English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Quantifying determiners  most  and  more than half  are standardly assumed to have the same truth-conditional meaning. Much work builds on this assumption in studying how the two quantifiers are mentally encoded and processed ( Hackl, 2009 ;  Lidz  et al. , 2011 ;  Pietroski  et al. , 2009 ;  Steinert-Threlkeld  et al. , 2015 ;  Szymanik &amp; Zajenkowski, 2010 ;  Talmina  et al. , 2017 ). There is however empirical evidence that  most  is sometimes interpreted as ‘significantly more than half’ ( Ariel, 2003 ,  2004 ;  Ramotowska  et al. , 2020 ;  Solt, 2011 ,  2016 ). Is this difference between  most  and  more than half  a pragmatic effect, or is the standard assumption that the two quantifiers are truth-conditionally equivalent wrong? We report two experiments which demonstrate that  most  preserves the ‘significantly more than half’ interpretation in negative environments, which we argue to speak in favor of there being a difference between the two quantifiers at the level of truth conditions.

Are Most and More Than Half Truth-Conditionally Equivalent?