C(omplement) C(lauses) C(ote) d'Azur

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, June 10 - Mikhail Smirnov (HSE University) “Hosting a performative clause: on structural variety and semantics of performative utterances”

Abstract: In this talk, I begin with describing one insufficiently addressed structural difference between performative utterances. The notion of ‘performative utterance’ presupposes that some sentences in some speech acts are used not for description of current realities but for establishing of new ones. One can see the mentioned difference by comparing, e. g., (1) and (2): (1)     I pronounce that they are married. (2)     I promise that she will agree. Despite of syntactic similarity, these examples are structurally different. In (1), what is considered to happen by performative force is the situation described by that-clause (their marrying). In (2), it’s not the situation described by that-clause but the situation denoted by the main verb (promising). This duality was not sufficiently articulated in the previous literature, probably because utterances of the second type are often formulated not with a that-clause but some other way (e. g., ‘I promise to…’). Then, I discuss a semantic framework for rendering this structural difference, addressing the ontological category of attitudinal objects. The notion of ‘attitudinal objects’, which roots can be found in Twardowski (1911) and Ulrich (1976), was recently developed in Moltmann (2013, 2020, 2023), being also discussed in a number of other publications. I argue that this notion allows us to formulate a clear referential account of performative utterances.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CEST) over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, May 13 - Nikos Angelopoulos (UniCA) “On clausal complementation (again!)”

Abstract: Recent literature argues that elements such as English that introducing a declarative embedded clause should be treated as Ds (Manzini and Savoia 2007, Kayne 2010, Roussou 2010, 2019 i.a.) rather than Cs (Bresnan 1972, Chomsky 1986 i.a.). This is reinforced by the nominal use of these elements elsewhere, such as the use of that as a demonstrative. This literature has yet to show, however, why the embedded clauses introduced by these elements do not have the distribution of DPs, as has been observed since Emonds (1970). Building on this literature, this paper introduces a novel structure, treating such elements as Ds instead of Cs, with D-heads having more intricate selectional requirements than traditionally assigned to Cs. They not only select a clausal complement but also the root of the verb or noun with which they are combined. The foundation for this proposal is grounded in new generalizations derived from the distribution of finite declarative embedded clauses introduced by oti and pu in Greek. I demonstrate that these clauses exhibit DP-like behavior only in some contexts. I argue that this restriction does not undermine the treatment of these clauses as DPs. Instead, it is related to the root’s need for categorization, a process feasible in certain syntactic positions but not in others. Besides accounting for the distribution of oti- and pu-clauses, the proposed analysis also supports a number of theoretical insights, including that (a) internal arguments are introduced by higher event-related heads rather than the lexical verb (Borer 2005, Merchant 2019 i.a.), (b) nouns do not take clauses as complements (Arsenijevic 2009, Bondarenko 2022, Kayne 2009, Moulton 2009, 2014 i.a.) and (c) embedded´ clauses are interpreted either as sets of situations (Bondarenko 2022, Moltmann 2021b) or sets of individuals with propositional content (Elliott 2020, Kratzer 2006, Moltmann 1989, 2013a,b Moulton 2009, 2015 i.a.), (d) displacement in attitude and speech reports arises from projections of the embedded clause’s left periphery (Bogal-Allbritten 2016, Kratzer 2006 i.a.). Lastly, the proposed analysis offers insights into the internal structure of nominalized clauses, and provides remarks on how to capture the use of elements such as pu in different contexts.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CEST) over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, March 11 - Tanya Bondarenko & Patrick D. Elliott “On the monotonicity of attitudes: NPIs and clausal embedding”

Our speaker will be Tanya Bondarenko from Harvard University and Patrick D. Elliott from the University of Düsseldorf

Abstract: This goal of this presentation is to provide an account of an observation made by Sharvit (2023, henceforth Sharvit’s puzzle): NPIs can be licensed in complement clauses that occur inside of definite descriptions, but not relative clauses. We show that all existing accounts of clausal embedding fail to account for this fact, including Kratzer’s content-based semantics (Kratzer 2006, 2016) which is based on Hintikka’s (1969) treatment of attitude verbs as universal modals, and recent refinements which equate the content of an attitudinal eventuality with the proposition denoted by the embedded clause (Moulton 2009, Elliott 2017, Bondarenko 2022). Independently, the latter equality-based approaches are thought to be problematic since they render attitude reports non-monotonic, thus failing to capture a class of entailments which are straightforward from a Hintikkan perspective. In this talk, we propose that monotonicity of attitude reports is best modelled with the notion of incrementality (Krifka 1998). We show that once equality semantics is supplemented with the idea that monotonic attitudes have incremental propositional content, we not only fix the bad predictions of this approach about entailment, but also solve a puzzle about NPI licensing (Sharvit 2023) that other approaches cannot account for.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CET) over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, May 6 - Deniz Özyıldız “Descriptions of mental states and events”

Our speaker will be Deniz Özyıldız from the University of Konstanz)

Abstract:

Verbs that combine with clauses differ in whether or not they can combine with interrogatives. An often cited contrast is the one between "know" and "think" in (1). (1) Leah knows/#thinks whether she should invite Raquel.

Many agree that "think" and its class-mates are unacceptable with interrogatives because they are neg-raising, which means that they license the inference in (2). (2) Leah doesn't think that she should invite Raquel. -> Leah thinks that she shouldn't invite Raquel. Some dissent, citing examples like (3): If we let "think" describe an event, e.g., by using the progressive, question embedding improves. And if the verb is acceptable with interrogatives, the question arises of what (if anything) the neg-raising-based explanation is an explanation of. (3) Leah is thinking whether she should invite Raquel. In this talk, I focus on contrasts like (1) and (3) to understand the effects of tense and aspect on clause embedding verbs' combinatorial and inferential profiles. I argue that their eventuality-related properties (stativity, eventivity, telicity, etc.) must be taken into account if we want to describe and explain their syntax and semantics. I sketch out a way of doing this that assumes that stative thought ascriptions are generic sentences built from eventive thought ascriptions. This allows us to derive intuitively accurate truth conditions for "think that" and "think wh-," derive the neg-raising inference, and better understand its relationship with question embedding.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CEST) over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, April 22 - Indrek Reiland “What is it to say that p?”

Our speaker will be Indrek Reiland, who is Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Vienna

Abstract: In this talk I will present an Austin-inspired view of the linguistic, locutionary speech act of saying on which it results from a use of any declarative sentence with its meaning. To say that p is not just to neutrally express a proposition. Rather, saying is a representationally forceful act of presenting the proposition as true. Yet, I will argue, it is not a social-communicative act, doesn't have an illocutionary force and remains distinct from the illocutionary act of assertion where a speaker further undertakes a commitment to the truth. The key is to make sense of the differences between representational force, truth-committal force, and illocutionary force.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CEST) over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, February 19 - Susi Wurmbrand “Syntax or semantics first? A comparison of Synthesis vs. Cartography”

Our speaker will be Susi Wurmbrand, who is Privatdozentin at Universität Wien and Visiting Professor at Harvard University.

Abstract: In this talk, I compare the cartographic model of structure building to the synthesis model in Wurmbrand & Lohninger 2023. According to the latter, syntax computes structure relatively freely and there is no or very limited selection. The main restrictions are output conditions filtering out derivations at the interfaces I suggest that the syntax-first synthesis approach is motivated by various clause structure and complementation properties (such as optionality, free ordering, meaning alternations).

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CET) over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, February 12 - Roland Hinterhölzl “On expletive es in German”

Our speaker will be Roland Hinterhölzl, who is Professor at the Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.

Abstract: The present paper proposes an alternative analysis of so-called expletive es in German. I argue that es is a demonstrative pronoun with a weak definite interpretation that binds a situation argument and as such serves to anchor the utterance as a thetic judgment in the context.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CET) over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, January 8 - Lena Baunaz & Eric Lander “A cross-linguistic look at lexical availability and mood choice”

Our speakers will be Lena Baunaz (Université Côte d'Azur) and Eric Leiden (Uppsala University).

Abstract: In this talk we apply a comparative approach to the problem of subjunctive mood selection. Mood selection is a complex issue, partly due to the high degree of crosslinguistic variation observed. In this contribution we hope to show that a crosslinguistic perspective is crucial to understanding the universal mechanisms underlying the selection of subjunctive mood in the embedded clause. We argue that the variation observed can be derived from relatively minor differences in the lexical entries available in each language. We will be concerned with four different, but closely related, patterns. These patterns are instantiated by French, Modern Greek (MG), Hungarian, and Polish. Our talk is set within the nanosyntactic theory of grammar (Starke 2009, 2011; Caha 2009, a.o).

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CET) in room 213 of the MSHS in Bâtiment de l'Horloge, campus Saint-Jean d'Angély, or over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Friday, November 17 - Sjef Barbiers "Move to Bridge"

Our speaker will be Sjef Barbiers, Professor of Dutch Linguistics at Leiden University.

Abstract: In Barbiers (2000) I argued that the structural base positions in Dutch of factive, propositional, and DP-complements are different. While factive complements are adjuncts in the matrix clause and DP-complements are subjects of internal predication, propositional clauses are the only real complements, i.e., right-hand sisters of the matrix verb. In this talk I will combine the findings of Barbiers (2000) with the ones in Barbiers (2018) and argue that (some) bridge verbs (at least THINK and WANT) originate in a functional head position of the embedded propositional clause and move to the verb position of the matrix clause, thus making the embedded clause transparent. Evidence for this analysis comes from syntax-semantics mismatches in the distribution of adverbs, and from other transparency effects such as Wh-movement and Neg-raising. A consequence of this analysis is that complementizers such as THAT occur in the Spec of a functional projection, not in C.

Readings:

Barbiers, S. 2000. The Right-Periphery in SOV languages: English and Dutch. In P. Svenonius (ed.) The derivation of VO and OV. Linguistik Aktuell 131. 181-218. Barbiers, S. 2018. Adverbs in Strange Places. Nederlandse Taalkunde 23 (1), 57-88.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, November 13 - Yael Sharvit “Assessing two theories of clausal complementation”

Our speaker will be Yael Sharvit, Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Abstract: Some clause-taking verbs can also take DPs (e.g., ‘believe’), some cannot (e.g., ‘think’), and some can appear without a complement (e.g., ‘groan’). The standard theory of complementation has to resort to lexical ambiguity to explain this. An alternative (due to Kratzer and others) says that “complements" of clause-taking predicates are not arguments, thereby offering a way to explain this variation without resorting to lexical ambiguity. I argue that this alternative fails to deliver the right truth conditions of certain attitude reports.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CET) in room 005 of the Bâtiment de l'Horloge, campus Saint-Jean d'Angély, or over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, October 30 - Travis Major "On English 'say' complementation"

Our speaker will be Travis Major, who is Associate Professor at the University of Southern California. He will be giving a talk entitled "On English 'say' complementation"

Abstract In recent years,  the status of clausal complementation structures involving some form of the verb "say" have received considerable attention with respect to indexical interpretation, direct quotation,  case assignment, modality,  and beyond.  In Major (2021) I argue that these are clausal adjunction structures that literally contain some form of the verb "say" (i.e. they are not complements).  In Uyghur, for instance, I argue that dep, the converbial form of "say", can adjoin at two different heights: in the VP region and in the TP region. In the present talk, I suggest that dep can also merge at the DP level. The bulk of the talk focuses on English, where I  further suggest that say + -ing clauses in English are almost equivalent to dep clauses in Uyghur, arguing that they can merge at (at least) three distinct heights, giving rise to three different sets of interpretations. Consider (1-3) below: 1)  Taylor [VP [VP told me a rumor] [ingP saying that the president is actually 90 years old]].  2) I heard [DP [DP the rumor] [ingP saying that the president is actually 90 years old]].  3)  [TP [TP Saying that the president was 90 years old],  [TP Taylor moved to Canada]].  Following the literature in assuming that -ing clauses are control constructions, I argue that (1) involves the -ing clause modifying the matrix VP, where the controller of PRO (i.e. the subject of "say") is the matrix subject, Taylor. In (2), I argue that the "say"+ing clause attaches at the DP level and is controlled by the content noun "the rumor". In (3), I suggest that the "say"+ing clause merges in the TP region.  I suggest that the height at which the adjunct merges determines its interpretation.  In the case of (1) and (2), the "telling" and "saying" events combine beneath the matrix T and Asp, where manner/causation are the most natural relations between events. In (2), the "saying" clause combines with a DP "the rumor", which is only compatible with a stative interpretation of "say".  In (3), "saying" merges above matrix T, allowing for looser spatio-temporal relations, and receives (most naturally) a purpose/reason interpretation. I suggest that the versatility and abstractness of "say" in general lead to its presence in clausal complementation structures across languages. Furthermore, I suggest that the conclusions of this talk offer a rebuttal to arguments suggesting that "say" is not a verb on the basis of "not seeming to mean say" or the fact that it can combine with inanimate objects.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CET) over Zoom exclusively.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Wednesday, May 17 - Scott Soames “Cognitive Propositions: What’s structure got to do with it?"

Our speaker will be Scott Soames, who is a Distinguished Professor at the University of Southern California. He will be giving a talk entitled “Cognitive Propositions: What’s structure got to do with it?"

The workshop will take place from 5:30pm to 7:30pm over Zoom only.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, April 24 - Keir Moulton “Choice points in the analysis of sentential subjects: category, position, and movement"

Our speaker will be Keir Moulton, who is Associate Professor at the University of Toronto. He will be giving a talk entitled “Choice points in the analysis of sentential subjects: category, position, and movement".

I will present an overview of the literature on sentential subjects. I will highlight three key choice points in their analysis: (i) Are sentential subjects true subjects? (Koster 1978, Delahunty 1978, Davies and Dubinsky 1998, Alrenga 2005) (ii) Are sentential subjects covertly DPs in languages like English? (Davies and Dubinsky 1998, Takahashi 2010, Hartman 2012). Do sentential subjects (and topics) move to their surface position? (Takahashi 2012, Moulton 2013). Each of these questions is logically independent, and a variety of proposals have been made assuming different combinations of answers. All proposals have both benefits and drawbacks, and my goal will be to make these explicit.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CET) in room 005 of the Bâtiment de l'Horloge, campus Saint-Jean d'Angély, or over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Tuesday, April 18 - Richard Faure "How many reasons are there to nominalize a (finite) clause?"

Our speaker will be Richard Faure, who is Professeur des Universités at the University of Tours. He will be giving a talk entitled “How many reasons are there to nominalize a (finite) clause?"

Finite complement clauses can be nominalized overtly (as in Greek to óti clauses—lit. ‘the that’, Roussou 1991) or covertly, as argued for certain English subject clauses by, e.g., Davies & Dubinsky (1998). In the latter case, a silent D is present on top of the clause. Moreover Angelopoulos (2019) and Faure (2021) argue that complementizers themselves can play the role of determiners. What are the reasons for nominalizing finite complement clauses?Three motivations are brought up in the literature: inserting the clause in a case position (Roussou 1991), making the clause factive (Kastner 2015), making the clause anaphoric (Bogal-Allbritten & Moulton 2018). In the talk, I shall review the various types of nominalizations of finite clauses and their motivations and claim that run-of-the-mill referential properties account for all of them in a coherent and systematic manner in the frame of a single language. The full proof will be given for Greek and tentatively applied to English, French and German.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CET) in room 005 of the Bâtiment de l'Horloge, campus Saint-Jean d'Angély, or over Zoom. ____________ Handout

[synsemuca]

Reading: Monday, April 17 - “Objects and Attitudes" by Friederike Moltmann (forth.)

Our speaker will be Friederike Moltmann, who is Research Director (DR) at the CNRS/Université Côte d'Azur. She will be presenting the seventh chapter of her upcoming book “Objects and Attitudes". The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm in room 005 of the Bâtiment de l'Horloge, campus Saint-Jean d'Angély, or over Zoom. _______________

Reading: handout

[synsemuca]

Reading: Monday, April 3 - "Objects and Attitudes" by Friederike Moltmann (forth.)

Our speaker will be Friederike Moltmann, who is Research Director (DR) at the CNRS/Université Côte d'Azur. She will be presenting chapters 5 and 6 of her upcoming book “Objects and Attitudes". The reading will be preceded by a short introduction of Chapter 2 of the book by Clémentine Raffy, a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Université Côte d'Azur.

The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm in room 005 of the Bâtiment de l'Horloge, campus Saint-Jean d'Angély, or over Zoom.

[synsemuca]

Presentation: Monday, March 27 - Kalle Müller "So-called noun complement clauses: uniqueness and referentiality, and the role of prepositions"

Our speaker will be Kalle Müller, who is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Université Côte d'Azur. He will be giving a talk entitled “So-called noun complement clauses: uniqueness and referentiality, and the role of prepositions". The workshop will take place from 4pm to 6pm (CET) in room 005 of the Bâtiment de l'Horloge, campus Saint-Jean d'Angély, or over Zoom.