Uegaki (2022) @cite{uegaki-2022} #
Question-orientedness and the Semantics of Clausal Complementation. Cham: Springer.
Core Thesis #
All clause-embedding predicates uniformly select for question-type denotations (sets of propositions, type ⟨⟨s,t⟩,t⟩). Proposition-taking is derived via the type-shift p → {p}. This question-oriented theory provides:
- A unified semantics for declarative and interrogative complementation
- Semantic (not syntactic) explanations for selectional restrictions
- Anti-rogativity of
believe/hopevia triviality (L-analyticity) - Responsiveness of
know/be happyvia veridicality breaking triviality - A constraint hierarchy: C-distributivity ⟹ {Strawson C-dist, P-to-Q Entailment}
What This Study File Verifies #
- The constraint hierarchy (Table 8.2): C-dist ⟹ P-to-Q Ent, with separation
- NVP classification matches the book's predictions
- Fictitious predicates (*shknow, *knopinion, *all-open) are correctly ruled out
- Highlighting resolves hope-whether apparent counterexamples
- Veridical vs non-veridical preferential asymmetry
- World-independence of non-veridical semantics (basis for L-analyticity)
- Triviality identity: assertion = presupposition when C = Q (L-analyticity)
- NVPClass ↔ SelectionClass bridge (question-oriented ↔ Left Periphery alignment)
- Full Table 8.2 with all four constraints
Linglib Integration #
This file imports and connects existing infrastructure:
CDistributivity.lean: C-distributivity definition and proofsEmbeddingConstraints.lean: P-to-Q Entailment, Strawson C-dist, Veridical Uniformity, fictitious predicatesPreferential.lean: NVP classification, TSP, highlighting, triviality theoremsLeftPeriphery.lean: SelectionClass derivation
Constraint Hierarchy #
@cite{uegaki-2022} establishes a hierarchy of constraints on clause-embedding predicates. The key result: P-to-Q Entailment is empirically superior to C-distributivity and Strawson C-distributivity.
The Hierarchy (independent weakenings) #
C-distributivity ⟹ Strawson C-distributivity (with trivial presup) C-distributivity ⟹ P-to-Q Entailment (Strawson C-dist and P-to-Q Entailment are independent — neither implies the other)
C-distributivity implies P-to-Q Entailment (re-exported from CDistributivity.lean).
A C-distributive PreferentialPredicate satisfies P-to-Q Entailment
(for any fixed comparison class C).
This closes the end-to-end chain for Class 2 and Class 3 NVPs:
attitudeBuilder → isCDistributive → IsPtoQEntailing.
Class 1 NVPs (non-C-distributive) require individual P-to-Q proofs
(e.g., wonder_satisfies_ptoq, daroo_satisfies_ptoq, care_satisfies_ptoq).
NVP Classification (@cite{uegaki-2022} Ch 6) #
| Class | C-dist | Valence | Takes Q? | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ✗ | any | ✓ | worry, qidai |
| 2 | ✓ | negative | ✓ | fear, dread |
| 3 | ✓ | positive | ✗ | hope, wish, expect |
Veridical preferentials (be happy, be surprised) break triviality despite being C-distributive + positive, because truth adds a world-dependent constraint.
Class 3 (hope-type) is anti-rogative.
Class 2 (fear-type) takes questions.
Class 1 (worry-type) takes questions.
The NVP classification is exhaustive: every combination of C-dist × valence maps to exactly one class.
The Triviality Derivation (@cite{uegaki-2022} Ch 6 §6.5) #
Anti-rogativity of positive NVPs is DERIVED, not stipulated:
1. hope has degree-comparison semantics (definition)
2. → hope is C-distributive (degreeComparisonPredicate_isCDistributive)
3. hope has positive valence (definition)
4. → hope has TSP (positive_hasTSP)
5. hope is non-veridical (definition)
6. 2 + 4 + 5 → assertion = presupposition (hope_triviality_identity)
7. → L-analytic → unacceptable (@cite{gajewski-2002})
The key step is (6): when the comparison class C equals the question Q, the assertion (∃p ∈ Q. μ(x,p) > θ(Q)) is identical to the presupposition (TSP: ∃p ∈ Q. μ(x,p) > θ(Q)). The meaning is L-analytic — its truth value is completely determined by whether the presupposition holds, with no informative content remaining.
Veridical predicates (be happy) break at step 6: truth requirement means
assertion is NOT entailed by TSP (veridical_breaks_triviality).
The full derivation chain for hope: C-dist + positive + non-veridical → trivial.
Triviality identity (re-exported from Preferential.lean): When C = Q, hope's assertion IS its presupposition.
This is the heart of the anti-rogativity derivation. The assertion ∃p ∈ Q. μ(x,p) > θ(Q) is literally the same formula as TSP ∃p ∈ Q. μ(x,p) > θ(Q). The meaning is L-analytic.
The full derivation chain for beHappy: C-dist + positive + veridical → NOT trivial.
hope-whether via Highlighting #
@cite{white-2021} presents attested "hope whether" constructions as apparent counterexamples to the anti-rogativity of positive NVPs.
@cite{uegaki-2022}'s solution: hope is sensitive to the highlighted value
of the complement (@cite{pruitt-roelofsen-2011}). Polar interrogatives highlight
only the overtly-realized proposition (singleton), so "hope whether p" ≈
"hope that p" — not trivial.
Constituent interrogatives highlight ALL alternatives, preserving triviality.
Polar interrogatives: hope-whether reduces to hope-that (not trivial).
Constituent interrogatives: hope-who is still trivial.
Cross-Linguistic Predicates (@cite{uegaki-2022} Chs 4, 5, 8) #
The book's key empirical argument for P-to-Q Entailment over C-distributivity comes from cross-linguistic data: predicates that violate C-distributivity but satisfy P-to-Q Entailment.
Table 8.2: Four Constraints × Seven Predicates #
| *shknow | *knopinion | care | mõtlema | daroo | wonder | magtaka | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Veridical Uniformity | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✗ |
| C-distributivity | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Strawson C-distributivity | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| P-to-Q Entailment | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
P-to-Q Entailment correctly rules out only magtaka among attested predicates,
while ruling out all three fictitious predicates (*shknow, *knopinion).
C-distributivity over-rules-out care, mõtlema, daroo, wonder.
Cross-linguistic embedding datum from @cite{uegaki-2022} Table 8.2.
Fields satisfiesVU, satisfiesCDist, satisfiesStrawsonCDist, satisfiesPtoQ
encode whether the predicate satisfies each constraint (not whether the
constraint makes a correct prediction). This aligns with the theory-level
definitions (IsPtoQEntailing, IsCDistributive, etc.) — e.g.,
shknow_violates_ptoq proves *shknow does NOT satisfy P-to-Q Entailment,
so satisfiesPtoQ = false for *shknow.
The paper's ✓/✗ table encodes "correct prediction" — a different concept.
For attested predicates, correct prediction = satisfies. For fictitious
predicates, correct prediction = violates (the constraint correctly rules
them out). Use correctPrediction to derive the paper's table.
- predicate : String
- language : String
- takesDecl : Bool
- takesInterrog : Bool
- satisfiesVU : Bool
- satisfiesCDist : Bool
- satisfiesStrawsonCDist : Bool
- satisfiesPtoQ : Bool
- attested : Bool
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.Questions.Studies.Uegaki2022.instBEqCrossLingDatum.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Does a constraint make a correct prediction about this predicate?
For attested predicates: correct iff the predicate satisfies the constraint (the constraint allows an actually-existing predicate). For fictitious predicates: correct iff the predicate violates the constraint (the constraint rules out a non-existent predicate).
Instances For
Full Table 8.2 data from @cite{uegaki-2022}, including fictitious predicates.
Values use "satisfies" semantics:
- *shknow, *knopinion: violate ALL four constraints (all false)
- wonder: VU is NA in the paper (VU applies to responsive predicates;
wonder is rogative). Encoded as
satisfiesVU = truebecauseIsVeridicallyUniformis vacuously satisfied: bothIsVeridicalDeclandIsVeridicalInterroghold vacuously when ⟦wonder⟧({p}↓)(x) is always false, making the biconditional trivially true.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
C-distributivity implies P-to-Q Entailment across all table predicates.
P-to-Q Entailment is strictly weaker: some attested predicates satisfy P-to-Q but not C-distributivity (care, mõtlema, daroo, wonder).
C-distributivity implies Strawson C-distributivity across all table predicates.
All unattested predicates violate P-to-Q Entailment — the constraint correctly rules out every fictitious predicate in the table.
P-to-Q Entailment allows more attested predicates than C-distributivity.
P-to-Q makes correct predictions for all predicates except magtaka.
Connecting to Left Periphery Theory #
@cite{uegaki-2022}'s question-oriented theory is complementary to the Left
Periphery analysis in LeftPeriphery.lean. The question-oriented theory explains
why predicates have their selectional restrictions (semantic triviality),
while the Left Periphery theory explains how the syntactic structure of
embedded clauses varies (CP vs PerspP vs SAP layers).
The connection: predicates that are anti-rogative under the question-oriented
theory (Class 3 NVPs, neg-raising predicates) correspond to uninterrogative
in the SelectionClass taxonomy. Predicates that are responsive correspond to
responsive. Rogative predicates correspond to rogativePerspP/rogativeSAP.
Anti-rogative predicates (uninterrogative) don't embed interrogatives.
Responsive predicates allow subordination but not quasi-subordination in bare contexts.
Rogative predicates (wonder) allow both subordination and quasi-subordination.
NVPClass↔SelectionClass bridge (approximate): the question-oriented theory's NVP classification partially aligns with the Left Periphery's SelectionClass.
- Class 3 (anti-rogative) → uninterrogative: correct (both predict no interrog)
- Class 2 (C-dist + negative) → responsive: correct (fear, dread take both)
- Class 1 (non-C-dist) → responsive: approximate — correct for worry and care
(which take both decl + interrog), but incorrect for wonder and daroo, which
are better classified as
.rogativePerspP. The issue is that.responsivein the Left Periphery entails factivity/knowledge, which wonder and daroo lack.
This mapping is lossy because NVPClass captures C-dist × valence while SelectionClass captures syntactic selection of left-peripheral layers — orthogonal dimensions that don't reduce to each other.
Equations
- Phenomena.Questions.Studies.Uegaki2022.nvpToSelectionClass Semantics.Attitudes.Preferential.NVPClass.class3_cDist_positive = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.uninterrogative
- Phenomena.Questions.Studies.Uegaki2022.nvpToSelectionClass Semantics.Attitudes.Preferential.NVPClass.class1_nonCDist = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.responsive
- Phenomena.Questions.Studies.Uegaki2022.nvpToSelectionClass Semantics.Attitudes.Preferential.NVPClass.class2_cDist_negative = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.responsive
Instances For
Anti-rogative NVPs (Class 3) map to uninterrogative SelectionClass.
Question-taking NVPs agree with non-uninterrogative SelectionClasses on allowing interrogative embedding.
SelectionClass ↔ P-to-Q Bridge #
The Left Periphery's SelectionClass taxonomy (syntactic selection) and the
question-oriented theory's P-to-Q Entailment (semantic constraint) are
consistent: every SelectionClass that admits interrogative embedding is
associated with a semantic structure that satisfies P-to-Q.
rogativePerspP(wonder): P-to-Q via vacuous singleton (wonder_satisfies_ptoq)responsive(know, care): P-to-Q via C-distributivity (cDistributive_implies_ptoq) or relevance semanticsrogativeCP(investigate): P-to-Q via existential semanticsrogativeSAP(ask): P-to-Q via speech-act semantics
Theoretical Gap: daroo #
The nvpToSelectionClass bridge maps Class 1 (non-C-distributive, takes questions)
to .responsive. But .responsive in the Left Periphery sense requires factivity
and knowledge entailment — properties daroo lacks. Daroo's behavior is better
captured as .rogativePerspP (perspective-layer selection) with an extended
semantics that drops the ignorance component. This suggests the SelectionClass
taxonomy needs a finer-grained distinction within PerspP-selecting predicates:
those with ignorance (wonder) vs without (daroo).
P-to-Q Entailment is satisfied by all attested interrogative-embedding predicates in Table 8.2 except magtaka (Tagalog), which is the sole counterexample — motivating the search for a still-weaker constraint.
The SelectionClass taxonomy is consistent with P-to-Q: for each interrogative-embedding SelectionClass, at least one attested predicate in Table 8.2 demonstrates P-to-Q satisfaction.
- rogativePerspP: wonder satisfies P-to-Q (vacuous singleton)
- responsive: care, daroo, mõtlema all satisfy P-to-Q
World-Independence (@cite{uegaki-2022} Ch 6 §6.5.4) #
The triviality argument relies on non-veridical predicates having
world-independent semantics: ⟦x hopes p⟧(w, C) = μ(x,p) > θ(C)
contains no world variable. When assertion = presupposition
(hope_triviality_identity), this identity holds at ALL worlds —
making the meaning L-analytic per @cite{gajewski-2002}.
L-analyticity: An LF constituent is L-analytic iff its logical skeleton receives the same truth-value under every variable assignment where the denotation is defined. For non-veridical preferentials + interrogative complement, the assertion is always true when TSP is met, regardless of world — L-analytic → ungrammatical.
Hope's question semantics is world-independent: it gives the same result at any two worlds.
Fictitious Predicates (@cite{uegaki-2022} Table 8.2) #
All three fictitious predicates from the book are formalized and proved to violate P-to-Q Entailment:
- *shknow: know + wonder hybrid (
shknow_violates_ptoq) - *knopinion: know + no-opinion hybrid (
knopinion_violates_ptoq) - *all-open: universal compatibility (
allOpen_violates_ptoq)
Fear and Negative Preferentials #
@cite{uegaki-2022} §6.6.2 proposes that fear's assertion direction is flipped relative to hope: where hope asserts Pref(x, p) > θ(C), fear asserts Pref(x, p) < θ(C). The presupposition (TSP) uses the same direction (>) for both.
This means fear doesn't yield triviality even WITH TSP: the presupposition says "something is preferred above threshold" while the assertion says "something is preferred below threshold" — these are independent conditions, not identical.
Our formalization simplifies this by treating negative valence as lacking
TSP entirely (hasTSP .negative = false). This captures the correct
result (fear takes questions) but via a different mechanism. The book's
more nuanced analysis — same TSP, flipped assertion — is left as future
refinement.