Whamit!

Speaker: Enrico Flor (MIT) and Stan Zompì (MIT)
Title: CSC-Violating Head Movement in English Conditional Inversion
Time: Tuesday, February 23rd, 1pm - 2pm
Location: Zoom
Note: MIT Touchstone authentication will be required to enter this week’s Syntax Square zoom meeting.

Abstract: The ban on asymmetric extraction from coordinate structures, commonly known as Coordinate Structure Constraint, is crosslinguistically very robust and has found very few counterexamples in English (Postal 1998 and references therein). We document a new challenge to the general validity of CSC, represented by sentences like:

(1) Sadie would not have proposed, had Olivia ignored her calls and had forgotten her birthday.

(2) Should we support Carmen and she were to win, she would allow us to drive her Ferrari.

We call the construction exemplified by the antecedents of (1) and (2) Asymmetric Conditional Inversion (ACI). Assuming that Conditional Inversion involves T-to-C Head Movement (Pesetsky 1989, Iatridou & Embick 1994), we use interpretive evidence to argue that the only viable analysis of ACI sentences is one in which the Auxiliary is T-to-C extracted out of the first conjunct in violation of the CSC, as it is normally stated.

Speaker: David Pesetsky (MIT)
Title: Lack of ambition
Time: Thursday, February 25th, 12:30pm - 1:50pm
Location: Zoom
Abstract: In this talk, I suggest a non-standard strategy for explaining the limited range of semantics available to constructions in which certain elements of a normal finite TP are phonologically absent. These include English AUX-drop questions (Fitzpatrick 2006) and infinitival clauses (Wurmbrand 2014), where the proposal suggests an answer to some particularly vexing questions arising from the derivational (“Exfoliation”) theory of infinitivization that I have advanced elsewhere (Pesetsky 2019/2021). The core idea attributes apparent restrictions on the constructions themselves to restrictions on a hearer’s creativity in positing possible identities for material deleted in the speaker’s derivation (“hearer” here understood as an abstract concept, including self-monitoring by the speaker). The key principle is the following:

Principle of Unambitious Reverse Engineering (PURE)
When determining the identity of unpronounced material in the course of “reverse ­engineering” a speaker’s syntactic derivation, the language system of the hearer considers only the minimally semantically contentful possibilities compatible with the morphosyntactic environment.

Fitzpatrick, Justin M. 2006. Deletion through movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24:399–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-3606-3

Pesetsky, David. 2019/2021. Exfoliation: towards a derivational theory of clause size. Unpublished ms., MIT. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004440

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45:403–447. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00161

Welcome to the first edition of Whamit! for Spring 2021! After our winter hiatus, Whamit! is back to regular weekly editions during the semester.

Whamit! is the MIT Linguistics newsletter, published every Monday (Tuesday if Monday is a holiday). The editorial staff consists of Adam Albright, Kai von Fintel, David Pesetsky, Cater Fulang Chen, Eunsun Jou, and Margaret Wang.

To submit items for inclusion in Whamit! please send an email to whamit@mit.edu by Sunday 6pm.

Our faculty members and alums taught classes at the Virtual version of the New York Institute (V-NYI), co-sponsored by Stony Brook University (USA) and the Herzen Pedagogical Institute (St. Petersburg, Russia). Below is the list of courses they taught (click on the course titles to access the course introduction).

• David Pesetsky (faculty): Non-finite complementation
• Jay Keyser (faculty): The Mental Life of Modernism
• Jonah Katz (PhD 2010, West Virginia University): The Music-Language Connection: Harmony, tonality, and syntax
• Asia Pietraszko (University of Rochester) & Omer Preminger (PhD 2011, University of Maryland): Words and other things: what do you need to list in your head?
• Andrew Nevins (PhD 2005, University College London) & Naomi Francis (PhD 2019, University of Oslo): Gesture and Human Nature

More information about the V-NYI, including its program, can be found at https://nyi.spb.ru/ .

Miyagawa’s Syntax in the Treetops has been accepted as a Linguistic Inquiry Monograph by MIT Press and is now in press.

Jay Keyser gave a lecture hosted by the MIT Activities Committee on his recent book, The Mental Life of Modernism (2020, MIT Press). A recording of this lecture can be found at this URL: https://youtu.be/bXheskQqr44 

Course announcements in this post:

• 24.981: Topics in computational phonology
• 24.964: Topics in Phonology: Generative Phonetics
• 24.956: Topics in syntax and semantics
• 24.960: Syntactic Models

24.981: Topics in computational phonology

• Instructor(s): Adam Albright
• Time: Tuesdays 10-1
• Course site: https://canvas.mit.edu/courses/7288/ 
• Note:

This class does not presuppose any background in modeling or programming, but it does presuppose a basic knowledge of phonological theory (i.e., from 24.961 or 24.901). 

• Description:

Computational modeling can usefully inform many aspects of phonological theory. Implementing a theory provides a more rigorous test of its applicability to different data sets, and requires a greater degree of formal precision than is found in purely expository presentations. By training learning models on realistic training samples, we can test whether a posited analysis can actually be discovered from representative data, and we can observe what proportion of the data is actually accounted for by that analysis. Modeling also provides a direct means of testing whether a proposed formal device facilitates the discovery of generalizations, or whether it hampers learning by greatly increasing the size of the search space. In the most interesting cases, computational modeling uncovers facts about the language that would have been difficult to discover by eye, and forces us to ask which facts are treated as linguistically significant by speakers.

Topics will include: (subject to revision)

• • Statistical “baseline” models (n-gram models, exemplar models)
  • Algorithms for constraint ranking and weighting
  • Algorithms for constraint discovery
  • Integrating learned and innate constraints
  • Learning in the midst of variation and exceptions, and discovery of gradient patterns

• Requirements:

Readings and small regular problem sets, including a small final project+presentation.
*** This class can be used to satisfy the graduate acquisition requirement, with the appropriate choice of readings, exercises, and project. Please let the instructor know if you are planning on doing this.

24.964: Topics in Phonology: Generative Phonetics

• Instructor(s): Edward Flemming
• Time: Mondays 10-1
• Course site: http://stellar.mit.edu/S/course/24/sp21/24.964/
• Description:

It is well-established that languages differ systematically in matters of fine phonetic detail such as patterns of coarticulation and contextual variation in the durations of segments, so grammars must regulate these details. However, relatively little is known about the component of grammar responsible for phonetic realization. In this course we will investigate the nature of phonetic grammars, focusing on constraint-based approaches. We will cover both theoretical issues surrounding generative phonetics and the practical skills required to develop constraint-based analyses of phonetic data.

24.956: Topics in syntax and semantics

• Instructor(s): Patrick Elliott, Kai von Fintel, Danny Fox, Sabine Iatridou, David Pesetsky
• Time: Mondays and Thursdays 3-5 pm
• Course site: https://canvas.mit.edu/courses/7282
• Description:

Despite the assumed theoretical primacy of declarative sentences, questions have frequently played a central role in the literature spanning syntax, semantics, and pragmatics - informing issues ranging from structure-building and combinatorics, to speech acts and their effect on the common ground. In this vein, we’ll be asking: what kinds of things are questions, how are they built, and what can they do? Specific topics we’ll cover include: question composition and pied-piping, embedded questions and question-embedding predicates, the dynamic pragmatics of questions qua illocutionary acts, and the external syntax of interrogative clauses.

You can find a preliminary syllabus on the canvas site.

• Course requirements:

Active participation, weekly reading, weekly submission of questions and comments about the reading, final term paper on a relevant topic.

*** Students can receive credit for the advanced seminar requirement in either syntax or semantics, depending on their chosen topic for the final term paper. ***

24.960: Syntactic Models

• Instructor(s): David Pesetsky
• Time: Tuesdays 2-5 pm
• Course site: https://canvas.mit.edu/courses/7283
• Description:

The course has twin goals:

First, it gives a quick introduction to at least two “frameworks” for syntactic research that compete with the Government-Binding/Principles & Parameters/Minimalist tradition in the current syntax world:  HPSG and Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG).  We work speedily through much of the HPSG textbook by Sag, Wasow and Bender, and also look at the LFG textbook by Bresnan, Asudeh, Toivonen and Wechsler.

Next, the class turns historical, tracing the development of generative syntax from Syntactic Structures (1957) up to the early 1980s, when HPSG and LFG first separated themselves off from the research program that became GB/P&P/Minimalism.   An overarching theme of the course is the issue of derivational vs. representational views of syntax — a theme that offers some surprising observations about who said what at various points in the history of the field, but also gives the course a focus relevant to the most current work.  

You can get a good sense of what the class will be like from its old Stellar pages — for example http://stellar.mit.edu/S/course/24/sp19/24.960.  I plan to follow essentially the same structure — but perhaps with a twist or two for the Zoom era. 

New for 2021:  We may have a guest lecture or two, and it is possible that one or another might be at a non-canonical time, and possibly might involve one or two commitments on top of the regularly scheduled classes.  Obviously these will optional, if they happen at non-normal times, but recommended — just letting you know in advance.

• Course requirements:

As you may have heard, the sole requirements for the class are:

1. 1. regular attendance and participation;
   2. a few straightforward problem sets (finger exercises) in the first half of the class; and
   3. three class presentations or co-presentations (depending on numbers): of an HPSG paper, an LFG paper, and a paper from the period of generative semantics/interpretive semantics debates.  In some years, the HPSG and LFG presentations have been done together.  That will depend on what the calendar looks like when we get to that point in the semester.

There is no paper required! (A major attraction in the past.)  If you want to write a paper, in order to satisfy a program requirement, you can talk with the instructor to arrange that. Many students have reported finding this class both fun and enlightening (and not just because there is no required paper). Ask some of your predecessors for their reviews.

• Reading material:

The most important book to order right now is the following one:

Sag, Wasow and Bender, Syntactic Theory — second edition (this is crucial).  Here are some links so you can buy it now:

https://amzn.to/2RyMEcJ

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/S/bo3633025.html

Please start reading it in advance of the first class.  Get as far as you can in it, so you come to the first class already somewhat prepared. This book is intended as an introduction to syntax for undergraduates, so you will find the early chapters go quickly.  But the syntax it introduces is HPSG, so fairly soon you will be learning new things and tripping over unfamiliar notations.

The books we will be using later in the semester are:

• • Bresnan et al., Lexical-Functional Grammar — please note that this too is a second edition.
  • Chomsky, Syntactic Structures

Other readings (papers and excerpts from books) will be downloadable from Canvas.

December 10 is Human Rights Day—to celebrate the day in 1948 when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.  On that date, Thursday, December 10 2020,10:30AM EST, Michel DeGraff is offering a workshop online at the University of Sheffield, UK, on “Decolonising the Linguistics Curriculum.” The workshop will start with a talk titled:

“Language as the invisible ‘canary in the mine’ in the minefield of human-rights violations”

Please find the abstract and additional information below.

Abstract:

My case study is my native country, Haiti, where Francophonie and francophilia are linguistic “bluest eyes” (in Toni Morrison’s sense) as they are weaponized for “élite closure” (cf. Carol Myers-Scotton) and for neo-colonial violence against equity and human rights (cf. Yves Dejean). In contradistinction, Haiti’s national language (Kreyòl) is the one language that can serve as the linguistic foundation for the democratization of education and development.  Yet, most state and academic institutions and NGOs in Haiti, including world-famous institutions whose stated mission is to promote human rights, linguistic diversity, etc., routinely devalue Kreyòl in favor of French, and they thus exclude the participation of most Haitians—who are typically fluent in Kreyòl only.  Through such linguistic (mis-)practices, these institutions participate in upholding Haiti’s linguistic apartheid  We find such brutally exclusionary practices even at the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Justice, even in organizations that proudly boast “human rights”, “knowledge”, “liberty” and so on in their titles or mission statements. These organizations will be celebrating “Human Rights Day” on December 10 even as they violate human rights every day of the year. Often times, these organizations are, paradoxically, engaged in producing Kreyòl materials for literacy and human-rights campaigns, for primary education, etc. We’ll look at  UNESCO in Haiti as one spectacular case of such ambivalence vis-à-vis Kreyòl: since the late 1940s, UNESCO has been producing groundbreaking scientific research and educational materials based on the importance of vernacular languages for access to quality education and for human rights and development; yet UNESCO’s leadership in Haiti, more often than not, excludes Kreyòl in its formal proceedings which are typically, with some relatively rare exceptions, conducted and published in French only.  One recent exchange in the “Amis de l’UNESCO” WhatsApp group illustrates the depth of these anti-Kreyòl attitudes: when one inquires about Kreyòl translation—alongside the French, English and Spanish simultaneous interpretation being offered at a forthcoming conference by the Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie (“AUF”) in the context of Caribbean studies—this inquiry is considered, by UNESCO personnel in Haiti, as “diffamation against AUF.”  Yet there are more Kreyòl speakers in the Caribbean than French speakers; besides, Haiti, where Kreyòl is the single national language, is the 3rd largest Caribbean country. Taken together, linguistic choices, practices and attitudes in most national and international institutions in Haiti have, for the past two centuries, brutally devalued the capital of Kreyòl on Haiti’s linguistic market (in Pierre Bourdieu’s sense), making Kreyòl, in effect, much less attractive than French as a medium and subject matter for teaching and learning.  In a related vein, linguists themselves, from Saint-Quentin in the 19th century to Bickerton and McWhorter in the 21st century, have often mis-represented the history and structures of Creole languages as a class, even mis-classifying them as the world’s “simplest” (read: “most primitive”) languages.  This is what I’ve called “Creole Exceptionalism”.  It is within this complex and ambiguous hegemonic context (social, geopolitical, academic and scientific) that the  MIT-Haiti Initiative engages linguists, educators, policy makers, artists, civil society, etc., near and far  in a historic struggle to open up access to knowledge (and power) for all Haitians through the systematic use of Kreyòl coupled with interactive pedagogy and technology writ large  This Initiative is a model for opening up access to quality education worldwide, especially in the Global South where non-colonial languages are, by and large, still excluded in schools and other formal venues.

More references at:

http://mit.edu/degraff

https://linguistics.mit.edu/linguistics_haiti/

The announcement from the University of Sheffield:

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/english/news/online-workshop-decolonising-linguistics-curriculum

Questions: g.t.williams@sheffield.ac.uk

Whamit! will be on winter (semi)-hiatus starting next week. While we won’t have weekly postings until the beginning of the spring semester, we will have rolling posts, publishing breaking MIT Linguistics news as it happens. Thanks to all our contributors, editors, and you dear readers. Stay safe and take care!

Suzana Fong successfully and brilliantly defended her dissertation entitled “The Number Interpretation and Syntactic Distribution of Bare Nominals in Wolof”. The public portion of the defense provoked question after question from the intrigued and enthusiastic listeners (there were so many questions left when we had to move on to the private portion!) — a sure sign that this is work to pay attention to! Congratulations Suzana! 

Speaker: Tamisha Tan (Harvard University)
Title: Two Cases of Doubled Pronouns in Amarasi
Time: Wednesday, November 18th, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: This work in progress investigates an apparent case of typologically unusual full pronoun doubling in Amarasi (Austronesian: South-West Timor). Amarasi shows doubling in two contexts: copula constructions (1) and quantified (associative) arguments (2):

1) Au bifee kau.
1SG.NOM woman 1SG.OBL
‘I am a woman.’
2) Hai nua kai mi-mnei.
1PL.EX.NOM two 1PL.EX.OBL 1PL.EX-dream.
‘The two of us dream.’

In each case, a subject pronoun and its oblique counterpart bracket a nominal/adjectival predicate or numeral/quantifier respectively. Despite their surface similarity, I argue that these two constructions involve distinct underlying structures. In particular, I will provide novel evidence that these two surface-similar constructions have distinct derivations, as seen by their differing behaviour under negation, relativisation, and (default) agreement. Copular Pronoun Doubling (CPD) as in (1) will be shown to involve a pronominal copula, instantiating a Pred head which bears full φ-agreement with the subject, while Argument Pronoun Doubling (APD) as in (2) will be argued to involve a predicative (low) pronoun, doubled by a D head.

In all, this paper provides novel evidence for a fully-agreeing non-verbal copula that instantiates Pred (and not T or V) and connects this to other types of predicative agreement cross-linguistically and person splits therein (as with the SCOPA; cf. Baker 2008, Abramovitz 2020.) Furthermore, it explores an unusual type of adnominal pronoun construction in which the predicate is also pronominal (Höhn, 2017). Finally, it presents a potential expansion to the inventory of possible case competitors under Dependent Case Theory (Baker, 2015).

Speaker: Trevor Driscoll (MIT)
Title: Crow Palatal Coarticulation as Gradient Feature Spreading
Time: Monday, November 16th, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: The literature on Crow phonology describes two palatalization processes; one changes alveolar obstruents to alveolopalatals before front vowels. The other is progressive where a k following a front vowel or an alveolopalatal is realized with palatal coarticulation. Using acoustic measurements of F2 transitions in VCV sequences, I show that palatal coarticulation interacts with all obstruents and that the place of the constriction determines how F2 transitions from front to back vowels. Further I argue that a GA feature spreading analysis with traditional L/R edges is insufficient to represent the Crow data. I propose adopting gestural landmarks as a domain to assign GA violations; gestural landmarks provide exactly the appropriate number of alignment positions needed to characterize F2’s transition from high to low through an intervening consonant.

Speaker: Naomi Francis (University of Oslo)
Title: Marking objections with gestures
Time: Thursday, November 19th, 12:30pm - 1:50pm

Abstract: This talk explores the role of a gesture, which I call WAYTA (for What Are You Talking About?!), in marking particularly strong objections. I argue that the distribution of this gesture is sensitive to properties of discourse that are also relevant for the distribution of elements of spoken language (e.g., actually, doch), and that this gesture can replace otherwise obligatory linguistic material. I also discuss crosslinguistic variation and the division of labour between gesture, prosody, and the material that they overlay.

This Thursday, November 19, at 4PM (EDT) Michel DeGraff will deliver the keynote at the University of Montreal conference “VocUM 2020 – Language: Norm & Power.”

The title of the talk, which will be delivered in Kreyòl with French subtitles, is:

“Ann Ayiti, frankofoni se zam pou vyolans kolonyal epi se kreyolofoni ki ka sèvi kòm fondasyon pou edikasyon ak liberasyon”

(= In Haiti, Francophonie is a weapon for colonial violence while it’s Kreyòl that can be used as the linguistic foundation for education and liberation.)

https://vocum.ca/presentation/ann-ayiti-frankofoni-se-zam-pou-vyolans-kolonyal-epi-se-kreyolofoni-ki-ka-sevi-kom-fondasyon-pou-edikasyon-ak-liberasyon/

More details about the conference at:

https://vocum.ca/en/vocum-2020/program/

Patrick Elliott gave a talk as an invited speaker at the 17th Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics conference (LENLS 17) under the title “Classical negation in a dynamic alternative semantics”.

Agnes Bi and Patrick Niedzielski taught two Zoom sessions of their class “Make Your Own Language” at MIT Splash 2020, a yearly event in which MIT students hold classes for 9th-12th graders on any topic from “atomic chess to ancient Chinese literature to aerospace.”  In “Make Your Own Language,” students learn about the history of constructed languages, pick up some basic linguistics by making their own constructed language, and then teach fellow students their constructed languages well enough to complete translation challenge sentences. Their course description is below:

Glidis, O studans! When you pick up a fantasy or sci fi novel, do you flip to the back to look at the glossary for that alien language? Do you think the world would be a much better place if there were one, neutral, easy-to-learn language that we all could speak? Maybe you’ve made a code or cypher for you and your friends. Or maybe you think language is too imprecise and really wish there were some unambiguous way of communicating. If any of these statements describe you, congratulations! You might just have what it takes to be a conlanger, someone who makes languages, for fun (and for profit!). In this practicum, we’ll create our own language, for fun (not for profit!), learning some interesting facts about conlangs and linguistics along the way.

Speaker: Tanya Bondarenko (MIT)
Title: Two paths to explain
Time: Tuesday, November 10th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: In this talk, I show that Russian CPs that combine with the verb objasnit’ ‘explain’ have two interpretations: they can denote what was said as an explanation (explanans) or what has been explained (explanandum):

(1) Lena objasnila [CP čto xleba net.]
Lena explained COMP bread no
Lena explained that there is no bread.’
a. Explanans: Lena said “there is no bread” as an explanation of some other fact (e.g., of the fact that she sent Petya to the grocery store).
b. Explanandum: Lena explained the fact that there’s no bread (e.g., by saying “Katya made sandwiches last night”).

I show that the two readings go hand in hand with a number of differences in argument structure, event structure and extraction, and argue that objasnit’ can either denote a state of something being explained or a process of explaining, and the two denotations correspond to two different mappings to syntax. Explanandum CPs combine as modifiers of internal arguments (Kratzer 2006, Moulton 2015), while explanans CPs combine as event modifiers which specify the Content of the explaining process (Bogal-Allbritten 2016, Elliott 2017). Finally, I show that ‘explain’ is not unique in exhibiting this ambiguity, and verbs like argumentirovat’ ‘argue’, obosnovat’ ‘justify’, predskazat’ ‘predict’, utochnit’ ‘clarify, make specific’ have the same two readings.

Speaker: Daniel Asherov, Danny Fox (MIT), and Roni Katzir (Tel Aviv University)
Title: A problem for iterated rationality approaches to scalar implicatures
Time: Thursday, November 12th, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: This talk focuses on two seemingly equivalent approaches to scalar implicatures, namely the grammatical approach (Fox 2007, Chierchia, Fox, and Spector 2012) and the more recent iterative models of rationality (IRMs; Franke 2009, 2011, Frank and Goodman 2012, Goodman and Stuhlmüller 2013). Recent work has demonstrated the success of IRMs in capturing scalar implicatures derived by listeners in reference games, in which listeners are given a word and a set of objects and are asked to choose which object the word refers to. In many typical cases, the grammatical approach and IRMs make identical predictions. We identify two scenarios where the two approaches make different predictions and report results from an experiment testing these predictions. We conclude that participants’ judgments accord with the predictions of the grammatical approach, but not with those of IRMs.

To help in identifying differing predictions, we will use the simplified IRMs discussed in Fox and Katzir 2020 (https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005519). But we will also explain why the same holds for the actual IRMs discussed in the literature (e.g. Rational Speech Act in Frank and Goodman 2012).

Speaker: Stefan Keine (UCLA)
Title: Crossover asymmetries (joint work w/ Rajesh Bhatt)
Time: Friday, November 13th, 3:30pm - 5pm

Abstract: We investigate and analyze a crossover asymmetry in Hindi scrambling: such scrambling is not subject to (secondary) weak crossover but at the same time shows clear (secondary) strong crossover effects. This asymmetry provides empirical evidence that the two types of crossover should be analytically decoupled from each other, and it sheds light on factors that condition weak and strong crossover. We pursue the view that a movement type’s crossover profile is not arbitrary but instead correlates with independently motivated properties of this movement type. Our investigation finds evidence that weak crossover is conditioned by the landing site of movement, while strong crossover is determined by properties of the launching site. More specifically, we propose that weak crossover follows from a syntactic restriction on the placement of Büring’s 2004 β-operator, which is required for pronominal binding from the landing site. Strong crossover, on the other hand, is determined by the amount of structure present in the launching site, which can itself be derived from Wholesale Late Merger and nominal licensing along the lines suggested by Takahashi & Hulsey 2009. In addition to contributing to our understanding of crossover phenomena, our argument also has implications for the A/A’-nature of scrambling (e.g., Webelhuth 1989, Mahajan 1990) and movement-type asymmetries more generally.

A recent episode of Speaking of Us, a Wikitongues podcast, features a conversation among Michel DeGraff, Kristen Tcherneshoff and Daniel Bögre Udell under the title: “What are Creole languages, anyway?”. More information including the full transcript can be found in the link below:

https://medium.com/wikitongues/what-are-creole-languages-anyway-michel-degraff-feb978b9e

Speaker: Agnes Bi (MIT)
Title: Scalar particles in comparatives (an informal discussion)
Time: Wednesday, November 4th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: Scalar particles in comparatives give rise to unexpected evaluative inferences, which vary depending on focus-placement:

1. Alex is even taller than [Blake]_F.    (⇝ Both Alex and Blake are tall)
2. [Alex]_F is even taller than Blake.    (⇝ Both Alex and Blake are short)
3. Alex is even [taller]_F than Blake.    (⇝ Alex exceeds Blake on some other scale as well)

I will argue in favor of hardwiring a positive condition in the semantics of even along the lines of Daniels & Greenberg 2020 and, generally, of Greenberg 2015, 2018. Moreover, I would like to explore similar patterns in Mandarin with the scalar particle hai, which seems to be largely underspecified and to be at play in the full set of readings.

Speaker: Danny Fox (MIT)
Title: Trivalent Strong Exhaustivity –towards a uniform semantics for question embedding
Time: Thursday, November 5th, 12:30pm - 1:50pm

Abstract: In this talk I will go over well-known arguments that there are three different interpretive schemas associated with question embedding (weak-exhaustivity, strong-exhaustivity and intermediate-exhaustivity), where each embedding predicate selects for the appropriate schema. Despite these arguments I will propose a uniform semantics based on the assumption that the answer to a question is a trivalent proposition (the denotation of a cleft). The answer will be “strongly exhaustive” but presuppositional, hence Trivalent Strong Exhaustivity. Different results will follow for the different embedding contexts based on independent differences in presupposition projection.

Based on a recent paper that you can read at
https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jc5NmIxN/Question%20Embedding

How can universities create student experiences that embrace students’ distinct linguistic and cultural inheritances beyond the “You are welcome here” sign? In this important panel session on October 15, 2020, from this month’s J-WEL Connections, MIT faculty, including Michel DeGraff at MIT Linguistics, together with team members of the MIT-Haiti Initiative, discuss how and why universities can strengthen and broaden the impact of their research and enhance teaching and learning by including the rich diversity of faculty and students.

The video of the session is available here:

https://jwel.mit.edu/undervalued-currency-culture-higher-education

Speaker: Cindy Torma (MIT)
Title: Prospective New Experiment
Time: Friday, October 30th, 2pm - 3pm

Abstract: Cindy will be discussing her ideas for a new language acquisition experiment and looking for feedback. Come and give your input on what might become the Language Acquisition Lab’s next new experiment!

Speaker: Elise Newman (MIT)
Title: Revisiting UTAH: an informal discussion! (Part 2)
Time: Tuesday, October 27th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: Put your lexical semantics hats on and come discuss argument structure with me! Some questions I have been pondering include:

• What do “theta positions” mean in the Y-model?
• Do heads “assign” theta roles in the syntax?
• What is the right division of labor between syntax/semantics when it comes to explaining structural generalizations about arguments?

I surely won’t have all the answers, but here are some readings I have found helpful for those who want to do some homework: Levin & Rappaport Hovav (2005), Harley (2011), Marantz (2013), and the recent round table discussion featuring Gillian Ramchand, Heidi Harley, and Artemis Alexiadou (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_bjHrMunWo)!

Speaker: Edward Flemming (MIT)
Title: MaxEnt vs. Noisy Harmonic Grammar
Time: Monday, October 26th, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: MaxEnt grammars have become the tool of choice for analyzing phonological phenomena involving variation or gradient acceptability. MaxEnt is a probabilistic form of Harmonic Grammar in which harmony scores (sums of weighted constraint violations) of candidates are mapped onto probabilities (Goldwater & Johnson 2003). However, there is a competing proposal for deriving probabilities from Harmonic Grammars: Noisy Harmonic Grammar (NHG, Boersma & Pater 2016), in which variation is derived by adding random ‘noise’ to constraint weights. NHG has a variant, censored NHG, in which noise is prevented from making constraint weights negative. All of these grammar models can be formulated as making the outputs of a harmonic grammar random by adding random noise to the harmonies of candidates. The models are differentiated by the nature of the distribution of this noise. This formulation provides a common frame for analyzing and comparing their properties. The comparison reveals a basic difference between the models: in MaxEnt, the relative probability of two candidates depends only on the difference in their harmony scores, whereas in NHG it also depends on the number of unshared violations incurred by the two candidates. This difference leads to testable predictions which are evaluated against data on variable realization of schwa in French (Smith & Pater 2020). The evaluation turns out to have interesting complications, but ultimately provides some support for MaxEnt over censored NHG, while both of these models clearly out-perform regular NHG on this data set.

Speaker: Rafael Abramovitz (MIT)
Title: Deconstructing Inverse Case Attraction
Time: Thursday, October 29th, 12:30pm - 13:50pm

Abstract: Inverse case attraction (ICA) in relative clauses (RC) is a phenomenon whereby the head of a seemingly externally-headed RC is marked with the case assigned to the gap inside the RC. This phenomenon has puzzled linguists and grammarians for the better part of the last two millennia, and has given rise to a number of unsatisfactory analyses. Based on data from Koryak, in this talk (practice for NELS) I’ll propose a new analysis of ICA whereby it involves the head of an RC surfacing in a left-peripheral position within the RC. This analysis is supported by data from all languages with ICA for which sufficient data exists in the literature, suggesting that it may provide a unified analysis for all instances of ICA across languages. Further, the type of RC that I posit (ex-situ but internally-headed) has been extensively argued to exist in the Gur languages (most prominently Buli) by Ken Hiraiwa and colleagues. ICA, I argue, therefore arises in languages with both Gur-style RCs and case-marked relative pronouns.

On the Existential Perfect reading of statives

English perfect constructions involving stative predicates such as be in the attic are ambiguous between an (E)xistential-perfect and (U)niversal-perfect reading. The U-perfect reading is the most readily available reading, but the E-perfect reading can be forced with certain modifiers, such as three times.

(1)

1. I have been in the attic since I moved in. (U-perfect, E-perfect)
2. I have (only) been in the attic three times since I moved in. (E-perfect) 

Previous accounts of such sentences (e.g. Mittwoch 1988, Giannakidou 2003) have suggested that E-perfect readings involve coercion of the stative predicate into an eventive predicate.

In this talk, I will argue that these sentences do not involve any eventive structure, and that such readings can straightforwardly be derived using the operation of topological closure, which Giorgi and Pianesi (1997, 2000) argue is integral to deriving the meaning of perfective verb forms.

As additional support for this account, I will provide a compositional semantics of Kannada sentences like (2), which exhibit a peculiar (and as far as I know, unattested) reading which is a combination of the E-perfect and U-perfect readings.

(2) 2001-rinda   ī      kōṇe-yalli   mūru  bari   iddāne.

    2001-ABL     this   room-LOC     three times  be.PRES.1SG

    Lit: “I am in this room three times from 2001.” 

    ≈ “This is the third time I have been in this room since 2001.”   

I will argue that such a reading can be derived through topological closure, but cannot be derived through eventive coercion.

Speaker: Ella Apostoaie (Wellesley College), Curtis Chen (MIT) and Martin Hackl (MIT)
Title: Practice Talks for BUCLD and NELS
Time: Friday, October 23rd, 2pm - 3:30pm

Abstract: Our own undergraduate researchers, Ella Apostoaie (Wellesley College) and Curtis Chen (MIT), along with Martin Hackl (MIT), are presenting talks they will soon be giving at BUCLD and NELS conferences respectively. Please join, see what our Language Acquisition Lab and Experimental Syntax and Semantics Labs have been up to, and give feedback!

Practice talks will be given for the following presentations:

Martin Hackl, Ella Apostoaie and Leo Rosenstein: Acquisition of Numerals, the Natural Numbers,
and Amount Comparatives (Poster)

Martin Hackl, Curtis Chen and Leo Rosenstein: Maximize Presupposition Effects in Haddock Descriptions (Talk)

Speaker: Elise Newman (MIT)
Title: Revisiting UTAH: an informal discussion!
Time: Tuesday, October 20th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: Put your lexical semantics hats on and come discuss argument structure with me! Some questions I have been pondering include:

• What do “theta positions” mean in the Y-model?
• Do heads “assign” theta roles in the syntax?
• What is the right division of labor between syntax/semantics when it comes to explaining structural generalizations about arguments?

I surely won’t have all the answers, but here are some readings I have found helpful for those who want to do some homework: Levin & Rappaport Hovav (2005), Harley (2011), Marantz (2013), and the recent round table discussion featuring Gillian Ramchand, Heidi Harley, and Artemis Alexiadou (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_bjHrMunWo)!

Speaker: Boer Fu (MIT)
Title: The Emergence of Alternation in A Mandarin Language Game
Time: Monday, October 19th, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: The palatal consonants in Mandarin, tɕ, tɕʰ, ɕ, as a group, are in complementary distribution with 3 other groups: the dentals (ts, tsʰ, s), the velars (k, kʰ, x), and the retroflexes (ʈʂ, ʈʂʰ, ʂ, ɻ). The palatals can only precede high front vowels, [i] and [y], or their glide counterparts [j] and [ɥ]. Whereas the other 3 groups cannot. The existence of complementary distribution without any morphophonological alternation has made the phonemic status of Mandarin palatals a puzzle. Some believe they are allophones of either the velars or the dentals (or both), while others argue they are their own independent phonemes. I have designed a language game in which a native speaker is asked to switch around the two onsets of a disyllabic compound, so that some alternation might take place. In particular, I present speakers with marked inputs like *[ky] or *[ɕu], to see whether they preserve the place of articulation of the onset or the backness of the high vowel. Another puzzle investigated in this study is the status of the prenucleus glide. There is an ongoing debate on whether they are structurally closer to the onset or the rhyme. My language game can also shed some light on the matter.

Speaker: Stanislao Zompì (MIT)
Title: Distinctness effects in English nominals
Time: Thursday, October 22nd, 12:30pm - 1:50pm

Abstract: In this paper, I focus on several purported idiosyncrasies of English nominals, such as the contrasts between this tall a person and *a this tall person, between any taller a person and *an any taller person, and between what color car and *a what color car / *what color a car. I argue that all these contrasts follow straightforwardly from Richards’ (2010) Distinctness condition, banning any Spellout domain in which two instances of the same functional category stand in an asymmetric c-command relation. I also suggest that, under slightly less trivial assumptions about the timing of Distinctness repairs, a Distinctness-based account might be extended to the contrasts between how many color cars and *how many colors cars and between a three-year-old kid and *a three years old kid. Along the way, I also use these case studies to shed light back on the underpinnings of Distinctness and the mechanics of its repairs, arguing, in particular, that Distinctness violations must be repaired within the smallest maximal projection in which they occur, and that Distinctness-enforcing movement must, whenever possible, take precedence over Distinctness-enforcing deletion.

Speaker: Ruth Kramer (Georgetown)
Title: A Critical Look at Phonological Gender Assignment: Implications for Linguistic Theory
Time: Friday, October 23rd, 3:30pm - 5pm

Zoom Link: (Please email ling-coll-org@mit.edu for more information)

Abstract: According to classic typological research, grammatical gender can be assigned to nouns in several different ways. Gender can be assigned semantically (depending on social gender identity, animacy, etc.), morphologically (depending on the presence of a specific affix), or phonologically (e.g., depending on the final segment of the noun). In this talk, I take a critical look at the last member of this list: phonological gender assignment. I present three case studies of languages that have been canonically claimed to have phonological gender assignment: Hausa (Chadic), Guébie (Kru) and Afar (Cushitic). For all of these languages, I argue that phonological gender assignment is not necessary to describe the gender system and, more importantly, a phonological gender assignment analysis is less explanatory than alternative approaches (it misses generalizations, makes typologically-unexpected predictions, and/or cannot extend to related phenomena). In Distributed Morphology, phonological gender assignment is predicted to be impossible because gender is assigned during the syntactic derivation and the syntax lacks phonological information. The results from Hausa, Afar and Guébie therefore provide significant support for Distributed Morphology, and do not support theories where gender is assigned in the lexicon with access to phonological information. I close the talk with plans for future work to investigate additional languages with (alleged) phonological gender assignment.

In this talk I’ll take a closer look at the particle combination akár… is in Hungarian. I argue that it has two possible interpretations, one similar to English even, and another one similar to at least. I provide a semantics for the two readings and address the connection between them. I claim that the difference between these two readings is due to the presence of a covert csak (only/just), which together with akár … is gives rise to a minimal sufficiency reading. This is the flip side of Panizza & Sudo’s (2020) proposal which argues for the presence of a covert even for minimal sufficiency readings with exclusives like just. This raises some open questions concerning the role scalarity and exclusivity play in establishing minimal sufficiency readings in general, which will hopefully provide a good base for a fruitful discussion at the end of the talk.

Speaker: Roumyana Pancheva (USC)
Title: Numerals and Number Features
Time: Friday, October 16th, 3:30pm - 5pm

Zoom Link: (Please email ling-coll-org@mit.edu for more information)

Abstract: Nouns combining with numerals show variation in number marking, cross-linguistically and within one and the same language. Existing analyses differ in their answers to the related questions of (i) whether numerals need to combine with predicates of singularities or pluralities, (ii) whether number features on nouns are semantically interpretable or the result of (uninterpretable) agreement; and (iii) whether the number features realized on nouns originate higher or lower than the numeral. In this talk I present evidence from Bulgarian that (i) numerals can combine with semantically singular nouns, (ii) the singular or plural number features on nouns are interpretable, and (iii) the number features on nouns originate lower than the numeral, but are accompanied by a second number feature higher than the numeral. The arguments involve a reanalysis of one type of number inflection for masculine nouns (the ‘count’ form), which has traditionally been considered a form of plural agreement. The analysis of the Bulgarian facts (which are not well known), extends to Russian nouns combining with paucal numerals (a phenomenon that has been studied extensively), refuting the need for positing a paucal number in that language. I end with a suggestion that what underlies variation in number marking across and within languages is that there are two routes to obtaining cardinality measures.

Speaker: Roumyana Pancheva (USC)

Dates: Wednesday, Oct 14, 2-3:30pm EST and Thursday, Oct 15, 12:30-2pm EST

Title: Temporal reference without tense (joint work with Maria Luisa Zubizarreta)

Abstract: Some languages do not have to mark tense overtly: they either do not have tense morphemes or the tense morphemes are optional. The question arises: is tense universal? The answer, within formal semantics, has so far been “yes”. The formally explicit semantic analyses that have been proposed for languages without obligatory overt tense all posit tense in one form or another. The analyses differ along two dimensions: how they accomplish reference to time intervals (e.g., via a syntactically represented covert pronoun or a purely semantic rule), and how they restrict the location of those time intervals (e.g., via covert lexical features or pragmatic constraints). We aim to develop a different type of account altogether that does not rely on tense to derive temporal reference. We propose that evaluation time shift, a mechanism independently attested in the narrative present in languages with tense, can be more widely used for encoding temporal meaning in the absence of tense. We illustrate this account for Paraguayan Guarani, and identify several empirical advantages over accounts that employ tense. The broader consequence of our proposal is an enriched typology of temporal systems: some languages have tense, whether overt or covert, and others do not. And particularly notably, tense is revealed to not be a linguistic universal.

Recommended reading: https://pancheva.github.io/papers/P&Z(2020)NELS.pdf

Speaker: Jad Wehbe (MIT)
Title: Preschoolers’ comprehension of the interaction of intonation and illocutionary force (work with Daniel Goodhue, Valentine Hacquard and Jeffrey Lidz):

Time: Friday, October 9th, 2pm - 3:30pm

Abstract:

This study investigates preschoolers’ ability to infer the force of speakers’ intended speech acts when they don’t match the clause type uttered, by focusing on rising declaratives in English. Prior work shows that infants are sensitive to clause type and intonational distinctions, but doesn’t address speech act interpretation. We show that children deploy a sophisticated understanding of pragmatics and prosody to uncover the intended illocutionary force of speakers’ utterances. This is done via the results of a comprehension task in which children helped a puppet place animals in workplaces throughout a village. In each trial, the puppet either made a statement about where an animal works, in which case the child had to place the animal in the corresponding location, or the puppet forgot and asked a question, in which case the child had to check a book containing information about each animal’s workplace.

Speaker: Elise Newman (MIT)
Title: On wh-movement and transitivity in Mayan
Time: Thursday, October 8th, 12:30pm - 1:50pm

Abstract: It is often claimed that for some languages, A’-extraction of a transitive subject corresponds to a need to intransitivize the clause. While many analyses argue that this represents a ban on subject extraction in these languages, I argue in this talk that the ‘intransitive’ properties of these clauses are only apparent, and are derivable from general conditions on the order of merge operations at Spec vP. Evidence for this view comes from the profile of anti-agreement in Mayan subject extraction. In high absolutive Mayan languages, A’-movement of a transitive subject results in a loss of phi agreement with that argument, and the insertion of a supposedly intransitivizing morpheme, resulting in the so-called `agent focus’ construction. A’-movement of objects, by contrast, shows the same agreement profile as a transitive clause.

I argue that the this effect can be reduced to the fact that Spec vP serves two different functions: 1) to host an argument, and 2) to host an A’-moving constituent. I propose that both of these two functions have the capacity to be satisfied by Merge of any kind, which includes both internal and external merge. This proposal gives rise to the following possibilities: 1) argument is externally merged, A’-phrase is internally merged, or 2) argument is internally merged, A’-phrase is externally merged. The result is that when the A’-phrase is the object, it must internally merge to get to Spec vP. The argument-introducing feature of v is therefore satisfied by external merge of the subject (like a regular transitive clause). By contrast, when the subject is a wh-phrase, it can satisfy the wh-hosting feature of v by external merge, leaving the argument introducing property to be satisfied by the internal argument (i.e. subject wh can cause A-movement of the object). In summary, languages are predicted in which two arguments occupy Spec vP whenever one of them is a wh-phrase.

The order in which internal and external merge apply in each case does not affect whether the result is a transitive clause, but has consequences for the scopal relationship between these two merged phrases, and their accessibility to Agree. I propose that the constituent that satisfies v’s argument introducing feature always ends up c-commanding the wh-phrase in high absolutive Mayan languages, because of economy conditions on how these features are satisfied. In other words, object wh-questions have the order SO_wh at the edge of vP, while subject wh-questions have the order OS_wh. This results in the subject being accessible to a higher phi probe when it is not a wh-phrase, but inaccessible to phi-Agree when it is a wh-phrase, c-commanded by the object. When agreement with the subject is blocked, I propose that an elsewhere morpheme appears, which is what is known as the agent focus morpheme.

Speaker: Tanya Bondarenko
Title: A problem with Content
Time: Wednesday, September 30th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: Under Kratzer’s approach to the semantics of clausal embedding (Kratzer 2006; 2016, Moulton 2009; 2015, Bogal-Allbritten 2016;2017, Elliott 2017), embedded clauses denote not propositions (2), but individuals with content (1).

(1) [[that it is raining]] = λxe. Content(x) = λws. it is raining in w (2) [[that it is raining]] = λws. it is raining in w

In this talk I show some evidence that the meaning in (1) is not sufficient to account for the range of what CPs can mean: CPs across different languages are ambiguous between (1) and another meaning, which I illustrate in (3) with an example from Russian. In (3) the CP describes not a contentful individual, but the kind of a situation that took place.

(3) Složilas’ takaja situacija, [čto ja utopil svoj telefon] happened such situation that I sunk self’s phone ‘A situation in which I sunk my phone happened.’

I would like to argue that the meaning of the CP in (3) is not reducible to (1) or (2). I sketch out a more abstract meaning for CPs, which is dependent on whether the argument that CP modifies is a contentful individual or a situation, and show a syntactic diagnostic in Russian that allows to distinguish between the two interpretations.

This work is at the very beginning stage, and I am very much looking forward to your feedback!

Speaker: Colin Davis (USC)
Title: On parasitic gaps in relative clauses and extraction from NP
Time: Thursday, October 1st, 12:30pm - 13:50pm

Abstract: Much research argues that spell-out at each phase (CP, vP, DP) explains phenomena such as successive cyclicity (Chomsky 2000, 2001, a.o.) and the locality of morpho-phonological processes (Embick & Marantz 2008, Embick 2010, a.o.). While several morphological works argue that NP (often re-cast as nP) is a phase as well, syntactic evidence for this concept is less-attested. Here I argue that parasitic gap licensing in relative clauses by extraction from the same NP (1) reveals the possibility of successive-cyclic movement from NP, and discuss several implications of this result.

(1) Who_1 did Mary take [pictures of t_1 [that weren’t that flattering to PG_1]]? (Citko 2014)

Speaker: Cindy Torma and Cater Chen
Title: Practice Talks for BUCLD
Time: Friday, October 2nd, 2pm - 3:30pm

Abstract: Cindy Torma and (separately) Cater Chen will be presenting short practice talks for their poster presentations for BUCLD.

Speaker: John Baugh (Washington University in St.Louis)
Title: Linguistics for Legal Purposes
Time: Friday, October 2nd, 3:30pm - 5pm

Abstract: This presentation includes evidence pertaining to six legal disputes where linguistic results were central to the adjudication of each case. Housing discrimination, murder trials, and civil litigation utilize diverse linguistic analyses. In addition, ambiguity is central to a case where allegations of a hostile work environment resulted in a class action lawsuit by men born in Africa, all of whom are nonnative English speakers. Problems associated with non-linguists serving as linguistic experts in court are also discussed, thereby emphasizing the importance of established linguistic analyses in support of the quest for equal justice under the law.

Speaker: Ying Gong and Elizabeth Coppock (BU)
Title: Mandarin Has Degree Abstraction After All
Time: Wednesday, September 23rd, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: According to Beck et al. (2004), not all languages with degree predicates have degree abstraction. A language with a negative setting of their degree abstraction parameter (DAP) is one in which degree variables cannot be bound in the syntax. Mandarin, along with Japanese, Yoruba, Mòoré, and Samoan, is argued to be a [-DAP] language with degree predicates Beck et al. (2010). Recent work, however, has argued for degree abstraction in Japanese (Shimoyama, 2012; Sudo, 2015), and Yoruba (Howell, 2013). We argue that Mandarin has degree abstraction too, contra Krasikova (2008), Beck et al. (2010) and Erlewine (2018). We rebut the previous arguments and present positive evidence from degree questions, wh-correlatives (subequatives), scope interactions with modals (exactly-differentials and little-sentences), and attributive comparatives.

Speaker: Boer Fu (MIT)
Title: Negation Scoping and Focus in Mandarin Biased Questions
Time: Thursday, September 24th, 12:30pm - 1:50pm

Abstract: The role of negation in biased yes/no questions has been under much discussion in the literature. I present evidence from the 4-way readings of Mandarin negative yes/no questions, which support Romero & Han’s (2004) VERUM operator account. A question like (1) can have 4 different readings, depending on the placement of focus and boundary tone.

(1) ta bu     chi niurou ma
     he NEG eat beef     MA
(a) ‘Doesn’t he eat beef?’ Focus on ‘eat’, H% Biased question
(b) ‘Does he not eat beef?’ Focus on NEG, H% Surprised question
(c) ‘He eats beef.’ Focus on ‘eat’, L% Rhetorical question
(d) ‘He doesn’t eat beef.’ Focus on NEG, L% Negative dogmatic assertion

The contrast between readings (a) and (b) has its parallel in English biased questions, the Outside-NEG reading vs. Inside-NEG reading (Ladd 1981). Romero & Han (2004) analyzes the contrast to stem from a difference in scoping between negation and VERUM, a silent operator. In this talk, I show that in Mandarin, VERUM can be pronounced at PF as ​shi, and displays overt scoping with negation that confirms Romero & Han’s prediction of the two readings. And when the Mandarin VERUM is optionally silent, focus can cue the negation scoping at LF, via association with focus (Rooth 1985).

Speaker: Yimei Xiang (Rutgers)
Title: Higher-order readings of wh-questions and the disjunction–conjunction asymmetry
Time: Friday, September 25th, 3:30pm - 5pm

Abstract: In most cases, a wh-question calls for an answer that names an entity in the set denoted by the extension of the wh-complement. However, evidence from questions with necessity modals and questions with collective predicates argues that sometimes a wh-question must be interpreted with a higher-order reading, in which this question calls for an answer that names a generalized quantifier.

This talk investigates the distribution and the compositional derivation of these higher-order readings. I observe that questions in which the wh-complement is singular-marked or numeral-modified can be answered by elided disjunctions but not by conjunctions. I further present two ways to account for this disjunction—conjunction asymmetry. In the uniform account, these questions admit disjunctions because disjunctions (but not conjunctions) may satisfy the atomicity requirement of singular-marking and the cardinality requirement of numeral-modification. In the reconstruction account, the wh-complement is syntactically reconstructed, which gives rise to local uniqueness and yields a contradiction for conjunctive answers.

If time permits, I will also talk about the constraints on what generalized quantifiers may serve as semantic answers to wh-questions.

Relevant materials:

Xiang, Yimei. 2020. Higher-order readings of wh-questions. Forthcoming in Natural Language Semantics. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004859

The 2020 edition of the Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP), hosted by the Linguistics Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, took place virtually on September 18-20, 2020. MIT was well represented by students, faculty, and alumni.

Current MIT-ers:

• Danfeng Wu (5th year): There is no post-focal de-phrasing in English
• Fulang Chen (4th year): On the left-/right-branching asymmetry in Mandarin Tone 3 Sandhi
• Anton Kukhto (3rd year): Munster Irish stress and the problem of mixed defaults
• Trevor Driscoll (1st year), Chris Golston (California State University Fresno) & Zachary Metzler (California State University Fresno): A foot-based ludling reveals English foot structure
• Edward Flemming (faculty): Sibilant retraction

Alumni:

• Juliet Stanton (PhD 2017) gave a plenary talk: Rhythm is gradient: evidence from -ative and -ization
• Benjamin Storme (PhD 2017): Against the Law of Three Consonants in French: Evidence from judgment data
• Sam Zukoff (PhD 2017): Huave mobile affixation and the Mirror Alignment Principle
• Tingyu Huang (University of Hong Kong) & Young Ah Do (PhD 2013): Directionality of disyllabic tone sandhi across Chinese dialects is conditioned by phonetically-grounded structural simplicity
• Giorgio Magri (PhD 2009): Pulling apart ME and SHG
   

Speaker: Anton Kukhto (MIT)
Title: Munster Irish stress and the problem of mixed defaults
Time: Monday, September 14th, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: This is a practice talk for AMP, happening too soon. I’ll discuss word stress in one Southern (Munster) Irish dialect, which: (a) is sensitive to syllable weight; (b) falls within an initial three-syllable window; (c) in a sequence of two or more light syllables (L) falls on the first one, #’LL…, while in a sequence of two or more heavy syllables (H), falls on the second one, #H’H… . Kager (2012) terms this configuration “mixed default” stress (the term “conflicting directionality” has been used for a similar phenomenon in unbounded stress systems and elsewhere) and notes that it cannot be accounted for by his weakly layered feet approach to window stress systems without adjustments. I’ll give an analysis relying on grid-based constraints defined in moraic terms and local constraint conjunction. I will then consider some grid-based and foot-based alternatives and their respective typological and Irish-specific predictions.

Speaker: Suzana Fong (MIT)
Title: Discussion of Poole (2020), Improper Case (cont’d)
Time: Tuesday, September 15th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: “This paper argues that case assignment is impossible in configurations that parallel generalized improper-movement configurations. Thus, like improper movement, there is “improper case”. The empirical motivation comes from (i) the interaction between case and movement and (ii) crossclausal case assignment in Finnish. I propose that improper case is ruled out by the Ban on Improper Case: a DP in [Spec, XP] cannot establish a dependent-case relationship with a lower DP across YP if Y is higher than X in the functional sequence. I show that this constraint falls under a strong version of the Williams Cycle (Williams 1974, 2003, 2013; van Riemsdijk and Williams 1981) and is derived under Williams’s (2003, 2013) analysis of embedding.”

Speaker: Keny Chatain (MIT)
Title: Exploring a new recipe for implicature calculation
Time: Wednesday, September 16th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: This is the very preliminary give-me-feedback stage of a work on implicature calculation. My goal is to tackle puzzling data on distributive implicatures in the scope and restrictor of quantifiers (due to Filipe Kobayashi) and try to validate a parallel between distributive inferences and ignorance inferences (cf Meyer, 2014). The main idea is to minimally modify Anvari’s Logical Integrity principle (and with it, the theory of local contexts) and use it to compute regular scalar implicatures, rather than the Maximize Presupposition and Magri cases for which this generalization was originally designed.

The resulting system shows promising results: it captures the problematic data points that motivated it, it also captures a number of the standard cases (Chierchia’s problem, multiple disjunctions) and, with minimal cheating, the more tricky cases of free choice and some under some (Bassi, Del Pinal and Sauerland, 2019). There are some missed predictions (e.g. no account of Hurford disjunctions in sight) and some unanswered conceptual questions (is this a pragmatic or semantic approach? is it a descriptive generalization or a genuine explanation?). Hopefully, you can help me sort this out and figure out whether this is a dead end or an idea worth pursuing!

Speaker: Patrick Niedzielski (MIT)
Title: Choi & Harley (2019): Locality domains and morphological rules
Time: Wednesday, September 16th, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: “Korean subject honorification and Korean negation have both affixal and suppletive exponents. In addition, Korean negation has a periphrastic realization involving an auxiliary verb. By examining their interaction, we motivate several hypotheses concerning locality constraints on the conditioning of suppletion and the insertion of dissociated morphemes (‘node-sprouting’). At the same time, we come to a better understanding of the nature of Korean subject honorification. We show that Korean honorific morphemes are ‘dissociated’ or ‘sprouted,’ i.e., introduced by morphosyntactic rule in accordance with morphological well-formedness constraints, like many other agreement morphemes. We argue that the conditioning domain for node-sprouting is the syntactic phase. In contrast, our data suggest that the conditioning domain for suppletion is the complex X0, as proposed by Bobaljik (2012). We show that the ‘spanning’ hypotheses concerning exponence (Merchant 2015; Svenonius 2012), the ‘linear adjacency’ hypotheses (Embick 2010), and ‘accessibility domain’ hypothesis (Moskal 2014, 2015a, 2015b; Moskal and Smith 2016) make incorrect predictions for Korean suppletion. Finally, we argue that competition between honorific and negative suppletive exponents reveals a root-outwards effect in allomorphic conditioning, supporting the idea that insertion of vocabulary items proceeds root-outwards (Bobaljik 2000).”

Speaker: Suzana Fong (MIT)
Title: Discussion of Poole (2020), Improper Case [download: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004148 ]
Time: Tuesday, September 8th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: “This paper argues that case assignment is impossible in configurations that parallel generalized improper-movement configurations. Thus, like improper movement, there is “improper case”. The empirical motivation comes from (i) the interaction between case and movement and (ii) crossclausal case assignment in Finnish. I propose that improper case is ruled out by the Ban on Improper Case: a DP in [Spec, XP] cannot establish a dependent-case relationship with a lower DP across YP if Y is higher than X in the functional sequence. I show that this constraint falls under a strong version of the Williams Cycle (Williams 1974, 2003, 2013; van Riemsdijk and Williams 1981) and is derived under Williams’s (2003, 2013) analysis of embedding.”

Speaker: Maria Gouskova (NYU)
Title: A Computational Learner for Complex Segment Representations
Time: Friday, September 11th, 3:30pm - 5pm

Zoom Link: (Please email ling-coll-org@mit.edu for more information)

Abstract: Phonological analysis often entails decisions about sequences such as [ts]: is it two consonants or a complex segment? Arguments for complex segments range from phonotactics to inventory structure, typology, and etymology. But while typology and etymology are accessible to linguists, they are not accessible to language learners. Phonotactics and inventories also do not always offer clear guidance. How, then, do learners discover complex segments? I describe a learning model based on lexical statistics. The model starts with a lexicon and simplex segment representations only. For any CC sequence, the model calculates inseparability: the likelihood of occurring together vs. separately. High inseparability is a property of complex segments in a range of languages. After showing a few cases, I consider alternatives: learning from natural classes, phonotactics, and phonetics. I also discuss evidence from several languages that the right distributions are in morphemes, not in phonological words or in connected speech, which has implications for the acquisition timeline.

The 25th annual meeting of Sinn und Bedeutung was co-hosted virtually by University College London (UCL) and Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), from September 1st to 9th. Several MIT students and alumni presented their work.

Main session

• Dmitry Privoznov (6th year), “Structural conditions on discourse anaphora”, abstract, project page

• Frank Staniszewski (5th year), “A variable force analysis of positive polarity neg-raising modals”, abstract, project page

• Omri Doron (2nd year), Ido Benbaji (2nd year) & Ruoan Wang (2nd year), “Reduplication in Hebrew as a Diagnostic for Antonym Decomposition”, abstract, project page

• Daniel Goodhue (University of Maryland), Jad Wehbe (1st year), Valentine Hacquard (PhD 2006) & Jeffrey Lidz (University of Maryland), “The effect of intonation on the illocutionary force of declaratives in child comprehension”, abstract, project page

• Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine (PhD 2014), “Universal free choice from concessive conditionals”, abstract, project page

• Luka Crnič (PhD 2011), “Free choice, plurality, and variation”, abstract, project page

• Patrick G. Grosz (PhD 2011), Elsi Kaiser (USC) & Francesco Pierini (ENS), “Discourse anaphoricity and first-person indexicality in emoji resolution”, abstract, project page

• Natasha Korotkova (Konstanz) & Pranav Anand (PhD 2006), “Find, must, and conflicting evidence”, abstract, project page

• Fabienne Martin (HU Berlin), Hongyuan Sun (U. Picardie Jules Verne), Hamida Demirdache (PhD 1991) & Jinhong Liu (Guangzhou College of South China University of Technology), “Why can one kill Rasputin twice in Mandarin?”, abstract, project page

Special session 1: Gestures and Natural Language Semantics: Investigations at the Interface

• Naomi Francis (PhD 2019), “Objecting to discourse moves with gestures”, abstract, project page

Special session 2: The Semantics of Understudied Languages and Semantic Fieldwork

• Ishani Guha (PhD 2018), “Dependent numerals in Bengali: a case for covert adverbial D-operators”, abstract, project page
• Lisa Bylinina (Leiden University), Natalia Ivlieva (PhD 2013) & Alexander Podobryaev (PhD 2014), “Balkar particle ‘da’ and domain maximality”, abstract, project page

24.954: Pragmatics in Linguistic Theory

• Instructors: Patrick Elliott & Danny Fox
• Meetings: Fridays 10-1, via zoom
• Course site: https://canvas.mit.edu/courses/4201

About the course:

In this course, we’ll be exploring phenomena at the borderline between semantics and pragmatics. At a broad level of abstraction, we can take semantics vs. pragmatics to be a distinction between linguistic and extra-linguistic factors governing interpretation and language use. A recurring question will be: what is within the purview of semantics proper, and what can (or should) be explained with reference to extra-grammatical factors.

Empirical phenomena which we hope to discuss include presupposition, anaphora, implicature, and questions. We’ll discuss some central theoretical developments in the field, such as Stalnaker’s notion of common ground, the dynamic turn in semantic theory, and various proposals pertaining to scalar strengthening.

Listeners are welcome. Requirements for credit will be detailed in the first session.

Welcome to the first edition of Whamit! for Fall 2020! After our summer hiatus, Whamit! is back to regular weekly editions during the semester.

Whamit! is the MIT Linguistics newsletter, published every Monday (Tuesday if Monday is a holiday). The editorial staff consists of Adam Albright, Kai von Fintel, David Pesetsky, Cater Fulang Chen, Sherry Yong Chen, and Eunsun Jou.

To submit items for inclusion in Whamit! please send an email to whamit@mit.edu by Sunday 6pm.

Welcome to the students who are joining our graduate program!!!

Devon Brett Denny I come from Monument Valley, Utah which is a part of the Navajo Nation. I received a B.A. in Linguistics and certification in TESOL at the University of Utah. I like to listen to/play music, cook, and learn about other cultures. I have been working as an ESL teacher in Salt Lake City for three years and have taught in Taiwan for two separate summers. With these experiences, I have an understanding of what language acquisition looks like on the surface and want to shift my focus onto something more personal. With the Navajo language in decline, I want to do my part in language maintenance by discovering effective ways to interpret linguistic description and make available materials more accessible for second language learners. ​

Trevor Driscoll I was born and raised in California and I received my BA and MA in linguistics at California State University, Fresno. I am primarily interested in metrical phonology, American languages, fieldwork, and the phonetics-phonology interface. The majority of my research focuses on foot structure and typology and Siouan and Eskimo-Aleut languages.

Katherine Diane Martin  I was born and raised in Toronto, and then moved to the States to get my BA in linguistics at Yale before moving back to Canada to work towards an MA in linguistics at the University of British Columbia.  At UBC, I started working with speakers of Gitksan, a Tsimshianic language spoken in northern-central BC. I am interested in syntax, semantics, and their interface(s), particularly with regards to information structure and negation. Outside of linguistics, I enjoy reading science fiction, knitting and physically preventing my dog from eating my laptop charger.

Giovanni Roversi I have grown up in a small town in Northern Italy – not the gorgeous area with the mountains: rather, the flat mosquito-filled industry-heavy plain right south of that. As a teenager I decided it got too hot down there, so I moved to a similarly-sized town in Northern Norway – the gorgeous area with the mountains, 250 km/whatever that is in miles north of the Arctic Circle. I finished growing up there, and then I moved to Oslo to get a BA and an MA in linguistics. Altogether I have spent two thirds of my life so far in Italy and one third in Norway, so you can decide yourself where you consider me to be from. When it comes to linguistics I have mostly explored morphosyntax-adjacent issues like affix order, agreement, hierarchy effects, voice, valence and argumenthood. As I thoroughly enjoy working on understudied languages, my main piece of work has been on Äiwoo, an Oceanic language from the Solomon Islands. I have also worked a bit on the native Italian dialect of my home region, Emilian (which I am half a speaker of). My favorite ways of procrastinating and postponing linguistic work include playing the piano, nerding about cooking/eating and the realm of drinks (coffee, tea, and what more there is), and watching some series.

Jad Wehbe I was born and raised in Lebanon. I received my B.A. in Linguistics and Mathematics from Harvard in 2019. Since then, I have been working in the Linguistics department at the University of Maryland as a Baggett fellow. I am generally interested in semantics, pragmatics, philosophy of language, and language acquisition, but I am also hoping to learn more about the interface between syntax and semantics. In terms of specific topics, I have worked on the interaction between modality, tense and aspect, the acquisition of questions/rising declaratives, and I have recently been looking into how counterfactuals are expressed cross-linguistically. Outside of Linguistics, I really enjoy playing board games and watching movies. I was also involved in a lot of education-related public service work in the Boston area during college, so I am hoping to continue doing that when I am back. 

Please join us in giving a warm welcome to this semester’s visitors.

Visiting Professor

Bruna Karla Pereira (Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri)

Bruna Karla Pereira carried out her Ph.D. (2011) at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) with a full year as a visiting graduate student (2010) at the University of Cambridge (UK). In addition, she developed her post doctoral research (2016), as a visiting scholar, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, USA). In her Ph.D., she was interested in the Minimalist Program, especially in the cartography of syntactic structures and its implications for the analysis of light adverbs, such as ‘lá’ in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). In her postdoc, she investigated universals in nominal agreement that determine the DP-internal distribution of the plural morpheme in order to account for structures of non-standard BP with possessives, wh-determiners and cardinals. During her education, she was awarded funding from CNPq, FAPEMIG, and CAPES. Concerning her teaching experience, after having worked at the Universidade Federal de Lavras (2011-2013), with a temporary contract, she is currently a permanent professor at the Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (2013 onwards) where she has been conducting research on Syntax with emphasis on Generative Grammar. Her CV is available both in Portuguese and English, respectively, at the following links: <http://lattes.cnpq.br/2671430917722911> and <https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4958-8621>.

We have some summer news to share with you:

• Tracy Kelley (3rd year): “This summer I spent time teaching Wôpanâôt8âôk ‘Wampanoag Language’ to Tribal Elders for WLRP’s first remote Elders language class. We focused primarily on locatives, asking questions using the subordinative, and daily routine language. We also played interactive immersion games remotely, such as ômâsh! (Go Fish), Jeopardy, and Pictionary to reinforce our target vocabulary in a fun way.
   
  “Additionally, I continued research on nominalization and worked on my Wôpanâôt8âôk website which will be launching next month. The website is being developed to increase accessibility to Wôpanâôt8âôk for tribal families.  One of the components I’m most excited about is the audio! This will be our tribal nation’s first website for language learning.”
• Patrick Elliott (visiting faculty): “I’ve finalized a number of manuscripts, including my paper on intensionality (https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005107), and a response to Chierchia’s recent paper on weak crossover (https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005297). I also have a paper to appear in the proceedings of WCCFL 38, which extends some material on continuation semantics from the appendix of my intensionality paper (https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005297). More recently, Yasu Sudo and I gave a joint talk on crossover phenomena beyond anaphora at SALT 30 (https://osf.io/avms8/). More generally, I’ve been trying to teach myself about a bunch of topics, including epistemic modality and truthmaker semantics. If you’re interested in chatting about any of these things (or indeed anything else!) do get in touch - i’ve been desperately missing the random corridor interactions from the days of yore.”
• David Pesetsky taught a two-week class on “The Unity of Movement” at the Virtual New York Institute — alas from his living room via Zoom rather than in non-virtual St. Petersburg, Russia as originally planned. 

The 30th Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT30) conference was hosted by Cornell University on August 17 – 20, 2020 and held online. Current students and alumni friends at the conference included:

• Itai Bassi (6th year) and Tatiana Bondarenko (4th year): Composing CPs: evidence from disjunction and conjunction
• Keny Chatain (5th year): Cumulative readings of every: weak and asymmetric
• Filipe Hisao Kobayashi (4th year) and Vincent Rouillard (4th year): High and low exhaustification in singular which-questions
• Filipe Hisao Kobayashi (4th year): Composing reciprocity: An analysis of scattered reciprocals
• Patrick Elliott (faculty) and Yasutada Sudo (PhD 2012): Generalized Crossover
• Bernhard Schwarz (McGill), based on joint work with Aron Hirsch (PhD 2017) and Michaela Socolof (McGill): Severing uniqueness from answerhood
• Paul Marty (PhD 2017), Jacopo Romoli (University of Bergen), and Paolo Santorio (University of Maryland, College Park): Counterfactuals and undefinedness: homogeneity vs. supervaluations
• Floris Roelofsen (ILLC, Amsterdam) and Wataru Uegaki (PhD 2015): Searching for a universal constraint on the denotations of clause-embedding predicates
• Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine (PhD 2014) and Meghan Lim (National University of Singapore): Anti-uniqueness without articles
• Marie-Christine Meyer (PhD 2013) and Roman Feiman (Brown University): Priming reveals similarities and differences between three purported cases of implicature: Some, number and free choice disjunctions
• Luka Crnic (PhD 2011) and Tue Trinh (PhD 2011): Ignorance, introspection, and epistemic modals
• Pranav Anand (PhD 2006) and Maziar Toosarvandani (UC Santa Cruz): Embedded presents and the structure of narratives
• Dorothy Ahn (Harvard), Ankana Saha (Harvard), and Uli Sauerland (PhD 1998): Positively polar plurals
•  

Course announcements in this post:

• 24.899: Topics in Linguistics and Philosophy
• 24.949: Language Acquisition
• 24.956: Topics in Syntax

24.899: Topics in Linguistics and Philosophy

• Topic: Conditionals
• Instructors: Kai von Fintel, Sabine Iatridou, Justin Khoo
• Linguistics TA: Enrico Flor
• Philosopher TA: Kelly Gaus
• Meetings: Thursdays, 2-5pm via Zoom (https://mit.zoom.us/j/99201184106). You will need a password to use the Zoom link. Registered students will receive the password via email. If you are not registered but would like to attend, please email one of the instructors.
• Course site: https://canvas.mit.edu/courses/4156

About the Course:

This course aims to bring together our two sections to explore issues surrounding conditionals from the perspective of both philosophy and linguistics. We’ll discuss topics from foundational puzzles in the philosophy of language to cross-linguistic work on the syntax and semantics of conditional constructions. One of our larger goals will be to illustrate some areas for fruitful interaction between philosophy and linguistics.

24.949: Language Acquisition

• Instructor: Athulya Aravind
• Meetings: Tuesdays 2-5pm [first meeting *Sept 8*], via Zoom
• Course site: https://canvas.mit.edu/courses/4194

Description:
This course focuses on the process by which native speakers of a language acquire the ability to speak and understand that language. We will cover some of the major results in the study of first-language acquisition, concentrating on morpho-syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The findings primarily come from English, but cross-linguistic differences in the phenomena of interest and corresponding differences in acquisition patterns are considered where appropriate. Of interest throughout is how these developmental data inform linguistic theory and/or learnability theory.

Requirements:
The requirements for participation in this course are that:
- You show up
- You participate in class discussion
- You send me a response (max 1pg) to readings for the coming class by Sunday evening at 6pm

If you are taking the course for credit, you must, in addition:
- develop an acquisition-related research topic of your own interest and give a brief in-class presentation on it. No write-up is required.

Schedule (subject to change):
Class 1, Sept 8:  introduction/foundations
Class 2,  Sept 15: words
Class 3, Sept 22: early syntax
Class 4,  Sept 29: root infinitives
Class 5, Oct 6: root infinitives
No class Oct 13 (Monday schedule)
Class 6, Oct 20: A-movement
Class 7, Oct 27: binding
Class 8, Nov 3: quantification
Class 9, Nov 10: definites, presupposition
Class 10, Nov 17: only/implicatures
Class 11, Dec 1: class presentations
Class 12, Dec 8: class presentations

24.956: Topics in Syntax

• Instructors:  Shigeru Miyagawa, Norvin Richards
• Meetings: Tuesdays 10-1, via Zoom
• Course site: https://stellar.mit.edu/S/course/24/fa20/24.956/

About the Course:

In this course, we will look at a series of issues related to how syntax interfaces with pragmatics and phonology. 

In the first half of the semester, we will look at how the syntactic representation of the speaker and the addressee assists in linking syntax to the discourse context. Using proposals by Speas and Tenny (2003), Wiltschko (2017), and especially Krifka (2019), we will look at such phenomena as allocutive agreement, sentential particles, question formation, and topicalization. Readings will be drawn from a variety of sources including Shigeru’s book manuscript, Syntax in the treetops.

In the second half of the semester, we will start talking about Contiguity Theory, an approach to syntax which allows the narrow syntax to make reference to certain kinds of facts about phonology.  The course won’t assume any familiarity with the theory; we’ll start by reviewing the theory in Norvin’s 2016 book, and work by various people on the interactions between syntax and prosody.  We’ll then try to improve and extend the 2016 theory; topics include head-movement and certain kinds of island phenomena.

Registered students will be asked to hand in a paper at the end of the class.​

On July 18, 2020, 9AM, Michel DeGraff will be a keynote speaker at this year’s TESOL (“Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages”) conference.  His title:

 #BlackLivesMatter, SO NO LANGUAGE IS « OTHER » !

More information available at:

https://buff.ly/3eVtGd0

Speaker: Verena Hehl (MIT)
Title: Who would claim that multiple rhetorical wh-questions are real?
Time: Thursday, July 9th, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: I will discuss several puzzling questions regarding the status of multiple wh-questions in the light of rhetoricity. I will provide a first explanation for why multiple wh-questions are, in fact cannot be, rhetorical questions cross-linguistically, building a partition model upon Han (2002) who would predict otherwise. In addition, I will provide and discuss data in which bare wh-elements in Russian function as indefinities in rhetorical questions, although their licensing is not obvious. This is work in progress and feedback from experts of all interfaces, as well as a wide array of native speaker intuitions are greatly appreciated.

David Pesetsky was a speaker at a roundtable organized by ABRALIN. the Brazilian Linguistics Society, as part of their ongoing series “Abralin ao Vivo – Linguists Online”.  The topic of the roundtable, organized by former visitor Cilene Rodrigues, was “The Minimalist Program: Achievements and Challenges”, and also featured talks by Marcel den Dikken and Norbert Hornstein.  You can watch the event by clicking below.

Speaker: Yadav Gowda (MIT)
Title: The long and short of tense in Kannada and English
Time: Thursday, June 25th, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: Across languages, simple present tense forms commonly exhibit two properties, which I will call Non-perfectivity and Presentness:

Speaker: Suzana Fong (MIT)
Title: The A/Ā Distinction as an Epiphenomenon (Safir 2019)
Time: Thursday, June 18th, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: ”This article demonstrates that the A/Ā distinction is an epiphenomenon that emerges from independently necessary properties of Merge and the interpretive components. A true explanation of the A/Ā distinction requires that the distinction between the two classes of structures must emerge from a conspiracy of independently motivated principles and that the distinction should explain why the contrasts between A- and Ā-constructions are precisely the ones they are. I argue that certain moved constituents must be structurally altered on the way to their landing sites; otherwise, they will interfere with Case and agreement relations. I propose that an optional instance of Merge, late attachment of a prepositional head to the moved DP, “insulates” that DP from Case and agreement, but has consequences for what an insulated DP can antecede and/or license. Insulation is optional, but limited by independently motivated interface requirements that determine its distribution. The distribution of insulation explains why A- and Ā-structures differ in just the ways they do and not in other ways.”

Download:
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00305.
Pre-publication draft: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002798.

Speaker: Boer Fu (MIT)
Title: Negative Yes/No Questions in Mandarin
Time: Thursday, June 11th, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: An utterance in the shape of a negative yes/no question in Mandarin Chinese can have 4 different readings, depending on its prosody.

(1) zhe bu shi burudongwu ma

this neg is mammal ma

Reading A: “Isn’t it a mammal?” Biased question reading

Reading B: “It’s not a mammal?” Surprised question reading

Reading C: “It’s a mammal. (It’s obvious.)” Rhetorical “question” reading

Reading D: “It’s not a mammal. (It’s obvious.)” ​Negative obvious statement

Two prosodic cues disambiguate between the 4 readings, boundary tone and focus. Readings A & B have a high boundary tone, and are thus real questions. Whereas readings C & D have a low boundary tone, are are thus assertions. Readings A & C place the focus on the content word “mammal”, while readings B & D place it on negation. I argue that the difference in focus placement corresponds to a scoping difference of negation. Negation can occupy two syntactic positions in Mandarin (Xiang 2013). Focused negation is lower, while unfocused negation is higher. In the real question readings A & B, the relative position of negation and the VERUM operator (Romero & Han 2004) determines which preposition (p or ¬p) is being double-checked, just like preposed negative yes/no questions in English. In the assertion readings C & D, negation scopes relative to a mystery obviousness operator, which leads to two opposite assertions, p and ¬p.

Speaker: Rafael Abramovitz (MIT)
Title: Deconstructing Inverse Case Attraction 
Time: Thursday, May 28, 12:30pm-2pm EST

Abstract:

In this talk, I will try to give a unified analysis of inverse case attraction (ICA), a phenomenon best known from a variety of extinct Indo-European languages whereby the head of a relative clause bears the case assigned to the relative pronoun inside the relative clause, rather than the case it would be assigned by the matrix verb. Pace pretty much everyone who has written about this, I will argue that relative clauses with ICA are in fact a kind of internally-headed relative clauses (rather than being externally-headed or correlatives), whereas relative clauses that do not display ICA are externally headed. The data will primarily drawn from Koryak (Chukotko-Kamchatkan), though I will show that all of the other languages with ICA for which sufficient data exists (Ingrian Finnish, Bessermyan Udmurt, Moksha, Mari, Dari, etc.) pattern like Koryak in the relevant respects. Having proposed a syntax for ICA generally, I then point out that exactly this syntax has been defended by Hiraiwa and colleagues for so-called `left-headed internally-headed relative clauses’ in the Gur languages of West Africa (Buli, Dagaare, Kabiye, Moore etc.), which have no case-marking on noun phrases. ICA, I argue, falls out when a language has both overt case-marking and Gur-like relative clauses.

Speaker: Danfeng Wu (MIT)
Title: Can there be a unified meaning for but? 
Time: Thursday, May 21th, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: In English, but as a coordinator has at least three different uses/meanings: counterexpectation, semantic opposition, and correction (Toosarvandani 2014). Each example below illustrates one use:

WAFL 16 in Mongolia has been postponed for one year, to September 23-25, 2021. The deadline for abstract submission will be announced in the summer. 

Speaker: Mitya Privoznov (MIT)
Title: Transparent subjects in Russian and Balkar
Time: Tuesday, May 12th, 1pm - 2pm

We are delighted to announce that Hadas Kotek (Ph.D. 2014, now at Apple Inc) will give a special talk on jobs for linguistics outside academia. This will take place on Thursday, May 14, in the usual Ling-Lunch time slot.

Speaker: Donca Steriade (MIT)
Title: Uniformity in intersecting paradigms: evidence from A. Greek accent
Time: Monday, May 4th, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: I analyze paradigm uniformity effects that affect accent placement in Ancient Greek nominals. Some of the generalizations have been known since Herodian, in the 2nd cent. AD. What may be new is that a general correspondence system, governing all nouns, adjectives and participles, underlies the known uniformity cases, and others.

The Greek system is interesting because it combines aspects of cyclic inheritance (Base Priority effects, in the sense of Benua 1997) with properties sometimes considered incompatible with cyclicity: the Greek Bases are not contained in their Derivatives; each Derivative has multiple competing Bases, as well as a non-Base input; and uniformity competes with paradigmatic distinctness constraints (Kenstowicz 2005, Löfstedt 2010).

There are three important mechanisms in the analysis. A paradigm is a set of lexically related forms sharing one or more syntactic features. Paradigm uniformity stems from the requirement that such a set of forms must have correspondent stems, in a phonological sense. Such correspondence requirements may compete, because paradigms overlap, and their conflict is resolved by ranking. Base Priority arises when faithfulness to the unmarked realization of one form in the set (a notion to be defined) outranks faithfulness to the unmarked realization of other forms in the set.

How the Base of a paradigm is selected remains a mystery, but see Albright (2002, 2011).

Speaker: Philip Shushurin (NYU/MIT)
Title: Syntax of NP-internal possessors in Russian
Time: Tuesday, May 5th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: Genitive phrases with possessor semantics are found at the right periphery of Russian NPs.

(1)zarjadka dlja ajfona Dimy charger for iPhone Dima.gen `Dima’s iPhone charger’

(2)*zarjadka Dimy dlja ajfona charger Dima.gen for iPhone int. `Dima’s iPhone charger’

(3) *Dimy zarjadka dlja ajfona Dima.gen charger for iPhone
int. `Dima’s iPhone charger’

I suggest that genitive possessor arguments are right-adjoined to nominal structures. I discuss properties of non-concording external arguments in Russian Noun Phrases, such as Instrumental Agents and Dative Goals and propose that such arguments are best analyzed as adjuncts which can either left- or right-adjoin as long as they linearly follow the head noun. I suggest an account of this generalization, suggesting that the LCA holds for concording phrases, while all remaining unordered pairs of nodes are linearized postsyntactically, in a uniform fashion. I argue against Pereltsvaig (2015) who analyzes Instrumental Agents as verbal specifiers, showing that her analysis fails to derive the correct distribution of attested word order permutations in ditransitive eventive nominalizations. I show how the proposed account can be further extended to derive certain well-known crosslinguistic tendencies in word order in N-initial languages, such as Adjacency Effects (Adger 2012) and PP-Peripherality (Belk and Neeleman 2017).

Speaker: Mitya Privoznov (MIT)
Title: Structural islands and discourse anaphora
Time: Wednesday, May 6th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: Let us define discourse anaphora as a referential dependency between an indefinite noun phrase and a pronoun like in (1) which could be established across a sentence boundary. Descriptively speaking, the indefinite introduces a discourse referent that the pronoun picks up.

(1) a. A person who came in with a woman1 offered her1 drinks.

b. *A person who came in with her1 offered a woman1 drinks.

Looking at the contrast in (1) one might think that for this relation to hold the indefinite must linearly precede the pronoun. However, it is an established fact in the quite extensive literature on anaphora that discourse cataphora is also in principle possible, like in (2a), but not in all syntactic configurations, as (2a) stands in a contrast to (2b).

(2) a. The teacher said that she called his1 parents, after she caught a student1 smoking.

b. *His1 parents said that they went to the teacher, after they caught a student1 smoking.

The question of interest to me in this talk is when discourse anaphora is in principle possible and when it is not? That is, what explains the contrasts like (1-2)? There are theories of binding (especially within the dynamic framework) which can explain examples like (1-2). However, to my knowledge they provide different explanations for each contrast. This view seems to me to be missing or rather not taking into account one potentially important syntactic generalization. Namely, that discourse anaphora always obeys one structural condition. For a pronoun to be discourse anaphoric to an indefinite the constituent that contains the indefinite and c-commands a pronoun must be a maximal projection (aka structural island under a strict view of Condition on Extraction Domains: specifier, adjunct or conjunct). In my talk I will try to formulate, defend and explain this condition.

It is possible, of course, that this generalization is accidental and that the core explanation is semantic and different for each case. But I will try to see the data like (1-2) from a syntactic perspective, which seems to me to be an experiment worth undertaking. The data will come from Russian and English (elicited with small samples of speakers).

Speaker: Philip Shushurin (NYU/MIT)
Title: On the lack of Direct Marking of NP-internal arguments.
Time: Thursday, May 7th, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: I suggest a novel account of the well described lack of Accusative and Dependent Dative marking in the nominal domain. Based on Richards’ (2010) observations of Distinctness Violations, I suggest that no two nodes can merge directly if they both bear visible phi-features. This constraint can account for, on one hand, severe limitations on Structural Case in the nominal domain (Baker 2015, a.o.) and, on the other hand, near absence of predicative Agreement with NP-internal arguments. I show that the proposed approach can be further be extended to account for the lack (or the near absence) of Structural Dative in nominal structures, suggesting that Structural Dative can only be licensed in transitive structures. Adopting several insights in Deal (2010), Nie (2017) a.o., I show that transitivity alternations can arise at two places of the verbal structure (Voice/T) and (v/CAUS). I suggest that opaqueness for agreement of certain nominals is due to a formal feature rather than any lexical/syntactic category.

Speaker: Danfeng Wu & Yadav Gowda (MIT)
Title: Practice Talks for Speech Prosody 2020
Time: Monday, April 27th, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: Zoom link: https://mit.zoom.us/j/97125338615?pwd=Q1VIcFJjVXNlRit4ZzBoYStjRmR1UT09
Password: 003447

Title: Focus and penultimate vowel lengthening in Zulu
Authors: Danfeng Wu and Yadav Gowda
Abstract:
Many Bantu languages exhibit fixed placement of focus at the Immediately-After-the-Verb (IAV) position, which has been argued to be related to this position’s prosodic prominence. Elements in this position appear at the right edge of a prosodic phrase, and are subject to penultimate vowel lengthening, which we take to be a form of phrasal stress which occurs at the right edge of every prosodic phrase. Previous literature has claimed that in Zulu, focus cannot be the most prominent element in a sentence. We present evidence from a production study in Zulu showing the contrary, i.e. the degree of penultimate vowel lengthening at the IAV/vP-final position is greater than at any other prosodic phrase edge, lending phonetic support to the claim that this position is prosodically prominent in a sentence. We further show that the vP-final position is prominent regardless of whether or not it is focused, which implies that Zulu has a fixed position that realizes sentential prominence.

Title: Durational cues to stress and phrasing in post-focal contexts in English
Author: Danfeng Wu
Abstract:
I study two questions in English prosody through an investigation of post-focal contexts: i) whether an intermediate phrase must have a pitch accent; and ii) whether phrasal stress should be distinguished from pitch accent. The post-focal contexts are good test grounds for these questions because they are claimed to undergo ‘deaccentuation’, i.e. they lack pitch accents. This paper shows with results from a production study that intermediate phrase boundaries are preserved post-focally, implying that intermediate phrases do not have to contain pitch accent. Furthermore, there is no durational evidence that indicates the existence of phrasal stress in the absence of pitch accent.​

Speaker: Filipe Hisao Kobayashi (MIT)
Title: Interleaving A’- and A-movement in Brazilian Portuguese
Time: Tuesday, April 28th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: In this (very informal) presentation, I discuss configurations found in Brazilian Portuguese in which A’-movement of a DP across a clause-embedding unaccusative verb triggers phi-agreement with it. I show that verbal agreement is actually a reflex of there being an A-movement step in the derivation of these sentences. We therefore seem to be faced with a violation of the Ban on Improper Movement: A-movement can be shown to have applied to a DP that has already been A’-moved. I discuss two possible analyses of these facts: one in which the Ban on Improper Movement is relaxed, and another which resorts to composite A/A’-movement.

Speaker: Tanya Bondarenko & Itai Bassi (MIT
Title: In favor of identity semantics of clausal embedding: Evidence from Russian
Time: Wednesday, April 29th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: In this talk we argue with evidence from CP disjunction and CP conjunction that complementizer that (and its counterparts in Russian and Hebrew) is not semantically vacuous, contra some theories of clausal embedding, and (therefore) that the meaning of ‘that TP’ isn’t equal to ‘TP’. Specifically, we show that CP disjunction lacks a reading it is expected to have if complementizer that were vacuous; likewise for conjunction (at least in Russian and Hebrew). We propose that these data call for a theory of clausal embedding that assigns meanings to complementizers, treats CPs as predicates of Contentful entities (Kratzer 2006, 2013) and takes the relation between the content of Contentful entities and embedded propositions to be that of equality (Elliott 2017). Such a theory gives the correct meaning for a CP disjunction, and predicts CP conjunctions to be strictly impossible: strings of the form “V COMP p and COMP q”, on this theory, could only arise from an underlying matrix-verb conjunction reduction parse: “V COMP p and V COMP q”. Finally, we will discuss that English is different from Russian in sometimes allowing unexpected readings for the “V COMP p and COMP q” strings. We will sketch a solution to this puzzle that links the unexpected reading to the ability of English CPs to undergo nominalization without any overt nominal morphology.

Speaker: Rafael Abramovitz (MIT)
Title: Person and predication in Koryak
Time: Wednesday, April 29th, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: Linguists across theoretical persuasions have noted that person has a more limited distribution of agreement possibilities than number and gender. Baker (2008) proposes that this has a universal structural explanation: the subject of adjectival or nominal predication, he argues, does not merge directly with an adjectival or nominal head, but instead with a higher head Pred(icate). The lack of person agreement on non-verbs emerges when that structural assumption is combined with the Structural Condition on Person Agreement (SCOPA), which bans 1/2 person agreement on a head if the bearer of those features does not merge with that head. In this paper, I present novel data from Koryak (Chukotko-Kamchatkan), which I argue to be the most plausible attested counterexample to SCOPA, as nouns (1) and adjectives (2) (among others) in predicative position do show covarying person morphology.

(1) (ɣəmmo) čawčəva-jɣəm
1SG.ABS Koryak-1SG.PRED
‘I am a Koryak.’

(2) (ɣəčči) n-ə-mejŋ-iɣi
2SG.ABS ADJ-EP-big-2SG.PRED
‘You are big.’

However, I will argue that in Koryak, Pred itself bears uninterpretable phi-features, and once it has agreed with the subject of predication, these features spread to Pred’s complement by concord, thus defusing a possible counterexample to Baker’s theory.

Speaker: Dmitry Privoznov and Justin Colley (MIT)
Title: On the topic of subjects
Time: Thursday, April 30th, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: In this talk we will focus on two seemingly unrelated phenomena. These are (a) passive construction in Khanty (Uralic, Finno-Ugric), similar to Voice Marking in Austronesian languages, e.g. Atayal; and (b) local A-scrambling in Balkar (Altaic, Turkic), i.e. SOV vs. OSV word order alteration, similar to local A-scrambling in Russian or Yiddish. We will argue that both phenomena involve the same kind of movement with mixed A- and A’-properties, which has the same effect on the information structure (promotes Topics) and targets the same syntactic position - Spec,TP. We will propose an analysis that relies on Composite Probes and accounts for the properties of individual languages, as well as the cross-linguistic variation. In a nutshell, the Probe for Topics, which is situated above the subject position in languages like English (i.e. the C head), is attached lower on the clausal spine in languages like Khanty or Balkar. Namely, in Khanty and Balkar the Probe for Topics forms a Composite Probe with T (responsible for the subject position). The difference between Khanty and Balkar comes from the two sub-Probes of T probing together vs. separately.

Speaker: Athulya Aravind (MIT)
Title: Locality in Malayalam anaphor binding
Time: Tuesday, April 21st, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: Dravidian long-distance anaphors (LDAs) pose a locality puzzle. Though they generally show strong anti-locality in binding — they cannot be bound by a local antecedent — in select environments, this requirement seems to be relaxed, licensing what looks like local binding. Drawing primarily on data from Malayalam, I will show that this apparent exceptionality is only apparent. The relevant environments involve a periphrastic progressive construction, comprising of a light verb and a PP embedding a nominalized complement. This bifurcation of the clause means that there is no selective “anti-anti-locality” in Dravidian LDA: LDA in these languages is uniformly anti-local.

Speaker: Ido Benbaji, Omri Doron, Margaret Wang (MIT)
Title: Reduplication in Hebrew as a Diagnostic for Antonym Decomposition
Time: Wednesday, April 22nd, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: Abstract: In recent years, it has become increasingly common to decompose what have been called marked members of antonym pairsinto a negation operator and the corresponding unmarked pair member (henceforth: negative and positive adjectives, cf. Büring 2007, Heim 2006; 2008). This approach contrasts with theories that, at least implicitly, assume the negative component in adjectives is lexicalized in their core meaning. We argue, based on evidence from Modern Hebrew reduplication, that we need a mixed analysis incorporating both approaches: some negative adjectives must be syntactically decomposable, while others are necessarily syntactically simplex. This approach makes testable predictions regarding constructions that have been argued to involve syntactic decomposition of the adjectives they contain, such as cross-polar anomalies and Rullmann ambiguities. We show that, as predicted if they indeed require decomposition, non-decomposable adjectives are unavailable in such constructions.

Speaker: Mitya Privoznov (MIT)
Title: Partial concord and the noun phrase structure
Time: Wednesday, April 22nd, 5pm - 6:30pm

Abstract: This paper is devoted to the phenomenon of partial concord. Partial concord in a feature F is a situation when the noun phrase contains an element distinct from the head noun (e.g. a cardinal numeral or a determiner) such that modifiers c-commanding this element always realize F, while modifiers c-commanded by this element only realize F if the element itself does not. The paper assumes that this element introduces F into the noun phrase structure and calls it the locus of F. The paper argues that two well known morpho-syntactic phenomena, which have been previously treated in different ways, both fall under the same generalization and constitute a single phenomenon: partial concord. These are the lack of Number marking in noun phrases with cardinal numerals in Estonian and some other languages and the strong vs. weak distinction in adjectival paradigms in German (and Icelandic). The former phenomenon is captured as partial concord in Number and the latter phenomenon is captured as partial concord in Case. The paper puts forward a theory that derives partial concord building on the feature realization mechanism from Schlenker (1999) and the rule of feature deletion from Distributed Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993). Building on Bayırlı (2017), the paper proposes two cross-linguistic parameters that determine whether a language has full concord, partial concord or no concord in a given feature.

Speaker: Suzana Fong (MIT)
Title: Feature licensing and the number interpretation of bare nominals in Wolof
Time: Thursday, April 23rd, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: Several languages allow for their nominals to occur without any functional morphology, including determiners and number. They are dubbed ‘bare nominals’ (BNs). BNs are often number-neutral, i.e., there is no commitment to a singular or plural interpretation. In Wolof, however, BNs are singular. This can be argued based on, e.g. the impossibility of saturating a collective predicate, on the fact that they must be referred to by a singular pronoun and that they cannot be the antecedent of plural reflexives. However, a plural interpretation becomes available when a nominal-internal plural feature is exponed in the form of complementizer or possessum agreement. The generalization is that BNs in Wolof are singular, unless plural morphology is exponed. I propose an extension of Béjar & Rezac’s (2003) Person Licensing Condition to number: a marked number feature (i.e. plural) must be licensed by Agree. BNs in Wolof can in principle be singular or plural. In the absence of a nominal-internal probe that Agrees with the plural feature of the BN, the Number Licensing Condition (NLC) is violated, causing the derivation to crash. Unmarked number, i.e., singular, is stipulated not to obey the NLC, so the derivation converges, yielding a singular BN. However, if there is a number probe, which is realized as complementizer or possessum agreement, the NLC is satisfied, allowing a derivation to converge where the BN is plural. If correct, this analysis accounts for the typologically unusual behavior of BNs in Wolof and provides empirical support for the view that valued features are responsible for nominal licensing (Kalin: 2017; 2019).

Speaker: Cater Chen (MIT)
Title: Quantifier Spreading Under Negation
Time: Friday, April 24th, 2pm - 3pm

Abstract: Much research on children’s acquisition of universal quantification has observed a prevalent type of errors children make in response to a sentence like (1), which involves the universal quantifier every in the subject position and an indefinite object, in a scenario where every girl is riding a bike, but there is an “extra” bike that no girl is riding.

(1) Every girl is riding a bike.

Children, unlike adults, often judge a sentence like (1) to be wrong, and justify this answer by pointing to the “extra” object (Roeper & Matthei 1975; Roeper & de Villiers, 1991; Roeper et al. 2004; Philip 1995, 2011; Crain et al. 1996; Drozd 1996, 2001; Drozd & von Loosbroek 2006; Geurts 2004; Aravind et al. 2017; a.o.). We refer to this observation as quantifier-spreading (henceforth q-spreading) and this type of errors children make as exhaustive pairing (henceforth EP) errors. When the same sentence is used to describe a scenario where every girl except one is riding a bike, children can make another type of errors, which we refer to as underexhaustive errors, by judging the sentence in (1) to be right. Aravind et al. (2017) report from a longitudinal study that the disappearance of underexhaustive errors is accompanied by the emergence of EP errors. This finding suggests that children respond to the “extra” object scenario and the “extra” agent scenario alike: at early stages of development, they judge a sentence like (1) to be right in both “extra” object and “extra” agent scenarios, but as they age, they judge the same sentence to be wrong in both scenarios.

Two classes of accounts, the Event Quantification Account (Philip 1995; Roeper et al. 2004; a.o.) and the Weak Quantification Account (Drozd 2001; Geurts 2004; a.o.), attribute q-spreading and EP errors to non-adultlike interpretation of the universal quantifier every. Both accounts are challenged by another line of research demonstrating children’s knowledge of the asymmetry in the interpretations of the subject and object of a universally quantified sentence. Specifically, 3- to 5-year old children have been shown to know that every is downward-entailing in the restrictor (NP) (Gualmini et al. 2003) and not so in the nuclear scope (VP) (Boster and Crain 1993).

We take the disappearance of underexhaustive errors as a developmental hallmark that children have acquired the basic semantic properties of every — in particular that every is construed with a restrictor and a nuclear scope and it is downward-entailing in the restrictor and not so in the nuclear scope. Because much research on q-spreading has aimed to investigate children’s acquisition of universal quantification, little attention has been paid to the indefinite object in a sentence like (1). We will pursue a hypothesis that q-spreading and EP errors emerge from the interpretation of the indefinite object. Specifically, we will first review Denić and Chemla’s (2018) account for q-spreading which attributes EP errors to distributive inferences triggered by the indefinite object. We refer to this approach as the Distributive Inferences Approach. Then we will introduce a competing account in which indefinite objects project presuppositions which give rise to EP errors. We refer to this approach as the Presupposition Projection Approach. These two approaches make different predictions about whether children make EP errors when the sentence they are asked to judge involves wide-scope negation. We will demonstrate that distributive inferences go away, while presuppositions project, under negation. Therefore, while the Distributive Inferences Approach predicts that q-spreading should not be observed with sentences like (2) which involves wide-scope negation, the Presupposition Projection Approach predicts the opposite to be the case. We will present an experiment with children that supports the Presupposition Projection Approach.

(2) Not every girl is riding a bike.

Speaker: Patrick Elliott (MIT)
Title: Discussion of Chierchia’s (2020) “Origins of weak crossover”
Time: Wednesday, April 15th, 1pm - 2pm

Abstract: Weak Crossover (WCO) has occupied a central role in syntactic theory since at least Postal’s (1971) foundational work, and remains largely mysterious to this day. An illustration of WCO is given in (1b) - interpreting the pronoun “his” as a bound variable is impossible, despite the fact that the quantifier “everyone” can take scope over the pronoun. It’s tempting to conclude that scope can’t feed binding, but (1c) shows that this can’t be quite right - scope can feed binding, just so long as the binder *precedes* the pronoun.

1. a. Everyone1 likes his1 mother
b. *his1 mother likes everyone1
c. [Everyone1’s mother] likes him1.

In a recently published Natural Language Semantics paper, Chierchia (2020) attempts to provide an explanation for WCO on the basis of an independently motivated approach to the semantics of anaphora — *dynamic semantics* (Heim 1982, Groenendijk & Stokhof 1991, etc.). In order to do so, Chierchia proposes a departure from orthodox dynamic semantics - predicates, rather than arguments, are taken to induce binding. Chierchia argues convincingly that an approach to WCO grounded in dynamic semantics is empirically superior to existing alternatives, as, in addition to the core phenomena, it can account for, e.g., the possibility of binding into adjuncts.

I’ll outline the essential components of Chierchia’s approach to WCO, as well as assessing its empirical adequacy. Ultimately, I’ll argue that Chierchia’s approach has a fatal flaw - it fails to account for the fact that existential scope can feed anaphora, while still feeding WCO effects. In the latter part of the presentation, I’ll sketch a possible way forward.

Speaker: Danfeng Wu (MIT)
Title: Stripping and but
Time: Thursday, April 16th, 12:30pm - 2pm

Abstract: Standard analyses of clausal ellipsis (sluicing, fragment answers, and stripping) involve movement (of the remnant, the element that survives ellipsis, out of the ellipsis site) and deletion. For example, in the stripping example in (1), the remnant Chris moves out of the ellipsis site and the TP gets deleted:

(1) Pat left, (but) not Chris_i [TP 〈t_i left〉].

While movements in general respect island constraints, clausal ellipsis is known to be able to evade islands despite involving movement (especially famous is the island-insensitivity of sluicing). There have been different analyses for why sluicing and fragment answers may be island-insensitive (Merchant (2004), Griffiths and Liptak (2014) and Barros et al. (2014)). Because these analyses were proposed for clausal ellipsis in general, they should extend to stripping as well. The first part of this talk evaluates these three analyses with novel data from stripping. The data are consistent with Barros et al., but not with the other two accounts, thus supporting Barros et al.’s analysis (all movements are island-sensitive, and apparent island evasion is due to another parse that does not actually involve any island-violating movement) over the others.

The second part of the talk starts from the novel observation that while stripping without but can apparently evade islands (complex NP island in (2) and left branch island in (4)), stripping with but cannot (3) & (5).

(2) They hired someone who speaks French yesterday, not German.

(3) *They hired someone who speaks French yesterday, but not German.

(4) They bought a blue car, not green.

(5) *They bought a blue car, but not green.

I argue that it is the presence of but that causes the ungrammaticality. But in English is lexically ambiguous, and the meanings relevant to (2)-(5) are counterexpectational but (which has the implication that generally, if the first conjunct holds, the second conjunct does not) and semantic opposition but (which does not have this implication) (see e.g. Winter & Rimon (1994), Jasinskaja & Zeevat (2008, 2009), Toosarvandani (2014)). I argue that these two buts have different syntax too. Specifically, counterexpectational but (but not semantic opposition but) bans stripping, and semantic opposition but (but not counterexpectational but) requires parallel conjuncts.

The 43rd Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) conference is taking place (virtually) at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin from April 8th to 20th, 2020.  MIT is represented by many graduate students and alumni.

• Itai Bassi & Justin Colley (MIT): p-word Integrity: a new condition on ellipsis at the syntax-phonology interface
  (abstract) (project page)
• Peter Grishin (MIT): Scrapping clauses with clausal anaphors
  (abstract) (project page)
• Tatiana Bondarenko & Stanislao Zompi’ (MIT): Leftover Agreement: Spelling out Kartvelian number
  (abstract) (project page)
• Tatiana Bondarenko (MIT): Hyperraising and Logical Form: evidence from Buryat
  (abstract) (project page)
• Filipe Hisao Kobayashi & Sherry Yong Chen (MIT): Quantifying over thematic roles: Mandarin distributive numerals and reciprocals
  (abstract) (project page)
• Maša Močnik & Rafael Abramovitz (MIT): Variable-force variable-flavor attitude verb in Koryak
  (abstract) (project page)
• Danfeng Wu & Yadav Gowda (MIT): Focus and penultimate vowel lengthening in Zulu
  (project page)

MIT alumni also presented at GLOW 43 including:

• Idan Landau (PhD 1999): The Predicative Default of Controlled Adjuncts
  (abstract) (project page)
• Omer Demirok (PhD 2019) : A pied-piping theory of exceptional de re: Scoping after all                            (abstract) (project page)
• İsa Kerem Bayırlı (PhD 2017) : A new generalization over determiner denotations                           (abstract)

… plus: one of the workshops (on the legacy of Chomsky’s “Remarks on Nominalization”) was co-organized by Hagit Borer (PhD 1981).

Speaker: Aleksei Nazarov (Utrecht)
Title: Towards learning restrictive indexed-constraint accounts of opacity
Time: Monday, April 6th, 5pm - 6:30pm
Location: Zoom

Abstract: to be posted.

Speaker: Peter Grishin (MIT)
Title: Scrapping clauses with clausal anaphors
Time: Wednesday, April 1st, 1pm - 2pm
Location: Zoom

Abstract: I argue that an understudied variety of clausal ellipsis in English, in which the clausal complement of a clause-embedding verb goes missing,demonstrates the existence of a null ModP anaphor (in the binding-theoretic sense), which I’ll call PROModP. I call this kind of ellipsis “scrapping” (Sentential Complement Reduction in ACD Positions). I present a close study of the properties of scrapping, demonstrating that it isn’t Null Complement Anaphora, that it’s subject to a requirement that it appear in ACD environments, that the gap contains a structurally reduced clause that maximally contains a low modality phrase, and that scraps are subject to a requirement that their antecedent c-command them at LF. I argue that analyzing the gap as containing the following structure — [Op PROModP], an operator adjoined to PROModP — is able to predict this constellation of facts. The anaphoric properties of PROModP require that it receive its denotation from a c-commanding antecedent, and the requirement that PROModP be bound by a c-commanding ModP requires that it QR from within that ModP to adjoin to it, in order to be bound, thus deriving (a weak form of) the ACD generalization.