Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-bvlk6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-29T02:55:29.576Z 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
*
†Address for correspondence: Petra Augurzky. e-mail: petra.augurzky@uni-tuebingen.de
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

Information

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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), 159–219.10.1007/BF00350139CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bott, O., & Schlotterbeck, F. (2015). The processing domain of scope interaction. Journal of Semantics, 32(1), 39–92.10.1093/jos/fft015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brothers, T., Swaab, T. Y., & Traxler, M. J. (2015). Effects of prediction and contextual support on lexical processing: prediction takes precedence. Cognition, 136, 135–149.10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 45–76.10.1037/h0076248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). ERPs and domain specificity: beating a straw horse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(6), 653–672.10.1080/016909698386410CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121.10.1038/nn1504CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deschamps, I., Agmon, G., Loewenstein, Y., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2015). The processing of polar quantifiers, and numerosity perception. Cognition, 143, 115–128.10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dotlačil, J., & Brasoveanu, A. (2015). The manner and time course of updating quantifier scope representations in discourse. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(3), 305–323.10.1080/23273798.2014.918631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwivedi, V., Phillips, N. Einagel, S., & Baum, S. (2010). The neural underpinnings of semantic ambiguity and anaphora. Brain Research, 1311, 93–109.10.1016/j.brainres.2009.09.102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1696–1711.10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1696CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filik, R., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Processing local pragmatic anomalies in fictional contexts: evidence from the N400. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 554–558.10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00656.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 400–409.10.1111/j.1469-8986.1983.tb00920.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 193–223.10.1007/s10936-005-3638-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freunberger, D., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Incremental comprehension of spoken quantifier sentences: evidence from brain potentials. Brain Research, 1646, 475–481.10.1016/j.brainres.2016.06.035CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002): Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 45–63.10.1023/A:1014376204525CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 438–441.10.1126/science.1095455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagoort, P., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B: Biological Sciences, 362, 801–811.10.1098/rstb.2007.2089CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 620–634.10.1080/23273798.2014.981195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376–415.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001CrossRefGoogle 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, 246–251.10.1016/j.neulet.2012.11.044CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1582–1589.10.1080/01621459.1970.10481187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124.10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124CrossRefGoogle 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, 157–171.10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E., Dallas, A. C., Barkley, C. M. (2007). Dealing with new discourse referents: an ERP study. Brain Research, 1146, 199–209.10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.060CrossRefGoogle 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, 1033–1050.10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.012CrossRefGoogle 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, 495–506.10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01080.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 621–647.10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 161–163.10.1038/307161a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50018-3CrossRefGoogle 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, 484–502.10.1162/jocn_a_00328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
Lüdtke, J., Friedrich, C., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2008). ERP correlates of negation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1355–1370.10.1162/jocn.2008.20093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Näätänen, R. (1995). The mismatch negativity: a powerful tool for cognitive neuroscience. Ear Hear, 16(1), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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), 324–346.10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1213–1218.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.10.1075/la.150.10nouCrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 89.10.1186/1471-2202-8-89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paterson, K. B., Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. (2009). Quantifiers and discourse processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1390–1402.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00166.xCrossRefGoogle 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, 134–152.10.1016/j.brainres.2012.10.042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1259–1274.10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 29–39.10.1016/j.bandl.2014.07.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 817–840.10.1080/23273798.2016.1161806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinhauer, K., & Drury, J. E. (2012). On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language, 120(2), 135–162.10.1016/j.bandl.2011.07.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1137–1145.10.1037/xge0000086CrossRefGoogle 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, 79–96.10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2010). Quantifiers more or less quantify online: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 158–179.10.1016/j.jml.2010.03.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
Vespignani, F., Canal, P., Molinaro, N., Fonda, S., & Cacciari, C. (2010). Predictive mechanisms in idiom comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 1682–1700.10.1162/jocn.2009.21293CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villalta, Elisabeth. (2003). The role of context in the resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Journal of Semantics, 20, 115–162.10.1093/jos/20.2.115CrossRefGoogle 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), 967–982.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.11.027CrossRefGoogle 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), 684–720.10.1080/01690960500199870CrossRefGoogle 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), 647–653.10.1093/scan/nss042CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Augurzky supplementary material

Augurzky supplementary material

Download Augurzky supplementary material(File)
File 137.6 KB