When a sentence is produced with contrastive prosodic prominence, the word that carries the prominence becomes more salient, and alternatives to that word are usually implied. In processing, this implies that focused words and their alternatives should be more strongly activated. Previous research on focus processing has primarily been confined to Germanic languages. The current paper reports on two experiments investigating the role of prosodic prominence in immediate (Experiment 1) and long-term processing (Experiment 2) of focused words and focus alternatives in Mandarin. Prosodic prominence was effective in activating focused words and their alternatives. In the memory task, this facilitation effect was only found toward the beginning of the experiment. We attribute this difference to task-related adaptive use of prosodic prominence in utterance processing. This research sheds light on whether, when, and how listeners use prosodic prominence to identify important information and to evoke alternatives during sentence comprehension.
AkkerE.CutlerA. (2003). Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001056
2.
BaayenH. R.MilinP. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807
3.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. 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
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
5.
BeierE. J.FerreiraF. (2022). Replication of Cutler, A., & Fodor, J. A. (1979). Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition, 7(1), 49–59. Journal of Memory and Language, 126, 104339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104339
BraunB.AsanoY.DehéN. (2019). When (not) to look for contrastive alternatives: The role of pitch accent type and additive particles. Language and Speech, 62(4), 751–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830918814279
10.
BraunB.BiezmaM. (2019). Prenuclear L*+ H activates alternatives for the accented word. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1993. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01993
11.
BraunB.TagliapietraL. (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 1024–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903036836
12.
BreenM.FedorenkoE.WagnerM.GibsonE. (2010). Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7–9), 1044–1098. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
13.
CaiQ.BrysbaertM. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLOS ONE, 5(6), Article e10729.
14.
CalhounS. (2010). The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language, 86, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0197
15.
CalhounS.YanM.SalanoaH.TaupiF.Kruse Va’aiE. (2022). Focus effects on immediate and delayed recognition of referents in Samoan. Language and Speech. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309221101396
16.
CalhounS.YanM.WhiteH. (under review). Examining focus and alternative priming: Effects of grammatical role and breadth of the alternative set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
17.
ChenH.-C.CutlerA. (1997). Auditory priming in spoken and printed word recognition. In ChenH.-C. (Ed.), The cognitive processing of Chinese and related Asian languages (pp. 77–81). The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.
CutlerA. (1976). Phoneme-monitoring reaction time as a function of preceding intonation contour. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 20(1), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198706
22.
CutlerA.DahanD.van DonselaarW. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40(2), 141–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099704000203
CutlerA.McQueenJ. M. (2014). How prosody is both mandatory and optional. In CaspersJ.ChenY.HeerenW.PacillyJ.SchillerN.van ZantenE. (Eds.), Above and beyond the segments (pp. 71–82). John Benjamins.
25.
FălăuşA. (Ed.). (2016). Alternatives in semantics. Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
FraundorfS. H.WatsonD. G.BenjaminA. S. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.004
27.
GoodhueD. (2022). All focus is contrastive: On polarity (verum) focus, answer focus, contrastive focus and givenness. Journal of Semantics, 39(1), 117–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffab018
GotznerN. (2017). Palgrave studies in pragmatics, language and cognition. Alternative sets in language processing: How focus alternatives are represented in the mind. Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
GotznerN.SpalekK. (2019). The life and times of focus alternatives: Tracing the activation of alternatives to a focused constituent in language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(2), Article e12310. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12310
31.
GotznerN.WartenburgerI.SpalekK. (2016). The impact of focus particles on the recognition and rejection of contrastive alternatives. Language and Cognition, 8(1), 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.25
32.
HusbandE. M.FerreiraF. (2016). The role of selection in the comprehension of focus alternatives. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1083113
ItoK.SpeerS. R. (2008). Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 541–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.013
35.
KatzirR. (2013). A note on contrast. Natural Language Semantics, 21(4), 333–343.
KrifkaM. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55, 243–276.
38.
KüglerF.CalhounS. (2020). Prosodic encoding of information structure: A typological perspective. In GussenhovenC.ChenA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody (pp. 454–467). Oxford University Press.
39.
KurumadaC.BrownM.BibykS.PontilloD.TanenhausM. (2014). Rapid adaptation in online pragmatic interpretation of contrastive prosody. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 36(36), 791–796.
40.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
41.
LaddD. R. (2008). Intonational phonology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7
45.
NakamuraC.HarrisJ. A.JunS. A. (2019). Listener’s belief influences prosodic adaptation: Anticipatory use of contrastive accent during visual search. In CalhounS.EscuderoP.TabainM.WarrenP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019 (pp. 447–451). Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.
46.
NorrisD.CutlerA.McQueenJ. M.ButterfieldS. (2006). Phonological and conceptual activation in speech comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 53(2), 146–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.03.001
QuillianM. R. (1967). Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behavioral Science, 12(5), 410–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830120511
49.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
50.
RobertsC. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In YoonJ. H.KatholA. (Eds.), OSU working papers in linguistics 49: Papers in semantics (pp. 91–136). The Ohio State University.
51.
RoettgerT. B.FrankeM. (2019). Evidential strength of intonational cues and rational adaptation to (un-)reliable intonation. Cognitive Science, 43, Article e12745. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12745
SanfordA. J.SanfordA. J.MolleJ.EmmottC. (2006). Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_2
55.
SpalekK.GotznerN.WartenburgerI. (2014). Not only the apples: Focus sensitive particles improve memory for information-structural alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.001
SwinneyD. A.OniferW.PratherP.HirshkowitzM. (1979). Semantic facilitation across sensory modalities in the processing of individual words and sentences. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197534
59.
TabossiP. (1988). Effects of context on the immediate interpretation of unambiguous nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.1.153
60.
VallduvíE. (2016). Information structure. In AloniM.DekkerP. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics (pp. 728–755). Cambridge University Press.
61.
WickhamH.ChangW.WickhamM. H. (2016). Package “ggplot2.” Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics (Version 3.0.0). https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
62.
XuY. (1999). Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics, 27(1), 55–105. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0086
63.
XuY. (2013). ProsodyPro—A tool for large-scale systematic Prosody Analysis. In Proceedings of Tools and Resources for the Analysis of Speech Prosody (TRASP 2013) (pp. 7–10). Laboratoire Parole et Langage. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16692792.pdf
64.
XuY.ChenS.-w.WangB. (2012). Prosodic focus with and without post-focus compression (PFC): A typological divide within the same language family?The Linguistic Review, 29:, 131–147.
YanM.CalhounS. (2020). Rejecting false alternatives in Chinese and English: The interaction of prosody, syntax and default focus position. Laboratory Phonology, 11(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.255
67.
YanM.CalhounS.WarrenP. (2019). The role of prosody in priming alternatives in Mandarin Chinese. In CalhounS.EscuderoP.TabainM.WarrenP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia 2019 (pp. 437–441). Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
