Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 953-959

  Filik, Ruth ^a   Paterson, Kevin B ^b   Liversedge, Simon P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EYE MOVEMENT; HEAD; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MENTAL FUNCTION; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); READING;

EYE MOVEMENTS; HEAD; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; MENTAL PROCESSES; MOVEMENT; READING;

EID: 19644390524     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196727     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. BAAYEN, R. H., PIEPENBROCK, R., & GULIKERS, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
2. CATLIN, J., & MICHAM, D. L. (1975). Semantic representations as procedures for verification. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 209-225.
3. CLOITRE, M., & BEVER, T. G. (1988). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse. Language & Cognitive Processes, 3, 293-322.
4. FERREIRA, F., & CLIFTON, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 348-368.
5. FODOR, J. D. (1982). The mental representation of quantifiers. In S. Peters & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Processes, beliefs, and questions: Essays on formal semantics of natural language and natural language processing (pp. 129-164). Dordrecht: Reidel.
6. FODOR, J. D., & SAG, I. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics & Philosophy, 5, 355-398.
7. FRAZIER, L., PACHT, J. M., & RAYNER, K. (1999). Taking on semantic commitments: II. Collective versus distributive readings. Cognition, 70, 87-104.
8. GILLEN, K. (1991). The comprehension of doubly quantified sentences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Durham.
9. IOUP, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 37-58). New York: Academic Press.
10. JOHNSON-LAIRD, P. N. (1969). On understanding logically complex sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 1-13.
11. KURTZMAN, H. S., & MACDONALD, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243-279.
12. LAKOFF, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 232-296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. LARSON, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335-391.
14. LIVERSEDGE, S. P., & FINDLAY, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 6-14.
15. MICHAM, D. L., CATLIN, J., VANDERVEER, N. J., & LOVELAND, K. A. (1980). Lexical and structural cues to quantifier scope relations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 367-377.
16. POESIO, M. (1996). Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In K. van Deemter & S. Peters (Eds.), Semantic ambiguity and under-specification (pp. 159-201). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
17. RAYNER, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.
18. TUNSTALL, S. L. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Linguistics.
19. VAN COMPEL, R. P. G., PICKERING, M. J., & TRAXLER, M. J. (2000). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 621-648). Oxford: Elsevier.