Whamit!

The Weekly Newsletter of MIT Linguistics

Issue of Monday, March 5th, 2012

ESSL Meeting 3/5 - Yasu Sudo and Hadas Kotek

Speakers: Yasu Sudo and Hadas Kotek
Date/Time: Monday, Mar 5, 5:30p
Location: 32-D461

In this talk we will discuss our latest work on many and most. We will argue that the three readings of many that have been previously recognize in the literature, (1), can be detected for most as well.

(1) Many Scandinavians are Nobel prize winners
a. Cardinal: |Scandinavian Nobel prize winners| is largeC
b. Proportional: |Scandinavian Nobel prize winners| / |Scandinavians| is largeC
c. Reverse Proportional: |Scandinavian Nobel prize winners| / |Nobel prize winners| is largeC

In particular, we will show that most has a reverse-proportional reading, and in addition we identify a new reading of most which we call the fragile reading: a superlative reading which is sensitive to the number of comparisons that are made and to the distance between the numbers compared. The fragile reading prominently manifests itself in “strong” environments, for example in the subject position of individual-level predicates. These findings lend support to Hackl’s (2009) analysis of most as being composed of many and the superlative morpheme -est. We will suggest that the familiar proportional and superlative readings of most are derived from cardinal many; RP most is derived from RP many and fragile most is derived from proportional many. We will argue that proportional many is cardinally evaluative and discuss the implications of this suggestion.

Syntax Square 3/6 - Omer Preminger

Speaker: Omer Preminger
Title: Syntactic Ergativity in Q’anjob’al
Date/Time: Tuesday, Mar 6, 1-2p
Location: 32-D461

(Full paper available at LingBuzz.)

Many morphologically ergative languages show asymmetries in the extraction of core arguments: while absolutive arguments (transitive objects and intransitive subjects) extract freely, ergative arguments (transitive subjects) cannot. This falls under the label “syntactic ergativity” (see e.g. Dixon 1972, 1994; Manning 1996).

Extraction asymmetries of this sort are found in many languages of the Mayan family, where in order to extract transitive subjects (for focus, wh-questions, or relativization), a special construction known as “Agent Focus” (AF) must be used (Aissen 1999; Stiebels 2006, Preminger 2011). In this talk — which presents collaborative work with Jessica Coon and Pedro Mateo Pedro — we offer a proposal for (i) why some morphologically ergative languages exhibit these extraction asymmetries, while others do not; and (ii) how the Mayan AF construction circumvents this problem.

We adopt recent proposals that ergative languages vary in the locus of absolutive case assignment (Aldridge 2004, 2008a; Legate 2002, 2008), and demonstrate that the same variation can be found within the Mayan family itself. Based primarily on comparative data from Q’anjob’al and Chol, we argue (contra previous accounts) that the inability to extract ergative arguments is not due to properties of the ergative argument itself, but rather comes about as the result of the locality conditions on absolutive case assignment in the relevant languages.

We show how the AF morpheme “-on” circumvents this problem in Q’anjob’al, by assigning structural case of its own to the internal argument. Evidence for this approach comes from reflexive and extended reflexive constructions, incorporated objects, nominalized embedded clauses, and the distribution of so-called “hierarchy effects” in related Mayan languages.

Phonology Circle 3/7 - Peter Graff and Emad Taliep

This Wednesday’s installment of the Phonology Circle features a talk by Peter Graff and Emad Taliep. They will also be presenting the same talk earlier in the day, at Wednesday 10am in TedLab.

Speakers: Peter Graff and Emad Taliep
Title: English Speakers Track Absolute Frequency in Consonant Co-occurrence

Date: March 7 (Wednesday)

Time: 5:00–7:00

Location: 32D831

Phonotactic wellformedness has been shown to affect behavior in a
variety of linguistic tasks such as word-likeness judgments (e.g.,
Coleman and Pierrehumbert 1997). However, different researchers have
often employed rather different measures for phonotactic
wellformedness. This is particularly evident in the literature on
consonant co-occurrence where two distinct measures of the
wellformedness of constellations of consonants separated by vowels
(e.g., p_t in pat) have been hypothesized. The first measure is the
joint probability (i.e., absolute frequency) of the constellation
P(C1_C2). Studies have found, e.g., that the joint probability of
labial-coronal constellations (e.g. pat) is greater than the joint
probability of coronal-labial ones (e.g. tap) in many different
languages (MacNeilage et. al 1999, Carrissimo-Bertola 2010) and
children as young as 7 months have been shown to be sensitive to this
phonotactic (Nazzi et al. 2009, Gonzalez Gomez and Nazzi 2012). The
second measure of wellformedness often employed is the observed-
overexpected ratio (O/E) also known as pointwise mutual information
(PMI). The difference between PMI and joint probability is that PMI
relativizes the joint probability of a constellation to the
independent probabilities of its parts such that PMI(C1;C2) =
log(P(C1_C2)/(P(C1)·P(C2))), i.e. log(O/E). PMI has been hypothesized
as a measure of wellformedness in studies of OCP-Place type phenomena
(e.g. Frisch et al. 2004, Coetzee and Pater 2008) and PMI-based
generalizations have been shown to affect wordlikeness judgments in
languages like Arabic (Frisch and Zawaydeh, 2001). In this study, we
compare the patterning of PMI and joint probability in the English
lexicon and show that English CVCs present an ideal test-case for
disambiguating the two measures. We present results from an online
wordlikeness judgment study (N=50) and find that speakers’ judgments
are more accurately predicted by joint probability (i.e., absolute
frequency) than PMI.

Paper co-authored by Graff in Science!

A new paper (a “technical comment”) has just appeared in Science, co-authored by Florian Jaeger (Rochester), Dan Pontillo (Rochester) and our own Peter Graff (5th-year grad student), entitled Comment on “Phonemic Diversity Supports a Serial Founder Effect Model of Language Expansion from Africa”. Congratulations, Peter (and all)!!

LFRG 3/8 - Guillaume Thomas

Speaker: Guillaume Thomas
Date/Time: Thursday Mar 8, 10:00AM-11:30AM
Location: 32-D831
Title: Mbyá tense

Abstract:

Since I didn’t have time to address the main point of my work on tense in Mbyá
during my ling-lunch talk, I will do it during this LFRG session—although I
won’t assume that you have been to my ling-lunch talk. (1) and (2) both entail
that there is a time before the time of utterance (TU) at which Juan is a
teacher, but (2) also entails that Juan is not a teacher at TU, while (1) only
implicates it. I propose that -kue is interpreted as a simple past tense in
both cases, and that both (1) and (2) implicate that Juan is not a teacher at
TU, but that this implicature can be canceled only in (1). During this
session,
I want to discuss (a) how we can generate this implicature and (b) how we can
make sure that it stays in place in (2).

(1) Juan o-iko va?e-kue ñombo?ea.
Juan 3-be REL-PAST teacher
Juan was a teacher.

(2) Juan ñombo?ea-kue
Juan teacher-PAST
Juan is an ex-teacher.

Ling-Lunch 3/8 - Cristiano Chesi

Speaker: Cristiano Chesi (NETS ? IUSS Pavia, CISCL ? University of Siena)
Title: Top?Down, Left?Right Derivations
Date/Time: Thursday, Mar 8, 12:30-1:45p
Location: 32-D461

The full abstract is available here (PDF).

The goal of this talk is to provide empirical arguments in favor of a derivational view of the
grammar in which structure building occurs, incrementally, top-down (Chesi 2004a, 2007) and from
left to right (Phillips 1996, 2003).

Following the Minimalist research spirit (Chomsky 1995-2008), I will show that the bottom-to-top
orientation of phrase structure building is not a “virtual conceptual necessity” and that we can gain in
descriptive adequacy if we drift away from the idea that the basic recursive operation is a set formation
operation like Merge.

Linguistics Colloquium 3/9 - Yosef Grodzinsky

Speaker: Yosef Grodzinsky — McGill University
Date/Time: Friday 3/9 3:30 pm
Location: 32-141
Title: The Analysis of Negative Quantifiers: Multi-modal Evidence

Abstract:

 
Recent discussion of
 negative
 quantifiers
 (see
 Penka,
 2011
 and
 references
 therein)
focuses
 on
 two
 main
 questions:
 do
 these
 quantifiers
 decompose,
 and
 if
 so,
 what
 are
the
 mechanisms
 for
 decomposition?
 In
 this
 talk,
 I
 will
 describe
 a
 series
 of
 neuro-­
 and
psycholinguistic
 experiments
 my
 colleagues
 and
 I
 have
 conducted
 with
 healthy
 and  
brain-damaged
 participants
 that
 aim
 to
 provide
 relevant
 evidence.
 These
experiments
 recorded
 responses
 from
 several
 modalities,
 as
 participants
 were
analyzing
 sentences
 with
 positive
 and
 negative
 proportional
 and
 degree
 quantifiers  
in
 German
 and
 English
 (e.g.,
 mehr/weniger-­als-­die-­Hälfte
 die
 Kreise
 sind
 Gelb
,
many/few
 of
 the
 circles
 are
 blue).

 

All
 experiments
 used
 a
 Parametric
 Proportion
 Paradigm
 (PPP):
 participants
were
 exposed
 to
 sentence-scenario
 pairs,
 and
 were
 requested
 to
 make
 truth
 value
judgments.
 Sentences
 contained
 a
 quantifier
 in
 subject
 position,
 and
 scenarios  
depicted
 a
 proportion
 between
 2
 types
 of
 objects.
 Proportion
 was
 a
 parameter,
systematically
 varied
 across
 images
 that
 were
 presented
 with
 each
 sentence
 type.
 

 
Our
 first
 experiment
 used
 functional
 MR
 imaging
 to
 extract
 a
 signal
 that
represents
 localized
 brain
 activity.
 It
 aimed
 to
 identify
 brain
 loci
 that
 evince
 an
intensity
 differential
 between
 the
 contrasting
 stimuli.
 Signal
 intensity
 for
 sentences
with
 negative
 quantifiers
 was
 higher
 than
 that
 for
 their
 positive
 counterparts
 only
 in
Broca’s
 region.
 Importantly,
 no
 other
 localizable
 intensity
 contrasts
 were
 found.
 

 

A
 second
 experiment
 (currently
 only
 a
 pilot)
 confronted
 English
 speaking,
focally
 brain
 damaged,
 Broca’s
 aphasic
 patients
 with
 the
 same
 task.
 However
 here,
the
 dependent
 measure
 was
 error
 rate.
 The
 results
 suggest
 a
 remarkably
 selective  
deficit:
 While
 patients
 performed
 near-normally
 on
 the
 positive
 quantifiers,
 their
scores
 were
 drastically
 reduced
 when
 the
 stimuli
 contained
 negative
 quantifiers.
 

 
A
 third
 experiment
 attempted
 to
 take
 a
 deeper
 look
 at
 the
 behavioral
signature
 of
 quantifier
 analysis
 through
 a
 study
 of
 complex
 RT
 functions
 obtained
from
 healthy
 participants.
 Here,
 too,
 we
 observed
 that
 the
 signature
 of
 negative
quantifiers
 is
 quite
 distinct
 from
 that
 of
 their
 positive
 counterparts.
 

 
In
 this
 talk,
 I
 will
 try
 to
 connect
 these
 results,
 obtained
 through
 different
modalities
 from
 different
 populations,
 to
 previous
 ones
 that
 come
 from
 parametric
studies
 of
 overt
 syntactic
 movement
 with
 healthy
 participants
 in
 fMRI,
 and
 with
Broca’s
 aphasic
 patients.
 I
 will
 propose
 that
 a
 generalization
 over
 the
 experimental
results
 supports
 an
 analysis
 of
 sentences
 with
 negative
 quantifiers
 that
 assumes
covert
 movement.
 I
 will
 then
 try
 to
 situate
 these
 results
 in
 the
 broader
 context
 of
 a
research
 agenda
 that
 tries
 to
 create
 a
 brain
 map
 of
 syntactic
 and
 semantic
knowledge.