Linking Theory Interface #
@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} @cite{dowty-1991} @cite{goldberg-1995} @cite{kratzer-1996} @cite{levin-2004} @cite{levin-hovav-1995} @cite{pesetsky-1995} @cite{pylkknen-2008} @cite{rappaport-hovav-levin-1998}
General interface for theories of argument realization — how verbs' arguments get their thematic roles.
Theta Roles #
Theta roles are derived convenience labels that name clusters in
entailment-profile space (EntailmentProfile.lean). They are NOT
primitives: the authoritative representation of argument semantics is
the entailment profile, and role labels are computed from it via
EntailmentProfile.toRole.
The field consensus (@cite{levin-2019}) is that discrete thematic roles have been superseded by entailment-based representations. Role labels remain useful as a shared interface vocabulary for linking theories, neo-Davidsonian logical forms, and cross-framework comparison.
Linking Theories #
Theories in the literature differ along three dimensions:
- What the verb contributes (lexical semantics, meaning components, event structure templates, root meaning, entailment profiles)
- What the structure contributes (Voice flavor, applicative type, sub-event decomposition, construction type, causal chain position)
- Which direction the mapping goes (verb → role, structure → role, or both jointly)
The LinkingTheory structure captures this variation by parameterizing
over BOTH the verb representation type (Verb) and the structural
context type (Ctx). Theories that ignore structure use Unit for
Ctx; theories that care about Voice use VoiceFlavor; theories
with richer decompositions bring their own types.
The role output is always ThetaRole — the shared vocabulary that
makes theories comparable against fragment data.
The compatible field captures gradient verb–construction pairing: a verb may be compatible with multiple structural
contexts (causative alternation verbs appear with both agentive and
non-thematic Voice). Singleton lists express categorical predictions;
multi-element lists express gradient compatibility.
Coverage #
Accounts expressible via this interface (non-exhaustive):
| Account | Ctx | compatible | predict uses verb? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severing | VoiceFlavor | verb-constrained | no |
| Lexicalist | Unit | always [] | yes |
| Zero morphology | (custom) | verb-constrained | yes |
| First Phase Syntax | (custom) | verb-constrained | yes |
| CxG | (custom) | broad | no |
| Proto-roles | Unit | always [] | yes (via ASP) |
| Applicatives | (custom) | verb-constrained | no |
Theta roles — derived convenience labels that name clusters in
entailment-profile space. These are NOT primitives: the authoritative
representation is the EntailmentProfile, and role labels are computed
from it via EntailmentProfile.toRole.
The field consensus (@cite{levin-2019}) is that discrete thematic roles have been superseded by entailment-based representations. Role labels remain useful as shared interface vocabulary for linking theories, neo-Davidsonian logical forms, and cross-framework comparison.
- agent : ThetaRole
- patient : ThetaRole
- theme : ThetaRole
- experiencer : ThetaRole
- goal : ThetaRole
- source : ThetaRole
- instrument : ThetaRole
- stimulus : ThetaRole
Instances For
Equations
- instReprThetaRole.repr ThetaRole.agent prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ThetaRole.agent")).group prec✝
- instReprThetaRole.repr ThetaRole.patient prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ThetaRole.patient")).group prec✝
- instReprThetaRole.repr ThetaRole.theme prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ThetaRole.theme")).group prec✝
- instReprThetaRole.repr ThetaRole.experiencer prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ThetaRole.experiencer")).group prec✝
- instReprThetaRole.repr ThetaRole.goal prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ThetaRole.goal")).group prec✝
- instReprThetaRole.repr ThetaRole.source prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ThetaRole.source")).group prec✝
- instReprThetaRole.repr ThetaRole.instrument prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ThetaRole.instrument")).group prec✝
- instReprThetaRole.repr ThetaRole.stimulus prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ThetaRole.stimulus")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instReprThetaRole = { reprPrec := instReprThetaRole.repr }
Equations
- instBEqThetaRole = { beq := instBEqThetaRole.beq }
Equations
- instBEqThetaRole.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Derive a convenience theta-role label from an entailment profile.
This is the canonical direction: profiles are authoritative, labels are derived. The function uses feature-based heuristics to assign the most natural label:
- Volition → agent
- Sentience without causation → experiencer
- Causation without sentience → stimulus
- P-Patient features without P-Agent → patient (if CoS) or theme
- IE only → goal (ambiguous with source)
- No distinguishing features → none
Note: instrument and stimulus have identical canonical profiles
({causation, IE}), as do goal and source ({IE}). The function
defaults to stimulus and goal respectively. Disambiguation requires
external context (e.g., VerbCore.causalSource).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Map each ThetaRole label back to its canonical entailment profile.
This is the inverse direction — from convenience labels to the underlying entailment structure. Each label names a prototypical combination of entailments.
Round-trip: toRole (canonicalProfile θ) = some θ' where θ' is
the canonical representative. Note that instrument→stimulus and
source→goal collapse because their canonical profiles are identical.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Agent survives round-trip.
Patient survives round-trip.
Theme survives round-trip.
Experiencer survives round-trip.
Stimulus survives round-trip.
Goal survives round-trip.
Instrument collapses to stimulus (identical profiles: {C, IE}).
Source collapses to goal (identical profiles: {IE}).
"kick" subject profile → agent.
"kick" object profile → patient.
"see" subject profile → experiencer.
"arrive" subject profile → none (mixed P-Agent + P-Patient: movement disqualifies).
"die" subject profile → patient (pure P-Patient).
Agent outranks patient for subjecthood (lattice: {V,S,C,M,IE} ⊃ {}).
Agent outranks instrument (lattice: {V,S,C,M,IE} ⊃ {C,IE}).
Agent outranks experiencer (lattice: {V,S,C,M,IE} ⊃ {S,IE}).
Experiencer and instrument have incomparable P-Agent sets ({S,IE} ⊥ {C,IE}), but also equal P-Patient (both 0) → alternation predicted.
Experiencer and stimulus have equal profiles → alternation (like/please).
Which argument position in the clause we're asking about. Theory-neutral: expressed as grammatical functions, not structural positions (Spec-vP, Comp-VP, etc.), so that theories with different structural vocabularies can all target the same output.
- subject : ArgPosition
- directObject : ArgPosition
- indirectObject : ArgPosition
- oblique : ArgPosition
- applied : ArgPosition
Instances For
Equations
- Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.instBEqArgPosition.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
A linking theory, parameterized by verb representation and structural context type.
Verb: what the theory needs to know about the verb. TypicallyVerbCore, but could beEntailmentProfile(Dowty) orEventTemplate(Rappaport Hovav & Levin).Ctx: what the theory considers relevant about the syntactic structure beyond the verb itself:Unitfor theories that derive everything from the verbVoiceFlavorfor the severing account- A richer type for Ramchand, Goldberg, Pylkkänen, etc.
The theory provides two functions:
compatible: which structural contexts can this verb appear in?predict: in a given context, what theta role does each position get?
This separation captures the key theoretical distinction:
- Pure constructional (Borer, strong Goldberg):
compatibleis broad — the verb is promiscuous; structure determines roles - Pure lexicalist (Levin):
compatiblealways returns[]— there is nothing structural to vary - Hybrid:
compatiblereturns a verb-constrained subset — gradient compatibility
- compatible : Verb → List Ctx
Which structural contexts this verb is compatible with. Singleton = categorical. Multiple = gradient (alternation).
- predict : Verb → Ctx → ArgPosition → Option ThetaRole
Predict each argument's theta role in a given context. Returns
nonefor positions the theory is silent about.
Instances For
Does the theory's prediction match the observed role at a given position, for at least one compatible structural context?
For alternation verbs (multiple compatible contexts), the test passes if ANY context produces the correct prediction — the fragment entry records one use of the verb, not all possible uses.