lnu.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Heinat, Fredrik
Publications (10 of 49) Show all publications
Klingvall, E. & Heinat, F. (2019). Ambiguous anaphoric reference in Swedish. In: Ambiguity at the interface of discourse and grammar: Workshop. Rome: March, 28th–29th 2019. Paper presented at Ambiguity at the interface of discourse and grammar. Workshop. Rome: March, 28th–29th 2019. Rome University
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Ambiguous anaphoric reference in Swedish
2019 (English)In: Ambiguity at the interface of discourse and grammar: Workshop. Rome: March, 28th–29th 2019, Rome University , 2019Conference paper, Oral presentation only (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Rome University, 2019
Keywords
reference set, complement set, quantification
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics; Humanities, Swedish
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-90443 (URN)
Conference
Ambiguity at the interface of discourse and grammar. Workshop. Rome: March, 28th–29th 2019
Available from: 2019-12-09 Created: 2019-12-09 Last updated: 2020-02-25Bibliographically approved
Heinat, F. & Klingvall, E. (2019). Anaphoric Reference to Quantified Expressions in Swedish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(3), 551-568
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Anaphoric Reference to Quantified Expressions in Swedish
2019 (English)In: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, ISSN 0090-6905, E-ISSN 1573-6555, Vol. 48, no 3, p. 551-568Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This paper presents the results from two studies on anaphoric reference to quantifying expressions (QEs) in Swedish, contributing to the current cross-linguistic discussion on this issue. For English it has been shown that the polarity of the QE (positive vs negative) determines the anaphoric set reference (to the referens set, REFSET, or to the complement set, COMPSET), while for Spanish it has been claimed that while REFSET interpretation is the default, the relative sizes of the two sets (REFSET and COMPSET) also matters. In Experiment 1, a semantic plausibility study. The results showed that for positive QEs, anaphoric reference can only be to the REFSET, while for negative QEs, it can only be to the COMPSET. Unlike in English and Spanish, REFSET continuations were categorically ruled out for negative QEs. To investigate whether the internal differences between QEs could be explained in terms of set size, we conducted Experiment 2, an estimation task. The results from this experiment showed that the size of the REFSET relative to the COMPSET was not a determining factor.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
New York City, NY: Springer, 2019
Keywords
set focus, semantic plausability
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-81774 (URN)10.1007/s10936-018-9618-z (DOI)000467924000001 ()30584650 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85059078868 (Scopus ID)
Funder
The Crafoord Foundation
Available from: 2019-04-09 Created: 2019-04-09 Last updated: 2019-06-03Bibliographically approved
Klingvall, E. & Heinat, F. (2019). Negative quantifiers and ambiguous reference. In: Sinn und Bedeutung 24: Osnabrück 2019. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 24. Osnabrück 2019 (pp. 1-2). Osnabrück University
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Negative quantifiers and ambiguous reference
2019 (English)In: Sinn und Bedeutung 24: Osnabrück 2019, Osnabrück University , 2019, p. 1-2Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In this study we investigate anaphoric reference to negative and positive quantied expressions (QEs) in Swedish. Anaphoric reference to QEs has been extensively investigated in English. One important factor is the polarity of the QE [see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Some and few, for instance, differ in polarity: some is positive (upward entailing) while few is negative (downward entailing) [6]. When referring back to the QE using an anaphoric pronoun (they below), the sentence in (1a), with some, is naturally followed by (2a), whichis about the students attending the lecture (the reference set, REFSET). The sentence in (1b), with few, in contrast, is naturally followed by (2b), which is about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set, COMPSET) [e.g. 1]. While (1b) can in fact befollowed either by (2a) or (2b), (1a), cannot be followed by (2b).

(1) a. Some students attended the lecture.b. Few students attended the lecture.

(2) a. They found it very interesting.b. They stayed at home instead.

Whether the COMPSET is available for anaphoric reference as default or is introduced via some kind of pragmatic inference is a matter of debate [e.g. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8]. Filik et al. [9] used ERPs to investigate reference to sets in English. The results were that both types of QEs showed REFSET and COMPSET effects. They found a larger N400 for COMPSET vs. REFSET continuations for positive QEs, and the opposite for negative QEs. Their conclusion was that following a negative QE there are more sets available for reference than following a positive QE. However, it should be noted that it is questionable if the effects that are reported are effects of a real N400-component or spurious negativities. As the authors admit, the experimental set up makes it diffcult to interpret some effects. In our study, 160 experimental items of four sentences each, as in (3), were manipulated along two dimensions: polarity (positive vs negative quantier, e.g. några vs ), and set (REFSET vs COMPSET targeting disambiguating adjective, e.g. duktiga vs dåliga).

(3) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på  tentan          igår      och att  deCW1 var så     some/few students wrote well on  the-exam yesterday and that they were so     duktigaCW2/dåligaCW2 förbryllade professorn.     good/bad                    confused  the-professor

31 participants saw the 160 experimental items, distributed across four lists in Latinsquare design. ERPs were measured on two critical words the pronoun de ('they') (CW1) and a disambiguating adjective, (CW2) picking out either the REFSET (duktiga, 'good'), or the COMPSET (dåliga 'bad') [cf. 9].

We performed a linear mixed eects analysis of the data and obtained the following signicant results. On the pronoun, CW1, there was a sustained left anterior negativityin the time span 100-1500ms after CW-onset for negative QEs compared to positive QEs (set-focus is not determined at this point in the sentence). On the disambiguating adjective, CW2, there was an interaction of polarity and set in the posterior region in the P600 span (600-900ms) [10]: positive QEs showed more positivity in the COMPSET condition than in the REFSET; sentences with COMPSET focus (with the adjective dåliga 'bad' in (3)) showed more positivity in the positive QE condition than in the negative QE condition; sentences with REFSET focus (with the adjective duktiga 'good' in (3)) showed more positivity in the negative QE condition than in the positive QE condition.

We take the sustained left anterior negativity on CW1 (pronoun) to be an NRef effect [11, 12, 13]. This effect indicates referential ambiguity and thus indicates that negative QEs make both REFSET and COMPSET available for anaphoric reference. This contrasts with positive QEs that only make the REFSET available for anaphoric reference. On the adjective, CW2, there was no signicant distinction between negative QEs in the REF-and COMPSET conditions, indicating that either set can still be in focus. Positive QEs only make the REFSET available and it is therefore problematic to integrate an adjective focussing the COMPSET, as reflected in the P600-effect. Importantly, there were no differences between negative QEs with COMPSET focus and positive QEs with REFSET focus, on the one hand, and the reverse conditions (NEG-REF vs POS-COMP), on the other hand. We take this to indicate that COMPSET is the preferred focus for negative QEs in Swedish and that REFSET is the only possible focus for positive QEs. These results raise important questions about how negative QEs contribute to the construction and processing of the mental discourse model.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Osnabrück University, 2019
Keywords
ERP, acceptability, semantics, sentence processing
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-90442 (URN)
Conference
Sinn und Bedeutung 24. Osnabrück 2019
Available from: 2019-12-09 Created: 2019-12-09 Last updated: 2020-02-25Bibliographically approved
Heinat, F. & Klingvall, E. (2019). Quantifying expressions and the processing of anaphoric reference. In: Elisabetta Tonini, Luca Bischetti, Francesca Ervas, Filippo Domaneschi, Valentina Bambini (Ed.), Book of Abstracts: XPRAG.it2019. Paper presented at XPRAG.it2019. 3rd Experimental Pragmatics in Italy Conference. September 19-20, 2019 - University of Cagliari - Department of Education, Psychology, Philosophy (pp. 1-2). University of Cagliari
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Quantifying expressions and the processing of anaphoric reference
2019 (English)In: Book of Abstracts: XPRAG.it2019 / [ed] Elisabetta Tonini, Luca Bischetti, Francesca Ervas, Filippo Domaneschi, Valentina Bambini, University of Cagliari , 2019, p. 1-2Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
University of Cagliari, 2019
Keywords
ERP, sentence processing, interpretation
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics Specific Languages
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics; Humanities, Swedish
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-90441 (URN)
Conference
XPRAG.it2019. 3rd Experimental Pragmatics in Italy Conference. September 19-20, 2019 - University of Cagliari - Department of Education, Psychology, Philosophy
Available from: 2019-12-09 Created: 2019-12-09 Last updated: 2020-02-25Bibliographically approved
Klingvall, E. & Heinat, F. (2019). Set focus and reference: an ERP-study. In: Grammatik i Fokus 33, 2019: Lunds Universitet, LUX-huset (Helgonavägen 3). Torsdagen den 7e februari och fredagen den 8e februari 2019. Paper presented at Grammatik i Fokus 33, 2019. Lunds Universitet, LUX-huset (Helgonavägen 3). Torsdagen den 7e februari och fredagen den 8e februari 2019. Lund University
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Set focus and reference: an ERP-study
2019 (English)In: Grammatik i Fokus 33, 2019: Lunds Universitet, LUX-huset (Helgonavägen 3). Torsdagen den 7e februari och fredagen den 8e februari 2019, Lund University , 2019Conference paper, Oral presentation only (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lund University, 2019
Keywords
Sentence processing, quantification, psycholinguistics
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-90444 (URN)
Conference
Grammatik i Fokus 33, 2019. Lunds Universitet, LUX-huset (Helgonavägen 3). Torsdagen den 7e februari och fredagen den 8e februari 2019
Available from: 2019-12-09 Created: 2019-12-09 Last updated: 2020-02-25Bibliographically approved
Klingvall, E. & Heinat, F. (2019). Set size and Reference. In: Sten Vikner's Birthday Workshop: 7 December 2019. Paper presented at Sten Vikner's Birthday Workshop. 7 December 2019 (pp. 5-5). Aarhus University
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Set size and Reference
2019 (English)In: Sten Vikner's Birthday Workshop: 7 December 2019, Aarhus University , 2019, p. 5-5Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

In this talk, we present the results from a semantic plausibility study investigating the effects of setsize on anaphoric reference to quantified expressions (QEs) in Swedish. Determining the referent toanaphoric expressions is at the heart of discourse processing (see e.g. Schumacher, 2017). It is wellknownthat focussed entities have a privileged status for being the antecedents of anaphoric pronouns (Gundel, Hedberg & Zacharski, 1993, among others). QEs are interesting in this connection becausea sub-group of them, negative QEs (monotone decreasing), consistently allows for a switch in focuswhen referred back to (see e.g. Moxey & Sanford, 1987). Positive QEs do not allow this switch. In (1), the intersection of the set of fans (set A) and set of people going to the game (set B) is known asthe REFERENCE SET (REFSET) while the part of Set A that is not in Set B is the COMPLEMENT SET (COMPSET) (i.e. fans not going to the game) (Moxey & Sanford, 1987). Both of the sentences in (1) talkabout fans going to a game, i.e. the REFSET. While (1a) can only be followed by (2a) (still talking aboutthe REFSET), (1b) can be followed by either of the sentences in (2) although many speakers actuallyprefer (2b), where the anaphoric pronoun has the COMPSET as antecedent. (ex. from Sanford, Moxey & Paterson, 1996, 145):

(1) a. Some of the football fans went to the game. (Positive QE)b. Few of the football fans went to the game. (Negative QE)

(2) a. They watched it with enthusiasm. (REFSET)b. They watched it on TV instead. (COMPSET)

(3) Few [small QE]/not all [big QE] fans went to the game and they watched it on TV instead [compset]/with enthusiasm [refset].

Although positive QEs and negative QEs as groups show the reference patterns described above, contextual factors such as explicitly stated expectations can have an effect on the set focus (Moxey, 2006; Moxey, Sanford & Dawydiak, 2001). In addition Filik, Leuthold, Moxey and Sanford (2011) have shownthat in online processing, the REFSET seems to interfere in processing of negative QEs. These issues havebeen extensively studied for English, but hardly at all for other languages. In this study, we investigate how polarity and relative set size affect speakers’ judgement of sentences with anaphoric reference to QEs in Swedish. The results from the study indicate that QEs of both polarities make both REFSET and COMPSET cognitively available to the extent that the unfocussed set interferes with anaphoric reference. However, this availability does not seem to be so strong as to switch set reference. An outstanding question is if the unfocussed set is available to the same extent as any other unfocussed participants ina discourse, or less. We suspect that offline studies of processing cannot answer this question, but it requires online measures of processing.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Aarhus University, 2019
Keywords
Quantification, complement set, reference set
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-90460 (URN)
Conference
Sten Vikner's Birthday Workshop. 7 December 2019
Available from: 2019-12-10 Created: 2019-12-10 Last updated: 2020-02-25Bibliographically approved
Klingvall, E. & Heinat, F. (2019). The effects of setsize on reference resolution in discourse. In: Discourse Expectations: Theoretical, Experimental, and Computational Perspectives (DETEC 2019): . Paper presented at Discourse Expectations: Theoretical, Experimental, and Computational Perspectives (DETEC 2019). Leibniz Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS)
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The effects of setsize on reference resolution in discourse
2019 (English)In: Discourse Expectations: Theoretical, Experimental, and Computational Perspectives (DETEC 2019), Leibniz Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS) , 2019Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Leibniz Centre for General Linguistics (ZAS), 2019
Keywords
Qunatification, complement set, reference set, interpretation, sentence processing
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics Specific Languages
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-90440 (URN)
Conference
Discourse Expectations: Theoretical, Experimental, and Computational Perspectives (DETEC 2019)
Available from: 2019-12-09 Created: 2019-12-09 Last updated: 2020-02-25Bibliographically approved
Klingvall, E. & Heinat, F. (2019). The range of quantifiers: an empirical investigation of set size. In: Ken Ramshøj Christensen, Henrik Jørgensen and Johanna L. Wood (Ed.), The Sign of V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner (pp. 385-404). Aarhus: Aarhus University
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The range of quantifiers: an empirical investigation of set size
2019 (English)In: The Sign of V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner / [ed] Ken Ramshøj Christensen, Henrik Jørgensen and Johanna L. Wood, Aarhus: Aarhus University , 2019, p. 385-404Chapter in book (Refereed)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Aarhus: Aarhus University, 2019
Keywords
quantification, interpretation
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-90436 (URN)10.7146/aul.348.105 (DOI)978-87-91134-05-0 (ISBN)978-87-7507-461-7 (ISBN)
Projects
Setstorlek och referens
Available from: 2019-12-09 Created: 2019-12-09 Last updated: 2020-01-16Bibliographically approved
Klingvall, E. & Heinat, F. (2018). Anaphoric reference to quantifying expressions in Swedish. In: Grammatikk i Norden 2 (GRAMINO): Oslo 15-16 May 2018. Paper presented at Grammatikk i Norden 2 (GRAMINO) : Oslo 15-16 May 2018.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Anaphoric reference to quantifying expressions in Swedish
2018 (English)In: Grammatikk i Norden 2 (GRAMINO): Oslo 15-16 May 2018, 2018Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Both (1) and (2) say that some undefined, small number of students went to the lecture, but the sentences differ in what type of quantifier is used: Några (‘some’) is a positive (upward entailing) quantifier, while (‘few’) is a negative (downward entailing) quantifier (Peters and Westerståhl, 2006).

(1) Några studenter gick på föreläsningen.    some students went to the-lecture

(2) Få studenter gick på föreläsningen.    few students went to the-lecture

When referring back to ‘the students’ in (1) and (2), a difference in which students are referred to can be detected. (1) is naturally followed by (3), which talks about the students attending the lecture (the reference set), while (2) is naturally followed by (4), which talks about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set) (e.g. Moxey and Sanford, 1987). Whereas (3) can also follow (2) (although not as easily as (4)), (4) is only acceptable following (2).

(3) De tyckte den var väldigt intressant.    they thougth it was very interesting

(4) De stannade hemma i stället.    they stayed home instead

Anaphoric reference to quantifiers has been investigated extensively and we know that upward/downward entailment is one factor that influences set-reference in English (see e.g. Moxey and Sanford, 1987; San- ford et al., 1996; Paterson et al., 1998; Moxey et al., 2001; Moxey, 2006; Filik et al., 2011). However, to our knowledge there are no investigations of set-reference in Swedish. As quantifiers do not always behave the same across languages (Nouwen, 2010; Tsai et al., 2014), we investigated this issue for Swedish in a semantic plausibility study where we tested whether quantified expressions gave rise to reference set or complement set interpretations.

The material was manipulated along two dimensions: positive vs negative quantifier (några vs in (5)), and refset vs compset targeting disambiguating adjective (duktiga vs dåliga in (5)). The quantifiers included were: några (‘some’), (‘few’), många (‘many’), inte många (‘not many’), alla (‘all’), inga (‘no’), nästan alla (‘almost all’), inte alla’ (‘not all’).

(5) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på tentan igår och att de var så duktiga/dåligasome/few students wrote well on exam yesterday and that they were so good/bad

förbryllade professorn.confused the-professor

The results were that positive quantifiers with anaphoric reference to the compset were judged as anomalous, and negative quantifiers with anaphoric reference to the refset were judged as anomalous, although there was more variation with regard to the negative ones. As expected, these results are in line with previous studies.

Referenser

Filik, Ruth, Hartmut Leuthold, Linda M. Moxey, and Anthony J. Sanford. 2011. Anaphoric reference to quantified antecedents: An event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia 49:3786–3794.

Moxey, Linda M. 2006. Effects of what is expected on the focussing properties of quantifiers: A test of the presupposition-denial account. Journal of Memory and Language 55:422–439.

Moxey, Linda M., and Anthony J. Sanford. 1987. Quantifiers and focus. Journal of semantics 5:189–206.

Moxey, Linda M., Anthony J. Sanford, and E. Dawydiak. 2001. Denials as controllers of negative quantifier focus. Journal of memory & language 44:427–442.

Nouwen, Rick. 2010. What’s in a quantifier? In The linguistics enterprise: from knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics, ed. Martin Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah de Mulder, Øystein Nilsen, and Arjen Zondervan, 235–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Paterson, Kevin B., Anthony J. Sanford, Linda M. Moxey, and Eugene Dawydiak. 1998. Quantifier polarity and referential focus during reading. Journal of Memory and Language 39:290–306.

Peters, Stanley, and Dag Westerst ̊ahl. 2006. Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sanford, Anthony J., Linda M. Moxey, and Kevin B. Paterson. 1996. Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension. Memory &

Cognition 24:144–155.Tsai, C.-Y. Edwin, Gregory Scontras, Kenneth Mai, and Maria Polinsky. 2014. Prohibiting inverse scope: An experimental study of Chinese vs. English.

In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10, ed. Christopher Pin ̃o ́n, 305–322. Paris: CSSP.

Keywords
polarity, set focus, psycholinguistics
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-78511 (URN)
Conference
Grammatikk i Norden 2 (GRAMINO) : Oslo 15-16 May 2018
Projects
Kvantis
Available from: 2018-10-27 Created: 2018-10-27 Last updated: 2019-01-22Bibliographically approved
Heinat, F. & Klingvall, E. (2018). Quantifiers and Discourse Referents in Swedish: An ERP Study. In: Victor Kuperman (Ed.), Eleventh International Conference on the Mental Lexicon 2018: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada September 25-28, 2018 : Abstract Booklet. Paper presented at 11th International Conference on the Mental Lexicon 2018 (pp. 93-93).
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Quantifiers and Discourse Referents in Swedish: An ERP Study
2018 (English)In: Eleventh International Conference on the Mental Lexicon 2018: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada September 25-28, 2018 : Abstract Booklet / [ed] Victor Kuperman, 2018, p. 93-93Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In this talk, we present the results from an Event Related Potentials (ERP) study on the processing of anaphoric reference to quantied expressions (QEs) in Swedish. QEs pick out proportions of possible members of some set for which a property holds. In (1a) and (1b), for example, some or few members of the set of students attended the lecture.

(1)  a. Some students attended the lecture.    b. Few students attended the lecture.

(2)  a. They found it very interesting.    b. They stayed at home instead.

Some and few differ in polarity: some is positive (upward entailing) while few is negative (downward entailing) (Peters and Westerstahl, 2006) and this is of importance when referring back to the QE using anaphoric expressions. The sentence in (1a) is naturally followed by (2a), which is about the students attending the lecture (the reference set, refset). The sentence in (1b), in contrast, is naturally followed by (2b), which is about the students not attending the lecture (the complement set, compset) (e.g. Moxey and Sanford, 1987). While (1b) can in fact be followed either by (2a) or (2b), (1a), cannot be followed by (2b).

Filik et al. (2011) is one of few studies of anaphoric reference to QEs in English using online measures (ERP). They report results for positive and negative QEs separately. Each type of QE shows refset and compset eects, as described above, on the disambiguating word. A larger N400 for compset vs. refset continuations for posivive QEs, and the opposite for negative QEs. However, they do not report any results for the contrast between positive and negative QEs in the compset condition. Since this is a very important condition and since it is known that QEs dier across languages (Nouwen, 2010; Tsai et al., 2014), we investigated this issue for Swedish.

160 experimental items of four sentences each were manipulated along two dimensions: polarity (positive vs negative quantifier, några vs få in (3)), and set (refset vs compset targeting disambiguating adjective, duktiga vs dåliga in (3)). The quantiers included were: några (`some’), få (`few’), många (`many’), inte många (`not many’), alla (`all’), inga (`no’), nästan alla (`almost all’), inte alla’ (`not all’).

(3) Några/Få studenter skrev bra på tentan    some/few students wrote well on the-exam

igår och att deCW var såyesterday and that they were so

duktiga/dåligaCW förbryllade professorn.good/bad confused the-professor

Unlike Filik et al. (2011) we found that positive QEs showed a pronounced positivity over the central region (FCZ, CZ, CPZ, PZ) in the compset condition relative to negative QEs, in the P600 time span (500{800 ms) after the onset of the critical word (the disambiguating adjective,`bad’). A linear mixed eects model analysis (LmerTest) showed a highly signicant main eect of polarity in the central region and the P600 time span above. We interpret this to mean that for positive QEs, a new discourse referent needs to be introduced following compset reference, while for negative QEs this discourse referentis already available (Burkhardt, 2007).

References

Burkhardt, Petra. 2007. The p600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. Neuroreport 18:1851 - 1854.Filik, Ruth, Hartmut Leuthold, Linda M. Moxey, and Anthony J. Sanford. 2011. Anaphoric reference to quantied antecedents: An event-related brain potential study. Neuropsychologia 49:3786 - 3794.

Moxey, Linda M., and Anthony J. Sanford. 1987. Quantiers and focus. Journal of semantics 5:189 - 206.Nouwen, Rick. 2010. What’s in a quantier? In The linguistics enterprise: from knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics, ed. Martin Everaert, Tom Lentz, Hannah de Mulder, Øystein Nilsen, and Arjen Zondervan, 235 - 256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Peters, Stanley, and Dag Westerståhl. 2006. Quantiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Tsai, C.-Y. Edwin, Gregory Scontras, Kenneth Mai, and Maria Polinsky. 2014. Prohibiting inverse scope: An experimental study of Chinese vs. English. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10 , ed. Christopher Pi~non, 305 - 322. Paris: CSSP.

Keywords
set focus, polarity, psycholinguistics
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Research subject
Humanities, Linguistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-78401 (URN)
Conference
11th International Conference on the Mental Lexicon 2018
Projects
Quantifiers and anaphoric set interpretation
Available from: 2018-10-22 Created: 2018-10-22 Last updated: 2019-01-21Bibliographically approved
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications