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: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:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20180101T000000
END:STANDARD
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20180311T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20181104T060000
END:STANDARD
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
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20200214T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20200214T120000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
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:20260727T215914
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:20260727T215914
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:20260727T215914
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:20260727T215914
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:20260727T215914
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:20260727T215914
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:20260727T215914
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:20260727T215914
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:20260727T215914
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
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20190925T113000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20190925T125000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20190925T190900Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20190925T191243Z
UID:1060-1569411000-1569415800@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Talk: Natasha Chemey. "I've got a talk about 'have got'" [ST@R]
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/talk-natasha-chemey-ive-got-a-talk-about-have-got/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20190920T110000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20190920T124000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20190919T181650Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20190919T181650Z
UID:1005-1568977200-1568983200@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Augustina's talk on Anaphoricity Marking in Akan
DESCRIPTION:I revisit the interpretation of the so-called definite determiner\, nò in Akan. I contend that contrary to previous analyses\, nò is not a definite determiner of type <<e\,t>e>. Rather\, I claim it is as a partial identity function which triggers an anaphoric presupposition. The main advantage of the present theory is that it presents a uniform semantics of the use of nò in examples (1a) and (1b). In example (1a) nò follows an NP\, I will refer to this as the nominal nò.̀ In (1b) it is at the end of a wh-question\, and this will be referred to as the clausal nò. \n1.    Me-tɔ-ɔ         ataadeɛ    ne      mpaboa bi.         Mpaboa nò yɛ   fɛ. \n1SG-buy-PST dress     CONJ shoe      INDEF shoe       nò COP nice \n‘I bought a shoe. The shoe was nice.’ \n2.    Hena na  ɔ-ba-a               ha  nò.\nWho foc. 3sg-come-pst here nò \n`What came here?’ \nThe nominal and clausal nò are assumed to be underlyingly the same morpheme by Amfo (2006)\, and Arkoh & Mathewson (2013)\, a.o.  This talk will focus on the nominal nò. I show that as an anaphoric expression\, the antecedent of the nò phrase should only be weakly familiar\, (Roberts 2003). In other words\, it does not necessarily require a linguistic antecedent. The only requirement is that the descriptive content of the antecedent is compatible with the descriptive content of the anaphoric expression.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/augustinas-talk-on-anaphoricity-marking-in-akan/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20190918T113000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20190918T125000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20190918T143330Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20190918T143411Z
UID:974-1568806200-1568811000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Talk: Troy Messick. "3/4 agreement patterns and monotonicity" [ST@R]
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/talk-troy-messick-3-4-agreement-patterns-and-monotonicity-str/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20190225T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20190225T113000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20190214T204235Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20190214T204235Z
UID:758-1551088800-1551094200@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Talk: Mark Baker. On Possession\, nominalization\, and syntactic categories in Dan. [ST@R]
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/talk-mark-baker-on-possession-nominalization-and-syntactic-categories-in-dan-str/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20190215T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20190215T120000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20190131T165817Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20190202T165658Z
UID:701-1550224800-1550232000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:MathLing Spring 2019 Meeting 1: Learning substitutable languages
DESCRIPTION:In this meeting\, we will continue the discussion on learning started last semester. The relevant reading for the meeting is Clark and Eyraud (2007) on learning substitutable languages\, which can learn non-regular languages that can model some aspects of syntactic structure.\nAll are welcome!
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/spring-2019-meeting-1-learning-substitutable-languages/
LOCATION:The Language Center\, 1 Spring St\, New Brunswick\, NJ\, 08901\, United States
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20190211T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20190211T110000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20190201T185441Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20190201T185441Z
UID:723-1549879200-1549882800@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:ST@R Meeting: Paper discussion
DESCRIPTION:In this meeting we’ll discuss Richards’ (2004) article The syntax of conjunct and independent orders in Wampanoag.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/str-meeting-paper-discussion/
CATEGORIES:Discussion
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20181116T150000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20181116T170000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20181010T195348Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181108T223054Z
UID:567-1542380400-1542387600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Talk: Lauren Clemens & Lee Bickmore [ST@R & PhonX]
DESCRIPTION:Resisting prosodic ambiguity: the case of reduced relative clauses in Rutooro\nLauren Clemens & Lee Bickmore (University at Albany)\n\nRutooro is a Bantu language of Uganda that lacks lexical tone. Instead\, prominence in Rutooro is marked with a High tone (H) on the penultimate syllable of the phonological phrase (φ-phrase). Like many languages in the family\, syntactic XPs reliably correspond to φ-phrases; however\, we find a previously unattested pattern in the prosody of Rutooro adnominal phrases. Head nouns are marked H when they combine with strong determiners\, adjectives with augment vowels\, and full RCs. In contrast\, nouns do not bear an H tone when they combine with weak determiners\, augment-less adjectives\, and reduced RCs. We propose that the distribution of H tones serves as a diagnostic for whether an adnominal is generated in a DP-internal or external position. Reduced object RCs with overt subjects are a special case: the head of the reduced object RC bears an unexpected H tone\, while the subject is all-Low despite the fact that it is a self-contained XP. We demonstrate why these data challenge prominent theories of the syntax-prosody interface\, ultimately concluding that the attested phrasing repairs a prosodic ambiguity that could otherwise point to illicit syntactic constituency.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/talk-lee-bickmore-and-lauren-clemens/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20181102T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20181102T120000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20181031T183603Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181031T183856Z
UID:674-1541152800-1541160000@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:SURGE meeting: semantic reconstruction
DESCRIPTION:This is a meeting to discuss binding reconstruction within semantic theory. The primary reading is Chris Barker’s paper “Evaluation order\, crossover\, and reconstruction”.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/surge-meeting-semantic-reconstruction/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20181031T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20181031T143000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20181029T215252Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181029T215252Z
UID:671-1540990800-1540996200@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Talk: Bleu Gildas Gondo\, The fusion between some constituents in the Eastern Dan sentences [ST@R]
DESCRIPTION:The fusion between some constituents in the eastern Dan sentences\nBleu Gildas Gondo (Rutgers University) \nThe present work aims to carry out an analytical reflection on the process of the fusion between some constituents in the eastern Dan sentences. In fact\, the fusion in Dan sentences which happens between subject and complement and verbs and complement respect many processes such as the rapprochement\, the assimilation\, the vowel lengthening and the vocal elision. Moreover\, the fusion is realized on the constituent of the left and not of the right. \n……………………………………………………………………………………………. \nKey word:fusion\, lengthening\, vowel\, elision\, assimilation\, pronouns\, verbs\, complements \n 
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/talk-bleu-gildas-gondo-the-fusion-between-some-constituents-in-the-eastern-dan-sentences-str/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20181026T150000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20181026T163000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20181020T161323Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181020T162255Z
UID:656-1540566000-1540571400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Kevin McMullin (UOttawa).  Distance\, blocking\, and optionality on phonological tiers
DESCRIPTION:Many phonological processes apply across large amounts of intervening material\, including\, e.g.\, vowel harmony\, consonant harmony\, and long-distance patterns of dissimilation. These phenomena have long posed a challenge for phonologists\, and have served as motivation for incorporating tiers or projections into various theoretical frameworks. In this talk\, I will argue that when treating long-distance dependencies as tier-based patterns\, there is an inherent relationship between the properties of distance\, blocking\, and optionality. I will present typological and experimental evidence in support of this claim\, further outlining several testable predictions that are the focus of research in progress. \nI will first review the findings of McMullin (2016)\, which argues that patterns of long-distance consonant agreement and disagreement are best treated as members of the Tier-based Strictly Local (TSL) class of formal languages (Heinz et al. 2011). In particular\, characterizing them as such allows for a straightforward account of unbounded vs. transvocalic patterns. This distance-based dichotomy is robustly attested cross-linguistically\, and a series of artificial grammar learning experiments (McMullin & Hansson\, submitted) suggests that it is reflective of a human learning bias. Moreover\, the TSL class includes patterns that can be blocked by intervening segments\, but excludes a number of computationally complex patterns that are predicted to be possible within the Agreement by Correspondence framework (Rose & Walker 2004\, Hansson 2010)\, but that are seemingly unattested (McMullin & Hansson 2014). \nSecond\, I will argue that it is not necessary to draw a strict distinction between the notions of ‘distance’ and ‘blocking’. Within this distance-free approach\, transvocalic distance emerges when consonant-consonant interactions are blocked by other intervening consonants. Many patterns also exhibit ‘distance-based decay’ (Zymet 2014)\, where the pattern is less and less likely to apply as distance increases. I will demonstrate not only that this is a predicted property for any dependency that can be blocked\, but that allowing for blocking to be optional makes it possible to derive an expected rate of decay equivalent to distance-based options offered in the literature (McMullin\, submitted). While this approach is amenable to many theoretical frameworks\, I will illustrate specifically how it can be understood in TSL terms. \nFinally\, I will provide a short overview of ongoing research focused on long-distance learning that supports (or at least unintentionally exploits) this connection between distance\, blocking\, and optionality\, and present preliminary results from an experiment designed to reveal how humans interpret optional dependencies and whether they can learn patterns with blocking.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-kevin-mcmullin-distance-blocking-and-optionality-on-phonological-tiers/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20181026T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20181026T120000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20181025T001732Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181025T001732Z
UID:667-1540548000-1540555200@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Math Ling/PhonX joint Meeting
DESCRIPTION:A presentation by Kevin McMullin on Learning phonotactic restrictions on multiple tiers.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/math-ling-phonx-joint-meeting/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20181019T030000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20181019T170000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20181010T183813Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181020T162820Z
UID:549-1539918000-1539968400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Anna Szabolcsi: Unconditionals and free choice
DESCRIPTION:Unconditionals and free choice\nAnna Szabolcsi (NYU)\n\nThe seminal analysis of unconditionals in Rawlins 2013 is founded on the insight that the issue raised by the unconditional adjunct is orthogonal to the issue of the main clause. Rawlins furthermore notes\, “Since orthogonality is a generalization of a distribution effect\, more classical free choice effects …  can be meta-characterized using orthogonality” (2013: 160).  I will observe that the morpho-syntactic shape of unconditionals in Hungarian calls for a direct (non only meta-) unification with free choice and negative polarity.  This talk will make several steps towards the unification\, extending Chierchia 2013 and Dayal 2013 to unconditionals\, focusing on Hungarian.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquiam-anna-szabolcsi/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20181012T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20181012T120000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215914
CREATED:20181010T183723Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181020T162700Z
UID:546-1539338400-1539345600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Workshop: Scripting in Praat\, Part 2 [LUG]
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/scripting-praat-workshop-part-2-lug/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20181008T131000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20181008T153000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215915
CREATED:20181010T183455Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181020T162717Z
UID:533-1539004200-1539012600@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Workshop: Scripting in Praat\, Part 1 [LUG]
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/scripting-praat-workshop-part-1-lug/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20181004T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20181004T143000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215915
CREATED:20181010T204143Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181020T162555Z
UID:581-1538658000-1538663400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Talk: Zheng Shen\, Multi-valuation and the Language Level of the Agreement Hierarchy [ST@R]
DESCRIPTION:Multi-valuation and the Language Level of the Agreement Hierarchy \nZheng Shen (Goethe University Frankfurt) \n  \nMulti-valuation involves a probe getting multiple singular values. Nominal right node raising (1) and TP right node raising (2) have been argued to involve multi-valued Ns and Ts respectively. \n  \n(1) This tall and that short student(*s) are a couple. (multi-valued Ns) \n(2) Sue’s proud that Bill\, and Mary’s glad that John\, have/has traveled to Cameroon. (multi-valued Ts) \nA cross-linguistic survey reveals that three out of the four logically possible patterns of multi-valued Ns and Ts are attested as in (3)\, parallel to the original Agreement Hierarchy observed for hybrid noun agreement (Corbett 1979). I argue that this asymmetry is an instantiation of the Agreement Hierarchy. \n(3) \n\nMulti-valued Ns – singular\, Multi-valued Ts – singular: Slovenian.\nMulti-valued Ns – plural\, Multi-valued Ts – plural: Russian.\nMulti-valued Ns – singular\, Multi-valued Ts – plural: English.\nMulti-valued Ns – plural\, Multi-valued Ts – singular: unattested.\n\nI show that recent accounts for the Agreement Hierarchy effects e.g. Smith 2015\, Landau 2016\, cannot be extended to the multi-valuation pattern in (3) because they deal with the sentence level of the Agreement Hierarchy where the mismatch occur in one sentence as in (4). The multi-valuation agreement hierarchy on the other hand involves a language level of the hierarchy. \n(4) \n\nThe committee hasoffered themselvesfor criticism.\n*The committee haveoffered itselffor criticism.
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/talk-zheng-shen-multi-valuation-and-the-language-level-of-the-agreement-hierarchy-str/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20180926T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20180926T140000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215915
CREATED:20181010T204737Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181020T162514Z
UID:587-1537966800-1537970400@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Talk: Mark Baker & Livia Camago Souza: Agree without Agreement: Switch-Reference in Two Panoan Languages [ST@R]
DESCRIPTION:Agree without Agreement: Switch-Reference in Two Panoan Languages\nMark Baker and Livia Camargo Souza (Rutgers University) \nOverview: The Panoan languages Shipibo and Yawanawa have unusual switch-reference (SR) systems in what (we claim) is a theoretically instructive way. They make the standard morphological distinction between a “same-subject” (SS) form (-ax or –xon) and a “different subject” (DS) form (-ke-tian)\, depending on whether the subject of the embedded clause is coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause ((1a)) or not ((1c)). However\, they are unusual in that they have a third member in the SR paradigm: a special OS form (-a) that shows that the object of the embedded clause is coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause ((1b)) (see Valenzuela 2003\, Baker 2014\, etc.\, pace Camacho 2010). \n(1) a. José=ra [Rosa oin-ax] xobo-n ka-ke. Shipibo (Valenzuela 2003: 424;Baker 2014: 364)\nJosé=PRT Rosa see-SS.ABS house-LOC go-PRV\n‘He_i seeing Rosa_j\, José_i went home.’ (Note: =ra PRT is a second position clitic) \nb.[José-kan Rosa oin-a]=ra\, xobo-n ka-ke.\nJosé-ERG Rosa see-OS=PRT house-LOC go-PRV\n‘When José_i saw Rosa_j\, she_j went home.’ \nc. [José-kan Rosa oin-ke-tian]=ra\, (ja) xobo-n ka-ke.\nJosé-ERG Rosa see-PRV-DS=PRT 3SG home-LOC go-PRV\n‘When José_i saw Rosa_j\, he_m/she_k (someone else) went home.’ \nWe argue that the presence of both SS and OS forms in these languages make it particularly clear that Chomsky’s (2000\, 2001) relation of Agree is at work to pick out which NP in the embedded clause (the “antipivot”) is coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause (the “pivot”). Nevertheless the functional head of the embedded clause that is realized as the SR marker does not visibly agree with the antipivot in phi-features such as person or number—a somewhat paradoxical case of Agree without agreement. \nWe claim that this paradox has a satisfying resolution if we follow recent work that breaks agreement into two distinct parts (e.g.\, Arregi and Nevins 2012\, Bhatt and Walkow 2013\, Marušič\, Nevins\, and Badecker 2015): Agree-Link\, which creates a pointer from a functional head to a nearby NP\, and AgreeCopy\, which transfers phi-features from the goal to the probe and deletes the pointer (“dereferencing”). Previous work draws this distinction so as to order PF processes like the fixing of linear order between the two components of Agree. We propose to use the same distinction in a different way: SR is the result of applying Agree-Link but not Agree-Copy. As a result\, the phi-features of the goal are not placed on the probe\, and a pointer from the probe to the goal survives to LF. When there are pointers from a head to two distinct NP goals\, LF interprets the pointers as expressing referential dependency between the NPs. \nEmpirical Evidence of Agree at work in SR: Agree is fundamentally a relationship between a\nfunctional head F and an NP such that: (i) F c-commands NP\, (ii) no other NP intervenes between F and NP\, (iii) no spell out domain contains NP but not F\, and (iv) NP is active for Agree by not bearing an oblique case feature (parameterized). There is rather rich evidence that this relationship holds between the antipivot and the SR head\, which we claim to be T for SS marking (cf. normal subject agreement) and v for OS marking (cf. normal object agreement). In particular: \n(i) F c-commands the NP. This holds fairly trivially (by hypothesis)\, but is consistent with the fact\nthat SR markers look like high functional heads\, showing up as the outermost suffixes on the verb in (1). \n(ii) No other NP intervenes between F and the antipivot. This is seen best with SS marking\, where the antipivot is the highest NP in the clause. For example\, in (2) SS marking shows that the higher experiencer argument of ‘forget’ is coreferential with the matrix subject\, not the lower theme of ‘forget’\, even though both arguments have absolutive case and the nonagentive v is probably not a strong phase head. (One might also expect intervention to imply that only goal arguments can be antipivots for OS marking on ditransitive clauses\, but Shipibo happens to be a “symmetrical object language” (Valenzuela 2003); we analyze this using NP movement internal to a transitive VP\, following McGinnis 2001). \n(2) [José yapa shinanbeno-xon]=ra\, {pi-ke nami / #ea jako-ma-ke}.\nJosé fish forget-SS=PRT eat-PRF meat me sick-CAUS-PRF\nOK: ‘When José forgot the fish\, he ate meat.’\nNot: ‘When José forgot the fish\, it made me sick.’ \n(iii) No spell out domain contains NP but not F. This is seen most clearly with OS marking (since it is redundant with the intervention condition for SS). Thus the antipivot of an OS clause can be the object of the clause\, but not the object of a PP or the possessor of a DP. This follows from Agree given that P and D are phase heads. Moreover\, the object of an embedded verb cannot be the antipivot in cases of full CP clausal embedding ((3a))\, but it can be if the higher verb takes a “reduced” VP complement ((3b)). \n(3) a. *[En [CP PRO Rosa oin-ti] keen-a]=ra\, xobo-n ka-ke.\nI-ERG Rosa see-INF want-OS=PRT house-LOC go-PRF\n(‘I wanted to see Rosa\, but she (Rosa) went home.’) (OK with keen-ke-tian\, DS form) \nb. [Jose-kan [VP Rosa kena-ti ] atipan-a]=ra\, bene-ke.\nJosé-ERG Rosa call-INF can-OS=PRT be.happy-PRF\n‘Because José was able to call Rosa\, she (Rosa) was happy.’ (# with DS form) \n(iv) NP must be active. This can be seen with OS marking\, where NP complements in oblique case (dative\, instrumental) cannot be antipivots\, as shown in (4). (Ergative subjects remain active for Agree in Panoan\, and these languages do not have oblique case subjects. However\, Imbabura Quechua does have quirky-case subjects\, and these do not count as antipivots for SS marking (Hermon 1984:115)). \n(4) *[Rosa Jose-ki sinat-a]=ra\, xobo-n ka-ke.\nRosa José-DAT be.angry-OS=PRT house-LOC go-PRF\n(‘Rosa was angry with Jose\, so he went home.’) (OK with sina-ke-tian\, DS form) \nSo the relationship between SR morphemes and antipivots has all the properties characteristic of Agree. \nAgree-Link as a representation of referential dependency: Even if a pointer created by AgreeLink remains at LF when Agree-Copy does not apply\, this is not by itself interpreted as a referential dependency\, since functional heads are not referential. However\, two pointers from the same position to two different NPs can plausibly be interpreted by LF as referential dependency holding between the NPs pointed-to. The second pointer comes\, we claim\, from a C head at the top of the adjunct clause entering into Agree with the subject of the matrix clause. This Agree relation is parallel to the agreement in case found between adjuncts and subjects elsewhere in Panoan (“participant agreement”\, Valenzuela 2004) and other languages. The full analysis of SS\, then\, is that C Agrees with the subject in the matrix clause\, T Agrees with the subject in the embedded clause\, and T moves to C (HM)\, fusing into one head that expresses both tense/aspect and SS marking; see (5). The full analysis of OS is: C agrees with the subject in the matrix clause\, v agrees with the object in the embedded clause\, and v moves to C over T to fuse into one head\, spelled out as -a; see (6). The fact that OS involves a long head movement (LHM) whereas SS does not plausibly accounts for the fact that OS is typologically much rarer than SS\, found only in Panoan languages. In both cases\, the chain of pointers gives coreference. DS marking is by default. \n(5) [ [ [ [vP pro [VP Rosa see] v ] T ] C ] [vP José [VP home-LOC go ] v ] (=(1a))\nAgree-Link HM Agree-Link T+C= -ax (SS)\n(6) [ [ [ [vP Jose [VP Rosa see] v ] T ] C ] [vP pro [VP home-LOC go ] v ] (=(1b))\nAgree-Link LHM Agree-Link v+C= -a (OS) \nExtensions: Our proposals can also account for a slightly different form of SS marking\, found in\nChoctaw (Broadwell 2006). Whereas the normal realization of tense/aspect and subject agreement is lost in SS clauses in Panoan\, since T is fused with C to create SS\, in Choctaw SS marking is clearly attached to C\, and normal tense and subject agreement are present in the adjunct clause. This is the result of C itself being specified as Agreeing twice\, with the higher subject and with the lower subject. These notions can also be applied to reflexive/reciprocal marking in Panoan languages (see (7)) and beyond. This is the result of a single head\, tentatively v\, invariant for phi-features\, undergoing Agree-Link (but not AgreeCopy) twice\, with the two NPs closest to it\, here the agent in Spec vP and an object in VP. This induces referential dependence between the two. We may hope that this framework will provide a general theory of referential dependencies between NPs induced by functional heads at any point in the clausal spine. \n(7) Jabo=ra yapa meni-anan-ke. (Valenzuela 2003)\nthey=PRT fish give-RECIP-PRF ‘They gave each other fish.’ \n 
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/talk-mark-baker-livia-souza-agree-without-agreement-switch-reference-in-two-panoan-languages-str/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20180921T150000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20180921T170000
DTSTAMP:20260727T215915
CREATED:20181010T211045Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20181020T162535Z
UID:598-1537542000-1537549200@sites.rutgers.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium: Keir Moulton\, Exceptional agreement via clausal determiners
DESCRIPTION:  \n 
URL:https://sites.rutgers.edu/lgsa/event/colloquium-keir-moulton-exceptional-agreement-via-clausal-determiners/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR