Competition during the processing of quantifier scope ambiguities: Evidence from eye movements during reading

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 459-473

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 38949179215     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210701255317     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Anderson, A. (2004, March). Context and the real-time interpretation of scope ambiguity. Poster presentation at the 17th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, University of Maryland, Washington DC.
2. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
3. Beghelli, F., & Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of every and each. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 71-98). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
4. Bunt, H. (1985). Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
6. Clark, H. H., & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Discourse production and comprehension (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2004). Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory & Cognition, 32, 886-895.
8. Cloitre, M., & Bever, T. G. (1988). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 293-322.
9. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, A29-446.
10. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
11. Filik, R., Paterson, K. B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 953-959.
12. Fodor, J. D. (1982). The mental representation of quantifiers. In S. Peters & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Processes, beliefs, and questions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
13. Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance: XII. The psychology of reading (pp. 559-586). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
14. Frazier, L. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 437-468.
15. Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
16. Geurts, B. (2002). Specific indefinites, presupposition, and scope. In R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle, & T. E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Presuppositions and discourse. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
17. Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 37-58). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
18. Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). On Larson's analysis of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 427-456.
19. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1969). On understanding logically complex sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 1-13.
20. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Byrne, R. M. J., & Tabossi, P. (1989). Reasoning by model: The case of multiple quantification. Psychological Review, 96, 658-673.
21. Kurtzman, H., S., & MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243-279.
22. Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovit (Eds.), Semantics (pp. 232-296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335-391.
24. Larson, R. K. (1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 589-632.
25. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
26. Poesio, M. (1996). Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In S. Peters & K. van Deemter (Eds.), Semantic ambiguity and underspecification (pp. 159-201). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
27. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Sanford, A. J., & Start, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 382-386.
29. Tabor, W., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 23, 491-515.
30. Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 454-475.
31. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.
32. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
33. Tunstall, S. L. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
34. Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M.J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 225-258.
35. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
36. Villalta, V. (2003). The role of context in the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Journal of Semantics, 20, 115-162.