@article{SauermannFilikPaterson2013,
  author    = {Sauermann, Antje and Filik, Ruth and Paterson, Kevin B.},
  title     = {Processing contextual and lexical cues to focus evidence from eye movements in reading},
  series = {Language and cognitive processes},
  volume    = {28},
  journal   = {Language and cognitive processes},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hove},
  issn      = {0169-0965},
  doi       = {10.1080/01690965.2012.668197},
  pages     = {875 -- 903},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Three eye movement experiments investigated the interaction between contextual and lexical focus cues during reading. Context was used to focus on either the indirect or direct object of a double object construction, which was followed by a remnant continuation that formed either a congruous or incongruous contrast with the contextually focused object. Experiment 1 demonstrated that remnants were more difficult to process when incongruous with the contextually focused constituent, indicating that context was effective in specifying focus. Experiments 2 and 3 investigated the interaction between context and lexical focus arising from the particle only which specifies focus on the subsequent adjacent element. When only preceded both objects (Experiment 2), the conflict between lexical and contextual focus cues disrupted processing of the remnant element and was resolved in favour of the contextually focused element. However, when only was placed between both objects (Experiment 3), cue-conflict disrupted processing earlier in the sentence but did not appear to be fully resolved during on-line sentence processing. These findings reveal that the interplay between contextual and lexical cues to focus is important for establishing focus structure during on-line sentence processing.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SpalekGotznerWartenburger2014,
  author    = {Spalek, Katharina and Gotzner, Nicole and Wartenburger, Isabell},
  title     = {Not only the apples},
  series = {Journal of memory and language : JML},
  volume    = {70},
  journal   = {Journal of memory and language : JML},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {San Diego},
  issn      = {0749-596X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jml.2013.09.001},
  pages     = {68 -- 84},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Focus sensitive particles highlight the relevance of contextual alternatives for the interpretation of a sentence. Two experiments tested whether this leads to better encoding and therefore, ultimately, better recall of focus alternatives. Participants were presented with auditory stimuli that introduced a set of elements ("context sentence") and continued in three different versions: the critical sentences either contained the exclusive particle nur ("only"), the inclusive particle sogar ("even"), or no particle (control condition). After being exposed to blocks of ten trials, participants were asked to recall the elements in the context sentence. The results show that both particles enhanced memory performance for the alternatives to the focused element, relative to the control condition. The results support the assumption that information-structural alternatives are better encoded in memory in the presence of a focus sensitive particle.},
  language  = {en}
}