DOCSLIB.ORG

Where Number Lies: Plural Marking, Numerals, and the Collective-Distributive Distinction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Where Number Lies: Plural Marking, Numerals, and the Collective-Distributive Distinction i Where Number Lies: Plural marking, numerals, and the collective-distributive distinction by Sarah Ouwayda Submitted to the USC Graduate School In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics at the University of Southern California 2014 Dissertation committee: Hagit Borer (Chair), Professor of Linguistics Irene Heim, Professor of Linguistics, Massachussets Institute of Technology Audrey Li, Professor of Linguistics and East Asian Languages and Cultures Roumyana Pancheva (Co-Chair), Associate Professor of Linguistics Kevin van Bladel, Associate Professor of Classics ii Dedication To Abboudeh, for the love of unanswered questions, And to Hodhod, for the love of crafting tools To both, for the longing to find answers iii Acknowledgements They say university years are the best time of your life. My experience so far is that this generalization is only true if you don’t go to grad school. The years I spent in grad school have been the most exciting, enriching, and intellectually stimulating years of my life. And I owe this to the professors, colleagues, and friends I had and those I encountered along the way. I will take the opportunity of finishing my thesis to publicly express my gratitude to and for these wonderful people who contributed to my training and shared the experience with me on three continents. First of all, I am extremely grateful to my wonderful committee members for their support and advising throughout the writing of this thesis. I would like to publicly express my immense gratitude to my Doktormutter, Hagit Borer, for being an amazing advisor, for her generosity, patience, and most of all, for her rigor: for making a linguist out of a very eager, and rather frightened, computer engineer. I am deeply grateful to Hagit for the innumerable meetings over the last five years, always constructive, and always leaving me thinking for days. It is thanks to her clear, constructive, and to the point feedback and advice on my work that I became able to organize my thoughts and ideas sufficiently clearly enough to ask others for feedback. I am also very grateful to Hagit for the support and encouragement she has given me directly as well as indirectly by the great amount of investment she put into training me. Hagit has been and continues to be an incredibly empowering mentor and role model, in linguistics and in life. I am also extremely grateful to my thesis co-chair, Roumyana Pancheva, for all her advice, feedback, generosity, and encouragement. I am very thankful to Roumi for her unconditional support through the last five years, for all the meetings, for all the detailed comments, and for all her linguistic and practical advice. I am especially grateful to Roumi for always reminding me of what’s important. iv I am also extremely grateful to Irene Heim for all the feedback she has given me on this thesis, for the skype meetings, and for the meetings we had any time I was in Boston. Our meetings constituted growth spurts in my work, and in my training, and her feedback on the drafts of this thesis and other topics we have discussed, has lead me to look at my work in a different light, and to greatly strengthen my arguments. I am also very grateful to Audrey Li for her always constructive, efficient, and stimulating meetings. For phrasing suggestions, constructive criticisms, and advice, so nicely that they sound like compliments. I am very grateful for the great suggestions, and for the great meetings, and for the contagiously positive personality. I am also extremely grateful to Kevin van Bladel for his extremely useful feedback and advice on everything Arabic and Semitic in this thesis, for always having very insightful and useful comments on my work, and for his invaluable advice on the link between my work and work in traditional Arabic grammar. David Pesetsky, while he wasn’t technically part of my dissertation committee, may as well have been. I am very grateful to David for the incredibly enlightening meetings we had, and for his feedback and suggestions, especially on the work on which chapters 3 and 4 are based, which has been an integral part of the development of this thesis. I am extremely grateful to Lina Choueiri for her contribution to my training as a linguist, for her discussion of every part of this thesis as it came into existence and on everything I have done in linguistics since 2005 – when she introduced me to the wonderful thing that is Syntax. I am very grateful to Lina, and to her incredible teaching skills, her immense generosity with her time, advice, and feedback, and for her continued mentorship and friendship long after I left AUB. I am also very thankful to all the professors at USC, who have taught me, met with me, and given me feedback on different work I’ve done during my PhD. Barry Schein was the v source of much of my excitement about semantics and semantic issues, as I absolutely loved his classes in semantics, as well as every meeting we had after that. Barry met with me innumerable times over the course of my PhD, which was always thought provoking and immensely enjoyable. I am particularly grateful to him for reminding me to “think of linguistic puzzles as a curious 10 year old”, as that is the best way to think of any new puzzle. I am also grateful to Jean-Roger Vergrnaud for encouraging me to think outside the box, and for always treating me like a full-fledged linguist even when I was still a first year student who barely knew where the conference room was. I am thankful to Ania Lubowicz and to Rachel Walker for teaching me all about phonology, as well as for their feedback on my papers and abstracts. I am also grateful to Louis Goldstein, James Higginbotham, Hajime Hoji, Khalil Iskarous, Elsi Keiser, Andrew Simpson, Maria-Luisa Zibizarreta, Elena Guerzoni, and Iskandar Mansour for their contribution to my linguistic and professional training and to my experience as a graduate student. During my visit to MIT, I benefited immensely from discussions with and advice from Sabine Iatridou, who was my supervisor during my visit. I am very grateful to Sabine, who met with me on the content of this thesis and on work I was doing on modals. Meeting with her was always thought-provoking and enlightening. I am also very grateful to Kai von Fintel and Jan Andersen, for very useful meetings and discussions. I also enjoyed and profited from the courses I attended with Irene Heim, Dani Fox, Kai von Fintel, David Pesetsky, and Sabine Iatridou. My MIT visit was a jumpstart in my work on this thesis. I am also very grateful to the faculty (staff) at Queen Mary University of London, who made my visit there extremely beneficial. I benefited a lot from meetings with Paul Elbourne, Daniel Harbour, and David Adger; and I was reminded, yet again, of how exciting semantics is, thanks to Paul’s class. I am thankful to all three of them, as well as to Hagit, and Linnaea Stockall for making my visit to QMUL so enriching and enjoyable. I am also very grateful to my wonderful friends and colleagues at USC, MIT, and QMUL. Thanks to my wonderful cohortmates Hector Velasquez, David Li, Canan Ipek, Ben vi Parrell, Katy McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis-Doggett, Lucy Kim, Mary Byram-Washburn, and Xiao He. I am particularly grateful to Xiao for keeping me nourished during my second year screening paper ‘crunch time’. Thank you to TNG (The Nominal Group) at USC for stimulating discussions on the syntax and semantics of the DP: Ulrike Steindl, Giang Le, Mythili Menon, Katy McKinney-Bock, Yi-Hsien Liu, Brian Hsu, Alfredo Garcia Pardo, Syed Saurov, Priyanka Biswas. I’m thankful to Thomas Borer, Iris OuYang, Roger Liao, Peter Guekguezian, Arunima Choudhury, Barbara Tomaszewicz, Erin Tavano, Assaf Israel, Caitlin Smith, Christina Hagedorn, Ellen O’Connor, Emily Fedele, Najah Atrash, Antonia Szabari, for making life at USC much easier and happier. And of course, I am very grateful to Janet Andersen and her radiant source of positive energy, Michal Temkin Martinez who has been a true big sister to me, a career counselor, a source of encouragement, an accountability buddy, and a friend in every sense, and last but not least, Michael Shepherd, who started by proof-reading my screening paper, trained me to do it myself, and ended with forming a mutual proof-reading (and abstract shortening) relationship that has lasted years, as well as a wonderful friendship that I will always cherish. Last but not least, A big thank you to Joyce Perez, for knowing every USC rule under the sun, for explaining how everything is done with clear, consise, and to the point instructions, for being a wonderful friend, and for making USC feel like home from day one. I am also very grateful to the brilliant colleagues at Queen Mary, who made me feel at home during my visiting time there, among them Fryni Panayidou, Fangfang Niu, Abigael Candelas, David Hall, Annette Zhao, Catherine Gritziou, Tom Stanton, Agnieszka Knaś, Philippa Law. And for the great people I met at MIT, Eva Cipak Bochnak, Rosmin Mathew, Hrayr Khanjian, Pritty Patel-Grosz, Patrick Grosz, Igor Yanovich, Mitcho Erlewine, Michelle Fullwood, and others. It was a pleasure to share this experience with such intellectually stimulating colleagues and friends. Other colleagues and professors in the field have also been, either personally or through their work, a source of intellectual enrichment and inspiration during my training, including El-Abbas Benmamoun, Jenny Doetjes, Lisa Cheng, Noam Chomsky, Hamida vii Demirdache, Youssef Haddad, Peter Hallman, Tania Ionin, Ora Matushansky, Susan Rothstein, Uli Sauerland, Ur Shlonsky, Usama Soltan, and Youri Zabbal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interview with Noam Chomsky
    INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY Alessandro Boechat de Medeiros1 Avram Noam Chomsky is a world-renowned linguist, philosopher and political activist. He is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and recently became a laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at University of Arizona. He has been the leader of the generative enterprise in linguistic theory since its beginning, in the late fifties, and is considered by many the father of modern Linguistics. In fact, his views have influenced the whole field and established points of departure for research in formal syntax, phonology and even semantics. Born in Philadelphia, in 1928, Chomsky started his undergraduate studies in Philosophy and Linguistics at the University of Philadelphia, in 1945. He concluded his Ph.D. in Linguistics in 1955, under the supervision of Zellig Harris, at the same University, with the thesis The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, a revolutionary work only published in 1975. Two years later, in 1957, he published Syntactic Structures (SS), one of his most famous linguistics books, considered by many a true revolution in the field. SS was in part based on The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, and exerted a great influence during late fifties and early sixties among language scholars, defining to a great extent linguistics research developed in the years to come. In 1959 he published his famous review of B. F. Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior. The review presents a frontal and exhaustive critique of the behaviorist theory in a general way and also focally regarding language. Chomsky had other defining theoretical debates with Philosopher Michel Foucault2 and with Psychologist Jean Piaget3.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    Curriculum Vitae March, 2011 Hagit Borer Department of Linguistics University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-1693 USA [email protected] http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~borer Education: B.A. Tel-Aviv University, Israel (1977). Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1981). Academic Appointments (primary): 1981-82 Sloan Post-doctoral Fellow, University of California, Irvine 1982-86 Assistant Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine. Fall 1986-Spring 1990 Associate Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine. Fall 1990-Fall 1996 Professor of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Winter 1997-Present Professor of Linguistics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Distinctions, Fellowships, Grants Sloan Post-doctoral Fellow, University of California, Irvine, 1981-1982 NSF Grant: The Maturation of Grammar (with Professor K. Wexler), 1985-87 ($281,333.00). Fellow, OTS, Utrecht University, January 1993. Belle van Zuylen Distinguished Visiting Chair Award, Utrecht University, Fall 2000 CV, Borer, March 2011 1/19 Visiting Fellow, CNRS, Paris, Summer 2004 (Poste Rouge ). Visions and Voices Award, 2009-2010 USC Melon Award for Graduate Student Mentoring, 2010 Visiting Appointments Fall 1984- Visiting Scholar, Linguistics Department, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Spring 1986- Visiting Professor, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Fall 1986- Visiting Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Fall 1987- Visiting Professor, University College, London. Fall 1988- Visiting Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies, London University, London. 12/93-1/94- Visiting Professor, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Spring, 1995- Visiting Professor, Department of English, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Winter, 1997- Visiting Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Vienna, Vienna.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEWS Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (Eds.), The
    J. Linguistics 53 (2017), 441–459. c Cambridge University Press 2016 REVIEWS J. Linguistics 53 (2017). doi:10.1017/S0022226716000396 c Cambridge University Press 2016 First published online 29 November 2016 Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pp. xiii + 333. Reviewed by TIAOYUAN MAO, Hunan University of Commerce &HONGBO SUN, Heze University The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax is a collection of thirteen papers from two workshops, held at the University of Southern California (20–21 February 2009) and the University of Stuttgart (10–12 June 2009). Edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer and Florian Schäfer, this volume starts with an introduction by the editors, discussing the morphological concept ‘root’ from several perspectives in generative linguistics and outlining the themes addressed by the volume, in particular the relation between the syntactic and semantic properties of roots. These properties of roots and other word parts fall only within the scope of Minimalist syntax; outside Minimalism, it is different. For example, cartographic syntax (Maximalism) is word-based, and more precisely, feature- based, that is words in the lexicon could be seen as particular combinations of features (see Mao & Meng 2016: 921–924). This volume, in our view, is not intended to produce a ready-made answer to the question of what defines a root, but to bring together various views on the syntactic and semantic properties of roots. More specifically, when addressing the relation between syntactic structure and syntactic terminals, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument Structure and the Syntax-Morphology Interface. a Case Study in Latin and Other Languages
    Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface. A case study in Latin and other languages Víctor Acedo Matellán ADVERTIMENT. La consulta d’aquesta tesi queda condicionada a l’acceptació de les següents condicions d'ús: La difusió d’aquesta tesi per mitjà del servei TDX (www.tdx.cat) ha estat autoritzada pels titulars dels drets de propietat intel·lectual únicament per a usos privats emmarcats en activitats d’investigació i docència. No s’autoritza la seva reproducció amb finalitats de lucre ni la seva difusió i posada a disposició des d’un lloc aliè al servei TDX. No s’autoritza la presentació del seu contingut en una finestra o marc aliè a TDX (framing). Aquesta reserva de drets afecta tant al resum de presentació de la tesi com als seus continguts. En la utilització o cita de parts de la tesi és obligat indicar el nom de la persona autora. ADVERTENCIA. La consulta de esta tesis queda condicionada a la aceptación de las siguientes condiciones de uso: La difusión de esta tesis por medio del servicio TDR (www.tdx.cat) ha sido autorizada por los titulares de los derechos de propiedad intelectual únicamente para usos privados enmarcados en actividades de investigación y docencia. No se autoriza su reproducción con finalidades de lucro ni su difusión y puesta a disposición desde un sitio ajeno al servicio TDR. No se autoriza la presentación de su contenido en una ventana o marco ajeno a TDR (framing). Esta reserva de derechos afecta tanto al resumen de presentación de la tesis como a sus contenidos.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Special Issue on Parameters. Linguistic Analysis
    Introduction to the Special Issue on Parameters1 SIMIN KARIMI & MASSIMO PIATTELLI-PALMARINI University of Arizona 1. Introduction Suppose a child has to literally learn his/her mother language on the sole basis of positive evidence (no corrections are part of the process). Suppose that the grammar has 100 rules and that the child has to learn them all by “fine-tuning.” As an extreme idealization, suppose the child receives one new type of sentence every second. How long would it take for the child to accomplish this task that is, acquiring the correct grammar for the language? Robert Berwick (in a yet unpublished work) has made the calculation. The stunning answer: 150 centuries! 15,000 years! This can be called Berwick’s paradox. Even admitting, for the sake of prudence, that this calculation is inflated, that the cor- rect answer is orders of magnitude less, say, “only” 1,000 years, we are still wildly off what we know about real language acquisition. Something totally different must be going on. What? Our best guess is a schema based on Principles-and-parameters. Differences between languages are discrete, not continuous. There is a limited number of points of variation and, on each one of these, differences reduce only to the choice of a binary option (+ or -). A further idealization is that one single “signature sentence” (a trigger) (Gibson and Wexler, 1994) suffices to reveal which value (+/-) the local language has chosen. By being exposed to that sentence, the child instantly acquires the value of that parameter. Those signature sentences are triggers for acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • Where, If Anywhere, Are Parameters? a Critical Historical Overview of Parametric Theory Frederick J
    Chapter 25 Where, if anywhere, are parameters? A critical historical overview of parametric theory Frederick J. Newmeyer University of Washington, University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University Since the late 1970s, crosslinguistic variation has generally been handled by means of UG- specified parameters. On the positive side, thinking of variation in terms of parameterized principles unleashed an unprecedented amount of work in comparative syntax, leading to the discovery of heretofore unknown morphosyntactic phenomena and crosslinguistic gen- eralizations pertaining to them. On the negative side, however, both macroparameters and microparameters have proven themselves to be empirically inadequate and conceptually nonminimalist. Alternatives to parameters are grounded approaches, epigenetic approaches, and reductionist approaches, the last two of which seem both empirically and conceptually quite promising. 1 Introduction The existence of crosslinguistic variation has always been problematic for syntacticians. If there is a universal grammar, one might ask, then why aren’t all languages exactly the same? In the earliest work in generative syntax, characterizing the space in which languages could differ, whether at the surface or at a deep level, was not a priority. At the time, surface differences between languages and dialects were generally attributed to language-particular rules or filters. In the late 1970s, however, a strategy was developed that allowed the simultaneous development of a rich theory of Universal Grammar (UG) along with a detailed account of the limits of crosslinguistic morphosyntactic variation. In this view, syntactic com- plexity results from the interaction of grammatical subsystems, each characterizable in terms of its own set of general principles. The central goal of syntactic theory now be- came to identify such systems and to characterize the degree to which they might vary (be “parameterized”) from language to language.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Noam Chomsky
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31513/linguistica.2017.v13n2a14025 INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY Alessandro Boechat de Medeiros1 Avram Noam Chomsky is a world-renowned linguist, philosopher and political activist. He is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and recently became a laureate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at University of Arizona. He has been the leader of the generative enterprise in linguistic theory since its beginning, in the late fifties, and is considered by many the father of modern Linguistics. In fact, his views have influenced the whole field and established points of departure for research in formal syntax, phonology and even semantics. Born in Philadelphia, in 1928, Chomsky started his undergraduate studies in Philosophy and Linguistics at the University of Philadelphia, in 1945. He concluded his Ph.D. in Linguistics in 1955, under the supervision of Zellig Harris, at the same University, with the thesis The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, a revolutionary work only published in 1975. Two years later, in 1957, he published Syntactic Structures (SS), one of his most famous linguistics books, considered by many a true revolution in the field. SS was in part based on The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, and exerted a great influence during late fifties and early sixties among language scholars, defining to a great extent linguistics research developed in the years to come. In 1959 he published his famous review of B. F. Skinner’s book Verbal Behavior. The review presents a frontal and exhaustive critique of the behaviorist theory in a general way and also focally regarding language.
    [Show full text]
  • Noam Chomsky’S 90Th Birthday I
    Revolutionary New Ideas Appear Infrequently Essays for Noam Chomsky’s 90th Birthday I (Or Don’t They?) Collected & edited by Michael Schiffmann Tabula Gratulatoria 1. David Adger 2. Nicholas Allott 3. Adriana Belletti 4. Robert Berwick 5. Thomas Bever 6. Manfred Bierwisch 7. Akeel Bilgrami 8. Hagit Borer 9. Zeljko Boskovic 10. John Collins 11. Tecumseh Fitch 12. Robert Freidin 13. Angela Friederici 14. Naoki Fukui 15. Angel Gallego 16. Lila Gleitman 17. Peter Graff 18. Giorgio Graffi 19. Günther Grewendorf 20. Kleanthes K. Grohmann 21. Marc Hauser 22. Norbert Hornstein 23. Riny Huybregts 24. Ray Jackendoff 25. Samuel Jay Keyser 26. Howard Lasnik 27. David Lightfoot 28. James McGilvray 29. Matthias Mahlmann 30. Robert May 31. John Mikhail 32. Shigeru Miyagawa 33. Andrea Moro 34. Andrew Nevins 35. Frederick Newmeyer 36. Dennis Ott 37. Barbara Partee 38. Orin Percus 39. David Pesetsky 40. Jean-Yves Pollock 41. Eric Reuland 42. Luigi Rizzi 43. Ian Roberts 44. Tom Roeper 45. Anna Roussou 46. Michael Schiffmann 47. Neil Smith 48. Wolfgang Sperlich 49. Beverly Stohl 50. Patrick Trettenbrein 51. Juan Uriagereka 52. Deirdre Wilson 53. Dieter Wunderlich 54. Mihoko Zushi Introduction Chomsky at 90 – We’re Here for You, and You for Us by Michael Schiffmann As this project started to kick into high gear a couple of days ago and I sent the first results around to confirmed and po- tential contributors as well as some others, I received an ex- cited phone call by an ex- student who I had cc-d these first essays to: “Man, what are you doing again – this is some really, really crazy stuff!” Having myself gotten into this, I could hardly disagree, and I told Iwo that everything was go- ing well way beyond my expectations, with one excellent con- tribution after another reaching my mailbox day by day.
    [Show full text]