Most (but not all) quantifiers are interpreted immediately in visual context

References

• Agmon, G., Loewenstein, Y., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2019). Measuring the cognitive cost of downward monotonicity by controlling for negative polarity. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 36. doi: 10.5334/gjgl.770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augurzky, P., Bott, O., Sternefeld, W., & Ulrich, R. (2017). Are all the triangles blue? – ERP evidence for the incremental processing of German quantifier restriction. Language and Cognition, 9(4), 603–636. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2016.30
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics & Philosophy, 4(2), 159–219. doi: 10.1007/BF00350139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2019). Towards a neurobiologically plausible model of language-related, negative event-related potentials. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00298
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bott, O., Schlotterbeck, F., & Klein, U. (2019). Empty set effects in quantifier interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 36(1), 99–163. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffy015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bott, O., & Schlotterbeck, F. (2015). The processing domain of scope interaction. Journal of Semantics, 32(1), 39–92. doi: 10.1093/jos/fft015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Büring, D. (2008). Cross-polar nomalies. In M. Gibson & T. Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th semantics and linguistic theory (pp. 37–52). Washington: Linguistic Society of America. doi: 10.3765/salt.v17i0.2957
   Google Scholar
• Clark, R., & Grossman, M. (2007). Number sense and quantifier interpretation. Topoi, 26(1), 51–62. doi: 10.1007/s11245-006-9008-2
   Google Scholar
• Collins, C., Postal, P. M., & Yevudey, E. (2018). Negative polarity items in Ewe. Journal of Linguistics, 54(2), 331–365. doi: 10.1017/S002222671700007X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117–1121. doi: 10.1038/nn1504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deschamps, I., Agmon, G., Loewenstein, Y., & Grodzinsky, Y. (2015). The processing of polar quantifiers, and numerosity perception. Cognition, 143, 115–128. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of cognitive updating? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(03), 357–427. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00058027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filik, R., & Leuthold, H. (2008). Processing local pragmatic anomalies in fictional contexts: Evidence from the N400. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 554–558. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00656.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & Perry, N. W. J. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20, 400–409. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1983.tb00920.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336(6084), 998–998. doi: 10.1126/science.1218633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., Otten, L. J., Galli, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2015). The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 140, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S. L., & Willems, R. M. (2017). Word predictability and semantic similarity show distinct patterns of brain activity during language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(9), 1192–1203. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2017.1323109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.
   Google Scholar
• Freunberger, D., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Incremental comprehension of spoken quantifier sentences: Evidence from brain potentials. Brain Research, 1646, 475–481. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2016.06.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geurts, B., Katsos, N., Moons, J., & Noordman, L. (2010). Scalar quantifiers: Logic, acquisition, and processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 130–148. doi: 10.1080/01690960902955010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geurts, B., & van der Slik, F. (2005). Monotonicity and processing load. Journal of Semantics, 22, 97–117. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffh018
   Google Scholar
• Giannakidou, A. (2017). Polarity in the semantics of natural language. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.7
   Google Scholar
• Hackl, M. (2009). On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: Most versus more than half. Natural Language Semantics, 17(1), 63–98. doi: 10.1007/s11050-008-9039-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441. doi: 10.1126/science.1095455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heim, I. (1999). Notes on superlatives. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Heim, I. (2006). Little. In M. Gibson & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th semantics and linguistic theory conference. Washington: Linguistic Society of America. doi: 10.3765/salt.v16i0.2941
   Google Scholar
• Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 1–19. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt, L., Politzer-Ahles, S., Gibson, L., Minai, U., & Fiorentino, R. (2013). Pragmatic inferences modulate N400 during sentence comprehension: Evidence from picture-sentence verification. Neuroscience Letters, 534, 246–251. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.11.044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1970). Conditions under which the mean square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65, 1582–1589. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1970.10481187
   Google Scholar
• Ito, A., Corley, M., Pickering, M. J., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Predicting form and meaning: Evidence from brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 157–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1971). Comprehension of negation with quantification. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 10, 244–253. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80051-8
   Google Scholar
• Keenan, E. L., & Stavi, J. (1986). A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9(3), 253–326. doi: 10.1007/BF00630273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kounios, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 459–479. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.459
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. doi:10.1146%2Fannurev.psych.093008.131123 doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163. doi: 10.1038/307161a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994-2005. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 659–724). New York: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Lassiter, D., & Goodman, N. D. (2017). Adjectival vagueness in a Bayesian model of interpretation. Synthese, 194(10), 3801–3836. doi: 10.1007/s11229-015-0786-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonhard, T., Ruiz Fernández, S., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2011). Dual-task processing when task 1 is hard and task 2 is easy: Reversed central processing order? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 115–136. doi: 10.1037/a0019238
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marslen-Wilson, W. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature, 244(5417), 522–523. doi: 10.1038/244522a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S. (2016). Quantification, prediction, and the online impact of sentences truth-value: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(2), 316–334. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 324–346. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19, 1213–1218. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02226.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otten, M., Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Great expectations: Specific lexical anticipation influences the processing of spoken language. BMC Neuroscience, 8, 89. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-8-89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pachella, R. G. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 41–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Partee, B. (1991). Topics, focus, and quantification. In S. K. Moore & A. Z. Wyner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st semantics and linguistic theory conference (pp. 159–188). Washington: Linguistic Society of America. doi: 10.3765/salt.v1i0.2918
   Google Scholar
• Penka, D., & Stechow, A. v. (2001). Negative Indefinita unter Modalverben. Linguistische Berichte, 9, 263–286.
   Google Scholar
• Penka, D., & Zeijlstra, H. (2010). Negation and polarity: An introduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28(4), 771–786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2006). Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Politzer-Ahles, S., Fiorentino, R., Jiang, X., & Zhou, X. (2013). Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing: An event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture-sentence verification. Brain Research, 1490, 134–152. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012. 10.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabovsky, M., Hansen, S. S., & McClelland, J. L. (2018). Modelling the N400 brain potential as change in a probabilistic representation of meaning. Nature Human Behavaviour, 2, 693–705. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0406-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Schotter, E., Masson, M., Potter, M. C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So much to read, so little time: How do we read, and can speed reading help? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17, 4–34. doi: 10.1177/1529100615623267
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J.-H. Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), Papers in semantics (Working Papers in Linguistics 49) (pp. 91–136). Columbus: The Ohio State University.
   Google Scholar
• Rullmann, H. (1995). Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions (PhD thesis). University of Massachusetts Amherst.
   Google Scholar
• Sassenhagen, J., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2014). The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned. Brain and Language, 137, 29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlotterbeck, F. (2017). From truth conditions to processes: How to model the processing difficulty of quantified sentences based on semantic theory (PhD thesis). University of Tübingen. doi:10.15496/publikation-18745
   Google Scholar
• Schumacher, P. (2009). Definiteness marking shows late effects during discourse processing: Evidence from ERPs. In S. Lalitha Devi, A. Branco, & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Anaphora processing and applications. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 5847 (pp. 91–106). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Solt, S. (2009). The semantics of adjectives of quantity (PhD thesis). City University of New York.
   Google Scholar
• Spychalska, M., Kontinen, J., & Werning, M. (2016). Investigating scalar implicatures in a truth-value judgment task: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(6), 817–840. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1161806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). New York: New York Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tian, Y., Breheny, R., & Ferguson, H. J. (2010). Why we simulate negated information: A dynamic pragmatic account. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(12), 2305–2312. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.525712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbach, T. P., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more than less. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 79–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2010). Quantifiers more or less quantify online: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 158–179. doi:10.1016% 2Fj.jml.2010.03.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 31, 443–467. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar