Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Agreement.Studies.Pietraszko2026

Pietraszko 2026: In defense of the clause-internal phase (Ndebele) #

@cite{pietraszko-2026}

VoiceP in Zimbabwean Ndebele is a clause-internal phase, diagnosed by operational opacity for A-movement and φ-agreement (not by successive-cyclic footprints). Mechanism: Voice optionally bears EPP; when it does, the in-vP subject vacates to the phase edge (Spec,VoiceP) and is visible to T's probes; when it does not, the subject is trapped in the phase complement and T defaults to class-15 ku- agreement.

Main results #

See also: substrate, sibling Studies, deferred work #

See module-internal Notes block (after the namespace) for: methodology caveats (single-consultant data; novel allomorphy split); cross-framework positions vs Keine 2020; alternative analyses ruled out (Carstens & Mletshe, Halpert, Zeller); IS-syntax interface deliberately bracketed; deferred work (multi-clause hyperraising; per-paper alternative models as formalized siblings; bibliography backlog).

Notes #

Methodology caveat. All Ndebele data are from a single native consultant (@cite{pietraszko-2026}, fn 1: a 60-year-old speaker who grew up in Bulawayo). The class-1 /u/ (T) vs /e/ (Perf/Asp) allomorphy split (encoded in class1Allomorph below) is novel to this paper and not yet corroborated against published Ndebele grammars.

Alternative analyses ruled out empirically (Pietraszko §3, §4 — none yet formalized in linglib):

Information-structural conditioning bracketed. Bantu VS order is paradigmatically focus / discourse-newness conditioned (Buell 2005, Zerbian 2006). Pietraszko 2026 treats the optionality as syntactic. Linglib/Features/InformationStructure.lean exists but is not consumed by this file.

Deferrals (next-session candidates):

§1. Lexical sample (Ndebele Aux-V structure) #

Voice with EPP feature (Pietraszko 2026): triggers subject movement to Spec,VoiceP. VoiceP is always phasal in Ndebele (phaseOverride := some true); the variation is on the EPP feature.

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

    Voice without EPP: subject trapped in vP, invisible to higher probes via PIC at the Voice phase boundary.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Token id namespace (each lexical position in the derivation gets a distinct id; needed because LIToken distinguishes id-tagged copies).

      Equations
      Instances For

        A T head bearing [φ, EPP].

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

          An Asp head also bearing [φ, EPP] (per @cite{baker-2003}, @cite{baker-2008}, @cite{collins-2004}, @cite{carstens-2005}: in Bantu, φ-probes occur only on heads with EPP, so each inflectional head above Voice carries the same probe profile).

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

            A Voice head (the lexical leaf; Voice's phasehood and EPP are metadata on the corresponding VoiceHead, not on the LIToken).

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

              The subject DP at its base position (Spec,vP). Class 1 (uZondi).

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

                The subject DP after movement to Spec,VoiceP (a fresh copy, since each LIToken in copy theory is a distinct token).

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

                  A trace at the base position after movement (distinct LIToken, indistinguishable to PIC since phaseImpenetrable checks structural containment, not LI equality).

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

                    The vP subtree with subject in situ (Spec,vP).

                    Structure: .node subject (.node v VP) where VP holds the verb + object. Stylized: we omit the V/Object internal structure and treat the v-projection as a single binary node.

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

                      The vP subtree after subject movement: the trace replaces the subject.

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

                        The Voice projection with NO Spec,VoiceP — subject remains in vP. Structure: .node voiceHead vP. Voice is the phase; its complement is the entire vP, which contains the subject.

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

                          The Voice projection with subject at Spec,VoiceP (phase edge). Structure: .node subject (.node voiceHead vP_with_trace). The OUTER node is not the phase; the inner .node voiceHead vP is the phase, and the subject (sister to it) is at the edge.

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

                            The Voice phase corresponding to voiceP_noSpec. Per substrate intent (Phase.head = the lexical phase head terminal, complement = the spelled-out domain), the head is the Voice token and the complement is the entire vP.

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

                              The Voice phase corresponding to voiceP_withSpec: head is the Voice token, complement is the post-movement vP (containing only the trace), edge is the moved subject at Spec,VoiceP.

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

                                The full Aux-V tree (T > Asp > Voice > vP) with subject in situ.

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

                                  The full Aux-V tree with subject moved to Spec,VoiceP. T's probe will additionally attract the subject to Spec,TP — that movement is the derivational step we don't model here; the salient question is just whether T's probe finds the subject under PIC.

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

                                    §2. Phase-bounded accessibility (derived from PIC) #

                                    The substantive content of Pietraszko 2026's analysis is that the subject's accessibility to a higher probe is determined by whether the subject sits inside the Voice-phase complement. We derive this from phaseImpenetrable rather than stipulate it.

                                    The subject is accessible to a probe above the Voice phase iff it is NOT inside the phase's spelled-out complement (PIC). Reads Phase's complement field directly, per substrate intent.

                                    Equations
                                    Instances For

                                      When subject is in situ (in vP, the Voice-phase complement), it is NOT accessible across the phase. Derived from voicePhase_noSpec's complement field via contains.

                                      When subject is at Spec,VoiceP (the phase edge), it IS accessible across the phase — the trace inside vP is a distinct LIToken (different id), so contains correctly returns false on the moved-subject copy, and accessibility holds.

                                      PIC encoding choice: traces use distinct ids (idSubjectTrace = 7 vs idSubject = 5); a substrate move to true copy theory (where a chain is one entity with deletion at PF) would require revisiting this representation. The current encoding is sound for contains PIC checking but is not faithful to chain-based copy theory.

                                      §3. Prediction 1 — bidirectional movement-agreement covariation #

                                      Pietraszko §2.3: subject movement to Spec,TP and φ-agreement on T covary perfectly. Honest framing: in copy-theory PIC, "subject moved" and "T agrees" are the same structural condition (subject is OUTSIDE the Voice-phase complement). The bidirectional theorem in this file therefore reduces to rfl modulo decide — its content is structural (the single PIC condition has the two observable consequences), not a coincidence between independent measurements. The load-bearing derivation lives in §2 (subject_inSitu_inaccessible, subject_atEdge_accessible).

                                      A typeclass-based reformulation (per the prior mathlib audit's "obvious next move") would let convergence with E&S 2025 register as instance declarations and the bidirectional become true-by-construction. Deferred.

                                      Surface phenomenon — both routes coincide: T's probe finds an accessible subject ↔ the subject has vacated the Voice phase complement. Derived from PIC via the tree's Voice phase.

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

                                        Subject's accessibility to a higher probe in a given Aux-V tree. The single observable; both surface phenomena (movement + agreement) are derived from this. Defaults to inaccessible for unrecognized tree shapes.

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

                                          Prediction 1 (bidirectional): surface movement-and-agreement coincide on the named trees because both reflect the same IsSubjectAccessibleInTree structural condition.

                                          §4. Prediction 2 — Aux-V uniformity #

                                          In an Aux-V chain [T > Asp > Voice > vP], every functional head above Voice carries the same φ + EPP probe (per the Bantu Baker generalization: @cite{baker-2003}, @cite{baker-2008}, @cite{collins-2004}, @cite{carstens-2005}). Each probe independently checks accessibility across the Voice phase. Because they share the same accessibility condition, they uniformly succeed or uniformly fail.

                                          Modeled here without per-head parameterization: every above-Voice probe reads IsSubjectAccessibleInTree, so uniformity follows by construction. A more articulated model with per-head probes would consult an InflectionalHost enum and run independent applyAgree calls; both would still derive uniformity from the shared accessibility condition.

                                          Prediction 2 (Aux-V uniformity): every functional head above Voice agrees iff the subject is accessible across the Voice phase. The theorem is structural: the SAME predicate IsSubjectAccessibleInTree answers for all such probes, so uniformity is by definition. The empirical content is in the concrete witness theorem below — all heads jointly agree or jointly default on the named trees.

                                          §5. Phase-delimited movement (§4 ex 78-79) #

                                          Pietraszko 2026's generalization: A-movement is obligatory within a phase; optional across phases. The Voice-phase boundary is the locus of optionality — once the subject vacates the phase via Spec,VoiceP, movement to Spec,TP is forced.

                                          Phase-internal A-movement is obligatory: a subject inside vP cannot be reached by T (PIC blocks it), so the only way for T to agree is for the subject to be at the phase edge.

                                          Cross-phasal A-movement is optional: independent voice variants can give either visible (with EPP) or invisible (without EPP) — the optionality lives at the Voice phase boundary.

                                          §6. Convergence with @cite{erlewine-sommerlot-2025} #

                                          Both papers commit Voice to be phasal via phaseOverride := some true, on disjoint empirical domains. The convergence is now machine-checked rather than docstring-asserted.

                                          §7. Four-cell phase-override typology #

                                          Three concrete clients now exhaust the (VoiceFlavor.defaultPhasal × phaseOverride : Option Bool) typology cells:

                                          The typology theorem witnesses each cell with a concrete VoiceHead.

                                          Cell 2: agentive flavor + phaseOverride := some true = Pietraszko 2026's Voice-with-EPP (this file's Sample.voiceWithEPP). Same observable phasehood as Cell 1 but with explicit override documenting the per-paper commitment.

                                          Cell 3: agentive flavor + phaseOverride := some false = Chol intransitive variants (Coon2019.v_w); also Mam Agent Focus in @cite{coon-mateo-pedro-preminger-2014}. Override forces non-phasal against the agentive flavor default.

                                          §8. Divergence from @cite{keine-2020}: study-local probe config #

                                          Pietraszko 2026 §3.1.2 + §3.1.3 argue that probe-based locality (@cite{keine-2020}'s horizons) cannot derive Aux-V uniformity. Below is a study-local Keine-style probe configuration intended to model Pietraszko's data using the horizon framework — included for side-by-side comparison, not as the substrate's preferred encoding.

                                          Per linglib layer discipline, this lives here (study-local) rather than as a row in Theories/Syntax/Minimalist/Probe.lean's LanguageProbeConfig table.

                                          The horizon-based reduction of Pietraszko's account: Voice is the horizon for both φ and A-movement probes. Topicalization (Ā) and wh-licensing are unbounded (Pietraszko §3.2 ex 28: A-bar movement crosses VoiceP without difficulty even when subject is in situ).

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

                                            The configuration's φ-probe correctly classifies as A-level (not Ā).

                                            A and Ā probes differ in horizon: A is bounded by Voice, Ā is unbounded. This is what permits A′-movement out of VoiceP even when A-movement is blocked (Pietraszko §3.2 ex 55: object dislocation requires subject movement, A and A′ asymmetry resolved).

                                            §9. Empirical predictions deferred to substrate extension #

                                            The following empirical theorems are marked here as the natural next formalization steps. Each requires substrate that is either present but underused (raising-to-object: cross-clausal applyAgree) or genuinely missing (hyperraising: multi-clause Derivation model; reduced-clause AspP test: LIToken allomorph exponent function).

                                            §3.1.1 raising-to-object #

                                            Pietraszko §3.1.1 ex 25-27: Ngi-funa uZondi {a/*ku}-pheke "I want Zondi to cook". The embedded subject uZondi raises to matrix object position; the embedded T's class-1 a- (matching agreement) is forced, default ku- is *. This falsifies Carstens & Mletshe's optional-T-EPP analysis: if T optionally lacked [EPP,φ], default agreement should be possible even while raising. The phasal-Voice account predicts obligatoriness: raising requires the subject to vacate VoiceP, and once vacated, T's probe necessarily finds it.

                                            The conditional: subject accessibility (the precondition for both raising-to-object licensing and embedded T agreement) is the single structural condition; either both hold or neither does.

                                            Concrete contrast: in the in-situ tree, raising can't happen and matching agreement is also unavailable.

                                            §3.1.3 reduced-clause AspP test #

                                            Pietraszko §3.1.3 ex 34-42: in Ngi-khulume, ubaba e/*u-si-dla "I spoke while father eating", the adjunct clause is reduced (no T layer). Subject-agreement uses the /e/ allomorph (Asp) not /u/ (T), confirming the agreement is on Asp. This argues T always has EPP — were T's EPP optional, the adjunct could lack T entirely AND still show u- on a hypothetical T head, but in fact only Asp's /e/ appears.

                                            We formalize the morphological exponent function and the empirical contrast directly.

                                            The inflectional host of an agreement morpheme above Voice. Used by class1Allomorph and the AspP test.

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

                                                The class-1 agreement allomorph by host. Pietraszko §3.1.3: distinct exponents (u_ on T, e_ on Asp) — the morphological diagnostic that the agreement target in reduced clauses is Asp, not a hypothetical T head.

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

                                                    Default class-15 agreement is uniformly ku-, regardless of host. A constant function — the host argument is empirically vacuous, which is itself the diagnostic content.

                                                    Equations
                                                    Instances For

                                                      The reduced-clause AspP test: in adjunct contexts where the highest head is Asp (not T), the class-1 prefix is e- not u-. The contrast is morphological proof that the agreement target in such contexts is genuinely Asp, supporting Pietraszko's claim that T always has EPP and that the optionality lives lower in the spine.

                                                      The default ku- prefix is host-uniform: identical on T and Asp. This morphological identity is what makes Aux-V uniformity (§3.1.2) detectable as a single observable.

                                                      §3.2 object-dislocation entails subject movement (ex 55) #

                                                      Pietraszko §3.2: "in Ndebele, if the subject cannot move out of VoiceP, neither can the object." A/A′ convergence — when Voice lacks EPP, both A-probes (T's φ) and the object-dislocation-licensing operation are blocked. We formalize the entailment as a Bool implication on the tree state.

                                                      Object dislocation requires its own phase-edge licensing: the object must escape the Voice phase complement to reach a dislocation position above. Routed through voicePhaseFor so the entailment theorem below is not a definitional alias of subject accessibility, even though the two share the Voice-EPP precondition.

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

                                                        §3.2 ex 55 entailment: object dislocation is licensed only when the subject is also accessible across the Voice phase. The two operations share the Voice-EPP precondition; neither can apply when Voice lacks EPP.

                                                        Contrapositive: when subject is inaccessible (in situ), object dislocation is impossible.