Hey Little Sister, Who's the Only One? Modulating Informativeness in the Resolution of Privative Ambiguity
Cognitive Science 39 (7):1646-1674 (2015)
AbstractWe present two eye-tracking experiments on the interpretation of sentences like “The tall girl is the only one that …,” which are ambiguous between the anaphoric and the exophoric interpretation. These interpretations differ in informativeness: in a positive context, the exophoric reading entails the anaphoric, while in a negative context the entailment pattern is reversed and the anaphoric reading is the strongest one. We tested whether adults rely on considerations about informativeness in solving the ambiguity. The results show that participants interpreted one exophorically in both positive and negative contexts. Given these findings, we cast doubts on the idea that Informativeness plays a role in ambiguity resolution and proposes a Principle of Maximal Exploitation: When a context is provided, adults extend their domain of evaluation to include the whole scenario, independently from truth-conditional considerations about informativity and strength
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided Between QR and Choice Functions. [REVIEW]Tanya Reinhart - 1997 - Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (4):335-397.
Incremental Interpretation at Verbs: Restricting the Domain of Subsequent Reference.Gerry T. M. Altmann & Yuki Kamide - 1999 - Cognition 73 (3):247-264.
Similar books and articles
The Role of Context in the Resolution of Quantifier Scope Ambiguities.E. Villalta - 2003 - Journal of Semantics 20 (2):115-162.
Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity.Graeme Hirst - 1987 - Cambridge University Press.
The Price for Information About Probabilities and its Relation with Risk and Ambiguity.Giuseppe Attanasi & Aldo Montesano - 2012 - Theory and Decision 73 (1):125-160.
Aging and the Use of Context in Ambiguity Resolution: Complex Changes From Simple Slowing.Karen Stevens Dagerman, Maryellen C. MacDonald & Michael W. Harm - 2006 - Cognitive Science 30 (2):311-345.
Semantic Paradox and Semantic Change.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2000:113-124.
Impulse Processing: A Dynamical Systems Model of Incremental Eye Movements in the Visual World Paradigm.Anuenue Kukona & Whitney Tabor - 2011 - Cognitive Science 35 (6):1009-1051.
Word-Ambiguity, World-Switching, and Semantic Intentions.Sanford C. Goldberg - 2000 - Analysis 60 (3):260-264.
Modelling the Effects of Semantic Ambiguity in Word Recognition.Jennifer M. Rodd, M. Gareth Gaskell & William D. Marslen-Wilson - 2004 - Cognitive Science 28 (1):89-104.
Ambiguity, Generality, and Indeterminacy: Tests and Definitions. [REVIEW]Brendan S. Gillon - 1990 - Synthese 85 (3):391 - 416.
A Generalization of Specker's Theorem on Typical Ambiguity.Richard Kaye - 1991 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (2):458-466.
Religious Ambiguity in Hick’s Religious Pluralism.Amir Dastmalchian - 2009 - International Journal of Hekmat 1:75-89.