Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Krifka2026

Anaphora for Concepts, Kinds, and Parts #

[Kri26]

Head nouns introduce presupposed concept discourse referents — properties tagged [MASS]/[COUNT] — which project past anaphoric islands (in Krifka's extended sense: negation, modals, conditionals), while entity drefs introduced by indefinites under negation are trapped. Kind anaphors pick up concept drefs and derive kind individuals via [Chi98]'s ∩ from Semantics/Kinds/NominalMappingParameter: ⟦it⟧ = λP[MASS] λi.∩P(i), ⟦they⟧ = λP[COUNT] λi.∩⊔P(i) (17a,b). The dynamic layer instantiates the substrate Update/test/dneg algebra of Semantics/Dynamic/Connectives at heterogeneous assignments over DRefVal.

Negation here is the paper's VP negation ⟦doesn't⟧ (44b), test (∼φ); the sentential ⟦NEG⟧ (34) additionally restricts the negated existential to extensions g≤k, and both carry a world-time index — differences orthogonal to projection, which needs only that negation is a test. The paper derives the concept dref's input-presupposition compositionally from the head noun's partial (strong-Kleene) lexical entry (40d); that pipeline is not formalized, so the projection theorems take the input conditions as hypotheses. Cf. [Hof25] (Studies/Hofmann2025.lean) for the neighboring account of entity-dref accessibility under negation via nonveridical continuations.

Main declarations #

Kind pronoun and kind-operator selection #

Kind-anaphoric pronouns, selected by the [MASS]/[COUNT] feature.

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

      Select kind-anaphoric pronoun from the count feature.

      [Kri26] (17a,b):

      • ⟦it⟧ = λP[MASS] λi.∩P(i)
      • ⟦they⟧ = λP[COUNT] λi.∩⊔P(i)
      Equations
      Instances For
        def Krifka2026.selectKindAnaphor {World Atom : Type} (feature : MassCount) (P : Semantics.Kinds.NMP.Property World Atom) :

        The semantic side of (17a,b): it applies ∩ directly, they applies plural closure ⊔ before ∩.

        Equations
        Instances For

          For mass properties both anaphor paths yield the same kind, by [Kri26]'s absorption rule ⊔⊔S = ⊔S: plural closure is a no-op on cumulative properties, so for mass concepts the [MASS]/[COUNT] feature's only role is selecting pronoun morphology.

          Example (7a): count noun antecedent → plural kind anaphor them. John noticed a spider in the bathroom. He has a phobia against them / *it.

          Example (7b): mass noun antecedent → singular kind anaphor it. John noticed mold in the bathroom. He is allergic against it / *them.

          Examples (8a,b): the same individuals (pollen[MASS] vs pollen grains[COUNT]) select different pronouns based purely on the morphosyntactic feature. (8a) There is a lot of pollen in the air. I am allergic against it / *them. (8b) There are a lot of pollen grains in the air. I am allergic against them / ??it.

          Concept dref projection past anaphoric islands #

          @[reducible, inline]
          abbrev Krifka2026.HAssign (W : Type u_3) (E : Type u_4) :
          Type (max u_4 u_3)

          Heterogeneous assignment: drefs valued in entities, concepts, or indices ([Kri26] §4). Partiality is modeled by DRefVal.undef, so this is Core.Assignment (DRefVal W E) rather than Core.PartialAssign.

          Equations
          Instances For

            Existential introduction of an entity dref at index n, as by the indexed determiner a₃ in (40c) — minus the falls-under-the-concept condition, which is delegated to body, and with novelty (g n = .undef) as an external hypothesis rather than built into the extension relation g<₃k.

            Equations
            Instances For
              theorem Krifka2026.test_apply_eq {W : Type u_1} {E : Type u_2} {C : Semantics.Dynamic.Core.DynProp.Condition (HAssign W E)} {g h : HAssign W E} (hTest : Semantics.Dynamic.Core.DynProp.test C g h) (n : ) :
              h n = g n

              Island operators are tests, and tests preserve every dref of the input assignment. Negation, implication, and disjunction all return a Condition re-entering the update algebra via test, so this single fact covers [Kri26]'s whole island list at once.

              Concept drefs survive islands ((5a), (25), (44–45)): a concept dref presupposed in the input is still anchored in the output of any test. The presupposition is a hypothesis here; the paper derives it from the head noun's partial lexical entry (40d).

              Entity drefs are trapped by islands ((5c)): a dref novel in the input (introduced only inside the island's ¬∃k) is still undefined in the output.

              The concept/entity asymmetry under negation test (∼φ) ((44e)): the concept dref persists, the entity dref does not. Both conjuncts are instances of test_apply_eq — the asymmetry is carried entirely by where the hypotheses place the two conditions (input presupposition vs input novelty), which is [Kri26]'s point.

              Examples (5a,c), (25), (44–45): concept drefs project past negation.

              (5a) John doesn't own a dog. He is afraid of them. But Mary owns one. (5c) John doesn't own a dog. *It is friendly.

              In the DRT representation (25) and dynamic semantics (44–45), the concept dref x₂ for 'dog' is in the main box / presupposed in the input. After negation, x₂ persists (licensing them₂, one₂), but the entity dref x₃ is trapped under ¬∃ (blocking *it₃).

              End-to-end: John doesn't own a dog (44–45) #

              inductive Krifka2026.Ent :

              Concrete entity type for the worked example.

              Instances For
                @[implicit_reducible]
                instance Krifka2026.instDecidableEqEnt :
                DecidableEq Ent
                Equations
                def Krifka2026.instReprEnt.repr :
                EntStd.Format
                Equations
                Instances For
                  @[implicit_reducible]
                  Equations
                  inductive Krifka2026.Wld :

                  Concrete world type. A world where John doesn't own a dog.

                  Instances For
                    @[implicit_reducible]
                    instance Krifka2026.instDecidableEqWld :
                    DecidableEq Wld
                    Equations
                    @[implicit_reducible]
                    Equations
                    def Krifka2026.instReprWld.repr :
                    WldStd.Format
                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      The concept 'dog' as a concept dref with [COUNT] feature. In this model, no entity satisfies the dog predicate (John doesn't own one).

                      Equations
                      Instances For

                        Initial assignment for (44e): g₁=F(John), g₂=F(dog), F(C)(g₂). Following [Kri26] (40g)/(44e): John's name presupposes dref 1 is anchored to John; the head noun dog₂ presupposes dref 2 is anchored to the 'dog' concept with [COUNT] feature.

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          Sentence meaning for "own [DP a₃ [NP dog]₂]": introduces entity dref at index 3, constrained to satisfy the concept property at index 2.

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

                            "John₁ doesn't own [DP a₃ [NP dog]₂]": the paper's VP negation ⟦doesn't⟧ (44b) is the substrate test of dynamic negation.

                            Equations
                            Instances For

                              The negation is satisfiable in this model (no dogs exist). Output: g₀ = h (test), confirming no entity dref was introduced.

                              Main result: after "John doesn't own a dog", the concept dref for 'dog' at index 2 is accessible while the entity dref at index 3 remains undefined. This is the concrete instantiation of the asymmetry predicted by [Kri26] §4.

                              The kind anaphor them selects [COUNT] for dogs, as expected.

                              Concept vs kind anaphora (19a,b) #

                              Anaphoric constructions that pick up concept drefs.

                              [Kri26] §3 distinguishes concept anaphors (which reuse the property directly) from kind anaphors (which derive kind individuals via ∩). Both pick up concept drefs, but they do different things.

                              The distinction is testable via examples like (19a,b): (19a) John didn't get a dog from the animal shelter downtown. He is afraid of them. — kind anaphora (OK: dogs-as-kind) (19b) John didn't get a dog from the animal shelter downtown. But Mary got one. — concept anaphora (OK: a dog-from-the-shelter)

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

                                  Kind pronouns derive kinds; concept anaphors (one, empty NP/PP) don't. This distinction explains (19a) vs (19b): "dogs from the animal shelter" doesn't name a kind (cf. [Car77]), so kind anaphora yields the general dog-kind, while concept anaphora preserves the full NP property.