Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Noonan2007

Noonan (2007): Complementation Typology + Bridge Theorems #

[Noo07]

Noonan's complementation typology (six complement types, twelve CTP classes, realis/irrealis split, equi-deletion restriction, indicative implicational hierarchy) plus interconnection theorems linking it to existing linglib infrastructure.

Part I: Noonan's generalizations over the generated CTP sample #

Data rows are generated from Data/Complementation/Noonan2007.json (module Data.Complementation.Noonan2007): a 7-language sample (English §1.1 / Latin §1.3 / Turkish §1.4 / Irish §1.5 / Persian §2.3 / Hindi-Urdu §2.3 / Japanese) testing three Noonan generalizations:

Analytic caveats carried over from the hand-typed rows: Persian khastan and Hindi-Urdu chaahna have hasEquiDeletion := false because their subjunctive subject omission is pro-drop, not Noonan-equi; English hope has hasNegativeRaising := true per §2.7's restriction of NR to {propAttitude, desiderative, modal} (Horn 1989).

Part II: Bridge theorems #

Five bridges connecting CTPClass to existing infrastructure:

  1. CTPClass ↔ VerbEntry (Verbal.lean) — derive CTP class from verb features
  2. CTPClass ↔ SelectionClass (LeftPeriphery.lean) — map CTP to question embedding
  3. CTPClass ↔ MoodSelector (Mood/Basic.lean) — map CTP to mood selection
  4. ComplementType ↔ NoonanCompType — via the substrate adapter ComplementType.toNoonan (Syntax/Clause/Complementation.lean)
  5. VerbEntry → MoodSelector — derive mood selection from verb features

Equi-deletion only occurs when some attested complement type is reduced.

Does some row of this language's list attest an indicative complement for CTP class cls?

Equations
Instances For

    [Noo07] §2.4: any sampled language using indicative with desideratives also uses it with propositional attitudes.

    English is the only language in the sample with indicative-desiderative (hope and wish), so English is the only place this implication has nontrivial content. To extend this generalization further, add a language with indicative-desiderative attestation (Modern Greek thélo na + indicative-mood form; Bulgarian iskam da + present-indicative form).

    A1. Derive CTPClass from VerbEntry fields #

    CTPClass is DERIVED from existing VerbEntry fields — not added as a new field. This follows the deriveSelectionClass pattern from LeftPeriphery.lean.

    Derive Noonan's CTP class from a VerbEntry's primitive fields.

    The mapping uses levinClass, factivePresup, causative, implicative, cosType, speechActVerb, and attitude:

    • levinClass ==.see → perception (see)
    • factivePresup → knowledge (know, realize, regret)
    • causative.isSome → manipulative (cause, make, force)
    • implicative.isSome → achievement (manage, fail)
    • cosType.isSome → phasal (stop, start, continue)
    • speechActVerb → utterance (say, tell)
    • attitude doxastic → propAttitude (believe, think)
    • attitude preferential positive → desiderative (want, hope)
    • attitude preferential other → propAttitude (fear, worry)
    • Otherwise → none
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      A2. Per-verb verification theorems #

      Each theorem is proved by native_decide. Changing one VerbEntry field breaks exactly one theorem.

      B1. Map Noonan's CTP classes to Dayal's selection classes #

      This connects two independent typological systems:

      Default mapping from CTP class to selection class.

      • Knowledge → responsive (know, remember: entail knowledge of answer)
      • Utterance → rogativeSAP (ask, tell: speech-act layer)
      • PropAttitude → uninterrogative (believe, think: no question embedding)
      • Desiderative → uninterrogative (want, hope: anti-rogative)
      • Perception → responsive (see: factive perception of answer)
      • Achievement → uninterrogative (manage: no question embedding)
      • Phasal → uninterrogative (stop: no question embedding)
      • Manipulative → uninterrogative (make: no question embedding)
      • Others → uninterrogative
      Equations
      Instances For

        B2. Consistency with deriveSelectionClass #

        Verify that for verbs where CTP class is defined AND the verb takes questions, the two derivations agree. Note: many CTPs don't embed questions at all, so the comparison is only meaningful for question-taking verbs.

        For question-embedding verbs with a CTP class, the CTP-based mapping matches the structural derivation from LeftPeriphery.lean.

        This covers: know, discover, remember_rog, forget_rog (knowledge → responsive), ask (utterance → rogativeSAP).

        C1. Map CTP classes to mood selection #

        This connects Noonan's semantic CTP classes to [Men25]'s mood semantics. The realis/irrealis split predicts mood selection.

        Realis CTPs select indicative or are mood-neutral (never subjunctive-selecting).

        Irrealis CTPs select subjunctive or are mood-neutral (never indicative-selecting).

        D1. Map linglib's English-specific complement types to Noonan's #

        typological categories

        The adapter itself is substrate: ComplementType.toNoonan in Syntax/Clause/Complementation.lean. The clausal-coverage check stays here.

        Every English verb that takes a clausal complement maps to a Noonan type.

        E1. Derive MoodSelector from VerbEntry fields #

        This is placed in Bridge.lean (not Verbal.lean) to avoid circular imports: it needs both Verbal and Mood/Basic. Follows the deriveSelectionClass pattern.

        Derive mood selection from a VerbEntry's primitive fields.

        The logic:

        • Preferential positive + Levin want-class → subjunctive (want, wish)
        • Preferential positive + non-want-class → crossLinguisticallyVariable (hope, expect: SBJV in some languages, IND in others; [Gra24] Table 1)
        • Preferential negative/uncertainty attitude → indicative (fear, worry)
        • Doxastic attitude → indicative (believe, think)
        • Factive → indicative (know: presupposes truth)
        • Perception (levinClass ==.see) → indicative (see)
        • Speech-act verb → moodNeutral (say: varies cross-linguistically)
        • Change-of-state → moodNeutral (stop: varies)
        • Causative → subjunctive (make: irrealis)
        • Implicative → moodNeutral (manage: varies)
        • Otherwise → moodNeutral
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For

          E2. Per-verb mood selector verification #

          F1. CTP class → mood selector consistency #

          For verbs with a derivable CTP class, the mood selector derived directly from VerbEntry should be consistent with the CTP-based derivation.

          The CTP-based mood mapping agrees with the direct derivation for representative verbs from each CTP class.

          F2. Three-way agreement for key verbs #

          For important verbs, all three classification systems agree:

          1. deriveCTPClass → CTP class
          2. deriveSelectionClass → question embedding
          3. deriveMoodSelector → mood selection

          G1. Complement size by CTP class #

          [Egr26] shows that complement size determines SOT availability in Hungarian. This bridge maps Noonan's CTP classes to their typical complement sizes, connecting the complementation typology to the clause-size infrastructure.

          These are default sizes — individual languages may override (e.g., in Hungarian, hogy forces CP regardless of CTP class).

          Default complement size for a CTP class.

          Finite declarative complements are typically CP-sized. Restructuring predicates select smaller complements.

          • utterance → CP (full finite with complementizer)
          • propAttitude → CP (full finite that-clause)
          • knowledge → CP (factive that-clause)
          • perception → TP (small clause / reduced complement)
          • desiderative → TP (subjunctive / infinitival)
          • manipulative → TP (ECM / small clause)
          • phasal → vP (restructuring)
          • achievement → vP (restructuring)
          • modal → TP (functional, shares T domain)
          • commentative → CP (factive that-clause)
          • pretence → CP (finite complement)
          • negative → vP (restructuring)
          Equations
          Instances For