1887
Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Sentences like (1) “ are ambiguous between an agentive reading (The singer began recording/playing/etc. the album) and a constitutive reading (The singer’s song was the first track). The ambiguity is rooted in the meaning specification of the aspectual-verb class, which demands its complement be construed as a structured individual along a dimension (e.g., spatial, informational, eventive). In (1), the complement can be construed as a set of eventualities (eventive) or musical content (informational). Processing aspectual-verb sentences is shown to involve (a) exhaustive lexical-function retrieval and (b) construal of multiple dimension-specific structured individuals, leading to multiple compositions with agentive and constitutive readings. The ultimate interpretation depends on the biased dimensions in context. Our eye-tracking study comparing sentences in different contexts (agentive vs. constitutive-biasing) shows not only the aspectual-verb composition effect, previously reported for the agentive readings, but also a comparable processing profile for the constitutive readings, a novel finding supporting the unified linguistic analysis and processing implementation of the two readings. Regardless of reading, the composition effect is observable even after the complement has been retrieved, indicating that the fundamental lexico-semantic compositional processes must take place before context can serve as a constraining force.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20025.lai
2023-02-23
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68(3), 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  3. Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. C.
    (2002) Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 31(1), 25–44. 10.1023/A:1014324220455
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014324220455 [Google Scholar]
  4. Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A.
    (1983) What your eyes do while your mind is reading. InEye movements in reading (pp.275–307). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑583680‑7.50022‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-583680-7.50022-9 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, H. H., Brennan, S. E.,
    (1991) Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 131(1991), 127–149. 10.1037/10096‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K.
    (2007) Eye movements in reading words and sentences. InEye movements (pp.341–371). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑008044980‑7/50017‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044980-7/50017-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Delogu, F., Crocker, M. W., & Drenhaus, H.
    (2017) Teasing apart coercion and surprisal: Evidence from eye-movements and erps. Cognition, 1611, 46–59. 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  8. DiNardo, L.
    (2015) Competing analyses of complement coercion: new evidence from behavioral and electropsychophysiological methods. Senior thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K.
    (1988) Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of memory and language, 27(4), 429–446. 10.1016/0749‑596X(88)90066‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90066-6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Elston-Güttler, K. E., & Friederici, A. D.
    (2005) Native and l2 processing of homonyms in sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 52 (2), 256–283. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ferreira, F., & Bailey, K. G.
    (2004) Disfluencies and human language comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(5), 231–237. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V.
    (2002) Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current directions in psychological science, 11 (1), 1115. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00158
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D.
    (2007) The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1 (1–2), 71–83. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00007.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z.
    (2012) Discovering statistics using r. Sage publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Frazier, L.
    (1999) On sentence interpretation (Vol.221). Springer Science & Business Media. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑4599‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4599-2 [Google Scholar]
  16. Frazier, L., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K.
    (1999) Taking on semantic commitments, ii: collective versus distributive readings. Cognition, 70 (1), 87–104. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00002‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00002-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K.
    (1990) Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of memory and language, 29(2), 181. 10.1016/0749‑596X(90)90071‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7 [Google Scholar]
  18. Frisson, S.
    (2009) Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111–127. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00104.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Frisson, S., & McElree, B.
    (2008) Complement coercion is not modulated by competition: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (1), 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J.
    (1999) The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2001) Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3–4), 149–171. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678893
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678893 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C.
    (2003) The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 43–61. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00022‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00022-6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B.
    (1996) When do speakers take into account common ground?Cognition, 59(1), 91–117. 10.1016/0010‑0277(96)81418‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1 [Google Scholar]
  24. Husband, E. M., Kelly, L. A., & Zhu, D. C.
    (2011) Using complement coercion to understand the neural basis of semantic composition: Evidence from an fmri study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3254–3266. 10.1162/jocn_a_00040
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00040 [Google Scholar]
  25. Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K.
    (1986) Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & psychophysics, 40(6), 431–439. 10.3758/BF03208203
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208203 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jackendoff, R.
    (1997) The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A.
    (1980) A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological review, 87(4), 329. 10.1037/0033‑295X.87.4.329
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329 [Google Scholar]
  28. Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F.
    (2016) Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 69(5), 1013–1040. 10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951 [Google Scholar]
  29. Katsika, A., Braze, D., Deo, A., & Piñango, M. M.
    (2012) Complement coercion: Distinguishing between type-shifting and pragmatic inferencing. The mental lexicon, 7 (1), 58–76. 10.1075/ml.7.1.03kat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.7.1.03kat [Google Scholar]
  30. Klepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V.
    (2012) Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An eeg investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and language, 123(1), 11–21. 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R.
    (2004) Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16 (1–2), 262–284. 10.1080/09541440340000213
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000213 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2010) Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 22(12), 2685–2701. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21333
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21333 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lai, Y.-Y., Lacadie, C., Constable, T., Deo, A., & Piñango, M. M.
    (2017) Complement coercion as the processing of aspectual verbs: evidence from self-paced reading and fmri. InCompositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology (pp.191–222). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑45977‑6_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45977-6_8 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lai, Y.-Y., Lacadie, C., Deo, A., & Piñango, M. M.
    (2020) Subject animacy and underspecified meaning: The conceptual and cortical underpinnings. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 561, 100912. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100912
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100912 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lai, Y.-Y., & Piñango, M. M.
    (2019) Searching for specific sentence meaning in context: the conceptual relation between participants. Language and Cognition, 11 (4), 582–620. 10.1017/langcog.2019.39
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.39 [Google Scholar]
  36. Love, T., & Swinney, D.
    (1996) Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions; demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1), 524. 10.1007/BF01708418
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708418 [Google Scholar]
  37. McElree, B., Pylkkänen, L., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J.
    (2006) A time course analysis of enriched composition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 53–59. 10.3758/BF03193812
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193812 [Google Scholar]
  38. McElree, B., Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Seely, R. E., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2001) Reading time evidence for enriched composition. Cognition, 78(1), B17–B25. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00113‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00113-X [Google Scholar]
  39. Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A.
    (1981) Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9 (3), 225–236. 10.3758/BF03196957
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196957 [Google Scholar]
  40. Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S.
    (2001) Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 556.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., & Traxler, M. J.
    (2005) The difficulty of coercion: A response to de almeida. Brain and Language, 93(1), 1–9. 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  42. Piñango, M. M., & Deo, A.
    (2016) Reanalyzing the complement coercion effect through a generalized lexical semantics for aspectual verbs. Journal of Semantics, 33(2), 359–408. 10.1093/jos/ffv003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv003 [Google Scholar]
  43. Piñango, M. M., Zurif, E., & Jackendoff, R.
    (1999) Real-time processing implications of enriched composition at the syntax-semantics interface. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 28(4), 395–414. 10.1023/A:1023241115818
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023241115818 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1995) The generative lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B.
    (2007) An meg study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(11), 1905–1921. 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1905
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1905 [Google Scholar]
  46. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved fromMhttps://www.R-project.org
  47. Rayner, K.
    (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin, 124 (3), 372. 10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A.
    (1986) Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & cognition, 14 (3), 191–201. 10.3758/BF03197692
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197692 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rayner, K., & Frazier, L.
    (1989) Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 779.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rayner, K., & Raney, G. E.
    (1996) Eye movement control in reading and visual search: Effects of word frequency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(2), 245–248. 10.3758/BF03212426
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212426 [Google Scholar]
  51. Rayner, K., Sereno, S., & Raney, G.
    (1996, 11). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 221, 1188–200. 10.1037/0096‑1523.22.5.1188
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.5.1188 [Google Scholar]
  52. RStudio Team
    RStudio Team (2016) Rstudio: Integrated development environment for r [Computer software manual]. Boston, MA. Retrieved fromMwww.rstudio.com/
  53. Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P.
    (2002) Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(9), 382–386. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)01958‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01958-7 [Google Scholar]
  54. Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M.
    (1982) Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive psychology, 14 (4), 489–537. 10.1016/0010‑0285(82)90017‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90017-2 [Google Scholar]
  55. Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E. B., & Grimshaw, J.
    (1989) Verb processing during sentence comprehension: Contextual impenetrability. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 18(2), 223–243. 10.1007/BF01067783
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067783 [Google Scholar]
  56. Shetreet, E., Linzen, T., & Friedmann, N.
    (2016) Against all odds: exhaustive activation in lexical access of verb complementation options. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31 (9), 1206–1214. 10.1080/23273798.2016.1205203
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1205203 [Google Scholar]
  57. Starr, M. S., & Rayner, K.
    (2001) Eye movements during reading: Some current controversies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(4), 156–163. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01619‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01619-3 [Google Scholar]
  58. Swinney, D., Prather, P., & Love, T.
    (2000) The time-course of lexical access and the role of context: Converging evidence from normal and aphasic processing. InLanguage and the brain (pp.273–292). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑012304260‑6/50016‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012304260-6/50016-5 [Google Scholar]
  59. Swinney, D. A.
    (1979) Lexical access during sentence comprehension:(re) consideration of context effects. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 18(6), 645–659. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(79)90355‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90355-4 [Google Scholar]
  60. Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Boland, J.
    (1990) Combinatory lexical information and language comprehension. InG. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Acl mit press series in natural language processing. cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (p. pp.383–408). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Traxler, M. J., McElree, B., Williams, R. S., & Pickering, M. J.
    (2005) Context effects in coercion: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(1), 1–25. 10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  62. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B.
    (2002) Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(4), 530–547. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(02)00021‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00021-9 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tunstall, S. L.
    (1998) The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics & processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
  64. Vasishth, S., von der Malsburg, T., & Engelmann, F.
    (2013) What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4 (2), 125–134. 10.1002/wcs.1209
    https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1209 [Google Scholar]
  65. von der Malsburg, T., & Angele, B.
    (2017) False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of memory and language, 941, 119–133. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  66. Winter, B.
    (2013) Linear models and linear mixed effects models in r with linguistic applications. ar Xiv preprint arXiv:1308.5499.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Zarcone, A., McRae, K., Lenci, A., & Padó, S.
    (2017) Complement coercion: The joint effects of type and typicality. Frontiers in psychology, 81 1987 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01987
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01987 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20025.lai
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ml.20025.lai
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error