Every Monday 14.15-16.00: Phonology seminar in C1002, organized by Martin Krämer.
Every Tuesday 12.15-14.00: CASTL-FISH seminar in TEO 5.402.
Every Friday 12.00-13.00: LAVA Lunch in E2.004 (or another room, as announced).
Some Fridays 14.15-16.00 CASTL Colloquium, as announced, often in E0105. See below.
April 19–20: Minicourse by Laura Downing on typological issues in tone, accent, and intonation
- Typological Issues in Tone and Accent
- The course will be divided into 3 parts: Tone (why it’s different), Tonal Accent, and Intonation.
- 1- Tone- why it’s different
- As Hyman (2011) has argued, tone can do everything that other features can do – and more. This part of the course will survey the autosegmental properties of tone highlighted in Hyman (2011) and other recent work, like Downing (2005, 2006) and Gordon (2016, chapter 7). The lecture will focus on tonal mobility, tonal inflections and tonal morphemes, the autosegmental properties that seem to be the most tone-specific and most understudied by non tone specialists.
- 2- Tonal Accent
- Traditionally, prosodic systems have been divided into 3 categories: stress, tone and pitch accent (or tonal accent). However, Hyman has written a number of papers arguing that tonal accent is not a coherent, canonical prosodic category. To understand his point of view, we will critically discuss two recent papers of his: Hyman (2012, 2014).
- 3- Intonation
- Very little work has been done on the typology of intonation, as noted in Zerbian (2010). We will survey this topic from an Africanist perspective, highlighting what recent work on intonation in African languages (like Downing & Rialland 2017 and Rialland & Aborobongui 2017) contributes to our understanding of how – or whether – intonation reliably signals sentence type (affirmative vs. declarative), syntactic structure (both XPs and clauses) and focus.
- – Downing, Laura J. 2005. The Emergence of the Marked: Tone in some African reduplicative systems. In Bernhard Hurch, ed. (in collaboration with Veronika Mattes). Studies on Reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 87-108.
- – Downing, Laura J. 2006. Compounding and tonal non-transfer in Bantu languages. Phonology 20, 1-42.- Downing, Laura J. and Annie Rialland. 2017. Introduction. LJ Downing & A Rialland (eds), Intonation in African Tone Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- – Gordon, Matthew. 2014. Disentangling stress and pitch-accent: a typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues. Cambridge University Press, 83-118.
- – Gordon, Matthew. 2016. Phonological Typology. Oxford: OUP. – chapter 7 only
- – Hyman, Larry M. 2011. Tone: is it different? In the 2nd edition of the Handbook of Phonological Theory.
- Prepublication version available at this link: http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/documents/2007/Hyman_Blackwell_Tone_PLAR.pdf
- – Hyman, Larry M. 2012. In defense of Prosodic Typology. Linguistic Typology 16, 341–385.
- – Hyman, Larry M. 2014. Do all languages have word accent? In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word Stress: Theoretical and Typological Issues. Cambridge University Press, 56-82.
- – Rialland, Annie & Martial Embanga Aborobongui. 2017. How intonation interacts with tone in Embosi. In Downing & Rialland. Intonation in African Tone Languages.
- – Zerbian, Sabine. 2010. Developments in the study of intonation typology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4/9, 874-889.
April 21: LAVA lunch presentation featuring Dianna Walla presenting work from her MA thesis on code mixing in bilingual language acquisition. The title of the presentation is ‘Code mixing in early bilingual acquisition: Dominance, language modes, and discourse strategies.’ 12.00 in E2004.
April 21: CASTL colloquium talk featuring Laura Downing and Martin Krämer on ‘Positioning Kinande phrasal harmony in phonetics, phonology, and syntax.’ 14.15 in E0105.
April 28: New PhD students Natalia Jardon and Maud Westendorp introduce themselves in the colloquium slot. Details to come.
May 4: MSCA workshop (extended LAVA lunch) – Gustavo Guajardo (San Diego) and Serkan Uygun (Istanbul) will present their projects and there will be short presentations of ongoing work by other LAVA members.
Friday, May 12th: Colloquium talk by Naz Merchant
Friday, April 7: Colloquium talk by Bożena Rozwadowska, University of Wroclaw
Wednesday, April 5: Special Lava Lunch meeting with guest Tiffany Judy from Wake Forest University, presenting on The Syntax-Semantics of Adjectival Distribution in Argentine Spanish-Polish speakers. E.1004, 12.00-13.00.
Tuesday, March 28: CASTL-FISH presentation by Bożena Rozwadowska, University of Wroclaw
Tuesday, March 28th: Jakub Dotlacil on Interpreting pluralities: Syntax and the lexicon, in the CASTL-FISH slot (12.15–14.00, TEO 5.402)
Friday, March 24th: A workshop featuring talks by Jakub Dotlačil, University of Amsterdam, Donka Farkas, University of California at Santa Cruz, Kjell Johan Sæbø, UiO/UiT, and Alexander Pfaff, UiT.
- 1215-1300 Donka Farkas (UCSC). The semantics and discourse effects of declaratives and interrogatives
- 1300-1315 break
- 1315-1400 Kjell Johan Sæbø (UIO/UiT). How verbs are conceived and born: three theories.
- 1400-1415 Coffee break with waffles and fruit
- 1415-1500 Jakub Dotlačil (University of Amsterdam). Cognitive modeling of syntax.
- 1500-1515 break
- 1515-1600 Alexander Pfaff (UiT). When Strong Articles lose their Denotations – A Nanosemantic Exploration into Definite Description
Friday, March 24th, 11.30–12.15: A guest presentation at Lava Lunch by Roumyana Slabakova, University of Southampton, on Object pronoun reference in second language acquisition: Effects of computational complexity. Room E.2004.
Thursday, March 23rd, all day: Sergey Minor defends his PhD thesis Dependent Plurals and the Semantics of Distributivity.
10.15-11.00: Trial lecture on ‘The dynamics of plural interpretation – cases when morphologically singular DPs antecede plural pronouns’
11.15–15.00: The defense. The first opponent is Dr. Jakub Dotlačil, University of Amsterdam, and the second opponent is Professor Donka Farkas, University of California at Santa Cruz.
Tuesday, March 21st, 12.15-14.00: Kjell Johan Sæbø on ‘Subjective Content at Sole Issue’ in the CASTL-FISH seminar. Room TEO 5.402.
Friday, March 17, 14.15–16.00: CASTL colloquium with Pavel Caha
Deriving Blansitt’s generalization: a case against the Subset Principleabstract
In this paper, I provide a Nanosyntactic account for the so-called Blansitt’s generalization (Blansitt 1988). The generalization says that in the linear sequence dative-allative-locative, only adjacent functions may be marked the same. In previous work, such patterns have been taken as one of the hallmarks of feature cumulation. However, Blansitt observes that in the case of datives, allatives and locatives, the allative (which is in the middle) tends to be composed of the dative and the locative, so the classical account does not work.
The present paper thus argues for a different representation of the underlying categories, namely as containing (abstractly) the features A, AB and B respectively. I refer to this as the „overlapping“ decomposition. When such a decomposition is combined with the Superset Principle (Starke 2009), it yields both the *ABA restriction and the observed syncretism and containment patterns. I further show that the Subset Principle faces significant obstacles in deriving the *ABA. Thus, this non-canonical instance of a *ABA pattern provides evidence in favor of the Superset Principle (traditionally used in Nanosyntax) and against the Subset Principle (traditionally used in DM).
Tuesday, March 14th, 12.15–14.00 (CASTL-FISH seminar slot): Pavel Caha (joint work with Markéta Ziková):
Phonological processes in Czech prefixed verbsabstract
Monday, March 13th, 11.00–12.00 in C-1004:
Pritty Patel-Grosz, Patrick Georg Grosz, ‘Revisiting pronominal typology: On the syntax and semantics of personal and demonstrative pronouns’
Friday, March 10th, 14.15-16.00, E0105: Colloquium presentation by Patrick Georg Grosz and Pritty Patel-Grosz of UiO, on “Exploring the semantics of dance,” joint work with Tejaswinee Kelkar, and Alexander Refsum Jenseniusabstract
Recent linguistic research has extended the application of formal syntactic and semantic methodology to non-linguistic phenomena such as music (Lerdahl & Jackendoff 1983, Katz & Pesetsky 2011, Schlenker 2016) and dance (Napoli & Kraus 2015, Charnavel 2016). The overarching goal of such research programs is to understand the underlying cognitive building blocks that language shares with other aspects of human cognition. Our own ongoing research on the semantics of dance focuses on Bharatanatyam, a narrative dance form. By virtue of video and motion capture recording, we explore the possibilities of encoding co-reference and disjoint reference in this dance form. We take as our point of departure recent work such as Abusch (2013), who explores co-reference outside of spoken language in comics without text. Our pilot production study shows that disjoint reference involves more complexity than co-reference, in the sense that a larger-level group boundary (cf. Charnavel 2016) is introduced. Furthermore, in addition to a manual gesture for “a different (man/woman)”, the dancer encodes disjoint reference by means of mirroring of orientation, direction and posture. We propose to account for this difference (between a manual gesture and global mirroring) in terms of an at-issue vs. non-at-issue distinction, which is reminiscent of phenomena such as speech-accompanying gestures (Ebert & Ebert 2014, Schlenker 2015).
Friday, March 3, 14.15-16.00 in E0105: Colloquium presentation by Alexandra Spalek, University of Oslo, presenting joint work with Louise McNally, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona): ‘The logical semantic underpinnings of cross-linguistic variation in ‘figurative’ uses of verbs’
Formally-oriented linguists have paid comparatively little attention to ‘figurative’ uses of verbs
(e.g. (1-b) or (1-c) in contrast to e.g. (1-a)).
a. […] the knife cut through the meat.
b. His words cut with the sting of an obsidian sliver.
c. a bipartisan plan to cut the deficit
Our ongoing contrastive study of English and Spanish shows that while examples like (1-b) may fall under familiar theories of conceptual metaphor that are independent of grammar (e.g. Lakoff and Johnson 1980), examples like (1-c) vary across languages in ways that reflect fundamental grammatical differences in lexical aspectual systems. In this talk we maintain that examples like (1-c) constitute evidence that should not be ignored in debates about the analysis of verb meaning and the grammar/meaning interface, such as that concerning Manner/Result complementarity (Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1991).