The role of non-categorical relations in establishing focus alternative sets

Abstract

Categorisation is arguably the most important organising principle in semantic memory. However, elements that are not in a categorical relation can be dynamically grouped together when the context provides a common theme for these elements. In the field of sentence (and discourse) comprehension, alternatives to a focused element can be thought of as a set of elements determined by a theme given in the utterance context. According to Alternative Semantics (Rooth, 1985, 1992), the main function of linguistic focus is to introduce a set of alternatives to the focused element within an utterance. Here, we will investigate the contribution of the utterance context to the composition of focus alternative sets. Specifically, we test whether a focus alternative set can contain elements that belong to different taxonomic categories (i.e., that are not closely semantically related). Using a behavioural probe recognition experiment, we show that participants activate elements from another taxonomic category than the focused element as part of sentence comprehension. This finding suggests that the composition of a focus alternative set is not simply based on semantic relations between the members of the set and the focused element, but that contextual relations also play a crucial role.

Hungarian Structural Focus: Accessibility to Focused Elements and Their Alternatives in Working Memory and Delayed Recognition Memory

“…Thus, Jördens et al (2020) concluded that the set of alternatives that focus generates is contextually determined. The findings of Gotzner (2017) and Jördens et al (2020) support the permissive view of the generation of focus alternatives.…”

“…The variables of interest were response latencies (which we will refer to as RT for reasons of convenience) and accuracy (i.e., rates of correct acceptance and rejection). In line with the probe recognition literature (see e.g., Sturt et al, 2004 ; Sanford et al, 2006 ; Jördens et al, 2020 ), these variables are taken as correlates of activation level. Also, RTs and correct rejection rates are a measure of relatedness in the Different probe conditions, since items which bear no semantic (or any other) relation to the critical item, i.e., those that are completely unrelated, are expected to be rejected highly accurately and fast compared to those which are in closer relation to the critical item.…”

“…In a subsequent study Jördens et al ( 2020 ) investigated the activation of contextually suitable but taxonomically different alternatives in a cross-modal priming paradigm experiment with probe recognition. Participants were presented with sentences (e.g., The farmer brought straw into the barn ) in which either the element to be probed (i.e., prime word, e.g., straw ) was marked for focus by accent or another element (e.g., farmer ).…”

“…More interestingly, RTs measured for potential alternatives were faster than for inappropriate alternatives indicating a higher activation level for the former probe type. Thus, Jördens et al ( 2020 ) concluded that the set of alternatives that focus generates is contextually determined. The findings of Gotzner ( 2017 ) and Jördens et al ( 2020 ) support the permissive view of the generation of focus alternatives.…”

The Role of Alternatives in Language

“…As we saw, researchers often provide possible co-hyponyms in order to probe whether alternatives are active. There is nothing in the definition of alternatives that requires this relationship and, in fact, for focus alternatives, a number of studies have tested explicitly whether alternatives have to be co-hyponyms (Gotzner, 2015;Kim et al, 2015;Jördens et al, 2020): The answer is no. Still, it is interesting to ask why co-hyponymy is often used as a convenient shortcut in the operationalization of alternatives.…”