Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.Linking

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The field consensus (@cite{levin-2019}) is that discrete thematic roles have been superseded by entailment-based representations.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:

  1. What the verb contributes (lexical semantics, meaning components, event structure templates, root meaning, entailment profiles)
  2. What the structure contributes (Voice flavor, applicative type, sub-event decomposition, construction type, causal chain position)
  3. 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):

AccountCtxcompatiblepredict uses verb?
SeveringVoiceFlavorverb-constrainedno
LexicalistUnitalways []yes
Zero morphology(custom)verb-constrainedyes
First Phase Syntax(custom)verb-constrainedyes
CxG(custom)broadno
Proto-rolesUnitalways []yes (via ASP)
Applicatives(custom)verb-constrainedno
inductive ThetaRole :

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.

Instances For
    Equations
    Equations
    Instances For
      Equations
      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

            Instrument collapses to stimulus (identical profiles: {C, IE}).

            Source collapses to goal (identical profiles: {IE}).

            "arrive" subject profile → none (mixed P-Agent + P-Patient: movement disqualifies).

            Experiencer and instrument have incomparable P-Agent sets ({S,IE} ⊥ {C,IE}), but also equal P-Patient (both 0) → alternation predicted.

            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.

            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. Typically VerbCore, but could be EntailmentProfile (Dowty) or EventTemplate (Rappaport Hovav & Levin).
                • Ctx: what the theory considers relevant about the syntactic structure beyond the verb itself:
                  • Unit for theories that derive everything from the verb
                  • VoiceFlavor for 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): compatible is broad — the verb is promiscuous; structure determines roles
                • Pure lexicalist (Levin): compatible always returns [] — there is nothing structural to vary
                • Hybrid: compatible returns a verb-constrained subset — gradient compatibility
                • compatible : VerbList Ctx

                  Which structural contexts this verb is compatible with. Singleton = categorical. Multiple = gradient (alternation).

                • predict : VerbCtxArgPositionOption ThetaRole

                  Predict each argument's theta role in a given context. Returns none for positions the theory is silent about.

                Instances For
                  def Interfaces.SyntaxSemantics.LinkingTheory.matchesAt {Verb Ctx : Type} [BEq Ctx] (th : LinkingTheory Verb Ctx) (v : Verb) (pos : ArgPosition) (actual : Option ThetaRole) :

                  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.

                  Equations
                  Instances For