We compare the roles of overt accent and default focus marking in processing ellipsis structures headed by focus-sensitive coordinators (such as Danielle couldn’t pass the quiz, let alone the final/Kayla). In a small auditory corpus study of radio transcripts, we establish that such structures overwhelmingly occur with contrastive pitch accents on the correlate and remnant (the quiz and the final, or Danielle and Kayla), and that there is a strong bias to pair the remnant with the most local plausible correlate in production. In two auditory naturalness ratings experiments, we observe that marking a non-local correlate with contrastive pitch accent moderates, but does not fully overturn, the bias for local correlates in comprehension. We propose that the locality preference is due to a sentence-final default position for sentence accent, and that auditory processing is subject to “enduring focus,” in which default positions for focus continue to influence the focus structure of the sentence even in the presence of overt accents. The importance of these results for models of auditory processing and of the processing of remnants in ellipsis structures is discussed.
BartelsC.KingstonJ. (1994). Salient pitch cues in the perception of contrastive focus. In BoschP.van der SandtR. (Eds.), Focus and natural language processing, Volume 3 (pp. 1–10). Heidelberg, Germany: IBM Deutschland.
BishopJ. (2012). Information structural expectations in the perception of prosodic prominence. In ElordietaG.PrietoP. (Eds.), Prosody and meaning (pp. 239–270). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
6.
BockJ. K.MazzellaJ. R. (1983). Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 11(1), 64–76.
7.
BreenM.FedorenkoE.WagnerM.GibsonE. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 1044–1098.
8.
BrownP.DellG. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19(4), 441–472.
9.
BrysbaertM.ManderaP.KeuleersE. (2017). Corpus linguistics. In De GrootA. M. B.HagoortP. (Eds.), Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide (pp. 230–246). London, UK: Wiley.
10.
BüringD. (2012). Focus and Intonation. In RussellG.FaraD. G. (Eds.), Routledge companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 103–115). London, UK: Routledge.
11.
BüringD. (2016). Intonation and meaning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
CappelleB.DugasE.TobinV. (2015). An afterthought on let alone. Journal of Pragmatics, 80(1), 70–85.
13.
CarlsonK. (2001). The effects of parallelism and prosody in the processing of gapping structures. Language and Speech, 44(1), 1–26.
14.
CarlsonK. (2002). Parallelism and prosody in the processing of ellipsis sentences. (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). London, UK: Routledge.
15.
CarlsonK. (2013). The role of only in contrasts in and out of context. Discourse Processes, 50(4), 249–275.
16.
CarlsonK.DickeyM. W.FrazierL.CliftonC.Jr. (2009). Information structure expectations in sentence comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(1), 114–139.
17.
ChafeW. L. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
ChafeW. L. (1976). Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View in Subject and Topic. In LiC. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.
19.
ChomskyN. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
ChomskyN.HalleM. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
ChungS.LadusawW. A.McCloskeyJ. (1995). Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics, 3(3), 239–282.
22.
CinqueG. (1993). A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(2), 239–297.
23.
ClarkH. H.HavilandS. E. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In FreedleR. O. (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Discourse processes: Advances in research and theory, Volume 1 (pp. 1–40). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
24.
ClarkH. H.MurphyG. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In LeNyJ.-F.KintschW. (Eds.), Language and comprehension (pp. 287–299). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
25.
CliftonC.Jr.FrazierL. (2016). Focus in corrective exchanges: Effects of pitch accent and syntactic form. Language and Speech, 59(4), 544–561.
26.
DahanD. (2015). Prosody and language comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(5), 441–452.
27.
DaviesM. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
28.
DickeyM. W.BungerA. C. (2011). Comprehension of elided structure: Evidence from sluicing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(1), 63–78.
29.
FillmoreC. J.KayP.O’ConnorM. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.
30.
FirbasJ. (1966). Non-thematic subjects in contemporary English. Travaux linguistiques de Prague, 2, 239–256.
31.
FrazierL. (2008). Processing ellipsis: A processing solution to the undergeneration problem. In ChangC. B.HaynieH. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 21–32). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
32.
FrazierL.CliftonJr. C. (1998). Comprehension of sluiced sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(4), 499–520.
33.
FrazierM.PotterD.YoshidaM. (2012). Pseudo noun phrase coordination. In ArnettN.BennettR. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 42–152). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
34.
FrazierL.TaftL.RoeperT.CliftonC.EhrlichK. (1984). Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 12(5), 421–430.
35.
FukumuraK.van GompelR. P. (2012). Producing pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use the addressee’s discourse model?Cognitive Science, 36(7), 1289–1311.
36.
GennariS. P.MacDonaldM. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(4), 161–187.
37.
GibsonE. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.
38.
GibsonE.BergenL.PiantadosiS. (2013). The rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(20), 8051–8056
39.
GordonP. C.HendrickR.JohnsonM. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(6), 1411–1423.
40.
GrabeE. (2002). Variation adds to prosodic typology. In BelB.MarlinI. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Speech Prosody 2002 Conference, 11–13 April 2002 (pp. 127–132). Aix-en-Provence, France: Laboratoire Parole et Langage.
41.
GrabeE. (2004). Intonational variation in urban dialects of English spoken in the British Isles. In GillesP.PetersJ. (Eds.), Regional Variation in intonation (pp. 9–31). Tübingen, Germany: Linguistische Arbeiten, Niemeyer.
42.
GrodnerD. J.GibsonE. A. F. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 261–291.
43.
GussenhovenC. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
HalleM.VergnaudJ. R. (1987). Stress and the cycle. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(1), 45–84.
45.
HarrisJ. A. (2015). Structure modulates similarity-based interference in sluicing: An eye tracking study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 387–404.
46.
HarrisJ. A. (2016). Processing let alone coordination in silent reading. Lingua, 169(1), 70–94.
47.
HarrisJ. A.CarlsonK. (2016). Keep it local (and final): Remnant preferences in “let alone” ellipsis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(7), 1278–1301.
48.
HarrisJ. A.PottsC. (2008). Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguistics & Philosophy, 32(6), 523–552.
49.
HerringS. C. (1990). Information structure as a consequence of word order type. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 163–174). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
50.
HornL. R. (1969). A presuppositional theory of ‘only’ and ‘even’. In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 98–107). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
51.
HornL. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In SchiffrinD. (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
JackendoffR. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54.
JägerL. A.EngelmannF.VasishthS. (2017). Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 94(3), 316–339.
55.
KingJ.JustM. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580–602.
56.
KoopmanH.SporticheD (1988). Subjects. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
57.
KraljicT.SamuelA. G.BrennanS. E. (2008). First impressions and last resorts: How listeners adjust to speaker variability. Psychological Science, 19(4), 332–338.
58.
KratzerA. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In RooryckJ.ZaringL. (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
59.
KrifkaM. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3–4), 243–276.
60.
KurodaS.-Y. (1988). Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 12(1), 1–47.
61.
LaddD. R. (2008). Intonational phonology. 2nd edition.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
LaddD. R.MortonR. (1997). The perception of intonational emphasis: Continuous or categorical?Journal of Phonetics, 25(3), 313–342.
63.
LaddD. R.SchepmanA. (2003). “Sagging transitions” between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence. Journal of Phonetics, 31(1), 81–112.
64.
LambrechtK. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: A theory of topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65.
LewisR. L.VasishthS. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419.
66.
LewisR. L.VasishthS.Van DykeJ. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(10), 447–454.
67.
MackJ. E.CliftonC.FrazierL.TaylorP. V. (2012). (Not) Hearing optional subjects: The effects of pragmatic usage preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(1), 211–223.
68.
MagnusonJ. S.NusbaumH. C. (2007). Acoustic differences, listener expectations, and the perceptual accommodation of talker variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(2), 391–409.
69.
MarantzA. (1984) On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
70.
MartinA. E.McElreeB. (2008). A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 879–906.
71.
MartinA. E.McElreeB. (2009). Memory operations that support language comprehension: Evidence from verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(5), 1231–1239.
72.
MartinA. E.McElreeB. (2011). Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from sluicing. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(4), 327–343.
73.
McElreeB. (2000). Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 111–123.
74.
McElreeB. (2001). Working memory and focal attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(3), 817–835.
75.
MerchantJ. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
76.
MerchantJ. (2005). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(6), 661–738.
77.
NygaardL. C.PisoniD. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 60(3), 355–376.
78.
PhillipsC.ParkerD. (2014). The psycholinguistics of ellipsis. Lingua, 151(1), 78–95.
79.
PierrehumbertJ.HirschbergJ. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In CohenP.MorganJ.PollackM. (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
80.
PoirierJ.WolfingerK.SpellmanL.ShapiroL. P. (2010). The real-time processing of sluiced sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(5), 411–427.
81.
PrinceE. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In ThompsonS.MannW. (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text (pp. 295–325). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
82.
R Development Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. R version 3.2.3. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
83.
SailorC.ThomsG. (2014). On the non-existence of non-constituent coordination and non-constituent ellipsis. In Santana-LaBargeR. E. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 361–370). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
84.
SamuelA.G. (1981). Phonemic restoration: Insights from a new methodology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(4), 474–494.
85.
SamuelA.G. (1996). Phoneme restoration. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(6), 647–653.
86.
SelkirkE. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
87.
SelkirkE. O. (1995). Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. In GoldsmithJ. (Ed.), Handbook of phonological theory (pp. 550–569). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
88.
SiegelM. E. A. (1984). Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry, 15(3), 523–530.
89.
StaubA. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116(1), 71–86.
90.
StolterfohtB.FriedericiA. D.AlterK.SteubeA. (2007). Processing focus structure and implicit prosody during reading: Differential ERP effects. Cognition, 104(3), 565–590.
91.
StoyneshkaI.FodorJ. D.FernándezE. M. (2010). Phoneme restoration methods for investigating prosodic influences on syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 1265–1293
92.
ToosarvandaniM. (2010). Association with foci. PhD Thesis. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
Van BerkumJ.Van Den BrinkD.TesinkC. M.KosM.HagoortP. (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 580–591.
95.
WardG.BirnerB. (2004). Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In HornL.WardG. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 153–174). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
96.
WarrenR. M. (1970). Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science, 167(3917), 392–393.
97.
WarrenR. M.WarrenR. P. (1970). Auditory illusions and confusions. Scientific American, 223(6), 30–36.
98.
WatsonD. G.TanenhausM. K.GunlogsonC. A. (2008). Interpreting pitch accents in online comprehension: H* vs. L+ H*. Cognitive Science, 32(7), 1232–1244.
