Documentation

Linglib.Studies.TonhauserBeaverDegen2018

[TBD18]: How Projective Is Projective Content? #

The paper's central contribution is the Gradient Projection Principle (GPP):

"If content C is expressed by a constituent embedded under an entailment-canceling operator, then C projects to the extent that it is not at-issue."

It makes gradient the binary Projection Principle of the pragmatic account ([STBR10], [Rob12]) — "projects iff not at-issue". This file formalizes the principle and its structural consequences, not the experimental tables, taking the tight reading of "to the extent that": projection degree equals not-at-issueness. The empirical claim is a gradient correlation with item-level variance, not this identity (cf. the dependency's MonotoneAntiCorrelation docstring).

Main definitions #

Main results #

Implementation notes #

Degrees and thresholds are the Discourse.AtIssueness scales on Set.Icc (0 : ℚ) 1; the GPP map is Set.Icc.symm. Potts's maximal projection is grounded in Pragmatics.Expressives.TwoDimProp.ci_projects_through_neg.

The Gradient Projection Principle #

The GPP map: projection degree is the complement of at-issueness — content projects to the extent it is not at-issue ([TBD18]).

Equations
Instances For

    The GPP as order-reversal: more at-issue content is no more projective.

    Fully not-at-issue content (at-issueness 0) projects maximally.

    Fully at-issue content (at-issueness 1) does not project.

    Recovering the binary Projection Principle #

    The binary principle ([STBR10]) — projects iff not at-issue — is the threshold collapse of the gradient GPP.

    The GPP projects past θ iff at-issueness is below the complementary threshold.

    The binary Projection Principle: never both at-issue and projecting at complementary thresholds.

    Contra Potts #

    [Pot05] predicts CI content (appositives, NRRCs, expressives) projects maximally and obligatorily — its CI dimension is unchanged by every entailment-canceling operator. The GPP ties projection to at-issueness, so any at-issue content projects below the ceiling; the two agree only for fully-backgrounded content.

    [Pot05]'s prediction: CI content projects maximally (degree 1), regardless of at-issueness.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Potts's prediction is at-issueness-blind — the same for all content, which the GPP denies.

      Potts's maximal projection abstracts the operator-invariance of the CI dimension: negation leaves CI content unchanged ([Pot05]).

      Contra [Pot05]: any at-issue content (at-issueness > 0) projects strictly below Potts's ceiling — the structural form of "appositives are not maximally projective".

      The GPP and Potts agree iff the content is fully backgrounded (at-issueness 0).

      Potts files appositives in the independent CI dimension — the source of the maximal-projection prediction the GPP refines.

      The GPP as a MonotoneAntiCorrelation #

      Discourse.AtIssueness.MonotoneAntiCorrelation (built for this paper, consumed by Studies/SolstadBott2024) bundles anti-correlated pairs; the GPP produces one from any list of at-issueness values.

      Any list of at-issueness values, paired with their GPP projection, forms a MonotoneAntiCorrelation.

      Equations
      Instances For

        Illustrations from the paper #

        The paper's qualitative findings instantiate the GPP: stated as hypotheses on at-issueness, the projectivity ordering follows from gppProjection_antitone.

        Since only is more at-issue than an NRRC, the GPP predicts it projects no more ([TBD18]).

        At-issue appositive content projects sub-maximally — the GPP reading of the central result against [Pot05].

        Predicting against the data #

        gppProjection and pottsProjection map at-issueness to predicted projectivity; the paper's per-expression means are pooled in Generalizations.Projectivity.allData (artifact-sourced rows in Data.Examples.TonhauserBeaverDegen2018). The means are continuous, so per-row predictions are computed over allData (string paperFeatures and do not reduce in the kernel); the provable content is each account's systematic error.

        The GPP errs on any content whose projectivity differs from its not-at-issueness — the off-diagonal rows (establish below it, occasion verbs above it).

        Below both its not-at-issueness and the ceiling, the GPP is strictly closer to the observation than Potts — the low-projectivity items the paper highlights.