Quantifiers and verification strategies: connecting the dots

Abstract

In this paper, we replicate the influential study of Hackl (2009), making more specific algorithmic-level predictions based on Hackl’s findings. Hackl argued that two semantically equivalent quantifiers more than half and most are associated with different verification strategies. The results of our experiment diverge in several respects from the original study. We explain the results by focusing on two potential confounds in Hackl’s 2009 experimental set-up: different roles that working memory can play in the verification of different quantifiers and individual differences suggesting the use of various cognitive strategies.