Warning! The directory is not yet complete and will be amended until the beginning of the term.
160041 SE Seminar on the Theory of Grammar (2013W)
Phi-Syntax
Continuous assessment of course work
Labels
Darf als BA Seminar (ECTS 15) nur nach BA Seminar 1 absolviert werden.
Details
Language: German
Lecturers
Classes (iCal) - next class is marked with N
- Wednesday 09.10. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 16.10. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 23.10. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 30.10. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 06.11. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 13.11. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 20.11. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 27.11. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 04.12. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 11.12. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 18.12. 13:00 - 14:30 Seminarraum 2 Sensengasse 3a 1.OG
- Wednesday 08.01. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 15.01. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 22.01. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
- Wednesday 29.01. 12:15 - 13:45 Seminarraum 8 Sensengasse 3a 5.OG
Information
Aims, contents and method of the course
The overall goal of this course is to explore the formal mechanisms by which agreement relations involving phi-features (person, number, gender) are derived in syntax. The empirical heart of the course will consist in discussing (partial) agreement phenomena (e.g. 'quirky' agreement in Icelandic), PH (person hierarchy) driven agreement displacement phenomena (e.g. in languages like Basque or Georgian), and PCC (person case constraint) phenomena (cf. Bonet 1991), as well as the issue of variation concerning all these phenomena. Naturally a concomitant complexity of problems that will need to be addressed in some detail bears on issues relating to formal features in syntax, such as what the relationships between them are (cf. Bejar 2003), what governs their grouping into larger structures, how the inventory of features in a given language is determined, etc.
Assessment and permitted materials
Students are expected to participate actively, make a presentation with a handout on material provided with the literature list, and write a paper of their own bearing on the general topic of agreement in natural language or some specific phenomenon involving agreement. Details will be discussed in class.
Minimum requirements and assessment criteria
To deepen, consolidate and advance students' knowledge on foundational matters in syntactic theory (specifically formal features and the theory of agreement), as well as to encourage students to engage in and carry out independent research.
Examination topics
Interactive teaching, handouts, etc.
Reading list
Adger, David, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10:2-37.
Bejar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Bejar, Susana and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40 (1):35-73.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2006. Long-distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 757-807.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Susi Wurmbrand. 2002. Notes on agreement in Itelmen. Linguistic Discovery
1 (1). Available at http://linguistic-discovery.dartmouth.edu .
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54:354-380.
Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Collins, Christopher and Paul Postal. 2012. Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Delancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57:626-657.
Daniel Harbour, David Adger and Susana Bejar (eds). 2008. Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78:482-526.
Koppen, Marjo van. 2005. One probe-Two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third-person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:273-313.
Nichols, Lynn. 2001. The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena: Clues from languages with and without morphological case. Lingua 111:515-537.
Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero. 2007. Agreement restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:315-347.
Polinsky, Maria and Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:583-646.
Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6:156-182.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. Person hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy. In G. Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, R. d'Alessandro, & S. Fischer (eds.) Agreement restrictions. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 281-314.
Bejar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Bejar, Susana and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40 (1):35-73.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2006. Long-distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 757-807.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Susi Wurmbrand. 2002. Notes on agreement in Itelmen. Linguistic Discovery
1 (1). Available at http://linguistic-discovery.dartmouth.edu .
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54:354-380.
Bonet, Eulalia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Collins, Christopher and Paul Postal. 2012. Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement. Cambridge, MIT Press.
Delancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57:626-657.
Daniel Harbour, David Adger and Susana Bejar (eds). 2008. Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78:482-526.
Koppen, Marjo van. 2005. One probe-Two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third-person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:273-313.
Nichols, Lynn. 2001. The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena: Clues from languages with and without morphological case. Lingua 111:515-537.
Ormazabal, Javier and Juan Romero. 2007. Agreement restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:315-347.
Polinsky, Maria and Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:583-646.
Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6:156-182.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. Person hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy. In G. Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, R. d'Alessandro, & S. Fischer (eds.) Agreement restrictions. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 281-314.
Association in the course directory
BA [Version 2008]: BA-M8
Ba [Version 2011]: Ba-M8
Master allgemeine Linguistik: MA1-APM4B
Ba [Version 2011]: Ba-M8
Master allgemeine Linguistik: MA1-APM4B
Last modified: Mo 07.09.2020 15:35