Backgrounded Constituents Are Islands #
@cite{kratzer-selkirk-2020} @cite{lu-pan-degen-2025} @cite{roberts-2012} @cite{goldberg-2006}
Formalization of the discourse-backgroundedness account of manner-of-speaking (MoS) island effects, following @cite{lu-pan-degen-2025}.
Core Argument #
MoS verbs (whisper, shout, etc.) decompose into SAY + MANNER. The manner component activates a salient alternative set that addresses the QUD, foregrounding the verb and — by the single-QUD-at-a-time constraint — backgrounding the complement. Backgrounded constituents resist wh-extraction, producing the island effect.
Formal Strategy #
Communication events have two semantic dimensions: manner and content. The
active QUD (from Core/QUD.lean) partitions events along one dimension,
foregrounding it and backgrounding the other. We derive:
- Manner QUD → content is invisible to the partition → content is backgrounded
- Content QUD → manner is invisible → content is foregrounded
- Verb with manner weight → manner QUD is default → island effect
- Prosodic focus on embedded object → overrides to content QUD → amelioration
- Adding manner adverb to bridge verb → acquires manner weight → replicates island
Grounding #
- Paper def (3) "foregrounded" = QUD projection (
Core/QUD.lean : QUD.ofDecEq) - Paper "backgrounded" = K&S
DiscourseStatus.given(Core/InformationStructure.lean) - Rooth FIP / Q-A congruence (imported from
Focus/Interpretation.lean) = QUD cell membership;qaCongruentWeakderives that extracted fillers are focused (§4 Route 2)
§1. Verb Decomposition #
MoS verbs are lexically composed of a light verb SAY and a manner component:
whisper = SAY + [whispering manner]
shout = SAY + [shouting manner]
say = SAY (no manner — bridge verb)
The manner component is what makes MoS verbs lexically "heavier" and activates manner alternatives that can address the QUD. Bridge verbs like say lack this component and so do not activate manner alternatives by default.
A manner-of-speaking component. The specific manner (whispering, shouting, etc.) is what generates the alternative set: {say in manner m₁, say in manner m₂,...}.
- name : String
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.instDecidableEqMannerComponent.decEq { name := a } { name := b } = if h : a = b then h ▸ isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Lexical decomposition of a communication verb.
MoS verbs have manner = some _; bridge verbs have manner = none.
The mannerAdverb field captures the "say + adverb" construction from
Experiment 3: adding a manner adverb to say gives it manner weight.
- lightVerb : String
The light verb component (always SAY for communication verbs)
- manner : Option MannerComponent
Lexical manner component — present for MoS verbs, absent for bridge verbs
- mannerAdverb : Option String
Manner adverb (for "say softly" constructions)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
A verb has manner weight if it has either a lexical manner component (MoS verbs) or a manner adverb ("say softly"). This is the property that determines default QUD selection and therefore backgroundedness.
Equations
- v.hasMannerWeight = (v.manner ≠ none ∨ v.mannerAdverb ≠ none)
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.whisperDecomp = { manner := some { name := "whispering" } }
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.shoutDecomp = { manner := some { name := "shouting" } }
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.saySoftlyDecomp = { mannerAdverb := some "softly" }
Instances For
§2. Two-Dimensional Communication Events and QUD Projections #
A communication event has two semantic dimensions: the manner of communication (how it was said) and the propositional content (what was said). The QUD determines which dimension is "at issue."
The paper's definition (3) — FOREGROUNDED iff the alternative set relative to C is a subset of Q-alternatives determined by the QUD — corresponds formally to whether the QUD projects onto that dimension: if the QUD partitions events by manner, then manner is foregrounded (it distinguishes Q-alternatives) and content is backgrounded (it doesn't).
Dimension of a communication utterance that the QUD can target.
- manner : CommDimension
QUD asks about manner: "How/In what way did John say it?"
- content : CommDimension
QUD asks about content: "What did John say?"
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.instDecidableEqCommDimension x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
A communication event has two semantic dimensions. This mirrors the verb decomposition: MoS verbs make both dimensions available, while bridge verbs foreground only content.
- manner : Manner
- content : Content
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
The manner QUD: partitions communication events by HOW something was said. "In what manner did John say that Mary was in the courtyard?"
Under this QUD, events with the same manner are equivalent regardless of content — content variation is invisible, hence content is backgrounded.
Built using QUD.ofDecEq from Core/QUD.lean.
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.mannerQUD = QUD.ofDecEq (fun (x : Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.CommEvent Manner Content) => x.manner) "manner"
Instances For
The content QUD: partitions communication events by WHAT was said. "What did John say?"
Under this QUD, events with the same content are equivalent regardless of manner — manner variation is invisible, hence manner is backgrounded.
Built using QUD.ofDecEq from Core/QUD.lean.
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.contentQUD = QUD.ofDecEq (fun (x : Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.CommEvent Manner Content) => x.content) "content"
Instances For
§3. Core Theorems: QUD Determines Backgroundedness #
These theorems formalize the paper's central claim: the QUD determines which dimension of a communication event is foregrounded (participates in the QUD partition) and which is backgrounded (invisible to the partition).
Manner QUD ignores content: Under the manner QUD, events with the same manner are equivalent regardless of their content.
This is the formal heart of the paper: content is invisible to the manner QUD partition, which is exactly what "backgrounded" means — the content doesn't participate in distinguishing Q-alternatives.
Content QUD ignores manner: Under the content QUD, events with the same content are equivalent regardless of manner.
Backgroundedness = QUD invisibility: Varying the content of a communication event does not change its QUD cell under the manner QUD.
Formally: for any event e and any alternative content c', the event
⟨e.manner, c'⟩ is in the same manner-QUD cell as e. This means the
content dimension is "invisible" to the partition — it is backgrounded.
This directly formalizes the paper's claim that elements in MoS verb complements are discourse-backgrounded.
Backgrounded content is in the same QUD cell (set-membership version).
Foregrounding is QUD projection (manner direction): events in the same manner-QUD cell must agree on manner. That is, manner distinguishes Q-alternatives — it is foregrounded.
This is the converse of manner_qud_ignores_content: while content is
invisible to the manner QUD, manner is NOT invisible — it's what the
partition is about.
Foregrounding is QUD projection (content direction): events in the same content-QUD cell must agree on content.
Manner QUD and content QUD are genuinely distinct partitions. Events can be equivalent under one QUD but not the other. This is what makes the foregrounding/backgrounding complementarity non-trivial: you can't foreground both dimensions under a single QUD.
Formally: if two events share manner but differ in content, they are equivalent under the manner QUD but NOT under the content QUD.
§4. Deriving the Extraction Constraint #
@cite{erteschik-shir-1973} @cite{roberts-1996} @cite{goldberg-2006}
The backgroundedness constraint on extraction — that backgrounded constituents resist wh-extraction — is not stipulated but derived from the QUD partition via two converging routes.
Route 1: Question relevance (@cite{roberts-1996}) #
Extraction creates a wh-question about the gap:
"What₁ did John whisper that Mary gave t₁ to Bill?"
Under the manner QUD, content variation is invisible (§3): all fillers produce events in the same QUD cell. The extraction question cannot be answered informatively — it is QUD-irrelevant, hence infelicitous.
Route 2: Information-structural clash (@cite{erteschik-shir-1973}) #
Wh-extraction creates a content QUD: "What₁ did John whisper t₁?"
partitions events by the filler's value. By @cite{rooth-1992}'s Q-A
congruence constraint (26d) — formalized as qaCongruentWeak in
Focus/Interpretation.lean — the question's Hamblin denotation (the set
of propositions obtained by varying the filler) must be ⊆ the answer's
focus alternatives. Since focus alternatives are generated by substitution
at the focused position, the filler position IS the focused position.
So the extracted filler is [FoC].
But the extraction site is inside a backgrounded clause ([G]-marked under the verb's default manner QUD). A [FoC] element inside a [G] clause creates a clash: the filler addresses the extraction QUD but belongs to a dimension the verb's QUD ignores.
The underlying mechanism is QUD conflict: the extraction QUD (content) and the verb's default QUD (manner) assign incompatible statuses to the complement. The extraction QUD needs the filler to be focused; the verb's QUD backgrounds the entire complement.
Both routes derive the same prediction from the same QUD property
(manner_qud_ignores_content): extraction from backgrounded clauses is
degraded, and the degradation disappears when the QUD shifts to target
content (prosodic amelioration).
Whether a wh-question about the content of a communication event is relevant to a given QUD (@cite{roberts-1996}): different content values must produce events in different QUD cells. If not, the extraction question is vacuous — every filler gives the same QUD-level answer.
Equations
Instances For
Under the manner QUD, content extraction questions are QUD-irrelevant: varying content never changes the QUD cell.
Under the content QUD, content extraction questions ARE QUD-relevant: different content values produce events in different QUD cells.
The QUD established by wh-extraction from a communication verb's complement. "What₁ did John whisper t₁?" partitions events by the filler (= content dimension). (@cite{roberts-2012}: wh-questions establish QUDs.)
Equations
Instances For
The extraction QUD partitions by content: different fillers produce different QUD cells. This is what makes the filler the focused element — it is the variable that distinguishes alternatives.
Combined with qaCongruentWeak from Focus/Interpretation.lean
(@cite{rooth-1992} (26d): [ψ]° ⊆ [α]^f), this derives that extracted
elements are [FoC]-marked: the question's alternatives (varying the filler)
must be focus alternatives of the answer (varying the focused position),
so filler position = focused position.
Q-A congruence applied to extraction (@cite{rooth-1992} (26d)): if Q-A congruence holds between the extraction question and the answer's focus value, then every filler produces a focus alternative of the answer.
This is the formal content of "the filler position = the focused position": the Hamblin question's alternatives (obtained by varying the filler) must be focus alternatives of the answer (obtained by varying the focused position), so these two positions coincide.
The theorem directly uses qaCongruentWeak from Focus/Interpretation.lean.
Combined with extraction_filler_varies (different fillers → different QUD
cells → non-trivial Hamblin alternatives), this derives that extraction
foregrounds the filler.
The discourse status of the extracted filler: focused.
Derived from QUD structure + Q-A congruence, not stipulated:
- Wh-extraction creates a content-QUD (
extractionQUD, @cite{roberts-2012}) - The filler distinguishes the extraction QUD's cells (
extraction_filler_varies) extraction_filler_is_focus_alternative(above) usesqaCongruentWeak(@cite{rooth-1992} (26d)) to show: if the extraction question's alternatives ⊆ the answer's focus value, then every filler is a focus alternative. Focus alternatives are generated at the focused position, so filler = focused.- Foreground = [FoC] in @cite{kratzer-selkirk-2020}'s two-feature system
Equations
Instances For
Extraction from a backgrounded clause creates an IS clash:
the extracted filler is [FoC] (derived from extractedFillerStatus) but
the clause is [G] (derived from the verb's default QUD).
Uses extractionISClash from Core/InformationStructure.lean, which
unifies @cite{abeille-et-al-2020}'s FBC with @cite{erteschik-shir-1973}'s
Dominance Condition.
Extraction from an at-issue clause does NOT create a clash.
§5. Default QUD Selection: From Verbs to Backgroundedness #
MoS verbs, due to their manner component, activate manner alternatives and make the manner QUD salient by default. Bridge verbs like say, lacking a manner component, default to the content QUD.
This follows from @cite{roberts-1996}: the QUD is determined by what alternatives are salient, and manner components activate manner alternatives.
Default QUD dimension based on verb properties. Verbs with manner weight activate the manner QUD (backgrounding content); verbs without manner weight activate the content QUD (foregrounding content).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Givenness of the complement content under a given QUD.
Under manner QUD: content is backgrounded (K&S [G]-marked, given).
Under content QUD: content is foregrounded (new / at-issue).
Equations
Instances For
Focus marking of the matrix verb under a given QUD.
Under manner QUD: verb is foregrounded ([FoC], addresses QUD). Under content QUD: verb is non-focused.
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.verbFocus Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.CommDimension.manner = Features.InformationStructure.FocusMark.focused
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.verbFocus Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.CommDimension.content = Features.InformationStructure.FocusMark.nonFocused
Instances For
Givenness of the matrix verb under a given QUD.
Under manner QUD: verb is at-issue (new — addresses the QUD). Under content QUD: verb is backgrounded (given).
Equations
Instances For
§6. The MoS Island Effect: Main Derivation #
The full derivation chain:
- MoS verb has manner weight (lexical decomposition, §1)
- Manner weight → default QUD dimension is manner (§5
defaultDimension) - Manner QUD → complement is backgrounded (§5
complementStatus) - Backgrounded → extraction question QUD-irrelevant (§4 Route 1)
- Backgrounded → extraction creates information-structural clash (§4 Route 2)
Steps 4 and 5 are derived in §4 from manner_qud_ignores_content.
DiscourseStatus.rank from Core/InformationStructure.lean provides the
ordinal ranking consistent with this derivation.
MoS Island Effect: MoS verbs default-background their complements.
Bridge Verb Transparency: Bridge verbs default to the content QUD.
QUD conflict (§4 Route 2): the extraction QUD and the verb's default QUD assign incompatible statuses to the complement content.
- Extraction QUD (content) → content is at-issue, filler is focused
- Verb's default QUD (manner) → content is backgrounded
The IS clash arises because the verb's manner QUD backgrounds the entire complement, but extraction needs the filler to be focused within it.
MoS verbs trigger the information-structural clash (§4 Route 2):
filler is [FoC] (derived via extractedFillerStatus), complement is [G].
Bridge verbs do NOT trigger the clash: complement is [new], not [G].
§7. Prosodic Amelioration (Experiments 1 & 3b) #
Prosodic focus ([FoC]) on the embedded object overrides the default manner
QUD, forcing the content QUD. Under the content QUD, content extraction
questions are QUD-relevant (§4 content_question_relevant_under_content),
restoring extraction felicity.
This is predicted by the backgroundedness account and NOT by the subjacency or frequency accounts: prosody changes information structure without changing syntactic structure or verb-frame frequency.
Active QUD dimension after prosodic manipulation.
Prosodic [FoC] on the embedded object makes the content dimension salient, overriding the default manner QUD. This models the capitalization/bolding manipulation in Experiments 1 and 3b.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Prosodic Amelioration Theorem: Focusing the embedded object always results in the content QUD, regardless of verb type.
This captures Experiments 1 and 3b: prosodic focus on the embedded object ameliorates the island effect for both MoS verbs and say+adverb.
Under prosodic focus, complement is not backgrounded.
Prosodic focus resolves the information-structural clash: under embedded focus, the complement is [new] (not [G]), so the filler's [FoC] status no longer clashes. This is why prosodic amelioration works.
Without prosodic focus, MoS verb complements ARE backgrounded.
Amelioration improves extraction: Extraction from prosodically focused
complement is better than extraction from default-backgrounded complement.
Stated as complementStatus .manner > complementStatus .content on
BinaryGivenness.rank because BinaryGivenness orders by salience
(.given = 1 > .new = 0) — content is at-issue (.new, lower
givenness rank), manner is backgrounded (.given, higher rank), and
"more backgrounded" predicts "harder extraction".
Focus sensitivity for MoS verbs: Prosodic focus changes the extraction
prediction for MoS verbs from degraded (backgrounded) to acceptable (new).
Direction note: see amelioration_improves_extraction — BinaryGivenness
ranks given > new, so the more-backgrounded-default outranks the
prosodically-focused alternative.
§8. Say + Adverb Replication (Experiment 3) #
The paper's key novel prediction: adding a manner adverb to say gives it manner weight, shifting the default QUD to manner and replicating the MoS island effect.
"say softly" = say + manner adverb → manner weight → manner QUD → island
"say" = say (no modifier) → no manner weight → content QUD → no island
This uniquely distinguishes the backgroundedness account:
- Subjacency: same CP structure ± adverb → no contrast predicted
- Frequency: would need to check corpus counts; n.s. in the data
- Backgroundedness: manner adverb adds manner weight → predicts contrast ✓
say has no manner weight.
say softly has manner weight (from the adverb).
whisper has manner weight (from lexical decomposition).
shout has manner weight (from lexical decomposition).
Say+Adverb Replication Theorem: Adding a manner adverb to say produces the same complement backgroundedness as MoS verbs.
say softly and whisper both have manner weight, so they both default to the manner QUD, backgrounding their complements identically.
say and say softly differ in complement backgroundedness.
say extraction is better than say softly extraction. Stated as
say softly > say on BinaryGivenness.rank because rank orders by
salience: say softly's complement is .given (rank 1, more
backgrounded), say's complement is .new (rank 0, at-issue);
higher rank = more backgrounded = harder extraction.
The say+adverb island is also focus-sensitive (like the MoS island).
Direction: prosodically focused complement is .new (rank 0); the
unfocused default is .given (rank 1).
§9. Theory Comparison #
Three accounts of the MoS island effect make different predictions. Only the backgroundedness account correctly predicts all five experiments' results.
Accounts of the MoS island effect.
- subjacency : MoSAccount
Structural: MoS verbs select complex-NP complements.
- verbFrameFrequency : MoSAccount
Processing: low verb-frame frequency → high surprisal.
- backgroundedness : MoSAccount
Discourse: backgrounded complements resist extraction.
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.instDecidableEqMoSAccount x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Testable predictions of each account.
The three accounts make divergent predictions for three key manipulations, allowing empirical discrimination.
- focusSensitive : Bool
Does prosodic focus affect extraction acceptability? (Tested in Experiments 1, 2a, 3b)
- sayAdverbCreatesIsland : Bool
Does say + manner adverb create an island? (Tested in Experiment 3a)
- frequencyCorrelation : Bool
Does verb-frame frequency correlate with acceptability? (Tested in all experiments)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Predictions of each account.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Empirical results from @cite{lu-pan-degen-2025}.
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.empiricalResults = { focusSensitive := true, sayAdverbCreatesIsland := true, frequencyCorrelation := false }
Instances For
Score: number of correct predictions.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The backgroundedness account matches all empirical results (3/3).
The subjacency account scores 1/3 (only no-frequency-correlation).
The frequency account scores 0/3 (all predictions wrong).
The backgroundedness account strictly dominates both alternatives.
§10. Grounding in Linglib Infrastructure #
These theorems connect the paper's theoretical definitions to existing linglib formalization, establishing that this is not an isolated theory but a natural extension of the QUD and information-structure framework.
Foregrounding = QUD cell membership (biconditional, manner direction).
The paper defines (def 3): "C is foregrounded iff Alt(C) ⊆ Q-alternatives."
In our formalization: a dimension is foregrounded under a QUD iff the QUD projects onto it — same-cell events agree on that dimension, and conversely, agreeing on that dimension suffices for same-cell membership.
This biconditional shows that our QUD.ofDecEq model exactly captures the paper's notion of foregrounding.
Foregrounding = QUD cell membership (biconditional, content direction).
QUD complementarity: Under manner QUD, manner is foregrounded ([FoC]) and content is backgrounded ([G]). Under content QUD, vice versa.
This connects to @cite{kratzer-selkirk-2020}'s insight that [FoC] and [G] are mutually exclusive features — you can't foreground and background the same dimension simultaneously. Extended here to cross-dimensional complementarity: foregrounding one dimension of a communication event necessarily backgrounds the other, given the single-QUD-at-a-time constraint.
Backgroundedness = BinaryGivenness.given: The paper's notion of
"backgrounded" maps directly to Kratzer & Selkirk's [G]-marked status,
which is the Prince hearer-status given value in the new substrate.
Foregrounding = FocusMark.focused: The paper's notion of "foregrounded" maps to Kratzer & Selkirk's [FoC]-marked status, which is the binary-focus axis value in the new substrate.
§11. Gradient Manner Weight: Lexical vs. Compositional #
@cite{lu-pan-degen-2025} Experiment 2a shows a residual difference between MoS verbs and say even under identical prosodic manipulation: MoS verb complements are more opaque to extraction than say complements (β = −0.08, p < 0.001), and this holds even when both are prosodically foregrounded.
We extend the binary model to distinguish the source of manner weight. Lexical manner (inherent to the verb root) produces stronger default backgroundedness than compositional manner (added by adverbial modification). This is a theoretical extension, not directly stated in the paper, but it accounts for the residual MoS > say+adverb difference the paper leaves as an open question (Experiment 2a discussion, p. 641).
Source of manner weight in a communication verb.
Lexical manner weight (MoS verbs) is stronger than compositional manner weight (say+adverb) because lexical manner is part of the verb's root meaning and therefore more reliably activates manner alternatives.
- lexical : MannerWeightSource
Manner encoded in the verb root (MoS verbs: whisper, shout, ...). Automatically activates manner alternatives in all contexts.
- compositional : MannerWeightSource
Manner added by adverbial modification (say softly, say loudly). Activates manner alternatives only when the adverb is salient.
- none : MannerWeightSource
No manner component (bridge verbs: say, tell).
Instances For
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.instDecidableEqMannerWeightSource x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Derive manner weight source from verb decomposition.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ordinal ranking of manner weight strength. Captures the prediction that lexical > compositional > none in default backgrounding of complements.
Equations
Instances For
MannerWeightSource.rank is injective: distinct sources have distinct ranks.
Subsumes the pairwise chain lexical_rank_gt_compositional /
compositional_rank_gt_none.
Any manner weight (lexical or compositional) yields hasMannerWeight.
The binary and gradient models are consistent.
§12. Backgroundedness–Projectivity Dissociation #
@cite{tonhauser-beaver-degen-2018} show that projectivity and at-issueness are anti-correlated (r = .85–.99): content that is not at-issue tends to project. Backgroundedness, in the sense of @cite{lu-pan-degen-2025}, implies low at-issueness and therefore predicts projectivity.
But the converse fails: projectivity does not imply backgroundedness. The complements of factive verbs like notice and discover are projective (presupposed) but NOT discourse-backgrounded — they can be at-issue and are extractable. This dissociation is what makes backgroundedness, not projectivity, the correct predictor of extraction resistance.
The three properties relevant to extraction: backgroundedness, projectivity,
and extraction resistance. Backgroundedness determines extraction resistance;
projectivity is independent. Consistency with the §16 prediction API is
verified per-profile by mos_profile_consistent, factive_profile_consistent,
and bridge_profile_consistent below §15.
- backgrounded : Bool
Content is discourse-backgrounded (not at-issue per QUD)
- projective : Bool
Content projects under operators (negation, modals, conditionals)
- resistsExtraction : Bool
Extraction from the clause is degraded
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
MoS verb complement: backgrounded → projective → resists extraction.
Backgroundedness is derived from the formal model (§6 mos_island_effect).
Projectivity follows from the anti-correlation with at-issueness
(@cite{tonhauser-beaver-degen-2018}): backgrounded content is not at-issue,
and not-at-issue content projects. Extraction resistance follows from
backgroundedness (§6 DiscourseStatus.rank_injective).
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.mosComplementProfile = { backgrounded := true, projective := true, resistsExtraction := true }
Instances For
Factive verb complement (notice, discover): projective but NOT backgrounded → does NOT resist extraction.
This is the key dissociation: notice and annoy have similar projectivity levels but very different backgroundedness levels (@cite{tonhauser-beaver-degen-2018}): annoy complements are backgrounded, notice complements are not. Backgroundedness, not projectivity, determines extraction resistance.
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.factiveComplementProfile = { backgrounded := false, projective := true, resistsExtraction := false }
Instances For
Bridge verb complement (say): not projective, not backgrounded,
does not resist extraction. Derived: bridge_verb_transparent gives
complementStatus = .new → not backgrounded → no extraction resistance.
Equations
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.bridgeComplementProfile = { backgrounded := false, projective := false, resistsExtraction := false }
Instances For
Projectivity does not determine extraction resistance. MoS and factive complements are both projective, but only MoS complements resist extraction.
MoS: backgrounded ↔ resists extraction.
Factive: not backgrounded ↔ does not resist extraction.
Bridge: not backgrounded ↔ does not resist extraction.
§13. Negation Test (Diagnostic for Backgroundedness) #
The negation test (@cite{erteschik-shir-1973}, @cite{ambridge-goldberg-2008}, @cite{lu-pan-degen-2025} p. 630): backgrounded content is unaffected by matrix sentential negation.
(7a) John didn't whisper that Mary was in the courtyard. → Mary was in the courtyard (complement PROJECTS under negation)
(7b) John didn't say that Mary was in the courtyard. → Mary may or may not have been in the courtyard (complement IN SCOPE)
Under the manner QUD, complement content is backgrounded and projects out of negation scope. Under the content QUD, complement content is at-issue and falls within negation scope. The negation test is thus a consequence of the QUD-determined backgroundedness, not an independent diagnostic.
Whether content projects under sentential negation, based on its givenness. Backgrounded (given) content projects out of negation scope; at-issue (new) content falls within scope.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
MoS verb complements project under negation.
Bridge verb complements do NOT project under negation.
Prosodic focus overrides: with embedded focus, even MoS verb complements fall within negation scope (complement becomes at-issue).
§14. Complementizer Restriction (Open Problem) #
MoS verbs require an overt complementizer that; bridge verbs allow null that:
(22a) John said (that) Mary is in the courtyard. ✓
(22b) John whispered *(that) Mary is in the courtyard. ✗
@cite{lu-pan-degen-2025} (§5) explicitly note that the backgroundedness account does not explain this contrast: "the backgroundedness account does not make any prediction about the overtness of the complementizer."
The subjacency account handles it naturally: if MoS verbs select an appositive CP (not directly syntactically selected), a null complementizer is unavailable because null complementizers require syntactic selection.
This remains an open problem and a genuine empirical advantage of the structural account that the discourse account does not currently capture.
§15. Gradient At-Issueness: From Binary to Continuous #
@cite{tonhauser-beaver-degen-2018} @cite{lu-pan-degen-2025}
The binary model (§5) treats backgroundedness as all-or-nothing: complement
status is either .given or .new. But @cite{lu-pan-degen-2025} Experiment 2a
shows a residual difference: MoS verbs (50–58) are more degraded than
say+adverb (53), which is more degraded than say (73–80), even under identical
prosodic conditions. The binary model predicts MoS = say+adverb (both .given)
and cannot express this gradient.
We lift the model to gradient at-issueness using Rat01 from
Core/Discourse/AtIssueness.lean. MannerWeightSource determines not just
whether the complement is backgrounded, but how backgrounded. Lexical manner
(inherent to verb root) produces stronger backgroundedness than compositional
manner (from adverb modification).
This connects to @cite{tonhauser-beaver-degen-2018}'s Gradient Projection Principle: at-issueness and projectivity are anti-correlated (r = .85–.99) and both are gradient, not binary. The three-way ordering derived here (lexical < compositional < none in at-issueness) is a strictly finer prediction than the binary model's two-way split.
Gradient complement at-issueness based on manner weight source.
- Lexical manner weight (MoS verbs) → 0 (maximally backgrounded)
- Compositional manner weight (say+adverb) → 1/3 (partially backgrounded)
- No manner weight (bridge verbs) → 1 (fully at-issue)
The intermediate value 1/3 is below defaultThreshold (1/2), ensuring the
binary model is recoverable: both lexical and compositional map to "not at-issue"
under threshold semantics.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.complementAtIssueness Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.MannerWeightSource.none = ⟨1, Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.complementAtIssueness._proof_3⟩
Instances For
Lexical manner weight yields strictly lower complement at-issueness than compositional. Matches Exp 2a's residual MoS > say+adverb difference (β = −0.08, p < 0.001).
Compositional manner weight yields strictly lower complement at-issueness than no manner weight.
Bridge verbs (at-issueness = 1) are above the default threshold (1/2).
Say+adverb (at-issueness = 1/3) is below the default threshold (1/2).
MoS verbs (at-issueness = 0) are below the default threshold (1/2).
Gradient distinguishes what binary cannot: The binary model predicts
identical complement status for MoS verbs and say+adverb (both .given), but
the gradient model assigns strictly different at-issueness degrees.
This accounts for the residual difference in Exp 2a (β = −0.08, p < 0.001)
and the per-verb correlation in Exp 2b (β = −0.44, p = 0.014, across 13
verbs including say; MoS-only β = −0.38, p = 0.076).
§16. General Island Prediction API #
Given an at-issueness degree for any complement type, derive extraction predictions automatically. This decouples island prediction from manner-of- speaking specifically: any complement whose at-issueness can be estimated (factive, relative clause, purpose clause, etc.) gets predictions for free.
The key result is predictIsland_monotone: extraction rank is monotone in
at-issueness, making at-issueness a sufficient statistic for extraction
acceptability.
Bundled extraction prediction for an arbitrary complement type.
- isIsland : Bool
Whether the complement constitutes an island (extraction degraded).
- status : Features.BinaryGivenness
Givenness:
.given(backgrounded) or.new(at-issue). - rank : Fin 2
Ordinal extraction acceptability (0 = most degraded, 1 = best). Note: this is the ACCEPTABILITY rank, opposite in direction from
BinaryGivenness.rank(which orders by salience: given > new). Backgrounded complements (.given) are harder to extract from, so they get acceptability 0; at-issue complements (.new) get acceptability 1.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Derive island predictions from at-issueness degree and threshold. Complements below threshold are backgrounded (islands); those above are at-issue (transparent to extraction).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Factive complement at-issueness: above threshold (presupposed content is backgrounded qua presupposition, but the propositional content is at-issue — the complement of "know" addresses the QUD).
Equations
Instances For
MoS verbs (lexical manner weight) predict islands.
Bridge verbs (no manner weight) predict no island.
Factive complements (at-issueness 3/4 > threshold 1/2) predict no island.
MoS extraction rank ≤ factive extraction rank.
Factive extraction rank ≤ bridge extraction rank.
Sufficient statistic theorem: extraction rank is monotone in at-issueness. If complement A has at-issueness ≤ complement B, then A's extraction rank is ≤ B's. This makes at-issueness the only input needed for extraction predictions — syntax, frequency, and projectivity are irrelevant once at-issueness is known.
MoS profile consistent with predictIsland: both say island.
Factive profile consistent with predictIsland: both say no island.
Bridge profile consistent with predictIsland: both say no island.