Abstract
Kotek et al. (Nat Lang Semant 23: 119–156, 2015) argue on the basis of novel experimental evidence that sentences like ‘Most of the dots are blue’ are ambiguous, i.e. have two distinct truth conditions. Kotek et al. furthermore suggest that when their results are taken together with those of earlier work by Lidz et al. (Nat Lang Semant 19: 227–256, 2011), the overall picture that emerges casts doubt on the conclusions that Lidz et al. drew from their earlier results. We disagree with this characterization of the relationship between the two studies. Our main aim in this reply is to clarify the relationship as we see it. In our view, Kotek et al.’s central claims are simply logically independent of those of Lidz et al.: the former concern which truth condition(s) a certain kind of sentence has, while the latter concern the procedures that speakers choose for the purposes of determining whether a particular truth condition is satisfied in various scenes. The appearance of a conflict between the two studies stems from inattention to the distinction between questions about truth conditions and questions about verification procedures.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dehaene, Stanislas. 1997. The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Feigenson, Lisa, Stanislas Dehaene, and Elizabeth Spelke. 2004. Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Science 8: 307–314.
Gallistel, C.R., and Adam Philip King. 2009. Memory and the computational brain. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hackl, Martin. 2009. On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half. Natural Language Semantics 17: 63–98.
Halberda, Justin, Sean F. Sires, and Lisa Feigenson. 2006. Multiple spatially overlapping sets can be enumerated in parallel. Psychological Science 17: 572–576.
Kotek, Hadas, Yasatada Sudo, and Martin Hackl. 2015. Experimental investigations of ambiguity: the case of most. Natural Language Semantics 23: 119–156.
Lidz, Jeff, Paul Pietroski, Tim Hunter, and Justin Halberda. 2011. Interface transparency and psychosemantics of most. Natural Language Semantics 19: 227–256.
Marr, David. 1982. Vision. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Pietroski, Paul, Jeff Lidz, Tim Hunter, and Justin Halberda. 2009. The meaning of most: Semantics, numerosity and psychology. Mind & Language 24(5): 554–585.
Pietroski, Paul, Jeff Lidz, Justin Halberda, Tim Hunter, and Darko Odic. 2011. Seeing what you mean, mostly. In Syntax and semantics 37: Experiments at the interfaces, ed. Jeff Runner, 187–224. New York: Academic Press.
Treisman, Anne, and Stephen Gormican. 1988. Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review 95(1): 15–48.
Whalen, John, C.R. Gallistel, and Rochel Gelman. 1999. Non-verbal counting in humans: The psychophysics of number representation. Psychological Science 10: 130–137.
Wolfe, J.M. 1998. Visual search. In Attention, ed. H. Pashler, 13–73. London: University College London Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hunter, T., Lidz, J., Odic, D. et al. On how verification tasks are related to verification procedures: a reply to Kotek et al.. Nat Lang Semantics 25, 91–107 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9130-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9130-7