I’m delighted to announce that I’ll be at the 48th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 48) in Reykjavík, presenting at the special session on “the Typology of Case.” More details will be posted on my Talks & Handouts page.
I will be posting daily slides from my NYI course in this Box folder:
Check back after every class for newly-posted slides.
(This work began as Section 7 of the unpublished manuscript “Agreement and semantic concord: a spurious unification,” but has now been expanded into a standalone squib.)
See my research page for more details.
Here are some slides from a talk I gave for the general public as part of the 2017 LING commencement at the University of Maryland.
The topic of the talk is how there’s no such thing as “words” (borrowing heavily from the work of Alec Marantz and of Heidi Harley).
I’ve written a few posts over the last few years on Norbert Hornstein’s “Faculty of Language” (FoL) blog, and I realized recently that there is no reference to these posts from my own site. So, moving forward, I will cross-post here whenever I write something on FoL. But for now, here’s a list of my past writings on FoL (archived using the WayBack Machine internet archive):
- April 10, 2017: A derivation “towards LF”? Hardly. (Lessons from the Definiteness Effect.)
- June 15, 2016: Case & agreement: beware of prevailing wisdom
- February 1, 2016: On string-acceptability vs. the availability of interpretations, and the “this is the reading therefore this is the structure” gambit
- July 9, 2014: The [Spec,TP]-agreement fallacy
There’s an edited volume set to come out in honor of the 60th anniversary of Chomsky’s (1957) Syntactic Structures. I’ve written a short paper for this collection, titled “Back to the Future: Non-generation, filtration, and the heartbreak of interface-driven minimalism.”
The paper is mostly just a handy summary of work of mine from the last few years. It shows that the way ungrammatical outcomes are excluded in minimalist syntax (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001) – where freely-assembled syntactic objects are evaluated at the interfaces with the sensorimotor (SM) and conceptual-intentional (C-I) systems – is empirically wrong. And that the Syntactic Structures approach to the same issue fares much better (hence the title).
Here is a short new paper on how to reconcile the geometric approach to phi-feature agreement pursued in my 2014 monograph with earlier results supporting agreement as feature-sharing (Gazdar et al. 1985, Pollard & Sag 1994, Frampton & Gutmann 2000, 2006, Pesetsky & Torrego 2007, i.a.).
The paper is newish in the sense that it was written about a year ago, but it was part of a secret, surprise festschrift for David Pesetsky, which was presented to him at the workshop in honor of his 60th birthday.
For more details, please see my research page.