| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Heinat, Fredrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Anaphoric Reference to Quantified Expressions in Swedish
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. - New York City, NY : Springer. - 0090-6905 .- 1573-6555. ; 48:3, s. 551-568
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper presents the results from two studies on anaphoric reference to quantifying expressions (QEs) in Swedish, contributing to the current cross-linguistic discussion on this issue. For English it has been shown that the polarity of the QE (positive vs negative) determines the anaphoric set reference (to the referens set, REFSET, or to the complement set, COMPSET), while for Spanish it has been claimed that while REFSET interpretation is the default, the relative sizes of the two sets (REFSET and COMPSET) also matters. In Experiment 1, a semantic plausibility study. The results showed that for positive QEs, anaphoric reference can only be to the REFSET, while for negative QEs, it can only be to the COMPSET. Unlike in English and Spanish, REFSET continuations were categorically ruled out for negative QEs. To investigate whether the internal differences between QEs could be explained in terms of set size, we conducted Experiment 2, an estimation task. The results from this experiment showed that the size of the REFSET relative to the COMPSET was not a determining factor.
|
|
| 3. |
- Heinat, Fredrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Processing Long-Distance Dependencies in Swedish
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The Fifth Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and Cognition (SALC V), August 19-21, 2015, Trondheim.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Heinat, Fredrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Processing Swedish relative clause extractions : An eyetracking study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: XII International Symposium of Psycholinguistics.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Noun phrases involving relative clauses are assumed to universally comprise syntactic “islands” for extraction, but Swedish exists as a possible exception. Using eyetracking while reading, we investigated whether extraction from Swedish restrictive relative clauses (RCE) ([such old wheelbarrows]1 saw I a man that always washed __1 with benzine...) elicit similar processing costs as extractions from non-restrictive relative clauses, which are known to comprise strong islands (StrongIs); or if they pattern closer to extractions from non-island constructions (NonIs). We also examined to what extent non-linguistic variables (working memory WM, verb-object frequency, and pragmatic-fit) contribute to such differences. Results from a mixed models analysis of the embedded verb (washed) and spillover region (with...) suggest that in early measures, both RCE and NonIs show facilitation relative to StrongIs, but in late measures, RCE patterns closer to StrongIs as WM and pragmatic-fit increase, suggesting that Swedish RCE acceptability is partly dependent on non-linguistic factors.
|
|
| 6. |
- Heinat, Fredrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Quantifiers and Discourse Referents in Swedish : An ERP Study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Eleventh International Conference on the Mental Lexicon 2018. ; , s. 93-93
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this talk, we present the results from an Event Related Potentials (ERP) study on the processing of anaphoric reference to quantied expressions (QEs) in Swedish. QEs pick out proportions of possible members of some set for which a property holds. In (1a) and (1b), for example, some or few members of the set of students attended the lecture.(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.Some and few differ in polarity: some is positive (upward entailing) while few is negative (downward entailing) (Peters and Westerstahl, 2006) and this is of importance when referring back to the QE using anaphoric expressions. The sentence in (1a) is naturally followed by (2a), which is about the students attending the lecture (the reference set, refset). The sentence in (1b), in contrast, is naturally followed by (2b), which is about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set, compset) (e.g. Moxey and Sanford, 1987). While (1b) can in fact be followed either by (2a) or (2b), (1a), cannot be followed by (2b).Filik et al. (2011) is one of few studies of anaphoric reference to QEs in English using online measures (ERP). They report results for positive and negative QEs separately. Each type of QE shows refset and compset eects, as described above, on the disambiguating word. A larger N400 for compset vs. refset continuations for posivive QEs, and the opposite for negative QEs. However, they do not report any results for the contrast between positive and negative QEs in the compset condition. Since this is a very important condition and since it is known that QEs dier across languages (Nouwen, 2010; Tsai et al., 2014), we investigated this issue for Swedish.160 experimental items of four sentences each were manipulated along two dimensions: polarity (positive vs negative quantifier, några vs få in (3)), and set (refset vs compset targeting disambiguating adjective, duktiga vs dåliga in (3)). The quantiers included were: några (`some’), få (`few’), många (`many’), inte många (`not many’), alla (`all’), inga (`no’), nästan alla (`almost all’), inte alla’ (`not all’).(3) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på tentan some/few students wrote well on the-examigår och att deCW var såyesterday and that they were soduktiga/dåligaCW förbryllade professorn.good/bad confused the-professorUnlike Filik et al. (2011) we found that positive QEs showed a pronounced positivity over the central region (FCZ, CZ, CPZ, PZ) in the compset condition relative to negative QEs, in the P600 time span (500{800 ms) after the onset of the critical word (the disambiguating adjective,`bad’). A linear mixed eects model analysis (LmerTest) showed a highly signicant main eect of polarity in the central region and the P600 time span above. We interpret this to mean that for positive QEs, a new discourse referent needs to be introduced following compset reference, while for negative QEs this discourse referentis already available (Burkhardt, 2007).ReferencesBurkhardt, Petra. 2007. The p600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. Neuroreport 18:1851 - 1854.Filik, Ruth, Hartmut Leuthold, Linda M. Moxey, and Anthony J. Sanford. 2011. Anaphoric reference to quantied antecedents: An event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia 49:3786 - 3794.Moxey, Linda M., and Anthony J. Sanford. 1987. Quantiers and focus. Journal of semantics 5:189 - 206.Nouwen, Rick. 2010. What’s in a quantier? In The linguistics enterprise: from knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics, ed. Martin Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah de Mulder, Øystein Nilsen, and Arjen Zondervan, 235 - 256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Peters, Stanley, and Dag Westerståhl. 2006. Quantiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Tsai, C.-Y. Edwin, Gregory Scontras, Kenneth Mai, and Maria Polinsky. 2014. Prohibiting inverse scope: An experimental study of Chinese vs. English. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10 , ed. Christopher Pi~non, 305 - 322. Paris: CSSP.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Heinat, Fredrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Reference to Quantified Expressions in Swedish : an ERP Study
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing 2018. - Berlin : Humboldt-Universita ̈t zu Berlin. ; , s. 167-167
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- We present the results from an Event Related Potentials (ERP) study on the processing of anaphoric reference to quantified expressions (QEs) in Swedish. QEs pick out proportions of possible members of some set for which a property holds. In (1a) and (1b), for example, some or few members of the set of students attended the lecture.(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.Some and few differ in polarity: some is positive (upward entailing) while few is negative (downward entailing) (Peters and Westerståhl, 2006) and this is of importance when referring back to the QE using anaphoric expressions. The sentence in (1a) is naturally followed by (2a), which is about the students attending the lecture (the reference set, REFSET). The sentence in (1b), in contrast, is naturally followed by (2b), which is about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set, COMPSET) (e.g. Moxey and Sanford, 1987). While (1b) can in fact be followed either by (2a) or (2b), (1a), cannot be followed by (2b).Filik et al. (2011) is one of few studies of anaphoric reference to QEs in English using online measures (ERP). They report results for positive and negative QEs separately. Each type of QE shows REFSET and COMPSET effects, as described above, on the disambiguating word. A larger N400 for COMPSET vs. REFSET continuations for positive QEs, and the opposite for negative QEs. However, they do not report any results for the contrast between positive and negative QEs in the COMPSET condition. Since this is a very important condition and since it is known that QEs differ across languages (Nouwen, 2010; Tsai et al., 2014), we investigated this issue for Swedish.160 experimental items of four sentences each were manipulated along two dimensions: polarity (positive vs negative quantifier, några vs få in (3)), and set (REFSET vs COMPSET targeting disambiguating adjective, duktiga vs dåliga in (3)). The quantifiers included were: några (‘some’) ,få (‘few’), många (‘many’), inte många (‘not many’), alla (‘all’), inga (‘no’), nästan alla (‘almost all’), inte alla’ (‘not all’).(3) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på tentan igår och att deCW var så duktiga/dåligaCW förbryllade professorn.some/few students wrote well on the exam yesterday and that they were so good/bad confused the professor.There were four lists with 40 sentences from each condition. Each participant (29 in total, results reported below based on the first 13) only saw one sentence from each item, but saw all types of manipulation. In total, each participant read 400 sentences (160 test items, 240 fillers).Unlike Filik et al. (2011) we found that positive QEs showed a pronounced positivity over the central region (FCZ, CZ, CPZ, PZ) in the COMPSET condition relative to negative QEs, in the P600 time span (500–800 ms) after the onset of the critical word (the disambiguating adjective, ‘bad’). A linear mixed effects model analysis (LmerTest) showed a highly significant main effect of polarity in the central region and the P600 time span above. We interpret this to mean that for positive QEs, a new discourse referent needs to be introduced following COMPSET reference, while for negative QEs this discourse referent is already available (Burkhardt, 2007).
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
