Processing bare quantifiers in discourse

During reading or listening, language comprehenders construct a mental representation of the objects and events mentioned. This model is augmented and modified incrementally as the discourse unfolds. In this paper we focus on the interpretation of bare quantifiers, that is, expressions such as 'two', to investigate the processes underlying the construction and modification of the discourse model. Bare quantifiers are temporarily ambiguous when sentences are processed incrementally. For instance, in 'Three ships were in the port. Two...', 'two' can either refer to a subset of the set just mentioned (e.g.,'two of the three ships'), a different set of the entities mentioned (e.g., 'two other ships'), or a set of different entities (e.g., 'two people'). Data from previous studies, and a current completion study, suggest that the subset interpretation is preferred over the establishment of a different set. The current study aimed to investigate ERP correlates of quantifier interpretation and their timing. Quantifiers that unambiguously signaled the establishment of a new referent elicited a late positive component (900-1500 ms), which we interpret as a Late Positive Complex, related to the difficulty involved in context updating. An additional 500-700 ms positivity was elicited only in a subset of readers, suggesting that there are individual differences in quantifier interpretation and the timing thereof.

[1]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  On Sentence Interpretation , 1999 .

[3]  Frank Wijnen,et al.  Dynamics of semantic processing: The interpretation of bare quantifiers , 2006 .

[4]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Interface Problems: Structural Constraints on Interpretation? , 2005, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[5]  Frank Rösler,et al.  Different Anaphoric Expressions Are Investigated by Event-Related Brain Potentials , 2004, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[6]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[7]  H. H. Clark,et al.  What's new? Acquiring New information as a process in comprehension , 1974 .

[8]  Petra Burkhardt The syntax-discourse interface : representing and interpreting dependency , 2005 .

[9]  ROBERT S. MOYER,et al.  Time required for Judgements of Numerical Inequality , 1967, Nature.

[10]  P. Holcomb,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potentials Reflect Semantic Priming in an Object Decision Task , 1994, Brain and Cognition.

[11]  A D Friederici,et al.  Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[12]  Jan van Kuppevelt,et al.  Directionality in Discourse: Prominence Differences in Subordination Relations1 , 1996, J. Semant..

[13]  M. Just,et al.  Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  E. Gibson,et al.  The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty , 2000 .

[15]  M. Kutas,et al.  Who Did What and When? Using Word- and Clause-Level ERPs to Monitor Working Memory Usage in Reading , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[17]  H. Kamp A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation , 2008 .

[18]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Optimality Theoretic Semantics , 2001 .

[19]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Diagnosis and Reanalysis: Two Processing Aspects the Brain May Differentiate , 1998 .

[20]  H. Neville,et al.  The Neurobiology of Sensory and Language Processing in Language-Impaired Children , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[21]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  The Organization of Brain Activations in Number Comparison: Event-Related Potentials and the Additive-Factors Method , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[22]  Lee Osterhout,et al.  On the Brain Response to Syntactic Anomalies: Manipulations of Word Position and Word Class Reveal Individual Differences , 1997, Brain and Language.

[23]  Susanne Lynn Tunstall,et al.  The interpretation of quantifiers : semantics & processing , 1998 .

[24]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language , 1983 .

[25]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 1999 .

[26]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Syntactic parsing and working memory: The effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load , 2001 .

[27]  P. Gordon,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence for Reversed Lexical Repetition Effects in Language Processing , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[28]  P. Holcomb,et al.  Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly , 1992 .

[29]  A. Friederici,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence for Two Steps in Syntactic Analysis: Early Automatic and Late Controlled Processes , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  P. Holcomb,et al.  Imaginal, Semantic, and Surface-Level Processing of Concrete and Abstract Words: An Electrophysiological Investigation , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[31]  Petra Burkhardt,et al.  Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 2006, Brain and Language.

[32]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The syntactic positive shift (sps) as an erp measure of syntactic processing , 1993 .

[33]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Inference during reading. , 1992 .

[34]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses , 1998, Biological Psychology.

[35]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  The diagnosis and cure of garden paths , 1994 .

[36]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[37]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses ☆ , 1990 .

[38]  Elisabeth Villalta,et al.  The Role of Context in the Resolution of Quantifier Scope Ambiguities , 2003, J. Semant..

[39]  M. Kutas,et al.  Expect the Unexpected: Event-related Brain Response to Morphosyntactic Violations , 1998 .

[40]  E. Kaan Direction effects in number word comparison: an event-related potential study , 2005, Neuroreport.

[41]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[42]  Phillip J. Holcomb,et al.  An electrophysiological investigation of the effects of coreference on word repetition and synonymy , 2005, Brain and Language.

[43]  M. Kutas,et al.  Fractionating the Word Repetition Effect with Event-Related Potentials , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[44]  J. Kounios,et al.  Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidence supporting dual-coding theory. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[45]  A. Friederici Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[46]  E. Prince The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-status , 1992 .

[47]  Frank Rösler,et al.  Event-Related Responses to Pronoun and Proper Name Anaphors in Parallel and Nonparallel Discourse Structures , 1999, Brain and Language.

[48]  E. Kaan,et al.  Repair, Revision, and Complexity in Syntactic Analysis: An Electrophysiological Differentiation , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[49]  Molly Diesing,et al.  The syntactic roots of semantic partition , 1990 .

[50]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  Reanalysis in sentence processing , 1998 .