The Online Processing of Ambiguous Sentences with a Focus Particle only
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study investigates how English-speaking children (5-6 years old) interpret, in real time, scope ambiguous sentences with a preverbal only as in Charlie is only walking the dog. → Charlie is walking [only the dog] (NP Scope)→ Charlie is [only walking the dog] (VP Scope). Prior research suggests adults favor NP scope while children prefer VP scope (Crain et al. 1994). An eye-movement-during-listening paradigm was employed in which participants heard a description of a picture and their eye movements were video-recorded. Also the task used a context-based methodology in which contextual information was provided to help children compute contrast information. The results show that like adults capable of accessing NP scope interpretation, children exhibit a NP scope interpretation. In contrast to previous reports of children’s failure to use contrast information (Paterson et al. 2003), the present study found that children employed contrast information and resolve focus ambiguity by assigning NP scope. This suggests that children, despite presumably less-developed pragmatic knowledge, have the ability to mentally compute a contrast set for sentences with only and access an NP scope interpretation in an adult-like way with the help of contexts.
Abstract
This study investigates how English-speaking children (5-6 years old) interpret, in real time, scope ambiguous sentences with a preverbal only as in Charlie is only walking the dog. → Charlie is walking [only the dog] (NP Scope)→ Charlie is [only walking the dog] (VP Scope). Prior research suggests adults favor NP scope while children prefer VP scope (Crain et al. 1994). An eye-movement-during-listening paradigm was employed in which participants heard a description of a picture and their eye movements were video-recorded. Also the task used a context-based methodology in which contextual information was provided to help children compute contrast information. The results show that like adults capable of accessing NP scope interpretation, children exhibit a NP scope interpretation. In contrast to previous reports of children’s failure to use contrast information (Paterson et al. 2003), the present study found that children employed contrast information and resolve focus ambiguity by assigning NP scope. This suggests that children, despite presumably less-developed pragmatic knowledge, have the ability to mentally compute a contrast set for sentences with only and access an NP scope interpretation in an adult-like way with the help of contexts.
참고문헌 (22)
- Altmann, G, "Interaction with context during human sentence processing", Cognition, 30, pp.191~238 (1988)
- Berger, F, "German 4-Year-Olds’ Comprehension of Sentences Containing the Focus Particle auch (‘also’): Evidence from Eye-Tracking", Proceedings of Boston University Language Development, 31(1), pp.105~116 (2006)
- Cooper, R. M., "The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing", Cognitive Psychology, 6(1), pp.84~107 (1974)
- Crain, S, "Learning, parsing and modularity, In Perspectives on sentence processing", pp.443~467 (1994), Lawrence Erlbaum
- Crain, S, "On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser, In Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives", pp.320~358 (1985), Cambridge University Press
- Crain, S, "Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics" (1998), MIT Press
- Donaldson, M., "Sentences and situations: children’s judgments of match and mismatch, In Problèmes actuels en psycholinguistique", pp.349~376 (1974), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
- Drozd, K. F, "Children’s weak interpretations of universally quantified questions, In Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development", pp.340~376 (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Drozd, K. F, "Dutch children’s interpretation of focus particle constructions", Poster presented at the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (1998)
- Fodor, J. D, "The mental representation of quantifiers, In Processes, beliefs, and questions", pp.129~164 (1982), Reidel
- Frazier, L, "Taking on semantic commitments II: collective versus distributive readings", Cognition, 70, pp.87~104 (1999)
- Frazier, L., "On sentence interpretation" (1999), Reidel
- Ioup, G, "Some universals for quantifier scope, In Syntax and semantics", pp.37~58 (1975), Academic Press
- Johnson-Laird, P. N., "On understanding logically complex sentences", Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, pp.1~13 (1969)
- Johnson-Laird, P. N, "Mental models" (1983), Cambridge University Press
- Kurtzman, H., "Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities", Cognition, 48, pp.243~279 (1993)
- Micham, D. L, "Lexical and structural cues to quantifier scope relations", Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9, pp.367~377 (1980)
- Paterson, K, "Children’s comprehension of sentences with focus particles", Cognition, 89, pp.263~294 (2003)
- Paterson, K. B, "Children’s interpretation of ambiguous focus in sentence with"only"", Language Acquisition, 13, pp.253~284 (2006)
- Reinhart, T., "Anaphora and semantic interpretation" (1983), Routledge
- Rooh, M., "A theory of focus interpretation", Natural Language Semantics, 1, pp.75~116 (1992)
- Sedivy, J. C, "Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities", Journal of Memory and Language, 46, pp.341~370 (2002)