Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.ScalarImplicatures.Studies.VanTielEtAl2021

@cite{van-tiel-franke-sauerland-2021} #

"Probabilistic pragmatics explains gradience and focality in natural language quantification" PNAS 118(9): e2005453118

This paper compares two semantic theories of quantity words:

  1. GQT (Generalized Quantifier Theory): Binary threshold semantics

    • Monotone increasing (some, most, all): t >= theta
    • Monotone decreasing (few, none): t <= theta
  2. Prototype Theory (PT): Gradient Gaussian semantics

    • L_PT(m, t) = exp(-((t - p_m) / d_m)^2)

Combined with two speaker models:

Experiments #

  1. Exp. 1a/1b: Production study (600/200 participants)

    • 432 circles (red/black), describe "— of the circles are red"
    • Recorded which quantity words participants used
  2. Exp. 2: Monotonicity judgments (120 participants)

    • Tested inference patterns to classify monotonicity
  3. Exp. 3: ANS estimation (20 participants)

    • Estimated Weber's fraction w = 0.576
  4. Exp. 4: Model evaluation (200 participants)

    • Rated adequacy of model-predicted quantity words

Main Result #

GQ-pragmatic model explains gradience as well as prototype-based models. Gradience emerges from pragmatic competition, not encoded in semantics.

Grounding #

Connects to Semantics.Montague.Quantifiers for threshold semantics.

The 17 quantity words studied (in order from low to high intersection)

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

      All quantity words in experimental order

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

        Monotonicity determines threshold direction in GQT

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

            Empirically determined monotonicity (from Exp. 2, Table in paper)

            Participants judged inference patterns:

            • Monotone increasing: "Q of the people P1 → Q of the people P2" valid when P1 ⊂ P2
            • Monotone decreasing: "Q of the people P2 → Q of the people P1" valid when P1 ⊂ P2

            Classification: clustered with "all" (increasing) or "none" (decreasing)

            Equations
            Instances For

              Decreasing quantifiers (from paper: "few," "hardly any," "less than half," "none," "very few")

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

                Increasing quantifiers (all others)

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

                  The four models compared in the paper

                  Instances For
                    def VanTielEtAl2021.instReprModel.repr :
                    ModelStd.Format
                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For
                      @[implicit_reducible]
                      Equations

                      Human rating difference (Exp. 4)

                      Rating of model predictions minus rating of actual data. Negative = model predictions rated worse than data. CI = 95% confidence interval.

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

                            GQ-prag is the only model not significantly worse than data (p > 0.05)

                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              Weber's fraction estimated from Exp. 3

                              Represents sensitivity to relative differences in numerosity. Higher w means less precise number discrimination.

                              Equations
                              Instances For

                                Total set size in experiments

                                Equations
                                Instances For

                                  Number of possible intersection set sizes (0 through 432)

                                  Equations
                                  Instances For

                                    Approximate prototype (peak production) for each quantity word.

                                    These are rough estimates from Fig. 1A in the paper. Values are approximate intersection set sizes where production peaks.

                                    Equations
                                    Instances For

                                      Production data shows gradience (quantitative pattern)

                                      Equations
                                      Instances For

                                        Production data shows focal points (qualitative pattern)

                                        Equations
                                        Instances For

                                          Multiple quantity words can describe same state

                                          Equations
                                          Instances For

                                            Number of participants in Exp. 1a (training)

                                            Equations
                                            Instances For

                                              Number of participants in Exp. 1b (test)

                                              Equations
                                              Instances For

                                                Number of participants in Exp. 2 (monotonicity)

                                                Equations
                                                Instances For

                                                  Number of participants in Exp. 3 (ANS)

                                                  Equations
                                                  Instances For

                                                    Number of participants in Exp. 4 (evaluation)

                                                    Equations
                                                    Instances For

                                                      These 17 quantity words account for 87% of production data

                                                      Equations
                                                      Instances For
                                                        @[reducible, inline]

                                                        Domain size (simplified from 432 to 10)

                                                        Equations
                                                        Instances For
                                                          @[reducible, inline]

                                                          Intersection set sizes (simplified from 0-432 to 0-10)

                                                          Equations
                                                          Instances For

                                                            PT meaning via the parametric operator from Theories.Semantics.Probabilistic.PrototypeTheory.

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

                                                              Connects the RSA quantity-word production model to the empirical monotonicity classifications.

                                                              Monotonicity matches empirical classification for clear cases (excluding "half").

                                                              Note: "half" is classified as nonMonotone in the three-way system but as "increasing" in the binary empirical classification.