I will present you some curious data from Äiwoo that I’ve been banging my head on for a while. We will see a construction that functionally speaking seems to be a relative clear case of an applicative (i.e., it adds one DP argument to the argument structure of the verb, one that would’ve otherwise had to be expressed as a PP). However, the way it’s morphologically realized is rather puzzling, because it’s nowhere near where applicatives typically are found. Given what they do syntactically, applicative heads are usually in the lower theta domain of the clause (i.e., within vP/VoiceP). Therefore, by the Mirror Principle (Baker 1988)’s terms and conditions, applicative morphemes should be very close to the verb stem — and indeed they are, in most (all?) cases I know of. However, in the Äiwoo case, the particle that marks this “applicative” construction is realized somewhere else entirely. I will discuss a couple of hypotheses about what we could be looking at, and where they break. Put on your creative syntactician hats, and help me out!

• Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine (PhD 2014)[CNRS / Nantes University]: Word order and interpretation order in Japanese scrambling
• Ömer Demirok (PhD 2019)[Boğaziçi University]: Toward a typology of implicit arguments: Insights from Turkish passives

The following current students, faculty and alumns also presented their work:

• Bergül Soykan (4th year): Limitations on meta questions: Insights from Turkish
• Rümeysa Bektaş, Onur Özsoy, Despoina Oikonomou & Shigeru Miyagawa (Faculty): Condition C effects in wh-movement in Turkish: The effect of pronominal type
• Yusuke Imanishi (PhD 2014)[Kwansei Gakuin University]: Explaining evidentiality syntactically: Evidence from Kikai

Mícheál Curtin [‘mihɑl]: Beannachtaí an fhomhair oraibh! I am an Irish speaker and a first-year student on the MITILI program. Thus far, my career and training have been in applied theatre. For the last nine years I have been directing a drama education program for high school students in New York City, where I led a team of Actor/Teachers who use theatre as a teaching tool in public schools. In Ireland, I have led programming with elders and young people alike in support of the language revitalization movement there. I have an MA in Applied Theatre from CUNY. At MIT, I hope to gain skills that enrich my work in Ireland. I look forward to learning from other folks who have worked on revitalizing languages in other contexts. I’m originally from Brooklyn, NY and enjoy archery, Survivor, running, and board games. 

Mehment Can Dadan: Hi everyone, I am Can (he/him) with a [dʒ]. I am from Turkey and got my B.A. and M.A. in Linguistics from Boğaziçi University. I am interested in phonetics and phonology, particularly in vowel harmony and stress. Other than linguistics, I enjoy watching films and talking/venting about them as well as photography. Nowadays, I am trying to learn how to play bass.

Churong Jin: Hi all! I’m Jin, originally from Beijing, China. I’m interested in semantics, and some topics that have been on my mind include neg-raising, event semantics, inquisitive semantics, and probability operators. Prior to joining MIT, I did my undergrad at UCLA in math and philosophy, and worked as an RA at the Meaning Lab at USC. Lifting, running, hiking, reading and playing video games constitute most of my life outside of academics, other than, of course, hanging out and going on spontaneous adventures with friends. I’m currently most excited about branching out to areas of linguistics beyond semantics, and my side quest is to run the Boston Marathon before I graduate.

Ogloo Jurkhaichin: I’m Ogloo, and I’m originally from Inner Mongolia, China. My main interests are in syntax and morphology, especially the ways they interact with each other and with other components of grammar. Most of my work so far has focused on Mongolian, and I’m interested in using data from Mongolian and related languages to think about broader questions in linguistic theory. Before starting the PhD program, I was a student in MIT’s Indigenous Languages Initiative, or MITILI, here in the department, so I’ve actually already been around for the past two years. I’m really excited to continue working on these questions and to explore some new directions during the PhD. 

Rowan Levick: Hi everyone! I’m Rowan (they/them). I grew up in Pittsburgh, PA and got my BA in linguistics from William & Mary in Virginia. I’m primarily interested in the phonetics phonology interface and experimental work with children and adults. I’ve done research on acoustic phonetics of nasals, vowel length perception in young children, and I worked for a developmental neurolinguistics lab at UT Dallas where we mainly studied individual differences in children’s word learning abilities. Outside of linguistics I play a lot of ultimate frisbee and enjoy glassblowing, cooking, and a good chat with friends.

• Special Topics: “Doing Experimental Linguistics” (24.S95)
• More Advanced Syntax (24.955)
• Topics in Phonology: Phonetics and phonology in generative grammar (24.964)
• Topics in Computational Phonology (24.981)
• Topics in Semantics: Presupposition, Anaphora, and Reference (24.979)

24.S95: Special Topics: “Doing Experimental Linguistics”

• Instructor: Shota Momma
• Time: Tuesday, 2pm-5pm
• Room: 32-D461

As the title suggests, the goal of this course is to design and carry out an experimental project, either individually or in groups. Through this process, you will learn the fundamentals of experimental design and data analysis as used in experimental syntax, semantics, phonology, and psycholinguistics. I currently plan to spend the first half of each class covering core concepts in experimental methods and statistics, along with discussion of relevant papers, and the second half working on student projects (going through materials together, discussing specifics of designs, etc). One concrete goal of the course is to submit an abstract (individually or as a group) to a psycholinguistics conference (e.g., HSP: https://www.hspsociety.org/). The deadline for HSP is typically in late November/early December, so we may be able to aim for that if things go well.

24.955: More Advanced Syntax

• Instructor: Elise Newman & Sabine Iatridou
• Time: Thursday, 2pm-5pm
• Room: 32-D461

24.964 Topics in Phonology: Phonetics and phonology in generative grammar

• Instructor: Edward Flemming
• Time: Friday, 10am-1pm
• Location: 32-D461

Standard models of the grammar of linguistic sound divide it into two components, phonetics and phonology, but many questions about this division remain open. The goal of this seminar is to explore some of these questions. For example:

• Where is the dividing line between phonetics and phonology, and why?
• What information is passed from the phonology to the phonetics? Just the output of the phonology? Underlying representations? Information about the system of contrasts?
• Are there inputs to the phonetics that do not come from the phonology? E.g. speech rate, hyper-/hypoarticulation.
• Does any information flow from the phonetics to the phonology? Does the phonology anticipate language-specific aspects of phonetic realization?
• Are these components organized serially? If so, are there opaque interactions between them?

24.981 Topics in Computational Phonology

• Instructor: Adam Albright
• Time: Wednesday, 10am-1pm
• Location: 32-D831

Computational modeling can usefully inform many aspects of phonological theory. Implementing a theory provides a more rigorous test of its applicability to different data sets, and requires a greater degree of formal precision than is found in purely expository presentations. By training models on realistic training samples, we can test whether a posited analysis can actually be learned from representative data, and we can observe what proportion of the data is actually accounted for by that analysis. Modeling also provides a direct means of testing whether a proposed formal device facilitates the discovery of generalizations, or whether it hampers learning by greatly increasing the size of the search space. Finally, modeling has played an increasingly important role in modeling gradient experimental data, since it provides a way of comparing human behavior with statistical properties of linguistic input, filtered through a possibly non-trivial learning procedure.

This class is intended to provide an introduction to the theory and practice of computational models of phonology.  We will discuss recent theoretical work informed by computational implementations, and tools for modeling phonological knowledge of various kinds.  Special attention will be paid to the relation between formal learning models and empirical data concerning early phonological acquisition.

Topics may include: (subject to substantial revision, according to needs or interests of participants)

• Statistical “baseline” models (n-gram models, exemplar models)
• Algorithms for constraint weighting and constraint ranking (recursive constraint demotion, biased constraint demotion, the GLA; perceptron learning and maximum entropy weighting)
• Algorithms for constraint discovery (Albright and Hayes 2006; Hayes and Wilson 2008)
• Integrating learned and innate constraints
• Bayesian inference for phonology and morphology
• Models of morphological decomposition and morphological productivity

The course is also designed to provide opportunities for hands-on experience in various aspects of using and developing models, including preparing training data, running simulations, and interpreting their results. No background in programming or machine learning is assumed.
*** Depending on interests and goals of students, we may experiment with AI-assisted coding this semester

Course requirements:

• Weekly readings
• Participation in class discussions
• Written assignments (small problem sets)
• Final project (presentation + writeup)

24.979 Topics in Semantics: Presupposition, Anaphora, and Reference

• Instructor: Amir Anvari, Danny Fox, Martin Hackl
• Time: Wednesday, 10am-1pm
• Location: 32-D461

In this seminar we will explore various issues in the theory of presupposition, discourse anaphora and reference. We will begin with the theory of local accommodation which we think will interact in interesting ways with more general questions in the theory of presupposition, anaphora and reference. Our starting point will be puzzles pertaining to the meaning of gender features (reading Bobaljik and Zocca 2010 and Merchant 2013) which we will use to introduce a novel proposal for local accommodation (Doron, Fox, Wehbe). From there we will move to other explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of indefinites, discourse anaphora, definites vs. demonstratives and free pronouns, to name a few.

Requirements:

• Class participation and presentations
• A final paper

Rough and tentative list of topics (not necessarily in chronological order):

1. Local Accommodation, Strong-Weak Triggers, Trivalence vs. Two-dimensional semantics
2. Presupposition Projection
3. Competition and Markedness
4. Indefinites and anaphora
5. Predicates and Formulas
6. Reference resolution with definite descriptions, demonstratives and (free) pronouns

Congratulations, Will! We are so pround of you!

Faculty: 

• Viola Schmitt gave an invited talk: Individuation, generalized

Students:

• Haoming Li & Yizhen Jiang: Infelicity of negated bare plurals: Not presupposition, but Partition by Exhaustification
• James Xinyu Gu & Churong Jin: An unlikely semantics for ‘likely’

Alums: 

• Michela Ippolito (PhD 2002)[University of Toronto] & Anastasia Tsilia (PhD 2026)[University of Illinois]: What if and its kin
• Dmitry Privoznov (PhD 2021)[University of Göttingen]: Static semantics and “dynamic” pragmatics: Once more on double negation
• Adèle Hénot-Mortier (PhD 2025)[Queen Mary University]: “Remind-me” presuppositions with iterated Speech Acts
• Anna Carolina Almeida, Raimundo Cox-Casals & Michael Wagner (PhD 2005)[McGill]: Adjectival agreement is interpretable: Evidence from summative agreement in Mexican Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese
• Paul Marty (PhD 2017)[University of Lisbon], Patrick Elliott, Alexandros Kalomoiros & Jacopo Romoli: Quantifying multiplicity
• Paloma Jeretič, Itai Bassi (PhD 2021)[ZAS/Ben Gurion University], Aurore Gonzalez, Andreea Nicolae, Kazuko Yatsushiro & Uli Sauerland (PhD 1998)[ZAS]: Not all scalar implicatures are derived from utterable alternatives: evidence from child language acquisition
• Sam Alxatib (PhD 2013)[CUNY]: Local contexts in formal alternatives
• Vincent Rouillard (PhD 2023)[Laval University]: Until and Incremental Homogeinity

Our 4th-year student Paul Meisenbichler gave a colloquium talk at University of Vienna on June 3rd, 2026, entitle “

You can read the paper here. Below is the abstract:

Phonological alternations that arise due to morphological concatenation often serve to enforce static phonotactic generalizations within the lexicon. Due to this close link, knowledge about alternations and phonotactics are encoded using a single mechanism in constraint-based models like Optimality Theory. Evidence of this link in learning, however, is equivocal. In this study we examine whether learners readily extend a generalization from alternations to phonotactics. Learners were trained on consonant harmony alternations that involved harmony between a suffix and stem consonant, while stems were ambiguous in terms of phonotactic generalizations. We then examined whether learners extended the alternation generalization to phonotactic judgments about novel stems. While learners successfully learned the alternations in training, they failed to extend this generalization to phonotactic judgments about novel stems. Taken together with previous findings, our results suggest that learners are conservative in extending learned generalizations to unseen morphological contexts. Overall, these results suggest that the link between phonotactics and alternations might not be as tight as previously suggested.

Here is the abstract: 

Much work has shown that wh-movement is subject to several kinds of locality restrictions cross-linguistically. I propose that these restrictions arise when [wh] projects past the maximal projection that it came from. When this happens, it intervenes for wh-movement, trapping the wh-element in its base position, unless it can escape through other means. The need to escape the domain of [wh] is proposed to capture the distribution of successive-cyclic movement and interactions with Voice in different languages. Different locality conditions in different languages are captured by different distributions of the same features and probes.

The paper is open access: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING.a.564

You can read the paper here.

• Edward Flemming (Faculty) & Amy Li (3rd year): Deriving phonetic realizations from the interaction of target constraints and constraints on articulatory dynamics
• Cynthia Zhong (5th year): Predictors of tone sandhi in Mandarin-English bilingual speech
• Bingzi Yu (4th year) & Ezer Rasin (PhD 2018)[Tel Aviv]: Learning attested and unattested opaque interactions in the lab

And by our alumns:

• Suyeon Yun (PhD 2016)[Chungnam National University]: Acquired, not innate: The role of English exposure in sonority sequencing principle sensitivity
• Riccardo Orrico, Bowei Shao & Maria Giavazzi (PhD 2010)[Ecole Normale Supérieure, DEC]: Stress-induced articulation effects on post-tonic consonants
• Maria Giavazzi (PhD 2010)[Ecole Normale Supérieure, DEC] & Riccardo Orrico: Lexical stress and phonemic perception: The roles of acoustics and attention
• Feng-Fan Hsieh (PhD 2007)[National Tsing Hua University], Jian-Leat Siah, Yueh-Chin Chang & Sam Zukoff (PhD 2018)[UC San Diego]: Gradient Overapplication in Malay Reduplication: Direct Aerodynamic Evidence for Base-Reduplicant Correspondence
• Yueh-Chin Chang & Feng-Fan Hsieh (PhD 2007)[National Tsing Hua University]: How Vowel-Like Is a Nucleus?Ultrasound Evidence for Gradient Articulatory Vowelhood
• Chao Han, Yoonjung Kang (PhD 2000)[University of Toronto], Juhyung Cho, Tae-Won Lim, Say Young Kim & Philip
  Monahan: The functional status of f0 shapes the neural encoding of English stop voicing contrasts: Evidence from Korean and English listeners
• Hassan Khan, Yoonjung Kang (PhD 2000)[University of Toronto] & Dave Kush: Gender perception varies with consonant sonority in Urdu nonce copy
• Juhyung Cho & Yoonjung Kang (PhD 2000)[University of Toronto]: Clear speech effect on the perception of English /i-ɪ/ by English and Korean listeners
• Xinyu Liao, Hironori Katsuda & Yoonjung Kang (PhD 2000)[University of Toronto]: Do long vowels lead sound change? Perceptual learning of vowel shifts in Japanese
• Jack Mahlmann, Samuel Akinbo, Yoonjung Kang (PhD 2000)[University of Toronto] & Agnes Legbeti: Iconicity of tonal and vowel disharmony in English and Yoruba

We discuss a set of cases where an adjunct or specifier is neither uniformly opaque nor uniformly transparent for long distance dependencies but rather its transparency is sensitive to other properties of its local context besides adjuncthood/specifierhood. These cases pose a problem for classic analyses of the Condition on Extraction Domains, as non-complements are usually taken uniformly to be islands for extraction. To describe the variable transparency effects observed, we first suggest that each exception to the Condition on Extraction Domains occurs in a multiple specifier environment, like that proposed by Jonathan Nissenbaum (2000, doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) for parasitic gap constructions. We furthermore propose a theory of locality that makes fine-grained predictions about what phrases are accessible for operations external to them. The proposal features a path-based view of locality in dependency formation, where projection of a feature from the goal to the probe’s sister is necessary for a dependency to be well-formed. On our view, the feature projection algorithm allows goals to project their features only when their sisters have certain properties, predicting that complements and second specifiers but not first specifiers are transparent for long distance dependencies.

Congratulations Elise and Kenyan!

Their project is entitled “Landmarks of Human Language Acquisition as Benchmarks for LLMs”:

Children acquire their native language from remarkably limited input: roughly 20 million words by age six. This is orders of magnitude smaller than the training data of LLMs exhibiting sophisticated language abilities. How children accomplish this is not fully understood, nor is the extent to which such LLMs employ analogs of human grammatical knowledge. The project aims to establish a set of developmental landmarks of human language acquisition to be used as benchmarks for purpose-designed mini-LLMs endowed with learning biases hypothesized to enable human language acquisition. Successful models may offer clues to increase efficiency in LLMs more broadly (biomimicry).

Congratulations Martin and Yoon!

This dissertation investigates how the grammar expresses defeated expectations of the speaker or attitude holder through matrix and embedded wh-exclamatives, such as Wow, how smart Maria is! and George is surprised at how smart Maria is. It asks two central questions. First, why do wh-exclamatives morphosyntactically resemble wh-interrogatives cross-linguistically, while behaving differently from both interrogatives and declaratives? Second, what is the role of negation in wh-exclamatives when it appears redundant, not reserving the truth value of the sentence? I show that wh-exclamatives are not merely exclamatory uses of declaratives or interrogatives, and I disentangle the speech act of exclamation from the clause type of wh-exclamatives. I argue that the resemblance between wh-exclamatives and wh-interrogatives is not accidental: exclamatives are built from interrogatives plus surprise (or a predicate with an equivalent meaning). A wh-exclamative expresses the surprise of the speaker (for root exclamatives) or the attitude holder (for embedded exclamatives) at the answer to the question. I propose that the structure of root exclamatives is wow-type particle + Q, where wow a speaker-anchored surprise/amaze/can’t believe, and that of embedded exclamatives surprise-type predicate + Q. This accounts for their interrogative-like morphosyntax without reducing them to questions semantically: a question asks for an answer, whereas an exclamative expresses or describes surprise at an answer. The analysis has consequences for question embedding. I discuss an expanded typology of clause-embedding predicates, and I introduce a paradigm showing that declarative- and question-embedding surprise as well as matrix exclamatives all have different discourse contributions. I argue that surprise-type predicates need to have access to their prejacent set of propositions, and thus that answerhood operators should not be applied to the question complement before it composes with the predicate.

The second part of the dissertation turns to a cross-linguistically recurrent negation in wh-exclamatives, which I call Cover Negation (e.g., How often have I (not) watched this series!). Examining the phenomenon cross-linguistically, I show that this negation is not expletive and has certain cross-linguistically recurring properties: it resists stress, does not license negative polarity items, permits positive polarity items, often appears with a discourse-initial and or wh all-type material, and is blocked by relative-clause complementizers. I argue that Cover Negation contributes a coverage reading: the speaker is surprised that the actual wh-values instantiate sufficiently many contextually salient categories. Formally, it performs complementation over a contextual cover, a structured set of categories in the wh-domain. I discuss other corners of the grammar where such a wh-domain is attested, as well as open questions.

Congratulations, Anastasia!

The student editors:
Bingzi Yu and Alma Frischoff

The faculty editor:
David Pesetsky
(who thanks Bingzi and Alma for their great work on Whamit throughout the year — and our department as a whole, for giving us such great stuff to write about)

Congratulations to our undergraduate majors Miguel Buitrago, Ellie Bultena, and Olivia Honeycutt, who were awarded the degree of Bachelor of Science (S.B.) in Linguistics!

Congratulations to Ukhengching Marma, William Pacheco, and Ogloo Jurkhaichin, who were awarded the degree of Master of Science (S.M.) in Linguistics for their work in the MIT Indigenous Languages Initiative program!

And congratulations to Omri Doron, Adele Mortier, Giovanni Roversi, and Yash Sinha, who were awarded the degree of PhD in Linguistics!

A remarkable group even by the standards of our remarkable field. We rejoice in your achievements at MIT and cannot wait to see what you all do next!!

Thanks to a dedicated set of intensional operators—e.g., modals, attitude predicates, tense operators, and temporal adverbials—natural language is able to convey information about things beyond the concrete here and now; a feature famously termed displacement (Hockett 1960). In model-theoretic semantics, modal and temporal displacement are standardly cashed-out by treating declarative utterances as functions from worlds and times to truth values. Intensional operators like modals are then taken to quantify over possible worlds, while tense operators quantify over time intervals. Despite these operators’ distinct domains, a long-standing semantic assumption holds that worlds and times should receive parallel formal representations; namely, that the same grammatical machinery, whatever it may be, governs both world-dependence and time-dependence in natural language.

Recently, Schmitt (2023) observed that worlds are special in that they do not seem to pluralize and partake in cumulative relations. In my thesis, I show that Schmitt’s claim is necessary to account for an earlier observation, that DPs cannot scope above a modal operator that in turn determines the evaluation domain of their restrictor. The reading that would be derived from this unavailable scopal configuration, I argue, can also be derived without it, as a cumulative reading with a plurality of worlds. Hence, without Schmitt’s ban on cumulative readings with worlds, a reading long thought to be unavailable is predicted to be attested for certain modal sentences.

Building on observations by Szabo (2010,2011), I then show that the same reading that is unattested with modal operators is attested with temporal ones, and furthermore, that it is attested exactly because the way time intervals are introduced into the semantic derivation is not subject to a constraint similar to the one we must posit to prevent overgeneration in the modal case. I explore the implications of this disanalogy between worlds and times for the design of the semantic formalism and its representation of the world and time dependence of utterances.

Congratulations, Ido!!

A central question in formal semantics concerns the division of labor between lexical semantics and the compositional system. Given a particular inference pattern, we can ask whether this inference is encoded in the lexicon or whether it arises from a particular syntactic interaction between different compositional ingredients. This question is especially important in the domain of plural predication, where prominent accounts attribute different types of phenomena to generalizations over the lexical meanings of predicates. This thesis addresses this question through three case-studies: (i) cumulative inferences, (ii) reciprocal alternations, and (iii) the contribution of together.  I argue for a framework for plural predication in which these different phenomena result from scope interactions between a limited set of syntactic operators, including pluralization operators and other scope-taking elements. Thus, I argue for a more impoverished lexicon and a richer syntax in the domain of plural predication. 

The scope-based account I argue for faces an immediate explanatory challenge: while lexical analyses can appeal to lexical stipulations to capture the distribution of readings in each construction, the scope-based account appears to overgenerate unattested readings. I argue that these lexical stipulations can be replaced by independently motivated grammatical constraints that cut across different constructions. More specifically, I propose that two such constraints play a key role in plural predication: (i) a generalized economy constraint, inspired by Fox’s (2000) scope economy, which rules out LFs when they can be proven to be equivalent to simpler LFs and (ii) a constraint that requires implicit arguments to take lowest scope (Fodor and Fodor, 1980). The result is a framework where the different ingredients of plural predication are in principle free to take scope in different positions, as long as they don’t violate these independently needed constraints.

Finally, the scope-based account I argue for has some broader architectural consequences. The first consequence concerns the nature of economy constraints in the grammar. I show that in order to predict the desired distribution of readings, the generalized economy constraint has to be evaluated relative to an encapsulated system which only has access to some of the information that is needed to compute truth-conditions. My account therefore provides a new domain where we see evidence for a modular deductive system (following Fox, 2000; Gajewski, 2002; Fox and Hackl, 2006, a.o.). The second consequence concerns universal constraints that determine what kinds of meanings can be lexicalized in a single lexical item. I explore the idea that there is an economy constraint on lexicalization, which optimizes the expressive power of the lexicon, relative to its size. This constraint essentially predicts that inferences which can be generated independently in the syntax can’t be encoded in the lexicon.

Congratulations, Jad!!

There are several MIT connections to the launch:

• Irene Heim, founding co-editor of Natural Language Semantics, is one of the signers of the open letter
• Danny Fox and Kai von Fintel are on the editorial board
• Three of the first five accepted articles are MIT-connected:
  • Yurika Aonuki (4th year): Scale-sensitivity of comparatives and measure phrase interpretations in Gitksan
  • Keny Chatain (PhD 2021) & Philippe Schlenker (PhD 1999): ­Local Pragmatics Redux: Presupposition Accommodation Without Covert Operators
  • Jingyi Chen & Valentine Hacquard (PhD 2006): Being pragmatic about anankastic conditionals

Learn more here: https://snl-journal.org/
Browse accepted articles: https://snl-journal.org/news/944/
Read the open letter: https://snl-journal.org/news/942/
Submissions: https://snl-journal.org/submissions/

 ”I’m deeply honored and excited to be joining the MIT linguistics department, which has been home to so many people I deeply respect, past and present. I’m looking forward to learning from my future colleagues and to building a vibrant intellectual community together. My research aims to understand how people construct sentences in their minds during both comprehension and production, drawing on insights from linguistics and cognitive science more broadly. I’m confident that exciting new research directions will emerge at MIT - something I already began to experience during my visit in 2023.”

Welcome!  We can’t wait for you to join us!

photo source: https://bpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/websites.umass.edu/dist/5/13737/files/2020/02/Shota-Momma.jpg

In this talk, I will discuss the nature of the Turing Test and the current level of evidence that LLMs can pass it. I will argue that the Turing Test in its original formulation had a limited conception of intelligence, failing to capture aspects of intelligence that come to the fore in theories of embodied cognition. These aspects of intelligence play a crucial role for humans in acquiring a mental lexicon of meaningful units, and mastering semantic operators (such as markers of temporal, numerical and logical relationships). When probed, LLMs exhibit persistent shortcomings in these areas of language, shortcomings which are systematic consequences of their architecture and training.

• Tamari Berulava (2nd year): Shifting Identity: the Interaction of phi-features, Honorification and Indexical shift
• Michela Ippolito (PhD 2002)[University of Toronto] & Anastasia Tsilia (5th year): What if and its kin
• Norvin Richards (Faculty; PhD 1997): Long-distance agreement by proxy in Passamaquoddy
• Jessica Coon (PhD 2010)[McGill University], Stefan Keine, Juan Jesús Vázquez Álvarez & Michael Wagner (PhD 2005)[McGill University]: Reconsidering Animacy Hierarchy Effects in Mayan: Experimental Evidence from Ch’ol
• Adam Singerman, Andrew Nevins (PhD 2005)[UCL], Susana Bejar, Maka Tetradze: Suppletion as inflection: insights from two endangered languages
• Ken Hiraiwa (PhD 2005)[Meiji Gakuin University], Kimiko Nakanishi: Japanese Free Choice Items at the Syntax–Semantics–Phonology Interface
• Anna Carolina Almeida, Raimundo Cox-Casals, Michael Wagner (PhD 2005)[McGill University]: Adjectival agreement is interpretable: Evidence from summative agreement in Mexican Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese
• Sam Alxatib (PhD 2013)[CUNY], Alexander Podobryaev (PhD 2014)[HSE]: On the (non-) vacuity of the Russian participial present

Russian does not allow left branch extraction from NPs that are complements of P. Sluicing alleviates this restriction. I argue that the pattern is best explained by the Cyclic Linearization view of “island repair”: ungrammaticality results from conflicting linearization statements but ellipsis can resolve the conflict.

The talk will cover: 
— Why the pattern must involve salvation by deletion (against the general attitude expressed by Barros et al. 2014)

— Extension to other restrictions on extraction from Russian NPs which are alleviated by sluicing based on the scattered deletion view of left branch extraction (Fanselow, Ćavar 2003; Bondarenko, Davis 2023).

— An account of what we call the Sole Remnant Generalization: the remnant must be the only pronounced item in its clause (observed for preposition drop in other languages too). The model is a mix of Fox & Pesetsky (2003) and Johnson (2020) which allows for scattered deletion and predicts the Sole Remnant Generalization straightforwardly.

The talk is an extension of the material written up in Kalyakin, Kasenov (2025): https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/009308

• Vlad Orlov (2nd year): Existential wh-words are still a question in Russian 
• Marijana Marelj & Ora Matushansky (PhD 1998)[CNRS]: Against length-determined tone assignment in Serbo-Croatian
• Marijana Marelj & Ora Matushansky (PhD 1998)[CNRS]: Two types of unaccusatives: evidence from Slavic Degree Achievements
• Ivona Kučerová (PhD 1997)[McMaster University] & Edgar Onea: Topic pronouns in Czech: Argument drop in disguise

• Giovanni Roversi (Postdoc; PhD 2025) & Jéssica Mendes: Light attitudes, heavy complements: evidence from Äiwoo
• Eyal Marco (1st year), Ezer Rasin (PhD 2018)[Tel Aviv]: Cyclic derivatives in Nazarene Arabic cannot be generated through base correspondence
• Yiannis Katochoritis (3rd year): To Unlock is to (Re)Merge: Phase Theory, Locality and Minimal Compliance revis(it)ed
• Magdalena Lohninger & Yiannis Katochoritis (3rd year): Topic-to-subject grammaticalization: the case of Malayo-Polynesian pivots
• Yurika Aounuki (4th year): Questions and conditionals with disjunction in Gitksan
• Haoming Li (4th year) & Yizhen Jiang (3rd year): Infelicity of negated bare plurals: Not presupposition, but Partition by Exhaustification
• Oddur Snorrason, Vlad Orlov (2nd year) & Zhouyi Sun (4th year): Concealed pied-piping in Russian and Icelandic degree questions: 3/4 effects and an interface account
• Paul Meisenbichler (3rd year): Non-identity readings of ATB-gaps: ATB vs. conjunction reduction
• Adèle Hénot-Mortier (PhD 2025)[QMUL]: “Remind-me” presuppositions with iterated Speech Acts
• Coppe van Urk (PhD 2015)[QMUL]: Intermediate reflexes of Lowering in Tigrinya
• Colin Davis (PhD 2020)[Nord University]: Superlative adjectives reveal the Final-Over-Final Condition in morphology
• Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine (PhD 2014)[CNRS / Nantes Université]: Atayalic subjects and the nature of nominative
• Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Kyle Johnson (PhD 1986)[UMass]: Symmetric predicates contain comitatives
• Lena Baunaz & Giuliano Bocci, Ur Shlonsky (PhD 1987)[University of Geneva]: Positional Relativized Minimality and negative islands
• Thomas Schökler & Shoichi Takahashi (PhD 2006)[Aoyama Gakuin University]: Elements of Was für-Split
• Pilar P. Barbosa (PhD 1995)[Universidade do Minho] On the role of n in the derivation of rich agreement pro-drop and doubling

Passamaquoddy-Wolastoqey has long-distance agreement: the verb of a matrix clause can (optionally) agree with nominals in a complement clause, even if the complement clause appears to be a full-fledged tensed clause.  I will argue that this long-distance agreement should be treated as an instance of what I’ve called ‘agreement by proxy’.  In this case, the C of the embedded clause has Agreed with the nominals in that clause, and probes in the higher clause, although considerations of locality prevent them from agreeing with any DPs in the embedded clause directly, can agree with the features on embedded C, thereby effectively agreeing with the DPs of the embedded clause.

We invite you to the LEAP (Linguistics Education and Pedagogy) workshop on Communicating Your Research. Here is the complete schedule of the four-session workshop:

April 14th (last week): Defining the knowledge gap

• What does your audience know, and what do you want them to learn from you?

April 21st (this week): Bridging the knowledge gap

• Given your audience’s prior knowledge, how do you provide essential content in order to facilitate their understanding?

April 28: Evaluating success

• How will you know that understanding has been achieved?

May 12th: Research Slam: Workshop participants will give their presentations!

Workshop sessions take place on Tuesdays from 5-6pm in 32-D461. Note that we will skip May 5th and that the Research Slam will take place during the final week of the semester.

 Come for the snacks! Stay for the workshop!

Do the impressive abilities of neural-network Large Language Models in generating rich, well-formed syntax falsify fundamental principles of generative linguistic theory? The answer I will argue for is: no. But it will be a rather nuanced “no”, trying to identify the proper treatment of generative AI for generative linguistics. Specifically, I will consider these principles:

1. Computability: Generating natural language with rich, human-level syntax requires use of symbolic grammatical rule systems.
2. Explanation: Theoretical explanation in generative linguistics requires built-in discrete symbolic structure.
3. Acquisition: Children’s ability to acquire language requires innate knowledge of grammatical rule systems.
4. Universals: Linguistic universals can only be explained from innate limitations on what languages are learnable.

The quantity of discussion of these questions will decrease sharply from 1–4, the bulk of the presentation focused on 1. The discussion of 1 takes off from Smolensky, Fernandez, Zhou, Opper, Davies & Gao (JAIR 2025; arXiv:2410.17498).

• Tamari Berulava (2nd year) & Paul Meisenbichler (3rd year): Parasitic Binding into Nested Definites
• Johanna Alstott (4th year): Next
• Bergül Soykan (4th year): Limitations on Meta Questions: Insights from Turkish
• Thomas Truong (1st year): Plural superlatives and cumulativity

This week’s LingLunch will consist of two talks.

Talk 1: Questions and conditionals with disjunction in Gitksan (Yurika Aonuki, MIT)
Abstract: A morpheme ji in Gitksan (Rigsby 1986; Hunt 1993; Aonuki 2025) (and cognates in Nisga’a (Tarpent 1987) and Sm’algyax (Sasama 2001; Brown 2022, 2023, 2024, 2026)) introduce conditional antecedents and embedded polar questions. At the same time, ji is also allowed in declarative attitude complements when the attitude holder is uncertain or wrong (Hunt 1993; Gogag et al. in prep; Aonuki 2025); similar patterns are observed in Sm’algyax (Brown 2022, 2023). I will argue that there are reasons to attempt a unified analysis of ji in conditional antecedents and questions on one hand and declarative complements on the other. Against this background, I will provide novel data from disjunction, which shows that ji can introduce each disjunct in conditional antecedents, embedded alternative questions, and polar questions with disjunction. I will propose that ji constrains the set of epistemic possibilities associated with a speech or thought event, via the alternative semantic value of its argument. The proposal highlights a shared component between questions and uncertainty and has implications for an ongoing debate about the semantic relationship between polar and alternative questions (Roelofsen and Van Gool 2010; Pruitt and Roelofsen 2011; Meertens 2021).

*This will be a practice talk for GLOW and SULA-TripleA.

Talk 2: My Language, My Tools: AI-Assisted Documentation of Kiːwɑ Keres (William Pacheco, MIT)
Abstract: Kiːwɑ Wɛkɑ̤ɲi is an underdocumented dialect of Keres — a language isolate spoken in seven Pueblos in New Mexico. I am a native speaker and relatively new to linguistics, and I quickly found that the tools available for documenting my dialect weren’t built with my needs in mind.

Abstract: Some attitude predicates in various unrelated languages have been reported to have variable flavor interpretations, covering doxastic (“think”), assertive (“say”), and bouletic (“want”) readings; cf. Navajo (Bogal-Allbritten 2016) and Koryak (Močnik & Abramovitz 2019, Močnik 2025). These have prompted analyses where much of the semantic contribution that distinguishes these readings is taken away from the lexical entry of the attitude verb itself (against the standard Hintikkan view), and rather offloaded to the semantics of the complement clause. Based on novel fieldwork data, we report on another such attitude verb in Äiwoo (Austronesian; Solomon Islands), and we show that in this language there is clearer morphological evidence for this type of analysis: overt elements in the embedded clause determine the reading of the matrix attitude predicate, whose interpretation is derived fully compositionally, and the semantics of these elements is independently verifiable from their use in unembedded contexts. We arrive at a picture where the attitude predicate itself is relatively underspecified, but not fully (against e.g. Bogal-Allbritten). We draw (tentative) cross-linguistic predictions about the range of meanings we expect “variable-flavor” attitudes to cover: these should not extend beyond what can be composed out of independently available elements already in the language (chiefly, relatively underspecified attitudes and already existing modals). Thus, we predict these kind of verbs to receive “think, say, want” interpretations, but not readings like “forget”, “imagine”, “dream”, which cannot be composed out of these simpler more basic atoms.

Note: This week’s Syntax Square will feature a special LFRG take-over: the talk will be fully focused on semantics, so we especially encourage those with an interest in semantics to attend. The presentation will also serve as a practice talk for GLOW, so it’s a great opportunity to hear the work in progress and offer feedback.

We invite you to the first-ever LEAP (Linguistics Education and Pedagogy) workshop on Communicating Your Research. Across four one-hour sessions, we will explore how the task of communicating key aspects of your linguistics research (eg., your GP or your thesis) can be informed by formal pedagogical theory, and vice versa.

Workshop sessions will take place on Tuesdays from 5-6pm starting this week, in 32-D461. The Research Slam will take place during the final week of the semester on May 12th.

This week, we begin with “Defining the Knowledge Gap”, considering the questions, “What does your audience already know, and what do you want them to learn from you?”

Snacks will be served!

Across the six weeks, students examined the linguistics of poetry, as well as phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and machine learning in diverse languages. The teaching team focused on bringing to students’ awareness their unconscious knowledge of language, using the tools of science to formulate and test ideas about the hidden structures of language, and identifying and appreciating similarities as well as differences across diverse languages. The 15 high school students who attended each week can now answer the question that Cora posed to them the first day, What is Linguistics? 

The course grew out of earlier work that the team has done, both individually and collectively, at Spark and Splash, day-long events also organized by MIT ESP, as well as in partnership with teachers for Maya Honda’s Linguistics in K-12 Education seminar.

You can find the book here.

Here is the abstract:

This paper reevaluates Optimal Paradigms (OP), an extension to Optimality Theory proposed by McCarthy (2005). In OP, candidates are full inflectional paradigms and faithfulness constraints can require uniformity between all members within a paradigm. McCarthy (2005) proposed that OP can replace the assumption that prosodic templates are grammatical entities and other phonological mechanisms, which he regards as stipulations. One of the case studies used in McCarthy (2005) to showcase OP comes from Moroccan Arabic, where a noun-verb asymmetry in the distribution of schwa is claimed to be predicted by paradigmatic constraints as a means to achieve uniformity within an inflectional paradigm. We reevaluate this proposal using new fieldwork data from Judeo-Tripolitanian Arabic, an endangered variety of Arabic that is closely related to Moroccan. We show that if adjectives are added to the picture, OP can no longer predict the distribution of schwa in the different categories. The conclusion is that OP cannot replace the mechanisms it was supposed to replace, and is therefore a redundant complication to phonological theory.

Linguistic Inquiry is an open-access journal so everyone can access the paper here: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING.a.575

Abstract:

This talk addresses three cases of anti-singularity in questions, illustrated in (1a)-(1c). They all convey that the speaker expects that the answer will name more than one individual:

(1)   a. Which books did you buy?                            English

        b. Was    hast du   alles gekauft?                    German

             What have you all    bought

             “What all have you bought?”

        c. Quiénes   se       fueron pronto?                  Spanish

             Who-PL REFL left       early

             “Who left early?”

The anti-singularity of (1a) has been explained as arising from competition with its singular version: which book did you buy?, which has a uniqueness presupposition – only one book can be named. This explanation does not extend to the other two cases. There is no uniqueness presupposition in the version of (1b) without alles or in the version of (1c) that has a singular wh quién.

The proper analysis of the anti-singularity observed in (1b)-(1c), I argue, requires us to pivot from consideration of number proper. Drawing inspiration from work on so-called optional plural markers, specifically the Cuzco Quechua morpheme kuna, I show how anti-singularity can be a bi-product of a presupposition of sortability – it should be possible to partition the set denoted by the noun complement along some dimension, such as type, size, color etc.

During his fellowship, [David Pesetsky will] investigate why there’s more than one kind of clause in the world’s languages. While linguists and researchers assume that clauses in most of the world’s languages come in different flavors, finite and infinitival, gerunds, and so on, they don’t yet know why.

The fellowship supports research and writing across the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. Read more here: https://shass.mit.edu/twelve-professors-selected-for-2026-27-cohort-of-shass-faculty-fellows/

Based on the article by: Anderson Almeida-Silva; Remo Nitschke; Vitor A. Nóbrega; Fernando Valls Yoshida; Shigeru Miyagawa

Cognitive Science (December 2025)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70159

Speaker: Ioannis Katochoritis (MIT)

Time: March 17, 2026,  1 pm - 2 pm 

Place: 32-D461

The following members of our community presented at the conference:

• Cooper Roberts (3rd year): Part is part (plus pragmatics)
• Viola Schmitt (faculty): Individuation across categories
• Adèle Hénot-Mortier (PhD 2025): “Remind-me” presuppositions with iterated Speech Acts
• Yasutada Sudo (PhD 2012)[UCL], Chris Davis & Tim Jantarungsee: Varieties of sortal restrictions: The case of ingestion verbs
• Christopher Tancredi (PhD 1992)[Keio University]: Epistemic vs. Non-epistemic Modals in Subjective Semantics

Building on Heim’s (1982, 1983, 1992) model of dynamic semantics, I propose a unified analysis of the two uses of ye. I argue that in both cases ye presupposes Vacuity of Anti-Exclusion (VAE). This condition derives focus-sensitivity and additivity, and—when exclusion is defined in terms of likelihood—scalarity as well. On this view, the scalarity presupposition of ‘even’ ye is not an independent lexical requirement, but a natural consequence of how exclusion is parametrized.

This account clarifies both the parallels and the contrasts between ye and dou in scalar environments. I argue that the ‘also’–’even’ alternation of ye parallels the distributor–’even’ alternation of dou. Both particles can associate with minimizers, a possibility licensed by their shared scalar inference. At the same time, their difference in additivity yields distinct evaluative flavors as well as different distributional patterns in concessive constructions.

Finally, the talk revisits the “independence” requirement of additive expressions. I argue that independence emerges from the interaction between the VAE requirement and constraints on the QUD. This analysis also accounts for cases in which apparent violations of independence do not result in deviance.

• Elise Newman and Norvin Richards have received funding for a project entitled “Passamaquoddy-Wolastoqey Research, Revitalization and Documentation” (PWRRD, pronounced “powered”):
  
  PWRRD is the union of two facets of linguistic research conducted at MIT: theoretical advancement and the revitalization of indigenous languages. PWRRD brings these two threads together by assembling a coalition of Passamaquoddy-Wolastoqey speakers and MIT linguistics students, postdocs, and faculty to document, model, and ultimately revitalize the Passamaquoddy-Wolastoqey language. Passamaquoddy-Wolastoqey is critically endangered, with an aging speaker population. To increase access to language instruction among the Passamaquoddy-Wolastoqey community, we will use the results of our research to build an online language learning tool in collaboration with teachers and learners of the language.
  
  
• Donca Steriade has received funding for the project “Tucăture: A Living Laboratory for Kirundi Language Preservation and Linguistic Discovery”
  
  We plan to develop a tool that helps speakers of Kirundi, the national language of Burundi, improve their tonal literacy levels, while also contributing to Kirundi’s linguistic analysis.  Kirundi is a tonal language. Kirundi speakers are literate, but tonal literacy is low. Most texts omit tone marks entirely, creating extensive ambiguity. We address this challenge in two ways. One component evaluates if existing tone marks are suboptimal and, if so, proposes changes. Another component is a mobile application that improves tone-marking proficiency among Kirundi speakers through interactive drills to strengthen the association between tone marks, possibly revised, and tones.

https://shass.mit.edu/mit-human-insight-collaborative-announces-funding-awards-for-25-projects/
https://mithic.mit.edu/humanities-cultivation-fund-projects/

1. Generalized Dependent Case: The flagging of local c-command relations familiar under the rubric dependent case is not limited to nominals. Non-nominal phrases such as VP may both trigger and receive dependent case as well. This provides an account of morphemes specific to one alternant in an alternation, including passive morphology on V and by-phrase morphology, as well as morphemes that emerge and disappear in ditransitive alternations. Their presence correlates with the presence/absence of hyperlocal VP-fronting.
2. Generalized Insatiability: The “Merge XP” feature on a head may apply more than once to the same element so long as some new c-command relation is created (i.e. so long as something changes). This permits hyperlocal complement-to-specifier movement over an intervening element (contra Abels 2003) – offering a simplification and new characterization of the VP-fronting central to Collins’ accounts of passive and other argument alternations. No alternation-specific feature drives this movement. It is just the same Merge feature that added the complement in the first place.

Speaker: Shigeru Miyagawa (MIT), Despina Oikonomou (University of Crete), Onur Özsoy (University of Cologne), Caroline Heycock (University of Edinburgh), Giorgios Vardakis (University of Padova), Rumeysa Bektaş (Tokat University)
Title: Condition C amelioration effects in wh-movement: An interaction between pronominal type and d-linking
Time: Tuesday, February 10th, 1pm - 2pm
Location: 32-D461

Abstract: While wh-movement has been argued to involve obligatory reconstruction, leading to a Condition C effect (Chomsky 1981; Barss 1986; Lebeaux 1988; Heycock 1995; Fox 1999), experimental studies in English and German have shown that, in wh-NP-movement, the Condition C effect is not robust (Adger et al. 2017; Bruening & Al-Khalaf 2019; Stockwell et al. 2021; Salzmann et al. 2023). Stockwell et al. 2021 and Salzmann et al. 2023 suggest that the (strong/weak/null) type of pronominals may be relevant. Along these lines, we investigate anaphora resolution under wh-reconstruction in Italian and Greek, languages which, unlike English, bear both null and overt person pronouns. We present data which reveal a robust correlation of pronouns and Condition C effects: null pronouns resist coreference consistently whereas overt pronouns allow it. Conceiving this contrast is crucial for determining how restrictive the nature of the Condition C as a grammatical phenomenon is. See https://tinyurl.com/4eha8dws for a longer, NELS 56 abstract.

See below for pictures of Bergül with some of our alums (The top photo from right to left: Yasu, Margaret, Adèle and Bergül)!

• Topics in Syntax (24.956)
• Topics in Experimental Phonology (24.967)
• Topics in Semantics (24.979)

• Instructor: Sabine Iatridou, Elise Nerman, David Pesetsky
• Time: Monday, 2pm-5pm
• Room: 32-D461

This class will explore what is known and what is unknown about the internal and external syntax of nominals. We chose the term “nominals” rather than “NP” or “DP” because the headedness of nominals is in fact a topic of continual debate — a remarkable lack of scientific consensus for such a basic question concerning one of the fundamental building blocks of human language. In contrast to the verbal domain, where there is also debate but also significant (justified) consensus, many other fundamental aspects of nominal syntax remain deeply puzzling. What functional elements enter into their maximal extended projections, and how closely (if at all) does their arrangement parallel what is found in the verbal domain? What can nominalized clauses such as gerunds reveal about the parallels and non-parallels between nominals and clauses? Do nouns take complements analogous to complements of verbs, prepositions, and adjectives? Where do relative clauses fit into the picture, and what laws govern the syntax of modification more generally? Is concord within the nominal an instance of Agree or something else? How should we understand constructions seemingly special to the nominal domain such as construct state, polydefiniteness, and others?

Our plan for the beginning of the semester starts as follows, probably one class per topic:

1. The headedness of nominals

2. Gerunds

3. Construct State

— and then we will be off and running.

Course requirements: active attendance and participation, meetings with instructors to develop final paper, final paper

24.967: Topics in Experimental Phonology

• Instructor: Adam Albright & Edward Flemming
• Time: Wednesday, 10am-1pm
• Room: 32-D461

The field of phonology has increasingly looked to experimental results to confirm and extend its understanding of phonological patterns. In this course, we will examine some of the issues involved in deriving experimentally testable predictions from a theory, designing and running an experiment, and interpreting the results.

The class has several goals:

• Consider the relation between linguistic theory, empirical predictions, and experimental results
• Gain practical knowledge in designing and carrying out experiments in the lab and on-line, and performing data analysis using R
• Gain familiarity with some commonly used experimental paradigms, comparing what they can tell us about the linguistic system

The emphasis this year will be on statistical analysis. The course will be organized around the statistical models that are most applicable to linguistic experiments:

• Linear models and linear mixed-effects models
• Generalized linear (mixed) models: logistic/probit regression, ordinal logistic regression, log-linear models
• Factor coding for interpretable statistical analysis
• Possibly: Bayesian linear models

The application of these models will be illustrated through case studies selected based on the interests of the participants. Candidates include: Coarticulation, perceptual similarity, the P-Map Hypothesis, statistics of the lexicon, wug/blick tests and Universal Grammar/learning biases. Experimental paradigms examined are likely to include production, perceptual identification and discrimination, artificial language learning, and acceptability judgments.

Requirements for students taking the course for credit:

• Readings and class participation
• Regular assignments (modest and practical in nature)

• Instructor: Gennaro Chierchia & Danny Fox
• Time: Thursday, 2:30pm-5:30pm
• Room:
  • Harvard: Boylston G 02
  • MIT: 32D-461

• James Cooper Roberts (3rd year): An Agreement-interpretation puzzle concerning Indo-European fraction partitives
• Adèle Hénot-Mortier (PhD 2025)[Queen Mary University of London]: Oddness, logical compatibility and granularity
• Devon Denny (SM 2022)[UCSD]: Diné Bizaad (Navajo) Q-Particle Distribution is Sensitive to Information Structure
• Luwen Cao, Zhiming Bao (PhD 1990)[National University of Singapore],  Lei Feng, Tih-Shih Lee: Stratified Analysis of Voice Parameters in Cognitive Impairment: Evidence for Population-Specific Linguistic Biomarkers
• Tanya Bondarenko (PhD 2022)[Harvard]: Becoming a strong PCC language: a view from Alabama
• Fulang Chen (PhD 2023), Ka-Fai Yip: Does the Williams Cycle apply to Mandarin Chinese?
• Jian-Leat Siah, Sam Zukoff (PhD 2017)[UCLA], Feng-fan Hsieh (PhD 2007)[National Tsing Hua University]: Generative Phonetic Modeling of Malay Nasal Harmony
• Abdul-Razak Sulemana (PhD 2021)[University of Ghana], Ken Hiraiwa (PhD 2005)[Meiji Gakuin University]: Syntax of Concealed Sluicing in Buli
• Madison Enis, Hadas Kotek (PhD 2014)[MIT], Li Yuo: What Linguists Know and Your Team Still Doesn’t

As is traditional, Whamit will be going on hiatus as our classes and other regular activities wind down at the end of the year.  The Spring semester begins on February 2, and we will resume regular posts then.  

Rest assured, of course, that we will be there for you with any breaking MIT Linguistics news even during our hiatus period — just not regular publication.  Have a great end of the year, and see you soon!

• Amy Li (2nd year): A phonetic correlate of velar palatalization: Shorter front cavity
• Na-Young Ryu and Suyeon Yun (PhD 2016) [Chungnam National Univ.]: Perceptual comparison of emotional Korean speech: Human versus AI-generated voices
• Feng-fan Hsieh (PhD 2007)[National Tsing Hua Univ.]: Spatiotemporal modeling of tongue kinematics using ultrasound tongue imaging: A case study of apical vowels in Mandarin Chinese
• Feng-fan Hsieh (PhD 2007)[National Tsing Hua Univ.], Kye Shibata, and Yueh-chin Chang: Visualizing parasagittal articulation: An electromagnetic articulography analysis of lateralization in East Asian languages
• Yueh-chin Chang, Jing Huang, and Feng-fan Hsieh (PhD 2007)[National Tsing Hua Univ.]: Acoustic evidence for asymmetric /l/–/n/ merger in Southwestern Mandarin