Crosslinguistic variation in morphosyntax
Heidi Harley, University of Arizona
DGfS/GLOW Summer School, Stuttgart
Aug. 14-Sept. 2, 2006
When: Tues/Thurs, 8.30-10.30
Note: The order of events has changed -- now it will be verbal phenomena first, nominal (phi-feature) phenomena second -- and four readings below are new (in Lecture 5: Nevins on dual, Frampton on Impoverishment, and in Lectures 1 and 2: Harley on causatives and Travis on event structure) since the readings page was first put up. The Travis reading is still not downloadable, though the others are; I'll get the Travis one up there if I can!
Languages & language families we'll consider data from in this course:
Assorted (Harley & Ritter, Harley 2006), Zuni (Cowper), Ojibwe (McGinnis), Latin (Williams), Russian (Bobaljik), Germanic (Frampton), Geogian (Bejar), Japanese (Harley 2005), Malagasy (Travis), St'at'imcets (Davis & Demirdache), Persian (Folli, Harley, Karimi), Inuktitut (Johns), Cupeno (Barragan), Navajo (Hale), Athapaskan (Rice)
Course Requirement for Credit: One short paper (5 pages), either addressing an issue in morphosyntax raised by this course with data not considered here, or a summary and evaluation of a paper on morphosyntax not included in the reading list here.
Due date: Submission to me by email by midnight, Sept. 7th.
Schedule of Topics:
Part 1: The bipartite structure of verbs
Lecture 1: Tuesday, Aug. 15
Syntacticocentric morphology: DM overview
Bipartite verb structure: Little v cross-linguistically
Harley, H. On the causative construction. To appear in S. Miyagawa and M. Saito, eds, Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, OUP.
Lecture 2:Thursday, Aug. 17
Travis, Lisa. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, edited by Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky, pp. 145-185. CSLI, Stanford
Davis, H. and H. Demirdache 2000.. In J. Pustejovsky and C. Tenny (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects: the Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. CSLI: Stanford University Press, 97-142.
More bipartite verb structure cross-linguistically
Folli, Raffaella, Heidi Harley and Simin Karimi. 2005.Lingua 115:1365-1401.
Johns, Alana. 2005. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~ajohns/JohnsNI05.pdf. Ms., University of Toronto.
Lecture 3:Tuesday, Aug. 22
Bipartite verb structure with strange orderings
Luis M. Barragan. 2003 Movement and Allomorphy in the Cupeno Verb Construction. MITELF 5.
Hale, Ken. 2004. On the significance of Eloise Jelinek’s Pronominal Argument Hypothesis. In Formal approaches to function in grammar, ed. by A. Carnie, H. Harley and M. Willie. John Benjamins. 11-43.
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge University Press.
Part II: Numeration Variation: Phi-features
Lecture 4:Thursday, Aug. 24
Feature geometries: Organization of phi-features in pronominal bundles
Harley & Ritter (2002)Language 78:482-526
What's more marked than what?
McGinnis, M. 2006.. Language 81.3, 699-718
Cowper, E. 2006.Linguistic Inquiry. vol. 36: 441-455
Lecture 5:Tuesday, Aug. 29
The significance of syncretism and the importance of impoverishment
Williams, Edwin. 1994. ', Lingua 92, pp. 7-34.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David 2001.. Yearbook of Morphology 2001: 53-85
Frampton, J. 2002. Syncretism, impoverishment and the structure of person features. In Papers from the CLS Annual Meeting, 2002.
Nevins, A. 2006. "Dual is still more marked than plural."
Lecture 6:Thursday, Aug. 31
More on the significance of syncretism…
Harley, H. 2005.To appear in Adger, Harbour and Bejar, eds,…, OUP.
.…and the syntax of markedness
Bejar, Susana. 2000. ".