Associations between focus constructions and levels of exhaustivity: An experimental investigation of Chinese

Autoři: Yu-Yin Hsu aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article


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.

Klíčová slova:

Decision making – Dogs – Experimental design – Language – Semantics – Syntax – Verbal communication – Natural language


1. Büring D. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and philosophy. 2003;26(5):511–545. doi: 10.1023/A:1025887707652

2. Kiss KÉ. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language. 1998;74(2):245–273. doi: 10.2307/417867

3. Rizzi L. The fine structure of the left periphery. In: Elements of grammar. Springer; 1997. p. 281–337.

4. Szabolcsi A. The semantics of topic-focus articulation. 1981;.

5. Grice HP. Logic and Conversation. In: Syntax and Semantics. Academic Press; 1975/1989. p. 22–40.

6. Horn L. A presuppositional theory of only and even. CLS 5, Chicago Linguistics Society. 1969;.

7. Horn L. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In: Proceedings of NELS. vol. 11; 1981. p. 125–142.

8. König E. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. Routledge; 2002.

9. Haliday MA. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Proc Linguistics. 1967;3(2):199–244. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700016613

10. Higgins FR. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Routledge; 2015.

11. Kratzer A, Selkirk E. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review. 2007;24(2-3):93–135. doi: 10.1515/TLR.2007.005

12. Rochemont MS. Focus in generative grammar. vol. 4. John Benjamins Publishing; 1986.

13. Vallduvi E, Vilkuna M. Focus and kontrast in information structure: Finnish and Catalan. In: 18th GLOW Colloquium, University of Tromsoe, Tromsoe; 1995.

14. Schulz P, Roeper T. Acquisition of exhaustivity in wh-questions: A semantic dimension of SLI? Lingua. 2011;121(3):383–407. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.005

15. Zimmermann M. Quantifying question particles in German: Syntactic effects on interpretation. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB 11), Barcelona. 2007; p. 627–641.

16. Hole D. The deconstruction of Chinese shì… de clefts revisited. Lingua. 2011;121(11):1707–1733. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.004

17. Tsai WTD. On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies. Routledge; 1994/2014.

18. Zimmermann M, Onea E. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua. 2011;121(11):1651–1670. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002

19. Percus O. Prying open the cleft. In: Proceedings of NELS. vol. 27. University of Massachusetts; 1997. p. 337–352.

20. Velleman D, Beaver D, Destruel E, Bumford D, Onea E, Coppock L. It-clefts are IT (inquiry terminating) constructions. In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory. vol. 22; 2012. p. 441–460. doi: 10.3765/salt.v22i0.2640

21. Roberts C. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics. 2012;5:6–1. doi: 10.3765/sp.5.6

22. Simons M, Tonhauser J, Beaver D, Roberts C. What projects and why. In: Semantics and linguistic theory. vol. 20; 2010. p. 309–327. doi: 10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584

23. Xue J, Onea E. Correlation between presupposition projection and at-issueness: An empirical study. In: Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2011 workshop on projective meaning; 2011. p. 171–184.

24. Büring D, Kriz M. It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics. 2013;6:1–29.

25. DeVeaugh-Geiss JP, Zimmermann M, Onea E, Boell AC. Contradicting (not-) at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study. In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory. vol. 25; 2015. p. 373–393. doi: 10.3765/salt.v25i0.3054

26. Onea E. Exhaustiveness of Hungarian focus: Experimental evidence from Hungarian and German. 2009;.

27. Onea E, Beaver D. Hungarian focus is not exhausted. In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory. vol. 19; 2009. p. 342–359. doi: 10.3765/salt.v19i0.2524

28. Kas B, Lukács Á. Focus sensitivity in Hungarian adults and children. Acta Linguistica Hungarica. 2013;60(2):217–245. doi: 10.1556/ALing.60.2013.2.4

29. Mayol L, Castroviejo E. How to cancel an implicature. Journal of Pragmatics. 2013;50(1):84–104. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.002

30. Tonhauser J, Beaver D, Roberts C, Simons M. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language. 2013; p. 66–109. doi: 10.1353/lan.2013.0001

31. Gerőcs M, Babarczy A, Surányi B. Exhaustivity in focus: Experimental evidence from Hungarian. 2014;.

32. Drenhaus H, Zimmermann M, Vasishth S. Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 2011;24(3):320–337. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004

33. DeVeaugh-Geiss P Joseph, Tőnines S, Onea E, Zimmerman M. An experimental investigation of (non-)exhaustivity in clefts. In: Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung. vol. 21; 2017. p. 373–393.

34. Washburn MB, Kaiser E, Zubizarreta ML. The English it-cleft: No need to get exhausted; 2013.

35. Liu Y, Yang Y. To exhaust, or not to exhaust: an experimental study on Mandarin shi-clefts; 2017.

36. Paul W, Whitman J. Shi… de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. The Linguistic Review. 2008;25(3-4):413–451. doi: 10.1515/TLIR.2008.012

37. Tsai WTD. Tan zhi yu lian de xingshi yuyi [On formal semantics of zhi and lian. Zhongguo Yuwen. 2004;2:99–111.

38. Xie Z. Focus,(non-) exhaustivity, and intervention effects in wh-in-situ argument questions. The Linguistic Review. 2013;30(4):585–617. doi: 10.1515/tlr-2013-0019

39. Yang BCY. Intervention effects and wh-construals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics. 2012;21(1):43–87. doi: 10.1007/s10831-011-9080-5

40. Hsu YY. Revisit the Intervention Effects: CP and TP Foci in Mandarin; 2014. The 22nd Annual International Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL 22) and the 26th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-26).

41. Just MA, Carpenter PA, Woolley JD. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of experimental psychology: General. 1982;111(2):228. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228

42. Hale J. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In: Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics; 2001. p. 1–8.

43. Konieczny L. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of psycholinguistic research. 2000;29(6):627–645. doi: 10.1023/A:1026528912821 11196066

44. Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition. 2008;106(3):1126–1177. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006 17662975

45. Christensen RHB. ordinal—regression models for ordinal data. R package version. 2018; p. 4–19.

46. Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL:(https://www R-projectorg). 2018;.

47. Lenth R, Lenth MR. Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. Journal of statistical software. 2016;69(1):1–33. doi: 10.18637/jss.v069.i01

48. Rooy R. Utility of mention-some questions. Research on Language and Computation. 2004;2(3):401–416. doi: 10.1007/s11168-004-1975-0

49. Davidson D. A nice derangement of epitaphs. Philosophical grounds of rationality: Intentions, categories, ends;4:157–174.

50. Rohde D. Linger: a flexible platform for language processing experiments, version 2.94. Online: http://tedlab mit edu/ dr/Linger. 2003;.

51. Mitchell DC. An evaluation of subject-paced reading tasks and other methods for investigating immediate processes in reading. New methods in reading comprehension research. 1984; p. 69–89.

52. Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin. 1998;124(3):372. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 9849112

53. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Christensen RHB, Singmann H, et al. Package ‘lme4’. Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes R package version. 2011; p. 1–1.

54. Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language. 2008;59(4):390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005

55. Bretz F, Westfall P, Hothorn T. Multiple comparisons using R. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2016.

56. Birch S, Rayner K. Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition. 1997;25(5):653–660. doi: 10.3758/BF03211306

57. Hofmeister P. Encoding effects on memory retrieval in language comprehension. In: Proceedings of CUNY conference. Davis, CA: University of Davis; 2009.

58. Vasishth S, Shaher R, Srinivasan N. The role of clefting, word order and given-new ordering in sentence comprehension: Evidence from Hindi. The Mind Research Repository (beta). 2012;(1).

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10
Nejčtenější tento týden