Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2017, Vol. 49 Issue (9) : 1137-1149     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01137
 The cognitive processing of contrastive focus and its relationship with pitch accent
LI Weijun1; ZHANG Jingjing2,3; YANG Yufang2,3
 (1 Research Center of Brain and Cognitive Neuroscience, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China) (2 Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China) (3University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)
Download: PDF(1428 KB)   Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Abstract   Information structure (IS) is a very important pragmatic concept in linguistics. It has been broadly studied in linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, etc. IS can be generally distinguished as focus/new information and background/given information. It is proper for focused/new information to receive accent. Recently, researchers have shown increasing interest in the neural mechanism of focus processing and its relationship with pitch accent. It was generally found that focus elicited a widely distributed positivity compared to background (non-focused) information in both visual and auditory domain, although these positivities varied in time course, amplitude and scalp distribution. As for its relationship with pitch accent, the results are complicated due to the variability in task (prosodic, semantic), language (German, Dutch, and Chinese, etc.), focus-marking device (context-question, pitch accent, it cleft structure, etc.), as well as information status (being new or given information). The present study aims to investigate the processing of contrastive focus and its interaction with pitch accent at different positions using ERPs. We used a highly constraining question as context, which posited two single nouns (NP1 and NP2) at different positions (in the medial and end of clause) in the answer sentence as contrastive focus (new information, narrow focus). Twenty (nine males) healthy undergraduates participated in the experiment. The participants were told to listen carefully to each dialogue, and completed a sentence comprehension task. The EEG was recorded from 64 scalp channels using electrodes mounted in an elastic cap. Focus and accent related ERPs were calculated for a 1500 ms epoch including a 200 ms pre-critical words baseline. It was found that focus evoked a larger positivity compared to non-focus at both positions. This was convinced by the statistical analysis result at both NP1 during 650-1300 ms, F(1, 19) = 8.29, p < 0.05, η2p = 0.29, and NP2 during 550-1050 ms, F(1, 19) = 14.45, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.38. Besides, accented words elicited a larger positivity than unaccented ones at both of NP1 (950-1150 ms), F(1, 19) = 7.39, p < 0.05, η2p = 0.22, and NP2(1050-1400ms), F(1, 19) = 8.04, p < 0.05, η2p = 0.30. Furthermore, missing accent on focus did not elicit any observable brain effect compared to accented focus at both positions in the lateral area, F(1, 19) < 1, ps > 0.05. At the end of the clause, however, accent on background information elicited a larger negativity (200-350 ms) compared to consistently unaccented background, F(1, 19) = 10.84, p < 0.01, η2p = 0.38, while there was no significant difference between accented and unaccented focus, F(1, 19) < 1, p > 0.05. Overall, the positive effect elicited by focus at both positions may reflect that listeners consume more cognitive resource to integrate focus to discourse compared to non-focus. Besides, accented words elicited a larger positivity than unaccented ones at both positions, indicating that prosodic prominence attracted more attention than unaccented information. Finally, accent on non-focus evoked a larger negativity compared to unaccented non-focus at the end of the clause. This result may reflect that listeners were sensitive to the information structure induced by pitch accent and the processing were influenced by the position of focus. In sum, the current results suggest that listeners make on-line use of both focus and pitch accent in various ways at different positions to build coherent representations of dialogues.
Keywords  information structure      accent      focus      background     
Corresponding Authors: LI Weijun, E-mail:; YANG Yufang, E-mail:     E-mail: E-mail:; E-mail:
Issue Date: 14 July 2017
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
LI Weijun
ZHANG Jingjing
YANG Yufang
Cite this article:   
LI Weijun,ZHANG Jingjing,YANG Yufang.  The cognitive processing of contrastive focus and its relationship with pitch accent[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(9): 1137-1149.
URL:     OR
[1] WANG Jian, YUAN Liwei, ZHANG Zhi, WANG Shizhong.  ffects of visual anticipation and focus of attention on the anticipatory and compensatory postural adjustments of the lumbar postural muscle and upper limb focal muscle[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 920-927.
[2] ZHANG Jianxin, LU Li, YIN Ming, ZHU Chuanlin, HUANG Chunlu, LIU Dianzhi.  The establishment of ecological microexpressions recognition test (EMERT): An improvement on JACBART microexpressions recognition test[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 886-896.
[3] HUANG Minxue; WANG Yiting; LIAO Junyun; LIU Maohong. Mixed effects of inconsistent reviews on consumers: The moderating roles of product attributes and regulatory focus[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 370-382.
[4] . The effects of power on human behavior: The perspective of regulatory focus[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 404-415.
[5] DU Xiaomeng; ZHAO Zhanbo; CUI Xiao. The Effect of Review Valence, New Product Types and Regulatory Focus on New Product Online Review Usefulness[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(4): 555-568.
[6] WANG Tao;XIE Zhipeng;CUI Nan. Have A Good Chat with the Brand: The Impact of Personified Brand Communication on Consumer Brand Attitude[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(7): 987-999.
[7] TIAN Yang;WANG Haizhong;LIU Wumei;HE Liu;HUANG Yunhui. Can Brand Commitment Resist Negative Publicity? —— the Moderate Effect of Regulatory Focus[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(6): 864-875.
[8] WANG Ziwei; TU Ping. Interaction Effect of Social Exclusion and Gender on Self-focus[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(11): 1782-1792.
[9] MO Lei,WANG Rui-Ming,LENG Ying. The Bi-processing Theory of Text Comprehension and Experimental Evidences[J]. , 2012, 44(5): 569-584.
[10] WANG Yu-Han;LI Hong;MO Lei;JIN Hua;CHEN Lin;QIAO Jia-Jia. Brain Activations of the Inference Processing in Familiar Topics Expository Text Comprehension[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(11): 1443-1453.
[11] XUAN Bin,LIU Zhen-Hui,ZHANG Ai-Qing,SUN Xiao-Kai. The Compensatory Mechanism of Focus of Attention Switch in Working Memory: The Experimental Evidence from Deaf Students and Articulatory Suppression[J]. , 2011, 43(09): 993-1001.
[12] WANG Ling,LIN Hui-Yun,PANG Xiao-Ming. The Coincidence between the Regulatory Fit Effects Based on Chronic Regulatory Focus and Situational Regulatory Focus[J]. , 2011, 43(05): 553-560.
[13] CHEN Bin-Bin,LI Dan,CHEN Xinyin,CHEN Feng. The Peer Group as a Social and Cultural Context: Influence on Socioemotional Functioning in Chinese Children[J]. , 2011, 43(01): 74-91.
[14] ZHANG Xuan,YANG Yu-Fang. The Influence of Working Memory Span on the Accentuation Effects in Discourse Comprehension[J]. , 2010, 42(07): 727-734.
[15] YAO Qi,MA Hua-Wei,YUE Guo-An. Success Expectations and Performance: Regulatory Focus as a Moderator[J]. , 2010, 42(06): 704-714.
Full text



Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech