Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery

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

      Dayal's classification of embedding predicates by what left-peripheral structure they select. Refines the rogative/responsive split.

      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
            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
              Instances For

                Whether a predicate allows quasi-subordination. DERIVED from two independent conditions:

                1. The predicate must select PerspP (structural requirement)
                2. OR: PerspP is consistent with the predicate's semantics AND the predicate embeds interrogatives (responsive predicates under negation/question)
                Equations
                Instances For

                  The structurally distinct ways an interrogative clause can be embedded.

                  Instances For
                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      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↑]"

                      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

                        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.

                        def Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.possibleIgnorance {W : Type u_1} {E : Type u_2} (R : Attitudes.Doxastic.AccessRel W E) (center : E) (Q : GSQuestion W) (w : W) (worlds : List W) :

                        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
                        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
                            def Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.applyPerspP {W : Type u_1} {E : Type u_2} (R : Attitudes.Doxastic.AccessRel W E) (center : E) (Q : GSQuestion W) (w : W) (worlds : List W) (hamblinQ : Hamblin.QuestionDen W) :

                            Apply PerspP to a question: checks possible-ignorance presupposition.

                            Equations
                            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.

                              theorem Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.box_excludes_dia_neg {W : Type u_1} {E : Type u_2} (R : Attitudes.Doxastic.AccessRel W E) (agent : E) (w : W) (worlds : List W) (p : WBool) (hBox : Attitudes.Doxastic.boxAt R agent w worlds p = true) :
                              (Attitudes.Doxastic.diaAt R agent w worlds fun (w' : W) => !p w') = false

                              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.

                              Equations
                              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.

                                ClassCondition
                                uninterrogative!takesQuestionBase && complementType !=.question
                                responsivefactivePresup && takesQuestionBase
                                rogativeSAPcomplementType ==.question && speechActVerb
                                rogativePerspPcomplementType ==.question && opaqueContext
                                rogativeCPcomplementType ==.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.

                                  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.).

                                  An abstract epistemic model: tells us whether the agent knows a proposition.

                                  Instances For

                                    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
                                      Instances For

                                        Ignorant model: knows nothing. This is the model for rogative predicates (wonder, ask).

                                        Equations
                                        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.

                                            theorem Semantics.Questions.LeftPeriphery.ep_gives_definite_ans {W : Type u_1} {P : Type u_2} (qden : (WList W)PWBool) (mb : WList W) (answers : List P) (worlds : List W) (w : W) (α : P) ( : Theories.Semantics.Questions.Exhaustivity.dayalAns qden mb answers worlds w = some α) :

                                            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.