How typicality can affect interpretation: Experimental work on reciprocity and conjunction
Eva Poortman, UiL OTS
My PhD project deals with the effects of typicality on the interpretation of logical expressions. In
this talk, I will present completed experimental work on reciprocal sentences [1], which shows
that typicality effects for binary predicates interact with the interpretation of reciprocal
expressions. Finally, I will briefly discuss some ongoing work on a parallel phenomenon that we
see in sentences with plural predicate conjunction.
Since Rosch (1973), it is known that one-place predicates (e.g. bird, furniture) show typicality
effects: some exemplars are “more typical” instances of a concept than others. Recently, it has
been proposed that such effects also exist for binary predicates such as pinch and know, and that
they are crucial for explaining the varying logical interpretations of reciprocal sentences as in (1)
(Kerem et al., 2011).
(1)
a. John, Mary and Sue know each other
b. John, Mary and Sue are standing on each other
c. John, Mary and Sue are pinching each other
Kerem et al. (2011) formulated the Maximal Typicality Hypothesis (MTH), according to which
the interpretation of a particular reciprocal sentence is one where the binary concept in the scope
of the reciprocal expression attains maximal typicality.
I will present a pair of experiments that supports the MTH, in which we used a schematic
representation method that allowed us to test non-depictable verbs. This method proved to be
necessary to cover all predictions made by the hypothesis. Experiment 1 checked typicality
preferences for binary predicates in a forced-choice task, and experiment 2 tested the
interpretation of reciprocal sentences containing those same predicates. We found a correlation
between the two measures (r=.76, p<.001), indicating that typicality affects the logical
interpretation of reciprocal sentences.
A similar interaction between typicality and the interpretation of logical expressions appears to
occur in sentences with plural predicate conjunction as in (2). Some combinations of predicates
allow so-called split readings (where each predicate applies to a subset of the women) more than
others.
(2)
a. The women are sitting and standing
b The women are sitting and cooking
c. The women are sitting and reading.
I will conclude my talk with some experimental work in progress on these types of sentences.
Kerem, N., Friedmann, N. & Winter, Y. (2011). Typicality Effects and the Logic of
Reciprocity. Proceedings of SALT XIX.
Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories.
Cognitive development and the acquisition of language.
[1] Joined
work with Marijn Struiksma