organisé par Elena Anagnostopoulou (univ. Crete)
This course investigates participles focusing on the morpho-syntax and interpretation of adjectival participles and their relationship to verbal passives. According to Lexicalist approaches, there is a basic dichotomy between adjectival and verbal ‘passives’. Adjectival participles are taken to be passive derived from verbal passive participles in the Lexicon via a rule of Adjectival Passive Formation (Borer 1984, Levin and Rappaport 1986). This picture needs to be revised. As argued by Kratzer (1994), adjectival participles in German are not passive, as they do not contain an implicit agent. This correlates with stativity: adjectival passives are stative, while verbal passives are eventive. A number of further distinctions have been drawn in the literature (Kratzer 1994, Anagnostopoulou 2003, Embick 2004). Adjectival participles either introduce states resulting from prior events or they lack event implications. Moreover, participles with event implications introduce two different types of states, target and resultant states (Kratzer 2000). Resultant state participles express the Perfect of Result, a meaning also conveyed by the Present Perfect in one of its uses (the other uses of the Present Perfect in English are the universal, the experiential and the perfect of recent past). As shown by a crosslinguistic investigation of Greek, English and German participles, a number of syntactic and morphological properties are associated with the different types of participles suggesting that the following distinctions are syntactically encoded: (i) eventive vs. stative semantics, (ii) inclusion vs. exclusion of an implicit external argument, (iii) event implications or not, (iv) target or resultant state participles. Following Marantz (2001), Alexiadou & al. (2006) and others, it will be proposed that agentivity and event implications are located in functional heads. A layer Asp (stativizer) is present in the structure of all types of adjectival participles. Where they differ is the height of attachment of Asp (whether it attaches on the root or on different functional heads). Finally, adjectival participles will be compared to change of state verbs and resultatives (all involve a Cause-State component).
Prerequisites: Some background in syntax
organisé par Emmanuel Chemla (ENS)
I will introduce two kinds of pragmatic inferences: scalar implicatures and presuppositions. Several aspects of these phenomena have been widely discussed in the formal linguistic literature. The aim of this lecture is to show that issues from the most formal literature call for simple experimental investigations.
Little importance will be given to formal details. The key concepts will be primarily introduced via empirical illustrations and the discussion will focus on recent experimental results from Chemla, 2007. The goal of this study was a systematic investigation of the projection properties of several types of inferences in quantified sentences (e.g., No student knows that he failed, Less than 3 students read all the books) with main emphasis on presupposition.
Prerequisites: Some knowledge of formal pragmatics may help more deeply understand the scope of the issues raised in the lecture, but is not at all necessary.
Some references on presupposition:
Geurts, B. (1999). Presupposition and Pronouns. Elsevier.
Heim, I. (1983). On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions. In D. Flickinger et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 114-125. Reprinted in Davis, S. (ed): 1991, Pragmatics: A Reader, Oxford University Press.
Kadmon, N. (2001). Formal Pragmatics. Blackwell.
See in particular chapter X for a technical approach of the main controversy under discussion.
The experimental study to be discussed:
Chemla, E. (2007). Presuppositions of Quantified Sentences: Experimental Data. Ms. ENS.
organisé par Hamida Demirdache (univ. de Nantes)
Based on current research on the L1 acquisition of long-distance questions (in particular, in French), this course will explore some of the issues that the acquisition of questions and complementation/subordination raise for the syntax-semantics interface in language development. Issues discussed include the syntactic typology of LD questions (indirect/direct scope marking strategies, wh-copying, wh-clefts, wh-in-situ) and the felicity conditions of LD questions in L1 acquisition, presupposition projection and factivity, the syntax-semantic mapping in the acquisition of complementation and the implications of L1 data for the syntax of wh-in-situ in the adult grammar of French.
Prerequisites: Basic knowledge of (Principle & Parameters/Minimalist) syntax
Abdulkarim, L., Roeper, T. & De Villiers J. 1997. “Negative islands in language acquisition.” In New Perspectives on Language Acquisition: Minimalism and Pragmatics. University of Massachusets, Amherst.
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar. A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. MIT Press.
Dayal, V. 2000. “Scope marking: cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency”. In WH-Scope Marking, U. Lutz, G. Müller & A. Von Stechow (eds), 157-193. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Demirdache, H. & Oiry M. 2007. On the Felicity Conditions for Long-Distance in L1 Acquisition. Proceedings of BUCLD 31
H.erburger, E. 1994. “A Semantic Difference between Full and Partial Wh-movement”. Paper presented at the 1994 LSA Annual Meeting, Boston.
Jakubowicz, C. 2004. “Is movement costly?”. Proceedings of the IVth JEL Conference. University of Nantes.
Lahiri, U. 2002. “On the proper treatment of ‘expletive wh’ in Hindi”. Lingua 112: 501-540.
Oiry, Magda. In prep. L’acquisition des interrogatives à longue-distance en français. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Nantes
Oiry, M. & Demirdache, H. 2006. “Evidence from L1 Acquisition for the Syntax of Wh- Scope Marking in French”. In The Acquisition of the Syntax of Romance Languages. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
de Villiers, J.G. & Pyers, J. (2001). “Complementation and false-belief representation”. In M. Almgren, et al. (Eds.), Research on Child Language Acquisition. Cascadilla Press.
organisé par Kyle Johnson (University of Massachusetts Amherst)
We will examine ways of expressing a theory of movement that captures its semantics, especially how it controls the scope of quantification and bound variable anaphora. One class of examples of special interest are those in which a moved phrase is contains a quantificational term, or a bound variable, that is interpreted in a position different from the position where the moved phrase is spoken. We will examine one kind of account for these cases that posits "copies" of the moved phrase in the positions that movement targets. There are presently a family of ways of expressing the syntax/semantics interface that make use of copies and capture the semantic effects correctly. These accounts, however, do not have a working characterization of what a copy is. I will examine a way of putting these accounts together with an analysis of "copies" that exploits multidominant phrase markers.
Prerequisites: No specialized background is required. A general knowledge of transformational grammar will be presupposed.
References Some relevant references:
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press.
Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33:6396.
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement, volume 43. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
organisé par Hilda Koopman (UCLA)
The distribution of floating quantifiers provides important information on the structural make up of a clause and the syntactic derivations.
In these lectures, I will 1. examine the current state of theoretical understanding on floating quantifiers, and 2.compare the distribution of floating quantifiers in several languages, with particular focus on English, Malagasy (Austronesian), and Dutch, so as to gain a better understanding of the kind of crosslinguistic variability, and how it can be accounted for.
Prerequisites: Basic knowledge of syntactic analysis useful
1. Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19:425–449.
2. Mccloskey, James. 2000b. Quantifier float and Wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31:57–84.
3. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1998. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. GLOT International 3:3–10.
Additional readings (partial list): Boškovic, Željko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and LinguisticTheory 22: 681–742.
Koopman, Hilda. 2003 Malagasy imperatives.
Fitzpatrick, Justin 2006 The semantic and syntactic roots of floating quantification , MIT phD dissertation.
Mccloskey, James. 2000a. The prosody of quantifier stranding under WH-movement in West Ulster English. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: A study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84:159–180.
organisé par Friederike Moltmann (CNRS)
he received view in contemporary philosophy of language is that sortals are not needed for reference: the reference of a term, especially that of a directly referential term can be fixed without the help of a sortal. In this talk I will present a range of new linguistic generalizations that indicates that reference to abstract objects (such as facts, propositions and numbers) and certain derived objects (such as collections) does indeed require a sortal and cannot be achieved by a ’nonreferential’ expression alone, such as a that-clause, a plural like ’the children’, or a numeral like ’eight’.
I will argue that predicates when taking such a nonreferential expression as complement must be understood in a new way, not as expressing a property applying to an object, but as specifying ’multiple relations’ (for that-clauses), as being multigrade (for plurals), or as syncategorematically interacting with what is expressed by a numeral, as on the ’adjectival strategy’ for treating number terms, discussed in the philosophy of mathematics.
Prerequisites: Some background in semantics is desirable
organisé par Maria Polinsky (Harvard University, USA)
This course introduces the foundations of experimental work in syntax; building upon those, it examines several critical syntactic phenomena from the theoretical and experimental perspective. The phenomena include relative clauses, subject islands, scrambling, and A-movement. In analyzing each phenomenon, three general questions will be addressed:
(1) EXISTING THEORY: What is the appropriate theoretical treatment of this structure? Are there outstanding questions that have not been answered conclusively? What are the competing theoretical analyses of this structure?
(2) EXISTING EXPERIMENTAL WORK: What are the main findings of experimental studies with respect to this structure? Have these findings been able to distinguish between competing theoretical approaches to this structure?
(3) FUTURE WORK (THEORY AND EXPERIMENTATION): What kind of work is needed to resolve the outstanding issues?
Prerequisites: Some background in syntax is desirable
References: No reading will be required during the course but for each lecture I will provide a list of future readings.
organisé par Ian Roberts (univ. Cambridge)
This course will summarise and extend Chris Collins’ recent proposals regarding “smuggling” as a species of A-movement. I will suggest that smuggling derivations underlie a wider range of constructions than those discussed by Collins, notably Romance (and other) causatives, and at least certain cases of split-ergativity. The course will cover the following topics:
• Smuggling and locality
• Romance causatives
• Clitic-climbing in causatives
Prerequisites: Up-to-date knowledge of current syntactic theory (i.e. familiarity with the "Derivation by Phase" system).
Collins, C. (2005a) “A smuggling approach to raising in English,” Linguistic Inquiry 36: 289-298.
Collins, C. (2005b) “A smuggling approach to the passive in English,” Syntax 8: 81-120.
Roberts, I. (2006) “Clitics, Head Movement and Incorporation”, ms. University of Cambridge.
organisé par Tobias Scheer (univ. Nice)
Phonological computation works on information that comes from two sources: the lexicon and morpho-syntax (plus eventually semantics). Since the earliest generative models, the latter is represented by diacritics (SPE-type boundaries such as #, later on the Prosodic Hierarchy); also, it reaches phonology through a channel that is different from the lexicon: the readjustment component in SPE, mapping rules in Prosodic Phonology. On the grounds of some historical background information regarding interface theory and the modular environment, the purpose of this class is to show that the two pillars of the classical system are unwarranted: 1) there is only one channel for the input of data into the phonology: the lexicon (an idea of M. Starke), and 2) only truly phonological objects (i.e. which exist in the phonology independently of issues related to the interface) can carry morpho-syntactic information: the transmission is direct, not through a diacritic buffer.
Finally, currently entertained phonological theories are evaluated according to these principles. Namely, the status of OT regarding modularity is discussed.
Prerequisites: It will be useful, but not strictly necessary, to know about modularity, SPE, Lexical Phonology and Prosodic Phonology.
1. a number of papers and books (much of what is quoted in item no4 below) at the little interface library.
2. Scheer, Tobias in press. Why the Prosodic Hierarchy is a diacritic and why the Interface must be Direct.
3. Scheer, Tobias 2007. (Direct) Interface without Big Brothers. Handout.
4. Scheer, Tobias 2006. How non-phonological information is processed in phonology - a historical survey from Trubetzkoy to OT and Distributed Morphology. Handout from EGG 06.
organisé par Kie Zuraw (UCLA)
What do we know about our language’s sound pattern, and how do we know it? This course will begin with a quick overview of characteristics of sound patterns that linguists have noticed (alternations and phonotactics), and of the approach to explanatory adequacy that will be adopted here. We will then look at research that has sought to determine what phonological generalizations speakers extract from the learning data, and follow the consequences of these findings for achieving a descriptively adequate grammatical framework (that is, a framework that can express speakers’ implicit phonological knowledge): basic rule notation, features, and constraint interaction. Next we will consider why determining what speakers know is so difficult, and review a range of methods that have been tried. Finally, we will examine some recent work that moves towards explanatory adequacy—what kind of learner can, on exposure to typical learning data, choose a grammar similar to the one that human learners choose?