Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Studies.TheoryComparison

Cross-Theory Comparison: Resultative Argument Licensing #

Three syntactic theories predict the same argument frames for resultatives but differ on how arguments are licensed. This module formalizes the convergence and divergence.

Theories compared #

  1. Minimalism: Theta Criterion — each theta role assigned to exactly one argument
  2. CxG: FAR + Semantic Coherence — verb and construction args fuse when coherent
  3. DG: Valency satisfaction — verb's argument structure must be fully saturated

Key result #

All three theories predict the same surface argument frame for canonical resultatives like "She hammered the metal flat". They diverge on fake reflexives ("She laughed herself silly") where CxG handles the extra argument via construction-licensed roles while Minimalism requires special mechanisms.

§1. Three theories of argument licensing #

Semantic role label (theory-neutral).

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

      A predicted argument frame: ordered list of roles.

      Equations
      Instances For

        Minimalist argument licensing #

        In Minimalism, theta roles drive External Merge. Each theta role must be assigned to exactly one argument (Theta Criterion).

        What triggers Merge? In Minimalism, uninterpretable features drive operations. Used here as a descriptive enum for the comparison study; not part of the M-C-B substrate (M-C-B's Merge action is feature-driven via the coproduct, not via discrete triggers).

        Instances For
          Equations
          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
          Instances For
            def TheoryComparison.instDecidableEqMergeTrigger.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : MergeTrigger) :
            Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)
            Equations
            Instances For

              Minimalist licensing: each theta role in the frame triggers External Merge via MergeTrigger.theta.

              Equations
              Instances For

                The theta criterion requires 1-to-1 mapping between roles and arguments. This is satisfied iff no duplicate roles appear.

                Equations
                Instances For

                  CxG argument licensing #

                  In CxG, both the verb and the construction contribute argument roles. Shared roles fuse (FAR); fusion requires semantic coherence.

                  CxG frame: verb roles + construction roles, with fusion information.

                  • verbRoles : List ArgRole

                    Roles contributed by the verb

                  • constructionRoles : List ArgRole

                    Roles contributed by the construction

                  • fusedPairs : List (ArgRole × ArgRole)

                    Which role pairs are fused

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

                        The surface frame after fusion: construction roles with fused roles counted once.

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

                          Check FAR: all verb roles and all construction roles are realized.

                          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

                              DG argument licensing #

                              In DG, the verb has a valency frame specifying required dependents. The resultative construction adds additional dependent slots.

                              DG frame: verb's base valency + construction-added deps.

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

                                  The combined DG argument frame.

                                  Equations
                                  Instances For

                                    §2. Convergence on canonical resultatives #

                                    All three theories predict the same argument frame for "She hammered the metal flat": [Agent, Patient, ResultState].

                                    CxG prediction for "hammer the metal flat".

                                    Verb "hammer" contributes {agent, patient}. Construction contributes {agent, patient, resultState}. Agent fuses with agent; patient fuses with patient.

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

                                      DG prediction for "hammer the metal flat".

                                      Verb "hammer" has valency {subj, obj}. Resultative construction adds {result-complement}.

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

                                        All three theories predict the same number of surface arguments for "hammer flat": 3 (agent + patient + result).

                                        The theta criterion is satisfied for the canonical resultative.

                                        FAR is satisfied for the canonical CxG resultative.

                                        §3. Divergence on fake reflexives #

                                        "She laughed herself silly" reveals the key difference between the theories.

                                        CxG analysis of "She laughed herself silly".

                                        The verb "laugh" is intransitive: only {agent}. The construction adds {patient, resultState}. Only agent fuses. "Herself" is the construction's patient.

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

                                          Minimalist analysis of "She laughed herself silly".

                                          "laugh" assigns only one theta role (agent to subject). "herself" needs a theta role, but the verb doesn't provide one. The extra role must come from somewhere — requiring special mechanisms (e.g., the small clause assigns a role).

                                          Equations
                                          Instances For

                                            DG analysis of "She laughed herself silly".

                                            "laugh" has valency {subj} only. The resultative construction adds {obj, result-complement}.

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

                                              CxG: the verb contributes fewer roles than the surface frame. The construction licenses the extra argument ("herself").

                                              CxG handles fake reflexives without stipulation: the construction adds the patient role, and the verb's agent fuses with the construction's agent. FAR is satisfied.

                                              The Minimalist verb alone cannot license the reflexive: the verb has only 1 theta role but the surface has 3 arguments.

                                              This is the core divergence: CxG's FAR allows the construction to add roles, while the theta criterion requires the verb to provide them.

                                              DG: the construction adds 2 arguments to the verb's base valency of 1.

                                              Despite the different licensing mechanisms, all three theories predict the same surface argument count for the fake reflexive: 3.

                                              §4. Semantic Coherence generalizes the Theta Criterion #

                                              The Theta Criterion is the special case of FAR + Semantic Coherence where the verb and construction have identical role sets (i.e., every role fuses).

                                              When the sets differ (as in fake reflexives), CxG's system is more general: it allows the construction to ADD roles the verb lacks.

                                              theorem TheoryComparison.theta_criterion_is_full_fusion (roles : ArgFrame) :
                                              thetaCriterionSatisfied roles = true(List.eraseDups roles).length = List.length roles

                                              The theta criterion requires a 1-to-1 mapping between roles and arguments. This is equivalent to FAR when verb roles = construction roles (all roles fuse, no construction-only roles).

                                              CxG's system is strictly more general: it handles cases where verb roles ⊂ construction roles (fake reflexives). The theta criterion alone cannot handle this without extra machinery.

                                              Formally: there exists a CxG frame where FAR is satisfied but the verb alone does not provide enough theta roles.

                                              Summary #

                                              TheoryCanonical ("hammer flat")Fake reflexive ("laugh silly")
                                              MinimalismTheta assigns 3 rolesVerb has only 1 role → deficit
                                              CxGVerb + construction fuseConstruction adds patient
                                              DGVerb + construction depsConstruction adds obj + compl

                                              All three predict the same surface frame [Agent, V, Patient, Result], but CxG handles argument augmentation via construction-licensed roles while Minimalism requires special mechanisms for fake reflexives.