Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Grano2024

Grano 2024: Intention Reports and Event Abstraction [Gra24] #

Cross-linguistic mood choice data and bridge theorems connecting [Gra24]'s analysis of intention reports to the mood and attitude infrastructure.

Core Proposal (three premises → conclusion) #

  1. Premise 1: Intention reports encode causally self-referential content ([Sea83]; [Har76])
  2. Premise 2: Encoding causal self-reference requires abstraction over the complement clause's eventuality argument (CAUSE* binds it)
  3. Premise 3: Only subjunctive and nonfinite clauses enable eventuality abstraction; indicative clauses existentially close the event argument
  4. Conclusion: 'intend' accepts subjunctive/nonfinite but rejects indicative complements cross-linguistically

Table 1: Cross-Linguistic Mood Choice #

The central empirical finding: 'intend' patterns with 'want' (not 'hope') in robustly rejecting indicative complements. 'hope' exhibits cross-linguistic and language-internal variation; 'intend' does not.

Independent support comes from causative predicates ('make'), intention-rigid predicates ('aim', 'try'), belief–intention hybrid predicates ('decide', 'convince'), aspectual predicates ('begin'), and memory/perception reports ('remember', 'see'). All pattern alike: subjunctive/nonfinite required, indicative rejected.

Unified Theory (§7) #

Subjunctive mood uniformly signals a departure from the default clausal semantics of unembedded assertions. Two kinds of departure:

When neither departure is present, only indicative mood is possible.

A mood choice observation: whether a predicate in a language rejects indicative complements ([Gra24], Table 1).

This is the key variable: 'want' and 'intend' robustly reject IND across languages, while 'hope' does not.

  • language : String
  • predicate : String
  • rejectsIndicative : Bool
Instances For
    def Grano2024.instDecidableEqMoodChoiceDatum.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : MoodChoiceDatum) :
    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
        Equations
        Instances For
          Equations
          Instances For
            Equations
            Instances For
              Equations
              Instances For
                Equations
                Instances For
                  Equations
                  Instances For
                    Equations
                    Instances For
                      Equations
                      Instances For
                        Equations
                        Instances For
                          Equations
                          Instances For
                            Equations
                            Instances For
                              Equations
                              Instances For
                                Equations
                                Instances For
                                  Equations
                                  Instances For
                                    Equations
                                    Instances For
                                      Equations
                                      Instances For
                                        Equations
                                        Instances For
                                          Equations
                                          Instances For
                                            Equations
                                            Instances For
                                              Equations
                                              Instances For
                                                Equations
                                                Instances For
                                                  Equations
                                                  Instances For
                                                    Equations
                                                    Instances For
                                                      Equations
                                                      Instances For
                                                        Equations
                                                        Instances For
                                                          Equations
                                                          Instances For
                                                            Equations
                                                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                            Instances For

                                                              'want' robustly rejects indicative across all 7 languages.

                                                              'hope' does NOT robustly reject indicative — it varies (IND accepted in French, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Romanian, English).

                                                              'intend' robustly rejects indicative (where testable).

                                                              Causatives robustly reject indicative (§2.4).

                                                              'intend' patterns with 'want', not 'hope', on indicative rejection. This is the central empirical finding ([Gra24], Table 1).

                                                              Causatives pattern with 'intend' and 'want' (not 'hope'). Independent support for the eventuality abstraction analysis (§2.4).

                                                              The deriveSelector function correctly classifies 'want' as robustly subjunctive-selecting, matching the cross-linguistic data.

                                                              The deriveSelector function correctly classifies 'hope' as cross-linguistically variable, matching the data showing variation.

                                                              Causal self-reference and the two report types #

                                                              CAUSE*(s, e, w): the attitude state s brings about event e in w "in the right way" — via the agent's intention-in-action, not a deviant causal chain ([Gra24] (79); [Sea83]; on deviance, [Har76] and [Chi66]: Betty's intention to shoot makes her nervous, the nervousness makes her pull the trigger — the intention caused the killing, but not in the right way, so she did not carry out her intention).

                                                              def Grano2024.intentionHolds {E : Type u_1} {W : Type u_2} {Time : Type u_3} [LinearOrder Time] (isIntention : Event TimeWProp) (holder : EEvent TimeWProp) (content : Event TimeSet (W × E)) (causeStar : Event TimeEvent TimeWProp) (agent : E) (P : EWEvent TimeProp) (w : W) :

                                                              Intention reports with causal self-reference ([Gra24], (79)): some stative intention state held by the agent, each of whose content pairs ⟨w', x⟩ supports an event that the state brings about in the right way and that satisfies the complement. The complement type E → W → Event Time → Prop keeps the event argument open — the formal correlate of Premise 3: indicative would existentially close it to W → Prop, which cannot compose with the causal self-reference relation.

                                                              Equations
                                                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                                              Instances For
                                                                def Grano2024.beliefHolds {E : Type u_1} {W : Type u_2} (dox : EWSet W) (agent : E) (P : WProp) (w : W) :

                                                                Plain belief reports need no causal self-reference: the complement is a closed proposition evaluated over doxastic alternatives — which is why believe is indicative-selecting while intend selects subjunctive.

                                                                Equations
                                                                Instances For

                                                                  Indicative mood closes the eventuality argument: its event-level denotation lands in the closed constructor, so predicates requiring eventuality abstraction (CAUSE* binds the event variable) reject indicative complements.

                                                                  This is the formal correlate of [Gra24]'s argument chain: Premise 2 (CAUSE* needs open event arg) + Premise 3 (IND closes it) → Conclusion (intention reports reject IND).

                                                                  Subjunctive mood leaves the eventuality argument open — its denotation lands in abstracted with the predicate intact — enabling CAUSE* to bind it. This is why 'intend' and causatives accept SBJV.

                                                                  The three-premise argument chain:

                                                                  1. intentionHolds requires P : E → W → Event Time → Prop (open event arg)
                                                                  2. IND closes the event argument (eventDenotation lands in closed)
                                                                  3. SBJV leaves it open (eventDenotation lands in abstracted) → intention reports require SBJV, reject IND

                                                                  [Gra24] §7 proposes that subjunctive mood uniformly signals a departure from the default clausal semantics of unembedded assertions. Two kinds of departure trigger SBJV:

                                                                  • Comparison: ordering semantics with two modal backgrounds (want, hope; [PR20])
                                                                  • Event abstraction: open event argument for CAUSE* or aspect (intend, causatives, aspectuals; this paper)

                                                                  Predicates like 'hope' involve comparison only (variable mood). Predicates like 'want' involve comparison (robust SBJV: simplification blocked because 'want' does not allow inconsistent prejacents). Predicates like 'intend' involve both comparison and eventuality abstraction (robust SBJV: IND is type-incompatible with CAUSE*). Predicates like 'believe' involve neither → indicative only.

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

                                                                      Map departure kind to mood selection prediction.

                                                                      [Gra24] §7: both comparison and eventuality abstraction are departures from the default clausal semantics that trigger SBJV. The key empirical difference:

                                                                      • Comparison alone: SBJV is expected, but Portner & Rubinstein's simplification of two modal backgrounds into one can license IND in some languages (French espérer). This yields cross-linguistic variation for 'hope'-type verbs.
                                                                      • Event abstraction (± comparison): SBJV is robust because IND existentially closes the event argument, making it type-incompatible with CAUSE* / aspect / perception. No simplification can rescue IND here.
                                                                      Equations
                                                                      Instances For

                                                                        Simplifiable comparison allows cross-linguistic variation (the 'hope' pattern). Per [PR20]: when two modal backgrounds can simplify to one, IND becomes available.

                                                                        Non-simplifiable comparison robustly predicts SBJV (the 'want' pattern). 'want' blocks simplification: it does not tolerate inconsistent prejacents ((50), (60)), so both modal backgrounds must remain.

                                                                        'intend' (comparison + abstraction) patterns with 'want' (non-simplifiable comparison), not with 'hope' (simplifiable comparison). This is the central prediction: all three involve comparison, but eventuality abstraction independently blocks IND.

                                                                        §6.1 Intention-Rigid Predicates #

                                                                        Predicates that obligatorily encode intention: aim, try, endeavor, strive, seek. All share 'intend's causally self-referential, goal-oriented property and, as predicted, reject indicative complements ((90)–(91)).

                                                                        §6.2 Belief-Intention Hybrid Predicates #

                                                                        Predicates like 'decide', 'convince', 'persuade' report either belief or intention formation depending on complement type ((96)–(97)):

                                                                        This is exactly the complement-size-driven alternation that [FS26] formalizes for Italian convincere.

                                                                        §6.3 Aspectual Predicates #

                                                                        Aspect is inherently event-related and requires eventuality abstraction. Aspectual predicates (begin, start, stop, continue) accept nonfinite/SBJV complements but reject finite indicative complements ((115)–(119)).

                                                                        §6.4 Memory and Perception Reports #

                                                                        'remember' + gerund = event construal (eventuality abstraction); 'remember' + that-clause = propositional construal (no abstraction). 'see' + bare infinitive = event perception; 'see' + that-clause = indirect evidence. ((120)–(127))

                                                                        Intention-rigid predicates reject IND like 'intend' (§6.1, (91)). 'try' is in the English fragment; it takes infinitival complements and has no alternate finite complement type.

                                                                        'persuade' is a hybrid predicate: nonfinite complement with object control → intention reading. This matches [Gra24] §6.2 (96).

                                                                        'promise' is a hybrid predicate: nonfinite complement with subject control → intention (commissive). Matches §6.2 (98a).

                                                                        Aspectual predicates are phasal (cosType.isSome) and take gerund complements in English, consistent with requiring eventuality abstraction (§6.3, (115)–(116)). In Romance, these take infinitival or subjunctive complements ((117)–(119)).

                                                                        'see' takes NP complements primarily (bare perception), with factive presupposition. The bare infinitive (eventive, §6.4 (124)) vs that-clause (propositional, §6.4 (125)) alternation tracks eventuality abstraction.

                                                                        'decide' is a hybrid predicate: nonfinite complement → intention, finite complement → belief ([Gra24] §6.2, (96)–(97)). Like 'persuade' and 'convince', the complement type determines whether the reading is intentional or propositional.

                                                                        'remember' takes infinitival (implicative/eventive, §6.4 (120)). The gerund construal enables event memory; the that-clause enables propositional memory ((120)–(121)).

                                                                        Per-verb closure of deriveSelector under Selector.toVerbalOp. The cross-linguistic mood-choice data (§3) flows through deriveSelector (§3) and into the State-typed verbal-mood operator (VerbalMood.lean). For robustly subjunctive predicates, the projection lands in some .subjunctive; for cross-linguistically variable predicates, in none. The chain verb → Selector → VerbalOp makes the lexical-class commitment of [Gra24] operationally ready to feed State-side glosses (ExpState.boxLe for subjunctive, ExpState.boxCs for indicative).

                                                                        'hope' is cross-linguistically variable, so it lifts to none.

                                                                        The robust subjunctive predicates (e.g. 'want') project to the preferential POSW component — they quantify over the best-ranked subset of the State via ExpState.boxLe. The composed projection (Selector → VerbalOp → Component) makes the operational target explicit.

                                                                        Fragment Entry ↔ Datum Consistency #

                                                                        The cross-linguistic fragment files encode verb properties that should be consistent with the mood choice data. For predicates in the want-class (levinClass = .want), the datum should have rejectsIndicative = true. For predicates NOT in the want-class (like 'hope'), the mood variability is captured by deriveSelector returning .crossLinguisticallyVariable.