[WCLD23] #
Waldon, B., Condoravdi, C., Levin, B., & Degen, J. (2023). On the context dependence of artifact noun interpretation. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 27, pp. 674–692.
Key Claims #
Goal Sensitivity: policy goals systematically modulate artifact noun category boundaries. A flashlight is more likely to count as an "electronic device" when the goal is limiting distracting light than when it's limiting noise.
Multi-dimensional degree semantics for artifact nouns (eq. 8): ⟦vehicle⟧ = λx. Σ_{f ∈ F(vehicle)} f(x) · W(vehicle, f) where F returns context-relevant measure functions and W weights them. Artifact nouns compose additively ([SF17]), in contrast to natural kinds which compose multiplicatively.
This is the
weightedScoresubstrate primitive inSemantics/Degree/Aggregation.lean. Tham 2025 adds a third aggregation mode (spatialNormalizedScore, with a host-extent denominator) for physical disturbance predicates — seeStudies/Tham2025.lean §15for the substrate-level contrast (Waldon's domain has no host-extent denominator naturally; Tham's does).Interpretive model (§4.2, the paper's implemented version per its own simplifying assumptions): a literal Bayesian update over each object's prohibition status. The threshold
sis uniform on [0, 1] and marginalised analytically;F/Ware fixed per condition; the prohibition prior is 1/2. The marginal posterior thatois prohibited then equals the goal-weighted measurem(o)(prohibitionPosterior_eq_measure), so every behavioural prediction reduces to a measure comparison.Goal Sensitive vs. Goal Insensitive (§4.3): the single free parameter γ weights the context-independent
catdimension against the goal-relevant dimensions. γ = 1 is the Goal Insensitive null — provably condition-independent (goal_insensitive_at_one) — while every qualitative prediction below holds for all γ < 1; the BDA maximum-likelihood estimate is γ = 0.758 (95% CrI [0.756, 0.758]).
Model #
m_g(o) = γ·cat(o) + (1−γ)·f_g(o) (eq. 13)
m_B(o) = γ·cat(o) + (1−γ)·Σ_g p(g)·f_g(o) (eq. 14)
P(o prohibited | rule) = m(o) (eq. 12, fn. 20-21)
where cat is the category-membership measure, f_g the goal-relevant
feature measures, and p the goal-plausibility function. Both measure
forms are weightedScore instances ([SF17] additive
aggregation).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.instReprObject = { reprPrec := WaldonEtAl2023.instReprObject.repr }
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.instDecidableEqObject x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.instFintypeObject = { elems := { val := ↑WaldonEtAl2023.Object.enumList, nodup := WaldonEtAl2023.Object.enumList_nodup }, complete := WaldonEtAl2023.instFintypeObject._proof_1 }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.instReprGoal = { reprPrec := WaldonEtAl2023.instReprGoal.repr }
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.instDecidableEqGoal x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.instFintypeGoal = { elems := { val := ↑WaldonEtAl2023.Goal.enumList, nodup := WaldonEtAl2023.Goal.enumList_nodup }, complete := WaldonEtAl2023.instFintypeGoal._proof_1 }
Experimental conditions (determines latentPrior over Goals).
- neutral : GoalCondition
- limitLight : GoalCondition
- limitNoise : GoalCondition
- preventRecordings : GoalCondition
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.instDecidableEqGoalCondition 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.
These values are schematic approximations, not from the paper's
actual norming data. The paper parameterizes the feature measures
f_g(o), the category measure cat(o), and the goal plausibilities
p(g) via separate norming studies (feature attribution, category
membership, and goal plausibility, §3.1). The actual values are
available at the OSF links cited in the paper. The values below
capture the qualitative pattern described in the paper (flashlights
emit light but not noise; boomboxes emit noise but not light; etc.);
the prediction theorems in §5 are additionally γ-generic, so no
fitted parameter value is assumed.
Goal-relevant feature measures — the components of the paper's eq. (8), parameterised in the paper by the feature-attribution norming study.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
The feature measure a policy goal makes relevant (eq. 13).
Equations
Instances For
cat: the context-independent category-membership measure (the paper's
cat^{elec.device}, from the category-membership norming study).
Equations
Instances For
Goal-plausibility function p for the goal-neutral condition (eq. 14,
fn. 22: values from the goal-plausibility norming, summing to 1 over the
three goals; uniform here, schematically).
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.plausibility x✝ = 1 / 3
Instances For
The context-sensitive measure ⟦electronic device⟧^{F,W} under each
experimental condition (eqs. 13–14): a weightedScore over the cat
dimension (weight γ) and the goal-relevant dimensions (weight 1−γ,
plausibility-split in the goal-neutral condition).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- WaldonEtAl2023.deviceMeasure γ WaldonEtAl2023.GoalCondition.limitLight = Semantics.Gradability.Aggregation.weightedScore [γ, 1 - γ] [WaldonEtAl2023.cat, WaldonEtAl2023.emitLight]
- WaldonEtAl2023.deviceMeasure γ WaldonEtAl2023.GoalCondition.limitNoise = Semantics.Gradability.Aggregation.weightedScore [γ, 1 - γ] [WaldonEtAl2023.cat, WaldonEtAl2023.emitNoise]
- WaldonEtAl2023.deviceMeasure γ WaldonEtAl2023.GoalCondition.preventRecordings = Semantics.Gradability.Aggregation.weightedScore [γ, 1 - γ] [WaldonEtAl2023.cat, WaldonEtAl2023.canRecord]
Instances For
Closed form for the explicit-goal conditions (eq. 13).
Closed form for the goal-neutral condition (eq. 14): the goal weight is split by plausibility.
The measure stays in [0, 1] for γ ∈ [0, 1] — the domain on which the threshold semantics reads it as a probability.
Probability that an object meets the standard: the threshold s is
uniform on [0, 1] (fn. 20), so P(pos^s(o) = 1) = P(s ≤ m(o)) is the
Lebesgue mass of [0, m].
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.posProb m = MeasureTheory.volume (Set.Icc 0 ↑m)
Instances For
Eq. (12) under the paper's implementation assumptions (fn. 21): the joint posterior weight of a prohibition status is the threshold-marginalised standard-meeting indicator times the uniform prohibition prior.
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.ruleUpdateWeight m true = 2⁻¹ * WaldonEtAl2023.posProb m
- WaldonEtAl2023.ruleUpdateWeight m false = 2⁻¹ * (1 - WaldonEtAl2023.posProb m)
Instances For
The listener's posterior over an object's prohibition status after observing the rule (eq. 12, marginalised over the uniform threshold).
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.prohibitionPMF m = PMF.normalize (WaldonEtAl2023.ruleUpdateWeight m) ⋯ ⋯
Instances For
Marginal posterior probability that o is prohibited in condition c
(the L^γ(o prohibited | rule) of eq. 15c).
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.prohibitionPosterior γ c o = (WaldonEtAl2023.prohibitionPMF (WaldonEtAl2023.deviceMeasure γ c o)) true
Instances For
The posterior is the measure (fns. 20–21): with the threshold uniform on [0, 1] and a 1/2 prohibition prior, the marginal posterior probability of prohibition collapses to the goal-weighted measure itself. Every behavioural prediction below is therefore a measure comparison.
Every prediction holds for all γ ∈ [0, 1) — the entire Goal
Sensitive regime — via prohibitionPosterior_eq_measure plus rational
arithmetic on the measures. The proofs need no fitted parameter value.
Under limitLight, the flashlight (edge case) is more likely prohibited
than the candle (clear non-member): both cat and emit-light favour it.
Under limitNoise, the boombox is the primary target.
Under limitLight, the tablet (clear member + emits light) outranks the
boombox (clear member, no light): the cat dimension ties, so the goal
dimension decides — strict only in the Goal Sensitive regime γ < 1.
Goal sensitivity for flashlights (the paper's key result, Fig. 1):
the flashlight is more likely prohibited under limitLight than limitNoise
— the measure difference is (1−γ)·(emitLight − emitNoise)(flashlight),
positive exactly when γ < 1.
Goal sensitivity for boomboxes (reverse pattern, Fig. 1).
Goal sensitivity for tablets under preventRecordings vs limitNoise.
No single threshold shift explains the goal effect (the paper's argument against a purely context-shifted standard, pp. 681–682): relative to the goal-neutral baseline, the limitLight goal raises the flashlight and simultaneously lowers the boombox. A shifted threshold θ_B moves all objects the same direction; goal-sensitive dimension weights do not.
The Goal Insensitive null (γ = 1): the measure ignores the goal dimensions entirely, so no condition manipulation can move any object's posterior. The experiment's Bayesian model comparison rejects this value (γ̂ = 0.758, 95% CrI [0.756, 0.758], §4.3).
The BDA maximum-likelihood estimate of γ (§4.3). Strictly inside the Goal Sensitive regime, so every prediction theorem above applies to it.
Equations
- WaldonEtAl2023.fittedGamma = 758 / 1000
Instances For
The flashlight's goal-relevant feature is much stronger under limitLight
than limitNoise — the driver of goal_sensitivity_flashlight.
The boombox's pattern reverses — the driver of goal_sensitivity_boombox.
[SF17] contrast artifact nouns (additive: Σ) with natural kinds (multiplicative: Π). Under multiplicative composition, a zero on ANY dimension kills membership. Under additive, other dimensions compensate.
All feature measures as a list (for aggregation functions).
Equations
Instances For
Under multiplicative composition, the flashlight gets ZERO because emitNoise(flashlight) = canRecord(flashlight) = 1/20 ≈ 0. The product is negligibly small.
Under additive composition, the flashlight gets a positive score despite near-zero on noise/recording — emitLight compensates.
Artifact noun aggregation is utilitarian, not counting — the same point made by [DAH24] for multidimensional adjectives. [Sas13]'s binding types (conjunctive, disjunctive, mixed) are all counting aggregation and cannot capture the weighted, continuous-measure structure of artifact noun interpretation.