We bring experimental considerations to bear on the structure of comparatives and on ourunderstanding of how quantifiers are processed. At issue are mismatches between thestandard view of quantifier processing cost and results from speeded verification experimentswith comparative quantifiers. We build our case in several steps: 1. We show that thestandard view, which attributes processing cost to the verification process, accounts for someaspects of the data, but fails to cover the main effect of monotonicity on measured behavior.We derive a prediction of this view for comparatives, and show that it is not borne out. 2. Weconsider potential reasons – experimental and theoretical – for this theory-data mismatch. 3.We describe a new processing experiment with comparative quantifiers, designed to addressthe experimental concerns. Its results still point to the inadequacy of the standard view. 4. Wereview the semantics of comparative constructions and their potential processingimplications. 5. We revise the definition of quantifier processing cost and tie it to the numberof Downward Entailing (DE) operators at Logical Form (LF). We show how this definitionsuccessfully reconciles the theory-data mismatch. 6. The emerging picture calls for adistinction between the complexity of verified representations and the complexity of theverification process itself.Keywords: quantification, monotonicity, negation, comparative constructions, Logical Form,adjectival antonyms, decomposition, quantifier processing, speeded verification, reactiontime.
processing cost of Downward Entailingness: the representation and verification of comparative constructions