Magri (2014): Homogeneity Effects via Double Strengthening #
@cite{magri-2014}
An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. In Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures, ed. S. Pistoia Reda (Palgrave Macmillan), 99-145.
Core Idea #
Plural definites like the boys have a plain existential semantics, equivalent to the indefinite some boys. Their universal reading arises through double strengthening modeled on @cite{spector-2007}:
- The indefinite some boys triggers the "only-some" scalar implicature
- The definite the boys triggers the implicature that this "only-some" implicature is false
- The universal reading thus arises as a "not-only-some" implicature
No strengthening occurs in DE environments, where definites reveal their plain existential semantics --- producing homogeneity effects.
Formal Structure #
The theory reduces to a three-element alternative configuration:
- MYSTERY: the item displaying homogeneity (THE / PL / AND_unF)
- WEAK: its semantically equivalent alternative (SOME / SING / OR)
- STRONG: the stronger alternative (ALL / TWO / BOTH)
The crucial asymmetry: MYSTERY and WEAK are Horn-mates, WEAK and STRONG are Horn-mates, but MYSTERY is NOT a Horn-mate of STRONG. Horn-mateness is non-transitive.
Double Exhaustification #
The universal reading arises via two layers of EXH:
Inner EXH: SOME excludes ALL (standard SI), but THE has no excludable alternatives (ALL is not a Horn-mate, SOME is equivalent). So EXH(THE) = THE = SOME, EXH(SOME) = SOME AND NOT ALL.
Outer EXH: At the second level, EXH(SOME) = SOME AND NOT ALL is strictly stronger than EXH(THE) = SOME. Since SOME is a Horn-mate of THE, it becomes excludable at the outer level: EXH(EXH(THE)) = SOME AND NOT(SOME AND NOT ALL) = ALL.
Primal vs Dual #
- Primal theory: MYSTERY has weak plain meaning, strengthened to STRONG in UE. Applies to definites and plural morphology.
- Dual theory: MYSTERY has strong plain meaning, weakened to WEAK in DE. Applies to unfocused conjunction.
Both derive the same net result: MYSTERY behaves as STRONG in UE, MYSTERY behaves as WEAK in DE.
Relationship to @cite{spector-2007} #
Magri extends Spector's exhaustivity-based account of plural morphology
(PL/SING/TWO) to plural definites (THE/SOME/ALL) and unfocused conjunction
(AND_unF/OR/BOTH). The key technical innovation is assumption (19): using
iterated exhaustification where the strengthened alternatives (not
just plain meanings) determine outer-level excludability. Spector's
single-EXH result Max(P) = {Exhaust(P)} is formalized in
ScalarImplicatures/Studies/Spector2007.lean.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.instBEqRole.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Entailment structure between the three items. STRONG asymmetrically entails both WEAK and MYSTERY. MYSTERY and WEAK are semantically equivalent (mutual entailment).
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.entails Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.strong x✝ = true
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.entails Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.mystery Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.mystery = true
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.entails Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.mystery Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak = true
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.entails Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.mystery = true
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.entails Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak = true
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.entails x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
MYSTERY and WEAK are semantically equivalent (mutual entailment).
STRONG asymmetrically entails WEAK.
STRONG asymmetrically entails MYSTERY.
Horn-mateness: the non-transitive relation that determines which alternatives are relevant for exhaustification.
WEAK <-> STRONG: Horn-mates (standard scalar pair) WEAK <-> MYSTERY: Horn-mates (the definite competes with the indefinite) MYSTERY x STRONG: NOT Horn-mates (the crucial asymmetry!)
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.hornMates Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.strong = true
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.hornMates Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.strong Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak = true
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.hornMates Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.mystery = true
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.hornMates Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.mystery Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak = true
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.hornMates x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
The set of excludable alternatives at the inner (first) EXH level.
An alternative psi is excludable w.r.t. prejacent phi when:
- psi is a Horn-mate of phi
- psi asymmetrically entails phi (i.e., psi entails phi but phi does not entail psi)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The semantic value of an item, in an abstract Boolean domain.
We model the "world" as having n individuals in a plurality, and a
predicate P that holds of a given number of them. This lets us reason
about SOME (>= 1), ALL (= n), and THE (= SOME by assumption).
- total : Nat
Total number of individuals in the plurality
- satisfying : Nat
Number satisfying the predicate
satisfying <= total
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
SOME / MYSTERY: at least one satisfies (existential)
Equations
Instances For
ALL / STRONG: all satisfy (universal)
Equations
Instances For
Plain meanings for each role in the PRIMAL theory (definites)
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.primalMeaning Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.mystery = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.someMeaning
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.primalMeaning Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.someMeaning
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.primalMeaning Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.strong = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.allMeaning
Instances For
THE and SOME have the same plain meaning (the core assumption).
ALL entails SOME (if all satisfy, then at least one satisfies).
EXH applied to a prejacent: assert the prejacent and negate all innerExcludable alternatives (@cite{spector-2007}, definition 18).
EXH(phi) = phi AND AND{NOT psi : psi innerExcludable w.r.t. phi}
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
EXH(SOME) = SOME AND NOT ALL
The standard "only some" scalar implicature: some but not all.
EXH(THE) = THE = SOME
The definite has no innerExcludable alternatives (STRONG is not a Horn-mate, and WEAK is equivalent), so EXH is vacuous.
At the outer (second) EXH level, excludability uses Horn-mateness but checks entailment of STRENGTHENED meanings rather than plain meanings.
In the three-element configuration, the only outer-excludable pair is (MYSTERY, WEAK): EXH(SOME) = SOME AND NOT ALL is strictly stronger than EXH(THE) = SOME, and they are Horn-mates.
This is a derived fact, verified by exh_weak_strictly_stronger.
Equations
Instances For
EXH(WEAK) is strictly stronger than EXH(MYSTERY): EXH(SOME) = SOME ∧ ¬ALL entails EXH(THE) = SOME, but not vice versa.
This justifies outerExcludable .mystery .weak = true.
The outer excludability assignment is justified by Horn-mateness plus asymmetric strengthened entailment.
Iterated EXH (assumption 19 in @cite{magri-2014}, extending @cite{spector-2007}): the strengthened meaning is computed through double exhaustification with outer-level excludability. The key innovation over @cite{spector-2007}'s single EXH is that the strengthened meanings of alternatives (not just plain meanings) determine excludability at the outer level.
doubleExh(phi) = EXH(phi) AND AND{NOT EXH(psi) : psi outerExcludable w.r.t. phi}
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The main theorem: double exhaustification of THE yields ALL (given a non-vacuous plurality).
doubleExh(THE) = EXH(EXH(THE)) = EXH(THE) AND NOT EXH(SOME) -- outer EXH negates the Horn-mate = THE AND NOT(SOME AND NOT ALL) -- unpack inner EXH = SOME AND NOT(SOME AND NOT ALL) -- THE = SOME = SOME AND (NOT SOME OR ALL) -- De Morgan = ALL -- since SOME is asserted
The hypothesis s.total >= 1 excludes the vacuous case (empty plurality),
where allMeaning is vacuously true but someMeaning is false. Vacuous
definites ("the boys" when there are no boys) are presupposition failures.
In DE environments (negation, restrictor of every, etc.), no strengthening occurs. The definite reveals its plain existential semantics.
NOT THE = NOT SOME
This is because in DE environments, the resulting matrix sentence already has the strongest meaning, so EXH is vacuous.
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.notMeaning meaning s = !meaning s
Instances For
A GAP scenario: some but not all individuals satisfy the predicate.
Equations
Instances For
In a GAP scenario, the strengthened meaning of the positive sentence (THE = ALL after double strengthening) is FALSE.
In a GAP scenario, the strengthened meaning of the negative sentence (NOT THE = NOT SOME = NOT EXISTS) is also FALSE (since some DO satisfy).
Homogeneity derived: In GAP scenarios, both the positive and negative descriptions are false. The positive is false because ALL fails; the negative is false because SOME succeeds. This non-complementarity IS the homogeneity gap --- the definite is "neither clearly true nor clearly false."
The three domains unified by the double strengthening account.
- definites : HomogeneityDomain
Plural definites: THE <-> SOME, ALL (primal)
- pluralMorphology : HomogeneityDomain
Bare plural morphology: PL <-> SING, TWO (primal)
- conjunction : HomogeneityDomain
Unfocused conjunction: AND_unF <-> OR, BOTH (dual)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The correspondence table from the paper: each domain instantiates the same three-element alternative structure.
| MYSTERY | WEAK | STRONG |
|---|---|---|
| the boys | some boys | all/each of the boys |
| books (PL) | a book (SING) | two books (TWO) |
| Adam and Bill | Adam or Bill | both Adam and Bill |
- domain : HomogeneityDomain
- mysteryLabel : String
- weakLabel : String
- strongLabel : String
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
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
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether the domain uses the primal or dual version of the theory.
- Primal: MYSTERY starts weak (existential), gets strengthened to STRONG in UE
- Dual: MYSTERY starts strong (conjunctive), gets weakened to WEAK in DE
- primal : TheoryVariant
- dual : TheoryVariant
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.domainVariant Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.HomogeneityDomain.definites = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.primal
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.domainVariant Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.HomogeneityDomain.pluralMorphology = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.primal
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.domainVariant Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.HomogeneityDomain.conjunction = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.dual
Instances For
Plain meanings in the DUAL theory (conjunction). In the dual, MYSTERY (AND_unF) starts with strong (conjunctive) plain meaning.
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.dualMeaning Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.mystery = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.allMeaning
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.dualMeaning Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.someMeaning
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.dualMeaning Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.strong = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.allMeaning
Instances For
In the primal, MYSTERY starts weak and requires double EXH to reach STRONG.
In the dual, MYSTERY starts strong directly (no EXH needed in UE).
The primal requires double exhaustification to reach ALL, while the dual starts there directly. Both agree on the UE result.
The effective interpretation of MYSTERY in each polarity context.
In the primal theory (definites, plural morphology):
- UE: double strengthening yields STRONG (universal/plurality)
- DE: no strengthening, MYSTERY reveals WEAK (existential/singular)
In the dual theory (conjunction):
- UE: MYSTERY reveals STRONG (conjunctive) directly
- DE: double strengthening yields WEAK (disjunctive)
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.effectiveInterpretation Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.primal Core.Polarity.positive = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.strong
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.effectiveInterpretation Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.primal Core.Polarity.negative = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.effectiveInterpretation Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.dual Core.Polarity.positive = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.strong
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.effectiveInterpretation Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.dual Core.Polarity.negative = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak
Instances For
Both variants produce the same net result: MYSTERY behaves as STRONG in UE and as WEAK in DE.
Magri's conjecture: a matrix plural definite has a universal (existential) reading in a conversational context if and only if the corresponding indefinite triggers (does not trigger) the "only-some" scalar implicature.
A matrix definite THE has universal force <-> the indefinite SOME triggers SI
When the indefinite triggers no "only-some" implicature, there is nothing for the definite's second-order implicature to negate, so no strengthening occurs and the definite reveals its plain existential meaning.
- context : String
Context description
- indefiniteTriggersSI : Bool
Does the indefinite trigger "only-some" in this context?
- definiteUniversal : Bool
Does the definite receive universal force?
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The prediction: these always agree.
Equations
Instances For
Classroom context: sloppy existential reading. Example attributed to Schlenker (p.c.) in @cite{gajewski-2005}.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Standard predication: universal reading.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Concrete scenario instances for the switches example (10 switches).
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.switchesAll = { total := 10, satisfying := 10, valid := Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.switchesAll._proof_2 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.switchesNone = { total := 10, satisfying := 0, valid := Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.switchesNone._proof_2 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.switchesGap = { total := 10, satisfying := 5, valid := Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.switchesGap._proof_2 }
Instances For
In the ALL scenario, double strengthening gives the universal reading.
In the NONE scenario, double strengthening fails (no individuals satisfy).
In the NONE scenario, negation of existential gives true (none satisfy).
In the GAP scenario, both positive (double-strengthened) and negative (plain existential under negation) are false --- the homogeneity gap.
The gap derivation matches the empirical judgments in Homogeneity.lean:
in the gap scenario, both positive and negative sentences are judged
"neither true nor false."
The conjunction domain also displays the same gap pattern.
Magri's theory accounts for the full truth-value pattern in the switches example: universal in ALL, denial in NONE, gap in between.
Magri's primal theory predicts strengthening in UE but not DE,
matching the monotonicity pattern documented in Multiplicity.lean:
the inference arises in UE (positive) contexts but not DE (negative).
Magri's conjunction (dual) domain corresponds to the or/and
monotonicity parallel in Multiplicity.lean.
Connection to @cite{fox-2007}'s Computable Algorithm #
The abstract three-role computation above uses hand-coded innerExcludable
and outerExcludable. Here we verify that Fox's computable innocent
exclusion algorithm (exhB from InnocentExclusion.lean) applied twice
produces the same result: double exhaustification yields the universal
reading.
The key subtlety: exhB treats all alternatives in its list uniformly,
so non-transitive Horn-mateness must be encoded in which alternatives
are included in the list. THE and SOME get different alternative lists:
- THE's alternatives:
[bSome](only SOME is a Horn-mate; ALL is not) - SOME's alternatives:
[bSome, bAll](both THE and ALL are Horn-mates)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.instBEqSat.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Inner EXH(THE) = SOME: THE has no excludable alternatives because its only Horn-mate (SOME) is equivalent, not strictly stronger.
Inner EXH(SOME) = SOME ∧ ¬ALL: the standard "only some" SI.
Bridge theorem: Fox's exhB applied twice with the correct
Horn-mate-restricted alternative sets yields the universal reading,
matching double_strengthening_yields_universal.
EXH(EXH(THE)) = EXH(THE) ∧ ¬EXH(SOME) = SOME ∧ ¬(SOME ∧ ¬ALL) = ALL
Dual Theory: UE Is Trivial, DE Reveals Weak Meaning #
In the dual theory (§5.5.2), MYSTERY (AND_unF) has a strong plain meaning (conjunction ≡ STRONG). In UE environments, the strong meaning is already maximal — no strengthening occurs (computation 55b: |||MYSTERY||| = [[MYSTERY]]).
In DE environments, the strong plain meaning under negation yields a weak global meaning. The abstract computation (55a) shows that double exhaustification of not·MYSTERY is vacuous:
|||not·MYSTERY||| = EXH(EXH(not·MYSTERY)) = not·MYSTERY = not·STRONG (since MYSTERY ≡ STRONG)
The vacuousness at the abstract level arises because MYSTERY ≡ STRONG means not·MYSTERY ≡ not·STRONG — there is no strictly stronger alternative to exclude. The concrete dual DE computation (61)/(72), which enriches the alternative set with atomic conjuncts LEFT and RIGHT, IS non-vacuous and derives not·OR. That computation is in Section 11.
This section verifies the abstract-level properties: inner EXH is vacuous for the dual MYSTERY, and gap scenarios show the expected pattern.
Inner EXH in the dual theory.
Note: This reuses innerExcludable from the primal theory. The
abstract three-role innerExcludable uses primal entailment
(MYSTERY ≡ WEAK), while in the dual MYSTERY ≡ STRONG. However,
the inner EXH results are the same for both theories at the abstract
level: MYSTERY has no excludable alternatives, and WEAK excludes
STRONG. The primal innerExcludable gives the right answer because
neither theory allows MYSTERY to exclude anything at the inner level.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
In the dual, EXH is vacuous for MYSTERY: no alternative is both a Horn-mate and asymmetrically stronger. This matches computation (55b): |||MYSTERY||| = [[MYSTERY]] = ALL.
In the dual, EXH(WEAK) = SOME ∧ ¬ALL (WEAK excludes STRONG). OR triggers "not-both" SI just as SOME triggers "not-all".
NOT·MYSTERY in the dual = NOT·STRONG (since MYSTERY ≡ STRONG).
In a gap scenario, the dual DE reveals the weak meaning. not·MYSTERY = ¬ALL is true (not all satisfy), while not·SOME = ¬∃ is false (some do satisfy).
Enriched Alternatives for Conjunction (§A.7) #
§A.7 adds the atomic conjuncts LEFT and RIGHT to the alternative set for unfocused conjunction, using @cite{fox-2007}'s definition of excludable alternatives. The crucial asymmetry (69b): AND_F has OR among its alternatives, but AND_unF does NOT. Non-transitive Horn-mateness is encoded by giving each prejacent its own alternative list.
This derives computation (72): in DE environments, unfocused conjunction behaves as disjunction: |||not·AND_unF||| = not·OR.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.instBEqConjW.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
EXH(AND_unF) = AND (vacuous: all alts are entailed by AND).
EXH(AND_F) = AND (same: AND entails everything in its alt list).
EXH(LEFT) = LEFT ∧ ¬RIGHT (RIGHT is the only IE alternative).
EXH(RIGHT) = RIGHT ∧ ¬LEFT (symmetric).
Instances For
Instances For
(71b) EXH(not·AND_unF) = not·AND (vacuous inner EXH). Neither not·LEFT nor not·RIGHT is IE: excluding one forces including the other, since ¬AND ∧ LEFT ∧ RIGHT is inconsistent.
(71a) EXH(not·AND_F) = not·AND ∧ ¬not·OR = not·AND ∧ OR. not·OR is IE (the only alternative not entailed by not·AND_F that can be consistently excluded).
(71c) EXH(not·LEFT) = not·LEFT ∧ OR ∧ RIGHT.
(71d) EXH(not·RIGHT) = not·RIGHT ∧ OR ∧ LEFT.
Outer-level alternatives for not·AND_unF: the exhaustified forms of its Horn-mates {not·AND_F, not·LEFT, not·RIGHT}.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The inner EXH result for not·AND_unF (= not·AND, vacuous).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Computation (72): Double exhaustification of not·AND_unF yields not·OR.
|||not·AND_unF||| = EXH(EXH(not·AND_unF)) = not·AND ∧ ¬EXH(not·AND_F) ∧ ¬EXH(not·LEFT) ∧ ¬EXH(not·RIGHT) = not·AND ∧ ¬(not·AND ∧ OR) ∧ ... = not·AND ∧ (AND ∨ ¬OR) ∧ ... = not·AND ∧ ¬OR (since not·AND is asserted) = not·OR
Unfocused conjunction in DE environments behaves as disjunction.
Uniform Double Strengthening over Theory Variants #
The primal and dual theories share the same abstract mechanism — a
three-element alternative configuration with non-transitive
Horn-mateness. We unify them into a single uniformResult
function that takes a TheoryVariant and returns the effective
meaning in each polarity.
The effective meaning of MYSTERY in each polarity, parameterized by theory variant. Both variants produce the same result: STRONG (= ALL) in UE, WEAK (= SOME) in DE.
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.uniformResult Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.primal Core.Polarity.positive = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.allMeaning
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.uniformResult Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.primal Core.Polarity.negative = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.someMeaning
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.uniformResult Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.dual Core.Polarity.positive = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.allMeaning
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.uniformResult Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.dual Core.Polarity.negative = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.someMeaning
Instances For
Primal and dual give the same effective meaning in both polarities.
The primal UE result matches double_strengthening_yields_universal.
The dual UE result matches the plain meaning of MYSTERY in the dual.
The primal DE result matches the plain existential meaning.
The homogeneity pattern: in gap scenarios, MYSTERY is false under both polarities regardless of theory variant.
Questions: A Testable Distinction (§5.5.4) #
Benjamin Spector (p.c., cited in §5.5.4) observes that questions provide an environment where no strengthening occurs — they do not license scalar implicatures. Under this assumption:
- Primal MYSTERY has weak plain meaning (existential) → questions should reveal existential force for definites.
- Dual MYSTERY has strong plain meaning (conjunctive) → questions should reveal conjunctive force for unfocused conjunction.
The paper offers preliminary data supporting this prediction: definites in questions allow existential answers (62b), while unfocused conjunction in questions resists disjunctive answers (63b).
In questions (no strengthening), the theory variant determines what force MYSTERY displays: primal → weak, dual → strong.
Equations
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.mysteryInQuestions Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.primal = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.weak
- Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.mysteryInQuestions Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.TheoryVariant.dual = Phenomena.Plurals.Studies.Magri2014.Role.strong
Instances For
Questions differentiate the theories: primal MYSTERY shows WEAK, dual MYSTERY shows STRONG.
Definites (primal) should have existential force in questions.
Unfocused conjunction (dual) should have conjunctive force in questions.
Datum: "Did you talk to the students?" admits existential answer.
- question : String
- domain : HomogeneityDomain
- variant : TheoryVariant
- predictedForce : Role
- supported : Bool
Data point: is the prediction borne out?
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
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Both question data points support the primal/dual distinction.
Connecting Enriched Conjunction to Empirical Data #
The de_double_exh_conjunction theorem (Section 11) shows that
unfocused conjunction under negation behaves as disjunction on
the ConjW domain. Here we verify that this result matches the
gap pattern documented in Homogeneity.lean's conjunctionExample:
in the gap scenario (Ann has red hair, Bert doesn't), both the
positive conjunction and its negation are "neither true nor false."
In the gap, negative conjunction with enriched dual theory gives not·OR (= "saw neither"). This is FALSE in the gap (she DID see one of them), producing the homogeneity gap.
This matches the empirical data: conjunction gap is neither-true-nor-false for both polarities.
Full end-to-end: the enriched conjunction computation produces truth values that correspond to the homogeneity gap pattern.