Advertisement

Definites, Domain Restriction, and Discourse Structure in Online Processing

  • Florian SchwarzEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 48)

Abstract

Definite descriptions are commonly assumed to involve a uniqueness requirement, which is crucially constrained by contextual domain restriction. Theoretical proposals differ with regards to whether a variable for domain restriction should be represented in the linguistic representation or not, and if so, whether it should be seen as contributing a property or a situation. From the perspective of actual language use and comprehension, a key question is just how contextual information is integrated for purposes of domain restriction. Two visual world eye tracking studies addressing these issues are presented. They look at participants’ eye movements as they visually inspect an array of colored shapes and listen to descriptions thereof. For example, ‘The circle is black’ is evaluated relative to a display that contains two circles in different colors and positions. This is preceded by a context sentence that helps to set up a domain that narrows the referential choice to varying degrees, e.g. by containing ‘on the top.’ Various measures are used to assess to what extent the circle that happens to be at the top is taken to be the referent of the definite description, both in real time online while the sentence unfolds and in terms of ultimate response behavior. The results suggest that people are very much sensitive to the subtle contextual clues, and in particular that the discourse status of the key prepositional phrase in the discourse context is crucial. This has implications for theoretical perspectives on domain restriction, based on their capability to incorporate the role of discourse structure.

Notes

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I’d like to express my gratitude to Lyn Frazier, who shaped my graduate studies and subsequent career in ever so many ways. I think it’s fair to say that I would not be reporting work such as that in this paper if it had not been for her inspiration and support in pursuing experimental work on theoretical issues in natural language meaning. And more concretely, precursors of ideas for the present work benefited greatly from one (or more likely, several) of the many proverbially intense and productive advising meetings I had with her. I’d also like to extend thanks to Dorothy Ahn, Dimka Atanassov, Rachel Stults and Robert Wilder for assistance with the data collection for this project. This work was in part supported by an intramural grant from UPenn’s University Research Foundation.

References

  1. Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise, J., & Etchemendy, J. (1987). The liar. An essay in truth and circularity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 437–457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Büring, D. (2004). Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics, 12(1), 23–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elbourne, P. D. (2013). Definite descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, W. (2005). Small worlds of discourse and the spectrum of accommodation. (Honors Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst). Retrieved June 3, 2018 from https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TY5MjVkZ/Evans_Smallworlds_2005.pdf
  7. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  8. von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2007). Intensional semantics. MIT: Unpublished Lecture Notes.Google Scholar
  9. Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 376–415.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keshet, E. (2008). Only the strong: restricting situation variables. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 18 (p. 483–495). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keshet, E. (2010). Situation economy. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 385–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kratzer, A. (2004). Covert quantifier restrictions in natural languages. Slides for talk given at Palazzo Feltrinelli in Gargnano June 11, 2004. Retrieved 22 May 2018, from https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mIzMGUyZ/Covert%20Quantifier%20Domain%20Restrictions.pdf
  13. Kratzer, A. (2007). Situations in natural language semantics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  14. Martí, L. (2003). Contextual variables. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  15. McCawley, J. D. (1979). On identifying the remains of deceased clauses. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), Adverbs, vowels, and other objects of wonder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Neale, S. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Neale, S. (2004). This, That, and the Other. In A. Bezuidenhout & M. Reimer (Eds.), Descriptions and Beyond (P (pp. 68–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Recanati, F. (1996). Domains of discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(5), 445–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theor of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), Papers in semantics (pp. 91–136). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  20. Schwarz, F. (2009). Two types of definites in natural language. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Schwarz, F. (2012). Situation pronouns in determiner phrases. Natural Language Semantics, 20(4), 431–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stanley, J., & Szabo, Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language, 15(2), 219–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Westerstahl, D. (1984). Determiners and context sets. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 45–71). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations