I just got home from Oslo, where I had many really interesting interactions with several linguists. One of them was a conversation with fellow visitor Jonathan Bobaljik. We were talking about the relatively well-known observation that for many alleged “syntax-semantics mapping phenomena,” the expected mappings only go through if the syntax independently allows at least two different configurations. As Jonathan helpfully points out, this is an observation that goes back to Grice, if not Jespersen. But just because an observation is “old,” we shouldn’t overlook the consequences it has for contemporary syn-sem theories. And the consequences are very interesting. […]
Here's a thing that I'm sure happens to everyone from time to time:
- You read or hear about phenomenon X or generalization X or theoretical proposal X.
- Time passes.
- You happen upon some new data or a new idea, for which X proves relevant.
- However, it turns out that you have imperfect recall of X. Unbeknownst to you, what you have in your head is actually some rejiggered version of X – let's call it X' – which conveniently-and-suspiciously suits your current theoretical or empirical needs. [...]
In October 2019, I will be giving a talk titled The Anaphor Agreement Effect: further evidence against binding-as-agreement, at the University of Oslo. See my talks & handouts page for further information. […]
This is a post about listedness: what is the nature of the idiosyncratic information that is listed in the grammar.
In traditional, lexicalist approaches, the listed atoms were lexical items. A lexical item contained, at minimum, a phonological form, a semantic interpretation, [...]
The Anaphor Agreement Effect: further evidence against binding-as-agreement […]
The =&0=& is conceptual. As
already discussed on this blog […]
A while ago, I posted the following on facebook:
"the morning star" is to "the evening star" as
"my analysis resorts to expletive pro" is to "my analysis is wrong"
To illustrate [...]