Abstract
How various types of focus differ with respect to exhaustivity has been a topic of enduring interest in language studies. However, most of the theoretical work explicating such associations has done so cross-linguistically, and little research has been done on how people process and respond to them during language comprehension. This study therefore investigates the associations between the concept of exhaustivity and three focus types in Chinese (wh, cleft, and only foci) using a trichotomous-response design in two experiments: a forced-choice judgment and a self-paced reading experiment, both with adult native speakers. Its results show that, whether engaged in conscious decision-making or an implicit comprehension process, the participants distinguished only-focus and cleft-focus from wh-focus clearly, and also that there are specific differences between only-focus and cleft-focus in conscious decision-making. This implies that, in terms of the relationship between exhaustivity and the focus types under investigation, cleft-focus and only-focus behave very similarly during language comprehension despite the existence of some fine distinctions between them. In other words, the potential linguistic levels that exhaustivity encodes in Chinese cleft-focus render it more similar to only-focus than to wh-focus. These results are broadly in line with the semantic account that distinguishes cleft from only-focus, i.e., that cleft encodes exhaustivity in not-at-issue presupposition and only-focus encodes exhaustivity in at-issue assertion, while both express semantically encoded exhaustivity, triggering robust language-processing patterns that differ from patterns of wh-focus in Chinese.
Highlights
IntroductionCross-linguistically, sentences can highlight emphasized units (i.e., focus) prosodically (without syntactic reordering), or explicitly encode different types of focus through specific syntactic constructions [1,2,3,4]
Cross-linguistically, sentences can highlight emphasized units prosodically, or explicitly encode different types of focus through specific syntactic constructions [1,2,3,4]
In line with the theoretical assumption that the direct denial no is used to reject at-issue content, whereas but-type rejection targets not-at-issue presupposition, our results suggest that the native speakers we sampled were sensitive to the specific information associated with yes, but responses during language comprehension
Summary
Cross-linguistically, sentences can highlight emphasized units (i.e., focus) prosodically (without syntactic reordering), or explicitly encode different types of focus through specific syntactic constructions [1,2,3,4]. The concept of exhaustivity exhibited in various focus constructions has mostly been treated either as semantically encoded, and possibly related to truth conditions, or as a conversational implicature that can be derived pragmatically from Grice’s (1975) [5] conversational maxims [6,7,8]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
