Root Typology: States and Changes of State (@cite{beavers-etal-2021}, B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020}) @cite{beavers-etal-2021} @cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} @cite{coon-2019} #
@cite{arad-2005} @cite{dixon-1982} @cite{embick-2004} @cite{dowty-1991} @cite{embick-2009} @cite{rose-nichols-2021} @cite{levin-1993}
Beavers, Everdell, Jerro, Kauhanen, @cite{beavers-etal-2021} "States and changes of state: A crosslinguistic study of the roots of verbal meaning." Language 97(3), 439–484.
Core contribution #
Change-of-state verb roots split into two types:
- Property concept (PC) roots: flat, red, long — underlie deadjectival CoS verbs
- Result roots: crack, break, shatter — underlie non-deadjectival CoS verbs
The key semantic distinction: result roots lexically entail change, while PC roots do not. This refutes the Bifurcation Thesis: contra bifurcation, some roots introduce templatic meaning (change = BECOME).
The deepest theorem #
A root's entailment of change determines ALL of its morphosyntactic behavior in a single four-way biconditional (§§3–8):
entailsChange R ↔ ¬hasSimpleStative R ∧ ¬verbalFormIsMarked R ∧ ¬allowsRestitutiveAgain R
This holds crosslinguistically (88-language typological study), ruling out bifurcation as an explanation. The deeper explanation is the Markedness Generalization (eq. 44): morphological markedness reflects semantic mismatch between functional head and root.
Bridges #
EntailmentProfile.changeOfState= result root entailment (ProtoRoles §8)TemplateHead.vBecome= the templatic operator that result roots lexicalizeCoSType.inception= BECOME as ¬P→P transition (ChangeOfState/Theory)Template.achievement/.accomplishment= templates containing BECOME (EventStructure)- Crosslinguistic data validates the correlations (Phenomena)
Unified Root (§§15–17) #
Extends the file with the Root structure (§16) bundling @cite{coon-2019}'s arity
dimension (does the root select an internal argument?) with Beavers et al.'s
change-entailment dimension. The two axes cross-classify orthogonally
(arity_changeType_orthogonal): knowing whether a root selects a theme tells
you nothing about whether it entails change, and vice versa.
- Coon, J. (2019). Building verbs in Chuj: Consequences for the nature of roots. Journal of Linguistics 55(1): 35–81.
- Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. MIT Press.
- Harley, H. (2014). On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40, 225–276.
Two types of change-of-state verb roots (@cite{beavers-etal-2021} §3.1).
Property concept (PC) roots: underlie deadjectival CoS verbs. The root describes a gradable property (dimension, color, value, etc.). Examples: flat, red, long, warm.
Result roots: underlie non-deadjectival CoS verbs. The root describes a specific result state that arises from a particular kind of event (breaking, cooking, killing, etc.). Examples: crack, break, shatter.
Instances For
Equations
- instReprRootType = { reprPrec := instReprRootType.repr }
Equations
- instReprRootType.repr RootType.propertyConcept prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "RootType.propertyConcept")).group prec✝
- instReprRootType.repr RootType.result prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "RootType.result")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instBEqRootType.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- instBEqRootType = { beq := instBEqRootType.beq }
Whether a root lexically entails prior change (@cite{beavers-etal-2021} §3.6).
PC roots denote simple states that can hold without any prior change event. Result roots denote states that entail a prior change event.
Instances For
Whether a root selects an internal (theme) argument.
@cite{coon-2019}: the central division of labor is that roots determine internal arguments while functional heads (v/Voice⁰) determine external arguments. This is orthogonal to change entailment.
Instances For
Equations
- instReprRootArity.repr RootArity.selectsTheme prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "RootArity.selectsTheme")).group prec✝
- instReprRootArity.repr RootArity.noTheme prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "RootArity.noTheme")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instReprRootArity = { reprPrec := instReprRootArity.repr }
Equations
- instBEqRootArity = { beq := instBEqRootArity.beq }
Equations
- instBEqRootArity.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Does this root arity entail an obligatory internal argument?
Instances For
The semantic denotation domain of a root (@cite{coon-2019}, (3)).
- eventPred ⟨e, ⟨s,t⟩⟩: entity → event → truth-value (√TV, √ITV)
- measureFn ⟨e, ⟨s,d⟩⟩: entity → event → degree (√POS; @cite{henderson-2019})
- entityPred ⟨e,t⟩: entity → truth-value, no event (√NOM)
- eventPred : RootDenotationType
- measureFn : RootDenotationType
- entityPred : RootDenotationType
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- instBEqRootDenotationType.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- instReprRootDenotationType = { reprPrec := instReprRootDenotationType.repr }
Unified root characterization bundling all classification dimensions.
A root is characterized along five independent axes:
- Arity: does it select an internal argument?
- Change entailment: does it lexically entail a prior change event?
- Denotation type (@cite{coon-2019}, (3)): event predicate, measure function, or entity predicate.
- Quality dimensions (@cite{spalek-mcnally-2026}): within-class root content
- Class membership: verb class taxonomy
Axes 1, 2, and 3 cross-classify: Coon's four Chuj root classes are recovered as (arity × denotationType) pairs: √TV = selectsTheme + eventPred, √ITV = noTheme + eventPred, √POS = noTheme + measureFn, √NOM = noTheme + entityPred.
- arity : RootArity
Does this root select an internal argument?
- changeType : RootType
Does this root lexically entail prior change?
- denotationType : Option RootDenotationType
Semantic denotation domain (@cite{coon-2019}, (3)). Optional — not all roots have been annotated.
- profile : RootProfile
Within-class quality dimensions (@cite{spalek-mcnally-2026})
- levinClass : Option LevinClass
Verb class membership
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- instBEqRoot.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Does this root lexically entail prior change?
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- instReprPCClass = { reprPrec := instReprPCClass.repr }
Equations
- instReprPCClass.repr PCClass.dimension prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "PCClass.dimension")).group prec✝
- instReprPCClass.repr PCClass.age prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "PCClass.age")).group prec✝
- instReprPCClass.repr PCClass.value prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "PCClass.value")).group prec✝
- instReprPCClass.repr PCClass.color prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "PCClass.color")).group prec✝
- instReprPCClass.repr PCClass.physicalProperty prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "PCClass.physicalProperty")).group prec✝
- instReprPCClass.repr PCClass.speed prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "PCClass.speed")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instBEqPCClass.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Result root subclasses (@cite{levin-1993}; @cite{beavers-etal-2021} ex. 6).
- entitySpecificCoS : ResultClass
- cooking : ResultClass
- breaking : ResultClass
- bending : ResultClass
- killing : ResultClass
- destroying : ResultClass
- calibratableCoS : ResultClass
- inherentlyDirectedMotion : ResultClass
Instances For
Equations
- instReprResultClass = { reprPrec := instReprResultClass.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- instReprResultClass.repr ResultClass.entitySpecificCoS prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ResultClass.entitySpecificCoS")).group prec✝
- instReprResultClass.repr ResultClass.cooking prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ResultClass.cooking")).group prec✝
- instReprResultClass.repr ResultClass.breaking prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ResultClass.breaking")).group prec✝
- instReprResultClass.repr ResultClass.bending prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ResultClass.bending")).group prec✝
- instReprResultClass.repr ResultClass.killing prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ResultClass.killing")).group prec✝
- instReprResultClass.repr ResultClass.destroying prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ResultClass.destroying")).group prec✝
- instReprResultClass.repr ResultClass.calibratableCoS prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ResultClass.calibratableCoS")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instBEqResultClass.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- instBEqResultClass = { beq := instBEqResultClass.beq }
How a result root's change entailment is restricted (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §2.4).
Break-type result roots (√CRACK, √SHATTER) entail change of ANY kind — spatial or temporal. A crack can "run from the tree to the house" without a temporal becoming event; the state itself extends spatially.
Cook/kill-type result roots (√COOK, √KILL) entail only TEMPORAL change. Cooking, killing, and melting are necessarily temporal processes. "✱The meat cooked from the oven to the table" is ruled out.
This three-way refinement (PC / break-type / cook-type) is invisible to
the binary entailsChange flag but has consequences for spatial predication
and the interpretation of directional PPs (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §2.4).
- anyChange : ChangeRestriction
- temporalOnly : ChangeRestriction
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- instReprChangeRestriction.repr ChangeRestriction.anyChange prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "ChangeRestriction.anyChange")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instReprChangeRestriction = { reprPrec := instReprChangeRestriction.repr }
Equations
Equations
- instBEqChangeRestriction.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Change restriction for each result root subclass. Breaking/bending roots and directed motion allow spatial change descriptions; cooking/killing/destroying/scalar-change roots are temporally restricted.
Equations
- ResultClass.breaking.changeRestriction = ChangeRestriction.anyChange
- ResultClass.bending.changeRestriction = ChangeRestriction.anyChange
- ResultClass.inherentlyDirectedMotion.changeRestriction = ChangeRestriction.anyChange
- ResultClass.entitySpecificCoS.changeRestriction = ChangeRestriction.temporalOnly
- ResultClass.cooking.changeRestriction = ChangeRestriction.temporalOnly
- ResultClass.killing.changeRestriction = ChangeRestriction.temporalOnly
- ResultClass.destroying.changeRestriction = ChangeRestriction.temporalOnly
- ResultClass.calibratableCoS.changeRestriction = ChangeRestriction.temporalOnly
Instances For
Breaking roots allow spatial change: "The road cracked from the tree to the house."
Cooking roots restrict to temporal change: "✱The meat cooked from A to B."
PC roots have simple (unmarked) stative forms; result roots lack them.
Crosslinguistic evidence (§6, Fig. 1): PC median = 95.67% of languages have simple statives; result median = 1.59% (Mann-Whitney U = 1266.5, p < 0.001, n₁ = n₂ = 36).
English: "bright" (PC, simple adj) vs *"shattered" requires prior change.
Instances For
PC root verbs are morphologically marked (deadjectival: wid-en, flat-ten); result root verbs are unmarked (basic verbs: break, crack, shatter).
Crosslinguistic evidence (§7, Fig. 5): PC median = 56.01% marked; result median = 15.20% (U = 1291, p < 0.001).
Equations
Instances For
PC roots allow restitutive 'again' (scope over root only); result roots allow only repetitive 'again' (scope over BECOME).
§3.4: "John sharpened the knife again" allows restitutive reading (could be just one sharpening), but "#Chris thawed the meat again" in a restitutive context is unacceptable (necessarily two defrostings).
Under the analysis in §3.6: 'again' can target √ROOT. For PC roots, this yields a restitutive reading (return to prior state without prior change). For result roots, since the root itself entails change, 'again' over the root still entails a prior change event.
Equations
Instances For
The main theorem of @cite{beavers-etal-2021}.
A root's entailment of change determines ALL of its morphosyntactic behavior in a single four-way biconditional. This is the paper's deepest result: four independently testable properties form a perfect correlation package.
For result roots (entailsChange = true):
- No simple stative forms (§6)
- Unmarked verbal forms (§7)
- No restitutive 'again' — only repetitive (§3.4)
For PC roots (entailsChange = false):
- Simple stative forms exist (§6)
- Marked verbal forms (§7)
- Restitutive 'again' available (§3.4)
This correlation holds crosslinguistically (88 languages, §§4–7) and refutes the Bifurcation Thesis: if roots couldn't introduce templatic meaning (change), there would be NO semantic basis for the morphological and syntactic correlations.
The converse: NOT entailing change determines the opposite package.
The Bifurcation Thesis for Roots (@cite{embick-2009}:1, @cite{arad-2005}:79; @cite{beavers-etal-2021} eq. 2):
"If a component of meaning is introduced by a semantic rule that applies to elements in combination [i.e. by templatic operators], then that component of meaning cannot be part of the meaning of a [lexical semantic] root."
Under bifurcation, change (= BECOME) is introduced only by templates, never by roots. Therefore NO root should entail change.
Equations
- bifurcationThesis rootEntailsChange = ∀ (rt : RootType), rootEntailsChange rt = false
Instances For
@cite{beavers-etal-2021} main result: bifurcation does not hold. Result roots entail change, violating the thesis (§§3.3, 3.6, 9).
Corollary: result roots are a witness to bifurcation failure.
PC roots are consistent with bifurcation (they don't entail change).
B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} strengthened bifurcation failure via RootEntailments.
@cite{beavers-etal-2021} show roots can entail CHANGE (one templatic notion). B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} show roots can entail CHANGE, CAUSATION, and MANNER — ALL notions traditionally reserved for templates. This is a strictly stronger refutation: even if one accepted that change is "special", roots encoding manner+cause (√GUILLOTINE, √HAND) violate bifurcation on three separate dimensions simultaneously.
Witness: RootEntailments.fullSpec has all four features true.
Multiple Levin classes witness the stronger bifurcation failure.
Whether a form is morphologically marked (=derived/complex) or unmarked (=basic/simple).
- unmarked : Markedness
- marked : Markedness
Instances For
Equations
- instReprMarkedness = { reprPrec := instReprMarkedness.repr }
Equations
- instReprMarkedness.repr Markedness.unmarked prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Markedness.unmarked")).group prec✝
- instReprMarkedness.repr Markedness.marked prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "Markedness.marked")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instBEqMarkedness.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
- instBEqMarkedness = { beq := instBEqMarkedness.beq }
The Markedness Generalization (@cite{beavers-etal-2021} eq. 44).
Morphological markedness reflects semantic mismatch between a functional head and its root complement. A form is unmarked when the head's semantic contribution is REDUNDANT with the root's meaning:
(a) Default realization of v_become with complement √ROOT: - If √ROOT entails change → v_become is redundant → UNMARKED verb - If √ROOT does not entail change → v_become adds content → MARKED verb
(b) Default realization of Asp_{S/R} with complement X: - If X does not entail change → already stative → UNMARKED stative - If X entails change → change must be stripped → MARKED stative
This explains three attested language types:
- English-type: markedness asymmetry realized overtly (-en, -ed)
- Equipollent: both marked (high-marking languages like Hebrew)
- Labile: neither marked (low-marking languages like Kinyarwanda)
And rules out the unattested fourth type (where the markedness pattern is the inverse of what the generalization predicts).
Equations
Instances For
Stative markedness is the mirror image of verbal markedness.
Equations
Instances For
Verbal and stative markedness are always complementary.
Result roots produce unmarked verbs.
PC roots produce marked verbs.
Result roots produce marked statives.
PC roots produce unmarked statives.
The markedness generalization is equivalent to the semantic distinction.
A root's denotation: a state predicate over entities and states. @cite{beavers-etal-2021} eq. 20a: ⟦√FLAT⟧ = λx.λs[flat'(x, s)].
Equations
- RootDenotation Entity State = (Entity → State → Prop)
Instances For
A meaning postulate: the root's state predicate entails a prior change event. @cite{beavers-etal-2021} eq. 21a: ∀x.∀s[cracked'(x, s) → ∃e'[become'(e', s)]].
Equations
- MeaningPostulateEntailsChange rootPred become = ∀ (x : Entity) (s : State), rootPred x s → ∃ (e : Event), become e s
Instances For
Root denotation architecture (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §2.5, eqs. 37a–b), where change is CONSTITUTIVE of the result root's meaning rather than an external meaning postulate (cf. @cite{beavers-etal-2021} eq. 21).
The formal contrast:
- √FLAT = λxλs[flat'(x,s)] — pure state, no change in truth conditions
- √CRACK = λxλs[cracked'(x,s) ∧ ∃e'[become'(s,e')]] — change IN the root
The earlier @cite{beavers-etal-2021} analysis used a separate structure with an external meaning postulate constraining result roots. B&KG argue the change IS what the root means, not an external constraint.
The empirical payoff: the again diagnostic's reading collapse for result roots (§12b below) follows logically from this architecture. If change is in the root, scoping again over root vs. over vP yields the same presupposition — explaining the collapse without stipulation.
- pc
{Entity State Event : Type}
(statePred : Entity → State → Prop)
: RootDen Entity State Event
PC root: pure state predicate. The state can hold without prior change. √FLAT = λxλs[flat'(x,s)] — "the table is flat" doesn't presuppose any prior flattening event.
- result
{Entity State Event : Type}
(statePred : Entity → State → Prop)
(become : Event → State → Prop)
(entailsChange : ∀ (x : Entity) (s : State), statePred x s → ∃ (e : Event), become e s)
: RootDen Entity State Event
Result root: state predicate constitutively entailing change. √CRACK = λxλs[cracked'(x,s) ∧ ∃e'[become'(s,e')]] The existential over becoming events is PART OF the root's truth conditions, not a separate meaning postulate.
- mannerResult
{Entity State Event : Type}
(statePred : Entity → State → Prop)
(become : Event → State → Prop)
(manner : Event → Prop)
(entailsChange : ∀ (x : Entity) (s : State), statePred x s → ∃ (e : Event), become e s)
(entailsManner : ∀ (x : Entity) (s : State), statePred x s → ∃ (v : Event), manner v)
: RootDen Entity State Event
Manner+result root: state predicate entailing change AND manner restriction on the causing event (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §4.5.3, eq. 74). √GUILLOTINE = λxλs[dead'(x,s) ∧ ∃e'∃v[cause'(v,e') ∧ become'(s,e') ∧ ∀v'[cause'(v',e') → guillotining'(v')]]] The root packages both the result state AND a restriction on how that result is brought about. This violates Manner/Result Complementarity — manner and result coexist in one root.
Instances For
Extract the RootType from a BKG denotation.
Manner+result roots map to .result at the Boolean level — they
entail change, which is all the Chapter 2 typology cares about.
The manner dimension is only visible at the denotation level.
Equations
- (RootDen.pc statePred).rootType = RootType.propertyConcept
- (RootDen.result statePred become entailsChange).rootType = RootType.result
- (RootDen.mannerResult statePred become manner entailsChange entailsManner).rootType = RootType.result
Instances For
Extract the underlying state predicate from any root type.
Equations
- (RootDen.pc statePred).statePred = statePred
- (RootDen.result statePred become entailsChange).statePred = statePred
- (RootDen.mannerResult statePred become manner entailsChange entailsManner).statePred = statePred
Instances For
Whether the root carries its own BECOME relation (built into the denotation).
Equations
- (RootDen.pc statePred).carriesBECOME = false
- (RootDen.result statePred become entailsChange).carriesBECOME = true
- (RootDen.mannerResult statePred become manner entailsChange entailsManner).carriesBECOME = true
Instances For
Carrying BECOME built-in is the same as entailing change. This connects the denotation architecture to the Boolean flag.
For result roots, the meaning postulate is DERIVED from the denotation — not a separate axiom. This is the formal content of B&KG's argument: change isn't externally constrained — it's what the root means.
Whether the root carries a manner restriction on causation (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §4.5.3). Only manner+result roots have this — PC and pure result roots do not restrict how causation proceeds.
Equations
- (RootDen.pc statePred).carriesMANNER = false
- (RootDen.result statePred become entailsChange).carriesMANNER = false
- (RootDen.mannerResult statePred become manner entailsChange entailsManner).carriesMANNER = true
Instances For
A root denotation violates MRC iff it carries both BECOME and a manner restriction — i.e., it encodes both result and manner in one root. Derived from the two independent predicates, not pattern-matched separately.
Equations
- rd.denotationViolatesMRC = (rd.carriesBECOME && rd.carriesMANNER)
Instances For
Manner+result denotations violate MRC.
Result-only denotations respect MRC.
PC denotations respect MRC.
Bridge: denotation-level MRC → Boolean RootEntailments MRC. MRC violation requires BOTH conditions — having manner alone (if such a constructor existed) would not be a violation.
What a ditransitive root entails about possession (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §3.3). Templates always introduce PROSPECTIVE possession (via ◇ modality). Whether the ROOT adds actual or prospective possession on top determines cancellability: "gave X the ball, #but X never had it" vs. "sent X the ball, but it never arrived" (OK).
- none : PossessionEntailment
- prospective : PossessionEntailment
- actual : PossessionEntailment
Instances For
Equations
- instReprPossessionEntailment = { reprPrec := instReprPossessionEntailment.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- instReprPossessionEntailment.repr PossessionEntailment.none prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "PossessionEntailment.none")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instBEqPossessionEntailment.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
Six classes of ditransitive verb roots (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §3.6). The ditransitive parallel to the PC/result distinction for CoS roots: templates contribute only PROSPECTIVE states; roots can contribute ACTUAL states.
- causedPossession : DitransitiveRootClass
- futureHaving : DitransitiveRootClass
- ballisticMotion : DitransitiveRootClass
- sending : DitransitiveRootClass
- accompaniedMotion : DitransitiveRootClass
- carrying : DitransitiveRootClass
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- instBEqDitransitiveRootClass.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
What a ditransitive root entails about the transfer event. Each field is a distinct semantic entailment from the ROOT, independent of what the template provides.
- possession : PossessionEntailment
- causedMotion : Bool
- manner : Bool
- accompaniment : Bool
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- instBEqDitransitiveEntailments.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Entailment profile for each ditransitive root class (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §3.6).
Equations
- DitransitiveRootClass.causedPossession.entailments = { possession := PossessionEntailment.actual, causedMotion := false, manner := false, accompaniment := false }
- DitransitiveRootClass.futureHaving.entailments = { possession := PossessionEntailment.prospective, causedMotion := false, manner := false, accompaniment := false }
- DitransitiveRootClass.ballisticMotion.entailments = { possession := PossessionEntailment.none, causedMotion := true, manner := true, accompaniment := false }
- DitransitiveRootClass.sending.entailments = { possession := PossessionEntailment.none, causedMotion := true, manner := false, accompaniment := false }
- DitransitiveRootClass.accompaniedMotion.entailments = { possession := PossessionEntailment.none, causedMotion := true, manner := false, accompaniment := true }
- DitransitiveRootClass.carrying.entailments = { possession := PossessionEntailment.none, causedMotion := true, manner := true, accompaniment := true }
Instances For
√GIVE entails actual possession — "Kim gave Sandy the ball, #but Sandy never had it" is contradictory (§3.3, ex. 17).
√SEND does NOT entail possession — "Kim sent Sandy the ball, but it never arrived" is felicitous (§3.3, ex. 18).
√PROMISE entails only prospective possession.
√THROW entails manner + caused motion but not possession.
√BRING entails accompaniment — agent travels with theme.
√CARRY entails manner + accompaniment but not possession.
Bridge to LevinClass: ditransitive Levin classes → root classes.
Equations
- LevinClass.give.ditransitiveRootClass = some DitransitiveRootClass.causedPossession
- LevinClass.contribute.ditransitiveRootClass = some DitransitiveRootClass.causedPossession
- LevinClass.exchange.ditransitiveRootClass = some DitransitiveRootClass.causedPossession
- LevinClass.throw.ditransitiveRootClass = some DitransitiveRootClass.ballisticMotion
- LevinClass.send.ditransitiveRootClass = some DitransitiveRootClass.sending
- LevinClass.carry.ditransitiveRootClass = some DitransitiveRootClass.carrying
- x✝.ditransitiveRootClass = none
Instances For
A ditransitive root's denotation (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §3.5, eqs. 46–55).
Parallel to RootDen for CoS roots (§7b).
The formal contrast:
- √SEND = λyλzλe[send'(y,z,e)] — event predicate only
- √GIVE = λyλzλe[give'(y,z,e) ∧ have'(z,y)] — possession IN the root
Templates always add prospective possession (via ◇). Whether the root ALSO adds actual possession determines cancellation behavior, telicity, and again readings — the same architecture as CoS roots with BECOME.
- simple
{Entity Event : Type}
(eventPred : Entity → Entity → Event → Prop)
: DitransitiveDen Entity Event
Root WITHOUT possession entailment. Like PC roots for CoS: the template provides the (prospective) possession.
- withPossession
{Entity Event : Type}
(eventPred : Entity → Entity → Event → Prop)
(possess : Entity → Entity → Prop)
(entailsPoss : ∀ (y z : Entity) (e : Event), eventPred y z e → possess z y)
: DitransitiveDen Entity Event
Root WITH actual possession entailment. Like result roots for CoS: possession is IN the root's truth conditions. The
entailsPossproof is constitutive — not a meaning postulate.
Instances For
Whether possession is cancelable for a verb with this root. Root-entailed actual possession is NOT cancelable; template-only prospective possession IS cancelable.
Structural parallel to RootDen.carriesBECOME: root-constitutive
content cannot be canceled in either domain.
Equations
- (DitransitiveDen.simple eventPred).possessionCancelable = true
- (DitransitiveDen.withPossession eventPred possess entailsPoss).possessionCancelable = false
Instances For
A send-type denotation (simple) has cancelable possession.
A give-type denotation (withPossession) has uncancelable possession.
The six MRC diagnostics developed in B&KG (2020 §§4.2–4.3). Three test for result entailment in the root; three test for manner. An MRC violation is a verb that passes diagnostics from BOTH sets.
Result diagnostics (§4.2):
denialOfResult: "X cut Y, #but Y wasn't separated" — contradictoryobjectDeletion: result verbs resist unspecified object deletionrestrictedResultatives: result verbs block adding new result XPs
Manner diagnostics (§4.3):
selectionalRestriction: subject restricted to agents capable of the mannerdenialOfAction: "X cut Y, #but X didn't do anything" — contradictoryactorParaphrase: paraphrasable as "X did manner to Y" (§4.3)
- denialOfResult : MRCDiagnostic
- objectDeletion : MRCDiagnostic
- restrictedResultatives : MRCDiagnostic
- selectionalRestriction : MRCDiagnostic
- denialOfAction : MRCDiagnostic
- actorParaphrase : MRCDiagnostic
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- instReprMRCDiagnostic.repr MRCDiagnostic.denialOfResult prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "MRCDiagnostic.denialOfResult")).group prec✝
- instReprMRCDiagnostic.repr MRCDiagnostic.objectDeletion prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "MRCDiagnostic.objectDeletion")).group prec✝
- instReprMRCDiagnostic.repr MRCDiagnostic.denialOfAction prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "MRCDiagnostic.denialOfAction")).group prec✝
- instReprMRCDiagnostic.repr MRCDiagnostic.actorParaphrase prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "MRCDiagnostic.actorParaphrase")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instReprMRCDiagnostic = { reprPrec := instReprMRCDiagnostic.repr }
Equations
Equations
- instBEqMRCDiagnostic.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Whether a diagnostic tests for result entailment.
Equations
Instances For
Whether a diagnostic tests for manner entailment.
Equations
Instances For
Each diagnostic tests for exactly one of manner or result.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- instBEqMRCDiagnosticProfile.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- instReprMRCDiagnosticProfile = { reprPrec := instReprMRCDiagnosticProfile.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether the profile shows result entailment (passes ≥1 result diagnostic).
Equations
Instances For
Whether the profile shows manner entailment (passes ≥1 manner diagnostic).
Equations
Instances For
An MRC violation is a verb whose diagnostics show BOTH manner and result.
Equations
- p.showsMRCViolation = (p.showsManner && p.showsResult)
Instances For
Cut passes all 6 diagnostics (B&KG §4.4): manner of cutting + separation. "Kim cut the bread, #but the bread wasn't separated" (result) "Kim cut the bread, #but Kim didn't do anything" (manner)
Equations
Instances For
Break passes result diagnostics only: pure result (√CRACK), no manner.
Equations
Instances For
Hit passes manner diagnostics only: pure manner (impact), no result.
Equations
Instances For
Drown passes all 6 (B&KG §4.5): manner of drowning + death result.
Equations
Instances For
Cut is MRC-violating by BOTH diagnostics AND RootEntailments.
Break is MRC-respecting by BOTH diagnostics AND RootEntailments.
Hit is MRC-respecting by BOTH diagnostics AND RootEntailments.
Dowty's P-Patient entailment (a) "undergoes change of state" is
precisely the result root entailment. An object bearing a result
root's state predicate has changeOfState = true.
This bridges the root typology to the entailment profile via the shared property.
Equations
Instances For
A result root's object has changeOfState = true.
Die subject undergoes change → result-type pattern.
Result roots MUST combine with a template containing BECOME (achievement or accomplishment), because the root's change entailment is semantically redundant with BECOME.
PC roots CAN combine with any template — with BECOME (achievement/ accomplishment) they get change compositionally; without it (state) they denote simple states.
Instances For
Result roots always get templates with BECOME.
Achievement and accomplishment templates contain BECOME.
Equations
Instances For
The templates result roots combine with always have BECOME.
State template lacks BECOME — only available to PC roots.
Bridge: templates with BECOME map to achievement/accomplishment Vendler classes, both of which are telic (bounded by the result state). This connects the template operator to the existing aspectual profile.
Aspectual profile for root types in their stative use.
Equations
Instances For
Result root verbs are typically achievements or accomplishments (they have BECOME in their template). PC root verbs in their inchoative (change-of-state) use are also achievements/accomplishments, but their stative use is a state (derived from profile).
Equations
Instances For
PC roots in stative use are states; result roots pattern as achievements even in adjectival use (the state entails prior change).
@cite{embick-2004} posits two adjectival structures:
(8a) BASIC STATIVES: [AspP AspS √ROOT] Simple adjective directly combining with stativizer. Only available to PC roots.
(8b) RESULT STATIVES: [AspP AspR [vP DP v_become √ROOT]] Deverbal adjective containing v_become. Available to result roots; superficially also to PC roots.
Under the non-bifurcated analysis, result root adjectives are ALWAYS (8b) because the root requires v_become. PC root adjectives are (8a) by default but can also be (8b).
- basicStative : AdjectivalStructure
- resultStative : AdjectivalStructure
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- instReprAdjectivalStructure = { reprPrec := instReprAdjectivalStructure.repr }
Equations
Equations
- instBEqAdjectivalStructure.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
PC roots admit both structures; result roots only admit resultStative.
Equations
Instances For
This is equivalent to NOT entailing change.
Sublexical modifier 'again' has two readings:
(14a) RESTITUTIVE: again attaches to just the root → restores a prior state (one sharpening event) (14b) REPETITIVE: again attaches to the whole vP (including v_become) → repeats the entire change event (two sharpenings)
Under the non-bifurcated analysis:
- PC roots: again over √ROOT yields a pure state → restitutive OK
- Result roots: again over √ROOT still entails change (root has it) → restitutive reading collapses into repetitive
- restitutive : AgainReading
- repetitive : AgainReading
Instances For
Equations
- instReprAgainReading.repr AgainReading.restitutive prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "AgainReading.restitutive")).group prec✝
- instReprAgainReading.repr AgainReading.repetitive prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "AgainReading.repetitive")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
- instReprAgainReading = { reprPrec := instReprAgainReading.repr }
Equations
- instBEqAgainReading.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Equations
Which readings of 'again' are available for each root type.
Equations
Instances For
PC roots have strictly more 'again' readings than result roots.
Result roots lack the restitutive reading.
PC roots have the restitutive reading.
What again presupposes at a given scope position.
again is a presupposition trigger: attaching it to constituent C presupposes that C's denotation held at some prior time. The distinction between priorState and priorChange determines whether restitutive and repetitive readings are distinct or collapse into one.
- priorState : AgainPresupposition
- priorChange : AgainPresupposition
Instances For
Equations
- instReprAgainPresupposition = { reprPrec := instReprAgainPresupposition.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- instBEqAgainPresupposition.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
What again presupposes when scoping over just the root.
For PC roots (√FLAT): again√FLAT presupposes x was previously flat. This is a pure state presupposition — no change is implied.
For result roots (√CRACK): again√CRACK presupposes x was previously cracked. But √CRACK's denotation INCLUDES ∃e'[become'(s,e')], so this presupposition ENTAILS a prior change event.
For manner+result roots (√GUILLOTINE): again over the root presupposes prior change+manner. The root packages BECOME + manner restriction, so root-scope again entails a prior mannered change event (§4.5.2).
Equations
- (RootDen.pc statePred).againOverRoot = AgainPresupposition.priorState
- (RootDen.result statePred become entailsChange).againOverRoot = AgainPresupposition.priorChange
- (RootDen.mannerResult statePred become manner entailsChange entailsManner).againOverRoot = AgainPresupposition.priorChange
Instances For
What again presupposes when scoping over vP (v_become + root). Always presupposes prior change, regardless of root type, because v_become introduces BECOME compositionally.
Equations
Instances For
PC roots: root-scope and vP-scope again yield DISTINCT presuppositions. Root-scope → prior state (no change); vP-scope → prior change. Two distinct presuppositions → two available readings.
Result roots: root-scope and vP-scope again yield THE SAME presupposition. Both presuppose prior change — root-scope because change is in the denotation, vP-scope because v_become introduces it. Same presupposition → readings collapse into one.
Predicted again readings from the BKG denotation architecture. Distinct presuppositions → both readings available. Collapsed presuppositions → only repetitive. Manner+result roots collapse like result roots — the manner restriction adds no new scope point because it's within the root.
Equations
- (RootDen.pc statePred).predictedAgainReadings = [AgainReading.restitutive, AgainReading.repetitive]
- (RootDen.result statePred become entailsChange).predictedAgainReadings = [AgainReading.repetitive]
- (RootDen.mannerResult statePred become manner entailsChange entailsManner).predictedAgainReadings = [AgainReading.repetitive]
Instances For
The key bridge: the BKG denotation architecture predicts the SAME
again-reading distribution as the Boolean RootType.againReadings.
This validates the compositional explanation: the reading collapse for result roots is not stipulated — it follows from change being constitutive of the root's meaning. The Boolean function encodes the SAME prediction, but the compositional analysis explains WHY.
Whether a ditransitive verb is obligatorily telic in the IO frame (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §3.7).
Telicity correlates with whether the root spells out a state in the template. If the root entails actual possession, the template's prospective possession is discharged → definite endpoint → telic.
"Kim gave Sandy balls for an hour" — # (bounded by possession transfer) "Kim sent Sandy balls for an hour" — OK (endpoint only prospective)
Equations
Instances For
Telicity aligns exactly with actual possession entailment.
What again presupposes over the root of a ditransitive denotation.
Parallel to RootDen.againOverRoot (§12b): root-constitutive content
makes root-scope and vP-scope again collapse.
-.withPossession: root carries possession → again over root presupposes prior possession (= prior change) → collapse -.simple: root has no possession → again over root presupposes prior event only (= prior state) → distinct readings
Equations
- (DitransitiveDen.simple eventPred).againOverRoot = AgainPresupposition.priorState
- (DitransitiveDen.withPossession eventPred possess entailsPoss).againOverRoot = AgainPresupposition.priorChange
Instances For
again over the ditransitive vP always presupposes prior caused possession (from template CAUSE + ◇have').
Instances For
Give-type: root-scope and vP-scope again yield the SAME
presupposition. Parallel to result_again_collapsed.
Send-type: root-scope and vP-scope again yield DISTINCT
presuppositions. Parallel to pc_again_distinct.
Predicted again readings for each ditransitive root class.
Equations
Instances For
Give has one reading (collapse); send has two (distinct).
Manner+result roots: root-scope and vP-scope again yield THE SAME presupposition, just like pure result roots. But the reason is RICHER: the root packages BECOME + manner, so root-scope again presupposes a prior mannered change event — which is strictly MORE than what vP-scope presupposes (just prior change).
Observable prediction: only repetitive reading available. Same as result roots, but for a different reason — manner is also caught in the collapse because it's inside the root.
Manner+result roots lack the restitutive reading.
The three-way root denotation typology (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} §4.5.5):
PC, result, and manner+result roots ALL correctly predict again
readings via the unified bkg_again_matches_boolean bridge.
PC roots: two readings (restitutive + repetitive) Result roots: one reading (repetitive) — change in root Manner+result roots: one reading (repetitive) — change + manner in root
Bridge: MRC-violating roots → collapsed again readings. If a root denotation violates MRC (manner+result), it has only repetitive again. The diagnostic MRC violation predicts the again collapse.
Bridge: MRC-respecting result roots → collapsed again too. Collapsed again is necessary but NOT sufficient for MRC violation. Pure result roots also collapse, but they don't violate MRC.
Beavers et al.'s conclusion (§9): accepting that result roots entail change does NOT blunt the predictive power of event structures. It simply means the theory of possible root meanings is richer than bifurcation allows. A verb that entails change should have v_become-type grammatical behavior (argument structure, morphology) even if the change comes from the ROOT rather than the template.
Formally: if a root entails change, then the verb should be associated with a template containing BECOME.
And conversely: if a root does NOT require BECOME, it doesn't entail change (it can stand alone as a simple stative).
The full correlation package.
Starting from the single Boolean entailsChange, we can derive
ALL of the paper's morphosyntactic predictions. This is the formal
content of the paper's main contribution: one semantic property
(whether the root lexically entails change) is the sole determinant
of six independently observable properties.
Predicted verbal markedness from change entailment.
Equations
Instances For
Predicted stative markedness from change entailment.
Equations
Instances For
√BREAK: selects theme + entails change (result root, Levin 45.1). "Break X" — the root obligatorily takes a patient that undergoes breaking, and the root lexically entails a prior change event.
Equations
- Root.break_ = { arity := RootArity.selectsTheme, changeType := RootType.result, denotationType := some RootDenotationType.eventPred, levinClass := some LevinClass.break_ }
Instances For
√HIT: selects theme + does not entail change (Levin 18.1).
"Hit X" — the root takes a contactee, but hitting does not entail
that the patient undergoes a change of state (@cite{levin-1993} pp. 5–8).
.propertyConcept is used broadly here: the formal content
(entailsChange = false) is what matters, not the label.
Equations
- Root.hit = { arity := RootArity.selectsTheme, changeType := RootType.propertyConcept, denotationType := some RootDenotationType.eventPred, levinClass := some LevinClass.hit }
Instances For
√DIE: no theme + entails change. "Die" — intransitive; the dying entity is introduced by functional structure (unaccusative vGO/vBE), not selected by the root. Dying lexically entails a prior change event (becoming dead).
Equations
- Root.die = { arity := RootArity.noTheme, changeType := RootType.result, denotationType := some RootDenotationType.eventPred }
Instances For
√SIT: no theme + does not entail change (positional root). "Sit" — Coon's √POS class: denotes a spatial configuration state. No internal argument, no entailed change.
Equations
- Root.sit = { arity := RootArity.noTheme, changeType := RootType.propertyConcept, denotationType := some RootDenotationType.measureFn, levinClass := some LevinClass.assumePosition }
Instances For
Orthogonality of arity and change entailment.
All four cells of the 2×2 cross-classification are inhabited. This proves the two dimensions are genuinely independent: knowing that a root selects a theme tells you nothing about whether it entails change, and vice versa.
Change entailment does not determine arity (and vice versa).
Beavers et al.'s grand unification (§14) shows that entailsChange
determines ALL morphosyntactic correlates (markedness, simple stative,
again readings, template requirements). But it determines NOTHING
about internal argument selection. Coon's arity adds an independent
dimension of prediction: whether the root will surface with an
internal argument across voice alternations.
Theme persistence (@cite{coon-2019} main empirical claim).
If a root selects a theme, the internal argument persists regardless of what v/Voice⁰ head combines with it. In Chuj, √TV roots surface with an internal argument in transitive (Ø), passive (-ch, -j), and antipassive (-w) constructions alike.
This is expressed by design: arity is a field of Root, not of
the derived verb. No functional head modifies it.
Change entailment determines markedness in the unified Root.
Roots with the same change type have identical morphosyntactic behavior regardless of arity — markedness, stative forms, and again readings are orthogonal to internal argument selection.
Full root specification: entailment features + structural position. This is B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020}'s Table 12 in full — the 4 binary entailment features × 2 positions give 32 theoretical cells, of which 7 are attested and the rest are principled gaps.
- entailments : RootEntailments
- position : RootPosition
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- instReprFullRootSpec = { reprPrec := instReprFullRootSpec.repr }
Adjoined position requires +manner: a root in adjunct position must specify a manner of action. Without manner, there is nothing to adjoin — the adjunct slot expects an action modifier.
Equations
- s.positionLicensed = match s.position with | RootPosition.adjoined => s.entailments.manner | RootPosition.complement => true
Instances For
+manner +state −result −cause is semantically incoherent (B&KG §5.4.1): the root would specify both a manner of action and a state, but with no result or cause linking them. What would such a verb mean? "Perform manner M while in state S" — with no causal connection.
Equations
- s.semanticallyCoherent = !(s.entailments.manner && s.entailments.state && !s.entailments.result && !s.entailments.cause)
Instances For
Full well-formedness: entailment constraints + position licensing + semantic coherence.
Equations
Instances For
Attested cells of Table 12 #
√FLAT: +S −M −R −C, complement. Property concept root.
Equations
- FullRootSpec.flat = { entailments := RootEntailments.propertyConcept, position := RootPosition.complement }
Instances For
√BLOSSOM: +S −M +R −C, complement. Pure result root.
Equations
- FullRootSpec.blossom = { entailments := RootEntailments.pureResult, position := RootPosition.complement }
Instances For
√CRACK: +S −M +R +C, complement. Causative result root.
Equations
- FullRootSpec.crack = { entailments := RootEntailments.causativeResult, position := RootPosition.complement }
Instances For
√JOG: −S +M −R −C, adjoined. Pure manner root.
Equations
- FullRootSpec.jog = { entailments := RootEntailments.pureManner, position := RootPosition.adjoined }
Instances For
√DROWN: +S +M +R +C, complement. Manner+result in complement position — the manner restricts HOW the state is caused.
Equations
- FullRootSpec.drown = { entailments := RootEntailments.fullSpec, position := RootPosition.complement }
Instances For
√TOSS: +S +M +R +C, adjoined. Manner+result in adjunct position — the manner is the primary event that happens to cause a state change.
Equations
- FullRootSpec.toss = { entailments := RootEntailments.fullSpec, position := RootPosition.adjoined }
Instances For
√HAND: same entailments + position as √TOSS. The difference is in the ditransitive layer (DitransitiveRootClass.causedPossession vs .ballisticMotion), not in FullRootSpec's 4+1 features.
Equations
Instances For
√EXIST: −S −M −R −C, complement. Minimal stative root.
Equations
- FullRootSpec.exist = { entailments := RootEntailments.minimal, position := RootPosition.complement }
Instances For
√DROWN and √TOSS have identical entailments but different positions.
Templatic functional heads in event structure (B&@cite{beavers-koontz-garboden-2020} Table 13).
Each root type PREDICTS which templatic heads its verb will entail. If the root's own meaning already includes what a template head provides, that head is "entailed by the root" — its semantic contribution is redundant (though structurally still present).
v_act, v_cause, v_become are verbal heads. P_loc and P_have are prepositional heads specific to ditransitive structures.
- vAct : TemplateHead
- vCause : TemplateHead
- vBecome : TemplateHead
- pLoc : TemplateHead
- pHave : TemplateHead
Instances For
Equations
- instReprTemplateHead = { reprPrec := instReprTemplateHead.repr }
Equations
- instReprTemplateHead.repr TemplateHead.vAct prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "TemplateHead.vAct")).group prec✝
- instReprTemplateHead.repr TemplateHead.vCause prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "TemplateHead.vCause")).group prec✝
- instReprTemplateHead.repr TemplateHead.vBecome prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "TemplateHead.vBecome")).group prec✝
- instReprTemplateHead.repr TemplateHead.pLoc prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "TemplateHead.pLoc")).group prec✝
- instReprTemplateHead.repr TemplateHead.pHave prec✝ = Repr.addAppParen (Std.Format.nest (if prec✝ ≥ 1024 then 1 else 2) (Std.Format.text "TemplateHead.pHave")).group prec✝
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- instBEqTemplateHead.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Which template heads a root's entailments make redundant (Table 13).
The mapping is monotone: more root entailments → more heads entailed.
- +result → v_become (root entails the change v_become would provide)
- +cause → v_cause (root entails the causation v_cause would provide)
- +manner ∧ +cause → v_act (manner that causes = activity)
- +manner alone → no v_act (manner without causation doesn't entail activity — √JOG specifies jogging manner but v_act still provides the activity frame)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
For ditransitive roots, additional prepositional heads beyond
the verbal heads predicted by entailedHeads.
Equations
- DitransitiveRootClass.causedPossession.additionalHeads = [TemplateHead.pLoc, TemplateHead.pHave]
- DitransitiveRootClass.ballisticMotion.additionalHeads = [TemplateHead.pLoc]
- DitransitiveRootClass.sending.additionalHeads = [TemplateHead.pLoc]
- DitransitiveRootClass.accompaniedMotion.additionalHeads = [TemplateHead.pLoc]
- DitransitiveRootClass.carrying.additionalHeads = [TemplateHead.pLoc]
- DitransitiveRootClass.futureHaving.additionalHeads = []
Instances For
Table 13 verification #
√JOG (pureManner): no template heads entailed. The root specifies jogging manner, but v_act still provides the activity frame — the root doesn't make it redundant.
√FLAT (propertyConcept): no template heads entailed. The root names a state, but doesn't entail change or cause.
√BLOSSOM (pureResult): v_become entailed. The root entails change — v_become's contribution is redundant.
√CRACK (causativeResult): v_become + v_cause entailed. The root entails change AND causation.
√DROWN (fullSpec): v_become + v_cause + v_act entailed. The root entails change, causation, AND activity (manner that causes).
√TOSS (fullSpec + ballistic): v_become + v_cause + v_act + P_loc. Verbal heads from entailments + P_loc from ditransitive class.
√HAND (fullSpec + causedPossession): all 5 heads. Verbal heads from entailments + P_loc + P_have from ditransitive class.
Monotonicity: more root entailments → weakly more heads entailed. Pure result ⊂ causative result ⊂ full spec (by inclusion).
Whether a FullRootSpec cell is attested in B&KG's Table 12.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Gap explanations #
B&KG (§5.4.1) identify three principled gap types:
Adjoined without manner: the adjunct position in event structure hosts manner modifiers. Without +manner, there's nothing to adjoin. This rules out all −manner roots in adjoined position.
+manner +state −result −cause: the root would need to encode both a manner of action and a state, with no causal/change connection between them. No known verb has this pattern.
Well-formedness violations: +result −state and +cause −result are ruled out by the entailment constraints (result→state, cause→result).
Gap type 1: adjoined position requires manner.
Gap type 2: +manner +state −result −cause is incoherent.
Attested cells are well-formed and recognized #
The open question: +S +M +R −C (mannerResult without cause) in complement position. B&KG note this cell may be inhabited by verbs like slide — manner of motion + change of location, without external causation. Left as NOT attested per Table 12, pending further research.
The complement/adjoined split for fullSpec roots is the only case where position differentiates otherwise identical entailments.