Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing: An event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture-sentence verification

Abstract

The present study examines the brain-level representation and composition of meaning in scalar quantifiers (e.g., some), which have both a semantic meaning (at least one) and a pragmatic meaning (not all). We adopted a picture-sentence verification design to examine event-related potential (ERP) effects of reading infelicitous quantifiers for which the semantic meaning was correct with respect to the context but the pragmatic meaning was not, compared to quantifiers for which the semantic meaning was inconsistent with the context and no additional pragmatic meaning is available. In the first experiment, only pragmatically inconsistent quantifiers, not semantically inconsistent quantifiers, elicited a sustained posterior negative component. This late negativity contrasts with the N400 effect typically elicited by nouns that are incongruent with their context, suggesting that the recognition of scalar implicature errors elicits a qualitatively different ERP signature than the recognition of lexico-semantic errors. We hypothesize that the sustained negativity reflects cancellation of the pragmatic inference and retrieval of the semantic meaning. In our second experiment, we found that the process of re-interpreting the quantifier was independent from lexico-semantic processing: the N400 elicited by lexico-semantic violations was not modulated by the presence of a pragmatic inconsistency. These findings suggest that inferential pragmatic aspects of meaning are processed using different mechanisms than lexical or combinatorial semantic aspects of meaning, that inferential pragmatic meaning can be realized rapidly, and that the computation of meaning involves continuous negotiation between different aspects of meaning.

The Realization of Scalar Inferences: Context Sensitivity without Processing Cost

“…We note that such an account would still not provide direct evidence of processing cost associated with scalar inferencing–rather, it would suggest evidence of avoidance of inferencing entirely. It does not seem likely that inferences are only realized when a complement set is mentioned, given that inferences seem to be derived in sentences with no complement set (e.g., example (1b) in this article) and there is substantial experimental evidence for rapid and implicit sensitivity to inference-based meanings even in the absence of complement sets ([23], [24], among others). Moreover, anticipatory eye movements reflecting the realization of inferences have been observed following quantifiers, but before the mention of a contrast set or any subsequent referring expression [8], [25].…”

The neural computation of scalar implicature

“…Two previous scalar implicature EEG studies observed negativities in relation to scalar implicature processing (Nieuwland et al, 2010; Politzer-Ahles et al, 2013). Though the distribution and onset of the negativities was different across the two studies, that could be due to the differences in methodology: Politzer-Ahles and colleagues (2013) involved sentence-picture matching whereas Nieuwland and colleagues (2010) used reading-only paradigm.…”

“…Though the distribution and onset of the negativities was different across the two studies, that could be due to the differences in methodology: Politzer-Ahles and colleagues (2013) involved sentence-picture matching whereas Nieuwland and colleagues (2010) used reading-only paradigm. The authors of both studies interpreted their effects as reflecting pragmatic activity related to scalar implicature processing, in which case one might have expected a similar effect in our study.…”

“…Nieuwland, Ditman and Kuperberg (2010) presented participants with sentences made felicitous or infelicitous by a prior scalar implicature ( Some people have pets/?lungs… ), finding a larger N400 to the infelicitous word ( lungs ). 6 Politzer-Ahles, Fiorentino, Jiang, and Zhou (2013) manipulated the felicity of the word some itself: participants were presented with sentences such as Some of the girls are sitting on blankets sun-tanning, after they had seen either a picture in which some-but-not-all of the girls are sitting on blankets sun-tanning (making the scalar implicature-enriched interpretation of the sentence felicitous) or a picture in which all of the girls are sitting on blankets sun-tanning (making the scalar implicature-enriched interpretation of the sentence infelicitous). This resulted in a sustained negativity to some in the infelicitous condition.…”

Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more than less

“…Comprehenders, for their part, must make sense of quantifiers along with reference and predication to arrive at an interpretation of the propositional content of, e.g., Most birds can fly . The project for theories of real-time language comprehension is to determine what quantifier interpretations are constructed and there is growing interest a variety of quantifier types: a selective sample of topics and reports includes investigations of bare cardinal quantifiers (e.g., Frazier, et al, 2005; Kaan, Dallas, & Barkley, 2007; Wijnen & Kaan, 2006); existential quantifiers and their scalar implicatures (e.g., Breheny, Katsos, & Williams, 2006; Huang & Snedeker, 2009; Politzer-Ahles, Fiorentino, Jiang, & Zhou, 2013); consequences of quantifier interpretations for discourse processing (e.g., Paterson, Filik, & Moxey, 2009; Sanford, Dawydiak, & Moxey, 2007); multiple quantification and scope ambiguities (e.g., Dwivedi, 2013; Filik, Paterson, & Liversedge, 2004; Kurtzman & Macdonald, 1993, and quantifiers and long-distance dependencies, e.g., Hackl, Koster-Hale, & Varvoutis, 2012). …”