Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more than less

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 83, Issue , 2015, Pages 79-96

  Urbach, Thomas P ^a   DeLong, Katherine A ^a   Kutas, Marta ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Brain potential; ERP; Incremental, shallow, partial, interpretation; Language comprehension; N400; Quantifier

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928610371     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.010     Document Type: Article

References (63)

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. Baker L., Wagner J.L. Evaluating information for truthfulness - The effects of logical subordination. Memory & Cognition 1987, 15:247-255.
4. Barton S.B., Sanford A.J. A case-study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition 1993, 21:477-487.
5. Bates E., MacWhinney B. The competition model. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. B. MacWhinney, E. Bates (Eds.).
6. Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 2006, 113:787-821.
7. Breheny R., Katsos N., Williams J. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 2006, 100:434-463.
8. Brouwer H., Fitz H., Hoeks J. Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research 2012, 1446:127-143.
9. Daneman M., Lennertz T., Hannon B. Shallow semantic processing of text: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes 2007, 22:83-105.
10. Dwivedi V.D. Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: Evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing. PLoS ONE 2013, 8.
11. Erickson T.D., Mattson M.E. From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1981, 20:540-551.
12. Ferreira F. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 47:164-203.
13. Filik R., Paterson K.B., Liversedge S.P. Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2004, 11:953-959.
14. 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.
15. Francis W.N., Kucera H. Brown corpus manual 1979, Brown University, Department of Linguistics.
16. 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.
17. Frazier L. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. Attention and performance 12: The psychology of reading 1987, 559-586. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove, England. M. Coltheart (Ed.).
18. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:78-84.
19. Frisson S. Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 2009, 3:111-127.
20. 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.
21. Gouvea A.C., Phillips C., Kazanina N., Poeppel D. The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 25:149-188.
22. Greenhouse S.W., Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 1959, 24:95-112.
23. Hackl M., Koster-Hale J., Varvoutis J. Quantification and ACD: Evidence from real-time sentence processing. Journal of Semantics 2012, 29:145-206.
24. Hagoort P., Hald L., Bastiaansen M., Petersson K.M. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 2004, 304:438-441.
25. Hagoort P., van Berkum J. Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences 2007, 362:801-811.
26. Hald L.A., Steenbeek-Planting E.G., Hagoort P. The interaction of discourse context and world knowledge in online sentence comprehension. Evidence from the N400. Brain Research 2007, 1:210-218.
27. Huang Y.T., Snedeker J. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 2009, 58:376-415.
28. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 1980, 87:329-354.
29. Kaan E., Dallas A.C., Barkley C.M. Processing bare quantifiers in discourse. Brain Research 2007, 1146:199-209.
30. Kim A., Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:205-225.
31. Kolk H., Chwilla D. Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language 2007, 100:257-261.
32. Kos M., van den Brink D., Hagoort P. Individual variation in the late positive complex to semantic anomalies. Frontiers in Psychology 2012, 3:1-10.
33. Kos M., Vosse T., van den Brink D., Hagoort P. About edible restaurants: Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology 2010, 1:1-11.
34. 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.
35. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49.
36. Kurtzman H.S., Macdonald M.C. Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 1993, 48:243-279.
37. Lewis R.L., Vasishth S. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 2005, 29:375-419.
38. Macdonald M.C., Pearlmutter N.J., Seidenberg M.S. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 1994, 101:676-703.
39. Marslen-Wilson W., Tyler L.K. Processing structure of sentence perception. Nature 1975, 257:784-786.
40. McRae K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Tanenhaus M.K. Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 1998, 38:283-312.
41. Morey R.D. Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 2008, 4:61-64.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Paterson K.B., Filik R., Moxey L.M. Quantifiers and discourse processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 2009, 3:1390-1402.
45. Politzer-Ahles S., Fiorentino R., Jiang X.M., Zhou X.L. Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing: An event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture-sentence verification. Brain Research 2013, 1490:134-152.
46. R Development Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.1.0 (2014-04-10) - "Spring Dance"). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. Sanford A.J., Dawydiak E.J., Moxey L.M. A unified account of quantifier perspective effects in discourse. Discourse Processes 2007, 44:1-32.
50. Sanford A.J., Graesser A.C. Shallow processing and underspecification. Discourse Processes 2006, 42:99-108.
51. Sanford A.J., Leuthold H., Bohan J., Sanford A.J.S. Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2011, 23:514-523.
52. Shallow Processing and Underspecification (2006). [Special Issue]. Discourse Processes, 42(2).
53. Staab J. Negation in context: Electrophysiological and behavioral investigations of negation effects in discourse processing 2007, University of California, San Diego, San Diego State, La Jolla.
54. Taylor W.L. "Cloze procedure": A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly 1953, 30:415-433.
55. Tune S., Schlesewsky M., Small S.L., Sanford A.J., Bohan J., Sassenhagen J., et al. Cross-linguistic variation in the neurophysiological response to semantic processing: Evidence from anomalies at the borderline of awareness. Neuropsychologia 2014, 56:147-166.
56. Urbach T.P., Kutas M. Quantifiers more or less quantify on-line: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 2010, 63:158-179.
57. van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400.
58. van Herten M., Kolk H.H., Chwilla D.J. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22:241-255.
59. Van Petten C., Luka B.J. Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2012, 83:176-190.
60. Wason P.C. The contexts of plausible denial. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1965, 4:7-11.
61. Welch B.L. The generalization of students problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 1947, 34:28-35.
62. Wickham H. Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis 2009, Springer, New York.
63. Wijnen F., Kaan E. Dynamics of semantic processing: The interpretation of bare quantifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes 2006, 21:684-720.