The ±WH feature on C, determining declarative vs interrogative clause type.
alphaWH is underspecified — used for Hindi-Urdu simplex polar questions
where clause-typing is not forced at CP (@cite{dayal-2025}: §4.4).
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.instBEqWHFeature.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Dayal's classification of embedding predicates by what left-peripheral structure they select. Refines the rogative/responsive split.
uninterrogative: C_-WH only (believe, think)rogativeCP: C_+WH but not PerspP (investigate, depend on)rogativePerspP: CP + PerspP (wonder, the question is)rogativeSAP: Full structure (ask)responsive: C_±WH (know, remember)
- uninterrogative : SelectionClass
- rogativeCP : SelectionClass
- rogativePerspP : SelectionClass
- rogativeSAP : SelectionClass
- responsive : SelectionClass
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether the predicate's at-issue content entails the subject knows Ans(Q). This is the key semantic property that drives PerspP (in)compatibility.
- Responsive predicates (know, remember) entail knowledge at eval time
- Rogative predicates (wonder, ask) do NOT entail knowledge
- Under negation, the knowledge entailment is REMOVED
Equations
Instances For
Whether the knowledge entailment survives in the given syntactic context. Negation and questioning both remove a predicate's knowledge entailment:
- "I don't know Q" does NOT entail knowing Ans(Q)
- "Does she know Q?" does NOT entail knowing Ans(Q)
Equations
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.effectiveKnowledge cls negated questioned = (Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.entailsKnowledge cls && !negated && !questioned)
Instances For
PerspectiveP presupposes possible ignorance: ◇¬know(x, Ans(Q)). This is inconsistent with knowing Ans(Q). Consistency holds iff effective knowledge is false.
Note: Consistency is necessary but not sufficient for quasi-subordination. The full account also requires "potentially active" (de se interest), which is why forget doesn't freely quasi-subordinate (@cite{dayal-2025}: §3.3).
Equations
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.perspPConsistent cls negated questioned = !Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.effectiveKnowledge cls negated questioned
Instances For
Whether a predicate allows quasi-subordination. DERIVED from two independent conditions:
- The predicate must select PerspP (structural requirement)
- OR: PerspP is consistent with the predicate's semantics AND the predicate embeds interrogatives (responsive predicates under negation/question)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.allowsQuasiSub Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.uninterrogative negated questioned = false
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.allowsQuasiSub Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.rogativeCP negated questioned = false
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.allowsQuasiSub Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.rogativePerspP negated questioned = true
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.allowsQuasiSub Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.rogativeSAP negated questioned = true
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.instBEqEmbedType.beq x✝ y✝ = (x✝.ctorIdx == y✝.ctorIdx)
Instances For
Full embedding prediction.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.allowsEmbedding Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.uninterrogative et negated questioned = false
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.allowsEmbedding cls Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.EmbedType.subordination negated questioned = true
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.allowsEmbedding Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.rogativeSAP Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.EmbedType.quotation negated questioned = true
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.allowsEmbedding cls Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.EmbedType.quotation negated questioned = false
Instances For
Responsive predicates entail knowledge.
Rogative predicates do NOT entail knowledge.
Knowledge entailment is removed by negation.
Knowledge entailment is removed by questioning.
PerspP is inconsistent with effective knowledge. This is the core semantic derivation: know(x, Ans(Q)) ∧ ◇¬know(x, Ans(Q)) is a contradiction, so PerspP is blocked.
Without effective knowledge, PerspP is consistent. Rogatives never entail knowledge → always consistent.
Responsive predicates reject quasi-subordination in unadorned form. DERIVED: know entails knowledge → contradicts possible ignorance.
Under negation, responsives allow quasi-subordination. DERIVED: negation removes knowledge entailment → PerspP consistent. "*I remember [was Henry a communist↑]" vs "I don't remember [was Henry a communist↑]".
Under questioning, responsives allow quasi-subordination. DERIVED: questioning removes knowledge entailment → PerspP consistent. "Does Sue remember [was Henry a communist↑]"
Classify each verb by string to a selection class.
Equations
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyVerb "investigate" = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.rogativeCP
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyVerb "depend on" = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.rogativeCP
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyVerb "wonder" = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.rogativePerspP
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyVerb "ask" = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.rogativeSAP
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyVerb "know" = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.responsive
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyVerb "believe" = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.uninterrogative
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyVerb x✝ = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.uninterrogative
Instances For
Classify Hindi-Urdu verbs from the cross-linguistic shiftiness data.
Equations
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyCrossLingVerb "ja:n-na: ca:h-na: (want to know)" = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.rogativePerspP
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyCrossLingVerb "ja:n-na: (know)" = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.responsive
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.classifyCrossLingVerb x✝ = Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.SelectionClass.responsive
Instances For
H1. Derive SelectionClass from VerbEntry #
Instead of classifying verbs by string matching (classifyVerb "know" =>.responsive),
we derive the selection class from the primitive fields already encoded in
each VerbEntry: factivePresup, speechActVerb, opaqueContext, complementType,
attitudeBuilder, takesQuestionBase.
Derive the left-peripheral selection class from a VerbEntry's structural properties. This replaces ad-hoc string-based classification with a principled derivation from the verb's primitive semantic fields.
The logic:
- Factives are responsive (knowledge-entailing)
- Non-veridical doxastic attitudes are uninterrogative
- Speech-act verbs that take questions are rogativeSAP (speech-act layer)
- Opaque-context verbs that take questions are rogativePerspP (perspective layer)
- Other question-taking verbs are rogativeCP (CP layer only)
- Everything else is uninterrogative
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The structurally derived classification matches the manually-assigned string-based classification for all verbs in the embedding data.
H2. Compositional PerspP via possible ignorance #
PerspP introduces a not-at-issue presupposition: the perspectival center
possibly doesn't know the answer to the question. We formalize this using
diaAt (existential modal, ◇) from Doxastic.lean and ans from
Answerhood.lean.
Whether x possibly doesn't know Ans(Q) at world w: ◇¬know(x, Ans(Q)) = ∃w' ∈ R(x,w). ¬(Ans(Q,w) holds at w')
This is PerspP's not-at-issue presupposition (@cite{dayal-2025}: §2.3).
Uses diaAt from Doxastic.lean and ans from Answerhood.lean.
Equations
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.possibleIgnorance R center Q w worlds = Semantics.Attitudes.Doxastic.diaAt R center w worlds fun (w' : W) => !Semantics.Questions.Answerhood.ans Q w w'
Instances For
PerspP as a presuppositional question denotation. At-issue: the question Q itself. Not-at-issue presupposition: ◇¬know(center, Ans(Q)).
- question : Hamblin.QuestionDen W
The at-issue question content (unchanged by PerspP)
- presupSatisfied : Bool
Whether the possible-ignorance presupposition is satisfied
Instances For
Apply PerspP to a question: checks possible-ignorance presupposition.
Equations
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.applyPerspP R center Q w worlds hamblinQ = { question := hamblinQ, presupSatisfied := Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.possibleIgnorance R center Q w worlds }
Instances For
H3. Veridical predicates block PerspP #
The key compositional derivation: a veridical doxastic predicate that holds at Q entails □(Ans(Q)), which contradicts ◇¬(Ans(Q)). Therefore PerspP's possible-ignorance presupposition is inconsistent with responsive predicates in bare (non-negated, non-questioned) contexts.
box and dia are duals: □p → ¬◇¬p. If p holds at all accessible worlds, there is no accessible world where ¬p.
A veridical doxastic predicate entails the subject believes Ans(Q). "x knows Q" at w means there exists a true answer p that x box-believes. In particular, x box-believes Ans(Q,w) (the complete answer at w).
TODO: Full proof requires showing that holdsAtQuestion with the G&S-derived Hamblin denotation implies boxAt for Ans(Q,w). The key step is: holdsAtQuestion finds some true p that x box-believes; since the question is a partition, that p determines the same cell as Ans(Q,w).
Therefore PerspP's possible-ignorance presupposition is inconsistent with a veridical predicate that box-knows Ans(Q).
This is the compositional explanation for why responsive predicates (know, remember) reject quasi-subordination: their knowledge entailment □(Ans(Q)) contradicts PerspP's ◇¬(Ans(Q)).
H4. Bridge theorems #
Connect the compositional semantics (veridicality, box/dia) to the Boolean predicates (entailsKnowledge, perspPConsistent). This shows the Boolean predicates are correct because they track the compositional story.
Factive verbs correspond to veridical doxastic predicates. This is the structural link: factivePresup determines veridicality.
Instances For
The derived selection class assigns.responsive exactly to verbs whose factivePresup is true and which can embed questions. This connects the structural derivation to the semantic one.
The Boolean entailsKnowledge agrees with the compositional story:
responsive predicates entail knowledge (veridicality + box),
and non-responsive predicates do not.
Forward direction: responsive → veridical → box-knows Ans(Q) → PerspP blocked.
This is exactly what veridical_blocks_perspP proves at the compositional level.
The Boolean perspPConsistent tracks this faithfully.
I1. Field-based derivation #
This derivation keys off the surface-level lexical fields directly:
factivePresup, takesQuestionBase, complementType, speechActVerb, opaqueContext.
Each branch depends on a different field, so changing one field in the fragment breaks exactly one per-verb theorem below.
Derive selection class from VerbEntry fields.
| Class | Condition |
|---|---|
| uninterrogative | !takesQuestionBase && complementType !=.question |
| responsive | factivePresup && takesQuestionBase |
| rogativeSAP | complementType ==.question && speechActVerb |
| rogativePerspP | complementType ==.question && opaqueContext |
| rogativeCP | complementType ==.question (fallthrough) |
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
I2. Per-verb verification theorems #
Each proved by native_decide. Changing one VerbEntry field breaks exactly
one theorem — this is the dense dependency web.
I3. Cross-layer agreement #
The three classification methods — string-based classifyVerb, semantic
deriveSelectionClass, and field-based VerbEntry.selectionClass — all agree.
String-based classification matches field-based derivation.
Semantic derivation matches field-based derivation.
J1. EpistemicModel abstraction #
PerspP's presupposition is about possible ignorance: the perspectival center might not know the answer. We abstract over the knowledge notion so the derivation works with any epistemic semantics (doxastic, veridical, etc.).
PerspP presupposition (compositional version):
the agent does NOT know the complete answer to Q at w.
Uses ans from Answerhood.lean.
Equations
Instances For
J2. Canonical epistemic models #
Veridical model: knows p iff p is true at w (T axiom). This is the model for responsive predicates (know, remember) in bare (non-negated, non-questioned) contexts.
Equations
- Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.veridicalModel w = { knows := fun (p : W → Bool) => p w }
Instances For
Ignorant model: knows nothing. This is the model for rogative predicates (wonder, ask).
Instances For
J3. Grounding theorems #
These prove the Boolean layer (perspPConsistent) is faithful to the
compositional semantics.
A veridical knower's PerspP presupposition is false: they know Ans(Q,w),
so possible ignorance fails. Uses ans_true_at_index from Answerhood.lean.
An ignorant agent's PerspP presupposition is true: they don't know anything.
The Boolean perspPConsistent.responsive false false = false is consistent
with the compositional derivation: both say responsive blocks PerspP.
The Boolean layer says: responsive + not negated + not questioned → inconsistent. The compositional layer says: veridical model → ¬(possible ignorance).
J4. Bridge to DoxasticPredicate #
A DoxasticPredicate from Doxastic.lean induces an EpistemicModel at a
given world, agent, and domain. This connects the modal-logic semantics
to the abstract epistemic layer used by PerspP.
A DoxasticPredicate induces an EpistemicModel at a world.
Equations
Instances For
A veridical predicate that box-knows Ans(Q) blocks PerspP through the epistemic model bridge.
TODO: Full proof requires showing holdsAt for veridical predicates at the answer proposition entails the answer is true at the eval world (which follows from veridical_entails_complement + boxAt).
Connection to @cite{dayal-1996}'s answerhood theory #
The Ans(Q) referenced throughout this module — in PerspP's
◇¬know(x, Ans(Q)) and SAP's obligation to assert Ans(Q) — corresponds to
@cite{dayal-1996}'s strongest true answer when the question's Exhaustivity
Presupposition (EP) is satisfied. See Exhaustivity.dayalAns for the formal
operator and Exhaustivity.dayalAnsProposition for the extracted proposition.
When EP fails (e.g., ability-can questions under first-order scope), there
is no unique strongest answer, and the question licenses mention-some readings.
In such cases, Ans(Q) is not well-defined in Dayal's sense, though
@cite{xiang-2022}'s Relativized Exhaustivity (Exhaustivity.relExh) may still
hold.
For a question where @cite{dayal-1996}'s EP holds, there exists a definite
proposition serving as Ans(Q) in the left-peripheral semantics. Responsive
predicates' knowledge entailment (entailsKnowledge) targets this proposition;
PerspP's ignorance presupposition (◇¬know(x, Ans(Q))) presupposes it exists.
When EP fails, there is no definite Ans(Q), and the structural conflict between responsive predicates and PerspP is weakened.