Documentation

Linglib.Features.Accessibility

Accessibility Marking Scale — Referential Form Taxonomy #

@cite{ariel-2001} @cite{arnold-wasow-losongco-ginstrom-2000}

Per-entry feature taxonomy classifying referring expressions by accessibility — the degree to which the referent's mental representation is available to the addressee. Speakers choose between reduced (pronoun) and full (name, description) forms based on this accessibility (@cite{ariel-2001}).

The Accessibility Marking Scale #

AccessibilityLevel is @cite{ariel-2001}'s 18-level ordering from least accessible (full name + modifier) to most accessible (zero / pro-drop). This replaces the earlier conflation with DefinitenessLevel — the accessibility and definiteness scales are non-monotonically related (names are less accessible than definite descriptions but more prominent for DOM), so they must be separate types. A coarsening function toDefLevel bridges to the DOM/DSM scale when needed.

Layer position #

Features/. Sibling of Features/Givenness.lean (the GHZ-6 hierarchy). Both are per-entry feature taxonomies for cognitive status: AccessibilityLevel classifies forms by their accessibility-marking behavior; GivennessStatus classifies entities by cognitive status. Ariel argues (her chapter pp. 62-65) that AccessibilityLevel's 18 tiers are better empirically supported than GHZ-6's 6 tiers; both retained as substrate because they serve different consumer profiles. The GivennessStatus.toAccessibility projection (in Phenomena/Reference/Studies/Ariel2001.lean) bridges them.

This module connects Phenomena/Reference/ (form choice) to Phenomena/WordOrder/ (position choice) via the shared dimension of NP weight/reduction.

@cite{ariel-2001}'s Accessibility Marking Scale: a fine-grained ordering of referential form types from least to most accessible.

Each constructor represents a class of referring expressions. Speakers use more reduced forms for more accessible referents.

Instances For
    @[implicit_reducible]
    Equations
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For
      @[implicit_reducible]
      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

      Distinct accessibility levels have distinct ranks.

      @[implicit_reducible]

      Total order on AccessibilityLevel via the rank pullback, matching the LinearOrder GivennessStatus / BinaryGivenness pattern in Features/Givenness.lean.

      Equations

      Coarsening: each accessibility level maps to one of the 5 DefinitenessLevel categories used for differential argument marking. This is a many-to-one, non-monotone mapping — names are less accessible than definite descriptions but more prominent for DOM.

      Equations
      Instances For
        @[reducible, inline]

        Referential form options for referring to a discourse entity. Uses @cite{ariel-2001}'s 18-level accessibility marking scale.

        Equations
        Instances For

          Next-mention bias: how likely a discourse referent is to be mentioned again in the subsequent utterance. Driven by thematic roles, coherence relations, and discourse structure.

          Instances For
            @[implicit_reducible]
            Equations
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              Accessibility prediction: high next-mention bias licenses reduced referential form (unstressed pronoun); low bias requires full form (full name).

              This is the monotone link at the heart of @cite{ariel-2001}'s Accessibility Marking Scale: more accessible referents → more reduced forms. The same relationship underlies the Probabilistic Reduction Hypothesis (more predictable → shorter/more reduced).

              Equations
              Instances For

                The predicted form for high-bias referents is more reduced than for low-bias referents.

                NP weight correlate: reduced referential forms are lighter. Approximate number of words in a typical instance of each form. This connects form selection to constituent ordering (heavy NP shift, DLM).

                The same choice that makes a referent "more reduced" also makes it "lighter", linking @cite{ariel-2001}'s accessibility hierarchy to @cite{arnold-wasow-losongco-ginstrom-2000}'s heaviness effects.

                Equations
                Instances For

                  How elaborated a referent's discourse representation is.

                  @cite{arnold-2026} §2: the key criterion for underspecified singular they is "discourse specificity" — whether the speaker intends to evoke a detailed mental representation for the addressee.

                  This extends @cite{newman-1992}'s "solidity" (existence of a specific concrete referent) and @cite{newman-1998}'s "individuation" (referents treated as individuals with identity-relevant details).

                  The scale runs from underspecified (the referent is barely sketched in the discourse model — quantified, indefinite, or mentioned only in passing) to elaborated (the referent has a rich, detailed representation — named, described, central to the narrative).

                  • underspecified : DiscourseElaboration

                    The referent's discourse representation is minimal: quantified, indefinite, epicene, or not developed. Identity is unknown or unimportant. "Everyone should make their bed."

                  • elaborated : DiscourseElaboration

                    The referent has a rich, detailed discourse representation: named, described, topical, with known personal attributes. "Asia Kate Dillon (born November 15, 1984) is an American actor. They are known for their roles as…"

                  Instances For
                    @[implicit_reducible]
                    Equations
                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      Bridge from Ariel's accessibility scale to discourse elaboration.

                      @cite{ariel-2001}'s Accessibility Marking Scale describes which referential form is appropriate given how accessible a referent is. Arnold's discourse elaboration is related but distinct: low accessibility tends to co-occur with underspecified elaboration (a referent you haven't mentioned much is both less accessible and less elaborated), but they are not identical.

                      This coarsening maps high-accessibility forms (pronouns, agreement, zero) to elaborated (these forms require a well-established referent) and low-accessibility forms (full names, descriptions) to underspecified (these forms are used when the referent is being newly introduced or is not yet established). The boundary is approximate.

                      Equations
                      Instances For

                        Pronouns (high accessibility) correlate with elaborated discourse representations — you use a pronoun for a referent that is already well-established in the discourse.

                        Full names (low accessibility) correlate with underspecified discourse representations — the referent is being (re-)introduced.