Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 953–959 | Cite as

Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements

  • Ruth Filik
  • Kevin B. Paterson
  • Simon P. Liversedge
Brief Reports
  • 248 Downloads

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Catlin, J., &Micham, D. L. (1975). Semantic representations as procedures for verification.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,4, 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cloitre, M., &Bever, T. G. (1988). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse.Language & Cognitive Processes,3, 293–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferreira, F., &Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. D., &Sag, I. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites.Linguistics & Philosophy,5, 355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frazier, L., Pacht, J. M., &Rayner, K. (1999). Taking on semantic commitments: II. Collective versus distributive readings.Cognition,70, 87–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gillen, K. (1991).The comprehension of doubly quantified sentences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Durham.Google Scholar
  9. Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In J. Kimball (Ed.),Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 37–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1969). On understanding logically complex sentences.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,21, 1–13.Google Scholar
  11. Kurtzman, H. S., &MacDonald, M. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities.Cognition,48, 243–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction.Linguistic Inquiry,19, 335–391.Google Scholar
  14. Liversedge, S. P., &Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 6–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Micham, D. L., Catlin, J., VanDerveer, N. J., &Loveland, K. A. (1980). Lexical and structural cues to quantifier scope relations.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,9, 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.Psychological Bulletin,124, 372–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tunstall, S. L. (1998).The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth Filik
    • 1
  • Kevin B. Paterson
    • 2
  • Simon P. Liversedge
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland
  2. 2.University of LeicesterLeicesterEngland
  3. 3.University of DurhamDurhamEngland

Personalised recommendations