The 51st annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society
April 23rd – 25th , 2015

Contents
Welcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Our Invited Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Day 1 (Thursday, April 23, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Day 2 (Friday, April 24, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Day 3 (Saturday, April 25, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Invited talks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Diane Brentari (University of Chicago) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Michael Franke (University of Tübingen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Heidi Harley (University of Arizona) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Lori L. Holt (Carnegie Mellon University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
William Idsardi (University of Maryland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Bernard C. Perley (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Anna Szabolcsi (New York University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Special Session: Experimental Syntax & Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Lilia Rissman (University of Chicago) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Elena Gavruseva, Garrett Larson, Sarah Lowen & Chris Widmer (University of Iowa) . . . . . 14
Polly O’Rourke & Gregory Colflesh (University of Maryland) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Jana Häussler (University of Potsdam) & Tom Juzek (University of Oxford) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
General Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Xiao Li (Queens College, CUNY) & Carlos A. Fasola (Rutgers University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Alessandro Jaker (Alaska Native Language Center) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Laura Horton (University of Chicago) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
General Session: Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine & Hadas Kotek (McGill University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Nagarajan Selvanathan (Rutgers University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Shintaro Hayashi (JSPS/Yokohama National University) & Tomohiro Fujii (Yokohama National
University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
J. M. M. Brown (DTAL, University of Cambridge) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Special Session: Prosodic Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Eleanor Glewwe (UCLA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Juliet Stanton and Sam Zukoff (MIT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Sharon Inkelas (UC, Berkeley) & Stephanie S Shih (UC, Merced) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Brian Hsu & Karen Jesney (University of Southern California) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Ryan Bennett (Yale University), Boris Harizanov (Stanford University), and Robert Henderson(Wayne State University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
General Session: Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Ömer Eren (Boǧaziçi University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Bryan Rosen (University of Wisconsin–Madison) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Hyosik Kim & Bum-Sik Park (Dongguk University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Yu-Yin Hsu (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Special Session: Argument Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Jenny Lee (Harvard University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Michelle Yuan (MIT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Yuko Asada (Tokyo University of Social Welfare) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Isabelle Charnavel and Chrissy Zlogar (Harvard University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Special Session: Beyond Field Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Luke Fleming (UdeM) & James Slotta (UCSD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Hannah Sarvasy (UCLA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
James Costa (Center for Multilingualism in Society, University of Oslo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Margit Bowler (UCLA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
General Session: Pragmatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Ryan Doran (University of Regina) & Gregory Ward (Northwestern University) . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Andrea Beltrama (University of Chicago) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Ting Xu (University of Connecticut) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Special Session: Experimental Phonetics & Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Jiwon Yun (Stony Brook University) & Hye-Sook Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Hyunsoon Kim (Hongik University), Shinji Maedab (CNRS LTCI) and Kiyoshi Honda (Tianjin
University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Anne Pycha (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Chung-Lin Yang and Isabelle Darcy (Indiana University, Bloomington) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
General Session: Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Adam Jardine and Jeffrey Heinz (University of Delaware) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Joe Collins and Martin Krämer (University of Tromsø) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Charlie O’Hara (University of Southern California) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
John Sylak-Glassman (Johns Hopkins University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
General Session: Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
David Rubio Vallejo (University of Delaware) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Jon Nissenbaum (Brooklyn College, CUNY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Tom Grano (Indiana University) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Welcome
Welcome to the 51st annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, and a special welcome tothis year’s invited speakers: Diane Brentari, Michael Franke, Heidi Harley, Lori Holt, William
Idsardi, Bernard Perley, and Anna Szabolcsi.
The conference will be held from Thursday, April 23rd to Saturday, April 25th , 2015, in Ida
Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago (1212 E. 59th St., Chicago, IL 60637). Registration
begins as 8:30 AM on Thursday and 8:00 AM on Friday and Saturday. Opening remarks will
be at 9:45 AM on Thursday, and we will close with a banquet, held at 7:00 PM on Saturday.
There will also be a graduate student mixer at 7:30 PM on Thursday, held at the University of
Chicago Pub in the basement of Ida Noyes Hall.
Thank you to all of our invited speakers, presenters, graduate student and external reviewers,
volunteers, and conference attendees: your hard work is what makes this conference possible.
We are also extremely appreciative of the financial sponsorship of the Office of the Reynolds
Club and Student Activities and the Franke Institute for the Humanities.
Enjoy the conference!
-The CLS 51 Organizing Committee
Ksenia Ershova
Joshua Falk
Jeffrey Geiger
Zach Hebert
Robert E. Lewis Jr.
Patrick Munoz
Jacob Phillips
Betsy Pillion

1Our invited speakers
Diane Brentari is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Chicago and one of three Directors of the Center for Gesture, Sign and Language. Currently her work addresses cross-linguistic
variation among sign languages, particularly in the parameters of handshape and movement.
She is also interested in how the mental lexicon emerges in historical time, which includes therelationship between gesture, homesign systems and well-established sign languages. In addition
Brentari has developed the Prosodic Model of sign language phonology, and her work has also
addressed the prosodic structure of signed and spoken languages.
Michael Franke obtained his PhD in philosophy in 2009 from the University of Amsterdam
on applications of game theory within formal pragmatics. He has worked on formal semantics,
pragmatics and models of language evolution, but his more recent work has grown ever more
towards data-oriented modeling. He now is leader of a junior research group at the Departmentof Linguistics of the University of Tübingen. His current research is mainly concerned withinterfacing theoretical and experimental approaches to semantics and pragmatics.
Heidi Harley is Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. She works on morphology, syntax and lexical semantics, often within the Distributed Morphology framework. She
is especially interested in verbal argument structure and verbal derivation, and the internal
structure of the verb phrase. She has looked at problems in English, Italian, Persian, Koreanand Hiaki, among other languages. She received her doctorate in 1995 from MIT under thesupervision of Alec Marantz.
Lori Holt is a Professor of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University. She received her Ph.D.
from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The major focus of her research has been understanding the general sensory, perceptual, cognitive and learning mechanisms that support speechcommunication.
William Idsardi was born in Cleveland and lived there until he was eleven. He then lived inSouthwestern Ontario and attended the University of Toronto, receiving a BA in Mathematical
Linguistics in 1988. While an undergraduate, he also worked as a software developer in Toronto
and Ottawa. He completed his PhD at MIT with Morris Halle in 1992; his thesis is a revisionof the bracketed grid theory of stress. Since finishing his PhD, he has been on the facultyat the University of Delaware (1992-2005), the University of Toronto (1999, Fulbright Senior
Scholar), York University (2006, Fulbright Chair) and the University of Maryland College Park
(since 2005). He is currently Professor and Chair of the Linguistics department at UMCP anda Professor in the Neuroscience and Cognitive Science program. His research interests centeron phonology, using a wide variety of research methods.
Bernard C. Perley is an associate professor of Linguistic Anthropology at the Universityof Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He received his PhD in Anthropology from Harvard University. Dr.
Perley’s research and publications have focused on exploring the social and cultural factors inprocesses of language endangerment and identifying successful strategies for language revitalization in Indigenous communities. His current work seeks to integrate the fields of linguistics,
sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, cultural anthropology, and indigenous studies into research and programmatic projects designed to promote Indigenous language revitalization. This
integration of emerging interdisciplinary research informs his research trajectory exploring theintersections of cognition, metaphors, narrative, and linguistic anthropology as an integrated
approach to language revitalization.

2

Anna Szabolcsi is Professor in the Department of Linguistics at New York University. The
main research interest she has pursued, from combinatory categorial grammar, through weakisland (intervention) effects and quantification, to a unified analysis of particles that occur both
inside and outside quantifier words, is how and why form and meaning work in parallel. Herbooks include Ways of Scope Taking (1997), Verbal Complexes (2000, with H. Koopman), andQuantification (2010). Her latest article What do quantifier particles do? is online in L&P.

3

Schedule

Thursday, April 23, Ida Noyes Hall (1212 E. 59th St.)
8:30-9:45

3rd floor, Lobby
Registration

9:45-10:00

2nd floor, East Lounge
Opening Remarks

10:00-10:30
10:30-11:00

11:00-11:15
11:15-11:45
11:45-12:15

12:15-1:45

1:45-2:45

2:45-3:00

3:00-3:30

3:30-4:00

4:00-4:15
4:15-4:45

Special Session: Experimental Syntax & Semantics
Lilia Rissman (University of Chicago) – Cinderella broke and broke: object deletionand manner-result complementarity
Elena Gavruseva, Garret Larson, Sarah Lowen, & Caleb Widmer (University ofIowa) – Not all determiners are acquired en masse: on the role of count/mass
distinction in L2 acquisition of article semantics
Break
Polly O’Rourke & Gregory Colflesh (University of Maryland) – Individual neural
response profiles and reanalysis of garden-path sentences: An ERP study
Jana Häussler (University of Potsdam) & Tom Juzek (University of Oxford) – Lab
or Armchair? The benefits of Formal Acceptability Judgements
Lunch
3rd floor, Theater
Invited Speaker: Michael Franke (University of Tübingen) – Expectations andthresholds: optimal lexical entries for ‘tall’, ‘many’, ‘probably’ and probably many
more
Break
2nd floor, East Lounge
General Session
Xiao Li (CUNY) & Carlos Fasola (Rutgers University) – The semantics of yuèV yuè A in Mandarin Chinese: Coercion
and the necessarily temporal reading
Alessandro Jaker (Alaska Native Language Center) – The Consonant Hierarchy in Dëne Su̧liné
Break
Laura Horton (University of Chicago) –Assembling nominal constituents: Evidence from an Intergenerational FamilyHomesign

4:45-5:15

4

2nd floor, West Lounge
Special Session: Movement
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine & Hadas
Kotek (McGill University) – Relative
pronoun pied-piping, the structure ofwhich informs the analysis of relative
clausesNagarajan Selvanathan (Rutgers University) – Reconstruction, Reflexive
Connectivity and LF Deletion
Shintaro Hayashi & Tomohiro Fujii(Yokohama National University) – Predicate Ellipsis, Null Adjuncts, and Predicate Raising in JapaneseJessica Brown (University of Cambridge)– Blackholes and subextraction from adjuncts in English and Norwegian5:15-5:30

Break

5:30-6:30

3rd floor, Theater
Invited Speaker: Diane Brentari (University of Chicago) – Sign Language Typology:
Can it be predictive?

7:30

University of Chicago Pub, Basement
Graduate Student Mixer

5

Friday, April 24, Ida Noyes Hall (1212 E. 59th St.)
8:00-8:30

8:30-9:00

9:00-9:30

9:30-10:00

10:00-10:15
10:15-10:45

10:45-11:15

1st floor, Lobby
Registration
2nd floor, East Lounge
Special Session: Prosodic Phonology
Eleanor Glewwe (UCLA) – Tonal assignment in English loanwords in Mandarin
ChineseJuliet Stanton & Sam Zukoff (MIT) –Prosodic effects of segmental correspondence
Sharon Inkelas (UC Berkeley) &Stephanie Shih (UC Merced) – Tone
melodies in the age of Surface Correspondence
Break
Brian Hsu & Karen Jesney (USC) –Scalar Positional Markedness and Faithfulness in Harmonic Grammar
Ryan Bennett (Yale University), Boris
Harizanov (Stanford University), &Robert Henderson (Wayne State University) – Prosodic smothering in Macedonian and Kaqchikel

2nd floor, West Lounge
General Session: Syntax
Ömer Eren (Boǧaziçi University) – An
articleless DP language: Pazar Laz
Syed Saurov (USC) – Definiteness interms of Identifiablity and Inclusiveness:
Splitting the D-domain in Bangla
Bryan Rosen (University of WisconsinMadison) – A Feature Stacking Analysis
of Direct Modification in Hoca˛kHyosik Kim & Bum-Sik Park (Dongguk
University) – Island Repair in Korean
Fragments
Yu-Yin Hsu (Hong Kong Polytechnic
University) – Sentence-Initial Modals as
Focus Operators at CP in Chinese

11:15-11:30

Break

11:30-12:30

1st floor, (Cloister Club)
Invited Speaker: Lori Holt (Carnegie Mellon) – Auditory cognitive neuroscience asa tool for understanding phonetic perception

12:30-2:00

Lunch

2:00-3:00

1st floor, (Cloister Club)
Invited Speaker: Bernard Perley (UW-Milwaukee) – Inside Jokes: Anomalous Utterances and the Ironies in “Language Endangerment”

6

3:00-3:15

3:15-3:45

Break
2nd floor, East Lounge
Special Session: Argument Structure
Jenny Lee (Harvard University) – Valency alternation in Ranmo: Implications for split ergativity

2nd floor, West Lounge
Special Session:
Beyond Field
Methodologies
Luke Fleming (University of Montreal)& James Slotta (University of CaliforniaSan Diego) – Social pragmatics andtypes of person reference: The case ofproper names v. kin terms
Hannah Sarvasy (UCLA) – Monolingual
fieldwork in and beyond the classroom:
The Logooli experience at UCLA

3:45-4:15

Michelle Yuan (MIT) – Case competitionand case domains: Evidence from Yimas

4:15-4:30
4:30-5:00

BreakYuko Asada (Tokyo University of Social
Welfare) – Transitive/ ergative alternations in the domain of P

5:00-5:30

Isabelle Charnavel & Christina Zlogar(Harvard University) – English Reflexive
Logophors

5:30-5:45

Break

5:45-6:45

1st floor, (Cloister Club)
Invited Speaker: Heidi Harley (University of Arizona) – Suppletion, agreement,
reduplication and readjustment: Marking number on Hiaki roots

7

James Costa (University of Oslo) – Is
language revitalization really about saving languages? Some insights from 150
years of language revival in Occitania
Margit Bowler (UCLA) – ‘Might besomething’: Information protection &epistemic assertions in central Australia

Saturday, April 25, Ida Noyes Hall (1212 E. 59th St.)
8:00:-9:00

3rd floor, Lobby
Registration
2nd floor, East Lounge
General Session: Pragmatics

9:00-9:30

9:30-10:00

10:00-10:15
10:15-10:45

10:45-11:15

Ryan Doran (University of Regina) &Gregory Ward (Northwestern University) – Demonstratives with Distributed
Interpretations
Frances Kane, Jacopo Romoli, Raffaello Folli (University of Ulster), George
Tsoulas (University of York), & Dora
Alexopoulou (University of Cambridge)– A scalar implicature-based account of
the inference of pluralized mass (andcount) nouns
Break
AndreaBeltrama(UniversityofChicago) – I’m totally cooperating
here! Exploring intensification at the
speech act level
Ting Xu (University of Connecticut) –On the ambiguity of almost: An intervention effect

2nd floor, West Lounge
Special Session:Experimental
Phonetics & Phonology
Jiwon Yun (Stony Brook University) &Hye-Sook Lee – Tonal determination for
Korean wh-indeterminates when the theory is indecisive
Hyunsoon Kim (Hongik University),
Shinji Maeda (Telecom ParisTech), &Kiyoshi Honda (Tiangin University) –Phonetic evidence for the articulatorbound feature [spread glottis]: ePGG,
airflow, and acoustic data on the phasingof glottal opening
Anne Pycha (University of WisconsinMilwaukee) – Using false memories tocharacterize lexical representations: A
test case from Spanish
Chung-Lin Yang & Isabelle Darcy (Indiana University-Bloomington) – The effect of the orthographic depth of English
vowels and consonants on the learning offree variation in an artificial language

11:15-11:30

Break

11:30-12:30

3rd floor, Theater
Invited Speaker: Anna Szabolsci (NYU) – Can questions be directly disjoined?

12:30-2:00

Lunch

2:00-2:30

2:30-3:00

2nd floor, East Lounge
General Session: Phonology
Adam Jardine & Jeffrey Heinz (University of Delaware) – Markedness constraints are negative: An autosegmental
constraint definition language
Joe Collins (University of Tromsø) &Martin Krämer (University of Tromsø,
UCSC) – Crazy Rules and Grounded
Constraints

8

2nd floor, West Lounge
General Session: Semantics
David Rubio Vallejo (University of
Delaware) – Bare singular nouns in
SpanishJon Nissenbaum (Brooklyn College,
CUNY) – Unbuilding Statives

3:00-3:15
3:15-3:45

BreakCharlie O’Hara (USC) – Never surfacing
underlying representations in Klamath

3:45-4:15

John Sylak-Glassman (Johns Hopkins
University) – Deriving natural classes using phonological entailments

4:15-4:30

Break

4:30-5:30

3rd floor, Theater
Invited Speaker: William Idsardi (UMD) – Reproving phonology

6:30

1st floor, (Cloister Club)
Banquet9Anastasia Giannakidou (University of
Chicago) & Alda Mari (IJN, CNRS, University of Chicago) – Emotive factives in
Greek and Italian and the puzzle of the
subjunctive
Thomas Grano (Indiana University) – A
coercion-free semantics for intention reports

Invited Talks
Sign Language Typology: Can It Be Predictive?
Diane Brentari
University of Chicago
In this paper I propose a typological classification for sign languages handshape preference thatis implicational; specifically, knowing some properties of handshape behavior in nouns makes
predictions about other aspects of the grammar. To be concrete, noun forms in one group of sign
languages show a preference for Object handshapes, while another group shows a preference for
Handling handshapes. The analysis that I will present shows that membership in one or theother of these groups predicts the particular ways that nouns are distinguished from verbs, aswell as the behavior of some classifier constructions. This work suggests that typology can be
employed as powerful a tool in explaining crosslinguistic variation in sign languages.

Expectations and thresholds: optimal lexical entries for ‘tall’, ‘many’, ‘probably’
and probably many more
Michael Franke
University of Tübingen
Much recent work has postulated lexical entries for such diverse items as gradable adjectives(e.g., ‘tall’, ‘big’), vague quantifiers (e.g., ‘many’, ‘few’), and probability expressions (e.g., ‘probably’, ‘likely’) in terms of a comparison with a contextually supplied threshold variable. I propose here a pragmatic account of the resolution of these elusive threshold values as a function ofinterlocutors’ contextually-variable prior expectations. More concretely, I introduce a model forcomputing thresholds from prior expectations that are (approximately) optimal under generalpragmatic pressure towards informativity and generality. Despite its high level of abstraction,
the model appears to be a surprisingly good predictor of experimental data on the use andinterpretation of the items in question.

Suppletion, agreement, reduplicationand readjustment: Marking number on Hiaki
roots
Heidi Harley
University of Arizona
Number-sensitive suppletion occurs in 10-15 Hiaki transitive and intransitive verbs, conditionedby the internal argument. Borer (2015) questions whether this pattern should be characterized
as part of the grammar, suggesting (with Corbett) that such patterns are lexico-semantic incharacter–semantic restrictions on almost-synonymous but independent verbs, not in a single
paradigm. In this talk I show that Hiaki suppletion is conditioned by interpretable, not formal, plural marking. I argue that it should nonetheless be considered a formal contrast, i.e.
‘paradigmatic’, on the basis of evidence from idiomatic interpretations, speaker intuitions, historical patterns in the language family,and adjectival reduplication. Expanding the dataset toother Uto-Aztecan languages suggests parallel patterning for reduplication and suppletion inother members of the family as well.
10

Previous work has shown that canonical phi-feature agreement marking and suppletive alternations are independent from each other, in languages where the difference can be observed,
suchthat suppletive alternations are conditioned by ‘deep’ grammaticalrelations and phi-featureagreement is conditioned by ‘surface’ relations. We see a this pattern in Hiaki as well. I argue
that this showsthat root suppletion is not triggered by an Agree relation, but rather represents
locally conditioned allomorphy at Late Insertion, as proposed by Bobaljik and Harley (forthcoming). This conclusion is supported by the fact that different suppletive allomorphs belong
to different stem classes for readjustment rules, as shown in Harley and Tubino-Blanco (2013).
Second, the parallel between root suppletion and reduplicative number marking in Uto-Aztecansuggests that these two phenomena deserve a parallel treatment in the language family, distinct
from inflectional agreement.

Auditory cognitive neuroscience as a tool for understanding phonetic perception
Lori L. Holt
Carnegie Mellon University
Experience deeply shapes how we perceive spoken language. For example, we learn long-termphonetic representations that respect the sound structure of our native language and, yet, we
maintain enough flexibility to make sense of speakers with nonnative accents or speech fromimperfect computer synthesizers. There are rich behavioral-science literatures that speak to themany ways that experience shapes speech perception. Yet, we understand quite little about
the learning mechanisms involved in supporting speech communication. For the most part,contemporary neurobiological models of language are oriented toward characterization of thesystem in a stable state.
I will describe ongoing research that aims to better characterize the more dynamic aspectsof speech communication. These approaches converge to suggest that progress in understanding
speech processing can be made by understanding the principles of human neurobiological learning systems, in general. Long relegated as a special system that could tell us little about generalhuman cognition, I will argue that the study of speech communication as a flexible, adaptive,
experience?dependent skill that draws upon perceptual, cognitive, motor and linguistic systems
has much to offer as a platform for understanding human behavior, quite generally.Reciprocally,knowledge from the broader field of auditory cognitive neuroscience can deeply inform our understanding of phonetic perception.

Reproving phonology
William Idsardi
University of Maryland
In his LSA plenary talk in 2013, David Pesetsky recounted the lack of basic knowledge outside
the field about discoveries in syntax, and asked “Qto d+lat~? What is to be done?” In my talkI will try to take up some of that challenge for phonology, where the same kinds of problems
exist. As Pesetsky did for generative syntax, we can easily list some important discoveries inphonology: phonemes, distinctive features, phonological processes, opacity, and so on. But the
problem outside the field can be seen, for example, in recent comments made by Andrew Ng
regarding the Baidu speech recognition system. Ng said “... recently there has been a debate

11whether phonemes are a fundamental fact of language or are they a fantasy of linguists? ... Oneof the things we did with the Baidu speech system was not use the concept of phonemes.” Ng isan extremely influential person: he is a professor at Stanford, he is chief scientist at Baidu, hefounded the Google Brain project, he co-founded Coursera, and his machine learning MOOC
has enrolled more than 100,000 students at a time. So people do listen when he says thatphonemes are nothing more than a fantasy. One response to skepticism from other fields about
results in linguistics is “if you can’t beat them, join them” by which I mean that we could (andshould) reprove the results in linguistics using their research methods (behavioral and neurophysiological experiments, machine learning and computational modeling). In the talk, I will
review the architecture of the Baidu speech system and show that it does use phonemes, briefly
review recent work reproving some aspects of phonology, and briefly discuss the benefits andthe dangers inherent in pursuing this strategy.

Inside Jokes: Anomalous Utterances and the Ironies in “Language Endangerment”
Bernard C. Perley
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Language death is no laughing matter. Linguists estimate 50% to 90% of the world’s languages
will become extinct by the end of this century. Documentary linguists have responded by coordinating their efforts to document the last words of the last speakers before those speakers
die and their languages become silent. The documentation strategy is most effective in severecases of language endangerment where there are only a handful of elderly speakers. However,many communities whose languages have been diagnosed as endangered are grappling with theironies of “language endangerment.” This anomalous utterance merits closer analysis. The semantic properties make “sense” as a metaphor but do they make even more “sense” as a joke?
This paper examines the implications and consequences of “language endangerment” as both ametaphor and as a joke. From an Indigenous perspective some of the proposed strategies forsaving languages seem like a cruel joke that ironically exacerbate rather than ameliorate theconditions of linguistic colonialism that propel Indigenous languages toward extinction.

Can questions be directly disjoined?
Anna Szabolcsi
New York University
The partition theory of the semantics of questions (Groenendijk & Stokhof 1984) requires thatquestions have unique complete and true answers, and thereby predicts a difference between the
conjoinability and disjoinability of questions. The conjunction of questions continues to have aunique answer, but their disjunction does not, because it offers a choice. It is thus predictedthat questions can be conjoined without further ado, but they can only be disjoined indirectly,
i.e. by lifting and distributing them over embedding verbs. Szabolcsi 1997 argued that the
conjunction / disjunction contrast and the significance of lifting were supported by both mainand complement questions in Hungarian. In complements, the presence of a complementizer ineach clause diagnoses coordination via lifting; this talk will boost the argument with reference
to English. However, the original predictions get lost in more recent theories that argue against
the partition semantics (Klinedinst & Rothschild 2011, George 2013, and Cremers & Chemla

12

2014, among others, as well as work in Inquisitive Semantics, starting with Mascarenhas 2009
and Groenendijk & Roelofsen 2009). Considering that the old predictions seemed correct, thistalk asks what assumptions about questions and about disjunctions might bring them back.

13

Papers
Special Session: Experimental Syntax & Semantics
Cinderella broke and broke: object deletion and manner-result complementarity
Lilia Rissman (University of Chicago)
Thursday, April 23, 10:00-10:30, East Lounge (2nd floor)
The question of how much meaning can be contained within a single word is a central issue insemantic theory. Rappaport-Hovav & Levin (2010) propose that verbs display Manner-Result
Complementarity: verbs can either describe what an agent does (e.g. run, sweep, scrub), or
describe a change undergone by a patient (e.g. die, break, melt). In this paper, I argue that
instrumental verbs such as slice and chop are counterexamples to complementarity. I focus inparticular on the diagnostic of object deletion, specifically the X and X construction in (1):(1)

a. To get the house ready for the party, Cinderella scrubbed and scrubbed all night.
b. *To get rid of all the empty beer bottles, Cinderella broke and broke all night.

Object deletion is thought to be prohibited for result verbs such as break (Rappaport-Hovav,
2008; Beavers & Koontz-Garboden, 2012), accounting for the unacceptability of (1b). In thispaper, I present experimental and corpus evidence that the X and X construction diagnoses not
the presence of result but the presence of agentive meaning. I found in addition that instrumental verbs are acceptable in this construction given sufficiently supportive context. This result
indicates that instrumental verbs encode both agent- and result-oriented meaning, inconsistent
with complementarity.

Not all determiners are acquired en masse: on the role of count/mass distinctionin L2 acquisition of article semantics
Elena Gavruseva, Garrett Larson, Sarah Lowen and Chris Widmer (University of Iowa)
Thursday, April 23, 10:30-11:00, East Lounge (2nd floor)
This paper investigates what role the count/mass distinction plays in adult second language(L2) acquisition of English articles. Prior L2 studies (e.g. Ionin et al. 2004, 2010) identify
English determiner errors that include only [+count] nouns and articles ‘a’ and ‘the’. We therefore ask what patterns are expected with [-count] nouns modified by a null article (e.g. ‘I likecold weather’). We present the results of an online task asking 50 L2 learners of Slavic (articleless) background to choose an appropriate determiner for a sentence embedded in a shortdialogue (48 test items [24 count/24 mass nouns]; 48 distractors). Qualtrics software allowed
us to time the participants’ responses (e.g. number of clicks). The control group included 16
native English speakers. We found differences in accuracy/timing rates by noun type (overall
higher accuracy for count than for mass nouns and overall higher amount of time spent on mass
than on count nouns) and by learner group: at chance for the null and definite determiners
for intermediate/low-intermediate level learners. In addition, all learner groups (native-like,advanced, advanced intermediate, intermediate/low-intermediate) showed a difference in accuracy rates in indefinite contexts: significantly higher rates for ‘a’ than for the null determiner.
We combine both linguistic and processing frameworks to account for the dissociation between
mass and count nouns in determiner accuracy rates.

14

Individual neural response profiles and the reanalysis of garden-path sentences: An
ERP study.
Polly O’Rourke (University of Maryland) and Gregory Colflesh (University of Maryland)
Thursday, April 23, 11:15-11:45, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Electrophysiological studies using the event-related potential (ERP) technique have shown thatthe reanalysis of garden-path sentences elicits the P600 and that this component is also modulated by working memory capacity. While the P600 is generally presumed to be a uniform
response elicited consistently across individuals to specific syntactic contexts, Tanner and vanHell (2014) showed that this may not be the case. Using their response-dominance index (RDI),
they observed that some individuals showed late posterior positivities as the dominant response
to syntactic errors (P600 dominant) while others exhibited earlier broadly distributed negativities in the absence of late posterior positivities (N400 dominant). By applying Tanner and Van
Hell’s RDI analysis to garden path sentences, the current study found that P600 dominant individuals showed enhanced comprehension of garden-path sentences, even when controlling forworking memory capacity. N400/P600 dominance may, therefore, reflect engagement of distinct
language processing mechanisms or strategies during syntactic structure building. While further
investigation is necessary, these findings provide a new perspective on individual variability ingarden-path resolution.

Lab or Armchair? The Benefits of Formal Acceptability Judgements
Jana Häussler (University of Potsdam) & Tom Juzek (University of Oxford)
Thursday, April 23rd, 11:45-12:15, East Lounge (2nd floor)
For decades, informal ways of obtaining acceptability judgements dominated syntactic theory,
with introspection (i.e. the linguist is her own informant) being the most common. There areseveral possible disadvantages of informal methods. Among them are the lack of a common
scale (the number and types of diacritics that linguists use vary across authors and papers)
and an increased effect of judgement errors (any judgement is subject to performance-“noise”;
e.g. memory limitations, distractors, priming effects, etc.). In theory, the effects of scale biases
and judgement errors are more amplified in informal methods than in formal methods (Schütze,1996). However, a quantitative comparison of formal and informal acceptability judgements
was long missing. Sprouse et al. (2013) filled this gap and presented results that suggest that
informal and formal judgements concur to a large extent. However, Sprouse et al. focused on
pairwise comparisons: They compared marked constructions to their unmarked counterpartsand checked for each pair whether informal and formal results agreed. Though pairs play animportant role in syntactic theory, pairwise comparisons do not, in our view, reflect best how
syntactic research is conducted. Consequently, we designed an experiment, in which we randomly sampled constructions from the literature and then compared them at large (i.e. beyond
pairs) to ratings from an acceptability judgement task. We found a non-trivial mismatch between introspective judgements and experimental results. We argue that both informal andformal judgements are affected by scale biases and judgement errors. However, while the impact on the formal results is reduced thanks to a higher number of participants and normalising
the individual ratings, the impact on the results from introspection is unmitigated. The consequences can be damaging, specifically for syntactic theory building, which is why formal

15

methods, and acceptability judgement tasks in particularly, should have their place in syntactic
theory.

General Session
The semantics of yuè V yuè A in Mandarin Chinese: coercion and the necessarily
temporal reading
Xiao Li (Queens College, CUNY) & Carlos A. Fasola (Rutgers University)
Thursday, April 23, 3:00-3:30, East Lounge (2nd floor)
We show that in Mandarin Chinese yuè V yuè A (e.g., (2)) has a necessarily temporal readingthat yuè A yuè A (e.g., (1)) does not have: (1) means that there is a positive correlation between
the degree to which an apple is big and the degree to which it is sweet; (2), on the other hand,means: Zhangsan’s running speed increases over time.
(1)

Pı́ngguǒ yuè dà, yuè tián. yuè A yuè A
apple
big
sweet
‘The bigger an apple is, the sweeter it is.’(2)

Zhāngsān yuè pǎo yuè kuài. yuè V yuè Arun
fast‘Zhangsan ran faster and faster.’

We argue that the semantic distinction between (1) and (2) is due to the gradability of thepredicate following the first occurrence of yuè: in (1) yuè1 precedes a gradable adjective (i.e.,dà ‘big’), while in (2) yuè1 precedes a non-gradable verb (i.e., pǎo ‘to run’). We propose thatthe necessarily temporal reading of yuè V yuè A falls out as a result of coercion that forces
the non-gradable VP to have an ordered domain parallel to that of a gradable adjective, where
events like degree intervals are totally ordered under the proper subinterval relation and havea common starting point. This analysis suggests that the proper subinterval relation is compatible with comparisons of both degrees and events, and therefore can encode a more general
notion of comparison than the greater than relation.

The consonant hierarchy in Dëne Su̧liné: Verbal morphophonemics and synchronic
variation
Alessandro Jaker (Alaska Native Language Center)
Thursday, April 23, 3:30-4:00, East Lounge (2nd floor)Dëne Su̧liné is a Northeast Dene (Athabaskan) language spoken in northern Canada. DëneSu̧liné exhibits a strength hierarchy of syllable-final consonants as shown in (1). To repair
impermissible coda clusters, consonants lower on the hierarchy are deleted in favor of consonants
higher on the hierarchy.
(3)s,z  l,l  th, dhThat is, alveolar fricatives rank above laterals, which outrank interdentals; stop codas are notallowed in this language. In morphophonemic alternations, which simplify syllable-final fricative
clusters, l replaces th while s replaces l, as in (2):
16

(4)

/ye-the-l-tsı/ > yéltsı ‘he/she made it’, /s-l-tsı/ > hestsı ‘I make’.

This would suggest either that alveolars are more specified than laterals or interdentals, or that
there are contextual markedness constraints that penalize laterals and interdentals in syllablefinal position.
On the other hand, in some colloquial varieties of the language, all voiced fricatives aredeleted syllable-finally, and all voiceless fricatives are neutralized to [s]. For example nalchéth∼ noschés ‘bag’. This would suggest that alveolars are the least specified segments in terms ofplace features, since fricatives neutralize to alveolar place syllable-finally.
I conclude that alveolars are indeed less specified than laterals and interdentals: alveolars
bear only the features [coronal] and [anterior], while laterals and iterdentals bear, in addition
to these, the features [lateral] and [distributed], respectively. However, examples such as in (2)are not actually cases of consonant deletion, but rather coalescence: the output consonants in(2) have multiple input correspondents. As such, they are subject to dep[feature] constraints
which, if ranked dep[distributed]  dep[lateral]  max[distributed], max[lateral] will accountfor the hierarchy exhibited in (1) and (2).

Assembling Nominal Constituents: Evidence from an Intergenerational FamilyHomesign
Laura Horton (University of Chicago)
Thursday, April 23rd, 4:15-4:45, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Recent studies on emerging sign languages allow us to assess claims about the evolution of
language, for example, that a phonological system, characterized by duality of patterning, musthave preceded hierarchical syntax (Jackendoff 1999).
Some studies have suggested that sign languages may actually take longer than expected
to evidence stable phonological patterns (Israel & Sandler, 2002; Sandler et al 2009). In a 2009
study of the emergence of a phonological level of structure in Al-Sayid Bedouin Sign Language,
ABSL, Sandler, et al suggest that the language lacks a stable phonology, citing high phonologicalvariability, violations of phonological constraints common across sign languages, and no minimal
pairs. They propose that phonology might require a level of conventionalization of sign forms
to emerge (526).
This study evaluates this hypothesis by documenting the sign lexicons of a “microcommunity” of users of a family homesign system in Guatemala. Homesign is the term used to describe
deaf individuals whose hearing losses have prevented them from acquiring the spoken languageof their community and who have not been exposed to an established sign language. Previous
work on adult homesigners found that their systems were significantly less conventionalized
than users of a Nicaraguan Sign Language, a language less than 50 years old (Richie, Coppola& Yang 2014). Unlike the homesigners in that study, the Guatemalan participants here do havea small community of users. This analysis asks whether that community affects the level ofconventionalization in a small lexicon of signs.
Signs are analyzed for both their “conceptual component” (after Richie et al) and phonological features of the form (including: selected fingers, joint configuration, place of articulationand movement, after Brentari, 1998). This allows us to develop two measures of variability, andevaluate the proposal that young lexicons seem to be characterized by an “iconic prototype”
that is less variable than its phonological realization (Sandler et al, 517).

17

General Session: Movement
Relative pronoun pied-piping, the structure of which informs the analysis of relative clauses
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine & Hadas Kotek (McGill University)
Thursday, April 23,3:00-3:30, West Lounge (2nd floor)
We investigate the structure of relative pronoun pied-piping (RPPP) in English restrictive andnon-restrictive relative clauses. We argue that RPPPs in the two types of relative clauses areconstructed and interpreted in fundamentally different ways. The relative pronoun is interpreted
in-situ within non-restrictive RPPP, whereas there is a movement relation from the relative
pronoun inside restrictive RPPP to the edge of the relative clause.
We support this analysis through novel data on the behavior of restrictive and non-restrictive
relative clauses with respect to focus intervention effects in pied-piping (Cable, 2010; Erlewine
and Kotek, 2014; Kotek and Erlewine, to appear): only in-situ modes of interpretation (notvariable binding or movement) are sensitive to intervention effects (Beck, 2006, a.o.), and indeed only RPPP in non-restrictive relative clauses show intervention effects. Restrictive relative
clauses, on the other hand, are subject to much stricter size restrictions, and do not exhibit
focus intervention effects.

Reconstruction, Reflexive Connectivity, and LF Deletion
Nagarajan Selvanathan (Rutgers University)
Thursday, April 23, 3:30-4:00, West Lounge (2nd floor)
In this talk, I argue for two inter-related claims: First, I claim that copies of a movement
chain need not be LF-deleted if each copy is crucial to interpretation in some sense. This iscontrary to the Preference Principle (Chomsky 2001) but fully compatible with the notion of Full
Interpretation. Second, I argue that dependence relations (for example, between a reflexive andits antecedent) is a distinct semantic operation from sentence composition. This is surprising
given the copy theory of movement which posits that moved reflexives are licensed by virtue
of interpreting a lower copy which is in the right configuration with its antecedent even if thehigher copy is not. I motivate my claims based on a comparison of Tamil (Dravidian, SOV)
copular clauses which roughly corresponds to English copular clauses like ‘What Johni saw washimselfi ’.
Unlike English, I argue that reflexive connectivity in Tamil is licensed by syntactic reconstruction. In a copy theory of movement, this is taken to indicate that it is the lower copy of
the reflexive that is interpreted. However, it is additionally shown that it is the higher (andnot the lower) copy of the reflexive that feeds copular clause interpretation. This means that
Tamil provides clear evidence that in a movement chain headed by a reflexive, both the higher
copy and the lower copy must be present at LF and interpreted. This supports the first claim.
The fact that the lower copy licenses the reflexive reading but not the copular clause meaning
supports the second. The reflexive result also extend to Principle B and C effects. The result(s)of this paper, if correct, motivate a rethinking of how syntactic reconstruction is conceived in acopy theory of movement.

18

Predicate Ellipsis, Null Adjuncts, and Predicate Raising in Japanese
Shintaro Hayashi (JSPS/Yokohama National University) &Tomohiro Fujii (Yokohama National University)
Thursday, April 23, 4:15-4:45, West Lounge (2nd floor)
Predicate raising in Japanese has long been controversial, partly because of the strictly headfinal character of Japanese. Due to this trait, predicate raising in Japanese is expected to takeplace in a string-vacuous manner, with no obvious change in the word order. The goal of thistalk is to argue for the presence of string-vacuous predicate raising in the grammar of Japanese.
We first establish that two kinds of verbal predicates, native Japanese verbs (NJVs) and verbal nouns (VNs), behave differently with respect to ellipsis: predicate ellipsis and null adjunctphenomena. We then propose that the differences between the two are related to a differencein predicate raising. Our claim is that while NJVs undergo predicate raising string-vacuously,
VNs do not.

Blackholes and subextraction from adjuncts in English and NorwegianJ. M. M. Brown (DTAL, University of Cambridge)
Thursday, April 23, 4:45-5:15, West Lounge (2nd floor)
Previous work suggests that locality regulates patterns of extraction, highlighting that somemovement configurations are not local enough whilst other configurations are too local. Respectively these constraints trigger successive-cyclic movement through intermediate landingsites (the phase edge in Chomsky, 2001), and rule out very short steps of movement from complement to specifier of a single projection (anti-locality in e.g. Abels, 2003). I show that locality
sometimes remains undefined, leaving ‘blackholes’ where parts of a projection are inaccessible
to the projecting phase head.
I use one such area of inaccessibility inside free adjuncts to vP in English and Norwegian
to provide a syntactic solution to the puzzle of why single eventhood appears to repair islands.
The puzzle is illustrated in (1) and (2): whilst the transparent adjuncts in (1) form single eventswith the matrix predicate, the opaque adjunct in (2) does not (cf. Schmerling, 1975, De Vos,
2005, for pseudocoordination (1a); Truswell, 2007, 2011, for participial adjunction (1b); Sheehan, 2013, for prepositional adjunction (1c)).
(1)a. Which car did I go and buy ? (cf. Ross, 1967:(4.108a,b,c), 170)b. What did Monica arrive whistling ? (cf. Borgonovo & Neeleman, 2000:(3a,b), 200)c. What temperature should I wash my jeans at ? (Sheehan, 2010:(16a))(2)*Which celebrity did Mary eat an ice cream before she saw ? (cf. Huang, 1982:503)

First, adverb scope tests show that opacity correlates with position of merger: whilst the transparent adjuncts in (1) merge with a projection of a non-phase head (VP), the opaque adjunctin (2) merges with a projection of a phase head (vP). Second, I use phase theory to provide a
unified analysis: some nodes remain inaccessible to the phase heads in whose projections theystand.

19

Special Session: Prosodic Phonology
Tonal Assignment in English Loanwords in Mandarin Chinese
Eleanor Glewwe (UCLA)
Friday, April 24, 8:30-9:00, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Words borrowed from a non-tonal language like English must be assigned tones in Mandarin.
A previous loanword corpus study (Wu 2006) found that English syllables beginning with aspirated stops/affricates or sonorants tended to receive Mandarin rising tone (kui2ning2 ‘quinine’).
Meanwhile, English syllables beginning with unaspirated stops/affricates or fricatives tended toreceive high tone (bei1ge2 ‘boycott’; san1ming2zhi4 ‘sandwich’). I carried out a much larger
corpus study and also found that adapted syllables whose onsets corresponded to obstruents in
English were most likely to receive high tone while adapted syllables whose onsets corresponded
to sonorants in English were most likely to receive rising tone. Unlike Wu, however, I did not
find a tendency for rising tone assignment in adapted syllables with aspirated stop/affricate
onsets. Rather, these syllables exhibited a dispreference for rising tone. Additionally, I uncovered a new determinant of tonal assignment: voicing. Loanword syllables whose onsets
corresponded to voiced English obstruents most often received rising tone (bai2tuo1 ‘butter’)despite a Mandarin-internal bias against rising tone with unaspirated onsets, the expected segmental adaptation of voiced English stops and affricates (Wu 2006). Syllables whose onsets
corresponded to voiceless English obstruents most often received high tone (tun1na2 ‘tuna’).
These patterns are consistent with voicing’s depressive effect on F0 in obstruents (Hombert,
Ohala & Ewan 1979). They held for both word-initial and word-internal voiced and voicelessobstruents and for both aspirated and unaspirated voiceless stops. Though not previously considered in the literature, the voicing of English obstruents turns out to be the most reliable
determinant of tone in Mandarin adapted forms. Low-level phonetic details of the English
words affect their tonal adaptation and may override native tone-onset type associations indetermining tonal assignment.

Prosodic effects of segmental correspondence
Juliet Stanton and Sam Zukoff (MIT)Friday, April 24, 9:00-9:30, East Lounge (2nd floor)
In this talk, we examine how extensions of Correspondence Theory (McCarthy & Prince 1995)
can be used to explain a class of misapplication effects arising in reduplication and copy epenthesis. In these domains, we frequently see exceptional patterning in the assignment of phonologicalproperties relating to prominence (i.e. stress, pitch, length). We will argue that, in order toexplain these effects, the phonological grammar must have the following two properties: (i)the existence of a Correspondence relation among surface segments, arising under particular
structural configurations, and (ii) Output-Output faithfulness constraints that require identity
among surface correspondents for prosodic properties.
We show that a grammar with these properties is sufficient and necessary to generate a
range of effects, many of which have heretofore failed to receive satisfactory explanations in theliterature, including: (i) stress-matching in Ngan?gityemerri reduplication (Reid 2011) (ii) subcategorical durational matching between copy vowels and their hosts in Scots Gaelic (Bosch& de Jong 1997) and Hocank (e.g. Miner 1989), and (iii) opaque interactions between copy
epenthesis and stress placement in Selayarese (e.g. Broselow 2001), Tahitian (Bickmore 1995),

20

and Hocank (e.g. Miner 1989).

Tone melodies in the age of Surface Correspondence
Sharon Inkelas (UC, Berkeley) & Stephanie S Shih (UC, Merced)
Friday, April 24, 9:30-10:00, East Lounge (2nd floor)
This paper utilizes Agreement by Correspondence (ABC) to reexamine tone melody inventories,
a landmark phenomenon in the development of Autosegmental Phonology (AP). We argue that,
under a surface correspondence approach, tone melody inventories emerge naturally from thephonological grammar, rooted in independently-motivated principles of similarity and proximity,with proven effects in segmental phenomena. Our results, from a corpus of Mende lexical tone
patterns, illustrate that generalisations about tone melody distribution that originally drove
the development of AP in fact provide unique arguments in support of an optimizing, surface
correspondence-based analysis.
Previous AP approaches to Mende tone melodies explained the commonality of certain
surface tone patterns by positing a limited inventory of underlying melodies (Leben 1978), whichwere mapped to surface tone-bearing units via directional, one-to-one association conventions.
A noted problem with the inventory and mapping approach, however, is that it is too restrictive,
wrongly excluding attested though less frequent surface tone patterns. To account for additional
tone patterns, AP must posit underlying associations of tone, language-specific modifications
to representational well-formedness, and reference to tone contours as a unit. Taken together,
the Mende data show that the assumption of limited melodic inventories and directional tone
mapping cannot coexist without significantly weakening one or another fundamental element ofAP.
We present here an alternative analysis in which Mende surface tone patterns and their lexical frequencies emerge from an optimizing grammar based on a single explanatory mechanismof phonological correspondence in ABC. Surface correspondence successfully models not only
the limited distribution of non-final contour tones but also the observed alignment between tone
and syllable boundaries, which results in more complex tone melodies as word length increases.
An ABC-driven approach to tone melodies thus provides a united and more fine-grained treatment of the Mende tone system, without the representational mechanisms required in AP.

Scalar Positional Markedness and Faithfulness in Harmonic Grammar
Brian Hsu & Karen Jesney (University of Southern California)
Friday, April 24, 10:15-10:45, East Lounge (2nd floor)
This paper examines two types of positional asymmetries that arise at prosodic boundaries:‘superset-at-edge’ patterns, where a marked structure (e.g., an onsetless syllable) is permitted
at prosodic boundaries above some degree of prominence, and ‘subset-at-edge’ patterns, where amarked structure is banned at more prominent prosodic edges (Flack 2009). This paper proposesan account of these restrictions in a version of Harmonic Grammar (HG; Legendre, Miyata &Smolensky 1990, Smolensky & Legendre 2006) where constraint violations are scaled according
to the prosodic prominence of the positions where they occur. The result is a system that moreclosely matches the attested typology and that uses fewer, and more general, constraints thanis possible in Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993/2004).

21

Positional asymmetries have generally been accounted for in OT using markedness andfaithfulness constraints indexed to levels of the prosodic hierarchy. While effective, the interaction of these constraints in OT predicts the existence of unattested “level-skipping” patterns
where a marked element is permitted at one level of prosodic structure even as that same element is prohibited at both higher and lower levels. We show that implicational patterns ofrepair vs. non-repair can be effectively captured using weighted scalar markedness and faithfulness constraints where the severity of violation increases with the strength of the prosodic
boundaries involved. The HG system generates the full range of attested patterns while avoiding the overgeneration problem of indexed constraints; “level-skipping” languages are correctlypredicted not to exist. This study provides further evidence that adopting a weighted model ofconstraint interaction yields positive typological consequences while increasing the simplicity ofthe overall system.

Prosodic smothering in Macedonian and Kaqchikel
Ryan Bennett (Yale University), Boris Harizanov (Stanford University), and Robert Henderson(Wayne State University)
Friday, April 24, 10:45-11:15, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Previous research has established that dependent morphemes (affixes, clitics) may idiosyncratically select for prosodic properties of their hosts. For example, the English comparative -er does
not attach to stems of greater than two syllables in size (sunni-er vs. *insightful-er). Prosodic
subcategorization is typically understood to be lateral and local: dependent morphemes may select for prosodic properties of an immediately preceding or immediately following element. Less
attention has been paid to the vertical dimension of prosodic subcategorization—the prosodic
constituent produced by the attachment of a dependent morpheme to its host. We argue thatvertical subcategorization is responsible for the heterogeneous prosodic behavior of certain functional items in Macedonian (Slavic, Macedonia) and Kaqchikel (Mayan, Guatemala). In short,the vertical subcategorization requirements of an outer morpheme can alter the prosodic parsing of an inner morpheme in the same complex. We refer to this phenomenon as prosodic
smothering.
In Macedonian, preverbal clitics are typically unstressable (<go VIde>‘(s)he saw him’,*<GO vide>). But in the presence of wh-words or sentential negation such clitics are parsed
into the same prosodic word as the verb, and may then bear stress (<koj GO vide>‘Who saw
him?’). This rather puzzling pattern can be analyzed as a case of prosodic smothering: theprosodic subcategorization requirements of sentential negation and wh-words force a deviationfrom the default prosodic parse that would otherwise be observed for the clitics.
In Kaqchikel, a variety of diagnostics indicate that absolutive agreement markers show adifferent prosodic parse depending on the presence or absence of outer aspect marking, e.g.
<x-in-b’e>‘I went’ vs. <in=jwi’>‘I am intelligent’. Exactly as in Macedonian, this prosodic
variation owes to the vertical subcategorization requirements of an outer morpheme, in thiscase aspect. There is thus strong evidence that vertical subcategorization can induce prosodic
restructuring of lower elements.

General Session: Syntax
An Articleless DP Language : Pazar Laz

22

Ömer Eren (Boǧaziçi University)
Friday, April 24, 8:30-9:00, West Lounge (2nd floor)
In the literature, there are mainly two types of approaches to DPs: i) the Universal DPhypothesis (Abney, 1987, Szabolsci, 1983, 1987, Longobardi 1994, among others) which argues
that DP is present for nominal arguments in every language, and ii) the Parameterized-DP
analysis (Bokovic, 2005, 2008, 2010, among others), according to which not all languages requirea DP layer in the nominal domain.
The main goal of this paper is to investigate the nominal structure of Pazar Laz (PLhereafter), an endangered South Caucasian language spoken in Turkey, and argue against theargument developed in Bokovic 2008 and 2010 whereby it is proposed that languages without
overt morphological articles syntactically lack a DP projection. On the basis of evidence frombinding, negative raising, left-branch extraction, inverse scope and radical pro-drop, I will showthat PL, as an articleless language, patterns with languages with overt articles and seems tohave a DP layer.
That there is a separate functional layer above nominals in PL is also evidenced by thebinding facts illustrated below:(1)a. Himuşii qata-k
Alii
opşa noserişinums.
hisfriend.ERG Ali.NOM very intelligent consider.PRES.3SG‘His friend considers Ali very intelligent.’[No condition C violation]b. Alişii
qata-khimi
opşa noserişinums.
Ali.GEN friend.ERG him.NOM very intelligent consider.PRES.3SG‘Ali’s friend considers him very intelligent.’[No condition B violation]

Despite the absence of articles, projecting a DP layer in PL would not only account for thebinding facts observed above but also explain the lack of left branch extraction in PL, as DP
constitutes a phase as argued by Boškovic (2005, 2008, 2010). This would then imply that there
might not be a direct correlation between the presence of overt articles and that of a DP layer
in a language.

A Feature Stacking Analysis of Direct Modification in Hoca˛kBryan Rosen, University of Wisconsin–Madison
Friday, April 24, 9:30-10:00, West Lounge (2nd floor)
This paper provides a case study on direct adjectival modification from Hoca˛k (Siouan). Cinque(2010) argues that DP-internal adjectives have two sources: direct modification is lower, ordered,and forms APs, whereas indirect modification is higher, unordered, and forms relative clauses(IPs/CPs). I show that direct adjectival modification is found in Hoca˛k. I use semantic andagreement diagnostics to show that postnominal adjectives are bare APs. As a consequence,the data from postnominal adjectives suggest that lack of rigid ordering is not necessarily indicative of indirect modification (contra Cinque 2010). Furthermore, prenominal modifiers giverise to a strict ordering, which is a feature of direct modification. Following Manetta (2010),
I argue that multiple features can stack on a single head. The order of features in the stacks
on functional heads are assembled in the lexicon (i.e., language-specific principles). I proposethat the ordering of adjectives in Hoca˛k can be accounted for with two functional heads thateach contain a stack of features. Since the functional lexicon is language specific (Borer 1984),
the composition adjective licensing heads is also language specific. Multiple features on a single
23

head create multiple specifiers, and adjective ordering depends on whether the functional head
has an ordered stack of features. In sum, I argue that pre- and postnominal modifiers in Hoca˛kare best treated as direct modification. This paper thus further advances our understanding ofDP-internal adjectives.

Island Repair in Korean Fragments
Hyosik Kim & Bum-Sik Park (Dongguk University)
Friday, April 24, 10:15-10:45, West Lounge (2nd floor)
Two opposing views have been proposed regarding the island-sensitivity in elliptical constructions. Under the repair approach (Ross 1969, Merchant 2001, Lasnik 2001), eliding a (certain)
island at PF literally repairs the otherwise illegitimate structure. On the other hand, under thenon-repair approach the island-sensitivity tracks the availability of various evasion strategies
that do not involve an island in the first place (Barros, Elliott and Thoms 2014, Merchant 2001,
Fukaya 2007, Abels 2011,). In this talk, investigating various types of Korean fragments, we will
provide various arguments in favor of the repair approach. We will first demonstrate the evasion
strategies assuming alternative sources like short source, cleft source and predicational source
for the elliptical site all fail to account for the island-insensitive Korean fragments, due to properties specific to Korean. For instance, Korean allows multiple fragments rather freely, but it
does not allow multiplicity in either the short or the cleft source. These arguments suggest thatisland repair is real in Korean. We will show that the authenticity of island repair is supportedby the following four main types of fragments in Korean: (1) Non-contrastive fragment answer to wh-question, (2) Contrastive fragment answer to Yes/No question, (3) Non-contrastivefragment answer to Yes/No-question, and (4) Fragmentary left branch extraction. Finally, we
will propose an account of a certain asymmetry regarding the possibility of island repair in
Korean. We propose that extraction out of an island has a PF-effect on the element outside of
the island, and that presence/absence of the element at PF tracks the possibility of island repair.

Sentence-Initial Modals as Focus Operators at CP in Chinese
Yu-Yin Hsu (Hong Kong Polytechnic University)
Friday, April 24, 10:15-10:45, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Chinese modals can occur between the subject and the predicate (1), or precede the subject
(2).
(1)

Zhangsan yinggai qu Meiguo.
Zhangsan should go USA‘Zhangsan should go to the USA.’(2)

Yinggai Zhangsan qu Meiguo
should Zhangsan go USA‘It should be that Zhangsan is the one to go to the USA.’In the literature, it has been argued that these two positions of modals result from optional
subject to subject raising within TP (Lin, 2011), optional Topic A-movement within TP (Chou,
2013), or optional Topicalization of subject to CP (Tsai, 2014). Although these proposals have24their own theoretical merits, I will show that sentences like (2) should not be derived by an optional raising or Topicalization from (1). I will argue that sentence-initial modals are operators
focus-marking the entire sentence (proposition) as Focus. I will show that pre-modal nominals
in sentences like (2) do not have to be Topic (contrary to Chou, 2013 and Tsai, 2014), andthat sentence-initial modals are at the CP domain (contrary to Lin, 2011 and Chou, 2013). I
will also show that sentences like (1) have modals in the canonical position in the TP domain,
licensing negative polarity items, whereas sentence-initial modals in sentences like (2) sit at the
CP domain marking Focus, and not being compatible with wh-phrases nor negative polarity
items. In turn, it will be shown that different positions of modals are not instances of freechoices or a zero derivation, but instead, their structural differences represent specific information structures. The current proposal avoids wrong predictions and confusions brought by
previous analyses and accounts for a wider range of data straightforwardly.

Special Session: Argument Structure
Valency alternation in Ranmo
Jenny Lee (Harvard University)
Friday, April 24, 3:15-3:45, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Ranmo shows an apparent split-S system in person/number agreement. This is not conditioned
by aspect or person, but rather is correlated with the absence/presence of valency-changing
morphology. I show that it reflects the syntactic division between verbs which are inherently intransitive (“unaccusatives”) and verbs which are derived from transitive verbs via reflexivization(“middles”). Crucially, I argue that this “reflexivization” is a specific kind of applicativization
involving (i) theme object reduction and (ii) coreference between the applied argument and theexternal argument. The proposal accounts for the morphological syncretism (and productive
syntactic alternation) between argument-reducing (e.g., anticausatives and antipassives) andargument-increasing (e.g., ditransitives and benefactive/source/recipient applicatives) constructions. I also propose that the middle marker is the morphological realization of default/failed
object agreement, in support of Preminger’s (2014) “obligatory-operations” approach to phiagreement. Finally, I relate the findings and implications of the proposal to current views on
split ergativity. In particular, both split-S systems and aspect-based splits seem to have a common source, namely, object demotion.

Case competition and case domains: Evidence from Yimas
Michelle Yuan (MIT)Friday, April 24, 3:45-4:15, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Under the dependent theory of case assignment (Marantz 1991, a.o.), morphological case is calculated on the basis of competition, in accordance with a realizational hierarchy: quirky/lexical> dependent > unmarked. This paper argues that Yimas (Lower Sepik; Papua New Guinea)
supports the fundamentals of this model, but also motivates an extension of it. In Yimas,
case is realized over a series of agreement clitics hosted on the verb. I demonstrate that the
distributions of the case paradigms perfectly mirror the distributions of morphological case as
predicted under the Marantzian model of case assignment: DAT is quirky, ERG is dependent,

25and ABS is unmarked.
On the other hand, Yimas differs from other languages analyzed under this system in thatcase is realized solely on the clitics, not on the nominals they cross-reference. Moreover, clitic
doubling is optional, and the case patterns that surface on these clitics (in particular, the patterns involving dependent case) are controlled by the number of clitics present on the verb, notthe argument structure of the construction. Thus, in Yimas, the domain of case assignment is
the span of clitics, meaning that case is calculated directly over these clitics while the nominals
they double do not receive case at all. More broadly, the Yimas data demonstrate that thedomain of case assignment is not universally clausal, as is generally assumed, but is subject tocross-linguistic variation.

Transitive-ergative alternation in the domain of P
Yuko Asada (Tokyo University of Social Welfare)Friday, April 24, 4:30-5:00, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Ruwet (1978) argues that there are two types of absolute constructions (ACs) in French of theform avec ‘with’–DP–XP (avec-ACs), as illustrated by (1) and (2), showing that they do not
involve the same semantic relation.
(1)

Avec John Wayne pour Reagan, on va voir ce qu’on va voir.
‘With John Wayne for Reagan, we will see what we will see.’(2)

Avec Pierre pour guide, nous avons visité Florence.
‘With Pierre as a guide, we visited Firenze.’In the first type, the DP–XP that follows avec can be paraphrased by a sentence of the form DP
is XP (cf. John Wayne est pour Reagan.). This is not the case with the second type, however(cf. *Pierre est pour guide.). Rather, the DP-XP corresponds to a phrase in a sentence oftype YP has DP XP (cf. Nous avons Pierre pour guide. ‘We have Pierre for a guide.’). Ruwet
also shows that the two types of avec-ACs as exemplified by (1) and (2) (‘be- and have-type’avec-ACs, respectively) differ in their syntactic behavior: the possibility of quantifier float andthe position of adverbs. In this paper, I propose an analysis of these differences in terms of atransitive/ergative alternation in the domain of P, analogous to the one in the verbal domain.
I also deal with another type of AC in French, which appears without a preposition, ‘bare’ AC(BAC), as illustrated below.
(3)

Perrette se promène [un panier au bras].
‘Perrette walks with a basket in hand.’

It is suggested that BACs and avec-ACs can be treated in a unified way. Finally, an implicationof the present proposal for the theory of small clauses is discussed.

English Reflexive Logophors
Isabelle Charnavel and Chrissy Zlogar (Harvard University)
Friday, April 24, 5:00-5:30, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Under any version of Condition A of the Binding Theory, the antecedents of anaphors must occur in a structurally local domain, whether the notion of locality is argued to rely on c-command26

in a specific domain (classical theory of Condition A, see Chomsky’s 1986) or coargumenthood(predicate-based theories, see a.o. Pollard and Sag 1992, Reinhart and Reuland 1993). But
for more than forty years, it has been observed that in various languages, some anaphors canbe exempt from this locality constraint. The exact conditions under which exemption from
Condition A is licensed are however debated and poorly understood. The goal of this paper
is to examine this problem in English: we will strengthen the empirical evidence for English
exempt anaphors and propose an account for them based on logophoricity: the antecedents of
exempt anaphors have to be perspective centers, which come in three different kinds and aresyntactically represented by logophoric operators. Specifically, we make the generalization thatan exempt anaphor has to be anteceded by a perspective center, be it intellectual (attitude
holder), emotional (empathy locus) or perceptual (deictic center), and we propose specific tests
to identify them. To explain why exempt anaphors have to be anteceded by such centers of perspective, we next assume the existence of logophoric operators, drawing on work by Koopman
and Sportiche (1989), Anand (2006), and Sundaresan (2012). On the one hand, this explains
why exempt anaphors display such a specific interpretation despite having no intrinsic properties to impose it: their interpretation is wholly derived from their binder. On the other hand,
this accounts for why such perspectival anaphors seem to be exempt: they are locally boundby silent logophoric operators, thus in fact obeying Condition A.

Special Session: Beyond Field Methodologies
Social Pragmatics and Types of Person Reference: The Case of Proper Names v.
Kin Terms
Luke Fleming (UdeM) & James Slotta (UCSD)
Friday, April 24, 3:15-3:45, West Lounge (2nd floor)
The study of social pragmatic variation in norms of use of person referring expressions has
been foundational in the literature on politeness. In this paper we focus on an understudied, but particularly robust, paradigmatic alternation in types of person reference–asymmetries
in the appropriate use of proper names and kin terms in address between consanguineal kin.
We present findings from a survey of the use of kin terms [KTs] and proper names [PNs] inaddressee-reference in 35 speech communities. In 28 communities, normative judgments of who
should use which NP-type to address whom are conditioned by a simple sociocultural parameter: the relative-age of the speaker and the addressee-referent. In every community where wefind a simple pragmatic alternation between the use of KTs and PNs, KTs are normatively used
to refer to senior addressees and PNs are normatively used in referring to junior addressees.
The strong cross-cultural tendency for KTs and PNs to function as pragmatic alternants andthe cross-cultural uniformity in the way in which they alternate with each other call out for
explanation. Reviewing folk explanations of usage and co-occurrence patterns with other social
indexicals in the speech communities in our survey (e.g., the interaction of kin-address with
T/V pronominal alternations, honorific registers, fictive kin term use, etc.), we observe that thealternating use of KTs for seniors and PNs for juniors is recurrently regarded as an indication ofjunior kin’s deference toward and respect for senior kin. Indeed, seniority, which bisects the setof kinship relationships from the perspective of a given speaker, anchors and is reinforced by thepragmatic alternation. We argue that differences in the semantico-referential characteristics ofthese two NP-types constrain the attested metapragmatic conceptualizations of PNs and KTs
as nonreferential social indexicals, motivating them to pragmatically alternate in a uniform way
cross-culturally.

27

Monolingual fieldwork in and beyond the classroom: the Logooli experience at
UCLA
Hannah Sarvasy (UCLA)
Friday, April 24, 3:45-4:15, West Lounge (2nd floor)
Monolingual linguistic fieldwork is fieldwork in which the researcher learns the target language
and uses it for elicitation. The merits and drawbacks of monolingual linguistic fieldwork havebeen debated in many places (Everett 2001, Gil 2001, Newman and Ratliff 2001, Matthewson
2004, Aikhenvald 2007, Dixon 2007, Mosel 2012, inter alia). The debate centers around thetime burden of language learning and the influence of intermediary languages on elicited material. Even many scholars who advocate monolingual fieldwork, however, neither teach graduate
students how to employ this technique in the field (Mosel 2012), nor use the technique in theirown Field Methods courses (Dixon 2007). In this paper, I show evidence from a successful graduate Field Methods course at UCLA that the monolingual fieldwork approach can be taught insuch a course, to highly memorable effect. Further, I show that far from being inefficient, themonolingual technique may be much more efficient in elicitation than use of a contact language.
Using a contact language for elicitation can itself add significant time to elicitation sessions,which under monolingual conditions are highly streamlined. This is shown through comparative
analysis of recorded class sessions using monolingual and Englishtranslation methods. Finally,
the creative use of extant materials and collaboration with other researchers are discussed in
the context of expanding the Field Methods course data base to respectable proportions, representing a sizable community of speakers.

Is language revitalization really about saving languages? Some insights from 150
years of language revival in Occitania
James Costa (Center for Multilingualism in Society, University of Oslo)
Friday, April 24, 4:30-5:00, West Lounge (2nd floor)
This paper examines language revitalization movements and questions the traditional approachto language endangerment and revitalization, which frames its problematization of the issues
at stake in terms of “What can be done?” Instead, based on a case study in the Occitan southof France, this paper defends the view that language revitalization movements are one instanceof wider social movements that could potentially seize on a number of social issues to argue
for group revitalization. The question this paper is centrally interested in thus becomes “Whylanguage?” and not, say, religion or political institutions, and what ideological conditions makethe use of language possible to that effect?
Language revitalization is thus, this paper argues, best approached as a set of processes
through which some individuals constitute themselves as a minority group based on the semiotization of language and primarily address a group of “others”, discursively constructed as
the majority group during that process. Crucially, it addresses this outside group on its own
terms: language becomes important to the minority group because it confers authority fromthe majority group perspective. In this paper I illustrate this approach by focusing on two
historical moments (the 1960s and the 2000s) to show how language revitalization constitutes
an attempt to renegotiate the very terms of historical contact between two groups which are28

created in that very process.

“Might be something”: Information protection in central Australia
Margit Bowler (UCLA)
Friday, April 24, 5:00-5:30, West Lounge (2nd floor)
Strict cultural norms regulate the ownership and transmission of information in many central
Australian cultures. The concept of “free speech” is anathema to the enforcement of thesenorms, which restrict the flow of information between men and women and between young andold speakers, among other contexts.
This paper describes uses of epistemic possibility modals and indefinite pronouns in Warlpiri(Pama-Nyungan, Australia) which apparently violate the Gricean maxim of quantity (Grice
1975). I locate the source of these violations in adherence to information protection norms. I
propose a preliminary analysis of these constructions that locates the differences in the availability of certain constructions in Warlpiri and in English in the pragmatics of Warlpiri speaker
communities. The proposals in this talk can be extended to other Australian Aboriginal speaker
communities, and well as to other American Indian and First Nations communities with similar
information protection norms.

General Session: Pragmatics
Demonstratives with Distributed Interpretations
Ryan Doran (University of Regina) & Gregory Ward (Northwestern University)
Friday, April 24, 9:00-9:30, East Lounge (2nd floor)
It has been observed (King 2001, Elbourne 2008) that certain demonstrative NPs receive a
distributed interpretation:(1)

Every fatheri dreads that moment when hisi oldest child leaves home. [=King 2001, ex.
1.4]Here, the value that the demonstrative receives co-varies with each member of the quantifier
domain; i.e., corresponding to each father there is a particular dreaded moment. In this paper,
we argue that the availability of such interpretations is not simply a matter of quantifier scopeinteractions (contra King 2001). Consider (2), in which the distributed interpretation is available
in the absence of a preceding quantified NP:(2)

Here are 3 steps to help getting you to take that first plunge underwater as a certified
Scuba Diver. [corpus]

Based on a corpus examination of naturally-occurring data, we show that the availability of thisinterpretation is subject to pragmatic constraints. Specifically, we claim that the distributed
interpretation of demonstrative NPs is available in the absence of a bound anaphor when (i)the discourse context licenses an interpretation in which the demonstrative specifies an entity
associated with a significant event and (ii) that this event is assumed to be familiar to the heareron the basis of shared cultural narratives. Consider (3):

29

(3)

a. Every pilot remembers that first flight.
b. #Every pilot remembers that first car.
c. Every teenager remembers that first car.

In (3a), given that pilots fly planes, it can be safely assumed that each pilot has had a first flightand that this flight constitutes a significant event in the pilot’s narrative, hence the demonstrative’s felicity. Conversely, in (3b), the demonstrative is infelicitous given that acquiring a firstcar is not a significant event in the pilot narrative. However, the demonstrative is felicitouswhen acquiring one’s first car is a significant cultural narrative event, as in (3c).

Totally between epistemic and expressivity. Exploring intensification at the speech
act level
Andrea Beltrama (University of Chicago)
Friday, April 24, 10:15-10:45, East Lounge (2nd floor)
Intensification has received considerable attention in semantics. Yet, most authors mostly focused on cases of degree modification, where intensifiers operate over degree scales lexicallyencoded by their argument. Instead, little has been said about cases of purely pragmatic intensification, where intensifiers target scales recruited from non truth-conditional dimensions like
commitment, certainty, expressivity, and as such operate outside the realm of regular at-issue
semantic content. The current talk aims to take a step towards exploring this flavor of intensification by discussing the licensing and distribution of totally in American English in examples
like the following.
(1)

WTF Florida! Man in “I have drugs” shirt totally had drugs(2)

You should totally watch this movie.

(3)

Dionne: There was a stop sign there!
Cher: I totally paused!

I argue that, in its usage as a pragmatic intensifier, totally operates as a device to intensify
a dimension of the speech act, as opposed to the degree of a property. More specifically, byexpressing a relationship between the speaker and a context-dependent scalar dimension associated the proposal that “p” (confidence about the proposal, emotivity about the proposal),
totally intensifies the assertion itself. Moreover, in contexts where no relationship of either
confidence or emotivity is made salient, totally can retroactively force the accommodation ofone, serving as a device for the speakers to share evaluations about a particular proposition.
Hence, its flexibility across contexts.

On the ambiguity of almost: An intervention effectTing Xu (University of Connecticut)
Friday, April 24, 10:45-11:15, East Lounge (2nd floor)
When English almost modifies a predicate like close (1), the sentence is argued to be ambiguous
between a “counterfactual” and a “scalar” reading (Rapp & von Stechow 1999, Eckardt 2007):the former indicates that the subject came close to starting the action represented by the30

predicate (1)a. The latter indicates that the action was initiated but the result state was notachieved (1)b. I present novel data on an intervention effect: When a manner adverb intervenes
between almost and the predicate, the scalar reading becomes unavailable. (2) does not havethe “scalar” reading that John started to perform a slow action of closing the door and got
close to closing it fully. Building on previous scalar analyses of almost, I derive the intervention
effect by examining the consequences when almost associates with one or two scalar items in its
scope, which leads to ill-formedness. My analysis relies on (a) a posited minimality constraint
such that almost cannot skip potential targets; and (b) an assumption that the scale associatedwith almost needs to have a fixed limit point.
(1)

John almost closed the door.
a. counterfactual: John come close to close the door, but did not start to close it.
b. scalar: John started closing the door, but did not close it fully.

(2)

John almost slowly closed the door.

Special Session: Experimental Phonetics & Phonology
Tonal determination for Korean wh-indeterminates when the theory is indecisive
Jiwon Yun (Stony Brook University) & Hye-Sook Lee
Friday, April 24, 9:00-9:30, West Lounge (2nd floor)
The interpretation of a sentence containing so-called wh-indeterminates in Korean is known
to be disambiguated by intonation. Several intonational factors affecting the interpretation
have been identified, such as the tonal marking of phonological phrasing (Lee 1990, Jun & Oh
1996, Yun 2012), the relative prominence of wh-words (Chang 1973, Kang 1988, Kim 2000),or the sentence boundary tone (Martin 1951, Lee 1984, Hwang 2007). Among those factors,
phonological phrasing has been argued to be the strongest cue to disambiguation (Jun & Oh
1996, Yun 2012). The intonation model in Jun (1993) predicts that the distinct phonologicalphrasing is usually manifested by distinct tonal patterns. However, the predicted tonal patterns
can be identical for the two readings in certain cases (e.g. the same LHLH for a disyllabic whindeterminate followed by a disyllabic word at the end of the sentence). Thus, one might argue
that in those cases the other intonational factors such as the relative prominence of wh-words
or the sentence boundary tone that overrides the final AP tone would instead play a decisiverole in disambiguation. In this study, however, we have found that the phrasing difference interms of tonal pattern still maintains in such a case.

Phonetic evidence for the articulator-bound feature [spread glottis]: ePGG, airflow
and acoustic data on the phasing of glottal opening
Hyunsoon Kim (Hongik University), Shinji Maedab (CNRS LTCI)
and Kiyoshi Honda (Tianjin University)
Friday, April 24, 9:30-10:00, West Lounge (2nd floor)
This paper aims to elaborate on the articulator-bound feature [spread glottis], based on thephasing of glottal opening and the Korean lenis (/p t k/), aspirated (/ph th kh/) and fortis

31

(/p’ t’ k’/) plosives. For this purpose, we have simultaneously recorded external lighting andsensing photoglottograph (ePGG), airflow and acoustic data. From the simultaneous recording,we have investigated (a) the timing relations among glottal opening onset and peak, glottal
closing onset, airflow onset and peak, and aspiration onset in relation to acoustic events suchas a consonant release onset and a vowel onset; (b) how much the peak of glottal opening
area, glottal closing speed and airflow peak height occur; and (c) what acoustic conditions arisein accordance with the three-way phonation contrast. The results of our experimental data
have shown the laryngeal-oral coordination of glottal opening and a consonant release and thecovariance of airflow, aspiration and VOT with glottal opening as well as that the peak of glottal
opening area, glottal closing speed, airflow peak height and aspiration vary in the order fortis,
lenis ¡ aspirated plosives in both word-initial and word-medial positions.
Based on the results, we suggest that the acoustic-based feature [±aspiration] (e.g. C.- W.
Kim 1965) and the feature [constricted glottis] in Halle and Stevens (1971) are not empiricallymotivated in Korean in that aspiration and VOT result from glottal opening and that invariant
acoustic correlates of [±constricted glottis] for glottal closing are not observed. Rather, we propose that glottal opening is incorporated into the articulator- bound feature [± spread glottis]
in line with Halle and Stevens (1971) and that the aspirated plosives are specified as [+spreadglottis] and the fortis and lenis as [-spread glottis]. It is concluded that the present experimental
data substantiate our previous MRI observations of glottal opening and the articulator-boundfeature in Korean.

Using false memories to characterize lexical representations: A test case from Spanish
Anne Pycha (University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee)
Saturday, April 25, 10:15-10:45, West Lounge (2nd floor)
Free variation is typically restricted to certain phonemes and positions. In many dialects of
Spanish, for example, the phoneme /s/ is realized as [s] initially (sopa ‘soup’), but exhibits freevariation among [s], [h], and [?] non-initially before C (busto ‘chest’) (Lipski 1984). Meanwhile,
words without /s/ (nabo ‘turnip’) are realized with relative consistency. These asymmetries
suggest that the lexical representation for /s/ in sopa differs from that in busto, and that the
representation of /s/ differs from that of other phonemes which do not vary freely. As a wayof investigating how free variation affects representations, we ask: do Spanish listeners create
false memories at different rates for words like sopa, busto, and nabo?
Previous work shows that after hearing a list such as bag, rack, book..., people falsely
remember hearing the lure back (Sommers & Lewis 1999). We selected Spanish lures, matched
for frequency and density, across three conditions: s-initial (sopa), s-medial (busto), and controls
without /s/ (nabo). For each lure such as sopa, we constructed a list of nine neighbors, differing
in initial C (ropa ‘clothing’), medial V (sepa ‘that I know’), and medial C (soda ‘soda’). A
Puerto Rican speaker recorded each word and produced [s] for all positions. Spanish-speaking
participants (n=49) listened to each list and did recall and recognition tasks.
Listeners were more likely to falsely recognize any word that contains /s/, compared toa control word that did not. Thus, Spanish words such as sopa and busto were particularly
effective lures – giving listeners a false sense of implicit familiarity – compared to words likenabo. This suggests that the acoustic signal associated with /s/ creates relatively indistinctive
representations wherever it occurs. More broadly, it suggests that free variation impacts themanner in which listeners remember words – that is, it impacts lexical representations – in waysthat go beyond mere activation.

32

The effect of the orthographic depth of English vowels and consonants on the learning of free variation in an artificial language
Chung-Lin Yang and Isabelle Darcy (Indiana University, Bloomington)
Saturday, April 25, 10:45-11:15, West Lounge (2nd floor)
Previous studies have shown that orthographic forms may help learners distinguish a novel
phonemic contrast (e.g., Escudero et al., 2008), but the benefit of orthography on L2 wordlearning also depends on the L1-L2 orthography mapping (Erdener & Burnham, 2005). The
goal of our study is to investigate whether exposure to L2 orthography can help learners associate
two free variants with the same lexical entry, and whether a difference in performance between
vocalic and consonantal free variants will arise due to the asymmetric grapheme-to-phoneme
correspondence (GPC) of vowels and consonants in English.
We used a word learning paradigm modified from Hayes-Harb et al. (2010). In Experiment
1, Taiwanese participants, who were also advanced learners of English, learned an artificial
language where [O - u] were in free variation while [e - a] were contrastive (control condition). In
terms of GPC, the free variants were “opaque” (one letter to two sounds) while the control items
were “transparent” (one letter to one sound). During the word learning phase, orthographic
forms were only provided to one subgroup of participants. Then in a picture naming task,
participants were asked to name the pictures from the learning phase. In Experiment 2, theparadigm was the same as in Experiment 1, but the alternations were consonantal.
The results show that orthographic information helped Taiwanese participants produce
fewer wrong minimal pairs, suggesting that exposure to L2 orthography may help learners
encode and decode a novel phonological variation.
In addition, orthographic information also helped Taiwanese participants produce morecorrect responses in words containing vocalic but not consonantal alternations. One possible
account for this difference is the mismatched GPC between English and the target language inthis study. When they encountered the opaque GPC of vocalic free variants, facilitation arose.
But when they encountered the opaque GPC of consonantal free variants, inhibition arose.

General Session: Phonology
Markedness constraints are negative: an autosegmental constraint definition language
Adam Jardine and Jeffrey Heinz (University of Delaware)
Saturday, April 25, 2:00-2:30, East Lounge (2nd floor)
This talk argues for a Constraint Definition Language (CDL, de Lacy 2011) over autosegmental
representations that only allows negative markedness constraints banning substructures. This
CDL is couched in mathematical logic, which allows for both explicit interpretation of theconstraints and an understanding of their generative power. Logical languages admitting only
negative statements are in this sense the most restrictive, but at the same time are sufficient forcovering common phonological phenomena, such as culminativity constraints and tone association. However, some autosegmental phenomena—namely, contours and underspecification—canonly be described by negative constraints if representations are enriched to make explicit some33

potential associations which are not realized. We argue, however, that this additional structure
is preferable to increasing the logical power of the formalism to include positive constraints,
which we show generates unattested generalizations. It is thus more restrictive to enrich thestructure than it is to increase the power of the formalism.

Crazy Rules and Grounded Constraints
Joe Collins and Martin Krämer (University of Tromsø)Saturday, April 25, 2:30-3:00, East Lounge (2nd floor)
In this paper we propose an Optimality Theory (OT) analysis of unnatural or crazy rules bymeans of Local Constraint Conjunctions of functionally grounded constraints. So-called crazyrules (Bach & Harms 1972, Anderson 1981, Buckley 2000, Scheer 2015) are apparently unnatural
phonological processes. In OT, processes are understood as strategies to avoid constraint violations. Constraints are grounded either functionally (Hayes 1999, Collins 2013), typologically,or ideally both (Prince & Smolensky, 1993). Buckley (2000) argues that phonetically grounded
constraints are incapable of accounting for unnatural processes (see as well Anderson?s 1981
criticism of Natural Phonology).
Our analyses of cases central in the discussion and related not so well-known cases showthat taking the existence of seemingly unnatural processes as proof of an entirely substance-free
and arbitrary phonological module is not warranted. Rather, we argue, these cases result fromthe interplay of phonetically grounded constraints that are organized by autonomous substancefree (i.e. non-phonetic) principles.

Never Surfacing Underlying Representations in Klamath
Charlie O’Hara (University of Southern California)
Saturday, April 25, 3:15-3:45, East Lounge (2nd floor)
In Klamath (Barker 1964) an alternation between [i] and nothing appears in final syllables ofverb stems, i.e. [Pe:w-ta]-[Pe:wi-tkh ]. The underlying form for these words cannot be consonant˚
˚ of those shapes show different distributions. However, the short
final, nor /i/ final, sinceforms[e] vowel never surfaces in non-initial syllables of verbs (the only place where this alternation canbe found.) Thus, I propose using an abstract underlying representation /Pe:we/ to represent
˚
this alternation. This analysis explains both the distribution of [e] and the [i]-[ø]alternation
together. However, it has been questioned whether abstract underlying forms are readily learnable by phonological learners. I also supply an argument that due to an emergent property of
MaxEnt learners, forms like /Pe:we/ are chosen over more abstract forms like /Pe:wI/, because
˚ between
the contrasts between [e] and [i] ˚are maintained in more positions than the contrasts[i] and [I].

Deriving Natural Classes Using Phonological Entailments
John Sylak-Glassman (Johns Hopkins University)
Saturday, April 25, 3:45-4:15, East Lounge (2nd floor)

34

Explaining the distinction between natural and unnatural phonological classes is a central goalof phonological theory, with the potential to elucidate which aspects of human speech sounds aremost important in the organization of language (Chomsky and Halle 1968). The consensus viewhas been that natural classes are phonological classes that occur across multiple languages andare unified by a common phonetic characteristic (Sagey 1986/1990). The post-velar consonants(PVCs) are grouped into natural classes across languages, yet do not all share a common
phonetic characteristic.
This study proposes a new method of deriving natural classes that defines naturalness
in terms of the cooccurrence of phonological features within a phoneme, rather than sharedfeatures. These cases of featural cooccurrence are formalized as entailments, based on Burzio’s(2005) Representational Entailment Hypothesis as applied to phonology by Wayment (2009).
These entailments, in turn, are incorporated into a new family of Optimality Theory constraints
which call for the inclusion of feature bundles in specific feature classes (Padgett 1995, 2002).
Feature classes are sets of feature bundles in a union relationship, and are used as the formal
representation of natural classes that can be included in later derivations.
This formal method of deriving natural classes is capable of deriving classes composedof post-velar consonants in a variety of languages in such a way that highlights the multiple
phonetic connections between phonemes that appear to explain the naturalness of each class.
In addition, the proposed method of deriving natural classes avoids problems with fragility inrepresentational approaches to capturing natural classes while also providing an explanation for
naturalness that derivational approaches lack.

General Session: Semantics
Bare singular nouns in Spanish
David Rubio Vallejo (University of Delaware)
Saturday, April 25, 2:00-2:30, West Lounge (2nd floor)
Chierchia’s (1998) typological approach to bare nominal arguments proposed that bare nouns in
Romance are defined by the binary features [-argumental, +predicative], which entails that theycannot occur in argument positions without a determiner. However, that bare mass and bareplural nouns are frequently attested in Spanish had been widely known even before Chierchia’s
proposal. More recently, Espinal and McNally’s (2011) (henceforth E&M) work on bare nouns
semantically unmarked for number (BSgs) has further questioned Chierchia’s typology. E&M
concentrate on BSgs in object position, which they take to be pseudo-incorporated on the verb
(i.e. they are its syntactic (but not semantic) arguments). For E&M, the availability of BSgs
in Spanish is limited because they are only licensed by a subset of verbs that they call havepredicates and which denote a (rather abstract) relation of possession. This assumption leads
to their strong claim that BSgs “are never licensed as subjects, not even of the passives ofpredicates that normally permit them” (E&M: 101).
Contrary to E&M, in this talk I argue that (i) BSgs can indeed occur as subjects in Spanish,(ii) that there are cases of BSgs in object position where they are true semantic arguments ofthe verb (i.e. where they are not incorporated), and (iii) that these instances could actually
be couched within Chierchia’s typology by allowing for the existence of a covert determiner
licensed by subtrigging in the spirit of Dayal (1998).

35

Unbuilding Statives
Jon Nissenbaum (Brooklyn College, CUNY)
Saturday, April 25, 2:30-3:00, West Lounge (2nd floor)
I attempt to resolve a pair of nasty coincidences:
1. UN- prefixation. English has two seemingly distinct but homophonous “un-” prefixes. Oneof them attaches to adjectives and has the semantics (roughly) of simple negation (untrue, unavailable); the other attaches to transitive verbs and indicates “reversal of action” (unbutton,
unlock).
2. Adjectival and Verbal Passives. English verbs have two seemingly distinct but homophonous
passive participles. One is adjectival (1): it is stative rather than eventive, and carries no“agentive” implication. The other (2) has the same verbal (i.e. agentive/eventive) meaning as
the active.
(1)

That wall is painted blue.

(2)

That wall was painted blue (in four hours).

Reduction of either of these pairs to a single element has proven elusive. I argue that both
puzzles can be solved if we abandon a widespread assumption about eventive verbs, namelythat their eventivity is part of their core meaning. Instead, the category V is uniformly stative:a VP like “paint blue” is a predicate that ascribes to an object the property of being painted blue.
Consequently, the agentive little-v contributes not only the agent role but also the causativeeventive meaning.
This allows a simple characterization of adjectival passives which doesn’t require a stativizing participial affix: (1) is just the outcome for a clause that has a V stem but no little-v. Whatabout verbal passives? I argue that (2), similarly, does not involve a passive morpheme; its
eventive meaning comes from a agentive version of the auxiliary BE (independently motivated)that maps a state-description to an predicate of events.
Un-prefixation is always adjectival. The reversative meaning of verbal un- results fromcausative little-v selecting a (stative) un-passive. I sketch out a number of consequences, addressing some recalcitrant puzzles about un-prefixation.

A coercion-free semantics for intention reports
Tom Grano (Indiana University)
Saturday, April 25, 3:45-4:15, West Lounge (2nd floor)
In contrast with belief and desire reports, intention reports (like “Kim intended to go to bed
early”) are not well studied in the formal semantics literature. This paper aims to begin tofill that gap, and in so doing, to take a stance on the analysis of intention reports that do notexhibit syntactic control (like “Kim intended for Sandy to go to bed early”), which previously
have been argued to involve coercion. Drawing on insights from action theory and importingthem into a possible worlds semantics for attitude predicates, I argue that once the causal
self-referentiality of intention is taken into account (so that an intention for some outcome issatisfied only if that outcome obtains as a planned consequence of the relevant intention), theinterpretive properties of non-control intention reports follow automatically with no appeal to36

coercion needed. I furthermore show how “intend” fits into a broader class of control predicatesthat all bear the same basic signature.

37