ComSyn Lectures

Speaker: Jenneke van der Wal (LUCL)
Title: Preverbal focus in Kîîtharaka revisited
When: Thu 31 Oct, 16.15-17.30
Where: Lipsius 0.01
Zoom: Link / Meeting ID: 651 1843 4869 / Passcode: 3wF.zpnn

Term focus in Kîîtharaka (Bantu E54, Kenya) can be expressed by marking the focused constituent by ni and placing it in clause-initial position, as illustrated in (1) for the question word ûû ‘who’.

(1) N’ûû agûpéere rûûtha rwa gûtaa rûûyî?
ni           ûû       a-kû-pa-îre             rûûtha              rû-a        kû-ta-a   rû-ûyî
foc/cop  1.who  1sm-prs-give-pfv  11.permission  11-conn  15-fetch  11-water?
‘Who gave you permission to fetch water?’

This construction has been analysed in two ways: Harford (1997) proposes an analysis as a biclausal cleft, while Muriungi (2005) and Abels and Muriungi (2008) argue that the structure is a monoclausal focus construction and propose a Focus projection in the left periphery.

In this talk, I systematically check the properties of the copula/focus marker, the relative marking (which turns out to also be tonal!), the scope interpretations, and movement diagnostics, showing that these new data force us to reconsider the monoclausal analysis. The alternative analysis as a reduced cleft needs discussion in this seminar.

This is joint work with Patrick Kanampiu.

Speaker: Fábio Bonfim Duarte (Federal University of Minas Gerais)
Title: Head-finality, Predicate Fronting and Spell-out Domains
When: Thu 17 Oct, 16:15–17:30
Where: Lipsius 0.01
Zoom: Link / Meeting ID: 666 5595 3390 / Passcode: q@X8&R2Y

Tenetehára root clauses exhibit a complex subset of sentence-final particles that encode aspect, evidentiality, agreement and tense. The purpose of this talk is to argue that they are syntactic heads sitting in different positions in the inflectional spine of the sentence. As such, we will posit that the head I^o is not expressed by means of a syncretic head, but by an inflectional complex comprised of several head-final functional categories. The main evidence in favor of this hypothesis concerns the fact that these various functional particles do not occupy a uniform syntactic slot. These final particles systematically occur after the predicate, thereby producing the head-final structure [[SVO]-Infl]-Infl]-Infl]-Infl]. Based on these empirical facts, the central hypothesis I will develop in this talk is that this head-final order is the result of the application of successive roll-up movements of the complement of the relevant Infl head through its specifier position. This syntactic derivation corresponds to what Travis (2000, 2005) refers to as an intraposition operation, in which several applications of complement raising proceed in a bottom-up fashion. This hypothesis conforms to our analysis that vP is not a Spell-Out domain, since vP must participate in further syntactic operations in C/T/IP phase. According to this theory, the Spell-Out of the vP is delayed until the C/T/IP phase is merged in the derivation, making the predicate fronting possible. Pursuing this line of reasoning, we will also assume that it is the presence of the unvalued [uPRED] feature on the Infl heads that force the iterative movements of the complement of the Infl heads through their specifier positions. I will then consider this intraposition operation as a typical case of externally-driven movement forced by some unvalued features on some higher Probe in the sense that it is not motivated by needs of the complement of the Infl heads. Viewed in this way, I will claim that the heads in the Infl complex carry an unvalued [uPRED] feature, which is valued by the interpretable [iPRED]-feature of the vP projection. This feature is then deleted under the AGREE operation between the Infl head and the complement that moves through its specifier. Thus, the complement of the Infl head always carries the [iPRED]-feature needed to erase and value the [uPRED]-feature of the relevant Infl head in the course of the syntactic operation. This syntactic operation explains why adjunction of the verb to a functional head in the C/IP region is entirely disallowed in Tenetehára.

Please note the following change in the ComSyn program.

It has come to our attention that the talk by Thomas Grano on Oct. 10 coincides with a lecture in the LUCL Colloqium series. This talk is therefore rescheduled to Thu Dec. 5, in the usual timeslot, Lipsius 2.08 (where we’ll broadcast the Zoom talk).

Here’s the updated program with the four remaining talks:

Speaker: Gert-Jan Schoenmakers (Utrecht University)
Title: An experimental investigation of syntactic and discourse-processing claims about filler-gap dependencies: Adjunct islands and parasitic gaps
When: Thu 19 Sep, 16:15–17:30
Where: Lipsius 0.01
Zoom: Link / Meeting ID: 682 3942 3068 / Passcode: ttW+g7aq

Explanations for linguistic phenomena are often sought either in the syntax or in non-syntactic components of human cognition, e.g. through demands of discourse processing. The unacceptability of filler-gap dependencies in island and parasitic gap constructions is a notable example: while syntactic theory claims that grammatical constraints impede long-distance dependency formation, other researchers claim that (discourse-inaccessible) referring arguments contribute to processing complexity to the extent that acceptability is significantly reduced. This talk presents new data to empirically evaluate such claims in Dutch adjunct island and parasitic gap constructions, evaluating Culicover and Winkler’s (2022) recent Uninvited Guest Hypothesis in particular. Furthermore, we reflect on our findings from the perspective of syntactic theory as well as other discourse-processing accounts of filler-gap dependencies.

Speaker: Jesús Olguín Martínez (Illinois State University)
Title: Counterfactuality in typological perspective: Irrealis markers, blocking effects, and theoretical implications
Date: Thu 11 Sep
Location: Lipsius 0.01
Zoom: Link / Meeting ID: 637 7073 0662 / Passcode: dn.q5K&J
Time: 16:15 – 17:30

There are languages in which the irrealis domain is split up into situations that may potentially occur and situations that did not occur (Roberts 1990: 398; van Gijn & Gipper 2009; Van Linden & Verstraete 2008). In these languages, one marker is only used for expressing potential situations (weak irrealis) and another marker is only used for expressing situations that did not occur (strong irrealis). Moreover, there are languages that only have either weak or strong irrealis markers. For languages containing both weak and strong irrealis markers, it has been recently demonstrated, based on a sample of Oceanic languages, that the use of weak irrealis markers in counterfactual conditionals (e.g., if you had gone, you would have seen her) is blocked by strong irrealis markers (von Prince et al. 2022: 236).

Based on a sample of 50 languages spoken in different parts of the world, the present study lends support to this theoretical claim. However, it is also shown that there are other blocking effects that have been traditionally neglected. First, there are languages in which the use of strong irrealis markers in counterfactual conditionals is blocked by specialized clause-linking devices (e.g., devices only used for expressing counterfactual conditional relations). Second, as for languages that only contain weak irrealis markers, it is shown that the use of weak irrealis markers in counterfactual conditionals is blocked by a specialized clause-linking device.

The paper further investigates whether the analysis advanced for counterfactual conditionals can be generalized to other counterfactual constructions: counterfactual manner constructions (e.g., he ate as if he had not eaten in years; Olguín-Martínez 2021).

References
Olguín Martínez, Jesús. 2021. Hypothetical manner constructions in world-wide perspective. Linguistic typology at the crossroads 1 (1). 2-33.
Roberts, John. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26(2). 363-401.
van Gijn, Rik & Sonja Gipper. 2009. Irrealis in Yurakaré and other languages: On the cross-linguistic consistency of an elusive category. In Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop, & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality, 155-178. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Van Linden, An & Jean-Christophe Verstraete. 2008. The nature and origin of counterfactuality in simple clauses: Cross-linguistic evidence. Journal of Pragmatics 40(11). 1865-1895.
von Prince, Kilu, Ana Krajinović, & Manfred Krifka. 2022. Irrealis is real. Language 98(2). 221-249.

We are excited to announce a new programme of ComSyn talks that will be taking place from September to November 2024. As usual, we will meet on Thursdays, 16:15-17:30 CET, but please take into account that the final talk of this semester will happen half an hour earlier, 15:45-17:00 CET (note the room change as well). Below you will find an overview of the upcoming talks!

We are looking forward to seeing you there!
Irina & Maarten

It has been brought to our attention that the talk planned for Thursday 11 July—by Jesús Olguín Martinez—has come to overlap with the farewell event for our Grant Officer (announced last Tuesday). Since many of us will want to be present at this event, the talk will be moved to a different date.

After consulting with the speaker, we’ve concluded that our best option is to postpone the talk to next semester. It will take place on Thursday 12 September. The full program for next semester will be announced later.

This means that the talk by Yu-Yin Hsu, on Monday 8 July, will be the final ComSyn talk of this semester. We’ll toast to the end of the semester following Yu-Yin’s talk!

Speaker: Yu-Yin Hsu 許又尹 (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University)
Title: Interaction of syntax and information structure: Focus-driven T-to-C movement of modal auxiliaries in Mandarin Chinese
Date: Mon 8 July (note day change)
Location: Lipsius 1.33
Zoom: Link / Meeting ID: 626 6867 6455 / Passcode: @7ZYhz.q
Time: 16:15 – 17:30

In this talk, I present some less-discussed empirical observations regarding the interpretive effects and structural restrictions of modal auxiliaries that occur in sentence-initial positions in Manarin Chinese. These data suggest that a new analysis of modals in Mandarin Chinese should be considered; that is, overt head-movement of a modal auxiliary to the sentence periphery, i.e. T-to-C movement, to value strong focus features and to focus-mark either the proposition or the subject of a sentence. In this presentation, I will share my views on how this proposal explains the markedness exhibited by such sentences, correctly predicts the structural and semantic restrictions of modal sentences, and directly explains the scopal interactions observed between modals and various types of focus constructions. The results shed new light on how Chinese, though typologically distinct from Germanic and Romance languages, exemplifies a similarly fine-grained structure in the sentence-internal domain, parallel associations of scope-bearing units with the sentences’ left periphery, and a neat interaction of syntax with discourse configurations. This also shows that changes in Mandarin word order are not simply optional or free in syntax, and that information structure roles are represented as formal syntactic features.

Speaker: Bridget Copley (SFL – CNRS/Paris 8)
Title: Causal theory as the “B side” of modal theory: The English progressive as case study
Date: Fri 21 June (note day change)
Location: Lipsius 1.31 (note room change)
Zoom: Link / Meeting ID: 651 0051 9185 / Passcode: !bqD6E0N
Time: 16:30 – 17:45 (note time change)

Back when record companies used to send radio stations vinyl records, the “A side” of the record would be the intended hit single, and there would be another song, not necessarily good enough to be a single, on the “B side”. Similarly, it’s been said that modality and causation are “two sides of the same coin” (Ilić 2014), or perhaps the same record. There’s no denying that David Lewis’ possible world semantics for modality has gone platinum – it’s a powerful theory. Causation has not gotten nearly as much play in formal semantics. However, theories of causation can be quite powerful as well, and in particular, can easily represent counterfactuality and normality (see work by Leonard Talmy and separately, by Judea Pearl). In this talk, I will put on the B side of the record, and propose that causal relations, appropriately and dynamically represented, can be more useful than quantification over possible worlds, in particular for the English progressive. Not only are they as powerful as modal theory for truth conditions, but they also make our semantics align more closely with what is known about grammaticalization and the syntax-semantics interface for English be -ing.

Speaker: Stéphane Térosier (LUCL)
Title: Common ground management and its morphosyntactic reflexes in Martinican Creole wh-questions
Date: Thu 13 June
Location: Lipsius 1.33
Zoom: Link / Meeting ID: 661 6808 0486 / Passcode: 3$i2CutS
Time: 16:15 – 17:30

This talk focuses on two types of wh-questions found in Martinican Creole, as illustrated by the minimal pair in (1),

(1) a. Kisa     Jan        di    ’w?
what    John      say   2sg
‘What did John tell you?’

b. Kisa     Jan        di     ’w    la?
what    John      say   2sg  la
‘What did John tell you (given our shared knowledge that John told you something)?’

As reflected by these examples, the differences between these two types of wh-questions are both superficial and pragmatic. Superficially, what sets the two types of wh-questions apart is the presence/absence of la in sentence-final position. Pragmatically, la-marked wh-questions (1b) possess two distinctive properties: (i) they may not be uttered out of the blue, and (ii) they do not tolerate negative answers. This leads me to propose that la plays a crucial role in common ground management insofar as it is used by the speaker to refer to a previously established QUD. Based on distributional evidence, I further claim that la is merged in Wiltschko’s (2021) GroundP layer and sits above CP. This falls in line with the observation that there is no syntactic difference between la-marked wh-questions and their non-la-marked counterparts.

Interestingly, la is also found in the nominal domain, where it has been analyzed as a definite determiner (Bernabé 1983; Déprez 2007; Gadelii 2007; Déprez 2007; Zribi-Hertz & Jean-Louis 2014; Térosier 2021). Its most likely source is the French postnominal deictic reinforcer là ‘there’. Its extension to the clausal domain suggests that speakers of Gbe languages played a crucial role in the emergence of Martinican Creole. For instance, Fongbe, one of these Gbe languages, possesses a multifunctional marker, ɔ́, which is found in both the nominal and clausal domain (Lefebvre 1992, 1998). I thus argue that the initial reanalysis of French là as a definite determiner set the way for its later extension to the clausal domain, as evidenced in la-marked wh-questions.