Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands

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:

  1. Manner QUD → content is invisible to the partition → content is backgrounded
  2. Content QUD → manner is invisible → content is foregrounded
  3. Verb with manner weight → manner QUD is default → island effect
  4. Prosodic focus on embedded object → overrides to content QUD → amelioration
  5. Adding manner adverb to bridge verb → acquires manner weight → replicates island

Grounding #

§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
    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
            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
                @[implicit_reducible]
                Equations
                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
                    @[implicit_reducible]
                    instance Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.instBEqCommEvent {Manner Content : Type} [BEq Manner] [BEq Content] :
                    BEq (CommEvent Manner Content)
                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    def Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.mannerQUD {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Manner] :
                    QUD (CommEvent Manner Content)

                    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
                    Instances For
                      def Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.contentQUD {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Content] :
                      QUD (CommEvent Manner Content)

                      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
                      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).

                        theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.manner_qud_ignores_content {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Manner] (e1 e2 : CommEvent Manner Content) (h : e1.manner = e2.manner) :
                        mannerQUD.r e1 e2

                        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.

                        theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.content_qud_ignores_manner {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Content] (e1 e2 : CommEvent Manner Content) (h : e1.content = e2.content) :

                        Content QUD ignores manner: Under the content QUD, events with the same content are equivalent regardless of manner.

                        theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.backgroundedness_means_qud_invisible {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Manner] (e : CommEvent Manner Content) (c' : Content) :
                        mannerQUD.r e { manner := e.manner, content := c' }

                        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.

                        theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.backgrounded_content_same_cell {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Manner] [BEq Manner] [BEq Content] (e : CommEvent Manner Content) (c' : Content) :
                        { manner := e.manner, content := c' } mannerQUD.cell e

                        Backgrounded content is in the same QUD cell (set-membership version).

                        theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.foregrounding_is_qud_projection_manner {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Manner] (e1 e2 : CommEvent Manner Content) (h : mannerQUD.r e1 e2) :
                        e1.manner = e2.manner

                        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.

                        theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.foregrounding_is_qud_projection_content {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Content] (e1 e2 : CommEvent Manner Content) (h : contentQUD.r e1 e2) :

                        Foregrounding is QUD projection (content direction): events in the same content-QUD cell must agree on content.

                        theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.manner_content_qud_distinct {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Manner] [DecidableEq Content] (e1 e2 : CommEvent Manner Content) (h_same_manner : e1.manner = e2.manner) (h_diff_content : e1.content e2.content) :
                        mannerQUD.r e1 e2 ¬contentQUD.r e1 e2

                        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).

                        def Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.contentQuestionRelevant {Manner Content : Type} (qud : QUD (CommEvent Manner Content)) :

                        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.

                          theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.content_question_relevant_under_content {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Content] (m : Manner) (c₁ c₂ : Content) (hne : c₁ c₂) :

                          Under the content QUD, content extraction questions ARE QUD-relevant: different content values produce events in different QUD cells.

                          def Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.extractionQUD {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Content] :
                          QUD (CommEvent Manner Content)

                          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
                            theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.extraction_filler_varies {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Content] (m : Manner) (c₁ c₂ : Content) (hne : c₁ c₂) :
                            ¬extractionQUD.r { manner := m, content := c₁ } { manner := m, content := c₂ }

                            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.

                            theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.extraction_filler_is_focus_alternative {Manner Content : Type} {W : Type u_1} (den : CommEvent Manner ContentSet W) (m : Manner) (answerFocus extractionQ : FocusInterpretation.PropFocusValue W) (hq : ∀ (c : Content), den { manner := m, content := c } extractionQ) (hqa : FocusInterpretation.qaCongruentWeak answerFocus extractionQ) (c : Content) :
                            den { manner := m, content := c } answerFocus

                            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:

                            1. Wh-extraction creates a content-QUD (extractionQUD, @cite{roberts-2012})
                            2. The filler distinguishes the extraction QUD's cells (extraction_filler_varies)
                            3. extraction_filler_is_focus_alternative (above) uses qaCongruentWeak (@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.
                            4. 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.

                              §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

                                §6. The MoS Island Effect: Main Derivation #

                                The full derivation chain:

                                1. MoS verb has manner weight (lexical decomposition, §1)
                                2. Manner weight → default QUD dimension is manner (§5 defaultDimension)
                                3. Manner QUD → complement is backgrounded (§5 complementStatus)
                                4. Backgrounded → extraction question QUD-irrelevant (§4 Route 1)
                                5. 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].

                                §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.

                                  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.

                                  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:

                                  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 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
                                    @[implicit_reducible]
                                    Equations
                                    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
                                              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).

                                                  §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.

                                                  theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.foregrounding_iff_qud_manner {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Manner] (e1 e2 : CommEvent Manner Content) :
                                                  mannerQUD.r e1 e2 e1.manner = e2.manner

                                                  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.

                                                  theorem Semantics.Focus.BackgroundedIslands.foregrounding_iff_qud_content {Manner Content : Type} [DecidableEq Content] (e1 e2 : CommEvent Manner Content) :
                                                  contentQUD.r e1 e2 e1.content = e2.content

                                                  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
                                                    @[implicit_reducible]
                                                    Equations
                                                    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
                                                                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
                                                                  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
                                                                    Instances For

                                                                      Projectivity does not determine extraction resistance. MoS and factive complements are both projective, but only MoS complements 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
                                                                        @[implicit_reducible]
                                                                        Equations
                                                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

                                                                        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
                                                                        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).

                                                                          • 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

                                                                                    Factive complements (at-issueness 3/4 > threshold 1/2) predict no island.

                                                                                    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.