View the meeting handbook - Linguistic Society of America

Françoise Rose (CNRS-IRD) Session 103Antoine Guillaume ( CNRS/Lumière University, Lyon 2)‘Sociative causative’ markers in South-American languages: A possible areal featureSociative causative (aka comitative causative or causative of involvement) is a semantic type of causative where the causer not onlymakes the causee do an action, but also participates in it (Shibatani & Pardeshi 2002). This type of causative function is most oftenconveyed by a causative morpheme also coding direct or indirect causation. In many South American languages, however, thiscategory is expressed by a specific morpheme, which leads us to hypothesize that a specific marker for sociative causative could be anareal feature of South American (or maybe more globally of Amerindian) languages.Mary Rose (Ohio State University) Session 49Never around the barns: Gendered linguistic practices in dairy countryVariation research has begun to examine the ideologies and stances mediating between linguistic resources and social categories,especially gender. I discuss gender and class distinctions in a cluster of phonetic variables deployed by older speakers in ruralWisconsin. Data from ethnographic interviews with 36 speakers aged 66-99 support the analysis of several phonetic variables: (dh)-fortition, (ow)-raising and monophthongization, and (ey)-raising.I examine these sociophonetic resources along with narrative practices, leisure activities, and patterns of social interaction to showhow all speakers, but especially women, maintain the stylistic distinctions constituting the community's social and spatial landscape.Catherine Rudin (Wayne State College) Session 39Multiple wh-fronting in correlatives & free relativesMultiple wh-fronting (MWF) exhibits differences between free relatives and correlatives and between two types of languages,exemplified by Bulgarian and Polish. Both languages have MWF relatives, but Polish has only MWF correlatives while Bulgarian hasboth MWF correlatives and MWF free relatives. The difference in availability of MWF is attributable to differing positions of frontedwh-words in the two languages: Multiple free relatives but not multiple correlatives require a structure with all wh-words in SpecCP.MWF relatives thus exactly parallel the structure of MWF questions in a given language, as further indicated by superiority facts.Jeffrey T. Runner (University of Rochester) Session 45Micah B. Goldwater (University of Texas, Austin)Reference transfer & reflexive interpretation in representational noun phrasesThe main explanations for the exceptional behavior of reflexives in ‘representational NPs’ (RNPs) rely on syntactic or argumentstructure (Chomsky 1986, Davies & Dubinsky 2003, Pollard & Sag 1992, Reinhart & Reuland 1993). ‘Reference transfer’ (RT)allows reference to a representation of a person by that person's name (Jackendoff 1992). Like RNP reflexives (Grodzinsky &Reinhart 1993), RT reflexives may receive coreferential interpretations when elided (Lidz 2001). We present evidence from twopicture verification experiments and one eye-tracking experiment that it is the representational use of RNP reflexives--and not thesyntactic/argument structure--that allows for their exceptional behavior.C. Anton Rytting (Ohio State University) Session 11Chris Brew (Ohio State University)Eric Fosler-Lussier (Ohio State University)Modeling word segmentation without assuming phonemic certaintyMost computational models of word segmentation assume unrealistic degrees of invariance in the input provided to infants. This workpresents one such model of word segmentation (Christiansen et al., 1998) with input automatically derived from speech--more closelyapproximating the auditory input available to infants--and suggests that the modeled use of segmental cues is less robust to inputvariability than previously thought. A simple modification of the model improves its performance on variable data.Ivan Sag (Stanford University) Session 44Philip Hofmeister (Stanford University)Neal Snider (Stanford University)Perry Rosenstein (Stanford University)Controlling processing factors in the study of subjacencyWe report on our investigations of the complex NP constraint (CNPC) or ‘Subjacency' effects in so-called fact-that clauses. We160