Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Building on Bhatt’s (2005) analysis of long-distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu, I argue thatpassive participle agreement in Icelandic is a consequence of Agree plus covaluation. Hindi-Urdu exhibits long-distance agreement in some infinitival constructions. Verbs in Hindi-Urduagree with the highest DP within the clause that is morphologically unmarked for case.Ergative subjects appear in clauses with perfective aspect and are overtly case-marked.Consequently, verbs do not agree with ergatives. In constructions with ergative subjects andinfinitival complements, the matrix verb may agree with the embedded object. In thissituation, the infinitival verb also agrees with the embedded object, as shown in (3). When thematrix verb does not agree with the embedded object, all verbs appear in the default form.(3) Shahrukh-ne [tehnii kaat -nii] chaah-ii thii. LDA in Hindi-Urdu. AllShahrukh-erg branch.fem cut-inf.fem want-pfv.fem.be.past.fem. verbs agree with‘Shahrukh had wanted to cut the branch.’ (Bhatt 2005, EX 6) embedded object.Bhatt (2005) proposes that when the matrix T probes the embedded object, it covaluates theunvalued φ-features on the infinitive. The infinitive agrees with the embedded object onlywhen the matrix verb does as well.Given that Icelandic passive participles agree with a DP only when T assigns case to thatDP, I propose an analysis for (2) based on Bhatt’s (2005) proposal. The analysis for (2)a isshown in (4)a. T probes the DP and assigns nominative. Because the participle also has anunvalued case feature and is in the c-command domain of T, T also assigns nominative to theparticiple via covaluation. The DP, in turn, values the φ-features on T and covaluates the φ-features on the participle. (Of course, the DP moves to Spec,TP for EPP.)*******(4) a. T [Nom] PasPart [uCase] DP [uCase] =(2)a b. T [Nom] PasPart [uCase] DP [Dat] v Dat =(2)b[uφ] [uφ] [φ] [uφ] [uφ] [φ]*******Unlike in (4)a, in (4)b, T does not assign case to the DP. Consequently, T cannot value thecase feature on the participle. Nor can the DP value the φ-features on the participle becausethe DP does not value the φ-features on T. The participle, therefore, appears in the default.By contrast, secondary predicates and floated quantifiers agree with whatever DP theymodify. In (5) ‘both’ and ‘alone’ agree with the dative subject.(5) a. Bræðrunum var báðum boðið á fundinn.brothers.the.dat was.def both.dat.masc.pl invited.dft to meeting.the‘The brothers were both invited to the meeting.’ (Sigurðsson 2008, ex 17)b. Ólafi leiddist einum í veislunni.Olaf.dat bored.def alone.dat.masc.sg in party.the‘Olaf felt bored alone in the party.’ (Sigurðsson 2008, ex 20)I propose that concord comes about via case assignment in the syntax and PF featurecopying.I follow Sigurðsson’s (2006) suggestion that floated quantifiers should be analyzedas DP-internal concord and that secondary predicates could have either a raising or a controlstructure. I build on this proposal by articulating a PF mechanism that delivers the concordmorphology. In (5)a, v Dat assigns dative to the DP both the brothers in the syntax. At PF, anAGR node (Embick and Noyer 2007) attaches to the quantifier and copies the features of thehead noun. Similarly, in (5)b, v Dat assigns dative to the subject in the syntax. On a raisinganalysis of (5)b, Olaf is merged inside of the adjective phrase, and on a control analysis, acoindexed PRO is inside the AP. Irrespective of the syntax, both analyses require that anAGR node attaches to alone at PF and copies the features of the subject. A syntacticcovaluation analysis cannot account for (5)b because this would require a case-assigning headto probe an AP, as opposed to probing a DP.
Geminates: from Old Norse to Scandinavian Languages.Laurence Voeltzel - Université de Nantes, Lling EA 3827Consonants in scandinavian languages (Icelandic, Faroese, Danish, Swedish and onevariety of Norwegian, Bokmål) have very similar behaviors: they undergo the same changes.Some examples showing this proximity are given below in (1):(1). (a) semi-vocalization Icelandic /lagɪ/ [lajɪ] lie past. part. ; /segja/ [sejːa] say inf.Faroese /stʊtligʊr/ [stʊtlijʊr] pleasant ; /drɔugu/ [drɔuwu] drag past. part.Danish /lægə/ [læjə] play inf. ; /sɒg/ [sɒˀw] sorrow ; /bɔg/ [bɔˀw] book(b) voicing Icelandic /ljɛku/ [ljɛgu] play pret. ; /tapa/ [taba] lose inf. ;/matur/ [madur] mealFaroese /tɛaka/ [tɛaga] take inf. ; /drepa/ [dreːba] kill inf. ; /sita/ [siːda] sit inf.Danish /ʁyːpə/ [ʁyːbə] lagopus; /pawkə/ [pawgə] kettledrum ; /ʁuːtə/ [ʁuːdə] routeThis similarity finds its source in the diachrony of these languages: they all are fromthe same language continuum, Old Norse (henceforth ON). In order to explain their behaviorand to test if this genetic proximity still holds in the synchrony, we used the contrastivehierarchy method (Hall : 2007, Dresher : 2009), which allows us to identify thephonologically active material in the segments. We obtained the same hierarchy for the fivenordic languages. It is given in (2):(2). [glottal] >> [compact] >> [grave] >> [Spread Glottis] >> [strident] >> [voice][+glottal]/h/[+compact][-glottal][-compact][+SG] [-SG] [+grave] [-grave]/k/[+strident] [-strident] [+SG] [-SG] [+SG] [-SG]/j/ - /w/ 1 /g/ /p/ /t/vocalization [+strident] [-strident] [+strident] 2 [-strident]voicing /f/ /b/ /s/ /d/The contrastivist approach allows us to explain most of the consonantal changes innordic languages: segments that interact share most of their features and hence they appearunder same node. In the vocalization process, /g/ gains stridency, i.e. become [+strident]. Inthe voicing process, stops lose their aspiration (hence positive specification for [SG]) and gainvoicing in the same time, since there is no phonological voiceless non aspirated in nordic.There is however one specific process the contrastive hierarchy fails to explain:gemination. Examples in (3) show the treatment of voiceless stops geminates across nordiclanguages. As we can see datas exhibit variation from a language to another:(3). V /pp/ V V /tt/ V V /kk/ VIcelandic /lappa/ [lahpa] patch inf. /fatta/ [fahta] catch inf. /θakka/ [θahka] thank inf.Faroese /lɛappi/ [lɛaʰpːi] patch, rag /kɛttəɹ/ [ʧɛʰtːəɹ] cat pl. /tɛakka/ [tɛaʰkːa] thank inf.Danish (lappe) 3 /lɑpə/ [lɑbə] patch inf. (fatte) /fatə/ [fadə] catch inf. (takke) /takə/ [tɑgə] thank inf.Swedish /lappa/ [lapːa] patch inf. /fatta/ [fatːa] catch inf. /takka/ [takːa] thank inf.Bokmål /lappe/ [lapːə] patch inf. /fatte/ [fatːə] catch inf. /takke/ [takːə] thank inf.1 We put the labial velar /w/ under the same specifications as /j/ : they are both [+compact] and their behaviorsacross nordic languages are very similar.2 After [+strident] Icelandic needs an extra contrast, namely [±voice], in order to distinguish between coronalfricatives /s/ and /ð/. The former is common to every nordic languages but the latter is present only inIcelandic.3 We give for Danish orthographic forms. This will be relevant later.
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 180 and 181: econstruct to position A then we ca
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?