@cite{ritchie-schiller-2024} — Default Domain Restriction Possibilities #
@cite{ritchie-schiller-2024} @cite{cutting-vishton-1995} @cite{baker-jara-ettinger-saxe-tenenbaum-2017} @cite{clark-1996} @cite{stalnaker-2002}
Ritchie, K. & Schiller, H. (2024). Default Domain Restriction Possibilities. Semantics & Pragmatics 17, Article 13: 1–49.
The Argument #
When a speaker says "Every bottle is empty" at a dinner party, the hearer restricts the quantifier domain to contextually relevant bottles — not all bottles in the universe (R&S §1, ex. 3). Ritchie & Schiller argue that existing accounts fail to explain why certain restrictions are defaults:
- Rational pragmatic (§2.1): RSA/Gricean reasoning doesn't explain default status
- Discourse-structural (§2.2): QUD-based accounts are too demanding
- Intentionalist (§2.3): speaker-intention accounts are too unconstrained
Their positive proposal (§3): cognitive heuristics — perceptual availability, salience, and manipulability — generate a structured set of default domain restriction possibilities (DDRPs). These are grounded in spatial cognition, where nested spatial regions provide a natural ordering on candidate restrictions.
Scenario #
We construct an illustrative scenario (not from the paper) with 4 entities at increasing spatial distances and 3 world states, then verify key formal consequences of the DDRP framework for both ⟦every⟧ (↓MON) and ⟦some⟧ (↑MON).
Compositional Grounding #
Truth conditions derive from every_restricted / some_restricted
(DomainRestriction.lean), which wrap every_sem / some_sem (Quantifier.lean)
with a domain restrictor predicate. Nesting theorems derive from
DDRP.every_nesting / DDRP.some_nesting, connecting the nested spatial
regions to restrictor monotonicity.
RSA Connection #
While R&S argue against RSA as explaining default status (§2.1), DDRPs are
compatible with RSA as the selection mechanism: the listener reasons over
candidate DDRPs (= Latent in RSAConfig) to infer which domain restriction
the speaker intended. With a cognitive-default prior biasing toward peripersonal
scales, L1_latent infers the proximal restriction (§8).
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.instDecidableEqEntity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.instReprEntity = { reprPrec := RitchieSchiller2024.instReprEntity.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.bottleModel = { Entity := RitchieSchiller2024.Entity, Index := Unit }
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
A spatial scene: each entity occupies a spatial zone.
Equations
Instances For
A spatial scene induces a DDRP: region s contains entities in zone ≤ s.
Monotonicity and top-totality follow from the ordering on SpatialScale.
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.sceneToDDRP scene = { region := fun (s : Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale) (e : E) => scene e ≤ s, monotone := ⋯, top_total := ⋯ }
Instances For
The dinner-party scene: b1,b2 peripersonal, b3 action, b4 vista.
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.dinnerScene RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b1 = Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.peripersonal
- RitchieSchiller2024.dinnerScene RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b2 = Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.peripersonal
- RitchieSchiller2024.dinnerScene RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b3 = Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.action
- RitchieSchiller2024.dinnerScene RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b4 = Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.vista
Instances For
DDRP for the bottle scenario, derived from the spatial scene. Peripersonal ⊆ action ⊆ vista (= unrestricted in this indoor scene).
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.instDecidableEqWorld x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.instReprWorld = { reprPrec := RitchieSchiller2024.instReprWorld.repr }
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.
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.emptyIn RitchieSchiller2024.World.allEmpty x✝ = true
- RitchieSchiller2024.emptyIn RitchieSchiller2024.World.midEmpty RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b4 = false
- RitchieSchiller2024.emptyIn RitchieSchiller2024.World.midEmpty x✝ = true
- RitchieSchiller2024.emptyIn RitchieSchiller2024.World.nearEmpty RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b1 = true
- RitchieSchiller2024.emptyIn RitchieSchiller2024.World.nearEmpty RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b2 = true
- RitchieSchiller2024.emptyIn RitchieSchiller2024.World.nearEmpty x✝ = false
Instances For
All entities are bottles in this scenario (trivial restrictor).
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.isBottle x✝ = true
Instances For
Truth of "every bottle is empty" under a given spatial domain restriction. For all entities in the DDRP region that are bottles, they must be empty.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Truth of "some bottle is empty" under a given spatial domain restriction. Some entity in the DDRP region that is a bottle must be empty.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Proximal default: In the proximal world, only peripersonal restriction makes "every bottle is empty" true. The listener must infer the speaker intended the proximal domain — no other DDRP candidate works.
↓MON/↑MON contrast: ⟦every⟧ and ⟦some⟧ react oppositely to domain restriction. In the proximal world, ⟦every⟧ is true only under peripersonal restriction (↓MON: smaller domain helps), while ⟦some⟧ is true under all restrictions (↑MON: larger domain never hurts).
⟦every⟧ nesting (Prop level): truth under a larger scale entails truth under
any smaller scale. Derives from DDRP.every_nesting via restrictor ↓MON.
⟦some⟧ nesting (Prop level): truth under a smaller scale entails truth under
any larger scale. Derives from DDRP.some_nesting via restrictor ↑MON.
Utterance type for the RSA model.
Instances For
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.instDecidableEqUtterance x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Literal meaning under a given DDRP scale (Bool for RSA computation).
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.utteranceMeaning scale RitchieSchiller2024.Utterance.everyEmpty x✝ = decide (RitchieSchiller2024.everyBottleEmpty scale x✝)
- RitchieSchiller2024.utteranceMeaning scale RitchieSchiller2024.Utterance.someEmpty x✝ = decide (RitchieSchiller2024.someBottleEmpty scale x✝)
Instances For
R&S §3.2: Three cognitive heuristics collectively determine which domain restrictions are defaults. Each heuristic assigns a relevance score to a spatial scale, reflecting how well entities at that scale satisfy the corresponding cognitive criterion.
- availability : CognitiveHeuristic
- salience : CognitiveHeuristic
- manipulability : CognitiveHeuristic
Instances For
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.instDecidableEqCognitiveHeuristic x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Heuristic score for each (heuristic, scale) pair.
- Availability (R&S §3.2 ¶1): Peripersonal objects are maximally available — perceived without bodily distortion. Action/vista objects are available but require effort. Unrestricted objects may not be present at all.
- Salience (R&S §3.2 ¶2): Peripersonal and action-space objects are attention-grabbing. Vista/unrestricted objects are less noticeable.
- Manipulability (R&S §3.2 ¶3): Only peripersonal objects afford physical interaction (within arm's reach). All others are out of reach.
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.availability Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.peripersonal = 2
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.availability Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.action = 1
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.availability Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.vista = 1
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.availability Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.unrestricted = 1
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.salience Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.peripersonal = 1
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.salience Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.action = 1
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.salience Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.vista = 0
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.salience Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.unrestricted = 0
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.manipulability Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.peripersonal = 1
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.manipulability Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.action = 0
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.manipulability Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.vista = 0
- RitchieSchiller2024.heuristicScore RitchieSchiller2024.CognitiveHeuristic.manipulability Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.unrestricted = 0
Instances For
Each heuristic is anti-monotone: more proximal scales score at least as high. This captures R&S's claim that proximity enhances all three cognitive dimensions simultaneously.
Latent prior derived from the three cognitive heuristics. The sum reflects R&S §3.2's conjunction: a good default restriction should score high on availability AND salience AND manipulability. The prior is unnormalized — RSA normalizes via the partition function.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The derived prior is anti-monotone: more proximal scales receive higher prior weight. Follows from anti-monotonicity of each heuristic.
RSA model with DDRPs as the latent interpretation variable.
Latent = SpatialScale: L1 marginalizes over candidate domain restrictions
to infer the speaker's intended domain. The latentPrior encodes the
cognitive default via ddprPrior.
While R&S argue against RSA as explaining default status (§2.1), DDRPs are compatible with RSA as the selection mechanism once the candidate set and prior are fixed by cognitive heuristics.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
L1_latent peripersonal > action: The listener infers peripersonal as the most likely intended domain restriction, beating the action-space scale. This captures R&S's core claim: cognitive-default priors biasing toward proximal scales cause the listener to default to the nearest restriction.
L1_latent action > vista: The action scale is preferred over vista, showing the full ordering: peripersonal > action > vista.
For "some bottle is empty", the cognitive-default prior overrides the
semantic signal: peripersonal is inferred as the most likely scale despite
⟦some⟧ being true under all scales in all worlds. Without the prior,
RSA predicts the WRONG ordering (see uniform_some_distal_wins).
R&S §2.1 argue that RSA alone — without cognitive supplementation — cannot explain why certain domain restrictions are defaults. We verify this by constructing an RSA model with uniform latent priors and showing:
1. For ⟦every⟧ (↓MON), RSA with uniform priors *happens* to predict
peripersonal as most likely — but only because the literal semantics
provides discriminative signal (it's false under wider scales in some
worlds). This is not an explanation of default status.
2. For ⟦some⟧ (↑MON), RSA with uniform priors predicts the *wrong*
ordering: the listener infers vista/unrestricted as most likely, because
under wider scales, ⟦some⟧ is the only true utterance in more worlds
(higher L0 probability). Cognitive-default priors are needed to override
this semantic signal.
This pair of results formalizes R&S's core negative argument: RSA's
predictions depend on the specific quantifier's monotonicity profile,
not on cognitive structure, so RSA alone doesn't explain the cross-quantifier
generalization that proximal restrictions are always preferred.
RSA model with uniform latent prior (no cognitive bias).
Identical to domainRestrictionRSA except latentPrior _ _ = 1.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
R&S §2.1: With uniform priors, RSA still predicts peripersonal for ⟦every⟧ — but only because the literal semantics does the work (⟦every⟧ is false under wider scales in more worlds, so L0 assigns higher probability to narrower scales). This is a semantic accident, not a cognitive explanation.
R&S §2.1: With uniform priors, RSA predicts the WRONG ordering for
⟦some⟧ — the listener infers vista as most likely, not peripersonal.
This is because under wider scales, ⟦some⟧ is more informative (it's
the only true utterance when ⟦every⟧ is false), yielding higher L0.
Cognitive-default priors (ddprPrior) are needed to override this.
Connects DDRPs to @cite{baker-jara-ettinger-saxe-tenenbaum-2017}'s BToM architecture and @cite{stalnaker-2002}'s common ground.
When the scene is common ground (@cite{clark-1996} on joint attention), speaker and hearer derive the same DDRP. Different perceptual access yields different DDRPs, motivating R&S's requirement of perceptual co-presence.
The RSA-BToM bridge applies to the domain restriction RSA config.
An alternative scene where b3 is behind a partition (in vista, not action).
Equations
- RitchieSchiller2024.partitionScene RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b1 = Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.peripersonal
- RitchieSchiller2024.partitionScene RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b2 = Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.peripersonal
- RitchieSchiller2024.partitionScene RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b3 = Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.vista
- RitchieSchiller2024.partitionScene RitchieSchiller2024.Entity.b4 = Semantics.Quantification.DomainRestriction.SpatialScale.vista
Instances For
Different spatial scenes yield different DDRPs.
Without perceptual co-presence, domain-restricted quantifiers can receive different truth values: "every bottle is empty" under action-space restriction is false with the dinner scene but true with the partition scene (where b3 is too far to be in the action zone).
R&S §4 argues that non-default domain restrictions arise from explicit
discourse moves. When the QUD shifts (e.g., "Where are the blue things?"),
the domain restriction can widen beyond the cognitive default. We connect
this to the QUD infrastructure from @cite{roberts-2012}.
QUD partitioning worlds by spatial emptiness profile: which bottles are empty at each spatial scale? Worlds that agree on the emptiness of peripersonal, action, and vista bottles give the same answer.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The spatial QUD distinguishes all three worlds: each has a different emptiness profile across scales.
R&S §3.2 argue that default domain restrictions are objective (nonsubjective on @cite{traugott-dasher-2002}'s cline): they derive from perceptual/cognitive structure (location, spatial proximity), not from speaker attitude (subjective) or addressee face (intersubjective). This predicts that spatial/temporal restrictions make better defaults than evaluative restrictions (beauty, tastiness).
@cite{scontras-degen-goodman-2017} find that more objective adjectives are
ordered closer to the noun — "the big blue box" over "the blue big box" —
because less subjective content is more useful for communication. R&S
extend this: more objective *domain restrictions* are similarly privileged
as defaults because they are more likely to be shared among participants
and thus better for coordination.
The connection is structural: all three cognitive heuristics (availability,
salience, manipulability) target features that are objective in the sense
that they don't depend on speaker perspective or taste.
DDRPs are nonsubjective: the three cognitive heuristics (availability,
salience, manipulability) all target spatiotemporal properties that don't
depend on speaker perspective. This is not stipulated — it follows from
the heuristics being defined over SpatialScale, which is a physical
(observer-independent) ordering on spatial regions.
Equations
Instances For
Objectivity prediction: DDRPs (nonsubjective) precede subjective interpretations on the Traugott-Dasher cline, predicting they are available as defaults before evaluative restrictions require discourse setup. The ordering reflects @cite{scontras-degen-goodman-2017}'s finding: less subjective content is more useful for communication.
Nonsubjective is the minimum on the Traugott-Dasher cline, so DDRPs precede all subjective and intersubjective interpretations.