Prior expectation and the interpretation of natural language quantifiers

Abstract

The interpretation of natural language quantifiers depends, in part, on one's prior expectations about what the proportion being described might be. This hypothesis is tested empirically, by comparing the interpretation of 10 different quantifier expressions in three contexts which contained proportions about which subjects' expectations were reliably different (Experiment 1). It is further argued that quantifiers perform many functions which cannot be observed by considering only the proportion(s) denoted by a quantifier. The experimental evidence presented shows that quantifiers can provide information about what the user of the quantifier had expected before "knowing the facts" (Experiment 2). It is also clear that when writers produce a quantifier, they can reveal their assumptions about the prior expectations held by their readers (Experiment 2).

Effects of what is expected on the focussing properties of quantifiers: A test of the presupposition-denial account

“…Bass, Cascio, & O'Connor, 1974;Moxey & Sanford, 1993a, 1993bPepper & Prytulak, 1974;Renooij & Witteman, 1999;Wallsten, Budescu, Rapoport, Zwick, & Forsyth, 1986). It is also modified in systematic ways by the context (e.g Hormann, 1983; Moxey & Sanford, 1993b;Newstead, Pollard, & Reizbos, 1987). This paper concerns a different function of NLQs.…”

Denials as Controllers of Negative Quantifier Focus

“…Sanford (1993a, 1998a) proposed that quantifiers have other functions, such as conveying information about the speaker's prior expectations, and causing the listener to place attentional focus on different aspects of the quantified statement, depending on the quantifiers in question. It is even possible that these other functions are more important than the denotation of amount or proportion (Anscombre, 1985;Ducrot, 1998;Jarvella & Lundquist, 1994;Moxey & Sanford, 1998a), since the latter is crudely represented in listeners and is highly context-dependent (Moxey & Sanford, 1993b).…”

Moral asymmetries and the semantics of "many"

“…For example, Moxey & Sanford 1993 investigated the understanding of vague quantifiers like few and many in relation to distinct base-rate expectations. Likewise, Fernando & Kamp 1996 propose an account of many based on probabilities: many As are Bs is true basically when the probability of there being fewer ABs than there…”