In a visual verification study we investigated how syntactic focus affects the interpretation of quantifiers. We compared the effect of syntactic focus on the truth conditions of sentences with the quantificational adverb only and the superlative quantifier most in Polish. In this language, the scopal properties of most as well as the syntactic construction of the sentence final focus allowed us to predict parallel focus association patterns for both quantifiers. We found that, indeed, syntactic focus is able to guide the attention during visual verification. It is known that prosodic focus is immediately integrated during semantic processing, our study is the first to demonstrate that syntactic focus can facilitate the verification of the truth of a sentence, by guiding attention towards the more salient information in the picture, i.e., the set of focus alternatives.
Baayen, R. Harald, Doug J. Davidson and Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390–412.
Bailyn, John F. 2012. The syntax of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers and Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 255–278.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixedeffects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 1–48.
Beaver, David and Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
Büring, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19. 229–281.
Carlson, Katy. 2013. The role of only in contrasts in and out of context. Discourse Processes 50. 249–275.
Carpenter, Patricia A. and Marcel A. Just. 1975. Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review 1975. 45–73.
Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Clark, Herbert H. 1969. Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Psychological Review 76. 387–404.
Clark, Herbert H. 1974. Semantics and comprehension. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.) Current trends in linguistics: Linguistics and adjacent arts and sciences (vol. l2). The Hague: Mouton. 1291–1428.
Clark, Herbert H., Patricia Ann Carpenter and Marcel Adam Just. 1973. On the meeting of semantics and perception. In W. G. Chase (ed.) Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press. 311–381.
Clark, Herbert H. and W. G. Chase. 1972. On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology 3. 472–517.
Coppock, Elizabeth and David Beaver. 2014. A superlative argument for a minimal theory of definiteness. In T. Snider, S. D’Antonio and M. Weigand (eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 24. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 177–198.
Dimitrova, Diana V., Laurie A. Stowe, Gisela Redeker and John C. J. Hoeks. 2010. Focus particles and prosody processing in Dutch: Evidence from ERPs. Speech Prosody 100979. 1–4.
Dyakonova, Marina. 2009. A phase-based approach to russian free word order. Leiden: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Farkas, Donka and Katalin É. Kiss. 2000. On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18. 417–455.
Féry, Caroline, Alla Paslawska and Gisbert Fanselow. 2007. Nominal split constructions in Ukrainian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 15. 3–48.
Fintel, Kai von. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Fintel, Kai von. 2004. A minimal theory of adverbial quantification. In H. Kamp and B. Partee (eds.) Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 137–175.
Gelman, Andrew and Eric Loken. 2013. The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Manuscript. Department of Statistics, Columbia University, New York.
Gough, Philip B. 1966. The verification of sentences: The effects of delay of evidence and sentence length. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5. 492–496.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1999. On the limits of focus projection in English. In P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds.) Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 43–55.
Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms. University of Texas.
Heim, Irene. 1999. Notes on superlatives. Ms. MIT.
Ito, Kiwako and Shari R. Speer. 2008. Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 58. 541–573.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jasinskaja, Katja. 2016. Information structure in Slavic. In C. Féry and S. Ishihara (eds.) The Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 709–732.
Just, Marcel A. and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1971. Comprehension of negation with quantification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10. 244–253.
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff and Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2016. lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 2.0-32.
Lewis, David. 1986. On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.
Martí, Luisa. 2003. Contextual variables. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.
Mulders, Iris and Kriszta Szendrői. 2016. Early association of prosodic focus with “alleen” ‘only’: Evidence from eye movements in the visual-world paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology 7.
Neeleman, Ad and Elena Titov. 2009. Focus, contrast, and stress in Russian. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 514–524.
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2015. Quantity superlatives: The view from Slavic and its crosslinguistic implications. In H. Aparicio, G. Flinn, K. Franich, J. Pietraszko and T. Vardomskaya (eds.) Proceedings of the Forty-ninth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 49). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Pancheva, Roumyana and Barbara Tomaszewicz. 2012. Cross-linguistic differences in superlative movement out of nominal phrases. In N. Arnett and R. Bennett (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 292–302.
Pratt, Elizabeth. 2015. Is cue-based memory retrieval “good-enough”?: Agreement, comprehension, and implicit prosody in native and bilingual speakers of English. Doctoral dissertation. City University of New York.
R Development Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org
Roberts, Craige. 1995. Domain restriction in dynamic semantics. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. H. Partee (eds.) Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 661–700.
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon and A. Kathol (eds.) OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Papers in Semantics. Columbus: The Ohio State University. 91–136.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75–116.
Ross, John Robert. 1964. A partial grammar of English superlatives. MA thesis. University of Pennsylvania.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1993. The contrastiveness of associated foci. Manuscript. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Sekerina, Irina A. and John C. Trueswell. 2012. Interactive processing of contrastive expressions by Russian children. First Language 32. 63–87.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax. The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In J. A. Goldsmith (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA & Oxford: Blackwell. 550–569.
Sharvit, Yael and Penka Stateva. 2002. Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 453–505.
Stanley, Jason and Zoltán G. Szabó. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15. 219–261.
Stolterfoht, Britta, Angela D. Friederici, Kai Alter and Anita Steube. 2007. Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects. Cognition 104. 565–590.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 245–266.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2012. Compositionality without word boundaries: (the) more and (the) most. In A. Chereches (ed.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 1–25.
Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2013a. Focus association in superlatives and the semantics of “-est”. In M. Aloni, M. Franke and F. Roelofsen (eds.) Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation. 226–233.
Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2013b. Linguistic and visual cognition: Verifying proportional and superlative “most” in Bulgarian and Polish. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22. 335–356.
Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2015a. Relative readings of superlatives: Scope or focus? In S. D’Antonio, M. Moroney and C. R. Little (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America and Cornell Linguistics Circle. 452–470.
Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2015b. Superlative ambiguities: A comparative perspective. Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California.
Tomaszewicz, Barbara and Roumyana Pancheva. 2016. Obligatory and optional focus association in sentence processing. In F. Salfner and U. Sauerland (eds.) Pre-proceedings of Trends in Experimental Pragmatics. Berlin: XPRAG.de. 153–161.
Trabasso, Tom, Howard Rollins and Edward Shaughnessy. 1971. Storage and verification stages in processing concepts. Cognitive Psychology 2. 239–289.
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The information component. Doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Weber, Andrea, Martine Grice and Matthew W. Crocker. 2006. The role of prosody in the interpretation of structural ambiguities: A study of anticipatory eye movements. Cognition 99. B63–B72.
Westerståhl, Dag. 1984. Determiners and context sets. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.) Generalized quantifiers in natural language. Dordrecht: Foris. 45–71.