Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Processing of Numerical and Proportional Quantifiers.Sailee Shikhare, Stefan Heim, Elise Klein, Stefan Huber & Klaus Willmes - 2015 - Cognitive Science 39 (7):1504-1536.
    Quantifier expressions like “many” and “at least” are part of a rich repository of words in language representing magnitude information. The role of numerical processing in comprehending quantifiers was studied in a semantic truth value judgment task, asking adults to quickly verify sentences about visual displays using numerical or proportional quantifiers. The visual displays were composed of systematically varied proportions of yellow and blue circles. The results demonstrated that numerical estimation and numerical reference information are fundamental in encoding the meaning (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • So Many Are “Few,” but so Few Are Also “Few” – Reduced Semantic Flexibility in bvFTD Patients.Stefan Heim, Corey T. McMillan, Christopher Olm & Murray Grossman - 2020 - Frontiers in Psychology 11.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • “Few” or “Many”? An Adaptation Level Theory Account for Flexibility in Quantifier Processing.Stefan Heim, Natalja Peiseler & Natalia Bekemeier - 2020 - Frontiers in Psychology 11.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Jakub Szymanik, Quantifiers and Cognition. Logical and Computational Perspectives. Springer, 2016. Pp. xii+211. ISBN: 978-3-319-28749-2 (hardcover) EUR 106,99; eBook EUR 83,29. [REVIEW]Giosuè Baggio & Heming Strømholt Bremnes - 2017 - Studia Logica 105 (5):1015-1019.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Restricting and Embedding Imperatives.Nate Charlow - 2010 - In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager & K. Schulz (eds.), Logic, Language, and Meaning: Selected Papers from the 17th Amsterdam Colloquium. Springer.
    We use imperatives to refute a naïve analysis of update potentials (force-operators attaching to sentences), arguing for a dynamic analysis of imperative force as restrictable, directed, and embeddable. We propose a dynamic, non-modal analysis of conditional imperatives, as a counterpoint to static, modal analyses. Our analysis retains Kratzer's analysis of if-clauses as restrictors of some operator, but avoids typing it as a generalized quantifier over worlds (against her), instead as a dynamic force operator. Arguments for a restrictor treatment (but against (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations