{"id":16230,"date":"2024-04-08T06:50:09","date_gmt":"2024-04-08T10:50:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/whamit.mit.edu\/?p=16230"},"modified":"2024-04-08T09:52:01","modified_gmt":"2024-04-08T13:52:01","slug":"lf-reading-group-4-10-shrayana-haldar-mit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/2024\/04\/08\/lf-reading-group-4-10-shrayana-haldar-mit\/","title":{"rendered":"LF Reading Group 4\/10 - Shrayana Haldar (MIT)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Speaker: <\/strong> Shrayana Haldar (MIT)

\nTitle:<\/strong>Fixing Engdahl\u0092s Type-Shifter and Heim\u0092s Unary Which<\/i><\/span>

\nTime: <\/strong>Wednesday, April 10th, 1pm - 2pm

\nLocation: <\/strong>32-D461

\n

\nAbstract: <\/strong>Engdahl’s (1986) account of functional readings of sentences like (1) involved having the pronoun herself<\/i>\u00a0bound upstairs by a covert binder E,<\/i>\u00a0given in (2), while having a totally impoverished trace (i.e.,<\/i>\u00a0just \u0093t<\/i>\u0094, without any restrictor) with a complex index; that is, \u0093t<\/i>f<\/i>(x<\/i>)\u00a0\u0093. The E<\/i>\u00a0operator also does the job of shifting the restrictor to type\u00a0?ee, t?<\/i>, without which the functional reading wouldn\u0092t be possible.<\/span>\u00a0Heim (2019) pointed out that having the pronoun bound upstairs like this cannot derive ?<\/i>-feature agreement between the pronoun and the antecedent quantifier, in this case, no girl<\/i>, and binding theoretic effects like *Which picture of\u00a0<\/i>herself1\u00a0did no girl’s1 father submit?<\/i>. Motivated by this reason, she proposed to have an LF like the one in (3), where which<\/i>\u00a0is unary (because it attaches directly and only to the question skeleton) and polymorphic (because it needs to be able to quantify over\u00a0?e, e?<\/i>-type functions). Moreover, she proposed to have the whole restrictor picture of herself<\/i>\u00a0is in situ,<\/i>\u00a0getting syntactically bound by no girl,<\/i>\u00a0thereby avoiding the\u00a0?<\/i>-featural and Binding Theoretic issues.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/div>\n
(1)\u00a0Which picture of herself1\u00a0did no girl1\u00a0submit?<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Functional reading:<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>Which function,\u00a0fee<\/i>, that maps entities to a pictures of those entities, is such that, for no girl,\u00a0x<\/i>,\u00a0x<\/i>\u00a0submitted f<\/i>(x<\/i>)?<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Possible answer:<\/i><\/b><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Her wedding picture.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
(2)\u00a0?Ey\u00a0?<\/i>?g ,w<\/i>\u00a0=\u00a0?f<\/i>ee<\/i>\u00a0.\u00a0?x<\/i>\u00a0.\u00a0??<\/i>?g<\/i>x<\/i>\/y<\/i>(f<\/i>(x<\/i>)) =\u00a01<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
(3) [which] did\u00a0no girl1\u00a0submit [picture of herself1]?<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
My claim in this talk is that (a) which<\/i>\u00a0can\u0092t be unary after all, because, for sentences like (4) \u0097 where a functional reading is equally possible \u0097 we need LFs like (5), where which<\/i>\u00a0does need a restrictor upstairs, the relative clause that\u0092s late merged\/not neglected (depending on what view one subscribes to); and (b) to interpret such structures, we do need a covert morpheme very much like (2), but slightly different in that the assignment function isn\u0092t modified in the metalanguage in the lexical entry (6).\\ This covert morpheme, that I call , is necessary to shift the ?e, t?<\/i>-type relative clause to an ?ee, t?<\/i>-type predicate, which will make the functional reading possible.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
(4)\u00a0<\/span>Which picture that John1\u00a0liked did he1\u00a0show no girl?<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Functional reading:<\/i><\/b><\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>Which function,\u00a0fee<\/i>, that maps entities to entities that John liked, is such that, for no girl,\u00a0x<\/i>, John showed\u00a0x<\/i>\u00a0f<\/i>(x<\/i>)?<\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Possible answer:<\/i><\/b><\/div>\n
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The picture she hated.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
(5) [which [that\u00a0John1\u00a0liked]]\u00a0did he1\u00a0show\u00a0no girl2\u00a0[picture [f<\/i>\u00a0pro<\/i>2]]<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
(6)\u00a0??=\u00a0?P<\/i>et<\/i>\u00a0.\u00a0?f\u00a0<\/i>ee<\/i>\u00a0.\u00a0?x<\/i>[x<\/i>\u00a0?\u00a0codom(f<\/i>)\u00a0?\u00a0P<\/i>(x<\/i>) =\u00a01]<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
Time permitting, I will discuss metasemantic motivations for ruling out the possibility of lexical entries like (2), while preserving the possibility of having lexical entries like (6). I will couch this is in terms of a specific limitation that semantic reconstruction has been argued to be subject to and I will show that it\u0092s exactly the machinery that\u0092s required for this forbidden kind of semantic reconstruction that\u0092s also required to categorematize Engdahl\u0092s E<\/i>\u00a0operator. This, I will argue, supports my claim that entries like (6) are permitted in natural language, while entries like (2) are not.<\/span><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Speaker: Shrayana Haldar (MIT) Title:Fixing Engdahl\u0092s Type-Shifter and Heim\u0092s Unary Which Time: Wednesday, April 10th, 1pm - 2pm Location: 32-D461 Abstract: Engdahl’s (1986) account of functional readings of sentences like (1) involved having the pronoun herself\u00a0bound upstairs by a covert binder E,\u00a0given in (2), while having a totally impoverished trace (i.e.,\u00a0just \u0093t\u0094, without any restrictor) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-announcements"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16230","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\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16230"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16230\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16231,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16230\/revisions\/16231"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}