Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Complementation.Studies.Noonan2007

Complementation Bridge Theorems #

Interconnection theorems linking @cite{noonan-2007}'s complementation typology to existing linglib infrastructure:

  1. CTPClass ↔ VerbEntry (Verbal.lean) — derive CTP class from verb features
  2. CTPClass ↔ SelectionClass (LeftPeriphery.lean) — map CTP to question embedding
  3. CTPClass ↔ MoodSelector (Mood/Basic.lean) — map CTP to mood selection
  4. ComplementType ↔ NoonanCompType — map English-specific to typological categories
  5. VerbEntry → MoodSelector — derive mood selection from verb features

A1. Derive CTPClass from VerbEntry fields #

CTPClass is DERIVED from existing VerbEntry fields — not added as a new field. This follows the deriveSelectionClass pattern from LeftPeriphery.lean.

Derive Noonan's CTP class from a VerbEntry's primitive fields.

The mapping uses levinClass, factivePresup, causativeBuilder, implicativeBuilder, cosType, speechActVerb, and attitudeBuilder:

  • levinClass ==.see → perception (see)
  • factivePresup → knowledge (know, realize, regret)
  • causativeBuilder.isSome → manipulative (cause, make, force)
  • implicativeBuilder.isSome → achievement (manage, fail)
  • cosType.isSome → phasal (stop, start, continue)
  • speechActVerb → utterance (say, tell)
  • attitudeBuilder doxastic → propAttitude (believe, think)
  • attitudeBuilder preferential positive → desiderative (want, hope)
  • attitudeBuilder preferential other → propAttitude (fear, worry)
  • Otherwise → none
Equations
  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For

    A2. Per-verb verification theorems #

    Each theorem is proved by native_decide. Changing one VerbEntry field breaks exactly one theorem.

    B1. Map Noonan's CTP classes to Dayal's selection classes #

    This connects two independent typological systems:

    Default mapping from CTP class to selection class.

    • Knowledge → responsive (know, remember: entail knowledge of answer)
    • Utterance → rogativeSAP (ask, tell: speech-act layer)
    • PropAttitude → uninterrogative (believe, think: no question embedding)
    • Desiderative → uninterrogative (want, hope: anti-rogative)
    • Perception → responsive (see: factive perception of answer)
    • Achievement → uninterrogative (manage: no question embedding)
    • Phasal → uninterrogative (stop: no question embedding)
    • Manipulative → uninterrogative (make: no question embedding)
    • Others → uninterrogative
    Equations
    Instances For

      B2. Consistency with deriveSelectionClass #

      Verify that for verbs where CTP class is defined AND the verb takes questions, the two derivations agree. Note: many CTPs don't embed questions at all, so the comparison is only meaningful for question-taking verbs.

      For question-embedding verbs with a CTP class, the CTP-based mapping matches the structural derivation from LeftPeriphery.lean.

      This covers: know, discover, remember_rog, forget_rog (knowledge → responsive), ask (utterance → rogativeSAP).

      C1. Map CTP classes to mood selection #

      This connects Noonan's semantic CTP classes to @cite{mendes-2025}'s mood semantics. The realis/irrealis split predicts mood selection.

      Map CTP class to mood selection. Realis CTPs select indicative; irrealis select subjunctive. Some are language-dependent (moodNeutral).

      Equations
      Instances For

        D1. Map linglib's English-specific complement types to Noonan's #

        typological categories

        E1. Derive MoodSelector from VerbEntry fields #

        This is placed in Bridge.lean (not Verbal.lean) to avoid circular imports: it needs both Verbal and Mood/Basic. Follows the deriveSelectionClass pattern.

        Derive mood selection from a VerbEntry's primitive fields.

        The logic:

        • Preferential positive + Levin want-class → subjunctive (want, wish)
        • Preferential positive + non-want-class → crossLinguisticallyVariable (hope, expect: SBJV in some languages, IND in others; @cite{grano-2024} Table 1)
        • Preferential negative/uncertainty attitude → indicative (fear, worry)
        • Doxastic attitude → indicative (believe, think)
        • Factive → indicative (know: presupposes truth)
        • Perception (levinClass ==.see) → indicative (see)
        • Speech-act verb → moodNeutral (say: varies cross-linguistically)
        • Change-of-state → moodNeutral (stop: varies)
        • Causative → subjunctive (make: irrealis)
        • Implicative → moodNeutral (manage: varies)
        • Otherwise → moodNeutral
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For

          E2. Per-verb mood selector verification #

          F1. CTP class → mood selector consistency #

          For verbs with a derivable CTP class, the mood selector derived directly from VerbEntry should be consistent with the CTP-based derivation.

          The CTP-based mood mapping agrees with the direct derivation for representative verbs from each CTP class.

          F2. Three-way agreement for key verbs #

          For important verbs, all three classification systems agree:

          1. deriveCTPClass → CTP class
          2. deriveSelectionClass → question embedding
          3. deriveMoodSelector → mood selection

          G1. Complement size by CTP class #

          @cite{egressy-2026} shows that complement size determines SOT availability in Hungarian. This bridge maps Noonan's CTP classes to their typical complement sizes, connecting the complementation typology to the clause-size infrastructure.

          These are default sizes — individual languages may override (e.g., in Hungarian, hogy forces CP regardless of CTP class).

          Default complement size for a CTP class.

          Finite declarative complements are typically CP-sized. Restructuring predicates select smaller complements.

          • utterance → CP (full finite with complementizer)
          • propAttitude → CP (full finite that-clause)
          • knowledge → CP (factive that-clause)
          • perception → TP (small clause / reduced complement)
          • desiderative → TP (subjunctive / infinitival)
          • manipulative → TP (ECM / small clause)
          • phasal → vP (restructuring)
          • achievement → vP (restructuring)
          • modal → TP (functional, shares T domain)
          • commentative → CP (factive that-clause)
          • pretence → CP (finite complement)
          • negative → vP (restructuring)
          Equations
          Instances For