterparts with preverbal only, such as The fireman is only holding a hose. Paterson et al. (2003) disputed this account of children’s errors, however, arguing that children make errors because they have difficulty in computing the alternatives to a focused referent rather than by failing to restrict the particle’s range. With respect to the current investigations, it must be noted that both groups of researchers found that adults almost always interpreted sentences with only by associating the

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

3

PATERSON ET AL.

particle with a constituent within its c-command domain and took this as evidence for grammatical restrictions on focus identification in adult sentence comprehension. However, as this evidence was obtained from tasks in which participants formed explicit judgements about sentence meaning, the results may reflect the operation of processes that are not normally involved in sentence comprehension. Other research has investigated whether the choice of focus in a sentence can guide the processing of syntactic ambiguities (e.g., Clifton, Bock, & Rado, 2000; Filik, Paterson, & Liversedge, 2005; Liversedge, Paterson, & Clayes, 2002; Ni, Crain, & Shankweiler, 1996; Paterson, Liversedge, & Underwood, 1999; Sedivy, 2002). Much of this research was in response to Ni et al.’s claim that using only to indicate contrastive focus can guide the parsing of temporarily ambiguous sentences such as (6): 6. Only businessmen loaned money at low interest kept accurate records of their expenses. For this sentence, the phrase loaned money at low interest is temporarily ambiguous between a main clause analysis and a reduced relative clause analysis, but it is disambiguated at kept in favour of the latter. Such ambiguities are a cause of difficulty, since perceivers typically assign a main clause analysis to the ambiguous material and incur a processing cost when it is disambiguated as a reduced relative clause (e.g., Frazier & Rayner, 1982). However, Ni et al. (1996) proposed that including only can eliminate such difficulty. They argued that on encountering only businessmen in (6), the parser establishes a contrast between subsets of the head noun (e.g., two sets of businessmen), and anticipates further information specifying the difference between these subsets. Such information may be supplied by the relative clause analysis of the ambiguity. Thus, according to Ni et al., referential processing demands associated with contrastive focus can predispose readers to adopting the relative clause analysis of an ambiguity. Consistent with this claim, Ni et al. found that only eliminated reading difficulty for ambiguous sentences like (6). Sedivy (2002) replicated this finding. However,

4

Clifton et al. (2000) found no effects of only on the parsing of relative clause ambiguities, and Paterson et al. (1999) and Liversedge et al. (2002; see also Filik et al., 2005) found that its influence depended on which syntactic analyses were available to the parser and therefore was obtained only for certain syntactic ambiguities. Although the question of whether contrastive focus influences syntactic ambiguity resolution is not directly relevant to the present investigation, it is important to note that Ni et al.’s (1996) account implicitly assumes that focus identification occurs sufficiently rapidly for its referential consequences to influence initial parsing decisions, indicating very rapid on-line focus identification during reading. However, since the data pertaining to whether only does guide parsing are equivocal (with some studies showing such effects and others failing to do so), then even this indirect evidence is not conclusive. There is a growing interest in more basic questions concerning the processing of focus identification (e.g., Carlson, 2004; Carlson, Frazier, Clifton, & Dickey, 2005; Stolterfoht, Friederici, Alter, & Steube, 2003), although only one published study, by Gennari, Meroni, and Crain (2004), has directly investigated its computation during sentence comprehension. This employed a visual world eye-tracking task in which participants viewed a picture while listening to sentences that included adverbial only (e.g., The mother only brought some milk to the boy). The constituent that associated with only was either ambiguous or else it was disambiguated by including phonological stress on the direct object (e.g., some milk). Participants were most likely to visually inspect the direct object’s referent and a contrasting item in the picture when stress was included. Furthermore, they were more likely to judge sentences that included phonological stress as correctly describing the picture when it depicted a contrast based on this referent. Thus, the data suggested that prosody can disambiguate focus. However, because participants formed explicit judgements about auditory sentence meaning, the data do not indicate whether focus identification is mandatory in written sentence comprehension.

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

Our experiments used measures of eye movements during reading to investigate whether locating only in different surface positions modulates focus identification, since this methodology provides an indication of the moment-to-moment processes that occur in normal text comprehension (Liversedge & Findlay, 2000; Rayner, 1998). The sentences included a ditransitive verb that permitted dative alternation, as shown in Table 1. For dative sentences, the direct object (e.g., the salt) preceded the indirect object (e.g., her mother), and this constituent order was reversed for doubleobject sentences. Each sentence was continued by a replacive (but not pepper too/but not father too) that supplied a congruous contrast for either the direct or the indirect object. Experiment 1 investigated the effect on processing of locating only in a position adjoining either the direct or the indirect object in dative sentences, and Experiment 2 investigated this effect in double-object sentences. Experiment 3 examined the processing of sentences that omitted the particle. Our working assumption was that the particle would associate with its immediately adjacent constituent. If the sentences are interpreted with only associating with the indirect object (e.g., her Q14 Table 1. Examples of sentences used in Experiments 1–3 Experiment 1. Dative sentences with only

2. Double-object sentences with only 3. Dative and double-object sentences without only

Sample sentence At dinner, Jane passed 1j [only] the salt to [only] her mother 2j but not [the pepper/her father] 3j as well because 4j she couldn’t reach 5. At dinner, Jane passed 1j [only] her mother [only] the salt 2j but not [the pepper/her father] 3j as well because 4j she couldn’t reach 5. At dinner, Jane passed 1j the salt to her mother 2j but not [the pepper/her father] 3j as well because 4j she couldn’t reach 5. At dinner, Jane passed 1j her mother the salt 2j but not [the pepper/her father] 3j as well because 4j she couldn’t reach 5.

Note: Vertical lines delimit regions of analysis, slashes denote alternatives, and parentheses indicate the alternate positions of the focus particle.

mother) then readers should have difficulty with replacives supplying a contrast that is incongruous with this constituent (e.g., but not the pepper) as compared with congruous replacives (e.g., but not her father). Conversely, if only associates with the direct object (e.g., the salt) then readers should have difficulty for incongruous replacives (e.g., but not her father) but not for congruous replacives (e.g., but not the pepper). The results also may be informative about the time course of focus identification. Recall that Ni et al. (1996) assumed that focus identification occurs very early during processing, sufficiently so that it might affect initial parsing decisions. The earliest point within the sentence at which we might anticipate disruption due to the incongruity of the replacive is in reading-time measures that reflect early processing at the replacive region. Alternatively, if such effects are delayed, then we might detect disruption in measures reflecting later stages of processing or in regions downstream from the replacive.

EXPERIMENT 1 Method Participants A total of 36 American English speakers from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst participated for extra course credit or cash payment. Materials and design We constructed 32 sentences that permitted dative alternation, with the direct object preceding the indirect object, as illustrated in Table 1. The direct object was always inanimate (e.g., the salt) and the indirect object was always animate (e.g., her mother), to maximize the likelihood of the replacive ultimately being interpreted as supplying a contrast for the intended constituent. The particle only adjoined either the direct or indirect object, and the sentence was continued by a replacive that supplied a congruous contrast for one of these constituents. Thus, we employed two independent variables: the position of only and the congruity of the contrast supplied by the replacive. The dependent variables were measures of reading time.

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

5

PATERSON ET AL.

Norming data. We conducted three studies to assess readers’ comprehension of the sentences used in Experiment 1. The first examined the perceived acceptability of replacives that supplied a contrast for the sentence’s indirect object (e.g., At dinner, Jane passed only the salt to her mother but not her father too). For these sentences, when the replacive includes a preposition (e.g., to, as in but not to her father) it is syntactically disambiguated as supplying a contrast for the indirect object. The sentences in Experiment 1 did not include this preposition, to avoid disambiguating the contrast. However, it was possible that readers would find such sentences to be less grammatically acceptable than those that included the preposition, and this could affect reading behaviour. We therefore examined whether omitting the preposition affected the perceived acceptability of the sentences. A total of 20 participants provided acceptability judgements for sentences with only adjoining the indirect object and a replacive that supplied a contrast for this constituent and either did or did not include a preposition, using a 7-point scale (1 indicating that the sentence was entirely unacceptable, 7 indicating that it was entirely acceptable). Acceptability ratings did not differ (“with preposition” ¼ 4.42, “without preposition” ¼ 4.40), t(31) , 1, indicating that readers found sentences with and without the preposition to be equally acceptable. A second study was conducted to ensure that when the replacive was congruous it ultimately was interpreted as contrasting with the particle’s adjacent constituent and no other constituent. A total of 22 participants viewed dative sentences with only adjoining either the direct or the indirect object and the replacive supplying a congruous contrast (e.g., At dinner, Jane passed only the salt to her mother but not the pepper too). An additional 16 filler items had a ditransitive construction, but with only adjoining the subject noun, and a replacive supplying a congruous contrast for this constituent (e.g., At the auction, only the dentist sold some equipment to the collector and not the doctor too). The contrastive noun was underscored (e.g., but not the pepper as well), and participants indicated which constituent contrasted with it.

6

In total there were three cases in which participants did not select the constituent that only adjoined (i.e., 99.7% correct responses). Thus, when the contrast was congruous, the replacive almost always was interpreted as contrasting with the constituent adjoining the focus particle and was rarely interpreted as providing a contrast with any other constituent. Note that these results simply indicate that supposedly congruous replacives were indeed congruous with the intended constituent and did not ultimately form a more congruous contrast with another constituent. The eye-tracking data would reveal how the replacive is processed during on-line sentence comprehension. Finally, we collected sentence completion data to assess readers’ preferences for assigning focus. These data would reveal whether readers interpreted the sentences by associating only with its adjacent constituent. A total of 32 participants provided completions for dative sentence fragments, with only preceding either the direct or the indirect object. The fragments were truncated at the replacive (e.g., At dinner, Jane passed only the salt to her mother but not . . . ). A total of 16 filler items also had a ditransitive construction and were truncated at the replacive, but for these sentences only preceded the subject noun (e.g., At the auction, only the dentist sold some equipment to the collector and not . . . ). Sentence completions were categorized as providing an appropriate contrast for either the direct or the indirect object, or providing an inappropriate contrast. The majority of completions did supply an appropriate contrast, and the mean proportion of these responses is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Percentage completions that supplied a contrast for either the direct object or the indirect object of dative sentence fragments with only Focus particle position

Contrasting constituent Indirect object (her mother) Direct object (the salt)

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

Preindirect Predirect object (only the salt to object (the salt to her mother) only her mother) 39 59

91 6

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

The results indicated that although there was a preference for associating the particle with its adjacent constituent, this was substantially weaker when only adjoined the direct rather than the indirect object (i.e., when it appeared early rather than late in the sentence), t(31) ¼ 6.34, p , .001. Thus, it appeared that when only adjoined the direct object, the sentence could be interpreted with the particle associating with either the direct or the indirect object, albeit that there was a narrow preference for it to associate with the adjacent phrase (i.e., the direct object). By comparison, when only adjoined the indirect object, there was an overwhelming preference for it to associate with this phrase. We note that this finding is inconsistent with our working hypothesis that only associates with its immediately adjacent constituent. However, the finding is consistent with participants assigning focus in line with grammatical constraints on focus interpretation. Recall that when only adjoins the indirect object of a dative sentence then it should associate with this constituent, as it alone is within the particle’s syntactic domain. The overwhelming preference for producing a contrast based on the indirect object when only adjoined this constituent was consistent with this being the only grammatically permissible analysis. Recall also that when only precedes the direct object the sentence can be analysed with the particle attaching to this constituent or to one that includes both postverbal phrases. Under the former analysis there should be a preference for forming a contrast based on the direct object. However, the particle can associate with either direct or indirect object under the latter analysis. Thus, the less clear-cut preference for producing continuations that supplied a contrast for the direct object when only appears early in the sentence might reflect the availability of a grammatically permissible analysis that permits the particle to associate with either postverbal constituent. The eye-tracking data would reveal if similar preferences occur during on-line comprehension. Procedure Eye movements were monitored via a Fourward Technologies Dual Purkinje Generation 6

Eye-Tracker located at the University of Massachusetts eye-tracking laboratory. The eyetracker has an angular resolution of 10 minutes of arc, and a PC displayed materials on a VDU 61 cm from readers’ eyes. The tracker’s output was sampled to produce a sequence of eye fixations recorded as x and y character positions, with start and finish times. Before the start of the experiment, participants received an explanation of the eyetracking procedure and were instructed to read normally and for comprehension. Participants were seated at the eye-tracker (a bite-bar was used to minimize head movements), and a calibration procedure was completed. Before the start of each trial, a fixation box appeared in the upper left half of the screen. Once participants had fixated this box the experimenter prompted the computer to present a sentence, with the first character of this sentence replacing the fixation box. The experimenter received feedback on the estimated position of participant’s fixation point. If this did not match with the fixation box then the experimenter recalibrated the eye-tracker. Participants were permitted to take breaks as required. The sentences were divided into four lists. Each sentence appeared once in a list, and each list included an equal number of sentences in each condition. The lists included an additional 45 filler sentences. Each participant viewed the sentences in one list. Comprehension questions (e.g., Did Fred have much money?) followed 35% of the experimental and filler sentences. Half of the questions had yes, and half had no answers. Participants responded by pressing a key and received feedback on their responses. Participants responded correctly 90% of the time.

Results and discussion Regions. Sentences were divided into five scoring regions, as indicated by vertical lines in Table 1. Region 1 was the locative, subject noun phrase, and verb. Region 2 was the direct and indirect object and the focus particle. Region 3 was the replacive. Region 4 contained an additive focus

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

7

PATERSON ET AL.

particle and the connective because. Region 5 was the remainder of the sentence. Analysis. An automatic procedure pooled short contiguous fixations. Fixations less than 80 ms were incorporated into larger adjacent fixations within one character. Fixations over 1,200 ms also were deleted. Prior to analysing eye movement data we eliminated trials where either participants failed to read the sentence or there had been tracker loss. This involved removing trials where zero first-pass reading times were recorded for Regions 2, 3, or 4, accounting for 4.9% of the data. We computed several standard reading-time measures (Rayner, 1998; Rayner, Sereno, Morris, Schmauder, & Clifton, 1989). First-pass reading time (or gaze duration for a single word) summed the duration of fixations made on first entering a region until exiting it. This measure is generally taken to be an index of initial processing effects. We also computed regression path reading times for Regions 3 and 4. Regression path reading time is the sum of temporally contiguous fixations made following the onset of the first fixation within a region until a saccade transgresses the right region boundary (Konieczny, Hemforth, Scheepers, & Strube, 1997; Liversedge, Paterson,

& Pickering, 1998a; Rayner & Duffy, 1986). This measure includes fixations made to reinspect earlier portions of text and is usually taken to reflect an indication of initial processing difficulty along with (at least some) time spent reinspecting the sentence in order to recover from such difficulty. Finally, we computed total reading time, which summed all fixations made in a region until the participant pressed a button to indicate that they had completed reading the sentence. This measure is usually taken to provide a measure of overall comprehension difficulty associated with a region of the sentence. Each region’s data were subjected to two 2 (particle location)  2 (contrast congruity) analyses of variance (ANOVAs), treating participants (F1) and sentences (F2) as random variables. We calculated minimum F0 (min F0 ) from the F1 and F2 ANOVAs (Clark, 1973; Raaijmakers, Schrijnemakers, & Gremmen, 1999). Table 3 shows mean reading times for Regions 2 – 4, and Table 4 shows the inferential statistics. First-pass reading time. Region 2 reading times were longer when only adjoined the indirect rather than the direct object (926 vs. 870 ms, 95% confidence interval, CI ¼ 46 ms). This

Table 3. Experiment 1: First-pass, regression path, and total reading times for Regions 2–4 of dative sentences with only preceding the direct or indirect object and the replacive providing a congruous or incongruous contrast Particle Position

Region 2

3

4

Measures First-pass reading time Regression path reading time Total reading time First-pass reading time Regression path reading time Total reading time First-pass reading time Regression path reading time Total reading time

Predirect object (only the salt to her mother) Congruousa Incongruousa

Preindirect object (only the salt to her mother) Congruousa Incongruousa

882 (31) 997 (43) 1035 (54) 564 (23) 603 (30) 639 (26) 427 (20) 483 (21) 481 (21)

921 (36) 1067 (41) 1094 (47) 566 (21) 607 (24) 623 (23) 424 (17) 467 (17) 470 (19)

857 (35) 1003 (39) 1023 (43) 576 (21) 599 (30) 642 (29) 438 (23) 520 (31) 507 (25)

Note: Reading times in ms; standard errors in parentheses. a Contrast type.

8

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

931 (35) 1065 (46) 1109 (51) 579 (27) 620 (29) 682 (30) 427 (20) 549 (29) 523 (25)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

Table 4. Inferential statistics for Experiment 1 F1 Region First-pass reading time

2

3

4

Regression path

2

3

4

Total reading time

2

3

4



Source of variance Particle location Contrast congruity Particle Location  Congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle Location  Congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle Location  Congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle Location  Congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle Location  Congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle Location  Congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle Location  Congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle Location  Congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle Location  Congruity

Min F 0

F2

Min F 0 value

df

F1 value

MSE

df

F2 value

df

Contrast

1, 35 1, 35 1, 35

4.25 0.13 0.69

115,769 1,991 10,849

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

5.18 0.30 1.41

1, 66 1, 59 1, 61

2.33 0.09 0.46

Contrast

1, 35 1, 35 1, 35

0.03 1.16 0.00

202 5,453 19

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.07 0.47 0.11

1, 59 1, 53 1, 37

0.02 0.33 0.00

Contrast

1, 35 1, 35 1, 35

0.24 0.31 0.10

1,902 1,863 492

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.51 0.71 0.00

1, 61 1, 59 1, 59

0.16 0.22 0.02

Contrast

1, 35 1, 35 1, 35

7.93 0.00 0.30

156,697 96 543

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

7.14 0.02 0.04

1, 66 1, 40 1, 55

3.76þ 0.02 0.03

Contrast

1, 35 1, 35 1, 35

0.60 0.15 0.35

5,080 684 2,575

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.79 0.01 0.51

1, 66 1, 35 1, 65

0.34 0.01 0.21

Contrast

1, 35 1, 35 1, 35

0.03 7.00 0.88

317 56,442 6,394

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.08 17.98 0.83

1, 57 1, 58 1, 65

0.02 5.04 0.43

Contrast

1, 35 1, 35 1, 35

9.89 0.05 0.21

187,797 123 6,415

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

11.01 0.00 1.35

1, 66 1, 61 1, 45

5.21 0.05 0.18

Contrast

1, 35 1, 35 1, 35

1.43 6.51 9.90

200 593 1,017

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

1.01 3.28þ 1.58

1, 63 1, 57 1, 41

0.59 2.18 1.36

Contrast

1, 35 1, 35 1, 35

0.31 9.04 0.88

317 126,097 6,394

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.02 9.90 0.79

1, 35 1, 68 1, 65

0.02 4.73 0.42

p , .05 þ .1 . p . .05;  p , .01;  p , .001.

effect was unanticipated but has several possible explanations. One possibility is that there are differential costs in computing contrastive focus when only associates with an indirect rather than a direct object. That is, the grammatical status of the constituent may modulate the processing cost. Alternatively, the effect may have occurred because of the surface position of the particle,

readers having more difficulty in processing contrastive focus when only was flanked by the direct and indirect objects than when it preceded them both. It also was possible that readers prefer the focused constituent to appear early in a sentence, as this parallels the preference for given information to precede new information (e.g., Chafe, 1976). Finally, it was possible that sentences with only in

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

9

PATERSON ET AL.

different surface positions differ in their frequency of usage, and that readers had less difficulty in processing the more frequent form. We return to this unanticipated effect later. No reliable effects were obtained at Regions 3 and 4, indicating that no first-pass disruption was associated with processing an incongruous replacive. Regression path reading time. Region 2 reading times were longer when only preceded the indirect rather than the direct object (1,066 vs. 1,000 ms, 95% CI ¼ 47 ms), replicating the first-pass effect for this region. At Region 4 there was a main effect of contrast congruity with longer regression path reading times when the contrast was incongruous (535 vs. 475 ms, 95% CI ¼ 37 ms). Thus, regression path reading times for the postreplacive region provided the earliest indication that sentence processing was disrupted if the replacive supplied an incongruous contrast. Total reading time. Region 2 total reading times were longer when only adjoined the indirect rather than the direct object (1,102 vs. 1,029 ms, 95% CI ¼ 51 ms), replicating the first-pass effect for this region. The Region 3 effect of contrast congruity was marginal, with longer reading times when the replacive was incongruous (662 vs. 631 ms, 95% CI ¼ 27 ms). This effect was reliable at Region 4, however, where total reading times were longer when the replacive was incongruous (515 vs. 476 ms, 95% CI ¼ 30 ms). Thus, consistent with the regression path data for Region 4, total reading-time effects at Regions 3 and 4 indicated that readers experienced disruption to processing when the replacive supplied a contrast that was incongruous with the focused referent. To summarize, we obtained two key effects in Experiment 1. First, we obtained clear evidence that the inclusion of only influenced focus identification during on-line sentence processing by causing readers to assign focus to its immediately adjacent constituent. Consistent with this effect, we found that readers had difficulty when the replacive was incongruous with the focused constituent, this effect occurring in regression path and total reading times for the postreplacive region. The effect contrasted with the one obtained in the

10

completion data for dative sentences, which indicated that although there was a preference for associating the focus particle with the adjacent phrase, this preference was substantially weaker when the particle appeared early in the sentence (i.e., adjoining the direct object) than when it appeared late (i.e., adjoining the indirect object). We attributed this effect to the different grammatically permissible analyses of the sentence when the particle was located in these two surface positions. When it appeared early in the sentence it could associate with only the adjacent phrase, but when it appeared late it could associate with either of the postverbal phrases—hence the stronger preference for completions supplying a contrast for the adjacent constituent when the particle appeared late in the sentence. It is noteworthy that a similar effect did not occur in on-line sentence comprehension, where readers associated the particle with the immediately adjacent phrase irrespective of its surface location. We return to this point in the General Discussion. It also should be noted that reading-time effect was delayed with respect to the processing of the replacive, occurring in the postreplacive region rather than at the replacive itself. This delay in detecting an incongruous replacive may reflect the operation of inferential processes that are needed to evaluate the congruity of the focused referent and the contrast supplied by the replacive. A second effect was obtained in first-pass and total reading times for the region of text containing the particle, reading times being longer when only adjoined the indirect rather than direct object. We attributed this effect to readers having sentenceprocessing difficulty due to either the grammatical status of the focused constituent or the surface position of the focus particle.

EXPERIMENT 2 In Experiment 1, we observed congruency effects that depended on the surface position of the focus particle in a dative construction. Readers had more difficulty in processing a replacive when it was incongruous with the constituent

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

that only adjoined, irrespective of whether this was a direct or indirect object. This finding was consistent with the claim that readers initially associate the particle with its adjacent constituent. In Experiment 2, we conducted a further test of this hypothesis, using double-object sentences, like those shown in Table 1 with the indirect object (e.g., her mother) preceding the direct object (e.g., the salt) and, as in Experiment 1, with only adjoining either the direct or indirect object. As before, the replacive provided a contrast that was either congruous or incongruous with the constituent adjoining the focus particle. When only adjoins the direct object in these sentences, it must associate with this constituent. However, when it precedes the indirect object the sentence has two grammatically permissible analyses. On one analysis, the particle associates with the indirect object, but on the other analysis it can associate with either postverbal phrase. In Experiment 1 the sentence-processing data (but not the completion data) showed that there is a strong preference for associating only with its adjacent constituent during comprehension. Experiment 2 investigated whether similar effects would be observed in a syntactic structure other than a dative construction and to further examine the time course of focus identification. Assuming that this is similar across the two structures, then disruption to processing should be observed in regression path and total reading times when the replacive is incongruous. The results from Experiment 1 suggested that this effect would occur at the postreplacive region. Experiment 2 also enabled us to investigate the effect of particle position that we obtained in Experiment 1. In Experiment 1, the first-pass reading times for Region 2 were inflated when the particle adjoined the indirect object. We offered several possible explanations for this effect, two of which were: (a) the main effect was due to the grammatical status of the constituent adjoining the focus particle (i.e., the indirect object or the direct object), or (b), it was due to the surface position of the particle (either early or late). We tested between these alternatives in Experiment 2. Although the order of postverbal

phrases was reversed for the Experiment 2 sentences, their grammatical status was unchanged. It therefore should be possible to determine whether the effect was due to the order of the constituents or to their grammatical status. If the effect is due to constituent order, then in line with the Experiment 1 results, we should observe shorter reading times when the particle appears early in the sentence (preceding the indirect object), than when it appears late (preceding the direct object). The opposite pattern should occur if the effect is due to the grammatical status of the constituent it adjoins.

Method Participants A total of 32 native English speakers with normal or corrected vision from the Universities of Durham and Derby participated in the experiment, with the participants from each university spread evenly across each experimental condition. Materials and design The order of direct and indirect objects of the sentences in Experiment 1 was reversed, and the items were modified where necessary to create double-object sentences, as shown in Table 1. The focus particle preceded the direct or indirect object, and the replacive continuation supplied a congruous contrast for one of these constituents. Thus, we manipulated two independent variables: the position of only and the congruency of the replacive. The dependent variables were measures of reading time. Norming data. As in Experiment 1, we conducted a test to ensure that, when the replacive supplied an appropriate contrast, this was interpreted as contrasting with the constituent adjoined by the focus particle and no other sentential constituent. A total of 22 participants viewed the doubleobject sentences used in Experiment 2, with only preceding either the direct or the indirect object, and with the replacive supplying an congruous contrast (e.g., At dinner, Jane passed only her mother the salt but not her father too). An additional

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

11

PATERSON ET AL.

16 filler items had a ditransitive construction, with only preceding the subject noun phrase and a replacive supplying a congruous contrast for this constituent. The contrastive noun was underscored (e.g., but not the pepper as well), and participants indicated which constituent contrasted with it. There was only one trial in which participants did not select the constituent that only adjoined, indicating that, when the contrast was congruous, the replacive was interpreted as supplying a contrast for the constituent that was adjacent to the focus particle and not interpreted as providing a contrast with any other sentential constituent. We collected sentence completions in order to assess readers’ preferences for assigning focus. A total of 32 participants provided completions for double-object sentences, with only preceding the direct or indirect object. The sentences were truncated at the replacive (e.g., At dinner, Jane passed only her mother the salt but not . . . ). A total of 16 filler sentences with a ditransitive construction, and with only preceding the head noun, also were truncated at the replacive. The completions were categorized as providing an appropriate contrast for either the direct object or the indirect object, or providing an inappropriate contrast. Most completions supplied an appropriate contrast, and the mean percentage proportion of these completions is shown in Table 5. There was a preference for interpreting sentences by associating only with its adjacent constituent, although this preference was weaker when only preceded the indirect rather than the direct object (i.e., when it was early rather than late in the sentence), t(31) ¼ 2.06, p , .05. We Table 5. Percentage completions that supplied a contrast for either the direct object or the indirect object of double-object sentence fragments with only Focus particle position

Contrasting constituent Indirect object (her mother) Direct object (the salt)

12

Predirect object Preindirect (her mother object (only her only the salt) mother the salt) 13 84

73 24

observed a similar effect in the completion data from Experiment 1, where we argued that when only appeared early in the sentence, it could associate with either of the postverbal phrases, but when it appeared late, it could associate only with the indirect object. This explanation can account for the completion data obtained in Experiment 2. Such an effect is consistent with participants employing grammatical constraints to establish which constituents can associate with the focus particle. However, it is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the particle associates with its immediately adjacent constituent. The eye-tracking data would reveal if the same preferences are observed during normal sentence comprehension. Procedure Eye movements were monitored via Fourward Technologies Dual Purkinje Eye-Trackers located in the Durham (Generation 5) and Derby (Generation 6) eye-tracking laboratories, using the same data acquisition and analysis software as those in Experiment 1. The experimental sentences were divided into four lists with eight sentences in each condition, each sentence appearing once in each list and each list including an additional 49 filler sentences. Each participant viewed one list. Comprehension questions were presented following 40% of the experimental sentences, half having “yes” and half having “no” answers. Participants responded by pressing a key and received feedback on their responses, responding correctly 91% of the time.

Results and discussion Regions. As in Experiment 1, the sentences were divided into five scoring regions, as indicated by vertical lines in Table 1. Region 1 was the locative phrase, subject noun, and verb. Region 2 was the direct object, indirect object, and focus particle. Region 3 was the replacive. Region 4 was the additive focus particle and the following connective, and Region 5 was the remainder of the sentence. Analysis. We employed the same procedure as that in Experiment 1 to pool contiguous fixations and

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

to delete short and long fixations. Prior to analysing the eye movement data we eliminated trials where readers failed to read the sentence or there had been tracker loss. This involved removing trials where zero first-pass reading times were recorded for Regions 2, 3, or 4, accounting for 10.4% of the data. Data for each region were subjected to two 2 (particle position)  2 (contrast congruity) ANOVAs, treating participants (F1) and sentences (F2) as random variables, and min F0 was calculated by combining the results of the ANOVAs based on participants and items means. Table 6 shows the mean reading-time data for Regions 2 –4, and Table 7 shows the inferential statistics. First-pass reading time. Although we anticipated a main effect of particle position in Region 2, no such effect occurred. However, there was a reliable first-pass effect of particle position at Region 3, with longer reading times when only adjoined the direct rather than the indirect object (603 vs. 537 ms), 95% CI ¼ 38 ms. Thus, it appeared that although the effect of particle position observed in Region 2 in Experiment 1 also occurred for double-object sentences in Experiment 2, it differed in two respects. First, the effect appeared in a region downstream. The

relative delay in the appearance of this effect may be due to Region 2 of double-object sentences containing fewer words and lacking syntactic markers, as compared with dative counterparts. The lack of syntactic markers may have created a temporary syntactic ambiguity, whereby the sentences initially were analysed as having a transitive construction (e.g., Jane passed her mother . . . in the car) rather than as a ditransitive. The cost incurred in resolving this ambiguity may have caused other aspects of sentence processing, including focus computation, to be delayed. Second, we found that readers incurred a cost when the particle occurred late in the sentence, adjoining the direct object, despite the constituent order being reversed for these sentences as compared to those in Experiment 1. It therefore appears that the surface position of the particle was responsible for the reading-time cost observed in both experiments and not the grammatical status of the constituents. At Region 4 there was a significant interaction of particle position and contrast congruity (95% CI ¼ 32 ms), with longer first-pass reading times when only adjoined the indirect object and the replacive was incongruous, but no such difference when only preceded the direct object. Thus, firstpass times indicated an incongruity effect during

Table 6. Experiment 2: First-pass, regression path, and total reading times for Regions 2–4 of double-object sentences with only preceding the direct or indirect object and the replacive providing a congruous or incongruous contrast Particle Position

Region 2

3

4

Measures First-pass reading time Regression path reading time Total reading time First-pass reading time Regression path reading time Total reading time First-pass reading time Regression path reading time Total reading time

Predirect object (her mother only the salt) Congruousa Incongruousa

Preindirect object (only her mother the salt) Congruousa Incongruousa

786 (38) 1,085 (45) 1,240 (71) 585 (27) 686 (33) 763 (38) 412 (22) 472 (29) 489 (27)

760 (44) 1,084 (57) 1,295 (85) 532 (24) 720 (34) 745 (44) 388 (17) 477 (26) 497 (29)

757 (40) 1,047 (44) 1,262 (73) 622 (40) 745 (45) 835 (59) 400 (22) 533 (35) 515 (30)

841 (44) 1,032 (56) 1,378 (110) 542 (27) 705 (42) 811 (55) 453 (32) 676 (58) 593 (27)

Note: Reading times in ms; standard errors in parentheses. a Contrast type. THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

13

PATERSON ET AL.

Table 7. Inferential statistics for Experiment 2 F1 Region First-pass reading time

2

3

4

Regression path

2

3

4

Total reading time

2

3

4



Source of variance Particle location Contrast congruity Particle location  contrast congruity Particle location contrast congruity Particle location  contrast congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle location  contrast congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle location  contrast congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle location  contrast congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle location  contrast congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle location  contrast congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle location  contrast congruity Particle location Contrast congruity Particle location  contrast congruity

df

F1 value

Min F0

F2 MSE

df

F2 value

df

Min F0 value

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.65 1.09 2.92

26,337 20,719 97,626

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

1.43 0.84 2.77

1, 54 1, 61 1, 62

0.45 0.47 1.42

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

10.64 1.31 0.64

143,069 17,592 5,705

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

11.96 0.50 0.14

1, 66 1, 52 1, 44

5.63 0.36 0.11

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.73 2.69 6.19

7,022 23,473 45,040

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.62 1.34 5.00

1, 62 1, 56 1, 64

0.34 0.89 2.77þ

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.03 1.87 0.12

53,057 64,648 1,591

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.06 1.78 0.01

1, 56 1, 62 1, 36

0.02 0.91 0.01

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.01 0.61 1.49

258 15,904 43,479

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.62 0.12 1.34

1, 32 1, 43 1, 62

0.01 0.10 0.71

173,054 544,355 153,015

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

2.71 8.44 5.34

1, 57 1, 57 1, 66

1.80 5.63 2.66þ

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

5.38 16.88 5.32

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

3.82 1.51 0.55

231,680 89,727 29,042

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.77 1.56 1.03

1, 43 1, 62 1, 57

0.64 0.77 0.36

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

0.55 4.26 0.02

14,040 150,552 320

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

1.15 2.31 0.08

1, 55 1, 58 1, 46

0.37 1.50 0.02

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

2.47 6.89 5.71

58,020 119,090 39,687

1, 31 1, 31 1, 31

4.71 5.34 2.06

1, 62 1, 64 1, 51

1.62 3.01þ 1.51

p, .05 þ .1 . p . .05;  p , .01;  p , .001.

early processing of the postreplacive region when only adjoined the indirect object, but not when it adjoined the direct object. Regression path reading time. Regression path reading times were longer at Region 4 when the replacive was incongruous (605 vs. 475 ms, 95% CI ¼ 61 ms). However, there was also a significant interaction of particle position and contrast congruity (95% CI ¼ 61 ms). Reading times did not

14

differ when only adjoined the direct object, but they were longer when it adjoined the indirect object, and the replacive was incongruous. Thus, the regression path data at the postreplacive region showed a similar pattern of data to the first-pass reading times for this region. Total reading time. The Region 3 effect of contrast congruity was not reliable, although total reading times were numerically longer when the replacive

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

was incongruous (823 vs. 754 ms, 95% CI ¼ 57 ms), irrespective of the particle’s surface position. Total reading times at Region 4 were longer when the replacive was incongruous (554 vs. 493 ms, 95% CI ¼ 44 ms), and although the interaction was not reliable, the numerical trend in the data was similar to that observed in first-pass and regression path reading times at this region. The pattern of means observed in the total time data was probably due to a residual influence of the differential incongruity effects that occurred during the first pass when only appeared at different surface locations as first-pass fixations also contribute to the total reading time Q2 for a region.1 Thus, whereas first-pass and regression path reading times both showed an early disruption effect for incongruous replacives when the particle adjoined the indirect object, but not when it adjoined the direct object, the total reading times indicated that, ultimately, disruption was experienced in both cases. It appears that, in this experiment, the time course of incongruity detection differed depending on the particle’s surface position, occurring earliest when it preceded the indirect object. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 clearly demonstrated that changes in the location of the particle modulates focus effects, such that readers interpret only as associating with the adjacent phrase and incur a processing cost when the replacive is incongruous with this analysis. As in Experiment 1, the effect obtained in the readingtime data differed from that obtained in the completion data. The completion data revealed a preference for associating only with the adjacent constituent when the particle preceded the direct object but not when it preceded the indirect object, and we accounted for this effect by arguing that when the particle appeared early in the sentence (i.e., preceding the indirect object) an analysis

was available in which the particle could associate with either postverbal constituent. By comparison, the reading-time data from Experiments 1 and 2 both indicated that only associates with its adjacent constituent during sentence comprehension irrespective of which phrase it precedes. There are two possible explanations for this reading-time effect. First, it was possible that only marks the focused constituent, in much the same manner as a peak of prosodic prominence might mark focus. If this is the case, then lexical specification of focus by only is directly related to the specific surface position of the particle. Alternatively, it could be that the particle modulates an underlying focus pattern, such that readers have a default preference for assigning focus to a particular sentential constituent, and the inclusion of only simply modulates this preference. We therefore conducted Experiment 3 to investigate whether readers have default focus preferences for the sentences used in Experiments 1 and 2, by examining the processing of replacive continuations to dative and double-object sentences that do not include only.

EXPERIMENT 3 The sentences used in Experiment 3 did not include only. This experiment thereby enabled us to establish whether there is a default preference for assigning focus to either the direct or the indirect object in dative and double-object sentences. If such a default depends either on the surface order of the constituents (i.e., first vs. last constituent) or their grammatical function (e.g., direct vs. indirect object) then processing difficulty should occur when the replacive is incongruous with the focused constituent.

1 Second-pass reading times for Region 4, the postreplacive region, in Experiment 2 supported this interpretation of the total reading-time data. Second-pass reading time is the sum of fixations within a region, excluding those made during the first pass, and provides an indication of the time spent reinspecting a region of text. The second-pass reading times for Region 4 were longer when the replacive was incongruous than when it was congruous (136 vs. 98 ms, 95% CI ¼ 33 ms), F1(1, 31) ¼ 8.84, p , .01, and F2(1, 31) ¼ 5.67, p , .05; min F0 (1, 59) ¼ 3.45, p ¼ .07, with no other reliable effects (Fs , 1). Thus, the numerical pattern supporting an interaction in the total reading-time data for the postreplacive region appears to be driven primarily by those fixations that were made during the first pass.

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

15

PATERSON ET AL.

Method Participants A total of 32 native English speakers from the University of Leicester participated in the experiment for cash payment. Materials and design We used dative and double-object versions of sentences used in Experiments 1 and 2 that omitted the particle only. These were continued with a replacive supplying a congruous contrast for either the direct or the indirect object. Thus, we manipulated two independent variables: the order of the direct and indirect objects and the congruity of the replacive. The dependent variables were measures of reading time. Procedure Eye movements were monitored via a Fourward Technologies Dual Purkinje Generation 6 EyeTracker located at the University of Leicester eyetracking laboratory, using the same data acquisition and analysis software as those used in the previous experiments. The experimental sentences were divided into four lists with eight sentences in each condition, each sentence appearing once in each list and each list including an additional 94 filler sentences. Each participant viewed one of the

lists. Comprehension questions (e.g., Did Fred have much money?) were presented following 35% of the experimental and filler sentences. Half of the questions had yes, and half had no answers. Participants responded by pressing a key and received feedback on their responses. They responded correctly 88% of the time.

Results and discussion Regions. Sentences were divided into scoring regions, as indicated by vertical lines in Table 1. Region 1 was the locative, subject noun phrase, and verb. Region 2 contained the direct and indirect object. Region 3 was the replacive. Region 4 was an additive focus particle and a connective. Region 5 completed the sentence. Analysis. The same procedure as that used in Experiments 1 and 2 was used to pool short contiguous fixations and to delete long fixations. Trials where zero first-pass reading times were recorded for Regions 2–4 were eliminated, accounting for 11.6% of the data. Data for each region were subjected to two 2 (sentence construction)  2 (contrast congruity) ANOVAs, treating participants (F1) and sentences (F2) as random variables, and min F0 was calculated from the F1 and F2 results. Table 8

Table 8. Experiment 3: First-pass, regression path, and total reading times for Regions 2–4 for dative and double-object sentences without only and a replacive providing a congruous contrast for either the direct or indirect object Sentence type

Region 2

3

4

Measures First-pass reading time Regression path reading time Total reading time First-pass reading time Regression path reading time Total reading time First-pass reading time Regression path reading time Total reading time

Dative (the salt to her mother) Direct objecta Indirect objecta 553 (20) 629 (24) 728 (33) 469 (26) 521 (18) 606 (17) 324 (18) 406 (27) 378 (16)

521 (20) 645 (40) 723 (42) 484 (28) 564 (18) 633 (21) 327 (21) 446 (40) 334 (15)

Double object (her mother the salt) Direct objecta Indirect objecta 453 (27) 574 (29) 678 (31) 477 (27) 483 (17) 644 (21) 343 (22) 470 (36) 419 (16)

Note: Reading times in ms; standard errors in parentheses. a Contrast type.

16

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

472 (18) 565 (29) 678 (36) 482 (29) 570 (18) 666 (19) 350 (17) 449 (25) 356 (18)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

Table 9. Inferential statistics for Experiment 3 F1 Region First-pass reading time

2

3

4

Regression path

2

3

4

Total reading time 2

3

4



Source of variance Sentence construction replacive Sentence construction Sentence construction replacive Sentence construction Sentence construction Replacive Sentence construction Sentence construction Replacive Sentence construction Sentence construction Replacive Sentence construction Sentence construction replacive Sentence construction Sentence construction Replacive Sentence construction Sentence construction Replacive Sentence construction Sentence construction Replacive Sentence construction

 replacive

 replacive

 replacive

 replacive

 replacive

 replacive

 replacive

 replacive

 replacive

df

F1 value

Min F0

F2 MSE

df

F2 value

1, 31 18.93 176,132 1, 31 14.46 1, 31 0.14 1,210 1, 31 0.17 1, 31 1.91 21,294 1, 31 1.43 1, 31 0.26 282 1, 31 0.01 1, 31 0.34 3,372 1, 31 0.21 1, 31 0.08 10,582 1, 31 0.13 1, 31 1.49 13,724 1, 31 1.27 1, 31 0.18 1,164 1, 31 0.22 1, 31 0.08 37 1, 31 0.00 1, 31 30.10 14,583 1, 31 6.66 1, 31 0.02 279 1, 31 0.05 1, 31 0.21 5,129 1, 31 0.65 1, 31 1.79 36,285 1, 31 1.02 1, 31 0.57 6,881 1, 31 0.29 1, 31 1.71 24,927 1, 31 1.73 1, 31 1.39 37,235 1, 31 0.88 1, 31 0.19 3,438 1, 31 0.23 1, 31 1.21 30,399 1, 31 1.68 1, 31 7.02 73,112 1, 31 3.33þ 1, 31 0.01 207 1, 31 0.04 1, 31 0.01 158 1, 31 0.03 1, 31 2.91þ 39,863 1, 31 1.09 1, 31 1.01 18,125 1, 31 1.22 1, 31 0.02 11,369 1, 31 0.23 1, 31 1.63 23,151 1, 31 1.41 1, 31 0.32 2,854 1, 31 0.43 1, 31 0.12 1,178 1, 31 0.19

df 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,

Min F0 value

61 61 61 33 59 59 62 61 34 49 53 50 58 56 62 59 61 60 55 46 50 51 61 36 62 61 59

8.20 0.08 0.82 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.69 0.10 0.00 5.45 0.01 0.16 0.65 0.19 0.86 0.54 0.10 0.73 2.26 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.55 0.02 0.76 0.18 0.07

p , .05 þ .1 . p . .05;  p , .01;  p , .001.

reports mean reading times for Regions 2–4, and Table 9 shows the inferential statistics. First-pass reading time. Region 2 reading times were longer for dative than for double-object sentences (537 vs. 463 ms, 95% CI ¼ 35 ms), possibly due to datives including an additional word (i.e., a preposition) at this region. As there were no other effects, there was no evidence for default focus preferences in first-pass reading times. Regression path reading time.. Region 2 regression path reading times showed the same pattern as first-pass reading times, with longer reading times for datives (638 vs. 568 ms, 95% CI ¼ 46 ms). There were no other significant effects.

Thus, like the first-pass reading times, there was no evidence for a default focus preference. Total reading time. Region 2 total reading times were longer for dative than for double-object sentences (1,102 vs. 1,029 ms, 95% CI ¼ 48 ms), replicating the effect obtained in first-pass and regression path reading times at this region. Region 3 reading times were numerically longer for double-object sentences than for datives, although this effect fell short of significance. No other effects were obtained at Regions 3 or 4. Thus, the total reading-time data provided no evidence for default focus preferences. Note that the results contrast to those obtained in Experiments 1 and 2, where we observed clear

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

17

PATERSON ET AL.

congruency effects at Region 4 for regression path and total reading times. In summary, Experiment 3 produced no reading-time effects that were consistent with readers having a default for assigning focus on the basis of either the surface order or grammatical function of the direct and indirect objects. Therefore, it appeared that the effects obtained at the postreplacive region in Experiments 1 and 2 were due to only marking the focused sentential constituent and readers incurring a processing cost when the replacive was incongruous with this constituent.

GENERAL DISCUSSION Our experiments produced two key findings. First, there was compelling evidence that contrastive focus is computed on-line during the comprehension of sentences containing only. The effects of its computation were clearly observed in the readingtime data for the postreplacive region in Experiments 1 and 2, where readers incurred a cost when the replacive was incongruous with the constituent that only adjoined. As no such effects were observed in Experiment 3 for sentences that omitted the focus particle, it was clear that the presence of the particle caused the effects. Therefore, we may conclude that only evoked focus effects by indicating that a contrast was to be made between the referent of a particular syntactic constituent and its alternatives. The effects occurred in early measures of processing for the postreplacive region rather than the replacive region itself, and we suggested that this delay in the detection of the incongruency was attributable to the operation of inferential processes to evaluate the congruency of the supplied contrast. Despite the incongruency effect being delayed, our results nevertheless indicate that contrastive focus is computed during normal sentence comprehension and sufficiently rapidly for its referential consequences to affect sentence processing. In this respect the results are consistent with Ni et al.’s (1996) assumption that contrastive focus is processed automatically during sentence

18

comprehension, although the present results are not informative about its putative effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution. The second key finding was that the surface position of the particle modulated the incongruency effects. If, for the moment, we concentrate on total reading-time effects at the postreplacive region, then readers had difficulty in Experiments 1 and 2 when the replacive contrasted with the constituent that only adjoined, regardless of its grammatical status or its location in the sentence. Thus, the data indicated that readers were sensitive to the surface position of the particle and that, depending on its location, the particle was interpreted as associating with a different constituent. The effect is exactly what should happen if sentences are processed in line with our working hypothesis that only associates locally, to the immediately adjacent constituent, during sentence comprehension. According to this hypothesis, when the particle adjoins the direct object (e.g., the salt) there is a processing cost for replacives that are incongruous with this constituent (e.g., but not her father). Similarly, when it adjoins the indirect object (e.g., her mother) incongruous replacives (e.g., the pepper versus her father) incur a cost. As we obtained disruption to processing for incongruous replacives in both cases, we may conclude that readers identified focus in line with this hypothesis. Total reading times are informative about overall difficulty in processing portions of text, whereas first-pass and regression path measures are sensitive to the early processing of text and therefore were potentially informative about the time course of effects. Since in Experiment 1 we obtained a main effect of incongruency that did not interact with particle position in the regression path reading times for the postreplacive region, it appeared that the incongruency effect had the same time course of influence irrespective of whether the particle adjoined the direct or indirect object of dative sentences. By comparison, in Experiment 2, we obtained an interaction of congruency and particle position in first-pass and regression path reading times at the postreplacive region. This indicated that disruption occurred

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

for incongruous replacives when the particle adjoined the indirect object, but not when it adjoined the direct object. However, the interaction was observed only in early measures of sentence processing, and the total reading-time data indicated that ultimately the incongruency was detected in both cases. Thus, as in Experiment 1, the Experiment 2 results indicated that readers identified focus by associating only with its adjacent constituent, but that the resulting incongruency effects were observed earliest in processing when the particle adjoined the indirect object. This is an intriguing effect, since it suggests that particle position modulated the time course over which contrastive focus was processed for double-object sentences, but not for datives. It is likely that structural differences between the two constructions were responsible for this effect, the obvious differences being the reordering of the postverbal phrases and the omission of syntactic markers (i.e., the preposition) in double-object constructions. One possibility is that the lack of syntactic markers introduced a short-lived ambiguity, whereby when only adjoined the direct object the double-object sentences were temporarily ambiguous between analyses in which the particle associated with either the constituent to its right or the one to its left. Note that this possibility cannot arise in similar dative sentences. In the present study we followed theoretical accounts of focus interpretation (e.g., Jackendoff, 1972; Reinhart, 1999) by assuming that only ranges over constituents within its syntactic domain, which in English are those to the right of the focus particle. While this may be the preferred processing strategy, and the total readingtime data from Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that it is, it is possible that readers can, under certain circumstances, process the particle as ranging over constituents on its left. This certainly appears to be the case when the particle occurs in a sentence-final position, as in Mary kissed John only. Readers are likely to interpret this sentence with only ranging over John and to understand it to mean that Mary did not kiss anyone other than John. Within the linguistics literature, such

effects can be explained by rules, such as extraposition, which govern the dislocation of words and phrases from their normal surface position in a sentence. However, from a processing perspective, it appears that on encountering a focus particle, the language processor often must select between analyses in which the particle associates with a constituent either to its left or to its right. No such ambiguity was experienced for dative sentences in Experiment 1, presumably because these contained a syntactic marker that ruled out the possibility of an analysis with only associating with a constituent to its left when the particle appeared late in the sentence. Thus, focus identification could proceed unambiguously for datives. The double-object sentences used in Experiment 2 omitted syntactic markers from the clause containing the postverbal phrases, and therefore when only appeared late in the sentence readers may have had temporary difficulty in unambiguously associating the particle with a particular constituent, thereby causing a delay in the detection of the incongruity. If this explanation is correct, it suggests that grammatical restrictions on the particle’s range are not an absolute determinant of focus identification but may instead impose a violable constraint on processing. It will be of interest to investigate the conditions under which these restrictions may be violated, particularly those in which the focus particle is interpreted as associating with a constituent to its left. The effects obtained in reading-time measures contrast with those in the sentence completion data. The reading-time data showed a preference for associating the focus particle with its immediately adjacent constituent. By comparison, the completion data for both dative and doubleobject sentences showed that when the particle appeared late in the sentence the completions almost always supplied a contrast for its immediately adjacent constituent, but when the particle appeared early in the sentence, although the majority of completions still supplied a contrast for the adjacent constituent, the preference for this analysis was much weaker. Thus, there was a strong preference for associating the particle with the adjacent phrase when it only appeared late in

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

19

PATERSON ET AL.

the sentence, but when it appeared early it could associate with either of the postverbal phrases. These data are important for several reasons. First, they show that the eye-tracking effects were neither obvious nor a foregone conclusion. Second, the mismatch between the two sources of data accentuates the importance of using appropriately sensitive measures, such as eye tracking, when investigating sentence processing. Since the sentence completion methodology is off-line, it does not provide a good measure of the moment-to-moment processes associated with language processing. It can, however, provide an indication of the interpretations that potentially are available to the reader. In the present case, the results from the completion task suggest that participants can access the alternative grammatically permissible focus interpretations for particular sentence constructions in an off-line task. When the focus particle appeared late in the sentence, the only possible analysis was one with it associating with the adjacent phrase. However, when it appeared early in the sentence it could be interpreted as associating with the adjacent phrase, but there was another possible analysis in which it could associate with either of the postverbal phrases. The data therefore showed that whereas participants favoured an analysis that associated the focus particle with its adjacent syntactic constituent during on-line sentence processing, participants were able to arrive at a dispreferred focus identification when the grammatical constraints permitted such an analysis, and participants had time to compute it. In addition to the reading-time effects at the postreplacive region, we also observed an unexpected effect for an earlier region of text in Experiments 1 and 2. In Experiment 1 there was an early first-pass effect of particle position, such that reading times at Region 2 were longer when the particle adjoined the indirect rather than direct object. We argued that this effect might have been due to the surface position of the particle in the sentence (i.e., early versus late). Alternatively, it might have occurred due to the syntactic status of the constituent with which the particle associated. That is, increased processing

20

costs may be associated with focus identification when a particle associates with an indirect rather than a direct object. In Experiment 2, there was a main effect of particle position in first-pass reading times, but with processing taking longest when the particle adjoined the direct object. We believe that this effect is the same influence that caused the firstpass effect at Region 2 in Experiment 1. Given that the order of the postverbal phrases was reversed in the Experiment 2 sentences as compared with Experiment 1, it appeared that it was the surface position of the particle rather than the syntactic status of the adjoining constituent that dictated the ease of processing shortly after the particle was first encountered. Note, however, that the Experiment 2 effect occurred in Region 3 rather than Region 2 as it had in Experiment 1. We attributed the delay in the effect to the double-object constructions in Experiment 2 having fewer words and lacking syntactic markers in the region containing the focus particle, as compared with the sentences in Experiment 1. The greater density of linguistic information in the Experiment 2 sentences, and the lack of syntactic markers, may have impeded focus computation when the particle adjoined the direct object, thereby accounting for the delayed effect. There are alternative possible explanations for this effect. One is that there is a preference for focused constituents to occur early in a sentence, paralleling the ordering of “given” and “new” information (e.g., Chafe, 1976). Alternatively, as Bouma, Hendriks, and Hoeksema (in press) have Q3 shown, sentences with only in different syntactic positions differ in their frequency of usage, and our readers may have had less difficulty in processing the more frequent form. Both explanations might be correct, since if a sentence violates a preferred sentential construction, it also is likely to occur less frequently. Whatever the precise explanation, the effect does appear to arise from the surface position of the particle and is therefore associated with processes involved in focus identification. This in turn indicates that such processes are initiated during the processing

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

of the clause containing the particle, thereby providing further evidence that contrastive focus is processed on-line during normal sentence comprehension. In conclusion, our experiments provided clear and compelling evidence for the rapid computation of contrastive focus during sentence comprehension, demonstrating that the surface position of a focus particle supplies important information concerning which syntactic constituent it associates with. Our data indicate that during on-line sentence processing the particle initially associates locally, to its adjacent phrase, but that other grammatically permissible possibilities can be computed when time is available. The effects are consistent with theoretical accounts that specify grammatical restrictions on focus identification (e.g., Jackendoff, 1972; Reinhart, 1999), although further work is needed to determine the nature and limits of such constraints on sentence processing. Original manuscript received 26 September 2006 Accepted revision received 25 October 2006 First published online day month year

REFERENCES Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365– 391. Birch, S., & Clifton, C. (2002). Effects of varying focus and accenting of adjuncts on the comprehension of utterances. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 571– 588. Bock, J. K., & Mazzella, J. R. (1983). Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 11, 64 – 76. Q3 Bouma, G., Hendriks, P., & Hoeksema, J. (in press). Focus particles inside prepositional phrases: A comparison of Dutch, English and German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. Q4 Carlson, K. (2004). Only in context. Paper presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing conference, Aix-en-Provence, France. Carlson, K., Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Dickey, M. W. Q5 (2005). How contrastive is contrastive focus? Paper

presented at the 18th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ. Chafe, W. (1976). Giveness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 225– 255). New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, N. (1971). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics, and philosophy (pp. 183– 216). New York: Cambridge University Press. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335– 359. Clifton, C., Bock, J., & Rado, J. (2000). Effects of the focus particle only and intrinsic contrast on comprehension of reduced relative clauses. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Clifton, C., Kennison, S., & Albrecht, J. (1997). Q6 Reading the words her, his, and him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 276– 292. Crain, S., Ni, W., & Conway, L. (1994). Learning, parsing and modularity. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up Q7 the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In D. R. Dowty, L. Kartunnen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7, 49 –59. Filik, R., Paterson, K. B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Parsing with focus particles in context: Evidence from eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 473– 495. Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In M. Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 32. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178– 210.

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

21

PATERSON ET AL.

Gennari, S. Meroni, L., & Crain, S. (2004). Rapid relief of stress in dealing with ambiguity. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199– 244. Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Leaning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 530– 538. Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal pragmatics. London: Blackwell. ´ . (1998). Identificational focus versus inforKiss, K. E mation focus. Language, 74, 245– 273. Konieczny, L., Hemforth, B., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1997). The role of lexical heads in parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 307– 348. Ko¨nig, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles. London: Routledge. Krifka, M. (1992). A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag. Liversedge, S. P., & Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 6 – 14. Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Clayes, E. (2002). The influence of “only” on syntactic processing of “long” reduced relative clause sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 225– 241. Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998a). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., & Q8 Van Gompel, R. P. G. (1998b). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and in context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 461– 475. Malt, B. (1985). The role of discourse structure in understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 271– 289. Q9 Murray, W. S., & Liversedge, S. P. (1994). Referential context effects on syntactic & processing. In C. Clifton Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),

22

Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: The contribution of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283– 334. Noteboom, S. G., & Kruyt, J. G. (1987). Accent, focus distribution, and perceived distribution of given and new information: An experiment. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 82, 1512– 1524. Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., Rowland, C., & Filik, R. (2003). Children’s comprehension of sentences with focus particles. Cognition, 89, 263– 294. Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., & Underwood, G. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of “short” reduced relative clause sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 717– 737. Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., White, D., Filik, R., & Jaz, K. (2006). Children’s interpretations of ambiguous sentences with “only”. Language Acquisition, 13, 253– 284. Philip, W., & Lynch, E. (1999). Felicity, relevance, and acquisition of the grammar of every and only. In S. C. Howell, S. A. Fish, & T. Keith-Lucas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Pickering, M. J., Traxler, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Q10 Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 447– 475. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effects-fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416– 426. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372– 422. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191– 201. Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., Morris, R. K., Schmauder, A. R., & Clifton, C. (1989). Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes (special issue). Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 21 – 49.

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

FOCUS IDENTIFICATION DURING SENTENCE COMPREHENSION

Reinhart, T. (1999). The processing cost of reference-set computation: Guess patterns in acquisition (OTS working papers in linguistics). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University. Rochemont, M. S., & Culicover, P. W. (1990). English focus and constructions and the theory of grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75 – 116. Schafer, A., Carlson, K., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2000). Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech, 43, 75 – 105. Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 341– 370. Selkirk, E. O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. Godsmith (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). London: Blackwell.

APPENDIX Q13Dative Constructions used in Experiment 1 In the following dative constructions used in Experiment 1, only occurs in one of two surface positions, and slashes denote the replacive alternatives. Deleting the preposition and reversing the order of direct and indirect objects created the doubleobject sentences used in Experiment 2. 1. At weekends, John coached [only] football to [only] boys and not rugby/girls as well because he didn’t have enough time. 2. At dinner, Lucy passed [only] the salt to [only] her mother but not the pepper/her father as well because she couldn’t reach. 3. At the farm, John fed [only] carrots to [only] horses but not straw/sheep too as he was told not to. 4. While abroad, Dan sent [only] postcards to [only] his parents and not letters/his friends too because the airmail was expensive. 5. At the chip shop, Harry bought [only] chips for [only] Sally but not pop/Sue as well because he didn’t get paid until the weekend. 6. When the pie was stolen, Zoe told [only] lies to [only] her Gran and not the truth/Mummy also because she was very scared. 7. On 13 July, the king granted [only] land to [only] dukes and not money/lords as well since he didn’t have enough to go around. 8. At the park, Tim threw [only] the ball to [only] his friend and not the Frisbee/his terrier as well because it was getting late.

Singer, M. (1976). Thematic structure and integration of thematic information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 573– 582. Stolterfoht, B., Friederici, A. D, Alter, K., & Steube, A. (2003). The difference between the processing of Q11 implicit prosody and focus structure during reading: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Poster presented at the 6th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Cambridge, MA. Terken, J., & Noteboom, S. G. (1987). Opposite effects of accentuation and deaccentuation on verification latencies for given and new information, Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 145– 163. Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2000). Syntactic ambiguity resolution is not a form of Q12 lexical ambiguity resolution. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

9. For fathers day, Jane bought [only] beer for [only] Dad and not whiskey/Grandad too because she couldn’t afford to. 10. At the awards the host presented [only] plaques to [only] the winners and not trophies/nominees too as this what the rules said. 11. When he moved, Jack left [only] books to [only] his dad but not his clothes/his sister as well since it wouldn’t be appreciated. 12. During the year, the brewery supplied [only] beers to [only] pubs and not wine/clubs also, as this was part of their policy. 13. At the zoo, Paul fed [only] meat to [only] cats and not grain/birds as well because the notice said so. 14. At the end of term, David gave [only] cards to [only] his friends but not presents/teachers too as he didn’t get enough pocket money. 15. At Christmas, Father carved only [pork] for [only] Grandma and not turkey/Auntie too because he’d run out. 16. On the beach, Danny collected [only] pebbles for [only] mother but not shells Auntie/too, as he was tired. 17. After work, the musician trained [only] clarinet to [only] prodigies but not bassoon/novices as well because he didn’t have enough time. 18. For charity, grandma knitted [only] scarves for [only] children but not scarves/adults also as she did not have enough wool. 19. Before dinner, mother refused [only] sweets to[only] the children but not drinks/Father as well as she knew this would be best. 20. For the Ball, Kerry lent [only] her watch to [only] her friend but not her pearls/her sister too as she did not trust her enough.

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

23

PATERSON ET AL.

21. At Christmas, Fred sent [only] chocolates to [only] mother but not flowers/grandma too because he didn’t have much money. 22. In the war, the Red Cross provided [only] food for [only] civilians and not clothing/soldiers too as the charity’s funds didn’t stretch that far. 23. On death, Lord Smith left [only] his house to [only] his daughter and not his farm/wife too because he was mean and unpredictable. 24. At the wine store, Rebecca sold [only] wine to [only] adults but not kids/beer too as these were her instructions. 25. On Tuesday evenings, Dan taught [only] Judo to [only] kids but not karate/adults too because he didn’t enjoy it as much. 26. On sports day, the teacher awarded [only] a shield to [only] winners and not medals/losers as well because he was a fair judge.

24

27. At the pub, Joe bought [only] a drink for [only] Jane but not crisps/Carole too, because he didn’t want to break into his ten pound note. 28. After a holiday in France, Eddy brought [only] cheese for [only] mum but not wine/Gran too as he was allowed a limited amount of luggage. 29. At playtime, Helen told [only] secrets to [only] girls and not lies/boys as well because she preferred it this way. 30. Before the lecture, Sam lent [only] a pen to [only] Jill and not paper/Susie as well because he didn’t have enough. 31. On Halloween, Emily offered [only] sweets to [only] children but not adults/crisps as well as she had a limited number of treats. 32. At the show, Susan presented [only] flowers to [only] the singer but not chocolates/the conductor too since this was standard theatre practice.

THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 0000, 00 (0)

PQJE209998 Queries Keith Rayner Q1 Q2

Running head ok as abbreviated? Superscript 2 changed to 1, as there is no other footnote. OK?

Q3 Q4

Bouma, Hendriks, & Hoeksema (in press). Still in press? Carlson, K. (2004). Please give month of conference.

Q5

Carlson, Frazier, Clifton, & Dickey (2005). Please give month of conference.

Q6 Q7

Clifton, Kennison, & Albrecht (1997). Text citation? Crain & Steedman (1985). Text citation?

Q8 Q9

Liversedge, Pickering, Branigan, & Van Gompel (1998b). Text citation? Murray & Liversedge (1994). Text citation?

Q10

Pickering, Traxler, & Crocker (2000). Text citation?

Q11 Q12

Stolterfoht, Friederici, Alter, & Steube (2003). Please give month. Van Gompel, Pickering, & Traxler (2000). Text citation?

Q13 Q14

Appendix title OK as inserted? [each appendix must have a title (APA5: 3:90, p. 205)] This wasn’t really a table; as a list it should have been inserted into the text, but in columns it can be called a table for convenience as it is referred to so often throughout.

View publication stats