View More View Less
  • 1 University of Cologne
Full access

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. 390412.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 255278.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixedeffects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67. 148.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 229281.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carlson, Katy. 2013. The role of only in contrasts in and out of context. Discourse Processes 50. 249275.

  • Carpenter, Patricia A. and Marcel A. Just. 1975. Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review 1975. 4573.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 387404.

  • 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. 12911428.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 311381.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clark, Herbert H. and W. G. Chase. 1972. On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology 3. 472517.

  • 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. 177198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 14.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 417455.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Féry, Caroline, Alla Paslawska and Gisbert Fanselow. 2007. Nominal split constructions in Ukrainian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 15. 348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 137175.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 492496.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 4355.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 541573.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 709732.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Just, Marcel A. and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1971. Comprehension of negation with quantification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10. 244253.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff and Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2016. lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 2.0-32.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Neeleman, Ad and Elena Titov. 2009. Focus, contrast, and stress in Russian. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 514524.

  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 292302.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • R Development Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 661700.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 91136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1. 75116.

  • 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. 6387.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 550569.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sharvit, Yael and Penka Stateva. 2002. Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 453505.

  • Stanley, Jason and Zoltán G. Szabó. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15. 219261.

  • Stolterfoht, Britta, Angela D. Friederici, Kai Alter and Anita Steube. 2007. Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects. Cognition 104. 565590.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative superlatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 245266.

  • 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. 125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 226233.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2013b. Linguistic and visual cognition: Verifying proportional and superlative “most” in Bulgarian and Polish. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22. 335356.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 452470.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2015b. Superlative ambiguities: A comparative perspective. Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. 153161.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Trabasso, Tom, Howard Rollins and Edward Shaughnessy. 1971. Storage and verification stages in processing concepts. Cognitive Psychology 2. 239289.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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. B63B72.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Westerståhl, Dag. 1984. Determiners and context sets. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.) Generalized quantifiers in natural language. Dordrecht: Foris. 4571.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

Editors

Editor-in-Chief: András Cser

Editor: Éva Dékány

Review Editor: Tamás Halm

Editorial Board

  • Anne Abeillé / Université Paris Diderot
  • Željko Bošković / University of Connecticut
  • Marcel den Dikken / Eötvös Loránd University; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Hans-Martin Gärtner / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Elly van Gelderen / Arizona State University
  • Anders Holmberg / Newcastle University
  • Katarzyna Jaszczolt / University of Cambridge
  • Dániel Z. Kádár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • István Kenesei / University of Szeged; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Anikó Lipták / Leiden University
  • Katalin Mády / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gereon Müller / Leipzig University
  • Csaba Pléh / Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Central European University
  • Giampaolo Salvi / Eötvös Loránd University
  • Irina Sekerina / College of Staten Island CUNY
  • Péter Siptár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gregory Stump / University of Kentucky
  • Peter Svenonius / University of Tromsø
  • Anne Tamm / Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church
  • Akira Watanabe / University of Tokyo
  • Jeroen van de Weijer / Shenzhen University

 

Acta Linguistica Academica
Address: Benczúr u. 33. HU–1068 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (+36 1) 351 0413; (+36 1) 321 4830 ext. 154
Fax: (36 1) 322 9297
E-mail: ala@nytud.mta.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Arts and Humanities Citation Index
  • Bibliographie Linguistique/Linguistic Bibliography
  • International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
  • Linguistics Abstracts
  • Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts
  • MLA International Bibliography
  • SCOPUS
  • Social Science Citation Index
  • LinguisList

 

2020

 

Total Cites

219

WoS

Journal
Impact Factor

0,523

Rank by

Linguistics 150/193 (Q4)

Impact Factor

 

Impact Factor

0,432

without

Journal Self Cites

5 Year

0,500

Impact Factor

Journal 

0,72

Citation Indicator

 

Rank by Journal 

Linguistics 144/259 (Q3)

Citation Indicator 

 

Citable

19

Items

Total

19

Articles

Total

0

Reviews

Scimago

10

H-index

Scimago

0,295

Journal Rank

Scimago

Cultural Studies Q1

Quartile Score

Language and Linguistics Q2

 

Linguistics and Language Q2

 

Literature and Literary Theory Q1

Scopus

72/87=0,8

Scite Score

Scopus

Literature and Literary Theory 42/825 (Q1)

Scite Score Rank

Cultural Studies 247/1037 (Q1)

Scopus

1,022

SNIP

Days from 

58

sumbission

to acceptance

Days from 

68

acceptance

to publication

Acceptance

51%

Rate

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
155
Impact Factor 0,222
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0,156
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,322
Immediacy
Index
0,870
Citable
Items
23
Total
Articles
23
Total
Reviews
0
Cited
Half-Life
11,2
Citing
Half-Life
16,6
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00006
Article Influence
Score
0,056
% Articles
in
Citable Items
100,00
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,00780
Average
IF
Percentile
9,358
Scimago
H-index
9
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,281
Scopus
Scite Score
53/85=0,6
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Cultural Studies 293/1002 (Q2)
Literature and Literary Theory 60/823(Q1)
Scopus
SNIP
0,768
Acceptance
Rate
25%

 

Acta Linguistica Academica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2021 Online subsscription: 544 EUR / 680 USD
Print + online subscription: 624 EUR / 780 USD
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription: 558 EUR / 696 USD
Print + online subscription: 638 EUR / 796 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Linguistica Academica
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
2017
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 68
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2559-8201 (Print)
ISSN 2560-1016 (Online)