We investigated the processing of sentences containing a quantifier scope ambiguity, such as Kelly showed a photo to each critic, which is ambiguous between the indefinite phrase (a photo) having one or many referents. Ambiguity resolution requires the computation of relative quantifier scope, with either a photo or each critic taking wide scope, thereby determining the number of referents. Using eye tracking, we established that multiple factors, including the grammatical function and surface linear order of quantified phrases, along with their lexical characteristics, interact during the processing of relative quantifier scope, with conflict between factors incurring a processing cost. We discuss the results in terms of theoretical accounts attributing sentence-processing difficulty to either reanalysis (e.g., Fodor, 1982) or competition between rival analyses (e.g., Kurtzman & MacDonald, 1993).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonA.Context and the real-time interpretation of scope ambiguityPoster presentation at the 17th Annual CUNY conference on Human Sentence Processing.University of MarylandWashington DCMarch2004.
2.
BaayenR. H.PiepenbrockR.GulikersL. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database [CD-ROM].Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
3.
BeghelliF.StowellT. (1997). Distributivity and negation: The syntax of every and each.SzabolcsiA.Ways of scope taking.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer71–98.
4.
BuntH. (1985). Mass terms and model-theoretic semanticsCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ClarkH. H.ClarkE. V. (1977). Psychology and languageNew York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
6.
ClarkH. H.HavilandS. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract.FreedleR.Discourse production and comprehension.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc1–40.
7.
CliftonC.FrazierL. (2004). Should given information come before new? Yes and no.Memory & Cognition32, 886–895.
8.
CloitreM.BeverT. G. (1988). Linguistic anaphors, levels of representation, and discourse.Language and Cognitive Processes3, 293–322.
9.
DuffyS. A.MorrisR. K.RaynerK. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading.Journal of Memory and Language27, 429–446.
10.
FerreiraF.CliftonC.Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing.Journal of Memory and Language25, 348–368.
11.
FilikR.PatersonK. B.LiversedgeS. P. (2004). Processing doubly quantified sentences: Evidence from eye movements.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11, 953–959.
12.
FodorJ. D. (1982). The mental representation of quantifiers.PetersS.SaarinenE.Processes, beliefs, and questions.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
13.
FrazierL. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review.ColtheartM.Attention and performance: XII. The psychology of reading.Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd559–586.
14.
FrazierL. (1995). Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research24, 437–468.
15.
FrazierL. (1999). On sentence interpretationDordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
16.
GeurtsB. (2002). Specific indefinites, presupposition, and scope.BäuerleR.ReyleU.ZimmermanT. E.Presuppositions and discourse.Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
17.
IoupG. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope.KimballJ.Syntax and semantics.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press4, 37–58.
18.
JackendoffR. S. (1990). On Larson's analysis of the double object construction.Linguistic Inquiry21, 427–456.
19.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1969). On understanding logically complex sentences.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology21, 1–13.
20.
Johnson-LairdP. N.ByrneR. M. J.TabossiP. (1989). Reasoning by model: The case of multiple quantification.Psychological Review96, 658–673.
21.
KurtzmanH. S.MacDonaldM. C. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities.Cognition48, 243–279.
22.
LakoffG. (1971). On generative semantics.SteinbergD.JakobovitL.Semantics.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press232–296.
23.
LarsonR. K. (1988). On the double object construction.Linguistic Inquiry19, 335–391.
24.
LarsonR. K. (1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.Linguistic Inquiry21, 589–632.
25.
MacDonaldM. C.PearlmutterN. J.SeidenbergM. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution.Psychological Review101, 676–703.
26.
PoesioM. (1996). Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity.PetersS.van DeemterK.Semantic ambiguity and underspecification.Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications159–201.
27.
ReinhartT. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretationChicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
SanfordA. J.SturtP. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence.Trends in Cognitive Sciences6, 382–386.
29.
TaborW.TanenhausM. K. (1999). Dynamical models of sentence processing.Cognitive Science23, 491–515.
30.
TraxlerM. J.PickeringM. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study.Journal of Memory & Language35, 454–475.
31.
TraxlerM. J.PickeringM. J.CliftonC. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution.Journal of Memory and Language39, 558–592.
32.
TrueswellJ. C.TanenhausM. K.GarnseyS. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation.Journal of Memory and Language33, 285–318.
33.
TunstallS. L. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processingAmherst: University of Massachusetts Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics.
34.
Van GompelR. P. G.PickeringM. J.TraxlerM. J. (2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models.Journal of Memory and Language45, 225–258.
35.
VendlerZ. (1967). Linguistics in philosophyIthaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
36.
VillaltaV. (2003). The role of context in the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities.Journal of Semantics20, 115–162.
