Carstens 2026: The Grammar of Gender #
@cite{carstens-2026}
Carstens, Vicki. 2026. "The grammar of gender: Insights from Bantu asymmetries of AGR with conjoined subjects." Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 44:20.
Core claims #
nP stacking: Bantu nominals have stacked nP structure where visible gender (class prefix) wraps around a semantic i-gender core. The internal structure is [nP₁ n1 [nP₂ n2+root]]; n2 is always the bearer of the semantic gender.
Three semantic cores in Xhosa: genders A (1/2), D (7/8), E (9/10) have interpretable i[entity] flavors — [human], [inanimate], [animal] respectively. Genders B (3/4) and C (5/6) are uninterpretable.
Resolution via percolation + intersection: Following @cite{adamson-anagnostopoulou-2025}, agreement with conjoined singulars works by percolating conjuncts' i-features to &P and intersecting them. u-features are excluded. Non-empty intersection → gender-matching plural agreement; empty intersection → default agreement.
Diagnostic: Gender-matching plural agreement with uniform conjoined singulars succeeds iff the gender is interpretable (has i[entity] flavor).
Shona confirmation: In Shona (8 genders), only 2 are interpretable ([human] 1/2 and [non-human] 7/8). The 6:2 ratio of uninterpretable to interpretable confirms that matching agreement is the exception, not the rule.
Formalization #
Resolution uses GenderResolution.resolve — the single compositional
endpoint — via statusToBundle which bridges Bantu GenderStatus to
FeatureBundle SemanticCore. Study-level theorems verify the mechanism's
predictions against @cite{carstens-2026}'s empirical data.
A single interpretable nP layer bearing SemanticCore c.
Equations
- Carstens2026.nP c = [{ value := c, interp := Minimalist.Interpretability.interpretable }]
Instances For
An uninterpretable nP layer (no features to percolate).
Equations
- Carstens2026.nP_u = []
Instances For
Stack an outer gender layer on an inner core (outer ++ inner).
Equations
- Carstens2026.nPStack outer inner = outer ++ inner
Instances For
Convert GenderStatus to a feature bundle for resolve.
Interpretable genders produce a singleton i-feature bundle;
uninterpretable genders produce an empty bundle.
Equations
Instances For
Interpretable genders yield non-empty intersection with themselves.
Uninterpretable genders yield empty intersection with themselves.
Uninterpretable + interpretable yields empty intersection.
Mismatched interpretable cores yield empty intersection.
The central claim (@cite{carstens-2026}): for ANY Bantu gender, matching agreement with uniform conjoined singulars succeeds iff the gender is interpretable. This holds at the parameter type level, not just for specific Xhosa/Shona inventories.
The language-specific xhosa_matching_iff_interpretable and
shona_matching_iff_interpretable are corollaries of this theorem.
Matching agreement available (interpretable genders) #
[1&1] human conjuncts: intersection = [human] → matching cl 2 available. @cite{carstens-2026} Table 13: 100% ba- (matching = default for [human]).
[7&7] inanimate conjuncts: intersection = [inanimate] → matching cl 8. @cite{carstens-2026} Table 13: 100% zi- for non-human [7&7].
[9&9] animal conjuncts: intersection = [animal] → matching cl 10. @cite{carstens-2026} Table 13: 50% zi- matching + 40% ba- default for human [9&9]; 100% zi- for non-human [9&9].
Matching agreement unavailable (uninterpretable genders) #
[3&3] conjuncts: intersection = ∅ → default agreement only. @cite{carstens-2026} Table 13: 0% matching for human (100% ba-); 2.2% matching for non-human (73.3% zi- default).
[5&5] conjuncts: intersection = ∅ → default agreement only. @cite{carstens-2026} Table 13: 0% matching; 63.33% ba- for human, 73.33% zi- for non-human.
The core prediction: matching ↔ interpretability #
Every Xhosa gender: matching agreement is available iff interpretable.
Mismatched [human] conjuncts (e.g. [3&5] gangster + policeman): both have [human] core from stacking → intersection = [human]. @cite{carstens-2026} (85)a, (86)a: class 2 ba- agreement.
Mismatched [inanimate] conjuncts (e.g. [3&5] carrot + egg): both have [inanimate] core from stacking → intersection = [inanimate]. @cite{carstens-2026} (85)b, (86)b: class 8 zi- agreement.
Human + inanimate (e.g. [9&1a] girl + train): [human] ∩ [inanimate] = ∅ → ineffable. @cite{carstens-2026} (91)–(92): agreement with conjoined humans and inanimates is generally ineffable.
Default for [human]: class 2 ba- (@cite{carstens-2026} (52c)).
Default for [inanimate]: class 8 zi- (@cite{carstens-2026} (52c)).
Default for [animal]: class 8 zi- (class 10 = syncretic with 8 for default purposes; @cite{carstens-2026} §3.4).
Shona [1&1]: class 2 va- (human matching/default). @cite{carstens-2026} (58): va- for conjoined [1&1] (consistent across speakers).
Shona [7&7]: class 8 zvi- (non-human matching/default). @cite{carstens-2026} (62): zvi- for non-human [7&7] (consistent across speakers).
Shona [3&3]: no matching → default only. @cite{carstens-2026} (59): zvi- (class 8 default) for non-human.
Shona [5&5]: no matching → default only. @cite{carstens-2026} (60)–(61).
Shona [9&9]: no matching → default only. Unlike Xhosa [9&9], Shona's [animal] core has bleached from 9/10. @cite{carstens-2026} §5.2, (64)b–d: va- for human, zvi- for non-human.
Shona [11&11]: no matching → default only. @cite{carstens-2026} (65): zvi- (class 8 default).
Shona [14&14]: no matching → default only (abstract nouns). @cite{carstens-2026}: genderG (14/6) is uninterpretable.
Shona [12&12]: no matching → default only (diminutives). @cite{carstens-2026}: conjoined diminutives take class 8 zvi-.
Every Shona gender: matching ↔ interpretable.
Xhosa has 3 interpretable genders out of 5 (60%).
Shona has 2 interpretable genders out of 8 (25%).
Core insight (@cite{carstens-2026} §3.5, §5.2): in Shona, genders in which matching agreement succeeds are outnumbered by those where it fails by 6:2, confirming that matching is the exception.
Canonical [human] nouns: visible = core (no stacking).
[Human] nouns in class 3: stacked (visible ≠ core).
[Human] nouns in class 5: stacked (visible ≠ core).
Stacked nouns retain the core gender despite different visible class.
Bantu SemanticCore → DM Interpretability bridge.
Interpretable genders bear Interpretability.i (natural gender);
uninterpretable genders bear Interpretability.u (arbitrary gender).
@cite{carstens-2026} directly extends @cite{kramer-2015}'s i/u distinction.
Equations
Instances For
The bridge preserves the interpretability predicate.
Bantu SemanticCore → typological SemanticBasis bridge.
@cite{carstens-2026}'s cores map to @cite{kramer-2020}'s
core semantic bases. All are isCore = true.
The [non-human] core (Shona 7/8) maps to .humanness because
Shona's system is organized around the human/non-human distinction.
Xhosa's finer [animal] and [inanimate] cores map to .animacy.
Equations
- Carstens2026.toSemanticBasis Fragments.Bantu.SemanticCore.human = Typology.Gender.SemanticBasis.humanness
- Carstens2026.toSemanticBasis Fragments.Bantu.SemanticCore.animal = Typology.Gender.SemanticBasis.animacy
- Carstens2026.toSemanticBasis Fragments.Bantu.SemanticCore.inanimate = Typology.Gender.SemanticBasis.animacy
- Carstens2026.toSemanticBasis Fragments.Bantu.SemanticCore.nonhuman = Typology.Gender.SemanticBasis.humanness
Instances For
All Bantu semantic cores map to Kramer's semantic core bases.
Xhosa gender profile drawn from Fragments/Xhosa/Gender.lean.
@cite{carstens-2026} §2.2: semantic cores for some genders, formal
(class prefix) assignment for others.
Instances For
Both profiles satisfy the Semantic Core Generalization (@cite{kramer-2020} ex. 2/28).
Resolution with nP stacking: agreement is determined by the stack's semantic core, not the visible class. Two nouns in different visible classes but the same core gender resolve to that core. @cite{carstens-2026} (85)–(88): mismatched [3&5] humans → ba-, mismatched [3&5] inanimates → zi-.
Equations
Instances For
Criminal (cl3) + policeman (cl5): both [human] core → class 2 ba-. @cite{carstens-2026} (85)a, (86)a.
Carrot (cl3) + egg (cl5): both [inanimate] core → class 8 zi-. @cite{carstens-2026} (85)b, (86)b.
Medium (cl7, human) + girl (cl9, human): both have [human] core from nP stacking → [human] ∩ [human] = {[human]} → class 2 ba-. Visible genders differ (7 vs 9) but cores agree. @cite{carstens-2026} (87)a, (88)a.
Backpack (cl1a, inanimate) + book (cl9, inanimate): both have [inanimate] core → [inanimate] ∩ [inanimate] = {[inanimate]} → class 8 zi-. @cite{carstens-2026} (87)b, (88)b.
Swahili's 5 genders also instantiate the Bantu semantic core system. @cite{carstens-2026} §8 discusses Swahili's GAC (General Animate Concords) as evidence for a [+animate] feature.
Three Bantu languages, shared diagnostic: A (1/2) = [human] in all.
The "deepest derivation" from the paper connects nP stacking to agreement outcome through the full chain:
1. **nP stacking**: assign feature bundles from layered nP structure
2. **Percolation**: exclude u-features
3. **Intersection**: find shared i-features
4. **Agreement**: matching (non-empty) or default (empty)
Each theorem below traces this chain for a concrete example from
@cite{carstens-2026} §5.
Feature bundle: citizen (class 1, canonical human — no stacking). Structure: [n₁/₂ √CITIZEN]. @cite{carstens-2026} (6)a, (72)a.
Instances For
Feature bundle: gangster (class 3, human core via stacking). Structure: [n₃/₄ [n₁/₂ √GULUKUDU]]. Outer n₃/₄ is u → excluded. Inner n₁/₂ is i[human] → percolates. @cite{carstens-2026} (28)d, (85)a, (86)a; structure type per (72)b.
Equations
Instances For
Feature bundle: policeman (class 5, human core via stacking). Structure: [n₅/₆ [n₁/₂ √POLISA]]. @cite{carstens-2026} (85)a; structure type per (72)c.
Equations
Instances For
Feature bundle: hat (class 3, no stacking — arbitrary inanimate in u-gender). Structure: [n₃/₄ √HAT]. No inner layer. @cite{carstens-2026} (38)a, (77)a.
Equations
Instances For
Feature bundle: carrot (class 3, inanimate core via stacking). Structure: [n₃/₄ [n₇/₈ √CARROT]]. @cite{carstens-2026} (86)b.
Equations
Instances For
Feature bundle: egg (class 5, inanimate core via stacking). Structure: [n₅/₆ [n₇/₈ √EGG]]. @cite{carstens-2026} (86)b.
Equations
Instances For
Feature bundle: elephant (class 9, canonical animal — no stacking). Structure: [n₉/₁₀ √ELEPHANT]. @cite{carstens-2026} (49)b, (73)a.
Instances For
End-to-end derivation: citizen.1 & president.1 → matching [human]. @cite{carstens-2026} (6)a: class 2 ba- agreement.
Chain: canonical class 1 → i[human] percolates → {human} ∩ {human} = {human} → matching → class 2 ba-.
End-to-end derivation: gangster.3 & policeman.5 → matching [human]. @cite{carstens-2026} (86)a: class 2 ba- agreement.
Chain: nP stacking gives u-outer + i[human]-inner → u excluded, {human} percolates from each → {human} ∩ {human} = {human} → matching → class 2 ba-.
End-to-end derivation: carrot.3 & egg.5 → matching [inanimate]. @cite{carstens-2026} (86)b: class 8 zi- agreement.
Chain: u-outer + i[inanimate]-inner → {inanimate} ∩ {inanimate} = {inanimate} → matching → class 8 zi-.
End-to-end derivation: hat.3 & gun.3 → default. @cite{carstens-2026} (77)a, (38)a: class 8 zi- (default for non-human).
Chain: u-gender, no stacking → no i-features to percolate → {} ∩ {} = {} → default → class 8 zi-.
End-to-end derivation: elephant.9 & leopard.9 → matching [animal]. @cite{carstens-2026} (49)b, (82)a: class 10 zi- agreement.
Chain: canonical class 9 → i[animal] percolates → {animal} ∩ {animal} = {animal} → matching → class 10 zi-.
End-to-end derivation: human + inanimate → default (generally ineffable). @cite{carstens-2026} (91)–(92): *girl.9 & train.1a → no agreement.
Chain: i[human] vs i[inanimate] → {human} ∩ {inanimate} = {} → default. But no default class satisfies both cores → ineffable.
@cite{carstens-2026} §5.1, (78)–(81): when arbitrary members of interpretable genders stack in non-canonical classes, both the outer (arbitrary) and inner (core) i-features percolate to &P. The intersection then contains multiple features, and two grammars determine which one selects the agreement class.
We use a structured feature type that carries both the class number
(determining agreement morphology) and a core/arbitrary flag
(determining BSM specificity).
Feature with core/arbitrary distinction for the two-grammars analysis. @cite{carstens-2026} (71): n₁ = i[entity] i[core]; n₂ = i[entity] (for arbitrary members). Core features are more specific.
- classNum : ℕ
- isCore : 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.
Instances For
Equations
BSM specificity: core flavors outrank arbitrary i[entity].
Equations
- f.specificity = if f.isCore = true then 2 else 1
Instances For
Feature bundle for train.1a: [n₁ₐ(arbitrary) [n₇(core inanimate) √TRAIN]]. Outer: class 1, arbitrary i[entity] from gender A. Inner: class 7, core i[inanimate] from gender D. @cite{carstens-2026} (78)a, (79)a, (80)a.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Feature bundle for diviner.7: [n₇(arbitrary) [n₁(core human) √DIVINER]]. Outer: class 7, arbitrary i[entity] from gender D. Inner: class 1, core i[human] from gender A. @cite{carstens-2026} (78)b, (79)b, (80)b.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Intersection for train.1a & machine.1a: both layers survive. @cite{carstens-2026} (79)a: &P {1, {7}} ∩ {1, {7}} = {1, {7}}.
Intersection for diviner.7 & scholar.7: both layers survive. @cite{carstens-2026} (79)b: &P {7, {1}} ∩ {7, {1}} = {7, {1}}.
Highest Wins for train.1a & machine.1a: outermost = class 1 → cl 2 ba-. @cite{carstens-2026} (79)a.
BSM for train.1a & machine.1a: core class 7 (inanimate) → cl 8 zi-. @cite{carstens-2026} (80)a.
Highest Wins for diviner.7 & scholar.7: outermost = class 7 → cl 8 zi-. @cite{carstens-2026} (79)b.
BSM for diviner.7 & scholar.7: core class 1 (human) → cl 2 ba-. @cite{carstens-2026} (80)b: 'The fool and the scholar are studying' with ba- agreement.
The two grammars give DIFFERENT predictions for stacked nPs: for train.1a & machine.1a, HW picks class 1 (ba-) while BSM picks class 7 (zi-). Both are attested by Xhosa speakers. @cite{carstens-2026} (81)a: zi- for [L & M] = BSM; (45)a: ba- for [L & M] = HW.
And they also differ for diviner.7 & scholar.7: HW → class 7 (zi-), BSM → class 1 (ba-).
Bantu–CoordinateResolution bridge #
The unified `CoordinateResolution` framework resolves all three
phi-dimensions (person, number, gender) independently. Here we
show that the gender dimension, instantiated with `SemanticCore`
via `statusToBundle`, gives the expected outcomes for conjoined
Bantu singular DPs.
A Bantu singular DP's phi-bundle: 3rd person (all full DPs are 3rd), singular number, gender from the noun's gender status.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Conjoined Bantu singulars → plural number (summation). Bantu languages have a {sg, pl} number system.
Conjoined Bantu singulars → 3rd person (full DPs are always 3rd).
Gender dimension of composed resolution matches direct resolve.
End-to-end: conjoined [human] Xhosa singulars via unified resolution. Person: 3rd + 3rd → 3rd. Number: sg + sg → pl. Gender: [human] ∩ [human] = some [human]. All three succeed.
End-to-end: conjoined uninterpretable Xhosa singulars. Person and number resolve; gender fails → default.
Shared mechanism #
@cite{carstens-2026} explicitly adopts @cite{adamson-anagnostopoulou-2025}'s
percolation-and-intersection mechanism. Both studies use the same
`GenderResolution.resolve` function, instantiated with different
feature types:
- A&A: `GenderNode` (privative geometry nodes — CLASS, MASC, FEM, etc.)
- Carstens: `SemanticCore` (entity flavors — human, animal, inanimate)
The bridge below proves this is not just a narrative claim but a
structural fact: both resolution functions are projections of the same
parameterized mechanism.
Both studies agree on the self-matching property for interpretable
features: Bantu interpretable cores self-match via statusToBundle,
and A&A singleton i-features self-match — both through resolve.
MRH failure in Bantu #
Unlike Greek/Icelandic (@cite{adamson-anagnostopoulou-2025}), Bantu
does NOT satisfy MRH: uninterpretable genders produce empty
intersections, requiring default agreement. This is the structural
reason why default agreement is needed in Bantu but not in Greek.
Bantu does not satisfy MRH: the full inventory includes uninterpretable genders that yield empty intersections.
Restricted to interpretable-only, MRH still fails: mismatched cores (human ≠ inanimate) yield empty intersection.
But uniform cores satisfy MRH trivially (self-matching).
Three or more conjuncts #
`resolveN` extends the mechanism to n-ary coordination.
Bantu predictions generalize cleanly: matching agreement requires
ALL conjuncts to share the same interpretable core.
Three [human] conjuncts → matching [human].
Three [inanimate] conjuncts → matching [inanimate].
Three uninterpretable conjuncts → default (none).
Mixed: two [human] + one [inanimate] → default (none). A single mismatched conjunct blocks matching agreement.
Mixed: two [human] + one uninterpretable → default (none). Uninterpretable conjuncts block matching even with uniform cores.
N-ary subsumes binary for Bantu.