Whamit!

Speaker: Donca Steriade
Title: The cycle without containment: the phonology of the Romance perfect
Location: 32D-831
Time: Monday, Nov 28, 5:00pm

The stems of all perfect forms in Latin and Romanian are systematically similar to each other, and distinct from all other forms of the verb. E.g.,

Despite their similarity, the perfect forms have no affix in common. In each language, the perfect participle uses different affixes from the non-participial perfect forms. I show that in the absence of a general perfect affix, these languages mark the aspectual identity of all perfect forms through their global shape similarity: e.g., all Latin perfect stems are required to have identical syllable count; Romanian perfect forms are required to be accentually identical.

In both systems, the phonological similarity between perfect stems has two of the characteristics of the Base-Derivative relation (Benua 1998): it is unexpected, given the ranking of general Markedness and IO Faithfulness conditions in each language; and it is enforced asymmetrically, with one form functioning as a Base and the other as its Derivative. But the analysis of both cases requires an essential modification relative to Benua’s theory and its classical cyclic antecedents (Chomsky, Halle and Lukoff 1965): the correspondence between exponents is established based on the shared properties of their associated syntactic structures, but without any requirement of syntactic containment between the base structure and its derivative (Steriade 2008). In these two systems global phonological similarity functions as a substitute for a shared affix. The phenomenon of cycle-without-containment is predicted by the proposed change in the theory of cyclic inheritance and supports it against competing mechanisms.

Speaker: Ayaka Sugawara
Title: Accent of Japanese given names
Location: 32D-831
Time: Monday, Nov 21, 5:00pm

In this talk, I will show that there are gaps between the accent patterns of Japanese common nouns and those of Japanese given names. For example, although an n-mora common noun generally has n+1 contrastive accent patterns including an unaccented one (e.g. háshi ‘chopsticks,’ hashí ‘bridge,’ hashi ‘edge’), the accent pattern that given names show is more limited (e.g. ^okµ’µ, *µµ’, *µµ). To capture the special accent pattern Japanese given names show, I will propose (i) that the given names are accented in the default case, regardless of the length of the name, (ii) that some suffixes make names unaccented, (iii) that some suffixes do not allow accent to immediately precede them, and (iv) that longer names (6-or-more-mora names), which can be analyzed as being divided into two parts, behave according to compounding rules. I am pursuing an OT analysis for this, but this is very much a work in progress, so I will be all-ears to the advice you might have.

Speaker: Snejana Iovtcheva
Title: WH-questions in Bulgarian: Evidence for [focus]-movement in a Feature Based Syntactic Theory
Date/Time: Tuesday, Nov 22, 1-2p
Location: 32-D461

The presentation is based on my masters thesis from Syracuse University, in which I analyze the multiple wh-fronting (MWF) structure of Bulgarian under the Move-F(eature) approach to syntactic displacement (Chomsky 1995, 2004). I propose an alternative syntactic model that challenges Boškovič’s (1998) and Lambova’s (2001) move-to-SpecCP analyses by proposing that wh-phrases do not target SpecCP in Bulgarian. Instead wh-phrases move to a preverbal focus position, which is the SpecTP following Motapanyane’s (1997) proposal that [focus] is generated in T in Romanian. The proposed clausal structure ultimately allows us to: (1) propose a unified [focus]-driven discourse-oriented movement with a systematic featural distribution, (2) capture the distribution of focalized constituents not only in interrogative, but also in declarative clauses and in yes/no questions in both root and embedded contexts, and (3) provide an explanation for the different behavior of relative pronouns and wh-phrases in Bulgarian. In addition, my analysis provides an account of the previously discussed properties of the Bulgarian MWF, such as the V2-order, the Superiority effects, and the obligatory Pair-list interpretation.

A few photos from the lively discussion after last Thursday evening’s screening of the film We still live here (Âs Nutayuneân). (About 150 people attended!) Amidst a series of great questions about language revival, Universal Grammar, and how new words are incorporated into the Wampanoag lexicon, Jessie Little Doe Baird and Norvin Richards also took time to explain the Wampanoag version of the Algonkian inverse construction to us:

Speaker: Gary Thoms (Strathclyde University)
Title: Roll up! PBC effects, anti-locality and Japanese scrambling
Date/Time: Tuesday, Nov 15, 1-2p
Location: 32-D461

One of the consequences of Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) is that head-final word order must be derived by movement of the complement into a specifier position; this is known as “roll-up movement” (RUM). In most cases the only evidence for RUM comes from the word order facts themselves, and this lack of independent support thus leaves RUM and other such LCA-related movement operations open to criticism. However, the LCA approach to head-finality makes a clear prediction: in harmonically head-final languages, apparent complements should in fact behave like they are in specifier positions with respect to conditions like locality and anti-locality (Abels 2003).

In this paper I explore these predictions and argue that we can in fact find such evidence for RUM in a harmonically head-final language like Japanese. First, I consider Proper Binding Condition effects in VP-scrambling constructions with the light verb `su’ (where the lexical verb stays in the VP); I show that the distribution of these effects indicates that this is indeed VP and not vP-scrambling, a kind of scrambling that should be banned by anti-locality. Considering the nature of anti-locality as a constraint, I argue that this follows if we accept that RUM gives the VP a `free ride’ to the edge of the vP phase. With this established, I then turn `remnant VP scrambling’, where the VP is scrambled after the verb has raised out of it (Koizumi 2000). Considering the apparent *lack* of PBC effects in remnant VP-scrambling, I argue that the position of the lexical verb with respect to its arguments is the crucial factor in determining PBC effects. I propose an analysis in terms of Fox and Pesetsky’s (2005) Cyclic Linearization, and I show that in order to derive the cases of PBC-free remnant VP-scrambling within this framework (and a set of independently required assumptions), we need to allow arguments to get to the edge of the vP phase without moving there directly. I argue that this provides further evidence for RUM. I thus conclude that the linearization asymmetries in Japanese VP-scrambling give language-internal evidence for the LCA.

Speaker: Maria Aloni (University of Amsterdam)
Time: Friday 11/18 3:30 PM
Location: 32-141
Title: Modal inferences in marked indefinites

Abstract:

In this talk I will discuss two marked indefinite determiners which are normally classified as epistemic (Jayez & Tovena 2006, Alonso-Ovalle & Menendez-Benito 2010): Italian un qualche (Zamparelli 2007) and German irgendein (Haspelmath 1997, Kratzer & Shimoyama 2002). In the first part of the talk I will identify a number of functions (context-meaning pairs) for marked indefinites, and discuss the distribution of un qualche and irgendein with respect to these functions (Aloni & Port 2011). The most striking aspect of the observed distribution is the different behavior the two indefinites display under epistemic and under deontic modals. Under epistemic modals both indefinites are licensed and give rise to an ignorance inference; under deontic modals only German irgendein is licensed and gives rise to a free choice inference. In the second part of the talk I will give a formal account of these facts in the framework of a Dynamic Semantics with Conceptual Covers (Aloni 2001).

Speaker: Timothy J. O’Donnell (MIT)
Title: Productivity and Reuse in Language
Date/Time: Thursday, Nov 17, 12:30-1:45p
Location: 32-D461

A much-celebrated aspect of language is the way in which it allows us to make “infinite use of finite means.” This property is made possible because language is fundamentally a computational system: Novel expressions can be composed out of a large inventory of stored, reusable parts.

For any given language, however, there are many more potential ways of forming novel expressions than are actually used in practice. For example, English contains suffixes which are highly generalizable (e.g., -ness; Lady-Gagaesqueness, pine-scentedness) and suffixes which can only be reused in specific words, and cannot be generalized (e.g., -th; truth, width, warmth).How are such differences in generalizability and reusability represented? How can the child acquire this system of knowledge? This set of related questions can be called the “problem of productivity.”

I will discuss a mathematical model of productivity and reuse which addresses the problem by treating it as a structure-by-structure inference in a Bayesian framework. I will compare this model to four other probabilistic models which formalize historical proposals from linguistics and psycholinguistics.

I will discuss the evaluation of these proposals on two very different sub-systems of English morphology: the English past tense, which is characterized by a sharp dichotomy in productivity between regular (i.e., -ed) and irregular (e.g., sing/sang) forms, and English derivational morphology, which is characterized by greater variability in productivity: from wholly productive (e.g., -ness), to productive in certain contexts (e.g., -ity; agreeability), to completely unproductive (e.g., -th). I will discuss several different aspects of the development and the adult state of these two systems, possibly including developmental overregularization, suffix ordering phenomena, and the generalizability of suffix combinations.

At MIT this Thursday, there will be a screening of the film We Still Live Here (Âs Nutayuneân):

Date/Time: Thursday, Nov 17, 7:00pm
Location: 1-190

Celebrated every Thanksgiving as the Indians who saved the Pilgrims from starvation, and then largely forgotten, the Wampanoag Tribes of Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard are now saying loud and clear, and in their Native tongue, “Âs Nutayuneân,”—We Still Live Here. The Wampanoag’s ancestors ensured the survival of the first English settlers in America, and lived to regret it. Now a cultural revival is taking place. Spurred on by their celebrated linguist, Jessie Little Doe Baird, recent winner of a MacArthur ‘genius’ award, the Wampanoag are bringing their language home. Like many Native American stories, this one begins with a vision. Years ago, Jessie began having recurring dreams: familiar-looking people from another time speaking in an incomprehensible language. These visions sent her on an odyssey that would uncover hundreds of documents written in Wampanoag, lead her to a Masters in Linguistics at MIT, and result in an unprecedented feat of language reclamation by her people. Jessie’s daughter Mae is the first Native speaker of Wampanoag in a century.

Jessie Little Doe Baird received her S.M. degree from this department in 2000, where her advisor was the legendary late Ken Hale. We wrote about Jessie on the occasion of her MacArthur award in 2010, where we also noted our colleague Norvin Richards’ role in continuing Ken’s contributions to the Wôpanâak Language Reclamation Project.

After the screening, Jessie and Norvin will be joined in a discussion and question & answer session by film maker Anne Makepeace, and by Nitana Hicks (S.M. Linguistics, 2006), another member of the Mashpee Wampanoag involved in the reclamation effort.

Cosponsored by MIT Program in Women’s and Gender Studies, Women in Film and Video/New England, The Technology and Culture Forum, The Office of Minority Education, The Office of Student Activities and MIT Linguistics.

Speaker: mitcho (Michael Erlewine)
Title: Focus islands
Location: 32D-831
Time: Friday, Nov 18, 1:00PM-2:30PM

Abstract:

In this talk I discuss the phenomena of “focus islands”: that F-marked constituents cannot move out of the scope of focus-sensitive operators. This phenomenon was first noted by Tancredi (1990) for overt movement and Aoun & Li (1993) argued that this constraint also affects quantifier scope.

1. * [Who_i]_F does John only like t_i? (Tancredi 1990)
     Intended: ‘Who is the person x such that John only likes [x]_F?’
2. A teacher only likes every [boy]_F.
     a teacher > every boy, * every boy > a teacher (Aoun & Li 1993)

In this talk I share some work-in-progress thoughts on explaining focus islandhood. The presentation may (or may not) involve a discussion of recent literature on computing focus alternatives with or without variables in semantics (Shan 2004, Novel & Romero 2009).

Michael Kenstowicz was an invited speaker at USC’s Department of Linguistics last week, presenting “Accent Classes and Lexical Drift in Kyungsang Korean” in their colloquium series. He also met with their PhonLunch group to discuss his paper “Contrasts, Mergers, and Acquisitions in Kyungsang Acccent,” co-authored with Hyesun Cho and Jieun Kim.

Doesn’t WHAMIT usually come out on Monday mornings? Yes, but alas we had some server problems over the weekend. We apologize for the delay, but hope you enjoy all the news nonetheless. Please also take the time to notice two new sister blogs in the blogroll to the right. New blogs from Harvard Linguistics and McGill Linguistics. Welcome to the club!

Last Friday through Sunday, a goodly group of MIT linguists traveled to Toronto for NELS 42, hosted by the University of Toronto. All told, six talks were presented by our graduate students, in addition to David Pesetsky’s invited talk (one of four reflecting the conference theme “Diversity and universals: The role of typology and linguistic universals in linguistic theory”). The other invited speakers were Mark Baker, Lisa Matthewson, and Martina Wiltschko.

On Friday. Bronwyn Bjorkman and Claire Halpert presented their paper “In search of (im)perfection: the illusion of counterfactual aspect”, Rafael Nonato argued that “Clause-chaining is coordination” (on the basis of striking similarities between Kisêdjê and English), and David Pesetsky presented an invited talk on why we should view “Dependent Case as Binding Theory”. On Saturday, Suyeon Yun gave her talk on “Opacity and serial phonology-morphology interaction in Kyungsang Korean”. On Sunday, Yusuke Imanishi told the audience “How to merge possessor WH in Kaqchikel (Mayan): A non-uniform merge of argument WH”, Claire Halpert spoke on “Structural case and the nature of vP in Zulu”, and Jeremy Hartman presented his paper “Parallel movement and (non-)intervention by experiencers”. We’re biased, but we think their talks were fantastic. There were interesting, tough questions after the talks, and lively discussion.

As always at NELS, other great talks were presented by recent graduates, distinguished alums and fondly-remembered vistors. We’re sure we’re going to end up forgetting some (sorry!), but in the recent and slightly less recent alum category, we want to note the excellent talks by Gillian Gallagher, Heejeong Ko and her student Chorong Kang, Susi Wurmbrand, Julie Legate and Course 6 alum (but who’s counting) Charles Yang. The fondly remembered visitor category includes the talks by Sarah Ouwayda (whose talk was partly developed during her stay here last Spring), Gary Thoms, Ileana Paul and Lisa Matthewson. And there were plenty of really interesting talks by linguists from everywhere else too!

At NELS, we also got to say hello to Jessica Coon, who came over from McGill for the event, Tim Stowell and Carson Schutze from UCLA, who came to support their department’s own healthy contingent of NELS presenters, and several ex-MITers at the University of Toronto, including Diane Massam, Cristina Cuervo, Michela Ippolito and Yoonjung Kang. It was a great conference, and a nice reunion as well.

Speaker: Suyeon Yun
Title: Opacity and Serial Phonology-Morphology Interaction in Kyungsang Korean
Location: 32D-831
Time: Monday, Nov 7, 5:00pm

Abstract:

Kyungsang Korean shows an interesting noun-verb asymmetry where phonological processes interact opaquely in verbs but transparently in nouns; consonant cluster simplification (e.g., /kaps/ -> [kap] ‘price’) counterbleeds post-obstruent tensing (e.g., /cap+ta/ -> [capt’a] ‘to catch’) in verbal inflections (e.g., /malk+ta/ -> [malt’a], *[malta] ‘to be clean’) but not in noun inflections (e.g., /talk+to/ -> [talto], *[talt’o] ‘chicken’ + ‘also’). In order to explain both opacity and the noun-verb asymmetry, I will show stratal OT (Kiparsky 2000) is not an adequate solution for this puzzle and propose an analysis based on Optimality Theory with Candidate Chains (OT-CC; McCarthy 2007). In this approach, opacity between post-obstruent tensing and consonant cluster simplification will be explained by PREC (IDENT(TENSE), MAX). Adopting Wolf (2008), I will also claim that serial phonology-morphology interactions in candidate chains (Wolf 2008) can explain the noun-verb asymmetry in Kyungsang Korean. Specifically, highly ranked PREC(MAX, insert-affixN), which penalizes a candidate chain with the insertion of nominal affixes before violating MAX, will lead a transparent result in nominal inflections only. In addition, I will lay out a non-opacity account of the same data. Based on the difference in the base form between verbs (A-suffix form) and nouns (citation form), the noun-verb asymmetry in tensification will be explained by phonetic duration preservation of each base.

This week’s Syntax Square features NELS 42 practice talks by Claire and Jeremy.

Time/Date: Tuesday, Nov 8, 1-2p
Location: 32-D461

Speaker: Claire Halpert
Title: Structural case and the nature of vP in Zulu

The full abstract is available (PDF).

Bantu languages like Zulu have been claimed to lack Case Filter effects on the distribution of nominals (Harford Perez 1985, Diercks to appear). In this talk I argue against this view of Bantu as an exception to standard case theory. In particular, I propose that by adopting (1) Ndayiragije’s suggestion that there is a head that probes for DP in a manner familiar from case-checking in other languages, but which can check DPs not in need of case; and (2) Preminger’s (2009, 2010) proposal that agreement is obligatory where possible, but is permitted to fail without inducing a crash, I can account for two distinct puzzles in Zulu – the ‘conjoint/disjoint’ alternation (van der Spuy 1993; Buell 2005) and the distribution of augmentless nominals (Buell 2011) – if we assume that Zulu DPs are subject to the Case Filter just like their counterparts in other languages. Taken together, then, these two puzzles and their proposed solution suggest that Case Theory is perhaps fundamentally invariant across languages, despite a large amount of surface variation. They also provide evidence for Preminger’s theory of agreement.

Speaker: Jeremy Hartman
Title: (Non-)Intervention in A-movement: some cross-constructional and cross-linguistic considerations

It is well known that English is cross-linguistically exceptional in allowing constructions like (1), where subject-to-subject raising proceeds across an overt, full-DP experiencer:

(1) John seems to Mary to be happy.

Although this point has been the subject of much discussion (Kitahara 1997, McGinnis 1998, Boeckx 1999, Chomsky 2000, Collins 2005), the literature still lacks a satisfyingly predictive account of when and why English is able to avoid the standard ‘defective intervention’ effect. This paper makes both an empirical and a theoretical contribution to these questions. I begin by laying out an expanded set of intervention phenomena in English. Building on work in Hartman (2009), I present data showing that English does in fact display intervention in a variety of other NP-raising constructions. In other words, examples like (1) are the exception even within English: in several similar environments, the cross-linguistically typical effect is revealed. Next, I sketch an analysis of the newly expanded data set, inspired by Müller’s (2001) ‘Parallel Movement’ constraint. The analysis accounts both for the cross-linguistic variation between English and other languages, and for the cross-constructional variation within English.

Continuing a tradition of knife-wielding artistry and even defying a storm that brought disaster in its wake, the second annual Massachusetts Institute of Technology Linguistically Informed Pumpkin Carving took place last Monday. Some of the results:

Speaker: Wataru Uegaki
Title: Inquisitive knowledge attribution and the Gettier problem
Location: 32D-831
Time: Wednesday, Nov 9, 4:00PM-5:30PM (Please note the unusual day and time; Friday is a holiday)

Abstract:

The Gettier problem (Gettier 1963) in epistemology concerns cases of intuitively false knowledge attribution that is predicted to be valid by the traditional view that a knowledge consists of a justified true belief. This problem can be recast as a puzzle for the standard semantic analysis of “know”. In the situation described in (1), (2) is intuitively false. However, a semantics that equates knowledge with justified true belief predicts it to be true.

(1) Smith justifiably believes that Jones owns a Ford. (He saw Jones having a key of a Ford, washing a Ford etc.) He justifiably deduces from this belief that Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona although he is unopinionated about Brown’s whereabouts. It turned out that Jones in fact did not have a Ford, but Brown was in Barcelona.
(2) Smith knows that [Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Barcelona].

In this talk, I will provide a new solution to this puzzle by giving “know” a meaning that operates on a question-denotation (ie. a set of alternative possibilities) even when it combines with a declarative complement, making crucial use of the proposals in Alternative Semantics (Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002, Alonso-Ovalle 2006 a.o.) and Inquisitive Semantics (Groenendijk 2009, Groenendijk and Roelofsen 2009). In the proposed analysis, “x knows p” is true iff x has a justified true belief of an alternative contained in p, and x has no justified belief of any stronger alternative. I will also claim that a natural extension of the current proposal accounts for the selection restrictions of other attitude predicates, such as “believe” and “wonder”.

Speaker: Amy Rose Deal (Harvard University)
Title: Nez Perce embedded indexicals
Time/Date: Thursday, Nov 10, 12:30-1:45p
Location: 32-D461

Nez Perce is a language where indexical expressions embedded under speech and attitude verbs may show “shifty” behavior. I present a first empirical overview of this system in this talk. Nez Perce person and locative indexicals are like their English counterparts in showing immunity to modal quantification in matrix contexts. Once embedded in a speech or attitude complement, however, Nez Perce indexicals optionally show quotation-like behavior, even in the face of clear indications that the entire speech or attitude complement is not a quotation. I show that this phenomenon is not straightforwardly accounted for in terms of partial quotation or binding, configurations that can lead to exceptional indexicals in English. In response to a version of the “shift together” phenomenon identified by Anand and Nevins (2004) for Zazaki, I present an approach to Nez Perce indexical shifting which makes use of operators that manipulate contextual parameters. I conclude with evidence that indexicals shifted in this way need not be interpreted de se.