Speaker: Amy Li (MIT)
Title: The potential effect of phoneme inventory crowding on phonetic variation
Time: Monday April 6, 5pm - 6:30pm
Location: 32-D831
Abstract: Does the crowdedness of a phoneme inventory affect the variability of the realizations of its phonemes? In particular, does a more crowded phoneme inventory reduce the variability of its phonemes? Lavoie (2002) provides some preliminary evidence for such an effect by comparing /k/ in the spontaneous speech of English and Spanish, finding that the percent of phonetically fricative-like or approximant-like realizations is much lower in Spanish (7%), which contrasts /x/ with /k/, than English (21%), which does not. In this presentation, I will discuss my work in progress on the topic, including a new model (and some variants) I’m proposing within Dispersion Theory and my attempts to find evidence for such a cross-linguistic effect on vowel inventories.
Issue of Monday, April 6th, 2026
Phonology Circle 4/6 - Amy Li (MIT)
Syntax Square 4/7 - Joseph Sabbagh (UT Arlington)
Speaker: Joseph Sabbagh (University of Texas Arlington)
Title: The Dynamic Existential in Tagalog
Time: Tuesday, April 7, 1:00pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461
Abstract: This presentation discusses existential sentences based around a verbal existential predicate (magkaroon) in Tagalog. Such sentences are peculiar because, while they appear to be unaccusative, with a single DP argument projected as an internal argument (=the E(xistential) C(lause) pivot), the EC-pivot surfaces with accusative/dependent case-marked marking. The sole argument of ordinary unaccusative verbs, by contrast, are marked with subject/topic-case. Thus these dynamic existential sentences are problematic for language internal reasons as well as more broadly given proposed universals like Burzios Generalization. After demonstrating the the EC-pivot is indeed an internal argument of an apparently unaccusative predicate, I propose that the (verbal) existential predicate is in fact a possessive predicate that projects an external argument. This argument is overt in possessive sentences (which are formed with the same predicate), but covert in existential sentences. The hypothesized covert argument opens up an analysis of the accusative/dependent case marking of the EC-pivot assuming a Dependent Theory of Case. Precedents for such an account from Russian, Icelandic, and Greek are cited; and I conclude with some speculations about the typology of expletives and their availability (overt or covert) across languages.
Speaker: Joseph Sabbagh (University of Texas Arlington)
Title: The Dynamic Existential in Tagalog
Time: Tuesday, April 7, 1:00pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461
Abstract: This presentation discusses existential sentences based around a verbal existential predicate (magkaroon) in Tagalog. Such sentences are peculiar because, while they appear to be unaccusative, with a single DP argument projected as an internal argument (=the E(xistential) C(lause) pivot), the EC-pivot surfaces with accusative/dependent case-marked marking. The sole argument of ordinary unaccusative verbs, by contrast, are marked with subject/topic-case. Thus these dynamic existential sentences are problematic for language internal reasons as well as more broadly given proposed universals like Burzios Generalization. After demonstrating the the EC-pivot is indeed an internal argument of an apparently unaccusative predicate, I propose that the (verbal) existential predicate is in fact a possessive predicate that projects an external argument. This argument is overt in possessive sentences (which are formed with the same predicate), but covert in existential sentences. The hypothesized covert argument opens up an analysis of the accusative/dependent case marking of the EC-pivot assuming a Dependent Theory of Case. Precedents for such an account from Russian, Icelandic, and Greek are cited; and I conclude with some speculations about the typology of expletives and their availability (overt or covert) across languages.
Minicourse - Veneeta Dayal (Yale University)
Speaker: Veneeta Dayal (Yale University)
Title: (In)definiteness Across Languages
When: Wednesday, April 8th, 1pm-2:30pm (Day 1) + Thursday, April 9th, 12:30-2pm (Day 2)
Where: 32-D461
Abstract:
Given the complexity of article systems, the fact that as many languages lack either one or both articles poses interesting questions for universal grammar. Do article-less languages have the same expressive power as articled languages?
The issues discussed in this mini-course are based on language surveys in Dayal, V. (ed.). The Open Handbook of (In)definiteness: the Hitchhikers Guide to Interpreting Bare Arguments, Open Handbook of Linguistics, MIT Press and related work.
Day 1: Demonstrative to Definite: What Changes and What Stays the Same
I posit that a demonstrative has two parts to its meaning, an indexical part and a contrastive part. The first demarcates a possibly proper sub-domain in the context of evaluation within which a unique referent must be established. It must also be possible for the referent to be contrasted with another entity in the context of evaluation or outside it, the property of anti-uniqueness. A definite lacks anti-uniqueness for sure, it may also lack also the indexical part, simply requiring its referent to be unique in the context of evaluation.
I show how this distinction accounts for certain well-known facts. The definite article is compatible with proper names in many languages. A proper name, suitably adjusted for type, satisfies the uniqueness requirements of the definite. Languages make a parametric choice between projecting a D. There is no cross-linguistic variation with respect to demonstratives — proper names are uniformly unacceptable. Strikingly, their unacceptability can be ameliorated under exclamatives a fact that I suggest can only be explained with reference to the property of anti-uniqueness.
Finally, we consider cases where demonstratives require the support of a full DP to piggy-back on and argue that such cases crucially require distinguishing between indexicality and anti-uniqueness.
Day 2: Demonstratives, Definites, Bare Nouns: What Competes with What
Since Schwarz (2009), cross-linguistic studies have embraced the distinction between a strong familiarity-based definite and a weak uniqueness-based definite. But so far only Fering and German have been shown to have two distinct lexical forms of definite articles. What has actually been attested is a division of labor between either one definite determiner and a demonstrative (English), or a bare noun and a demonstrative (Mandarin).
I introduce the neo-Carlsonian account of kind terms in order to ground the discussion of bare nouns in languages that have articles (English, Italian, Akan) as well as those that do not (Russian, Hindi, Xhosa). I show that various aspects of the semantics of bare nouns, definites and demonstratives can predict their distribution when combined with standard theories of competition namely, Blocking and Maximize Presupposition. The picture of nominal systems that emerges does not require us to recognize strong definite articles as a distinct category in the nominal system of universal grammar.
Based on the diagnostics of anaphora and the ability to introduce discourse referents, I also comment briefly on the so-called ambiguity between definite and indefinite readings typically ascribed to bare nouns in article-less languages.
Abstract:
The issues discussed in this mini-course are based on language surveys in Dayal, V. (ed.). The Open Handbook of (In)definiteness: the Hitchhikers Guide to Interpreting Bare Arguments, Open Handbook of Linguistics, MIT Press and related work.
Day 1: Demonstrative to Definite: What Changes and What Stays the Same
I posit that a demonstrative has two parts to its meaning, an indexical part and a contrastive part. The first demarcates a possibly proper sub-domain in the context of evaluation within which a unique referent must be established. It must also be possible for the referent to be contrasted with another entity in the context of evaluation or outside it, the property of anti-uniqueness. A definite lacks anti-uniqueness for sure, it may also lack also the indexical part, simply requiring its referent to be unique in the context of evaluation.
I show how this distinction accounts for certain well-known facts. The definite article is compatible with proper names in many languages. A proper name, suitably adjusted for type, satisfies the uniqueness requirements of the definite. Languages make a parametric choice between projecting a D. There is no cross-linguistic variation with respect to demonstratives — proper names are uniformly unacceptable. Strikingly, their unacceptability can be ameliorated under exclamatives a fact that I suggest can only be explained with reference to the property of anti-uniqueness.
Finally, we consider cases where demonstratives require the support of a full DP to piggy-back on and argue that such cases crucially require distinguishing between indexicality and anti-uniqueness.
Day 2: Demonstratives, Definites, Bare Nouns: What Competes with What
Since Schwarz (2009), cross-linguistic studies have embraced the distinction between a strong familiarity-based definite and a weak uniqueness-based definite. But so far only Fering and German have been shown to have two distinct lexical forms of definite articles. What has actually been attested is a division of labor between either one definite determiner and a demonstrative (English), or a bare noun and a demonstrative (Mandarin).
I introduce the neo-Carlsonian account of kind terms in order to ground the discussion of bare nouns in languages that have articles (English, Italian, Akan) as well as those that do not (Russian, Hindi, Xhosa). I show that various aspects of the semantics of bare nouns, definites and demonstratives can predict their distribution when combined with standard theories of competition namely, Blocking and Maximize Presupposition. The picture of nominal systems that emerges does not require us to recognize strong definite articles as a distinct category in the nominal system of universal grammar.
Based on the diagnostics of anaphora and the ability to introduce discourse referents, I also comment briefly on the so-called ambiguity between definite and indefinite readings typically ascribed to bare nouns in article-less languages.
Colloquium - Veneeta Dayal (Yale University)
Speaker: Veneeta Dayal (Yale University)
Title: A Sortability-based Account of Anti-singularity in Questions
When: Friday, April 10th, 3:30-5pm
Where: 32-141
Abstract:
This talk addresses three cases of anti-singularity in questions, illustrated in (1a)-(1c). They all convey that the speaker expects that the answer will name more than one individual:
(1) a. Which books did you buy? English
b. Was hast du alles gekauft? German
What have you all bought
What all have you bought?
c. Quiénes se fueron pronto? Spanish
Who-PL REFL left early
Who left early?
The anti-singularity of (1a) has been explained as arising from competition with its singular version: which book did you buy?, which has a uniqueness presupposition only one book can be named. This explanation does not extend to the other two cases. There is no uniqueness presupposition in the version of (1b) without alles or in the version of (1c) that has a singular wh quién.
The proper analysis of the anti-singularity observed in (1b)-(1c), I argue, requires us to pivot from consideration of number proper. Drawing inspiration from work on so-called optional plural markers, specifically the Cuzco Quechua morpheme kuna, I show how anti-singularity can be a bi-product of a presupposition of sortability it should be possible to partition the set denoted by the noun complement along some dimension, such as type, size, color etc.
This talk addresses three cases of anti-singularity in questions, illustrated in (1a)-(1c). They all convey that the speaker expects that the answer will name more than one individual:
(1) a. Which books did you buy? English
b. Was hast du alles gekauft? German
What have you all bought
What all have you bought?
c. Quiénes se fueron pronto? Spanish
Who-PL REFL left early
Who left early?
The anti-singularity of (1a) has been explained as arising from competition with its singular version: which book did you buy?, which has a uniqueness presupposition only one book can be named. This explanation does not extend to the other two cases. There is no uniqueness presupposition in the version of (1b) without alles or in the version of (1c) that has a singular wh quién.
The proper analysis of the anti-singularity observed in (1b)-(1c), I argue, requires us to pivot from consideration of number proper. Drawing inspiration from work on so-called optional plural markers, specifically the Cuzco Quechua morpheme kuna, I show how anti-singularity can be a bi-product of a presupposition of sortability it should be possible to partition the set denoted by the noun complement along some dimension, such as type, size, color etc.
Tu+11 @ MIT Linguistics
Event name: TU+11 (11th Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic)
Dates: April 11-12
Place: 56-114
Organizers: Bergül Soykan, Cynthia Zhong, Juan Cancel, Taieba Tawakoli, and Vladislav Orlov
Link to the Program: https://turkicworkshop.github.io/tu11/program.html
Brief Introduction:
TU+ is an annual workshop focusing on all aspects of linguistic research on Turkic languages, as well as on languages in contact with Turkic and on languages spoken in regions where Turkic languages are spoken. TU+ showcases theoretically informed and data-driven work across phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, historical linguistics, and computational approaches.
Pesetsky to be SHASS Faculty Fellow in Fall 2026!
Congratulations to David Pesetsky on being named a 202627 SHASS Faculty Fellow! David is one of 12 professors selected for the new SHASS Faculty Fellows cohort:
During his fellowship, [David Pesetsky will] investigate why theres more than one kind of clause in the worlds languages. While linguists and researchers assume that clauses in most of the worlds languages come in different flavors, finite and infinitival, gerunds, and so on, they dont yet know why.
The fellowship supports research and writing across the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. Read more here: https://shass.mit.edu/twelve-professors-selected-for-2026-27-cohort-of-shass-faculty-fellows/
Congratulations to David Pesetsky on being named a 202627 SHASS Faculty Fellow! David is one of 12 professors selected for the new SHASS Faculty Fellows cohort:
During his fellowship, [David Pesetsky will] investigate why theres more than one kind of clause in the worlds languages. While linguists and researchers assume that clauses in most of the worlds languages come in different flavors, finite and infinitival, gerunds, and so on, they dont yet know why.
The fellowship supports research and writing across the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. Read more here: https://shass.mit.edu/twelve-professors-selected-for-2026-27-cohort-of-shass-faculty-fellows/
Sulemana promoted!
We hear that our distinguished alum Abdul-Razak Sulemana (PhD 2021) has been promoted to the academic rank of Senior Lecturer at the University of Ghana. Congratulations, Abdul-Razak!
We hear that our distinguished alum Abdul-Razak Sulemana (PhD 2021) has been promoted to the academic rank of Senior Lecturer at the University of Ghana. Congratulations, Abdul-Razak!