Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Negation.Studies.JinKoenig2021

Jin & Koenig (2021): A Cross-Linguistic Study of Expletive Negation #

@cite{jin-koenig-2021}

Linguistic Typology, 25(1), 39–78.

A typological study of expletive negation (EN) — semantically vacuous negation triggered by the lexical meaning of an embedding predicate or operator. Based on a survey of 722 languages (EN attested in 74, across 37 genera) and detailed comparison of five languages: English, French, Januubi, Mandarin, and Zarma-Sonrai.

Core Contribution: Why EN Triggers Are Cross-Linguistically Similar #

The paper's central insight: EN occurs when a trigger's meaning activates both a proposition p and its dual ¬p (in different modal or temporal domains). This dual activation, via spreading activation in language production (@cite{dell-1986}), sometimes causes the negator for ¬p to surface in the complement clause.

Four Licensing Conditions (§5.5, ex. 13) #

EN triggers obey one of four semantic licensing conditions:

  1. Propositional attitude / speech report triggers (§6.1): Meaning entails Operator₁(p) and Operator₂(¬p) — p and ¬p hold in different sets of worlds (attitude vs. desire, belief vs. standards).

  2. Temporal operator triggers (§6.2): Meaning entails p at time t and ¬p at time t' — two time intervals.

  3. Logical operator triggers (§6.3): Meaning includes ¬ directly (impossible, without, unless).

  4. Comparative triggers (§6.4): Meaning entails Q(Y,D) and ¬Q(Z,D') — predications over distinct entities/degrees.

Table 5 Trigger Taxonomy #

ClassSubclasses
"FEAR"FEAR, AVOID
"REGRET"REGRET, COMPLAIN, ADVISE AGAINST
"DENY"DENY, HIDE, DESPAIR
"FORGET"FORGET, DELAY, REFUSE, STOP/PREVENT, ALMOST
TEMPORALSBEFORE, CANNOT WAIT, SINCE, RARELY
"IMPOSSIBLE"IMPOSSIBLE, DIFFICULT
"WITHOUT"WITHOUT
"UNLESS"UNLESS, IT ONLY DEPENDS ON SOMEONE THAT
COMPARATIVESMORE THAN, LESS THAN, DIFFERENT THAN, TOO…TO

Cross-linguistic EN survey results.

  • totalSurveyed :

    Total languages surveyed

  • languagesWithEN :

    Languages where EN was attested

  • generaWithEN :

    Genera where EN was attested

  • beforeTriggerCount :

    Languages with EN in BEFORE-clauses specifically

  • fearTriggerCount :

    Languages with EN in FEAR-clauses specifically

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

      The overall EN survey from @cite{jin-koenig-2021}.

      Equations
      • JinKoenig2021.enSurvey = { totalSurveyed := 722, languagesWithEN := 74, generaWithEN := 37, beforeTriggerCount := 50, fearTriggerCount := 39 }
      Instances For

        The overall survey: 722 languages, EN in 74 (37 genera).

        Equations
        Instances For

          EN is attested in a substantial minority of surveyed languages.

          EN is found across many genera (not an areal phenomenon).

          BEFORE triggers occur in the majority of EN-attesting languages.

          Continental areas from @cite{jin-koenig-2021} Table 2.

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

              Per-area EN survey data (Table 2).

              • languagesLookedAt :
              • languagesWithEN :
              • generaCovered : Option
              • generaWithEN : Option
              Instances For
                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  Table 2: Distribution of languages with and without EN by continental area (@cite{jin-koenig-2021}).

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For
                    theorem JinKoenig2021.enByArea_sums_to_74 :
                    (List.map (fun (x : ENAreaData) => x.languagesWithEN) enByArea).sum = 74

                    The per-area EN counts sum to 74. (The per-area language-looked-at counts sum to 728, not 722 — the paper's total is 722, suggesting 6 Pidgin/Creole languages are also counted in geographic areas.)

                    theorem JinKoenig2021.en_absent_south_america :
                    ((List.filter (fun (x : ENAreaData) => x.area == ContinentalArea.southAmerica) enByArea).all fun (x : ENAreaData) => x.languagesWithEN == 0) = true

                    EN is not attested in South America in this sample.

                    theorem JinKoenig2021.eurasia_most_en :
                    ((List.filter (fun (x : ENAreaData) => x.area == ContinentalArea.eurasia) enByArea).all fun (x : ENAreaData) => decide (x.languagesWithEN > 50)) = true

                    Eurasia has the highest concentration of EN-attesting languages.

                    Per-language EN attestation #

                    Table 3 lists all 74 languages where EN was attested, grouped by continental area and genus. Each entry records the EN trigger concepts attested in that language (using the concept labels from the paper, in small capitals).

                    A language with attested EN and its trigger concepts (Table 3).

                    • name : String

                      Language name

                    • iso : String

                      ISO 639-3 code

                    • genus : String

                      Genus (following the paper's classification)

                    • Continental area

                    • triggers : List String

                      EN trigger concepts attested (concept labels from Table 3)

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

                        Table 3: All 74 languages where EN was attested, with their trigger concepts (@cite{jin-koenig-2021}, pp. 45–48).

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

                          Table 3 has exactly 74 languages.

                          theorem JinKoenig2021.enLanguages_africa :
                          (List.filter (fun (x : ENLanguageEntry) => x.area == ContinentalArea.africa) enLanguages).length = 11

                          Per-area counts match Table 2.

                          No South American languages have EN in this sample.

                          Every language has at least one trigger concept.

                          theorem JinKoenig2021.enLanguages_many_genera :
                          (List.map (fun (x : ENLanguageEntry) => x.genus) enLanguages).eraseDups.length 37

                          The number of distinct genera represented (counting unique genus strings).

                          At least 42 languages in Table 3 have BEFORE/UNTIL as an EN trigger.

                          At least 38 languages in Table 3 have FEAR/AFRAID as an EN trigger.

                          BEFORE/UNTIL is more widely attested than FEAR/AFRAID in Table 3.

                          Per-trigger occurrence counts (Table 4). The number of languages (out of the 74 with any EN) where each trigger concept was attested.

                          • trigger : String
                          • count :
                          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
                                theorem JinKoenig2021.before_and_fear_most_widespread :
                                triggerCounts.head? = some { trigger := "BEFORE/UNTIL", count := 50 }

                                BEFORE and FEAR are the two most widespread EN triggers.

                                The four main classes of EN-licensing conditions (§5.5, ex. 13).

                                • propositionalAttitude : LicensingCondition

                                  Meaning entails Operator₁(p) and Operator₂(¬p) in different sets of worlds (attitude content vs. desire/standards/beliefs).

                                • temporalOperator : LicensingCondition

                                  Meaning entails p at time t and ¬p at time t'.

                                • logicalOperator : LicensingCondition

                                  Meaning includes ¬ directly (impossible, without, unless).

                                • comparative : LicensingCondition

                                  Meaning entails Q(Y,D) and ¬Q(Z,D') over distinct entities.

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

                                    Subclasses of EN triggers within each licensing condition (Table 5).

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

                                        Each subclass belongs to exactly one licensing condition.

                                        Equations
                                        Instances For

                                          The dual-inference property #

                                          The central observation: EN triggers activate both p and ¬p, but in different domains (different sets of worlds, different time intervals, different degrees). Table 6 catalogs the positive and negative inferences for each trigger subclass.

                                          For propositional attitude triggers, the two domains are:

                                          For temporal triggers:

                                          For logical triggers, ¬ is part of the operator's meaning (no separate domain).

                                          For comparatives, the dual involves predications over distinct entities/degrees.

                                          The positive and negative inferences of a trigger subclass (Table 6). These are natural-language descriptions of the modal/temporal domains in which p and ¬p hold, respectively.

                                          • subclass : TriggerSubclass
                                          • positiveInference : String

                                            Domain where p holds (positive inference)

                                          • negativeInference : String

                                            Domain where ¬p holds (negative inference)

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

                                              Table 6 data: positive and negative inferences for each trigger concept (@cite{jin-koenig-2021}, pp. 70–71). All 28 rows of the paper's Table 6 are encoded. Within each class, concepts often have different inference profiles (e.g., AVOID adds "and in w₀" to FEAR's positive inference; DESPAIR has three sources of inference).

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

                                                All 28 rows of the paper's Table 6 (pp. 70–71) are encoded. Some subclasses have multiple entries with distinct inference profiles (e.g., FEAR vs AVOID, IMPOSSIBLE vs DIFFICULT).

                                                Connecting EN licensing to preferential attitude semantics #

                                                The FEAR trigger class (§6.1.1) licenses EN because the meaning of fear-type verbs activates both p (content of attitude — what X fears) and ¬p (content of desire — what X wants). This dual activation corresponds precisely to negative valence in the preferential attitude semantics of @cite{villalta-2008}:

                                                The key theorem: negative-valence predicates satisfy the propositional attitude licensing condition for EN.

                                                Negative-valence predicates have dual inference: the meaning activates both p (feared proposition) and ¬p (desired alternative). This is DERIVED from the valence field of the preferential predicate, not stipulated.

                                                Equations
                                                Instances For

                                                  Worry has negative valence → satisfies the dual-inference condition. (Non-C-distributive, but still negative valence.)

                                                  Hope has positive valence → does NOT satisfy the dual-inference condition → NOT an EN trigger. While 'hope' has been reported as a possible EN trigger in Japanese/Korean (@cite{jin-koenig-2021}, §2, exx. 5–6), JK2021 exclude these based on their definition (2): the complement negation reflects epistemic uncertainty, not EN.

                                                  NVP Class 2 (C-distributive + negative valence) = the class that licenses EN in complement clauses. This connects the preferential attitude classification to the EN trigger taxonomy.

                                                  DENY triggers and neg-raising #

                                                  The DENY class (§6.1.3) licenses EN because DENY entails or implies BELIEVE(X, ¬p). In neg-raising terms: when the matrix clause is negated or questioned, both p and ¬p are activated (the doxastic square has both Bel(p) and Bel(¬p) as corners).

                                                  The connection: neg-raising predicates activate both p and ¬p precisely because ¬Bel(p) pragmatically strengthens to Bel(¬p). When DOUBT is negated or questioned, this dual activation occurs, licensing EN.

                                                  This is consistent with the empirical observation that DOUBT and DENY triggers in French often require the matrix clause to be negated or questioned for EN to occur (§6.1.3).

                                                  DENY triggers license EN through the doxastic square:

                                                  1. Non-veridical doxastic predicates (believe, doubt) support neg-raising: ¬Bel(p) strengthens to Bel(¬p) (NegRaising.lean)
                                                  2. Under negation/questioning, this pragmatic strengthening activates both Bel(p) and Bel(¬p) simultaneously — the dual inference required for EN (§6.1.3)
                                                  3. DENY maps to the propositional attitude licensing condition

                                                  The paper says explicitly: "triggers such as QUESTION or DOUBT do not strictly entail BELIEVE(X, ¬p); they only strongly imply BELIEVE(X, ¬p)" — this IS neg-raising (O→E strengthening).

                                                  Five-language comparison #

                                                  Table 5 shows that the trigger classes are strikingly similar across five languages from four distinct families:

                                                  Each entry records whether a language has lexical items for a given trigger subclass.

                                                  A cross-linguistic trigger attestation datum (Table 5). Each Bool records whether any subclass member triggers EN in that language. .differentThan is omitted (not a separate Table 5 row; analyzed only in §6.4 and Table 6).

                                                  • subclass : TriggerSubclass
                                                  • english : Bool

                                                    Does the language have EN-triggering lexical items for this class?

                                                  • french : Bool
                                                  • januubi : Bool
                                                  • mandarin : Bool
                                                  • zarmaSonrai : 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

                                                        Ten trigger subclasses are attested in all five languages (Table 5). The three non-universal subclasses are WITHOUT (Mandarin and Zarma-Sonrai express it as "q not p", §7), MORE THAN (Januubi only allows NPs as complements of comparatives, §6.4), and TOO...TO (Januubi, Mandarin, and Zarma-Sonrai use "too...so that...not" collocations, §6.4).

                                                        WITHOUT, MORE THAN, and TOO...TO are attested in only a subset of languages due to language-internal structural factors (§6.4, §7).

                                                        All attitude/speech report triggers map to the propositional attitude licensing condition.

                                                        The type of domain determines the licensing condition #

                                                        The paper's four licensing conditions correspond to four types of domain in which p and ¬p hold. This is not stated explicitly in the paper but follows from the structure of Table 6: propositional attitude triggers always involve different sets of worlds, temporal triggers involve different time intervals, logical operators include ¬ structurally, and comparatives involve different degrees.

                                                        The type of domain in which a trigger's inferences hold.

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

                                                            Each trigger subclass has a characteristic domain type.

                                                            Equations
                                                            Instances For

                                                              The inference domain type determines the licensing condition. This is a structural invariant: any trigger whose inferences involve different worlds maps to propositionalAttitude, etc.

                                                              BEFORE satisfies the temporal operator licensing condition #

                                                              Anscombe's BEFORE semantics: A BEFORE B ↔ ∃t ∈ timeTrace(A), ∀t' ∈ timeTrace(B), t < t'

                                                              This entails:

                                                              The temporal dual-inference property follows directly from the definition: BEFORE entails that the main clause event (p) occurs at a time strictly preceding all complement-clause times, hence p holds at t but not at any complement time t'.

                                                              The paper identifies BEFORE as the single most widespread EN trigger (50 languages), consistent with its transparent dual-inference structure.

                                                              BEFORE entails a temporal witness for p (the main clause event occurs at some time). This is the positive inference.

                                                              BEFORE entails temporal separation: the main-clause time strictly precedes all complement-clause times. When B is nonempty, p (at t) and ¬p (at any t' ∈ B) coexist — the dual inference.

                                                              BEFORE licenses EN because it maps to the temporal operator licensing condition (§6.2, ex. 13b).

                                                              Punctual UNTIL = ¬BEFORE (Karttunen): the negation of BEFORE surfaces as the complement-clause negator, which is exactly EN.

                                                              IMPOSSIBLE satisfies the logical operator licensing condition #

                                                              IMPOSSIBLE p = □¬p (necessity of negation): p is false in all accessible worlds. The meaning of IMPOSSIBLE includes ¬ directly — the negation is part of the operator's meaning, not contributed by a separate negator.

                                                              Kratzer's necessity f g (¬p) w computes: all best accessible worlds satisfy ¬p. The ¬ in the complement is structural, not expletive — but from the language production perspective, the activation of ¬p alongside p (in worlds outside the modal base) triggers EN.

                                                              @[reducible, inline]
                                                              Equations
                                                              Instances For

                                                                WITHOUT satisfies the logical operator licensing condition #

                                                                "q WITHOUT p" entails q ∧ ¬p. The negation of p is a necessary part of the meaning of WITHOUT — it is structural, not expletive (§6.3.2).

                                                                The paper notes that "in the examples we found, there is an entailment that ¬p is true at reference time t (e.g., the speaker not knowing it) and that reference time includes the event time for q (e.g., the time where she left)."

                                                                Cross-linguistically, WITHOUT triggers EN in English, French, and Januubi but NOT in Mandarin or Zarma-Sonrai (which express WITHOUT analytically as "q not p", making the negation non-expletive).

                                                                def JinKoenig2021.withoutSem {W : Type u_1} (q p : WBool) :
                                                                WBool

                                                                WITHOUT q p = q ∧ ¬p: the meaning structurally includes ¬.

                                                                Equations
                                                                Instances For
                                                                  theorem JinKoenig2021.without_entails_not_p {W : Type u_1} (q p : WBool) (w : W) (h : withoutSem q p w = true) :
                                                                  p w = false

                                                                  WITHOUT structurally includes negation: if "q without p" holds, then p is false.

                                                                  theorem JinKoenig2021.without_entails_q {W : Type u_1} (q p : WBool) (w : W) (h : withoutSem q p w = true) :
                                                                  q w = true

                                                                  WITHOUT structurally includes the main clause: if "q without p" holds, then q is true.

                                                                  UNLESS satisfies the logical operator licensing condition #

                                                                  UNLESS q p = if ¬p then q = materialImp (¬p) q.

                                                                  The meaning of UNLESS structurally includes ¬: the conditional's antecedent is the negation of p. This makes ¬p part of the operator's meaning, satisfying the logical operator licensing condition (§6.3.3).

                                                                  More precisely: "q UNLESS p" entails that ¬p is true in all suppositive worlds (worlds where q holds).

                                                                  def JinKoenig2021.unlessSem {W : Type u_1} (q p : Set W) :
                                                                  Set W

                                                                  UNLESS q p is definable as material implication with negated antecedent: if ¬p then q. The negation is structural.

                                                                  Equations
                                                                  Instances For
                                                                    theorem JinKoenig2021.unless_modus_ponens {W : Type u_1} (q p : Set W) (w : W) (hcond : unlessSem q p w) (hnp : ¬p w) :
                                                                    q w

                                                                    UNLESS includes ¬ in its meaning: at any world where ¬p is true AND q is true, the conditional holds. Conversely, at any world where the conditional holds and ¬p is true, q must be true.

                                                                    MORE THAN satisfies the comparative licensing condition #

                                                                    "Y is MORE Q THAN Z" entails (via @cite{jin-koenig-2021}, Table 6):

                                                                    In the degree semantics of Theories.Semantics.Degree.Comparative: comparativeSem μ a b .positive ↔ μ(a) > μ(b)

                                                                    This entails: ∃D (= μ(b)) such that Q(Z, D), and ∃D' (= μ(a)) > D such that ¬Q(Z, D'). The dual predication over distinct degrees is what licenses EN in the complement of comparatives.

                                                                    theorem JinKoenig2021.comparative_dual_degrees {Entity : Type u_1} {α : Type u_2} [LinearOrder α] (μ : Entityα) (a b : Entity) (h : Semantics.Degree.Comparative.comparativeSem μ a b Core.Scale.ScalePolarity.positive) :
                                                                    μ a > μ b

                                                                    A comparative entails dual degree predication: Y exceeds Z on the scale, so Q(Z, μ(Z)) holds but ¬Q(Z, μ(Y)) — dual inference over distinct degrees.

                                                                    The comparative antonymy theorem connects MORE and LESS: "A is more Q than B" ↔ "B is less Q than A" (= "B is more Q⁻ than A"). Both entail dual predication.

                                                                    Connecting FORGET-class subclasses to theory modules #

                                                                    The FORGET class (§6.1.4) is "semantically heterogeneous" — the paper groups these triggers by their shared negative entailment (¬p in w₀ or close to w₀), but they derive from distinct semantic mechanisms:

                                                                    SubclassTheory moduleKey type
                                                                    FORGETCausation/ImplicativeImplicative.negative
                                                                    STOP/PREVENTCausation/BuilderCausative.prevent
                                                                    ALMOSTDegree/Comparativethreshold proximity

                                                                    Each mechanism independently entails ¬p in the real world, unifying the class despite its heterogeneity.

                                                                    FORGET is a negative implicative: "X forgot to do Y" entails that Y did NOT happen (¬p in w₀). This is DERIVED from the implicative builder's polarity, not stipulated. @cite{nadathur-2023}: negative implicatives entail complement falsity.

                                                                    STOP/PREVENT are causative preventatives: "X prevented Y" entails that Y did NOT occur (¬p in w₀). The negative entailment comes from the causal blocking semantics of preventSem. @cite{nadathur-lauer-2020}: prevent = effect blocked with preventer, would have occurred without it.

                                                                    The FORGET class is unified by real-world negative entailment: all subclasses entail ¬p in w₀ (or worlds close to w₀), but through different semantic mechanisms. The class maps to the propositional attitude licensing condition because the positive inference involves a modal domain (obligations, normal course).

                                                                    Connecting cross-linguistic EN attestation to fragment entries #

                                                                    Table 5 records that EN is attested in all five languages. The fragment files for each language formalize the negation markers. Here we verify that the fragment data is consistent with the attestation table: each language's EN markers exist and have the expected properties.

                                                                    French uses dedicated ne (without pas) for high-entrenchment EN. This is distinct from standard ne...pas negation (@cite{jin-koenig-2021}, §4).

                                                                    Mandarin FEAR triggers use imperative negation (bié/búyào), not the standard /méi. The imperative form lexicalizes the prohibition component of the FEAR meaning.

                                                                    Mandarin REGRET/COMPLAIN triggers use the deontic negator bùgāi 'shouldn't', connecting to the behavioral-standards semantics (negative inference = ¬p in worlds consistent with X's standards).

                                                                    Januubi uses the standard negator maa for all EN contexts — no dedicated EN marker or trigger-class covariation.

                                                                    Zarma-Sonrai EN negator choice is determined by aspect (IPFV/PFV), not by trigger class. Both markers are standard negation markers.

                                                                    Summary: Each licensing condition is now connected to theory-layer #

                                                                    semantics by construction.
                                                                    
                                                                    Licensing conditionTheory moduleBridge theorem
                                                                    propositionalAttitudeAttitudes.Preferentialfear_has_dual_inference
                                                                    Attitudes.NegRaisingdeny_EN_via_negRaising
                                                                    temporalOperatorTense.TemporalConnectivesbefore_temporal_separation
                                                                    logicalOperatorModality.Kratzernot_impossible_activates_p
                                                                    Conditionals.Basicunless_modus_ponens
                                                                    (conjunction + negation)without_entails_not_p
                                                                    comparativeDegree.Comparativecomparative_dual_degrees

                                                                    The working definition of expletive negation #

                                                                    The paper's definition (ex. 2, p. 41) provides the basis for the entire study. EN is distinguished from other semantically vacuous negation (biased questions, negative concord, exclamatives) by requiring that it is (i) syntactically dependent on a specific trigger, (ii) triggered by that trigger's lexical semantics, and (iii) truth-conditionally vacuous in the complement clause.

                                                                    The three necessary conditions for an instance of negation to count as expletive negation (EN), per @cite{jin-koenig-2021}, ex. (2).

                                                                    • isSyntacticDependent : Bool

                                                                      (i) The negator is in a syntactic dependent of a lexical item (verb, adposition, adverb, or collocation).

                                                                    • isTriggeredByMeaning : Bool

                                                                      (ii) The negator is triggered by the meaning of that lexical item.

                                                                    • isTruthConditionallyVacuous : Bool

                                                                      (iii) The negator does not contribute logical negation to the proposition denoted by the syntactic dependent.

                                                                    Instances For
                                                                      def JinKoenig2021.instDecidableEqENDefinition.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : ENDefinition) :
                                                                      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

                                                                          An instance of negation is EN iff all three conditions hold.

                                                                          Equations
                                                                          Instances For

                                                                            French ne with peur (fear) satisfies all three conditions.

                                                                            Equations
                                                                            Instances For

                                                                              French souhaiter (wish) + ne would NOT count as EN because wish does not trigger EN: replacing peur with souhaite in (1) yields an ungrammatical sentence (ex. 3).

                                                                              Equations
                                                                              Instances For

                                                                                Connecting JK2021 licensing conditions to Rett's ambidirectionality #

                                                                                @cite{rett-2026} (formalized in Rett2026) proposes that EN is licensed in ambidirectional constructions — those where negating an argument doesn't change truth conditions. This is a stronger, unified condition that subsumes JK2021's four conditions.

                                                                                The mapping:

                                                                                The key insight: JK2021's four conditions are necessary conditions observed bottom-up from data; Rett's ambidirectionality is a unified sufficient condition derived top-down from semantics. They are consistent: every JK2021 condition entails ambidirectionality.

                                                                                The two temporal trigger subclasses (BEFORE, SINCE) map to the temporal operator condition, which Rett connects to ambidirectionality on time intervals.

                                                                                Comparative triggers map to the comparative condition, which Rett connects to ambidirectionality on degree intervals.

                                                                                FEAR triggers map to propositional attitude, which Rett derives from negative valence → dual activation → ambidirectionality.

                                                                                Connecting English fragment verb entries to EN trigger status #

                                                                                Each of the three branches of VerbCore.isENTrigger corresponds to one class of JK2021 triggers. The general theorems below show that the semantic property (negative valence, negative implicativity, causative blocking) is sufficient for EN trigger status — the conclusion follows from the hypothesis, not by enumerating cases.

                                                                                Any verb with negative preferential valence is an EN trigger. This captures the FEAR class: negative valence activates both p (attitude content) and ¬p (desire content).

                                                                                Any negative implicative verb is an EN trigger. This captures the FORGET class: "X forgot to p" entails ¬p in w₀.

                                                                                Any causative-prevent verb is an EN trigger. This captures the STOP/PREVENT class: blocking entails ¬p in w₀.

                                                                                "worry" → negative valence (uncertainty-based) → EN trigger.

                                                                                ALMOST and BARELY are converses #

                                                                                The paper (§6.1.4, p. 65) notes that BARELY is "ALMOST's converse":

                                                                                The positive and negative inferences are swapped. Both belong to the FORGET class because they share the property that either p or ¬p holds in the real world.

                                                                                ALMOST and BARELY share the FORGET class despite being converses.

                                                                                ALMOST and BARELY swap their domains (@cite{jin-koenig-2021}, §6.1.4):

                                                                                • ALMOST: p holds "close to w₀", ¬p in "w₀"
                                                                                • BARELY: p holds in "w₀", ¬p "close to w₀" The real-world (w₀) and close-to-real-world domains are exchanged.