”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

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

Hani and Christopher offered “Sounds in Motion: Exploring the Science of Speech”; Cora offered “Rhyme and Reason: Exploring the Linguistics of Poetry”; Vincent offered “Linguists vs. Machine: Who Had the Telescope?”; and Jacob offered “The Beauty and Complexity of Language: Introduction to Linguistics”. The courses were designed by each instructor and developed and vetted through a collaborative process. Maya Honda observed all of the classes and attests to the great job everyone did sharing their knowledge and passion for linguistics with the Splash students.

• Seva Masliukov (1st year): Puzzles of actional composition in an atelicity-marking language
• Vlad Orlov (2nd year): Reciprocal alternation and bound de-re readings
• Alma Frischoff (2nd year): Type-label comparison and Type Economy Principle

(1) Part of the New Yorkers are completely covered in paint.

I will argue against the approaches outlined above, opting to instead include parts of atoms in the denotation of plural partitives. The interpretation we get for (1), I propose, is actually the result of pragmatics rather than semantics (Grice, 1975’s MAXIM OF QUANTITY). This position is bolstered by the fact that the “inclusive” reading of a plural partitive becomes available under negation and epistemic uncertainty (cf. plurals, Sauerland et al. 2005).

[This is a practice talk for my upcoming presentation at OASIS 5.]

Velar palatalization is a common sound change involving a velar stop becoming a palatal affricate or fricative before a front vocoid. To gain insight into its phonetic mechanisms, we test two hypotheses about factors conditioning velar palatalization by comparing similar languages with and without the change: (1) the conditioning vowels are fronter in languages with the change, resulting in fronter closure of the velar through coarticulatory assimilation; or (2) languages with the change have stronger coarticulation of velar stops with following segments, resulting in greater fronting preceding front vocoids. Specifically, we compare two Chinese languages, Mandarin, which underwent velar palatalization in the 16th-17th centuries ({k, kh, x} became {tɕ, tɕh, ɕ} before high front vowels), and Cantonese, which has not undergone the change in the last millennium. Our results support hypothesis (1) but not (2). We find that Mandarin speakers produce [i] and [y] with a higher front cavity resonance (third formant for [i] and second formant for [y]), implying a shorter front cavity. Velar coarticulation, measured by locus equation slope, does not differ significantly between the two languages. This suggests that the phonetic preconditions of velar palatalization lie in an especially front articulation of the conditioning vocoid.

Then, I will discuss two new hypotheses in response to my results: (1) the conditioning vowels have small enough front cavities in languages with the velar palatalization change that that they can be considered coronal, so coarticulation of the velar consonant with this coronal vowel results in the coronal output of the change; and (2) the conditioning vowels have shorter front cavities in languages with the change due to longer tongue constrictions, which facilitate frication given coarticulation with the velar consonant. I will share some of my attempts to test these new hypotheses. Finally, I will present my planned next steps of the project, including making new recordings comparing (some varieties of) Cretan Greek, in which {k, kh, x} became {tɕ, tɕh, ɕ} before [i] and [e], and standard modern Greek.

Adam’s own talk, a joint presentation with colleague Sebastian Zawada, was entitled “Slavic case is not boring: Agreement in Polish copular clauses” (an elegant reply to a side-remark in a famous paper of Jonathan’s that suggested Slavic case might be).  David and his fellow alums report that the event, hosted by the Institute of Computer Science at the Polish Academy of Sciences (IPI PAN), was full of interesting papers, and was truly excellent meeting from every perspective.

(photo credit: Adam Przepiórkowski)

Ivona’s website: https://hmcwordpress.humanities.mcmaster.ca/humpages/kucerov/

Chamorro-specific person-animacy hierarchy 2nd person > 3rd person animate pronouns > 3rd person animate lexical nouns > Inanimate

Chamorro instantiates what Stegovec (2019, i.a.) calls a *3>2 or “Only-You” person restriction: although 2nd and 3rd person have their distributions constrained by the restriction, 1st person does not. In this talk I make two kinds of argument. First, I argue that this restriction should not be reduced to a language-specific morphological restriction, pace Chung (2014), but should rather be treated as (at least partly) syntactic in nature. The null hypothesis is thus that it should be explained by the same mechanisms postulated elsewhere to capture other syntactic PARs. Second, I argue that this has not been achieved. More specifically, current theories of PARs are either logically incompatible with the Chamorro data, or else incur conceptual or empirical problems when amended to accommodate it. I then sketch some preliminary ideas about how to go about solving this.

To do so, I examine a unique reading of sentences containing plurals and superlatives.

(1) Rafa climbed each of the tallest mountains that his students climbed.

Under one reading of (1), the truth conditions require us to look at each of the students, check which mountains each student climbed, and then take the tallest mountain climbed for each of the students.

I will break down this construction. I claim that this reading is generated as a case of cumulative readings, where the superlative operator is in the scope of the cumulativity operator.

I show that if we assume the ** operator (Krifka 1986, Sternefeld 1998, Beck and Sauerland 2000) to derive cumulativity along with an account of superlatives following Heim (1999), covert movement outside of a relative clause seems to be necessary to derive the correct LF for the relevant interpretation of sentence (1).

(1) [Italian]
a. un terzo delle pareti sono coperti di muffa
‘A third(m.sg) of the walls(f.pl) are covered(f.pl) by mold’
*MEASURE, COUNT
b. un terzo delle pareti `e coperto di muffa
‘A third(m.sg) of the walls(f.pl) is covered(m.sg) by mold’
MEASURE, *COUNT

The goal of this study is to give a theoretical account of the alternation in Italian-like languages while also explaining why some languages in the family lack the equivalent to (1b) (American English). Following the tenet of One Form/One Meaning, I pursue an analysis where measure and count FPs are structurally-distinct. Specifically, I assume that count FPs are the structurally-simpler of the two, bearing a syntax where the complement is actually the head (see Selkirk 1977) and the semantics are s.t. cardinality functions win over other measurement possibilities (Barner & Snedeker, 2005; Bale & Barner, 2009; Wellwood, 2019; Wagiel 2021). To get the measure FP, I posit a special operator TOTAL which takes the bare FP structure and makes two important contributions. First, TOTAL re-merges the fraction via projecting movement (Bhatt, 2002) to make it the new head of the structure. Second, TOTAL changes the “matrix” parameter of evaluation for measure functions to one where cardinality will lose to other forms of measure. Crucial evidence from this proposal comes from Russian, where FPs which include the part-word chast’ lose the agreement-optionality and necessarily have a measure reading. I interpret this item as a realization of TOTAL and conclude that it can be optionally-overt in some languages.

Gĩkũyũ has two types of backcopyingː (1) optional backcopying (i.e., backcopied and non-backcopied variants are in free variation) when prenasalized stop formation (/Nt, Nɾ/ → [ⁿd], /Nʃ/ → [ᶮdʒ], /Nk, Nɣ/ → [ᵑg]) and foot reduplication interact; (2) obligatory backcopying when prenasalized stop formation, foot reduplication, and Meinhof’s law (NC₁…N₂(C) → N₁…N₂(C)) interact.  To account for the obligatory backcopying cases, I propose that the distinguishing factor lies in the onset’s ratio of nasality in the base vs. the reduplicant. On a ratio-of-nasality scale of [t, k, ɾ, ʃ, ɣ] = 0, [ⁿd, ᶮdʒ] = 1, [n] = 2, a Distantial Faithfulness constraint penalizes segments in RED that differ too much from their Base correspondents. Consequently, Base-Reduplicant pairs like [ᶮdʒ]…[ʃ] are acceptable because their nasality distance is ≤1, whereas [n]…[ɾ] is disfavored because the ‘distance’ is 2.

(1) Ona nikogda ne vide-l-a Maš-u plač-ušč-ej. she never NEG see-PST-F.SG M.-ACC cry-PTCP.IPFV-F.SG.INSTR ‘She has never seen Masha crying.’

(2) Ona nikogda ne vide-l-a [plač-ušč-uju Maš-u] . she never NEG see-PST-F.SG cry-PTCP.IPFV-F.SG.ACC M.-ACC Lit.: ‘She has never seen crying Masha.’

(3) Ona nikogda ne vide-l-a, [kak Maša plač-et]. she never NEG see-PST-F.SG COMP M.NOM cry-NPST.3SG ‘She has never seen Masha cry.’ (lit.: ‘how Masha cries’)

I suggest that the difference between Turkish and English MQs results from 1) their distinct question-formation strategies (e.g., English uses wh-phrases in situ only for MQs, while in-situ-ness is the default form of all questions in Turkish) and 2) from differences in their Spell-Out domains. Given that Turkish always uses wh-in-situ for constituent questions, I propose that C is the phase head in Turkish, not the speech-act verb (or any other v). Also, revising Krifka (2014) and Woods and Vicente (2021), I assume the following structure in (2) for Turkish questions, where Force P indicates whether an utterance has question force [+Q] or not [-Q], and say is the speech act for all utterances that is merged when needed. Thus, I offer a solution to the seeming issue in Turkish MQs along the lines of Trinh, Fox, and Bassi’s (2025).

(2)   A1: Ela gel-ecek mi? come-Fut PolQ [whether1 [Ela will comeF mI1 ForceP[+Q]] Cthat] B1: Ela nere-ye gel-ecek mi? wh-MQ where-Dat come-Fut PolQ [where2 [whether1 [Ela where2 will comeF mI1 ForceP[+Q]] Cthat] sayA] A2: Ela nere-ye gel-ecek mi mi? pol-MQ [whether3 [where1 [whether1 [Ela where1 will comeF mI1 ForceP[+Q]]F mI3 Cthat] sayA]ForceP[+Q]]

Later, I provide evidence from embedded clauses with an overt C head for the interpretation layers of MQs in Turkish. Finally, if time allows, I share cross-linguistic data from various languages, supporting that the Spell Out domain and question-formation strategies are the two parameters that affect MQ layering.