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) #
- Premise 1: Intention reports encode causally self-referential content ([Sea83]; [Har76])
- Premise 2: Encoding causal self-reference requires abstraction over the complement clause's eventuality argument (CAUSE* binds it)
- Premise 3: Only subjunctive and nonfinite clauses enable eventuality abstraction; indicative clauses existentially close the event argument
- 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:
- Comparison (ordering semantics): 'want', 'hope' ([PR20])
- Event abstraction: 'intend', causatives, aspectuals (this paper)
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
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
- Grano2024.instReprMoodChoiceDatum = { reprPrec := Grano2024.instReprMoodChoiceDatum.repr }
Equations
- Grano2024.spanish_want = { language := "Spanish", predicate := "querer", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.french_want = { language := "French", predicate := "vouloir", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.portuguese_want = { language := "Portuguese", predicate := "querer", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.italian_want = { language := "Italian", predicate := "volere", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.greek_want = { language := "Greek", predicate := "thélo", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.romanian_want = { language := "Romanian", predicate := "a vrea", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.english_want = { language := "English", predicate := "want", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.spanish_hope = { language := "Spanish", predicate := "esperar", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.french_hope = { language := "French", predicate := "espérer", rejectsIndicative := false }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.portuguese_hope = { language := "Portuguese", predicate := "esperar", rejectsIndicative := false }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.italian_hope = { language := "Italian", predicate := "sperare", rejectsIndicative := false }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.greek_hope = { language := "Greek", predicate := "elpízo", rejectsIndicative := false }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.romanian_hope = { language := "Romanian", predicate := "a spera", rejectsIndicative := false }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.english_hope = { language := "English", predicate := "hope", rejectsIndicative := false }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.spanish_intend = { language := "Spanish", predicate := "tener la intención", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.portuguese_intend = { language := "Portuguese", predicate := "pretender", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.greek_intend = { language := "Greek", predicate := "protíthete", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.romanian_intend = { language := "Romanian", predicate := "a intenționa", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.english_intend = { language := "English", predicate := "intend", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.spanish_make = { language := "Spanish", predicate := "hacer", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.french_make = { language := "French", predicate := "faire", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.portuguese_make = { language := "Portuguese", predicate := "fazer", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.italian_make = { language := "Italian", predicate := "fare", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.greek_make = { language := "Greek", predicate := "vázo", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.romanian_make = { language := "Romanian", predicate := "a face", rejectsIndicative := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.english_make = { language := "English", predicate := "make", rejectsIndicative := true }
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).
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
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
- Grano2024.beliefHolds dox agent P w = ∀ w' ∈ dox agent w, P w'
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:
intentionHoldsrequires P : E → W → Event Time → Prop (open event arg)- IND closes the event argument (
eventDenotationlands inclosed) - SBJV leaves it open (
eventDenotationlands inabstracted) → 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.
- comparisonSimplifiable : DepartureKind
- comparisonNonSimplifiable : DepartureKind
- eventualityAbstraction : DepartureKind
- comparisonAndAbstraction : DepartureKind
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.instDecidableEqDepartureKind x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Grano2024.instReprDepartureKind = { reprPrec := Grano2024.instReprDepartureKind.repr }
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
- Grano2024.DepartureKind.comparisonSimplifiable.moodPrediction = Mood.Selector.crossLinguisticallyVariable
- Grano2024.DepartureKind.comparisonNonSimplifiable.moodPrediction = Mood.Selector.subjunctiveSelecting
- Grano2024.DepartureKind.eventualityAbstraction.moodPrediction = Mood.Selector.subjunctiveSelecting
- Grano2024.DepartureKind.comparisonAndAbstraction.moodPrediction = Mood.Selector.subjunctiveSelecting
Instances For
Event abstraction robustly predicts subjunctive selection (IND is type-incompatible with open event argument).
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)):
- Nonfinite complement → intention reading → requires SBJV/nonfinite
- Finite complement → belief reading → allows IND
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)).
'want' involves non-simplifiable comparison (robust SBJV).
'hope' involves simplifiable comparison (variable mood).
'intend' involves both comparison and eventuality abstraction (robust SBJV).
Causatives involve eventuality abstraction (robust SBJV).
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).
'want' lifts to the subjunctive State operator.
'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.