Please join us for this week’s LingTea:
Who: Henrison Hsieh
What: “Future-oriented Actuality Entailments: A Puzzle from Tagalog” (NELS practice talk)
When/Where: Wednesday, Oct. 22, room 117 3-4pm
The next speaker in the McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series will be:
Speaker: Hadas Kotek (McGill University)
Date & Time: Friday, Oct. 24, 3:30 pm
Place: Education Building, room 433
Title: “Covert wh-movement as covert scrambling”
Abstract:Covert wh-movement is normally believed to be an unbounded, long-distance movement, similar to its overt counterpart. In the multiple question in (1a), the wh-phrase ‘which student’ is fronted out of an embedded clause, while the wh-phrase ‘which professor’ is pronounced in-situ, in its base-generated position. Much work has suggested that the (surface) in-situ wh-phrase in (1a) undergoes covert wh-movement, so that it occupies a position near the overtly fronted wh-phrase at LF (Karttunen 1977, Huang 1982, a.o.), (1b). (1) a. Which student did Mary say that Sue introduced ___ to which professor? b. LF: [ which student ]1 [ which professor ]2 did Mary say that Sue introduced t1 to t2? I will argue that covert wh-movement indeed occurs in questions like (1) but that it should be thought of as a more restricted, local operation, similar to scrambling in languages like German. The arguments come from online sentence processing and from the behavior of multiple wh-questions with syntactic islands. I show that covert wh-movement at the very least can, and sometimes must, be a short movement step targeting a position other than the one targeted by overt wh-movement in the same structure. Implications for cross-linguistic typology and for the acquisition of wh-questions will be discussed.
A belated welcome to Tashi Wangyal, who is working this semester as the language consultant for LING 415/610, Linguistic Field Methods. The class is studying the dialect of Tibetan spoken in Dharamsala, where Tashi grew up. Tashi can be found many days meeting with students outside of class on the third floor––if you see him around, please say hi!
My name is Tashi Wangyal and I am a Tibetan. I was born and raised in India. I am married with two children, a boy and a girl, and my wife is also Tibetan, but she was born and raised in Canada. I immigrated to Canada in 1998. In 2012 I decided to pursue my passion in filmmaking, and I was fortunate to be accepted in Concordia’s film production program. Currently I am doing my final year and looking forward to graduating next year.
Lauren Clemens will present at UQAM’s Wednesday afternoon talk series this week:
When: Wednesday, 10/15 at 12:45pm
Where: DS-3470 (320 Saint-Catherine East, 3rd floor)
Title: Têtes et compléments à l’interface prosodie/syntaxe
All are welcome to attend!
Please join us for this week’s LingTea:
Who: Michael Hamilton
What: Ditransitives and “possessor raising” in Mi’gmaq
When/Where: Wednesday, room 117, 3-4pm
‘S/he washed it(AN) for me’; ‘S/he washed my thing(AN)’
The first puzzle is that animacy agreement on v0 appears in a default form (-m in (2)) even when DTV and PR have only animate (AN) internal arguments. This is unusual because this default form is usually appears in forms with an inanimate internal argument or a complement clause. The second puzzle is that the ambiguity in (2) does not arise in passive, reflexive or inverse forms, as only a benefactive interpretation is possible.
In this paper, I argue that the appearance of a default form on v arises due to “high” Appl0 blocking feature inheritance between voice0and v0. Furthermore, I argue both constructions involve and Appl0 (-u/w), but differences arise in whether a DP is base-generated in Spec-ApplP (DTVs) or arrives there via movement (PR). I posit that PR is driven by δ-feature movement, and that both φ- and δ-feature driven movement possible in the verbal domain, in parallel with the clausal domain (Miyagawa, 2010). This fits the characterization of Mi’gmaq and Algonquian languages as discourse configurational, similar to Japanese.
Jessica Coon will give a colloquium talk at University of Maryland this Friday. The title of her talk is “The (apparent) inseparability of person and number in Mi’gmaq”; the abstract can be found here. This talk is based on joint work with Alan Bale.
Who: Michael (Mitcho) Erlewine
What: “On the position of focus adverbs.”
When/Where: Wednesday, room 117, 3:00-4:00
There are still spaces available for LingTea! If you are interested in presenting at LingTea this semester, please email Gui or Yuliya to reserve a slot.
Friday, October 10, 2014 | 3:00 -4:30 pm
David Nicolas, (Institute Jean Nicod) “Plural logic and sensitivity to order” (joint work with Salvatore Florio KSU)
Sentences that exhibit sensitivity to order (e.g. John and Mary arrived at school in that order and Mary and John arrived at school in that order) present a challenge for the standard formulation of plural logic. In response, some authors have advocated new versions of plural logic based on more fine-grained notions of plural reference, such as serial reference (Hewitt 2012) and articulated reference (Ben-Yami 2013). The aim of this article is to show that sensitivity to order should be accounted for without altering the standard formulation of plural logic. In particular, sensitivity to order does not call for a more fine-grained notion of plural reference. We point out that the phenomenon in question is quite broad and that current proposals are not equipped to deal with the full range of cases in which order plays a role. Then we develop an alternative, unified account, which locates the phenomenon not in the way in which plural terms can refer, but in the meaning of special expressions such as in that order and respectively.
McGill linguists will be heading to Portland, Oregon this winter for the Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Society of America. Presenters include:
- Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine – On the position of focus adverbs
- Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, Theodore Levin, Coppe van Urk – Voice morphology as extraction marking
- Daniel Goodhue & Michael Wagner – The effect of the contradiction contour on the interpretation of ambiguous yes-no responses
- Michael David Hamilton – Ditransitives and ”possessor raising” in Mi’gmaq
- Michael David Hamilton & Brandon Fry – Algonquian Long-Distance Agreement: a syntactic account
- Hadas Kotek – A new compositional semantics for wh-questions
There will also be a tutorial:
- Alan Bale, Jessica Coon, Joel Dunham, Kyle Gorman, Michael Wagner – LingSync and ProsodyLab-Aligner: Tools for Linguistic Fieldwork and Experimentation
…and McGill linguists presenting at the sub-session of the Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA):
- Elizabeth Carolan & Jessica Coon – Negation in Chuj progressives
- Lauren Eby Clemens & Jessica Coon – Deriving Mayan V1: A fresh look at Chol
Jessica Coon returned from New Haven last week, where she gave a colloquium talk at Yale. The title of her talk was “Agreement, alignment, and templatic morphology in Mayan.”
Congratulations to Heather Newell and Glyne Piggott, whose paper “Interactions at the syntax-phonology interface: Evidence from Ojibwe” was just published by Lingua. You can download the full paper here.
This paper provides evidence that word-internal syntax can play a crucial role in the determination of phonological well-formedness. The focus is on an apparent paradox in Ojibwe; the language both avoids and tolerates vowels in hiatus. Adopting the theory of Distributed Morphology, we argue that VV sequences are avoided within domains that are realizations of syntactic phases, based on the theory of cyclic derivation proposed by Chomsky, 2001 and Chomsky, 2008 and others. In contrast, when a VV sequence spans the boundary between phases, it is tolerated. The apparent paradox is a consequence of the fact that the elements outside the spell-out of a phase cannot be evaluated to determine the well-formedness of prosodic entities like syllables, feet and prosodic words. Derivation by phase and Distributed Morphology also provide insights into two strategies for avoiding vowels in hiatus within a phase-domain; vowel loss applies to combinations of vocabulary items inserted in the same phase, while consonant epenthesis applies to items inserted in different phases but merged phonologically after insertion. The conditions under which consonant epenthesis occurs provide support for post-syntactic movement at the PF interface, triggered entirely by phonological factors.