Fox 2007: Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures #
@cite{fox-2007}
Danny Fox, "Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures." In Sauerland & Stateva (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, pp. 71--120. Palgrave Macmillan.
Core Ideas #
- SIs are derived by a covert exhaustivity operator
exhin the grammar (not pragmatically via NG-MQ) exhuses innocent exclusion (I-E): exclude only alternatives whose exclusion doesn't force including others- Recursive application of
exhderives free choice (FC) for disjunction under existential modals: ◇(p∨q) ⟹ ◇p ∧ ◇q - The system resolves Chierchia's puzzle about embedded disjunction
Computable Algorithm #
This file provides a computable (Bool/List) implementation of Fox's
innocent exclusion algorithm, complementing the Set-theoretic version
in Exhaustivity/Basic.lean (@cite{spector-2016}). The definitions are:
nonWeakerIndices: NW(p, A) — alternatives not entailed by prejacentexclusionConsistent: consistency of {p} ∪ {¬q : q ∈ excl}maxConsistentExclusions: maximal consistent exclusion setsieIndices: I-E(p, A) — innocently excludable alternativesexhB: the exhaustivity operator (Bool version)
Key Results #
disj_exh_eq_exor: Exh(Alt)(p∨q) = p ⊻ q (exclusive or)chierchia_puzzle_ie:exhresolves Chierchia's puzzle (§4)free_choice: Exh²(◇(p∨q)) = ◇p ∧ ◇q ∧ ¬◇(p∧q) (§7.2)
Connection to the Symmetry Problem #
Innocent exclusion was designed to handle symmetric alternatives
(see Symmetry.lean): when S₁, S₂ partition S's denotation, excluding
both is inconsistent, so they land in different MCEs and neither is in
I-E. This correctly predicts that exh is vacuous when the alternative
set contains both symmetric partners (FoxKatzir2011.symmetry_problem).
The problem of which alternatives enter the set is addressed by
@cite{katzir-2007}'s structural complexity (StructuralAlternatives.lean).
Duality with Santorio 2018 #
Fox's innocent exclusion is the dual of @cite{santorio-2018}'s
stability algorithm (footnote 40, p. 540). This duality is verified
computationally in Semantics/Conditionals/AlternativeSensitive.lean,
which imports this file and proves the correspondence.
All sublists (power set) of a list.
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.sublists [] = [[]]
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.sublists (x_1 :: xs) = NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.sublists xs ++ List.map (fun (x : List α) => x_1 :: x) (NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.sublists xs)
Instances For
Non-weaker alternatives (by index): alternatives not entailed by p. NW(p, A) = {q ∈ A : p ⊭ q}, i.e., there exists a world where p is true but q is false.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Consistency of an exclusion: {p} ∪ {¬q : q ∈ excl} is satisfiable. There exists a world where p holds and all excluded alternatives are false.
Equations
Instances For
Maximal consistent exclusions: maximal subsets A' ⊆ NW(p, A) such that {p} ∪ {¬q : q ∈ A'} is consistent.
These are Fox's MC-sets projected to the excludable alternatives. The intersection of all maximal exclusions gives I-E.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Innocently excludable alternatives (by index): those appearing in every maximal consistent exclusion.
I-E(p, A) = ⋂ {A' : A' is a maximal consistent exclusion}
An alternative is innocently excludable iff excluding it doesn't force including some other alternative — i.e., it can be excluded no matter which maximal exclusion we choose.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The exhaustivity operator (computable Bool version).
⟦Exh⟧(A)(p)(w) ⟺ p(w) ∧ ∀q ∈ I-E(p, A). ¬q(w)
Asserts the prejacent and negates every innocently excludable alternative.
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
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.instBEqPQWorld.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Sauerland alternatives for p∨q: {p∨q, p, q, p∧q}.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Simple Disjunction: p∨q → ExOR #
With Sauerland alternatives Alt(p∨q) = {p∨q, p, q, p∧q}:
- NW(p∨q) = {p, q, p∧q} (none entailed by p∨q)
- Maximal consistent exclusions: {q, p∧q} and {p, p∧q} (can't exclude both p and q: (p∨q) ∧ ¬p ∧ ¬q is contradictory)
- I-E = {p∧q} (the only alternative in both exclusions)
- Exh(Alt)(p∨q) = (p∨q) ∧ ¬(p∧q) = exclusive or
Chierchia's Puzzle: Embedded Disjunction #
@cite{chierchia-2004} observed that when a scalar item is embedded in a disjunction, the standard neo-Gricean system (NG-MQ) derives the wrong implicature.
Example: "John did the reading or some of the homework."
- r ∨ sh, with stronger alternative r ∨ ah (all homework)
- The correct SI: ¬ah (John didn't do ALL the homework)
- NG-MQ's SI: ¬(r ∨ ah) = ¬r ∧ ¬ah (too strong — negates r too!)
Fox's solution: exh correctly derives ¬ah without ¬r, because
ah is the only innocently excludable alternative among the
relevant ones.
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.
Chierchia's puzzle: NG-MQ would derive SI = ¬(r∨ah) = ¬r ∧ ¬ah,
which negates the first disjunct. Fox's exh correctly identifies
that only ah (index 6) and r∧ah (index 5) are innocently
excludable — NOT r or r∨ah.
exh correctly preserves the first disjunct's truth value:
the exhaustified meaning is consistent with r being true.
exh correctly negates the stronger alternative: the exhaustified
meaning entails ¬ah (not all homework).
Free Choice via Double Exhaustification #
The key result: recursive exhaustification derives the conjunctive interpretation of disjunction under existential modals.
Layer 1: Exh(C)(◇(p∨q)) = ◇(p∨q) ∧ ¬◇(p∧q)
- Excludes ◇(p∧q) but NOT ◇p or ◇q (excluding one forces the other)
- Consistent with FC but doesn't assert it
Layer 2: Exh(C')[Exh(C)(◇(p∨q))] = ◇p ∧ ◇q ∧ ¬◇(p∧q)
- Alternatives are {Exh(C)(φ) : φ ∈ C}
- Exh(C)(◇p) = ◇p ∧ ¬◇q, Exh(C)(◇q) = ◇q ∧ ¬◇p
- Both are innocently excludable at the second layer
- Their exclusion forces ◇p ∧ ◇q — free choice!
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.instBEqModalW.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.diamP NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.ModalW.seesP = true
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.diamP NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.ModalW.seesPQ = true
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.diamP NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.ModalW.seesBoth = true
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.diamP x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.diamQ NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.ModalW.seesQ = true
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.diamQ NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.ModalW.seesPQ = true
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.diamQ NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.ModalW.seesBoth = true
- NeoGricean.Exhaustivity.Fox2007.diamQ x✝ = false
Instances For
Sauerland alternatives under ◇: {◇(p∨q), ◇p, ◇q, ◇(p∧q)}.
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
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Exh(C)(◇(p∧q)) = ◇(p∧q): no non-weaker alternatives (◇(p∧q) entails all of ◇p, ◇q, ◇(p∨q)).
Layer 2 alternatives: {Exh(C)(φ) : φ ∈ C}.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Layer 1 result as prejacent for layer 2.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Free Choice: double exhaustification yields ◇p ∧ ◇q ∧ ¬◇(p∧q).
Exh(C')[Exh(C)(◇(p∨q))] asserts:
- ◇p ∧ ◇q (free choice permission)
- ¬◇(p∧q) (anti-conjunctive inference)
The FC inference ◇p ∧ ◇q arises because the second layer excludes Exh(C)(◇p) = ◇p∧¬◇q and Exh(C)(◇q) = ◇q∧¬◇p, whose negation (given the prejacent) forces both ◇p and ◇q to hold.