ECO-5

Program (work in progress)

Location: Integrative Learning Center N400

Time Presentation

~ 10:30 Breakfast

10:30 ~ 10:50 Yi-Shih Helen Chen (UMass)
Taiwan Mandarin Shuo/silence Alternation on Complementation
10:50 ~ 11:10 Andrea Matticchio (UMass)
Agreeing with each
11:10 ~ 11:30 Aarón Sánchez (UConn)
(Un)agreement in Spanish and Greek Fake Indexicals

11:30 ~ 12:00 Break

12:00 ~ 12:20 Zachary Feldcamp (MIT)
Evidence for low base-generation of PP in locative inversion
12:20 ~ 12:40 Shangyan Pan (UConn)
Gei as functional elements: How many are there?

12:40 ~ 13:30 Lunch

13:30 ~ 13:50 Mariana Calderón (UMass)
Singling out passives from within the San Pablo Güilá Zapotec syncretic voice system
13:50 ~ 14:10 Tyler Poisson (UConn)
Arithmetic in English and ditransitive constructions
14:10 ~ 14:30 Qi Wu (UConn)
Introducing Target/Stimulus argument of Mandarin Experiencer-Subject psych-predicates 

14:30 ~ 15:00 Break

15:00 ~ 15:20 Bergül Soykan (MIT)
Plural Marked Interrogatives in Turkish
15:20 ~ 15:40 Carla Spellerberg (UMass)
Principle B in South Slavic: A Discourse Prominence Theory-based account
15:40 ~ 16:00 Satoru Ozaki (UMass)
What kind of object does the elided VP contain if the antecedent VP does?

Abstracts

Taiwan Mandarin Shuo/silence Alternation on Complementation
Yi-Shih Helen Chen (UMass)

(abstract TBA)

Agreeing with each
Andrea Matticchio (UMass)

In this presentation, I will try to analyze some data from Italian phi-agreement within the theory of Agree proposed by Deal (2015 and following work). The Italian data concerns a pattern of agreement where a floating quantifier with distinct phi-features “intervenes" between an internal argument and the agreeing participle, as in (i).

(i) Le ragazze sono ciascuna arrivata in un momento diverso.
the.F.PL girls.F.PL are.3PL each.F.SG arrived.F.SG in a moment different
'The girls have each arrived at a different time.'

In (i), the auxiliary agrees in plural number with the subject DP, whereas the participle agrees in singular number with the floating quantifier. Despite the superficial upward-agree look of the paradigm, the theory of Agree considered here allows for a number of successful steps in the analysis. I will also show what facts this account leaves unexplained. The paradigm can be informative about the syntactic behavior of floating quantifiers.

(Un)agreement in Spanish and Greek fake indexicals
Aarón Sánchez (UConn)

(abstract TBA)

Evidence for low base-generation of PP in locative inversion
Zachary Feldcamp (MIT)

(abstract TBA)

Gei as functional elements: How many are there?
Shangyan Pan (UConn)

(abstract TBA)

Singling out passives from within the San Pablo Güilá Zapotec syncretic voice system
Mariana Calderón (UMass)

(abstract TBA)

Arithmetic in English and ditransitive constructions
Tyler Poisson (UConn)

Based on standard tests for argumenthood, arithmetic multiply and divide (e.g., multiply/divide 10 by 2) are strong candidates for ditransitivity. More precisely, in English these predicates appear to "select two internal arguments and minimally entail the participation of three entities in the event described by the verb" (Harley and Miyagawa 2016). If in fact they do, then arithmetic multiply and divide raise questions for theories that posit inherent locative/possessive relations in ditransitive constructions. Time permitting, further consequences of arithmetic multiply and divide will be considered. (This is work in its earliest stages).

Introducing Target/Stimulus argument of Mandarin Experiencer-Subject psych-predicates
Qi Wu (UConn)

Mandarin Experiencer-Subject psych-predicates show a tripartite distinction depending on whether the Target/Stimulus (henceforth T/S) argument is introduced as a direct object or by a prepositional element dui (‘to, towards’). Predicates obligatorily take T/S as the direct object generally appear degraded with dui-T/S phrase (variation across different predicates and individuals will be addressed). On the other side of the typology are predicates that cannot take T/S as direct object but have to make use of dui. In the meantime, T/S argument of predicates in the third type can be introduced through both ways. Since Cheng & Sybesma (2015), the (in)transitivity and alternation pattern are handled under the Applicative framework in which dui is taken as the Appl head (cf. Guo & Gu 2020), but under closer scrutiny the construction displays properties that indicate the existence of more intricate structures, thus goes beyond the empirical and theoretical coverage of accounts building on Applicative hypothesis. 

Plural Marked Interrogatives in Turkish
Bergül Soykan (MIT)

There is an ongoing debate about whether the plural marking in Turkish has a weak/inclusive interpretation (Sağ 2019, 2021, Renans et al. 2017, 2020) or a strong/exclusive one (Bliss 2004, Bale et al. 2010, Görgülü 2012, 2022). Even though the case about plural-marked bare nouns remains unresolved, I show that plural-marked interrogatives provide evidence for the strong/exclusive plural interpretation, similar to the quiénes ‘who.pl’ interrogatives in Spanish, as proposed by Maldonado (2020). Moreover, Alonso-Ovalle and Rouillard (2023) argue that wh-interrogatives range over generalized quantifiers based on Xiang's (2016) theory. I contribute to this discussion by further proposing that the plural marking in question contexts implies the possibility of multiple correct responses instead of a unique true answer.

Principle B in South Slavic: A Discourse Prominence Theory-based account
Carla Spellerberg (UMass)

(abstract TBA)

What kind of object does the elided VP contain if the antecedent VP does?
Satoru Ozaki (UMass)

This work concerns sentences such as (1,2); combinations of a root wh-object question and an if-clause with VP Ellipsis.  The two sentences differ in terms of the interpretation of the object in the elided VP; it is bound by the wh-phrase in (1), while it receives an indefinite interpretation in (2).  I show that the difference in object interpretation arises due to a difference in the height at which the if-clause is attached in (1) and (2); the if-clause in (1) is attached inside the question, while the if-clause in (2) is attached outside the question.  I discuss how (2), as well as a similar phenomenon known as polarity switch (e.g. I could find no solution, but Sally did <find some solution>), can inform theories of VP Ellipsis licensing.  I also discuss potential challenges in deriving the semantic denotation of (1) due to the low position of the if-clause.

(1) What language would you learn if Sally did?
(2) If you could, what advice would you give to your younger self?