here - Linguistic Society of America

Keffyalew Gebregziabher (University of Calgary) Session 41A predication analysis of Tigrinya Possessive DPsTigrinya (Semitic, Ethiopia & Eritrea; SOV) has two types of possessive DPs: (i) BARE POSSESSIVE DPs have no marking oneither the possessor or possessed, and are used for inalienable possession (ii) NAY-MARKED POSSESSIVE DPS have the particle naypreceding the possessor. This paper concerns itself with the role of nay. Two competing hypotheses will be explored: Either nayis a genitive case-marker (Ouhalla 2004) or nay is a LINKER (den Dikken 2007). Based on a number of syntactic phenomena, Ishow that nay is a nominal copula and not a Case marker.Rik van Gijn (University of Zürich) Session 89Measuring (poly)synthesis in the Guaporé-Mamoré areaCrevels & Van der Voort (2008) argue, that the Guaporé-Mamoré area (Rondônia and the adjacent area in eastern Bolivia) shouldbe considered a linguistic area. One of the shared linguistic features they mention is polysynthetic morphological profile.However, given that polysynthesis is not a uniform linguistic feature, how can we determine whether languages are comparablewith respect to this feature? This contribution aims at giving a more detailed account of kinds and or degrees of (poly-)synthesisof the languages in this area, and developing measures for comparison.Rik van Gijn (University of Zürich) Session 100Lucía Golluscio (Universidad de Buenos Aires)Hebe González (Universidad de San Juan)Alejandra Vidal (Universidad de Formosa)Adverbial subordination strategies in the Chaco and beyondPrevious research has shown that the languages of the Chaco area (south Bolivia, Paraguay, and northern Argentina) sharephonological and grammatical features (Comrie et al. 2010), independently of the genetic affiliation of the languages. The ongoingwork on areal features in the Chaco has so far not focused on syntactic features. With this contribution we want tocomplement the existing results by looking at adverbial clause formation in the Chaco, in particular as opposed to surroundingareas.Lelia Glass (Stanford University) Session 46Analyzing epistemic must like deontic must derives indirectness requirementPrevious analyses have struggled to explain why it must be raining is only okay if we see umbrellas, not if we're experiencing thedownpour. To derive must’s requirement for indirect evidence, I treat epistemic must parallel to deontic must (you must go)because both crucially invoke a rule of some sort, whether normative or descriptive. Epistemic must involves moving from factsabout this particular world to a claim about all worlds consistent with those facts by invoking a descriptive rule--a process whichis inherently indirect.Amy Goodnough (University of Vermont) Session 50Salience, negation, and the question-answer pair: the ‘Not X’ constructionIn this talk I present a pragmatic/semantic analysis of a particular question-answer pair. In this type of structure, the answer toeach question is negated. For example, What’s in the door? Not my keys. I propose that the essential characteristic of this ‘Not X’construction is the negation of a contextually salient, and false, proposition. Taking a Hamblin-style (1973) approach to questions,this analysis first determines the felicity requirements of ‘Not X’ answers. From this I propose a working typology to bettercharacterize this Q-A pair and demonstrate why this categorization is useful by considering a case of pragmatic strengthening.Michael Gradoville (Indiana University) Session 5Collocation frequency and the reduction of Fortalezense Portuguese paraThis study examines the effect of collocation frequency in addition to phonetic factors on the reduction of para 'to, for' in theeducated spoken Portuguese of Fortaleza. The frequencies of two-word collocations involving the previous word and para aswell as para and the following word were found to significantly affect the reduction rate of para: more frequent collocationsexhibit more reduction of para. The results of this study coincide with previous studies of the effect of collocation frequency onphonological variation, supporting the assertion that frequent collocations are stored as chunks in memory with all phonetic detailintact.155