{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027548209366391185, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006198347107438017, 'mean_word_length': 5.574660633484163, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Computing Scalar Implicatures

Various alternatives to this approach have emerged. In particular, Gennaro Chierchia (2004) argued that scalar implicatures are computed in tandem with the semantic computation, but are canceled in Downward Entailing (DE) contexts (or whatever context licenses NPIs). On this approach, scalar implicature computation is closely connected to the grammatical system, not part of a general reasoning system. The present paper reports the results of a project the larger goal of which is to develop a theory of adult language comprehension, including the principles determining how, when, and why scalar implicatures are computed. The issues that will be addressed revolve around the issue of whether some pragmatic processing is automatic, taking place hand-in-hand with the semantic composition. An issue lurking in the background is the relation between strengthening as in (1) and domain widening for an NPI such as ever, since both may involve (quasi-) grammatical mechanisms concerned with strengthening an utterance relative to competitor utterances. Chierchia’s approach also highlights questions concerning the nature of the contexts in which implicatures tend (not) to be drawn. Are DE contexts important (contexts licensing inferences from sets to subsets)? Are Non-veridical contexts important for implicature computation since like DE contexts they may license NPIs (see Anastasia Giannakidou 1998, for example)?