17h00
59–61 rue Pouchet
10h – Alec Marantz (NYU), Syntax beyond Merge: Objects
12h – déjeuner
14h – Nikos Angelopoulos (CNRS), Ömer Demirok (Boğaziçi), Furkan Dikmen (CNRS), Greek and Turkish passives: A comparative approach
15h – Andrew Nevins (UCL), Event-splitting and the development of CENA, a young sign language
16h – discussion
17h – dispersion
Marantz – Syntax beyond Merge: Objects – A question arises for contemporary syntactic theory that derive syntactic structure from the recursive combination (“Merger”) of constituents: How much of syntactic well-formedness should be computed at the point of Merger in a derivation and how much should be determined from constraints or rules computed over the resulting Merged tree structures? I am investigating an approach to syntax in which syntactic well-formedness involves strictly local conditions on linear projections of Merged trees, following the lead of T. Graf’s work within Tier-based Strictly Local grammars. Within generative grammar, principles that involve “c-command” relations between constituents already refer to a linear path through a tree; I generalize the use of such paths to two linear projections from the hiearchical tree structure. The first involves just phrases and the heads that combine with phrases; this is the c-command projection. The second involves heads that Merge with other heads; this is the head projection. Linearization of constituents involves both projections, with the c-command projection ordered by Kayne’s “Linear Correspondence Algorithm” (higher is lefter) and the head projection ordered by a version of Brody’s “Mirror” (higher is righter). The two linearizations interact and combine because the relationship between a verb or preposition and its object is part of both projections. Objects are ordered adjacent to the V or P. Generally, then, the linear order of phrases follows c-command. However, objects in languages like English and French must appear adjacent to the verb, leading to situations in which indirect object follow direct objects while still c-commanding them. This talk will concentrate on the application of this system to dissolving Pesetsky’s Zero Syntax Cascade vs. Layering paradox for c-command relations while supporting a clear syntactic distinction between specifier positions, as for subjects and some indirect objects, and object positions (sister to verbs and adpositions). Object positions are particularly crucial for interleaving linearization of the head and c-command projections. In addition to providing a better account of c-command within the VP, the analysis of c-command relations will be shown to improve our understanding of raising to object/ECM constructions and the low vs. high applicative distinction. Although this talk centers around the treatment of objects, I will time allowing, also quickly preview the advantages of the system for the analysis of English participles, auxiliaries and passives, for the (dis-)unification of A-movement and local binding, and for a unified treatment of Greenberg’s Principle 20, the Final over Final Condition, Holmberg’s Generalization and Brody’s “Mirror” principle.
Angelopoulos, Demirok, Dikmen – Greek and Turkish passives: A comparative approach – We examine implicit external arguments in the short passives of Greek and Turkish. Secondary predication suggests the presence of an implicit external argument. (It is allowed in the Turkish passive, both in episodic and non-episodic contexts, provided it is free of φ-features. In Greek, secondary predicates are only ever free of φ-features (Angelopoulos et al. 2024); they pattern as in Turkish.) Anaphor binding is, in both languages, available in non-episodic passives but unavailable in episodic ones. This suggests differential availability of the implicit argument, contrary to secondary predication. We explore the consequences of this asymmetry for the analysis of the passive, the status of the implicit external argument in Greek and Turkish, and the source of non-active morphology.
