Aging and resolution of quantifier scope effects.

Two experiments were conducted to compare young and older adults' processing of complex sentences involving quantifier scope ambiguities. Young adults were hypothesized to use a mix of syntactic processing strategies to interpret sentences such as Every actor used a prop or An actor used every prop. Older adults, particularly those with limited working memories, were hypothesized to rely on a simple pragmatic principle. Participants read the quantifier sentences and judged whether a continuation sentence "made sense." Reading times for the quantifier sentences and decision times and continuation sentence acceptability judgements were analyzed. Whereas young and older adults exhibited similar patterns of reading times for the quantifier sentences, they preferred different continuations for the Every ... a quantifier sentences. As predicted, both young adults and older adults interpreted a quantifier sentence such as An actor used every prop as referring to a single entity resulting in a preference for continuations such as The actor was on the stage. In contrast, young and older adults made different interpretations of a quantifier sentence such as Every actor used a prop; young adults preferred continuations postulating multiple entities such as The props were on the stage whereas older adults, particularly those with working memory limitations, preferred continuations with a single entity such as The prop was on the stage. These results support models of the effects of aging on language processing in which immediate syntactic analysis is not affected by aging or working memory limitations whereas postcomprehension processes are affected by aging and/or working memory limitations.

[1]  Weijia Ni,et al.  Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities , 1996 .

[2]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Meaning and grammar , 1990 .

[3]  M. Just,et al.  Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory , 1991 .

[4]  M. MacDonald,et al.  Individual Differences and Probabilistic Constraints in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution , 1995 .

[5]  S. Kemper,et al.  Younger and older adults' on-line processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences. , 1997, Psychology and aging.

[6]  Paul Gorrell,et al.  Establishing the loci of serial and parallel effects in syntactic processing , 1989 .

[7]  益子 真由美 Argument Structure , 1993, The Lexicon.

[8]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  The Mental Representation of Quantifiers , 1982 .

[9]  Julie E. Boland The Relationship Between Syntactic and Semantic Processes in Sentence Comprehension. , 1997 .

[10]  E. Stine-Morrow,et al.  Resource allocation in on-line reading by younger and older adults. , 1996, Psychology and aging.

[11]  B. MacWhinney Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism , 1987, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[12]  W. C. Shipley A Self-Administering Scale for Measuring Intellectual Impairment and Deterioration , 1940 .

[13]  Carson T. Schütze,et al.  The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[14]  M. Just,et al.  Working Memory Constraints on the Resolution of Lexical Ambiguity: Maintaining Multiple Interpretations in Neutral Contexts , 1994 .

[15]  G. Waters,et al.  Working memory and written sentence comprehension , 1987 .

[16]  G. Waters,et al.  The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: critique of Just and Carpenter (1992) , 1996, Psychological review.

[17]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[18]  Jerrold J. Katz,et al.  Chomsky on Meaning , 1980 .

[19]  J. Shaffer Multiple Hypothesis Testing , 1995 .

[20]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Time-Accuracy Functions for Determining Process and Person Differences: An Application To Cognitive Aging , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Richard L. Lewis Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[22]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Prior expectation and the interpretation of natural language quantifiers , 1993 .

[23]  A Wingfield,et al.  The allocation of memory resources during sentence comprehension: Evidence from the elderly , 1995, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[24]  G. Waters,et al.  Processing resource capacity and the comprehension of garden path sentences , 1996, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[27]  G. Waters,et al.  Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[28]  M A Just,et al.  The capacity theory of comprehension: new frontiers of evidence and arguments. , 1996, Psychological review.

[29]  Susan Kemper,et al.  Language and Aging , 1989, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.

[30]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Sequential and coordinative processing dynamics in figural transformations across the life span , 1996, Cognition.

[31]  R Kliegl,et al.  Sequential and coordinative complexity in time-accuracy functions for mental arithmetic. , 1997, Psychology and aging.

[32]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution , 1994 .

[33]  R Kliegl,et al.  Sequential and coordinative complexity: age-based processing limitations in figural transformations. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  Annabel Cormack,et al.  Ambiguity and quantification , 1981 .