View the meeting handbook - Linguistic Society of America

structures to the double object construction and the prepositional construction (Marantz 1993, Harley 2003 among others). I departfrom the uniform polysemy tradition in that (1) I argue that there are two distinct sources for to-datives. (2) I allow applicative tolicense both DP and PP complements, as long as they bear the same theta role. By respecting UTAH (Baker 1988) and allowingvariation in categorial structure, my approach captures the fact that thematic role configurations map directly to syntax.Donna B. Gerdts (Simon Fraser University) Session 105The semantics of reciprocity in HalkomelemHalkomelem reciprocals often have a strong 'each other' meaning, allowing all permutations of agents and patients, includingadjacency, pairwise, melee, and chained meanings. Halkomelem also has asymmetric reciprocals, with a singular subject and anoblique-marked co-argument, and reciprocal unergative verbs with a 'together' reading. Often, several reciprocal verbs appear in achain. The range of meanings for Halkomelem reciprocals is so broad that, rather than thinking of them as part of the domain ofanaphora (as one would for English each other), it is more useful to discuss reciprocity in terms of event structure, as one wouldpluractionality.Jürgen Gerhards (Free University of Berlin) Session 72Denis Huschka (German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin)Gert G. Wagner (Berlin University of Technology)Naming differences in divided GermanyWe present the results of an analysis of different naming in East and West Germany. As a consequence of World War II, Germanywas territorially divided. This division lasted 40 years, a time span in which highly different geo-political frameworks influencedpeoples lives and, eventually, name choices as well. The questions are: To what extent can we, regardless of a common language anda shared cultural history, observe different name distribution patterns and name preferences in the two parts of the country? What dothe differences look like? And how did the differences develop over time?Carrie Gillon (University of British Columbia) Session 51Determiners as domain restriction: Evidence from Skwxwú7meshI propose a strict correlation between syntax and semantics, whereby the position D is universally associated with domain restriction(cf. Westerståhl 1984). Evidence for this comes from two unrelated languages: English and Skwxwú7mesh Salish. This correlationbetween D and its meaning allows us to explore the difference between Skwxwú7mesh and English. English nominals display adefinite/indefinite split whereas Skwxwú7mesh nominals do not. I argue that definiteness is not a primitive of the grammar andinstead arises from the interaction of domain restriction and assertion of uniqueness.Ives Goddard (Smithsonian Institution) Session 101Contamination effects of two Mahican morphological changes(1) In Mahican (Eastern Algonquian), imperative singulars would be expected to have -n (< PA *-ro) in some forms and -h (< *-nro)in others, but -h has replaced -n in all forms by ordinary paradigmatic analogy. By contamination, obviative singular and inanimateplural suffixes ending in -n (< *-ri) replaced this in some endings with -h by contamination from the imperative. (2) When thecontraction of aw- to o was replaced by contraction to a, this replacement of surface * o by a spread by contamination to grammaticalcategories and words where it was neither phonologically nor morphologically motivated.Shelome Gooden (University of Pittsburgh) Session 61Maeve Eberhardt (University of Pittsburgh)AAVE in Pittsburgh: Ethnicity, local identity, & local speechWe investigate the use of features of Pittsburgh speech by African Americans in the region, focusing on two variables--themonophthongization of /aw/ and the low-back merger, which differ in their salience in the region. Data analyzed are drawn fromsociolinguistic interviews conducted with African Americans in Pittsburgh from three age groups. Findings reveal that whereasspeakers reject "whiteness" through avoidance of high-salient features, there is not simultaneous rejection of "localness" since theAfrican American interviewees not only self-identify as ‘Pittsburghers' but also use less salient features of the local dialect in theirown speech.124