Dataset Information

Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing.

ABSTRACT: The present work suggests that sentence processing requires both heuristic and algorithmic processing streams, where the heuristic processing strategy precedes the algorithmic phase. This conclusion is based on three self-paced reading experiments in which the processing of two-sentence discourses was investigated, where context sentences exhibited quantifier scope ambiguity. Experiment 1 demonstrates that such sentences are processed in a shallow manner. Experiment 2 uses the same stimuli as Experiment 1 but adds questions to ensure deeper processing. Results indicate that reading times are consistent with a lexical-pragmatic interpretation of number associated with context sentences, but responses to questions are consistent with the algorithmic computation of quantifier scope. Experiment 3 shows the same pattern of results as Experiment 2, despite using stimuli with different lexical-pragmatic biases. These effects suggest that language processing can be superficial, and that deeper processing, which is sensitive to structure, only occurs if required. Implications for recent studies of quantifier scope ambiguity are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Dwivedi VD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3835328 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing.

Dwivedi Veena D VD

PloS one 20131120 11

The present work suggests that sentence processing requires both heuristic and algorithmic processing streams, where the heuristic processing strategy precedes the algorithmic phase. This conclusion is based on three self-paced reading experiments in which the processing of two-sentence discourses was investigated, where context sentences exhibited quantifier scope ambiguity. Experiment 1 demonstrates that such sentences are processed in a shallow manner. Experiment 2 uses the same stimuli as Ex ...[more]

PMID: 24278439

Similar Datasets

Project description:Processing of quantifiers such as "many" and "few" relies on number knowledge, linguistic abilities, and working memory. Negative quantifiers (e.g., "few," "less than half") induce higher processing costs than their positive counterparts. Furthermore, the meaning of some quantifiers is flexible and thus adaptable. Importantly, in neurotypical individuals, changing the meaning of one quantifier also leads to a generalized change in meaning for its polar opposite (e.g., the change of the meaning of "many" leads to the change of that of "few"). Here, we extended this research to patients with fluent and non-fluent aphasia after stroke. In two experiments, participants heard sentences of the type "Many/few of the circles are yellow/blue," each followed by a picture with different quantities of blue and yellow circles. The participants judged whether the sentence adequately described the picture. Each experiment consisted of three blocks: a baseline block to assess the participants' criteria for both quantifiers, a training block to shift the criteria for "many," and a test block, identical to the baseline to capture any changes in quantifier semantics. In Experiment 1, the change of the meaning of "many" was induced by using adaptation to small numbers (20-50%) of circles of the named color. In Experiment 2, explicit feedback was given in the training block after each response to rate proportions of 40% (or higher) as "many," whereas 40% is normally rather rated as "few." The objective was to determine whether people with fluent or non-fluent aphasia were able to process quantifiers appropriately and whether generalized semantic flexibility was present after brain damage. Sixteen out of 21 patients were able to perform the task. People with fluent aphasia showed the expected polarity effect in the reaction times and shifted their criteria for "many" with generalization to the untrained quantifier "few." This effect, however, was only obtained after explicit feedback (Experiment 2) but not by mere adaptation (Experiment 1). In contrast, people with non-fluent aphasia did not change the quantifier semantics in either experiment. This study contributes to gaining new insights into quantifier processing and semantic flexibility in people with aphasia and general underlying processing mechanisms.

Dataset Information

Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing.

Publications

Interpreting quantifier scope ambiguity: evidence of heuristic first, algorithmic second processing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets