Degree of incrementality is modulated by experimental context – ERP evidence from German quantifier restriction

References

• Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Augurzky, P., Bott, O., Sternefeld, W., & Ulrich, R. (2017). Are all the triangles blue?–ERP evidence for the incremental processing of German quantifier restriction. Language and Cognition, 9(4), 603–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augurzky, P., Franke, M., & Ulrich, R. (2019). Gricean expectations in online sentence comprehension: An ERP study on the processing of scalar inferences. Cognitive Science, 43(8), e12776. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12776.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Augurzky, P., Hohaus, V., & Ulrich, R. (2020). Context and complexity in incremental sentence interpretation: An ERP study on temporal quantification. Cognitive Science, 44(11), e12913. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augurzky, P., Schlotterbeck, F., & Ulrich, R. (2020). Most (but not all) quantifiers are interpreted immediately in visual context. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(9), 1203–1222. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2020.1722846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aurnhammer, C., & Frank, S. L. (2019). Evaluating information-theoretic measures of word prediction in naturalistic sentence reading. Neuropsychologia, 134, Article 107198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baggio, G. (2018). Meaning in the Brain. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11265.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2019). Toward a neurobiologically plausible model of language-related, negative event-related potentials. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(298). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00298.
   Google Scholar
• Bott, O. (2017). Context reduces coercion costs – evidence from eyetracking during reading. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Bott, O., Augurzky, P., Sternefeld, W., & Ulrich, R. (2017). Incremental generation of answers during the comprehension of questions with quantifiers. Cognition, 166, 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brothers, T., Hoversten, L., Dave, S., Traxler, M., & Swaab, T. (2019). Flexible predictions during listening comprehension: Speaker reliability affects anticipatory processes. Neuropsychologia, 135, Article 107225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brothers, T., & Kuperberg, G. (2020). Word predictability effects are linear, not logarithmic: Implications for probabilistic models of sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104174
   Google Scholar
• Brothers, T., Swaab, T., & Traxler, M. (2017). Goals and strategies influence lexical prediction during sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Magnuson, J. S. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(3), 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandes, E. G., Luegi, P., Correa Soares, E., & Hemforth, B. (2018). Adaptation in pronoun resolution: Evidence from Brazilian and European Portuguese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(12), 1986–2008. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filik, R., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Processing local pragmatic anomalies in fictional contexts: Evidence from the N400. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 554–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00656.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fine, A. B., Jaeger, T. F., Farmer, T. A., & Qian, T. (2013). Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. PloS One, 8(10), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & N. W. Perry, Jr. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20(4), 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1983.tb00920.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998–998. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., & Willems, R. M. (2017). Word predictability and semantic similarity show distinct patterns of brain activity during language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(9), 1192–1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1323109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freunberger, D., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Incremental comprehension of spoken quantifier sentences: Evidence from brain potentials. Brain Research, 1646, 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.06.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froman, T., & Shneyderman, A. (2004). Replicability reconsidered: An excessive range of possibilities. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0304_9
   Google Scholar
• Geurts, B., & Van der Sandt, R. (1999). Domain restriction. In P. Bosch & R. Van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grey, S., & van Hell, J. (2017). Foreign-accented speaker identity affects neural correlates of language comprehension. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 42, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (Speech Acts Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haase, V., Spychalska, M., & Werning, M. (2019). Investigating the comprehension of negated sentences employing world knowledge: An event-related potential study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2184). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02184.
   Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science (New York, N.Y.), 304(5669), 438–441. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., & Van Berkum, J. (2007). Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 801–811. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2089
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington Stack, C., James, A., & Watson, D. (2018). A failure to replicate rapid syntactic adaptation in comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 46(6), 864–877. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0808-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope, R. M. (2013). Rmisc: Rmisc: Ryan miscellaneous (R package version 1.5) [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Rmisc.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Y., & Ferreira, F. (2020). The application of signal detection theory to acceptability judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(73). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00073.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 376–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2018). Some inferences still take time: Prosody, predictability, and the speed of scalar implicatures. Cognitive Psychology, 102, 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2018.01.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt, L., Politzer-Ahles, S., Gibson, L., Minai, U., & Fiorentino, R. (2013). Pragmatic inferences modulate N400 during sentence comprehension: Evidence from picture-sentence verification. Neuroscience Letters, 534, 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.11.044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito, A., Corley, M., M. J. Pickering, Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Predicting form and meaning: Evidence from brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017). How robust are prediction effects in language comprehension? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 954–965. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1242761
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T., Bushong, W., & Burchill, Z. (2019). Strong evidence for expectation adaptation during language understanding, not a replication failure. a reply to harrington stack, james, and watson (2018). Unversity of Rochester. Retrieved from https://wbushong.github.io/publications/pub_files/Jaeger_etal_response.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Koornneef, A. W. (2008). Eye-catching anaphora [Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University]. Retrieved from https://www.lotpublications.nl/eye-catching-anaphora-eye-catching-anaphora
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/307161a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. K., & Kluender, R.. (2006) ). Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994–2005). In M.J. Traxler & M.A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 659–724). Academic Press.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50018-3.
   Google Scholar
• Leonhard, T., Ruiz Fernández, S., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2011). Dual-task processing when task 1 is hard and task 2 is easy: Reversed central processing order?. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine, M., & Ensom, M. H. H. (2001). Post hoc power analysis: An idea whose time has passed?. Pharmacotherapy, 21(4), 405–409. https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.21.5.405.34503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, R. L., & Vasishth, S. (2005). An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 375–419. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lifschitz, V. (1985). Closed-world databases and circumscription. Artificial Intelligence, 27(2), 229–235 .https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(85)90055-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lifschitz, V. (1996). Foundations of logic programming. In G. Brewka (Ed.), Principles of Knowledge Representation (pp. 69–128). CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J. (2009). What is the probability of replicating a statistically significant effect?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 617–640. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.617
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Quantification, prediction, and the online impact of sentence truth-value: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(2), 316–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Dittman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 324–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., Zu Wolfsthurn, S. V. G., Bartolozzi, F., Kogan, V., Ito, A., Mézière, D., Barr, D. J., Rousselet, G. A., Ferguson, H. J., Busch-Moreno, S., Fu, X., Tuomainen, J., Kulakova, E., Husband, E. M., …Huettig, F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. eLife, 7, Article e33468. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2006). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.7.1098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noveck, I., & Posada, A. (2003, May). Characterizing the time course of an implicature: An evoked potentials study. Brain and Language, 85(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00053-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2007). Great expectations: Specific lexical anticipation influences the processing of spoken language. BMC Neuroscience, 8(89). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-8-89
   Google Scholar
• Politzer-Ahles, S., Fiorentino, R., Jiang, X., & Zhou, X. (2013). Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing: An event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture-sentence verification. Brain Research, 1490, 134–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.10.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Politzer-Ahles, S., & Gwilliams, L. (2015). Involvement of prefrontal cortex in scalar implicatures: Evidence from magnetoencephalography. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(7), 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1027235
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qing, C., & Franke, M. (2015). Variations on a Bayesian theme: Comparing Bayesian models of referential reasoning. In H. C. Schmitz and H. Zeevat (Eds.), Bayesian natural language semantics and pragmatics (pp. 201–220). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rabovsky, M., Hansen, S. S., & McClelland, J. L. (2018). Modelling the N400 brain potential as change in a probabilistic representation of meaning. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0406-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an inte- grated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon and A. Kathol (Eds.), Papers in semantics (Vol. 49, pp. 6–67). The Ohio State University. http://linguistics.osu.edu/files/linguistics/workingpapers/osu_wpl_49.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13(1), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160894
   Google Scholar
• Spychalska, M., Kontinen, J., & Werning, M. (2016). Investigating scalar implicatures in a truth-value judgement task: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(6), 817–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1161806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2008). Human reasoning and cognitive science. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M., Spivey, M., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science (New York, N.Y.), 268(5217), 1632–1634. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, Y., H. J. Ferguson, & Breheny, R. (2010). Why we simulate negated information: A dynamic pragmatic account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(12), 2305–2312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.525712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tiemann, S., Schmid, M., Bade, N., Rolke, B., Hertrich, I., Ackermann, H., Knapp, J., & Beck, S.. (2011). Psycholinguistic evidence for presuppositions: On-line and off-line data. In I. Reich, E. Horch, & D. Pauly (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 15, pp. 581–596). https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/401.
   Google Scholar
• Urbach, T. P., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more than less. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J., Van den Brink, D., Tesink, C., Kos, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2005). The proper treatment of events. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• van Tiel, B., Franke, M., & Sauerland, U. (2021). Probabilistic pragmatics explains gradience and focality in natural language quantification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2005453118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005453118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weigand, E. (1993). Word meaning and utterance meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(3), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90049-U
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt, D., Dau, T., & Hjortkjær, J. (2016). Impact of background noise and sentence complexity on processing demands during sentence comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00345
   Google Scholar
• Wickens, T. (2001). Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar