Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Pragmatics.DecisionTheoretic.ScalarImplicature

Decision-Theoretic Semantics: Scalar Implicature (@cite{merin-1999} §3) #

@cite{merin-1999}

Merin's DTS account of scalar implicature via protentive speaker meaning and relevance-ordered alternatives. The key insight: scalar implicature arises because conjunction is more relevant than disjunction (Theorem 6a), so a speaker who says "A or B" implicates ¬(A ∧ B).

Key Definitions #

Main Results #

Sign of relevance: positive, negative, or neutral.

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

      Protentive Speaker Meaning (Def. 7): the hypothesis supported by an utterance's relevance sign.

      If E is positively relevant, PSM = H. If E is negatively relevant, PSM = ¬H. Otherwise neutral.

      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For
        def Theories.DTS.ScalarImplicature.upwardCone {W : Type u_1} [Fintype W] (ctx : DTSContext W) (alts : List (BProp W)) (σ : BProp W) :

        Upward cone: alternatives at least as relevant as σ.

        Given a list of alternatives ordered by Bayes factor, the upward cone of σ contains all alternatives with BF ≥ BF(σ).

        Equations
        Instances For
          def Theories.DTS.ScalarImplicature.downwardCone {W : Type u_1} [Fintype W] (ctx : DTSContext W) (alts : List (BProp W)) (σ : BProp W) :

          Downward cone: alternatives at most as relevant as σ.

          Equations
          Instances For

            Hypothesis 1: Claim/counterclaim structure for scalar alternatives.

            The claim is the disjunction of upward-cone members (what the speaker means to convey). The counterclaim is the disjunction of downward-cone members (what the speaker implicates is false).

            • uttered : BProp W

              The scalar alternative uttered.

            • claim : BProp W

              The claim: disjunction of upward cone members.

            • counterclaim : BProp W

              The counterclaim: disjunction of downward cone members.

            Instances For

              Prediction 1: It is NOT the case that a disjunct always dominates its disjunction in Bayes factor.

              This follows from Theorem 6b direction: XOR (and hence plain disjunction) need not track the relevance of individual disjuncts.

              Prediction 2: Under CIP with both A,B positively relevant, conjunction dominates both conjuncts and disjunction.

              This is the core of Merin's scalar implicature account: "A and B" is strictly more relevant than "A or B", explaining why "or" implicates ¬∧.