Kotek et al. (Nat Lang Semant 23: 119–156, 2015) argue on the basis of novel experimental evidence that sentences like ‘Most of the dots are blue’ are ambiguous, i.e. have two distinct truth conditions. Kotek et al. furthermore suggest that when their results are taken together with those of earlier work by Lidz et al. (Nat Lang Semant 19: 227–256, 2011), the overall picture that emerges casts doubt on the conclusions that Lidz et al. drew from their earlier results. We disagree with this characterization of the relationship between the two studies. Our main aim in this reply is to clarify the relationship as we see it. In our view, Kotek et al.’s central claims are simply logically independent of those of Lidz et al.: the former concern which truth condition(s) a certain kind of sentence has, while the latter concern the procedures that speakers choose for the purposes of determining whether a particular truth condition is satisfied in various scenes. The appearance of a conflict between the two studies stems from inattention to the distinction between questions about truth conditions and questions about verification procedures.

中文翻译：

---

关于验证任务与验证程序之间的关系：回复Kotek等。

Kotek等。（Nat Lang Semant 23：119–156，2015）基于新颖的实验证据，证明诸如“大多数点都是蓝色”这样的句子是模棱两可的，即具有两个截然不同的真实条件。Kotek等。此外，建议将其结果与Lidz等人的早期研究成果结合在一起使用。（Nat Lang Semant 19：227-256，2011），出现的整体情况使人们对Lidz等人的结论产生了怀疑。从他们先前的结果中得出。我们不同意这两项研究之间关系的表征。我们在此回复中的主要目的是澄清我们所看到的关系。我们认为，Kotek等人的核心主张在逻辑上完全独立于Lidz等人的主张：前者关注的是某种句子的真实条件所具有的，而后者涉及说话者为确定在各种场景中是否满足特定的真相条件而选择的程序。两项研究之间出现冲突的根源是由于对真相条件问题与验证程序问题之间的区分不够重视。