@cite{dowty-1991} Proto-Roles: Theory Bridges and Canonical Profiles #
@cite{levin-2022}
Pure theory file connecting the entailment profile theory
(EntailmentProfile.lean) to other semantic modules: @cite{cruse-1973}
agentivity, @cite{krifka-1998} SINC, change-of-state, causation, and
@cite{levin-1993} meaning components.
Verb-specific entailment profiles (canonical instances of EntailmentProfile)
are defined here as theory-level constants. Bridge theorems connecting these
profiles to English Fragment entries live in study files under Phenomena/.
Kick: subject outranks object (lattice: {V,S,C,M,IE} ⊃ {}).
Build: subject outranks object.
Eat: subject outranks object.
Buy/sell subjects have identical profiles → alternation.
die: no volition, no causation, 3 P-Pat → unaccusative.
arrive: no volition, no causation, 1 P-Pat → unaccusative. This FIXES the anomaly in @cite{dowty-1991}'s flat counting, which predicted unergative because pAgentScore (2) > pPatientScore (1).
run: has volition, 0 P-Pat → unergative.
Kick subject passes the do-test (has volition + causation + movement).
Die subject does NOT pass the do-test (no volition, causation, or movement).
Arrive subject passes the do-test (has movement).
Variable agentivity = the broom sense has strictly more P-Agent entailments than the basic sense.
Wind as effector: movement + independent existence.
Kick object is a force recipient (causally affected + stationary).
@cite{levin-1993}'s meaning components are a coarse-grained projection of Dowty's entailment profiles. Three of the four components correspond to specific Dowty entailments:
| Levin component | Dowty entailment | Argument |
|---|---|---|
| `causation` | P-Agent (c) `causation` | Subject |
| `changeOfState` | P-Patient (a) `changeOfState` | Object / unacc. subject |
| `motion` | P-Agent (d) `movement` | Subject |
| `contact` | — (no direct Dowty counterpart) | — |
The key divergence: Levin's `causation` is *narrow* — it diagnoses
specifically causation of a change of state (via the causative/inchoative
alternation). Dowty's `causation` is *broad* — any event where one
participant causes something in another.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
All canonical verb profiles satisfy the internal well-formedness constraint (volition → sentience).
Kick satisfies the causation↔CoS paired constraint but NOT the IE↔DE constraint (the ball exists independently of the kicking).
Build satisfies causation↔CoS and IE↔DE, but NOT movement↔stationary (the thing being built is not stationary relative to the builder).
Eat satisfies causation↔CoS but NOT movement↔stationary or IE↔DE (food exists independently and is not stationary).
@cite{grimm-2011}'s agentivity lattice reformulates proto-role entailments as privative features with lattice structure. This section connects the entailment profiles to Grimm's lattice, combining results from multiple theory bridges (@cite{cruse-1973} agentivity, @cite{krifka-1998} SINC).
Cross-theory: kick subject passes the do-test (@cite{cruse-1973}), has maximal agentivity on @cite{grimm-2011}'s lattice (⊤), and maps to NOM in an accusative system. Three theories converge.
Cross-theory: die subject fails the do-test, has zero agentivity (⊥), and maps to ABS in an ergative system.
Cross-theory: build object is an incremental theme (@cite{krifka-1998}), maps to exPersEnd on @cite{grimm-2011}'s persistence scale (creation), and falls OUTSIDE the canonical ACC region — creation verb objects are non-prototypically transitive.
Cross-theory: arrive subject has movement but not instigation → Grimm's lattice places it outside the NOM/ERG region, consistent with the priority-based ASP predicting unaccusative.