Talks at the Department of Linguistics of the University of Leipzig

  • SS 2014

Colloquium "Grammatiktheorie" (theory of grammar), usually  Fridays, 14-16, H1 5.16

Guest lectures/IGRA lectures, usually Wednesdays, 17-19, H1 5.16

 
  • 14.04. 9.30-10.30
Jeffrey Parrott (Palacký University, Olomouc): Patterns and mechanisms of pronominal case variation in (North) Germanic
  • 23.04. 17.15-18.45:

Sharon Rose (UCSD): Phonology-conditioned affix order: the case of Moro object markers

  • 02.05. 14.00-15.30:

Gereon Müller: A buffer-based approach to resumptives in German

  • 09.05. 14.00-15.30:

Andew Murphy: On how/why-alternations and islands in wh-in-situ languages

  • 14.05. 17.15-18.45:

Tobias Scheer (Nizza): Melody-free syntax (change of date!)

  • 16.05. 14.00-15.30:

Timo Klein: Resumption as interaction of syntactic operations

  • 21.05. 17.15-18.45:

Roberta d'Alessandro (Leiden): Syntactic domains at PF, PF domains in syntax

  • 23.05. 14.00-15.30:

Joanna Zaleska: Syllable driven conspiracy effects in European Portuguese

  • 28.05. 17.15-18.45:

Aaron Doliana: PCC effects in German

  • 04.06. 17.15-18.45:

Ricardo Bermudez-Otero (Manchester): French adjectival liaison: evidence for underlying representations

  • 06.06. 14.00-15.30:

Sebastian Bank: The algebraic structure of morpho-syntactic features

  • 13.06. 14.00-15.30:

Anke Assmann: On variation in and across languages: A case study on case matching effects with free relatives and parasitic gaps
 

  • 18.06. 17.15-18.45:

Eva Zimmermann: The power of a single representation: Morphological tone and allomorphy

  • 20.06. 14.00-15.30:

Johannes Hein: Locality, Listedness and Morphological Identity – Syntagmatic Constraints in English Participial Allomorphy

 

  • 25.06. 17.15-18.45:

Ingo Plag (Düsseldorf): Homophony in morphology: The acoustic properties of English /s/ morphemes

  • 02.07. 17.15-18.45:

Ewa Dabrowska (Northumbria): Speakers, usage, culture: language as a phenomenon of the third kind

  • 04.07. 14.00-15.30:

Sampson Korsah: Anaphora in Akan and Ga

  • 04.07. 16.00-17.30:

Tom Roeper (UMass): UnLabelled Nodes in Acquisition and Morphology: How the Acquisition Path and Derivational Morphology Reveals Fundamental Operations

  • 09.07. 17.15-18.45:

Gisbert Fanselow (Potsdam): cancelled!!!

  • 16.07. 17.15-18.45:

Andrew Nevins (UCL): Brazilian Portuguese confronts Experimental Methods and Morphological Productivity

  • 17.07. 17.15-18.45:

Maria Polinsky (Harvard): What agreement theory can learn from closest conjunct agreement

  • 18.07. 14.00-15.30:

Zorica Puskar: Gender and number agreement with conjuncts

  • 23.07. 17.15-18.45:

Andrew Nevins (UCL): Georgi's Pattern III in Phonology: Nonfinal Chains of Tone

  • 25.07. 14.00-15.30:

Mael Gautier: Agreement in Georgian: A Distributed Morphology analysis

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

  • WS 2013/2014

Colloquium "Grammatiktheorie" (theory of grammar), usually  Fridays, 14-16, H1 5.16

Guest lectures, usually Wednesdays, 17-19, H1 5.16 or Friday 14-16, H1 5.16

for previous guest lectures, see here:

  • 18.10. 14.00-15.30:

Gereon Müller: Remannt movement in local derivational grammar

  • 25.10. 14.00-15.30:

Doreen Georgi: On peculiar reflexes of successive-cyclic movement:
Opaque interactions of Merge and Agree

  • 01.11. 14.00-15.30:

Anke Assmann & Fabian Heck: Opaque intervention

  • 08.11. 14.00-15.30:

Sandhya Sundaresan: A new type of anaphor-agreement effect: insights into the form-meaning connection

  • 15.11. 14.00-15.30:

Eva Zimmermann: Long epenthetic vowels

  • 22.11. 14.00-15.30:

Cécile Meier (University of Frankfurt): Gradrelativsätze als generalisierte Quantoren

  • 27.11. 17.15-18.45:

Stefan Müller (FU Berlin): Wiedervereinigung: Unifying Everything: Einige Bemerkungen zu Simpler Syntax, Construction Grammar, Minimalism und HPSG

  • 29.11. 14.00-15.30:

Timo Klein: Agree > Move = Resumption

  • 11.12. 17.15-18.45:

Sebastian Bank: Subanalyse und Linearisierung (note: change of date!)

  • 13.12. 14.00-15.30:

Marcel Pitteroff (University of Stuttgart): Restructuring infinitives and unmarked passives: the case of German let-middles and let-passives

  • 18.12. 17.00-19.00

Console-Probevorträge:

Katja Barnickel: Swith-Reference in German

Daniela Thomas: Split Ergativity in Subordination as a Consequence of Defectivity

Aaron Doliana: The Super-Strong Person-Case Constraint: Scarcity of Resources by Scale-Driven Impoverishment

  • 19.12. 13.15-14.45

Stefan Keine (University of Massachusetts at Amherst): Improper Agreement

  • 20.12. 14.00-15.30:

Jochen Trommer:

  • 09.01. 13.15-14.45:

Andrew Nevins (UCL): Artificial Words and Artificial Grammars: Probing the Veridicality of Intra- and Cross-Linguistic Generalizations

  • 17.01. 14.00-15.30:

Martin Salzmann: 213 - Verb cluster or 3rd construction? (note: change of date!)

  • 22.01. 17.15-18.45:

Hedde Zeijlstra (University of Göttingen): Upward Agree is superior

  • 24.01. 14.00-15.30:

Kristin Börjesson: Long-distance agreement and the nature of Agree

  • 29.01. 15.15-16.45:

Elisa Kellner (ZAS Berlin): Embedded questions in Kamtok

  • 29.01. 17.15-18.45

Petr Biskup: Etikettierung und andere syntaktische Operationen

  • 31.01. 14.00-15.30:

Hazel Pearson (ZAS): Counterfactual attitudes and the syntax-semantics interface

  • 05.02  15.15-16.45:

Marlou van Rijn (U Amsterdam): Marking possession: a new approach to locus and agreement

  • 05.02  17.15-18.45:

Anke Assmann: Zur Interaktion von V2 und Extraktion aus Argumentsätzen

  • 07.02. 14.00-15.30:

Philipp Weisser: A Derived Coordination Approach to Asymmetric Coordination

  • Abstracts

Abstract Meier:


Abstract Müller: Wiedervereinigung: Unifying Everything: Einige Bemerkungen zu Simpler Syntax, Construction Grammar, Minimalism und HPSG

In meinem Vortrag vergleiche ich verschiedene aktuelle Theorien: die extremen Gegensätze sind auf der einen Seite Minimalistische Theorien, die nur die binären Operationen Move und Merge annehmen, und auf der anderen Seite Theorien wie Simplere Syntax, die flache Strukturen und eine oberflächenorientierte Abbildung von grammatischen Funktionen auf syntaktische Strukturen annehmen.

Ich zeige, dass ausschließlich oberflächenorientierte Theorien Beziehungen zwischen syntaktischen und morphologischen Strukturen nicht erklären können und dass es nicht möglich ist, die Iteration
valenzverändernder Prozesse zu erfassen. Ich schlage deshalb eine lexikalische Analyse vor, wie in Minimalistischen Theorien, in der HPSG und der Kategorialgrammatik angenommen wird. Ich zeige
außerdem, dass Chomskys Vorschläge zur Berechnung von Labeln aus verschiedenen Gründen problematisch ist, und argumentiere, dass sie durch direktere Ansätze, wie sie in HPSG angenommen werden, ersetzt
werden sollten. Ich diskutiere Probleme, die für die Analyse von Spezifikatoren und Komplementen in Stablers Minimalist Grammars ergeben und zeige, dass man - wenn man alle angesprochenen Probleme beseitigt - bei Kombinationsregeln ankommt, die ziemlich genau denen entsprechen, die HPSG schon immer verwendet.

Wie viele Vertreter oberflächenorientierte Ansätze wie Konstruktionsgrammatik, Simpler Syntax, und HPSG gezeigt haben, reichen zwei Arten binär verzweigender, endozentrischer Regeln nicht aus, um
Sprache in ihrer Gesamtheit zu erklären. Die Schlußfolgerung ist also, dass beide Forschungsrichtungen teilweise Recht haben: man braucht sowohl (beschränkungsbasierte Varianten von) Move und Merge
als auch spezielle phrasale Konstruktionen.

http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/unifying-everything.html


Abstract Pitteroff: Restructuring infinitives and unmarked passives: the case of German let-middles and let-passives

It is well-known that argument alternations such as passivization are typically morphologically marked (e.g. Haspelmath 1990). In this talk, I will discuss two constructions, so called passive causatives (1a) and let-middles (1b), and argue that in these cases, the morphological marking is suspended.

(1)     a. Hans lässt das Buch lesen.   
              Hans lets   the  book read-Inf        
              'Hans makes someone read the book.'           

b. Das Buch lässt  sich    gut     lesen.
    The book  lets   REFL  well   read-Inf
    'The book reads well.'

In detail, I will show that the infinitival complement in these constructions must involve the external argument introducing projection VoiceP (Kratzer 1996), but the argument normally introduced in this projection must remain implicit. Furthermore, the internal argument can not be case-licensed by the infinitival predicate, but is case dependent on the matrix predicate or matrix T respectively. In these regards, then, the infinitival complement in passive causatives and let-middles shows all the core properties of verbal passives, but lacks the morphological marking canonically associated with passivization, e.g. passive causatives and let-middles involve morphologically unmarked passives.
My explanation for the existence of unmarked passives is tightly connected with the theory of restructuring (e.g. Cinque 2004; Haider 1993, 2010; Wurmbrand 2001, 2004 a.o.). I will argue that the absence of passive morphology is a consequence of the very truncated structure of restructuring infinitives and I discuss three potential theories that can account for this: 1) absence of functional structure related to passive morphology (AspP as in Embick 2004, or PassP as in Bruening 2012); 2) Statusrektion in the sense of Bech (1955); 3) Voice Agreement.
While all three theories treat infinitival morphology as a a default marking, only the third one straightforwardly accounts for the fact that in some languages the morphology on the embedded verb matches the morphology on the restructuring verb (e.g. Chamorro; Chung (2004)). Building on Wurmbrand (2013), I discuss how such a theory can be extended to cover passive causatives and let-middles.  


Abstract Keine: Improper Agreement

In this talk I argue that improper movement restrictions are not due to a constraint on movement itself but the consequence of a more general constraint on the operation Agree. Based on novel evidence from cross-clausal agreement in Hindi, I will argue that whether such agreement is possible, impossible or obligatory correlates tightly with whether or not A-movement out of the lower clause can and has taken place. Crucially, these correlations hold at the level of the embedded clause as a whole, not individual items within it. The domain-based nature of this generalization is strongly reminiscent of recent advances in the understanding of improper movement. Based on the assumption that both movement and φ-agreement involve Agree, I suggest a single restrictions on Agree to constrain both, thus explaining their similarity of patterning and the striking implicational relations that hold between the two. Part and parcel of the constraint is that the locality of a probe is systematically affected by the height of the head hosting the probe in the functional sequence. This analytical unification is further corroborated by the fact that edge accessibility effects can be observed for for both movement and agreement.
 

Abstract Zeijlstra: Upward Agree is superior

In Zeijlstra (2012), I argued that the syntactic operation Agree may only apply between a probe that carries an uninterpretable feature and a goal that carries a matching interpretable feature, where the goal is the closest potential goal that c-commands the probe. Similar conclusions have also been reached by Wurmbrandt (2011, a.o.). This version of Agree has been dubbed Upward Agree (UA), as opposed to Downward Agree (DA), where the probe c-commands the goal. The proposal for UA has raised several criticisms, most notably by Preminger (2013). In short, Preminger stated that whereas certain instances of Agree should indeed be implemented in terms of UA (Negative Concord, Sequence of Tense), other instances of Agree should still be implemented in terms of DA. In this paper, I argue that the potential counter arguments rather show that Zeijlstra’s original UA proposal was not strong enough and that under an even more restrictive version of UA all raised counterarguments vanish and, moreover, a well-known instance of macroparametric variation gets fully explained. The novel empirical and theoretical contribution of this proposal is that DA can only take place if it is accompanied by instance of UA. I conclude the talk by showing that a particular instance of macro-paramteric variation, observed by Baker (2008), follows from this proposal.


Abstract Pearson: Counterfactual attitudes and the syntax-semantics interface

I will discuss three puzzles that arise with counterfactual attitude verbs such as hope and wish. First, a new puzzle: comparative sentences embedded below these verbs yield a reading that is not found with doxastic verbs such as think:

1. Bertie is imagining/pretending/wishing that the yacht is/were longer than it is.

(1) has a reading where the length of the yacht is greater in the counterfactual worlds compatible with what Bertie imagines/pretends/wishes than it is in the worlds compatible with what he believes. I show that this reading can be captured by positing a covert belief operator that binds a world variable in the than-clause. This builds on earlier analyses where counterfactual verbs are interpreted relative to a doxastic modal base (Ninan 2008, Yanovich 2011). The novel contribution is the idea that this modal base is represented in the syntax, and introduces an operator that binds world variable pronouns. I discuss two other puzzles - counterfactual de re and de re blocking effects - and show that the account sheds light on both of these.


 

 

 

top of page

.Department Website