Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 119–156 | Cite as

Experimental investigations of ambiguity: the case of most

  • Hadas Kotek
  • Yasutada Sudo
  • Martin Hackl


In the study of natural language quantification, much recent attention has been devoted to the investigation of verification procedures associated with the proportional quantifier most. The aim of these studies is to go beyond the traditional characterization of the semantics of most, which is confined to explicating its truth-functional and presuppositional content as well as its combinatorial properties, as these aspects underdetermine the correct analysis of most. The present paper contributes to this effort by presenting new experimental evidence in support of a decompositional analysis of most according to which it is a superlative construction built from a gradable predicate many or much and the superlative operator -est (Hackl, in Nat Lang Semant 17:63–98, 2009). Our evidence comes in the form of verification profiles for sentences like Most of the dots are blue which, we argue, reflect the existence of a superlative reading of most. This notably contrasts with Lidz et al.’s (Nat Lang Semant 19:227–256, 2011) results. To reconcile the two sets of data, we argue, it is necessary to take important differences in task demands into account, which impose limits on the conclusions that can be drawn from these studies.


Quantification Superlatives Experimental design Language processing Semantics–cognition interface Most 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ariel, Mira. 2004. Most. Language 80: 658–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R.H., D.J. Davidson, and D.M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, Dale, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3): 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, D.M., and M. Maechler. 2009. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-32.Google Scholar
  6. Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3): 275–344.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990–present. Online at
  8. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka, and Hadas Kotek. to appear. A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (to appear).Google Scholar
  9. Hackl, Martin. 2009. On the grammar and processing of proportional quantifiers: most versus more than half. Natural Language Semantics 17: 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Halberda, Justin, Sean F. Sires, and Lisa Feigenson. 2006. Multiple spatially overlapping sets can be enumerated in parallel. Psychological Science 17: 572–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin. Semantics Archive.
  12. Heim, Stefan, Katrin Amunts, Dan Drai, Simon B. Eickhoff, Sarah Hautvast, and Yosef Grodzinsky. 2012. The language–number interface in the brain: a complex parametric study of quantifiers and quantities. Frontiers in Evolutionary Neurosciences 4: 1–12.Google Scholar
  13. Horn, Laurence R. 2005. The border wars: A neo-Gricean perspective. In Where semantics meets pragmatics, ed. Klaus von Heusinger and Ken Turner, 21–48. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Kotek, Hadas, Yasutada Sudo, Edwin Howard, and Martin Hackl. 2011a. Most meanings are superlative. In Syntax and Semantics 37: Experiments at the interfaces, ed. Jeff Runner, 101–145. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Kotek, Hadas, Yasutada Sudo, Edwin Howard, and Martin Hackl. 2011b. Three readings of most. In Proceedings of SALT 21, ed. Neil Ashton et al., 353–372. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Krasikova, Sveta. 2011. Definiteness in superlatives. In 18th Amsterdam Colloquium Pre-proceedings, 404–414. Amsterdam: ILLC.
  17. Lidz, Jeff, Paul Pietroski, Tim Hunter, and Justin Halberda. 2011. Interface transparency and psychosemantics of most. Natural Language Semantics 19: 227–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. Rainer Bäuerle et al., 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Marantz, Alec. 2005. Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistic Review 22: 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matthewson, Lisa. 2001. Quantification and the nature of cross-linguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9: 145–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pancheva, Roumyana. To appear. Quantity superlatives: The view from Slavic and its cross-linguistic implications. In Proceedings of CLS 49. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  22. Peterson, Philip L. 1979. On the logic of “few”, “many”, and “most”. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20: 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pica, Pierre, Cathy Lemer, Veronique Izard, and Stanislas Dehaene. 2004. Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science 306: 499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pietroski, Paul, Jeff Lidz, Tim Hunter, and Justin Halberda. 2009. The meaning of most: Semantics, numerosity and psychology. Mind & Language 24(5): 554–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Pinkham, Jessie. 1985. The formation of comparative clauses in French and English. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Solt, Stephanie. 2011. How many mosts. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, ed. Ingo Reich et al., 565–579. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Solt, Stephanie. To appear. On measurement and quantification: The case of most and more than half. Language.Google Scholar
  29. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1986. Comparative Superlatives. In Papers in Theoretical Linguistics (MITWPL 8), ed. Naoki Fukui et al., 245–265. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2012. Compositionality without word boundaries: (The) more and (the) most. In Proceedings of SALT 22, ed. Anca Chereches, 1–25. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Tomaszewicz, Barbara M. 2011. Verification strategies for two majority quantifiers in Polish. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, ed. Ingo Reich et al. Saarbrücken: Saarland Unversity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Treisman, A., and S. Gormican. 1988. Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review 95(1): 15–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Treisman, A., and J. Souther. 1985. Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 16(3): 459–478.Google Scholar
  35. Westerstahl, Dag. 1985. Logical constants in quantifier languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolfe, J.M. 1998. Visual search. In Attention, ed. H. Pashler, 13–73. London: University College London Press.Google Scholar
  37. Yabushita, Katsuhiko. 1999. The unified semantics of mosts. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, ed. Sonya Bird et al., 320–334. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Faculty of Brain SciencesUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Linguistics and PhilosophyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations