Each presenter will have 25 minutes to present and 10 minutes for questions. You are encouraged to ask questions during breaks or after the conference.
10:30 Opening Remarks
10:35 Polina Pleshak (UMD): Case-agreement interaction and three structural positions for non-finite subjects in Hill-Mari
11:10 Duygu Göksu (UMass): Nominalized subject clauses in Turkish
11:45 - 12:00 Break
12:00 Sarah Asinari (UConn): Multiple Quantifier Float in Philadelphian Irish English
12:35 Ari Goertzel (UConn): Pseudo-incorporation in Mandinka
1:10 Penelope Daniel (UConn): Deriving SOVX Word Order in Mandinka
1:45 - 2:15 Break
2:15 Anissa Neal (UMass): A psycholinguistic approach to definite islands
2:50 Hayley Ross (Harvard): A nanosyntactic account of Scandinavian (double) definiteness
3:25 Josh Martin (Harvard): Non-intersective suppletion
4:00 - Social Hour on Gather.Town
Abstracts
Case-agreement interaction and three structural positions for non-finite subjects in Hill-Mari
Polina Pleshak
Case is often analyzed as parasitic on agreement, including accounts of subject case in embedded clauses of different types. Apparent case alternations between NOM(inative) and GEN(itive) are explained via agreement with different heads. In this talk, I present and analyze novel data from Hill Mari (Finno-Ugric, Uralic) arguing that NOM-GEN case alternations are in fact independent of agreement. Difference in non-finite subject case and restrictions on agreement in Hill Mari reflect underlying structural differences. NOM and GEN are each assigned configurationally in their domains: the spellout domain of C for NOM and the spellout of D for GEN. I argue for two separate base positions: clausal subjects (NOM) and possessors of nouns (GEN), as well as for an additional derived position for GEN subjects on the clause periphery. The two possible analyses of GEN subjects make different predictions, which are borne out in different dialects of Hill Mari. I articulate the Agent-as-possessor analysis in more detail.
Nominalized subject clauses in Turkish
Duygu Göksu
This paper presents a novel analysis of Turkish subordinate clauses formed by the following two nominalizing suffixes: the infinitival -mA(K) with tenseless and (ir)realis usages, and -DIK / -(y)AcAK with a (non)future temporal specification. Unlike -mAK clauses, -DIK/-(y)AcAK clauses cannot function as the subject of a transitive verb unless they are the complement of certain nouns like ʻnewsʼ. Without such a head noun, -DIK/-(y)AcAK clauses are typically theme arguments and can only be the subject of a passivized verb, an unaccusative predicate, or a transitive predicate whose second DP argument is lexically case-marked. Using the diagnostics for clausehood put forward in Wurmbrand et al. (2019), we propose that the difference in generation as the external argument between the two nominalized clauses can be accounted for by their positions on the Implicational Complementation Hierarchy (ICH) (Wurmbrand and Lohninger, 2019). We extend their formulation of the ICH with an additional implication: the more ʻcomplexʼ and ʻindependentʼ a nominalization, the less likely its generation as the external argument.
Multiple Quantifier Float in Philadelphian Irish English
Sarah Asinari
This paper focuses on a dialect of English called Philadelphian Irish English (PhIrE) which allows quantifier float under wh-movement. This dialect also allows multiple quantifiers to be stranded at various stages of intermediate movement, a novel pattern not observed before. Here I focus on the patterns of multiple quantifier float and their restrictions. I propose that single and multiple quantifier float are derived through two different mechanisms: stranding and copying, respectively. Single quantifier float is derived through the standard stranding mechanisms, while wh-phrases in multiple quantifier constructions leave multiple copies which then undergo scattered deletion (See Bošković 2001; Nunes 2004).
Pseudo-incorporation in Mandinka
Ari Goertzel
Argument structure in Mandinka varies significantly between proper verbs and nominalized verbs (event nominals/gerunds). These nominalizations allow the theme argument to (pseudo-)incorporate, which is not possible with proper verbs. They also have an anti-passive effect, allowing nominalized transitive verbs to omit the theme argument entirely. I will argue that the apparent incorporation structures are actually instances of pseudo-incorporation, matching nearly all of the syntactic and semantic criteria that define pseudo-incorporation cross-linguistically (Massam 2001, Dayal 2011). This analysis also reinforces the status of the mysterious -o clitic that follows most DPs as a D-head. Lastly, I will demonstrate that pseudo-incorporation in nominals is part of a larger pattern in Mandinka where NPs seem to dislike having any syntactic complement, for which pseudo-incorporation is only one of the possible repairs, along with, for example, post-posing of PP or CP arguments.
Deriving SOVX Word Order in Mandinka
Penelope Daniel
Mande languages are known for their unusual SOVX word order, in which subjects and objects precede the verb, while adjuncts and PP, CP, and oblique-marked NP arguments must follow it. Koopman (1985, 1992) proposes that postverbal arguments are located in their base-generated position within the VP, while a more recent proposal by Nikitina (2019) is that the postverbal arguments undergo obligatory rightward extraposition to a clause-adjoined position. In this talk, I will present word order and binding data from Mandinka that support a VP-internal analysis of postverbal NP arguments: they obey a fixed order with respect to adjuncts that other postverbal elements do not, and preverbal objects may bind into a postverbal objects, suggesting that postverbal NPs must be low enough to be c-commanded by preverbal ones.
A psycholinguistic approach to definite islands
Anissa Neal
Experimental work on islands has used formal acceptability judgment studies to quantify the severity of different island violations. This current study seeks to further probe the inviolability of definite islands, an understudied island, in off- and online measures. We conducted two acceptability judgment studies and find a modest island effect. However, rating distributions appear bimodal across definites and indefinites. We also conducted a self-paced reading experiment, but found no significant effects. Bimodal distribution ratings may be attributed to extrasyntactic factors, like violable semantic/discourse-pragmatic conditions. Overall, offline, definite islands differ from other uniform islands, but online, the results are more complicated.
A nanosyntactic account of Danish definiteness
Hayley Ross
In this presentation I will give a first account of the Danish definiteness problem (Delsing, 1993; Hankamer & Mikkelsen, 2018; inter alia) using nanosyntax. Deriving the Danish DP presents two challenges: handling agreement between the (in)definiteness marker, the adjective and the NP, and explaining the alternation between freestanding definiteness marker or definite suffix on the noun depending on the presence of an adjective. Few works on nanosyntax so far have tackled deriving XPs of this size, and handling agreement in nanosyntax is an additional understudied topic. Thus, this data provides an perfect testing ground to explore how well the present nanosyntactic framework can handle this data and what modifications might be needed to nanosyntax's account of prefixes and multiple workspaces.
Non-intersective suppletion
Josh Martin
Adjectives like good and bad display two characteristic interpretations: the intersective (good N = one who is an N and a good person) and the non-intersective (good N = one who is good at being an N). In this talk, I present cross-linguistic evidence for an emerging morphosemantic universal: the intersective interpretation is unavailable for comparative or superlative forms of these adjectives whenever those forms show suppletion. That is, forms like better N only displays the non-intersective interpretation, while forms like gooder N allow (at least) the intersective interpretation. I argue against prior accounts of this pattern couched in terms of root homophony (Despić 2019, who observes it only for Serbian) and in favor of an account on which the intersective interpretation involves an additional structural layer which disrupts the required locality for comparative suppletion. This data is also argued to have consequences for universal analyses of suppletive morphosyntax more generally.