Whamit!

Speaker: Cooper Roberts (MIT)
Title: A rational solution to an agreement-interpretation puzzle
Time: Thursday, November 6 12:30pm – 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: In some Indo-European languages, a fraction partitive (FP) which embeds a plural DP licenses an optional-agreement phenomenon—-in the appropriate syntactic position, an agreeing predicate can copy the features of either the fraction (1b) or the complement (1a). This is puzzling enough if we assume FPs have a DP-within-DP structure (as do Ionin et al., 2006; Benbaji-Elhadad & Wehbe, 2024; a.o.), which under a Locality-governed model of Agree (Chomsky, 1995) would predict that the fraction is the sole target of Agreement. The plot thickens when we observe that the two agreement possibilities yield different interpretations. (1a) is true in a world where, for example, two out of six walls are covered in mold (I call this the COUNT reading). (1b), on the other hand, is true in a world where, given a plurality of walls which have a cumulative surface area of 12m^2, 4m^2 are covered in mold (a MEASURE reading).

(1) [Italian]
a. un terzo delle pareti sono coperti di muffa
‘A third(m.sg) of the walls(f.pl) are covered(f.pl) by mold’
*MEASURE, COUNT
b. un terzo delle pareti `e coperto di muffa
‘A third(m.sg) of the walls(f.pl) is covered(m.sg) by mold’
MEASURE, *COUNT

The goal of this study is to give a theoretical account of the alternation in Italian-like languages while also explaining why some languages in the family lack the equivalent to (1b) (American English). Following the tenet of One Form/One Meaning, I pursue an analysis where measure and count FPs are structurally-distinct. Specifically, I assume that count FPs are the structurally-simpler of the two, bearing a syntax where the complement is actually the head (see Selkirk 1977) and the semantics are s.t. cardinality functions win over other measurement possibilities (Barner & Snedeker, 2005; Bale & Barner, 2009; Wellwood, 2019; Wagiel 2021). To get the measure FP, I posit a special operator TOTAL which takes the bare FP structure and makes two important contributions. First, TOTAL re-merges the fraction via projecting movement (Bhatt, 2002) to make it the new head of the structure. Second, TOTAL changes the “matrix” parameter of evaluation for measure functions to one where cardinality will lose to other forms of measure. Crucial evidence from this proposal comes from Russian, where FPs which include the part-word chast’ lose the agreement-optionality and necessarily have a measure reading. I interpret this item as a realization of TOTAL and conclude that it can be optionally-overt in some languages.