@cite{grimm-2011}: Semantics of Case — Lattice Predictions #
@cite{grimm-2011} @cite{aissen-2003} @cite{von-heusinger-2008}
Study file connecting @cite{grimm-2011}'s agentivity lattice
(Theories/Semantics/Events/AgentivityLattice.lean) to the differential
object marking profiles in Phenomena/Case/Typology.lean.
Key results #
Russian DOM matches the lattice exactly: for canonical transitives (quPersBeginning),
domPredictedByLatticereturns true for exactly {animate, human} — the same cells Russian marks.Spanish DOM is a proper subset: the lattice predicts DOM for {animate, human}, but Spanish only marks {human}.
Two frameworks, same predictions: the lattice-derived DOM is always monotone in @cite{aissen-2003}'s sense, and the lattice's canonical transitive prediction exactly matches Aissen's OT Type 2.
Full case region table: every canonical verb is mapped through the lattice to a case region, connecting argument selection to morphological case.
Verb class effect: the lattice predicts that creation verb objects are entirely outside the transitivity region (DOM inapplicable), while contact and consumption verbs have objects in the canonical patient region. This connects to @cite{von-heusinger-2008}'s observation that DOM regularized earliest for agent-patient verbs.
The lattice predicts DOM when an object is in the transitivity region but its nominal agentivity pushes it outside ACC/ABS. For canonical transitives (quPersBeginning), this predicts DOM for {animate, human} but not {inanimate}. We check each attested animacy-based DOM language against this prediction.
Russian DOM marks exactly the animacy levels where the lattice predicts DOM for canonical transitives. The lattice and Russian agree on every cell of the animacy scale.
Russian: animate + human marked, inanimate unmarked. Lattice: animate + human shift to dative region (outside ACC/ABS), inanimate stays in ACC/ABS. Exact match.
Spanish DOM is a proper subset of the lattice's prediction. Both agree on inanimate (no DOM) and human (DOM), but diverge on animate: the lattice predicts DOM (sentience alone shifts to dative), but Spanish does not mark animate objects.
Hindi DOM is consistent with the lattice on the animacy dimension: inanimate objects are never marked regardless of definiteness, and both animate and human are marked at some definiteness level. The lattice correctly predicts the animacy boundary even though it has no definiteness dimension.
Every animacy-based DOM language in the sample marks only animacy levels where the lattice predicts DOM. The lattice's prediction is a superset of every attested animacy-based pattern.
@cite{aissen-2003} derives DOM monotonicity from OT constraint
interaction (harmonic alignment of iconicity and economy constraints).
@cite{grimm-2011} derives it from lattice geometry (animacy maps
monotonically to agentivity, and toCaseRegion preserves the boundary).
Two independent frameworks, same prediction.
A DOM profile derived from the lattice's predictions at a fixed
persistence level. Since domPredictedByLattice is monotone in
animacy (§21.7 of AgentivityLattice.lean), this profile is
automatically an upper set on the animacy scale.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Every lattice-derived DOM profile is monotone in @cite{aissen-2003}'s sense (upper set in the bidimensional grid). Universally quantified over all 5 persistence levels.
This connects the lattice's geometric structure to OT's constraint-based monotonicity prediction. The proof goes through because:
animacyToAgentivityis monotone (higher animacy → more features)toCaseRegionmaps ⊥ agentivity to accAbs, non-⊥ elsewhere- Once non-⊥, the object stays non-⊥ at higher animacy levels
The lattice's canonical transitive prediction matches @cite{aissen-2003}'s OT Type 2 (Hu + An, not In). Two independent theories converge on the Russian pattern.
Every canonical verb with an EntailmentProfile is mapped through
the lattice to a case region. This connects @cite{dowty-1991}'s
entailment profiles to @cite{grimm-2011}'s case theory:
| Verb | Subject region | Object region |
|------|---------------|--------------|
| kick | nomErg | accAbs |
| build | nomErg | oblique (creation) |
| eat | nomErg | accAbs |
| see | oblique | — |
| buy/sell | nomErg | — |
| run | oblique | — |
| arrive | oblique | — |
| die | — | accAbs (unacc. subj) |
The table shows that only verbs whose subjects have instigation
land in the NOM/ERG region. Perception and motion verbs without
instigation fall outside — the lattice predicts they are NOT
prototypical transitive subjects.
Objects land in ACC/ABS only when they have ⊥ agentivity and
exist-at-beginning persistence. Creation verbs (exPersEnd) map
to oblique because the object does not exist at the event's start.
kick: prototypical transitive. Subject → NOM/ERG, object → ACC/ABS.
build: creation verb. Subject → NOM/ERG (has instigation), but object → oblique (exPersEnd: object created, not an existing patient). The lattice correctly identifies creation verb objects as non-prototypical patients.
eat: consumption verb. Subject → NOM/ERG, object → ACC/ABS. The consumed object has exPersBeginning (exists before, ceases to exist after) — in the same region as destroyed objects.
run: unergative. Has volition + sentience + motion but NOT instigation → outside NOM/ERG. The lattice predicts the subject is not a prototypical agent — consistent with it being unergative in split-S systems.
see: experiencer verb. Subject has sentience but not instigation → outside NOM/ERG. Consistent with many languages giving experiencer subjects dative or oblique case (e.g., German mir gefällt, Icelandic mér líkar).
buy/sell: both subjects → NOM/ERG (both have instigation via causation). The lattice predicts both are prototypical agents — consistent with @cite{dowty-1991}'s prediction that buy/sell allow alternation.
@cite{grimm-2011}'s Tsunoda hierarchy distinguishes verbs by the persistence of their object. This connects @cite{dowty-1991}'s P-Patient entailments to @cite{grimm-2011}'s persistence levels:
| Verb | P-Patient features | Persistence | Tsunoda class |
|------|-------------------|-------------|--------------|
| kick | CoS+CA+St | quPersBeginning | contact (II) |
| eat | CoS+IT+CA | exPersBeginning | result. eff. (I) |
| build | CoS+IT+CA+DE | exPersEnd | creation (outside) |
| die | CoS+CA+DE | exPersBeginning | result. eff. (I) |
kick object → quPersBeginning: affected but persists (contact).
eat object → exPersBeginning: consumed (ceases to exist via SINC).
build object → exPersEnd: created (comes into existence).
die subject → exPersBeginning: ceases to exist (as patient).
kick and eat objects are in the transitivity region; build is not. This is the lattice's version of Tsunoda's observation that contact and resultative verbs form the core of transitivity.
@cite{von-heusinger-2008} observes that DOM regularized diachronically in Spanish at different rates depending on verb class:
- *matar* 'kill' (Class 1, agent-patient): DOM regularized first
- *ver* 'see' (Class 2, experiencer-theme): DOM regularized later
- *poner* 'put' (Class 3, agent-theme-location): DOM intermediate
The lattice connects this to subject case regions: when the subject
maps to NOM/ERG, there is maximal semantic contrast between subject
(prototypical agent) and object (prototypical patient). This contrast
makes DOM redundant for role identification — so it can regularize.
When the subject is NOT in NOM/ERG, there is less contrast and DOM
remains variable.
The lattice predicts three verb categories for DOM behavior:
- Agent-patient verbs (kick): subject → NOM/ERG, object → ACC/ABS. Maximal contrast → DOM can regularize.
- Experiencer verbs (see): subject → oblique, outside NOM/ERG. Less contrast → DOM remains sensitive to object animacy.
- Creation verbs (build): object outside transitivity entirely. DOM is structurally inapplicable, not merely unnecessary.
Creation verb objects are outside the transitivity region at ALL animacy levels. DOM is structurally inapplicable — the lattice predicts no language should have DOM for creation verb objects.
This is a stronger prediction than "no DOM": even animate/human creation objects (build a team, invent a character) should not trigger DOM, because the object does not exist at event start.
The lattice-to-case-region mapping predicts morphological case in both accusative and ergative systems. For prototypical transitives (kick, eat), both alignments produce the expected case assignments.
kick in an accusative system: subject → NOM, object → ACC.
kick in an ergative system: subject → ERG, object → ABS.
eat in an accusative system: subject → NOM, object → ACC. Consumption verbs pattern with canonical transitives for case.
build in an accusative system: subject → NOM, but object → INST (oblique). The lattice predicts creation verb objects are NOT canonical accusatives — consistent with Finnish partitive for incomplete creation and Russian genitive of negation being more readily available with creation verbs.
The lattice's toCaseRegion requires instigation for NOM/ERG.
This captures a cross-linguistic generalization: canonical
transitive subjects are instigators. Verbs whose subjects lack
instigation (see, run, arrive) have "oblique" semantics even
when they surface with NOM in accusative languages.
Summary: which verbs have subjects in NOM/ERG and which do not. The dividing line is instigation (Dowty's causation).
The dividing feature is exactly instigation. All NOM/ERG subjects have instigation; all non-NOM/ERG subjects lack it. Instigation = Dowty's causation mapped to Grimm's system.