ComSyn Lectures

Speaker: Jason Merchant (University of Chicago)
Title: Ranked resolution strategies for ellipsis
Date: Friday 23 June
Venue: Lipsius 147
Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Abstract ComSyn lecture Jason Merchant

Speaker: Christos Vlachos (Queen Mary University of London)
Title: Unselected Embedded wh-Questions
Date: Thursday 15 June
Venue: Lipsius 2.03
Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Abstract
In this talk, I claim that a functional D-layer may introduce a wh-question in the complement position of a propositional-attitude predicate (a predicate that does not typically select questions). As regards syntax, the wh-question is the complement of D, while the entire DP is the complement of the predicate. In the semantics, D translates to an existential indefinite that ranges over the set of propositions discharged by the wh-question. This claim completes a so far incomplete conjecture about clausal complement selection that can be traced back to the very beginnings of the theory of Generative Grammar, up to more recent implementations: clausal arguments are dominated by some kind of nominal shell (Chomsky 1995; Rosenbaum 1967; Kiparsky & Kiparsky 1971; Adger & Quer 2001; Kayne 2010; Takahashi 2010; a.o). To motivate the claim above, I look into two types of wh-questions, both of which are instantiated in German (wh-Integrated Parentheticals; Reis 2000, 2001), while only one of them in English (wh-slifting; Ross 1973; Haddican et al. 2014). It has been convincingly shown that both types of wh-questions are comparable to typical wh-scope marking constructions of the German/Hindi sort (Kayne 1998; Reis 2000, 2001; Stepanov and Stateva 2016; a.o.), despite argumentation for the opposite direction vis-a-vis English wh-slifting (Haddican et al. 2014). However, the two types of wh-questions have never been compared to each other, nor is there any consideration about what distinguishes between them. In this talk, I argue that the two types of wh-questions are wh-scope marking variants of a subordination strategy, which extends the strategy proposed for typical wh-scope marking constructions in German by Herburger (1994). To this end, I draw not only from empirical evidence (word order, interpretation, phonology), but also from recent experimental data. Overall, the talk makes three novel contributions, each to a distinct level of linguistic theorizing: its theoretical import is that it completes a picture about clausal complementation that has remained incomplete; its analytical input is that it extends a wh-scope marking strategy (subordination) beyond what this strategy has been designed for; and its empirical value is that it brings together two types of wh-questions (wh-Integrated Parentheticals and wh-slifting) that have not been compared so far.

Speaker: Neda Todorovic(Institute of Linguistics OTS at Utrecht University)

Title: On the syntax-semantics interplay in licensing future interpretation

Date: Thursday  11 May

Venue: Lipsius 30

Time: 15:15 – 16:30 hrs

Abstract 

In this talk I focus on different ways to obtain future interpretation in a variety of contexts in an aspectually rich language, Serbian. I show that certain restrictions arise only with perfective aspect. While such an aspectual distribution at first appears unsystematic, I argue that it can be captured in a principled manner by the syntax-semantic interplay. Regarding semantics, I argue that the perfective is restricted in contexts in which the duration of the reference time interval is very short (along the lines of Todorović 2015, 2016). Such an analysis predicts the perfective to be restricted with semantic present, but not in past and future contexts. Interestingly, in addition to the canonical forms, future interpretation in Serbian can be obtained with morphological present – in some of those cases, the perfective is felicitous. In those instances, I argue, possibility of the perfective is an indication that the structure contains a covert modal/future component which provides a longer reference time interval needed for the perfective to be felicitous (in the infelicitous cases, this component is lacking). Regarding syntax, I argue that the covert modal/future component requires syntactic licensing. Thus, the story turns out not to be about licensing the perfective – whether the perfective is permitted in a certain environment is actually a reflection of the presence/absence of a covert modal/future component or, more generally, of the composition of the temporal/modal clausal domain.

To show that Serbian is not peculiar and that the requirement to license a covert modal/future element exists elsewhere, I provide additional data from Lillooet Salish, Paraguayan Guaraní, Chinese, Korean and Washo.

Speaker: James Griffiths (University of Konstanz/LUCL)
Title: Echo fragments: preliminary remarks
Date: Wednesday 26 April
Venue: Lipsius 30
Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs
 
Abstract 
Echo fragments (1b) are the fragmentary (i.e. elliptical) versions of true echo questions (1a) (Sobin 2010).

• Context: A and B are organising the Oscars award ceremony.

A:          Make sure the Oscar is presented by the husband of Michelle Obama.

Incredulous that A wants an Oscar to be presented by an ex-president, B replies:
a:

• B: Make sure it’s presented by the husband of whom?
  B: Make sure it’s presented by the husband of Michelle Obama?

b:

• B: Presented by the husband of whom?
  B: Presented by the husband of Michelle Obama?

To date, echo fragments have received scant attention in literature that adopts a PF-deletion (Ross 1969, Merchant 2001) approach to ellipsis (for cursory remarks, see Abe & Tancredi 2013). This oversight is unfortunate, as echo fragments, being in-situ questions in wh-movement languages such as English, have the potential to be highly instructive for such theories.
To remedy this oversight, Güliz Güneş, Anikó Lipták, and I have recently embarked on the first in-depth cross-linguistic investigation of echo fragments (which focusses on English, Hungarian, and Turkish). This talk provides an introduction to data collected so far, highlights points of cross-linguistic variation, and provides speculative remarks about how these data should be analysed and what they might tell us about the nature of ellipsis (and echoicity more generally).

References
Abe, J. & C. Tancredi. 2013. Non-Constituent Deaccenting and Deletion: A Phase-Based Approach. Ms., Tohoku Gakuin University & Keio University.
Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence. OUP.
Merchant, J. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics & Philosophy 27: 661-738.
Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In R. Binnick et al. (eds.) CLS5. Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286.
Sobin, N. 2010. Echo questions in the Minimalist program. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 131-148.

Speaker: Heidi Klockmann (Utrecht University /Leiden University)
Title: The semi-lexicality of quantificational nouns in English pseudopartitives
Date: Thursday 20 April
Venue: Lipsius 30
Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs
 
 
Abstract
In this talk, I discuss the use of the quantificational nouns lot, ton, and bunch (Q-nouns) in English pseudopartitives. These elements show a mixed behavior, functioning as quantifiers (i.e. they say something about the quantity of the following noun), despite having an apparently nominal morphosyntax. In particular, they surface with both an indefinite article and the particle of (1)-(3), just as non-quantifying nouns do (4). Ton and lot, furthermore, allow for plural marking (5)-(6) in their quantifying function.
 
(1)           A bunch of people

(2)           A ton of flowers

(3)           A lot of books

(4)           A gathering of friends

(5)           Tons of flowers

(6)           Lots of books

I report on the morphosyntactic properties of these Q-nouns, including their behavior with regards to Agreement, drawing extensively on data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (Davies 2008-), as well as speaker judgments. I explore the similarity of Q-nouns to other quantificational elements, like numerals (three, a hundred) and quantifiers (a few, many), as well as their similarity to lexical nouns. I develop the hypothesis that Q-nouns are semi-lexical (see van Riemsdijk 1998, Corver and van Riemsdijk 2001, among others), and show how a proper understanding of their semi-lexicality can allow us to account for their mixed behavior.

Speaker: Jaklin Kornfilt  (Syracuse University)
Title: NP versus DP: A cross-linguistic parameter?
Date: Thursday 13 April
Venue: Lipsius 307
Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Speaker: Andrés Saab (Universidad de Buenos Aires / Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas)

Title: Ellipsis as silent doubling

Date: Thursday 6 April

Venue: Lipsius 30

Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Abstract

I address the well-known problem of the identity condition on ellipsis (semantic or syntactic?) from a novel (or maybe better, broader) perspective, namely, I contend that the identity problem forms a natural class with the also well-known doubling problem (Kayne/Jaeggli’s observation).

(1)        Juan     la         vio       a          María.

J            CL       saw     DOM   M.

Given a doubling configuration like this, there are questions at the basic level both from a syntactic (Case) and a semantico-pragmatic perspective (binding and so on). My point is that ellipsis consists of a silent doubling structure where a sometimes silent pronominal element (R_E in 2) and a full-fledged syntactic structure (E-site in 2) form a doubling configuration:

(2)        John saw someone but I don’t who [_RP R_E [E-site]]   Surface anaphora

 In contradistinction with an overt doubling like (1), in (2) R_E is in charge of the semantic resolution of ellipsis (as in many LF-copy approaches, although we will see essential differences) and the E-site is entirely resolved in the syntax via lexical-syntactic identity. Lexical-syntactic identity is simply an instruction for creating syntactic fossils. In other words, ellipsis applies in the syntax and instructs both interfaces for not realizing the E-site. A syntactic fossil, then, is just dead syntax. Put differently, ellipsis is conceived here as both PF and LF “deletion” (deletion = absence of interface legibility). “Ellipsis as doubling” has many empirical consequences. It provides a plausible solution to at least the following ellipsis puzzles:

(3)        a. Vehicle Change effects (without appealing to VC),

1. Indexical switches (without accommodation),
2. Expressive mismatches (under perfect syntactic identity),
3. Bias Vehicle Change also under perfect syntactic identity (i.e., legitimate ellipses where there is a mismatch in the bias of some lexical or functional item included in the E-site)

For each of these cases, I propose a derivation where antecedents and E-sites are syntactically identical (in a sense to be defined during the talk) without obtaining any semantic mismatch at LF. This is so because of two basic reasons: (a) the E-site is an LF fossil as already mentioned, and (b) R_E semantically resolves the ellipses by only making reference to the at-issue content of the antecedent. The two essential assumptions that are the core of this proposal receive independent corroboration from different empirical domains. As for R_E, Elbourne (2008), Bentzen et al (2013) and Messick et al (2016) have provided robust evidence for the presence of a pronominal (deep) element in surface anaphora. In this talk I will discuss two pieces of evidence in favor of the syntactic and semantic activity of R, namely, Inheritance of Content (Chung et al 1995 and Romero 2008, among others) and Barros’ effect (Barros 2012). As for LF “deletion”, our second core assumption, I will discuss evidence coming from the so-called allosemy view (Marantz 2013 and Harley 2014, among others), according to which lexical and functional items also require late insertion at the LF interface under particular locality conditions.

References

Bentzen, Kristine, Jason Merchant, and Peter Svenonius. 2013. Deep properties of surface pronouns: pronominal predicate anaphors in Norwegian and German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16:97–125.

Barros, Matthew. 2012. Else-modification as a diagnostic for pseudosluicing. URL

http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001761, ms.,RutgersUniversity.

Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and Logical

Form. Natural Language Semantics 3:239–282.

Elbourne, Paul. 2008. Ellipsis sites as definite descriptions. Linguistic Inquiry 39:191–220.

Harley, Harley. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 225–276.

Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Matushansky, O. and A. Marantz (eds.) Distributed Morphology today. Morphemes for Morris Halle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, press, 95-116.

Messick, Troy, Andrés Saab & Luis Vicente. 2016. Deep properties of a surface anaphora. Ms., UConn, CONICET-UBA, University of Potsdam.

Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh- phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Speaker: Beste Kamali, Universität Bielefeld

Title: Negative concord in Turkish polar questions

Date: Thursday March 23

Venue: Lipsius 30

Time: 15:15 – 16:30 hrs

Abstract 

Turkish is a strict negative concord (NC) language. That is, it has n-words rather than existential polarity items, which are morphologically negative, and are licensed syntactically rather than semantically. This claim is based on the observation that n-words are licensed under clausemate negation and not in constituent questions or conditionals. I will introduce polar questions to this picture and show that  a well-defined class of polar questions is also an n-word licensing context. I will further show that this class is intimately related to negation in a few other respects, from inducing polarity alternatives to morphosyntactic behavior. The question is how the implicit negation in these “bipolar” polar questions is encoded in the grammar. Do they rely on a syntactic head and consequently engage in syntactic concord, or should we rather re-analyze concord under negation as a special case of semantic licensing?

Speaker: Ora Matushansky (CNRS)

Title: Matching locatives with places

Date: Thursday 9 March

Venue: Lipsius 30

Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Abstract

An extremely robust but previously unnoticed cross-linguistic generalization is that the distribution of locative cases is frequently restricted to a specific subset of DPs: demonstratives, some classes of toponyms and a closed set of common nouns. I will provide examples from a number of languages of how exactly this restriction can play out and argue for the availability of locus denotation for some nouns, explaining this phenomenon.

Speaker: Güliz Güneş (Leiden University) & Aslı Göksel (Boğaziçi University)

Title: Phonology of Agreement: optional double agreement and optional resizing of phonological words in Turkish

Date: Thursday 23 February

Time: 15.15-16.30

Venue: Lipsius 30

Abstract:

THE ISSUE: Stress in Turkish is typically word-final (1a-b, where prominence is denoted by capital letters). However, certain morphemes trigger stress on the morphemes that immediately precede them (e.g. the copula in 1c). Given the exceptional stress patterns that they create, these so-called pre-stressing morphemes have generated much recent debate.

1. a. [kitAp] b. [gör-dü-lEr] c. [gör-ecEk-i-di-ler]

        book              see-PST-3PL      see-FUT –COP–PST-3PL

‘book’ ‘They saw (it).’ ‘They were going to see (it).’

2. a. [(gör-ecEk)M/ω -i-di-ler] b. [(gör-dü-lEr)M/ω] c. [(kitAp)M/ω]

The prosodic grouping in (2) hints towards an apparent mismatch of domains, in which a prosodic word may target an entire “word”, i.e. root+its affixes (in 2b and c, the verbal complex and the vowel harmonic word) or only a part of it (2a). In this paper we argue that such morphemes are not problematic after all. We claim that the phenomenon in (1c) arises not from a mismatch of domains, but from a mismatch in the timing and direction of the formation of morphosyntactic and prosodic constituents.

SET I – optional resizing of ωs: Any account that assumes the raising of the participle to a position where agreement resides (cf. Shwayder 2015 and the references in there) cannot foresee the variable prosodic grouping given below. This is because, if each M-word corresponds to an ω, and if an M-word is derived via raising, then any M-word that contains the agreement morpheme must invariably correspond to a single ω. This is not borne out – compare (3a) and (3b).

3. A: Had the visitors seen Bill?

a. B: [((gör-mÜş)ω-NP (-ler-Ø-di)ω)φ]ι-F

            see-PERF– 3PL–COP–PST

           Lit: ‘(They) had seen.’

a. B: [((gör-müş -lEr)ω-NP (-Ø-di)ω)φ]ι-F

            see-PERF-3PL –COP–PST

         Lit: ‘(They) had seen.’

Dissimilar to the previous accounts, we claim that there is no v-to-Asp or v-to-T raising in Turkish. As such, the M-words that host both the verb root and T or Asp are derived via the lowering of T and Asp to v. In the talk, we will show how this twist naturally accounts for the optional resizing of ωs given in (3).

SET II – optional double agreement: Although the agreement morpheme is commonly exponed on the right edge of the verbal complex (as in 1b and c), certain agreement markers may also be realized on the right edge of the verb participle (i.e. in the middle of the vowel harmonic word) (as in 3). Among the two agreement paradigms in Turkish, (i.e. K-paradigm and Z-paradigm), only the exponents of the K-paradigm and the third person plural form of the Z-paradigm seem to be allowed in the verb-medial position (Sezer 1998, Good & Yu 2005). What is more, prosodic grouping indicates that variable ω-formation is possible only with those agreement morphemes that are allowed in medial position.

We present novel data to show that the agreement markers that are allowed in the verb-medial position may also be realized simultaneously in two places, i.e. both verb-finally and verb-medially.

4. gör-müş –ler-Ø-di-ler.

    see-PERF–3PL–COP–PST–3PL

    Lit: ‘(They) had seen.’

In the second half of the talk we will discuss if there is a correlation between the medial (double) vs. final realization of agreement and prosodic resizing. We conclude that these are independent phenomena and however agreement is derived, a strategy such as lowering is necessary to predict variable parses given in (3).

We will also discuss other phonological accounts for double agreement from other languages such as Spanish (Harris & Halle 2005) and Basque (Arregi & Nevins 2012), and conclude that the double realization of agreement in Turkish cannot be accounted for by simply appealing to the phonological reduplication.

SELECTED REFERENCES: Good, J. & Yu, A. 2005. Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms. In Clitic and Affix Combinations, eds. L. Heggie, & F. Ordòñez: Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins B. V., 315-342. ■ Newell, H. 2008. Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. PhD dissertation, McGillU. ■ Sağ, Y. 2013. Copula in Turkish. In WAFL 8. Ed. U. Özge, 293–299. MIT WPL. ■ Shwayder, K. 2015. Words and subwords: phonology in a piece-based syntactic morphology. PhD dissertation, UPenn.