Speaker's belief state about a proposition ψ.
Following Geurts' diagram on p.39:
belief: Bel_S(ψ) — speaker believes ψ is truedisbelief: Bel_S(¬ψ) — speaker believes ψ is falsenoOpinion: ¬Bel_S(ψ) ∧ ¬Bel_S(¬ψ) — speaker has no opinion
- belief : BeliefState
- disbelief : BeliefState
- noOpinion : BeliefState
Instances For
Equations
- Implicature.instBEqBeliefState.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Competence: speaker knows whether ψ. Formally: Bel_S(ψ) ∨ Bel_S(¬ψ)
A competent speaker is not agnostic — they have an opinion one way or the other.
Equations
Instances For
Non-belief: speaker doesn't believe ψ. Formally: ¬Bel_S(ψ)
This is the weak implicature -- speaker might believe ¬ψ or have no opinion.
Equations
Instances For
Strong implicature: speaker believes ¬ψ. Formally: Bel_S(¬ψ)
This requires competence to derive from nonBelief.
Equations
Instances For
The result of applying the Standard Recipe to an utterance.
weakImplicature: ¬Bel_S(ψ) — always derivable from QuantitycompetenceHolds: Bel_S(ψ) ∨ Bel_S(¬ψ) — depends on contextstrongImplicature: Bel_S(¬ψ) — only if both weak + competence
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Apply the Standard Recipe to derive implicatures.
Given a belief state about the alternative ψ, determine what implicatures arise.
Equations
- Implicature.applyStandardRecipe b = { weakImplicature := Implicature.nonBelief b, competenceHolds := Implicature.competent b, strongImplicature := Implicature.strongImpl b }
Instances For
Theorem: Competence Strengthening
weak implicature + competence → strong implicature
If the speaker doesn't believe ψ (weak) AND is competent (knows whether ψ), then the speaker must believe ¬ψ (strong).
Formally: ¬Bel_S(ψ) ∧ (Bel_S(ψ) ∨ Bel_S(¬ψ)) → Bel_S(¬ψ)
Theorem: Weak Without Strong
A weak implicature can hold without the strong implicature (when the speaker lacks competence).
Theorem: Strong Implies Weak
If the strong implicature holds, the weak implicature holds. Bel_S(¬ψ) → ¬Bel_S(ψ)
Theorem: Strong Implies Competent
If the strong implicature holds, the speaker is competent. Bel_S(¬ψ) → (Bel_S(ψ) ∨ Bel_S(¬ψ))
Theorem: No Belief Implies Weak Implicature
If the speaker doesn't believe ψ, the weak implicature holds. This is direct from the definition.
Three possible outcomes for a hearer processing an implicature:
- Undecided: Weak implicature only (¬Bel_S(ψ)), competence not assumed
- Strong: Competence holds, derive Bel_S(¬ψ)
- Incompetent: Competence rejected, speaker has no opinion
Following Geurts' discussion on p.40.
- undecided : ImplicatureOutcome
- strongInference : ImplicatureOutcome
- incompetent : ImplicatureOutcome
Instances For
Equations
- Implicature.instBEqImplicatureOutcome.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Map a belief state to its implicature outcome.
Equations
Instances For
Theorem: Outcomes are Exhaustive and Distinct
The three outcomes partition the space of competent/weak combinations.
When do scalar implicatures get triggered?
Both views are Neo-Gricean (pragmatic, maxim-based), but differ on triggering:
- Defaultism (Levinson): SIs fire by default, automatically
- Contextualism (Geurts): SIs depend on context (QUD, salience)
Reference:
- Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. MIT Press.
- Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity Implicatures. Ch. 5.
Instances For
Equations
- Implicature.instBEqSITrigger.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Levinson's Defaultism: SIs are presumptive meanings that arise automatically.
Key claims:
- SIs are "default" inferences
- They arise rapidly and automatically
- Context can cancel them, but they're the default
Prediction: High SI rates (~90%+) even in neutral contexts.
Equations
- Implicature.levinsonParams = { trigger := Implicature.SITrigger.default, competenceEnabled := true, predictedNeutralRate := 90 }
Instances For
Geurts' Contextualism: SIs depend on the Question Under Discussion.
Key claims:
- SIs are not automatic defaults
- They arise when alternatives are contextually salient
- The QUD determines which alternatives matter
Prediction: Moderate SI rates (~35%) in truly neutral contexts; asking about the SI raises salience and inflates rates.
Equations
- Implicature.geurtsParams = { trigger := Implicature.SITrigger.contextual, competenceEnabled := true, predictedNeutralRate := 35 }
Instances For
Does this theory variant predict a task effect?
Contextualism predicts that asking "does this imply not-all?" will raise SI rates by making the alternative salient.
Defaultism predicts no task effect since SIs are automatic.
Equations
- Implicature.predictsTaskEffect p = match p.trigger with | Implicature.SITrigger.default => false | Implicature.SITrigger.contextual => true
Instances For
Does this theory variant predict high SI rates in neutral contexts?