{"id":11547,"date":"2018-10-15T06:06:20","date_gmt":"2018-10-15T10:06:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/whamit.mit.edu\/?p=11547"},"modified":"2018-10-14T20:59:22","modified_gmt":"2018-10-15T00:59:22","slug":"lf-reading-group-1017-tatiana-bondarenko-mit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/2018\/10\/15\/lf-reading-group-1017-tatiana-bondarenko-mit\/","title":{"rendered":"LF Reading Group 10\/17 - Tatiana Bondarenko (MIT)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Speaker:<\/strong> Tatiana Bondarenko (MIT)
\n Title:<\/strong> <\/b>Argument structure of thinking: a view from Buryat
\n Date and time:<\/strong> Wednesday, October 17, 1-2 pm
\n Location:<\/strong> 32-D461<\/p>\n

Abstract:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n
In this talk, I would like to discuss a puzzle about Buryat’s verb\u00a0hanaxa<\/i>\u00a0’think’. When this verb takes a CP as its complement, it behaves like a non-factive verb\u00a0think<\/i>, (1); but when it takes a nominalized clause as its complement, (2), it behaves like a factive verb and is usually translated as ‘remember, recall’.<\/p>\n

(1)\u00a0 a.\u00a0 dugar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 mi:sg?<\/span>j\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 zagaha\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0?dj-<\/span>?:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 g<\/span>?<\/span>??\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 han-a:<\/span><\/div>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Dugar.NOM\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 cat.NOM \u00a0\u00a0 fish\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 eat-PST\u00a0 COMP\u00a0 think-PST<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 ‘Dugat thought that the cat ate the fish.’<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 b.\u00a0 OK…but the cat didn’t eat the fish.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n (2)\u00a0 a.\u00a0 dugar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 mi:sg?j-n\u00a0\u00a0 zagaha\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0?dj-?:<\/span>?-i:j<\/span>?-n’\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 han-a:<\/span><\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dugar.NOM\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 cat-GEN \u00a0\u00a0 fish\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 eat-PART-ACC-3SG\u00a0 think-PST<\/span><\/div>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 ‘Dugat remembered (“thought of”) the cat’s eating the fish.’<\/span><\/div>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 b.\u00a0 #…but the cat didn’t eat the fish.
\n <\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
The question that I will try to answer is: what is the difference in the meaning of the verb that we see in (1) and (2), and why does it arise?<\/p>\n

I will propose that the<\/span>\u00a0semantic rule used for combining\u00a0hanaxa<\/i>\u00a0 with its complement is different in (1) and (2): in (1) CP combines as a modifier of the thinking-event (by an operation like Restrict (Chung & Ladusaw 2004)), while in (2) the nominalization combines as an internal argument via Function Application. I will argue that different rules of composition, together with\u00a0a presupposition of\u00a0hanaxa<\/i>\u00a0that requires its internal argument (= what is being thought about) to exist prior to the thinking-event, can derive the difference in meaning observed in (1)-(2). If correct, this proposal supports the decompositional analysis of attitude predicates (Kratzer 2006, 2016, Moulton 2009, 2015, Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten 2016, 2017), and also suggests that we might expect hyperraising to object to occur in languages in which CPs combine semantically as modifiers of the events described by the matrix verb.
\n <\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Speaker: Tatiana Bondarenko (MIT) Title: Argument structure of thinking: a view from Buryat Date and time: Wednesday, October 17, 1-2 pm Location: 32-D461 Abstract: In this talk, I would like to discuss a puzzle about Buryat’s verb\u00a0hanaxa\u00a0’think’. When this verb takes a CP as its complement, it behaves like a non-factive verb\u00a0think, (1); but when […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-announcements"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11547"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11562,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11547\/revisions\/11562"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11547"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}