The Role ofOnlyin Contrasts In and Out of Context

Abstract

Three self-paced reading experiments explored the processing of “only” and its interaction with context. In isolated sentences, the focus particle “only” predicts an upcoming contrast. Ambiguous replacive sentences (e.g., “The curator embarrassed the gallery owner in public, not the artist”) with “only” on the subject or object showed faster reading of the contrast phrase (“not the artist”) than without it. The position of “only” also influenced the phrase’s meaning; despite a bias toward object contrasts, subject “only” increased subject interpretations. If preceding context provides another reason for the focus particle, it no longer predicts an upcoming contrast. In biasing contexts including indirect questions, there was no facilitation when “only” marked the argument which answered the question, while “only” on the other argument slowed processing. Both “only” and context influenced interpretation. The results show that focus particles and questions can each influence processing of an upcoming contrast on- and off-line.

Predicting contrast in sentences with and without focus marking

“…This German work harmonizes with the results of a range of English ellipsis comprehension research (such as Carlson, 2001, 2002, 2013; Carlson et al, 2009; Frazier & Clifton, 1998; Hoeks, Redeker, & Hendriks, 2009), all showing a bias towards object resolution of ambiguous ellipsis sentences. For example, sluicing sentences (Frazier & Clifton, 1998) as in (6a), comparatives as in (6b) and negative bare argument ellipses as in (6c) (Carlson, 2002), and gapping sentences (Carlson, 2001) as in (6d) showed an object bias in comprehension.…”

“…Specifically, Carlson (2013) studied the processing of bare argument ellipsis versions of these sentences (i.e., On Monday (only) the smuggler followed (only) the gangster through the city, not the thief ), and found both an object bias and effects of the position of focus markers. This study also explores whether the use of but in the contrast discourse relation is preferred over other discourse uses, and whether its use is influenced by focus marking.…”

Keep it local (and final): Remnant preferences in “let alone” ellipsis

“…In the case of sluicing in (14a), there is a bias to associate the wh -element who with the object correlate, someone , which is the nearest possible candidate, instead of the subject somebody (Frazier & Clifton, 1998; Poirier, Wolfinger, Spellman, & Shapiro, 2010). Although this bias can be partly counteracted by focal stress on non-local correlates (Carlson et al, 2009), as well as other indicators of discourse prominence, there is a processing cost associated with retrieving a structurally dispreferred correlate (Carlson, 2001, 2002, 2013; Stolterfoht et al, 2007; Harris, 2014). …”

“…Similarly, the remnant phrase the artist in the replacive ellipsis in (14b) preferentially contrasts with the object the gallery owner over the subject the curator (Paterson et al, 2007; Carlson, 2013). As before, the object bias can be mitigated by placing a focus marker like only on the subject, although this again incurs a processing cost (Carlson, 2013).…”

“…As before, the object bias can be mitigated by placing a focus marker like only on the subject, although this again incurs a processing cost (Carlson, 2013). …”