Whamit!

Speaker: Oddur Snorrason (QMUL)
Title: Pseudo-ABA patterns in pronominal morphology (Middleton 2021)
Time: Thursday, November 21, 5pm - 6pm
Location: 32-D769

Abstract: I‘ll be presenting Middleton‘s (2021) paper on the pseudo-ABA patterns of morphology found in pronominal forms. Apparent ABA patterns in languages like Babanki, Malayalam, Yoruba and Tok Pisin challenge proposed containment relationships for prominal morphology (see Harbour 2016, Middleton 2020). In this paper, Middleton shows how the problematic data can be dealt with in an analysis which adopts spanned exponents (Svenonius 2012), while null allomorphy and impoverishment analyses overgenerate.

Speaker: David Adger (Queen Mary University of London)
Title: Mereological Syntax and Island Locality
Time: Friday, November 22nd, 3.30-5pm
Location: 32-141

Abstract: The problems with Bare Phrase Structure theory are well known, especially the issues surrounding copies and labelling, both of which require supplementary theories which have their own problems. Similarly, the stipulations that need to be made to ensure that phase theory works are well known, as is the inadequacy of that theory for capturing various locality effects associated with strong islands. In this talk, I suggest replacing BPS with a novel theory of phrase structure, Mereological Syntax (MS), which replaces BPS’s set-theoretic Merge operation with an operation, Subjoin, that builds mereologicaly structured objects. I show how this provides (almost) immediate solutions to the copy and labelling issues, and that a simple geometrical relationship on MS structures opens up the way for a new theory of island locality. I exemplify this empirically in the domain of wh-islands, deriving their cross-linguistic variation, as well as a a new effect (the Wh-Island Re-emergence Effect), that emerges in certain circumstances even in even languages that lack wh-islands. Time permitting, I sketch how the approach suggests that the prospects for a fairly unified theory of islandhood is not as remote as it currently

Speaker: Magdalena Lohninger (MIT & University of Vienna)
Title: Is composite [Ā/A] probing extended A-movement?
Time: Thursday, 21 November, 12:30pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: In the last ten years of syntactic research, composite [A’/A] probes have been employed to account for a variety of unrelated phenomena: i) topicalization, focalization, wh-extraction, relativization with A-properties (van Urk 2015, Ostrove 2018, Scott 2021, Chen 2023), ii) passivization/raising with A’-properties (Wurmbrand 2019, Colley & Privoznov 2020, Lohninger et al. 2022, Chen 2023), iii) A’-extraction restrictions to the closest DP (Erlewine 2018, Branan & Erlewine 2020, Coon et al 2021, Branan 2022), iv) φ-agreement sensitive to information-structure (Mursell 2021, Bárány 2023). In this talk, I focus on the phenomena i)-ii) and present a comparative investigation of Dinka extraction (van Urk 2015), Mandarin Chinese BEI passives and low foci/topics (Chen 2023), Khanty passives (Colley & Privoznov 2020), and Balinese and Malagasy promotion to pivot (Erlewine, Levin & van Urk 2019, Lohninger & Katochoritis to appear). I explore whether these constructions exhibit random mixtures of A’- and A-properties or systematic distributions thereof and show that they follow a highly predictable pattern: whilst composite A’/A constructions resemble A-movement in most respects (creation of new antecedents for anaphor/variable binding, lack of reconstruction for principle C, feeding case, agreement and subsequent A-movement), they differ from classical A-chains in three aspects: i) the ability to skip intervening DPs, ii) obligatory information-structural or clause-typing effects and iii) the landing-site at a phase edge.

Based on this observation, I suggest that even though composite [A’/A] probes search for a goal conjointly, the movement chain they invoke is A-movement. I assume that standardly, [A’] probes (like [top], [foc], [rel] or [wh]) occur on phasal heads (C and v), whilst [A] probes ([D] or [φ]) appear lower (e.g. T or V). In some (rare?) cases, [A] features can end up on phasal heads together with [A’] (due to different reasons, e.g. [φ] under-inheritance, syntactic language change, formation of non-canonical passive heads, etc.), creating a composite A’/A construction. Following van Urk & Richards 2015, I assume that if [A] and [A’] occur on the same head, they search together for a fully fitting goal (for economy reasons), whereby the search can skip intervening DPs and prefers a goal that is information-structurally marked (a top, wh, foc or rel element). After [A’/A] found a goal conjointly, I propose that it is then the [A] probe alone which invokes movement, based on the idea that A-operations are timed before A’-operations (Abels 2007). If [A] and [A’] compete as movement triggers on the same head, the [A] probe gets precedence, hence [A’/A]-induced movement is an A-chain. Thereby, an [A’/A] phase head can be understood as a way of extending the time window for A-movement to the phase-edge (as opposed to the usual case where A-operations are completed before the phase head is reached).

Based on this analysis, the distribution of A’- and A-properties in composite constructions becomes predictable, which counteracts the seemingly anything-goes impression [A’/A] probes might sometimes create.

Speaker: Norvin Richards (MIT)
Title: Agreement by proxy, improper movement, and Passamaquoddy long-distance agreement
Time: Tuesday, November 19, 1pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: A substantial literature (Butt 1993, 1995, Bhatt 2005, Legate 2005, Baker and Willie 2010…) entertains the idea that in some cases in which two heads in the clausal spine (call them X and Y) bear agreement morphology with a single DP (call it Z), what is happening is not that X and Y both Agree with Z, but rather than Y Agrees with Z, and X Agrees with Y. The relevant cases typically involve structures in which plausible conditions on the locality of Agree would ban Agree between X and Z, but would allow Agree between X and Y and between Y and Z.

Legate (2005) names this phenomenon Cyclic Agreement, but since this is uncomfortably close to Cyclic Agree (Rezac 2003, etc) I will rename it Agreement by Proxy. In the talk, I’ll suggest some other kinds of phenomena that can be explained via an appeal to Agreement by Proxy, including “phase unlocking”, improper movement, and some of the conditions on long-distance agreement in Passamaquoddy.

Speaker: Amy Li (MIT)
Title: Searching for Phonetic Correlates of Velar Palatalization
Time: Monday, November 18th, 5-6:30pm
Location: 32-D831

Abstract: In this presentation, I will discuss a collection of experiments (completed, ongoing, and proposed) that relate to the following central question: what phonetic properties set apart a language undergoing velar palatalization from a language not undergoing the change at a particular time?. I plan to discuss the following:

1. A recent experiment I conducted comparing acoustic properties between a language that has undergone velar palatalization (Mandarin) and a language that has not (Cantonese).
2. Shao et al. (2023), which compares acoustic properties and EMA articulation trajectories within one language (Italian) across two contexts, one which involves velar palatalization and one which does not.
The leading hypothesis supported by statistical analysis so far is that closure duration or closure ratio (ratio of closure duration to total duration) of velar stops is shorter or lower in languages/contexts that palatalize than in other languages/contexts. However, the details relating closure ratio/duration to the articulation change involved in velar palatalization remain to be worked out.
3. Finally, I will propose new acoustic and articulation experiments that further explore this and other hypotheses.