Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.ClauseChaining.Studies.SarvasyAikhenvald2025

Clause Chaining #

@cite{sarvasy-aikhenvald-2025} @cite{foley-r-d-van-valin-1984}

Part I: Fragment Verification #

Theorems connecting the clause chaining fragment data (medial verb inventories) to the typological parameters in Data.lean. Each theorem verifies that the fragment's morphological inventory is consistent with the language's clause chaining parameter bundle.

Dimensions #

  1. SR inventory ↔ SR system: languages with SR morphology have SS and DS markers in their fragment; languages without SR have no SR-indexed markers
  2. Relation inventory ↔ relations marked: the number of distinct semantic relations in the fragment matches the parameter bundle's list
  3. Agreement pattern ↔ medial morphology: DS-triggered agreement is consistent with the medial morph profile
  4. Converb count ↔ relation richness: non-SR languages have more converbal suffixes, consistent with the generalization that SR absorbs semantic work

Part II: ContextTower Derivation #

End-to-end derivation chain connecting the ContextTower infrastructure to clause chaining phenomena. The core insight: in a medial-final chain, the final verb establishes the root context and each medial clause pushes a .clauseChain shift. TAM values absent on medial verbs are inherited from the origin (the final verb's context).

Results #

  1. Tower depth = chain length: N medial clauses → tower depth N
  2. TAM scope = origin access: the final verb's tense/mood at .origin scopes over medial clauses that lack their own tense/mood
  3. Tense inheritance: languages with tenseFromFinalVerb = true (Nungon) read tense from origin; languages with medial tense (Turkish) read locally
  4. SR as agent comparison: SS = .agent same across adjacent tower levels; DS = .agent differs

Nungon (Trans-New Guinea, Finisterre-Huon; @cite{sarvasy-2017}, 2025 Ch. 7).

The best-described clause chaining language. Obligatory SR with temporal encoding: four distinct medial forms (SS-SEQ, SS-SIM, DS-SEQ, DS-SIM). Medial verbs are maximally reduced (bare stem + SR suffix). The final verb alone carries tense, agreement, and full mood. Non-canonical stand-alone medial clauses are attested.

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

    Manambu (Ndu family, East Sepik; @cite{aikhenvald-2008}, 2025 Ch. 6).

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

      Ku Waru (Trans-New Guinea, Chimbu-Wahgi; @cite{merlan-rumsey-1991}).

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

        Korean (Koreanic; @cite{sohn-1999}).

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

          Turkish (Turkic; @cite{goksel-kerslake-2005}).

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

            Korowai (Trans-New Guinea, Greater Awyu; @cite{de-vries-2025} Ch. 5).

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

              All language data entries.

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

                Every language with SR tracks at least subject continuity.

                In every SR language in the sample, SS is the unmarked member.

                Languages without SR mark more interclausal semantic relations (7+ relation types). SR languages encode fewer relation types because the SR morpheme absorbs sequential/simultaneous distinctions.

                Nungon has the ssDsTemporal SR system: the fragment provides both SS suffixes (invariant, 2 forms for SEQ/SIM) and a full DS person/number paradigm. The four-way system (SS-SEQ, SS-SIM, DS-SEQ, DS-SIM) matches SRSystem.ssDsTemporal.

                Nungon DS paradigm has 9 cells (3 persons x 3 numbers). DS forms carry person/number agreement — consistent with the agreement field being .absent on medial verbs in general (SS forms lack agreement; DS forms are the exception that proves the rule).

                Nungon SS suffixes are exactly 2: sequential and simultaneous. This matches the relationsMarked = [.sequential,.simultaneous] in the parameter bundle — the two temporal relations are the only semantics encoded on SS medial verbs.

                Nungon tense is absent on medial verbs — inherited from the final verb.

                Manambu has a binary SS/DS system (without temporal encoding). The fragment inventory partitions into SS, DS, and neutral markers.

                Manambu has 9 medial clause markers in total.

                Every Manambu DS marker triggers subject agreement; no SS marker does. This mirrors the Nungon pattern: agreement is a property of DS marking, not of medial verbs in general.

                Manambu marks 3 interclausal relations (sequential, simultaneous, causal), matching the parameter bundle.

                Manambu has both bridging types (recapitulative and summary).

                Korean has no SR system: conjunctive suffixes encode semantic relations directly without tracking subject continuity.

                Korean marks 8 interclausal relations in its parameter bundle. The suffix count matches the relation count: each suffix maps to (at least) one relation type.

                Korean allows full independent negation on medial clauses — consistent with all 8 suffixes allowing negation.

                Korean medial verbs partially retain tense. The fragment confirms this: 3 of 8 suffixes allow tense marking on the medial verb.

                Turkish has 8 converbal suffixes (-(y)ip, -(y)erek, -(y)ince, -ken, -dikce, -meden, -AlI, -casina).

                Turkish converbs outnumber relations: multiple converbs can encode the same semantic relation (e.g., both -erek and -çasına encode manner; both -erek and -ken encode simultaneous).

                Turkish allows full independent negation on medial clauses — every affirmative converb has a negative counterpart, plus there is one inherently negative converb (-meden).

                Non-SR languages have richer converbal inventories than SR languages' non-SR-encoded relations. Korean (8 suffixes for 8 relations) and Turkish (8 converbs for 7 relations) each have more dedicated markers than Nungon (2 SS forms for 2 relations) or Manambu (9 markers, but only 3 dedicated relations — the rest are SR-conditioned).

                Agreement asymmetry is cross-linguistically stable: in both Nungon and Manambu, subject agreement appears only on DS medial verbs, never on SS. This structural fact — that SS doesn't need to identify its subject because it's shared with the following clause — is the functional motivation for the SS/DS asymmetry.

                A minimal clause chain context: world (event structure), agent (subject), position (clause index), and time (event time).

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

                    The final verb's context: subject A speaking at time 0. This is the "root" of the chain — the final verb's TAM values.

                    Equations
                    Instances For

                      A clauseChain shift: changes agent and time for a medial clause. The medial clause has its own subject and event time.

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

                        Final-only chain has depth 0.

                        1-medial chain has depth 1.

                        2-medial chain has depth 2.

                        The final verb's tense is always accessible at the origin, regardless of how many medial clauses are pushed. This is why the final verb's TAM "scopes over" the chain.

                        The innermost medial clause has its own event time.

                        Origin access pattern: reads tense from the final verb. This models languages like Nungon where medial verbs lack tense entirely (tenseFromFinalVerb = true). The medial verb inherits tense from the final verb's context.

                        Equations
                        Instances For

                          Local access pattern: reads tense from the medial verb's own context. This models languages like Turkish where medial verbs retain some tense distinctions.

                          Equations
                          Instances For

                            In a Nungon-style chain (tenseFromFinalVerb = true), medial verb reads final verb's tense (0) via origin access.

                            In a Turkish-style chain, medial verb reads its own event time (-3) via local access.

                            Origin tense access is stable: adding more medial clauses doesn't change the final verb's tense. This is the scope property: the final verb's TAM values are invariant under chain extension.

                            Nungon's tenseFromFinalVerb = true is consistent with origin access: the medial verb's tense dimension is absent, so it reads from origin.

                            Turkish's tenseFromFinalVerb = false is consistent with local access: the medial verb has restricted tense, so it reads locally.

                            Korean's tenseFromFinalVerb = false matches local access.

                            Ku Waru's tenseFromFinalVerb = true matches origin access (like Nungon).

                            SS: the medial clause's agent equals the final verb's agent.

                            DS: the medial clause's agent differs from the final verb's agent.

                            The chain shift carries the .clauseChain label, connecting it to the ShiftLabel taxonomy in Tower.lean.

                            Chain shifts are distinct from attitude shifts (subordination). This reflects the cosubordination ≠ subordination distinction: clause chaining uses a different shift label than attitude embedding.