Copredication in Context: A Predictive Processing Approach

Abstract

We propose a cognitive‐psychological model of linguistic intuitions about copredication statements. In copredication statements, like “The book is heavy and informative,” the nominal denotes two ontologically distinct entities at the same time. This has been considered a problem for standard truth‐conditional semantics. In this paper, we discuss two questions that have so far received less attention: What kinds of word representations and cognitive mechanisms are responsible for judgments about the felicitousness of copredication statements? Relatedly, why can similar copredication statements have different degrees of felicitousness? We first propose a cognitive‐computational model of copredication within the predictive processing framework. We then suggest that certain asymmetries in felicitousness judgments can be modeled in terms of a set of expectations that are influenced by higher‐order priors associated with discourse context and world knowledge.

Copredication and Complexity Revisited: A Reply to Löhr and Michel

“…(2) by ignoring these variables, the authors make predictions that already face a range of opposing empirical evidence; and (3) it can be shown that predictability bears no statistically significant relation with copredication acceptability, thus undermining the core architecture of the model proposed by Löhr and Michel (2022).…”

“…The major methodological issues with the proposal in Löhr and Michel (2022) are as follows: (1) a lack of grounding in specific psycholinguistic variables, such as lexical frequency;…”

“…The major methodological issues with the proposal in Löhr and Michel (2022) are as follows: (1) a lack of grounding in specific psycholinguistic variables, such as lexical frequency; (2) by ignoring these variables, the authors make predictions that already face a range of opposing empirical evidence; and (3) it can be shown that predictability bears no statistically significant relation with copredication acceptability, thus undermining the core architecture of the model proposed by Löhr and Michel (2022).…”

“…As such, laying out the psycholinguistic terrain in which to address this phenomenon is crucial--and accounts that lack a valid psycholinguistic and empirical basis should be highlighted as problematic if they are to be accommodated and refined. Löhr and Michel (2022) claim that copredication acceptability is determined by a "set of expectations that are influenced by higher-order priors associated with discourse context and world knowledge." I will show that their model encounters a number of obstacles, and ends up unintentionally supporting an alternative model in Murphy (2019Murphy ( , 2021aMurphy ( , 2021bMurphy ( , 2021c, which they attempt to critique.…”

“…Löhr and Michel (2022) claim that copredication acceptability is determined by a “set of expectations that are influenced by higher‐order priors associated with discourse context and world knowledge.” I will show that their model encounters a number of obstacles, and ends up unintentionally supporting an alternative model in Murphy (2019, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c), which they attempt to critique.…”