Quantificational determiners are often said to be devices for expressing relations. For example, the meaning of every is standardly described as the inclusion relation, with a sentence like every frog is green meaning roughly that the green things include the frogs. Here, we consider an older, non-relational alternative: determiners are tools for creating restricted quantifiers. On this view, determiners specify how many elements of a restricted domain (e.g., the frogs) satisfy a given condition (e.g., being green). One important difference concerns how the determiner treats its two grammatical arguments. On the relational view, the arguments are on a logical par as independent terms that specify the two relata. But on the restricted view, the arguments play distinct logical roles: specifying the limited domain versus supplying an additional condition on domain entities. We present psycholinguistic evidence suggesting that the restricted view better describes what speakers know when they know the meaning of a determiner. In particular, we find that when asked to evaluate sentences of the form every F is G, participants mentally group the Fs but not the Gs. Moreover, participants forego representing the group defined by the intersection of F and G. This tells against the idea that speakers understand every F is G as implying that the Fs bear relation (e.g., inclusion) to a second group.

定量限定词通常被认为是表达关系的手段。例如， every的含义被标准描述为包含关系，有这样的句子：every frog is green大致意思是绿色的东西包括青蛙。在这里，我们考虑一种较旧的非关系替代方案：限定词是用于创建受限量词的工具。在此视图中，确定器指定受限制域（例如青蛙）中有多少元素满足给定条件（例如绿色）。一个重要的区别在于限定词如何处理它的两个语法参数。在关系视图中，参数在逻辑上作为指定两个关系的独立术语。但在受限视图中，参数扮演着不同的逻辑角色：指定受限域与为域实体提供附加条件。我们提出的心理语言学证据表明，当说话者知道限定词的含义时，受限视图可以更好地描述他们所知道的内容。尤其，每个 F 都是 G，参与者在心里对 F 进行分组，而不是对 G 进行分组。此外，参与者放弃代表由 F 和 G 的交集定义的组。这与说话者将每个 F 都是 G理解为暗示 F 与第二组有关系（例如，包含）的观点相悖。