Improving Methodology of Quantifier Comprehension Experiments

Neuropsychologia 47 (12):2682--2683 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Szymanik (2007) suggested that the distinction between first-order and higher-order quantifiers does not coincide with the computational resources required to compute the meaning of quantifiers. Cognitive difficulty of quantifier processing might be better assessed on the basis of complexity of the minimal corresponding automata. For example, both logical and numerical quantifiers are first-order. However, computational devices recognizing logical quantifiers have a fixed number of states while the number of states in automata corresponding to numerical quantifiers grows with the rank of the quantifier. This observation partially explains the differences in processing between those two types of quantifiers (Troiani et al. 2009) and links them to the computational model. Taking this perspective, below, we suggest the experimental setting extending the one by McMillan et al. (2005) and Troiani et al. (2009).

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,561

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Iterating semantic automata.Shane Steinert-Threlkeld & I. I. I. Thomas F. Icard - 2013 - Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (2):151-173.
Iterating semantic automata.Shane Steinert-Threlkeld & Thomas F. Icard - 2013 - Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (2):151-173.
Computational Semantics for Monadic Quantifiers.Marcin Mostowski - 1998 - Journal of Applied Non--Classical Logics 8 (1-2):107--121.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-07-16

Downloads
50 (#422,963)

6 months
3 (#1,467,341)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?