An Experimental Study on the Meaning of Urdu Universal Quantifiers

The virtually universal opinion of semanticists is that the collective or distributive construal of English quantified statements results from the collective and distributive properties of different quantifiers with necessarily collective or distributive predicate types. The evidence adduced to support such analyses is based almost exclusively on previous research on English quantifiers (Vendler, 1967; Hogg, 1977; Dowty, 1987; Szabolcsi, 1997; Beghelli and Stowell, 1997; Kearns, 2000; Tunstall, 1998 among many others). It is generally assumed that adults are essentially error-free in their comprehension of sentences containing universal quantifiers, although they are not as sensitive to semantic anomalies as they are to syntactic violations or do not consider them as serious (Ni et al., 1998; Pearlmutter et al., 1999; Braze et al., 2002; Angrilli et al., 2002; Hagoort, 2003; Sorace and Keller, 2005). The aim of this paper is to subject these beliefs to cross-linguistic scrutiny. I begin by reviewing the evidence that the English universal quantifier all has a bias towards a collective interpretation, while each/every is biased towards a distributive interpretation. Pursuing this idea for the analysis of Urdu, I present a simple questionnaire study carried out on native speakers of Urdu. The questionnaire was designed to explore whether native speakers of Urdu are sensitive to the collective/distributive properties of Urdu universal quantifiers, and whether they are differentially sensitive to semantic/syntactic anomalies in quantified statements. I discuss the implications of this for the cross-linguistic analysis of universal quantifiers.

[1]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities , 1993, Cognition.

[2]  A. Sorace Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with Intransitive Verbs. , 2000 .

[3]  Anna Szabolcsi Strategies for Scope Taking , 1997 .

[4]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Agreement Processes in Sentence Comprehension , 1999 .

[5]  Antonella Sorace,et al.  Gradience in Linguistic Data , 2005 .

[6]  D. Gil Universal Quantifiers and Distributivity , 1995 .

[7]  R. Fiengo,et al.  The Logic of Reciprocity , 2008 .

[8]  Georgette Ioup,et al.  Some universals for quantifier scope , 1975 .

[9]  Jack Catlin,et al.  Semantic representations as procedures for verification , 1975 .

[10]  Peter Lasersohn Plurality, Conjunction and Events , 1994 .

[11]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  Syntax–Semantics Interface , 2001 .

[12]  Kathryn Gillen The comprehension of doubly quantified sentences , 1991 .

[13]  E. H. Hutten SEMANTICS , 1953, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[14]  Jack Catlin,et al.  Lexical and structural cues to quantifier scope relations , 1980 .

[15]  Miriam Butt The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu , 1995 .

[16]  Liina Pylkkänen,et al.  The Syntax-Semantics Interface , 2006 .

[17]  M. V. Aldridge,et al.  English quantifiers: A study of quantifying expressions in linguistic science and modern English usage , 1982 .

[18]  T. Stowell,et al.  Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of Each and Every , 1997 .

[19]  P. Hagoort Interplay between Syntax and Semantics during Sentence Comprehension: ERP Effects of Combining Syntactic and Semantic Violations , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[20]  Stephen Crain,et al.  Quantification Without Qualification , 1996 .

[21]  Richard M. Hogg,et al.  English Quantifier Systems , 1977 .

[22]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates , 1995 .

[23]  Susanne Lynn Tunstall,et al.  The interpretation of quantifiers : semantics & processing , 1998 .

[24]  Hye-Kyung Kang,et al.  Quantifier spreading: linguistic and pragmatic considerations☆ , 2001 .

[25]  Lisa Matthewson,et al.  Quantification and the Nature of Crosslinguistic Variation , 2001 .

[26]  Thomas Roeper,et al.  The Acquisition Path of Quantifiers: Two Kinds of Spreading , 2004 .

[27]  Emmon W. Bach,et al.  Quantification in Natural Languages , 1995 .

[28]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Soft Constraints Mirror Hard Constraints: Voice and Person in English and Lummi , 2002 .

[29]  Francesco Vespignani,et al.  Cortical brain responses to semantic incongruity and syntactic violation in Italian language: an event-related potential study , 2002, Neuroscience Letters.

[30]  Z. Vendler Linguistics in Philosophy , 1967 .

[31]  Irina A. Sekerina,et al.  Shortcuts to Quantifier Interpretation in Children and Adults , 2006 .

[32]  Weijia Ni,et al.  Readers' Eye Movements Distinguish Anomalies of Form and Content , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[33]  M. Braine,et al.  What do children know about the universal quantifiers all and each? , 1996, Cognition.