Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25797456›Full record

ArticleCognition2015

Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives.

Christina S Kim, Christine Gunlogson, Michael K Tanenhaus, Jeffrey T Runner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Priming Effects of Focus in Mandarin Chinese.Frontiers in psychology · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christina S KimUniversity of Kent, Department of English Language and Linguistics, Rutherford College, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF, UK. Electronic address: c.s.kim@kent.ac.uk.
Christine GunlogsonUniversity of Rochester, Department of Linguistics, 503 Lattimore Hall, Rochester, NY 14627, USA. Electronic address: gunlog@ling.rochester.edu.
Michael K TanenhausUniversity of Rochester, Department of Linguistics, 503 Lattimore Hall, Rochester, NY 14627, USA; University of Rochester, Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, Meliora Hall, Rochester, NY 14627, USA. Electronic address: mtan@bcs.rochester.edu.
Jeffrey T RunnerUniversity of Rochester, Department of Linguistics, 503 Lattimore Hall, Rochester, NY 14627, USA; University of Rochester, Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, Meliora Hall, Rochester, NY 14627, USA. Electronic address: Jeffrey.Runner@rochester.edu.

Funding

COORDINATING INFORMATION IN SENTENCE PROCESSINGR01HD027206 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI TANENHAUS, MICHAEL KEHAS · 1991 to 2014
$4.0M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD027206
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What is conveyed by a sentence frequently depends not only on the descriptive content carried by its words, but also on implicit alternatives determined by the context of use. Four visual world eye-tracking experiments examined how alternatives are generated based on aspects of the discourse context and used in interpreting sentences containing the focus operators only and also. Experiment 1 builds on previous reading time studies showing that the interpretations of only sentences are constrained by alternatives explicitly mentioned in the preceding discourse, providing fine-grained time course information about the expectations triggered by only. Experiments 2 and 3 show that, in the absence of explicitly mentioned alternatives, lexical and situation-based categories evoked by the context are possible sources of alternatives. While Experiments 1-3 all demonstrate the discourse dependence of alternatives, only explicit mention triggered expectations about alternatives that were specific to sentences with only. By comparing only with also, Experiment 4 begins to disentangle expectations linked to the meanings of specific operators from those generalizable to the class of focus-sensitive operators. Together, these findings show that the interpretation of sentences with focus operators draws on both dedicated mechanisms for introducing alternatives into the discourse context and general mechanisms associated with discourse processing.

Indexed as

ReadingAttentionComprehensionEye MovementsHumansLanguageAlternativesContext dependenceDiscourse processingDomain restrictionFocusVisual world eye-tracking

Identifiers

PMID25797456
PMCPMC4397188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.