VP Raising in a VOS Language @cite{cole-hermon-2008}

@cite{cole-hermon-2008} argue that VOS word order in Toba Batak derives from VP-raising to Spec,TP (or more precisely, VoiceP-raising to Spec,FP in their full analysis), rather than from rightward subject shift or base-generation. Three lines of evidence converge:

1. Word order: VOS and the positions of IOs and adverbials follow from VP/VoiceP raising + remnant movement. The subject is stranded below the fronted predicate.

2. Extraction restrictions: Direct objects and passive agents cannot be Ā-extracted (frozen inside the raised VoiceP), while subjects, indirect objects, and adverbials can (they escape VoiceP before it raises). This freezing effect is the paper's central novel prediction.

3. Binding asymmetries: In actives, the subject c-commands the direct object (can bind a reflexive DO) but the DO cannot c-command the subject (cannot bind a reflexive subject). In passives, reconstruction allows the passive agent to bind a reflexive passive subject — a pattern unexplained by a purely thematic hierarchy.

Simplification

The derivation here follows the simplified tree (2) from p. 146 of the paper, where VP raises to Spec,TP. The paper's full analysis (§4, trees 50–65) uses VoiceP raising to Spec,FP with remnant movement (IO/Adv escape before VoiceP fronts), a Voice head for mang-/di- morphology, and a richer functional sequence. The simplified derivation suffices for the word-order and c-command predictions; the extraction and binding predictions are formalized separately using the paper's empirical generalizations.

EPP Parameter (formerly Core/EPP.lean)

The Extended Projection Principle (EPP) requires Spec,TP to be filled. Cross-linguistically, languages differ in how this requirement is satisfied, yielding different basic word orders from the same underlying vP-internal structure. This is the parameter space @cite{cole-hermon-2008} exploit.

inductive Minimalist.EPPStrategy : Type

What satisfies the EPP (requirement to fill Spec,TP).

• subjectRaising : EPPStrategy

  Subject DP raises to Spec,TP (English, French, etc.).

• vpRaising : EPPStrategy

  VP/predicate phrase raises to Spec,TP (Toba Batak VOS, Malagasy VOS).

• expletive : EPPStrategy

  Expletive inserted in Spec,TP (English there, French il).

• none : EPPStrategy

  No EPP — verb-initial order persists (one analysis of Irish/Arabic VSO).

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Minimalist.instReprEPPStrategy : Repr EPPStrategy

Equations

• Minimalist.instReprEPPStrategy = { reprPrec := Minimalist.instReprEPPStrategy.repr }

def Minimalist.instReprEPPStrategy.repr : EPPStrategy → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

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

@[implicit_reducible]

instance Minimalist.instDecidableEqEPPStrategy : DecidableEq EPPStrategy

Equations

• Minimalist.instDecidableEqEPPStrategy x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

structure Minimalist.WordOrderParameter : Type

Word-order parameter: EPP strategy and predicted basic order.

• language : String
• eppStrategy : EPPStrategy
• predictedOrder : String

def Minimalist.english_wo : WordOrderParameter

Equations

• Minimalist.english_wo = { language := "English", eppStrategy := Minimalist.EPPStrategy.subjectRaising, predictedOrder := "SVO" }

def Minimalist.tobaBatak_wo : WordOrderParameter

Equations

• Minimalist.tobaBatak_wo = { language := "Toba Batak", eppStrategy := Minimalist.EPPStrategy.vpRaising, predictedOrder := "VOS" }

def ColeHermon2008.v_mangatuk : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

"mangatuk" — ACT-hit (active voice transitive verb).

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.v_mangatuk = Minimalist.mkLeafPhon Minimalist.Cat.V [] "mangatuk" 1

def ColeHermon2008.n_biangi : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

"biangi" — dog-DEF (definite object DP).

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.n_biangi = Minimalist.mkLeafPhon Minimalist.Cat.N [] "biangi" 2

def ColeHermon2008.n_dakdanakan : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

"dakdanakan" — child-that (subject DP).

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.n_dakdanakan = Minimalist.mkLeafPhon Minimalist.Cat.N [] "dakdanakan" 3

def ColeHermon2008.v_head : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Little v (silent, selects VP).

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.v_head = Minimalist.mkLeaf Minimalist.Cat.v [Minimalist.Cat.V] 4

def ColeHermon2008.t_head : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

T (silent, selects vP).

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.t_head = Minimalist.mkLeaf Minimalist.Cat.T [Minimalist.Cat.v] 5

def ColeHermon2008.vp : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

The VP constituent [VP V Obj] — the phrase that raises.

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.vp = ColeHermon2008.v_mangatuk.node ColeHermon2008.n_biangi

def ColeHermon2008.tobaBatakVOS : Minimalist.Derivation

Toba Batak VOS via VP-raising to Spec,TP.

Steps (bottom-up):

1. EM-R Obj → [VP V Obj]
2. EM-L v → [v' v VP]
3. EM-L Subj → [vP Subj [v' v VP]]
4. EM-L T → [TP T [vP Subj [v' v VP]]]
5. IM VP → [TP VP [T' T [vP Subj [v' v tVP]]]]

Equations

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

def ColeHermon2008.v_saw : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.v_saw = Minimalist.mkLeafPhon Minimalist.Cat.V [] "saw" 11

def ColeHermon2008.n_mary : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.n_mary = Minimalist.mkLeafPhon Minimalist.Cat.N [] "Mary" 12

def ColeHermon2008.n_john : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.n_john = Minimalist.mkLeafPhon Minimalist.Cat.N [] "John" 13

def ColeHermon2008.v_head2 : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.v_head2 = Minimalist.mkLeaf Minimalist.Cat.v [Minimalist.Cat.V] 14

def ColeHermon2008.t_head2 : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.t_head2 = Minimalist.mkLeaf Minimalist.Cat.T [Minimalist.Cat.v] 15

def ColeHermon2008.englishSVO : Minimalist.Derivation

English SVO via subject-raising to Spec,TP.

Same base as Toba Batak, but the subject (not VP) moves to Spec,TP.

Equations

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

Phase 1.0 substrate caveat: under MCB nonplanar SOs (FreeCommMagma carrier) phonYield is noncomputable (depends on the LCA-derived linearization that's a Phase 2 substrate item) and .shape is gone. Word-order theorems that depend on which specific word-order surfaces require Phase 2 LCA + linearize work. Sorry-stubbed pending that.

theorem ColeHermon2008.toba_batak_is_vos : Minimalist.HeadFunction.leftSpine.phonYield tobaBatakVOS.final = ["mangatuk", "biangi", "dakdanakan"]

VP-raising yields Verb-Object-Subject surface order.

theorem ColeHermon2008.english_is_svo : Minimalist.HeadFunction.leftSpine.phonYield englishSVO.final = ["John", "saw", "Mary"]

Subject-raising yields Subject-Verb-Object surface order.

theorem ColeHermon2008.same_base_counts : (tobaBatakVOS.stageAt 4).nodeCount = (englishSVO.stageAt 4).nodeCount ∧ (tobaBatakVOS.stageAt 4).leafCount = (englishSVO.stageAt 4).leafCount

Both derivations have the same tree shape before the movement step (stage 4). The only parametric difference is what moves in step 5. Phase 1.0 sorry: .shape no longer typechecks.

theorem ColeHermon2008.toba_batak_moves_vp : tobaBatakVOS.movedItems.length = 1

Toba Batak moves the VP (one moved item).

theorem ColeHermon2008.english_moves_subject : englishSVO.movedItems.length = 1

English moves the subject DP (one moved item).

theorem ColeHermon2008.vp_ccommands_subject : Minimalist.cCommandsIn tobaBatakVOS.final vp n_dakdanakan

After VP-raising, the VP c-commands the subject in the derived tree.

The derived tree is [TP [VP V Obj] [T' T [vP Subj [v' v tVP]]]]. VP is the left daughter of TP; its sister T' dominates the subject.

@cite{cole-hermon-2008} use this c-command relation to explain:

• Freezing: the raised VP is a moved constituent in specifier position, making it an island for extraction. Elements inside VP (including the direct object) are frozen and cannot Ā-extract.
• Subject accessibility: the subject, outside the raised VP, is stranded and remains accessible for further extraction.

Note: this does NOT establish "backward binding" by the object into the subject. The paper explicitly shows that active DOs cannot bind a reflexive subject (Table 1, Type C: ill-formed for all speakers). VP c-commanding the subject is a phrasal c-command relation; it does not entail that the DO (properly contained within VP) individually c-commands the subject.

theorem ColeHermon2008.epp_predicts_order : Minimalist.tobaBatak_wo.eppStrategy = Minimalist.EPPStrategy.vpRaising ∧ Minimalist.english_wo.eppStrategy = Minimalist.EPPStrategy.subjectRaising

Toba Batak and English instantiate the same EPP parameter space: VP-raising → VOS, subject-raising → SVO.

Freezing under VP-raising

@cite{cole-hermon-2008} §4: the VP-raising analysis predicts extraction restrictions via freezing. The raised VP/VoiceP is a moved constituent in specifier position, making it an island (following the Sentential Subject Constraint / Condition on Extraction Domain). The predictions:

• Direct object: frozen inside the raised VP → cannot Ā-extract
• Passive agent: frozen inside the raised VoiceP → cannot Ā-extract
• Subject (pivot): stranded outside the raised VP, in Spec,FP → can extract
• Indirect object: escapes VP via remnant movement before VP raises → can extract
• Adverbials: likewise escape before VP raises → can extract

These predictions match the Toba Batak extraction data formalized in Fragments.TobaBatak.Basic and verified in Phenomena.FillerGap.Studies.Erlewine2018.

theorem ColeHermon2008.object_inside_fronted_vp : Minimalist.contains vp n_biangi

The direct object is contained within the fronted VP. In the VP-raising analysis, this means the DO is frozen — trapped inside a moved constituent — and cannot be further Ā-extracted.

This is verified computationally: n_biangi is contained in vp.

theorem ColeHermon2008.subject_outside_fronted_vp : ¬Minimalist.contains vp n_dakdanakan

The subject is NOT contained within the fronted VP. It is stranded outside the moved constituent and remains accessible for extraction.

This is the structural basis for the pivot-only extraction restriction: only the subject (= pivot) survives VP-raising in a position where Ā-extraction is possible.

theorem ColeHermon2008.extraction_matches_vp_containment : ¬Minimalist.contains vp n_dakdanakan ∧ Fragments.TobaBatak.avAgentExtraction.judgment = Fragments.TobaBatak.ExtractionJudgment.grammatical ∧ Minimalist.contains vp n_biangi ∧ Fragments.TobaBatak.avPatientExtraction.judgment = Fragments.TobaBatak.ExtractionJudgment.ungrammatical

Extraction prediction: the VP-raising analysis predicts exactly the extraction pattern found in Toba Batak.

For DP arguments in actor voice:

• Agent (= subject/pivot, outside VP): grammatical
• Patient (= DO, inside VP): ungrammatical

This matches Fragments.TobaBatak.avAgentExtraction (grammatical) and Fragments.TobaBatak.avPatientExtraction (ungrammatical).

Binding data from Table 1

@cite{cole-hermon-2008} §3.4–§5 present binding data that bear on the choice between a c-command analysis and the Semantic Hierarchy Condition of Schachter (1984b) and Sugamoto (1984). The key data from Table 1:

Antecedent	Reflexive	Acceptability
Active subject	Direct object	Type A (fully acceptable)
Passive agent	Passive subject	Type A (fully acceptable)
Passive subject	Passive agent	Type B (intermediate)
Active DO	Active subject	Type C (ill-formed)

Type A follows from c-command in the base structure (pre-movement). Type C follows from the absence of c-command: the DO does not c-command the subject at any derivational stage. Type B requires reconstruction: the passive subject can be interpreted in its base VP-internal position, where the passive agent c-commands it.

The VP-raising analysis correctly predicts all four types. The Semantic Hierarchy Condition alone fails to distinguish Types B and C (it predicts both should be ill-formed, since in both cases the patient antecedes the agent reflexive).

inductive ColeHermon2008.BindingAcceptability : Type

Binding acceptability from Table 1 of @cite{cole-hermon-2008}.

• fullyAcceptable : BindingAcceptability

  Type A: fully acceptable for all speakers.

• intermediate : BindingAcceptability

  Type B: intermediate — acceptable, but not the most usual way to express the sentence.

• illFormed : BindingAcceptability

  Type C: ill-formed, not acceptable for any speakers.

def ColeHermon2008.instReprBindingAcceptability.repr : BindingAcceptability → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

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

@[implicit_reducible]

instance ColeHermon2008.instReprBindingAcceptability : Repr BindingAcceptability

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.instReprBindingAcceptability = { reprPrec := ColeHermon2008.instReprBindingAcceptability.repr }

@[implicit_reducible]

instance ColeHermon2008.instDecidableEqBindingAcceptability : DecidableEq BindingAcceptability

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.instDecidableEqBindingAcceptability x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯

structure ColeHermon2008.BindingDatum : Type

A binding datum: which NP is the antecedent, which is the reflexive, in which voice, and the acceptability judgment.

• antecedentRole : String
• reflexiveRole : String
• voice : String
• acceptability : BindingAcceptability
• description : String

def ColeHermon2008.instReprBindingDatum.repr : BindingDatum → ℕ → Std.Format

Equations

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

@[implicit_reducible]

instance ColeHermon2008.instReprBindingDatum : Repr BindingDatum

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.instReprBindingDatum = { reprPrec := ColeHermon2008.instReprBindingDatum.repr }

def ColeHermon2008.activeSubjectBindsDO : BindingDatum

Active subject antecedes DO reflexive: Type A. Example: "Si-Bunga mang-ida [dirina sandiri]" (Bunga saw herself.)

Equations

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

def ColeHermon2008.passiveAgentBindsSubject : BindingDatum

Passive agent antecedes passive subject reflexive: Type A. Example: "Di-ida si-Torus dirina natoari" (Himself was seen by Torus yesterday.)

Equations

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

def ColeHermon2008.passiveSubjectBindsAgent : BindingDatum

Passive subject antecedes passive agent reflexive: Type B. Example: "Di-ida [dirina sandiri] si-John" (John was seen by himself.)

Equations

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

def ColeHermon2008.activeDOBindsSubject : BindingDatum

Active DO antecedes active subject reflexive: Type C. Example: "*[Dirina sandiri] pa-ias-hon dakdanak-i" (*Himself cleaned the child.)

Equations

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

def ColeHermon2008.bindingData : List BindingDatum

All binding data from Table 1.

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.bindingData = [ColeHermon2008.activeSubjectBindsDO, ColeHermon2008.passiveAgentBindsSubject, ColeHermon2008.passiveSubjectBindsAgent, ColeHermon2008.activeDOBindsSubject]

theorem ColeHermon2008.binding_acceptability_pattern : activeSubjectBindsDO.acceptability = BindingAcceptability.fullyAcceptable ∧ passiveAgentBindsSubject.acceptability = BindingAcceptability.fullyAcceptable ∧ passiveSubjectBindsAgent.acceptability = BindingAcceptability.intermediate ∧ activeDOBindsSubject.acceptability = BindingAcceptability.illFormed

Types A and B are acceptable; Type C is ill-formed.

theorem ColeHermon2008.object_does_not_ccommand_subject : ¬Minimalist.cCommandsIn tobaBatakVOS.final n_biangi n_dakdanakan

The direct object does not c-command the subject (Boolean check).

The DO's inability to bind the subject (Type C) follows from the derivation: the DO is inside VP, and VP c-commands the subject (proved in vp_ccommands_subject), but the DO itself does not c-command the subject. C-command is not inherited by sub-constituents.

In the derived tree [TP [VP V DO] [T' T [vP Subj ...]]]:

• VP c-commands Subj ✓ (VP's sister T' dominates Subj)
• DO does NOT c-command Subj ✗ (DO's sister is V, which does not dominate Subj — V is inside VP, not sister to anything outside VP)

This asymmetry is why Types A and C differ: the subject (in Spec,vP) c-commands into VP (can bind a reflexive DO), but the DO (inside VP) cannot c-command out past VP (cannot bind a reflexive subject).

Connecting to Toba Batak extraction infrastructure

The VP-raising analysis's extraction predictions are independently formalized in Fragments.TobaBatak.Basic (empirical extraction data) and Phenomena.FillerGap.Studies.Erlewine2018 (verification theorems). This section bridges the derivational analysis to that data.

theorem ColeHermon2008.vp_raising_drives_extraction : Minimalist.tobaBatak_wo.eppStrategy = Minimalist.EPPStrategy.vpRaising ∧ Fragments.TobaBatak.tbExtractionProfile.strategy = Typology.ExtractionMarkingStrategy.voiceAlternation

The EPP strategy for Toba Batak is VP-raising, which is the derivational mechanism that produces the freezing effect responsible for the extraction restriction.

theorem ColeHermon2008.only_subject_extractable : Fragments.TobaBatak.tbExtractionProfile.markedPositions = [Typology.ExtractionTarget.subject]

The extraction profile marks only the subject position as extractable. This is exactly the position that VP-raising strands outside the fronted predicate: the pivot in Spec,TP (or Spec,FP in the full analysis).

theorem ColeHermon2008.voice_determines_pivot : Fragments.TobaBatak.Voice.av.pivotRole = Typology.ArgumentRole.agent ∧ Fragments.TobaBatak.Voice.ov.pivotRole = Typology.ArgumentRole.patient

The voice system is two-way (AV/OV), determining which thematic role occupies the extractable pivot position.

theorem ColeHermon2008.vp_ccommands_subject_decide : Minimalist.cCommandsIn tobaBatakVOS.final vp n_dakdanakan

decide confirmation of vp_ccommands_subject's structured proof.

The VOS Hypothesis

@cite{cole-hermon-2008} §5: SVO order is common in Toba Batak (~1/3 of sentences). Two competing analyses:

• SVO Hypothesis: SVO sentences have underlying SVO and VoiceP never raises. Predicts different extraction restrictions for SVO vs VOS.
• VOS Hypothesis: ALL clauses go through a VOS stage; SVO results from the subject raising past the fronted VoiceP to a higher specifier. Predicts the SAME extraction restrictions for SVO and VOS.

The data confirm the VOS Hypothesis: extraction from SVO clauses shows the same freezing effects as VOS (examples 85–88). Direct objects cannot be wh-fronted regardless of surface word order.

The derivation extends tobaBatakVOS with one more step: subject raises to Spec,FP (a higher functional projection), past the fronted VP.

This analysis connects to the claim in §6 that linear order within Merge is irrelevant — only c-command matters. This is precisely the content of the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) formalized in Theories.Syntax.Minimalist.Linearization.LCA.

def ColeHermon2008.f_head : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

F head (higher functional projection above TP).

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.f_head = Minimalist.mkLeaf Minimalist.Cat.C [Minimalist.Cat.T] 6

def ColeHermon2008.tobaBatakSVO : Minimalist.Derivation

Toba Batak SVO via the VOS Hypothesis.

Steps 1–5 are identical to tobaBatakVOS (yielding VOS at stage 5). Then: 6. EM-L F → [FP F [TP VP [T' T [vP Subj [v' v tVP]]]]] 7. IM Subj → [FP Subj [F' F [TP VP [T' T [vP tSubj [v' v tVP]]]]]]

The subject raises past the fronted VP, yielding S-V-O surface order.

Equations

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

theorem ColeHermon2008.toba_batak_svo_order : Minimalist.HeadFunction.leftSpine.phonYield tobaBatakSVO.final = ["dakdanakan", "mangatuk", "biangi"]

The VOS Hypothesis derives SVO surface order.

theorem ColeHermon2008.svo_passes_through_vos : Minimalist.HeadFunction.leftSpine.phonYield (tobaBatakSVO.stageAt 5) = Minimalist.HeadFunction.leftSpine.phonYield tobaBatakVOS.final

SVO goes through VOS: at stage 5 (before subject-raising), the intermediate tree has VOS order — the same as tobaBatakVOS.final.

theorem ColeHermon2008.svo_same_extraction_as_vos : Minimalist.contains vp n_biangi ∧ ¬Minimalist.contains vp n_dakdanakan

The VOS Hypothesis predicts identical extraction restrictions for SVO: the DO is still inside the fronted VP, regardless of whether the subject subsequently raises past it.

theorem ColeHermon2008.svo_has_two_movements : tobaBatakSVO.movedItems.length = 2

SVO requires two movement steps (VP-raising + subject-raising).

English passives and the agent-as-adjunct analysis

@cite{cole-hermon-2008} §7 extends the VP-raising analysis to English passives, predicting why English and Toba Batak differ on passive binding.

The key structural difference: in TB, the passive agent is an argument generated in Spec,vP (high position, c-commands patient in VP). In English, the passive agent is an adjunct (by-phrase, low position inside VP, does not c-command patient).

Consequence:

• TB passive: agent c-commands patient at the base stage → reconstruction allows agent to bind reflexive patient (Type A). Patient raised to surface subject also c-commands agent (Type B).
• English passive: agent never c-commands patient → agent cannot bind reflexive patient (example 96: "*himself was injured by the boy"). Patient raised to subject c-commands agent → patient can bind reflexive agent (example 95: "the boy was injured by himself").

We model the English passive with the agent as a low complement of V (representing the by-phrase adjunct) and the patient as specifier of VP (following @cite{larson-1988}), with no external argument in Spec,vP.

def ColeHermon2008.v_injured : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.v_injured = Minimalist.mkLeafPhon Minimalist.Cat.V [] "was-injured" 21

def ColeHermon2008.n_boy : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.n_boy = Minimalist.mkLeafPhon Minimalist.Cat.N [] "the-boy" 22

def ColeHermon2008.n_by_himself : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.n_by_himself = Minimalist.mkLeafPhon Minimalist.Cat.N [] "by-himself" 23

def ColeHermon2008.v_head_pass : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.v_head_pass = Minimalist.mkLeaf Minimalist.Cat.v [Minimalist.Cat.V] 24

def ColeHermon2008.t_head_pass : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.t_head_pass = Minimalist.mkLeaf Minimalist.Cat.T [Minimalist.Cat.v] 25

def ColeHermon2008.vp_passive : Minimalist.SyntacticObject

The passive VP: [VP patient [V' V agent-PP]].

Equations

• ColeHermon2008.vp_passive = ColeHermon2008.n_boy.node (ColeHermon2008.v_injured.node ColeHermon2008.n_by_himself)

def ColeHermon2008.englishPassive : Minimalist.Derivation

English passive derivation (trees 97–100 of the paper).

Steps:

1. EM-R agent-PP → [V' V agent]
2. EM-L patient → [VP patient [V' V agent]]
3. EM-L v → [v' v VP] (no external argument — passive)
4. EM-L T → [TP T [vP v VP]]
5. IM patient → [TP patient [T' T [vP v [VP t [V' V agent]]]]]

Equations

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

theorem ColeHermon2008.english_passive_order : Minimalist.HeadFunction.leftSpine.phonYield englishPassive.final = ["the-boy", "was-injured", "by-himself"]

English passive yields patient-verb-agent surface order.

TB vs English passive binding

The same theory (c-command based binding + optional reconstruction) with different structural parameters (agent-as-argument vs agent-as-adjunct) correctly predicts the cross-linguistic contrast:

Pattern	Toba Batak	English
Agent antecedes patient refl.	✓ (Type A)	✗ (96)
Patient antecedes agent refl.	✓ (Type B)	✓ (95)

Both predictions follow from c-command in the derived tree:

• TB agent (Spec,vP) c-commands patient (VP) at base → reconstruction
• English agent (low PP) does not c-command patient at any stage
• Both: patient (raised to Spec,TP/FP) c-commands agent

The formalization verifies the c-command predictions computationally using cCommandsIn over the derived trees.

theorem ColeHermon2008.english_passive_patient_ccommands_agent : Minimalist.cCommandsIn englishPassive.final n_boy n_by_himself

In the English passive, the patient (raised to Spec,TP) c-commands the by-phrase agent. This is why "The boy was injured by himself" is grammatical: the patient can bind a reflexive in the agent position.

theorem ColeHermon2008.english_passive_agent_not_ccommands_patient : ¬Minimalist.cCommandsIn englishPassive.final n_by_himself n_boy

In the English passive, the by-phrase agent does NOT c-command the patient. This is why "*Himself was injured by the boy" is ungrammatical: the agent (low adjunct inside VP) cannot bind a reflexive in subject position.

theorem ColeHermon2008.tb_active_subject_ccommands_object_at_base : Minimalist.cCommandsIn (tobaBatakVOS.stageAt 4) n_dakdanakan n_biangi

In the TB active base structure (pre-movement, stage 4), the subject c-commands the object. This is the structural basis for Type A binding (active subject → DO refl).

Binding is evaluated at the pre-movement stage: the base tree is [TP T [vP Subj [v' v [VP V Obj]]]], where Subj's sister (v') contains the object. After VP-raising, the object moves to a different branch; reconstruction restores the base c-command.

theorem ColeHermon2008.cross_linguistic_binding_contrast : Minimalist.cCommandsIn (tobaBatakVOS.stageAt 4) n_dakdanakan n_biangi ∧ ¬Minimalist.cCommandsIn tobaBatakVOS.final n_biangi n_dakdanakan ∧ Minimalist.cCommandsIn englishPassive.final n_boy n_by_himself ∧ ¬Minimalist.cCommandsIn englishPassive.final n_by_himself n_boy

Cross-linguistic contrast verified: same c-command theory, different structural parameters, different binding predictions.

The conjunction links four c-command checks across two languages:

1. TB active (base): subject c-commands object (Type A binding)
2. TB active (derived): object does not c-command subject (Type C)
3. English passive (derived): patient c-commands agent (ex. 95)
4. English passive (derived): agent does not c-command patient (ex. 96)

Toba Batak VP-raising as a RemnantFronting instance

@cite{cole-hermon-2008}'s VP-raising analysis is one of the canonical empirical motivations for remnant-XP movement substrate (Theories/Syntax/Minimalist/Movement/Remnant.lean). The full §4 analysis has IO/Adv evacuating before VoiceP raises — making the fronted constituent a genuine remnant. The simplified §1 derivation formalised above keeps the IO/Adv inside vP for tractability, but the core VP-raising mechanism is the same.

Below we register the simplified Toba Batak derivation as a Minimalist.Movement.RemnantFronting witness. The substrate is then used — properRemnant is decidable on the witness — rather than implicitly referenced in prose.

def tobaBatakVPRaising_remnant : Minimalist.Movement.RemnantFronting

Toba Batak VP-raising as a remnant-fronting witness. In the simplified §1 derivation, no head has evacuated vp before it fronts (V stays inside VP, no IO/Adv extraction), so the evacuatedHeads list is empty — vacuously a "remnant" in the structural sense, though not a contentful remnant in the §4 sense of evacuated IO/Adv. The full §4 instance would populate evacuatedHeads with the IO and adverbials.

Equations

• tobaBatakVPRaising_remnant = { frontedXP := ColeHermon2008.vp, evacuatedHeads := [], landingSite := ColeHermon2008.t_head }

theorem tobaBatakVPRaising_properRemnant : Minimalist.Movement.properRemnant tobaBatakVPRaising_remnant

The §1-simplified Toba Batak fronting trivially satisfies properRemnant: an empty evacuation list vacuously satisfies the universal "every evacuated head was originally inside the fronted XP".