Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.Panagiotidis2015

Categorial Features ↔ Category-Changing Morphology #

@cite{panagiotidis-2015} @cite{marantz-1997}Connects the theory-side predictions of @cite{panagiotidis-2015} — substantive categorial features [N] and [V] hosted on categorizer heads — to the empirical data on category-changing morphology in English.

What this bridge proves #

  1. Categorizer–LexCat correspondence: Each theory-side categorizer (v, n, a) maps to exactly one empirical lexical category (verb, noun, adjective).

  2. Feature predictions: The categorial features [N]/[V] on each categorizer correctly predict the interpretive perspective of the resulting category — nouns have sortal perspective ([N]), verbs have temporal perspective ([V]), adjectives have both ([N, V]).

  3. EP well-formedness: Each categorizer extends its lexical anchor into a well-formed EP (A→a, N→n, V→v).

  4. Categorizer parallelism: All three categorizers sit at the same F-level (F1 in Grimshaw's system), formalizing Panagiotidis's claim that categorization is a uniform operation across category families.

Derivational chain #

ExtendedProjection/Basic.lean (CategorialFeatures, isCategorizer, categorialFeatures)
    ↓
THIS BRIDGE FILE
    ↓
Phenomena/Morphology/CategoryChanging.lean (RootFamily, LexCat)
source
def Panagiotidis2015.categorizerToLexCat :
Minimalist.Cat → Option Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat

Map a Minimalist categorizer to the empirical lexical category of the word it produces. This is the core link between the theory (Cat.v, Cat.n, Cat.a) and the data (LexCat).

Equations
Instances For
    source
    def Panagiotidis2015.lexCatToCategorizer :
    Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat → Minimalist.Cat

    Map an empirical lexical category to its theory-side categorizer.

    Equations
    Instances For
      source
      theorem Panagiotidis2015.roundtrip (c : Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat) :
      categorizerToLexCat (lexCatToCategorizer c) = some c

      The mapping is a partial bijection: lexCat → categorizer → lexCat roundtrips.

      source
      theorem Panagiotidis2015.categorizers_have_lexcat :
      categorizerToLexCat Minimalist.Cat.v = some Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat.verb ∧ categorizerToLexCat Minimalist.Cat.n = some Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat.noun ∧ categorizerToLexCat Minimalist.Cat.a = some Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat.adjective

      Every categorizer maps to some LexCat.

      source
      theorem Panagiotidis2015.non_categorizers_no_lexcat :
      categorizerToLexCat Minimalist.Cat.V = none ∧ categorizerToLexCat Minimalist.Cat.N = none ∧ categorizerToLexCat Minimalist.Cat.A = none ∧ categorizerToLexCat Minimalist.Cat.T = none ∧ categorizerToLexCat Minimalist.Cat.D = none

      Non-categorizers don't map to any LexCat.

      source
      def Panagiotidis2015.producesReferential (c : Minimalist.Cat) :
      Bool

      Does a categorizer produce a category with sortal perspective? Panagiotidis §4.3: [N] = sortal perspective / referentiality. Items bearing [N] have the capacity to introduce discourse referents (nouns, adjectives) — items lacking [N] do not (verbs).

      Equations
      Instances For
        source
        def Panagiotidis2015.producesPredicative (c : Minimalist.Cat) :
        Bool

        Does a categorizer produce a category with temporal perspective? Panagiotidis §4.3: [V] = temporal perspective / eventivity. Items bearing [V] can anchor to time/events (verbs, adjectives) — items lacking [V] do not have temporal anchoring (nouns).

        Equations
        Instances For
          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.noun_referential_not_predicative :
          producesReferential Minimalist.Cat.n = true ∧ producesPredicative Minimalist.Cat.n = false

          Nouns have sortal but not temporal perspective: n bears [N] only.

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.verb_predicative_not_referential :
          producesPredicative Minimalist.Cat.v = true ∧ producesReferential Minimalist.Cat.v = false

          Verbs have temporal but not sortal perspective: v bears [V] only.

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.adjective_both :
          producesReferential Minimalist.Cat.a = true ∧ producesPredicative Minimalist.Cat.a = true

          Adjectives have both sortal and temporal perspective: a bears [N, V].

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.referential_predicative_asymmetry :
          (Minimalist.categorialFeatures Minimalist.Cat.n).hasN = true ∧ (Minimalist.categorialFeatures Minimalist.Cat.n).hasV = false ∧ (Minimalist.categorialFeatures Minimalist.Cat.v).hasV = true ∧ (Minimalist.categorialFeatures Minimalist.Cat.v).hasN = false ∧ (Minimalist.categorialFeatures Minimalist.Cat.a).hasN = true ∧ (Minimalist.categorialFeatures Minimalist.Cat.a).hasV = true

          The noun–verb asymmetry: nouns have sortal but not temporal perspective; verbs have temporal but not sortal perspective. Adjectives have both. This follows from the [N]/[V] feature distribution on categorizers.

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.all_categorizer_eps_wellformed :
          (Minimalist.allCategoryConsistent [Minimalist.Cat.V, Minimalist.Cat.v] = true ∧ Minimalist.allFMonotone [Minimalist.Cat.V, Minimalist.Cat.v] = true) ∧ (Minimalist.allCategoryConsistent [Minimalist.Cat.N, Minimalist.Cat.n] = true ∧ Minimalist.allFMonotone [Minimalist.Cat.N, Minimalist.Cat.n] = true) ∧ Minimalist.allCategoryConsistent [Minimalist.Cat.A, Minimalist.Cat.a] = true ∧ Minimalist.allFMonotone [Minimalist.Cat.A, Minimalist.Cat.a] = true

          Each categorizer forms a well-formed EP with its lexical anchor: V→v, N→n, A→a are all category-consistent and F-monotone.

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.categorization_uniform_fstep :
          Minimalist.fValue Minimalist.Cat.v - Minimalist.fValue Minimalist.Cat.V = 1 ∧ Minimalist.fValue Minimalist.Cat.n - Minimalist.fValue Minimalist.Cat.N = 1 ∧ Minimalist.fValue Minimalist.Cat.a - Minimalist.fValue Minimalist.Cat.A = 1

          The F-level jump from lexical head to categorizer is exactly 1 in all cases. The uniformity of categorization is Panagiotidis's prediction (§4.4–§4.5); the F-value encoding is @cite{grimshaw-2005}'s EP architecture.

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.categorizers_parallel_at_f1 :
          Minimalist.fValue Minimalist.Cat.v = 1 ∧ Minimalist.fValue Minimalist.Cat.n = 1 ∧ Minimalist.fValue Minimalist.Cat.a = 1

          All categorizers sit at exactly F1 (in Grimshaw's system), parallel across families. Panagiotidis's core claim: v, n, a are structurally parallel — they differ only in which interpretable features they bear.

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.categorizers_in_own_families :
          Minimalist.catFamily Minimalist.Cat.v = Minimalist.CatFamily.verbal ∧ Minimalist.catFamily Minimalist.Cat.n = Minimalist.CatFamily.nominal ∧ Minimalist.catFamily Minimalist.Cat.a = Minimalist.CatFamily.adjectival

          The categorizers are in their respective families.

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.different_categorizers_different_families :
          Minimalist.catFamily Minimalist.Cat.v ≠ Minimalist.catFamily Minimalist.Cat.n ∧ Minimalist.catFamily Minimalist.Cat.n ≠ Minimalist.catFamily Minimalist.Cat.a ∧ Minimalist.catFamily Minimalist.Cat.v ≠ Minimalist.catFamily Minimalist.Cat.a

          Category-changing morphology = changing the categorizer. The same root under different categorizers yields items in different EP families — this is what it means to "change category."

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.three_categorizers_predict_tricategoriality :
          Minimalist.isCategorizer Minimalist.Cat.v = true ∧ Minimalist.isCategorizer Minimalist.Cat.n = true ∧ Minimalist.isCategorizer Minimalist.Cat.a = true

          A root family is predicted to be tricategorial iff categorization by each of v, n, a is possible. Since all three categorizers are available in English, any root can in principle surface in all three categories.

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.destroy_matches_categorizers :
          Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.destroy.hasCategory Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat.verb = true ∧ Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.destroy.hasCategory Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat.noun = true ∧ Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.destroy.hasCategory Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat.adjective = true

          The √DESTROY family's three categories correspond to three categorizers.

          source
          theorem Panagiotidis2015.all_families_match_all_categorizers :
          (Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.allFamilies.all fun (rf : Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.RootFamily) => rf.hasCategory Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat.verb && rf.hasCategory Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat.noun && rf.hasCategory Phenomena.Morphology.CategoryChanging.LexCat.adjective) = true

          Every root family in the sample has a form for each categorizer's category.

          Bridge: §6.7.1 modifier-distribution diagnostic ↔ M&deS §2.3 (13) #

          @cite{panagiotidis-2015} §6.7.1 (35)–(36) deploys a modifier-distribution diagnostic for SWITCH placement in mixed projections, with Dutch examples adapted from Ackema & Neeleman (2004:173):

          Per Panagiotidis p. 146, the SWITCH's complement is recategorised by its [N] feature. So a constituent dominated by a SWITCH projects nominally and takes adjectival modifiers; a constituent below the SWITCH retains its verbal/adjectival categorial identity and takes adverbial modifiers. The diagnostic gives SWITCH placement: where the modifier-category transition occurs is where the SWITCH sits.

          @cite{mcnally-deswart-2011} §2.3 (13) makes a similar modifier- distribution observation about the inflected adjective in het rode van X: M&deS observe het intens/*intense rode (adverbial-only) and conclude that rode remains adjectival, with het carrying the type-shift.

          Methodological lineage, not independent rediscovery. Both M&deS and Panagiotidis cite Ackema & Neeleman 2004 (Beyond Morphology) as the source of the modifier-as-domain diagnostic. The convergence below is a shared-source consequence, not two independent frameworks landing on the same test. The bridge formalises that the two frameworks make predictions of the same shape on the same data.

          Caveat. Panagiotidis nowhere specifically analyses Dutch het as a SWITCH; §6.6 covers V→N SWITCHes only (Korean -um, Basque -te/tze, Turkish -dIk and -AcAk) and §6.9 covers Dutch nominalised infinitives. Mapping het to a Panagiotidis-style SWITCH on the inflected adjective is the formaliser's extrapolation. The bridge below identifies the M&deS rivals with SWITCH-position commitments (low/high) and reads off predictions geometrically; it does not claim Panagiotidis himself analyses M&deS's data.

          source
          inductive Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.SwitchPosition :
          Type

          The structural commitment each InflectedAnalysis rival makes about SWITCH placement, modelling Panagiotidis §6.7.1's geometric reasoning over the rivals' defining proposals. This is the substantive content each rival commits to: where in the structure of het rode van X is the categorising head sitting?

          • low : SwitchPosition

            SWITCH is at the inflected-form level (the -e morpheme is the SWITCH; the inflected rode is the categorised constituent).

          • none : SwitchPosition

            No SWITCH; regular adjectival projection (e.g., normal AP modifying a noun, where the noun is elided).

          • high : SwitchPosition

            SWITCH is at the DP edge (het is the SWITCH; the AP rode is the SWITCH's complement).

          Instances For
            source
            @[implicit_reducible]
            instance Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.instDecidableEqSwitchPosition :
            DecidableEq SwitchPosition
            Equations
            source
            def Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.instReprSwitchPosition.repr :
            SwitchPosition → ℕ → Std.Format
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For
              source
              @[implicit_reducible]
              instance Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.instReprSwitchPosition :
              Repr SwitchPosition
              Equations
              source
              def Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.switchPosition :
              Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis → SwitchPosition

              Each rival's defining commitment about SWITCH placement.

              • nominalisation: -e itself is the SWITCH/categoriser. SWITCH = low.
              • ellipsis: regular AP-modifying-N structure with elided N; no SWITCH/categoriser intervenes between modifier and rode (the adjectival projection is intact pre-ellipsis). SWITCH = none.
              • hetAsCap: het carries the categorising operation. SWITCH = high.
              Equations
              Instances For
                source
                def Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.panagiotidisPredictsAdverbialMod (a : Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis) :
                Prop

                Per @cite{panagiotidis-2015} p. 146 + §6.7.1: the SWITCH's complement is recategorised by [N], so a constituent dominated by a SWITCH projects nominally (takes adjectival modifiers) while a constituent below the SWITCH retains its adjectival identity (takes adverbial modifiers). For the inflected form rode, the diagnostic is read by asking where is rode relative to the SWITCH:

                • SWITCH = low (-e IS the SWITCH): rode IS the SWITCH-headed constituent → projects nominally → predicts ADJECTIVAL modification of rode.
                • SWITCH = high (het is the SWITCH, rode is its AP-complement): rode is BELOW the SWITCH → retains adjectival identity → predicts ADVERBIAL modification of rode.

                For ellipsis (no SWITCH), the surface AP is intact, so adverbial modification of rode is licensed just as any adjective licenses it.

                panagiotidisPredictsAdverbialMod a is now derived from switchPosition a: the geometric prediction is "no low SWITCH dominating rode", i.e. the modifier-attachment site is below or independent of any SWITCH.

                Equations
                Instances For
                  source
                  @[implicit_reducible]
                  instance Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.instDecidablePredInflectedAnalysisPanagiotidisPredictsAdverbialMod :
                  DecidablePred panagiotidisPredictsAdverbialMod
                  Equations
                  source
                  theorem Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.mcnally_panagiotidis_diagnostics_agree (a : Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis) :
                  a.PredictsAdverbialModOnly ↔ panagiotidisPredictsAdverbialMod a

                  The Panagiotidis prediction matches the @cite{mcnally-deswart-2011} prediction on every rival. Both predicates encode the same modifier- distribution diagnostic (which they both inherit from Ackema & Neeleman 2004); the agreement is shared-methodology consequence, not independent rediscovery. The substance of the bridge: the geometric SWITCH-placement reasoning derives the same predictions as M&deS's case-by-case PredictsAdverbialModOnly.

                  source
                  theorem Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.panagiotidis_refutes_nominalisation :
                  switchPosition Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.nominalisation = SwitchPosition.low ∧ ¬panagiotidisPredictsAdverbialMod Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.nominalisation ∧ ¬Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.Form.inflected.AdmitsAdjectivalModification

                  The nominalisation rival fails the joint prediction: Panagiotidis's geometric diagnostic over its low-SWITCH commitment predicts the inflected form should admit adjectival modification (because rode would be SWITCH-dominated and project nominally); @cite{mcnally-deswart-2011} (13) shows the inflected form REJECTS adjectival modification. The combined refutation routes through switchPosition .nominalisation = .low → ¬panagiotidisPredictsAdverbialMod and the M&deS data point.

                  source
                  theorem Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.hetAsCap_panagiotidis_compatible :
                  switchPosition Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.hetAsCap = SwitchPosition.high ∧ panagiotidisPredictsAdverbialMod Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.hetAsCap ∧ ¬Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.Form.inflected.AdmitsAdjectivalModification

                  Conversely, the hetAsCap rival passes: high-SWITCH commitment + rode below SWITCH → adverbial modification predicted, matching M&deS data.

                  source
                  theorem Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.ellipsis_panagiotidis_compatible :
                  switchPosition Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.ellipsis = SwitchPosition.none ∧ panagiotidisPredictsAdverbialMod Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.ellipsis

                  The ellipsis rival also passes: no-SWITCH commitment means surface AP is intact and adverbial modification is licensed in the standard way.

                  source
                  def Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.surfaceCategorizer :
                  Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis → Minimalist.Cat

                  Categoriser identification at the surface head level. Under each rival, what is the lexical category of the inflected form rode as it is projected at the surface?

                  • nominalisation: -e categorises rode as a noun → Cat.n.
                  • ellipsis: surface rode is an adjective; the n is the elided null noun, structurally elsewhere → Cat.a (the visible head).
                  • hetAsCap: rode remains adjectival; het is the SWITCH → Cat.a at the surface head.

                  The frameworks-divergence is captured: only nominalisation promotes the surface category to nominal. The other two leave the surface adjectival.

                  Equations
                  Instances For
                    source
                    theorem Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.nominalisation_uniquely_promotes_to_n :
                    surfaceCategorizer Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.nominalisation = Minimalist.Cat.n ∧ surfaceCategorizer Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.ellipsis = Minimalist.Cat.a ∧ surfaceCategorizer Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.hetAsCap = Minimalist.Cat.a

                    The surface categoriser distinguishes nominalisation from the other two rivals — exactly the M&deS §2.3 distinction of "is the inflected form a noun?". This is a real per-rival commitment, not a constant.

                    source
                    theorem Panagiotidis2015.MdSBridge.nominalisation_predicts_referential :
                    producesReferential (surfaceCategorizer Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.nominalisation) = true ∧ producesReferential (surfaceCategorizer Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.ellipsis) = true ∧ producesReferential (surfaceCategorizer Phenomena.Morphology.Studies.McNallyDeSwart2011.InflectedAnalysis.hetAsCap) = true

                    The Panagiotidis-side referential prediction follows the surface categoriser: nominalisation predicts the inflected form is referential (per noun_referential_not_predicative above); ellipsis and hetAsCap predict it remains predicative-bearing (per adjective_both).