The project was concerned with the question how presuppositional information is processed during the online construction of a sentence’s meaning. Building on earlier results, we proposed a model of pragmatic presupposition processing in which listeners expect speakers to make pragmatically felicitous utterances and use these expectations to incrementally and predictively process incoming material. We proposed to link violations of such expectations to empirical data from mouse-tracking experiments among others. Mouse tracking is an established tool in cognitive psychology that delivers fine-grained data about the temporal unfolding of a decision process.
Schneider, C. & Janczyk, M.(accepted/in press). Capacity limitations of processing presuppositions triggered by determiners. Acta Psychologica.
Schneider, C., Bade, N., Franke, M. & Janczyk, M. (accepted/in press). Presuppositions of determiners are immediately used to disambiguate utterance meaning: A mouse-tracking study on the German language. Psychological Research. Schneider, C., Bade, N. & Janczyk, M.(2020). Is immediate processing of presupposition triggers automatic or capacity-limited? A combination of the PRP approach with a self-paced reading task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
Janczyk, M. & Ulrich, R.(2019). Action consequences affect the space-time congruency effect on reaction time. Acta Psychologica 198, 102850.
Schneider, C., Schonard, C., Franke, M., Jäger, G. & Janczyk, M.(2019). Pragmatic processing: An investigation of the (anti-)presupposition of determiners using mouse-tracking. Cognition 193, 104024.
Öttl, B., Jäger, G. & Kaup, B. (2017).The role of simple semantics in the process of artificial grammar learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46(5), 1285-1308.
Franke, M. & Jäger, G. (2016). Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ Rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 35(1), 3-44.
Brauner, C., Seibold, V. C. & Rolke, B. (2015). One, two, many: The costs of presupposition processing in different contexts.
Hertrich, I., Kirsten, M., Tiemann, S., Beck, S., Wuehle, A., Ackermann, H. & Rolke, B. (2015).Context-dependent impact of presuppositions on early magnetic brain responses during speech perception. Brain and Language 149, 1-12.
Tiemann, S., Kirsten, M., Beck, S., Hertrich, I. & Rolke, B. (2015). Presupposition processing and accomodation: An experiment on wieder ('again') and consequences for other triggers. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics45. Springer International Publishing.
Kirsten, M., Tiemann, S., Seibold, V. C., Hertrich, I., Beck, S. & Rolke, B. (2014). When the polar bear encounters many polar bears: ERP context effects evoked by uniqueness failure. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 29, 1147-1162.
Rahona, J. J., Ruiz Fernández, S., Rolke, B., Vázquez, C. & Hervás, G. (2014). Overt head movements moderate the effect of depressive symptoms on mood regulation. Cognition and Emotion 28, 1328-1337. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.881323. (DAAD, SFB B2).
Rolke, B., Ruiz Fernández, S., Schmid, M., Walker, M., Lachmair, M., Rahona López, J. J., Hervás, G. & Vázquez, C. (2013). Priming the mental time-line: Effects of modality and processing mode. Cognitive Processing 14, 231-244. IF: 1.57.
Schwarz, F. & Tiemann,S. (2012). Presupposition processing – The case of German wieder. In M. Aloni (Ed.), Logic, Language and Meaning: 18th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 200-209). Link to the online version.
Tiemann, S., Schmid, M., Bade, N., Rolke, B., Hertrich, I., Ackermann, H., Knapp, J. & Beck, S. (2011). Psycholinguistic evidence for presuppositions: On-line and off-line data. In I. Reich et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15 (pp. 581-595). Saarbrücken: Universaar – Saarland Unversity Press. Download
