On the processing of pragmatic information: ERP effects of emphasis processing

References

• Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748–765. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T. M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191–238. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch, S., & Rayner, K. (2010). Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition, 38, 740–752. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.6.740
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. L. (1961). Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language, 37(1), 83–96. doi: 10.2307/411252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2003). Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: The role of inter- versus intrasentential predictions.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(5), 871–882.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camblin, C. C., Ledoux, K., Boudewyn, M., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Processing new and repeated names: Effects of coreference on repetition priming with speech and fast RSVP. Brain Research, 1146, 172–184. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carretié, L., Mercado, F., Tapia, M., & Hinojosa, J. A. (2001). Emotion, attention, and the ‘negativity bias’, studied through event-related potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 41, 75–85. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8760(00)00195-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, L. (2016). The things attracting our attention: Evidence from text reading. In R. Wang & X. Pan (Eds.), Advances in cognitive neurodynamics (V): Proceedings of the fifth international conference on cognitive neurodynamics - 2015 (pp. 573–578). Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, L., Li, X., & Yang, Y. (2012). Focus, newness and their combination: Processing of information structure in discourse. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, L., Wang, L., & Yang, Y. (2014). Distinguish between focus and newness: An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 31, 28–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, L., & Yang, Y. (2015). Emphasizing the only character: Emphasis, attention and contrast. Cognition, 136(0), 222–227. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.015
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cowles, H. W., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M. (2007). Violations of information structure: An electrophysiological study of answers to wh-questions. Brain and Language, 102(3), 228–242. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7(1), 49–59. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(79)90010-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drenhaus, H., Zimmermann, M., & Vasishth, S. (2011). Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(3), 320–337. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egorova, N., Pulvermüller, F., & Shtyrov, Y. (2014). Neural dynamics of speech act comprehension: An MEG study of naming and requesting. Brain Topography, 27(3), 375–392. doi: 10.1007/s10548-013-0329-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egorova, N., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2013). Early and parallel processing of pragmatic and semantic information in speech acts: Neurophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 86. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, M. (1995). Hanyu duibi jiaodian de jufa biaoxian shouduan [The syntactic devices of contrastive focus in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language], 247, 279–288.
   Google Scholar
• Filik, R., Leuthold, H., Wallington, K., & Page, J. (2014). Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 811–828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filik, R., Paterson, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2009). The influence of only and even on online semantic interpretation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 678–683. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.4.678
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraundorf, S. H., Benjamin, A. S., & Watson, D. G. (2013). What happened (and what did not): discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 196–227. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.06.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 818–829. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22(4), 389–424. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2204_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24(2), 95–112. doi: 10.1007/BF02289823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Seminar Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3(02), 199–244. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700016613
   Google Scholar
• Hillyard, S. A., & Münte, T. F. (1984). Selective attention to color and location: An analysis with event-related brain potentials. Perception & Psychophysics, 36(2), 185–198. doi: 10.3758/BF03202679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L., Mouraux, A., Hu, Y., & Iannetti, G. D. (2010). A novel approach for enhancing the signal-to-noise ratio and detecting automatically event-related potentials (ERPs) in single trials. Neuroimage, 50(1), 99–111. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, X., Li, Y., & Zhou, X. (2013). Even a rich man can afford that expensive house: ERP responses to construction-based pragmatic constraints during sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 51(10), 1857–1866. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, X., Tan, Y., & Zhou, X. (2009). Processing the universal quantifier during sentence comprehension: ERP evidence. Neuropsychologia, 47(8-9), 1799–1815. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledoux, K., & Camblin, C. C. (2008). The neural mechanisms of coreference. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(6), 1013–1037. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00088.x
   Google Scholar
• Lehmann, D., & Skrandies, W. (1980). Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 48(6), 609–621. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(80)90419-8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Clayes, E. L. (2002). The influence of only on syntactic processing of “long” relative clause sentences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 55(1), 225–240. doi: 10.1080/02724980143000253
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. Psychophysiology, 31(3), 291–308. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02218.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, R. K., & Folk, J. R. (1998). Focus as a contextual priming mechanism in reading. Memory & Cognition, 26(6), 1313–1322. doi: 10.3758/BF03201203
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283–334. doi: 10.1080/016909696387196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 324–346. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noveck, I. A., & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 425–431. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., Filik, R., Juhasz, B. J., White, S. J., & Rayner, K. (2007). Focus identification during sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1423–1445. doi: 10.1080/17470210601100563
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., & Underwood, G. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of short relative clause sentences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52(3), 717–737. doi: 10.1080/713755827
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J. (2002). Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind and Language, 17(1-2), 188–206. doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Sanford, A. J. S., Sanford, A. J., Molle, J., & Emmott, C. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 109–130. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 341–370. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedivy, J. C. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast: Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 3–23. doi: 10.1023/A:1021928914454
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Sanford, A. J., Stewart, A. J., & Dawydiak, E. (2004). Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 882–888. doi: 10.3758/BF03196716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaab, T. Y., Camblin, C. C., & Gordon, P. C. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence for reversed lexical repetition effects in language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 715–726. doi: 10.1162/089892904970744
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umbach, C. (2004). On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure. Journal of Semantics, 21(2), 155–175. doi: 10.1093/jos/21.2.155
   Google Scholar
• Watson, D. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Gunlogson, C. A. (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L+ H*. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 32(7), 1232–1244. doi: 10.1080/03640210802138755
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar