Negative quantifiers and ambiguous reference

• In this study we investigate anaphoric reference to negative and positive quantied expressions (QEs) in Swedish. Anaphoric reference to QEs has been extensively investigated in English. One important factor is the polarity of the QE [see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Some and few, for instance, differ in polarity: some is positive (upward entailing) while few is negative (downward entailing) [6]. When referring back to the QE using an anaphoric pronoun (they below), the sentence in (1a), with some, is naturally followed by (2a), whichis about the students attending the lecture (the reference set, REFSET). The sentence in (1b), with few, in contrast, is naturally followed by (2b), which is about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set, COMPSET) [e.g. 1]. While (1b) can in fact befollowed either by (2a) or (2b), (1a), cannot be followed by (2b).(1) a. Some students attended the lecture.b. Few students attended the lecture.(2) a. They found it very interesting.b. They stayed at home instead.Whether the COMPSET is available for anaphoric reference as default or is introduced via some kind of pragmatic inference is a matter of debate [e.g. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8]. Filik et al. [9] used ERPs to investigate reference to sets in English. The results were that both types of QEs showed REFSET and COMPSET effects. They found a larger N400 for COMPSET vs. REFSET continuations for positive QEs, and the opposite for negative QEs. Their conclusion was that following a negative QE there are more sets available for reference than following a positive QE. However, it should be noted that it is questionable if the effects that are reported are effects of a real N400-component or spurious negativities. As the authors admit, the experimental set up makes it diffcult to interpret some effects. In our study, 160 experimental items of four sentences each, as in (3), were manipulated along two dimensions: polarity (positive vs negative quantier, e.g. några vs få), and set (REFSET vs COMPSET targeting disambiguating adjective, e.g. duktiga vs dåliga).(3) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på  tentan          igår      och att  deCW1 var så     some/few students wrote well on  the-exam yesterday and that they were so     duktigaCW2/dåligaCW2 förbryllade professorn.     good/bad                    confused  the-professor31 participants saw the 160 experimental items, distributed across four lists in Latinsquare design. ERPs were measured on two critical words the pronoun de ('they') (CW1) and a disambiguating adjective, (CW2) picking out either the REFSET (duktiga, 'good'), or the COMPSET (dåliga 'bad') [cf. 9].We performed a linear mixed eects analysis of the data and obtained the following signicant results. On the pronoun, CW1, there was a sustained left anterior negativityin the time span 100-1500ms after CW-onset for negative QEs compared to positive QEs (set-focus is not determined at this point in the sentence). On the disambiguating adjective, CW2, there was an interaction of polarity and set in the posterior region in the P600 span (600-900ms) [10]: positive QEs showed more positivity in the COMPSET condition than in the REFSET; sentences with COMPSET focus (with the adjective dåliga 'bad' in (3)) showed more positivity in the positive QE condition than in the negative QE condition; sentences with REFSET focus (with the adjective duktiga 'good' in (3)) showed more positivity in the negative QE condition than in the positive QE condition.We take the sustained left anterior negativity on CW1 (pronoun) to be an NRef effect [11, 12, 13]. This effect indicates referential ambiguity and thus indicates that negative QEs make both REFSET and COMPSET available for anaphoric reference. This contrasts with positive QEs that only make the REFSET available for anaphoric reference. On the adjective, CW2, there was no signicant distinction between negative QEs in the REF-and COMPSET conditions, indicating that either set can still be in focus. Positive QEs only make the REFSET available and it is therefore problematic to integrate an adjective focussing the COMPSET, as reflected in the P600-effect. Importantly, there were no differences between negative QEs with COMPSET focus and positive QEs with REFSET focus, on the one hand, and the reverse conditions (NEG-REF vs POS-COMP), on the other hand. We take this to indicate that COMPSET is the preferred focus for negative QEs in Swedish and that REFSET is the only possible focus for positive QEs. These results raise important questions about how negative QEs contribute to the construction and processing of the mental discourse model.

Ämnesord

HUMANIORA  -- Språk och litteratur -- Jämförande språkvetenskap och allmän lingvistik (hsv//swe)

HUMANITIES  -- Languages and Literature -- General Language Studies and Linguistics (hsv//eng)

Nyckelord

ERP

acceptability

semantics

sentence processing

Lingvistik

Linguistics

Publikations- och innehållstyp

ref (ämneskategori)

kon (ämneskategori)