Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:01:07.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are all the triangles blue? – ERP evidence for the incremental processing of German quantifier restriction*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2016

PETRA AUGURZKY ,
OLIVER BOTT ,
WOLFGANG STERNEFELD  and
ROLF ULRICH
PETRA AUGURZKY*
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, University of Tübingen, and Sonderforschungsbereich 833, University of Tübingen
OLIVER BOTT
Affiliation:
Sonderforschungsbereich 833, University of Tübingen
WOLFGANG STERNEFELD
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, University of Tübingen
ROLF ULRICH
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present ERP study investigates the neural correlates of pictorial context effects on compositional-semantic processing. We examined whether the incremental processing of questions involving quantifier restriction is modulated by the reliability of pictorial information. Contexts either allowed for an unambiguous meaning evaluation at an early sentential position or were ambiguous with respect to whether a further restrictive cue could trigger later meaning revisions. Attention was either guided towards (Experiment 1) or away from (Experiment 2) the picture–question mapping. In both experiments, negative answers elicited a broadly distributed negativity opposed to affirmative answers as soon as an unambiguous truth evaluation was possible. In the presence of ambiguous context information, the truth evaluation initially remained underspecified, as an early commitment would have resulted in the risk of a semantic reanalysis. The negativity was followed by a late positivity in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2, suggesting that attention towards the mismatch affected semantic processing, but only at a later time window. The current results are consistent with the notion that an incremental meaning evaluation is dependent on the reliability of contextual information.

Keywords

language comprehensioncompositional-semantic processingquantifier restrictioncontext effectsevent-related potentialsN400late positivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 603 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The current research was supported by the SFB 833 of the Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Project B1. We would like to thank Fabian Schlotterbeck and Robin Hörnig for valuable advice, Nadine Balbach and Helena Schütze for help with the data acquisition, and Jochen Saile for programming advice.

References

references

Augurzky, P. (2006). Attaching relative clauses in German – the role of implicit and explicit prosody in sentence processing. MPI Series in Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, 77, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics & Philosophy, 4(2), 159–219.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kretzschmar, F., Tune, S., Wang, L., Genç, S., Philipp, M., Roehm, D., & Schlesewsky, M. (2011). Think globally: cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 117(3), 133–152.Google Scholar
Bott, O., & Schlotterbeck, F. (2015). The processing domain of scope interaction. Journal of Semantics, 32(1), 39–92.Google Scholar
Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: prediction takes precedence. Cognition, 136, 135–149.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, P. (2006). Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 98(2), 159–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1975). Sentence comprehension: a psycholinguistic model of verification. Psychological Review, 82, 45–76.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). ERPs and domain specificity: beating a straw horse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(6), 653–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, R. C. N., & Connolly, J. F. (1999). An event-related brain potential study of receptive speech comprehension using a modified Token Test. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1477–1489.Google Scholar
Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deschamps, I., Agmon, G., Loewenstein, Y., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2015). The processing of polar quantifiers, and numerosity perception. Cognition, 143, 115–128.Google Scholar
Dotlačil, J., & Brasoveanu, A. (2015). The manner and time course of updating quantifier scope representations in discourse. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(3), 305–323.Google Scholar
Dwivedi, V., Phillips, N. Einagel, S., & Baum, S. (2010). The neural underpinnings of semantic ambiguity and anaphora. Brain Research, 1311, 93–109.Google Scholar
Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). It’s early: event-related potential evidence for initial interaction of syntax and prosody in speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1696–1711.Google Scholar
Filik, R., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Processing local pragmatic anomalies in fictional contexts: evidence from the N400. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 554–558.Google Scholar
Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & Perry, N. W. J. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20, 400–409.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (2002). Prosodic disambiguation in silent reading. In Hirotani, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 32 (pp. 113–132). Amherst, MA: GSLA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Frazier, L., Clifton, C. Jr., Rayner, K., Deevy, P., Koh, S., & Bader, M. (2005). Interface problems: Structural constraints on interpretation? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 193–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freunberger, D., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Incremental comprehension of spoken quantifier sentences: evidence from brain potentials. Brain Research, 1646, 475–481.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002): Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 45–63.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B: Biological Sciences, 362, 801–811.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, J., Snedeker, J., Liem Azar, S., & Kim, A. (2015). The neural computation of scalar implicature. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(5), 620–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, L., Politzer-Ahles, S., Gibson, L., Minai, U., & Fiorentino, R. (2013). Pragmatic inferences modulate N400 during sentence comprehension: evidence from picture–sentence verification. Neuroscience Letters, 534, 246–251.Google Scholar
Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1970). Conditions under which the mean square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65, 1582–1589.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ito, A., Corley, M., Pickering, M. J., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Predicting form and meaning: evidence from brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 157–171.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Dallas, A. C., Barkley, C. M. (2007). Dealing with new discourse referents: an ERP study. Brain Research, 1146, 199–209.Google Scholar
Kaup, B., Lüdtke, J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed? Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1033–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoeferle, P., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2011). Comprehending visual context influences on incremental sentence comprehension: insights from ERPs and picture–sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 48, 495–506.Google Scholar
Kounios, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 459–479.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 161–163.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994–2005. In Traxler, M. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 2nd ed. (pp. 659–724). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lau, E. F., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. K. (2013). Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 484–502.Google Scholar
Leonhard, T., Ruiz Fernández, S., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2011). Dual-task processing when Task 1 is hard and Task 2 is easy: Reversed central processing order? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 115–136.Google Scholar
Lüdtke, J., Friedrich, C., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2008). ERP correlates of negation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1355–1370.Google Scholar
Näätänen, R. (1995). The mismatch negativity: a powerful tool for cognitive neuroscience. Ear Hear, 16(1), 6–18.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Quantification, prediction, and the online impact of sentences truth-value: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 316–334.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: an ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 324–346.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: an event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19, 1213–1218.Google Scholar
Nouwen, R. (2010). What’s in a quantifier? In Everaert, M., Lentz, T., de Mulder, H., Nilsen, O., & Zondervan, A. (Eds.), The linguistics enterprise: linguistik aktuell 150 (pp. 235–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D. (2007). The why and how of experimental pragmatics: the case of ‘scalar inferences’. In Burton-Roberts, N. (Ed.), Advances in pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–804.Google Scholar
Otten, M., Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Great expectations: specific lexical anticipation influences the processing of spoken language. BMC Neuroscience, 8, 89.Google Scholar
Paterson, K. B., Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. (2009). Quantifiers and discourse processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1390–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2006). Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Politzer-Ahles, S., Fiorentino, R., Jiang, X., & Zhou, X. (2013). Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing: an event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture–sentence verification. Brain Research, 1490, 134–152.Google Scholar
Pritchard, W. S., Shappell, S. A., & Brandt, M. E. (1991). Psychophysiology of N200/N400: a review and classification scheme. In Ackles, P. K., Jennings, J. R., & Coles, M. G. H. (Eds.), Advances in psychophysiology (pp. 43–106). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.Google Scholar
Roehm, D., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Roesler, F., & Schlesewsky, M. (2007). To predict or not to predict: influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic relations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1259–1274.Google Scholar
Sassenhagen, J., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2014). The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned. Brain and Language, 137, 29–39.Google Scholar
Spychalska, M., Kontinen, J., & Werning, M. (2016). Investigating scalar implicatures in a truth-value judgment task: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(6), 817–840.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K., & Drury, J. E. (2012). On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language, 120(2), 135–162.Google Scholar
Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2015). p-hacking by post hoc selection with multiple opportunities: detectability by skweness test? Comment on Simonsohn, Nelson, and Simmons (2014). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 1137–1145.Google Scholar
Urbach, T. P., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more than less. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 79–96.Google Scholar
Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2010). Quantifiers more or less quantify online: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 158–179.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 31, 443–467.Google Scholar
Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C. (2010). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1682–1700.Google Scholar
Villalta, Elisabeth. (2003). The role of context in the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Journal of Semantics, 20, 115–162.Google Scholar
Vissers, C. T., Kolk, H. H., van de Meerendonk, N., & Chwilla, D. J. (2008). Monitoring in language perception: evidence from ERPs in a picture–sentence matching task. Neuropsychologia, 46(4), 967–982.Google Scholar
Westerståhl, D. (1985). Determiners and context sets. In van Benthem, J. & ter Meulen, A. (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 45–71). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Wijnen, F., and Kaan, E. (2006). Dynamics of semantic processing: the interpretation of bare quantifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(6), 684–720.Google Scholar
Wiswede, D., Koranyi, N., Müller, F., Langer, O., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Validating the truth of propositions: behavioral and ERP indicators of truth evaluation processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(6), 647–653.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Augurzky supplementary material

Augurzky supplementary material

Download Augurzky supplementary material(File)
File 137.6 KB