Real-Time Commitments in Processing Individual/Degree Polysemy

Grant, Margaret; Michniewicz, Sonia; Rett, Jessica

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_6

Margaret Grant⁷,
Sonia Michniewicz⁸ &
Jessica Rett⁹

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 48))

393 Accesses

Abstract

Individual/degree polysemy is a phenomenon in which individual-denoting Determiner Phrases of any type can, in certain contexts, denote a degree corresponding to some salient measure of that individual. Like deferred reference, individual/degree polysemy conditions agreement: compare Four pizzas are vegetarian to Four pizzas is more than Sue had asked for. In this paper, we test whether readers commit to a single meaning of potentially polysemous DPs during real-time sentence processing. Immediate commitments have been found for other cases of grammatical ambiguity, for example collective or distributive uses of verbs, whereas readers do not necessarily commit to one sense of a lexically polysemous element (e.g., the concrete or abstract sense of newspaper). We present the results of one study of eye movements during reading and one self-paced reading study. Our results provide evidence that there are immediate commitments to the individual sense and the degree sense, depending on the internal properties of the Determiner Phrase. In particular, there is some evidence that definite DPs like the pizzas have a commitment to an individual interpretation, and stronger evidence that numeral DPs like two pizzas have a commitment to a degree interpretation. We discuss our results in light of the Minimal Semantic Commitment hypothesis proposed by Frazier, Pacht and Rayner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 139.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Predicates like be enough and be sufficient can take individuals or degrees as their arguments (Rett, 2014: 247); since the standard of comparison these predicates invoke is often covert (Meier, 2003), it is sometimes hard to tell which reading a given instantiation of the predicate is receiving. Number agreement is one clue; a plural individual argument triggers plural agreement, while a degree interpretation triggers singular agreement. A minimal pair is illustrated below.
2.
A typical partitive construction, like five of the children, is used to select a sub-part of the specific plurality (e.g., a set of children) denoted by the definite DP. Pseudopartitives like two cups of wine are so named because, although they are similar to partitives in structure, they do not presuppose the existence of a specific plurality out of which a subpart is selected (see e.g., Selkirk, 1977; Brasoveanu, 2009).
3.
The p-values reported include corrections for violations of sphericity where appropriate.
4.
For the critical DP and first spillover regions, models with random slopes did not converge. Follow-up ANOVAs showed that the reported effects were significant in by-participants and by-items analyses.

References

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using {lme4}. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
Article Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. (2009). Measure noun polysemy and monotonicity: Evidence from Romanian pseudopartitives. In A. Schardl, M. Walkow, & M. Abdurrahman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 139–150). Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Google Scholar
Carlson, G. (1977). Amount relatives. Language, 53, 520–542.
Article Google Scholar
Christensen, R. H. B. (2018). Ordinal—Regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2018.4-19. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal/.
Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12, 15–67.
Article Google Scholar
Cresswell, M. J. (1976). The semantics of degree. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague Grammar (pp. 261–292). New York: Academic Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429–446.
Article Google Scholar
Fishbein, J., & Harris, J. A. (2014). Making sense of Kafka: Structural biases induce early sense commitment for metonyms. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 94–112.
Article Google Scholar
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 182–200.
Article Google Scholar
Frazier, L., Pacht, J. M., & Rayner, K. (1999). Taking on semantic commitments, II: collective vs. distributive readings. Cognition, 70, 87–104.
Article Google Scholar
Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111–127.
Article Google Scholar
Frisson, S., & Frazier, L. (2005). Carving up word meanings: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 277–291.
Article Google Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366–1383.
Google Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 149–171.
Article Google Scholar
Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (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(4), 595–613.
Article Google Scholar
Grosu, A. (2009). Two kinds of degree-denoting relatives: Hebrew versus Romanian. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 1, 176–203.
Article Google Scholar
Grosu, A., & Landman, F. (1998). Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 125–170.
Article Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1987). Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In E. Reuland & A. terMeulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 1–24.
Article Google Scholar
Kotek, H. (2013). Degree relatives, definiteness and shifted reference. In S. Kan, C. Moore-Cantwell, & R. Staubs (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 29–43). Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.
Article Google Scholar
Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the type of sets. Oxford: Blackwell.
Book Google Scholar
McElree, B., Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Deferred interpretations: Why starting dickens is taxing but reading dickens isn’t. Cognitive Science, 30, 181–192.
Google Scholar
Meier, C. (2003) The Meaning of Too, Enough, and So… That. Natural Language Semantics 11(1): 69–107.
Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1995). Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics, 12, 143–184.
Article Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1989). Many quantifiers. In J. Powers & K. deJong (Eds.), ESCOL 89: Proceedings of the Eastern State Conference on Linguistics (pp. 383–402). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14(3), 191–201.
Article Google Scholar
Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527–544.
Article Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2014). The polysemy of measurement. Lingua, 143, 242–266.
Article Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2009). Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 1, 106–145.
Article Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (2006). The role of dimensions in the syntax of Noun Phrases. Syntax, 9(1), 67–110.
Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1977). Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax: Papers from the MSSB-UC Irvine conference on the formal syntax of natural language (pp. 285–316). New York: Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 327–342). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Stavrou, M. (2003). Semi-lexical nouns, classifiers, and the interpretation(s) of the pseudopartitive construction. In M. Coene & Y. d’Hulst (Eds.), From NP to DP: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases (pp. 329–353). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar
von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1–77.
Article Google Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659.
Article Google Scholar
Syrett, K. (2010). The representation and processing of measure phrases by four-year-olds. In K. Franich, K. Iserman, & L. Keil (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 421–432). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Google Scholar
Syrett, K. (2013). The role of cardinality in the interpretation of measurement expressions. Language Acquisition, 20, 228–240.
Article Google Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & McElree, B. (2002). Coercion in sentence processing: Evidence from eye-movements and self-paced reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 530–547.
Article Google Scholar
Ward, G. (2004). Equatives and deferred reference. Language, 80, 262–289.
Article Google Scholar
Westerståhl, D. (1985). Logical constants in quantifier languages. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 387–413.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

Experiment 1 was conducted while the first author was an Assistant Professor (limited-term) at the University of Toronto, and was supported in part by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Internal Grant to the Department of Linguistics at the University of Toronto. The corresponding author is currently funded by the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz-Preis 2014 awarded to Prof. Dr. Artemis Alexiadou (AL554/8-1). We thank Elena-Cristina Feraru, Daria Kotcherova and Kelly-Ann Blake for their assistance in running participants. We are grateful for feedback from the audience at the 29th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing at the University of Florida, the 39th annual conference of the German Linguistic Society, and members of the Research Group on Experimental Syntax and Heritage Languages at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Margaret Grant
School of Communication, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
Sonia Michniewicz
Department of Linguistics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA
Jessica Rett

Authors

Margaret Grant
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Sonia Michniewicz
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Jessica Rett
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret Grant .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Department of English, Morehead State University, Morehead, KY, USA
Katy Carlson
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA
Charles Clifton, Jr.
Linguistics Program, The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York City, NY, USA
Janet Dean Fodor

Appendices

Appendix 1: Model Parameter Estimates, Experiment 1

Model parameters for fixed effects, Go-Past Time

		\( \hat{\beta } \)	SE	t	p
Pre-critical	Intercept	5.933	0.065	91.728	<0.001
	DP type: Num	−0.020	0.041	−0.482	0.632
	DP type: Many	0.005	0.040	0.136	0.894
	Cont.	0.017	0.030	0.560	0.577
	DP:Num*CONT	−0.010	0.037	−0.268	0.789
	DP:Many*CONT	−0.023	0.037	−0.625	0.532
Critical	Intercept	6.136	0.067	91.279	<0.001
	DP type: Num	−0.023	0.038	−0.623	0.536
	DP type: Many	0.035	0.037	0.943	0.350
	Cont.	0.147	0.046	−3.226	0.002
	*DP:NumCONT**	0.093	0.036	−2.571	0.0103
	DP:Many*CONT	−0.031	0.035	−0.864	0.388
Post-Crit. 1	Intercept	5.902	0.056	105.886	<0.001
	DP type: Num	0.032	0.041	0.780	0.436
	DP type: Many	0.006	0.042	0.143	0.887
	Cont.	−0.027	0.030	−0.884	0.377
	*DP:NumCONT**	−0.090	0.042	−2.149	0.032
	DP:Many*CONT	0.013	0.042	0.306	0.760
Post-Crit. 2†	Intercept	6.036	0.068	88.251	<0.001
	DP type: Num	0.001	0.047	0.021	0.983
	DP type: Many	−0.012	0.047	−0.251	0.802
	Cont.	−0.015	0.034	−0.451	0.652
	DP:Num*CONT	−0.016	0.049	−0.320	0.749
	DP:Many*CONT	0.012	0.047	0.253	0.800

Note † indicates models run without random slopes (supporting ANOVAs reported in the text). Bold indicates statistically significant parameters

Model parameters for fixed effects, Total Time

		\( \hat{\beta } \)	SE	t	P
Pre-critical†	Intercept	6.093	0.063	96.800	<0.001
	DP type: Num	0.005	0.038	0.140	0.889
	DP type: Many	0.103	0.038	2.712	0.007
	Cont.	−0.021	0.027	−0.768	0.443
	DP:Num*CONT	−0.064	0.039	−1.667	0.096
	DP:Many*CONT	0.031	0.038	−0.803	0.422
Critical	Intercept	6.286	0.068	92.425	<0.001
	DP type: Num	−0.057	0.037	−1.529	0.128
	DP type: Many	0.044	0.039	1.112	0.275
	Cont.	−0.109	0.049	−2.227	0.030
	*DP:NumCONT**	−0.164	0.037	−4.480	<0.001
	DP:Many*CONT	−0.053	0.036	−1.469	0.142
Post-Crit. 1†	Intercept	6.002	0.057	104.559	<0.001
	DP type: Num	0.043	0.039	1.102	0.271
	DP type: Many	0.057	0.039	1.452	0.147
	Cont.	−0.036	0.028	−1.271	0.2040
	DP:Num*CONT	−0.071	0.039	−1.802	0.0718
	DP:Many*CONT	−0.037	0.039	−0.954	0.3404
Post-Crit. 2	Intercept	6.086	0.058	105.191	<0.001
	DP type: Num	−0.047	0.045	−1.049	0.301
	DP type: Many	−0.026	0.048	−0.549	0.587
	Cont.	−0.036	0.029	−1.235	0.219
	DP:Num*CONT	0.037	0.039	0.966	0.334
	DP:Many*CONT	−0.005	0.038	−0.127	0.899

Note † indicates models run without random slopes (supporting ANOVAs reported in the text). Bold indicates statistically significant parameters

Appendix 2: Model Parameter Estimates, Experiment 2

		\( \hat{\beta } \)	SE	t	P
Pre-critical	Intercept	5.905	0.040	149.461	<0.001
	DP type	−0.020	0.008	−2.671	0.00973
	Cont.	−0.003	0.005	−0.578	0.56552
	DP type*Cont.	0.002	0.005	0.482	0.62959
Post-critical	Intercept	6.053	0.040	151.558	<0.001
	DP type	0.013	0.005	2.587	0.0106
	Cont.	−0.023	0.008	−2.984	0.0046
	DP type*Cont.	0.009	0.005	1.911	0.0561

Note Bold indicates statistically significant parameters

Appendix 3: Sentence Materials, Experiment 1

1.
John assumed {the pizzas/four pizzas/many pizzas} would be {enough to feed/delicious food for} the hungry students.
2.
Ella assumed {the toothbrushes/thirty toothbrushes/many toothbrushes} would be {enough for/extra soft for} the dentists to give to their patients.
3.
Luanna believed {the shirts/ten shirts/many shirts} would be {enough/royal blue} to outfit the entire soccer team.
4.
Emma was sure {the ribbons/twenty ribbons/many ribbons} would be {enough/suitable} to decorate the hall for the commemoration.
5.
Kate was sure {the roses/four roses/many roses} would be {enough/classic flowers} to make beautiful centerpieces.
6.
Beth was sure {the plates/fifty plates/many plates} would be {enough/warmed} for all the guests to take part in the buffet.
7.
Victor was sure {the cars/three cars/many cars} would be {enough/vintage sedans} to escort the whole wedding party.
8.
Serena assumed {the umbrellas/two umbrellas/many umbrellas} would be {enough to protect/would be striped and would protect} the guests from the harsh sun.
9.
Peter assumed {the pears/seven pears/many pears} would be {enough to give/tasty and would give} the punch a nice fruit flavour.
10.
Kira believed {the fire crackers/twelve fire crackers/many fire crackers} would be {enough/bright and loud} to make the ceremony very memorable.
11.
Thomas was certain {the tennis balls/fifteen tennis balls/many tennis balls} would be {enough/neon yellow} for the Wimbledon final.
12.
Mike suspected {the hamburgers/six hamburgers/many hamburgers} would be {more than they needed/fresh and juicy} for the barbecue on Saturday.
13.
Brittany argued {the party favours/five party favours/many party favours} would be {more than they needed/fun and festive} for the bachlorette party.
14.
Jackie concluded {the coconuts/two coconuts/many coconuts} would be {more than was required/hard to crack open} for the pina colada recipe.
15.
Adrian argued {the tools/five tools/many tools} would be {more than they needed/precise and effective} to pull off the big heist.
16.
Nick realized {the boxes/nine boxes/many boxes} would be {more than they needed/solid and durable} to store all the papers from the trial.
17.
Jenna thought {the purses/two purses/many purses} would be {more than was needed/small and sparkly} for the ladies’ night out.
18.
Zoey was certain {the cupcakes/ninety cupcakes/many cupcakes} would be {more than we could sell/sweet and decadent to sell at} at the bake sale.
19.
Tess thought {the samosas/three samosas/many samosas} would be {more than she wanted/crispy and savory} to eat as an appetizer.
20.
Christine decided {the tickets/five tickets/many tickets} would be {more than they needed/cheap and easy to get} for everyone to watch the game.
21.
Quinn thought {the pies/ten pies/many pies} would be {more than they needed/blueberry flavour} for the pie eating contest.
22.
Tania worried {the oranges/six oranges/many oranges} would be {less than was needed/sour and too dry} for the chef to make sorbet.
23.
Ben thought {the film rolls/five film rolls/many film rolls} would be {less than they needed/black and white} to capture the whole wedding.
24.
Joey decided {the books/twenty books/many books} would be {less than was needed/engaging and scholarly} for the library’s collection.
25.
Victoria worried {the apples/two apples/many apples} would be {less than they needed/bland and mushy} for the pie.
26.
Jackson thought {the candles/fifty candles/many candles} would be {less than they needed/beautiful ambient lighting} to light up the dining hall.
27.
Lucas believed {the roast chickens/ten roast chickens/many roast chickens} would be {less than they needed/seasoned with sea salt} for the wedding reception.
28.
David realized {the scarves/seven scarves/many scarves} would be {less than we needed/soft and warm} to help the shelter’s clients.
29.
Henry suspected {the paintings/seven paintings/many paintings} would be {less than they needed/provocative and modern} for the new exhibit.
30.
Josh suspected {the songs/thirty songs/many songs} would be {less than we needed/upbeat and danceable} for a DJ set at the party.
31.
Scott thought {the pumpkins/nine pumpkins/many pumpkins} would be {less than the kids needed to/carved into jack-o’-lanterns to} decorate the house for halloween.
32.
Fred figured {the markers/three markers/many markers} would be {less than was needed/permanent sharpies} for the students to make the poster.
33.
Jane worried {the tacos/twenty tacos/many tacos} would not be {enough food/hot and spicy} for the guests at the party.
34.
Brian figured {the carrots/eleven carrots/many carrots} would not be {enough/delicious and crunchy} to feed the horses after the competition.
35.
Kim realized {the necklaces/three necklaces/many necklaces} would not be {enough/glamourous and perfect} to complete the outfit.
36.
Sean figured {the pans/eight pans/many pans} would not be {enough/greased with butter} to fry all the pancakes.
37.
Oliver thought {the hotdogs/twelve hotdogs/many hotdogs} would not be {enough/original and tasty} for people to eat at the barbecue.
38.
Sophie suspected {the energy bars/eight energy bars/many energy bars} would not be {enough/satisfying treats} to sustain the marathon runners.
39.
Lauren thought {the batteries/nine batteries/many batteries} would not be {enough/fully charged} to power the new electronics.
40.
Stefan realized {the pillows/five pillows/many pillows} would not be {enough/lumpy} for the sleepy campers.
41.
Amanda believed {the colours/three colours/many colours} would not be {enough/vibrant and warm} for her to finish the painting.
42.
Walter concluded {the bananas/eight bananas/many bananas} would not be {enough/mushy and rotten} food for the circus monkeys.

Appendix 4: Sentence Materials, Experiment 2

1.
John assumed that the pizzas/four pizzas would be enough/baked in time to feed/the hungry students.
2.
Ella thought that the toothbrushes/thirty toothbrushes would be enough/available for the dentists to give to their patients
3.
Luanna believed that the shirts/ten shirts would be enough/clean for the elementary school soccer team’s big game.
4.
Emma was sure that the ribbons/twenty ribbons would be enough/suitable to decorate the hall for the commemoration.
5.
Kate was sure that the roses/four roses would be enough/pleasant for the Mother’s Day arrangement.
6.
Beth was sure that the plates/fifty plates would be enough/warmed for the guests at the brunch buffet.
7.
Victor was sure that the cars/three cars would be enough/waiting to escort the wedding party to the church.
8.
Serena assumed that the canopies/two canopies would be enough/open to protect the guests from the harsh sun.
9.
Peter thought that the pears/seven would be enough/ripe for the sangria he wanted to make on Tuesday.
10.
Kira believed that the fire crackers/twelve firecrackers would be enough/impressive for the end of the party.
11.
Mike thought that the avocados/six avocados would be more than they needed/tasty and fresh for the barbecue on Saturday.
12.
Brittany thought that the party favours/five party favours would be more than they needed/fun and festive for the bachelorette party.
13.
Jackie was pretty sure that the coconuts/two coconuts would be more than was required/difficult to crack open for making pina coladas.
14.
Adrian argued that the tools/five tools would be more than they needed/useful and effective to pull off the big heist.
15.
Nick was pretty sure that the boxes/nine boxes would be more than they needed/assembled in time to store all the papers from the trial
16.
Jenna thought that the suitcases/two suitcases would be more than was needed/packed and ready for the weekend trip.
17.
Zoey was certain that the cupcakes/ninety cupcakes would be more than we could sell/decorated in time at the school’s bake sale
18.
Tess thought that the sandwiches/three sandwiches would be more than she could eat/healthy and delicious for lunch today.
19.
Christine suspected that the tickets/five tickets would be more than they needed/available at the stadium for the baseball game on Thursday.
20.
Quinn thought that the pies/ten pies would be more than they needed/baked in advance for the pie-eating contest.
21.
Tania worried that the oranges/six oranges would be less than was needed/overly sour and dry for the chef to make sorbet.
22.
Ben was pretty sure that the film rolls/five film rolls would be less than they needed/specialized for low lighting to capture the evening wedding.
23.
Joey decided that the books/twenty books would be less than was needed/possible to purchase for the library’s collection.
24.
Victoria thought that the apples/two apples would be less than they needed/firm and tart enough for the pie on Saturday.
25.
Jackson thought that the candles/ten candles would be less than they needed/beautiful ambient lighting for the formal dinner table.
26.
Lucas believed that the roast chickens/ten roast chickens would be less than they needed/seasoned with sea salt for the wedding reception.
27.
David was pretty sure that the scarves/seven scarves would be less than we needed/donated by local knitters to help the shelter’s clients.
28.
Henry suspected that the paintings/seven paintings would be less than they needed/provocative and modern for the new art exhibit.
29.
Josh suspected that the songs/thirty songs would be less than we needed/upbeat and loud for a DJ set at the party.
30.
Fred figured that the markers/three markers would be less than was needed/available in the supply closet for the students to make the poster.
31.
Jane worried that the tacos/twenty tacos would not be enough/spicy enough for the guests at the party.
32.
Brian worried that the carrots/eleven carrots would not be enough/fresh for the horses to eat after the competition.
33.
Kim realized that the necklaces/three necklaces would not be enough/glamourous enough for the back-up singers’ costumes.
34.
Sean figured that the pans/eight pans would not be enough/greased properly for the cooks to fry all the pancakes.
35.
Oliver thought that the hotdogs/twelve hotdogs would not be enough/ready for people to eat at the barbecue.
36.
Sophie worried that the energy bars/eight energy bars would not be enough/satisfying nourishment to sustain the marathon runners.
37.
Lauren worried that the batteries/nine batteries would not be enough/fully charged to power the new electronics.
38.
Stefan thought that the pillows/five pillows would not be enough/soft enough for the sleepy campers.
39.
Amanda was sure that the colors/three colors would not be enough/vibrant enough to complete the painting of tropical fish.
40.
Walter thought that the/eight bananas would not be enough/ripe in time to feed to the circus monkeys.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grant, M., Michniewicz, S., Rett, J. (2019). Real-Time Commitments in Processing Individual/Degree Polysemy. In: Carlson, K., Clifton, Jr., C., Fodor, J. (eds) Grammatical Approaches to Language Processing. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01563-3_6
Published: 29 January 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01562-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01563-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics