View the meeting handbook - Linguistic Society of America

Ozge Ozturk (University of Delaware) Session 52Anna Papafragou (University of Delaware)How do you know: Evidentiality in TurkishThis paper investigates the acquisition of evidentiality (the linguistic encoding of information source) and its relation to evidentialreasoning in Turkish children. We focus on two evidential verbal morphemes in Turkish: -di, and -mis, which indicate direct evidenceand hearsay/indirect experience, respectively. Six experiments asked whether Turkish children have acquired the semantics andpragmatics for these morphemes and understand the source concepts behind them. We conclude that the acquisition of evidentialmorphology lags behind source-reasoning abilities and that the unavailability of stable/obvious situational correlates, when anevidential morpheme is produced, complicates the process of mapping morphemes onto evidential categories.Anna Papafragou (University of Delaware) Session 52Ozge Ozturk (University of Delaware)Modality & the development of the semantics/pragmatics interfaceEpistemic modal (EM) verbs encode the speaker’s attitude towards the probability of a proposition (It may/has to rain today).Previous literature has shown that children have difficulty with EM verbs (Wells 1985, Hirst & Weil 1980). We show that, contrary toprior findings, 5-year-olds have the correct semantics for EMs such as may and have to. We also show that children recognize therelative certainty conveyed by EMs in contrastive contexts on the basis of a modal scale defined in terms of logical entailment. Wediscuss implications of these findings for the development of the semantics/pragmatics interface.Jong Un Park (Georgetown University) Session 5Syntactic & semantic licensing conditions on the non-nominal plural marker in KoreanI show how the non-nominal usage of the plural marker -tul is licensed in Korean. I claim that in order for the non-nominal marker(NNM) -tul to be licensed, not only syntactic but also semantic condition must be satisfied. I then turn to some interesting caseswhere 'distributivity' in events arises due to the NNM in the VP domain. This analysis, particularly, discusses how the NNM eithereliminates a collective reading or denotes a series of subevents from ambiguous predicates and allows a distributive or dispersedreading from collective predicates.Soyoung Park (University of Southern California) Session 5How many types of comparatives are in Korean?There have been two contrastive approaches to comparatives: the direct phrasal analysis and the reduced clausal analysis. I proposethat Korean has three types of comparatives; the first type has a degree clause with a CP-structure, the second type has a SC-structure,and the third type has a DegP-structure. The phrasal analysis should be modified in that there are clausal comparatives despite theirabsence of the structures at surface. The clausal analysis also should be revised in that some comparatives don't involve clausalstructures, and there are various types of comparatives, not just one full clausal type.Gabriela Pérez Báez (University of Buffalo, State University of New York) Session 105The encoding of locative & path relations in locative constructions in JuchitecoI explore the use of body part terms (BPTs) in locative descriptions in Juchiteco (JCH), focusing on their role as adnominal spatialrelators (ASRs) and heads of ‘ground phrases’, i.e., expressions in locative or motion descriptions that refer to the location of a‘figure’. My aim is to determine whether Juchiteco ASRs encode locative and path relations or merely object parts. I focus on BPderivedASRs and explore whether the mapping from a THING function to a PLACE function and onto a LOCATIVE/PATH function asproposed in Jackendoff 1983, is expressed in the ground phrases of JCH locative constructions.Katya Pertsova (University of California, Los Angeles) Session 26Towards learning form-meaning correspondences of inflectional morphemesOne of the tasks of language acquisition is to figure out morpheme meanings and legal morpheme sequences. I present a learner thataddresses this problem in the presence of homonymy and null morphology. The learner receives pairs of morpheme strings andcombinations of semantic features representing a hypothesis about the environment. At the end of the learning process, the learnerdetermines which of the semantic features are relevant in her language, how morphs (phonological units) line up with the meanings(sets of features), and what the legal morph combinations are.155