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:20220313T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20221106T090000
END:STANDARD
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
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231101T120000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231101T130000
DTSTAMP:20231030T185847Z
CREATED:20231030T174229Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231030T185847Z
UID:161459-1698840000-1698843600@linguistics.ucla.edu
SUMMARY:Syntax/Semantics Seminar - Hunter Johnson
DESCRIPTION:  \nUnaccusativity and the active/stative split in Guarani \n\n\n\n\n\nGuarani is known as one of the canonical active/stative languages in which intransitive verbs vary in whether they take so-called active (looks like subject) or so-called stative (looks like object) agreement. However\, there are two problems with this view: i) lots of exceptions are attested and ii) it begs the question of how verbal agreement can be sensitive to the semantic content of the root. In this talk\, I reframe the active/stative split as syntactic and not strictly semantic. I propose that actives are unergatives and statives are unaccusatives\, based on novel language-internal diagnostics ( i) passivization\, ii) additional argument introduction\, and iii) imperatives). The question still remains of how verbal agreement is sensitive to unaccusativity. I model this using Deal’s (2015\, 2022) Interaction and Satisfaction model\, with an adaptation from Bejar (2003). In short\, probes become less picky after failed Agree\, allowing us to model instances of non-fatal failed Agree.
URL:https://linguistics.ucla.edu/event/syntax-semantics-seminar-hunter-johnson-2/
CATEGORIES:Syntax/Semantics Seminar
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR