Bondarenko 2022: Anatomy of an Attitude @cite{bondarenko-2022} #

Tatiana Bondarenko (2022). MIT PhD dissertation. Thesis advisors: P. Elliott, K. von Fintel, D. Fox, S. Iatridou, R. Schwarzschild.

Locator convention #

The §-numbers below DO NOT track a single dissertation chapter; the file is paper-anchored as a whole and the sections were added across multiple phases:

§§ 1-7: reference @cite{bondarenko-2022} Chapter 1 brief summary overview (locators verified at the chapter-1 level).
§§ 8-12: reference Chapter 4 substantive bare-vs-nominalized treatment (Phase 2 type-theoretic refactor; §§4.2-4.5).
§§ 13-14: reference Chapter 2 substantive distinct-denotation argument (Phase 3 §§2.2.3 noun-predicate co-occurrence + §2.3 Cont/Comp head denotations).

Cross-chapter equivalence claims in the chapter-1 sections (e.g. "Table 1.1 ↔ Table 4.1"; "ex. 1 ↔ §4.2 ex. 1-2") were noted from context but not re-checked across chapters and carry implicit UNVERIFIED: status. References to chapters not yet read carry explicit UNVERIFIED: flags inline.

Headline thesis #

Embedded CPs receive two kinds of denotations corresponding to a syntactic distinction in the left periphery (§1.1.1, paper ex. 1):

Cont-CP ≔ λx. CONT(x) = {s : φ(s)} — predicate on content individuals (Kratzer 2006; Moulton 2009, 2015; Elliott 2020). Has an extra ContP projection that introduces the CONT function.
Sit-CP ≔ λs'. s' is a minimal situation exemplifying φ — predicate on minimal situations (Kratzer 1989). Lacks ContP.

In some languages ContP is overtly exposed (Korean -ta declarative; Buryat gɔ 'say'); in others (English, Russian) it is null.

Three substantive claims this file formalizes #

Equality semantics for displacement (§1.1.1.2, paper eq. 7), not subset semantics (eq. 10) or existential (eq. 15). The Cont-CP denotes equality with the embedded proposition, so CONT is a function rather than a downward-closed relation. Three arguments converge: (i) nominal CP interpretation (paper §2.4), (ii) impossibility of CP conjunction (Bassi & Bondarenko 2021), (iii) Russian NPI subjunctive distribution (paper ch. 5).
Sit-CPs are referentially transparent; Cont-CPs are opaque. Paper §1.1.1.1 ex. 5 vs ex. 6: under a Sit-CP, embedded expressions evaluate at the actual world (substitution preserves truth). Under a Cont-CP, they evaluate at content-related worlds (substitution may change truth value).
Transparent Syntax-Semantics mapping thesis (§1.1.2, ch. 4): bare CPs are always modifiers (PM via the situation argument path); nominalized CPs are always arguments (FA via the DP argument path). The syntactic structure of the CP determines the composition path. The (Sit-CP, via DP argument) cell of Table 1.1 is unattested by semantic triviality; the (bare, FA-argument) and (nominalized, PM-modifier) cells are ruled out by the structural correlation.
This is the thesis @cite{angelopoulos-2026} attacks (autonomy of syntax: same syntactic position can yield either composition mode at LF). The conditional refutation theorem in Phenomena.Complementation.Studies.Angelopoulos2026 cites the transparentSSMapping definition below as its premise.

Out of scope #

Chapter 3 (clausal conjunction & disjunction): the impossibility- of-CP-conjunction theorem (cont_function_blocks_conjunction below) is the only fragment from ch. 3 we land here. Korean -ta and -ko-specific Conjunction Reduction analyses are paper- specific and don't generalize.
Chapter 5 (polarity subjunctives): Russian NPI subjunctive data
- the L-analyticity argument. Worth its own file when the L-analyticity substrate is in place.
Buryat/Korean/Russian morphological exposition (ContP overt vs null): would belong in per-language fragment files (Fragments/Buryat, Fragments/Korean, Fragments/Russian) once those exist.