Quantifiers more or less quantify on-line: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 158-179

  Urbach, Thomas P ^a   Kutas, Marta ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Brain potential; ERP; Incremental interpretation; Language comprehension; N400; Quantifier

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954218171     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.008     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Altmann G.T.M., Mirkovic J. Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science 2009, 33:583-609.
2. Bah T. Inkscape: guide to a vector drawing program 2007, Prentice Hall Press.
3. Barton S.B., Sanford A.J. A case-study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition 1993, 21:477-487.
4. Barwise J., Cooper R. Generalized quantifiers and natural-language. Linguistics and Philosophy 1981, 4:159-219.
5. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on " semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 2008, 59:55-73.
6. Carpenter P.A., Just M.A. Sentence comprehension: Psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological Review 1975, 82:45-73.
7. Christianson K., Hollingworth A., Halliwell J.F., Ferreira F. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology 2001, 42:368-407.
8. Clark H.H., Chase W.G. Process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology 1972, 3:472-517.
9. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 1988, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. 2nd ed.
10. Coulson S., Van Petten C. A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension? ERP evidence from hemifield presentation. Brain Research 2007, 1146:128-145.
11. Dale A. Source localization and spatial discriminant analysis of event-related potentials: Linear approaches (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International 1994, 55:2559.
12. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2.9.0 (2009-04-17)) 2009, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
13. Diesing M. Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry 1992, 23:353-380.
14. Erickson T.D., Mattson M.E. From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1981, 20:540-551.
15. Fauconnier G. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 1975, 6:353-375.
16. Federmeier K.D., Wlotko E.W., De Ochoa-Dewald E., Kutas M. Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research 2007, 1146:75-84.
17. Ferguson H.J., Sanford A.J. Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds: An eye-movement investigation. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 58:609-626.
18. Ferguson H.J., Sanford A.J., Leuthold H. Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds. Brain Research 2008, 1236:113-125.
19. Ferreira F., Bailey K.G.D., Ferraro V. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2002, 11:11-15.
20. Filik R. Contextual override of pragmatic anomalies: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition 2008, 106:1038-1046.
21. Filik R., Paterson K.B., Liversedge S.P. Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2004, 11:953-959.
22. Fischler I., Bloom P.A., Childers D.G., Roucos S.E., Perry N.W. Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology 1983, 20:400-409.
23. Frazier L., Clifton C., Rayner K., Deevy P., Koh S., Bader M. Interface problems: Structural constraints on interpretation?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2005, 34:201-231.
24. Frazier L., Rayner K. Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language 1990, 29:181-200.
25. Ganis G., Kutas M., Sereno M.I. The search for " common sense'': An electrophysiological study of the comprehension of words and pictures in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1996, 8:89-106.
26. Greenhouse S.W., Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 1959, 24:95-112.
27. Hagoort P., Brown C., Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 1993, 8:439-483.
28. Hagoort P., Hald L., Bastiaansen M., Petersson K.M. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 2004, 304:438-441.
29. Hagoort P., van Berkum J. Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences 2007, 362:801-811.
30. Herron T. Cleave (Version January 30, 2005) 2005, Human Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, University of California, Davis.
31. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 1980, 87:329-354.
32. Kaan E., Dallas A.C., Barkley C.M. Processing bare quantifiers in discourse. Brain Research 2007, 1146:128-145.
33. Keenan E.L., Stavi J. A semantic characterization of natural-language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 1986, 9:253-326.
34. Kolk H., Chwilla D. Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language 2007, 100:257-261.
35. Kounios J., Holcomb P.J. Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction-times. Journal of Experimental Psychology - General 1992, 121:459-479.
36. Krifka M. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 1995, 25:209-258.
37. Kucera H., Francis W.N. Computational analysis of present-day American English 1967, Brown University Press, Providence.
38. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49.
39. Kurtzman H.S., Macdonald M.C. Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 1993, 48:243-279.
40. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
41. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307:161-163.
42. Kutas M., Van Petten C.K., Kluender R. Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994-2005). Handbook of psycholinguistics 2006, 659-724. Academic Press, Amsterdam. 2nd ed. M.J. Traxler, M.A. Gernsbacher (Eds.).
43. Lewis D. Adverbs of quantification. Formal semantics of natural language 1975, 3-15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. E.L. Keenan (Ed.).
44. Ludtke J., Friedrich C.K., De Filippis M., Kaup B. Event-related potential correlates of negation in a sentence-picture verification paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 20:1355-1370.
45. Moreno E.M., Federmeier K.D., Kutas M. Switching languages, switching palabras (words): An electrophysiological study of code switching. Brain and Language 2002, 80:188-207.
46. Moxey L.M., Filik R., Paterson K.B. On-line effects of what is expected on the resolution of plural pronouns. Language and Cognitive Processes 2009, 24:843-875.
47. Moxey L.M., Sanford A.J., Dawydiak E.J. Denials as controllers of negative quantifier focus. Journal of Memory and Language 2001, 44:427-442.
48. Nieuwland M.S., Kuperberg G.R. When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science 2008, 19:1213-1218.
49. Nieuwland M.S., Van Berkum J.J.A. When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18:1098-1111.
50. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31:785-806.
51. Paterson K.B., Filik R., Liversedge S.P. Competition during the processing of quantifier scope ambiguities: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008, 61:459-473.
52. Rayner K. Eye-movements in reading and information-processing. Psychological Bulletin 1978, 85:618-660.
53. Rayner K., Clifton C. Language processing in reading and speech perception is fast and incremental: Implications for event-related potential research. Biological Psychology 2009, 80:4-9.
54. Rayner K., Warren T., Juhasz B.J., Liversedge S.P. The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2004, 30:1290-1301.
55. Reder L.M., Kusbit G.W. Locus of the moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match. Journal of Memory and Language 1991, 30:385-406.
56. Sanford A.J., Dawydiak E.J., Moxey L.M. A unified account of quantifier perspective effects in discourse. Discourse Processes 2007, 44:1-32.
57. Sanford A.J., Sturt P. Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:382-386.
58. Staab J. Negation in context: Electrophysiological and behavioral investigations of negation effects in discourse processing 2007, University of California, San Diego and San Diego State, La Jolla.
59. Sturt P., Sanford A.J., Stewart A., Dawydiak E. Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2004, 11:882-888.
60. Trabasso T., Rollins H., Shaughnessy E. Storage and verification stages in processing concepts. Cognitive Psychology 1971, 2:239-289.
61. Tukey J.W. Exploratory data analysis 1977, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.
62. Ward P., Sturt P. Linguistic focus and memory: An eye movement study. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:73-86.
63. Warren T., McConnell K. Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2007, 14:770-775.
64. Warren T., McConnell K., Rayner K. Effects of context on eye movements when reading about possible and impossible events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2008, 34:1001-1010.
65. Wason P.C. The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1965, 4:7-11.
66. Wickham H. Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis 2009, Springer, New York.
67. Wijnen F., Kaan E. Dynamics of semantic processing: The interpretation of bare quantifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes 2006, 21:684-720.