Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.ScopeExpressivity

RSA vs EXH: Expressivity Gap #

Formalizes what standard RSA cannot express that EXH can: scope-sensitive implicatures.

Standard RSA treats utterances atomically:

EXH is a compositional operator that can scope at different positions:

These give different truth conditions, but standard RSA conflates them.

Results #

  1. Standard RSA is scope-blind (expressivity_gap)
  2. IBR matches global EXH, not local (ibr_is_global_not_local)
  3. Compositional RSA closes the gap (hierarchy_is_strict)

Standard RSA: No Scope Distinction #

Standard RSA computes P(w | u) without any notion of scope. It treats "every student read some book" as an atomic utterance and computes a single distribution over worlds.

RSA gives one answer, but there are two legitimate readings (global vs local EXH).

The Expressivity Gap: Formal Statement #

The key observation is that standard RSA, by treating utterances atomically, must give the same probability to worlds that EXH would distinguish by scope.

The distinguishing worlds are w_SA and w_AS:

This means standard RSA cannot implement local EXH - it always "leaks" probability to worlds that local EXH would exclude.

The expressivity gap exists.

There exists a world that is:

  1. Excluded by local EXH (prob 0)
  2. Included by global EXH (prob > 0)
  3. Included by standard RSA literal meaning

This shows standard RSA can only express global, not local EXH.

How Compositional RSA Resolves This #

The solution is to make scope a latent variable that the listener infers:

L1(w, scope | u) ∝ P(w) × P(scope) × S1(u | w, scope)

Now the listener can infer either:

This is exactly what ScontrasPearl2021 does for "every horse didn't jump". The scope ambiguity model lifts interpretation to a latent variable.

Compositional RSA = Standard RSA + Scope as Latent Variable.

Compositional RSA scenario: scope is a latent variable

Instances For

    The IBR Perspective #

    @cite{franke-2011} shows that IBR (the α→∞ limit of RSA) equals exhMW. But this is still SCOPE-BLIND - it's exhMW applied to the WHOLE sentence.

    The IBR/exhMW analysis of "every student read some book":

    Even IBR (the limit of RSA) is scope-blind. To get local readings, scope must be a latent variable.

    The Expressivity Hierarchy #

    1. Standard RSA (scope-blind):

      • Treats utterances atomically
      • Cannot distinguish scope positions
      • In the α→∞ limit, equals global EXH (exhMW)
    2. IBR / exhMW (scope-blind):

      • Deterministic limit of RSA
      • Still scope-blind
      • Implements global EXH only
    3. Compositional RSA (scope-aware):

      • Lifts scope to a latent variable
      • Can express both global and local readings
      • Listener infers scope jointly with world
    4. EXH operator (fully compositional):

      • Can be inserted at any scope position
      • Gives different meanings at different positions
      • Compositional RSA approximates this

    Standard RSA ⊂ Compositional RSA ≈ EXH. Standard RSA cannot express local exhaustification. The RSA → IBR → exhMW chain only captures global readings. For local readings, the scope-aware approach of ScontrasPearl2021, LexicalUncertainty, or compositional RSA is needed.

    The expressivity hierarchy is strict: Standard RSA < Compositional RSA

    Witnessed by the existence of a world that compositional RSA can exclude (with local scope) but standard RSA cannot.