Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Gradability.Studies.WaldonEtAl2023

@cite{waldon-etal-2023} #

Waldon, B., Condoravdi, C., Levin, B., & Degen, J. (2023). On the context dependence of artifact noun interpretation. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 27, pp. 674–692.

Key Claims #

  1. Goal Sensitivity: policy goals systematically modulate artifact noun category boundaries. A flashlight is more likely to count as an "electronic device" when the goal is limiting distracting light than when it's limiting noise.

  2. Multi-dimensional degree semantics for artifact nouns (eq. 8): ⟦vehicle⟧ = λx. Σ_{f ∈ F(vehicle)} f(x) · W(vehicle, f) where F returns context-relevant measure functions and W weights them. Artifact nouns compose additively (@cite{sassoon-fadlon-2017}), in contrast to natural kinds which compose multiplicatively.

  3. RSA model (companion handout): a signaler (rule-maker) produces rules to advance policy goals; the listener jointly infers which objects are targeted and what the signaler's goal is: L₁(obj, goal | rule) ∝ S(rule | obj, goal) · P_G(goal) · P_CAT(obj) where S ∝ U(goal, obj)^α and U is the utility of prohibiting obj given goal (parameterized by feature attribution norming).

RSAConfig Mapping #

Objects in the "No electronic devices" scenario (Fig. 1).

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.

      The signaler's policy goals (Appendix A).

      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.

          Experimental conditions (determines latentPrior over Goals).

          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.

              Utterances: the rule-maker produces the rule or stays silent.

              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.

                  These values are schematic approximations, not from the paper's actual norming data. The paper parameterizes U(goal, obj) and P_CAT(obj) via separate norming studies (feature attribution and category membership, §3.1). The actual values are available at the OSF links cited in the paper. The values below capture the qualitative pattern described in the paper (flashlights emit light but not noise; boomboxes emit noise but not light; etc.) and are sufficient to verify the model's structural predictions.

                  U(goal, obj): utility of prohibiting obj given goal. Higher values = prohibiting this object better advances the goal. From feature attribution norming (schematic).

                  Equations
                  Instances For

                    RSA meaning function: for a given goal, how consistent is each object with each utterance?

                    • rule: meaning = U(goal, obj) (the utility of prohibiting obj)
                    • silence: meaning = 1 (uninformative — equally consistent with all objects)

                    L0 normalizes across objects, giving a distribution over which objects the rule targets. S1 = L0^α normalizes across utterances, giving the speaker's probability of producing the rule.

                    Model simplification: The companion handout defines U(goal, ¬obj) = 1 − U(goal, obj) for silence, making silence informative (not-prohibiting has utility). Our RSAConfig uses meaning(silence) = 1 (uninformative, uniform L0), a standard RSA convention. This preserves within- and cross-config orderings because S1 is monotone in L0, and L0 is monotone in meaning.

                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      Build one RSAConfig per experimental condition. Follows the companion handout's architecture: L₁(obj, goal | rule) ∝ S(rule | obj, goal) · P_G(goal) · P_CAT(obj)

                      Structurally parallel to @cite{lassiter-goodman-2017}'s threshold RSA: both jointly infer world state and a latent parameter (threshold θ in LG2017, policy goal in this model).

                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        Within-config predictions (object ordering) via rsa_predict.

                        Under limitLight, the flashlight (edge case) is more likely to be targeted by the rule than the candle (clear non-member).

                        Under limitLight, the tablet (clear member + emits light) outranks the boombox (clear member but doesn't emit light).

                        Cross-config predictions (goal modulation). The paper's central empirical claim: the same edge-case object receives different L1 scores under different goal conditions. Parallel to @cite{lassiter-goodman-2017}'s basketball_tall_favors_taller, which shows context (prior) modulates L1 across configs.

                        Goal sensitivity for flashlights (the paper's key result, Fig. 1): the flashlight is more likely to be targeted under limitLight than limitNoise, because flashlights emit light but not noise.

                        Goal sensitivity for boomboxes (reverse pattern, Fig. 1): the boombox is more likely to be targeted under limitNoise than limitLight, because boomboxes emit noise but not light.

                        Goal sensitivity for tablets under preventRecordings: the tablet is more likely to be targeted under preventRecordings than limitNoise, because tablets can record but are quiet.

                        Utility-level explanations: WHY the L1 orderings hold. The cross-config L1 ordering follows from the utility ordering because S1 is monotone in L0, which is monotone in meaning.

                        The utility function U(goal, obj) is structurally a weighted score over dimensional measures — the same mechanism as weightedScore from Semantics.Degree.Aggregation. In the paper's eq. (8), the artifact noun denotation is Σ_f f(x) · W(noun, f). Here, each goal selects ONE feature dimension (emit-light, emit-noise, or can-record), so the utility reduces to the feature's raw value.

                        In the general case (eq. 14, neutral condition), the utility is a
                        weighted sum over multiple features with weights from goal plausibility
                        norming. This is exactly `weightedScore`. 
                        

                        @cite{sassoon-fadlon-2017} contrast artifact nouns (additive: Σ) with natural kinds (multiplicative: Π). Under multiplicative composition, a zero on ANY dimension kills membership. Under additive, other dimensions compensate.

                        All feature measures as a list (for aggregation functions).

                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For

                          Under multiplicative composition, the flashlight gets ZERO because emitNoise(flashlight) = canRecord(flashlight) = 1/20 ≈ 0. The product is negligibly small.

                          Under additive composition, the flashlight gets a positive score despite near-zero on noise/recording — emitLight compensates.

                          Artifact noun aggregation is utilitarian, not counting — the same point made by @cite{dambrosio-hedden-2024} for multidimensional adjectives. @cite{sassoon-2013}'s binding types (conjunctive, disjunctive, mixed) are all counting aggregation and cannot capture the weighted, continuous-measure structure of artifact noun interpretation.