Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.Ronai2024

@cite{ronai-2024} — Embedded Scalar Diversity #

@cite{ronai-2024} @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016} @cite{gotzner-romoli-2018} @cite{chierchia-2004} @cite{chierchia-fox-spector-2012} @cite{bergen-levy-goodman-2016} @cite{potts-levy-2015} @cite{sauerland-2004} @cite{geurts-pouscoulous-2009}

Theory-neutral empirical data from @cite{ronai-2024}.

Central Question #

Do embedded scalar implicatures (under universal quantifiers) show the same cross-scale variation ("scalar diversity") as global SIs? And do the same properties of alternatives predict this variation?

Argumentative Structure #

  1. Embedded SIs exist (Exp 1, §3, N=118): Using @cite{gotzner-romoli-2018}'s sliding-scale paradigm with 42 scales under every, the "strong" condition (e.g., "Every soup was warm" → "No soup was hot") is rated significantly above the false control (Estimate=−26.12, SE=1.47, t=−17.81, p<.001), confirming participants compute embedded SIs.

  2. Embedded scalar diversity mirrors global (Exp 1, §3.3): Strong inference rates vary across the 42 scales and correlate strongly with @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016}'s global SI rates (r=0.76, p<.001).

  3. Alternative-based predictors explain the variation (Exp 1, §3.3):

    • Semantic distance: Estimate=7.28, SE=3.29, t=2.21, p<.05
    • Boundedness: Estimate=18.37, SE=4.41, t=4.17, p<.001
  4. Binary replication rules out baseline concerns (Exp 2, §4, N=45): Using @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016}'s Yes/No inference task, the same pattern emerges: global–embedded correlation r=0.80 (p<.001), with both semantic distance (Estimate=0.63, SE=0.31, z=2.05, p<.05) and boundedness (Estimate=1.54, SE=0.39, z=3.91, p<.001) significant.

  5. Alternative-based accounts supported (§5): Results favor accounts that build in scalar alternatives — the grammatical theory (@cite{chierchia-2004}; @cite{chierchia-fox-spector-2012}), modified neo-Gricean (@cite{sauerland-2004}), or neo-Gricean RSA-LU (@cite{potts-levy-2015}) — over unconstrained RSA-LU (@cite{bergen-levy-goodman-2016}), which cannot explain why alternative-driven variation arises in both global and embedded contexts.

Data Provenance #

Scale properties (global SI rate, semantic distance, boundedness) are imported from VanTielEtAl2016.Scales rather than duplicated. The 42 scales are @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016}'s 43 minus ⟨few, none⟩.

Embedded SI rates are computed from the raw data deposited at https://osf.io/kx42p/ — per-scale means of the "strong" condition from exp1_data.csv (Exp 1, 0–100 sliding scale) and exp2_data.csv (Exp 2, binary Yes/No converted to % "Yes"). Values are rounded to the nearest integer.

Embedded SI data for a single scale.

Scale properties (global SI rate, semantic distance, boundedness) reference @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016} directly rather than duplicating values. Embedded SI rates are from @cite{ronai-2024}'s two experiments, computed from the raw data at https://osf.io/kx42p/.

  • VT2016 scale entry (provides global SI rate, semantic distance, bounded)

  • exp1Rate :

    Mean strong inference rate from Exp 1 (0–100 sliding scale, rounded)

  • exp2Rate :

    % "Yes" responses in Exp 2 strong condition (rounded)

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

      Global SI rate from @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016} Exp 2 (%).

      Equations
      Instances For

        Semantic distance from @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016} Exp 4 (1–7 Likert).

        Equations
        Instances For

          Boundedness from @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016} (author-annotated).

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

                  All 42 scales tested in @cite{ronai-2024}.

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

                    Bounded scales (by VT2016 annotation).

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

                      Non-bounded scales.

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

                        Experiment 1: @cite{gotzner-romoli-2018} sliding-scale paradigm. 119 recruited, 1 excluded (bilingual), N=118. Within-subjects (Latin Square), 42 critical items × 4 conditions.

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          Experiment 2: @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016} binary inference task (Yes/No). N=45 (all data reported). Within-subjects, 42 critical items.

                          Equations
                          Instances For

                            Mean sliding scale response by condition, computed from raw data. Reference level is "strong"; contrasts reported in the paper: true−strong: Estimate=55.6, SE=2.75, t=20.19, p<.001 weak−strong: Estimate=12.79, SE=1.93, t=6.62, p<.001 false−strong: Estimate=−26.12, SE=1.47, t=−17.81, p<.001

                            • trueControl :
                            • weakInference :
                            • strongInference :
                            • falseControl :
                            Instances For
                              Equations
                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                              Instances For
                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  Strong inference significantly above false control: embedded SIs exist. The 26-point gap corresponds to Estimate=−26.12, t=−17.81 in the regression.

                                  Mixed-effects regression coefficient.

                                  • predictor : String
                                  • estimate :

                                    Estimate (unstandardized)

                                  • se :

                                    Standard error

                                  • statistic :

                                    Test statistic (t for LMER in Exp 1, z for GLMER in Exp 2)

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

                                      Exp 1: Semantic distance → strong inference (p<.05).

                                      Equations
                                      Instances For

                                        Exp 1: Boundedness → strong inference (p<.001).

                                        Equations
                                        Instances For

                                          Exp 2: Semantic distance → strong inference (p<.05).

                                          Equations
                                          Instances For

                                            Exp 2: Boundedness → strong inference (p<.001).

                                            Equations
                                            Instances For

                                              Exp 1: Pearson r between VT2016 global SI rate and Exp 1 strong inference. r=0.76, p<.001.

                                              Equations
                                              Instances For

                                                Exp 2: Pearson r between VT2016 global SI rate and Exp 2 strong inference. r=0.80, p<.001.

                                                Equations
                                                Instances For

                                                  Boundedness has a larger effect than semantic distance in both experiments. This parallels @cite{van-tiel-geurts-2016}'s finding that boundedness dominates the combined model.

                                                  Exp 2 correlation is at least as strong as Exp 1. The binary task (less noisy) yields a tighter global–embedded relationship.

                                                  theorem Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.Ronai2024.bounded_higher_both_exps :
                                                  List.foldl (fun (x1 x2 : ) => x1 + x2) 0 (List.map (fun (x : EmbeddedSIDatum) => x.exp1Rate) boundedScales) > List.foldl (fun (x1 x2 : ) => x1 + x2) 0 (List.map (fun (x : EmbeddedSIDatum) => x.exp1Rate) nonBoundedScales) List.foldl (fun (x1 x2 : ) => x1 + x2) 0 (List.map (fun (x : EmbeddedSIDatum) => x.exp2Rate) boundedScales) > List.foldl (fun (x1 x2 : ) => x1 + x2) 0 (List.map (fun (x : EmbeddedSIDatum) => x.exp2Rate) nonBoundedScales)

                                                  Bounded scales yield more embedded SIs than non-bounded in both experiments. Total rates across 20 bounded scales exceed total across 22 non-bounded, despite having fewer items.

                                                  ⟨some, all⟩ embedded SI rate substantially above the overall mean (30), consistent with it being a "workhorse" scale for SI research.

                                                  ⟨may, will⟩ is an outlier: very high global SI rate (VT2016 Exp 2 = 89%) but extremely low embedded SI rate (Exp 1 = 7), suggesting embedding under every disrupts SI for this modal scale specifically.

                                                  The global SI rate for each scale is derived from VT2016, not stored independently. This structural test verifies the derivation: ⟨some, all⟩'s global SI rate matches VT2016 Exp 2 by construction.