Below please find the most current research seminar schedule. Please note that this schedule is subject to revisions and frequent updates.

Unless otherwise noted, all research seminars take place on Wednesdays at 12:15 pm, in Room 103 of the Linguistics department building at Totem Field Studios ("TFS 103"), located at 2613 West Mall (see contact page for directions).

January - April 2013

January 16
Yu-an Lu
Title: "Defining phonological relationships: distribution or/and alternation?"
Abstract: The concept of phonological relationships has been central in most, if not all, theories of phonology. The goal of this study is to determine the contributions of two factors, distribution and alternation, in leading speakers to group sounds as members of the same category. Using previously established methods of testing speakers’ perception and processing of sounds—similarity ratings, discrimination on a continuum, and semantic priming—I investigate the processing of coronal fricatives in three different languages: (i) English, in which the contrast between s and sh may signal differences in meaning (as in see vs. she), though the two sounds participate in limited morphological alternations as in press/pressure; (ii) Korean, in which s and sh are in complementary distribution and participate in regular and productive morphological alternations; and (iii) Mandarin, in which s and sh are in complementary distribution but do not participate in allomorphic alternations due to Mandarin’s lack of affixation and its phonotactic restrictions. The relationship between s and sh in Mandarin, due to the conflicting evidence from distribution and alternation, has been a matter of controversy. The results from the similarity rating experiment showed that both the Mandarin and English speakers rated s vs. sh as more different than did Korean speakers, suggesting that the Mandarin speakers, who have access only to distributional evidence, are less likely to treat s/sh as members of a single category than the Korean speakers, who are exposed to evidence from both distribution and morphological alternation. Furthermore, the judgments from the speakers of all three languages varied in different vowel contexts, suggesting that the assignment of two sounds as members of the same or separate categories is not necessarily absolute. These findings suggest that multiple factors contribute to the formation of phoneme categories and that phonological relationships are gradient rather than categorical.
Time: 12:15-1:45
Location: TFS 103
.

January 23
Rose-Marie Déchaine & Mireille Tremblay
Title: Bare noun arguments and predicates
Abstract: We argue that the basic semantic type of nouns is <e,t>, namely they are predicative and property-denoting. We explore the consequences of this analysis for the analysis of bare nouns (bare Ns) in two syntactic contexts: bare Ns in predicative contexts, and bare Ns in argument contexts. We demonstrate that the “N is property-denoting” analysis provides insight into the cross-linguistic variation in the semantics and syntax of bare N arguments. We argue that (at least) two types of bare Ns must be recognized: those that are paradigmatically conditioned versus those that are pragmatically conditioned. This distinction captures the fact that bare N arguments are associated with two very different distributional patterns. True bare Ns are NPs proper: they are property-denoting, semantically incorporated, non-quantificational, and scopeless. They arise in languages where bare Ns are paradigmatically conditioned, and their distribution is governed by general principles of morphological and semantic blocking. In contrast, some bare N arguments have a covert DP shell: they are entity-denoting, they can be construed as definite or indefinite, they appear to be scope-taking, and their interpretation is pragmatically conditioned. The paradigmatic/pragmatic distinction allows a more nuanced and fine-grained analysis of bare Ns. More generally, we show that large-scale macro-parameters for bare Ns – such as de Swart & Zwarts’ (2009) semantic markedness analysis, Chierchia’s (1998) Nominal Mapping Parameter) or Boskovic’s (2005; 2008) phase-based NP/DP parameter – fail to capture the range of variation observed in natural language. Rather, general principles of (morpho-syntactic and morpho-semantic) blocking account for the distribution of bare Ns, both within and across languages.
Time: 12:15-1:45
Location: TFS 103
.

January 30
Lisa Matthewson
TBA.
Time: 12:15-1:45
Location: TFS 103
.

February 6
Celebration in Honour of Pat Shaw
Time: 12:15-1:45
Location: TFS 103
.

February 13
Andrea Wilhelm
Title: "Research protocols for communities"
Abstract: Academic research in Indigenous and other communities moves increasingly to a collaborative or empowerment model (e.g., Cameron et al. 1993, Czaykowska-Higgins 2009, Yamada 2007). At the same time, communities are increasingly aware of issues such as access to information, intellectual property, and representation of research results. One fairly new response to these trends is the development of community research protocols, formal statements which specify how research is conducted in a community. I present the process and results of developing one such protocol.

The protocol was developed collaboratively by community representatives and a researcher (myself). Topics dealt with are research context and goals, informed consent, representation of research, intellectual property, access, and process. The role of research protocols (what they can and cannot do) is also discussed. Another way of looking at this presentation is that it illustrates one (my) experience with the collaborative or empowerment model.
Time: 12:15-1:45
Location: TFS 103
.

February 27
Rose-Marie Déchaine
Title: (De-)constructing evidentiality

Authors: R.-M. Déchaine (UBC), C. Cook (BrandonU), J. Muehlbauer (BrandonU), and R. Waldie (UBC)

Abstract: In conversation, when introducing a proposition, an interlocutor may indicate the evidence upon which it is based; linguistic forms that serve this function are called evidentials. We advance the claim that evidentiality is the convergence of three factors: (i) evidentials have an origo index; (ii) they contribute not-at-issue content; (iii) they present (but do not assert) a proposition. This has consequences for their syntax, their semantics, and their pragmatic force.

Syntactically, evidentials are a distinct clause-type, and contrast with declaratives, interrogatives, and imperatives. Relatively little is known about the syntax of evidentials. We try to remedy that gap, by examining how the syntax of evidentials interact with their morphology and semantics. Our syntactic toolkit provides diagnostics that afford a clearer understanding of the variation attested, both within and across languages, in how evidentiality interacts with clause-typing. The systematicity of this interaction has not been documented or analyzed before. For example, for Plains Cree, we argue that in addition to the three overtly marked evidentials, this language also has morphologically unmarked root clauses that have evidential force. In other words, Plains Cree has a purely syntactic clause-typing strategy to code evidentiality. To our knowledge, this type of syntactic strategy has not been documented in the literature before. We also consider data from for Nuu-chah-nulth, whose evidentials do not constitute a uniform class: some attach at the CP-level, and others at the IP-level, and yet others at the vP-level. Crucially, Nuu-chah-nulth evidentials below CP can combine with each other and be embedded.

Semantically, evidentials contribute not-at-issue propositional content and are expressives (Potts, 2007): they are independent of descriptive content; they hold of the utterance situation; they are perspectival; their meaning is ineffable; they achieve their content by being uttered; they may be strengthened by repetition.

Pragmatically, evidentials update the origo ground, and interact with the common ground, the question set, and the to-do-list. Evidentials present, but do not assert, an origo-centered proposition. Because of their origo index, evidentials overlap with indexicals (if the origo is 1st/2nd person) and with logophors (if the origo is a 3rd person matrix subject). We test these claims with data from Plains Cree and Nuu-chah-nulth, and show that several diagnostics reveal the existence of the origo ground, including root clause restrictions, chain-of-transmission effects (that distinguish 1st/2nd/3rd-hand reports), mirativity, and origo shifts. The latter indicates that some evidentials can stack or embed, and although stacking and embedding interact with the contrast between “epistemic” and “illocutionary force” evidentials (Murray, 2010), they are not reducible to this semantic contrast.

Time: 12:15-1:45
Location: TFS 103
.

March 13
Susan Atkey
Title: Research Notes from the Linguistics Librarian
Description: Susan Atkey, the librarian in charge of linguistics resources, will present this week's research seminar. She will cover topics such as online resources for linguists (corpora, databases, etc.) and best practices for staying current with your research.
Time: 12:15-1:45
Location: TFS 103

March 20
Jozina Vander Klok
Title: On the composition of weak necessity modals in Paciran Javanese

Abstract: Weak necessity modals mesthine and kudune are morphologically complex in Javanese: they are composed of a universal modal root (mesthi 'EPIST.NEC' or kudu 'ROOT.NEC') plus the suffix -(n)e. With this suffix, the morphologically complex modal in Javanese (i) allows for the same types of modality as its root and (ii) has a weaker quantificational force than universal such as 'should' or 'ought' in English. Interestingly, this suffix is restricted within the modal system: I show that -(n)e cannot attach to the universal modal verb kudu 'want' or to any existential modals (paleng 'EPIST', iso 'CIRC.POSS', or oleh 'DEON.POSS').

In this paper, I propose a semantic analysis for the suffix –(n)e. There are two parts. One, in order to capture the weaker quantificational force, I propose that -(n)e is a secondary ordering source following, for example, von Fintel and Iatridou (2008). Second, in order to capture that this suffix is only grammatical with non-bouletic universal modals, I suggest that -(n)e is restricted to only downward-entailing roots. This selectional restriction accounts for the ungrammaticality of –(n)e with non-downward-entailing roots which include upward-entailing existential modals and the non-monotonic bouletic predicate kudu ‘want’, following Heim (1992) for desire predicates.
Time: 12:15-1:45
Location: TFS 103
.

April 3
Field Methods Students
TBA.
Time: 12:15-1:45
Location: TFS 103
.