Sentences with multiple quantifiers often lead to interpretive ambiguities, which can vary across languages. This study adopts a cross-linguistic approach to examine how large language models (LLMs) handle quantifier scope interpretation in English and Chinese, using probabilities to assess interpretive likelihood. Human similarity (HS) scores were used to quantify the extent to which LLMs emulate human performance across language groups. Results reveal that most LLMs prefer the surface scope interpretations, aligning with human tendencies, while only some differentiate between English and Chinese in the inverse scope preferences, reflecting human-similar patterns. HS scores highlight variability in LLMs' approximation of human behavior, but their overall potential to align with humans is notable. Differences in model architecture, scale, and particularly models' pre-training data language background, significantly influence how closely LLMs approximate human quantifier scope interpretations.

Sentences containing multiple semantic operators with overlapping scope often create ambiguities in interpretation, known as scope ambiguities. These ambiguities offer rich insights into the interaction between semantic structure and world knowledge in language processing. Despite this, there has been little research into how modern large language models treat them. In this paper, we investigate how different versions of certain autoregressive language models -- GPT-2, GPT-3/3.5, Llama 2 and GPT-4 -- treat scope ambiguous sentences, and compare this with human judgments. We introduce novel datasets that contain a joint total of almost 1,000 unique scope-ambiguous sentences, containing interactions between a range of semantic operators, and annotated for human judgments. Using these datasets, we find evidence that several models (i) are sensitive to the meaning ambiguity in these sentences, in a way that patterns well with human judgments, and (ii) can successfully identify human-preferred readings at a high level of accuracy (over 90% in some cases).