{"id":16443,"date":"2024-09-16T06:06:00","date_gmt":"2024-09-16T10:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/whamit.mit.edu\/?p=16443"},"modified":"2024-09-16T06:06:00","modified_gmt":"2024-09-16T10:06:00","slug":"lf-reading-group-9-18-wenkai-tay-ucl-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/2024\/09\/16\/lf-reading-group-9-18-wenkai-tay-ucl-2\/","title":{"rendered":"LF Reading Group 9\/18 - Wenkai Tay (UCL)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Speaker: <\/strong> Wenkai Tay (UCL)<br class=\"\"><strong>Title: <\/strong>Compound vs phrasal resultatives: the view from Mandarin Chinese<br class=\"\"><strong>Time: <\/strong>Wednesday, September 18th, 1pm - 2pm<br class=\"\"><strong>Location: <\/strong>32-D461<br class=\"\"><br class=\"\"><strong>Abstract: <\/strong>In this talk, I will argue against a uniform syntactic analysis of V-V compound resultatives and V-de phrasal resultatives in Mandarin Chinese. I propose instead that V-V resultatives are built in morphology while V-deresultatives are built in syntax. My proposal predicts that V-V and V-de resultatives will exhibit distinct behaviour with respect to a number of processes. (i) V-de resultatives are accessible to syntactic operations while V-V resultatives are not. (ii) Since obligatory arguments must be projected in a syntactic structure, V1 must project its arguments in V-de resultatives but not in V-V resultatives. Furthermore, it seems that these differences in argument structure between compound and phrasal resultatives are observed in languages other than Mandarin. These differences cannot be captured within a theoretical framework that makes no reference to the notion of a &#8220;word&#8221;. Therefore, to the extent that it is on the right track, my proposal provides evidence for an architecture of the grammar in which morphology and syntax are distinct subsystems.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Speaker: Wenkai Tay (UCL)Title: Compound vs phrasal resultatives: the view from Mandarin ChineseTime: Wednesday, September 18th, 1pm - 2pmLocation: 32-D461Abstract: In this talk, I will argue against a uniform syntactic analysis of V-V compound resultatives and V-de phrasal resultatives in Mandarin Chinese. I propose instead that V-V resultatives are built in morphology while V-deresultatives are [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":26,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-announcements"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16443","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\/26"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16443\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}