Global expectations mediate local constraint: evidence from concessive structures

References

• Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arkhipova, Y., Law, R., Xiang, M., & Chow, W. Y. (2019). ‘Nonetheless’ can reverse predictions immediately: Evidence from ERPs. The 32nd Annual CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference. https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemOverviewPage.jsp?itemId = item_3257288
   Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 364–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(85)90013-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2009). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0, 999375–999406.
   Google Scholar
• Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11(2), 177–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(79)90009-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9
   Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: A psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review, 82(1), 45–73. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0076248
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow, W.-Y., & Chen, D. (2020). Predicting (in)correctly: Listeners rapidly use unexpected information to revise their predictions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(9) 1149–1161. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2020.1733627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive psychology, 3(3), 472–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. P. G. Van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements (pp. 341–371). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50017-3
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeLong, K. A., Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2014). Pre-Processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(12), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12093
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, W. J. (1960). Simplified estimation from censored normal samples. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 31(2), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705900
   Google Scholar
• Duffy, S. A., Henderson, J. M., & Morris, R. K. (1989). Semantic facilitation of lexical access during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 791–801. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(6), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90220-6
   Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44(4), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. J., & Sanford, A. J. (2008). Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds: An eye-movement investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.007
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. J., Sanford, A. J., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds. Brain Research, 1236, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.07.099
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. J., Scheepers, C., & Sanford, A. J. (2010). Expectations in counterfactual and theory of mind reasoning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(3), 297–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903041174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filik, R. (2008). Contextual override of pragmatic anomalies: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 106(2), 1038–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filik, R., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Processing local pragmatic anomalies in fictional contexts: Evidence from the N400. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 554–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00656.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzsimmons, G., & Drieghe, D. (2013). How fast can predictability influence word skipping during reading? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(4), 1054–1063. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030909
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foss, D. J., & Ross, J. R. (1983). Great expectations: Context effects during sentence processing. In G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & R. J. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language understanding (pp. 169–191). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Foss, D. J., & Speer, S. R. (1991). Global and local context effects in sentence processing. In R. R. Hoffman, & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 115–139). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frisson, S., Harvey, D. R., & Staub, A. (2017). No prediction error cost in reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 95, 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrod, S., & Sanford, T. (1988). Thematic subjecthood and cognitive constraints on discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(5), 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90046-X
   Google Scholar
• Gregg, J., & Inhoff, A. W. (2016). Misperception of orthographic neighbors during silent and oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(6), 799–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000193
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley Parser as a psycholinguistic model. Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. NAACL 2001. https://aclanthology.org/N01-1021
   Google Scholar
• Harris, J. A., Rich, S., & Rigby, I. (2021). Contextual constraint and lexical competition: Revisiting biased misperception during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000878
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hess, D. J., Foss, D. J., & Carroll, P. (1995). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.62
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.022
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power. The American Statistician, 55(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313001300339897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Husband, E. M., & Bovolenta, G. (2020). Prediction failure blocks the use of local semantic context. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1651881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. L. (2009). The quiet clam is quite calm: Transposed-letter neighborhood effects on eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 943–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juhasz, B. J., White, S. J., Liversedge, S. P., & Rayner, K. (2008). Eye movements and the use of parafoveal word length information in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1560–1579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012319
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y. (2008). Anticipatory processes in sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00072.x
   Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, A. (1998). Chapter 7 - The influence of parafoveal words on foveal inspection time: Evidence for a processing trade-Off. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 149–179). Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043361-5/50008-0
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, A., & Pynte, J. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45(2), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W., & Mross, E. F. (1985). Context effects in word identification. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(3), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90032-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhne, J., & Demberg, V. (2013). The time-course of processing discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 35, No. 35).
   Google Scholar
• Kulakova, E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Understanding counterfactuality: A review of experimental evidence for the dual meaning of counterfactuals. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(2), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12175
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2016). Separate streams or probabilistic inference? What the N400 can tell US about the comprehension of events. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1130233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future (pp. 190–207). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395518.003.0065
   Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7350657
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). Lmertest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 13. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagerwerf, L. (1998). Causal connectives have presuppositions. Effects on coherence and discourse structure. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics LOT.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, R. (1971). If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. In C. J. Fillmore, & D. T. Langndoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp. 3–114). Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: An event-related potential study of lexical relationships and prediction in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau, E. F., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2013). Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(3), 484–502. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenth, R. (2020). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means (R package version 1.4.6.) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
   Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106(3), 1126–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.1.92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Martin, A. E. (2012). If the real world were irrelevant, so to speak: The role of propositional truth-value in counterfactual sentence comprehension. Cognition, 122(1), 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinheiro, J., & Bates, D. (2006). Mixed-Effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Pollatsek, A., Perea, M., & Binder, K. S. (1999). The effects of “neighborhood size” in reading and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1142–1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.4.1142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, M., & Snyder, C. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. Attention and Performance V.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton Jr, C. (2012). Psychology of reading. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1290–1301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214555
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Development Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using E-Z reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roland, D., Yun, H., Koenig, J.-P., & Mauner, G. (2012). Semantic similarity, predictability, and models of sentence processing. Cognition, 122(3), 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schotter, E. R., Lee, M., Reiderman, M., & Rayner, K. (2015). The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schustack, M. W., Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1987). Local and global sources of contextual facilitation in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(3), 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90117-3
   Google Scholar
• Schvaneveldt, R., & Meyer, D. (1976). Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.2.2.243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., & LaCount, K. L. (1988). Semantic relatedness and the scope of facilitation for upcoming words in sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(2), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.2.344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., & White, C. R. (1991). The influence of paragraph information on the processing of upcoming words. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(2), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/747980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slattery, T. J. (2009). Word misperception, the neighbor frequency effect, and the role of sentence context: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(6), 1969–1975. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016894
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1983). On priming by a sentence context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.112.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(8), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturt, P., Pickering, M. J., & Crocker, M. W. (1999). Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, W. L. (1953). “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769905303000401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Till, R. E., Mross, E. F., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory & Cognition, 16(4), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tukey, J. W. (1962). The future of data analysis. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33(1), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177704711
   Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. A., & McElree, B. (2011). Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(3), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von der Malsburg, T., & Angele, B. (2017). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C. (1961). Response to affirmative and negative binary statements. British Journal of Psychology, 52(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1961.tb00775.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S. J., Rayner, K., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). The influence of parafoveal word length and contextual constraint on fixation durations and word skipping in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 466–471. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, Y., & Rimon, M. (1994). Contrast and implication in natural language. Journal of Semantics, 11(4), 365–406. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/11.4.365
   Google Scholar
• Xiang, M., & Kuperberg, G. (2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 648–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.995679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar