« Older Entries

Colloquium, 01/21 – Maribel Romero

The next talk of the 2021-2022 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series will be held on Friday, January 21st at 3:30pm. The talk will be given by Maribel Romero (University of Konstanz).
The title of the talk is “A unified semantic analysis of the Q-Particle in Sinhala across interrogative types“. The abstract is below.
    In a wide variety of languages, Q(uestion)-particles are –optionally or mandatorily– used in the formation of some interrogative clause types(see e.g. Kamali 2015 for Turkish mI; Rudin et al. 1999 for Macedonian li; Hagstrom 1998 for Japanese ka; Kishimoto 2005, Cable 2010 and Slade 2011 for Sinhala də). The present talk concentrates on Sinhala, in which the Qparticle də appears in wh-questions (WhQs), alternative questions (AltQs) and polar questions (PolQs), as illustrated in (1)-(3):
                    (1)  Chitra monəwa gatte                                          WhQ
                           Chitra what        bought.E
                         `What did Chitra buy?’                                             [Slade 2011: (2) p. 19]
                   (2) oyaa maalu. mas. kanne?                                 AltQ
                          you fish.       meat. eat.E
                        `Did you eat meat or fish?’                                       [Weerasooriya 2019: (36) p. 12]
                    (3) Chitra [ee potə]F kieuwe?                                  PolQ- narrow
                          Chitra that book    read.E
                         `Was it that book that Chitra read?’                      [Kishimoto 2005: (21a) p. 11]
    A prominent line of analysis, developed by Cable (2010) for WhQs and by Slade (2011) for AltQs and PolQs, posits that the Q-particle də introduces a choice function variable coindexed with the question operator in all three interrogative clause types.
    Against this background, the goal of our talk is two-fold. First, we present novel data on the distribution of the Q-particle də in interrogatives containing islands which challenge the Cable-Slade choice function analysis. We will see that, while də in AltQs patterns like də in WhQs in being sensitive to islands, də is PolQs is island-insensitive. Second, we develop a first unified semantic analysis of the Q-particle də that accounts for its distribution in all three question types and for the disparity in island-(in)sensitivity between WhQs/AltQs and PolQs.
If you have not yet registered for the colloquium series, please do so here (you only need to register once for the 2021-2022 year).
If you would like to meet with Maribel before the talk on Friday, please email Jing with your availability so that we can schedule accordingly. Thank you!

Shimoyama at UMass Amherst

Junko Shimoyama gave a colloquium talk last Friday at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (virtually) on joint work with Daniel Goodhue (PhD 2018). The title of the talk was “Two types of non-canonical negation in Japanese: reducing one to the other and learning about embedding strategies along the way”.

Colloquium, 11/26 – Ewan Dunbar

Please join us Friday, November 26th at 3:30pm for our next talk of the 2021-2022 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series. If you are planning to attend talks and have not yet registered, you can do so here (you only need to register once for the 2021-2022 year). After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

Speaker: Ewan Dunbar (University of Toronto)

Title: Probing state-of-the-art speech representation models using experimental speech perception data from human listeners

Abstract:

The strong performance of neural network natural language processing has led to an explosion of research probing systems’ linguistic knowledge (whether language models implicitly learn syntactic hierarchy, whether word embeddings understand quantifiers, and so on), in order to understand if the data-crunching power of these models can be harnessed as the basis for serious, theoretically-grounded models of grammatical learning and processing. Much of this “(psycho)linguistics for robots” work has focussed on textual models. Here, I show how we have applied this same approach to phonetics. In particular, we probe state-of-the-art unsupervised speech processing models and compare their behaviour to humans’ in order to shed light on the traditionally hazy and ad hoc construct of “acoustic distance.”

On the basis of a series of simple, broad-coverage speech perception experiments run on English- and French-speaking participants, I compare human listeners’ behaviour (how well they discriminate sounds in the experiment) to the “behaviour” of representations (how well they separate those same stimuli) which come from models trained with the express purpose of building better representations to be used in automatic speech recognition. For example, Facebook AI’s recent wav2vec 2.0 model takes large amounts of unlabelled speech as training data, and learns to extract a representation of the audio that is highly predictive of the surrounding context; it has now proven extraordinarily useful for replacing off-the-shelf audio features, to the point that some of the best-performing speech recognition systems today have switched to using these representations, which has substantially reduced the amount of labelled data needed to train high-quality speech recognizers.

We use the comparison with human behaviour to show that, for this and related systems, contrary to what many researchers may have *thought* these systems are doing, they are not really “learning representations of the sound inventory” of the training language, so much as learning good representations of the acoustics of speech – so good that they are very good models of “auditory distance” in human speech processing, but, notably, they lack the categorical effects on speech perception which are pervasive in human listening experiments, and they only show very weak effects of the language on which they are trained, unlike our human listeners. As well, I present new evidence that “speech is special” in human auditory processing, by comparing learned representations trained on speech data to the same models, trained on non-speech data. We show that representations trained on non-speech are very (very) poor predictors of human speech perception behaviour in experiments.

Martina Martinović at UQAM

Martina Martinović will give a colloquium talk this Wednesday 11/24 from 12:45-1:45 at UQAM. The talk will be in the De-Sève building, room DS-3470. Note that proof of vaccination is required to attend.
Title: Reversibility in specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts: Evidence from Wolof
Abstract:
Specificational sentences have long been attracting the attention of researchers, due to their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics. In this talk I address one property that is claimed to be the hallmark of both specificational copular sentences (“His most important quality is his honesty”) and specificational pseudoclefts (“What is most important about him is his honesty”) – the surface reversibility of their two constituents around the copula.  In the literature, this reversibility is not taken to necessarily indicate syntactic identity between this type of copular sentences and pseudoclefts. Specifically, while the raising of an underlying predicate to the structural subject position is nowadays the standard analysis of specificational copular sentences (e.g. Moro 1997, Mikkelsen 2005, den Dikken 2006), den Dikken et al. (2000) argue that pseudoclefts with the two constituent orders (wh-clause > NP vs. NP > wh-clause) are not derivationally related.

In Wolof (Niger-Congo) copular sentences, one constituent always A’-moves to Spec,CP, to the specifier of a complementizer that exhibits a subject/non-subject asymmetry. The other constituent is topicalized. The top-heaviness of copular sentences and the morphosyntactic properties of A’-movement in this language provide a window into the syntax of specificational sentences, especially with respect to reversibility. I argue that Wolof pseudoclefts do exhibit syntactic reversibility, in that either the NP or the wh-clause can raise to the structural subject position, contra den Dikken et al. (2000). Specificational copular sentences, on the other hand, do not show the same kind of reversibility. While I do not directly argue against a predicate inversion analysis for specificational copular sentences, I show that a non-inversion analysis can explain an otherwise puzzling pattern in this sentence type.

Colloquium, 11/05 – Heidi Harley

Please join us Friday, November 5th at 3:30pm for our next talk of the 2021-2022 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series. If you are planning to attend talks and have not yet registered, you can do so here (you only need to register once for the 2021-2022 year). After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Speaker: Heidi Harley (University of Arizona)
Abstract: Hiaki (Yaqui) exhibits an interesting formal overlap between nominalizations which create relative-clause like structures and nominalizations which create event nominals. The same nominalizer which usually derives a subject relative nominal also, when applied to aargumentless predicate such aa weather verb or an impersonal passive, derives an event nominal. I argue that this is because the event argument IS the ‘subject’ of aargumentless predicate, the only accessible argument for the nominalizer to reify. In the process of proposing a uniform semantics for the relative nominalizers and the event nominalizer, a detailed analysis of both is provided. The nominalizers are argued to select aAspP complement. In entity-referring relative nominals, null operator movement is involved; in the event-referring event nominals, no operator is needed or possible. The syntax and morphology of the relative nominalizers is worked out in detail, with particular attention to the genitive-marked subjects of object, oblique and locative relative nominals.

Michael Wagner @ Michigan State

Michael Wagner gave a colloquium talk at Michigan State University October 14th titled “Projecting and operating over syntactic alternatives”. The handout is available here: https://osf.io/h9cxn/

Abstract: Many grammatical phenomena have been analyzed based on the assumption that constituents can introduce semantic alternatives, and that these alternatives can project by point-wise semantic composition, following Hamblin’s 1973 analysis of questions.  This talk presents arguments that linguistics expressions can also introduce syntactic alternatives, that these alternatives can “project” in a point-wise fashion to create larger linguistic expressions, and that grammar can operate over sets of linguistic expressions. This syntactic view of alternatives is compatible with Katzir’s 2007 independent arguments that alternatives are, at least sometimes, structural. The evidence comes from data involving prosodic focus, association with focus, disjunction, and coordination.

Colloquium, 9/17 – Siva Reddy

Please join us Friday, September 17th at 3:30pm for the first talk of the 2021-2022 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series. If you are planning to attend talks, we ask that you register in advance here (you only need to register once for the 2021-2022 year). After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Speaker: Siva Reddy (McGill University)
Title: Universal Linguistic Representations
Abstract:
In this talk, I will present varying degrees of universal linguistic representations that can help us analyze and understand a language. These representations can serve two purposes: 1) one to answer scientific questions about a language, and 2) to build better language understanding applications like question answering systems. The varying degrees correspond to linguistic knowledge that is used to build the representations: from almost no linguistic knowledge (based on pure corpus co-occurrences) to syntax and semantics. We will try to develop representations that are widely applicable to many languages. In this process, I will also be proposing a new syntax-semantics interface to validate if universal syntax is descriptive enough to obtain universal semantics, specifically if universal dependency syntax can serve as a foundation to obtain semantic representations. If time permits, I will also connect these ideas to connectionist approaches which fundamentally challenge the entire linguistic tradition, a question that is inevitable given the enormous progress made by neural models of language. The talk also involves several demos.

2021/2022 Colloquium Series

Below is the schedule for this coming academic year’s Linguistics colloquium series. As usual, colloquium talks will take place Fridays at 3:30, with a mix of virtual and on-campus talks, with details announced closer to each event. Contact colloquium organizers Martina Martinović, Jing Ji, or Connie Ting with any questions.

1. Siva Reddy (McGill) – Sept 17
2. Heidi Harley (U. Arizona) – Nov 5
3. Ewan Dunbar (U. Toronto)  – Nov 26
4. Maribel Romero (U. Konstanz) – Jan 21
5. Anne Charity Hudley (UC Santa Barbara) – Feb 11
6. Gillian Ramchand (U. Tromsø) – Feb 18
7. Jessamyn Schertz (U. Toronto) – Mar 18
8. Chris Potts (Stanford) – Apr 8

Colloquium, 4/23 – Duane Watson

Please join us Friday April 23rd at 3:30pm for the final colloquium of the Winter 2021 semester.
Speaker: Duane Watson (Vanderbilt University)
Register here.
Title“Speaking for thinking: Understanding the link between cognition and speech”
Abstract:
One of the central debates in the language sciences is understanding whether linguistic representations can be divided into those that represent competence, i.e. linguistic knowledge, and those that represent performance, i.e. psychological processes that use that knowledge.  Prosody, which is the tone, rhythm, and intonation of speech, is perhaps unique among linguistic representations in that it conveys information about both linguistic structure and psychological processes.  In this talk, I will present work from my lab, as well as the language literature more generally, that suggests that prosody is used to optimize the speech signal for listeners as well as provide time for speakers to engage speech processes related to language production.  By studying prosody, language scientists can gain insight into language structure (e.g. syntax, semantics, and discourse), psychological processes (e.g. production and comprehension), and how the two interact.

Colloquium, 4/16 — Lisa Matthewson

Our next talk in our 2020-2021 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series will be given by Lisa Matthewson (University of British Columbia) on Friday, April 16th, at 3:30pm. The title and abstract are included below.

If you have not yet registered for the colloquium series, please do so here (you only need to register once for the 2021-2021 year). For more information on upcoming events in the McGill Linguistics department, please see our website.

Evidential-temporal interactions do not (always) come for free

Lisa Matthewson (joint work with Yuto Hirayama)

Evidentials are usually assumed to encode the speaker’s source of evidence for their utterance. However, a growing body of research proposes that evidence source does not need to be hardwired into the lexical entry of the evidential morphemes; instead, evidential restrictions can be derived from temporal or aspectual information in the rest of the sentence (e.g., Chung 2007, Lee 2013 for Korean; Koev 2017 for Bulgarian; Bowler 2018 for Tatar; Speas 2021 for Matses).

In this talk we argue that the derivation of evidence source from temporal information is not always tenable. Drawing on data from five languages from four families, we argue that evidentials can lexically encode restrictions on the time the speaker acquired their evidence for the truth of the prejacent proposition (the Evidence Acquisition Time). Evidentials can do this independently of temporal marking elsewhere in the sentence, and they sometimes must encode both temporal and evidence source information.

In particular, we argue that English inferential apparently and seem, the Japanese indirect evidential yooda and reportative sooda, and the St’át’imcets (a.k.a. Lillooet; Salish) perceived-evidence inferential an’ all require that the earliest time their prejacent p becomes true, EARLIEST(p) (cf. Beaver and Condoravdi 2003) precedes or coincides with the Evidence Acquisition Time. Conversely, English epistemic should and the German epistemic modal sollte encode the opposite relation: EARLIEST(p) must follow the EAT. A third group of evidentials encode no temporal restrictions: the English epistemic modal must, St’át’imcets inferential k’a and reportative ku7, and Gitksan (Tsimshianic) inferential ima and reportative gat. Comparing temporal evidentials with non-temporal ones supports the view that a temporal component is hardwired into the lexical semantics of the former set. Finally, the fact that the temporal contributions cross-cut the evidential ones supports the proposal that one cannot be reduced to the other in these languages.

Michael Wagner at UPenn

Michael gave a colloquium talk at UPenn on March 25, titled “Two dimensional parsing and the iambic-trochaic law”.
Abstract:
The ‘Iambic-Trochaic-Law’ of rhythmic perception holds that alternating long and short sounds are perceived as sequences of binary groups with final prominence; alternating soft and loud sounds as sequences of binary groups with initial prominence. This talk reports on experiments that illustrate how the ITL emerges from the way listeners parse the signal along two in principle orthogonal perceptual dimensions, grouping and prominence. Evidence from production experiments shows that intensity and duration correlate when cueing prominence (syllables carrying word stress or focal stress are loud and long) and anti-correlate when cueing phrasing (word-final and phrase-final syllables are soft and lengthened, word- and phrase-initial syllables are loud). Listeners exploit this cue relation when deciding what aspects of the signal to attribute to each dimension. Syllables that are excessively long are perceived as final and prominent (leading to the perception of iambs), syllables that are excessively loud as initial and prominent (leading to the perception of trochees), but these two cases (which the ITL is based on) are only a small part of the more general pattern, to which the notions of iamb and trochee are not central. The decisions about grouping and prominence are orthogonal in principle, but they compete for explaining overlapping cues, and they mutually constrain each other.  This perspective on prosodic parsing raises new questions about why exactly we often even perceive a rhythm when listening to sequences of acoustically identical tones or syllables (a phenomenon called ‘subjective rhythm’), as well as about rhythmic differences between languages.

Colloquium, 4/9 — James Crippen

Our next talk in our 2020-2021 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series will be given by James Crippen (McGill University) on Friday, April 9th at 3:30pm. The title of the talk is “Aspect and related phenomena in Tlingit: Looking down to composition”. The abstract can be found at the end of this message.

If you have not yet registered for the colloquium series, please do so here (you only need to register once for the 2020-2021 year). For more information on upcoming events in the McGill Linguistics department, please see our website.

Abstract:
I present the basic parameters involved in aspect, tense, mood, and modality in Tlingit, searching for some possible avenues for a formal, compositional analysis that matches the morphosyntax. Na-Dene languages like Tlingit, Navajo, and Ahtna are famous for their “elaborate aspectual systems” (Mithun 1999: 166). The complexity of these systems is opacified by their peculiar descriptive terminology (Cook 1984: 120; Mithun 1999: 362) which evolved apart from mainstream temporal semantics. Given a Minimalist syntactic model of the Tlingit verbal system (Crippen 2019), we would like a semantic model that proceeds compositionally along the same structures. But a compositional approach to aspect is incompatible with the standard non-compositional analyses in the family (Cook 1984: 119; Leer 1991: ch. 8; Axelrod 1993: ch. 3; Smith 1997: 329 n. 7; Young 2000). This suggests that the system needs to be deconstructed and reanalyzed with compositionality in mind. Looming large in the morphosyntax of aspect is the conjugation class system that expresses spatial semantics and which seems to be extended to time in the grammar. In addition, the lexical aspect classes known as “verb theme categories” (Kari 1979; Leer 1991: ch. 7; Axelrod 1993: ch. 5) and their rich systems of derivation (Kari 1992) directly impinge on the realization of aspect and other temporal meanings. I suggest some directions for the analysis of aspect that take into account the spatial and lexical aspect categories and point toward the possibility if not the reality of a compositional semantics for aspect and related phenomena in Tlingit and other Na-Dene languages.

References
Axelrod, Melissa. 1993. The semantics of time: Aspectual categorization in Koyukon Athabaskan. Lincoln, NE: Univ. of Nebraska Press.
Cook, Eung-Do. 1984. A Sarcee grammar. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Crippen, James A. 2019. The syntax in Tlingit verbs. Vancouver: UBC, PhD diss.
Kari, James. 1979. Athabaskan verb theme categories: Ahtna. Fairbanks, AK: ANLC.
Kari, James. 1992. Some concepts in Ahtna Athabaskan word formation. In Morphology Now, M. Aronoff (ed.), pp. 107–131. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Leer, Jeff. 1991. The schetic categories of the Tlingit verb. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, PhD diss.
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: CUP.
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrect: Kluwer Academic.
Young, Robert W. 2000. The Navajo verb system: An overview. Albuquerque: Univ. of New Mexico Press.

Colloquium, 3/26 — Yael Sharvit

The next talk in our 2020-2021 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series will be given by Yael Sharvit (University of California, Los Angeles) on Friday, March 26th at 3:30pm. The title of the talk is “Thoughts on disjunction in declarative and interrogative clauses”. 

If you have not yet registered for the colloquium series, please do so here (you only need to register once for the 2020-2021 year). For more information on upcoming events in the McGill Linguistics department, please see our website.

Abstract: In this talk I discuss some problems regarding the composition of constituent and non-constituent questions. I show how some possible solutions to these problems are affected by “filtering” presuppositions in declarative as well as interrogative disjunctive clauses.

Jessica Coon at Leipzig and UCLA

Jessica Coon presented collaborative work with recent postdoctoral fellow, Nico Baier, and with Ted Levin at two invited talks recently: November 11th at Leipzig University, and November 20th at UCLA. The title and abstract are below. A manuscript version is available on LingBuzz: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004545.

“Mayan Agent Focus and the Ergative Extraction Constraint”

Many languages of the Mayan family restrict the extraction of transitive (ergative) subjects for focus, wh-questions, and relativization (Ā-extraction). We follow Aissen (2017) in labelling this restriction the ergative extraction constraint (EEC). In this paper, we offer a unified account of the EEC within Mayan languages, as well as an analysis of the special construction known as Agent Focus (AF) used to circumvent it. Specifically, we propose that the EEC has a similar source across the subset of Mayan languages which exhibit it: intervention. The intervention problem is created when an object DP structurally intervenes between the Ā-probe on C and the ergative subject. Evidence that intervention by the object is the source of the problem comes from a handful of exceptional contexts which permit transitive subjects to extract in languages which normally ban this extraction. We argue specifically that the problem with Ā-extracting the ergative subject across the intervening object connects to the requirements of the Ā-probe on C: the probe on C is bundled to search simultaneously for [Ā] and [D] features. Adapting the proposal of Coon and Keine (to appear), we argue that in configurations in which a DP object intervenes between the probe on C and an Ā-subject, conflicting requirements on movement lead to a derivational crash. This paper both contributes to our understanding of parametric variation internal to the Mayan family, as well as to the discussion of variation in Ā-extraction asymmetries and syntactic ergativity cross-linguistically.

Colloquium, 11/20 — Emily Elfner

The next talk in our 2020-2021 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series will be given by Emily Elfner (York University) on Friday, November 20th at 3:30pm. The title of the talk is “Evaluating evidence for recursive prosodic structure”.

If you have not yet registered for the colloquium series, please do so here (you only need to register once for the 2020-2021 year).

Abstract: In much recent work on the syntax-prosody interface, the question of whether recursion is present in prosodic structure has played a key role (for example, Wagner 2005, 2010; Selkirk 2009, 2011, among others). In particular, in theories of the syntax-prosody interface such as Match Theory (Selkirk 2009, 2011), which derive prosodic constituents directly from syntactic structure, prosodic structure is predicted to show by default a degree of recursion that arguably is comparable with the depth of the nested hierarchical structure found in syntax.

One major question which has surfaced is the extent to which the level of recursive prosodic structure predicted by syntactic structure is universal. For example, some languages have been argued to show overt phonological and phonetic reflexes of recursion, thus providing apparent empirical support for the recursive structures predicted by syntactic structure in a number of languages, such as Irish (Elfner 2012, 2015), Basque (Elordieta 2015), and Swedish (Myrberg 2013). However, other languages may not show such overt evidence, as it has long been assumed that the ways that languages mark prosodic phrase edges and heads is language-specific; for example, some of the predicted prosodic phrases may be marked overtly only on one edge (left or right), or not at all. Conversely, we cannot always assume that overt evidence of a prosodic boundary indicates the presence of a syntactic boundary.

Therefore, the question remains: if there is no overt evidence of the edges of certain prosodic constituents in a particular language, to what extent can we posit their existence based on theoretical predictions relating to hierarchical structure and syntax-prosody mapping alone? In this talk, I will explore this question in relation to a case study on the prosodic structure of Irish, which provides an apparent conflict between prosodic cues which provide evidence for hierarchal syntactic structure and domain juncture (Elfner 2012, 2016).

Colloquium, 10/16 — Peter Jenks

The next talk in our 2020-2021 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series will be given by Peter Jenks (UC Berkeley) on Friday, October 16th at 3:30pm. The title of the talk is “Are indices syntactically represented?”. The abstract is below.

If you have not yet registered for the colloquium series, please do so here (you only need to register once for the 2020-2021 year).

Abstract: The status of indices in syntactic representations is unclear. While indices are frequently used for expository purposes, they have no syntactic status in the copy theory of movement (Corver & Nunes 2007) or Agree-based analyses binding phenomena (Reuland 2011, Vanden Wyngaerd 2011). In this talk I argue that the presence versus absence of indices explain language-internal splits in definiteness and pronouns in different languages, while the ability of names to violate condition C in Thai receives a natural explanation if we treat names in Thai but not English as contextually restricted indices. The resulting view is one where indices are a component of linguistic representations, but not all referential expressions contain them. This view is consistent with Tayna Reinhart’s approach to Conditions B and C (Grodzinsky & Reinhart 1993), and entails that indices should play a more important role in syntactic theory than they currently do.

Colloquium, 9/18 – Laura Dilley

The first talk in our 2020-2021 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series will be given by Laura Dilley (Michigan State University) this Friday, September 18 at 3:30 pm.

If you are planning to attend talks, we would like you to register in advance with the following link (you only need to register once for the 2020-2021 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series): https://mcgill.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJUrdumvrD8iH9IjXu6ziqP0IjxFkciJxwj9.

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

Title:  “Language and social brains: Toward understanding mechanisms and typologies of prosody and tone”

Abstract: The past ~70 years of linguistic research have seen dramatic changes in the way researchers frame and conceptualize language as a human capacity and activity. In this talk I will present a synthesis of key insights from these past decades which leads to a view that language structure and meaning is grounded in social dynamics of perception, action, and cognition within ecological niches. Language perception does not entail, as some have argued, mere recovery of abstract linguistic units; rather, the very process of what those units are understood to be depends on social and ecological contexts. Framed in this way, innate brain mechanisms tuned to extraction of information over language-relevant timescales, together with the history of short- and long-term experiences over a lifetime, give rise to emergent understandings of meaning, as well as the apprehension of linguistic form and content. I will present the case of prosody, long held to be a mere overlay on the implicitly more foundational segmental underpinning, and challenge some long-held assumptions about the structure of prosody and how it contributes to meaning. With the benefit of insights of original thinkers who have come before, as well as the principle of Ockham’s Razor, I will argue that viewing human linguistic capacities as grounded in inherent temporal dynamics of social brains and bodies fosters novel connections among linguistic sub-disciplines and brings new questions into focus. Viewed through this lens, I assert that is possible to make headway toward understanding some of the most challenging domains of linguistic inquiry, namely typology, meaning and structure of tone and prosody. 

2020–2021 Colloquium Series

McLing is pleased to announce this year’s colloquium series. As always, colloquium talks will take place Fridays at 3:30. This year, all talks will take place on Zoom due to the suspension of campus activities. Details about each talk, and pre- and post-colloquium events will be announced closer to the events. 

1. Laura Dilley (Michigan State) – Sept 18
2. Peter Jenks (UC Berkeley) – Oct 16
3. Emily Elfner (York University)  – Nov 20
4. Viola Schmitt (University Graz) – Feb 26
5. Yael Sharvit (UCLA) – Mar 26
6. Lisa Matthewson (UBC) – Apr 16
7. Duane Watson (Vanderbilt) –  Apr 23

2020/2021 Linguistics Colloquium Series

Here is our colloquium schedule for the upcoming academic year. As always, talks will take place Fridays at 3:30 (room/Zoom url TBA). Mark your calendars!

– September 18: Laura Dilley (http://speechlab.cas.msu.edu)

Colloquium, 3/13 — Laura Dilley

We are pleased to announce that the next talk in our 2019-20 McGill Linguistics Colloquium Series will be by Laura Dilley (Michigan State University) on Friday, March 13 at 3:30 pm in the Education Building room 433.

The title of the talk is TBA. We will make an updated announcement shortly with the updated title and abstract. All are welcome to attend.

« Older Entries
Blog authors are solely responsible for the content of the blogs listed in the directory. Neither the content of these blogs, nor the links to other web sites, are screened, approved, reviewed or endorsed by McGill University. The text and other material on these blogs are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or information of McGill.