There has been much debate, in both the linguistics and the psycholinguistics literature, concerning numbers and the interpretation of number denoting determiners ('numerals'). Such debate concerns, in particular, the nature and distribution of upper-bounded ('at-least') interpretations vs. lowerbounded ('exact') construals. In the present paper we show that the interpretation and processing of numerals are affected by the entailment properties of the context in which they occur. Experiment 1 established off-line preferences using a questionnaire. Experiment 2 investigated the processing issue through an eye tracking experiment using a silent reading task. Our results show that the upperbounded interpretation of numerals occurs more often in an upward entailing context than in a downward entailing context. Reading times of the numeral itself were longer when it was embedded in an upward entailing context than when it was not, indicating that processing resources were required when the context triggered an upper-bounded interpretation. However, reading of a following context that required an upper-bounded interpretation triggered more regressions towards the numeral when it had occurred in a downward entailing context than in an upward entailing one. Such findings show that speakers' interpretation and processing of numerals is systematically affected by the polarity of the sentence in which they occur, and support the hypothesis that the upper-bounded interpretation of numerals is due to a scalar implicature. Keywords numbers; numeral determiners; scalar implicature; polarity; entailment; semantic processing Numerical expressions ('numerals') are known to have (minimally) two interpretations or construals: an 'exact' (or upper bounded) reading and an 'at-least' (or lower bounded) reading (the upper/lower bounded terminology is standard; Horn, 1972). They are exemplified by (1a) and (1b) respectively (and similarly for (2a) and (2b)):(1) a. If I find my wallet, I'll lend you ten dollars.© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Address correspondence to: Daniele Panizza, Dipartimento di Scienze della Cognizione e della Formazione, Corso Bettini n. 31, 38068 Rovereto (TN), Italy. Telephone: 0039-0464-808668, Fax Number: 0039-0464-808655, daniele.panizza@unitn.it. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. (2) a. Everyone will lend John ten dollars. NIH Public Accessb. Everyone who lends John ten dollars will never see his money again.The most salient reading of (1a) is an upper bounded one (…, I'll give you exactly ten dollars), while (1b) is more naturally inte...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract.