{"title":"研究重点和替代引物:语法角色和备选集广度的影响","authors":"Sasha Calhoun , Mengzhu Yan , Hannah White","doi":"10.1016/j.jml.2024.104580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent work has shown that contrastive accenting plays a crucial role in discourse processing, causing listeners to activate alternatives to focused words and/or suppress non-contrastive semantic associates. However, key theoretical questions remain, relating to how lexical activation, sentence and discourse processing interact. These include the breadth of the alternative set, which could span from a small contextually-relevant set to a large, ‘permissive’ one; and whether these processes are best characterised as activation or suppression mechanisms. There is also little research on whether activation of alternatives differs by the grammatical role of the prime, despite differences in the focus-related properties of subjects versus objects. We present two cross-modal lexical decision experiments showing activation of non-contrastive associates is suppressed with contrastive focus, consistent with a suppression mechanism, at least for objects. Alternatives both semantically related, and unrelated, to the prime, were primed, consistent with a broad, ‘permissive’, alternative set. There were crucial differences in priming patterns for subjects versus objects. The study makes important contributions to our theoretical understanding of the role of focus in discourse processing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of memory and language","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 104580"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining focus and alternative priming: Effects of grammatical role and breadth of the alternative set\",\"authors\":\"Sasha Calhoun , Mengzhu Yan , Hannah White\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jml.2024.104580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Recent work has shown that contrastive accenting plays a crucial role in discourse processing, causing listeners to activate alternatives to focused words and/or suppress non-contrastive semantic associates. However, key theoretical questions remain, relating to how lexical activation, sentence and discourse processing interact. These include the breadth of the alternative set, which could span from a small contextually-relevant set to a large, ‘permissive’ one; and whether these processes are best characterised as activation or suppression mechanisms. There is also little research on whether activation of alternatives differs by the grammatical role of the prime, despite differences in the focus-related properties of subjects versus objects. We present two cross-modal lexical decision experiments showing activation of non-contrastive associates is suppressed with contrastive focus, consistent with a suppression mechanism, at least for objects. Alternatives both semantically related, and unrelated, to the prime, were primed, consistent with a broad, ‘permissive’, alternative set. There were crucial differences in priming patterns for subjects versus objects. The study makes important contributions to our theoretical understanding of the role of focus in discourse processing.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of memory and language\",\"volume\":\"140 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104580\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of memory and language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000834\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of memory and language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000834","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Examining focus and alternative priming: Effects of grammatical role and breadth of the alternative set
Recent work has shown that contrastive accenting plays a crucial role in discourse processing, causing listeners to activate alternatives to focused words and/or suppress non-contrastive semantic associates. However, key theoretical questions remain, relating to how lexical activation, sentence and discourse processing interact. These include the breadth of the alternative set, which could span from a small contextually-relevant set to a large, ‘permissive’ one; and whether these processes are best characterised as activation or suppression mechanisms. There is also little research on whether activation of alternatives differs by the grammatical role of the prime, despite differences in the focus-related properties of subjects versus objects. We present two cross-modal lexical decision experiments showing activation of non-contrastive associates is suppressed with contrastive focus, consistent with a suppression mechanism, at least for objects. Alternatives both semantically related, and unrelated, to the prime, were primed, consistent with a broad, ‘permissive’, alternative set. There were crucial differences in priming patterns for subjects versus objects. The study makes important contributions to our theoretical understanding of the role of focus in discourse processing.
期刊介绍:
Articles in the Journal of Memory and Language contribute to the formulation of scientific issues and theories in the areas of memory, language comprehension and production, and cognitive processes. Special emphasis is given to research articles that provide new theoretical insights based on a carefully laid empirical foundation. The journal generally favors articles that provide multiple experiments. In addition, significant theoretical papers without new experimental findings may be published.
The Journal of Memory and Language is a valuable tool for cognitive scientists, including psychologists, linguists, and others interested in memory and learning, language, reading, and speech.
Research Areas include:
• Topics that illuminate aspects of memory or language processing
• Linguistics
• Neuropsychology.