My dissertation covers instances of differential case marking (DCM), also known as differential argument marking (DAM) in Konkani. The goals of this project are both descriptive and theoretical. The first question being asked is descriptive in nature: how does DCM present in Konkani? Konkani, like most Indo-Aryan languages, has Differential Object Marking (DOM) and Differential Subject Marking (DSM) in the form of split ergativity and dative marked subjects. Konkani is one of the lesser studied Indo-Aryan languages and was considered a dialect of Marathi for years before being classified by linguists as its own distinct language. Consequently, little description exists in the linguistics literature. This works strives to fill this gap by firstly providing a detailed and systematic description of differential case marking in Konkani through a combination of survey and elicitation methods. The second question being asked in this project is more theoretical—namely, what are the theoretical implications of the Konkani DCM data? Does the Konkani DCM data have anything to contribute to the discussion of questions like: does DCM requires special grammatical principles or follows naturally out of independently motivated principles of Case Theory; can DCM be accounted for theoretically in a unified manner or are instances of DCM merely unified descriptively as all involving alternations of case? We know that at least 300 languages from across language families show some type of DCM. As a result of this pervasiveness, all theories of language should have accounts of DCM, whether separately for DOM and DSM or together. This work strives to evaluate how well some of these existing frameworks explain the Konkani data surrounding DCM and if there is a functional way to unify the properties associated with DCM and formalize them theoretically. 

The purpose of this study is to identify and understand some of the most prominent factors that contribute towards the shift or maintenance of the Konkani heritage language amongst members of the Goan diaspora in America and what this particular community can tell us about Language Shift versus Language Maintenance (LSLM).  The study consists of a quantitative analysis of surveys from 120 Goan-Americans paired with a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 5 Goan-American parents. 

The depth of the interviews placed within the larger context of the surveys suggested that religious affiliation, domains of use, and language attitudes were among the strongest factors for LSLM. The Goan-American community provided a unique case of LSLM in a smaller community where language shift begins even prior to immigration. For Goans, the increased comfort with English and distancing from the HL prior to immigration was the result of prolonged European colonization, but with the spread of global English, introduction to the ML prior to immigration might become more common in other diasporic communities. 

The qualitative portion of this project is published in the Heritage Language Journal. 

The quantitative portion of this project has been presented as a poster at the 2025 LSA Meeting and is being prepared for publication.

This thesis provides a holistic approach to get constructions in English by combining a Minimalist, generative approach with the attention to usage and function found in a usage-based approach. First, a structural analysis is proposed which will answer the questions of how to account for (1) the different types of get in an accurate and unified manner (2) the ambiguous thematic roles of the subject, and (3) the additional recipient argument position found in causative usages of get. Secondly, a grammaticalization account of the evolution of these different get constructions will be considered. A grammaticalization pathway will be established and then methods of formalizing this kind of grammaticalization process within a Minimalist framework will be investigated.

A Holistic Analysis of Get Constructions - PDF 

People-First Language (PFL) is a form of inclusive language that attempts to prioritize people’s humanity over their disability by literally putting “people” first. For example, in accordance to PFL one would say “a person with autism” rather than “an autistic person”. However, there is a great deal of debate surrounding the effectiveness of People-First Language. In order to get at the question of effectiveness, I conducted a study in which participants judged the inclusivity of passages on a scale of 1-10. I chose passages related to disabilities and recreated a people-first (PF) version and a non-people-first (NPF) version of the same passages in order to determine whether the use of PFL made any difference on the inclusivity judgments of the participants. Findings suggest that without previous knowledge of PFL, it has no effect on perceived inclusivity.

A Study of the Effectiveness of People-First Language - PDF