Literature DB >> 20438272

Evidence for distributivity effects in comprehension.

Nikole D Patson1, Tessa Warren.   

Abstract

In the current article, we introduce a new methodology for detecting whether a word in a sentence is conceptually represented as plural and use it to shed light on a debate about whether comprehenders interpret singular indefinite noun phrases within a distributed predicate as plural during online reading. Experiment 1 extended a methodology previously used by Berent, Pinker, Tzelgov, Bibi, and Goldfarb (2005) to test individual words or word pairs by having readers judge, at a critical word, whether 1 or 2 words appeared on a computer screen while performing self-paced reading on a sentence presented in 1- and 2-word chunks. In line with Berent et al., Experiment 1 indicated that participants were slower to judge that 1 word was on the screen when the word was plural (e.g., cats) than when it was singular (e.g., cat). Experiment 2 used this paradigm to show that readers build different conceptual representations for distributed versus collective predicates and interpret a singular indefinite noun phrase within a distributed predicate as plural (e.g., Kaup, Kelter, & Habel, 2002; but cf. Filik, Paterson, & Liversedge, 2004; Paterson, Filik, & Liversedge, 2008). PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20438272      PMCID: PMC2864947          DOI: 10.1037/a0018783

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  7 in total

1.  Taking on semantic commitments, II: Collective versus distributive readings.

Authors:  L Frazier; J M Pacht; K Rayner
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1999-02-01

2.  Processing doubly quantified sentences: evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Ruth Filik; Kevin B Paterson; Simon P Liversedge
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-10

3.  Notional number agreement in English.

Authors:  Karin R Humphreys; Kathryn Bock
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-08

4.  Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: evidence from self-paced reading.

Authors:  Benjamin Swets; Timothy Desmet; Charles Clifton; Fernanda Ferreira
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-01

5.  Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: differences in the role of conceptual constraints.

Authors:  G Vigliocco; B Butterworth; M F Garrett
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1996-12

6.  Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities.

Authors:  H S Kurtzman; M C MacDonald
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1993-09

7.  Competition during the processing of quantifier scope ambiguities: evidence from eye movements during reading.

Authors:  Kevin B Paterson; Ruth Filik; Simon P Liversedge
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.143

  7 in total
  4 in total

1.  Bound Variable Singular They Is Underspecified: The Case of All vs. Every.

Authors:  Keir Moulton; Trevor Block; Holly Gendron; Dennis Storoshenko; Jesse Weir; Sara Williamson; Chung-Hye Han
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-06-02

2.  Event-Predictive Cognition: Underspecification and Interaction With Language.

Authors:  Tessa Warren; Haley C Dresang
Journal:  Top Cogn Sci       Date:  2020-03-30

3.  Psycholinguistic Investigation of the Immediate Interpretation of Plural Nouns in the Scope of Sentential Negation in Polish.

Authors:  Piotr Gulgowski; Joanna Błaszczak
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2020-10

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

Authors:  Veena D Dwivedi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.