Gricean Expectations in Online Sentence Comprehension: An ERP Study on the Processing of Scalar Inferences

There is substantial support for the general idea that a formalization of comprehenders' expectations about the likely next word in a sentence helps explaining data related to online sentence processing. While much research has focused on syntactic, semantic, and discourse expectations, the present event-related potentials (ERPs) study investigates neurolinguistic correlates of pragmatic expectations, which arise when comprehenders expect a sentence to conform to Gricean Maxims of Conversation. For predicting brain responses associated with pragmatic processing, we introduce a formal model of such Gricean pragmatic expectations, using an idealized incremental interpreter. We examine whether pragmatic expectancies derived from this model modulate the amplitude of the N400, a component that has been associated with predictive processing. As part of its parameterization, the model distinguishes genuine pragmatic interpreters, who expect maximally informative true utterances, from literal interpreters, who only expect truthfulness. We explore the model's non-trivial predictions for an experimental setup which uses picture-sentence verification with ERPs recorded at several critical positions in sentences containing the scalar implicature trigger some. We find that Gricean expectations indeed affect the N400, largely in line with the predictions of our model, but also discuss discrepancies between model predictions and observations critically.

[1]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, Malesand Females, Scientists and Mathematicians , 2001, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[2]  Xiaoming Jiang,et al.  Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing: An event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture-sentence verification , 2013, Brain Research.

[3]  Utako Minai,et al.  Pragmatic inferences modulate N400 during sentence comprehension: Evidence from picture–sentence verification , 2013, Neuroscience Letters.

[4]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Processing Scalar Implicature: A Constraint-Based Approach , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Markus Werning,et al.  The Interaction of Bayesian Pragmatics and Lexical Semantics in Linguistic Interpretation: Using Event-related Potentials to Investigate Hearers' Probabilistic Predictions , 2017, CogSci.

[6]  P. Hagoort The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  Nathaniel J. Smith,et al.  The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic , 2013, Cognition.

[8]  Xiaolin Zhou,et al.  Neural correlates of fine‐grained meaning distinctions: An fMRI investigation of scalar quantifiers , 2017, Human brain mapping.

[9]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. , 2010, Journal of memory and language.

[10]  Bob van Tiel,et al.  Quantity matters: implicatures, typicality, and truth , 2009 .

[11]  Natalie M. Klein,et al.  “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment , 2010, Cognition.

[12]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  Predicting form and meaning: Evidence from brain potentials , 2016 .

[13]  Petra B. Schumacher,et al.  Definiteness Marking Shows Late Effects during Discourse Processing: Evidence from ERPs , 2009, DAARC.

[14]  C. Van Petten,et al.  Prediction during language comprehension: benefits, costs, and ERP components. , 2012, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[15]  I. Noveck,et al.  Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study , 2003, Brain and Language.

[16]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  Great expectations: Specific lexical anticipation influences the processing of spoken language , 2007, BMC Neuroscience.

[17]  Katherine A. DeLong,et al.  Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more than less. , 2015, Journal of memory and language.

[18]  Marta Kutas,et al.  Quantifiers more or less quantify online: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. , 2010, Journal of memory and language.

[19]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  Quantification, Prediction, and the Online Impact of Sentence Truth-Value: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  Feiyan Chen,et al.  Are scalar implicatures automatically processed and different for each individual? A mismatch negativity (MMN) study , 2015, Brain Research.

[21]  R. Levy Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[22]  Andrea E. Martin,et al.  Why the A/AN prediction effect may be hard to replicate: a rebuttal to Delong, Urbach, and Kutas (2017) , 2017 .

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

[24]  Michael Franke,et al.  Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ rule is probably important for pragmatics , 2016 .

[25]  Marta Kutas,et al.  Is there a replication crisis? Perhaps. Is this an example? No: a commentary on Ito, Martin, and Nieuwland (2016) , 2017 .

[26]  Yi Ting Huang,et al.  Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  Incremental comprehension of spoken quantifier sentences: Evidence from brain potentials , 2016, Brain Research.

[28]  Wolfgang Sternefeld,et al.  Are all the triangles blue? – ERP evidence for the incremental processing of German quantifier restriction* , 2016, Language and Cognition.

[29]  John M. Tomlinson,et al.  Possibly All of that and Then Some: Scalar Implicatures Are Understood in Two Steps. , 2013 .

[30]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[31]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Review Pragmatic Language Interpretation as Probabilistic Inference , 2022 .

[32]  Gina R. Kuperberg,et al.  Prediction (or not) during language processing. A commentary on Nieuwland et al. (2017) and DeLong et al. (2005) , 2017, bioRxiv.

[33]  H. Huynh,et al.  Conditions under Which Mean Square Ratios in Repeated Measurements Designs Have Exact F-Distributions , 1970 .

[34]  G. Thierry,et al.  Some Alternatives? Event-Related Potential Investigation of Literal and Pragmatic Interpretations of Some Presented in Isolation , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[35]  Susana Ruiz Fernández,et al.  Dual-task processing when task 1 is hard and task 2 is easy: reversed central processing order? , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  Katherine A. DeLong,et al.  Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[37]  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.

[38]  Jarmo Kontinen,et al.  Investigating scalar implicatures in a truth-value judgement task: evidence from event-related brain potentials , 2016 .

[39]  R. Ulrich,et al.  Incremental generation of answers during the comprehension of questions with quantifiers , 2017, Cognition.

[40]  Albert Kim,et al.  The neural computation of scalar implicature , 2015, CogSci.

[41]  Marianna D. Eddy,et al.  Processing temporal presuppositions: an event-related potential study , 2016 .

[42]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  The N400 as an index of lexical preactivation and its implications for prediction in language comprehension , 2018 .

[43]  木村 和夫 Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[44]  Lewis Bott,et al.  Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences , 2004 .

[45]  Stephen Politzer-Ahles,et al.  Involvement of prefrontal cortex in scalar implicatures: evidence from magnetoencephalography , 2015, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[46]  M. Schlesewsky,et al.  The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned , 2014, Brain and Language.

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