Processing quantified noun phrases with numbers versus verbal quantifiers

Statements containing quantity information are commonplace. Although there is literature explaining the way in which quantities themselves are conveyed in numbers or words (e.g., many, probably), there is less on the effects of different types of quantity description on the processing of surrounding text. Given that quantity information is usually conveyed to alter our understanding of a situation (e.g., to convey information about a risk), our understanding of the rest of the quantified statement is clearly important. In this article texts containing quantified statements expressed numerically versus verbally are compared in two text change experiments to assess how the entire quantified noun phrase is encoded in each case. On the basis of the results it is argued that numerical quantifiers place focus on the size of a subset, whereas verbal quantifiers are better integrated with nouns leading to more focus on the subset itself

Complement set focus without explicit quantity

Production and comprehension of pronominal references may vary depending on whether this is preceded by a statement including a positive or a negative natural language quantifier (NLQ). After a negative NLQ there is a preference to refer to the complement set, a set not explicitly mentioned (Moxey & Sanford, 1987). We report two experiments which examine whether a property of the NLQ, or some alternative factor is responsible for this pattern of reference. According to the Presupposition Denial Account, complement set reference arises when the shortfall between a previously expected amount and a smaller amount, denoted by an NLQ, is made salient (Moxey, 2006). Using a character's implicit desire and positive versus negative emotion words, we manipulate the prominence of the shortfall. Results from a language production task show that when there is a large difference between what a character is likely to want and the amount that can be inferred from a negative emotion word there is an increase in production of complement set references. An eye movement study shows that, if a shortfall has been made salient in this way, a reference set reference leads to disruption during reading. These results are consistent with the Presupposition Denial Account

Complement Set Reference and Quantifiers

There is now very wide psychological evidence that some quantifiers license subsequent reference to subsets of the complement of the set normally open to subsequent reference. This has posed problems for some formal theories of the kinds of reference made possible by quantified sentences. This paper examines the phenomenon, its interpretation, and its limits. A process-model is suggested

Complement focus and reference phenomena

This chapter presents the results of various experiments that investigated how different determiners and quantifiers make different sets of entities available for reference. It also reviews numerous accounts of a phenomenon known as complement set reference (compset reference) and shows that it is part of a cluster of phenomena related to negative and positive quantifiers. It then considers various attempts to explore the phenomenon in the context of discourse semantics and presents a number of psychological experiments linking the phenomenon to aspects of negativity and denial of a supposition. It shows that negative quantifiers such as few appear to allow reference to a complement set, contrary to Discourse Representation Theory

On-line effects of what is expected on the resolution of plural pronouns

According to Presupposition Denial Theory, complement set reference is reference to a shortfall set which can be implied by a negative quantifier. In support of this, Moxey (2006) showed that participants produce plural pronominal reference to the complement set when a character is introduced who expects more than the amount denoted by a positive quantifier. It is not clear however whether the existence of a shortfall influences on-line comprehension. In this paper, we report four experiments measuring the eye movements of participants while they read short passages of text. In each experiment, we manipulate focus on the shortfall by introducing an expected amount before the quantified set. Our results suggest that eye movements are indeed influenced by the existence of a shortfall whether the shortfall is implied by the quantifier, or by the expectations of a salient character. This is consistent with the predictions of Presupposition Denial Theory