BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Linguistics Graduate Students Association - ECPv6.7.0//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Linguistics Graduate Students Association
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Linguistics Graduate Students Association
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20190101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20190310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20191103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20200308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20201101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20210314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20211107T060000
END:STANDARD
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20200308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20201101T060000
END:STANDARD
TZID:America/Halifax
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0300
TZNAME:ADT
DTSTART:20200308T060000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0300
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:AST
DTSTART:20201101T050000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20220401T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20220401T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20220324T155452Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20220324T155452Z
UID:2484-1648825200-1648832400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Amir Anvari
DESCRIPTION:A theory of oddness \nAmir Anvari \n  \nAbstract: \nWe will rehearse a host of puzzles that have been uncovered in the literature on oddness pertaining particularly\, but not exclusively\, to disjunction (Singh 2008\, Katzir & Singh 2014\, Mayr & Romoli 2016\, Mandelkern & Romoli 2018\, Marty & Romoli 2021 and references therein). The ambition is to provide a unified analysis for all these cases\, as well as a few novel generalizations. We begin with the classical insight\, as formulated by Katzir & Singh (2015)\, that “a good assertion is one that constitutes a good answer to a good question”. We aim at a procedural approach where the question that an assertion is understood to address is not a semantic or contextual given but rather is computed on the fly on the basis of the background assumptions\, the logical structure of the sentence asserted and as well as its formal simplifications (Katzir 2007\, Fox & Katzir 2011). Specifically\, we explore the idea that “good questions” are subsets of the formal alternatives of asserted sentences that satisfy certain conditions to be specified. If no such constellation of alternatives exists\, the sentence fails to address a good question and is deemed unacceptable. We apply this idea to the puzzles mentioned with decent\, but not completely satisfactory\, results. \n  \nMeeting Information \nThis event will be hosted over Zoom. For a link\, please contact the organizers:\nIndira Das (indira.das [at] rutgers.edu)\nTatevik Yolyan (tatevik.yolyan [at] rutgers.edu)\nJiaxing Yu (jiaxing.j.yu [at] rutgers.edu)
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-amir-anvari/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20220325T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20220325T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20220318T181246Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20220318T181246Z
UID:2477-1648220400-1648227600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Asia Pietraszko
DESCRIPTION:Syntactic structure building: lessons from periphrasis\nAsia Pietraszko \n  \nAbstract: \nTraditional approaches to verbal periphrasis (compound tenses) treat the auxiliary verbs be and have as lexical items that enter syntactic derivation like any other lexical item\, i.e. via the operation Merge. An alternative view that has received much attention in recent years is that auxiliary verbs are not base-generated but rather Inserted in a previously built structure (i.a. Bach 1967; Embick 2000; Arregi 2000; Cowper 2010; Bjorkman 2011; Arregi and Klecha 2015). Evidence for the Insertion approach to periphrasis constitutes an argument for a separate structure-building operation\, Insertion. I argue in this talk that a theory with just one structure-building operation\, Merge\, can be maintained. A distinct operation is not necessary to account for the last-resort nature of periphrasis that motivated the Insertion approach. The proposed Cyclic Selection account (Pietraszko 2017\, 2020) is shown to be both empirically adequate and well-grounded in current syntactic theory: the merge of auxiliary verbs is the Merge-counterpart of cyclic Agree (Béjar and Rezac 2009) and the external-Merge-counterpart of long head movement (i.a. Koopman 1984\, Lema and Rivero 1990\, Vicente 2007). \n  \nMeeting Information \nThis event will be hosted over Zoom. For a link\, please contact the organizers:\nIndira Das (indira.das [at] rutgers.edu)\nTatevik Yolyan (tatevik.yolyan [at] rutgers.edu)\nJiaxing Yu (jiaxing.j.yu [at] rutgers.edu)
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-asia-pietraszko/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20211203T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20211203T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20211129T210709Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20211129T210709Z
UID:2393-1638543600-1638550800@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Kristine M. Yu
DESCRIPTION:Building prosodic trees \nKristine M. Yu \nAbstract:\nComputational perspectives from string grammars have richly informed our understanding of phonological patterns in natural language in the past decade. However\, a prevailing theoretical assumption of phonologists since the 1980s has been that phonological patterns and processes are computed on trees built with prosodic constituents such as syllables\, feet\, and prosodic words. Moreover\, multiple dependencies in prosodic structures\, such as multiple association of a tone to a higher-level prosodic node in addition to a tone bearing unit such as a mora or syllable\, have been broadly assumed in intonational phonology without much comment. We revisit these concepts and show that multiple bottom up tree transducers provide a natural representation for multiple tonal association as well as multiple dependencies in prosodic structures in general\, including prosodically-conditioned segmental allophony. \n  \nMeeting Information \nThis event will be hosted over Zoom. For a link\, please contact the organizers:\nIndira Das (indira.das [at] rutgers.edu)\nTatevik Yolyan (tatevik.yolyan [at] rutgers.edu)\nJiaxing Yu (jiaxing.j.yu [at] rutgers.edu)
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-kristine-m-yu/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20211119T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20211119T163000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20211105T201032Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20211105T201032Z
UID:2384-1637334000-1637339400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Claire Halpert
DESCRIPTION:Revisiting nominal licensing in Zulu\nClaire Halpert \n  \nAbstract: \nThe questions of whether and how nominals are syntactically licensed in Bantu languages have been a matter of recent active debate (e.g. Diercks 2012; Halpert 2015\, 2019; van der Wal 2015; Sheehan and van der Wal 2018; Carstens and Mletshe 2016; Pietraszko 2020). While a number of languages and phenomena throughout the Bantu family seem to lack evidence of the typical ‘signature’ of case-licensing (Diercks 2012)\, others show more straightforward case patterns (van der Wal 2015). Sheehan and van der Wal (2018) suggest the term Vergnaud Licensing to refer to nominals’ requirements for particular syntactic configurations and show that Bantu languages show differing behavior on a variety of Vergnaud Licensing metrics. In my own work\, I’ve argued that the Bantu language Zulu has structural case effects that are largely obscured (1) by the prevalence extremely local case licensers (along the lines of lexical case assigners in Baker 2015) and (2) the location of structural case-assigning heads low in the clause. In particular\, I argued that all nominals marked with the so-called augment morpheme were locally licensed and did not require low structural case. In this talk\, I will complicate this view by investigating some environments that show hallmarks of structural case alternations/Vergnaud licensing\, even for augmented nominals: passives (Halpert and Zeller 2016\, Halpert to appear)\, uncontrolled infinitives (Halpert to appear) and possession. In passives and infinitives\, external arguments become optional and are morphologically marked when they appear. I demonstrate that these marked overt external arguments are in fact structurally licensed in Spec\,vP. In possessor raising\, a morphologically marked postnominal possessor alternates with an unmarked prenominal possessor that can be targeted by A- and A-bar processes in the main clause.  I propose that in all of these environments\, a morphologically overt\, acategorial Linker head is involved in licensing (cf. Baker and Collins 2006\, Schneider-Zioga 2015\, Pietraszko 2019).  The requirement of this type of special licensing exactly in environments analogous to case-deprived environments in more familiar case-licensing languages in turn suggests that external arguments are structurally licensed the active\, finite environments–even with the augment. As we look closely at more environments in a Bantu language like Zulu\, the picture of nominal distribution and licensing becomes richer and more complex. \n  \n  \nMeeting Information \nThis event will be hosted over Zoom. For a link\, please contact the organizers:\nIndira Das (indira.das [at] rutgers.edu)\nTatevik Yolyan (tatevik.yolyan [at] rutgers.edu)\nJiaxing Yu (jiaxing.j.yu [at] rutgers.edu)
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-claire-halpert/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20211015T140000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20211015T160000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20210927T181545Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20211012T210737Z
UID:2325-1634306400-1634313600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Lisa S. Pearl
DESCRIPTION:How children are and aren’t like adults when interpreting pronouns: A computational cognitive modeling investigation\nLisa S. Pearl \n  \nAbstract: \nInterpreting pronouns in context is a complex linguistic task\, especially when cues to a pronoun’s intended interpretation conflict. Children have to learn to interpret pronouns like adults do\, and computational cognitive modeling can help identify what potentially needs to change for them to do so. Here\, I present a case study of pronoun interpretation in Mexican Spanish\, using computational cognitive modeling to capture observed differences between children and adults interpreting pronouns in context in a picture-selection task. Modeling results suggest that children are likely either always deploying inaccurate representations of their input\, or selectively deploying accurate representations\, but not selectively deploying inaccurate representations. In contrast\, adults are likely always deploying inaccurate representations. So\, this would mean that becoming adult-like doesn’t mean becoming accurate; rather\, to become adult-like\, children would need to learn how to be inaccurate in the right ways for potentially both representation and deployment of pronoun information. \n  \nMeeting Information \nThis event will be hosted over Zoom. For a link\, please contact the organizers:\nIndira Das (indira.das [at] rutgers.edu)\nTatevik Yolyan (tatevik.yolyan [at] rutgers.edu)\nJiaxing Yu (jiaxing.j.yu [at] rutgers.edu)
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-lisa-s-pearl/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20210416T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20210416T163000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20210415T135506Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210415T135506Z
UID:2100-1618585200-1618590600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Danny Fox Colloquium
DESCRIPTION:Trivalent Strong Exhaustivity – towards a uniform semantics for question embedding\nDanny Fox\, MIT \nAbstract\nIn this talk I will go over well-known arguments that there are three different interpretive schemas associated with question embedding (weak-exhaustivity\, strong-exhaustivity and intermediate-exhaustivity)\, where each embedding predicate selects for the appropriate schema. Despite these arguments I will propose a uniform semantics based on the assumption that the answer to a question is a trivalent proposition (the denotation of a cleft). The answer will be “strongly exhaustive” but presuppositional\, hence Trivalent Strong Exhaustivity. Different results will follow for the different embedding contexts based on independent differences in presupposition projection. If there will be time\, I will also explain how the approach might account for restrictions on question embedding\, veridicality and maximality effects. \nBased on a recent paper – Pointwise Exhaustification and the Semantics of Question Embedding
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/danny-fox-colloquium/
LOCATION:Online; Please contact the organizers for a link
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20210326T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20210326T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20210517T143941Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210517T143941Z
UID:2147-1616770800-1616778000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Rising declaratives and the semantics-pragmatics interface
DESCRIPTION:Rising declaratives provide a challenging test case for theories of the semantics-pragmatics interface that aim to explain why the main clause types are canonically linked to certain discourse functions. For example\, declaratives are canonically used to assert\, and thus usually commit the speaker to their propositional content and signal the goal of updating the common ground with it. Some argue that declaratives are designated for assertions by an illocutionary force operator or an extra-grammatical convention of use (e.g. Searle 1969\, Gunlogson 2003\, and Lauer 2013\, among others)\, while others propose that their assertoric function is derivable from their propositional denotation (e.g. Portner 2004\, 2018 and Farkas & Roelofsen 2017\, among others).\n\n\nHowever\, produce a declarative with the rising intonation typically used in a polar question in English\, and it now seems to be used to ask a question\, albeit one with a special pragmatic requirement that there be some contextual bias in favor of the proposition denoted by the clause. Any attempt to explain why clause types have the pragmatic effects they do will need to have some explanation for this exception to the rule.\n\nIn this talk\, I aim to show that the empirical situation is even more complicated than is typically assumed\, and that dealing with this complication teaches us something new about the semantics-pragmatics interface. The complication is that\, while rising declaratives are frequently used to ask questions\, they can also be used to make assertions much like falling declaratives\, and there is reason to believe that these disparate uses deserve a unified account. Articulating a unified account reveals that much of the illocutionary force of utterances must be pragmatically derived. In particular\, intonation cannot directly signal whether or not the speaker is committed to the content of the declarative clause (pace Gunlogson 2003\, Truckenbrodt 2012\, Farkas & Roelofsen 2017\, Jeong 2018\, and Rudin 2018\, among others). Commitment needs to be worked out from the semantic content\, the intonational contribution\, and the context of utterance. I flesh out how.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/rising-declaratives-and-the-semantics-pragmatics-interface/
LOCATION:Online; Please contact the organizers for a link
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20210305T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20210305T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20210517T145827Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210517T145827Z
UID:2150-1614956400-1614963600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Deconstructing Relativization -- the case of Georgian `rom' relatives
DESCRIPTION:(joint work with Léa Nash\, Paris 8/CNRS) \nThe typological literature on relativization talks about correlatives\, externally headed relatives and internally headed relatives as distinct relativization strategies. We discuss the case of Georgian\, a language which we argue has all three\, and show how it builds these up from essentially the same ingredients. We add to the typology of correlative constructions showing that Georgian correlatives consist of a left peripheral internally headed relative clause as opposed to better studied correlative constructions which involve a free relative construction. One question we ask is what the difference between free relatives and internally headed relatives is. We note that Georgian internally headed relatives contrast with free relatives in Hindi-Urdu and English in not having structural definiteness. This difference\, we show\, has an impact on the kinds of correlatives found in the two languages.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/deconstructing-relativization-the-case-of-georgian-rom-relatives/
LOCATION:Online; Please contact the organizers for a link
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20210205T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20210205T163000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20210127T202543Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210127T202543Z
UID:1958-1612537200-1612542600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Edward Flemming Colloquium
DESCRIPTION:A Generative Phonetic Analysis of the timing of L- Phrase Accents in English \nEdward Flemming (Department of Linguistics and Philosophy\, MIT) \nAbstract: \nThe narrow goal of this research is to develop an analysis of the timing of the English low phrase accent (L-) in H*L-L% and H*L-H% melodies. This is challenging because L- is generally realized as an ‘elbow’ in the F0 trajectory – i.e. a point of inflection rather than a local maximum or minimum – and it is notoriously difficult to locate F0 elbows precisely. I argue that the proper approach to locating tonal targets involves an ‘analysis-by-synthesis’ approach: Given an explicit model of the mapping from tonal targets to F0 trajectories\, we can infer the location of targets by fitting that model to observed F0 contours. So a broader goal is the development of a framework for grammars of tonal phonetics. The proposed model analyzes F0 trajectories as the response of a dynamical system to a control signal that consists of a sequence of step functions connected by linear ramps. Tone realization then involves selecting the control signal that yields the F0 trajectory that best satisfies constraints on the realization of tone targets. \nThis model is used to infer the location of L- and to analyze its distribution. Previous analyses have proposed either that L- occurs at a fixed interval after H*\, or that it aligns to a landmark\, such as the end of the accented word or the next stressed syllable. The results do not support any of these hypotheses: L- does not occur at a fixed interval after H*\, instead it tends to occur earlier when the interval between H* and the first stressed syllable in the following word is shorter (e.g. ‘álien anníhilator’ vs. ‘mínimally manéuverable’)\, but L- also does not align to that stressed syllable\, or any other landmark. This pattern of realization is analyzed as a compromise between two constraints\, one enforcing a target duration for the fall from H* to L-\, and a second\, weaker constraint requiring the fall to be completed before the next stressed syllable\, to avoid misinterpretation of L- as an L* pitch accent associated with that syllable (cf. Barnes et al 2010). \n  \n 
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/edward-flemming-colloquium/
LOCATION:Online; Please contact the organizers for a link
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20201204T133000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20201204T150000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20201130T175921Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20201130T175921Z
UID:1808-1607088600-1607094000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Janet Pierrehumbert
DESCRIPTION:Capturing semantic and social factors in morphological derivation. \nJanet B. Pierrehumbert (Department of Engineering Science\, University of Oxford) \nAbstract \nIn morphology\, the factors predicting the productivity of inflectional patterns have been intensively studied. Both type frequency and phonological similarity are known to play important roles. Quantitative models have thus focussed on how these two factors interact. However\, all of this work assumes that the syntax dictates the speaker’s choice from amongst a small and clearcut number of inflectional categories. \nFor derivational morphology\, this assumption is not valid. Derivational morphology is not obligatory\, and it covers a much greater range of meanings than inflectional morphology\, The selection amongst meanings is driven by the speaker’s communicative goals\, which are affected both by the meaning they wish to express\, and the social context in which they wish to express it. For this reason\, modelling the creation and interpretation of novel derived word forms is a far more challenging problem. Some linguists have viewed the problem as completely intractable. \nIn this talk\, I will review some experimental and computational studies that tackle this challenge. I will describe some experimental results indicating that semantic and social factors are continuously active in processing novel forms. Then I will turn to some recent studies on quantifying these factors to predict the creation of new derived forms in Reddit\, a social media platform. As I will show\, tools from statistical natural language processing allow us to make surprising successful predictions about the production of forms such as “unnicknameable”\, “trumpistan”\, and “minecraftesque”.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-janet-pierrehumbert/
LOCATION:Online; Please contact the organizers for a link
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20201120T160000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20201120T183000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20201116T175902Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20201116T175902Z
UID:1790-1605888000-1605897000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Stefan Keine
DESCRIPTION:Crossover asymmetries  \nStefan Keine (joint work w/ Rajesh Bhatt) \nAbstract: \nWe investigate and analyze a crossover asymmetry in Hindi scrambling: such scrambling is not subject to (secondary) weak crossover but at the same time shows clear (secondary) strong crossover effects. This asymmetry provides empirical evidence that the two types of crossover should be analytically decoupled from each other\, and it sheds light on factors that condition weak and strong crossover. We pursue the view that a movement type’s crossover profile is not arbitrary but instead correlates with independently motivated properties of this movement type. Our investigation finds evidence that weak crossover is conditioned by the landing site of movement\, while strong crossover is determined by properties of the launching site. More specifically\, we propose that weak crossover follows from a syntactic restriction on the placement of Büring’s 2004 β-operator\, which is required for pronominal binding from the landing site. Strong crossover\, on the other hand\, is determined by the amount of structure present in the launching site\, which can itself be derived from Wholesale Late Merger and nominal licensing along the lines suggested by Takahashi & Hulsey 2009. In addition to contributing to our understanding of crossover phenomena\, our argument also has implications for the A/A’-nature of scrambling (e.g.\, Webelhuth 1989\, Mahajan 1990) and movement-type asymmetries more generally.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-stefan-keine/
LOCATION:Online; Please contact the organizers for a link
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Halifax:20201030T111500
DTEND;TZID=America/Halifax:20201030T130000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20201116T175357Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20201116T175357Z
UID:1787-1604056500-1604062800@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Gillian Ramchand
DESCRIPTION:Verbal Symbols and Generalized Demonstrations \nGillian Ramchand \n  \nAbstract: \nIn this talk I develop a new theory of the ingredients of semantic composition for the verb phrase\, building on recent work  (Ramchand 2018). I show that the central properties of the approach proposed there make possible a new rapprochement between the theoretical analyses of verbal meaning across the visual and auditory modalities.  The innovation of the new theory is that it partitions the verbal extended projection into a lower symbolic zone and a higher instantiational (situational) zone mediated by the demonstrative act (cf. Davidson 2015\, Henderson 2017).  First I will lay out the system\, and then I will give examples of how it can be used in a formal account of the role of iconicity across modalities. The main feature of the new approach is that it de-exoticizes the ideophone and the iconic symbol\, making it the clue and model for all verbal symbolizing.  Finally\, I show how the reification of the demonstration event gives  a new perspective on indexical content and indexical shift and its typology across languages. 
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-gillian-ramchand/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20200410T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20200410T120000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200302T014958Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200302T015004Z
UID:1467-1586512800-1586520000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Output-driven Phonology (mini-course series III)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/output-driven-phonology-mini-course-series-i-2/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20200403T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20200403T120000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200302T014911Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200302T015110Z
UID:1465-1585908000-1585915200@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Output-driven Phonology (mini-course series II)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/output-driven-phonology-mini-course-series-ii/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20200327T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20200327T120000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200302T014823Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200302T015314Z
UID:1463-1585303200-1585310400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Output-driven Phonology (mini-course series I)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/output-driven-phonology-mini-course-series-i/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20200306T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20200306T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200220T130524Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200220T130524Z
UID:1448-1583506800-1583514000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Jon Ander Mendia Colloquium
DESCRIPTION:Structuring ignorance \nCertain constructions in natural language are tied to an inference that the speaker cannot be more informative; they give rise to what is often referred to as ‘ignorance inferences’. For instance\, the sentences in (1) convey that the speaker doesn’t know who/how many people came to the party. \n1) a. Liz or Sue came to the party.\nb. At least five people came to the party. \nIt is generally agreed that such ignorance inferences are a form of Gricean conversational implicature\, arising as the product of listeners reasoning about a set of relevant alternatives that the speaker chose not to utter. In this talk\, I focus on the modifier ‘at least’ as a case study and show that the precise nature of ignorance inferences depends directly on the structural relations among the alternatives themselves\, i.e. whether they are totally or partially ordered. In fact\, I show that the ordering among alternatives is the only factor that the implicature calculation procedure is sensitive to. The implications are broad: if this reliance on structure can be generalized to other forms of conversational implicature\, then issues surrounding the role of logical vs. contextual entailment in implicature calculation no longer arise (cf. Hirschberg 1985\, Magri 2011).
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/jon-ander-mendia-colloquium/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20200306T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20200306T120000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200220T130135Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200220T130240Z
UID:1444-1583488800-1583496000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Jon Ander Mendia Seminar
DESCRIPTION:Genericity and Grammar \nGeneric statements such as those in (1) express non-accidental\, fundamental characteristics of some type of individuals and/or situations. \n1) a. Birds fly.\nb. Liz smokes after dinner.\nc. This machine crushes oranges. \nSuch generic statements are cross-linguistically ubiquitous\, tend to be morphosyntactically simple\, and provide essential means to express the ways in which we view and reason about the world. In spite of this\, core questions about their semantics remain unanswered to date: (i) What are the truth-conditions of generic statements (if any)? (ii) What are the criteria that single out all and only generic statements? (iii) Can we provide a unified semantics for all generic statements\, and should we do so? \nThe main goal of this seminar will be to understand these challenges and provide preliminary answers to some of these foundational questions. We will start by examining the rich empirical landscape of generic statements so as to gain an understanding of why exactly their correct truth-conditional characterization has proven so elusive. Then\, we will look into two major semantic theories of generics: genericity as kind-predication and genericity as quantification with a vague unselective quantifier GEN. We will finish with a brief discussion of the cognitive footprint of generic statements\, and how notional distinctions such as inductive vs. regulative/dispositional generalizations may be linguistically relevant.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/jon-ander-mendia-seminar/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20200221T150000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20200221T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200212T134132Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200212T134132Z
UID:1432-1582297200-1582304400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Virginia Dawson Colloquium
DESCRIPTION:Paths to exceptional wide scope: Choice functions in Tiwa \nChoice functions have been invoked in the analysis of indefinites and disjunction in order to explain their ability to take wide scope from within islands\, and to explain cross-linguistic variation in whether a given indefinite can or must take wide scope (Reinhart 1997\, Kratzer 1998\, Matthewson 1999\, Winter 2002\, a.o.). In the last two decades\, however\, data have been raised that prove problematic for a choice functional analysis of (most) English wide scope indefinites and disjunction (Chierchia 2001\, Schwarz 2001\, Charlow 2014): the analysis over-generates in downward-entailing environments when there is a bound pronoun in the indefinite restrictor or the individual disjuncts. These data have led to new theories of exceptional scope that avoid this over-generation problem. In this talk\, I revisit the benefits of a choice functional analysis for obligatory wide scope indefinites and disjunction in Tiwa (Tibeto-Burman; India). I show that a choice functional analysis does not over-generate wide scope readings for these elements in downward-entailing environments\, but makes exactly the right predictions. These findings suggest that exceptional wide scope is not derived via a single mechanism in all cases\, but that there are multiple distinct routes available to languages. I conclude with some preliminary typological generalizations.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/virginia-dawson-colloquium/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20200221T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20200221T120000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200212T133943Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200212T133943Z
UID:1430-1582279200-1582286400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Virginia Dawson Seminar
DESCRIPTION:What do imperatives mean? \nWe will examine some of the major questions surrounding the semantics of imperatives\, exploring in particular the division of labor between semantics and pragmatics\, connections to modality\, and the kinds of empirical evidence that have been central to competing analyses.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/virginia-dawson-seminar/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20200214T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20200214T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200131T181805Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200131T181805Z
UID:1405-1581692400-1581699600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Dorothy Ahn Colloquium
DESCRIPTION:A competition mechanism for anaphoric expressions\n\nThis talk explores a competition-based analysis of anaphoric expressions\, which refer to familiar entities. I propose a unified semantic account\, where all anaphoric expressions such as pronouns and definite descriptions share an underlying semantic structure and differ only in the amount of restrictions they carry. The complexity of the restrictions results in an information based competition\, where a quantity-based economy principle chooses the simplest form possible in the given context\, avoiding redundant information. I motivate this theory from an investigation of languages that freely allow bare nouns as arguments\, where the anaphoric ability of the bare noun seems to depend on the availability of morphologically simplex pronouns. I show that the competition mechanism allows for a unified account for a number of independently observed cross-linguistic phenomena and enables a more precise and predictive semantic typology of languages.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/dorothy-ahn-colloquium/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20200214T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20200214T120000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200131T181638Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200131T181638Z
UID:1402-1581674400-1581681600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Dorothy Ahn Seminar
DESCRIPTION:Semantic research in the signed modality \n\n\nThis seminar will provide an overview of aspects of the semantic research in sign languages\, taking the recent discussions on indexical pointing used for referent tracking as a case study. We will identify and discuss the main challenges and limitations of research in this domain\, as well as whether and how such research allows us to reevaluate current theories of referent tracking based on spoken languages. In particular\, we will explore how theories of indexical pointing can help us tease apart a number of existing theories on demonstratives for spoken languages as well as the internal syntactic and semantic composition of indexical constituents in both signed and spoken languages.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/dorothy-ahn-seminar/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20200207T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20200207T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200201T180555Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200201T180555Z
UID:1416-1581087600-1581094800@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Deniz Özyıldız Colloquium
DESCRIPTION:The shape\, meaning\, and sound of factivity \nIn this talk grounded in Turkish data\, I present empirical evidence that the factive inference must be derived and not encoded in the meaning of verbs and complementizers\, and propose a unified syntax and semantics that derives it. Finally\, I show that a contrast in intonation between factive and non-factive attitude reports—supported by production and perception data—can be derived from the syntax coupled with a traditional linking hypothesis with phonology.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/deniz-ozyildiz-colloquium/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20200207T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20200207T120000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200201T180230Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200201T180230Z
UID:1415-1581069600-1581076800@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Deniz Özyıldız Seminar
DESCRIPTION:Rethinking Questions \nWe are actively trying to understand how to account for the distribution and interpretation of embedded questions: Why do know and wonder embed them but not (usually) think? Why do we have to hedge and add (usually) to statements like the previous one? And why does know plus a question imply belief\, when wonder plus the same thing implies the opposite? These are some traditional questions that are currently being scrutinized under a new light. \nOur quest for answers will involve making sense of challenging data\, re-visiting the classics\, and moving towards a bubbling new set of contributions. While the main point will be that there is much more left to be said\, we will be thinking how presuppositions should be harnessed to rescue embedded questions from giving rise to semantic deviance\, and how the part-whole structure of events might be used to derive both the acceptability and the meaning of certain question directed attitudes.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/deniz-ozyildiz-seminar/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20200131T150000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20200131T170000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200116T185907Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200116T185907Z
UID:1375-1580482800-1580490000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Nadine Theiler Colloquium
DESCRIPTION:Witness protection: A unified semantics for additive particles in assertions and questions \nThe English additive particle also can appear in assertions and polar questions\, but not in canonical wh-questions: \n(1)  Mary danced all night.\na. John also danced.\nb. Did John also dance?\nc. #Who also danced? \nIt has been suggested that when also appears in a wh-question\, it triggers a so-called showmaster interpretation (Umbach\, 2012)\, in which the speaker already has a certain answer in mind when asking the question. \nIn this talk\, I will challenge this generalization based on a previously unnoticed class of questions\, which I call summoning questions. To account for the resulting more differentiated empirical picture\, I will generalize Beaver and Clark’s (2008) QUD-based account of additive particles by lifting it to an inquisitive semantics setting (Ciardelli et al.\, 2019). This allows us to capture the contribution of also in assertions and questions in a unified way\, while still accounting for its distributional restrictions.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/nadine-theiler-colloquium/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20200131T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20200131T120000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20200117T163233Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20200120T191004Z
UID:1378-1580464800-1580472000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Nadine Theiler Seminar
DESCRIPTION:Ungrammaticality from triviality: deriving selectional restrictions of attitude verbs\n\nIt’s commonly assumed that ungrammaticality is a syntactic notion and should receive a purely syntactic explanation. Yet there are many proposals appealing to squarely semantic considerations in order to account for certain cases of ungrammaticality. \nIn this seminar meeting\, we will first discuss one particular strategy that has been proposed for relating the semantic notion of triviality to ungrammaticality\, namely the use of L-analyticity (Gajewski 2002\, 2009). \nWe will then zoom in on accounts that use L-analyticity for deriving the selectional properties of certain attitude verbs. The verb believe\, for example\, can embed only declarative but not interrogative complements: \n(1) a.  Finn believes that Tara called.\nb. *Finn believes whether Tara called\nc. *Finn believes who called. \nBuilding on an observation by Zuber (1982)\, we will derive these data from the fact that believe is neg-raising.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/nadine-theiler-seminar/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20191106T113000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20191106T125000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20190925T191135Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20191002T183801Z
UID:1062-1573039800-1573044600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Talk: Miloje Despic (Cornell). Title TBA [ST@R]
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/talk-miloje-despic-cornell-title-tba-str/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20191101T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20191101T163000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20191030T225656Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20191030T225945Z
UID:1212-1572620400-1572625800@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Jim Wood
DESCRIPTION:Putting our heads together: Icelandic deverbal event nouns and allosemy \nGrimshaw (1990) showed that when an event noun is derived from a verb\, it is systematically ambiguous. In the “Complex Event Nominal” (CEN)\, eyðilegging ‘destruction’ refers to an event and inherits argument structure from the verb (as in eyðilegging borgarinnar var hræðilegur atburður ‘the destruction of the town was a horrible event’). In the “Result Nominal” (RN)\, the same form can refer to a concrete entity (as in Jón gekk í gegnum eyðilegginguna ‘Jón walked through the destruction’)\, in which case it does not inherit argument structure from the verb. There is a general tension between these two observations: the systematic nature of the ambiguity suggests that the different readings should come from the same structure; if they didn’t\, we’d expect morphological reflexes of the structural differences\, and we wouldn’t have ambiguity in the first place. On the other hand\, to capture the presence or absence of inheritance\, linguists have proposed different structures for the different readings.  \nIn this talk\, I show how the notion of allosemy—late insertion at semantics\, parallel to allomorphy in morphology—explains both the systematic ambiguity (there is one structure) and inheritance patterns (nouns may still inherit argument structure from verbs). I defend this perspective through by showing how Icelandic nominalization raises problems for two basic approaches to deverbal nominalization. I show that these problems do not arise if all readings of deverbal event nouns are derived by combining the lexical root with v(erbal) and n(ominal) heads directly. The ambiguity stems from allosemy of the v and n heads: either v or n can be semantically meaningless or meaningful. The resulting system incorporates insights from both of the basic approaches discussed: event structure is inherited from the verb\, but argument structure is constructed in a way that is parallel to how it is constructed in the verb phrase. The syntax of an event nominal is just nominal syntax\, with no verb phrase\, even when the nominal contains a verbal head. The many-to-many mapping between form (e.g. the set of nominalizers) and meaning (the readings derived nominals may have) falls out of the basic architecture of the grammar. \n 
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-jim-wood/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20191015T113000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20191015T123000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20191015T030258Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20191015T030258Z
UID:1153-1571139000-1571142600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:MRG: Mark Baker on the alphabet of case features
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/mrg-mark-baker-on-the-alphabet-of-case-features/
LOCATION:18 Seminary Place\, Room 108
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20191009T113000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20191009T125000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20191002T183515Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20191002T183515Z
UID:1108-1570620600-1570625400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Practice Talks: Meg Gotowski & Shiori Ikawa [ST@R]
DESCRIPTION:Meg Gotowski. “What Quoi-sluices reveal about ellipsis and wh-clitics in French.”\nShiori Ikawa. “Long-distance binding of the reflexive anaphor zibun in Japanese”
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/practice-talks-meg-gotowski-shiori-ikawa-str/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20190925T113000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20190925T125000
DTSTAMP:20260428T230419
CREATED:20190925T191448Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20191002T183831Z
UID:1065-1569411000-1569415800@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Talk: Yining Nie (NYU). Title TBA [ST@R]
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/talk-yining-nie-nyu-title-tba-str/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR