Acl/Cla 2010 Résumés/Abstracts
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
acl/cla 2010 résumés/abstracts The Licensing of Structural Case in Standard Arabic Al-Balushi, Rashid In this presentation, I argue that the two major theories of the formal feature responsible for licensing structural Case cannot account for Case checking facts in Standard Arabic (SA). I argue against Schutze’s (1997) and Chomsky’s (2001) proposal that Case is valued on the DP 0 as a reflex of valuing φ-features on T ; I call this the φ-approach. I also argue against Pesetsky & Torrego’s (2001, 2004) proposal that Case is valued as a result of valuing a [uT] on the DP; I call this the T-approach. I assume that while post-verbal DPs in SA are subjects, preverbal DPs are topics, which take default Nom (Soltan 2007). The φ-approach is untenable for three reasons. First, SA verbs are not allowed to fully agree with the subject, as (1) shows. Second, SA verbs, which agree with the subject only in terms of [Person] and 0 [Gender], can realize only [Person], as (2) shows, reflecting a φdefective T . Third, SA verbs never φ-agree with the object, even partially, as (3) shows. Therefore, φ-features are not involved in the licensing of structural Case in SA. The T-approach is untenable for three rd reasons. First, SA has a 3 person imperative construction which has a lexical DP subject that appears with Nom Case morphology, as in (4), despite the fact that imperative clauses are tenseless, for two reasons; first, SA imperative verbs lack tense morphology; second, SA imperative verbs cannot show the past vs. non-past tense distinction that other verbs show, thus lacking the feature [Precedence], hence lacking a TP; as a result, SA imperative clauses have only one interpretation, ‘future orientation’, which is an illocutionary force already supplied by the clausal mood of ‘command’, thus making reference to ‘modality’, rather than to ‘tense’ (Cowper 2005). Second, the T-approach is untenable because Pesetsky & Torrego 0 (2001) argue that Nom Case is a [uT] on D based on (among other things) the fact that Nom Case suffixes in SA are identical to the ‘mood’ suffixes of the verb form that carries tense, the indicative. However, this reasoning is flawed because if this morphological similarity has theoretical utility, it must indicate connection between Nom Case and mood, not tense. Third, the fact that some Acc Case suffixes in SA are identical to the ‘mood’ suffixes of a verb form that does not realize tense, the subjunctive, argues against Pesetsky & Torrego’s (2004) 0 proposal that Acc Case is a [uT] on D . With these theories lacking, SA provides a more plausible alternative. To illustrate, SA verbs are licensed by verbal particles (in the same manner DPs are licensed), as (5-6) show. This means that, like DPs, verbs receive a form of Case, which I call ‘Verbal Case’ (VC), and which is realized morphologically, bold-faced in (5-6). This relation is formalized in the sense that once the verb is licensed into the 0 0 numeration, the functional heads associated with it, T and v* , automatically obtain unvalued 0 [vVC] features. These features are valued via Agree with a valued [vVC] feature on Fin , which represents the particle. Given the observation that structural Case is only licensed when the verb is licensed via VC assignment (compare 7 and 8), then DPs are licensed by the 0 same element that licenses verbs, which is VC. Thus VC, valued/licensed by Fin , is assigned 0 0 to T and v* in the form of a valued [vVC], and later assigned to DPs in the form of structural 0 0 Case, Nom and Acc, respectively. In other words, the valuation of [VC] on T and v* results in valuing [Case] on the subject and object, respectively, via Agree. This is supported by the fact that when VC is not assigned, as with participles, structural Case is not licensed, as (9- 11) show; this indicates that VC and Case are of the same species. EXPANDING ON ASPECT IN ONONDAGA Gabriela Alboiu (York University) and Michael Barrie (University of Ottawa) Introduction. Iroquoian expanded aspect constructions are well-documented in the descriptive literature (Chafe, 1961, Lounsbury, 1949, 1953, Michelson & Doxtator, 2002), but they have received little attention from a generative perspective. Fieldwork data from Onondaga suggest these constructions correlate with situations where the Reichenbach-ian (1947) time of event is distinct from the time of reference. This paper offers a generative analysis of simplex and expanded aspect in Onondaga based on the analyses of Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2000, 2004), Mezhevich (2008), Stowell (2007) which view Tense and Aspect as dyadic temporal ordering predicates (AFTER , BEFORE , WITHIN ) taking time-denoting arguments (TS , TR, TE ). Analysis & Conclusions. Simplex constructions in Onondaga consist minimally of a verb root, agreement and one of three aspect markers: habitual ( HAB ), stative ( STAT ), and punctual ( PUNC ). Of these, only PUNC is temporally deictic and requires a modal prefix, such as future ( FUT ) or factual ( FACT ), shown in (1). HAB and STAT , on the other hand, are durative (imperfective and perfective, respectively), so they are not used with modal prefixes (see 2). (1) *(wa)- ha- ythw- a FACT - 3SG .M.NOM - plant- PUNC ‘He planted it.’ (2)a. ha- ythw- as b. ho- aht- h 3SG .M.NOM - plant- HAB 3. SG .M.ACC - disappear- STAT ‘He plants / He is planting.’ ‘He has disappeared.’ The durative aspect forms can express past reference only if this base structure is augmented by additional aspect markers, HAB +HAB .PST (past imperfective reading) & STAT +STAT .PST (pluperfect reading), not shown here for lack of space. In addition, these expanded aspect suffixes and modalizer ( MOD ), -(e)k, can appear with FUT but not FACT . FUT + HAB .PST /STAT .PST is irrealis , while with MOD the preferred readings are realis , see (3). (3) a. - wak- ek- ih- na FUT - 1. SG .ACC - eat- STAT - STAT .PST ‘I might have eaten it’ b. - wak- ek- ih- ek FUT - 1SG .ACC - eat- STAT - MOD ‘I will have eaten it.’ MOD establishes temporal deixis, hence is a T element on a par with PUNC , while both simplex and expanded STAT and HAB are unmarked for temporal deixis, hence purely Asp. This yields the summary in (4), with the paper elaborating on the difference between Asp 1 & Asp 2 and illustrating each case via a syntactic tree and discussion. 0 0 (4) STAT Asp 1 inserted when T/Asp 2 is [ AFTER ] 0 0 HAB Asp 1 inserted when T/Asp 2 is [ WITHIN ] 0 0 0 PUNC T inserted when Asp 1 and Asp 2 are fused (as in Giorgi & Pianesi, 1997) 0 0 0 0 STAT .PST Asp 2 inserted when Asp 2 is [ AFTER ], T and Asp 2 are split projections 0 0 0 0 HAB .PST Asp 2 inserted when Asp 2 is [ WITHIN ], T and Asp 2 are split projections 0 0 MOD T inserted when T is independent, temporally deictic (i.e., realis) 0 0 FUT Mood T is [ BEFORE ], either irrealis (with modal flavour) or realis 0 0 0 FACT Mood T is [ AFTER ], T is independent, temporally deictic (i.e., realis) References. Chafe, W. 1961. Seneca Morphology V: Expanded Aspect Suffixes, Attributive Suffixes. IJAL 27:42-5. Demirdache, H., & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honour of Howard Lasnik , eds. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagareka, 157-86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ---. 2004. The Syntax of Time Adverbs. The Syntax of Time , eds. J. Gueron & J. Lecarme, 143- 80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F. 1997. Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guéron, J. 2004. Tense Construal and the Argument Structure of Auxiliaries. The Syntax of Time , ed. J. G. a. J. Lecarme, 299-328. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Klein, W. 1995. A time-relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language 71:669-95. Lounsbury, F. G. 1949. Iroquoian Morphology, Yale University: Ph.D. Dissertation. ---. 1953. Oneida Verb Morphology . New Haven, CT: Yale University. Mezhevich, I. 2008. A feature-theoretic account of tense and aspect in Russian. NLLT 26:359- 401. Michelson, K., & Doxtator, M. 2002. Oneida-English/English-Oneida Dictionary . Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic . New York, London: The Free Press, Collier- MacMillan. Rizzi, L. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. Elements of Grammar: A handbook in generative syntax , ed. L. Haegeman, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Stowell, T. 2007. The Syntactic Expression of Tense. Lingua 117:437-63. Zagona, K. 1995. Temporal argument structure: Configurational elements of construal. Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, vol 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives , eds. P. M. Bertinetto, V. Vianchi, J. Higginbotham & M. Squartini, 397-410. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. How to BE in Spanish: the acquisition of copula and existential constructions by Spanish speaking children Alvarez, Yadira; Pérez-Leroux, Ana T. Is structural complexity a factor in functional omission? Becker (2004) finds English- speaking children omit copulas at higher rates in locative than nominal predicates, and in stage level adjectives than individual level adjectives. Becker proposes that with aspectual predictes tense is anchored by binding Asp. Do this omission pattern extend to languages with a dual copula system? Spanish possess two copulas for predicative constructions (ser/estar), and a third type for existential constructions (hay). Schmitt (1996) proposes the two copulas do not encode temporariness/permanence directly. Ser makes no reference to temporal intervals/subevents, but Estar, on the other hand, contributes a subevent of the type STATE, with the implicature that the state holds for the relevant interval.