Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015

Economy of Structure and Information #

@cite{heim-1991} @cite{hurford-1974} @cite{katzir-2007} @cite{katzir-singh-2015} @cite{magri-2009} @cite{spector-2014}

@cite{katzir-singh-2015}. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19, pp. 322–339.

Two felicity conditions on assertions:

  1. Question Condition (def 8): An assertion must address a good question — one not trivially settled by the common ground.

  2. Answer Condition (def 15): An assertion must not be needlessly inferior to any alternative — where inferiority combines structural complexity with semantic strength.

These two conditions unify:

Open problem: oddness under embedding (K&S §4) — the conditions are stated globally but oddness persists in embedded constituents.

Discourse scenario packaging meaning, complexity, context, and QUD.

  • meaning: interpretation of each utterance at each world
  • complexity: structural complexity; lower = simpler
  • context: common knowledge; context w = true iff w is CK-compatible
  • qud: question under discussion (equivalence relation on worlds)
  • utterances: speaker's available alternatives
  • worlds: exhaustive world enumeration
  • meaning : UWBool
  • complexity : U
  • context : WBool
  • qud : QUD W
  • utterances : List U
  • worlds : List W
Instances For

    Context-compatible worlds.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Question Condition violation (K&S def 7–8): the QUD is trivially settled by CK — all context-compatible worlds give the same answer.

      Each scenario defines its QUD via a content-specific projection function (e.g., warmthAnswer, gradeAnswer) that maps worlds to semantically meaningful answer types. For minimal world types, these projections happen to be injective (each world encodes a distinct answer), but making the question explicit ensures the model extends correctly to richer world types where multiple worlds could give the same answer.

      Equations
      Instances For

        Semantic entailment over ALL worlds: ⟦u⟧ ⊆ ⟦v⟧. Uses all worlds (not just context), since the better-than relation compares general semantic strength (K&S def 16a).

        Equations
        Instances For

          At-least-as-good-as (K&S def 16a): φ ≲ ψ iff φ is at most as complex as ψ AND semantically at least as strong (⟦φ⟧ ⊆ ⟦ψ⟧).

          Equations
          Instances For

            Strictly better-than (K&S def 16b): φ ≺ ψ := φ ≲ ψ ∧ ¬(ψ ≲ φ).

            Equations
            Instances For

              Answer Condition violation (K&S def 15): u is needlessly inferior — there exists a strictly better alternative.

              Equations
              Instances For

                K&S Oddness: violates Question Condition or Answer Condition.

                Equations
                Instances For

                  Contextual equivalence: same truth value at all CK-compatible worlds.

                  Equations
                  Instances For

                    Strengthened Answer Condition: also requires the dominating alternative to be compatible with the context (true at some CK-world). This closes a truth gap where needlesslyInferior could flag an utterance as odd because a false-but-simpler alternative exists.

                    For all 5 K&S scenarios, this coincides with needlesslyInferior (verified below).

                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      Reusable semantic model: meaning, complexity, world enumeration, and utterance alternatives. Factored out of Scenario so the same model can be paired with different discourse contexts.

                      • meaning : UWBool
                      • complexity : U
                      • worlds : List W
                      • utterances : List U
                      Instances For

                        Discourse context: context set + QUD. Factored out so different questions/contexts can be explored with the same semantic model.

                        Instances For

                          Build a Scenario from composable pieces.

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

                            C-contradiction: incompatible with context. (@cite{spector-2014}, def 4a)

                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              C-tautology: entailed by context. (@cite{spector-2014}, def 4b)

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                C-equivalent to φ: same truth value in context. (@cite{spector-2014}, def 4c)

                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  Trivial in C given φ. (@cite{spector-2014}, def 4)

                                  Equations
                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                  Instances For
                                    def Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.allAlternativesTrivial {W : Type u_1} (worlds : List W) (C φ : WBool) (alts : List (WBool)) :

                                    No Trivial Alternatives violation (@cite{spector-2014}, def 5): ALL alternatives are trivial in C given φ.

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

                                      K&S ex. (1)–(2): "# Some/All Italians come from a warm country"

                                      The example is due to @cite{magri-2009}, who explains the oddness via blind mandatory scalar implicatures (see Magri2009.lean). K&S offer an alternative explanation: the QUD is trivially settled by CK.

                                      CK: Italy is a warm country. Since all Italians come from Italy, the QUD "Do [some/all] Italians come from a warm country?" is trivially settled → Question Condition violation.

                                      Both K&S and @cite{spector-2014} predict oddness here (§1.2).

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

                                            K&S ex. (14)/(17): "In this department, every professor gives the same grade to all of his students. Kim is a professor." (a) # This year, Kim assigned an A to some of his students — ODD (b) This year, Kim assigned an A to all of his students — OK

                                            The QUD is good (we don't know Kim's grade). But "some" is needlessly weak: "all" is equally complex and semantically stronger.

                                            Connects to Core.Scale: the ⟦all⟧ ⊆ ⟦some⟧ entailment that drives the Answer Condition is the same relationship captured by Alternatives.Quantifiers.entails.all.some_ = true.

                                            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

                                                  QUD is NOT trivially settled (Kim might or might not have given A).

                                                  K&S ex. (22): "# John visited France or Paris"

                                                  Since Paris ⊆ France, "France or Paris" ≡ "France" semantically. But the disjunction is structurally more complex (complexity 2 vs 1). So "France" ≺ "France or Paris" → disjunction is needlessly complex.

                                                  Connects to RSA/ScalarImplicatures/Hurford.lean which models Hurford's constraint via speaker rationality. K&S derive the same prediction from economy, without RSA machinery.

                                                  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

                                                      Hurford alternatives: the disjunction vs. its simple equivalent. "Paris" is excluded from utterance alternatives because the Hurford comparison is between a complex form and its semantically equivalent simpler form, not between independently informative expressions.

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

                                                        K&S prediction: "France" is fine (no better alternative available).

                                                        K&S ex. (18): "Every prof who assigned an A to [some/all] got a raise"

                                                        In DE restrictor, "some" picks out MORE professors → stronger universal. The entailment direction reverses: ⟦some⟧_DE ⊆ ⟦all⟧_DE. So "all" becomes needlessly weak (opposite of UE).

                                                        Connects to Semantics.Montague/Sentence/Entailment/Monotonicity.lean: the reversal here is the same phenomenon as every_restr_DE.

                                                        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

                                                            DE scenario: "some" version is stronger (narrower truth set). In UE, ⟦all⟧ ⊆ ⟦some⟧; in DE, this reverses to ⟦some⟧_DE ⊆ ⟦all⟧_DE.

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

                                                              K&S prediction in DE: "all" is odd (needlessly weak).

                                                              K&S prediction in DE: "some" is fine (the stronger answer).

                                                              K&S ex. (21): "# A sun is shining" vs. "The sun is shining"

                                                              CK: there is exactly one sun. Both utterances are contextually equivalent. But "the sun" presupposes uniqueness, making it semantically stronger (⟦the sun is shining⟧ ⊂ ⟦a sun is shining⟧). So "a sun" is needlessly weak → Maximize Presupposition falls out as Answer Condition.

                                                              Connects to Core/Presupposition.lean: the definite's stronger presupposition is what gives "the" its semantic advantage under K&S's ordering.

                                                              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

                                                                      The Question Condition and Answer Condition are independent:

                                                                      • Italian warmth: Question Condition violated, Answer Condition irrelevant
                                                                      • Grade: Question Condition satisfied, Answer Condition violated This shows neither condition subsumes the other.

                                                                      Verify that needlesslyInferiorStrict (context-aware) coincides with needlesslyInferior on all 5 scenarios. This confirms the truth gap doesn't affect the existing examples.

                                                                      Demonstrate that SemanticModel + DiscourseContext can be composed via Scenario.mk'. The DE scenario's semantic model is reused with a different discourse context (all worlds CK-compatible).

                                                                      DE scenario's semantic model, factored out for reuse.

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

                                                                        Original DE discourse context (w2 ruled out by CK).

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

                                                                          Alternative discourse context: all worlds CK-compatible.

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

                                                                            With open context (w2 now CK-compatible), "all" is still odd: "some" still entails "all" in the DE model, so the Answer Condition is unchanged. But the context change demonstrates reuse of the semantic model with a different discourse context.

                                                                            K&S predict that an explicit question neutralizes the Question Condition.

                                                                            (3a) # John has one wife — odd (no explicit question) (11a) (How many wives does John have?) John has one wife — OK

                                                                            The explicit question makes the QUD a "good question" (K&S (7)) regardless of whether CK settles it. Oddness then depends solely on the Answer Condition. Since "one wife" is not needlessly inferior (all alternatives are CK-incompatible), the sentence is felicitous.

                                                                            This is a genuine prediction difference with @cite{spector-2014}: Spector predicts oddness persists because the triviality of alternatives is unchanged by the explicit question (K&S §2.2, p. 327).

                                                                            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

                                                                                Semantic model for "John has N wives" (shared across discourse contexts).

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

                                                                                  Discourse context: CK = monogamous society (John has exactly one wife).

                                                                                  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

                                                                                      QUD trivially settled by CK (everyone knows John has one wife).

                                                                                      "One wife" is NOT needlessly inferior: the alternatives ("two wives", "zero wives") are CK-incompatible and semantically independent, so neither is strictly better.

                                                                                      Without explicit question: "John has one wife" is odd. K&S (3a): the QUD is trivially settled → Question Condition violated.

                                                                                      K&S prediction with explicit question (K&S (11a)):

                                                                                      When "How many wives does John have?" is explicitly asked, the Question Condition is satisfied (the question is good by K&S (7) — all participants are committed to settling it). Oddness depends solely on the Answer Condition. Since "one wife" is not needlessly inferior, the sentence becomes felicitous.

                                                                                      Formally: isOdd = badQuestionneedlesslyInferior. The explicit question eliminates badQuestion, leaving only needlesslyInferior, which is false.

                                                                                      @cite{spector-2014} disagrees: "John has one wife" remains odd even with the explicit question. All alternatives are trivial in CK:

                                                                                      • "two wives" is a C-contradiction (incompatible with CK)
                                                                                      • "zero wives" is a C-contradiction (incompatible with CK) Since ALL alternatives are trivial, Spector's No Trivial Alternatives condition (K&S (5)) is violated regardless of whether a question was asked. Triviality is a property of the alternatives in context, not of the discourse.

                                                                                      K&S vs Spector divergence on explicit question rescue:

                                                                                      • K&S: Answer Condition alone → "one wife" is fine (not needlessly inferior)
                                                                                      • Spector: all alternatives trivial → still odd (explicit question irrelevant) This is the core empirical test case between the two theories.

                                                                                      K&S's Hurford scenario (§5, K&S (22)) models entailing disjunctions as needlessly complex answers. This bridges to the empirical Hurford data in ScalarImplicatures.Basic, showing the theory accounts for the observed infelicity judgments.

                                                                                      The rescue cases (K&S (24): "some or all", "possible or necessary") require embedded exhaustification + a grammatical knowledge operator (K&S §3.3.2, citing Meyer 2013). This additional machinery is beyond the scope of the current formalization.

                                                                                      K&S's theoretical prediction matches the empirical Hurford data:

                                                                                      • Theory: entailing disjunctions are needlessly complex → odd
                                                                                      • Data: hurfordViolations are all infelicitous

                                                                                      The theoretical mechanism (Answer Condition: betterThan .france .franceOrParis) produces the same verdict as the empirical observation.

                                                                                      The theoretical mechanism: "France" ≺ "France or Paris" because "France" is simpler (complexity 1 < 2) and semantically equivalent (Paris ⊆ France). This is the same entailment pattern observed in the empirical Hurford data: each violation has B ⊆ A or A ⊆ B.

                                                                                      Empirical prediction: rescued Hurford cases are felicitous. K&S argues rescue requires embedded exhaustification (K&S §3.3.2, (24)): exh(some) breaks the entailment, so "some or all" ≠ "all" semantically. The data confirms this: all rescued cases are felicitous.

                                                                                      Three competing theories of oddness on the Italian warmth example:

                                                                                      SentenceMagri 2009K&S 2015Spector 2014
                                                                                      # Some Italians…ODDODDODD
                                                                                      All Italians…okODDODD

                                                                                      All three agree on "some". The disagreement on "all" reveals: