WILTSCHKO COLLOQUIUM

This Friday, January 19th, at 1:20 pm in Humanities 1, Room 210, there will be a colloquium by Martina Wiltschko (University of British Columbia). Her talk is entitled “Nominal speech act structure. A personal view.” The abstract is given below:

The concept of person is in many ways tied to speech acts. This is obvious just by exploring the interpretation of pronouns: 1st person pronouns are used to refer to the speaker, 2nd person pronouns are used to refer to the addressee, and 3rd person is used for individuals other than the speech act participants. Another way in which person plays a role for speech acts has to with the fact that in much of the current literature that seeks to “syntacticize speech acts” (Ross 1970, Speas and Tenny 2003, Zu 2013, Miyagawa 2017, a.o.) speech act participants are part of the syntactic representation of sentences, as evidenced, for example, by speaker or addressee-agreement. However, 1st and 2nd person pronouns can receive an impersonal interpretation (Gruber 2013, Zobel 2014) while still triggering grammatical agreement for 1st and 2nd person. This suggests that there are at least two notions of person: one purely grammatical and the other pragmatic in nature.

In this talk I examine yet another way in which person may be tied to speech acts. In particular, assuming the well- established parallel between the functional architecture of clauses and nominal projections (Chomsky 1970, Abney 1987, Grimshaw 2005, Rijkhoff 2008), we might expect that – just as clauses – nominal projections too are dominated by a dedicated speech act structure. Specifically, I will argue that the arguments of (clausal and nominal) speech act structure do not correspond to speech act participants directly, but instead they correspond to each speech act participant’s ‘ground’ – hence I assume a speaker- and addressee-oriented projection. The function of this layer of structure is to encode the mutual process of grounding – the joint activity which allows interlocutors to establish common ground. To support this hypothesis, I review literature from dialogue based frameworks according to which referring to an individual is a collaborative effort between speaker and addressee (Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs 1986, Clark and Bangerter 2004). With this as my background assumption, I discuss the implications of the nominal speech act hypothesis for a number of empirical phenomena including: impersonals, logophors, and social deixis.

HOW OUR READINGS ARE GROUPING THIS WEEK

LaLoCoTuesday, 12:00 – 1:00 pm, Stevenson 217 There will be a discussion of Latent Semantic Analysis and genism, along with Chapter 11 of “The Oxford Handbook of Computational and Mathematical Psychology”

s/labThursday, 12:00 – 1:00 pm, LCR Steven Foley will be presenting a paper titled “The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora” (Kazanina et al 2007)

 

SALT LAKE CITY SLUGS

The streets of Salt Lake City were full to their 132-foot-wide brim with slugs over the January 4-7 weekend at the annual meeting of the Linguistics Society of America. Featured were a slew of presentations and posters by current graduate students: Jenny Bellik, Steven Foley, Nick Kalivoda, Tom Roberts, and Erik Zyman. The greater UCSC diaspora was also well-represented with the many alumni presenting work, including Aaron Kaplan (Utah), Anya Lunden (William & Mary), Ruth Kramer (Georgetown), Nick LaCara (Toronto), Mark Norris (Oklahoma), Jason Riggle (Chicago), and Nathan Sanders (Toronto)–to say nothing of the scores of alums in attendance. Attendees reported a collegial, stimulating atmosphere and expressed both joy at reuniting with old friends and pleasant surprise at the robustness of the SLC craft brewing scene.

FARKAS AT STANFORD

On Friday, December 9 Donka Farkas gave a colloquium at Stanford entitled “Going beyond the prototypical: Special interrogatives and special declaratives”.  She reports:
I enjoyed the talk and especially the discussion that followed it, as well as my meetings with quite a few graduate students there doing interesting work in semantics.  It was good to see UCSC alums Chris Potts and Boris Harizanov in the audience.
A copy of her handout is available here.

A SPOT OF SYNTAX-PROSODY

Last Saturday (November 18), the department hosted an IHR-funded workshop entitled Syntax-Prosody in Optimality Theory (SPOT). The workshop, which was organized by Junko Ito and Armin Mester, featured invited talks from guests Shinichiro Ishihara (Lund University), Lisa Selkirk (UMass Amherst), and Nicholas Rolle (UC Berkeley). There were also several talks from UCSC students and faculty. Jenny Bellik and Nick Kalivoda presented their application SPOT, a computational tool for research on the syntax-prosody interface, and some theoretical consequences of the program’s constraint definitions. Ryan Bennett (UCSC) presented joint work with Jim McCloskey (UCSC) and Emily Elfner (York University) on “Incorporation, focus and the phonology of ellipsis in Irish”. The talks all resulted in stimulating discussion. In addition to the visiting speakers, interested faculty and students made the journey to Santa Cruz from Stanford, UC Berkeley, and Fresno State. The workshop culminated in a reception, where the warm and friendly air and conversation continued.

Below are a few photos from Junko’s phone. More photos from the IHR photographer coming soon!

SaveSave

HOW OUR READINGS ARE GROUPING THIS WEEK

SPLAP: Wednesday, 1:20 – 2:20 pm, LCR There will be a discussion of Mayr (2017), on the topic of “Predicting polar question embedding”

LaLoCoThursday, 2:00 – 3:00 pm, LCR Continued discussion of distributional semantics, and Tom Roberts will be presenting a paper

WLMAFriday, 10:00 – 11:30 am, Stevenson 217 Ryan Bennett will be giving a talk titled “Recursive Prosodic Words in Kaqchikel”

PhlunchFriday, 12:00 – 1:00 pm, LCR Aaron Kaplan (Assistant Professor, University of Utah) will be giving a talk titled “Positional Licensing in Harmonic Grammar”

LIP: Friday, 3:00 – 3:45 pm, Stevenson 217 Stephanie Lain will be presenting her current research

DILLON COLLOQUIUM

This Friday, November 17th, at 4:00 pm in Humanities 1, Room 210, there will be a colloquium talk by Brian Dillon (UMass, Amherst). His talk is entitled “Process and representation in morphosyntactic processing: A psychophysical approach using Signal Detection Theory.” The abstract is given below:

Intuitive acceptability judgments have long formed the empirical foundation of syntactic and (to a lesser extent) psycholinguistic theories (Schütze, 1996). Despite their centrality, there remain many open issues in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of acceptability judgment data. One important thread of research in experimental syntax addresses these issues by borrowing methodology from psychophysics, such as magnitude estimation (Bard et al. 1996; Cowart, 1997), to more precisely model the relationship between linguistic stimuli and perceived acceptability.

In this talk I will follow these researchers in treating intuitions of acceptability as psychological evidence. Accordingly, I will argue that acceptability judgments can be fruitfully understood as psychophysical data. To this end, I will describe a framework for analyzing acceptability judgment data using Signal Detection Theory (Bader & Haussler, 2010; Macmillan & Creelman, 2005). This approach offers an explicit model of how the underlying percept of acceptability is reflected in experimental measures of acceptability, such as judgments in a rating task.

To illustrate this approach, I survey a series of studies that investigate diverse illusory agreement licensing phenomena (“agreement attraction”) in English using untimed acceptability judgment measures (joint work with Charles Clifton, Christopher Hammerly, Joshua Levy, and Adrian Staub). I report several results. First, untimed judgment measure mirror the patterns seen in more ‘online’ measures of sentence comprehension. Second, the untimed judgment data exhibit surprisingly little evidence of contamination from slow, ‘deliberative’ processes (cf. Bader & Haussler, 2010). Third, and perhaps most interestingly, this analysis of the judgment data yields unique insights into the cognitive processes and representations that underly agreement attraction effects. In particular, the judgment data lend support to models that analyze illusory agreement errors as the result of mis-identification of an agreement controller in working memory (e.g. Badecker & Kuminiak, 2007; Wagers et al., 2009), rather than models that locate the error in a noisy representation of the morphosyntactic features of the agreement controller (e.g. Eberhard, Cutting & Bock, 2005).

1 6 7 8 9 10 46