Documentation

Linglib.Typology.ArgumentStructure

Typology.ArgumentStructure #

@cite{maslova-nedjalkov-2013} @cite{siewierska-2013} @cite{haspelmath-2013-ditransitive} @cite{polinsky-2013-antipassive} @cite{polinsky-2013-applicative} @cite{song-2013-periphrastic} @cite{song-2013-nonperiphrastic} @cite{nordlinger-2023} @cite{konig-kokutani-2006} @cite{siloni-2008} @cite{siloni-2012}

Per-language typological substrate for valence and voice constructions, covering WALS chapters 105--111:

Ch 105 (@cite{haspelmath-2013-ditransitive}): Ditransitive constructions ('give') -- alignment of R (recipient) and T (theme) with monotransitive P.
Ch 106 (@cite{maslova-nedjalkov-2013}): Reciprocal constructions and their relationship to reflexives.
Ch 107 (@cite{siewierska-2013}): Passive constructions -- presence/absence.
Ch 108 (@cite{polinsky-2013-antipassive}): Antipassive constructions.
Ch 109 (@cite{polinsky-2013-applicative}): Applicative constructions.
Ch 110 (@cite{song-2013-periphrastic}): Periphrastic causative constructions.
Ch 111 (@cite{song-2013-nonperiphrastic}): Nonperiphrastic causative constructions (morphological vs compound).

Mirrors the Linglib/Typology/{Possession,Negation,Comparison,Coordination, Modality,Gender,Alignment} substrate-extension pattern. Fragment-importable.

What lives here #

ReciprocalType (4-way), RecipStrategy (7-way), RecipValency (2-way), RecipFormation (2-way) reciprocal classifications.
PassivePresence (Ch 107).
AntipassiveType + AntipassiveProductivity (Ch 108).
DitransitiveType (Ch 105).
ApplicativeBase × AppliedObjectRole × ApplicativeType (Ch 109).
PeriphrasticCausativeType (Ch 110), NonperiphrCausativeType (Ch 111).
ValenceProfile per-language struct (Ch 106--109 + Ch 111).
AlignmentType abbreviation pointing at Core.AlignmentFamily (the accusative/ergative dichotomy used for the antipassive correlation; the richer 5-way typology lives in Typology.Alignment.AlignmentType).
WALS converters fromWALS{105A,106A,108A,109A,109B,111A}.
WALS aggregate sample-size + corpus-only theorems.

Theory-laden caveats #

RecipStrategy.isNominal follows König & Kokutani (2006)'s primary typological distinction; clitics are classified non-nominal because their valence behavior is verbal (e.g. French/Czech se reduces valence).
RecipFormation.allowsDiscontinuous encodes Siloni 2008/2012's empirical prediction: only lexically-formed reciprocals license discontinuous ("John kissed with Mary") forms.

Out of scope #

The 19-language ValenceProfile sample, cross-chapter correlations, the 47-language antipassive-alignment table (@cite{polinsky-2013-antipassive} Table 1), and Fragment-bridge theorems live in Phenomena/ArgumentStructure/Studies/Polinsky2013.lean. Pylkkänen's structural Appl typology and its WALS divergence are in Phenomena/ArgumentStructure/Studies/Pylkkanen2008.lean. Nordlinger's extended reciprocal apparatus (RecipProfile, strategy/valency correlations) is in Phenomena/ArgumentStructure/Studies/Nordlinger2023.lean.

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.ReciprocalType :

WALS Ch 106: How reciprocal situations are encoded relative to reflexives.

The four values follow @cite{maslova-nedjalkov-2013}'s classification:

noDedicated: "There are no non-iconic reciprocal constructions" -- the language lacks a dedicated grammatical reciprocal marker.
distinctFromReflexive: "All reciprocal constructions are formally distinct from reflexive constructions" (e.g. English "each other" vs "themselves").
mixed: "There are both reflexive and non-reflexive reciprocal constructions" -- the language has both a reflexive-identical strategy and a formally distinct one (e.g. German "sich" + "einander"). Common in Europe.
identicalToReflexive: "The reciprocal and reflexive constructions are formally identical" (e.g. Imbabura Quechua "-ri", West Greenlandic "-ssin-").

noDedicated : ReciprocalType
distinctFromReflexive : ReciprocalType
mixed : ReciprocalType
identicalToReflexive : ReciprocalType

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqReciprocalType :

DecidableEq ReciprocalType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqReciprocalType x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprReciprocalType :

Repr ReciprocalType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprReciprocalType = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprReciprocalType.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprReciprocalType.repr :

ReciprocalType → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instInhabitedReciprocalType :

Inhabited ReciprocalType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instInhabitedReciprocalType = { default := Typology.ArgumentStructure.ReciprocalType.noDedicated }

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.RecipStrategy :

Morphosyntactic strategy for encoding reciprocity.

@cite{nordlinger-2023} summarizes the structural typologies of König & Kokutani (2006), Nedjalkov (2007a), and Evans (2008), which classify reciprocal constructions by the morphosyntactic locus of the reciprocal marking:

bipartiteNP: Bipartite quantifier NP -- English "each other", Icelandic "hvor...annad" (two independently inflected parts).
recipPronoun: Reciprocal pronoun -- Russian "drug druga", Hausa "jùnan-mù". Free-standing pronominal form in object position.
recipClitic: Reciprocal clitic -- French/Czech "se", Wambaya "-ngg-" (RR morpheme in auxiliary). Intermediate between pronoun and affix; functionally verbal (valence-reducing in most cases, though Wambaya retains bivalent syntax via ergative case).
verbalAffix: Morphological marking on the verb -- Swahili "-ana", Hungarian "-oz-", Chicheŵa "-an-". Derives an intransitive (monovalent) verb from a transitive base.
verbalAuxiliary: Reciprocal auxiliary -- Warrwa "wanji-" replaces the regular transitive auxiliary.
lexical: Inherently reciprocal predicate -- English "quarrel", "meet". The symmetric meaning is part of the verb's lexical semantics.
compoundVerb: Compound verb -- Mandarin "dǎ-lái-dǎ-qù" (beat-come-beat-go = 'beat each other').

bipartiteNP : RecipStrategy
recipPronoun : RecipStrategy
recipClitic : RecipStrategy
verbalAffix : RecipStrategy
verbalAuxiliary : RecipStrategy
lexical : RecipStrategy
compoundVerb : RecipStrategy

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqRecipStrategy :

DecidableEq RecipStrategy

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqRecipStrategy x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipStrategy :

Repr RecipStrategy

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipStrategy = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipStrategy.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipStrategy.repr :

RecipStrategy → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.RecipStrategy.isNominal :

RecipStrategy → Bool

Whether the strategy marks the NP/argument position (nominal strategy) or the verb/predicate (verbal strategy). König & Kokutani (2006)'s primary typological distinction.

Clitics are classified as non-nominal: Evans (2008) treats them as intermediate, but their valence behavior is typically verbal -- French/Czech "se" reduces valence (monovalent), and even Wambaya "-ngg-" is morphologically bound to the auxiliary.

Equations

Instances For

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.RecipValency :

Valency effect of reciprocal construction on the base predicate.

Maslova (2008) distinguishes "unary" and "binary" reciprocals; @cite{nordlinger-2023} discusses how NP/argument strategies tend to preserve valency while verb-marked strategies tend to reduce it. The correlation is a tendency, not absolute -- Malagasy verb-marked reciprocals retain full valency at f-structure (Hurst 2006, 2012).

bivalent : RecipValency
monovalent : RecipValency

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqRecipValency :

DecidableEq RecipValency

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqRecipValency x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipValency :

Repr RecipValency

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipValency = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipValency.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipValency.repr :

RecipValency → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.RecipFormation :

Where reciprocal verbs are formed, per Siloni (2008, 2012).

@cite{nordlinger-2023} discusses Siloni's distinction:

lexical: formed in the lexicon through "bundling" -- two thematic roles (agent, patient) merge into a single complex role. Produces verbs with inherently symmetric semantics. Can license discontinuous reciprocal constructions (subject + comitative argument).
syntactic: formed in the syntax via an operation that creates the symmetric reading. Cannot license discontinuous reciprocals.

Key empirical prediction: discontinuous reciprocals ("John kissed with Mary") are possible only with lexically-formed reciprocal verbs.

lexical : RecipFormation
syntactic : RecipFormation

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqRecipFormation :

DecidableEq RecipFormation

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqRecipFormation x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipFormation :

Repr RecipFormation

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipFormation = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipFormation.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprRecipFormation.repr :

RecipFormation → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.RecipFormation.allowsDiscontinuous :

RecipFormation → Bool

Can the reciprocal construction appear in discontinuous form (reciprocants split across subject and comitative argument)? @cite{nordlinger-2023} §3.3.

Equations

Instances For

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.PassivePresence :

WALS Ch 107: Whether a language has passive constructions.

Siewierska defines a passive as having five properties: (i) contrasts with active, (ii) active subject demoted or suppressed, (iii) active object promoted to subject (if personal passive), (iv) pragmatically restricted, (v) special verbal morphology. Includes both personal and impersonal passives, both synthetic (Swahili -w-) and periphrastic (English "be + past participle", Polish zostac + participle).

present: The language has at least one passive construction.
absent: No passive construction (agent demotion achieved by other means: subject omission, impersonal pronoun, 3pl verb form, etc.).

present : PassivePresence
absent : PassivePresence

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqPassivePresence :

DecidableEq PassivePresence

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqPassivePresence x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprPassivePresence.repr :

PassivePresence → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprPassivePresence :

Repr PassivePresence

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprPassivePresence = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprPassivePresence.repr }

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.AntipassiveType :

WALS Ch 108: Antipassive construction type.

An antipassive is a derived detransitivized construction: the patient-like argument is either suppressed or demoted to an oblique. The term indicates the mirror image of the passive: in the passive the agent is demoted, in the antipassive the patient.

implicitPatient: Patient-like argument left implicit (unexpressed).
obliquePatient: Patient-like argument expressed as oblique complement (e.g. Chukchi instrumental kimitw-e in antipassive vs absolutive kimitw-xn in transitive).
noAntipassive: No antipassive construction.

implicitPatient : AntipassiveType
obliquePatient : AntipassiveType
noAntipassive : AntipassiveType

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqAntipassiveType :

DecidableEq AntipassiveType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqAntipassiveType x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAntipassiveType :

Repr AntipassiveType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAntipassiveType = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAntipassiveType.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAntipassiveType.repr :

AntipassiveType → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.AntipassiveType.hasAntipassive :

AntipassiveType → Bool

Does this value represent the presence of an antipassive?

Equations

Instances For

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.AntipassiveProductivity :

WALS Ch 108 inset map: Productivity of the antipassive.

productive: Antipassive applies to a wide range of transitive verbs.
partiallyProductive: Restricted to certain subsets of transitives.
notProductive: Very limited (lexically specified).

productive : AntipassiveProductivity
partiallyProductive : AntipassiveProductivity
notProductive : AntipassiveProductivity

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqAntipassiveProductivity :

DecidableEq AntipassiveProductivity

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqAntipassiveProductivity x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAntipassiveProductivity :

Repr AntipassiveProductivity

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAntipassiveProductivity = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAntipassiveProductivity.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAntipassiveProductivity.repr :

AntipassiveProductivity → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

@[reducible, inline]

abbrev Typology.ArgumentStructure.AlignmentType :

Morphological alignment system (simplified for antipassive correlation). The canonical accusative/ergative dichotomy lives in Core.AlignmentFamily; this file uses that type directly rather than re-declaring it. A richer typology (active-stative, tripartite, hierarchical, etc.) is available in Typology.Alignment.AlignmentType.

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.AlignmentType = Core.AlignmentFamily

Instances For

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.DitransitiveType :

WALS Ch 105: How ditransitive verbs (prototypically 'give') encode the recipient (R) and theme (T) arguments relative to the monotransitive patient (P).

indirectObject: R is treated differently from P (R gets a preposition or dative case: "give the book TO Mary").
doubleObject: R is treated the same as P (both bare NPs: "give Mary the book").
secondaryObject: T is treated differently from P (T gets special marking: Ainu, Lakhota).
mixed: More than one construction type is available.

indirectObject : DitransitiveType
doubleObject : DitransitiveType
secondaryObject : DitransitiveType
mixed : DitransitiveType

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqDitransitiveType :

DecidableEq DitransitiveType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqDitransitiveType x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprDitransitiveType.repr :

DitransitiveType → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprDitransitiveType :

Repr DitransitiveType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprDitransitiveType = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprDitransitiveType.repr }

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.ApplicativeBase :

WALS Ch 109: Transitivity of the base verb for applicative formation.

bothBases: Applicatives formed from both transitive and intransitive bases (most common pattern when applicatives exist).
transitiveOnly: Only from transitive bases.
intransitiveOnly: Only from intransitive bases (rare: Fijian, Wambaya).

bothBases : ApplicativeBase
transitiveOnly : ApplicativeBase
intransitiveOnly : ApplicativeBase

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqApplicativeBase :

DecidableEq ApplicativeBase

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqApplicativeBase x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprApplicativeBase :

Repr ApplicativeBase

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprApplicativeBase = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprApplicativeBase.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprApplicativeBase.repr :

ApplicativeBase → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.AppliedObjectRole :

WALS Ch 109: Semantic role of the applied object.

benefactiveOnly: Applied object restricted to benefactive role.
benefactiveAndOther: Benefactive plus instrument, locative, etc.
nonbenefactiveOnly: No benefactive; only instrument, locative, etc.

benefactiveOnly : AppliedObjectRole
benefactiveAndOther : AppliedObjectRole
nonbenefactiveOnly : AppliedObjectRole

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqAppliedObjectRole :

DecidableEq AppliedObjectRole

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqAppliedObjectRole x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAppliedObjectRole.repr :

AppliedObjectRole → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAppliedObjectRole :

Repr AppliedObjectRole

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAppliedObjectRole = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprAppliedObjectRole.repr }

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.ApplicativeType :

WALS Ch 109: Full applicative type combining base and role. none for languages without applicative constructions.

applicative (base : ApplicativeBase) (role : AppliedObjectRole) : ApplicativeType
noApplicative : ApplicativeType

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqApplicativeType :

DecidableEq ApplicativeType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqApplicativeType = Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqApplicativeType.decEq

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqApplicativeType.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : ApplicativeType) :

Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqApplicativeType.decEq Typology.ArgumentStructure.ApplicativeType.noApplicative Typology.ArgumentStructure.ApplicativeType.noApplicative = isTrue ⋯

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprApplicativeType :

Repr ApplicativeType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprApplicativeType = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprApplicativeType.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprApplicativeType.repr :

ApplicativeType → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.ApplicativeType.hasApplicative :

ApplicativeType → Bool

Does this value represent the presence of an applicative?

Equations

(Typology.ArgumentStructure.ApplicativeType.applicative a a_1).hasApplicative = true
Typology.ArgumentStructure.ApplicativeType.noApplicative.hasApplicative = false

Instances For

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.PeriphrasticCausativeType :

WALS Ch 110: Periphrastic causative type.

sequentialOnly : PeriphrasticCausativeType
purposiveOnly : PeriphrasticCausativeType
both : PeriphrasticCausativeType

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqPeriphrasticCausativeType :

DecidableEq PeriphrasticCausativeType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqPeriphrasticCausativeType x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprPeriphrasticCausativeType :

Repr PeriphrasticCausativeType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprPeriphrasticCausativeType = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprPeriphrasticCausativeType.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprPeriphrasticCausativeType.repr :

PeriphrasticCausativeType → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

inductive Typology.ArgumentStructure.NonperiphrCausativeType :

WALS Ch 111: Nonperiphrastic (morphological/compound) causative type.

neither : NonperiphrCausativeType
morphologicalOnly : NonperiphrCausativeType
compoundOnly : NonperiphrCausativeType
both : NonperiphrCausativeType

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqNonperiphrCausativeType :

DecidableEq NonperiphrCausativeType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqNonperiphrCausativeType x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprNonperiphrCausativeType.repr :

NonperiphrCausativeType → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprNonperiphrCausativeType :

Repr NonperiphrCausativeType

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprNonperiphrCausativeType = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprNonperiphrCausativeType.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.NonperiphrCausativeType.hasMorphological :

NonperiphrCausativeType → Bool

Does this value represent a morphological causative?

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.NonperiphrCausativeType.morphologicalOnly.hasMorphological = true
Typology.ArgumentStructure.NonperiphrCausativeType.both.hasMorphological = true
x✝.hasMorphological = false

Instances For

structure Typology.ArgumentStructure.ValenceProfile :

A cross-linguistic valence/voice profile for a single language.

Covers WALS Ch 106--109 directly, plus Ch 111 causative morphology for the applicative-causative correlation. Ch 110 (periphrastic causatives) is omitted from profiles since most WALS sources do not report it.

language : String
iso : String
ISO 639-3 code
reciprocal : ReciprocalType
Ch 106: Reciprocal construction type
passive : PassivePresence
Ch 107: Passive presence
antipassive : AntipassiveType
Ch 108: Antipassive type
alignment : AlignmentType
Ch 108: Morphological alignment (relevant for antipassive correlation)
applicative : ApplicativeType
Ch 109: Applicative type
causative : NonperiphrCausativeType
Ch 111: Nonperiphrastic causative type

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprValenceProfile :

Repr ValenceProfile

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprValenceProfile = { reprPrec := Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprValenceProfile.repr }

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instReprValenceProfile.repr :

ValenceProfile → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqValenceProfile.decEq (x✝ x✝¹ : ValenceProfile) :

Decidable (x✝ = x✝¹)

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

Instances For

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqValenceProfile :

DecidableEq ValenceProfile

Equations

Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqValenceProfile = Typology.ArgumentStructure.instDecidableEqValenceProfile.decEq

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.ValenceProfile.hasPassive (p : ValenceProfile) :

Bool

Whether the profile records a passive.

Equations

p.hasPassive = (p.passive == Typology.ArgumentStructure.PassivePresence.present)

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.fromWALS105A :

Data.WALS.F105A.DitransitiveConstructionsTheVerbGive → DitransitiveType

Convert WALS 105A value to DitransitiveType.

Equations

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.fromWALS106A :

Data.WALS.F106A.ReciprocalType → ReciprocalType

Convert WALS 106A value to ReciprocalType.

Equations

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.fromWALS108A :

Data.WALS.F108A.AntipassiveType → AntipassiveType

Convert WALS 108A value to AntipassiveType.

Equations

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.fromWALS109A :

Data.WALS.F109A.ApplicativeType → ApplicativeType

Convert WALS 109A value to ApplicativeType. The WALS enum encodes base-transitivity and semantic role together; we decompose into ApplicativeBase × AppliedObjectRole.

Equations

One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Typology.ArgumentStructure.fromWALS109A Data.WALS.F109A.ApplicativeType.noApplicative = Typology.ArgumentStructure.ApplicativeType.noApplicative

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.fromWALS109B :

Data.WALS.F109B.AppliedObjectRole → Option AppliedObjectRole

Convert WALS 109B value to an optional AppliedObjectRole. Returns none for languages without applicative constructions, since there is no applied object whose role could be classified. Instrument, locative, and instrument-and-locative all map to .nonbenefactiveOnly; the finer distinction is preserved in the WALS source data.

Equations

Instances For

def Typology.ArgumentStructure.fromWALS111A :

Data.WALS.F111A.NonperiphrCausativeType → NonperiphrCausativeType

Convert WALS 111A value to NonperiphrCausativeType.

Equations

Instances For

theorem Typology.ArgumentStructure.ch105_indirectObject_modal :

have indir := (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F105A.DitransitiveConstructionsTheVerbGive) => x.value == Data.WALS.F105A.DitransitiveConstructionsTheVerbGive.indirectObjectConstruction) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f105a✝).length; indir > (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F105A.DitransitiveConstructionsTheVerbGive) => x.value == Data.WALS.F105A.DitransitiveConstructionsTheVerbGive.doubleObjectConstruction) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f105a✝).length ∧ indir > (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F105A.DitransitiveConstructionsTheVerbGive) => x.value == Data.WALS.F105A.DitransitiveConstructionsTheVerbGive.secondaryObjectConstruction) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f105a✝).length ∧ indir > (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F105A.DitransitiveConstructionsTheVerbGive) => x.value == Data.WALS.F105A.DitransitiveConstructionsTheVerbGive.mixed) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f105a✝).length

Ch 105: indirect-object alignment is the modal ditransitive pattern.

theorem Typology.ArgumentStructure.passives_substantial_minority :

have present := (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F107A.PassiveType) => x.value == Data.WALS.F107A.PassiveType.present) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f107a✝).length; present * 3 > Typology.ArgumentStructure.f107a✝.length

Ch 107: more than a third of WALS-sampled languages have a passive.

theorem Typology.ArgumentStructure.antipassive_distribution :

have oblique := (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F108A.AntipassiveType) => x.value == Data.WALS.F108A.AntipassiveType.obliquePatient) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f108a✝).length; have implicit := (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F108A.AntipassiveType) => x.value == Data.WALS.F108A.AntipassiveType.implicitPatient) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f108a✝).length; have none_ := (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F108A.AntipassiveType) => x.value == Data.WALS.F108A.AntipassiveType.noAntipassive) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f108a✝).length; oblique > implicit ∧ none_ > oblique + implicit

Ch 108: in @cite{polinsky-2013-antipassive}'s sample, more languages have oblique-patient antipassives than implicit-patient antipassives, and the majority have no antipassive at all.

theorem Typology.ArgumentStructure.morphological_causative_dominant :

have morphOnly := (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F111A.NonperiphrCausativeType) => x.value == Data.WALS.F111A.NonperiphrCausativeType.morphologicalOnly) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f111a✝).length; have both := (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F111A.NonperiphrCausativeType) => x.value == Data.WALS.F111A.NonperiphrCausativeType.both) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f111a✝).length; (morphOnly + both) * 10 > Typology.ArgumentStructure.f111a✝.length * 8

Ch 111: morphological causatives appear in more than 80% of WALS-sampled languages (~90% in @cite{song-2013-nonperiphrastic}'s tally). This dwarfs periphrastic causatives in frequency.

theorem Typology.ArgumentStructure.polysemy_count :

have mixed := (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F106A.ReciprocalType) => x.value == Data.WALS.F106A.ReciprocalType.mixed) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f106a✝).length; have identical := (List.filter (fun (x : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F106A.ReciprocalType) => x.value == Data.WALS.F106A.ReciprocalType.identicalToReflexive) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f106a✝).length; mixed + identical = 60

Ch 106: @cite{nordlinger-2023} reports that of the 175 languages in @cite{maslova-nedjalkov-2013}'s sample, polysemous reflexive/reciprocal constructions are present in 60 (34%). In WALS terms, polysemy corresponds to Values 3 (mixed) and 4 (identical to reflexive).

theorem Typology.ArgumentStructure.polysemy_percentage :

have polysemous := (List.filter (fun (d : Data.WALS.Datapoint Data.WALS.F106A.ReciprocalType) => d.value == Data.WALS.F106A.ReciprocalType.mixed || d.value == Data.WALS.F106A.ReciprocalType.identicalToReflexive) Typology.ArgumentStructure.f106a✝).length; polysemous * 3 > Typology.ArgumentStructure.f106a✝.length ∧ polysemous * 2 < Typology.ArgumentStructure.f106a✝.length

60 out of 175 = 34.3%: more than a third but less than half.