Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Agreement.Studies.Carstens2026

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 #

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Diagnostic: Gender-matching plural agreement with uniform conjoined singulars succeeds iff the gender is interpretable (has i[entity] flavor).

  5. 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.

An uninterpretable nP layer (no features to percolate).

Equations
Instances For

    Stack an outer gender layer on an inner core (outer ++ inner).

    Equations
    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

        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 #

        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 [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 [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-.

        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).

        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

          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
          Instances For

            All Bantu semantic cores map to Kramer's semantic core bases.

            @[reducible, inline]

            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.

            Equations
            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.

                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.

                Equations
                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.

                            Equations
                            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 :
                              • isCore : Bool
                              Instances For
                                def Carstens2026.instDecidableEqTwoGrammarFeature.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : TwoGrammarFeature) :
                                Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)
                                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

                                    BSM specificity: core flavors outrank arbitrary i[entity].

                                    Equations
                                    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
                                          theorem Carstens2026.train_intersection :
                                          Minimalist.Agreement.GenderResolution.resolve trainFeatures trainFeatures = some [{ classNum := 1, isCore := false }, { classNum := 7, isCore := true }]

                                          Intersection for train.1a & machine.1a: both layers survive. @cite{carstens-2026} (79)a: &P {1, {7}} ∩ {1, {7}} = {1, {7}}.

                                          theorem Carstens2026.diviner_intersection :
                                          Minimalist.Agreement.GenderResolution.resolve divinerFeatures divinerFeatures = some [{ classNum := 7, isCore := false }, { classNum := 1, isCore := true }]

                                          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

                                            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. 
                                            

                                            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.