Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006

Anderson (2006): Modern Grammars of Case @cite{anderson-jm-2006} #

@cite{anderson-jm-2006} "Modern Grammars of Case: A Retrospective" (OUP) develops localist case grammar (LCG), where all semantic relations decompose into combinations of three first-order case features: absolutive (abs), source/ergative (src), and locative (loc).

Anderson's system (Ch. 6, eq. 11) #

The four simple case relations are:

abs (∅): the semantically empty base — holistic participant
source/erg ({src}): first-order source — agent, causer
loc ({loc}): place/location
abl ({loc, src²}): second-order source subordinated to loc

Arguments bear COMBINATIONS of first-order features to define complex roles (§6.2–6.3):

Agent = src alone ("Bill read the book", eq. 39a)
Experiencer = src + loc ("Bill knew the answer", eq. 39h)
Contactive/patient = abs + loc (eq. 22)
Self-mover = abs + src ("Bill flew to China", eq. 39c)

Subject selection (eq. 38') #

Anderson directly states: erg > abs. The argument with first-order source becomes subject. If no argument has source, the absolutive becomes subject. The hierarchy is NOT derived from feature cardinality.

Subject formation (eq. 40): absolutive ⇒ absolutive{erg}. When an absolutive is selected as subject, it acquires the erg feature.

Improvement over the two-feature model #

Our earlier formalization incorrectly used only two features (abs, erg) and collapsed experiencer with agent as {abs, erg}. Anderson's actual system DISTINGUISHES them: agent = {src}, experiencer = {src, loc}. Both have src (so both can be subjects), but they differ in the loc feature. The third feature (loc) is essential to Anderson's theory.

Costs #

The three-feature system collapses some Fragment distinctions:

{src} collapses agent, source, instrument, stimulus
{abs} collapses patient and theme But it correctly distinguishes experiencer from agent (unlike the two-feature simplification).

def Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.CaseRelation.canonicalTheta :

Core.CaseRelation → Option ThetaRole

Anderson's canonical mapping from case-feature bundles to theta roles.

The three-feature system makes finer distinctions than the old two-feature version: experiencer ({src, loc}) is now SEPARATE from agent ({src}).

Equations

Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.CaseRelation.canonicalTheta { abs := abs, src := true, loc := true } = some ThetaRole.experiencer
Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.CaseRelation.canonicalTheta { abs := abs, src := true, loc := false } = some ThetaRole.agent
Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.CaseRelation.canonicalTheta { abs := true, src := false, loc := loc } = some ThetaRole.patient
Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.CaseRelation.canonicalTheta { abs := false, src := false, loc := loc } = none

Instances For

def Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.thetaToCaseRelation :

ThetaRole → Core.CaseRelation

Reverse mapping: from the Fragment's 8-role inventory to Anderson's case relations.

Key differences from the old two-feature mapping:

experiencer → srcLoc (was absErg, same as agent)
agent → ergative (was absErg, conflated with experiencer)
goal → locative (spatial goal = loc{goal})

The many-to-one collapses that remain:

agent, source, instrument, stimulus → ergative {src}
patient, theme → absolutive {abs}

Equations

Instances For

Anderson's derivations from Chapter 6 (eq. 39) show how the three-feature system assigns case relations to English verb arguments. For each verb, the subject is the argument with the highest subjectRank.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.read_derivation :

have agent := Core.CaseRelation.ergative; have patient := Core.CaseRelation.absolutive; agent.subjectRank > patient.subjectRank

Eq. 39a: "Bill read the book" — erg + abs. Agent (src, rank 2) + patient (abs, rank 1). Agent is subject.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.fell_derivation :

have theme := Core.CaseRelation.absolutive; have goal := Core.CaseRelation.locative; theme.subjectRank > goal.subjectRank

Eq. 39b: "Bill fell to the ground" — abs + loc{goal}. Theme (abs, rank 1) + locative goal (loc, rank 0). Theme is subject.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.flew_derivation :

have selfMover := Core.CaseRelation.srcAbs; have goal := Core.CaseRelation.locative; selfMover.subjectRank > goal.subjectRank

Eq. 39c: "Bill flew to China" — abs,erg + loc{goal}. Self-mover (abs+src, rank 2) + goal (loc, rank 0). Self-mover is subject.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.knew_derivation :

have experiencer := Core.CaseRelation.srcLoc; have stimulus := Core.CaseRelation.absolutive; experiencer.subjectRank > stimulus.subjectRank

Eq. 39h: "Bill knew the answer" — E + abs = erg,loc + abs. Experiencer (src+loc, rank 2) + stimulus (abs, rank 1). Experiencer is subject because it has src.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.experiencer_agent_distinct_same_rank :

Core.CaseRelation.srcLoc ≠ Core.CaseRelation.ergative ∧ Core.CaseRelation.srcLoc.subjectRank = Core.CaseRelation.ergative.subjectRank

Anderson's key distinction: experiencer ≠ agent in feature content, but BOTH outrank absolutive. Agent = {src}, experiencer = {src, loc}. The loc feature distinguishes them without affecting subject selection.

def Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.toScenario (v : Core.Verbs.VerbCore) :

Derive Anderson's Scenario from a Fragment verb entry's derived roles.

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.andersonLinking :

Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.LinkingTheory Core.Scenario Unit

Anderson's case grammar as a LinkingTheory (@cite{anderson-jm-2006}). The verb type is Scenario, the context is Unit (lexicalist: linking is derived entirely from case-relation rank, no structural input).

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.andersonPredictedSubjectTheta (v : Core.Verbs.VerbCore) :

Option ThetaRole

Anderson's predicted subject theta role for a verb entry.

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.anderson_canonical_linking :

andersonLinking.predict Core.Scenario.transitive () Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.ArgPosition.subject = some ThetaRole.agent ∧ andersonLinking.predict Core.Scenario.transitive () Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.ArgPosition.directObject = some ThetaRole.patient ∧ andersonLinking.predict Core.Scenario.unergative () Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.ArgPosition.subject = some ThetaRole.agent ∧ andersonLinking.predict Core.Scenario.unaccusative () Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.ArgPosition.subject = some ThetaRole.patient ∧ andersonLinking.predict Core.Scenario.experiencer () Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.ArgPosition.subject = some ThetaRole.experiencer ∧ andersonLinking.predict Core.Scenario.experiencer () Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.ArgPosition.directObject = some ThetaRole.patient

Anderson correctly predicts argument linking for the canonical verb types, including experiencer (which the old two-feature model collapsed with agent).

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.experiencer_correctly_predicted :

andersonLinking.predict Core.Scenario.experiencer () Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.ArgPosition.subject = some ThetaRole.experiencer

The three-feature system correctly predicts experiencer as subject, which the old two-feature system collapsed into agent.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.anderson_linking_accuracy :

(List.filter (fun (v : Fragments.English.Predicates.Verbal.VerbEntry) => (andersonPredictedSubjectTheta v.toVerbCore).isSome == (Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.subjectRole✝ v.toVerbCore).isSome) Fragments.English.Predicates.Verbal.allVerbs).length = Fragments.English.Predicates.Verbal.allVerbs.length

Anderson correctly predicts which argument becomes subject for every verb in the Fragment: the prediction is defined iff the verb has a derived subject role.

The three-feature system collapses fewer roles than the old two-feature model. Experiencer is now correctly distinguished from agent. The remaining collapses are:

{src} collapses agent with source, instrument, and stimulus
{abs} collapses patient with theme

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.patient_theme_collapse :

thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.patient = thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.theme ∧ ThetaRole.patient.canonicalProfile.pPatientScore = 3 ∧ ThetaRole.theme.canonicalProfile.pPatientScore = 1

Patient and theme both map to {abs}, but @cite{dowty-1991} distinguishes them: patient has 3 P-Patient entailments, theme has only 1.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.src_collapses :

thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.agent = thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.source ∧ thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.agent = thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.instrument ∧ thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.agent = thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.stimulus

Agent, source, instrument, and stimulus all map to {src}.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.experiencer_distinguished :

thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.agent ≠ thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.experiencer

The three-feature system correctly separates experiencer from agent. This is the key improvement over the old two-feature formalization.

Experiencer subject verbs are now correctly predicted as experiencer, not collapsed into agent (for verbs with entailment profiles).

Anderson and Blake are concordant on the core case ordering. Blake: NOM(6) ≥ ACC(6). Anderson: NOM/src+abs outranks ACC/abs (subjectRank 2 > 1). Both are inverse to Caha's containment hierarchy.

def Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.hasSpatialLoc :

Core.Case → Bool

Does a morphological case carry the spatial locative feature? ABL, LOC both map to {loc} — they share the locative feature because they involve spatial location.

Equations

Instances For

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.spatial_cases_are_locative :

Core.Case.abl.toCaseRelation = some Core.CaseRelation.locative ∧ Core.Case.loc.toCaseRelation = some Core.CaseRelation.locative

ABL and LOC both map to Anderson's locative case relation.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.inst_is_ergative :

Core.Case.inst.toCaseRelation = some Core.CaseRelation.ergative

INST maps to {src} (source of force), not {loc}. Anderson argues that instrumental is the same semantic relation as agent: both are sources of action.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.abl_loc_share_feature :

Core.Case.abl.toCaseRelation = Core.Case.loc.toCaseRelation

ABL and LOC share a case relation AND have an extension path between them. Anderson's explanation: a case marker conditioned on {loc} is polysemous across spatial functions.

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.alignment_is_labeling :

Core.Case.nom.toCaseRelation = Core.Case.erg.toCaseRelation ∧ Core.Case.acc.toCaseRelation = Core.Case.abs.toCaseRelation ∧ Core.Case.nom.toCaseRelation ≠ Core.Case.acc.toCaseRelation

Accusative and ergative alignment are different morphological labels for the same two case relations: NOM = ERG = src+abs, ACC = ABS = abs. The case relations are identical; alignment is labeling.

Anderson and Dowty agree on transitive linking despite completely different primitives (features vs entailment profiles).

theorem Phenomena.Case.Studies.AndersonJM2006.anderson_dowty_experiencer_agree :

thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.agent ≠ thetaToCaseRelation ThetaRole.experiencer ∧ ThetaRole.agent.canonicalProfile.pAgentScore > ThetaRole.experiencer.canonicalProfile.pAgentScore

The three-feature system improves on the old two-feature version for the experiencer case: Anderson distinguishes experiencer from agent (via loc), as does Dowty (different P-Agent entailment count).