Psych Verb Causation (@cite{belletti-rizzi-1988}, @cite{kim-2024} UPH) #
@cite{belletti-rizzi-1988} @cite{kim-2024} @cite{pesetsky-1995}
Theorems connecting fragment entries to the @cite{belletti-rizzi-1988} classification and @cite{kim-2024}'s Uniform Projection Hypothesis for Class II psych verbs.
Architecture #
The fragment entries in Verbal.lean set four fields independently:
causalSource(external vs internal)subjectTheta(stimulus vs experiencer)objectTheta(experiencer vs stimulus)opaqueContext(true vs false)
@cite{kim-2024}'s theory predicts these fields must covary:
- All Class II verbs share the same theta grid (UPH)
opaqueContextis determined bysubjectIntensionalapplied tocausalSourcecausalSourcedetermines temporal and event-structural behavior
These predictions are captured by the classII_consistent predicate (§ 1),
verified per-verb (§ 2), and then used to DERIVE consequences (§ 3–7).
Key results #
- Consistency: each Class II entry satisfies
classII_consistent, connecting 4 independently-set fields through Kim's theory - UPH derivation: theta-grid uniformity FOLLOWS from consistency
- Opacity derivation:
opaqueContextFOLLOWS fromcausalSource - Temporal prediction: temporal behavior FOLLOWS from
causalSource - T/SM restriction: derived from the Onset Condition on causal chains
- Class I/II theta reversal: derived from the consistency predicates
- Proto-role bridge: theta roles map to canonical Dowty profiles
A Class II (object-experiencer) psych verb entry is internally consistent when its independently-set fields agree with @cite{kim-2024}'s predictions:
(a) It has a causal source (external or internal)
(b) Opacity agrees with subjectIntensional applied to the causal source
The existential over CausalSource ties the causal source to the opacity
prediction: changing the causal source field MUST change the opacity field
to maintain consistency.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
A Class I (experiencer-subject) psych verb entry is consistent with @cite{belletti-rizzi-1988}'s temere pattern: no causal source (the internal/external distinction is Class-II-specific).
Equations
Instances For
Each theorem below connects 4 independently-set fragment fields through Kim's theory. If ANY field on the fragment entry changes (causalSource, subjectTheta, objectTheta, or opaqueContext), the corresponding theorem breaks — ensuring the fields stay in theoretical agreement.
Opacity derivation: any consistent Class II verb with internal causal source has an opaque subject position.
This connects two independently-set fields (causalSource, opaqueContext) through Kim's theory: the opacity ISN'T stipulated — it FOLLOWS from the causal source being internal (maintenance relation).
Transparency derivation: any consistent Class II verb with external causal source has a transparent subject position.
UPH within a single verb: worry's eventive and stative readings differ in causal source. This is Kim's strongest test case — same lexical item, two readings.
Temporal derivation (external): any verb with external causal source predicts temporal precedence and a state transition (BECOME). The temporal behavior FOLLOWS from the causal source, not from per-verb stipulation.
Temporal derivation (internal): any verb with internal causal source predicts temporal overlap and no state transition. Cause and effect coexist (maintenance relation).
Per-verb temporal grounding: frighten's fragment datum (external source)
determines specific temporal predictions. Changing the datum to .internal
would change the predictions.
Per-verb temporal grounding: concern's internal source determines temporal overlap and no transition.
UPH at the causal link level: eventive and stative Class II verbs differ in temporal and event-structural predictions despite both being Class II. This is Kim's full claim: the aspectual split is orthogonal to argument structure.
T/SM restriction derived: Cause occupies onset, SM also needs onset, but only one participant can occupy onset → they conflict.
This theorem shows the structural basis: both Cause and SM want the onset position, and there's only one onset slot.
Class II theta roles map to the canonical Dowty proto-role profiles (bridging @cite{kim-2024} UPH to @cite{solstad-bott-2024} proto-role infrastructure). stimulus → causation + independent existence (P-Agent = 2), experiencer → sentience + independent existence (P-Agent = 2).
Class I subject profile matches Class II object profile: both are experiencers (sentience + independent existence).
B&R class → expected subject role mapping is correct for our entries.
Internal causal source implies subject position is intensional (type level).
External causal source implies subject position is extensional (type level).
For Class II verbs, stimulus subtype is DERIVED from causal source
via CausalSource.toStimulusType. No new lexical field needed —
the existing causalSource field determines T vs SM.
These theorems verify that each verb's derived stimulus type
predicts the correct PP frame and Cause-cooccurrence behavior.
Derive a verb's stimulus type from its causal source.
Equations
Instances For
Any verb with external causal source derives a Target stimulus that doesn't conflict with overt Cause.
Any verb with internal causal source derives an SM stimulus that conflicts with overt Cause (Onset Condition).