Deferred Interpretations: Why Starting Dickens is Taxing but Reading Dickens Isn't

Comprehenders often need to go beyond conventional word senses to obtain an appropriate interpretation of an expression. We report an experiment examining the processing of standard metonymies (The gentleman read Dickens) and logical metonymies (The gentleman began Dickens), contrasting both to the processing of control expressions with a conventional interpretation (The gentleman met Dickens). Eye movement measures during reading indicated that standard (producer-for-product) metonymies were not more costly to interpret than conventional expressions, but logical metonymies were more costly to interpret than both standard metonymies and conventional expressions. These results indicate that constructing alternative senses is sometimes taxing and that not all types of deferred interpretations are processed in the same way. The results suggest that a critical factor in determining the attendant cost of constructing alternative senses is whether compositional operations must generate unexpressed semantic structure to realize an extended sense of an expression.

[1]  B. McElree,et al.  Literal and figurative interpretations are computed in equal time , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  R. Gerrig,et al.  The time course of sense creation , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[3]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Context effects in coercion: Evidence from eye movements , 2005 .

[4]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  Coercion in sentence processing: evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading , 2002 .

[5]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[6]  Geoffrey Nunberg,et al.  Transfers of Meaning , 1995, J. Semant..

[7]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

[8]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[9]  M J Pickering,et al.  The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  Brian McElree,et al.  Reading time evidence for enriched composition , 2001, Cognition.

[11]  Geoffrey Nunberg,et al.  The Pragmatics of Deferred Interpretation , 2008 .

[12]  S. Glucksberg Understanding figurative language : from metaphors to idioms , 2001 .

[13]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Pragmatics and word meaning , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[14]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[15]  H. H. Clark The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[16]  Cornelia Maria Verspoor,et al.  Contextually-Dependent Lexical Semantics , 1997 .

[17]  M M Piñango,et al.  Real-Time Processing Implications of Enriched Composition at the Syntax–Semantics Interface , 1999, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[18]  G. Nunberg The pragmatics of reference , 1978 .

[19]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  The difficulty of coercion: A response to de Almeida , 2005, Brain and Language.

[20]  Frank Keller,et al.  Intra-sentential context effects on the interpretation of logical metonymy , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  G. Nunberg The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy , 1979 .

[22]  Gregory Ward Equatives and Deferred Reference , 2004 .

[23]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  A time course analysis of enriched composition , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.