Anaphoric reference to quantified antecedents: An event-related brain potential study

We report an event-related brain potential (ERP) study examining how readers process sentences containing anaphoric reference to quantified antecedents. Previous studies indicate that positive (e.g. many) and negative (e.g. not many) quantifiers cause readers to focus on different sets of entities. For example in Many of the fans attended the game, focus is on the fans who attended (the reference set), and subsequent pronominal reference to this set, as in, Their presence was a boost to the team, is facilitated. In contrast, if many is replaced by not many, focus shifts to the fans who did not attend (the complement set), and reference to this set, as in, Their absence was disappointing, is preferred. In the current studies, the electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded while participants read positive or negative quantified statements followed by anaphoric reference to the reference set or complement set. Results showed that the pronoun their elicited a larger N400 following negative than positive quantifiers. There was also a larger N400 on the disambiguating word (presence/absence) for complement set reference following a positive quantifier, and for reference set reference following a negative quantifier. Findings are discussed in relation to theoretical accounts of complement anaphora.

[1]  Edward Gibson,et al.  The Processing and Acquisition of Reference , 2011 .

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

[3]  Cornelis H. M. Brunia,et al.  CNV and SPN: Indices of Anticipatory Behavior , 2003 .

[4]  C. Fiebach,et al.  Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: the processing of German WH-questions , 2002 .

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

[6]  A. Sanford,et al.  When is cataphoric reference recognised? , 2008, Cognition.

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

[8]  Ellen F. Lau,et al.  A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400 , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[9]  Ruth Filik,et al.  On-line effects of what is expected on the resolution of plural pronouns , 2009 .

[10]  Gina R. Kuperberg,et al.  Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax , 2007, Brain Research.

[11]  A. Sanford,et al.  Slow potential correlates of preparatory set. , 1974, Biological psychology.

[12]  Edith Kaan,et al.  Processing bare quantifiers in discourse , 2007, Brain Research.

[13]  Hartmut Leuthold,et al.  Processing local pragmatic anomalies in fictional contexts: evidence from the N400. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

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

[15]  Randall Hendrick,et al.  Processing of Reference and the Structure of Language: An Analysis of Complex Noun Phrases , 1999 .

[16]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Constraints on the formation of plural reference objects: The influence of role, conjunction, and type of description , 2004 .

[17]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  A Unified Account of Quantifer Perspective Effects in Discourse , 2007 .

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

[19]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Short Article: They're Digging up the Road Again: The Processing Cost of Institutional They , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  Linda M. Moxey,et al.  Effects of what is expected on the focussing properties of quantifiers: A test of the presupposition-denial account , 2006 .

[21]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The neurocognition of language , 2000 .

[22]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[23]  P. Burkhardt The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory , 2007, Neuroreport.

[24]  R. Filik,et al.  The Effects of Character Desire on Focus Patterns and Pronominal Reference Following Quantified Statements , 2010 .

[25]  Sungryong Koh,et al.  Resolution of the antecedent of a plural pronoun , 2002 .

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

[27]  Morton Ann Gernsbacher,et al.  Comprehending Conceptual Anaphors. , 1991, Language and cognitive processes.

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

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

[30]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Quantifier Polarity and Referential Focus during Reading , 1998 .

[31]  M. Kutas,et al.  Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association , 1984, Nature.

[32]  Ruth Filik,et al.  The on-line processing of written irony , 2010, Cognition.

[33]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  The neurocognition of syntactic processing , 1999 .

[34]  L. Aravind,et al.  Integration of Word Meaning and World Knowledge in Language Comprehension , 2022 .

[35]  Patrick Berg,et al.  Artifact Correction of the Ongoing EEG Using Spatial Filters Based on Artifact and Brain Signal Topographies , 2002, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[36]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension , 2008, Brain Research Reviews.

[37]  Dietmar Roehm,et al.  Differential effects of saliency: An event-related brain potential study , 2007, Neuroscience Letters.

[38]  Rick Nouwen,et al.  Complement Anaphora and Interpretation , 2003, J. Semant..

[39]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[40]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Semantic Integration in Sentences and Discourse: Evidence from the N400 , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[41]  K. Paterson,et al.  Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[42]  Sarah M. Callahan,et al.  Processing anaphoric constructions: Insights from electrophysiological studies , 2008, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

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

[44]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  The Neurocognition of Referential Ambiguity in Language Comprehension , 2008, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[45]  H. Leuthold,et al.  The on-line processing of socio-emotional information in prototypical scenarios: inferences from brain potentials. , 2012, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

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

[47]  A. Sanford,et al.  Communicating Quantities: A Psychological Perspective , 1993 .

[48]  Ruth Filik,et al.  “They” as a gender-unspecified singular pronoun: Eye tracking reveals a processing cost , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[49]  Alan Garnham,et al.  Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora , 2001 .

[50]  Natalie A. Phillips,et al.  An electrophysiological study of mood, modal context, and anaphora , 2006, Brain Research.

[51]  Kerry Ledoux,et al.  The Neural Mechanisms of Coreference , 2008, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[52]  Barbara G. Tabachnick,et al.  Experimental designs using ANOVA , 2006 .

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