Omer

Mar 052019
 

Here is a paper by Canaan Breiss and Bruce Hayes (I will refer to the paper as B&H). To offer a brief summary of B&H’s main empirical point, it shows that the choice of syntactic ‘structure’ (i.e., both the choice of terminals and their arrangement) is probabilistically biased towards avoiding phonotactically problematic sequences (e.g. a sequence of two consecutive sibilants), even when the sequence in question arises across a word boundary. It does so by focusing on a series of well-established phonological constraints (from work on word‑level phonology), and showing that word‑bigrams whose juncture violates these constraints are underattested. This is shown to be the case in a variety of corpora, both written and spoken. Let’s refer to this as Evidence for Phonologically-Influenced Choice of Syntactic Structure, or EPICSS for short. […]  [read more]

Feb 162019
 

Here’s a nice little thing to ponder. Suppose syntactic computation is bound by some cyclic domains – we can call them “phases” (though I am on record with the opinion that phase theory is a faded facsimile of Subjacency, and many of its more recent developments, a faded facsimile of Barriers). And suppose that we encounter a configuration like (1) in which H is able to access XP but unable to access YP, where XP and YP both seem, as far as we can tell, featurally suited to H’s needs: […]  [read more]

blogpost: Kudos

 Posted by on 01/29/2019  1 Response »
Jan 292019
 

I just stumbled upon this: ... Notice the "Published in" field: Lisa Selkirk and Angelika Kratzer have made it publicly known that this paper received a rejection in its very first round of review from Language. I don't think it can be overstated how important it is for senior people to share [...]

[read more]

Published in Glossa: “What the PCC tells us about ‘abstract’ agreement, head movement, and locality”

 Posted by on 01/24/2019  Comments Off on Published in Glossa: “What the PCC tells us about ‘abstract’ agreement, head movement, and locality”
Jan 242019
 

My paper, “What the PCC tells us about ‘abstract’ agreement, head movement, and locality,” has been published in Glossa. This is a more detailed version of work I presented in talks at NELS 46, ZAS, and Stanford. You can read more about this project on my research page. […]  [read more]

New paper: “The Anaphor Agreement Effect: further evidence against binding-as-agreement”

 Posted by on 01/15/2019  Comments Off on New paper: “The Anaphor Agreement Effect: further evidence against binding-as-agreement”
Jan 152019
 

I’ve completed a draft of a new paper, titled “The Anaphor Agreement Effect: further evidence against binding-as-agreement.” This is based on, and supersedes, a recent talk I gave at the 1st Annual Thematic Workshop of Linguistics in Gottingen (LinG1) in Germany. You can read more about this project on my research page. […]  [read more]

Jan 072019
 

There is a rather persistent confusion in current linguistic literature that I would like to highlight, between what syntax is (the component of grammar responsible for those computations that are not reducible to sound and to meaning) vs. what syntax looks like (constituents, phrases, complementation, specifiers, c-command, etc.). […]  [read more]

Nov 242018
 

DISCLAIMER: I don’t think the following thoughts are particularly “revolutionary” – i.e., I imagine other people have thought (and maybe said) the same things before. But for what it’s worth, I’m a syntactician who has been in linguistics for years and I’ve only recently come to realize these things; so perhaps there are others like me out there who might still benefit from reading this. […]  [read more]