Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Pragmatics.RSA.ScalarImplicatures.Embedded.Basic

RSA Embedded Scalar Implicatures: Simplified Model (For Analysis) #

@cite{bergen-levy-goodman-2016} @cite{geurts-2010} @cite{potts-etal-2016}

This file implements a simplified 2-lexicon model to analyze why minimal Lexical Uncertainty models fail to derive embedded implicature patterns.

Status #

The ℚ-based RSA evaluation infrastructure (RSA.Eval, boolToRat, LURSA) has been removed. Type definitions and the model limitation analysis are preserved. RSA computations need to be re-implemented using the new RSAConfig framework.

This File's Purpose #

Demonstrates that a minimal 2-lexicon, 3-world model gives inverted predictions, motivating the richer structure in the full model.

World states for embedded scalar scenarios.

  • none: Nobody solved any problems
  • someNotAll: Someone solved some-but-not-all problems
  • someAll: Someone solved all problems
Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      Utterances for DE context: "No one solved {some/all} problems"

      We need scalar alternatives for RSA to reason about informativity.

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

          The Lexical Uncertainty Model #

          Each lexicon L assigns meanings to "some":

          The listener reasons over which lexicon the speaker is using.

          Utterances for UE context

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

              Analysis of Results #

              With α = 1 and uniform priors, the simplified 2-lexicon model gives INVERTED predictions compared to the empirical pattern. This motivates the need for richer model structure.

              DE Context ("No one solved some"):

              UE Context ("Someone solved some"):

              Why This Happens #

              The key asymmetry is world coverage:

              In DE:

              L_refined makes the utterance true in MORE worlds, so even though L_base is more informative, L_refined gets extra probability mass.

              What Potts et al. Actually Does #

              The paper succeeds because of richer model structure:

              1. Multiple refinable items: Not just "some", but also proper names, predicates like "scored" vs "aced" (equation 14)

              2. Richer world space: 3 players × 3 outcomes = 10 equivalence classes

              3. Message alternatives: Full cross-product of quantifiers and predicates

              4. Low λ = 0.1: Speaker nearly uniform, so implicatures emerge from lexicon structure, not informativity