Landau (2015): A Two-Tiered Theory of Control #
@cite{landau-2015} @cite{landau-2004} @cite{landau-2013}
MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-02885-1.
OC in complement clauses divides into two subtypes:
- Predicative control: nonattitude complements, PRO moves to Spec,Fin, control via syntactic predication
- Logophoric control: attitude complements, C^OC projects a perspectival coordinate, control via predication + variable binding
Key Definitions #
ControlTier: The two tiers of control (predicative vs. logophoric)LandauPredicateClass: Eight predicate classes mapped to control tiersLandauClauseClass: Finiteness scale (C-subjunctive, F-subjunctive, finite)FeatureTransmissionAsymmetry: The mechanism derivingagrBlocksControlagrBlocksControl: The OC-NC generalization — [+Agr] blocks logophoric control but not predicative control (70)TTCContrast: The six empirical contrasts between the two tiers (table (80))derivedLandauClass: Maps VerbCore fields to Landau predicate classesDeSeReading: Object control de se/de te distinction (table (36))
Core Claims #
- OC splits into predicative (nonattitude, EC) and logophoric (attitude, PC)
- Predicative control: predication only; logophoric: predication + variable binding
- [+Agr] blocks logophoric control but not predicative control (the OC-NC generalization, (70))
- Feature Transmission asymmetry: predication is NOT contingent on feature matching (60a); variable binding IS (60b)
- Six empirical contrasts systematically align with the predicative/logophoric divide (table (80)): inflected complements, [−human] PRO, implicit control, control shift, partial control, split control
The two tiers of obligatory control (table (119) of @cite{landau-2015}).
Predicative control (EC complements):
- Selected by nonattitude predicates (implicative, aspectual, modal, evaluative)
- PRO moves to Spec,Fin → control via syntactic predication
- Forces exhaustive control (EC)
- Complement head: transitive Fin_{[uD]}
Logophoric control (PC complements):
- Selected by attitude predicates (factive, propositional, desiderative, interrogative)
- C^OC projects a perspectival coordinate → control via predication + variable binding
- Allows partial control (PC)
- Complement head: transitive C^OC_{[uD]}
- Associated with obligatory de se interpretation
- predicative : ControlTier
Predicative control: nonattitude, predication only
- logophoric : ControlTier
Logophoric control: attitude, predication + variable binding
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Logophoric control corresponds to attitude complements.
Equations
Instances For
Condition on syntactic predication ((90) in @cite{landau-2015}): "The argument predicated of must be syntactically represented."
In predicative control, the controller must be syntactically present because predication is a syntactic relation requiring two syntactically represented terms (the referential argument and the predicate).
In logophoric control, the AUTHOR/ADDRESSEE coordinate is discourse-anchored, not predication-dependent, so the controller may remain implicit.
Equations
Instances For
[−human] PRO is compatible with predicative control but incompatible with logophoric control ((81) in @cite{landau-2015}).
In predicative control, PRO is bound by a simple λ-operator; neither the binder nor the bindee carries any inherent semantic feature. In logophoric control, PRO is bound by pro_x/pro_y, which is mapped to the AUTHOR/ADDRESSEE function; since the latter is only defined for humans, the former will be too.
This is the negation of isAttitude: only logophoric control
(attitude contexts) imposes a humanness requirement.
Equations
Instances For
Five properties of control are all unified by the logophoric tier. Partial control, obligatory de se, control shift, implicit control, and split control are all available under logophoric control and blocked under predicative control. This reflects the paper's central claim that these five properties derive from the same underlying mechanism: variable binding of a perspectival coordinate.
Rather than defining five identical functions, we derive each as
`isAttitude` and prove they agree.
Partial control is available only under logophoric control. Predicative control forces exhaustive control (EC). @cite{landau-2015} Ch 5, §5.1
Equations
Instances For
Obligatory de se arises only under logophoric control. Predicative contexts are free of the de se entailment. @cite{landau-2015} §3.4
Equations
Instances For
Control shift (from subject to object controller) is available only under logophoric control. Predicative control enters a biunique predication relation that no other DP can saturate. @cite{landau-2015} §4.3
Equations
Instances For
Implicit control is the complement of requiring a syntactic controller. Derived from the condition on syntactic predication (90).
Equations
Instances For
Split control (two arguments jointly control PRO) is available only under logophoric control. @cite{landau-2015} Ch 5, §5.2
Equations
Instances For
Implicit control derives from condition (90): predicative control
requires a syntactically present controller, so allowsImplicitControl
is the negation of requiresSyntacticController.
[−human] PRO derives from the logophoric mechanism:
allowsNonhumanPRO is the negation of isAttitude.
@cite{landau-2015}'s predicate classification by complement type.
(4) Predicates selecting untensed complements [−T] → nonattitude: (a) Implicative: avoid, dare, manage, remember, ... (b) Aspectual: begin, continue, finish, start, stop (c) Modal: have, is able, may, must, need, should (d) Evaluative: bold, crazy, kind, rude, silly, smart
(5) Predicates selecting tensed complements [+T] → attitude: (a) Factive: dislike, glad, hate, regret, sorry, ... (b) Propositional: affirm, believe, claim, declare, say, think (c) Desiderative: agree, choose, decide, hope, intend, want, ... (d) Interrogative: ask, guess, inquire, know, wonder
Under the TTC, (4) maps to predicative control and (5) to logophoric.
Note: (4d) evaluative predicates are adjectives, not verbs. No
evaluative verbs exist in the English Fragment; this class is currently
unreachable via derivedLandauClass.
- implicative : LandauPredicateClass
- aspectual : LandauPredicateClass
- modal : LandauPredicateClass
- evaluative : LandauPredicateClass
- factive : LandauPredicateClass
- propositional : LandauPredicateClass
- desiderative : LandauPredicateClass
- interrogative : LandauPredicateClass
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Map predicate class to control tier.
Equations
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.implicative.controlTier = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.predicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.aspectual.controlTier = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.predicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.modal.controlTier = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.predicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.evaluative.controlTier = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.predicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.factive.controlTier = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.propositional.controlTier = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.desiderative.controlTier = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.interrogative.controlTier = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
Instances For
Nonattitude predicates force exhaustive control.
Attitude predicates allow partial control.
The Feature Transmission asymmetry ((60) in @cite{landau-2015}).
This is the single most important mechanism in the TTC. It is the reason why [+Agr] blocks logophoric control but not predicative control (the OC-NC generalization).
(60a) The formation of a predication relation is not contingent on feature matching between the subject and the predicate. (60b) The formation of a variable binding relation is contingent on feature matching between the binder and the pronominal variable.
The asymmetry is independently motivated: predication tolerates φ-feature mismatches (Icelandic quirky constructions, (63)), while variable binding requires φ-agreement between binder and bindee (@cite{heim-2008}, @cite{kratzer-2009}).
- predicationContingentOnFeatureMatch : Bool
(60a): Predication does NOT require feature matching.
- variableBindingContingentOnFeatureMatch : Bool
(60b): Variable binding DOES require feature matching.
Instances For
The empirically motivated Feature Transmission asymmetry.
Equations
Instances For
The OC-NC generalization ((70) in @cite{landau-2015}):
"[+Agr] blocks logophoric control but not predicative control."
This is now DERIVED from the Feature Transmission asymmetry (60):
- Predicative control uses predication → not contingent on feature matching (60a) → [+Agr] cannot block it
- Logophoric control uses variable binding → contingent on feature matching (60b) → [+Agr] preempts Feature Transmission → blocks it
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Predicative control survives in inflected complements.
Logophoric control is blocked by inflected complements.
The OC-NC generalization is derived from the Feature Transmission asymmetry, not stipulated.
@cite{landau-2004}'s finiteness scale, as recast in @cite{landau-2015}.
The [±T] distinction is subsumed by the attitude/nonattitude distinction:
- C-subjunctives (untensed, [−T]) → nonattitude → predicative control
- F-subjunctives (tensed, [+T,−Agr]) → attitude → logophoric control
- Fully finite ([+T,+Agr]) → no control (OC-NC generalization)
F-subjunctives DO permit OC (logophoric). Whether OC is realized depends on [±Agr]: [+Agr] blocks logophoric control per the OC-NC generalization. Greek controlled subjunctives ([+T,−Agr]) show OC; Greek indicatives ([+T,+Agr]) do not.
- cSubjunctive : LandauClauseClass
- fSubjunctive : LandauClauseClass
- finite : LandauClauseClass
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Map clause class to control tier (when control obtains).
Equations
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauClauseClass.cSubjunctive.controlTier = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.predicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauClauseClass.fSubjunctive.controlTier = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauClauseClass.finite.controlTier = none
Instances For
Whether a clause class structurally permits OC.
Both C-subjunctives and F-subjunctives permit OC. F-subjunctives permit logophoric OC when [−Agr]; this OC is blocked by [+Agr] per the OC-NC generalization. Fully finite clauses ([+T,+Agr]) never permit OC.
See hasOCWithAgr for the Agr-sensitive version.
Equations
Instances For
Whether OC is realized given Agr status.
Composes the clause class with the OC-NC generalization:
- C-subjunctives: always OC (predicative, Agr-independent)
- F-subjunctives [−Agr]: OC (logophoric)
- F-subjunctives [+Agr]: no OC (logophoric blocked by Agr)
- Fully finite: no OC
Equations
- c.hasOCWithAgr hasAgr = match c.controlTier with | none => false | some tier => c.permitsOC && (!hasAgr || !Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.agrBlocksControl tier)
Instances For
C-subjunctives have OC regardless of Agr.
F-subjunctives have OC when [−Agr].
F-subjunctives lose OC when [+Agr] (the OC-NC generalization).
Fully finite clauses never have OC.
The six empirical contrasts between the two types of control (table (80) in @cite{landau-2015}).
Each contrast shows a property that aligns with exactly one control tier. The "✓" entries indicate the tier where the property is available; the "*" entries indicate the tier where it is blocked.
| Property | Predicative | Logophoric |
|---|---|---|
| Inflected complement | ✓ | * |
| [−human] PRO | ✓ | * |
| Implicit control | * | ✓ |
| Control shift | * | ✓ |
| Partial control | * | ✓ |
| Split control | * | ✓ |
- name : String
- predicative : Bool
Available under predicative control?
- logophoric : Bool
Available under logophoric control?
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.
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.instBEqTTCContrast.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
The six contrasts from table (80), encoded as data.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Every contrast in table (80) is derived from ControlTier properties.
The ttcContrasts data agrees with the derived ControlTier properties.
Each contrast's Bool pair matches the corresponding tier function.
All six contrasts are systematically derived from the TTC: the first two are predicative-only, the last four are logophoric-only. This is the central empirical prediction of the book.
EC verbs resist impersonal passives ((98) in @cite{landau-2015}).
This is a direct consequence of (90): predicative control requires a syntactically present controller, and impersonal passives suppress the external argument. PC verbs allow impersonal passives because logophoric control does not require a syntactically present controller.
Cross-linguistic evidence: Hebrew (99), German (96a, 100), Dutch (101), Russian (102).
Cross-linguistic syncretism among BVA forms.
Records whether each BVA context uses the same form as the referential (free) pronoun. "=" means syncretic with the referential pronoun; "×" means a distinct form is used.
Used by @cite{ostrove-2026} (table 92) and grounded in the minimal pronoun approach of @cite{kratzer-2009} and @cite{safir-2014}.
- language : String
- reflexiveEqReferential : Bool
Is the reflexive form identical to the referential pronoun?
- controlledEqReferential : Bool
Is the controlled subject form identical to the referential pronoun?
- boundVarEqReferential : Bool
Is the bound variable pronoun identical to the referential pronoun?
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.
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.instBEqBVASyncretism.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Derive syncretism from a vocabulary item inventory.
A context is syncretic with the referential pronoun iff its realized form equals the elsewhere (pronoun) form — i.e., no context-specific vocabulary item overrides the default.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Types of copy control (@cite{polinsky-potsdam-2006}).
Copy control: the subject of a control clause is a phonologically overt copy of its controller. Four subtypes are distinguished by the nature of the copy and its distribution.
- fullCopy : CopyControlType
Full copy: PRO is a full DP copy of the controller. Attested in San Lucas Quievaní Zapotec, Copala Triqui.
- logophoricPronominal : CopyControlType
Logophoric pronominal: PRO is a pronoun, occurs only in attitude reports. Attested in Gengbe, Mandarin.
- scopeSensitivePronominal : CopyControlType
Scope-sensitive pronominal: PRO is a pronoun, triggered by scope-taking operators (focus). Attested in Italian, Hungarian, European Portuguese.
- obligatoryPronominal : CopyControlType
Obligatory pronominal: PRO is an overt clitic pronoun in all control contexts, showing the full OC signature. Attested in SMPM, Gã, Büli.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Properties distinguishing copy control types.
- controlType : CopyControlType
- showsOC : Bool
Does the copy show the full OC signature (bound variable, exhaustive)?
- attitudeOnly : Bool
Is the copy restricted to attitude report contexts?
- requiresScopeOperator : Bool
Does the copy require a scope-taking operator (focus, only)?
- copyCanBearFocus : Bool
Can the copy bear focus?
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.
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.instBEqCopyControlProfile.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Profile for each copy control type.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Exempt anaphors (@cite{pollard-sag-1992}): reflexive forms used outside their canonical binding domain (Condition A domain).
Key constraint: exempt anaphors cannot have quantified antecedents.
- hasExemptAnaphors : Bool
Exempt anaphors available in this language
- allowsQuantifiedAntecedent : Bool
Can exempt anaphors have quantified antecedents?
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.
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.instBEqExemptAnaphorProfile.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The two analyses of obligatory control derivation.
- baseGeneration : ControlDerivation
Controller base-generated in matrix; PRO base-generated in embedded clause. Two distinct syntactic positions, linked by variable binding.
- movement : ControlDerivation
Controller enters derivation in embedded subject position and moves to matrix position. One DP, two copies.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Movement predicts exempt anaphors are UNAVAILABLE with quantified controllers. Base-generation predicts they ARE available.
Equations
Instances For
The two logophoric readings of OC PRO under attitude predicates (table (36) in @cite{landau-2015}).
Under logophoric control, PRO is bound by a projected coordinate of the embedded context of evaluation. Which coordinate is projected depends on the object control verb subclass:
- Psychological verbs (convince, persuade, tempt) project the AUTHOR coordinate → obligatory de se
- Communicative verbs (tell, ask, recommend) project the ADDRESSEE coordinate → obligatory de te
- deSe : DeSeReading
PRO = AUTHOR(i'): attitude holder's identification of self
- deTe : DeSeReading
PRO = ADDRESSEE(i'): attitude holder's identification of addressee
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Object control verb subclasses (table (36)).
- psychological : ObjectControlSubclass
Psychological verbs: convince, persuade, dissuade, tempt
- communicative : ObjectControlSubclass
Communicative verbs: tell, ask, urge, recommend
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Map object control subclass to its logophoric reading. Psychological verbs bind the AUTHOR coordinate (de se); communicative verbs bind the ADDRESSEE coordinate (de te).
Equations
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.objectControlReading Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ObjectControlSubclass.psychological = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.DeSeReading.deSe
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.objectControlReading Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ObjectControlSubclass.communicative = Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.DeSeReading.deTe
Instances For
Derive @cite{landau-2015}'s predicate class from VerbCore fields.
This creates a bridge from Fragment verb entries to the TTC by deriving the predicate classification from existing semantic fields rather than storing it independently.
Returns none when the classification cannot be determined from
the available fields (e.g., try has no implicativeBuilder,
attitudeBuilder, or cosType).
Mapping:
cosTypepresent →.aspectual(begin, stop, continue, ...)implicativeBuilderpresent →.implicative(manage, fail, ...)causativeBuilderpresent →.implicative(force, cause — implicative causatives in Landau's (4a))factivePresupand attitude →.factive(regret, know, ...)attitudeBuilder.doxastic→.propositional(believe, think, ...)attitudeBuilder.preferential→.desiderative(want, hope, ...)takesQuestionBasewithout attitude →.interrogative(wonder, ask)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Derive control tier from VerbCore fields.
A verb induces logophoric control iff it selects an attitude
complement — detected by the presence of attitudeBuilder,
factivePresup, or takesQuestionBase. Otherwise it induces
predicative control.
Returns none for verbs that are not control verbs.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
"stop" (CoS cessation) → aspectual → predicative
"start" (CoS inception) → aspectual → predicative
"begin" (CoS inception) → aspectual → predicative
"continue" (CoS continuation) → aspectual → predicative
"manage" (positive implicative) → implicative → predicative
"fail" (negative implicative) → implicative → predicative
"remember" (positive implicative) → implicative → predicative
"forget" (negative implicative) → implicative → predicative
"force" (coercive causative) → implicative → predicative
"want" (preferential attitude) → desiderative → logophoric
"hope" (preferential attitude) → desiderative → logophoric
"promise" (preferential attitude) → desiderative → logophoric.
Previously unclassified; fixed by adding attitudeBuilder to the
Fragment entry per @cite{landau-2015} (5c).
"persuade" (preferential attitude, object control) → desiderative → logophoric.
Previously unclassified; fixed by adding attitudeBuilder per
@cite{landau-2015} table (36).
"regret" (factive) → factive → logophoric
"know" (factive + question) → factive → logophoric
"believe" (doxastic attitude) → propositional → logophoric
"think" (doxastic attitude) → propositional → logophoric
"wonder" (question-embedding, non-attitude) → interrogative → logophoric
"try" has no cosType, implicativeBuilder, causativeBuilder, factivePresup,
takesQuestionBase, or attitudeBuilder. It cannot be classified by
derivedLandauClass. This is correct: "try" is not implicative (trying
doesn't entail succeeding) and not clearly attitudinal.
"persuade" is a psychological object control verb → de se (table (36)).
Map @cite{noonan-2007}'s CTP classes to @cite{landau-2015}'s control tiers.
Noonan's twelve CTP classes partition into nonattitude (predicative) and attitude (logophoric) under the TTC:
Predicative (nonattitude):
- modal, phasal, achievement, negative → Landau's (4a-d)
Logophoric (attitude):
- utterance, propAttitude, commentative, knowledge, desiderative, manipulative → Landau's (5a-d)
Remaining:
- pretence: ambiguous (often nonattitude in control contexts)
- perception: typically does not take controlled complements
Equations
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.modal = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.predicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.phasal = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.predicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.achievement = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.predicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.negative = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.predicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.utterance = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.propAttitude = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.commentative = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.knowledge = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.desiderative = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.manipulative = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ControlTier.logophoric
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.pretence = none
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToControlTier Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.perception = none
Instances For
Predicative CTP classes map to predicative control.
Attitude CTP classes map to logophoric control.
Map @cite{noonan-2007}'s CTP classes to @cite{landau-2015}'s predicate classes (where the mapping is unambiguous).
Equations
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.modal = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.modal
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.phasal = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.aspectual
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.achievement = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.implicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.negative = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.implicative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.commentative = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.factive
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.knowledge = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.factive
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.propAttitude = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.propositional
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.utterance = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.propositional
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.desiderative = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.desiderative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.manipulative = some Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.LandauPredicateClass.desiderative
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.pretence = none
- Phenomena.Control.Studies.Landau2015.ctpToLandauClass Phenomena.Complementation.Typology.CTPClass.perception = none
Instances For
When both mappings are defined, they agree on the control tier.