Underspecified Representations of Scope Ambiguity?

  • Janina Radó
  • Oliver Bott
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7218)


We tested whether quantifier scope is left underspecified until disambiguating information is encountered. We measured reading times while comprehenders read German scope ambiguous doubly quantified sentences with a configuration of quantifiers involving scope conflict. After reading the sentence a disambiguating picture was presented. Half of the pictures were only compatible with surface scope while the other half disambiguated towards inverse scope. To avoid scope reanalysis perceivers should thus delay scope interpretation and maintain an underspecified representation. Contrary to this prediction, indications of scope conflict could be observed already during reading the second quantifier, ie. well before the disambiguation. To find out whether scope computation starts even before the processor has encountered a complete predication, the experiment also included a (inverse linking) construction in which the two quantifiers appeared before the verb. In this configuration we didn’t find any indication of scope conflict at the second quantifier. Taken together, our study provides evidence for immediate scope assignment, but only if the processor is dealing with a complete minimal sentence including not only the quantifiers but also the verbal predicate.


Reading Time Sentence Condition Sentence Construction Inverse Scope Scope Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bott, O.: The processing domain of aspectual interpretation. In: Arsenijevic, B., Gehrke, B., Marín, R. (eds.) Subatomic Semantics of Event Predicates. Springer (to appear)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bott, O., Featherston, S., Radó, J., Stolterfoht, B.: The application of experimental methods in semantics. In: Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., Portner, P. (eds.) Semantics: An International Handbook. De Gruyter (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ebert, C.: Formal investigations of underspecified representations. PhD thesis. London. King’s College (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferreira, F., Patson, N.D.: The ‘Good Enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1-2) (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Filik, R., Paterson, K.B., Liversedge, S.P.: Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11(5) (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greene, S.B., McKoon, G., Ratcliff, R.: Pronoun resolution and discourse models. JEP: LMC, 18 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koller, A., Regneri, M., Thater, S.: Regular tree grammars as formalism for scope underspecification. In: Proceedings of ACL 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurtzman, H.S., MacDonald, M.C.: Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition 48 (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Pafel (2005). Quantifier Scope in German. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paterson, K.B., Filik, R., Liversedge, S.P.: Competition during the processing of quantifier scope ambiguities: Evidence from eye movements during reading. QJEP 61(3) (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sanford, A.J., Sturt, P.: Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. TCS 6(9) (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janina Radó
    • 1
  • Oliver Bott
    • 1
  1. 1.SFB 833University of TübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations