Comparison Class: Empirical Data #
@cite{tessler-goodman-2022} @cite{tessler-goodman-2019} @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}
Theory-neutral empirical patterns for comparison class inference with gradable adjectives.
Phenomena Covered #
- Polarity × Expectations Interaction: Adjective polarity interacts with prior expectations to determine inferred comparison class
- Linguistic vs Visual Cues: Taxonomic labels dominate visual context
- RGA vs AGA Distinction: Relative vs absolute gradable adjectives differ in comparison class sensitivity
Empirical pattern: Polarity and prior expectations interact to determine the inferred comparison class.
Prediction:
- Positive adjective + expected property → superordinate class (e.g., "tall basketball player" → compared to people in general)
- Negative adjective + expected property → subordinate class (e.g., "short basketball player" → compared to basketball players)
- The pattern reverses when expectations reverse (e.g., "short jockey" → compared to people; "tall jockey" → compared to jockeys)
Source: @cite{tessler-goodman-2022}, Section 3
- adjective : String
The adjective used
- polarity : String
Polarity of the adjective (positive or negative)
- noun : String
The noun/kind mentioned
- priorExpectation : String
Prior expectation direction for this kind ("high" or "low")
- inferredClass : String
Inferred comparison class
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Tall basketball player" → compared to people in general (superordinate).
When you hear someone is a "tall basketball player", the most informative interpretation is that they are tall even compared to people in general, since basketball players are expected to be tall anyway.
Source: @cite{tessler-goodman-2022}, Section 3.2.1, Figure 3
Equations
- Phenomena.Gradability.ComparisonClass.tallBasketball = { adjective := "tall", polarity := "positive", noun := "basketball player", priorExpectation := "high", inferredClass := "superordinate" }
Instances For
"Short basketball player" → compared to basketball players (subordinate).
The negative adjective with high prior expectation leads to subordinate comparison: "short for a basketball player".
Source: @cite{tessler-goodman-2022}, Section 3.2.1, Figure 3
Equations
- Phenomena.Gradability.ComparisonClass.shortBasketball = { adjective := "short", polarity := "negative", noun := "basketball player", priorExpectation := "high", inferredClass := "subordinate" }
Instances For
"Short jockey" → compared to people in general (superordinate).
The pattern reverses for jockeys: negative adjective + low prior → superordinate. "Short for a person" is more informative than "short for a jockey".
Source: @cite{tessler-goodman-2022}, Section 3.2.1, Figure 3
Equations
- Phenomena.Gradability.ComparisonClass.shortJockey = { adjective := "short", polarity := "negative", noun := "jockey", priorExpectation := "low", inferredClass := "superordinate" }
Instances For
"Tall jockey" → compared to jockeys (subordinate).
Positive adjective + low prior → subordinate comparison class.
Source: @cite{tessler-goodman-2022}, Section 3.2.1, Figure 3
Equations
- Phenomena.Gradability.ComparisonClass.tallJockey = { adjective := "tall", polarity := "positive", noun := "jockey", priorExpectation := "low", inferredClass := "subordinate" }
Instances For
All polarity × expectations examples.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The polarity × expectations interaction pattern.
This captures the core empirical generalization:
- positive adjective + high prior → superordinate
- negative adjective + high prior → subordinate
- positive adjective + low prior → subordinate
- negative adjective + low prior → superordinate
Source: @cite{tessler-goodman-2022}, Section 3.2.1, Figure 3
- examples : List PolarityExpectationsDatum
Examples demonstrating the pattern
- positivePlusHighYieldsSuperordinate : Bool
Does pattern show expected-leads-to-superordinate for positive adjectives?
- negativePlusHighYieldsSubordinate : Bool
Does pattern show expected-leads-to-subordinate for negative adjectives?
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Adjective type: Relative Gradable (RGA) vs Absolute Gradable (AGA).
- RGA: Requires comparison class for interpretation (big, tall, expensive)
- AGA: Has inherent standard, less dependent on comparison class (wet, closed, full)
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Section 1.2
- RGA : AdjectiveType
- AGA : AdjectiveType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Structure capturing the difference in comparison class dependency between RGA and AGA adjectives.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Section 1.2
- adjective : String
The adjective
- adjType : AdjectiveType
Adjective type
- example1 : String
Example showing context-sensitivity (or lack thereof)
- example2 : String
Another example
- thresholdShifts : Bool
Does threshold shift with comparison class?
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Big" is an RGA - threshold shifts with comparison class.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, citing @cite{kennedy-2007}
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Wet" is an AGA - has inherent minimum standard.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Section 1.2
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Cue type for comparison class determination.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Section 1.3
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Noun level in taxonomic hierarchy (Rosch & Mervis, 1975).
This is distinct from @cite{tessler-goodman-2022}'s ComparisonClass
(subordinate/superordinate reference population). NounLevel classifies
the noun's position in a conceptual taxonomy; ComparisonClass classifies
the reference population used for adjective threshold computation.
They are related — basic-level nouns tend to trigger subordinate comparison
classes — but the mapping is not identity: "basketball player" (basic-level
noun) is the subordinate comparison class, while "people" (superordinate
noun) is the superordinate comparison class.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Section 2
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Empirical pattern: Linguistic cues dominate visual cues for comparison class.
When taxonomic label conflicts with visual context, both children and adults privilege the linguistic information.
- "The big animal" + visual context of mice → compare to animals (linguistic wins)
- Basic-level nouns trigger subordinate class, superordinate nouns trigger superordinate class
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Section 4
- adjective : String
The adjective used
- noun : String
The noun used (determines linguistic cue)
- nounLevel : NounLevel
Level of the noun
- visualContext : String
Visual context description
- inferredClass : String
What comparison class is inferred?
- dominantCue : CueType
Which cue dominates?
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"The big animal" with mice visible → animal comparison class.
The superordinate noun "animal" triggers the superordinate comparison class, overriding the visual context of only mice being present.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Experiment 1
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"The big mouse" with various animals visible → mouse comparison class.
The basic-level noun "mouse" triggers the subordinate comparison class (compared to mice), even when other animals are visually salient.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Experiment 1
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Empirical pattern: Children show same linguistic > visual preference as adults.
Both 4-6 year olds and adults privilege linguistic over visual information, though adults show larger subordinate selections with basic-level nouns (possible scalar implicature contribution).
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Section 4
- ageGroup : String
Age group
- nounLevel : NounLevel
Condition (noun level)
- subordinateSelection : Float
Proportion selecting subordinate interpretation
- superordinateSelection : Float
Proportion selecting superordinate interpretation
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Adults with basic-level nouns strongly prefer subordinate interpretation.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Figure 2
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Adults with superordinate nouns prefer superordinate interpretation.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Figure 2
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Children with basic-level nouns prefer subordinate interpretation.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Figure 2
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Children with superordinate nouns prefer superordinate interpretation.
Source: @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}, Figure 2
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Main empirical generalizations about comparison class inference.
Source: @cite{tessler-goodman-2022}, @cite{weicker-schulz-2024}
- polarityExpectationsInteraction : Bool
Polarity interacts with prior expectations
- linguisticDominatesVisual : Bool
Linguistic cues dominate visual cues
- basicLevelYieldsSubordinate : Bool
Basic-level nouns trigger subordinate classes
- superordinateYieldsSuperordinate : Bool
Superordinate nouns trigger superordinate classes
- developmentallyStable : Bool
Pattern holds across development (adults and children)
- rgaMoreContextSensitive : Bool
RGAs more context-sensitive than AGAs
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Map PropertyDomain to AdjectiveType: domains that require
comparison-class computation are RGA; others are AGA.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Size domain → RGA (e.g., "big", "tall").
State domain → AGA (e.g., "wet", "full").
The empirical observation that RGA thresholds shift with comparison
class is predicted by requiresComparisonClass = true for the size
domain.
The empirical observation that AGA thresholds do NOT shift is
predicted by requiresComparisonClass = false for the state
domain.