Startseite Linguistik & Semiotik Imperfective aspect underspecified for number: Evidence from an eye-tracking during reading experiment
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Imperfective aspect underspecified for number: Evidence from an eye-tracking during reading experiment

  • Dorota Klimek-Jankowska EMAIL logo , Anna Czypionka und Joanna Błaszczak
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 10. Dezember 2022

Abstract

In an eye-tracking during reading experiment we investigated the processing of ambiguous Polish imperfective verbs in contexts with disambiguating (‘frequently’ and ‘yesterday’) and neutral preceding adverbs. Grammatical number of NP objects was also manipulated. Verb regions received significantly longer regression path times when following a neutral compared to 'yesterday' contexts. This implies that in neutral contexts both senses of polysemous imperfective verbs are activated on the verbal region. Post-hoc analyses revealed more regressions from singular objects in neutral contexts, suggesting that a preference for a more frequent plural event sense was created before the first fixations on the object were made. Finally, we observed an effect consisting of longer first pass times on singular objects and more regressions from the following region in contexts with ‘frequently’, which is consistent with the view that imperfective aspect is underspecified for number. This pattern of results is compatible with Relevance Theory, which posits that the selection of one sense (single ongoing or plural) is an outcome of an inferential process based on frequency, context and world knowledge. However, the fact that sense frequency plays a role in this process indicates that it serves as input to context-based inferential processes suggesting that this information is pre-stored in the memory.


Dorota Klimek-Jankowska University of Wrocław ul. Uniwersytecka 1 52-020 Wrocław Poland

7

7 Abbreviations

3

third person

ACC

accusative

F

feminine

GEN

genitive

IPFV

imperfective

M

masculine

NOM

nominative

PFV

perfective

PL

plural

PST

past tense

REFL

reflexive

SG

singular

8

8 Acknowledgements

Acknowledgement to two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments.

This research was supported by the Polish National Science Center (NCN) grant OPUS 5 HS2 (DEC-2013/09/B/HS2/02763).

This research was partially supported by the Center for Corpus and Experimental Research on Slavic Languages 'Slavicus' at the University of Wrocław.

References

Bates, D., R. Kliegl, S. Vasishth and H. Baayen. 2015. “Parsimonious mixed models.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967Suche in Google Scholar

Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker and S. Walker. 2015. “Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4”. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48.10.18637/jss.v067.i01Suche in Google Scholar

Bogusławski, A. 1963. “Czasowniki dokonane niedokonane i ich stosunki wzajemne” [Perfective and imperfective verbs and their mutual relations]. In: Doroszewski, W. (ed.), Z polskich studiów slawistycznych [From Polish studies on Slavic languages]. Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk. 153–159.Suche in Google Scholar

Borik, O. 2002/2006. Aspect and reference time. (Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.) [Published 2006 by Oxford University Press].10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199291298.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2019. “Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon”. In: Scott, K., B. Clark and R. Carston, (eds.), Relevance, pragmatics and interpretation. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press. 150–162.10.1017/9781108290593.014Suche in Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2020. “Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions”. Mind and Language 36(1). 108–133.10.1111/mila.12329Suche in Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Christensen, R. H. B. 2019. Ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2019.12-10. <https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal>Suche in Google Scholar

Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Deo, A. 2009. “Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: Partitions as quantificational domains”. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(5). 475–521.10.1007/s10988-010-9068-zSuche in Google Scholar

Deo, A. 2015. “The semantic and pragmatic underpinnings of grammaticalization paths: The progressive to imperfective shift”. Semantics and Pragmatics 8(14). 1–52.10.3765/sp.8.14Suche in Google Scholar

Falkum, I. L. 2010. “Systematic polysemy and the count-mass distinction”. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 22. 16–40.Suche in Google Scholar

Falkum, I. L. 2011. The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A Relevance-Theoretic account. (Doctoral dissertation, University College London.)Suche in Google Scholar

Ferreira, M. 2004. “Imperfectives and plurality”. Proceedings of SALT 14. 74–91.10.3765/salt.v14i0.2915Suche in Google Scholar

Ferreira, M. 2005. Event quantification and plurality. (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)Suche in Google Scholar

Filip, H. 1993/1999. Aspect, situation types and noun phrase semantics. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.) [Published 1999 as Aspect, eventuality types and noun phrase semantics. New York/London: Garland Publishing.]Suche in Google Scholar

Foraker, S. and G. L. Murphy. 2012. “Polysemy in sentence comprehension: Effects of meaning dominance”. Journal of Memory and Language 67. 407–425.10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.010Suche in Google Scholar

Forsyth, James. 1970. A grammar of aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Frazier, L. 1999. On sentence interpretation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-4599-2Suche in Google Scholar

Frazier, L. and K. Rayner. 1990. “Taking on semantic commitments: processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses”. Journal of Memory and Language 29. 181–200.10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7Suche in Google Scholar

Frąckowiak, E. 2015. Understanding situation and viewpoint aspect in Polish through dative anticausative constructions and factual imperfectives. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.)Suche in Google Scholar

Frisson, S. 2009. “Semantic underspecification in language processing”. Language and Linguistic Compass 3(1). 111–127.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00104.xSuche in Google Scholar

Frisson, S. 2015. “About bound and scary books: The processing of book polysemies”. Lingua 157. 17–35.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.017Suche in Google Scholar

Frisson, S. and M. J. Pickering. 1999. “The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25. 1347–1365.10.1037/0278-7393.25.6.1366Suche in Google Scholar

Frisson, S. and M. J. Pickering. 2007. “The processing of familiar and novel senses of a word: Why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard”. Language and Cognitive Processes 22. 595–613.10.1080/01690960601017013Suche in Google Scholar

Hacquard, V. 2006. Aspects of modality. (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)Suche in Google Scholar

Junghanns, U. 2002. Prinzipien der Informationsstrukturierung in slavischen Sprachen. (Habilitation thesis, University of Leipzig.)Suche in Google Scholar

Junghanns, U. 2003. “Fokussierungsstrategien in slavischen Sprachen“. In: Kosta, P., J. Błaszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist and M. Żygis (eds.), Investigations into formal Slavic linguistics. Contributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL IV), held at Potsdam University, November 28-30, 2001. (Linguistik International 10.) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 181–199.Suche in Google Scholar

Kagan, O. 2008. “On the semantics of aspect and number”. In: Antonenko, A., J. F. Bailyn and C. Y. Bethin (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics. The Stony Brook Meeting 2007. Michigan Slavic Publications: Ann Arbor. 185–198.Suche in Google Scholar

Kagan, O. 2010. “Russian aspect as number in the verbal domain”. In: Laca, B. and P. Hofherr (eds.), Layers of aspect. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 91–112.Suche in Google Scholar

Kamp, H. and U. Reyle, 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-017-1616-1Suche in Google Scholar

Kazanina, N. and C. Phillips 2003. “Russian children’s knowledge of aspectual distinctions”. In: Beachley, B., A. Brown and F. Conlin (eds.), BUCLD 27 Proceedings. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press. 390–401.Suche in Google Scholar

Klein, W. 1994. Time in language. London and New York, NY: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Klein, W. 1995 . “A time-relational analysis of Russian aspect”. Language 71(4). 669–695.10.2307/415740Suche in Google Scholar

Klein, D. and G. Murphy. 2001. “The representation of polysemous words”. Journal of Memory and Language 45. 259–282.10.1037/e413792005-151Suche in Google Scholar

Klein, D. and G. Murphy. 2002. “Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses”. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 548–570.10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00020-7Suche in Google Scholar

Klepousniotou, E. and S. R. Baum. 2007. “Clarifying further the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: Effects of aging and left-hemisphere damage on the processing of homonymy and polysemy”. Brain and Language 103. 148–149.10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.089Suche in Google Scholar

Klepousniotou, E., G. B. Pike, K. Steinhauer and V. Gracco. 2012. “Not all ambiguous words are created equal: An EEG investigation of homonymy and polysemy”. Brain and Language 123. 11–21.10.1016/j.bandl.2012.06.007Suche in Google Scholar

Klepousniotou, E., D. Titone and C. Romero. 2008. “Making sense of word senses: The comprehension of polysemy depends on sense overlap”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34. 1534–1543.10.1037/a0013012Suche in Google Scholar

Klimek-Jankowska, D., A. Czypionka, W. Witkowski and J. Błaszczak. 2018. “The time course of processing perfective and imperfective aspect in Polish – Evidence from self-paced reading and eye-tracking experiments”. Acta Linguistica Academica 65(2–3). 293–351.10.1556/2062.2018.65.2-3.4Suche in Google Scholar

Klimek-Jankowska, D. and J. Błaszczak. 2021. “Implications of the number semantics of NP objects on the interpretation of imperfective verbs in Polish“. In: Dočekal, M. and M. Wągiel (eds.), Formal approaches to number in Slavic and beyond. Berlin: Language Science Press. 99–128.Suche in Google Scholar

Link, G. 1983. “The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach”. In: Bäuerle, R., C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter. 303–323.10.1515/9783110852820.302Suche in Google Scholar

Nagórko, A. 1998. Zarys gramatyki polskiej (ze słowotwórstwem) [An outline of Polish grammar (with word-formation)]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PWN.Suche in Google Scholar

Nunberg, G. 1979. “The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy.” Linguistics and Philosophy 3(2). 143–184.10.1007/BF00126509Suche in Google Scholar

Paslawska, A. and A. von Stechow. 2003. “Perfect readings in Russian”. In: Alexiadou, A., M. Rathert and A. von Stechow (eds.), Perfect explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 307–362.Suche in Google Scholar

Pęzik, P. 2012. “Wyszukiwarka PELCRA dla danych NKJP” [The PELCRA search engine for the National Corpus of Polish (NKJP)]. In: Przepiórkowski, A., M. Bańko, R. L. Górski and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [The National Corpus of Polish]. Warszawa: PWN. 253–279. Available at <http://www.nkjp.uni.lodz.pl/index.jsp>.Suche in Google Scholar

Pickering, M. J. and S. Frisson. 2001. “Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(2). 556–573.10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.556Suche in Google Scholar

Przepiórkowski, A., M. Bańko, R. L. Górski and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.). 2012. Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [The National Corpus of Polish]. Warszawa: PWN. Available at <http://www.nkjp.uni.lodz.pl/index.jsp>.Suche in Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, L., R. Llinás and G. Murphy. 2006. “The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18. 97–109.10.1162/089892906775250003Suche in Google Scholar

R Development Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Suche in Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York, NY: Macmillan.Suche in Google Scholar

Smith, C. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7Suche in Google Scholar

de Swart, H. 1998. “Aspect shift and coercion”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(2). 347–385.10.1023/A:1005916004600Suche in Google Scholar

de Swart, H. 1993. Adverbs of quantification: A Generalized Quantifier approach. (Doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.)Suche in Google Scholar

Tremblay, A. and J. Ransijn. 2015. LMERConvenienceFunctions: Model selection and post-hoc analysis for (G)LMER models. R Package Version 2.10 Available at <http://cran.r-project.org/package=LMERConvenienceFunctions>.Suche in Google Scholar

Vasishth, S., T. von der Malsburg and F. Engelmann. 2013. “What eye movements can tell us about sentence comprehension”. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4(2). 125–134.10.1002/wcs.1209Suche in Google Scholar

Vendler, Z. 1957. “Verbs and times”. Philosophical Review 56. 143–160.10.7591/9781501743726-005Suche in Google Scholar

Vicente, A. and Falkum, I. L. Forthcoming. “Accounting for the preference of literal meanings in ASC”. Mind & LanguageSuche in Google Scholar

Von der Malsburg, T. and B. Angele. 2017. “False positives and other statistical errors in standard analyses of eye movements in reading”. Journal of Memory and Language 94. 119–133.10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003Suche in Google Scholar

Wickham H. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. <https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org>10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4Suche in Google Scholar

Willim, E. 2006. Event, individuation and countability. A study with special reference to English and Polish. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Wróbel, H. 1999. “Czasownik” [The verb]. In: Grzegorczykowa, R., R. Laskowski and H. Wróbel (eds.), Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego [The grammar of contemporary Polish]. Volume 2: Morfologia [Morphology]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 536–584.Suche in Google Scholar

Wróbel, H. 2001. Gramatyka języka polskiego [The grammar of Polish]. Kraków: Od Nowa.Suche in Google Scholar

Appendix A: The Verb Phrases Used In The Experiment
imperfective verb singular NP complement plural NP complement
szacować ‘to estimate.ipfv’ stratę ‘loss.sg’ straty ‘loss.pl’
wygłaszać ‘to deliver.ipfv’ wykład ‘lecture.sg’ wykłady ‘lecture.pl’
naprawiać ‘to repair.ipfv’ rower ‘bike.sg’ rowery ‘bike.pl’
wypełniać ‘to fill in.ipfv’ blankiet ‘form.sg’ blankiet ‘form.pl’
podrywać ‘to date.ipfv’ dziewczynę ‘girl.sg’ dziewczyny ‘girl.pl’
ozdabiać ‘to decorate.ipfv’ wnętrze ‘interior.sg’ wnętrza ‘interior.pl’
sporządzać ‘to make.ipfv’ raport ‘report.sg’ raporty ‘report.pl’
zamiatać ‘to sweep.ipfv’ korytarz ‘corridor.sg’ korytarze ‘corridor.pl’
wyceniać ‘to price.ipfv’ działkę ‘building plot.sg’ działki ‘building plot.pl’
podlewać ‘to water.ipfv’ trawnik ‘lawn.sg’ trawniki ‘lawn.pl’
oceniać ‘to grade.ipfv’ sprawdzian ‘test.sg’ sprawdziany ‘test.pl’
rozliczać ‘to settle.ipfv’ wniosek ‘application.sg’ wnioski ‘application.pl’
montować ‘to install.ipfv’ tłumik ‘silencer.sg’ tłumiki ‘silencer.pl’
wycinać ‘to cut down.ipfv’ drzewo ‘tree.sg’ drzewa ‘tree.pl’
omawiać ‘to discuss.ipfv’ problem ‘problem.sg’ problemy ‘problem.pl’
pakować ‘to pack.ipfv’ produkt ‘product.sg’ produkty ‘product.pl’
nagrywać ‘to record.ipfv’ płytę ‘disc.sg’ płyty ‘disc.pl’
drukować ‘to print out.ipfv’ książkę ‘book.sg’ książki ‘book.pl’
ratować ‘to rescue.ipfv’ pacjenta ‘patient.sg’ pacjentów ‘patient.pl’
poprawiać ‘to proofread.ipfv’ esej ‘essay.sg’ eseje ‘essay.pl’
uszczelniać ‘to seal.ipfv’ okno ‘window.sg’ okna ‘window.pl’
wysyłać ‘tp send.ipfv’ paczkę ‘package.sg’ paczki ‘package.pl’
malować ‘to paint.ipfv’ obraz ‘painting.sg’ obrazy ‘obrazy.pl’
szkicować ‘to sketch.ipfv’ budynek ‘building.sg’ budynki ‘building.pl’
podrabiać ‘to fake.ipfv’ podpis ‘signature.sg’ podpisy ‘signature.pl’
wystawiać ‘to give.ipfv’ ocenę ‘grade.sg’ oceny ‘grade.pl’
rysować ‘to draw.ipfv’ portret ‘portrait.sg’ portrety ‘portrait.pl’
testować ‘to test.ipfv’ maszynę ‘machine.sg’ maszyny ‘machine.pl’
wyłudzać ‘to extort.ipfv’ łapówkę ‘bribe.sg’ łapówki ‘bribe.pl’
usuwać ‘to remove.ipfv’ usterkę ‘flaw.sg’ usterki ‘flaw.pl’
Appendix bresults of the statistical analyses

Both this appendix and Appendix A are available at the following link:

https://uniwroc-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/dorota_klimek-jankowska_uwr_edu_pl/ETL3tS4aZXVFlvDrPiWjTS8BdsWFUOL0fzXBGe5owlg2w?e=Hufex3

Published Online: 2022-12-10
Published in Print: 2022-11-25

© 2022 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Heruntergeladen am 13.12.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/psicl-2022-0032/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen