Different determiners, different algorithms: Two majority quantifiers in Cantonese bias distinct verification strategies

doi:None

Title	Authors

Home

Lidz et al. (2011) propose that meanings provide canonical verification strategies and argue for specifying *most *in terms of cardinality and subtraction. We provide cross-linguistic support for these hypotheses by testing two Cantonese determiners: *daai-do-sou*, which has a proportional meaning like *most*, and *zeoi-do*, which has a “largest subset” meaning. When asked to evaluate statements with respect to displays, both determiners led participants to rely on their Approximate Number System. But whereas *zeoi-do *biased a strategy of serial comparison, *daai-do-sou*, like *most*, biased superset subtraction. Even in cases where either procedure could be successfully deployed, participants nonetheless used distinct strategies.

OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.

This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.

Create an Account Learn More Hide this message

Main content

Home

Menu

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Main content

Links to this project

Home

Menu

Add new wiki page

Page permissions have changed

Wiki page deleted

Connected to the collaborative wiki

Connecting to the collaborative wiki

Collaborative wiki is unavailable

Browser unsupported

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.