BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Department of Linguistics - UCLA - ECPv6.17.4.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Department of Linguistics - UCLA
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://linguistics.ucla.edu
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Department of Linguistics - UCLA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Los_Angeles
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20230312T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20231105T090000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20240310T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20241103T090000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20250309T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20251102T090000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240301T110000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240301T130000
DTSTAMP:20240220T182551Z
CREATED:20231005T173535Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240220T182551Z
UID:137300-1709290800-1709298000@linguistics.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium Talk - Amy Rose Deal
DESCRIPTION:Dependent case by Agree: Ergative in Shawi (joint work with Emily Clem\, UCSD)Ergative and accusative behave as dependent cases insofar as their appearance on a nominal depends on the presence of another nominal in the same domain. Recent work on case theory has taken the phenomenon of case dependency to challenge the idea that case is assigned via the operation Agree. Focusing on the Shawi language (Kawapanan; Peru)\, we show not only that patterns of case dependency can be captured via Agree\, but also that doing so opens up a new way of understanding the typology of global case splits. Ergative in Shawi appears when the subject is at least as high as the object on the person hierarchy—a global split pattern—and can be accompanied by explicit realization of the object’s features on the subject nominal (“object agreement on the subject”). We propose that ergative arises in Shawi when a probe on v Agrees with both the object and the subject\, transferring object features to the subject; these features are spelled out as ergative case and as object agreement. In general\, we show that dependent cases\, both ergative and accusative\, can be seen as a morphological outcome of syntactic Agree between a probe and a second goal\, realizing features on that goal that were transferred from a previous goal in an earlier step of Agree. \n  \nLocation – Royce Hall 362
URL:https://linguistics.ucla.edu/event/colloquium-talk-amy-rose-deal/
CATEGORIES:Colloquium
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240308T110000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240308T130000
DTSTAMP:20240131T184400Z
CREATED:20240131T184400Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T184400Z
UID:251070-1709895600-1709902800@linguistics.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Colloquium Talk - Chris Kennedy: Pragmatic Indecision
DESCRIPTION:Pragmatic Indecision \n\n\n\nVague predicates are obligatorily tolerant (Wright 1973).  For example\, the positive form gradable adjective ‘long’ cannot be used to draw a sharp distinction\, even when the facts of the context of utterance and the semantic properties of the sentence in which it occurs otherwise conspire to make such uses possible:  in a context in which there are exactly two salient objects A and B\, which are clearly but only slightly different in length\, it is infelicitous to use “the long one” to refer to the longer of the two; we must say “the longer one.” This despite the fact that the presuppositions of the definite article and the lexical semantic features of ‘long’ that underwrite a compositional account of the comparative ought to allow for such a use. In this talk\, I will do three things.  First\, I will argue that no existing account of vagueness — neither epistemic nor expressivist nor contextual nor semantic nor cognitive nor distributional — provides a satisfactory explanation for why tolerance persists in examples like the one above.  Second\, I will show that attempts to eliminate the challenge presented by these kinds of examples through appeal to a grammatical decomposition of positive form adjectives into a non-vague root and a vague “pos” morpheme are also unsatisfactory\, because they fail to generalize to other kinds of examples that manifest exactly the same behavior but cannot plausibly be analyzed in this way.  And finally\, I will outline an alternative\, pragmatic account of vagueness\, in which  application of a vague predicate constitutes a “vote” for a particular resolution of linguistic indeterminacy\, and tolerance emerges from a normative constraint treating such votes as subject to principles of social choice. This account is consistent with a transparent compositional relation between positive and comparative (in which the latter is derived from the former)\, and generalizes to non-adjectival cases of vagueness as well. \n\nLocation: Royce Hall 362
URL:https://linguistics.ucla.edu/event/colloquium-talk-chris-kennedy-pragmatic-indecision/
CATEGORIES:Colloquium
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR