1. Complementation in Functional Discourse Grammar Kees Hengeveld Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication

2. Introduction - Earlier work on adverbial subordination (Hengeveld 1997) led to the identification of three parameters that govern the selection of deranked (≈non-finite) and/or balanced (≈finite) verb forms in adverbial clauses - These parameters were defined independently of the adverbial nature of the clauses studied, and should therefore be equally applicable to complement clauses 2

3. Introduction - The current paper tests this prediction by applying the parameters concerned to the systems of complementation in the languages of the same sample that was used for adverbial subordination. - In doing so I will also apply some new insights that have come out of work on Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld & Mackenzie (2008), which allow for a more systematic treatment. 3

4. Introduction 4

5. Some recurrent abbreviations: CC = complement clause CTP = complement taking predicate 5

6. Contents 1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar 2. Layers and CCs 3. Initial prediction 4. Layers and the typology of CCs 5. Factuality and the typology of CCs 6. Presupposedness and the typology of CCs 7. Interaction between layers, factuality, and presupposedness 8. Conclusions 6

7. 1. Layering in Functional Discourse Grammar

8. Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators Templates, Auxiliaries, Secondary operators Interpersonal Level Representational Level Formulation Morphosyntactic Encoding Morphosyntactic Level Phonological Encoding Phonological Level Prosodic patterns, Morphemes, Tertiary operators

9. Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators Templates, Auxiliaries, Secondary operators Interpersonal Level Representational Level Formulation Morphosyntactic Encoding Morphosyntactic Level Phonological Encoding Phonological Level Prosodic patterns, Morphemes, Tertiary operators

10. Frames, Lexemes, Primary operators Templates, Auxiliaries, Secondary operators Interpersonal Level Representational Level Formulation Morphosyntactic Encoding Morphosyntactic Level Phonological Encoding Phonological Level Prosodic patterns, Morphemes, Tertiary operators

11. 11 Interpersonal Level (π M 1 :[ Move (π A 1 :[ Discourse Act (π F 1 ) Illocution (π P 1 ) S Speaker (π P 2 ) A Addressee (π C 1 :[ Communicated Content (π T 1 ) Φ Ascriptive Subact (π R 1 ) Φ Referential Subact ] (C 1 ) Φ Communicated Content ] (A 1 ) Φ Discourse Act ] (M 1 )) Move

12. 12 Representational Level (π p 1 : Propositional Content (π ep 1 : Episode (π e 1 : State-of-Affairs [(π f 1 :[ Configurational Property (π f 1 ) Lexical Property (π x 1 ) Φ Individual ] (f 1 )) Configurational Property (e 1 ) Φ ]) State-of-Affairs (ep 1 )) Episode (p 1 )) Propositional Content

13. Operators and modifiers - A layer can be further specified in two different ways, through operators (π) and modifiers (σ) These grammatical strategies are different, but the semantic effects are comparable. Some examples: 13

14. Operators and modifiers (π p 1 : [.....] (p 1 )) π = Infer He must be home. (p 1 : [.....] (p 1 ): σ (p 1 ) σ = apparently Apparently he is home 14

15. Operators and modifiers (π e 1 : [.....] (p 1 )) π = Hab He used to arrive late. (e 1 : [.....] (p 1 ): σ (p 1 ) σ = normally He normally arrives late 15

16. Layers and complementation - Layers can also occur as arguments of CTPs, and thus be the pragmatic and/or semantic counterpart of complement clauses - Every layer stands for a certain entity type, such as ‘propositional content’, ‘state-of-affairs’, etc. - The semantics of the CTP determines with which entity type it can combine, e.g. 16

17. Layers and complementation (CTP) (π p 1 : [.....] (p 1 ): σ (e 1 )) ϕ CTP = seem It seems that he is home (CTP) (π e 1 : [.....] (e 1 ): σ (e 1 )) ϕ CTP = customary It is customary for him to arrive late 17

18. Operators, modifiers, CTPs - As a result of this approach, interpersonal and representational layers can be interpreted as a classification of CCs, with a steadily decreasing degree of internal complexity the lower one gets in the hierarchical structure. - At the same time, the underlying layers predict what kind of distintions can and cannot be expressed in CCs of these different types, as the lower one gets, the more operator and modifier positions are lost. 18

19. 2. Layering and complement clauses

20. Interpersonal layers underlying complement clauses (π M 1 : (π A 1 : […(π C 1 : [(T 1 ) (R 1 )](C 1 ): Σ (C 1 ))] (A 1 ): Σ (A 1 )) (M 1 ): Σ (M 1 )) ex. CTP conclude (π A 1 : [… (π C 1 : [(T 1 ) (R 1 )](C 1 ): Σ (C 1 ))] (A 1 ): Σ (A 1 )) ex. CTP go_without_saying (π C 1 : [(T 1 ) (R 1 )](C 1 ): Σ (C 1 )) ex. CTP say 20

21. M-complement (f 1 : [(f 2 : conclude V (f 2 )) (x 1 ) A (M 1 : [(A 1 ), (A 2 )... ] (M 1 ) Σ (M 1 )) U ] (f 1 )) While it is difficult to make generalizations about such a diverse public, it is easy to conclude [that, in sum these actions have led to a net loss of vegetative cover relative to pre-settlement condi- tions, as well as a substantial change in the type of vegetation present. At the same time, public consciousness regarding the importance of urban vegetation has certainly risen in the last ten years, although how much of that awareness has translated into changed behavior vis a vis urban plants in Quito is an open question.] (Internet) 21

22. A-complement (f 1 : [(f 2 : go_without_saying V (f 2 )) (A 1 : [... (C 1 )] (A 1 ): Σ (A 1 )) U ] (f 1 )) It goes without saying [that, in addition (*in sum), issues such as quality and a customer-oriented approach will be kept in mind.] (Internet) 22

23. C-complement (f 1 : [(f 2 : say V (f 2 )) (x 1 ) A (C 1 : [(T 1 ) (R 1 )] (C 1 ): Σ (C 1 )) U ] (f 1 )) He said [that reportedly (*in addition) there was some history of threats of domestic abuse in the family.] (Internet) 23

24. Representational layers underlying complement clauses ( π p 1 :(π ep 1 : (π e 1 : (π f 1 : [(f 2 ) (x 1 )] (f 1 ): σ (f 1 )) (e 1 ): σ (e 1 )) (ep 1 ): σ (ep 1 )) (p 1 ): σ (p 1 )) (ex. CTP believe) (π ep 1 : (π e 1 : (π f 1 : [(f 2 ) (x 1 )] (f 1 ): σ (f 1 )) (e 1 ): σ (e 1 )) (ep 1 ): σ (ep 1 )) (ex. CTP be_possible) (π e 1 : (π f 1 : [(f 2 ) (x 1 )] (f 1 ): σ (f 1 )) (e 1 ): σ (e 1 )) (ex. CTP see) (π f 1 : [(f 2 ) (x 1 )] (f 1 ): σ (f 1 )) (ex. CTP continue) 24

25. p-complement (f 1 : [(f 2 : believe V (f 2 )) (x 1 ) A (p 1 : (ep 1 ) … (ep 2 ) (p 1 ): σ (p 1 )) U ] (f 1 )) We believe [that possibly (*reportedly) as much as 60 percent (or more) of the population already believe [that the government is hiding what they know about worldly visitors.] (Internet) 25

26. ep-complement (f 1 : [(f 2 : possible Adj (f 1 )) (ep 1 : (e 1 ) … (e 2 )) (ep 1 ): σ (ep 1 )) U ] (f 1 )) It is possible [that later today or tomorrow (*probably) she will cover for the Loch Fyne allowing her larger fleet mate to go for her annual overhaul]. 26

27. e-complement (f 1 : [(f 2 : want V (f 2 )) (x 1 ) A (e 1 : (f 3 : … (f 3 )) (e 1 ): σ (e 1 )) U ] (f 1 )) Lili wanted me [to come over after lunch (*yesterday)]. (Internet) 27

28. f-complement (f 1 : [(f 2 : continue V (f 2 )) (x 1 ) A (f 3 : [(f 4 ) (x 1 ) A ] (f 3 ): σ (f 3 )) U ] (f 1 )) The police continued [to shoot indiscriminately into the crowd (*after lunch)]. (Internet) 28

29. 3. Initial prediction

30. Initial prediction - The higher the highest layer underlying a complement clause is, the more likely it is that the verb form it contains is a balanced one. - The lower the highest layer underlying a complement clause is, the more likely it is that the verb form it contains is a deranked one. 30

31. Initial prediction - A balanced verb form is one that can be used in a main clause. - A deranked verb form is one that can only be used in a subordinate clause. 31

32. Initial prediction - Explanation 1: The higher the highest layer underlying a complement clause is, the more operator positions it contains. The operators occupying these positions have to be expressed, generally on the verb. - Explanation 2: The higher the highest layer underlying a complement clause is, the more the complement clause is like a main clause. 32

33. 4. Layering and the typology of complement clauses

34. The entity type hierarchy f ⊃ e ⊃ ep ⊃ p ⊃ C ( ⊃ A ⊃ M) The more to the right on the hierarchy the highest layer is that a CC expresses, the more likely it is that this CC contains a balanced verb form The more to the left on the hierarchy the highest layer is that a CC expresses, the more likely it is that this CC contains a deranked verb form 34

35. CCs, CTPs and layers 35 feeppC Phase continue Perception see Certainty be_certain Belief believe Assertion say

36. The entity type hierarchy 36 f Phase e Perception ep Certainty p Belief C Assertion Abkhaz+++++ English+++/– Dutch++–+/– Spanish++–+/–– Basque++––– Polish+–––– Greek–––––

37. The entity type hierarchy: Immediate perception 37

38. The entity type hierarchy 38 f Phase e Perception ep Certainty p Belief C Assertion Abkhaz+++++ English+++/– Dutch++–+/– Spanish++–+/–– Basque++––– Polish+–––– Greek–––––

39. The entity type hierarchy? 39 f Phase e Perception ep Possibility p Belief C Assertion Abkhaz+++++ English++–+/– Dutch++–+/– Spanish++–+/–– Basque++––– Polish+–––– Greek–––––

40. The entity type hierarchy? English (1)a.It is certain that Tom will come. b.Tom is certain to come. (2)a.It is possible that Tom will come. b.*Tom is possible to come. 40

41. 5. Factuality and the typology of complement clauses

42. Factuality - In some languages there is a major division between complement clauses that are factual in nature and those that are not. - Factuality is a cover term that hosts distinctions that apply in different ways to the different entity types. 42

43. Factuality FactualNon- factual CEndorsed by the speakerNot endorsed by the speaker pTrue Not true epReal Not real eRealizedNot realized fApplicableNot applicable 43

44. Factual and non-factual CCs 44 feeppC FactualPhase continue Percep- tion see Cer- tainty certain Belief believe Asser- tion say Non- factual --Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Ques- tion ask

45. The factuality hierarchy factual ⊃ non-factual Non-factual CCs are more likely to contain a balanced verb form than factual CCs. Factual CCs are more likely to contain a deranked verb form than non-factual CCs. 45

46. The factuality hierarchy Explanation: There is a tendency in languages to mark the non-factual rather than the factual status of a complement clause explicitly, e.g. by means of a subjunctive 46

47. Factual and non-factual CCs 47 feeppC FactualPhase continue Percep- tion see Cer- tainty certain Belief believe Asser- tion say Non- factual Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Ques- tion ask

48. The factuality hierarchy 48 e Perception e Wanting Chuvash++ Irish++/– Armenian+/– Polish–+/– Albanian+/–– Maltese––

49. Factual and non-factual CCs 49 feeppC FactualPhase continue Percep- tion see Cer- tainty certain Belief believe Asser- tion say Non- factual Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Ques- tion ask

50. The factuality hierarchy 50 ep Certainty ep Possibility Turkish++ Latin++/– Finnish+/– English+/–– Armenian––

51. Factual and non-factual CCs 51 feeppC FactualPhase continue Percep- tion see Cer- tainty certain Belief believe Asser- tion say Non- factual Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Ques- tion ask

52. The factuality hierarchy 52 p Belief p Doubt Turkish++ Latin++/– Georgian+/– Danish+/–– Hungarian––

53. Factual and non-factual CCs 53 feeppC FactualPhase continue Percep- tion see Cer- tainty certain Belief believe Asser- tion say Non- factual Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Ques- tion ask

54. The factuality hierarchy 54 C Assertion C Question Abkhaz++ German+/–– Latvian––

55. The factuality hierarchy: Wanting 55

56. The entity type hierarchy: Immediate perception 56

57. Factuality and Entity Type 57 Arme- nian feeppC FactualPhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion ++/–––– Non- factual WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion +/––––

58. Factuality and Entity Type 58 AbkhazfeeppC FactualPhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion +++++ Non- factual WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion ++++

59. Factuality and Entity Type 59 Bulga- rian feeppC FactualPhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion ––––– Non- factual WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion ––––

60. Factuality and Entity Type 60 LatinfeeppC FactualPhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion +++++/– Non- factual WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion +–+/––

61. Factuality and Entity Type 61 Alba- nian feeppC FactualPhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion +/– ––– Non- factual WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion ––––

62. The factuality hierarchy 62 e Perception e Wanting Chuvash++ Irish++/– Lithuanian+/– Polish–+/– Albanian+/–– Maltese––

63. The factuality hierarchy? 63 e Perception e Impediment Chuvash++ Irish++ Lithuanian+/–+ Polish–+/– Albanian+/–– Maltese––

64. The factuality hierarchy? Lithuanian (1)Ašnori-u,kadji ižei-tų. I.NOMwant-PRES.1.SGthatshe.NOM leave.SUBJ.3 ‘I want her to leave.’ (2)Ašnori-uižei-ti. I.NOMwant-PRES.1.SGleave-INF ‘I want to leave.’ (3)Jissutrukd-éTom-uiten nuei-ti. heprevent-PST.3.SGTom-DATtherego-INF ‘He prevented Tom from going there.’ 64

65. 6. Presupposedness and the typology of complement clauses

66. Presupposedness - In some languages there is a major division between complement clauses that are presupposed in nature and those that are not. - Presupposedness is a cover term that hosts distinctions that apply in different ways to the different entity and factuality types 66

67. Presupposedness Factual eimplied to be realized (force) eppresupposed to be real (commentative) ppresupposed to be true (knowledge) Non-factual eimplied not to be realized (prevent) eppresupposed not to be real (pretence) ppresupposed not to be true (unreal wish) 67

68. The presupposedness hierarchy Presupposed ⊃ Non-presupposed Non-presupposed CCs are more likely to contain a balanced verb form than presupposed CCs. Presupposed CCs are more likely to contain a deranked verb form than non-presupposed CCs. 68

69. The presupposedness hierarchy Explanation The factuality or non-factuality value of a presupposed CC is implied by the meaning of the CTP and therefore there is less need to express this value explicitly. 69

70. Presupposed and non-presupposed CCs 70 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase continue Perception see Certainty certain Belief believe Assertion say Presupp.Manipu- lation force Com- ment regret Know- ledge know Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Question ask Presupp.Impedi- ment prevent Pretence act as if Unreal Wish wish

71. Presupposed and non-presupposed CCs 71 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase continue Perception see Certainty certain Belief believe Assertion say Presupp.Manipu- lation force Com- ment regret Know- ledge know Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Question ask Presupp.Impedi- ment prevent Pretence act as if Unreal Wish wish

72. The presupposedness hierarchy 72 e - factual Manipulation e - factual Perception Lezgian++ Lithuanian++/– Danish+/– Armenian+– Polish+/–– Kurmanji––

73. Presupposed and non-presupposed CCs 73 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase continue Perception see Certainty certain Belief believe Assertion say Presupp.Manipu- lation force Com- ment regret Know- ledge know Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Question ask Presupp.Impedi- ment prevent Pretence act as if Unreal Wish wish

74. The presupposedness hierarchy 74 ep - factual Comment e - factual Certainty Chuvash++ English+/– Lithuanian+/–– Ossetic––

75. Presupposed and non-presupposed CCs 75 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase continue Perception see Certainty certain Belief believe Assertion say Presupp.Manipu- lation force Com- ment regret Know- ledge know Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Question ask Presupp.Impedi- ment prevent Pretence act as if Unreal Wish wish

76. The presupposedness hierarchy 76 p - factual Knowledge p - factual Belief Latin++ Spanish+/– Chechen+– Armenian+/–– Bulgarian––

77. Presupposed and non-presupposed CCs 77 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase continue Perception see Certainty certain Belief believe Assertion say Presupp.Manipu- lation force Com- ment regret Know- ledge know Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Question ask Presupp.Impedi- ment prevent Pretence act as if Unreal Wish wish

78. The presupposedness hierarchy 78 e – non-factual Impediment e – non-factual Wanting Finnish++ Ossetic++/– Russian+/– Albanian––

79. Presupposed and non-presupposed CCs 79 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase continue Perception see Certainty certain Belief believe Assertion say Presupp.Manipu- lation force Com- ment regret Know- ledge know Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Question ask Presupp.Impedi- ment prevent Pretence act as if Unreal Wish wish

80. The presupposedness hierarchy 80 ep – non-factual Pretence ep – non-factual Possibility Turkish++ Irish+/– Armenian+/–– Basque––

81. Presupposed and non-presupposed CCs 81 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase continue Perception see Certainty certain Belief believe Assertion say Presupp.Manipu- lation force Com- ment regret Know- ledge know Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting want Possi- bility possible Doubt doubt Question ask Presupp.Impedi- ment prevent Pretence act as if Unreal Wish wish

82. The presupposedness hierarchy 82 p – non-factual Unreal Wish p – non-factual Doubt Turkish++ German+/– Armenian+/–– Danish––

83. The presupposedness hierarchy: Manipulation 83

84. The presupposedness hierarchy: Perception 84

85. The presupposedness hierarchy: Commentative 85

86. Presupposedness and factuality 86 AlbanianfeeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePerceptionCertaintyBeliefAssertion +/- +++ Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge +/-+++

87. Presupposedness and factuality 87 Lithua- nian feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePerceptionCertaintyBeliefAssertion ++/---- Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge ++/--

88. Presupposedness and factuality 88 Arme- nian feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePerceptionCertaintyBeliefAssertion ++/---- Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge ++/-

89. Presupposedness and factuality 89 PolishfeeppC Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQuestion +/---- Presupp.Impedi- ment PretenceUnreal Wish +/---

90. Presupposedness and factuality 90 IrishfeeppC Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQuestion +/- - Presupp.Impedi- ment PretenceUnreal Wish ++/-

91. Presupposedness and factuality 91 Lithua- nian feeppC Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQuestion +/---- Presupp.Impedi- ment PretenceUnreal Wish ++/---

92. 7. Interaction between entity types, factuality, and presupposedness

93. Interaction 93 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

94. Interaction 94 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

95. Interaction 95 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

96. Interaction 96 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

97. Interaction 97 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

98. Interaction 98 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

99. Interaction 99 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

100. Interaction 100 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

101. Interaction 101 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

102. Interaction 102 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

103. Interaction 103 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

104. Interaction 104 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

105. The layering hierarchy – factual presupposed 105 e Manipulation ep Comment C Knowledge Chechen+++ Finnish++/– Georgian+/– Basque++/–– Catalan+/– – Ossetic+–– Albanian+/––– Bulgarian–––

106. Interaction 106 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

107. The layering hierarchy – non-factual non-presupposed 107 e Wanting ep Possibility p Doubt C Question Turkish++++ Finnish++/– – English+/–– – Georgian+/– – Basque+/–––– Maltese––––

108. Interaction 108 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

109. The layering hierarchy – non factual presupposed 109 e Impediment ep Pretence C Unreal Wish Turkish+++ Armenian++/– Spanish+/– Lithuanian++/–– Latvian+–– Polish+/––– Kurmanji–––

110. Interaction 110 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

111. The factuality hierarchy - presupposed 111 e – presupposed Manipulation e – presupposed Impediment Latvian++ Basque++/– Danish+/– Georgian+/–– Maltese––

112. Interaction 112 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

113. The factuality hierarchy - presupposed 113 e – presupposed Comment e – presupposed Pretence Chuvash++ Latin++/– German+/– Catalan+/–– Ossetic––

114. Interaction 114 feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed PhasePercep- tion Cer- tainty BeliefAsser- tion Presupp.Manipu- lation Com- ment Know- ledge Non- factual Non-pre- supposed WantingPossi- bility DoubtQues- tion Presupp.Impedi- ment Pre- tence Unreal Wish

115. The factuality hierarchy - presupposed 115 e – presupposed Knowledge e – presupposed Unreal Wish Turkish++ Russian+/– Danish+/–– Lithuanian––

116. Interaction - Types Type 1: strictly balancing Type 2: balancing > e Type 3: balancing > ep Type 4: balancing > p Type 5: deranking C Type 6: strictly deranking 116

117. Type 1: strictly balancing 117 MaltesefeeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase – Percep- tion – Cer- tainty – Belief – Asser- tion – Presupp.Manipu- lation – Com- ment – Know- ledge – Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting – Possi- bility – Doubt – Ques- tion – Presupp.Impedi- ment – Pre- tence – Unreal Wish –

118. Type 2: balancing > e 118 OsseticfeeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase + Percep- tion +/– Cer- tainty – Belief – Asser- tion – Presupp.Manipu- lation + Com- ment – Know- ledge – Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting +/– Possi- bility – Doubt – Ques- tion – Presupp.Impedi- ment + Pre- tence – Unreal Wish –

119. Type 3: balancing > ep 119 BasquefeeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase + Percep- tion + Cer- tainty – Belief – Asser- tion – Presupp.Manipu- lation + Com- ment +/– Know- ledge – Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting +/– Possi- bility – Doubt – Ques- tion – Presupp.Impedi- ment +/– Pre- tence – Unreal Wish –

120. Type 4: balancing > p 120 Arme- nian feeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase + Percep- tion +/– Cer- tainty – Belief – Asser- tion – Presupp.Manipu- lation + Com- ment +/– Know- ledge +/– Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting +/– Possi- bility – Doubt – Ques- tion – Presupp.Impedi- ment + Pre- tence +/– Unreal Wish +/–

121. Type 5: deranking C 121 FinnishfeeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase + Percep- tion + Cer- tainty +/– Belief +/– Asser- tion +/– Presupp.Manipu- lation + Com- ment +/– Know- ledge +/– Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting + Possi- bility +/– Doubt +/– Ques- tion – Presupp.Impedi- ment + Pre- tence +/– Unreal Wish +/–

122. Type 6: strictly deranking 122 TurkishfeeppC FactualNon-pre- supposed Phase + Percep- tion + Cer- tainty + Belief + Asser- tion + Presupp.Manipu- lation + Com- ment + Know- ledge + Non- factual Non-pre- supposed Wanting + Possi- bility + Doubt + Ques- tion + Presupp.Impedi- ment + Pre- tence + Unreal Wish +

123. Types 123

124. Interaction - Types Type 1: strictly balancingblue Type 2: balancing > elavender Type 3: balancing > eppurple Type 4: balancing > pred Type 5: deranking Corange Type 6: strictly derankingyellow 124

125. 8. Conclusions

126. Conclusions - The layered approach to complementation allows for a fine-grained classification of CCs - There is a strong crosslinguistically valid correlation between the highest layer the underlying representation a CC contains and its balanced or deranked expression - This correlation only obtains systematically when factual and non-factual and presupposed and non- presupposed CCs are distinguished and kept separate 126

127. This presentation is available at www.keeshengeveld.nl 127