[PLing] TLC talk by Tom Meadows, 14 November, 16:00

[Iva Kovač]

Dear Pling-members,

we are happy to announce that Tom Meadows (University of Geneva) will 
give a talk at the Theoretical Linguistics Colloquium on Thursday, 14 
November, at 16:00h [1], Sensengasse 3A, Seminarraum 8. Title & Abstract 
can be found below.

Further information as well as upcoming events can be found on our 
website: https://sites.google.com/view/totlvienna/.

We're looking forward to seeing many of you there!

Best,
The TLC organisers
Valerie Wurm, Magdalena Lohninger, and Iva Kovač

---

TITLE: Why syntacticians should care about bound indexicals

ABSTRACT:

In certain contexts first/second person pronouns can be interpreted like 
bound variables. Both sentences in (1) admit a bound reading in which 
nobody else did their homework, in addition to an unremarkable strict 
reading. The bound reading interests semanticists because it seems to 
suggest, contrary to Kaplan (1989), that such pronouns have their 
reference mediated by some operator.

(1)
a. Only I am proud of my students.
b. I'm the only one [RC who is proud of my students. ]
Free reading: Nobody else is proud of my students. (Context: Divisive 
Students)
Bound reading: Nobody else is proud of their students. (Context: Mean 
Colleagues)

In this talk, I report joint work with Isabelle Charnavel and Dominique 
Sportiche on indexical binding in relative clauses (RCs) like (1b). 
Focusing on French and English we identify two restrictions which reveal 
the phenomenon's syntactic underbelly. We see in both languages a 
subject/non-subject asymmetry: indexical binding is only possible in 
subject relatives (2). The object relative in (2b), for example, does 
not permit a bound reading (even having controlled for Weak Crossover!).

(2)
a. The Subject Restriction: For an indexical to be bound in certain RCs, 
the syntactic subject must be relativised.
b. I'm the only one [RC to whom David announced t [ that myFree/*Bound 
students are happy ]]

In French we observe a further restriction in (3). On the bound reading 
of a pronoun, local verbal agreement needs to match in person value with 
that pronoun. Thus in (3b), the bound reading forces the appearance of 
1SG copula (suis) rather than 3SG one (est). This is clearly reminsicent 
of interactions between agreement and indexical binding noted by Kratzer 
(2009) for German.

(3)
a. The Agreement Restriction: If a pronoun receives a bound reading, 
agreement local to pronoun must match in person.
b. Je suis le seul [RC qui suis/#est fier de mesBound enfants ] 1SG:ok / 
3SG:*
I'm the only one who is proud of my children.

To explain (2) and (3) we adopt an analysis of bound indexicals as bound 
pronouns with local person features (Charnavel & Sportiche 2024). This 
meshes with several commitments of interest to syntacticians, summarised 
in (4). In short, wh-elements need to serve as intermediate binders for 
indexicals, but they can only do this if they are local to a T with 
features matching the indexical.

(4)
a. Wh-elements are syntactically underspecified for person. (WSSCABI)
b. T starts its syntactic life already specified for person/number 
values.
c. Wh-elements acquire at LF, under certain semantic conditions, person 
features from T.

These commitments require a rethinking of the syntax of agreement. 
Contrary to Probe-Goal theories (e.g. Chomsky 2001), nominals do not 
supply values to underspecified clausal ϕ-features. Instead agreement 
reflects feature-matching between a syntactically local nominal and T, 
enforced at LF. This view is independently motivated by cases of 
semantic agreement (e.g. Corbett 2023).

Links:
------
[1] http://webmail2016.univie.ac.at/./#NOP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.univie.ac.at/pipermail/pling/attachments/20241108/f8b9a77d/attachment.html>