Periodic Reporting for period 3 - FAHMRRR (Focus alternatives in the human mind: Retrieval, representation, and recall)
Período documentado: 2019-06-01 hasta 2021-05-31
The project addresses the processing of focus alternatives. Focus can be marked in different ways, for example with prosody (i.e. accent). Recent linguistic theories assume that focus shows that alternatives are important for the interpretation of this utterance. To illustrate, if I say: "I put DILL in my scrambled egg." (capital letters indicate focus accent), I do not just want to express that I used dill, I also want to imply that I did not use a different herb. This function of focus emerges even more clearly in larger fragments of text, e.g. in a little dialog with speaker A saying: "Did you put chives in your scrambled egg?" and speaker B responding: "I put DILL in it."
Listeners activate alternatives to a focused element: These alternatives are recognized more easily in subsequent tasks and they are remembered better compared to the same words when they are not focus alternatives. Building on these findings, the ERC project asked four main questions: 1. what do speakers (as opposed to listeners) do when they decide to focus a given word? Do they RETRIEVE it from a set of alternatives? 2. how are focus alternatives REPRESENTED in the brain? 3. what determines how well people RECALL focus alternatives from memory? An overarching question concerns individual differences in the processing of focus alternatives.
Conclusions: 1. Speakers do retrieve a focused word from a set of alternatives. In production, alternatives to the focused element are inhibited. 2. Focus alternatives are represented in a fronto-parietal brain network that is distinct from the temporal representation of semantic relationships but overlapping with the brain network responsible for processing coherent text. 3. There are distinct processing profiles for focus alternatives. These profiles coincide with but do not overlap completely with biological sex. Investigations into individual differences are still ongoing and analysis of the collected data will continue after the conclusion of the project.
We did basic research at the interface of theoretical semantics and empirical psycholinguistics. As such, the findings are particularly interesting to fellow scholars (see the Research Topic at Frontiers in Language Sciences on the Role of Alternatives in Language, co-edited by myself and a colleague). I also hosted a Workshop in February 2020 which furthered the discussion between researchers investigating alternatives.
There is a wider dimension to the project, too. It becomes ever clearer that focus alternatives play a role in establishing discourse coherence. That is, they contribute to how well a narrative holds together. (Not) being able to fully comprehend longer passages of texts is relevant in the context of literacy difficulties. It is assumed that one in five adults in the EU has poor reading skills (cf. Factsheet: Literacy in Europe, available at www.eli-net.eu). Because individual differences are a key aspect of our project, our findings can be useful for researchers on literacy acquisition. Focus interpretation is not written down in text books and taught at school. We see some indications for different interpretative styles among individuals. These different styles can even lead to different interpretations of the same utterance. Knowing more about the different ways in which a focused phrase can be interpreted - and maybe even knowing which types of speakers are likely to do it one way and which ones another, can help in teaching children (or adults) to read at a higher interpretative level. Additionally, knowing more about these processing styles will help avoid misunderstandings in interpersonal communication.
Listeners activate alternatives to a focused element: These alternatives are recognized more easily in subsequent tasks and they are remembered better compared to the same words when they are not focus alternatives. Building on these findings, the ERC project asked four main questions: 1. what do speakers (as opposed to listeners) do when they decide to focus a given word? Do they RETRIEVE it from a set of alternatives? 2. how are focus alternatives REPRESENTED in the brain? 3. what determines how well people RECALL focus alternatives from memory? An overarching question concerns individual differences in the processing of focus alternatives.
Conclusions: 1. Speakers do retrieve a focused word from a set of alternatives. In production, alternatives to the focused element are inhibited. 2. Focus alternatives are represented in a fronto-parietal brain network that is distinct from the temporal representation of semantic relationships but overlapping with the brain network responsible for processing coherent text. 3. There are distinct processing profiles for focus alternatives. These profiles coincide with but do not overlap completely with biological sex. Investigations into individual differences are still ongoing and analysis of the collected data will continue after the conclusion of the project.
We did basic research at the interface of theoretical semantics and empirical psycholinguistics. As such, the findings are particularly interesting to fellow scholars (see the Research Topic at Frontiers in Language Sciences on the Role of Alternatives in Language, co-edited by myself and a colleague). I also hosted a Workshop in February 2020 which furthered the discussion between researchers investigating alternatives.
There is a wider dimension to the project, too. It becomes ever clearer that focus alternatives play a role in establishing discourse coherence. That is, they contribute to how well a narrative holds together. (Not) being able to fully comprehend longer passages of texts is relevant in the context of literacy difficulties. It is assumed that one in five adults in the EU has poor reading skills (cf. Factsheet: Literacy in Europe, available at www.eli-net.eu). Because individual differences are a key aspect of our project, our findings can be useful for researchers on literacy acquisition. Focus interpretation is not written down in text books and taught at school. We see some indications for different interpretative styles among individuals. These different styles can even lead to different interpretations of the same utterance. Knowing more about the different ways in which a focused phrase can be interpreted - and maybe even knowing which types of speakers are likely to do it one way and which ones another, can help in teaching children (or adults) to read at a higher interpretative level. Additionally, knowing more about these processing styles will help avoid misunderstandings in interpersonal communication.
The project addresses three main questions – retrieval (RQ1), representation (RQ2) and recall (RQ3) of focus alternatives. A fourth, overarching, question concerns individual differences (RQ4).
RQ1: Not all intended experiments were carried out, because we had discovered a major flaw in our experimental design. Therefore, we developped a novel paradigm. With this, we have shown that accessing focus alternatives in speech production is a competitive process. This result will be published as a conference proceeding (Bergmann & Spalek, in press). A second paper will be submitted to a special issue on focus alternatives in language production that I am editing at the journal Languages (Bergmann, Lu, & Spalek, in prep.).
RQ2: We have carried out a neuroimaging study and found that focus alternatives are processed in a fronto-parietal brain network (Spalek & Oganian, 2019). A masters thesis investigated the impact of the experimental sentences used. These results were later published as Jördens, Gotzner, & Spalek (2020). A second paper on individual differences in the neuroimaging data will be submitted in October 2021 when my co-author returns from maternity leave (Spalek & Oganian, in prep.). We had started an EEG-study (see amendment of the DoA). Due to Covid19 restrictions, data collection had to be stopped. We will continue data acquisition in the fall 2021, since the preliminary results suggest interesting effects of focus on brain potentials (Spalek, Bergmann, Höltje, & Mecklinger, in prep.).
RQ3: We carried out numerous pilot studies and one individual differences study. The pilot study (Koch & Spalek, 2021) revealed a focus effect on memory, but also gender differences. A replication study in Vietnamese (see amendment to the DoA) shows both the focus effect and the gender differences in a tone language (Tjuka, Nguyen, & Spalek, 2020). For the individual differences study, we collected data of 150 participants. Data analysis is ongoing, and these data will result in two papers. Sun, Felsenheimer, Koch & Spalek (in prep.) will present a conventional correlational analysis of recall performance and different predictor tasks, whereas Felsenheimer, Koch, Sun, & Spalek (in prep.) uses supervised learning and hierarchical cluster analyses to show that there are two distinct groups of participants who process focus in different ways. Finally, we are still running a replication of one of the studies in the literature which had been a cornerstone of our hypotheses (Spalek, Koch, & Annacker, in prep.).
RQ4: There are significant differences between the sexes both for the neural representation of focus alternatives and for the recall of focus alternatives (Koch & Spalek, 2021; Spalek & Oganian, in prep.; Tjuka et al., 2020). The divide into male and female can only be regarded as a first step: We carried out cluster analyses and correlations with predictor tasks to distinguish groups of individuals who process focus differently (Felsenheimer et al., in prep., Sun et al., in prep.).
In addition to the publications, results were presented in three conference talks (all in Germany) and three invited talks (Germany) and ten poster presentations at conferences in Germany, Russia, Finland and the UK.
RQ1: Not all intended experiments were carried out, because we had discovered a major flaw in our experimental design. Therefore, we developped a novel paradigm. With this, we have shown that accessing focus alternatives in speech production is a competitive process. This result will be published as a conference proceeding (Bergmann & Spalek, in press). A second paper will be submitted to a special issue on focus alternatives in language production that I am editing at the journal Languages (Bergmann, Lu, & Spalek, in prep.).
RQ2: We have carried out a neuroimaging study and found that focus alternatives are processed in a fronto-parietal brain network (Spalek & Oganian, 2019). A masters thesis investigated the impact of the experimental sentences used. These results were later published as Jördens, Gotzner, & Spalek (2020). A second paper on individual differences in the neuroimaging data will be submitted in October 2021 when my co-author returns from maternity leave (Spalek & Oganian, in prep.). We had started an EEG-study (see amendment of the DoA). Due to Covid19 restrictions, data collection had to be stopped. We will continue data acquisition in the fall 2021, since the preliminary results suggest interesting effects of focus on brain potentials (Spalek, Bergmann, Höltje, & Mecklinger, in prep.).
RQ3: We carried out numerous pilot studies and one individual differences study. The pilot study (Koch & Spalek, 2021) revealed a focus effect on memory, but also gender differences. A replication study in Vietnamese (see amendment to the DoA) shows both the focus effect and the gender differences in a tone language (Tjuka, Nguyen, & Spalek, 2020). For the individual differences study, we collected data of 150 participants. Data analysis is ongoing, and these data will result in two papers. Sun, Felsenheimer, Koch & Spalek (in prep.) will present a conventional correlational analysis of recall performance and different predictor tasks, whereas Felsenheimer, Koch, Sun, & Spalek (in prep.) uses supervised learning and hierarchical cluster analyses to show that there are two distinct groups of participants who process focus in different ways. Finally, we are still running a replication of one of the studies in the literature which had been a cornerstone of our hypotheses (Spalek, Koch, & Annacker, in prep.).
RQ4: There are significant differences between the sexes both for the neural representation of focus alternatives and for the recall of focus alternatives (Koch & Spalek, 2021; Spalek & Oganian, in prep.; Tjuka et al., 2020). The divide into male and female can only be regarded as a first step: We carried out cluster analyses and correlations with predictor tasks to distinguish groups of individuals who process focus differently (Felsenheimer et al., in prep., Sun et al., in prep.).
In addition to the publications, results were presented in three conference talks (all in Germany) and three invited talks (Germany) and ten poster presentations at conferences in Germany, Russia, Finland and the UK.
The experiments for RQ2 will result in two publications more than anticipated.
A masters’ thesis provided evidence for a rather wide set of alternatives. These findings were published as a conference proceeding (Ndao & Spalek, 2019).
Another additional outcome is a collection of papers on the role of alternatives in language (Repp & Spalek, 2021).
These additional results were also presented in three conference talks in Germany and the Netherlands and in three poster presentations at conferences in Germany and the USA.
A masters’ thesis provided evidence for a rather wide set of alternatives. These findings were published as a conference proceeding (Ndao & Spalek, 2019).
Another additional outcome is a collection of papers on the role of alternatives in language (Repp & Spalek, 2021).
These additional results were also presented in three conference talks in Germany and the Netherlands and in three poster presentations at conferences in Germany and the USA.