@conference {5846, title = {Implicit causality: When more than one explanation is missing}, year = {2017}, month = {03/2017}, abstract = {

It has been shown that focus particles like \“only\” and \“even\” give way to a pattern of pronoun production and resolution similar to what has been observed with implicit causality verbs like \“criticize\” or \“annoy\” in (1) where so-called N1-biased verbs like \“annoyed\” systematically provoke explanations related to the subject (Peter) and N2-biased verbs like \“criticized\” continuations related to the object (Mary).

  1. Peter annoyed/criticized Mary because ..

Continuation studies with sentences like (2), using unbiased verbs show that an antecedent in the scope of \“only\” similarly systematically attracts continuations while an antecedent in the scope of \“even\” is systematically dispreferred.

  1. Only/Even Peter called Mary because \…

Following Bott and Solstad (2014), we argue that focus particles as well as IC verbs, when combined with discourse connectives like because, create expectations for an explanation

about the ensuing discourse that needs to be filled to avoid the accommodation of missing information. These explanations, which reflect the relationship between the focus entity in the

scope of the particle and the set of alternatives related to it, introduce a bias for one of the two potential antecedents. \“Only\” triggers a missing explanation of exclusivity: why does only Peter call and nobody else. \“Even\”, on the other hand, triggers an explanation of the unlikeliness of Peter calling, what it is about Mary that makes even him call.

An obvious and still open question is what happens when we combine biased verbs with focus particles thus provoking matching or mismatching expectations. We expected that matching biases (even N1 + N2-biased verb; only N1 + N1-biased verb) where the focus particle and the verb bias demand an explanation related to the same antecedent should provoke the strongest biases since a single explanation can easily be found to fill discourse needs (e.g. \“Only Peter fascinates Mary because he is just the best.\”, \“Even Peter criticized Mary because she really messed up this time.\”). In mismatching cases (even N1 + N1-biased verb; only N1 + N2-biased verb), only one of the missing explanations can easily be provided. In (3) we can either explain exclusivity (\… because he is never satisfied) or the N2-bias of the verb (\… because she had messed up.).

  1. Only Peter criticized Mary because \…

We ran a continuation study in French with 10 N1-biased verbs (4), 10 N2-biased verbs (5), and 10 verbs without bias (6), taken from a recently established corpus of implicit causality biases including 320 French verbs. We constructed preambles with two gender-different proper names with the subject in the scope of \“seul\” or \“m\ême\” (following a Latin Square Design). 84 native French speakers provided continuations to the preambles. All preambles ended with \“parce qu\’\”, strongly encouraging a pronoun continuation (only words with initial vowels can follow \“qu\’\”, \“il\”/he and \“elle\”/she thus become highly likely). In logistic regressions, both, focus particles as well as the IC-bias of the verb showed a significant effect (FP: z= 4.471, p\<.001; IC-bias: N1/N2: z= -8.932, p\<.001; N1/no-bias: z= -4.329, p\<.001). As expected, matching cases showed a very strong bias (Only+N1-bias = 79\% N1; Even+N2-bias: 81\% N2), while mismatching cases were more varied.

N1-bias

  1. Seul/M\ême Marie enchante Adrien parcqu\’ \…

\ \ \ \ \  Only/Even Mary enchants Adrian because \…

N2-bias

\ \ \ \ \  (5) Seul/M\ême Pierre f\élicite Auriane parce qu\’ \…

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  Only/Even Peter congratulates Auriane because \…

No-bias

  1. Seul/M\ême\  Pierre interroge Marie parce qu\’ \…

\ \ \ \ \ \  Only/Even\  Peter visits Marie because \…

}, url = {https://osf.io/xgbv2/}, author = {Israel de la Fuente and Marie Benzerrak and Natalia Kalashnikova and Lala Naziyeva and Ching-chun Wang and Barbara Hemforth} } @conference {6068, title = {It{\textquoteright}s all about the head: Implicit causality effects on subject and object RCs}, year = {2017}, month = {09/2017}, author = {Pozniak, Celine and Barbara Hemforth} } @inproceedings {4715, title = {Influence du contexte exp{\'e}rimental sur l{\textquoteright}interpr{\'e}tation des anaphores pronominales en fran{\c c}ais}, volume = {27}, year = {2016}, month = {07/2016}, edition = {SHS Web of Conferences}, abstract = {

R\ésum\é

Cette \étude pr\ésente les r\ésultats de trois questionnaires r\éalis\és en fran\çais afin d\’observer les pr\éf\érences d\’interpr\étation de formes pronominales ambigu\ës. Plus pr\écis\ément, nous nous sommes int\éress\és \à l\’influence du contexte exp\érimental sur l\’interpr\étation de pronoms anaphoriques plus ou moins r\éduits. Dans un premier questionnaire, seules des constructions avec le pronom faible \« il \» \étaient pr\ésent\ées. Un deuxi\ème questionnaire comportait seulement la forme forte \« lui, il \». Enfin, dans un troisi\ème questionnaire les deux formes \étaient m\élang\ées afin d\’observer si la pr\ésence, dans un m\ême questionnaire, des deux formes (\« il \» et \« lui, il \») pouvait influencer leur interpr\étation. C\’est seulement lorsque les deux formes sont pr\ésent\ées dans un m\ême questionnaire que nous observons une division fonctionnelle entre la forme pronominale r\éduite \« il \» et la forme accentu\ée \« lui, il \». La pr\ésence de \« lui, il \» dans le m\ême questionnaire que le pronom \« il \», augmente les interpr\étations du pronom \« il \» en faveur du r\éf\érent saillant (premier mentionn\é, sujet et topique) et les interpr\étations de \« lui, il \» en faveur de l\’ant\éc\édent moins saillant. Ces r\ésultats r\év\èlent \à quel point les locuteurs sont rapidement capables d\’adapter leur pr\éf\érence d\’interpr\étation \à la pr\ésence de formes alternatives dans le contexte.

Abstract

This paper presents the results of three questionnaires in which we investigated interpretational preferences for ambiguous pronominal forms in French. In particular, we examined the influence of the experimental context on the interpretation of more or less reduced anaphoric pronominal forms. In the first questionnaire, only constructions with the clitic pronoun \“il\” were tested. In the second questionnaire, only constructions with the strong form \“lui, il\” were tested. Finally, in the third questionnaire, both forms were mixed in order to test whether the presence of the two forms (\“il\” and \“lui, il\”) in a single questionnaire influences their interpretation. A division of labour in the processing of the reduced form \“il\” and of the strong one \“lui, il\” was observed only in the third questionnaire, i.e. when both forms were presented together. The presence of the form \“lui, il\” in the same questionnaire as the pronoun \“il\” increased the interpretations of the pronoun \“il\” in favour of the more salient referent (i.e., first mentioned, subject and topic) and the interpretations of \“lui, il\” in favour of the less salient antecedent. These results reveal that comprehenders can and do adapt their interpretational preferences to the presence of alternative forms in the context.

}, doi = { http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162710004}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Coralie Vincent and Israel de la Fuente and Barbara Hemforth} } @inproceedings {4717, title = {Intonation in the processing of contrast meaning in French: An eye-tracking study}, year = {2016}, month = {07/2016}, abstract = {

Listeners rapidly process tonal composition and pitch accent placement within an utterance to create expectations about its pragmatic meaning and information structure. It is still unknown whether the nuclear pitch accent alone or a combination of pitch accent and the following edge tone are needed in order to process intonational meaning in French. This study investigates the online comprehension of the French (L)H*L\% rise-fall \“implication\” contour, which evokes a contrast meaning. Twenty-nine speakers participated in an eye-tracking experiment. The critical stimuli were sentences whose interpretation could be anticipated by successfully processing the implied meaning evoked by the (L)H*L\% rise-fall contour on the critical word (hereafter CW). The results showed that participants are able to associate the implication contour with a contrast meaning, and that they start doing this only after the H* peak of the rise-fall intonation movement has been processed, hence when part of the L\% falling movement has been perceived.

}, url = {https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5tX0NnTCf-ISDZVUDZUUWpReWs/view}, author = {Esteve-Gibert, Nuria and Cristel Portes and Shafer, Amy and Barbara Hemforth and D{\textquoteright}Imperio, Mariapaola} } @inbook {4431, title = {Information Structure and Pronoun Resolution in German and French: Evidence from the Visual-World Paradigm}, booktitle = {Psycholinguistic Approaches to Meaning and Understanding across Languages}, series = {Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics}, number = {44}, year = {2014}, pages = {175-196}, publisher = {Springer}, organization = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {978-3-319-05674-6}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Barbara Hemforth} } @article {4371, title = {Information structure cues for 4-year-olds and adults: Tracking eye movements to visually presented anaphoric referents}, journal = {Language, Cognition, and Neurosciences}, volume = {29}, year = {2014}, pages = {877-892}, author = {J{\"a}rvikivi, Juhani and Pyykk{\"o}nen-Klauck, Pirita and Schimke, Sarah and Colonna, Saveria and Barbara Hemforth} } @inbook {4428, title = {Introduction: Meaning across languages}, booktitle = {Psycholinguistic Approaches to Meaning and Understanding across Languages}, number = {Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics}, year = {2014}, pages = {1-21}, publisher = {Springer}, organization = {Springer}, address = {Dordrecht}, issn = {978-3-319-05674-6}, author = {Barbara Hemforth and Barbara Mertins and Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine} } @article {4370, title = {Information structure effects on anaphora resolution in German and French: A cross-linguistic study of pronoun resolution}, journal = {Linguistics}, volume = {55}, year = {2012}, pages = {991-1013}, author = {Colonna, Saveria and Schimke, Sarah and Barbara Hemforth} } @inproceedings {459, title = {Information Focus in French}, year = {2010}, month = {mai 2010}, author = {Claire Beyssade and Jean-Marie Marandin and Barbara Hemforth and Cristel Portes} }