Experiential Namespace

Core Definition

Experiential frames foreground a sentient participant — an Experiencer or a Cognizer — undergoing a mental, perceptual, somatic, or attitudinal event, viewed from that participant's perspective. The primary semantic content is the psychological event itself — perception, emotion, cognition, bodily sensation, or volitional attitude. No physical change in the world is required; the event occurs in psychological or sensory space.

Not a contraposition with Change — a category some psychological events used to be wrongly routed into. EXPERIENTIAL mints its own schema object in the conceptual dimension, on constitutive sentience — the same pattern PROCESS and STATIVE follow (Conceptual Schemas §6.2). CHANGE, by contrast, is a profile over EVENT — a foregrounded-element pattern, not a competing grounding target. A frame whose sentient participant is constitutive therefore always grounds in EXPERIENTIAL, never in bare EVENT, and so always sits in @experiential, never @change — "Experiential ↔ Change" was carried in earlier documents as a perspective pair alongside the genuine ones (Agentive↔Change, Agentive↔Undergoing, Undergoing↔Change), but it isn't one: Profile Seeding (docs/conceptual/profile_seeding.md) §4 already worked this out — "a mental change is EXPERIENTIAL under a CHANGE profile, not a choice between the two."

What genuinely varies is the profile within the EXPERIENTIAL grounding:

• A profile foregrounding the experiencer/cognizer as an ongoing or telic participant reads as an experience in progress or achieved. (João teme o cachorro, João viu Maria.)
• A profile foregrounding entry into the mental condition — Antagonist (the experiencer, bound the same way it always is in this namespace) plus Outcome — reads as a CHANGE-shaped profile of the same EXPERIENTIAL grounding. (João se assustou com o cachorro.) The namespace doesn't move; only the profile does.

This was found to matter in practice, not just on paper: checked against the live data, frm_awareness_change_scenario (Experiencer + Phenomenon, "the cognitive impact brought about by the Phenomenon"), frm_coming_to_believe (Cognizer + Content), and frm_memorization (Cognizer + Pattern) were all sitting in @change — every one of them a constitutively sentient frame that belongs in @experiential under this rule. Re-namespacing these three (and auditing the rest of @change for the same pattern) is population work, not yet done — see What Is Still Missing (docs/conceptual/what_is_missing.md).

Formal template:

EXPERIENCE(Experiencer ⊕ Cognizer, [Stimulus | Content], Mental_condition)

Key participants:

• Experiencer ⊕ Cognizer — the sentient participant. The two are mutually exclusive within a frame (FrameNet Excludes pattern): Experiencer for perception / sensation / emotion (undergoes a stimulus); Cognizer for cognition / belief / attitude (entertains a content).
• Stimulus — the external trigger or object of a perception or emotion (optional; entity or event).
• Content — the object of a cognitive or attitudinal member (optional; a proposition or event — a state of affairs — not a mere trigger).

Scope

Includes:

• Sensory perception: João viu Maria (João saw Maria), Maria ouviu o barulho (Maria heard the noise)
• Emotion: João ama Maria (João loves Maria), Maria teme o escuro (Maria fears the dark)
• Cognition: João sabe a resposta (João knows the answer), Maria entendeu (Maria understood)
• Bodily sensation: A perna de João dói (João's leg hurts), João tem fome (João is hungry)
• Volition / desiderative attitude: João quer sair (João wants to leave), Maria espera vencer (Maria hopes to win)
• Senser-bearing epistemic state: João tem certeza de que venceu (João is certain he won — the Cognizer/Pensador is required)

Excludes — see other namespaces:

• Physical action by a volitional agent → Agentive (João correu)
• Agent causes physical change in a Patient → Agentive (João quebrou o vaso)
• Non-sentient entity undergoes state change → Change (O vaso quebrou)
• A Patient undergoes an externally-instigated event with no psychological quale profiled (only affectedness — the undergoer need not be sentient) → Undergoing (A vítima sofreu ferimentos; o paciente contraiu a doença; cair em emboscada). This is the boundary that pulls patient-undergoer frames — currently housed here on the strength of a sentient-looking subject — out of @experiential. The traffic runs the other way too: Eventive_cognizer_affecting and Fall_for genuinely profile a cognitive quale (belief, decision) and currently sit in @undergoing — see Undergoing's own boundary note.
• Property holds statically of an entity, no psychological quale → Attribute (João é alto)
• Relation holds statically between two entities, no psychological quale → Relational (João é parente de Maria)
• Senser-less modal predication of a proposition (possibility, probability, with no sentient participant) → Attribute (É provável que chova). See the vs. Attribute boundary below — this is the sharpest new boundary.

Critical boundaries:

• Stimulus-subject psych verbs (O filme emocionou Maria) may look Agentive but are Experiential — the Experiencer (Maria) is the semantic focus, not a physical result state.
• Reflexive emotional changes (João se alegrou) stay Experiential — always. The sentient participant is still constitutive, so the frame still grounds in EXPERIENTIAL; what varies is only the profile within that grounding (entry-into-state foregrounds Antagonist + Outcome, a CHANGE-shaped selection). There is no case where the change reading moves the frame to @change — that namespace is reserved for frames whose Antagonist is not constitutively sentient.
• Epistemic frames split by the Senser gate: Certeza (certainty of a thinker, Cognizer required) is Experiential; Possibilidade / Probabilidade (likelihood of a proposition, no Senser) is Attribute.

Subtypes

By psychological domain:

Note on the Volition / attitude subtype. These desiderative and intentional members (querer, esperar, pretender) take a sentient participant (Cognizer) and an object that is a proposition or event — mapped to Content (a state of affairs), not to Stimulus. They pass the Senser gate and the domain test, so they belong here. This subtype is introduced as a recognized member of the namespace but is not fully developed with its own diagnostics in this revision; treat the Senser gate plus the Content-takes-a-proposition observation as sufficient guidance for now, and develop dedicated tests later if the class warrants it. Senser-less modality (possibility/probability of a proposition) is not part of this subtype — it is excluded to Attribute.

By volitional control — the key internal distinction:

The controlled variant is the agentive reading of the sentient participant; it does not move the frame out of the namespace (domain takes precedence over agentivity — see Aspect note). Portuguese systematically pairs controlled and uncontrolled verbs for the same sensory domain:

By argument structure (psych verb alternation): Many psychological verbs alternate between frames depending on which participant is subject. All three rows below stay @experiential — the alternation is a matter of which profile the frame's bindings trace within one EXPERIENTIAL grounding, not a choice among namespaces (see the corrected boundary in the Core Definition above):

Aspect: Experiential frames span the full aspectual range — stative (João ama Maria; João sabe), eventive/achievement (João viu Maria; João entendeu), and change (João se apaixonou). Aspect does not determine namespace membership — the psychological domain does. This is the governing principle: a stative-aspect experiential frame (saber, amar) stays here, it does not migrate to Stative.

Characteristic signature

Experiencer ⊕ Cognizer (Excludes). FrameNet keeps Experiencer (undergoes a stimulus/sensation) distinct from Cognizer (entertains a content/proposition). Rather than erase the distinction under a coined cover term, the namespace description carries both as characteristic participants in an Excludes relation — the native FrameNet Core-Set pattern. A specific frame realises whichever its own FE corresponds to. Likewise, members whose object is a trigger express it as a Stimulus; members whose object is a proposition/event (cognition, desiderative attitude — saber, acreditar, querer, esperar) express it as a Content (semantic type State_of_affairs).

Membership gate — the domain test (Test 1). The frame must require a sentient participant (Experiencer or Cognizer) undergoing a mental, perceptual, affective, or attitudinal event, with no physical change in the world required. The domain (psychological) is the membership criterion and takes precedence over aspect and over agentivity:

• The sentient participant's variable role is recorded by the role it plays, not used to reclassify: controlled olhar = agentive; uncontrolled ver = telic endpoint; saber = formal state-bearer. None of these leave @experiential.
• Stimulus-subject experiential frames (O filme emocionou Maria) are classified here, not as Agentive, because the profiled endpoint is the Experiencer's state, not a physical Result. (These are the most causative-like members — the same object-vs-profile relationship as the Experiential/Change boundary above, AGENTIVE being a profile too; not a namespace choice.)

The Senser gate also decides modal-adjacent frames: a frame predicating certainty of a thinker (Certeza, whose definition requires the #Pensador/Cognizer to be expressed) enters @experiential as a cognition member; a frame predicating possibility/probability of a proposition with no sentient participant does not — it is a modal attribute.

graph LR
    Stimulus["Stimulus<br/><i>CONSTITUTIVE</i><br/>optional, trigger"]
    Content["Content<br/><i>CONSTITUTIVE</i><br/>optional, State_of_affairs"]
    Event(("Event"))
    Experiencer["Experiencer<br/><i>TELIC</i> (AGENTIVE if controlled)<br/>Sentient"]
    Cognizer["Cognizer<br/><i>TELIC</i> (AGENTIVE if controlled)<br/>Sentient"]
    Mental["Mental_condition<br/><i>FORMAL</i>"]

    Stimulus -.->|optional| Event
    Content -.->|optional| Event
    Event -->|experienced_by| Experiencer
    Event -->|known_by| Cognizer
    Experiencer ---|Excludes| Cognizer
    Experiencer -->|reaches| Mental
    Cognizer -->|reaches| Mental

    classDef core fill:#8B0000,stroke:#8B0000,color:#fff
    classDef opt fill:#fff,stroke:#8B0000,stroke-dasharray:4 3,color:#8B0000
    class Experiencer,Cognizer,Mental core
    class Stimulus,Content opt

Diagnostic Tests

Test 1 — Senser gate (sentient participant required)

Does the frame require a sentient participant — an Experiencer or a Cognizer — as its primary participant? This is the membership gate.

✓ João viu Maria (João = sentient Experiencer) → EXPERIENTIAL
✓ João tem certeza de que venceu (João = Cognizer/Pensador) → EXPERIENTIAL
✗ A pedra caiu (pedra ≠ sentient) → NOT EXPERIENTIAL (Phenomenon)
✗ É provável que chova (no sentient participant) → NOT EXPERIENTIAL (Attribute — modal-attribute of a proposition)

The last line is the decisive exclusion: a frame predicating possibility or probability of a proposition, with no Senser, is a modal Attribute, not a psychological event.

Test 2 — Mental / perceptual domain

Does the event occur in psychological or sensory space rather than the physical world?

✓ João sabe a resposta (mental state — knowledge) → EXPERIENTIAL
✓ Maria sentiu dor (somatic sensation) → EXPERIENTIAL
✗ João quebrou o vaso (physical change in world) → NOT EXPERIENTIAL (Agentive)

Test 3 — Experiencer vs. Cognizer (which sentient FE)

Is the object of the event a trigger/stimulus (→ Experiencer + Stimulus) or a proposition/content (→ Cognizer + Content)?

✓ Maria ouviu o barulho (stimulus = barulho) → EXPERIENCER + STIMULUS (perception/emotion)
✓ João acredita que venceu (content = a proposition) → COGNIZER + CONTENT (cognition)
✓ João quer sair (content = a state of affairs) → COGNIZER + CONTENT (volition/attitude)

Experiencer and Cognizer are mutually exclusive within a frame (Excludes).

Test 4 — Control test (agentive vs. non-agentive)

Can the frame take an imperative directed at the sentient participant?

✓ Olhe! / Escute! / Pense nisso! (controlled) → agentive reading
✗ *Veja Maria! / *Ame João! / *Tenha fome! (uncontrolled) → non-agentive reading

Either way the frame remains Experiential; the test classifies the internal controlled/uncontrolled variant, not namespace membership.

Test 5 — Progressive test (stative vs. eventive within Experiential)

Does the frame resist the progressive?

Stative experiential (resists progressive):
✗ *João está sabendo a resposta → STATIVE EXPERIENTIAL (saber)
✗ *Maria está amando João → STATIVE EXPERIENTIAL (amar)

Eventive experiential (accepts progressive):
✓ João está olhando para Maria → EVENTIVE EXPERIENTIAL (olhar)
✓ Maria está pensando sobre o problema → EVENTIVE EXPERIENTIAL (pensar)

Test 6 — Psych alternation

Does the verb participate in the Experiencer-subject / Stimulus-subject alternation?

✓ João teme o cachorro ↔ O cachorro assusta João → PSYCH VERB PAIR
✓ João gosta do filme ↔ O filme agrada João → PSYCH VERB PAIR
✗ João viu Maria ↔ *Maria viu João (no role-reversal alternation) → PERCEPTION (not psych alternation)