Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

More documents

Recommendations

Info

econstruct to position A then we can’t ‘skip’ that and reconstruct to a lower position B). Wepropose that the inverse scope readings for (3)-(5) follow from reconstruction to successivecycliclanding sites in the inflectional layer between the subject position and Spec,vP. Weshow that this does not follow from the PF-movement theory of A-reconstruction.We then criticise the ‘feature movement’ component of S&E’s theory. Looking beyondEnglish, we note that the correlation of anti-agreement and anti-reconstruction is unlikely tobe an accidental property of features, as Nevins and Anand (2003) note a number of cases ofA-movement in English, Hindi, Russian, Greek where an XP does not reconstruct when itdoes not agree with the probing head; they call this “Purely EPP-driven movement” andpropose PEPPER: “Purely EPP Eliminates Reconstruction.” One argument comes fromEnglish locative inversion: the subject does not agree with the verb and scope is frozen.(7) On some stage stood every actress. (*every>some)This indicates that the anti-reconstruction in British English is not a property of the‘mereology’ feature but rather a more general effect whereby non-agreeing subjects do notreconstruct, where “non-agreeing” encompasses cases where features that should be visiblefor Agree are not probed. Intriguingly, N&A discuss exceptions to PEPPER which arereminiscent of the TDP paradigm, such as Hindi non-agreeing ergative subjects, which do notreconstruct for inverse scope, do scope under negation (i.e. they can be NPIs). The PEPPERand TDP facts thus require a unified explanation where reconstruction to positions likeSpec,vP is not possible, but reconstruction to other intermediate positions is possible, whenthe XP in question does not Agree fully with the probe which drives formation of the A-chain.A-movement and ‘Position Coherence.’ We propose an account in terms of Richards and vanUrk’s (2012; R&vU) theory of locality of cyclic movement. R&vU propose (building onRichards and Rackowski 2005) that for a head X to probe and attract a YP contained in thelower phase ZP, X must first probe and Agree with the phase head Z; this ‘opens up’ thephase (which is otherwise opaque) and allows Agree to probe and attract YP. R&vU’sproposal concerns A’-movement, so we extend it to A-movement: this involvesuninterpretable features (uFs) on T probing and Agreeing with interpretable features (iFs) onv (a dependency often realised as V-to-T), then T probing the DP to derive agreement and A-movment. This requires v to bear iFs that are visible to T, namely the phi features borne bythe DP in its spec; with base-generated subjects these may be selectionally related (i.e.features that encode that it introduces a subject), and with successive cyclic movement to a vthey are the features borne to attract the DP from a lower position (the same phi-features).Crucially, this means that in A-chains there are iFs that identify the subject on v.Now consider reconstruction. We assume that A-reconstruction is the result of interpreting alower copy in a chain (Chomsky 1995), and in simple cases of reconstructing locally A-moved subjects this involves interpreting the copy in Spec,vP. We propose that this is subjectto a representational constraint which states that if a head projects an A-specifier for an XP,spec and head must match for valued iFs. This rules out interpreting an XP in a positionwhere that position does not bear matching iFs; we tentatively suggest that this is how A-positions are distinguished from A’-positions. We call this Position Coherence, and wepropose that it may derive from a general LF-coherence constraint ensuring that linkedsyntactic objects match w.r.t. iFs. We propose this rules out interpreting plural-agreeing TDPsin Spec,vP: the iFs that v bears are [+plural], but the DP bears [-plural] iFs. This means thatinterpretation of the lower copy is not possible, as the position would be ‘incoherent.’Importantly, this also derives the inability of TDPs to be associates in existentials: associatesdo not raise, so they are only interpretable in Spec,vP and thus always create ‘incoherentpositions.’ We show how this account extends to PEPPER and how to derive intermediate A-movement without deriving further ‘incoherent positions.’Selected refs: Nevins and Anand 2003. Some AGREEment matter. WCCFL 22. Richards and van Urk 2012.Two components of long distance extraction: evidence from Dinka. NELS 43.
The directionality of agreement and nominal concord in ZazakiMaziar Toosarvandani and Coppe van UrkMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyWe investigate two issues in the theory of agreement from the perspective of nominal concordin Zazaki. First, does Agree operate downward, upward, or in both directions (Adger 2003,Baker 2008, Zeijlstra 2012, Preminger 2012)? Second, does nominal concord make use of thesame mechanism as agreement in the verbal domain (Carstens 2000, Baker 2008, Kramer 2009,Norris 2011)? Using our own fieldwork data, we argue that nominal concord in Zazaki (NorthwestIranian, Indo-European) is bidirectional, because it first operates downward with featuresinside nominal dependents and then upward with features in the extended nominal projection.In addition, we argue that it is derived by the same mechanism as verbal agreement, becauseit is sensitive to the same barriers for agreement. This suggests that, if agreement in the verbaldomain is derived by Agree, nominal concord also uses Agree and that Agree is bidirectional,with downward Agree taking precedence over upward Agree (cf. Béjar & Rezac 2009).Nominal concord in Zazaki. In Zazaki, nominal concord is realized on the ezafe morphemethat introduces dependents of the noun, i.e. adjectives and possessors. Though ezafe cliticizesto its left, it forms a constituent with the adjective (1a) or the possessor (1b) to its right atsome stage in the derivation (cf. Samiian 1983, den Dikken & Singhapreecha 2004, Larson &Yamakido 2009). Its form always varies with the ϕ-features of the head noun — (1a) vs. (2a)and (1b) vs. (2b).(1) a. [ DP ju kutık [=oone dog‘a big dog (m.)’(2) a. [ DP a mang [=athat.F goat‘that white goat (f.)’=EZ.M.NOM=EZ.Fgırs]]bigspi]]=ewhite=Fb. [ DP ga [=êox‘Alık’s ox (m.)’b. [ DP bız [=agoat =EZ.F‘Alık’s goat (f.)’=EZ.M.OBLAlik=i]]Alik=OBL.MAlik=i]]Alik=OBL.MWith masculine nouns, which have a nominative-oblique case distinction, ezafe also agrees incase — but only when it introduces adjectives (3a–b). When it introduces possessors — whichreceive oblique case realized as the marker =i — ezafe invariably takes the oblique form =ê (4).(3) a. [ DP kutık [=o gırs]]b. [ DP kutik [=ê gırs]]=idog =EZ.M.NOM bigdog =EZ.M.OBL big=OBL.M‘the big dog (m. nom.)’‘the big dog (m. obl.)’(4) [ DP Kutik [=ê Alik=i] [=o gırs]] goşt wen-o.dog =EZ.M.OBL Alık=OBL.M =EZ.M.NOM big meat eat.PRS-3SG.M‘Alık’s big dog (m. nom.) is eating meat.’The proposal. Our proposal has two parts. First, we propose that the ezafe marker agreesfirst downward with its dependent and then upward with a head in the extended nominal projection.This accounts for the difference in possible case realizations when ezafe introduces possessorsand adjectives. With possessors, ezafe is always oblique because it agrees downward in casewith the possessor, which is always oblique case marked. No such effect arises when ezafe introducesan adjective, however, since adjectives do not have their own case. Second, we proposethat nominal concord in Zazaki employs the same mechanism as verbal agreement, since neitherallows ϕ-agreement with obliques (cf. Rezac 2008, Bobaljik 2008, Preminger 2011). Ezafenever agrees in ϕ-features with the possessor (1b, 2b), even though it has its own ϕ-features(unlike an adjective). In the verbal domain, ϕ-agreement with obliques is also banned. Zazaki issplit ergative: the oblique case marks objects in the present tense and transitive subjects in thepast tense. The verb never agrees with an oblique argument, even with transitive verbs in thepast tense. T agrees with the (nominative) object, skipping the oblique subject (5).1
Page 1 and 2:
GLOW Newsletter #70, Spring 2013Edi
Page 3 and 4:
INTRODUCTIONWelcome to the 70 th GL
Page 5:
Welcome to GLOW 36, Lund!The 36th G
Page 8 and 9:
REIMBURSEMENT AND WAIVERSThe regist
Page 10 and 11:
STATISTICS BY COUNTRYCountry Author
Page 12 and 13:
15:45-16:00 Coffee break16:00-17:00
Page 14 and 15:
14:00-15:00 Adam Albright (MIT) and
Page 16 and 17:
17:00-17:30 Anna Maria Di Sciullo (
Page 18 and 19:
16.10-16.50 Peter Svenonius (Univer
Page 20 and 21:
GLOW 36 WORKSHOP PROGRAM IV:Acquisi
Page 22 and 23:
The impossible chaos: When the mind
Page 24 and 25:
17. Friederici, A. D., Trends Cogn.
Page 26 and 27:
Second, tests replicated from Bruen
Page 28 and 29:
clusters is reported to be preferre
Page 30 and 31:
occur (cf. figure 1). Similar perfo
Page 32 and 33:
argument that raises to pre-verbal
Page 34 and 35:
Timothy Bazalgette University of
Page 36 and 37:
. I hurt not this knee now (Emma 2;
Page 38 and 39:
Rajesh Bhatt & Stefan Keine(Univers
Page 40 and 41:
SIZE MATTERS: ON DIACHRONIC STABILI
Page 42 and 43:
ON THE ‘MAFIOSO EFFECT’ IN GRAM
Page 44 and 45:
The absence of coreferential subjec
Page 46 and 47:
PROSPECTS FOR A COMPARATIVE BIOLING
Page 48 and 49:
A multi-step algorithm for serial o
Page 50 and 51:
Velar/coronal asymmetry in phonemic
Page 52 and 53:
On the bilingual acquisition of Ita
Page 54 and 55:
Hierarchy and Recursion in the Brai
Page 56 and 57:
Colorful spleeny ideas speak furiou
Page 58 and 59:
A neoparametric approach to variati
Page 60 and 61:
Lexical items merged in functional
Page 62 and 63:
Setting the elements of syntactic v
Page 64 and 65:
Language Faculty, Complexity Reduct
Page 66 and 67:
Don’t scope your universal quanti
Page 68 and 69:
Restricting language change through
Page 70 and 71:
4. Conclusion This micro-comparativ
Page 72 and 73:
2. Central Algonquian feature hiera
Page 74 and 75:
availability of the SR reading in (
Page 76 and 77:
Repairing Final-Over-Final Constrai
Page 78 and 79:
a PF interface phenomenon as propos
Page 80 and 81:
(b) Once the learner has determined
Page 82 and 83:
cognitive recursion (including Merg
Page 84 and 85:
can be null, or lexically realized,
Page 86 and 87:
feature on C and applies after Agre
Page 88 and 89:
Nobu Goto (Mie University)Deletion
Page 90 and 91:
Structural Asymmetries - The View f
Page 92 and 93:
FROM INFANT POINTING TO THE PHASE:
Page 94 and 95:
Some Maladaptive Traits of Natural
Page 96 and 97:
Constraints on Concept FormationDan
Page 98 and 99:
More on strategies of relativizatio
Page 100 and 101:
ReferencesBayer, J. 1984. COMP in B
Page 102 and 103:
Improper movement and improper agre
Page 104 and 105:
Importantly, while there are plausi
Page 106 and 107:
This hypothesis makes two predictio
Page 108 and 109:
(3) a. Það finnst alltaf þremur
Page 110 and 111:
(2) Watashi-wa hudan hougaku -wa /*
Page 112 and 113:
However when the VP (or IP) is elid
Page 114 and 115:
More specifically, this work reflec
Page 116 and 117:
modality, or ii) see phonology as m
Page 118 and 119:
(I) FWHA The wh-word shenme ‘what
Page 120 and 121:
1The historical reality of biolingu
Page 122 and 123:
Rita Manzini, FirenzeVariation and
Page 124 and 125:
Non-counterfactual past subjunctive
Page 126 and 127:
THE GRAMMAR OF THE ESSENTIAL INDEXI
Page 128 and 129:
Motivating head movement: The case
Page 130 and 131: Limits on Noun-suppletionBeata Mosk
Page 132 and 133: Unbounded Successive-Cyclic Rightwa
Page 134 and 135: Same, different, other, and the his
Page 136 and 137: Selectivity in L3 transfer: effects
Page 138 and 139: Anaphoric dependencies in real time
Page 140 and 141: Constraining Local Dislocation dial
Page 142 and 143: A Dual-Source Analysis of GappingDa
Page 144 and 145: [9] S. Repp. ¬ (A& B). Gapping, ne
Page 146 and 147: of Paths into P path and P place is
Page 148 and 149: Deriving the Functional HierarchyGi
Page 150 and 151: Reflexivity without reflexivesEric
Page 152 and 153: Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of b
Page 154 and 155: on v, one associated with uϕ and t
Page 156 and 157: Merge when applied to the SM interf
Page 158 and 159: 1 SachsThe Semantics of Hindi Multi
Page 160 and 161: Covert without overt: QR for moveme
Page 162 and 163: Morpho-syntactic transfer in L3 acq
Page 164 and 165: one where goals receive a theta-rel
Page 166 and 167: 51525354555657585960616263646566676
Page 168 and 169: follow Harris in assuming a ranked
Page 170 and 171: changing instances of nodes 7 and 8
Page 172 and 173: Sam Steddy, steddy@mit.eduMore irre
Page 174 and 175: Fleshing out this model further, I
Page 176 and 177: (5) Raman i [ CP taan {i,∗j}Raman
Page 178 and 179: properties with Appl (introduces an
Page 182 and 183: (5) Kutik=i ez guret-a.dog=OBL.M 1S
Page 184 and 185: sults summarized in (2) suggest tha
Page 186 and 187: Building on Bhatt’s (2005) analys
Page 188 and 189: Underlying (derived from ON) /pp, t
Page 190 and 191: out, as shown in (3) (that the DP i
Page 192 and 193: Word order and definiteness in the
Page 194 and 195: Visser’s Generalization and the c
Page 196 and 197: the key factors. The combination of
Page 198 and 199: Parasitic Gaps Licensed by Elided S
Page 200 and 201: Stages of grammaticalization of the
show all

Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?