|Full Title:||Pseudo Coordinations and Multiple Agreement Constructions|
|Start Date:||02-May-2017 - 03-May-2017|
|Contact:||Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro|
|Meeting Email:||click here to access email|
|Meeting Description:||Invited Speakers:
Greville Corbett (University of Surrey)
Maria Rita Manzini (Università degli Studi di Firenze)
Theresa Biberauer (University of Cambridge)
Many languages of the World display the possibility of stacking more than one verb displaying the same inflectional features, in the presence or absence of a linking element homophonous to a coordinative conjunction, as represented in (1):
(1) V1[TAM.Agr]x (and) V2[TAM.Agr]x
What is striking about (1) is the fact that it is not interpreted as a coordination of two events occurring at the same time but as a single complex event, with V1 having scope over V2, an interpretation that is usually realised with a non-finite form of V2.
Among the languages of Europe, Pseudo-Coordination has been reported in Germanic and Romance, in particular in English (cf. also Jaeggli and Hyams 1993), Swedish (cf. Wiklund 1996), Norwegian (cf. Lødrup 2002), Afrikaans (cf. de Vos 2005, Biberauer and Vikner 2015) and Faroese (cf. Heycock and Petersen 2012, Ross 2015) and Southern Italo-Romance varieties, such as Sicilian (also cf. Cardinaletti and Giusti 2003, Di Caro and Giusti 2015) and Apulian (Ledgeway 2015).
Pseudo-Coordination challenges a number of generally held assumptions:
- The presence of two full TAM+Subject agreement feature realizations challenges the one-to-one correspondence of Time reference and its morphosyntactic realization, which is generally observed across languages.
- The possibility for motion verbs as V1 to embed causative verbs (cf. Cardinaletti and Giusti 2001) challenges the cartographic hierarchy of restructuring verbs (Cinque 2006).
- The restrictions to specific TAM/Agr specifications cast doubt on the assumption that syntax is independent of (inflectional) morphology (Corbett 2016).
- The coexistence with the Infinitival Construction challenges general assumptions of optimal design and phase theory (Chomsky 2005, Gallego 2010).
The aim of the conference is to bring linguists of different theoretical persuasion to start a cross-theoretical, cross-disciplinary, cross-areal reflection on the following issues:
- Is Pseudo-Coordination a general property of language, or is it a signal of instability in the system due to an on-going change and/or triggered by contact?
- Is the semantics of Pseudo-Coordination compositional? How does it interface with morphosyntax?
- Can the micro-variation found across cognate languages (e.g. among Sicilian dialects or among Scandinavian dialects) be captured by morphomic patterns? Or is a syntactic account needed?
- What are the general properties of Complex Verb Constructions with respect to mono- vs. biclausal structures, restructuring and grammaticalization?
- Is it possible to create a set of dependable diagnostics to distinguish Pseudo-Coordination from biclausal subjunctive-for-infinite constructions and/or restructured infinitives?
- Can presence / absence of Pseudo Coordination be expressed in a parameter theory? or as a language type?
|Linguistic Subfield:||General Linguistics; Linguistic Theories; Morphology; Syntax; Typology|
|Calls and Conferences main page|