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:
Question Condition (def 8): An assertion must address a good question — one not trivially settled by the common ground.
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:
- @cite{magri-2009} oddness (# Some Italians come from a warm country)
- @cite{spector-2014} oddness (# All Italians...; # John has one wife)
- Hurford's constraint (# John visited France or Paris)
- Maximize Presupposition! (# A sun is shining)
- DE reversal of oddness patterns
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 worldcomplexity: structural complexity; lower = simplercontext: common knowledge;context w = trueiff w is CK-compatiblequd: question under discussion (equivalence relation on worlds)utterances: speaker's available alternativesworlds: exhaustive world enumeration
- meaning : U → W → Bool
- complexity : U → ℕ
- context : W → Bool
- qud : QUD W
- utterances : List U
- worlds : List W
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
- s.badQuestion = s.cWorlds.all fun (w : W) => s.cWorlds.all fun (v : W) => s.qud.sameAnswer w v
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).
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
- s.atLeastAsGood u v = (decide (s.complexity u ≤ s.complexity v) && s.semEntails u v)
Instances For
Strictly better-than (K&S def 16b): φ ≺ ψ := φ ≲ ψ ∧ ¬(ψ ≲ φ).
Equations
- s.betterThan u v = (s.atLeastAsGood u v && !s.atLeastAsGood v u)
Instances For
Answer Condition violation (K&S def 15): u is needlessly inferior — there exists a strictly better alternative.
Equations
- s.needlesslyInferior u = s.utterances.any fun (v : U) => s.betterThan v u
Instances For
K&S Oddness: violates Question Condition or Answer Condition.
Equations
- s.isOdd u = (s.badQuestion || s.needlesslyInferior u)
Instances For
Contextual equivalence: same truth value at all CK-compatible worlds.
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
- s.needlesslyInferiorStrict u = s.utterances.any fun (v : U) => s.betterThan v u && s.cWorlds.any (s.meaning v)
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.
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
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.isCTautology worlds C φ' = worlds.all fun (w : W) => !C w || φ' w
Instances For
C-equivalent to φ: same truth value in context. (@cite{spector-2014}, def 4c)
Equations
Instances For
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).
- allWarm : ItalyWorld
- noneWarm : ItalyWorld
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Do Italians come from a warm country?" — a yes/no question.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Contextual equivalence: some ↔ all (CK makes them interchangeable).
QUD trivially settled by CK → Question Condition violated.
K&S prediction: "some" is odd.
K&S prediction: "all" is odd.
Bridge: @cite{spector-2014} makes the same prediction (all alternatives trivial).
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.
- allA : GradeWorld
- someNotAll : GradeWorld
- noneA : GradeWorld
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"How many of Kim's students got an A?" — answer encoded as (some-got-A, all-got-A) truth values on the ⟨some, all⟩ scale.
Equations
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.gradeAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.GradeWorld.allA = (true, true)
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.gradeAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.GradeWorld.someNotAll = (true, false)
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.gradeAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.GradeWorld.noneA = (false, false)
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).
"all" entails "some" (semantically stronger in all worlds).
"some" does NOT entail "all" (true at someNotAll where "all" is false).
"all" ≺ "some" (equally complex, strictly stronger).
K&S prediction: "some" is odd (needlessly weak).
K&S prediction: "all" is fine (best available answer).
Contextual equivalence despite general non-equivalence.
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.
- parisOnly : VisitWorld
- franceNotParis : VisitWorld
- neither : VisitWorld
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Did John visit France?" — a yes/no question. Genuinely coarser than
identity: parisOnly and franceNotParis collapse (both → visited).
Equations
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.visitAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.VisitWorld.parisOnly = true
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.visitAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.VisitWorld.franceNotParis = true
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.visitAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.VisitWorld.neither = false
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
"France" and "France or Paris" are semantically equivalent (Paris ⊆ France, so the disjunction adds nothing).
"France" ≺ "France or Paris" (simpler + equally strong).
K&S prediction: "France or Paris" is odd (needlessly complex).
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
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"A to some or all?" in DE — answer encoded as (some_DE, all_DE) truth values.
Equations
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.deAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.DEWorld.w1 = (true, true)
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.deAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.DEWorld.w2 = (false, true)
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.deAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.DEWorld.w3 = (false, false)
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
DE reversal: "some" entails "all" (opposite of UE).
"all" does NOT entail "some" in DE.
DE: "some" ≺ "all" (reversed from UE where "all" ≺ "some").
K&S prediction in DE: "all" is odd (needlessly weak).
K&S prediction in DE: "some" is fine (the stronger answer).
Cross-scenario bridge: UE and DE have opposite entailment directions.
Cross-scenario bridge: UE and DE have opposite oddness verdicts.
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.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"Is the sun shining?" — presupposition-sensitive answer.
manySuns is a presupposition failure (uniqueness violated), distinct
from both yes and no.
Equations
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.sunAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.SunWorld.oneShining = some true
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.sunAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.SunWorld.oneNotShining = some false
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.sunAnswer Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.SunWorld.manySuns = none
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"the sun" entails "a sun" (presuppositional strength).
"a sun" does NOT entail "the sun" (true at manySuns where "the" fails).
"the sun" ≺ "a sun" (equally complex, strictly stronger).
K&S prediction: "a sun" is odd (= Maximize Presupposition!).
K&S prediction: "the sun" is fine.
Contextual equivalence: CK (unique sun) makes a/the equivalent.
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
The composed scenario matches the original deScenario.
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
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
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
"How many wives does John have?" — answer is a count.
Equations
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.wifeCount Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.WifeWorld.oneWife = 1
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.wifeCount Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.WifeWorld.twoWives = 2
- Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.wifeCount Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.KatzirSingh2015.WifeWorld.noWife = 0
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 = badQuestion ∨ needlesslyInferior. 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:
hurfordViolationsare 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:
| Sentence | Magri 2009 | K&S 2015 | Spector 2014 |
|---|---|---|---|
| # Some Italians… | ODD | ODD | ODD |
| All Italians… | ok | ODD | ODD |
All three agree on "some". The disagreement on "all" reveals:
- @cite{magri-2009} is the most targeted: only oddness when a blind implicature contradicts CK. "All" generates no implicature, so it's fine.
- K&S casts the widest net via the Question Condition: ANY utterance addressing a trivially settled QUD is odd.
- @cite{spector-2014} predicts oddness via triviality: "all" is a C-tautology (entailed by CK), so the only alternative is trivial → odd.
Three-way agreement on "some Italians come from a warm country": all three theories predict oddness, via different mechanisms.
Three-way comparison on "all Italians come from a warm country": Magri says fine; K&S and Spector both say odd.