Foppolo (2009)

Foppolo (2009) aimed to test experimentally whether there is a preferred interpretation of the dependent variable in donkey sentences, and whether there is a default one that retains the monotonicity of the quantifier based on the generalization of Kanazawa (1994), which states that a universal quantifier entails a universal reading of the sentence while an existential quantifier leads to an existential reading.

According to Foppolo, the two readings of the donkey pronoun are not independently present; instead, one always entails the other, and entailment applies to the monotonicity of the quantifier. Hence, if the quantifier is the universal one every, then the strongest reading is the universal one, entailing the existential; if the quantifier is no, the strongest reading is the

existential reading, entailing the universal; if the quantifier is the existential quantifier some,

nevertheless, it is the universal reading that is the strongest and entails the existential.

Nevertheless, the prediction is that the default reading relies on the left monotonicity of the quantifier; therefore, it is predicted that the universal reading is preferred for donkey sentences with every, and the existential reading for donkey sentences headed by no and

some.

Two experiments were employed by Foppolo (2009) for the examination of Kanazawa’s Generalization, exploring whether this default reading existed, whether the preference was in the same vein of Kanazawa’s analysis, and whether biased contexts influenced the reading.

Three quantifiers were taken into investigation – every with the predicted preference of a universal interpretation, while no and some with the predicted preference for an existential interpretation.

The first experiment was concerned with the existence of the default interpretation.

Thirty subjects were asked to take a truth-value judgement task and to evaluate whether the four pictures could express the interpretation of the target sentence with a quantifier in three

different situations, and their reaction time was recorded. The subjects were told to be

“charitable” when doing the tasks. To eliminate the possibility of extra-linguistic or world knowledge interfering the results, fantasy names were used in order to obtain their real interpretations of the pronouns. Target sentences with the three quantifiers, every, no and

some, were put into three different situations – one that was compatible with both universal

and existential readings (non-differentiating true, NDT), one that was compatible with neither of the two readings (non-differentiating false, NDF), and one that was compatible with only one of the readings (differentiating-critical, DC).

The results of the first experiment showed that the default of interpretation existed. First, concerning the results of the control conditions in the three quantifiers, both the control-false condition (NDF) and the control-true condition (NDT) obtained correct responses as high as 96%. Furthermore, the DC condition illustrated that for sentences introduced by no and some, the subjects tended to interpret them with an existential reading, but that no clear tendency occurred in sentences introduced by every. For the first two quantifiers, the subjects with a high percentage rejected the sentence headed by no with a universal reading and accepted the sentence headed by some with an existential reading; however, for every, only roughly about half of the subjects rejected sentences headed by every with an existential reading.

Fopplo’s first experiment showed that Kanazawa’s Generalization was partially correct;

in addition, Foppolo emphasized the reaction time in the three situations offered some insight.

Longer reaction time was perceived in the DC condition with sentences introduced by every than with ones introduced by some, both of which were presented an existential reading of pictures. Also, there was no great difference in reaction time on sentences headed by every between in the NDT situation, which favored the universal reading, and in the DC situation, where the existential reading was presented only. Hence, as shown with the reaction time, although no high percentage was obtained to deny the existential reading of sentences introduced by every, the reaction time on the acceptance showed that the choices of truth-values were not that arbitrary for the subjects and quantifiers were indeed influential.

Although the generalization has been affirmed, the second experiment was employed to further confirm whether the alternative readings were accessible. Subjects were other thirty-six students recruited to examine the test items in a truth-value judgement task. Only taking the NDF and the DC conditions into investigation, and providing with biased contexts, Foppolo was to explore whether the subjects would be induced to choose an alternative reading, which is a disfavored one, and the two situations were designed with the disfavored reading based on the generalization.

The results turned out that no significant effect on context was seen in the control situation; however, a significant effect was presented in the critical DC condition for every in that with biased contexts, the subjects were greatly influenced and chose to take an existential reading, which is a disfavored one. On the other hand, biasing contexts did not bring about

the subjects to change their interpretation of the donkey pronouns in sentences introduced by

no and some. It was shown that the subjects were easily induced by biasing contexts with

sentences introduced by every, and Foppolo reasoned that the instruction of “being charitable”

could also render them to such results. Overall, it was proved by Foppolo’s two experiments that Kanazawa’s Generalization is correct, which states that the left monotonicity on the head quantifier presents default interpretations of the donkey pronouns.

The experiments and the results showed the confirmation of Kanazawa’s predictions.

However, due to the fact that Foppolo only explored the default interpretations of donkey pronouns, the subject recruitment was only one group in each experiment. In addition, for the task design and materials, four pictures with fantasy names in target sentences could be task-demanding, and in a total of seventeen test items, only nine of them were critical test sentences. The number of test items was small, and this design was challenging with four pictures integrated as a whole.