ComSyn Lectures

NB. Different day, different room

Speaker: Maria del Carmen Parafita Couto*  (Leiden University)

Title: Ungrammatical configuration: experimental evidence from code-switching

Date: Tuesday 17 May

Venue: Van Eyckhof 1/003C

Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

 *Joint work with Luis López (University of Illinois at Chicago) and Hans Stadthagen González (University of Southern Mississippi)

Abstract

In this talk we discuss some recent results that contribute to our understanding of ungrammaticality in the realm of syntactic dependencies. Within generative grammar, a failed dependency has traditionally been accounted for in terms of (i) unvalued features on the goal, (ii) the probe or (iii) a combination of both. We propose a fourth hypothesis: the perception of a dependency as ungrammatical is a diffuse property of the items contained in the domain of the dependency. We utilize experimental code-switching data, which provides the necessary granularity to test the role of various factors in the breakdown of a dependency. We report on results from a two-alternative forced choice judgment task (analyzed by applying Thurstone’s (1927) Law of Comparative Judgment) in which Spanish-English bilingual subjects were asked to choose among different options that would violate Stowell’s (1981) Adjacency Condition. Our results lend support to the fourth hypothesis.

Speaker:  Deniz Tat (Leiden Institute for Area Studies)
Title: Acategorial Roots in an Agglutinating Language
Date: Thursday 21 April
Time: 15.15-16.30
Venue: Eyckhof 2-003

Abstract:
One of the main claims of Distributed Morphology (DM) is that word formation occurs in syntax (Halle and Marantz 1993). In this theory, a word minimally consists of a Root, an atomic unit of sound and meaning, and a categorizing morpheme that provides the Root with a category label  (Harley and Noyer 1999). The Semitic family presents some of the strongest arguments in favor of acategorial Roots, e.g. √GDL à gadal ‘grow’ in Hebrew (Arad 2005).  In this talk, I will argue for the universality of acategorial Roots by showing that they also exist in a language like Turkish, with a morphology that is as unrelated to the Semitic family as one can imagine. I will discuss this by showing two cases of allomorphy conditioned by Root adjacency (i.e. Key’s (2013) analysis of aorist and causative allomorphy in Turkish). I will also discuss the categorial status of the Roots as whether projecting or non-projecting syntactic elements, and claim that they cannot project, unlike what has been argued in the literature (e.g. Harley 2011).

Arad, M. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dodrecht: Springer.
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In A view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 111-176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harley, H. 2011. On the identity of Roots. M.s. University of Arizona.
Harley, H. and Noyer, R. 1999. Distributed Morphology. GLOT 4/4, 3-9.
Key, G. 2003 The Morphosyntax of the Turkish Causative Construction PhD thesis. University of Arizona.

Speaker: Heidi Klockmann (Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS)

Title: The syntax of quantificational elements:drawing on insights from the distribution of features in the DP

Date: Thursday April 7　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

Venue: Van Eyckhof 2/003

Time: 15:15 – 16:30 hrs

Abstract 

In this talk, I focus on the syntax of quantificational elements, e.g. numerals, quantifiers, and quantifying nouns in pseudopartitive constructions, with an emphasis on identifying how the idiosyncrasies of these quantificational items interact with what I take to be uniform processes of case and agreement. In English, for example, quantifying nouns such as bunch or number are not a target of agreement, despite appearing to be the head of the construction and morphologically singular (a bunch / number of students); agreement instead targets the quantified noun, e.g. A bunch / number of students were studying in the library. The puzzle with these is how is it possible for agreement to skip over the quantifying noun in favor of the quantified noun? Numerals in English present similar puzzles, where agreement occurs with the quantified noun as opposed to the numeral, despite the presence of singular indefinite a, e.g. a hundred students were studying and similarly a whopping 75 farms have gone bankrupt. Likewise, in Polish (and a number of other Slavic languages), where there are four morphosyntactic classes of numerals, each showing a varying degree of adjectival and nominal properties, certain numerals consistently trigger default agreement and participate in numeral-specific patterns of case assignment.

Assuming case and agreement to be uniform processes within a language, it follows that it is the quantifying element itself which triggers unusual patterns of case or agreement. I take the perspective that we can understand these patterns by carefully examining the distribution of features in the structure, particularly on the quantifying element. This talk will consist of a number of case studies into quantificational elements, mostly from Polish and English, showing how the distribution of features interacts with case and agreement to produce the patterns that we find. This talk will be an exercise into a view of semi-lexicality (taking many of these quantifying elements to be semi-lexical) as a combination of the structural locus of an element and its feature composition.

Speaker: Enoch Aboh (University of Amsterdam)
Title: Back to D
Date: Thursday 24 March
Venue: Van Eyckhof 2/003
Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Abstract
In this paper, I return to a debate I had at a distance with Zeljko Bošković in the years 2008-2011 when based on independent empirical facts we made similar observations about the universality of the category D, but drew opposite conclusions. In a series of studies investigating the universality of D, Bošković (2008, 2009) argues that the absence/presence of articles in languages correlates with very specific clausal properties of which some are summarized under table 1.

Table 1: The DP/NP parameter (adapted from Bošković 2008)
Though these properties may turn out to be areal, they indicate that the presence/absence of articles in a language depends on clausal properties rather than a parameter that regulates the pronunciation of the category D. In maintaining the traditional view that D is a primitive category, Bošković concluded that languages which lack T also lack D.

While this correlation might hold, the idea that D is a primitive syntactic category subject to tense parameter is not unproblematic, though. Outside Romance and Germanic, the category is notoriously fuzzy. Many languages of the world do not have (in)definite articles of the Indo-European type, but encode definiteness by other syntactic devices that are not expressions of D (e.g., pre- vs. post-verbal position, classifiers, modifiers, see Cheng & Sybesma 1999, Aboh 2004). In Kwa, bare nouns freely occur in argument and non-argument positions, where they can be interpreted as (in)definite or generic depending on context. These ‘radical’ bare noun languages therefore seem not to require D, unlike modern Germanic and Romance. In this regard, it is interesting to note that while most modern Romance and Germanic languages (e.g., French, English) have (in)definite articles, these were not present in the relevant source languages (e.g., Latin) or at earlier stages of their development (e.g., Old English). Accordingly, D is a derivative category in these languages. Given this state of affairs, it is perfectly legitimate to ask:
a. What conceptual motivation do we have for postulating the category D as a syntactic category (independent of clausal properties)?
b. Why do (in)definite articles develop in some languages but not in others?

In addressing these questions, I argue that there is no category D in the strict sense, but C, which may take the form of so-called articles when it heads a nominal predicate. More explicitly, D is a mere label used to refer to a nominal C(omplementizer). Under this view, we can reduce the number of phases to just two (i.e, C, p), where ‘little p’ stands for predicates in general.

Speaker: Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai

Title: Operator Binding and the Syntax of Analyticity

Date: Thursday 10 March

Time: 15.15-16.30

Venue: Eyckhof 2-003

Abstract: 

In this talk, we entertain the possibility that peripheral features play a crucial role in the formation of the upper layer of a sentence, which can be checked by either external Merge or internal Merge (i.e., Move) according to the parameter-settings of individual languages. Along this line, topic prominence is regarded as the result of peripheral feature checking, and the null topic hypothesis à la Huang (1984) is reinvented as a null operator merger to fulfill interface economy in the left periphery. In this regard, Chinese provides substantial evidence from obligatory topicalization in outer affectives, evaluatives, and refutory wh-constructions, which applies only when the licensing from a D(efiniteness)-operator is blocked.

The idea also extends naturally to the issues concerning pro-drop and bare nominals in general. Namely, we may well compare Chinese obligatory topicalization to those residual cases of verb-second (V2) in English, all being manifestation of the strong uniformity. Topic prominence can also be reinvented in this new light: The null topic operator can be regarded as the quantifier part of a definite argument, just like a Q(uestion)-operator or a polarity operator (call it an $-operator) that functions as the quantifier part of a wh-phrase:

1. D-operator binding for bare nominals in-situ:

            [D_x-Top]         . . .       N(x) . . .

1. Q-operator binding for wh- in-situ:

            [Q_x-Int]           . . .       wh(x) . . .

III.      $-operator binding for indefinite wh:

[$x-Mood] . . . wh(x) . . .

Consequently, a Chinese topic is either an XP in the Spec-head relation with Top, or a discontinuous DP consisting of a peripheral D-operator and an in-situ nominal. In the case of pro-drop, a P(redication)-operator is raised instead to trigger predication on a null discourse topic in Huang’s (1994) sense. P-operator is essentially the syntactic counterpart of a l-operator in semantics (cf. Chierchia 1984, 1985): 

1. P-operator binding for pro-drop:

            [_PredP Topic [P_x-Pred [_TP  . . . e_x . . . ] 

Furthermore, we present evidence showing that the scope-taking property of mei ‘every’ is realized not through Quantifier Raising (QR), but by merging a distributive operator (i.e., the implicit counterpart of dou) directly to the left periphery:

1. “-operator binding for mei-NPs:

[“x-Dis] . . . mei-NP(x) . . .

We this complete the spectrum of the operator binding construals in question. In a robust analytic language such as Chinese, where a phrase can be constructed in a sentential magnitude (cf. Tsai 1994), this is not only possible but also necessary.

Speaker: Maria Tenizi

Title: Revealing Α Possible Do-Support Technique in Cypriot-Greek. Implications and Analysis of the Left Periphery

Date: Thursday 25 February

Time: 15.15-16.30

Venue: Eyckhof 2-003

Abstract: 

The presentation will point at Cypriot-Greek syntax through data analysis and overview. The analysis will focus on the formation of interrogative sentences in the dialect in an attempt to make the complementizer-activating process explicit. This empirical problem will be looked upon in detail in order to refer to the work done so far and the further study needed. Making a reference to do-support in English and Romance languages, a possible link to Cypriot Greek will be sought aiming at exemplifying this technique as a possible one in Cypriot Greek as well. Having talked about that, this exact phenomenon in Cypriot Greek, will be ultimately brought to surface to sketch the insertion mechanism, alongside the environments it is triggered in, and the implications this emergence implies for syntactic theory.

Speaker: Hossam I. Ahmed (Leiden Institute for Area Studies)

Title: Reconstructing Verbal Complementizers in Arabic

Date: Thursday 11 February

Venue: P.N. van Eyckhof 2/003

Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Abstract: A class of Modern Standard Arabic complementizers known as ‘ʔinna and its sisters’ demonstrate unique case and word order restrictions. While CPs in Arabic allow both Subject-Verb (SV) and Verb-Subject (VS) word order and their subjects show nominative morphology, CPs introduced by ʔinna ban a verb from directly following the complementizer. Preverbal subjects in ʔinna clauses show accusative case marking, while postverbal subjects show nominative morphology. Previous research explains these restrictions as default case or Multiple Case Assignment, both problematic for Case Theory as they violate the Activation Principle.

I explain word order and case effects of ʔinna within the framework of Phase Theory and Feature Inheritance (FI). Morphological, historical, and usage evidence point out that ʔinna-type complementizers have verbal properties similar to illocutionary verbs. Taking Case to be a reflection of phi features that T heads receive from higher heads (e.g. Complementizers) via Feature Inheritance, the nominative-accusative alternation on preverbal subjects can be attributed to the selection of C heads: phi features on null complementizers and conditionals reflect as NOM, while phi features on Verbal Complementizers (VCs) reflect as ACC. Nominative postverbal subjects in ʔinna clauses are explained as an effect of anti-agreement at Spell-Out. Postverbal subjects and the Case probe on T are PF local, allowing for impoverished case agreement. Preverbal subjects and the Case licenser belong to different Phonological Phrases. To satisfy the Recoverability Condition, full case agreement is required between T and the subject, resulting in accusative morphology on the subject. Finally, the requirement that ʔinna-clauses have an intervener between ʔinna and the verb is explained by associating the full phi features of ʔinna with EPP. As the phi set is inherited from ʔinna to T, the EPP property is satisfied by the preverbal subject or by adverbial intervening between ʔinna and the verb.

Speaker: Marieke Meelen (LUCL)

Title: Reconstructing the Rise of V2 in Middle Welsh

Date: Thursday 17 December

Venue: Van Wijkplaats 3/006

Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Abstract: Middle Welsh word order has been a ‘vexed’ problem for a long time. First of all, because the basic order was verb-second (called the ‘Abnormal Order’ by Welsh grammarians), whereas Old and Modern Welsh exhibit verb-initial patterns. Secondly, there is a wide range of V2 patterns (subject, object, adjunct or verbal-noun-initial) in Middle Welsh and the distribution of those is not at all clear.

Data from a syntactically and pragmatically annotated corpus show that the sentence-initial position in Middle Welsh could be occupied by contrastively focused constituents at first, but later also by contrastive topics and new information focus as well as Aboutness and Familiar topics. In this talk I show how these V2 patterns developed by carefully reconstructing their syntactic history from earlier patterns with hanging topics and focussed cleft constructions in Old Welsh and related Celtic languages. I argue that a combination of pragmatic and syntactic features explains which word-order pattern appears in which particular context, thus contributing to a better understanding of the origin and distribution of these ‘Abnormal’ patterns in Middle Welsh and knowledge about the development of V2-patterns in general.

Speaker: Christos Vlachos (Queen Mary University of London)

Title: Wh-inquiries revis(it)ed

Date: Thursday 3 December

Venue: Van Wijkplaats 3/006

Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Abstract A standard (hypo)thesis, within the framework of Generative Grammar, has been that a wh-parameter may broadly classify languages into two types with respect to how they form wh-questions: languages like English usually front wh-elements, while languages like Chinese usually realize wh-elements in situ. Wh-fronting languages may also feature wh-in situ arrangements, and a tacit (hypo)thesis, tied to the aforementioned one, is that fronting configurations map to information-seeking (“true”) questions, while the in situ counterparts correspond to echo (“pseudo”) questions. Neat as this taxonomy may appear to be, in Greek, which is a typical wh-fronting language, each wh-configuration may map to either meaning. This evidence, in turn, raises the question as to “how much” of the relevant semantics is registered in the relevant syntactic structures. This is the question that this talk will address, by capitalizing on already documented evidence from distribution, interpretation and intonation. The idea to be spelled-out is that part of the relevant semantics is calculated in syntax, while another part is computed by intonation.

Speaker: Anna Volkova (Higher School of Economics (Moscow) & Utrecht University)
Title: Locally bound possessives in Mordvin languages 
Date: Thursday 19 November
Venue: Van Wijkplaats 3/006
Time: 15.15-16.30 hrs

Abstract:
Reuland (2011) and Despic  (2011, forthcoming) propose the following correlation between the prevalence of dedicated reflexives and definiteness marking: Languages without prenominal definite articles employ dedicated reflexive possessives while languages with prenominal definite articles employ simple pronominals. The question is, then, why this would be so, and whether more basic properties of the computational system underlie this correlation. In my talk I contrast data on the use of locally bound possessives in two Mordvin languages: Shoksha Erzya and Moksha. Neither language has prenominal definite articles, hence in both one would expect to find a dedicated reflexive possessive. In Moksha, indeed, a dedicated reflexive possessive es’ is used to encode this relation (1), while in Shoksha Erzya a genitive form of a pronominal is employed (2).

(1)  Son      kel’k-si                            es’         c’ora-nc.
       S/he     love-npst-3sg.s.3sg.s  self        son-3sg.poss.sg.gen
She loves her son. (Moksha)

(2)  Son       aj-n’ij^h-sa-za                               sons’inde       brat-t.
       S/he     ipf-see-prs-3sg.o.3sg.s             s/he.intf.gen  brother-def.gen
He sees his brother. (Shoksha Erzya)

Moksha es’ is feature deficient in number and person (which is complemented by the obligatory presence of a possessive marker on the head noun), unlike the pronominal in Shoksha Erzya. The question is then, what could explain the difference, and what it entails for the Despic-Reuland conjecture. I argue that the relevant factor is not the presence of a DP shell on the object NP per se, but that a broader range of intervening factors enters into an explanation.

References
Despic, Miloje. 2011. Syntax in the Absence of Determiner Phrase. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Despic, Miloje. Forthcoming. Phases, Reflexives and Definiteness. Syntax.
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.