Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements
Received: 17 March 2003 Accepted: 19 December 2003 DOI:
Cite this article as: Filik, R., Paterson, K.B. & Liversedge, S.P. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (2004) 11: 953. doi:10.3758/BF03196727 Abstract
We investigated the processing of doubly quantified sentences, such as
Kelly 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.
This research was supported by an Experimental Psychology Society Study Visit Grant and Grant S19168 from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (U.K.). A complete set of experimental materials may be obtained by e-mail from the first author.
Download to read the full article text References Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium. Catlin, J.
Micham, D. L.
(1975). Semantic representations as procedures for verification.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
CrossRef Cloitre, M.
Bever, T. G.
(1988). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse.
Language & Cognitive Processes
CrossRef Ferreira, F.
(1986). The independence of syntactic processing.
Journal of Memory & Language
CrossRef Fodor, J. D. (1982). The mental representation of quantifiers. In S. Peters & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Processes, beliefs, and questions: Essays on formal semantics of natural language and natural language processing (pp. 129–164). Dordrecht: Reidel. Fodor, J. D.
(1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites.
Linguistics & Philosophy
CrossRef Frazier, L., Pacht, J. M.
(1999). Taking on semantic commitments: II. Collective versus distributive readings.
PubMed CrossRef Gillen, K. (1991). The comprehension of doubly quantified sentences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Durham. Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 37–58). New York: Academic Press. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1969). On understanding logically complex sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 1–13. Kurtzman, H. S.
MacDonald, M. C.
(1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities.
PubMed CrossRef Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 232–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335–391. Liversedge, S. P.
Findlay, J. M.
(2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
PubMed CrossRef Micham, D. L., Catlin, J., VanDerveer, N. J.
Loveland, K. A.
(1980). Lexical and structural cues to quantifier scope relations.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
CrossRef Poesio, M. (1996). Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In K. van Deemter & S. Peters (Eds.), Semantic ambiguity and underspecification (pp. 159–201). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Rayner, K.
(1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.
PubMed CrossRef Tunstall, S. L. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Linguistics. van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2000). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 621–648). Oxford: Elsevier. Copyright information
© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004