Abstract

Quantifier words like each, every, all and three are among the most abstract words in language. Unlike nouns, verbs and adjectives, the meanings of quantifiers are not related to a referent out in the world. Rather, quantifiers specify what relationships hold between the sets of entities, events and properties denoted by other words. When two quantifiers are in the same clause, they create a systematic ambiguity. “Every kid climbed a tree” could mean that there was only one tree, climbed by all, or many different trees, one per climbing kid. In the present study, participants chose a picture to indicate their preferred reading of different ambiguous sentences – those containing every, as well as the other three quantifiers. In Experiment 1, we found large systematic differences in preference, depending on the quantifier word. In Experiment 2, we then manipulated the choice of a particular reading of one sentence, and tested how this affected participants’ reading preference on a subsequent target sentence. We found a priming effect for all quantifiers, but only when the prime and target sentences contained the same quantifier. For example, all-a sentences prime other all-a sentences, while each-a primes each-a, but sentences with each do not prime sentences with all or vice versa. In Experiment 3, we ask whether the lack of priming across quantifiers could be due to the two sentences sharing one fewer word. We find that changing the verb between the prime and target sentence does not reduce the priming effect. In Experiment 4, we discover one case where there is priming across quantifiers – when one number (e.g. three) is in the prime, and a different one (e.g. four) is in the target. We discuss how these findings relate to linguistic theories of quantifier meaning and what they tell us about the division of labor between conceptual content and combinatorial semantics, as well as the mental representations of quantification and of the abstract logical structure of language.

Highlights

  • All languages have systematic rules of interpretation, allowing listeners to derive complex sentence meanings from combinations of words

  • The simplest hypothesis is that the rules that govern semantic and syntactic composition are perfectly coupled, so that every different meaning is expressed by a unique natural language sentence (Montague, 1968)

  • That we find priming effects between different numbers (THREE, FOUR and FIVE), but not between different universal quantifiers (EACH, EVERY and ALL) supports the view that the former differ only in which concept they point to, while the latter differ in terms of their combinatorial semantic structure

Read more

Summary

Introduction

All languages have systematic rules of interpretation, allowing listeners to derive complex sentence meanings from combinations of words. The present paper uses priming to explore the nature of the operations involved in disambiguating scope, following Raffray and Pickering (2010) These questions are separate from the debates between QR, type-shifting, and other linguistic theories, they bear on those issues. This pattern demonstrates that the primed operation (or representation) is sensitive to the underlying agent (the deep subject) but unaffected by changing the syntactic position of the arguments These results, leave open the question of whether LF construction involves a number of different operations that are specific to individual quantifier words, like EVERY and A, or is one general operation that applies to many or even all quantifiers. We find priming that extends from one number to another

Experiment 1
Experiment 4
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call