Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.VanTielEtAl2021

@cite{van-tiel-franke-sauerland-2021} #

"Probabilistic pragmatics explains gradience and focality in natural language quantification" PNAS 118(9): e2005453118

This paper compares two semantic theories of quantity words:

  1. GQT (Generalized Quantifier Theory): Binary threshold semantics

    • Monotone increasing (some, most, all): t >= theta
    • Monotone decreasing (few, none): t <= theta
  2. Prototype Theory (PT): Gradient Gaussian semantics

    • L_PT(m, t) = exp(-((t - p_m) / d_m)^2)

Combined with two speaker models:

Experiments #

  1. Exp. 1a/1b: Production study (600/200 participants)

    • 432 circles (red/black), describe "— of the circles are red"
    • Recorded which quantity words participants used
  2. Exp. 2: Monotonicity judgments (120 participants)

    • Tested inference patterns to classify monotonicity
  3. Exp. 3: ANS estimation (20 participants)

    • Estimated Weber's fraction w = 0.576
  4. Exp. 4: Model evaluation (200 participants)

    • Rated adequacy of model-predicted quantity words

Main Result #

GQ-pragmatic model explains gradience as well as prototype-based models. Gradience emerges from pragmatic competition, not encoded in semantics.

Grounding #

Connects to Semantics.Montague.Quantifiers for threshold semantics.

The 17 quantity words studied (in order from low to high intersection)

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

      All quantity words in experimental order

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

        Monotonicity determines threshold direction in GQT

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

            Empirically determined monotonicity (from Exp. 2, Table in paper)

            Participants judged inference patterns:

            • Monotone increasing: "Q of the people P1 → Q of the people P2" valid when P1 ⊂ P2
            • Monotone decreasing: "Q of the people P2 → Q of the people P1" valid when P1 ⊂ P2

            Classification: clustered with "all" (increasing) or "none" (decreasing)

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

              Decreasing quantifiers (from paper: "few," "hardly any," "less than half," "none," "very few")

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

                Increasing quantifiers (all others)

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

                  The four models compared in the paper

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

                      Human rating difference (Exp. 4)

                      Rating of model predictions minus rating of actual data. Negative = model predictions rated worse than data. CI = 95% confidence interval.

                      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

                            Weber's fraction estimated from Exp. 3

                            Represents sensitivity to relative differences in numerosity. Higher w means less precise number discrimination.

                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              Approximate prototype (peak production) for each quantity word.

                              These are rough estimates from Fig. 1A in the paper. Values are approximate intersection set sizes where production peaks.

                              Equations
                              Instances For
                                @[reducible, inline]

                                Intersection set sizes (simplified from 0-432 to 0-10)

                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  Threshold for each quantity word (from unified entry)

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

                                    GQT meaning as rational

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

                                      Prototype (peak truth) for each quantity word (from unified entry)

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

                                        PT meaning: gradient truth based on distance from prototype

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

                                          Connects the RSA quantity-word production model to the empirical monotonicity classifications.

                                          Monotonicity matches empirical classification for clear cases (excluding "half").

                                          Note: "half" is classified as nonMonotone in the three-way system but as "increasing" in the binary empirical classification.