Papers and presentations

Papers

Attraction at a distance: Ā-movement and Case. Submitted.

click here for a version of the manuscript.

Some languages allow extraction of possessors from only a subset of nominals. I show that a juxtaposition of two proposals about Case and Agree [Rackowski & Richards (2005), Bobaljik (2008)] correctly predicts these cross-linguistic restrictions on possessor extraction.

Licensing with Case: evidence from Kikuyu. Submitted.

click here for a version of the manuscript.

I show that restrictions the position of nominals in Kikuyu, a Bantu language spoken primarily in Kenya, can be explained straightforwardly given a version of Dependent Case [Marantz (1991), Baker (2015), Levin (2015)] in which Dependent Case has a licensing function, even in languages that don’t have overt morphological case marking, like Kikuyu.

Syntactic Binarity Effects: Contiguity in Bùlì. Submitted.

click here for version of the manuscript.

Bùlì, a Gur language spoken primarily in Ghana, allows wh-words to remain in-situ. However, the presence of two or more phonological words to the right of an in-situ wh-word is not allowed. I show that a version of Richards’ (2016) Contiguity explains this basic fact, and makes many more correct predictions about the distribution of wh-words in the language.

Prosodic Intervention. Submitted.

click here for a version of the manuscript.

Some languages [among them, Japanese and Korean] require leftward scrambling of wh-words over certain quantificational subjects. Others [namely, Egyptian Arabic] don’t, but otherwise have restrictions on the distribution of wh-words like Japanese and Korean. I argue that this difference derives from differences in the prosody of the relevant languages.

Dependent Case as a licenser in Kikuyu. Proceedings of NELS 47. In prep

Not done yet!

In-situ Wh-phrases in Superiority Violating Contexts don’t have to be In-Situ. In: A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky, MITWPL.

click here for a pre-print version of the paper.

In English, it has been argued [Pesetsky (2000), Kotek (2014)] that the in-situ wh-phrase in a sentence like Which boy did you give which candy bar to remains in-situ even at LF. I give evidence in this paper from extraposition and parasitic gap licensing which shows that this can’t always be the case.

Case Sensitive Ā-movement. Proceedings of NELS 46.

click here for a pre-print version of the paper.

Presentations

May 2017. The ι-boundedness of A-scrambling. WAFL 13, ICU.

March 2017. Contiguity Preservation: Another Look at Defective Intervention. Syntax Square, MIT.

 click here for a copy of the handout.

February 2017. Contiguity in Bùlì. David Pesetsky @ 60. MIT.

click here for the poster I presented.

December 2016. Predicate fronting and Copy Pronunciation. Syntax Square, MIT.

click here for a copy of the handout.

November 2016. Against strength and weakness: Contiguity in Bùlì. Syntax Square, MIT.

click here for a copy of the handout.

November 2016. Contiguity in Bùlì. Colloquium Talk, Brandeis.

October 2016. Dependent Case as a licenser in Kikuyu. NELS 47, UMass Amherst.

click here for the poster I presented.

July 2016. A prosodic approach to intervention. The Effects of Constituency on Sentence Phonology, UMass Amherst.

click here for the poster I presented.

March 2016. Real Object Agreement in Tigre? Syntax Square, MIT

March 2016. Abstract Dependent Case: Evidence from Kikuyu. ACAL 47, UC Berkeley.

click here for the handout I presented.

October 2015. Licensing with Case: evidence from Kikuyu. ms. Ling-Lunch, MIT

click here for the handout I presented.

October 2015. Attraction at a distance: Ā-movement and Case. NELS 46, Concordia

click here for the poster I presented.

April 2015. Attraction at a distance: A’-movement and Case. Syntax Square, MIT

October 2014. A long distance subject/object extraction asymmetry. Syntax Square, MIT