Investigating the distribution of some (but not all) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods

What it is about

The paper tests the textbook view that «some → not all» is a generalized implicature that arises by default, uniformly, regardless of context. All 1,363 some-NPs in the Switchboard telephone corpus were shown in context to web participants. They rated how similar the utterance is to the same utterance with «some, but not all», which is taken as a measure of inference strength. Strength turns out to be widely spread: only 45% of ratings are above the scale midpoint, and items range from «That would take some planning» (almost no inference) to «Some kids are really having it» (strong). Mixed-effects regression shows systematic contextual cues. The partitive «some of the» strengthens the inference. A strong, quantificational some strengthens it more than a weak, existential one (some rain); determiner strength was measured separately and is continuous, not two classes. A subject some-NP and a previously mentioned embedded referent strengthen it; a modified head noun weakens it slightly. The conclusion is that scalar implicature is graded and context-dependent.

Ideas

• I1. Give each scalar implicature in prag/src/infer.rs a strength grade from tree features, as an integer sum with the contributing features listed in the explanation. Plus for a partitive (some + of + definite or pronoun), for a subject (nsubj), and for an embedded referent already mentioned (resolved pronoun or a definite with an earlier mention). Minus for a weak-some context: existential there, a mass or abstract head («some planning», «some rain»), or a modified head. Report «not all» as strong or weak, never drop it silently.
• I2. Use the weak-some diagnostics as a guard against false inferences. «We could use some rain» should not yield «not all rain». Add negative-control tests for the existential there and mass-noun cases. These are cheap to check with UD features (expl, mass nouns from the lexicon).
• I3. Record in chapter 33 §4.2 that the default theory of scalar implicature is contradicted by data. Mova's rules should treat «some → not all» as a graded inference with stated reasons, not as an entailment-like default.

For Mova

33. Implicature and presupposition §4.1–4.2 (Horn scales; when the implicature does not arise); prag/src/infer.rs (implicatures); measure: unit tests with minimal pairs (see the card on Schuster et al. 2020), and on a sample of tale sentences with some, agreement of the strong/weak grade with a teacher judgement. The Switchboard ratings are LDC-derived and are not usable in what Mova builds.

Topics: Implicature

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3765/sp.8.11

@article{degen2015investigating,
  title = {{Investigating the distribution of some (but not all) implicatures using corpora and web-based methods}},
  author = {Degen, Judith},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2015},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.8.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.11}
}

References

82 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Ariel, Mira. 2004. Most. Language 80(4). 658–706. find
2. Atlas, David Jay & Stephen C. Levinson. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 1–61. New York, NY: Academic Press. find
3. Baayen, R.H., D.J. Davidson & D.M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 390–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005. Distribution of scalar implicatures Intercept Partitive Strength Linguistic mention Subjecthood Modification Sentence length Partitive:Strength Linguistic mention:Subjecthood Linguistic mention:Modification Subjecthood:Modification Linguistic mention:Subjecthood:Modification Table 5 Coef β SE(β) t p 4.01 0.91 −0.50 0.31 0.41 0.12 0.15 0.39 0.17 0.34 0.27 0.61 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.21 0.13 0.17 0.42 68.7 9.6 −9.5 4.4 4.2 2.0 3.2 4.1 0.8 2.6 1.6 1.4 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.05 <.01 <.0001 <.44 <.01 <.12 <.16 Model coefficients for the full model. ↗
4. Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure in mixed-effects models: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278. find
5. Barton, Kamil. 2014. Mumin: Multi-model inference. Version 1.10.5. find
6. Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2). 159–219. ↗
7. Bates, D.M., M. Maechler, B.M. Bolker & S. Walker. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823. ↗
8. Bergen, Leon & Noah D. Goodman. 2014. The strategic use of noise in pragmatic reasoning. 36. 182–187. ↗
9. Bergen, Leon & Daniel J. Grodner. 2012. Speaker knowledge influences the comprehension of pragmatic inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 38(5). 1450–60. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0027850. ↗
10. Birner, Betty J. 1997. The linguistic realization of inferrable information. Language and Communication 17(2). 133–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.202.4366.409. ↗
11. Bott, Lewis, Todd M. Bailey & Daniel J. Grodner. 2012. Distinguishing speed from accuracy in scalar implicatures. Journal of Memory and Language 66(1). 123–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.09.005. ↗
12. Bott, Lewis & Ira Noveck. 2004. Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language 51(3). 437–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.006. ↗
13. Breheny, Richard, Heather J. Ferguson & Napoleon Katsos. 2013. Taking the epistemic step: Toward a model of on-line access to conversational implicatures. Cognition 126(3). 423–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cognition.2012.11.012. ↗
14. Breheny, Richard, Napoleon Katsos & John Williams. 2006. Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition 100(3). 434–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.003. ↗
15. Carlson, Greg N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3). 413–456. ↗
16. Carston, Robyn. 1998. Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications, 179–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ↗
17. Chambers, Craig G., Michael K. Tanenhaus & James S. Magnuson. 2004. Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30(3). 687– 696. ↗
18. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond, vol. 3, 39–103. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ↗
19. Chierchia, Gennaro, Danny Fox & Benjamin Spector. 2008. The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds.), Handbook of semantics, 1–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. find
20. Dahan, Delphine, James S. Magnuson & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2001. Time course of frequency effects in spoken-word recognition: Evidence from eye movements. Cognitive Psychology 42(4). 317–67. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1006/cogp.2001.0750. ↗
21. Degen, Judith. 2013. Alternatives in pragmatic reasoning. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester PhD thesis. find
22. Degen, Judith, Michael C. Franke & Gerhard Jäger. 2013. Cost-based pragmatic inference about referential expressions. 35. 376–381. find
23. Degen, Judith & Noah D. Goodman. 2014. Lost your marbles? The puzzle of dependent measures in experimental pragmatics. Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CCSS) 36. 397–402. Distribution of scalar implicatures Degen, Judith & T. Florian Jaeger. 2011. The TGrep2 Database Tools. https://sites.google.com/site/judithdegen/publications/tdt_manual.pdf. ↗
24. Degen, Judith & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2014. Processing scalar implicature: A constraint-based approach. Cognitive Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ cogs.12171. ↗
25. Doran, Ryan, Gregory Ward, Meredith Larson, Yaron McNabb & Rachel E. Baker. 2012. A novel experimental paradigm for distinguishing between what is said and what is implicated. Language 88. 124–154. ↗
26. Ehrlich, Susan F. & Keith Rayner. 1981. Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 20. 641–655. ↗
27. Frank, Michael C. & Noah D. Goodman. 2012. Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science 336. 998. ↗
28. Franke, Michael C. 2009. Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD thesis. find
29. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York, NY: Academic Press. find
30. Geurts, Bart. 2010. Quantity implicatures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. find
31. Geurts, Bart & Nausicaa Pouscoulous. 2009. Embedded implicatures?!? Semantics and Pragmatics 2. 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.4. ↗
32. Gibson, Edward, Steve Piantadosi & Kristina Fedorenko. 2011. Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(8). 509–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00295.x. ↗
33. Godfrey, J.J, E.C. Holliman & J. McDaniel. 1992. Switchboard: A telephone speech corpus for research and development. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). 517–520. find
34. Goodman, Noah D. & Andreas Stuhlmüller. 2013. Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 5(1). 173–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tops.12007. ↗
35. Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3. Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.). 41–58. ↗
36. Grodner, Daniel J., Natalie M. Klein, Kathleen M. Carbary & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2010. “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition 116(1). 42–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.014. ↗
37. Grodner, Daniel J. & Julie C. Sedivy. 2011. The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences. In Neal Pearlmutter & Edward Gibson (eds.), The processing and acquisition of reference, 239–272. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ↗
38. Hale, John. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL) 2. 159–166. find
39. Heller, Daphna, Daniel J. Grodner & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 2008. The role of perspective in identifying domains of reference. Cognition 108(3). 831–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.008. ↗
40. Hirschberg, Julia. 1985. A theory of scalar implicature. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania PhD thesis. find
41. Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles PhD thesis. find
42. Horn, Laurence. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. find
43. Horn, Laurence. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. find
44. Horn, Laurence. 1997. All John 0 s children are as bald as the King of France: Existential import and the geometry of opposition. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 33. 155–179. find
45. Huang, Yi Ting & Jesse Snedeker. 2009. Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology 58(3). 376–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001. ↗
46. Huang, Yi Ting & Jesse Snedeker. 2011. Logic and conversation revisited: Evidence for a division between semantic and pragmatic content in real-time language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(8). 1161–1172. find
47. Israel, Michael. 1999. “Some” and the pragmatics of indefinite construal. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 25. 169–182. ↗
48. Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
49. Jaeger, T. Florian. 2006. Redundancy and reduction in spontaneous speech. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PhD thesis. Distribution of scalar implicatures Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 434–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007. ↗
50. Jaynes, Edwin. 1979. Where do we stand on maximum entropy? In R. Levine & M. Tribus (eds.), The maximum entropy formalism, 15–118. Cambridge: MIT Press. find
51. Johnson, Paul C.D. 2014. Extension of Nakagawa & Schielzeth’s R 2 GLMM to random slopes models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5 (9). 944–946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12225. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/ 2041-210X.12225. de Jong, F.M.G. & H.J. ↗
52. Verkuyl. 1985. Generalized quantifiers: The properness of their strength. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (eds.), Generalized quantifiers: Theory and applications, 21–43. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. van Kuppevelt, J. 1996. Inferring from topics. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(4). 393–443. find
53. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff & Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2014. lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0-11. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest. ↗
54. Ladusaw, William A. 1982. Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 1. D. Flickinger, M. Macken & N. Wiegand (eds.). 231–242. find
55. Ladusaw, William A. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 4. 220–229. ↗
56. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ↗
57. Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3). 1126–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006. ↗
58. Lumsden, M. 1988. Existential sentences: Their structure and meaning. London: Croom Helm. find
59. Marcus, G.F., S. Vijayan, S. Bandi Rao & P.M. Vishton. 1999. Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283(5398). 77–80. ↗
60. Marslen-Wilson, W.D. 1987. Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25(1-2). 71–102. ↗
61. Matsumoto, Yo. 1995. The conversational condition on Horn scales. Linguistics and Philosophy 18. 21–60. ↗
62. Mcdonald, Scott A. & Richard C. Shillcock. 2003. Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science 14(6). 648–652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci. ↗
63. McNally, Louise & Veerle Van Geenhoven. 1998. Redefining the weak/strong distinction. Paper presented at the 1997 Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium. find
64. Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD thesis. find
65. Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3. 1–30. find
66. Nakagawa, Shinichi & Holger Schielzeth. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(2). 133–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x. ↗
67. Neys, Wim De & Walter Schaeken. 2007. When people are more logical under cognitive load: Dual task impact on scalar implicature. Experimental Psychology 54(2). 128–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.54.2.128. ↗
68. Nissim, M., S. Dingare, J. Carletta & Mark Steedman. 2004. An annotation scheme for information status in dialogue. Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) 4. find
69. Reed, A.M. 1991. On interpreting partitives. In D.J. Napoli & J.A. Kegl (eds.), Bridges between psychology and linguistics: A Swarthmore festschrift for Lila Gleitman, 207–223. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. find
70. Roberts, Craige. 2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5(6). 1–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6. ↗ our card
71. Rohde, Douglas. 2005. TGrep2 User Manual. http://tedlab.mit . edu / dr / Tgrep2/tgrep2.pdf. van Rooij, Robert. 2003. Conversational implicatures and communication theory. In J. van Kuppevelt & R. Smith (eds.), Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue, 283–303. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ↗
72. Russell, Benjamin. 2012. Probabilistic reasoning and the computation of scalar implicatures. Providence, RI: Brown University PhD thesis. ↗
73. Sauerland, Uli. 2004. Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3). 367–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000023378. 71748.db. ↗
74. Schwarz, Gideon E. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6(2). 461–464. Distribution of scalar implicatures Sedivy, Julie C., Michael K. Tanenhaus, C.G. ↗
75. Chambers & G.N. Carlson. 1999. Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition 71(2). 109–147. find
76. Seidenberg, Mark S. & James L. McClelland. 1990. A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review 96(4). 523– 568. ↗
77. Tanenhaus, Michael K., Michael J. Spivey-Knowlton, Kathleen M. Eberhard & Julie C. Sedivy. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268. 1632–1634. ↗
78. Team, R Core. 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. van Tiel, Bob, Emiel van Miltenburg, Natalia Zevakhina & Bart Geurts. 2014. Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ ffu017. ↗
79. Tomlinson, John M., Todd M. Bailey & Lewis Bott. 2013. Possibly all of that and then some: Scalar implicatures are understood in two steps. Journal of Memory and Language 69(1). 18–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml. 2013.02.003. ↗
80. Webber, Bonnie L. 1983. So what can we talk about now? In Michael Brady & Robert Berwick (eds.), Computational models of discourse, 331–371. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
81. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 1995. Relevance theory. In G. Ward & L. Horn (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. find
82. Zondervan, Arjen. 2010. Scalar implicatures or focus: An experimental approach. Amsterdam: University of Utrecht PhD thesis. Judith Degen Department of Psychology 450 Serra Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 jdegen@stanford.edu find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/degen-2015-investigating-distribution-some-but-not/