SAMKO TO DEFEND DISSERTATION

Graduate students Bern Samko will defend her PhD dissertation this Wednesday (May 18). It is entitled “Syntax and information structure: The grammar of English inversions”:

The goal of this dissertation is to discern the patterns of interconnectedness between syntax and pragmatics by way of a close examination of participle preposing and VP preposing (VPP) in English. For the latter, I argue that what we call VPP is the accidental confluence of three independent components: verum focus, feature-driven movement to the left periphery, and, optionally, an intonational contour that contributes emphasis. In doing so, I bring together two analytic traditions that have rarely commented on one another: a syntactic tradition that has used VPP as a diagnostic tool rather than considering its properties sui generis, and a pragmatic one that has listed discourse effects without considering why those effects are associated with the particular form of VPP. I propose an analysis in which the familiar pragmatic G[ivenness] feature participates in the syntax as a driver of movement. This approach holds the promise of allowing a better understanding of why the properties of VPP cluster as they do, an understanding that goes beyond simply listing the relevant properties.

The defense will take place at 1:30 pm in Humanities 2 (Room 259).

JOHNSON COLLOQUIUM

Kyle Johnson (UMass Amherst) will give a colloquium this Friday (May 20) on “Building a trace”:

Many accounts of movement invoke a special rule of semantic interpretation that causes the lowest position in the movement chain to be interpreted as a variable bound by the term in the highest position of the movement chain. I will examine a model of movement that moves away from that conception of its semantics. DP Movement on this alternative view puts together a garden variety definite description with another garden variety DP and merges the definite description in a position c-commanded by the position the other DP occupies. The way these two DPs are put together involves giving them a shared part — that is, it uses multidominant phrase markers. I will demonstrate this alternative view of movement with an analysis of two case studies of Quantifier Raising. This is joint work with Danny Fox.

As usual, the colloquium will start at 2 pm in Humanities 1 (Room 210). There will be a potluck to follow in the evening.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY WORKSHOP

The linguistics department is sponsoring a speech pathology career workshop this Friday (May 20), featuring a talk by alumna Sylvia Soule (BA in linguistics, 2010):

After Sylvia graduated from UCSC, she completed post-baccalaureate work in speech language pathology at CSU Sacramento and an MS in communicative disorders at San Francisco State (SFSU). She participated in a grant program at SFSU that gives speech language pathologists specialized training to work with diverse learners with autism spectrum disorders. She has experience providing speech and language treatment for children and adults with various communication disorders, including language delay, articulation disorders, autism, and post-stroke and traumatic brain injury. Sylvia is currently working as a speech-language pathologist in the early intervention program (age 3 to kindergarten) at the West Contra Costa Unified School District.

The workshop will take place from 5 to 6 pm in the Silverman conference room at Stevenson College. Light refreshments will be provided.

ZYMAN IN S-CIRCLE

This Friday (May 13), graduate student Erik Zyman will present in S-Circle on “Hyperraising to object and the mechanics of Agree”:

In English and other familiar languages, A-movement can occur out of an infinitival clause, but not out of a finite clause:

(1a) Sue1 seems [__1 to be embezzling money].
(1b) *Sue2 seems [__2 is embezzling money].

On one prominent analysis, this is because an element must bear an unvalued feature to be an eligible goal for Agree (the Activity Condition, Chomsky 2000, 2001). On this view, in (1b) — unlike in (1a) — Sue gets Case in the embedded clause and, having no more unvalued features, becomes invisible to higher A-probes such as matrix T. Here, I present novel data illustrating the Janitzio P’urhepecha (JP) “accusative + complementizer” construction (e.g., ‘They want Xumo-acc that build a house’) that strongly suggest the Activity Condition is not an inherent constraint on Agree (cf. Nevins 2004). I show that the accusative DP is in the matrix and truly A-moves out of the embedded CP (i.e., this is hyperraising, not prolepsis or object control). Crucially, a hyperraised accusative DP can be linked to a nominative floated quantifier in the embedded CP—showing that nominative Case is available in the embedded CP, but its subject A-raises out of it nonetheless, challenging the Activity Condition.

The findings have further theoretical consequences. First, I argue that existing analyses of hyperraising (e.g., Martins and Nunes 2010, Carstens & Diercks 2013, Halpert 2016, Petersen & Terzi to appear) cannot extend to the JP case, and propose that JP allows hyperraising to object but English does not because in JP, but not in English, the finite embedding C can optionally bear the feature [uD[epp]] (cf. Cable 2012). Secondly, I argue that JP hyperraising to object can be accounted for straightforwardly on an altruistic (target-driven) analysis of movement (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004, McCloskey 2001), but not under Greed (Bošković 1995, 2002, 2007) or Labeling (Chomsky 2013, 2015).

As usual, S-Circle will take place at 2 pm in the LCR.

1 17 18 19 20 21 71