Nadathur 2024: Causal Semantics for Implicative Verbs #
@cite{nadathur-2024}
Causal Semantics for Implicative Verbs. Journal of Semantics 40: 311–358.
Summary #
Derives the inferential profile of implicative verbs from causal structure (structural equation models, @cite{pearl-2000}; @cite{schulz-2011}). Builds on @cite{baglini-francez-2016}'s causal analysis of manage but extends to the full implicative class: lexically-specific two-way verbs (dare, bother), one-way verbs (jaksaa, pystyä), and polarity- reversing verbs (fail, hesitate).
Core Contribution: Proposal 32 #
The prerequisite account decomposes implicative meaning into:
- (32i) Presuppose: ∃ prerequisite A(x) causally necessary for P(x)
- (32ii) Assert: x did A
- (32iii) Presuppose (two-way only): A(x) causally sufficient for P(x)
One-way implicatives lack (32iii); their positive implicature arises via circumscription/antiperfection.
Key Data #
- Finnish has ~12 lexically-specific implicatives naming distinct prerequisites (courage, patience, strength, etc.)
- The because-clause diagnostic distinguishes the at-issue contribution of manage from its complement
- Two-way vs one-way follows from whether sufficiency is presupposed
- Polarity-reversing verbs (fail, hesitate): §6.4 considers two options — A(x) necessary for ¬P(x) vs ¬A(x) necessary for P(x)
The fictitious Dreyfus scenario illustrates how causal structure determines implicative felicity. Variables: - INT: Dreyfus intends to spy - NRV: Dreyfus has the nerve - SEC: Dreyfus collects secrets - MSG: Dreyfus sends a radio message - LST: A German is listening on the correct frequency - BRK: The message is garbled - COM: Dreyfus establishes communication - SPY: Dreyfus spies for the Germans
Structural equations:
- SEC := INT
- MSG := INT ∧ NRV
- COM := MSG ∧ LST ∧ ¬BRK
- SPY := SEC ∧ COM
The Dreyfus dynamics D_dreyfus.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
(34a) "Dreyfus dared to send a message to the Germans" is felicitous when NRV is the only undetermined causal ancestor of MSG. NRV is causally necessary and sufficient for MSG given s.
(34c) "#Dreyfus dared to establish communication" is predicted infelicitous: NRV is NOT sufficient for COM (COM also requires LST and ¬BRK). dare requires sufficiency (Proposal 32iii), so insufficiency alone blocks felicity. Under @cite{nadathur-2024} Definition 10b, NRV is also not individually necessary for COM (the intermediate MSG can be achieved as a consistent supersituation extension, bypassing NRV).
(34d) "#Dreyfus dared to spy" is infelicitous: NRV is NOT sufficient for SPY (SPY depends on COM, which requires LST and ¬BRK beyond NRV).
(35a) "Dreyfus managed to send a message" — felicitous with NRV as the unresolved prerequisite. manage requires only necessity, not sufficiency, for the prerequisite. Since NRV is nec+suf for MSG, manage is felicitous.
(35c) "Dreyfus managed to establish communication" — felicitous. Under @cite{nadathur-2024} Definition 10b, NRV is NOT individually necessary for COM (the intermediate MSG can be set directly as a consistent supersituation). The paper's argument for manage felicity with COM involves the COLLECTIVE unresolved prerequisites {NRV, LST, ¬BRK} being jointly necessary and sufficient — this goes beyond single-variable necessity. NRV IS individually necessary for MSG (the direct complement of the prerequisite relation).
Key contrast: dare is INFELICITOUS for COM because NRV alone is not sufficient (Proposal 32iii requires sufficiency). manage IS felicitous because manage only requires necessity — verified here for the direct complement MSG. Under Def 10b, individual variable necessity is most meaningful for direct cause-effect pairs (NRV→MSG) rather than transitive chains (NRV→MSG→COM).
"Dreyfus failed to send a message" — complement falsity follows. failSem checks that the complement does NOT develop. Here it fails (= false) because the dynamics DO support MSG via NRV.
In the innocent scenario, NRV is not sufficient for MSG because MSG := INT ∧ NRV and INT=0.
In the innocent scenario, the paper argues infelicity from sufficiency alone (p. 346): "each of (34a)–(34d) is infelicitous, since ⟨NRV, 1⟩ is not sufficient." Definition 10's necessity check is inapplicable here because NRV=1 is already determined by the background (the precondition s ⊭_D ⟨X,x⟩ fails).
Note: causallyNecessary (a simple but-for test from
@cite{nadathur-lauer-2020} Def 24) returns true vacuously
in this scenario, but this is outside the domain of
@cite{nadathur-2024} Definition 10b.
dare has a prerequisite presupposition (not factive).
bother has a prerequisite presupposition.
hesitate is a polarity-reversing one-way implicative.
manage presupposes a prerequisite (32i), though the prerequisite is underspecified — contextual enrichment determines what obstacle was overcome (@cite{nadathur-2024} §5.1, §6.1).
manage (occasion sense) has prerequisite presupposition, distinguishing it from factive soft triggers.
Factive verbs (know, regret) retain .softTrigger — their
presupposition is about complement truth, not a causal prerequisite.
The prerequisite/factive distinction: dare and know have different presupposition types despite both being "soft triggers."
Finnish two-way verbs: onnistua, uskaltaa, viitsiä, malttaa, hennoa, kehdata, ehtiä all predict complement entailment in both directions.
Finnish one-way verbs: jaksaa, mahtua, pystyä predict complement entailment only in the negative direction.
The one-way/two-way distinction is predicted by the prerequisite account:
two-way verbs presuppose both necessity and sufficiency (Proposal 32);
one-way verbs presuppose only necessity. The distinction corresponds to
the directionality field of FinnishImplicativeVerb.
Nadathur 2024's prerequisite account subsumes Karttunen 1971's descriptive classification. Two-way positive = Karttunen's nec+suf class.
The prerequisite account ADDS to Karttunen's classification: it distinguishes dare (courage) from manage (underspecified), which Karttunen's 2×2 cannot.
The prerequisite account EXPLAINS Karttunen's one-way/two-way distinction: one-way = no sufficiency presupposition (32iii absent); two-way = sufficiency presupposition present (32iii).
(32i) The necessity presupposition holds: NRV is causally necessary for MSG in the Dreyfus scenario.
(32iii) The sufficiency presupposition holds: NRV is causally sufficient for MSG in the Dreyfus scenario.
The prerequisite account derives manageSem: when the sufficiency presupposition holds, manageSem follows.
The directionality is two-way (dare presupposes sufficiency).
One-way account: STR is necessary but not sufficient for TASK.
One-way directionality follows from hasSufficiencyPresup = false.
The three independently-specified representations of implicative verb semantics must agree. These theorems create a triangle:
```
PrerequisiteAccount → ImplicativeClass ← VerbCore fields
↘ ↗
────────── agreement theorem ──────────
```
Changing any vertex (causal dynamics, classification, or fragment
entry) without updating the others breaks the corresponding theorem.
End-to-end agreement for dare: causal dynamics, prerequisite account, ImplicativeClass, and English fragment entry are all consistent.
This theorem breaks if:
- Dreyfus dynamics change (necessity/sufficiency results)
dreyfusDareAccountis misconfiguredImplicativeClass.dareis changed- The
dareVerbEntry's fields change - The
uskaltaaFinnish entry's classification diverges
End-to-end agreement for manage.
End-to-end agreement for one-way implicative jaksaa.