Hamida Demirdache
What do Pieces of Words "Name"?
In my talk, I will be providing strong arguments for a semantically causative analysis
of both unaccusatives and unergatives - in particular, the implications of reflexive morphology in deriving both
unaccusatives and unergatives in Salish. I will also discuss the role of morphology when it does not mirror the
direction of the semantic derivation form causative > unaccusative - i.e. causativizing/transitivizing
morphology.
Hubert Haider
Quirky Subjects - but only in VO with Morphological
Case
Premise: directionality of identification of a head is the parametric factor for head-final vs. head-initial merger.
Corollary: A head-initial projection ('VO') requires a functional identifier for the pre-head argument in the VP. In this case, The pre-head phrase moves to the spec of a functional projection.
If nominative checking is not structurally implemented (i.e. not restricted to spec-head agreement of a specific functional projection), quirky subjects result from raising-to-spec of the DP merged last if that DP is not nominative (see Icelandic).
Theorem 1: OV-languages cannot have quirky subject constructions
Theorem 2: Languages without morphological case cannot have quirky subject constructions.
'Proof': to be presented in the presentation.
Dalina Kallulli
Yet another Syntactic Account of Unaccusativity
In this talk, I will attempt to provide a formal and uniform analysis of constructions with
unaccusatives broadly conceived (i.e., including passives, reflexives, anticausatives and other non-alternating
unaccusatives, etc.). The main claim that I will put forward is that all these construction types differ only in terms
of the respective building blocks that enter syntactic computation but all arise through the same operation, namely
suppression of a feature in v. In particular, I will argue that the distinction between passive and the anticausative
formation is due to a feature in v that encodes the ontological event type of the (verbal) root.
Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche
On the Form of Mirror Order Violations
Morphology is often argued to obey the Mirror Principle (Baker, 1985), with 1 >2 >3
corresponding to 3-2-1- order (inner affixes are hierarchally closer to the root than outer affixes). I will discuss
cases where morphology does not mirror the syntax, and where we find linear orders that we also find in syntax (3-1-2),
or (4-1-2-3). These violations are frequent in African languages which show extensive verbal morphology, and raise the
question how they should be analyzed. I will present one case study from Wolof and show that the properties of these
morphological objects follow from general syntactic principles and independently motivated syntactic hierachies.
Alec Marantz
Objects out of the Lexicon: Objects as Events
The empirical core of the paper will be the demonstration that incremental theme objects, including objects of
VPs of creation, are not arguments of the lexical verb. Rather, as sisters to an activity little v, these objects are
interpreted as subevents caused by the activity. A correlation between the distribution of re-prefixation in English
and benefactive double object constructions proves key here. The analysis holds strong implications for the roles of
overt and covert morphology at the syntax/semantics interface. Crucially, overt morphemes glossed as "causative" in the
world's languages would be reanalyzed as realizations of an activity little v.
Gillian Ramchand
Morphological Causativization/Anticausativization in Hindi/Urdu
Maria-Luisa Rivero
On Quirky Person Restrictions in Spanish and the Morphology-Syntax
Interface
Keywords: dative logical subjects, nominative logical objects, 3rd person restrictions on
nominatives, Spanish, Icelandic.
Peter Svenonius
Deconstructing Quirky Case
Icelandic has causative-inchoative alternating verbs in which a dative
or accusative theme in the causative version appears as nominative in the inchoative version; I call these "normal"
unaccusatives. In addition, Icelandic has a number of transitive dative or accusative-taking verbs which show up with
dative or accusative subjects (respectively) in monoargumental uses. I call these "quirky" unaccusatives. Passives of
dative-taking verbs are always "quirky" in the sense that dative case is always preserved, and passives of
accusative-taking verbs are never quirky in the sense that accusative case is never preserved. I show how these
apparently idiosyncratic facts about Icelandic case correlate strongly with event-structural meaning, leading to a
deconstructivist account of Icelandic case and event structure.
Jochen Trommer
Closest c-command in Albanian Non-active Constructions
Edwin Williams
Double Object Scope Fixity
DIRECTIONS
Map of Workshop Venue
The workshop venue is: Department of Linguistics, Berggasse 11, 1090 Wien (marked by red circle in
the map), ground floor, Hörsaal.
ACCOMMODATION
CONTACT