阅读理解中汉语量词的眼动特点分析

采用眼动记录技术探讨被试阅读不同汉语量词的即时加工过程。考查名量词和动量词,以及名量词内部的差异。结果发现:(1)被试在阅读理解过程中对名量词和动量词的眼动特点存在显著差异,名量词获得更多的加工;(2)被试在阅读理解过程中对不同名量词的眼动特点也存在显著差异,个体量词比集合量词和临时量词获得更少的加工。由此可知,不同量词在阅读理解中的信息加工难度是不同的,对于篇章理解而言,其信息含量和信息的重要性也是不同的。     

Modal Ontology and Generalized Quantifiers

Timothy Williamson has argued that in the debate on modal ontology, the familiar distinction between actualism and possibilism should be replaced by a distinction between positions he calls contingentism and necessitism. He has also argued in favor of necessitism, using results on quantified modal logic with plurally interpreted second-order quantifiers showing that necessitists can draw distinctions contingentists cannot draw. Some of these results are similar to well-known results on the relative expressivity of quantified modal logics with so-called inner and outer quantifiers. The present paper deals with these issues in the context of quantified modal logics with generalized quantifiers. Its main aim is to establish two results for such a logic: Firstly, contingentists can draw the distinctions necessitists can draw if and only if the logic with inner quantifiers is at least as expressive as the logic with outer quantifiers, and necessitists can draw the distinctions contingentists can draw if and only if the logic with outer quantifiers is at least as expressive as the logic with inner quantifiers. Secondly, the former two items are the case if and only if all of the generalized quantifiers are first-order definable, and the latter two items are the case if and only if first-order logic with these generalized quantifiers relativizes.     

Quantifier comprehension in corticobasal degeneration

In this study, we investigated patients with focal neurodegenerative diseases to examine a formal linguistic distinction between classes of generalized quantifiers, like "some X" and "less than half of X." Our model of quantifier comprehension proposes that number knowledge is required to understand both first-order and higher-order quantifiers. The present results demonstrate that corticobasal degeneration (CBD) patients, who have number knowledge impairments but little evidence for a deficit understanding other aspects of language, are impaired in their comprehension of quantifiers relative to healthy seniors, Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) patients [F(3,77)=4.98; p<.005]. Moreover, our model attempts to honor a distinction in complexity between classes of quantifiers such that working memory is required to comprehend higher-order quantifiers. Our results support this distinction by demonstrating that FTD and AD patients, who have working memory limitations, have greater difficulty understanding higher-order quantifiers relative to first-order quantifiers [F(1,77)=124.29; p<.001]. An important implication of these findings is that the meaning of generalized quantifiers appears to involve two dissociable components, number knowledge and working memory, which are supported by distinct brain regions.     

Commodious Axiomatization of Quantifiers in Multiple-Valued Logic

We provide tools for a concise axiomatization of a broad class of quantifiers in many-valued logic, so-called distribution quantifiers. Although sound and complete axiomatizations for such quantifiers exist, their size renders them virtually useless for practical purposes. We show that for quantifiers based on finite distributive lattices compact axiomatizations can be obtained schematically. This is achieved by providing a link between skolemized signed formulas and filters/ideals in Boolean set lattices. Then lattice theoretic tools such as Birkhoff's representation theorem for finite distributive lattices are used to derive tableau-style axiomatizations of distribution quantifiers.     

On the Expressive Power of Monotone Natural Language Quantifiers over Finite Models

We study definability in terms of monotone generalized quantifiers satisfying Isomorphism Closure, Conservativity and Extension. Among the quantifiers with the latter three properties – here called CE quantifiers – one finds the interpretations of determiner phrases in natural languages. The property of monotonicity is also linguistically ubiquitous, though some determiners like an even number of are highly non-monotone. They are nevertheless definable in terms of monotone CE quantifiers: we give a necessary and sufficient condition for such definability. We further identify a stronger form of monotonicity, called smoothness, which also has linguistic relevance, and we extend our considerations to smooth quantifiers. The results lead us to propose two tentative universals concerning monotonicity and natural language quantification. The notions involved as well as our proofs are presented using a graphical representation of quantifiers in the so-called number triangle.     

关于不可化归的多态式量词句的CCG探析

广义量词理论对英语中一些特定的量词句进行分析,把其中两个单态式量词合并成一个多态式量词。Keenan证明了这个多态式量词的意义不能化归为两个单态式量词的意义,即多态式量词的意义不能从两个单态式量词的标准意义推演出来。Keenan的研究是很有价值的,但本文尝试从另外的角度思考,对汉语类似的多态式量化句进行个案处理,采纳组合范畴语法针对自然语言表层结构的词汇主义方法,遵循部分表达式的意义决定整体表达式意义的组合原则,从两个单态式量词的非标准意义推演出整个多态式量词句的量化意义。     

Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension

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 1 and 2 feature a continuation task with quantifiers that span a full range of denotations (from near 0% 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 (1971), 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.     

The role of context and functionality in the interpretation of quantifiers

The aim of the three experiments that are reported was to investigate the role of context, especially size and functionality, in the interpretation of quantifiers. The studies all used a task in which participants rated the appropriateness of quantifiers describing the number of balls in a bowl. The size of the balls was found to have an effect: Identical numbers of balls were given different ratings depending on ball size. It was also found that quantifiers were rated as more appropriate when the balls were in their natural functional relationship with the bowl (i.e., contained within the bowl), than when the functional relationship was breached (i.e., the balls overflowed the bowl). Tilting the bowl had surprising effects in that it led to some quantifiers being rated as more appropriate. The results are interpreted as indicating that quantifiers carry little specific meaning in themselves but instead derive their meaning from the context in which they occur.     

How much is ‘quite a bit’? Mapping between numerical values and vague quantifiers

Vague quantifiers, terms like “quite a bit” and “hardly ever”, are often used in the response scales of psychology and social science questionnaires to measure the frequency of certain behaviours. However, responses to such questions arc confounded because people differ in their interpretations of vague quantifiers. We propose that people interpret vague quantifiers by constructing a notion of how most people behave. Examining a critical topic for media researchers–estimating the amount of television walched–we conducted two split-ballot experiments in national surveys. Our first study (n = 1028) demonstrates that the amount people think other people watch varies according to how much television they watch themselves and the behaviour of their social group. Our second experiment (n = 1106) extends this result to the interpretation of vague quantifiers. These findings shed light on the psychological processes involved when interpreting vague quantifiers, and bring into question the validity of many survey results.     

扩展三段论的可化归性与广义量词的语义性质之间的关系

基于Barwise、Cooper、Keenan、Peters、Westerstahl和vanEijck等人的研究成果,作者提出并证明了若干事实和推论。这些事实和推论表明：（1）不同三段论之间的可化归性本质上反映了广义量词的单调性、对称性等语义性质之间的可转换性,因此,我们可以根据四个亚氏量词的语义性质之间的转换关系来验证亚氏三段论的可化归性;（2）利用广义量词的语义性质可以验证扩展三段论的不同推理模式之间的可化归关系。由于广义量词在自然语言中普遍存在,因此,本文的研究对广义量词理论的发展和自然语言的信息处理都具有积极意义。     

“At least one” problem with “some” formal reasoning paradigms

In formal reasoning, the quantifier "some" means "at least one and possibly all." In contrast, reasoners often pragmatically interpret "some" to mean "some, but not all" on both immediate-inference and Euler circle tasks. It is still unclear whether pragmatic interpretations can explain the high rates of errors normally observed on syllogistic reasoning tasks. To address this issue, we presented participants (reasoners) in the present experiments either standard quantifiers or clarified quantifiers designed to precisely articulate the quantifiers' logical interpretations. In Experiment 1, reasoners made significantly more logical responses and significantly fewer pragmatic responses on an immediate-inference task when presented with logically clarified as opposed to standard quantifiers. In Experiment 2, this finding was extended to a variant of the immediate-inference task in which reasoners were asked to deduce what followed from premises they were to assume to be false. In Experiment 3, we used a syllogistic reasoning task and observed that logically clarified premises reduced pragmatic and increased logical responses relative to standard ones, providing strong evidence that pragmatic responses can explain some aspects of the errors made in the syllogistic reasoning task. These findings suggest that standard quantifiers should be replaced with logically clarified quantifiers in teaching and in future research.     

Quantifiers and Congruence Closure

We prove some results about the limitations of the expressive power of quantifiers on finite structures. We define the concept of a bounded quantifier and prove that every relativizing quantifier which is bounded is already first-order definable (Theorem 3.8). We weaken the concept of congruence closed (see [6]) to weakly congruence closed by restricting to congruence relations where all classes have the same size. Adapting the concept of a thin quantifier (Caicedo [1]) to the framework of finite structures, we define the concept of a meager quantifier. We show that no proper extension of first-order logic by means of meager quantifiers is weakly congruence closed (Theorem 4.9). We prove the failure of the full congruence closure property for logics which extend first-order logic by means of meager quantifiers, arbitrary monadic quantifiers, and the Härtig quantifier (Theorem 6.1).     

Monotone Quantifiers Emerge via Iterated Learning

Natural languages exhibit many semantic universals, that is, properties of meaning shared across all languages. In this paper, we develop an explanation of one very prominent semantic universal, the monotonicity universal. While the existing work has shown that quantifiers satisfying the monotonicity universal are easier to learn, we provide a more complete explanation by considering the emergence of quantifiers from the perspective of cultural evolution. In particular, we show that quantifiers satisfy the monotonicity universal evolve reliably in an iterated learning paradigm with neural networks as agents.     

广义量词的相关性质研究

本文是笔者对S.Peters与D.Westerst(?)hl([7])的成果的拓展研究。首先介绍相关的概念。其次,笔者详细证明了类型为〈1,1〉的广义量词的对称性与单调性的关系定理。然后,笔者给出了该类量词的余对称性、余相交性和余驻留性定义,接着笔者提出并证明了关于这三个性质的四个定理,而且还详细证明了余对称性与单调性的关系定理。最后,笔者探讨了具有(余)驻留性和(余)对称性的〈1,1〉类型的广义量词的数字三角形的特点。由于〈1,1〉类型的广义量词在自然语言中普遍存在,所以,本文的研究对广义量词理论的发展具有一定的理论价值,对自然语言的计算机信息处理也具有一定的实践指导意义。     

Comprehension of simple quantifiers: empirical evaluation of a computational model

We examine the verification of simple quantifiers in natural language from a computational model perspective. We refer to previous neuropsychological investigations of the same problem and suggest extending their experimental setting. Moreover, we give some direct empirical evidence linking computational complexity predictions with cognitive reality. In the empirical study we compare time needed for understanding different types of quantifiers. We show that the computational distinction between quantifiers recognized by finite-automata and push-down automata is psychologically relevant. Our research improves upon, the hypotheses and explanatory power of recent neuroimaging studies as well as provides evidence for the claim that human linguistic abilities are constrained by computational complexity.     

MOST intelligent people are accurate and SOME fast people are intelligent.: Intelligence,working memory,and semantic processing of quantifiers from a computational perspective

The paper explores the relationship between intelligence and the semantic processing of natural language quantifiers. The first study revealed that intelligence is positively associated with the subjects' performance when solving a picture verification task with one of the four types of sentences: Aristotelian (e.g. ‘All cars are red’), parity (e.g. ‘An even number of cars are red’), numerical (e.g. ‘More than five cars are red’), and proportional (‘More than half of the cars are red’). The strongest relationship was observed between the cognitive ability and the accuracy of proportional sentences, in accordance with the computational theory which predicts the highest engagement of working memory (WM) within the group of proportional quantifiers. Moreover, individuals with higher intelligence reacted faster, but this was observed only in case of quantifiers with low complexity. Exploring further, in the second study we found that WM and intelligence were both significant predictors of subjects' score on proportional sentences. In the third study, we examined the relationships between quantifiers, intelligence, short-term memory (STM), and executive control function. STM was correlated with all types of quantifiers that need counting and keeping track of elements (parity, numerical, and proportional). Only proportional quantifiers were associated with cognitive control. The obtained results are discussed within the computational paradigm of language processing.     

The logic in language: How all quantifiers are alike,but each quantifier is different

Quantifier words like each, every, all and three are among the most abstract words in language. Unlike nouns, verbs and adjectives, the meanings of quantifiers are not related to a referent out in the world. Rather, quantifiers specify what relationships hold between the sets of entities, events and properties denoted by other words. When two quantifiers are in the same clause, they create a systematic ambiguity. “Every kid climbed a tree” could mean that there was only one tree, climbed by all, or many different trees, one per climbing kid. In the present study, participants chose a picture to indicate their preferred reading of different ambiguous sentences – those containing every, as well as the other three quantifiers. In Experiment 1, we found large systematic differences in preference, depending on the quantifier word. In Experiment 2, we then manipulated the choice of a particular reading of one sentence, and tested how this affected participants’ reading preference on a subsequent target sentence. We found a priming effect for all quantifiers, but only when the prime and target sentences contained the same quantifier. For example, all-a sentences prime other all-a sentences, while each-a primes each-a, but sentences with each do not prime sentences with all or vice versa. In Experiment 3, we ask whether the lack of priming across quantifiers could be due to the two sentences sharing one fewer word. We find that changing the verb between the prime and target sentence does not reduce the priming effect. In Experiment 4, we discover one case where there is priming across quantifiers – when one number (e.g. three) is in the prime, and a different one (e.g. four) is in the target. We discuss how these findings relate to linguistic theories of quantifier meaning and what they tell us about the division of labor between conceptual content and combinatorial semantics, as well as the mental representations of quantification and of the abstract logical structure of language.     

Taking the High (or Low) Road: A Quantifier Priming Perspective on Basic Anchoring Effects

ABSTRACT

Current explanations of basic anchoring effects, defined as the influence of an arbitrary number standard on an uncertain judgment, confound numerical values with vague quantifiers. I show that the consideration of numerical anchors may bias subsequent judgments primarily through the priming of quantifiers, rather than the numbers themselves. Study 1 varied the target of a numerical comparison judgment in a between-participants design, while holding the numerical anchor value constant. This design yielded an anchoring effect consistent with a quantifier priming hypothesis. Study 2 included a direct manipulation of vague quantifiers in the traditional anchoring paradigm. Finally, Study 3 examined the notion that specific associations between quantifiers, reflecting values on separate judgmental dimensions (i.e., the price and height of a target) can affect the direction of anchoring effects. Discussion focuses on the nature of vague quantifier priming in numerically anchored judgments.     

Illusory inferences with quantifiers

The psychological study of reasoning with quantifiers has predominantly focused on inference patterns studied by Aristotle about two millennia ago. Modern logic has shown a wealth of inference patterns involving quantifiers that are far beyond the expressive power of Aristotelian syllogisms, and whose psychology should be explored. We bring to light a novel class of fallacious inference patterns, some of which are so attractive that they are tantamount to cognitive illusions. In tandem with recent insights from linguistics that quantifiers like “some” are treated as wh-questions, these illusory inferences are predicted by the erotetic theory of reasoning, which postulates that a process akin to question asking and answering is behind human inference making.     

IF多值逻辑及博弈语义

本文基于经典一阶逻辑句法的逻辑优先性分析,把Hintikka的独立联结词和独立量词扩展到多值逻辑中。我们给出IF多值逻辑的句法,并使用不完全信息的语义赋值博弈解释了IF多值逻辑。