An ERP investigation of quantifier scope ambiguous sentences: Evidence for number in events

Abstract We used event related potentials (ERPs) in order to investigate how sentences, semantically ambiguous with respect to number, are understood. Although sentences such as (i) Every kid climbed a tree lack any syntactic or lexical ambiguity, two possible meanings are available, where either many trees or just one tree was climbed. Previous behavioural studies showed a plural preference, whereas ERP and behavioural experiments conducted in our lab have not. In this work, we further investigate sentences as in (i), called quantifier scope ambiguous sentences, and compare them to unambiguous sentences, (ii) Every kid climbed the trees. Participants read sentences presented in 1- and 2-word chunks, and judged, at the target word tree(s), whether 1 or 2 words appeared on the computer screen (Berent et al., 2005). Previously, interference effects resulted for judgments that 1 word was on the screen when it was marked plural (e.g., trees) versus singular (e.g., tree). Interestingly, Patson and Warren (2010) also showed that this was the case for judgments made for singular words, e.g., tree, in quantifier ambiguous sentences, confirming the plural preference. The current ERP study did not replicate their behavioural findings. Difficulty for “1” responses was not observed for trees in (ii) nor was it observed for tree in quantifier scope sentences (i). Instead, a P300 effect was found at the target word tree(s), where amplitudes differed depending on congruency in number interpretation for subjects and direct objects. Results are discussed in terms of heuristic first sentence processing mechanisms, and relevant features of event knowledge.

[1]  E. Kaan,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: a comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[2]  Matthew H. Davis,et al.  Mix, a program for pseudorandomization , 2006, Behavior research methods.

[3]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities , 1993, Cognition.

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

[5]  Ron Artstein,et al.  Underspecification and Anaphora: Theoretical Issues and Preliminary Evidence , 2006, Discourse Processes.

[6]  H. Kolk,et al.  Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials , 2003, Brain and Language.

[7]  H. Leonard,et al.  Association of Gestational Age at Birth with Reasons for Subsequent Hospitalisation: 18 Years of Follow-Up in a Western Australian Population Study , 2015, PloS one.

[8]  J. Polich Neuropsychology of P300 , 2011 .

[9]  Oliver Bott,et al.  The Processing Domain of Scope Interaction , 2015, J. Semant..

[10]  A. Matsuo,et al.  Effects of Facial Expression and Language on Trustworthiness and Brain Activities , 2015 .

[11]  J. Polich Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[12]  Steven G. Luke,et al.  Effects of plausibility on structural priming. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  D. Tanner,et al.  Cues, quantification, and agreement in language comprehension , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[14]  J. Polich Detection of change : event-related potential and fMRI findings , 2003 .

[15]  E. Grigorenko,et al.  Attentional But Not Pre-Attentive Neural Measures of Auditory Discrimination Are Atypical in Children With Developmental Language Disorder , 2014, Developmental neuropsychology.

[16]  Richard P. Heitz,et al.  An automated version of the operation span task , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[17]  H. Kolk,et al.  Late positivities in unusual situations , 2007, Brain and Language.

[18]  C. Brunia,et al.  Event-related potentials to different feedback stimuli. , 1991, Psychophysiology.

[19]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Notional number agreement in English , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  D. Ruchkin,et al.  Multiple sources of P3b associated with different types of information. , 1990, Psychophysiology.

[21]  Brigitte Röder,et al.  Slow negative brain potentials as reflections of specific modular resources of cognition , 1997, Biological Psychology.

[22]  R. May Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation , 1985 .

[23]  L. Osterhout,et al.  The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2005 .

[24]  Dorothee J. Chwilla,et al.  When Heuristics Clash with Parsing Routines: ERP Evidence for Conflict Monitoring in Sentence Perception , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  S. Levinson,et al.  Conversation Electrified: ERP Correlates of Speech Act Recognition in Underspecified Utterances , 2015, PloS one.

[26]  Mark E. Pflieger,et al.  Theory of a Spatial Filter for Removing Ocular Artifacts With Preservation of EEG , 2001 .

[27]  K. Paterson,et al.  Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  Thomas G. Bever,et al.  Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules , 2001 .

[29]  E. Donchin Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[30]  K Christianson,et al.  Misinterpretations of Garden-Path Sentences: Implications for Models of Sentence Processing and Reanalysis , 2001, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[31]  S. Luck Sources of Dual-Task Interference: Evidence From Human Electrophysiology , 1998 .

[32]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[34]  Martin J. Pickering,et al.  How Do People Construct Logical Form During Language Comprehension? , 2010, Psychological science.

[35]  J. Connolly,et al.  The effects of phonological and semantic features of sentence-ending words on visual event-related brain potentials. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[36]  Kathleen M. Eberhard,et al.  The Marked Effect of Number on Subject–Verb Agreement☆ , 1997 .

[37]  Marta Kutas,et al.  Verb aspect and the activation of event knowledge. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[38]  Veena D. Dwivedi,et al.  Interpreting Quantifier Scope Ambiguity: Evidence of Heuristic First, Algorithmic Second Processing , 2013, PloS one.

[39]  B. Russell II.—On Denoting , 1905 .

[40]  Natalie A. Phillips,et al.  The neural underpinnings of semantic ambiguity and anaphora , 2010, Brain Research.

[41]  Kathleen M. Eberhard,et al.  The Accessibility of Conceptual Number to the Processes of Subject–Verb Agreement in English☆☆☆ , 1999 .

[42]  Amit Almor,et al.  The neural representation of plural discourse entities , 2014, Brain and Language.

[43]  Natalya Kaganovich,et al.  Matching heard and seen speech: An ERP study of audiovisual word recognition , 2016, Brain and Language.

[44]  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.

[45]  D. Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[46]  Uwe John,et al.  Ocean Acidification Reduces Growth and Calcification in a Marine Dinoflagellate , 2013, PloS one.

[47]  D. Ruchkin,et al.  Toward a functional categorization of slow waves. , 1988, Psychophysiology.

[48]  A. Kok On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[49]  D. Rumelhart Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition , 2017 .

[50]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Computation of semantic number from morphological information , 2005 .

[51]  R. Johnson,et al.  On the neural generators of the P300 component of the event-related potential. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[52]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The 'Good Enough' Approach to Language Comprehension , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[53]  Kathryn Bock,et al.  Number Meaning and Number Grammar in English and Spanish. , 2012 .

[54]  J. Hintikka On denoting what? , 2005, Synthese.

[55]  A. Kim,et al.  Conflict and surrender during sentence processing: An ERP study of syntax-semantics interaction , 2011, Brain and Language.

[56]  Simon P. Liversedge,et al.  Competition During the Processing of Quantifier Scope Ambiguities: Evidence from Eye Movements during Reading , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[58]  E Donchin,et al.  Sequential expectancies and decision making in a changing environment: an electrophysiological approach. , 1982, Psychophysiology.

[59]  R. Knight,et al.  Lateral and Orbital Prefrontal Cortex Contributions to Attention , 2003 .

[60]  H. Kolk,et al.  Accessing world knowledge: evidence from N400 and reaction time priming. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[61]  David Caplan,et al.  Interaction of verb selectional restrictions, noun animacy and syntactic form in sentence processing , 1994 .

[62]  R. Knight Contribution of human hippocampal region to novelty detection , 1996, Nature.

[63]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Referential and quantificational indefinites , 1982 .

[64]  Nikole D. Patson,et al.  Evidence for distributivity effects in comprehension. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[65]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[66]  Christopher Habel,et al.  Representing referents of plural expressions and resolving plural anaphors , 2002 .

[67]  R. Nebes,et al.  Patterns of Hand Preference in a Student Population , 1975, Cortex.

[68]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Situation models in language comprehension and memory. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[69]  Hartmut Leuthold,et al.  Processing Pronouns without Antecedents: Evidence from Event-related Brain Potentials , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.