Whamit!

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

MIT Indigenous Languages Initiative (MITILI) student Annauk Olin (Iñupiaq) received a scholarship to participate in the American Indian Language Development Institute’s (AILDI) summer session. AILDI’s mission is to provide critical training to strengthen efforts to revitalize and promote the use of Indigenous language across generations. Annauk will be taking a class on “Master Apprentice Immersion Methods”.  Congratulations Annauk!

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.

We are delighted to announce the publication in Glossa of (rising fifth-year student) Elise Newman’s paper “Facilitator effects in middles and more”. A “facilitator effect” is the ameliorating effect of adverbials and similar elements in middle constructions such as the famous Bureaucrats bribe easily, where the presence of the adverb is close to obligatory. A novel insight of Newman’s paper is a proposed connection between this effect and other situations ameliorated by intervening material that have been described as an anti-locality” requirement for movement, as well as a comparable proposal for passive constructions where at first glance one might think no facilitator effect is at work.

Because Glossa is an open-access journal, you can click the link below and read the abstract and paper immediately.

Congratulations, Elise!

https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/10.5334/gjgl.990/

Elise’s website: https://esnewman.github.io/elisenewman/

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:

Our colleague Michel DeGraff’s ABRALIN lecture from June 14 is now available to watch and ponder.

Our colleague, Linguistics section head Kai von Fintel was interviewed about language, semantics, language acquisition, “if”, and more, in the series “Philosophical Trials”. Watch it here or click below.

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.

Congratulations to finishing student Colin Davis, who has accepted a position as Postdoctoral Scholar at the University of Southern California. At USC he will conduct research and teach undergraduate and graduate classes in syntax and general linguistics. Colin is currently completing a dissertation entitled “The Linear Limitations of Syntactic Derivations”. Great news, Colin!

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.

Congratulations to Sabine Iatridou for being named one of the 2020 class of Guggenheim Fellows! You can read more at the Guggenheim site and in the Boston Globe.

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.

Speaker: Athulya Aravind (MIT) and Patrick Elliott (MIT)
Title: Probing Projection
Time: Friday, April 3rd, 2pm - 3pm
Location: Zoom

Abstract: Theories of presupposition projection make differential predictions about quantificational sentences with a presupposition trigger in the nuclear scope, e.g. “Every boy rides his bike to school”. Some theories suggest that such sentences require the presupposition in the nuclear scope be true of every member of the domain (“universal projection”; Heim 1983, Schlenker 2008, Charlow 2009 a.o.). Others have argued instead for a weaker requirement that the presupposition be true for some member of the domain (“existential projection”; Beaver 2001 a.o.). Yet others take a more nuanced view, where the nature of the presupposition varies with the choice of quantifier (Chierchia 1995, George 2008a, 2008b, Fox 2012, a.o.).

A major challenge for evaluating these theories is that there is little-to-no consensus on what the empirical facts are. As demonstrated by Chemla (2009), judgments vary across speakers, and this variance may reflect appeals to additional pragmatic processes. Even when theories coincide with respect to the predicted projection pattern in a given environment, they often diverge regarding which reading is treated as “basic”, and which is to be derived via some additional process, such as accommodation. Putting theories to the test requires a methodology for probing the presence of costly “extra-grammatical” processes implicit in deriving a given reading. In this talk, we will discuss a first attempt at doing so.

The Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT is very sad to share the news that our esteemed and beloved colleague of many decades, Professor Wayne O’Neil, has died. He was chair of the MIT Linguistics program for eleven years (1986-1997) and head of the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy from 1989 to 1997. He guided the department with wisdom, compassion, and skill, longer than any other head. His contributions to the field are marked by the same qualities that he brought to the headship.

(Formal) Approaches to South Asian Languages ((F)ASAL10) at OSU was hosted virtually on 3/21 - 3/22.

Neil Banerjee (4th year) and Gurmeet Kaur (Goettingen) spoke on Deferred imperatives across Indo-Aryan.

In the midst of everything, positive linguistics news continues to exist. We have learned that our recent alum Sam Al Khatib (PhD 2013) has published a book entitled Focus, Evaluativity, and Antonymy: A Study in the Semantics of Only and its Interaction with Gradable Antonyms — in the series Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy from Springer. Sam is an Assistant Professor of Linguistics at the CUNY Graduate Center. Congratulations, Sam!!

Like many universities around the globe, MIT closed its classrooms last week in response to the growing coronavirus pandemic.  Our last in-person departmental event for the foreseeable future was a LingLunch presentation on Thursday by visiting student Kinjal Hiren Joshi.  He argued that an agreement alternation in Surati Gujarati was a result of two hidden factors:  a distinction between accusative and dative case masked by the fact that both involve the same affix; and an alternation in the position of direct objects detectable by effects on information structure.  It was a great talk, but some possibilities were left open, so  participants, both students and faculty, asked many questions and discussed alternatives.  

A great talk, yes, but also just another example of what we do every day:  puzzle over intriguing phenomena in the languages of the world, in an attempt to learn how language works in general, formulating and testing hypotheses as we go. 

Thanks to the pandemic, we won’t be able to keep meeting in person for a while.  But this will not stop us from doing what we do!  Like colleagues everywhere, we are busy moving our courses online, and we will be resuming our talks and reading groups in online form as well.  It takes more than a virus to stop a linguist.

So while there will be a pause in the usual series of event announcements here (MIT has announced a two-week break), they will be resuming soon.  Meanwhile, we wish all our friends and colleagues everywhere the best of health, safety, and happiness as we all work to keep our intellectual and personal communities vibrant in the coming weeks and months, difficult though they may be.

One more note:  as we move talks and other events online, you may wonder if some of them might be opened to a wider audience.  That is an idea we will certainly be thinking about!  Some events are most useful to our students with an audience that is limited to the local community, so forgive us if they stay that way.  But other events can benefit from a wider audience — not to mention the benefits for everyone of democratizing our work.  So stay tuned as we experiment.

See you on the internet!

Speaker: Shigeru Miyagawa (MIT) & Danfeng Wu (MIT)
Title: Inducing and Blocking Labeling
Time: Tuesday, March 10th, 1pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: Japanese has functional elements with grammatical, semantic, or pragmatic functions. Case markers mark grammatical relations; the Q-particle clause-types the sentence as an interrogative; and the topic marker designates a phrase as the topic of the sentence. Along with these functions, we argue that these functional elements have a uniform function of assisting in the labeling of structures. There are two ways in which they do so. In one case, a functional element attaches to an item that cannot otherwise project to induce projection, extending Saito’s (2016, 2018) proposal. In the other case, a functional element attaches to an item that is projectable but requires the projection to be blocked, allowing a sister item to project. The Q-particle is an example of a functional element that, when attached to an otherwise unprojectable C, induces the C to project. In contrast, case markers attach to XPs, which are inherently projectable, and block them from projecting, allowing the sister element to project, following Saito. The same goes for topic marking. Across languages, many functional elements have this role of assisting in the labeling of structures. The Q-particle in Japanese, which allows the C to project, is similar to agreement in English and other languages, in which the agreement morpheme on T induces the T to project. Case marking, which blocks projection of a XP, is similar to augment vowels in Bantu, and it is no accident that these vowels have a case-like distribution.

Speaker: Masha Privizentseva (University of Leipzig/UMass Amherst)
Title: Nominal ellipsis reveals concord in Moksha Mordvin
Time: Wednesday, March 11th, 5pm - 6:30pm
Location: 32-D831

Abstract: In some languages nominal modifiers generally do not show concord with the noun, but are inflected if the noun is elided. This inflection is often analyzed as stranded and cliticized affixes of an elided noun (see Dékány (2011), Saab & Lipták (2016), Ruda (2016), Murphy (2018), and Saab (2019)). On the basis of original data from Moksha Mordvin (Finno-Ugric), I argue that inflection under nominal ellipsis is best analyzed as nominal concord and that features are regularly present on a nominal modifier, but remain without morphological realization in non-elliptical contexts. The distribution of features follows from conditions on Spell-Out and types of features that can be spelled out. In particular, I suggest that shortly after valuation probe features are still identifiable as such and are therefore not subject to Vocabulary Insertion. Spell-Out applies to nominal modifiers right after probes responsible for concord are valued, so that features are exempt from realization. Concord is morphologically realized under ellipsis, because in this case there is an additional feature on a nominal modifier, which postpones Spell-Out.

Speaker: Kinjal Hiren Joshi (University of Oslo / MIT)
Title: Optional Agreement and Information Structure in Surati Gujarati
Time: Thursday, March 12th, 12:30pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: In this talk, I present novel empirical evidence demonstrating optionality in agreement in the causative constructions of Surati Gujarati (A language that belongs to the Indo-Aryan language family). Further, I establish a relationship between information structure and agreement relationship and propose that dative case is a dependent (structural) case in Surati Gujarati. To account for both case alternation and the information structure-agreement relationship in Surati Gujarati I propose an object shift analysis. To conclude, I raise a larger theoretical question on the status of A vs A-bar movement as I propose a focus-driven object movement analysis.

Speaker: Athulya Aravind (MIT) and Patrick Elliott (MIT)
Title: Probing Projection
Time: Friday, March 13th, 2pm - 3pm
Location: 32-D831

Abstract: Theories of presupposition projection make differential predictions about quantificational sentences with a presupposition trigger in the nuclear scope, e.g. “Every boy rides his bike to school”. Some theories suggest that such sentences require the presupposition in the nuclear scope be true of every member of the domain (“universal projection”; Heim 1983, Schlenker 2008, Charlow 2009 a.o.). Others have argued instead for a weaker requirement that the presupposition be true for some member of the domain (“existential projection”; Beaver 2001 a.o.). Yet others take a more nuanced view, where the nature of the presupposition varies with the choice of quantifier (Chierchia 1995, George 2008a, 2008b, Fox 2012, a.o.).

A major challenge for evaluating these theories is that there is little-to-no consensus on what the empirical facts are. As demonstrated by Chemla (2009), judgments vary across speakers, and this variance may reflect appeals to additional pragmatic processes. Even when theories coincide with respect to the predicted projection pattern in a given environment, they often diverge regarding which reading is treated as “basic”, and which is to be derived via some additional process, such as accommodation. Putting theories to the test requires a methodology for probing the presence of costly “extra-grammatical” processes implicit in deriving a given reading. In this talk, we will discuss a first attempt at doing so.

The 38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics was held over the weekend, from March 6th to March 8th, at the University of British Columbia.  The following MIT grad students and  faculty members gave talks or presented posters:

• Peter Grishin (2nd year): Scrapping clauses: an anaphor based approach
• Colin Davis (5th year): Overlapping paths, parasitic gaps, and the path containment condition 
• Patrick Elliott (Postdoctoral Associate): A flexible scope theory of intensionality 
• Tatiana Bondarenko (3rd year) & Colin Davis (5th year): Long-distance scrambling in Balkar and the nature of edges
• Rafael Abramovitz (5th year): Person and Predication in Koryak
• Adam Albright (Faculty): Speakers avoid saying improbable words, but not exceptional words 
• Filipe Hisao Kobayashi (3rd year): Two ways of building reciprocity: A study of Mandarin Chinese reciprocals
• Tatiana Bondarenko (3rd year) & Stanislao Zompi’ (3rd year): Leftover Agreement: Spelling out Kartvelian number

Gillian Gallagher (PhD 2010; now at NYU) gave a plenary talk: Synchronic knowledge of phonetically unnatural classes

In addition, many recent alumni also presented their work:

• Kenyon Branan (PhD 2018; now at National University of Singapore) & Keely New (National University of Singapore): Pronominal paradigms in two varieties of English
• Ivona Kucerova (PhD 2007; now at McMaster University), Cassandra Chapman (University of Toronto) & Keir Moulton (University of Toronto): How to value gender: lexicon, agree and feature transmission under ellipsis
• Shoichi Takahashi (PhD 2006; now at Aoyama Gakuin): Agreement Insulators and Quantifier Float
• Karlos Arregi (PhD 2002; now at University of Chicago) & Asia Pietraszko (University of Rochester): Unifying long head movement with phrasal movement: a new argument from spellout
• Idan Landau (PhD 1999; now at Ben Gurion University): A Selectional Criterion for Adjunct Control
• Heidi Harley (PhD 1995; now at University of Arizona) & Meg Harvey (University of Arizona): Hiaki echo vowels are motivated by phonotactics, not quantity 

Speaker: Adam Albright (MIT)
Title: Speakers avoid saying improbable words, but not exceptional words
Time: Monday, March 2nd, 5pm - 6:30pm
Location: 32-D831

Abstract: Numerous studies over the past two decades have documented cases in which restrictions that are obeyed categorically in some languages are obeyed gradiently in others, and that speakers are aware of such gradient restrictions. Such facts suggest that gradient restrictions are included in speakers’ grammars, even if they are not enforced absolutely. An implication of this approach is that lexicons may be rife with exceptions to gradient restrictions. This is not necessarily a problem, as long as learners have adequate evidence to learn both the restriction and the exceptions. In order to learn that a particular morpheme is exceptional, it must have sufficiently high token frequency. This effect is seen very clearly in the domain of irregular morphology, where irregular items tend to be skewed towards high token frequency. Phonological alternations show a similar effect: items that run counter to general lexical trends tend to have higher token frequency. The current study tests whether a similar skewing is found for words that are exceptions to static phonotactic trends, using data from English and Korean. The hypothesis is that exceptional items should likewise require the support of high token frequency.

In order to examine the distribution of grammatically exceptional forms, I employed the UCLA Phonotactic Learner to discover gradient phonotactic restrictions in English and Korean. I examined three lexicons: 4,657 English monosyllabic lemmas, 15,386 Korean mono- and disyllabic nouns, and 3,750 Korean verbs. For each lexicon, the model was used to discover 500 constraints, which were assigned weights to form a maximum entropy grammar. In order to examine the frequency distribution of exceptions, I selected constraints with at least modestly high weights, and reasonably many (>50) exceptions. For each constraint, the frequency density distributions of regular vs. exceptional forms were then compared, testing for a skew towards high frequency among exceptions.

For some constraints, exceptional items are indeed skewed towards higher token frequency. For example, English exhibits a gradient restriction against [ŋ] followed by coronals, and exceptions show a slight skewing towards higher frequencies. This effect is small compared to the effect for morphological irregulars, however, and most constraints do not show such a skewing at all. The same general pattern holds for for Korean nouns and verbs: a few constraints show a slight trend for exceptions to have higher frequency, but most constraints do not.

In order to test the relation between phonotactic probability and frequency more generally, I also calculated bigram transitional probability of existing items in each of the three datasets, and compared bigram probability to token frequency. For all three data sets, generalized linear models show that even when segment count is controlled for, lemma frequency is positively correlated with bigram probability. Thus, phonotactically unusual words tend to have lower frequency, not higher frequency. In the domain of static phonotactics, grammatically exceptional words do not require high token frequency to maintain their exceptionality. I conclude that phonotactically exceptional words are reliably learned, but speakers tend to avoid using them, lowering their token frequency (Martin 2007).

Speaker: Masha Privizentseva (Leipzig University)
Title: Nominal ellipsis reveals concord in Moksha Mordvin
Time: Tuesday, March 3rd, 1pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: In some languages nominal modifiers generally do not show concord with the noun, but are inflected if the noun is elided. This inflection is often analyzed as stranded and cliticized affixes of an elided noun (see Dékány (2011), Saab & Lipták (2016), Ruda (2016), Murphy (2018), and Saab (2019)). On the basis of original data from Moksha Mordvin (Finno-Ugric), I argue that inflection under nominal ellipsis is best analyzed as nominal concord and that features are regularly present on a nominal modifier, but remain without morphological realization in non-elliptical contexts. The distribution of features follows from conditions on Spell-Out and types of features that can be spelled out. In particular, I suggest that shortly after valuation probe features are still identifiable as such and are therefore not subject to Vocabulary Insertion. Spell-Out applies to nominal modifiers right after probes responsible for concord are valued, so that features are exempt from realization. Concord is morphologically realized under ellipsis, because in this case there is an additional feature on a nominal modifier, which postpones Spell-Out.

Speaker: Agnes Bi (MIT)
Title: Resumptive pronouns and how to interpret them
Time: Friday, March 6th, 2pm - 3pm
Location: 32-D831

Abstract: There are at least two broader classes of resumptive pronouns cross-linguistically: (I) grammatically licensed resumptives that are subject to various syntactic locality constraints, and (II) processor resumptives that are utilized as a last-resort strategy responding to extra-grammatical factors such as distance and complexity. It is generally assumed English has only the latter type. I start with the observation that in select constructions, English does seem to have resumptives which show the syntactic behavior on par with grammaticality licensed resumptives across languages: specifically, the such-that relative. In this work in progress, I explore a hypothesis that resumptive pronouns are in fact generated in the grammar of English and become degraded due to separate mechanisms. I’d like to discuss the experiment design and (hopefully) some preliminary results.

Speaker: Nicholas Fleisher (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee)
Title: On Binding-Strict Configurations
Time: Friday, March 6th, 3:30pm - 5pm
Location: 32-155

Abstract: Many prominent approaches to binding and ellipsis countenance binding-strict configurations: cases where strict identity is licensed for an elided pronoun while the corresponding pronoun in the ellipsis antecedent is locally bound. I argue that such a licensing regime overpredicts the distribution of strict readings. This is a particularly dire problem for theories that involve what I call compulsory binding (Reinhart 1983, Grodzinsky & Reinhart 1993, Fox 2000, Büring 2005), but it also afflicts the widely adopted ellipsis licensing framework of Rooth (1992). I suggest that we should seek a theory of ellipsis that bars binding-strict configurations. I sketch a modified Rooth-style approach involving formal alternatives (Fox & Katzir 2011); the core idea is that the licensing condition be stated on syntactic logical forms, which preserve crucial pronoun-related distinctions that are neutralized in the mapping to the denotational semantics. I pair this with the approach to binding developed by Heim (1993), Reinhart (2006), and Roelofsen (2010). Beyond its success in taming the generation of strict readings, the theory sketched here offers a straightforward account of certain scope parallelism phenomena (Fox 2000, Merchant 2018), and the alternatives-based licensing mechanism bears a close resemblance to Fiengo & May’s (1994) notion of a reconstruction.

Speaker: Enes Avcu (MGH/Harvard)
Title: Using Cognitive Neuroscience to Understand Learning Mechanisms: Evidence from Phonological Processing
Time: Monday, February 24th, 5pm - 6:30pm
Location: 32-D831

Abstract: My dissertation work studies different learning mechanisms of phonological processing by conducting behavioral and neurophysiological experiments in the artificial grammar learning paradigm. The main goal is to identify the phonological computations that give rise to the complex combinatorics underlying human languages by providing new knowledge about whether linguistic constraints that are learned in laboratory situations are directly “channeled” into incremental, real-time phonological predictive processing. To this end, my research uses behavioral and neurophysiological measures (EEG/ERPs) to test the predictions of phonological computations. In this talk, I will present the results of some of my experiments designed to investigate non-adjacent dependencies between two phonemes in a word. My results will reveal that systematic consequences of phonological computations can be detected during word processing via EEG/ERPs. I will illustrate that the learning outcome (either behavioral or neural) depends on the specific learning mechanism (domain-specific vs. domain-general) and the computational complexity of the patterns​​.

Speaker: Patrick Elliott
Title: Exceptional de re via exceptional scope
Time: Wednesday, 02/26, 1pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: In this talk, I’ll develop a flexible take on the Scope Theory of Intensionality (STI), where exceptional
de re interpretations are derived via recursive scope-taking (Dayal 1996, Charlow 2019, Demirok 2019). The
flexible STI avoids undergeneration issues associated with, e.g., Keshet’s (2010) split intensionality, while also
avoiding overgeneration issues associated with the Binding Theory of Intensionality (BTI) (Percus 2000). I’ll show in detail how the flexible STI provides a straightforward account of Bäuerle’s Puzzle, which cannot be accounted for under existing versions of the STI, as demonstrated by Grano (2019).

Note: although this is not a practice talk, this material will be presented at WCCFL 38, so critical feedback and presentational suggestions are very welcome!

Speaker: Filipe Hisao Kobayashi (MIT)
Title: Guseva & Weisser (2018), “Postsyntactic reordering in the Mari nominal domain”
Time: Wednesday, February 26th, 5pm - 6:30pm
Location: 32-D831

Abstract: We argue that the unusual morphological template in the noun phrase of Meadow Mari should be derived on the basis of a simple, semantically transparent syntax. In accordance with the Mirror Principle, the analysis we propose derives the actual surface order of morphemes in Mari by means of two postsyntactic reordering operations: A lowering operation and a metathesis operation. Evidence for this account comes from a process called Suspended Affixation. This process is known to delete the right edges of non-final conjuncts under recoverability. We show however, that Suspended Affixation in Mari does not apply to the right edges of surface orders. Rather, the right edges of an intermediate postsyntactic representation are relevant. Suspended Affixation applies after some but not all postsyntactic operations have applied. Thus, the account we present makes a strong argument for a stepwise derivation of the actual surface forms and thus for a strongly derivational architecture of the postsyntactic module.

Speaker: Oriana Kilbourn-Ceron (Northwestern)
Title: Phonological variation at word boundaries: the effect of speech production planning
Time: Thursday, February 27th, 12:30pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: Connected speech processes have played a major role in shaping theories about phonological organization, and how phonology interacts with other components of the grammar. Presenting evidence from English /t/-realizations and French liaison, we argue that the effect of lexical frequency on variability can be understood as a consequence of the narrow window of phonological encoding during speech production planning. By connecting the study of phonological alternations with the study of factors influencing speech production planning, we can derive novel predictions about patterns of variability in external sandhi, and better understand the data that drive the development of phonological theories.

Speaker: Keny Chatain and Filipe Hisao de Salles Kobayashi (MIT)
Title: How to read possessives without uniqueness?
Time: Friday, February 28th, 2pm - 3pm
Location: 32-D831

Abstract: Possessives don’t always come with uniqueness inferences (cf Barker (1995)). We start by sharing our intuitions about the readings that non-unique possessives receive in quantified environments. These intuitions are our own, unstable, and go against a certain tradition of using possessives as a paradigmatic presuppositional item for projection tests. We are looking for a way to strengthen the intuitions or dismiss them, whatever the case may be. Help from the audience is welcome.

Speaker: Eva Zimmermann (Leipzig)
Title: Gradient Symbolic Representations and the Typology of Phonological Exceptions
Time: Friday, February 28th, 3:30pm - 5pm
Location: 32-155

Abstract: The assumption of Gradient Symbolic Representations that phonological elements can have different degrees of activation (Smolensky and Goldrick, 2016; Rosen, 2016; Zimmermann, 2018, 2019) allows a unified explanation for the typology of phonological exceptions. The crucial theoretical mechanism for exceptional behaviour are gradient constraint violations: The activation of a phonological element in an underlying morpheme representation determines 1) how much the element is preserved by faithfulness constraints and 2) how much it is penalized by markedness constraints. I argue that this simple mechanism predicts the attested typology of phonological exceptions. Two cases studies from Molinos Mixtec and Finnish show why such an account should be preferred over alternative analyses of exceptionality.

The assumption that morpheme-specific phonological behaviour within one language arises from gradient differences in the activity of phonological elements makes at least four prediction that set the account apart from alternative approaches to exceptionality based on autosegmental defectivity (=ASD; e.g. Lieber, 1987; Tranel, 1996; Zoll, 1996) or lexically indexed constraints (=LIC; e.g. Pater, 2006; Flack, 2007; Mahanta, 2012). First, it offers a symmetric account for four commonly distinguished types of exceptional morphemes: 1) exceptional triggers for a process that is otherwise not regular, 2) exceptional non-triggers for a general phonological process, 3) exceptional undergoers of a process that is otherwise not regular, and 4) exceptional non-undergoers of a general phonological process. In contrast, an account based on LIC cannot predict the existence of exceptional non-triggers (Smith, 2017) that have indeed be argued to be non-existent (e.g. Finley (2010) for vowel harmony). In this talk, I will strengthen the arguments for the existence of exceptional non-triggers (Smith, 2017; Hout, 2017) and discuss a new pattern in the tonal phonology of Molinos Mixtec where certain tones fail to trigger an otherwise regular tone spreading (Hunter and Pike, 1969). Second, a GSRO account predicts that exceptional elements can be exceptional for multiple processes. Such an instance can also be found in Molinos Mixtec: The tones that are exceptional non-triggers for a spreading process are also exceptional non-undergoers of an otherwise regular tone association process. A representational account where the gradient activity of the tones is the explanation for exceptional behaviour predicts exactly such an accumulation of exceptional behaviour. Third, a GSRO account predicts different degrees of exceptionality. This point is illustrated with a case study of Finnish where an exceptional repair for heteromorphemic /ai/ sequences can be observed (Anttila, 2002; Pater, 2006). Certain /i/-initial suffixes are exceptional triggers for a repair process but the type of repair (assimilation /pala-i/→[paloi], deletion /otta-i/→[otti], or variation between both /taitta-i/→[taittoi]∼[taitti]) depends on the nature of the preceding /a/-final morpheme. Such degrees of exceptionality for /a/-final morphemes are easily captured under GSRO and LIC but are more difficult to predict under ASD. And fourth, it predicts implicational relations between exceptionality classes within a language. If, for example, one morpheme class is an exception and fails to trigger/undergo process P2 but regularly triggers/undergoes process P1, then it is impossible under the gradience account that yet another morpheme class is only exceptional for P1 but not P2 if both refer to the same phonological structure. The typology of exceptions seems to confirm such general restrictions.

On International Mother Tongue Day 2020, YouTube’s Twitter feed promoted to its 72 million subscribers the recently launched YouTube channel of the MIT-Haiti Initiative, which can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg-WXl8PbfZuZUWyuOCqHRg.  

On that day (February 21, 2020), YouTube’s main showcase on Twitter was a bold project led by linguists who care about every single mother tongue on the planet (https://wikitongues.org/), whose YouTube channel can be found here at https://www.youtube.com/user/WikiTongues. Wikitongue’s goal is to produce videos of every language spoken on the planet.  Here’s the tweet from YouTube: https://twitter.com/YouTube/status/1230921304166977537?s=20 Please help make it go viral!

ECO-5 is a venue for graduate students from five East Coast universities (UMass, MIT, Harvard, UConn, and UMD) to present their current, original work in syntax. This year, ECO-5 was held on February 22 at Harvard, featuring the following talks from our department:

Danfeng Wu (4th year): Syntax of either in either…or… sentences

Tanya Bondarenko (3rd year): Inverse in Passamaquoddy as Feature Gluttony

Luiz Fernando Ferreira (visiting student): The relation between pied-piping and DPs in Karitiana (joint work with Karin Vivanco (Unicamp))

Website: https://sites.google.com/view/eco-5

Speaker: Tanya Bonderanko
Title: Hyperraising and Logical Form: evidence from Buryat
Time: Wednesday, 02/19, 1pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: Languages differ in whether they allow hyperraising to object:  movement of an argument of an embedded finite clause into the matrix clause.  Languages like Buryat (Mongolic) allow such movement, languages like English don’t:

(1) a. bair            badm-i:jɘ-1  [CP   t-1   sajan-i:jɘ    zura-xa       gɘʒɘ]    han-a:
          Bair.NOM  Badma-ACC                  Sajana-ACC draw-FUT  COMP  think-PST
          `Bair thought that Badma will draw Sajana.’
b. *Bair thought Badma-1 [CP that t-1 will draw Sajana].

The question that arises is: what determines whether a language allows hyperraising to object?

In this work in progress, I would like to propose that the relevant factor is  the semantic type of the clause. I adopt  Kratzer’s (2013) approach to semantics of attitude verbs and follow Deal (2018) in analyzing hyperraising as (potentially covert) raising into a theta-position. I propose that CPs come in two kinds: some, like Buryat CPs, denote properties of events (<vt>-CPs), others, like English CPs, denote properties of individuals (<et>-CPs). I argue that only <vt>-CPs can be hyperraised out of: due to the semantics of movement into a theta-position I propose, hyperraising out of <et>-CPs creates a type mismatch. This account automatically captures such properties of hyperraised arguments as inability to undergo reconstruction, obligatoriness of de re interpretation, and impossibility of indexical shifting.

Speaker: Luiz Fernando Ferreira (MIT/Universidade de São Paulo)
Title: What challenges do our theories on the x-marking of counterfactuals face?
Time: Thursday, February 20th, 12:30pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: Counterfactual sentences are usually marked with what looks like a special tense/aspect/mood morphology. For instance, English CFs always bear past morphology and auxiliary woll as illustrated in (01).

(01) a. If Angelica is at MIT, Kai is happy. (non-CF)
b. If Angelika were at MIT, Kai would be happy. (CF)

Von Fintel & Iatridou (2019) calls the exceptional morphology used in CF environments X-marking. There are many proposals that try to explain what is the semantic contribution of X-marking (see Iatridou, 2000, Ippolito, 2002; 2003; 2013; Arregui, 2005; von Fintel & Iatridou, 2019; von Prince, 2019). I will present some crosslinguistic data and analyse how well those proposals fare.

The first challenge we will address is how the temporal orientation of a CF sentence is determined. I look at data from Karitiana (Tupi) and Daakaka (Oceanic) which do not distinguish between present/past/future readings. Based on ideas from Iatridou (2009), I argue for a mirror principle on tense according to which CFs mirrors the temporal orientation of non-CFs sentences.

(02) Karitiana
dinheiro tyyt y-aki-p, dibm/kabmat/koot yjxa-jyt-ahy-t yjxa cerveja-ty
money have 1.sg-cop-? tomorrow/now/yesterday 1.pl.inc-cf-drink-nfut 1.pl.incl beer-obl
`If I had money, we would have a beer tomorrow’
`If I had money, we would have a beer today.’
`If I had had money, we would have had a beer yesterday.’

(03) Daakaka
Nye na bwe dimyane ka ebya-ok we pwer kyun, na=t ka pini or
1sg 1sg cont want asr wing-3sg-poss pot stay just 1sg=dist fly fill place
‘I wish I had wings, I would fly arounf everywhere.’

The second challenge I will address is the semantic contribution of the tense and the modal in CFs. Proposals which assume tense is the responsible for conveying CF (Iatridou, 2000, 2009; von Prince, 2019) do not explain the role of the modal element. Proposals in which assume tense is real and that it shifts one’s perspective to the past (Ippolito, 2002, 2003, 2013, von Prince, 2019), fail to account for non-historical counterfactuals (i.e. counterfactuals in which the antecedent is always true no matter how far in the past you go). I assume that CFs always have a modal element that quantifies over possible worlds and tense is real. However, it is not a perpective shifter, but it restricts the quantification to possible worlds with a past similar to the actual world (Arregui, 2005).

In my account, past is a necessary element to convey CF. CF markers are either a modal restricted to the past or the spell-out of the modal element plus tense.

Speaker: Stanislao Zompi’ (MIT)
Title: Arregi & Pietraszko (2020), “The ups and downs of head displacement”
Time: Wednesday, February 12th, 5pm - 6:30pm
Location: 32-D831

Abstract: Arregi & Pietraszko (2020) propose a theory of head displacement that replaces traditional Head Movement and Lowering with a single syntactic operation of Generalized Head Movement. They argue that upward and downward head displacement have the same syntactic properties: cyclicity, Mirror-Principle effects and blocking in the same syntactic configurations. They also study the interaction of head displacement and other syntactic operations arguing that claimed differences between upward and downward displacement are either spurious or follow directly from out account. Finally, they argue that their theory correctly predicts the attested crosslinguistic variation in verb and inflection doubling in predicate clefts.

Speaker: Shigeru Miyagawa (MIT)
Title: How the politeness marking –des-/-mas- functions as phi-feature agreement in the syntax of Japanese
Time: Tuesday, February 11th, 1pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: Based on Chomsky’s Uniformity Principle (Chomsky 2001), Miyagawa (2010, 2017) proposed that all languages share the same set of grammatical features, and that these features are overtly manifested in every language. I called it Strong Uniformity. Japanese poses a clear challenge to Strong Uniformity since it is traditionally considered as a language without any phi-feature agreement. In Miyagawa (2012a, 2017) it is argued that the politeness marking –des-/-mas- is a form of phi-feature agreement that is the same as the so-called allocutive agreement found in a variety of languages including Basque, Tamil, and Thai. In this paper, I will look in detail at how the allocutive agreement functions as phi-feature agreement in the syntax of Japanese by drawing on the study of Uchibori (2007, 2008) and Yamada (2019).

Speaker: Elise Newman (MIT)
Title: The future since Stump
Time: Thursday, February 13th, 12:30pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: English temporal adjunct clauses typically show past-under-past (1) and present-under-future (2), irrespective of the temporal connective used. The examples in (2) have come to be known as Stump’s pattern, based on Stump’s(1985) observation that the present tense in the adjunct clause has a future-shifted interpretation.

(1) Past under past a. I waved when I saw/see him. b. I saw him before he saw/sees me. c. I saw him after he saw/*sees me.

(2) Present under future a. I will wave when I see/saw him. b. I will see him before he sees/saw me. c. I will see him after he sees/*saw me.

Sharvit (2013) and von Stechow and Grønn (2013) propose that future-shifted present is a deleted tense, licensed by a present tense operator on woll in the matrix clause. Adjunct tenses are otherwise proposed to be evaluated with respect to utterance time. I discuss a counterexample to Stump’s pattern that poses a problem for this theory: since-adjuncts in future perfect clauses show past, not present, and still allow future-shifting. This future shifted past appears not to be a deleted tense, but is rather interpreted with respect to a future time instead of utterance time. Similar facts can be demonstrated for other temporal connectives as well.

(3) By this time next year, mom will have visited twice since I bought/*buy my new bike. (bike-buying time can be in the future)

To account for these facts, I propose that the evaluation time of an adjunct is compositionally determined by its adjunction site. The presence of the perfect in the matrix clause offers an additional adjunction site below tense, allowing the adjunct to scope under the matrix tense operator. In a future perfect, this means that the adjunct clause can take a future time as its evaluation time, thus licensing a past operator that introduces a future event (like we find in embedded clauses).

The reason a low adjunction position is only available in future perfect clauses, but not simple future clauses, is because of the meaning of the temporal connectives. Interpretation of before/since with respect to the same evaluation time as their complement clauses results in contradiction. Therefore, I argue that complement clauses of before/since must QR to receive an evaluation index from a higher head. This always results in a tense-deletion configuration for matrix simple future clauses, but a shifted interpretation in future perfect.

Speaker:​ Athulya Aravind and Cindy Torma
Title: Decomposing ​both
Time: Friday, February 14th, 2pm - 3pm
Location: 32-D831 (8th Floor Conference Room)

The acquisition trajectories of semantically complex quantifiers can be a fruitful window into understanding the primitives and construction principles involved in natural language quantification. As a case study, we investigate the acquisition of the English quantifier both, which involves (i) universal quantification and (ii) a duality presupposition. We examine 2-and-3-year-olds’ understanding of both given an understanding of universal quantification and number knowledge, probed using the corresponding expressions all and two. I’d like to discuss some preliminary results, where it looks like children hypothesize candidate meanings for both that comprise only a subset of its component meanings or where the pieces are assembled in non-adult ways.​

Speaker: Benjamin Bruening (University of Delaware)
Title: The Algonquian Prefix is an Affix, Not a Clitic: Implications for Morphosyntax
Time: Friday, February 14th, 3:30pm - 5pm
Location: 32-155

Abstract: The “consensus” in the literature is that the prefix that appears on independent order verbs in Algonquian languages is a pronominal clitic. I show that this prefix is an agreement affix, not a clitic, according to every diagnostic for clitics versus affixes that has ever been proposed. This then has significant implications for syntactic theories of morphology. The prefix always appears on the highest verbal element in the clause, while all other inflection instead goes on the lowest verbal element. In order to account for the placement of the prefix, higher verbal elements have to block affixation to lower ones; but then it is impossible to get the suffixes on the lowest verbal element. No existing accounts of verbal morphology based on head movement, lowering, Mirror Theory, or phrasal movement can account for the verbal morphology. I propose an alternative where a complex head can be built by external merge according to the clausal hierarchy, inserted low, and then copied head-by-head as the clausal spine is built, without movement.

Michel DeGraff was a speaker at the annual Northwestern University Conference on Human Rights on January 16–18, 2020 #NUCHR2020. This year, the conference’s theme was “Language and Human Rights: The Right to Speak”.  Michel spoke at a panel on ”Language, education and information”. The title of his presentation was “Language and social justice: Haiti as a ‘canary’ for human rights globally.”   

More information on the conference’s speakers and agenda can be found there, with useful links to organizations such as WikiTongues and Universal Human Rights Initiative that also do work at this important intersection of linguistics and human rights:

https://www.nuhumanrights.com/conference-2020

More news from the January break. David Pesetsky taught a January 10-17 course (“Proseminar in Grammatik-theorie”) at the University of Vienna on the topic of  ”Theories of clause size and their implications”.

Speaker: Stanislao Zompi’ (MIT)
Title: On some Distinctness effects in the English DP
Time: Tuesday, February 4th, 1pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: In this talk, I focus on several apparently arbitrary quirks of English nominal constructions, 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 Spell-Out domain in which two nodes of the same type are in an asymmetric c-command relation. I also suggest that, under slightly less trivial assumptions, the Distinctness-based account might also be extended to the contrast between a three year old kid and *a three years old kid. I then conclude with a few more speculative remarks building toward a general theory of Distinctness repairs.

Speaker: Kai von Fintel and Sabine Iatridou (MIT)
Title: Unasked Questions
Time: Thursday, February 6th, 12:30pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: Since Hamblin 1958, many linguists have considered the denotation of a question to be a set of propositions. But what is it that compels the hearer to respond to a question? The by far most common answer is ‘pragmatics’. The general idea is that, as the natural response to an assertion is to consider whether you want to accept it (i.e. add the proposition to the common ground), the response to being confronted with a set of propositions is to be compelled to choose among them. We argue that a number of languages have a way of marking a question that seems to affect the question’s meaning in a way that is illuminating to the above issue. These markers include Greek araye, Turkish acaba, Japanese naa. We show that across these unrelated languages, these markers have surprisingly similar results. We argue that all these results reduce to one: a question marked this way imposes no obligation on the hearer to answer the question. This means that a set of propositions does not automatically and in and of itself bestow an obligation on the hearer to answer it. We discuss the significance of this finding for current theories of questions.

Please join us for our first Experimentalist Meeting of the spring semester! We will be discussing current and future projects in the ESSL and Language Acquisition Lab. Those who have an active project, or are interested in conducting research in either lab this semester are strongly encouraged to attend.

Schedule: 2pm-3pm, Friday, February 7th

Room: 8th Floor Conference Room (32-D831) (Please note this location is different from last semester!)

This week (February 3-7), fifth-year student Suzana Fong is teaching a summer course (sic) at ELBA (Escuela de Lingüística de Buenos Aires), “a Linguistics Summer school organized by graduate and undergraduate students from Argentina”. Her class is under the rubric “Advanced Topics in Syntax” and is entitled “Hyperraising in Mongolian and the A vs A-bar distinction // The syntax and semantics of bare nominals in Wolof (and cross-linguistically)”. We wish wecould be there to take it!

The 4th Crete Summer School of Linguistics will be taking place from July 18​ to July 31, 2020, at the University of Crete in Rethymnon.

Current MIT faculty Adam Albright, Athulya Aravind, Kai von Fintel, Sabine Iatridou, Shigeru Miyagawa, Norvin Richards, and Donca Steriade will be teaching classes at CreteLing, along with alumni and colleagues from around the world. With four parallel sessions, this year’s offerings include more courses than ever before. There will also be two workshops at the summer school: Speech-Accompanying Gestures (organized by Patrick Grosz and Sarah Zobel), and Covert Modality (organized by Tim Stowell and Roumyana Pancheva).

Full information (including details on the student early application due April 5th), can be found on the school website (http://linguistics.philology.uoc.gr/cssl20/index.php).

Course announcements in this post:

• 24.979 Topics in Semantics
• 24.964 Topics in Phonology: Sentence Prosody

24.979 Topics in Semantics: Getting High: Scope, Projection, and Evaluation Order

• Instructors: Patrick Elliott & Martin Hackl
• Schedule: Thursdays 2-5pm
• Room: 32-D46
• Course website: http://stellar.mit.edu/S/course/24/sp20/24.979/

24.964 Topics in Phonology: Sentence Prosody

• Instructors: Edward Flemming & Sabine Iatridou
• Schedule: Tuesday 10am-1pm
• Room: 32-D46
• Course website: http://stellar.mit.edu/S/course/24/sp20/24.964/

Different ways of pronouncing the same sentence can convey different messages. The properties of pronunciation that modify meaning in this way are referred to as sentence prosody. There are three components of prosody: intonational melody, prominence and phrasing. These components will be introduced through an overview of English prosody and ToBI transcription. Then we will investigate each component in more detail, exploring their phonetics and phonology, and their relationships to syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, drawing on data from a variety of languages.

Congratulations to one of our most most distinguished alums, Barbara Hall Partee (PhD 1965), Professor emerita at UMass Amherst — a winner of the 2020 Franklin medal awarded by the Franklin Institute. In the citation accompanying the award, Barbara is hailed for “her foundational contributions that synthesize insights from linguistics, philosophy, logic, and psychology to understand how words and sentences combine to express meaning in humanlanguage”. The list of previous award winners includes Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Rudolf Diesel, Pierre and Marie Curie, Orville Wright, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Frank Lloyd Wright and more people you have heard of than we can list here!

In honor of MIT alum Uli Sauerland’s 50th birthday, a special issue of Snippets has just been published here.

The issue was edited by Patrick Elliott, Andreea Nicolae, and Yasu Sudo, and includes contributions by a broad range of current MIT faculty, and alumni.

Congratulations to our colleague Shigeru Miyagawa , fourth-year student Danfeng Wu, and distinguished alum Masatoshi Koizumi (PhD 1995) on the New Year’s Eve publication of their paper entitled “Inducing and blocking labeling” in Glossa!

https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/10.5334/gjgl.923/