{"title":"量词大小对语篇模型构建的影响","authors":"Eva Klingvall , Fredrik Heinat","doi":"10.1016/j.jneuroling.2022.101066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Sentences with quantified expressions involve mental representations of sets of individuals for which some property holds (the reference set), as well as of sets for which the property does not hold (the complement set). Both sets can receive discourse focus with negative quantifiers, while the reference set is strongly preferred with positive quantifiers, complement set focus however being possible if contextually motivated. In an offline semantic plausibility study and two online EEG studies, we investigated whether the complement set is an available discourse entity inherently for positive quantifiers, as it is for negative quantifiers. The results show that while the default focus patterns induced by positive and negative quantifiers are robust, both complement and reference set are represented as discourse entities and this is to our knowledge the first study to show that even positive quantifiers make both reference and complement set mentally represented during discourse processing without contextual influence. We also discuss the impact the results from the two ERP studies have on the functional interpretation of two well known ERP effects: the N400 and the P600.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50118,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurolinguistics","volume":"63 ","pages":"Article 101066"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0911604422000100/pdfft?md5=1b2c48e2975ab7f8583ea99acea87116&pid=1-s2.0-S0911604422000100-main.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of quantifier size on the construction of discourse models\",\"authors\":\"Eva Klingvall , Fredrik Heinat\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jneuroling.2022.101066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Sentences with quantified expressions involve mental representations of sets of individuals for which some property holds (the reference set), as well as of sets for which the property does not hold (the complement set). Both sets can receive discourse focus with negative quantifiers, while the reference set is strongly preferred with positive quantifiers, complement set focus however being possible if contextually motivated. In an offline semantic plausibility study and two online EEG studies, we investigated whether the complement set is an available discourse entity inherently for positive quantifiers, as it is for negative quantifiers. The results show that while the default focus patterns induced by positive and negative quantifiers are robust, both complement and reference set are represented as discourse entities and this is to our knowledge the first study to show that even positive quantifiers make both reference and complement set mentally represented during discourse processing without contextual influence. We also discuss the impact the results from the two ERP studies have on the functional interpretation of two well known ERP effects: the N400 and the P600.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neurolinguistics\",\"volume\":\"63 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101066\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0911604422000100/pdfft?md5=1b2c48e2975ab7f8583ea99acea87116&pid=1-s2.0-S0911604422000100-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neurolinguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0911604422000100\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0911604422000100","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The effects of quantifier size on the construction of discourse models
Sentences with quantified expressions involve mental representations of sets of individuals for which some property holds (the reference set), as well as of sets for which the property does not hold (the complement set). Both sets can receive discourse focus with negative quantifiers, while the reference set is strongly preferred with positive quantifiers, complement set focus however being possible if contextually motivated. In an offline semantic plausibility study and two online EEG studies, we investigated whether the complement set is an available discourse entity inherently for positive quantifiers, as it is for negative quantifiers. The results show that while the default focus patterns induced by positive and negative quantifiers are robust, both complement and reference set are represented as discourse entities and this is to our knowledge the first study to show that even positive quantifiers make both reference and complement set mentally represented during discourse processing without contextual influence. We also discuss the impact the results from the two ERP studies have on the functional interpretation of two well known ERP effects: the N400 and the P600.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Neurolinguistics is an international forum for the integration of the neurosciences and language sciences. JNL provides for rapid publication of novel, peer-reviewed research into the interaction between language, communication and brain processes. The focus is on rigorous studies of an empirical or theoretical nature and which make an original contribution to our knowledge about the involvement of the nervous system in communication and its breakdowns. Contributions from neurology, communication disorders, linguistics, neuropsychology and cognitive science in general are welcome. Published articles will typically address issues relating some aspect of language or speech function to its neurological substrates with clear theoretical import. Interdisciplinary work on any aspect of the biological foundations of language and its disorders resulting from brain damage is encouraged. Studies of normal subjects, with clear reference to brain functions, are appropriate. Group-studies on well defined samples and case studies with well documented lesion or nervous system dysfunction are acceptable. The journal is open to empirical reports and review articles. Special issues on aspects of the relation between language and the structure and function of the nervous system are also welcome.