Literature DB >> 17376422

Scale structure: processing minimum standard and maximum standard scalar adjectives.

Lyn Frazier1, Charles Clifton, Britta Stolterfoht.   

Abstract

Gradable adjectives denote a function that takes an object and returns a measure of the degree to which the object possesses some gradable property [Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland]. Scales, ordered sets of degrees, have begun to be studied systematically in semantics [Kennedy, C. (to appear). Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy; Kennedy, C. and McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81, 345-381; Rotstein, C., and Winter, Y. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: scale structure and higher order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 259-288.]. We report four experiments designed to investigate the processing of absolute adjectives with a maximum standard (e.g., clean) and their minimum standard antonyms (dirty). The central hypothesis is that the denotation of an absolute adjective introduces a 'standard value' on a scale as part of the normal comprehension of a sentence containing the adjective (the "Obligatory Scale" hypothesis). In line with the predictions of Kennedy and McNally (2005) and Rotstein and Winter (2004), maximum standard adjectives and minimum standard adjectives systematically differ from each other when they are combined with minimizing modifiers like slightly, as indicated by speeded acceptability judgments. An eye movement recording study shows that, as predicted by the Obligatory Scale hypothesis, the penalty due to combining slightly with a maximum standard adjective can be observed during the processing of the sentence; the penalty is not the result of some after-the-fact inferencing mechanism. Further, a type of 'quantificational variability effect' may be observed when a quantificational adverb (mostly) is combined with a minimum standard adjective in sentences like "The dishes are mostly dirty", which may receive either a degree interpretation (e.g., 80% dirty) or a quantity interpretation (e.g., 80% of the dishes are dirty). The quantificational variability results provide suggestive support for the Obligatory Scale hypothesis by showing that the standard of a scalar adjective influences the preferred interpretation of other constituents in the sentence.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17376422      PMCID: PMC2259288          DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  12 in total

1.  Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation.

Authors:  J C Sedivy; M K Tanenhaus; C G Chambers; G N Carlson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1999-06-22

2.  Real-time processing implications of enriched composition at the syntax-semantics interface.

Authors:  M M Piñango; E Zurif; R Jackendoff
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  1999-07

3.  Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence.

Authors:  Anthony Sanford; Patrick Sturt
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2002-09-01       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading.

Authors:  Keith Rayner; Tessa Warren; Barbara J Juhasz; Simon P Liversedge
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences.

Authors:  Richard Breheny; Napoleon Katsos; John Williams
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2005-08-22

6.  Amnestying Superiority Violations: Processing Multiple Questions.

Authors:  Charles Clifton; Gisbert Fanselow; Lyn Frazier
Journal:  Linguist Inq       Date:  2006

7.  The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences.

Authors:  Fernanda Ferreira
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Inferences about predictable events.

Authors:  G McKoon; R Ratcliff
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: a suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis.

Authors:  A Pollatsek; A D Well
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  How big is big? Relative and absolute properties in memory.

Authors:  L J Rips; W Turnbull
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1980-06
View more
  5 in total

1.  Partition if You Must: Evidence for a No Extra Times Principle.

Authors:  Charles Clifton; Lyn Frazier
Journal:  Discourse Process       Date:  2013-01-01

2.  Processing and domain selection: Quantificational variability effects.

Authors:  Jesse A Harris; Charles Clifton; Lyn Frazier
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2013

3.  An Intelligent Learning System for Unbiased Prediction of Dementia Based on Autoencoder and Adaboost Ensemble Learning.

Authors:  Ashir Javeed; Ana Luiza Dallora; Johan Sanmartin Berglund; Peter Anderberg
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-21

4.  Processing symbolic magnitude information conveyed by number words and by scalar adjectives.

Authors:  Arnold R Kochari; Herbert Schriefers
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  Scalar Diversity, Negative Strengthening, and Adjectival Semantics.

Authors:  Nicole Gotzner; Stephanie Solt; Anton Benz
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-09-12
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.