Abstract
Focus particles such as only and even indicate that the focused element(s) in a sentence should be contrasted with a set of contextually defined alternatives. Only indicates that properties assigned to the focus set are not shared by elements of the alternative set, whereas even indicates that the focus and alternative sets share the properties mentioned in the sentence. Even has the additional function of marking the focused element as being low on a scale of alternatives ranked in terms of likelihood, thereby signaling that what is being described is somewhat surprising. Using eyetracking, we demonstrate that contrast information associated with only and even is rapidly processed online, with effects for even being delayed, as compared with only (Experiment 1). This difference in time course was not driven by the underlying semantics of the sentence without the focus particle (Experiment 2) but was probably due to even’s more complex semantic function.
Article PDF
References
Bennett, J. (1982). Even if. Linguistics & Philosophy, 5, 403–418.
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 353–375.
Filik, R. (2008). Contextual override of pragmatic anomalies: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 106, 1038–1046. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.006
Filik, R., Paterson, K. B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2005). Parsing with focus particles in context: Eye movements during the processing of relative clause ambiguities. Journal of Memory & Language, 53, 473–495. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.07.004
Francescotti, R. M. (1995). Even: The conventional implicature approach reconsidered. Linguistics & Philosophy, 18, 153–173.
Giannakidou, A. (2007). The landscape of EVEN. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 25, 39–81. doi:10.1007/s11049-006-9006-5
Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kartunnen, L., & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicatures. In C. Oh & D. Dinneen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics II: Presuppositions (pp. 1–56). New York: Academic Press.
Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics & Philosophy, 13, 59–111.
König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles. London: Routledge.
Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Clayes, E. L. (2002). The influence of “only” on syntactic processing of “long” relative clause sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 225–240. doi:10.1080/02724980143000253
Liversedge, S. P., Paterson, K. B., & Pickering, M. J. (1998). Eye movements and measures of reading time. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 55–75). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lycan, W. (1991). Even and even if. Linguistics & Philosophy, 14, 115–150.
Mitchell, D. C., Shen, X., Green, M. J., & Hodgson, T. L. (2008). Accounting for regressive eye-movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the selective reanalysis hypothesis. Journal of Memory & Language, 59, 266–293. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.002
Moxey, L. M., Filik, R., & Paterson, K. B. (2009). On line effects of what is expected on the resolution of plural pronouns. Language & Cognitive Processes, 24, 843–875. doi:10.1080/01690960802634038
Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: The contribution of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language & Cognitive Processes, 11, 283–334. doi:10.1080/016909696387196
Ni, W., Fodor, J. D., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. P. (1998). Anomalous strings: Eye-movement patterns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 515–539.
Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., Filik, R., Juhasz, B. J., White, S. J., & Rayner, K. (2007). Processing contrastive focus during silent reading: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1423–1445. doi:10.1080/17470210601100563
Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., Rowland, C., & Filik, R. (2003). Children’s comprehension of sentences with focus particles. Cognition, 89, 263–294. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00126-4
Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., & Underwood, G. (1999). The influence of focus operators on syntactic processing of “short” relative clause sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 717–737. doi:10.1080/027249899391025
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation time in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201.
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, & Cognition, 30, 1290–1301. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75–116.
Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Invoking discourse-based sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities. Journal of Memory & Language, 46, 341–370. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2812
Staub, A., Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., & Majewski, H. (2007). The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: Evidence from noun-noun compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 1162–1169. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1162
Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2007). Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eyemovements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 770–775.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by ESRC Grant RES-062-23-0002.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Filik, R., Paterson, K.B. & Liversedge, S.P. The influence of only and even on online semantic interpretation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16, 678–683 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.678
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.678