Whamit!

Speaker: Wataru Uegaki (University of Edinburgh)

Time: Friday November 18, 3:30pm, 32-141

 

Title: Factivity alternation and the ‘missing’ veridical reading of interrogative complements

 

Abstract: In a number of languages, some clause-embedding predicates exhibit ‘factivity alternation’, i.e., they allow both factive and non-factive interpretations with respect to declarative complements, depending on the choice of the complementation strategy (Lee & Hong 2016, Jeong 2020 on Korean; Özyıldız 2017 on Turkish; Hanink & Bochnak 2017 on Washo; Bondarenko 2020 on Barguzin Buryat). It is furthermore observed in Turkish and Buryat that the same predicates that license factivity alternation nevertheless only allow veridical interpretations of interrogative complements (Bondarenko 2019; Özyıldız 2019). In this talk, I will provide a concrete analysis of a sub-case of the same observation in Japanese. I will argue that non-nominalised declarative complements in Japanese allow a parse as an adjunct while interrogative complements are true arguments of embedding predicates. Together with the assumption that predicates place a presupposition only to its arguments (cf. Bondarenko 2020), we can derive the obligatory veridical interpretation with respect to interrogative complements. I will furthermore discuss implications of the proposal for the cross-linguistic analysis of different types of embedding strategies, as well as for the analysis of the recurring observations in the literature that question-embedding correlates with veridicality (i.e., that question-embedding predicates are typically veridical; Egre 2008; the observation that, although communication predicates readily allow non-veridical interpretation with respect to declarative complements, their interpretation with respect to interrogative complements are—-at least typically—-veridical (Karttunen 1977; Groenendijk & Stokhof 2015; Spector & Egre 2015, a.o.)).

 

 

Abstract for How to be(come) a direct/inverse language:
In a “direct/inverse” alignment system, the agreement morphology that indexes a particular nominal is determined by the nominal’s rank on the person hierarchy rather than by its grammatical function, and a special marker indicates whether the highest-ranking nominal is the agent (direct) or patient (inverse). Algonquian languages are often seen as the prototypical example of such a system, but from a diachronic perspective, the Algonquian direct/inverse pattern is not particularly old: internal and external evidence both point to a reconstructed ancestor in which the agreement morphology shows prototypical nominative/accusative alignment. So where did the direct/inverse pattern come from, and how does the underlying syntax of a direct/inverse language differ from that of a nominative/accusative language? In this talk I propose answers to both questions. Diachronically, I propose that the Algonquian direct/inverse system arose when a gap in an innovative paradigm of verb inflection was filled by the analogical extension of an agreement pattern that was previously dedicated to passive forms. Synchronically, I propose that the direct/inverse pattern reflects the interaction of an object-agreement probe on the Voice head and an “omnivorous” probe on the Infl head. This analysis, formalized using Deal’s (2015) interaction-and-satisfaction model of the Agree operation, provides an elegant account of twelve different distributions of inverse marking across the Algonquian family. These proposals allow the Algonquian system to be integrated more closely into standard typological categories and formal analyses rather than standing as a type of its own. Given the prototypical status accorded to Algonquian in typological and theoretical discussions of direct/inverse marking, the fact that the Algonquian system dissolves into simpler and less unusual parts suggests that a degree of skepticism may be in order for putative direct/inverse systems in other language families as well.)