Dynamics of semantic processing: The interpretation of bare quantifiers

A bare cardinal, such as “four” in the fragment “Five ships sailed out. Four…”, can be interpreted in at least three ways: (1) as four of the five ships mentioned (a “forward directional” reading); (2) as four other ships (a parallel reading); or (3) as four different entities (a non-anaphoric reading). The first reading is preferred, although this preference can be influenced by various factors. In the present study, we investigated at which point during on-line processing bare cardinals are interpreted. Results from a completion task, a difficulty rating task, and an on-line incremental acceptability judgement task suggest that there is an immediate preference to interpret bare cardinals as forward directional, leading to processing difficulty at the cardinal when it is not compatible with such an interpretation (as in “Five ships sailed out. Six…”). However when later information at the verb contradicts a forward directionality reading, revision into a parallel reading is almost effortless.

[1]  A Prince,et al.  Optimality: From Neural Networks to Universal Grammar , 1997, Science.

[2]  P. Smolensky,et al.  Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar , 2004 .

[3]  Richard Shillcock,et al.  Cognitive models of speech processing : the Second Sperlonga Meeting , 1993 .

[4]  Matthew W. Crocker,et al.  Mechanisms for Sentence Processing , 1996 .

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

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

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

[8]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Psychological Studies of Quantifiers , 1994, J. Semant..

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

[10]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Implicit Arguments in Sentence Processing , 1995 .

[11]  Frank Keller,et al.  Phonology competes with syntax: experimental evidence for the interaction of word order and accent placement in the realization of Information Structure , 2001, Cognition.

[12]  G. Altmann Cognitive models of speech processing , 1991 .

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

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

[15]  Jorge Hankamer,et al.  Deep and surface anaphora , 1993 .

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