Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension

Abstract

There is a very large number of quantifiers in English, so many that it seems impossible that the only information that they convey is about amounts. Building on the earlier work of Moxey and Sanford (1987),we report three experiments showing that positive and negative quantifiers focus on different subsets of the logical possibilities that quantifiers allow semantically. Experiments 1and 2 feature a continuation task with quantifiers that span a full range of denotations (from near ()OJ6 to near 100%) and show that the effect is not restricted to quantifiers denoting small amounts. This enables a distinction to be made between generalization and complement set focus proper. The focus effects extend to comprehension, as shown by a self-paced reading study (Experiment 3). It is noted that the focus effects obtained are compatible with findings from earlier work by Just and Carpenter (l971), which used a verification paradigm, and in fact these effects constitute a direct test of inferences Just and Carpenter made about mechanisms of encoding negative quantifiers. A related but different explanation is put forward to explain the present data. The experiments show a quantifier function beyond the simple denotation of amount.

Complement Anaphora and Dynamic Binding

“…Striking confirmation of this line of argument is provided by a more recent study contrasting not quite N% with nearly N% where N ranged from 10 to 90 (Sanford, Moxey & Patterson 1996). (This study will be more fu lly discussed in section 4).…”

“…would also apply to expressions of the form not quite all, not quite N% which are shown by (Sanford, Moxey and Patterson 1996) to produce compset continuations, in contrast to nearly N% which is virtually indistinguishable from not quite N% as far as truth-conditions are concerned.…”

Eye-movements and ERPs reveal the time course of processing negation and remitting counterfactual worlds

“…For example, a proposition can convey information about a group of individuals, but differing quantifiers can direct the readers' attention to the good or the bad aspects, as in Few of the patients were critically ill (which is good), or A few of the patients were critically ill (which is bad). Different patterns of pronominal reference have been revealed for positive and negative quantifiers in continuation tasks (e.g., Moxey & Sanford, 1987;1993a;Sanford, Moxey & Paterson, 1996). Following a negative quantifier, continuations typically refer to the Complement Set (i.e.…”

Covariation and quantifier polarity: What determines causal attribution in vignettes?

“…However, negative quantifiers alone license negative polarity items such as anymore. Moxey and Sanford (1987) and Sanford, Moxey, and Paterson (1996) showed that positive and negative quantifiers differ in their focus properties, as illustrated in (2)-(3). Whereas the positive quantifiers in (2) focus attention on the fans that went to the game, the negative quantifiers in (3) focus attention on the fans that did not go to the game, as the continuations make clear.…”

“…Importantly, the set that is in focus does not depend on the amount denoted by the quantifier. Sanford et al (1996) had participants indicate the proportions they thought quantifiers denoted in 30 different contexts, and found that few (negative) and a few (positive) denoted about 14%, while not quite all (negative) and nearly all (positive) both denoted 95%. But in attribution studies all quantifiers denoting small amounts (hardly anyone, few, not.…”