Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 18:1 (2023) ► pp.41–93

The time-course of contextual modulation for underspecified meaning

An eye-movement study

ORCID logo | National Chengchi University, Taipei | Yale University, New Haven
 | Haskins Laboratories, New Haven
 | Yale University, New Haven
Sentences like (1) “The singer began the album” are ambiguous between an agentive reading (The singer began recording/playing/etc. the album) and a constitutive reading (The singer’s song was the first track). The ambiguity is rooted in the meaning specification of the aspectual-verb class, which demands its complement be construed as a structured individual along a dimension (e.g., spatial, informational, eventive). In (1), the complement can be construed as a set of eventualities (eventive) or musical content (informational). Processing aspectual-verb sentences is shown to involve (a) exhaustive lexical-function retrieval and (b) construal of multiple dimension-specific structured individuals, leading to multiple compositions with agentive and constitutive readings. The ultimate interpretation depends on the biased dimensions in context. Our eye-tracking study comparing sentences in different contexts (agentive vs. constitutive-biasing) shows not only the aspectual-verb composition effect, previously reported for the agentive readings, but also a comparable processing profile for the constitutive readings, a novel finding supporting the unified linguistic analysis and processing implementation of the two readings. Regardless of reading, the composition effect is observable even after the complement has been retrieved, indicating that the fundamental lexico-semantic compositional processes must take place before context can serve as a constraining force.
Keywords: semantic underspecification, context, aspectual verbs, complement coercion, semantic ambiguity, sentence processing, eye-tracking, structured individual
Article outline
  • The current study
  • Methods
    • Materials
    • Participants
    • Apparatus & procedures
    • Data analysis
  • Results
  • Discussion
    • The processing cost of aspectual verb composition (> controls)
    • No immediate effect of biasing context
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20025.lai
References (67)
References
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, 68 (3), 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braze, D., Shankweiler, D., Ni, W., & Palumbo, L. C. (2002). Readers’ eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 31 (1), 25–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1983). What your eyes do while your mind is reading. In Eye movements in reading (pp. 275–307). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., Brennan, S. E., et al. (1991). Grounding in communication. Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 13 1(1991), 127–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In Eye movements (pp. 341–371). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delogu, F., Crocker, M. W., & Drenhaus, H. (2017). Teasing apart coercion and surprisal: Evidence from eye-movements and erps. Cognition, 161 1, 46–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DiNardo, L. (2015). Competing analyses of complement coercion: new evidence from behavioral and electropsychophysiological methods. Senior thesis.
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of memory and language, 27 (4), 429–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elston-Güttler, K. E., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Native and l2 processing of homonyms in sentential context. Journal of Memory and Language, 52 (2), 256–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Bailey, K. G. (2004). Disfluencies and human language comprehension. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8 (5), 231–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current directions in psychological science, 11 (1), 1115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1 (1–2), 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using r. Sage publications.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1999). On sentence interpretation (Vol. 221). Springer Science & Business Media. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1999). Taking on semantic commitments, ii: collective versus distributive readings. Cognition, 70 (1), 87–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of memory and language, 29 (2), 181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3 (1), 111–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S., & McElree, B. (2008). Complement coercion is not modulated by competition: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (1), 1.Google Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25 (6), 1366.Google Scholar
(2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3–4), 149–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 49 (1), 43–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59 (1), 91–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husband, E. M., Kelly, L. A., & Zhu, D. C. (2011). Using complement coercion to understand the neural basis of semantic composition: Evidence from an fmri study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23 (11), 3254–3266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & psychophysics, 40 (6), 431–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological review, 87 (4), 329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karimi, H., & Ferreira, F. (2016). Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 69 (5), 1013–1040. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katsika, A., Braze, D., Deo, A., & Piñango, M. M. (2012). Complement coercion: Distinguishing between type-shifting and pragmatic inferencing. The mental lexicon, 7 (1), 58–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., Pike, G. B., Steinhauer, K., & Gracco, V. (2012). Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An eeg investigation of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and language, 123 (1), 11–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16 (1–2), 262–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 22 (12), 2685–2701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, Y.-Y., Lacadie, C., Constable, T., Deo, A., & Piñango, M. M. (2017). Complement coercion as the processing of aspectual verbs: evidence from self-paced reading and fmri. In Compositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology (pp. 191–222). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, Y.-Y., Lacadie, C., Deo, A., & Piñango, M. M. (2020). Subject animacy and underspecified meaning: The conceptual and cortical underpinnings. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 56 1, 100912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, Y.-Y., & Piñango, M. M. (2019). Searching for specific sentence meaning in context: the conceptual relation between participants. Language and Cognition, 11 (4), 582–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, T., & Swinney, D. (1996). Coreference processing and levels of analysis in object-relative constructions; demonstration of antecedent reactivation with the cross-modal priming paradigm. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25 (1), 524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., Pylkkänen, L., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (2006). A time course analysis of enriched composition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13 (1), 53–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Seely, R. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Reading time evidence for enriched composition. Cognition, 78 (1), B17–B25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onifer, W., & Swinney, D. A. (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias. Memory & Cognition, 9 (3), 225–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Frisson, S. (2001). Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27 (2), 556.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., McElree, B., & Traxler, M. J. (2005). The difficulty of coercion: A response to de almeida. Brain and Language, 93 (1), 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piñango, M. M., & Deo, A. (2016). Reanalyzing the complement coercion effect through a generalized lexical semantics for aspectual verbs. Journal of Semantics, 33 (2), 359–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piñango, M. M., Zurif, E., & Jackendoff, R. (1999). Real-time processing implications of enriched composition at the syntax-semantics interface. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 28 (4), 395–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L., & McElree, B. (2007). An meg study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19 (11), 1905–1921. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software manual]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from [URL]
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin, 124 (3), 372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & cognition, 14 (3), 191–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15 (5), 779.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading and visual search: Effects of word frequency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3 (2), 245–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Sereno, S., & Raney, G. (1996, 11). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 22 1, 1188–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
RStudio Team. (2016). Rstudio: Integrated development environment for r [Computer software manual]. Boston, MA. Retrieved from [URL]
Sanford, A. J., & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6 (9), 382–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Leiman, J. M., & Bienkowski, M. (1982). Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognitive psychology, 14 (4), 489–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E. B., & Grimshaw, J. (1989). Verb processing during sentence comprehension: Contextual impenetrability. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 18 (2), 223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shetreet, E., Linzen, T., & Friedmann, N. (2016). Against all odds: exhaustive activation in lexical access of verb complementation options. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31 (9), 1206–1214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starr, M. S., & Rayner, K. (2001). Eye movements during reading: Some current controversies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5 (4), 156–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D., Prather, P., & Love, T. (2000). The time-course of lexical access and the role of context: Converging evidence from normal and aphasic processing. In Language and the brain (pp. 273–292). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension:(re) consideration of context effects. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 18 (6), 645–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Boland, J. (1990). Combinatory lexical information and language comprehension. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Acl mit press series in natural language processing. cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (p. pp. 383–408). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., McElree, B., Williams, R. S., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). Context effects in coercion: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 53 (1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B. (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47 (4), 530–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tunstall, S. L. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics & processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Vasishth, S., von der Malsburg, T., & Engelmann, F. (2013). What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4 (2), 125–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von der Malsburg, T., & Angele, B. (2017). False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading. Journal of memory and language, 94 1, 119–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2013). Linear models and linear mixed effects models in r with linguistic applications. ar Xiv preprint arXiv:1308.5499.Google Scholar
Zarcone, A., McRae, K., Lenci, A., & Padó, S. (2017). Complement coercion: The joint effects of type and typicality. Frontiers in psychology, 8 1, 1987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ma, Ye, Brian Buccola, Shannon Cousins & Alan Beretta
2024. A self-paced reading study of context effects in the processing of aspectual verbs in Mandarin. Language and Cognition 16:3 ► pp. 705 ff. DOI logo
Piñango, Maria M.
2023. Solving the elusiveness of word meanings: two arguments for a continuous meaning space for language. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 6 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.