@cite{dowty-1991} Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection #
Study file connecting the proto-role theory (Theories/Semantics/Events/ProtoRoles.lean)
to argument selection phenomena.
Dowty's original flat-counting ASP #
@cite{dowty-1991}'s Argument Selection Principle uses flat counting: the argument
with the greatest number of Proto-Agent entailments is subject. The library's
default ASP uses lattice comparison (@cite{grimm-2011}, @cite{davis-koenig-2000}),
which handles priority and fixes anomalies like arrive. This study file
preserves Dowty's original counting-based predictions to document where they
succeed and where they diverge from the modern approach.
Key predictions formalized #
- §9.1: Partially symmetric interactive predicates — volition as asymmetric P-Agent
- §9.2: Psych verb doublets — inchoative change-of-state breaks ties
- §9.3: Three verb classes (spray/load, break, hit) — CoS symmetry predicts alternation
- §12: Agentivity × telicity → unaccusativity (Table 1)
@cite{dowty-1991}'s original single-argument ASP (flat counting):
an argument selects for subjecthood iff its P-Agent count exceeds
its P-Patient count. Superseded by lattice-based outranksForSubject
in EntailmentProfile.lean.
Equations
Instances For
@cite{dowty-1991}'s between-argument comparison (flat counting): arg1 outranks arg2 for subjecthood iff arg1 has strictly more P-Agent entailments, OR they tie on P-Agent but arg2 has strictly more P-Patient entailments.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Corollary 1 (flat counting): neither argument outranks the other → alternation.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
@cite{dowty-1991} Corollary 2 (flat counting): unaccusative iff pPatient > pAgent.
Equations
Instances For
Complement: unergative iff pAgent > pPatient.
Equations
Instances For
Verbs like kiss, embrace, marry denote actions requiring volitional involvement of two parties, but only the SUBJECT is entailed to be volitional. This single asymmetric P-Agent entailment predicts the transitive argument configuration.
"kiss" subject: V+M+IE — volitional, in motion, independently existing.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"kiss" object: M+IE only — same minus volition.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The subject outranks the object (lattice: {V,M,IE} ⊃ {M,IE}).
Same result under Dowty's flat counting.
Volition adds exactly 1 to the subject's P-Agent score.
The collective intransitive ("Kim and Sandy kissed") is predicted: when both participants have symmetric volition, neither outranks.
Psych verbs come in doublets (like/please, fear/frighten) with reversed argument configurations. Under the stative reading, Experiencer and Stimulus have equal P-Agent scores → alternation is predicted.
Stative: Experiencer and Stimulus have incomparable P-Agent sets ({S,IE} ⊥ {C,IE}) and equal P-Patient (both 0) → alternation.
Under inchoative interpretation, the Experiencer enters a new mental state → gains changeOfState (P-Patient entailment a).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Inchoative breaks the tie: Stimulus outranks Experiencer for subject because the Experiencer now has more P-Patient → Experiencer is a "better" object → Stimulus is subject. Predicts StimExp frame.
@cite{dowty-1991} identifies three classes based on CoS distribution across non-subject arguments. When CoS is symmetric (both or neither), alternation is possible. When asymmetric, the CoS argument is fixed as DO.
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Dowty1991.cosSymmetric arg1 arg2 = (arg1.changeOfState == arg2.changeOfState)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
@cite{dowty-1991} Table 1: the interaction of agentivity (most salient P-Agent property) and telicity (most salient P-Patient property) predicts the unergative/unaccusative split. Only the two "pure" cells are stable; the mixed cells are where cross-linguistic variation occurs.
- unergative : IntransClass
- unaccusative : IntransClass
- unstable : IntransClass
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Dowty1991.table1 true false = Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Dowty1991.IntransClass.unergative
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Dowty1991.table1 false true = Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Dowty1991.IntransClass.unaccusative
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Dowty1991.table1 agentive telic = Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.Dowty1991.IntransClass.unstable
Instances For
The key divergence between @cite{dowty-1991}'s flat counting and the modern priority-based ASP. Flat counting gets arrive wrong because it counts movement + IE (2 P-Agent) > changeOfState (1 P-Patient), predicting unergative. The modern ASP correctly identifies arrive as unaccusative because it lacks the priority features (volition, causation).
Flat counting predicts arrive is NOT unaccusative (2 P-Ag > 1 P-Pat).
Modern priority-based ASP correctly predicts arrive IS unaccusative.
Table 1 also correctly predicts arrive as unaccusative (non-agentive + telic = cell 4).
Agreement: Table 1 and the modern ASP converge on arrive being unaccusative. Flat counting diverges — this is the anomaly that motivated @cite{davis-koenig-2000}'s priority refinement.
Flat counting gets die right (both methods agree).
Flat counting gets run right (both methods agree).
These theorems verify that the canonical verb profiles in
ProtoRoles.lean match the entailment profiles stored on the
English Fragment verb entries.
Agreement: arrive prediction matches the fragment annotation.
Agreement: run prediction matches the fragment annotation.
@cite{grimm-2011}'s agentivity lattice reformulates Dowty's proto-roles with lattice structure and connects them to case assignment. Here we verify that Grimm's lattice predictions are consistent with the ASP predictions above, and that it also resolves the arrive anomaly.
Grimm's lattice handles the arrive anomaly: arrive's subject has motion but not instigation → not in the NOM/ERG region. Consistent with the priority-based ASP and Table 1, but not flat counting.
Full cross-theory convergence on arrive: Table 1, modern ASP, and @cite{grimm-2011}'s lattice all predict unaccusative/non-agent. Only flat counting diverges.
Kick: ASP outranking and @cite{grimm-2011}'s case regions converge. Subject → NOM, object → ACC in an accusative system.
Die: ASP, flat counting, and @cite{grimm-2011} all agree on unaccusative. Grimm's lattice maps the sole argument to ACC/ABS (patient region).