Scope Processing in Chinese

The standard view maintains that quantifier scope interpretation results from an interaction between different modules: the syntax, the semantics as well as the pragmatics. Thus, by examining the mechanism of quantifier scope interpretation, we will certainly gain some insight into how these different modules interact with one another. To observe it, two experiments, an offline judgment task and an eye-tracking experiment, were conducted to investigate the interpretation of doubly quantified sentences in Chinese, like Mei-ge qiangdao dou qiang-le yi-ge yinhang (Every robber robbed a bank). According to current literature, doubly quantified sentences in Chinese like the above are unambiguous, which can only be interpreted as ‘for every robber x, there is a bank y, such that x robbed y–surface scope reading), contrary to their ambiguous English counterparts, which also allow the interpretation that ‘there is a bank y, such that for every robber x, x robbed y–inverse scope reading). Specifically, three questions were examined, that is, (i) What is the initial reading of doubly quantified sentences in Chinese? (ii) Whether inverse scope interpretation can be available if appropriate contexts are provided? (iii) What are the processing time courses engaged in quantifier scope interpretation? The results showed that (i) Initially, the language processor computes the surface scope representation and the inverse scope representation in parallel, thus, doubly quantified sentences in Chinese are ambiguous; (ii) The discourse information is not employed in initial processing of relative scope, it serves to evaluate the two representations in reanalysis; (iii) The lexical information of verbs affects their scope-taking patterns. We suggest that these findings provide evidence for the Modular Model, one of the major contenders in the literature on sentence processing.     

The anomaly of anomaly

In order to determine whether mechanically generated sentences, often referred to in the literature as anomalous, are in fact anomalous, subjects in the present experiment were asked to do two different tasks: a paired-associates learning task involving anomalous sentences as responses, and a second task in which they were asked to interpret such sentences. These tasks were counterbalanced across different groups of subjects. Results of the interpretation task showed that a large proportion of subjects were able to give interpretations for anomalous sentences, while learning results indicated that anomalous sentences were more difficult to anticipate than natural sentencesonly when task order was Learn first, Interpret second. In the order Interpret-Learn, differences in ease of learning between anomalous and naturally occurring sentences did not appear. The results of this study demonstrate that anomalous sentences are interpretable, that a range of difficulty for such sentences can be established, that anomalous sentences are learned as easily as naturally occurring ones after interpretation, and that many of the interpretations given to such sentences are metaphoric in character. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for models of lexical organization.     

Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements

We investigated the processing of doubly quantified sentences, such asKelly showed a photo to every critic, that are ambiguous as to whether the indefinite (a photo) specifies single or multiple referents. Ambiguity resolution requires the computation of relative quantifier scope: Whether a or every takes wide scope, thereby determining how many entities or events are to be represented. In an eye-tracking experiment, we manipulated quantifier order and whether continuations were singular or plural, for constructions with the direct or the indirect object occurring first. We obtained effects consistent with the on-line processing of relative scope at the doubly quantified phrase and considered two possible explanations for a preference for singular continuations to the quantified sentence. We conclude that relative quantifier scope is computed on line during reading but may not be a prerequisite for the resolution of definite anaphors, unless required by secondary tasks.     

In search of ambiguity

A study of the time required for Ss to perceive the two meanings of ambiguous sentences, supports the following conclusions: (I) Perception time (PT) is a function of the type of ambiguity, three of which are defined in this study. (2) A similar relative function was obtained for thePT in sentences with more than one ambiguity and for sentences with only a single ambiguity. (3) ThePT for finding a single ambiguity in such multiply ambiguous sentences was significantly longer than in singly ambiguous sentences. (4) When one of the interpretations of certain types of ambiguous sentences is less likely than the other (where likeliness is defined in terms of the number of Ss perceiving that inter-pretation first)PT is high. (5) Complexity of the surface and underlying structures (which are defined in transformational grammar) is an important determinant of thePT for surface and underlying structure ambiguities, respectively.     

Perceptual complexity of lexical,surface structure,and deep structure types of ambiguous sentences and change in heart rate

Studies comparing lexical, surface-, and deep-structure types of ambiguous sentences with unambiguous ones for perceptual complexity show conflicting findings mainly because of task artifiacts and lack of adequate control of confounding variables. In the present study, three types of ambiguous sentences and matched unambiguous controls were compared. Acceleration and deceleration measures of heart rate (HR) were used since these have been shown to reliably indicate complexity of cognitive activity. The study used a Groups x Ambiguity Condition x Ambiguous Sentence-Type x Sentence-Clusters repeated measures Latin Square ANOVA design which permitted isolation of variance related to the specific ample of sentences used. Eighteen low-bias ambiguous sentences (six from each type) and their control pairs, divided into three lists, were presented to 30 male undergraduates. Analysis of data showed: (1) significant Ambiguity x Type and Ambiguity effects for the percentage of increase in HR during processing of the sentence and, (2) significant effect of Ambiguity for the percentage of decrease in HR. These results were interpreted as showing that while low-bias ambiguous sentences are perceptually more complex than unambiguous ones, the effect of ambiguity may be greater for deep-structure type of ambiguous sentences than for lexical and surface-structure types.     

The logic in language: How all quantifiers are alike,but each quantifier is different

Quantifier words like each, every, all and three are among the most abstract words in language. Unlike nouns, verbs and adjectives, the meanings of quantifiers are not related to a referent out in the world. Rather, quantifiers specify what relationships hold between the sets of entities, events and properties denoted by other words. When two quantifiers are in the same clause, they create a systematic ambiguity. “Every kid climbed a tree” could mean that there was only one tree, climbed by all, or many different trees, one per climbing kid. In the present study, participants chose a picture to indicate their preferred reading of different ambiguous sentences – those containing every, as well as the other three quantifiers. In Experiment 1, we found large systematic differences in preference, depending on the quantifier word. In Experiment 2, we then manipulated the choice of a particular reading of one sentence, and tested how this affected participants’ reading preference on a subsequent target sentence. We found a priming effect for all quantifiers, but only when the prime and target sentences contained the same quantifier. For example, all-a sentences prime other all-a sentences, while each-a primes each-a, but sentences with each do not prime sentences with all or vice versa. In Experiment 3, we ask whether the lack of priming across quantifiers could be due to the two sentences sharing one fewer word. We find that changing the verb between the prime and target sentence does not reduce the priming effect. In Experiment 4, we discover one case where there is priming across quantifiers – when one number (e.g. three) is in the prime, and a different one (e.g. four) is in the target. We discuss how these findings relate to linguistic theories of quantifier meaning and what they tell us about the division of labor between conceptual content and combinatorial semantics, as well as the mental representations of quantification and of the abstract logical structure of language.     

Preposition-phrase attachment in noun phrases

This paper examines the ambiguity of noun phrases (NPs) with postmodifying preposition phrases (PPs), such as the triangle next to the circle below the square. This ambiguity is attributable in part to the difference in attachment sites for the second PP. If it attaches low, it modifies just the NP that is the object of the first preposition, and the resulting structure is right branching. If it attaches high, it modifies the entire preceding NP, and the resulting structure is left branching. However, each of these structures itself has two distinct interpretations. In the case of the high-attachment structure, these different interpretations have been previously noted; we call them stacking and coordinating. In the stacking interpretation, each PP modifies the entire NP to its left, whereas in the coordinating interpretation, it modifies just the head noun to its left (the first noun in the construction). In the case of the low-attachment structure, only the interpretation corresponding to the coordinating one has been noted; we call it alternating. However, a fourth distinct interpretation is possible, which corresponds to the stacking interpretation of the highattachment structure; we call it stuffing. In the alternating interpretation, each preposition has scope only over the head of the NP that is its complement. In the stuffing interpretation, each preposition has scope over its entire complement. In a pilot study, we found that the interpretations based on low attachment are preferred to those based on high attachment by a 21 ratio. Of the two low-attachment interpretations, alternating is preferred to stuffing by a 201 ratio. However, of the two high-attachment interpretations, coordinating is preferred to stacking by only a 21 ratio. In a second pilot study, we examined the pattern of interpretations of phrases with four PP postmodifiers of an NP, which in principle have 112 distinct interpretation types. Eleven of these types were noted in the experimental materials. We provide a detailed analysis of these types and note that the relative preference of the various interpretations found in the first study is preserved.     

关于不可化归的多态式量词句的CCG探析

广义量词理论对英语中一些特定的量词句进行分析,把其中两个单态式量词合并成一个多态式量词。Keenan证明了这个多态式量词的意义不能化归为两个单态式量词的意义,即多态式量词的意义不能从两个单态式量词的标准意义推演出来。Keenan的研究是很有价值的,但本文尝试从另外的角度思考,对汉语类似的多态式量化句进行个案处理,采纳组合范畴语法针对自然语言表层结构的词汇主义方法,遵循部分表达式的意义决定整体表达式意义的组合原则,从两个单态式量词的非标准意义推演出整个多态式量词句的量化意义。     

The effect ofsome andall on reaction time for semantic decisions

Two experiments tested a model proposed by Meyer (1970) to account for the times required to verify semantic-memory statements quantified byall orsome. Each S was presented with bothall andsome statements in a mixed list, and the discriminability of false statements of the two quantifier types was controlled. In Experiment I positive subset statements ("horses are animals") were verified more quickly when quantified byall rather thansome; the reverse ordering occurred for negative subset statements ("horses are not animals"). Sentences with pseudowords in subject or predicate position took longer to reject than false real-word sentences. These findings contradict :Meyer's theoretical predictions and suggest that his earlier results were artifactual. Experiment II replicated the faster verification of positive subset statements quantified byall. This result was further shown to be predictable from the frequency with which Ss gave the predicate as a completion ofAll/Some S are _. The production frequency of predicates which form subset statements was lower when the quantifier wassome rather thanall. However, holding predicate production frequency constant, sentences with different quantifiers were verified equally quickly.     

Children's comprehension of semantic constraints on temporal prepositions

Children's comprehension of the semantic rules for temporal prepositions was investigated. The temporal prepositions werein, on, andat. Lech's (1969) semantic analysis was used as the framework for the study. The contextual property [(x)]→TIM[PERI] with its related constraints indicates the ill-formedness of phrases like^* in noon,^* on January and^* at Saturday. Correct usage of these prepositions is based on the implicit distinction between time with or without duration (period versus moment). Comprehension differences among the prepositions, based on semantic differences were hypothesized, as well as developmental differences across age levels. Thirty-five children at each of three levels (kindergarten, grades 2, and 4) in Experiment 1, and 24 grade 4 children in Experiment 2, judged the appropriateness of sentences containing temporal prepositions and attempted to revise the ill-formed sentences. Significant developmental differences were observed. Kindergarten children could not discriminate between well- and ill-formed sentences; second grade children could discriminate but could not identify the reason for their discrimination, nor could they revise the ill-formed sentences. Fourth grade children could discriminate and identify or revise the ill-formedness. Ability to revise the prepositions was found to be related to cognitive developmental level. None of the children in either experiment were able to articulate the periodicity-moment temporal distinction which provides the basis for the semantic constraints. The awareness of semantic rules for temporal prepositions may be relatively late in developing, perhaps between the ages of 8 and 10 years. An advanced awareness of these rules may develop considerably later.     

A Presuppositional Account of Causal and Temporal Interpretations of <Emphasis Type="Italic">and</Emphasis>

Despite extensive studies, the issue concerning the pragmatic mechanisms leading to causal and temporal interpretations of and remains problematic and has not yet been addressed in its totality within one framework. This paper proposes a solution based on presuppositional mechanisms built into a comprehensive analysis that accounts for both the various interpretations of and-sentences as well as those of other types of sentences involving similar interpretations. This account is a specific part of a unified solution to the knotty problem of different manners of conveying causal and temporal relations both with connectives and also with juxtaposed sentences. It is formulated within the Relevance Nomological Model which provides a general framework for the analysis of causal constructions such as the connective because and why-questions.     

Pronoun disambiguation: Accessing potential antecedents

Two general classes of pronoun disambiguation processes are considered. In reading “Jack threw a snowball at Phil, but he missed,” both possible antecedents of “he” (“Jack” and “Phil”) may be accessed initially. Or, the actual antecedent alone may be accessed after sufficient semantic context is encoded. To evaluate these alternatives, a yes-no-probe recognition task was used to measure priming of the potential antecedents in sentence comprehension. Subjects read sentences similar to the example and were presented a test word immediately following each sentence. Response times for the actual antecedent (“Jack”) and nonantecedent (“Phil”) probes were obtained. Results indicated that the nonantecedent as well as the antecedent was activated (accessed) in pronoun disambiguation. This conclusion was not affected by the ordering of the antecedent and nonantecedent in the first clause.     

Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded while subjects silently read several prose passages, presented one word at a time. Semantic anomalies and various grammatical errors had been inserted unpredictably at different serial positions within some of the sentences. The semantically inappropriate words elicited a large N400 component in the ERP, whereas the grammatical errors were associated with smaller and less consistent components that had scalp distributions different from that of the N400. This result adds to the evidence that the N400 wave is more closely related to semantic than to grammatical processing. Additional analyses revealed that different ERP configurations were elicited by open-class (“content”) and closed-class (“function”) words in these prose passages.     

Harmonic structure as a determinant of melodic organization

Musicians and nonmusicians indicated whether a two-note probe following a tonally structured melody occurred in the melody. The critical probes were taken from one of three locations in the melody: the two notes (1) ending the first phrase, (2) straddling the phrase boundary, and (3) beginning the second phrase. As predicted, the probe that straddled the phrase boundary was more difficult to recognize than either of the within-phrase probes. These findings suggest that knowledge of harmonic structure influences perceptual organization of melodies in ways analogous to the influence of clause relations on the perceptual organization of sentences. They also provide evidence that training plays an important role in refining listeners’ sensitivity to harmonic variables.     

The case of Debbie revisited: A literary perspective

The publication in theJournal of the American Medical Association of a narrative entitled “It's Over, Debbie,” in which a gynecology resident apparently performs euthanasia, has stirred considerable debate characterized by varying interpretations not only of the ethical issues involved but of the meaning of the text itself. Formal analysis reveals the narrative to be strikingly literary in its ambiguity, its foregrounding of its own textuality, and its dominant structure of repetition and reversal. The analysis points to features that account for some of the varying interpretations in the debate, and it calls into question the relation of the text to whatever events it may represent and to how the resident may have perceived these events.     

Processing Down the Garden Path in Japanese: Processing of Sentences with Lexical Homonyms

This paper investigates whether or not Japanese sentences with lexical homonyms cause measurable processing difficulties for Japanese speakers. Pairs of sentences involving lexical homonyms were tested with three types of questionnaires (who-did-what questions, difficulty ratings, and misleadingness ratings) and two experimental tests (an eye-movement monitoring experiment and a self-paced reading experiment). In both the difficulty rating and the misleadingness rating questionnaires, late boundary sentences, in which a phrase boundary followed a homonymous phrase, were rated as significantly more difficult and more misleading than early boundary sentences, where the boundary preceded the homonymous phrase. The results from the eye-movement study and the self-paced reading study showed that the late boundary difficulties were associated with the processing of the regions that followed the homonymous phrases. These results confirmed our prediction that the difficulty of late boundary sentences is likely to be caused by a subject's original misanalysis and subsequent revision. The results are discussed in terms of possible reasons why the early boundary version was preferred in these sentences.     

Children's command of quantification

In this article we present data from two sets of experiments designed to investigate how children and adult speakers of English and Kannada (Dravidian) interpret scopally ambiguous sentences containing numerally quantified noun phrases and negation (e.g. Donald didn't find two guys). We use this kind of sentence as a way to find evidence in children's linguistic representations for the hierarchical structure and the abstract relations defined over these structures (in particular, the relation of c-command) that linguists take to be at the core of grammatical knowledge. Specifically, we uncover the existence of systematic differences in the way that children and adult speakers resolve these ambiguities, independent of the language they speak. That is, while adults can easily access either scope interpretation, 4-year-old children display a strong preference for the scopal interpretation of the quantified elements which corresponds to their surface syntactic position. Crucially, however, we show that children's interpretations are constrained by the surface hierarchical relations (i.e. the c-command relations) between these elements and not by their linear order. Children's non-adult interpretations are therefore informative about the nature of the syntactic representations they entertain and the rules they use to determine the meaning of a sentence from its structure.     

Levels of representation in the interpretation of anaphoric reference and instrument inference

The level of representation accessed when inferences are made during sentence comprehension was examined. The inferences investigated included antecedent assignment for both definite noun phrase anaphors and pronouns and also instrument inferences. In making these inferences, a listener must access the inferred element, whether an antecedent or an instrument, in either a linguistic form representation or a discourse model. The level of representation involved in these inferences was determined by exploiting differences in the lexical-decision and naming tasks, which were argued to exhibit differential sensitivity to representational levels. In three experiments, the priming of antecedent and instrument targets in the lexical decision task was compared with priming of the same targets in the naming task. Differences in the patterns of activation across the two tasks indicated that all three types of inferences required-accessing-elements in a discourse model. Three control experiments ruled out simple context or congruity checking as an explanation for our results. The following conclusions were also supported by these studies: (1) Antecedent assignment occurs immediately after processing an anaphor; (2) antecedent assignment involves inhibition for the inappropriate antecedent rather than facilitation for the appropriate antecedent; (3) although subjects do not make instrument inferences-when they hear isolated sentences containing verbs that strongly imply certain instruments, the inferences are made when sentences are preceded by a context that mentions the instrument.