Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Presupposition.Studies.White2014

Pre-Existence Theory vs. Empirical Data #

@cite{white-2014}

Connects the pre-existence theory (from PreExistence.lean) to empirical data about forget's presuppositions (from ForgetPresuppositions.lean) and to the English verb Fragment.

What This File Tests #

  1. Pre-existence predictions match dataneedsModalInsertion correctly predicts which frames get modal vs. non-modal presuppositions

  2. MCA overprediction — the Modalized Complement Analysis wrongly predicts a modal presupposition for the gerund case

  3. Fragment consistency — the two Fragment entries for forget (implicative and factive/rogative) align with the theory

The pre-existence theory predicts: modal presupposition iff the complement type does NOT satisfy pre-existence. We verify this against each judgment from @cite{ippolito-kiss-williams-2025}.

Gerund: pre-existence satisfied → non-modal presupposition. Matches: "forgot stopping by" presupposes stopped. This is the case that refutes the MCA's overprediction.

The Modalized Complement Analysis predicts modal presuppositions for ALL non-finite complements. This overgenerates for gerunds: "forgot stopping by" has a non-modal presupposition.

The English Fragment has two entries for forget: - forget (implicative, infinitival complement): "forgot to VP" - forget_rog (factive/rogative, finite complement): "forgot that p"

Un@cite{ippolito-kiss-williams-2025}, these are NOT two distinct lexical items but
one verb with uniform factivity. The Fragment's split is a practical
choice: it separates the implicative entailment pattern (forgot to VP
→ didn't VP) from the rogative/factive pattern (forgot that p / forgot
whether p). Williams's pre-existence analysis explains why these two
uses surface differently without positing lexical ambiguity. 

The implicative entry's complement does NOT satisfy pre-existence. This is why the modal is inserted, yielding the obligation reading.

Basic verification that ComplementType.isFinite classifies correctly. These hold independently of any theory of factivity.