Monday, June 9, 2025

Togo Diary (June July 2025)

June 14

This last week (Tuesday-Saturday), I taught introduction to syntax to a group of nine English master’s students at the University of Lome. Two of the students were female, seven of them male. The participants also included Professor Essizewa, professor of English linguistics, and M., his assistant. Most of the time, there were 11 people present. 

Prof. Essizewa was my student and collaborator at NYU. I wrote to him several years ago, and told him I would like to teach a short course at the university, but I had to delay several times. Finally, everything came together this summer. Without Professor Essizewa, it would not have been possible to organize this course.

I taught from 9am to 12noon, with a break from 10:30am to 11:00am. Then I met with one or two students each day for about half an hour after the course. During the meetings, I talked to them about their master’s projects, and also about studying in the United States. After that, Prof. and I went to the faculty cafeteria to eat. That meal cost exactly 3,500 CFA each day, which is less than seven dollars. This is where I learned of the fufu pounding machine. Then, on most days, I called Gozem to pick me up, arriving home by around 2:30pm.

One of the wonderful things about the course was the variety of languages present: We had Ewe (four speakers), Mina (related to Ewe, one speaker), Moba (three speakers, including M.), Kabiye (two speakers, including Prof.), and Fulfulde (one speaker). These languages came up in various ways during the course. In just a short period of time, I learned many things (including about Ewe).

My idea was to teach them introduction to syntax, using the minimalist framework, in particular the operation Merge, as a pedagogical tool. The basic schedule went as follows: 

Day 1: What is syntax? UG, I-language. 

Day 2: Merge and constituent structure tests. 

Day 3: TP, CP, DP. 

Day 4: practice tree drawing (the whole day). 

Day 5: Internal Merge and then optional presentations.

There were three presentations: one on focus in Moba, one on VP-fronting in Ewe, and one on postpositions in Kabiye.

The students had a high level of English, but were a bit shy. So I learned all of their names and started calling on them by name. That helped. It also helped that they had some background in syntax, including some basic knowledge of generative grammar and some knowledge of Role and Reference Grammar.

I tried to focus on basic skills. For example, one basic skill is to have them look at a tree, and tell me what does not work in that tree (e.g., is the constituent structure correct, is the labeling correct, etc.). So everybody in the class had lots of opportunity to draw trees on the board, then we as a class would discuss them, and try to improve upon them. Instead of embarrassing the students, this exercise had the effect of empowering them. I told them that the only way to learn a topic well, is to make mistakes, and understand how to fix them.

On the last day, the students presented me with a beautiful piece of cloth that they had bought at the grand marche (asigame). It meant that they appreciated my effort, and that they wanted to show me their appreciation. I love that piece of cloth so much. I am going to have nice African style outfit made, and then I will wear it at NYU when I teach.

I want to run the school again next year. I already have ideas to make it better for the students: 1. I think it should be two weeks, instead of one. That way, we could go fairly deeply into a few topics, and consider them at leisurely pace. In a one-week course, it is very tempting to rush through material. 2. I will try to come up with stipends for next time. Even a small stipend would help the students with expenses associated with the school, such as food and transportation. 3. If I have two weeks, I can require a small project proposal in syntax by the end of the two weeks. Each student would write a three-page proposal on some topic in syntax. Then perhaps, some of them will pursue those projects for their master’s project.

June 14

On the zemijan, the wind rushing past us, I clasp the driver’s shoulders. He doesn’t object, even if it is unusual. The Togolese do not grab hold of anything while riding on the back of a zemijan. Their hands just dangle to side, or maybe hold a purse held in their lap.

I feel clearly that there is only a thin porous membrane between the reality where I live and the reality where I fall off the zemijan and hit my head on the pavement. As we drive, I can picture it. Just one bump, and I go down on the ground. So I am terrified.

Of course, we have helmets. If you are caught without a helmet, the charge is 5,000 CFA, for which you will not receive a receipt. So everybody, with rare exceptions, wears a helmet. But the helmet I have been given is too small for me. It barely fits on my head, and the strap does not reach around my chin. If I fell, it would just pop off, and I would be a dead man. But the driver says that  even if the strap is not fastened, the soldiers are satisfied. So I jump on, and off we go.

June 14

Tragedy strikes. My cell phone fell into a bucket of water. No Gozem today. No Whatsapp. I am on my own with the zemidjan to get to school. I have no way to contact people. I am all of the sudden back in 1985, and in the Peace Corps. Roughing it.

I went to bathe last night around 6:30pm, by which time it is already getting dark out. The bathroom is nice, with a toilette and a shower stall, but there is no lighting there. Also, there is no running water. So I turned the light of my cell phone on, and perched it on the sink to take a bucket shower. Piece of advice: never perch your cell phone above the water bucket when you are taking a bucket shower.

I started digging around in my toiletry bag for my razor, and the bag bumped up against my cell phone, which then fell into the watery abyss. I snatched it our right away, and the light was still on, but it started to ficker, so I turned it off. My niece rushed the phone to the “depanneur”, who now has it. We will hear the verdict today at 3:00pm. Can it be repaired, or is it dead? If dead, then I need to buy a new phone.

Overall, I am proud of my response. When it happened, I said “shit!”, but felt no emotion at all. No anger, or frustration, or depression, or regret. It was as if my life was a train and it branched off on another set of tracks. I just felt, “OK, what now?”. Then I started to think of the next steps. I wish I could apply this model more generally.

June 11

Off to teach at the University of Lome. My mode of transportation is Gozem, which is a version of Uber used by the Togolese. It has the advantage of being able to locate your coordinates precisely, so the driver can find you. There are generally no street signs in Togo, and people do not know the names of streets. Within neighborhoods, there are thousands of nameless small streets and passageways, all of them are dirt roads filled with potholes. But if you call the taxi on Gozem, it generally arrives within 10-15 minutes, and you are off. Another benefit is that Gozem calculates the fare, in terms of distance travelled. So there is no haggling over price. Of course, the alternative is the ever present zemijan, which I described in an earlier post. But you risk head injuries with that, so the taxi is preferable whenever possible.

For all of my adult life, I have taken a stance against smart phones, never buying and never using them. I feared the presence of more technology in my pocket, drawing me in, like social media and the internet can draw one in. I have seen so many students obsessively attached to their smart phones, and I did not want that for myself. But Togo has finally broken me. Because of Gozem and Whatsapp, I need to have a smart phone in Togo. I guess it is the beginning of the end for my private individual mental life.

My taxi trip goes from Adidogme Wessome to the University of Lome, near the mosque found on campus. I have a very nice airconditioned classroom in a newly built building, with a whiteboard and markers. I am teaching a small set of master’s students in the English linguistics program. Evidently the notice was also sent to the French linguistics program, but none of their students showed up. My lectures are all in English, and the question are all in English too. Since the students are master’s students, their level of English is high, but they don’t get much of a chance to practice speaking English, since Togo is a francophone country. Also, the students seem a bit shy to me, but I am calling on them by name, so that brings them out of their shells.

I am teaching certain parts of my undergraduate linguistics course (we call it “Grammatical Analysis I”). I assembled the notes, and had them sent by e-mail to the students. I call it “A Minimalist Introduction to Syntactic Theory”, mostly because I make heavy use of Merge in introducing phrase structure and movement. But it is not meant to be a comprehensive introduction to minimalism, since I do not get into issues like Agree. The students mostly just read the notes from their phones or computers. I did not make any paper copies at all. There is no need to.

The students have learned syntax in their program, but it is Role and Reference grammar. I actually know nothing about that framework. It strikes me that it is not very widely used in the United States. Mentally, I associate it with Robert Van Valin and Buffalo University. Maybe it is more widely used in typology literature. I make a mental note to do some research on it later.

On the ride home from the university today, I got a Gozem and was charged 4,125 CFA (which is 7 dollars and 19 cents). Even though it is a ridiculously low price in the American system, it is just about double the usual price for my route. I told the driver that it was double the usual price, and he told me it was because it was raining, and there was a “marjoration”. I think he cheated me, but I cannot quite figure out how.

June 8

Yesterday, I went to church, Eglise de la Percee Divine, located just down the block from where I am staying (cartier Adidigome Wessome). The name translates to “Church of the Divine Breakthrough.” I cannot find very much information about them online, but apparently, they came to Togo just a few years ago.

They are what the Togolese Ewe call gbOgbOme tsOtsi (O = open “o”). Literally, this means “breathing church” (to indicate a "spiritual church"). It now covers the wide array of non-Catholic churches that all seem to be in the Pentecostal tradition. There is a lot of emphasis on the holy spirt, receiving the holy spirt (gbOgbO kOkOE), intense praying, people falling into trances, etc. There are many such little splinter churches.

This church in particular seemed to be organized around a kind of rock band, including two electric guitars, a modern drum kit, an electric piano and a trumpet. Singers used mics that were connected to two massive speakers off to the side. Most of the church involved that band playing music in some way or the other. Even when the sermon was being delivered, they played along as background music. The prayers seemed to be accompanied by even louder background music. Since the room was not that big, the sound resonated loudly everywhere. When I left the building, I felt like I was going deaf.

Off to the side, there were some traditional Ewe drums, but they were only used once when the traditional choir sang, otherwise, it was just the rock band that provided music. That is unfortunate, since I love the sound of traditional Ewe drums, which are played quite a bit in the EPP church that I go to in the US.

At other times, there were singers holding mics, leading the church in song. The songs got the whole congregation (around 200 people) dancing energetically. Finally, one large lady just in front of us raised her hands and started screaming and spinning. As she fell to the ground, she hit several rows of plastic chairs which were all quickly cleared away. Once on the ground she continued shaking and screaming. Eventually, after around 5 minutes, they whisked her off somewhere to the side. I did not see where they took her.

The room had fans everywhere, on the ceiling and on the sides, trying to diminish the Togolese humidity and heat. But for me, the fans added another source of noise, making it hard to hear the sermon. The sermon itself was delivered in English, French and Ewe. I think that they were speaking English because that day they had some American visitors. Once something is said in one language, it is immediately translated to another. Usually, the pastor will say something in Ewe, and it will be immediately translated to French. You might think this would be a great way to pick up Ewe and French, but the sound was distorted, and there was lots of other noise in the room (including the fan, and the band’s background music). So I hardly heard anything. Even when they spoke English, I barely understood it.

They had three large electronic screens hanging from the ceiling. When the sermon started, they projected a Bible verse onto the screens in French, which formed the basis of the sermon. Somebody would read what was projected, then the pastor would take over commenting on it. The verse was about feeding children before feeding dogs, and how dogs will still eat the crumbs that fall from the table. When the screens were not projecting verse, there was a picture of what seemed to be wheat fields, with clouds rolling over them. 

The church started early the morning (around half past seven?) and ended after one in the afternoon. Apparently, it went on a bit long because of the visitors. I arrived at 9:00am and left at around 12:00noon, since I had a previous lunch appointment with a colleague. The length of the service may have also had something to do with the fact that today is Lundi de Pentecote, which is a national day off (jour ferrier) in Togo. Apparently nobody is going to work day.

That was my Sunday morning at church.

June 7

I took my first ride on a zemijan today. It is a motorcycle you pay to go places. I needed to buy some shampoo, so I took the zemijan from my residence in Adidogome, to the Champion in Adidogome. When I was in the Peace Corps, we did not have zemijan, nor did we have Champion. As for the latter, there was an SGGG in the heart of Lome that we as volunteers used to go to from time to time. It was basically a small modern supermarket, it is now been replaced by Champion and a few other chains (Ramco). 

I seem to recall that public transportation in that epoch was arranged around taxis and small transportation vans. Am I misremembering? I don't recall ever taking a zemijan, so it is something relatively recent. I believe the term zemijan itself comes from Fongbe, and that the Togolese borrowed the concept and the term from Benin. It is basically a way for the many unemployed to make a little money, transporting people around on the back of a motorcycle. It is by far the main form of public transportation now, with Gozem (a form of Uber) coming in second.

I hopped on the back, and put my feet on the little foot stands. I am 6'4'', over 300lbs, so I am a bit big for a comfortable ride. I kept thinking I would pop off the back and hit the street. As a result, I clasped onto the driver's shoulders, which Togolese never do: they ride without holding anything, just putting their hands to the side. The helmets that they have do not fit me, so I used my own biking helmet. It worked just as well. 

The driver was chatty so he was asking me how I learned Ewe. Since the wind was blowing, and we were in traffic, I could barely hear him. As we were driving he said, "Should I run fast" in Ewe, since he wanted to accelerate. I told him "Don't run fast, please". 

As with all purchases, the usual bargaining starts from Yovo prices. Yovo is "white person" in Ewe. The driver wanted 1000 CFA (two dollars), which I knew was not the price. So it took a few back and forths, and pleading on both sides, before I got him to a reasonable approximation of the right price 500 CFA. It does not bother me, I just count it as practice in Ewe.

That was my first ride.

June 7

When I was in Botswana, I lived in Block 6, which is a middle class neighborhood of Gaborone. It is no different from many other such neighborhoods. In fact, I would say that more than half of Gaborone looks like Block 6. Every house in Block 6 has the following items: AC, TV, wifi, geyser (water heater), running water, security fence, security door. Inside the house, there will be a kitchen and a nice bathroom (with a porcelain toilette and shower stall). People do not take bucket showers in those houses. Many of them have garages or places to park the car, and a large number have beautiful rock and tree gardens. 

These houses belong to professionals of various kinds, including government workers, teachers, doctors, lawyers, business people. The neighborhoods often contain a mix of Batswana and other nationalities, especially Indians. Everybody seems to get along fine.

But then, there id a street that dividesBlock 6 from Mogoditshane (a town on the outskirts of Gaborone). On one side of the street there is a nice middle class neighborhood, and on the other there are the lower income households of Mogoditshane. 

The point of this message is that in Lome, it is very rare to find neighborhoods like Block 6. Rather, most of Lome (with a few exceptions) is like Mogoditshane. To me, this suggests that the middle class in Lome is not very big, as compared with Gaborone. I am not talking about absolutes -- there are wealthy people in Lome and poor people in Gaborone. Rather, I am talking about statistics. A significant fraction of the people in Gaborone live a middle class life, whereas the vast majority of the people in Lome are struggling to get by day by day, week by week. I definitely could be off in this assessment, but that is the impression I have.

Bottom line: Botswana is a relatively wealthy country in Africa, and Togo is a relatively poor one. Living in one is a completely different experience from living in the other. In some ways, living in Botswana is a lot like living in the US. To get food, one goes to a supermarket and buys food. In fact, most of the Botswana shop in places like Choppies in Gaborone. But very few Togolese shop in supermarkets in Lome (even though they are becoming more and more common). Rather, they buy their food in open markets and from vendors and small shops dotting the city.

June 7

After the Togolese have welcomed me this last week with open arms and their characteristic sense of humor, to learn of this travel ban is a shame for me. I am ashamed of my government.

June 5

The biggest problem I encountered arriving in Togo was the loss of my luggage. I left the US on May 31 and arrived in Abidjan on Sunday June 1st. Then I left Abidjan June 1st to go to Lome. As I mentioned previously, my flight in Abidjan was delayed twice, so we left at around 11:00pm, and arrived after midnight. To my horror, my luggage did not arrive with me, and so I left the airport with the clothes on my back. Monday, I went back to the airport to check, but I forgot to bring the "declaration" of loss with me, and so they would not let me into the airport. I told the man: "Ca, ce n'est pas bon.", and he responded: "Donc, il faut aller fair ce qui est bon." On Tuesday, I went back with the declaration in hand, driving back and forth to the airport in an Uber, at least an hour each way. Still no luggage. Finally, I just called them up on Wednesday, and they said my luggage was back. So I collected it. I feel that what I have learned in Togo so far is the skill of retrieving lost luggage from the Lome airport.

June 5

In Togo with an internet connection! Everything is a lesson now. Everything is new again. First impressions of Lome, before I forget. Once you get on to the streets, it is swarming with people. The country is small, but the population per area is large (compared to Botswana, for example). So Lome is packed. What magnifies the impression is the terrible presence of the zemijan. Most people get around nowadays by hiring a motorcycle. You ride on the back, and it takes you wherever you want to go for a small fee. Unlike Botswana and Ghana, there do not seem to be any combis or trotro (small vans that transport people to different locations). The public transportation section is basically the zemijan. So the streets are a total mess. There are some cars and taxis driving around, but they are surrounded by a throng of zemijan. And this means there are lots and lots of accidents, as I know from personal experience now. Driving from the market to my relative's house, a motorcycle hit the back of our taxi, smashing the window and blowing it out. THUMP! There was glass all over the place. Luckily none of us got hurt, nor did the motorcycle driver. But it just shows how congested things have become.

June 1

Saving grace, silver lining, hidden gem: The airport at Abidjan has a shower! I just took a shower. This nearly makes up for everything, including the double delay and 10 hour layover. What a refreshing treat. The air conditioning is weak. The storm clouds are overhead. The tropics press against the windows, and I have had a nice shower. 

I am supposed to leave at 10:00pm and arrive at 11:30pm. But they have changed times twice already. The people picking me up have had to be notified twice, and they are now skeptical themselves. They are asking questions. 

The journey enters its final stage.

June 1

I am in the business class lounge in Abidjan. The flight went without problems, and I even got some sleep in. Believe it or not, even business class feels a little tight for me, since I am tall and heavy at the same time. When I tried to change money in the airport, they directed me to the pharmacy, which is where you change money in the airport. In my broken French, I tried to express to the pharmacist that the usual situation involves a special store/shop whose function it is to change money. She was completely unimpressed, and just said something about being able to change "en bas" if I had a police escort. Now, I am here until 10:00pm at night. So I just need to pass the day in the lounge.

June 1

Guess what! I am flying business class. Part of the reason is that it is a bit cheaper on Air Ethiopia, so I can afford it. I believe this is the first time I have purchased a business class ticket, instead of being given an upgrade for one reason or the other. What do you get for it? First, check-in is shorter. You have your own line, and nobody is in that line. So instead of waiting an hour, it is instantaneous. That is a perk, right? Then there is the lounge, which is fully stocked, dinner, snacks, wine, beer, comfortable chairs, wifi, just a level of comfort up. BTW, these people in the lounge they look like regular people to me. So we are all just here, having found some way or the other to creep onto business class. Then on the plane, the business class cabin has fewer people and is spacious, with its own restroom. The seats are wider and bigger, and lie flat at night for a nap. So the sharp edges of long distance travel are dulled just a bit with business class.

May 31

I am having problems with my computer, so I will keep this short. I am in the T7 Horizon Lounge at JFK, awaiting my Air Ethiopia flight at 10:00pm. Check-in was a breeze, but security took half an hour in a slow line. Now, I rest up a bit in the lounge. Air Ethiopia has created a network all over Africa. They fly to all the countries, and are cheaper than their American and European competitors. I know they fly to West Africa quite a bit, and they were also in Botswana. So they are kind of like the combi/trotro service for all of Africa. I fly into Abidjan after a 10 hour flight (compared the usual 16 hour flights to SA), then I have a long layover of about 10 hours in Abidjan. AIr Cote-d'Ivoire has already changed by flight time twice. The original layover was a reasonable 2 hours, not it is 10. From what I have heard, this kind of delay is common for them. But there is no other way I am getting to Lome, so I must abide.

May 30

My last full day on US soil, until tomorrow I am on the road again. "On the road", the great American novel, captured the spirit in-detail, but add to that a sense of scientific discovery, and it is really a heady trip. To go to a foreign land, and by doing so, to learn something about yourself that you could have never known otherwise.

My only goal: Set things up for an Ewe research project lasting the next three to five years. Keep my expectations low, and then I will be sure to meet them. Enjoy the moment, enjoy the process. Live on the road and let beautiful wondrous things happen to me.

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

Graduate Student Handbook (Linguistics)

I put together some blog posts that I have written in the last few years

which are relevant to graduate education in linguistics. In some cases,

the posts lean more toward syntax than other subfields. If there is

interest, I will continue to add links to this list in the coming years.

Many other topics need to be covered, for example, advice on writing

a doctoral dissertation. 


1. Top Likes and Dislikes of Working in Academics (Revised)

2. Writing a Statement of Purpose for Linguistics Graduate School

3. Advice for Surviving Linguistics Graduate School

4. Writing a Conference Abstract in Syntax – Some Practical Advice

5. Giving a Talk -- Some Practical Advice

6. How to Review a Syntax Paper

7. Responding to Reviewers: 10 Pieces of Advice

8. Collaboration in Syntax

9. Required Documents during a Career in Linguistics




Friday, May 16, 2025

Remembering Haj Ross

When I was an undergraduate at MIT (1982-1985), I took Ken Hale’s graduate introduction to syntax. I remember a large guy in the back of the room asking difficult questions throughout the semester. I thought to myself, “How could I think of such questions to ask?” He turned out to be Haj Ross, another professor at MIT. He was taking Ken’s course to catch up on the so-called Government and Binding (GB) framework. 

After that, while still an undergraduate, I signed up for Haj’s seminar on Islands. There were very few people in the class (only 2 or 3 as I recall). He could go on about any syntax topic, bringing up endless interesting examples and counter-examples from English and other languages. He was one of my earliest models for what a syntactician is supposed to be like.

One day, as we were heading to the soda machine during break, he called the cans of soda “industrial sludge” and he told me an anecdote about the Navajo: when they make rugs, they intentionally leave a small error in the rug. I may be mistaken, but I think he wanted to tell me that no work is perfect, and that the imperfections are part of the beauty of the work. That little piece of wisdom has helped me finish writing many papers.

Later in my student days, I heard one professor refer to Haj (somewhat derisively) as ‘a walking counter-example’. But to me his facility with language and English syntax was something of a miracle.

I tried to stay in contact with him, especially later when I got to NYU (2005) and started collaborating with Paul Postal. I would send Haj papers from time to time, and he would send me observations. I was looking forward to learning all kinds of things from him. I had been asking him questions about what it was like to study with Zellig Harris, and he would answer. Now, there is nobody left to ask about that. Here is an excerpt:

“After his syntax class (there were about 25 of us, crunched into a small room, with not enough chairs for us all, none of us cared, we were in the Holy Presence, we knew our great good luck).   At the end of class, some of us would come up to him, with suggestions, questions, requests for a time to see him, the usual. And some questions about syntax. Nothing interesting to report on all of the above, except the questions about syntax. Most of those he would answer immediately, vocally.  But sometimes, rarely, the questioner would have hit something which pierced through to a higher level. He would reach into his righthand pocket of the decrepit jacket he always wore, and pull out a 3X5 yellow pad, and wrote down something that had caught his fancy. After writing it, the pad would go back to its invisible home. Of course, I longed to have a pocketable, 3X5-paddable question to go into the sacred pocket…I can still hope that maybe something that I had asked made it into the sacred pocket.”

Lastly, here is a great syntax observation from Haj, that I just dug up from e-mail today. As far as I know, nobody has ever pursued this observation, which is like a golden nugget.

Fellow negationists –

Just when you thought nothing else could possibly raise:

From an old folk song:

Oh the Erie was a-rising

And the gin was a-gettin’ low

And I scarcely think

We’ll get a drink

Till we get to Buffalo

Till we get to Buffalo.

NB:  *We’ll get a drink till we get to Buffalo.

Peace and Happy New Year!

Haj


Outline: Introduction to Syntax for Undergraduates (NYU)

Here are the lecture titles for my introduction to syntax at the undergraduate level:

Table of Contents

1. Syntactic Data

2. UG and I-Langauge

3. Syntactic Categories

4. Merge

5. Constituent Structure Tests

6. Functional Projections: TP

7. Complementizers, CP and Recursion

8. DP Structure

9. Complements versus Adjuncts

10. Lexicon: Theta-Roles

11. Introduction to the Binding Theory

12. English Auxiliary Verbs

13. Head Movement (V to T)

14. Head Movement: Do-Support and Affix Hopping

15. Head Movement: Structure Dependence

16. Movement (Internal Merge)

17. Passive and Case Theory

18. VP Internal Subject Hypothesis

19. Raising and Control (Subjects)

20. VP-Shells: Double Object Constructions

21. Raising and Control (Objects)

22. Principles and Parameters



Saturday, May 10, 2025

A Scope Freezing Effect with Inverse Linking

Abstract: In this squib, I will discuss a scope freezing effect found with inverse linking. I will explain the freezing effect in terms of the theory of negation of Collins and Postal (2012). Then I will discuss the consequences of the scope freezing effect for the theory of inverse linking. 

Paper

Friday, May 9, 2025

On the Syntactic Status of Implicit Arguments: Greek as a Case Study (WCCFL 2023)

 In this paper, we investigated the behavior of implicit arguments with respect to diagnostics such as control, binding, and secondary predication, in the Greek verbal passive and nominals, comparing them to their English counterparts. Some diagnostics might at first sight suggest that the implicit argument is not projected in the Greek verbal passive, but we provide evidence to the contrary.

Paper

It can also be found here:

https://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/41/index.html

2025 NYU Doctoral Convocation

On Thursday May 8th, 2025, I attended the NYU Doctoral Convocation. The reason I was there was that my student, Selikem, requested that I attend so that I could ‘hood’ him. This was my first time to attend a college graduation ceremony during my time at NYU, and during my whole life. 

I arrived at Silver Center (Heights Alumni Lounge) at 9:00am Thursday, carrying my robe, hood and cap in a bag. Soon after, the other professors started filing in, most of them already wearing their ‘regalia’. You are supposed to wear regalia that matches the institution where you got your graduate degree. So I should have worn MIT colors. But when I ordered the robe from Herff, they just sent me black (which does not look like the MIT colors, which are red and silver-grey and really nice looking). The hat was also too small. The did agree to send me a larger hat, but I was not able to get MIT colors.

Once everybody was assembled, at around 11:00am, we filed out of the Silver Center, into Washington Square Park, which is in effect, a park owned by NYU. We went around the fountain in the center of the park, and then took a left to go into the Skirball Center across the street. 

As we were going to the auditorium, a security person asked me (but nobody else in the faculty line) if I had a ticket. I barely comprehended the question and said ‘what?’. Then they said ‘never mind’ and let me through. This is the curse of being a tall heavy person, you always attract attention.

Upon entering the auditorium, the faculty where seated on the stage. My number in the line was 50, and my chair was labeled with my name. Every faculty member on the stage was responsible for ‘hooding’ some graduate student. In the audience were the students (200-300 hundred) and then hundreds of other guests, mostly the families of the students, I imagine.

After several speeches, the hooding started. The students filed into the stage one-by-one, each holding their hoods. Then their designated faculty member took the hood from them, and the student turned and faced the audience. The faculty member fit the hood over the head of the student, and they either hugged or shook hands. After that, the student went back to sit in the audience.

Wearing the robe, hood and cap made me hot and thirsty. In addition, we were all sitting on a well-lighted stage facing an audience of hundreds of people. The organizers provided a little bottle of water for each of us, under the chairs, but I was afraid to drink it, because there did not seem like any way to use the restroom (once on the stage).

In our department this year, there were three graduates getting hooded. So after the ceremony we all went over to Washington Square Park and took some group photos. After taking pictures, I left the park at around 1:00pm. 

The ceremony provides a formal way for the student to gain closure and to transition from one period to the other. It also provides a nice context for the whole family to recognize the student’s achievements, and for the student to implicitly thank the family for always being there for him or her. In my case, it was a pleasure to be able to hood my student Selikem. I have greatly enjoyed working with him these last few years, advising him and watching his progress.  I include a picture of us below, taken by his wife Mawusi.







Friday, May 2, 2025

Congratulations to John David Storment on successful dissertation defense.

 Congratulations to John David Storment on his successful doctoral dissertation defense at  Stony Brook University. John David was one of our undergrads in the Department of Linguistics at NYU.  See the picture below.

Projecting (your) voice: A theory of inversion and defective circumvention

This dissertation revolves around a colloquial agreement alternation observed in several classes of English sentences with postverbal thematic subjects.

(1) a. There {was/were} no seats left c. What I love most {are/is} your outfits

b. “Moo!” {go/goes} the cows” d. In{walk/walks} several bad pirates

Using a maximally simple formulation of Agree that effectively reduces to minimal Search, I show that the aforementioned agreement alternations are derivable from a single set of syntactic operations through an optional process which I dub defective circumvention, in which a probe can conditionally Agree past a featurally deficient goal and undergo sequential multiple Agree with more than one goal, given that the features of the two goals are featurally compatible with one another.

The sentences in (1) involve A-movement of an internal argument over an argument that was externally merged in a higher position, as evidenced by the effect that the internal argument in this position has on agreement. Given the understood uniformity of the projection of arguments, as well as the locality and strict minimality of this formulation of Agree, a mechanism is needed to affect the accessibility of arguments for the creation of A-dependencies such as Agree.

As such, I demonstrate that these constructions necessarily involve inversion via smuggling, in which the internal argument is smuggled to a position above the higher argument, facilitated by phrasal movement of a verbal projection containing the internal argument, which is empirically supported by the distribution of non-argument VP internal elements in these inversion constructions. An operation such as smuggling is necessary to obviate the minimality violation that would normally occur in A-moving an internal argument over an external argument. I further show that VP smuggling of arguments is characteristic of voice constructions. Voice, then, is what allows for inversion to take place and ultimately what allows for the agreement alternation facilitated by defective circumvention.


Thursday, May 1, 2025

My Y-DNA Haplogroup

 My Y-DNA Haplogroup is I-FT2223. Some information is given in the file pasted below.  If you share my haplogroup or any haplogroup downstream from I-M223, please let me know.

A partial I-FT2223 ancestral path is:

I-M223 > P222 > CTS616 > CTS10057 > Z161 > CTS4348 > L801 > Z178

> Z165 > CTS6433 > S2364 > ZS3 > Y4924 > Y4928 > L1272 > Y5715

> FT112201 > Y5718 > Y5717 > FT2223




Wednesday, April 23, 2025

A Note on Wh-in-Situ in English

Abstract:  The purpose of this squib is to show that wh-in-situ is productive in English, even outside of echo-questions and multiple wh-questions. I also discuss the relation of the data I adduce to quiz-show questions (Jackendoff 1994).

A Note on Wh-in-Situ in English

Tuesday, April 22, 2025

Top Likes and Dislikes of Working in Academics (Revised)

After more than three decades working in academics (graduated from MIT 1993), this is a small list of things that I like and dislike the most. I understand that my position at a private university in the United States is very privileged. Don’t get me wrong, I am grateful for having my job. 

I believe that this list might be useful to somebody starting their career, and wondering whether academics is right for them. I would love to hear feedback from others on their experiences.

Monday, April 21, 2025

Some Scribblings on Nasal Gobbling

In my informal midwestern speech (raised in suburban Minnesota and rural Wisconsin), I can say the following:

1.

I’mÊŒ nÊŒ go

‘I’m going to go.’

(spelled dialectally as: ‘I’muh nuh go’, or maybe, ‘I’ma na go’).

In this short note, I sketch the series of phonological changes at play in deriving (1) in an attempt to understand my own personal speech patterns. 

I did an informal survey of the students in my undergraduate syntax class (18 students), and most of them said (1) is acceptable, but I do not know if there are any geographical generalizations about where it is used.

I assume that the underlying form is something like the following (written with English orthography):

2. I am going to go.

I rarely pronounce -ing with an engma [ng]. Mostly, I pronounce it with -in.

3. I am goin to go.

In my English, unstressed infinitival (and prepositional) ‘to’ is very generally pronounced as tÊŒ, which can also be slightly voiced as shown in (5):

4. I am goin tʌ go.

5. I am goin dʌ go.

From there, the nasal of -in gobbles up the following voiced dental:

6. I am goi nʌ go.

I find the same nasal gobbling with 'trying to'. And both seem related to wanna-contraction. But, I think that (5) itself is infrequent. Rather, (5) seems to prefer the following reduced form of ‘going’:

7. I am gʌ nʌ go.

In (7), [o] is changed to [ʌ] (o --> ʌ), and the [i] of the suffix -in is dropped. Alternatively, it may be that the progressive suffix is really -Vn (not -ing), and the V is generally filled with an epenthetic lax [i]. So in (7), the V of -Vn is simply not syllabified (not literally deleted).

Nasal gobbling in (7) involves nasal spreading auto-segmentally to the following C slot:

8. n t ʌ

| |

C V

Given the representation in (8), the nasal docs to the initial C, delinking the [t], yielding the correct form: nʌ.

The form in (7) can be stressed (indicated by underlining):

9.

Q: Are you refusing to go to your class?

A: I am gʌ nʌ go.

But stressed or not stressed, the vowel [o] is not possible:

10. *I am go nʌ go.

The facts in (7) and (10) suggest that we are dealing with a kind of verbal suppletion. The verb ‘go’ in English can be realized as [go] in most contexts, but can also be realized as [gÊŒ] in some contexts, and it is not explained away as a phonetic vowel reduction (because the latter can be stressed). 

The alternation between [go] and [gÊŒ] similar to the fact that ‘do’ [du] can be realized as [dÊŒ] as in the word ‘does’ (which can also be stressed).

From (7), the auxiliary ‘am’ can be contracted:

11. I’m gÊŒ nÊŒ go.

About the contraction in (11), I am assuming that the auxiliary am is bimorphemic a-m, and that in (11) only the second morpheme is being spelled out. Part of the reason for this assumption is the presence of [m] in all 1SG pronouns exceptive nominative: me, my, mine. This series suggest that 1SG in English is [m].

Then the 1SG nasal of the auxiliary gobbles up the following voiced velar:

12. I’mÊŒ nÊŒ go.

Note in (12) that the nasal gobbling is not accompanied by any change in the place of articulation of the nasal. (12) involves a bilabial nasal, not a velar nasal. So the [g] has completely disappeared from the utterance. 

I have no idea how common the form in (12) is in the United States. But for me personally, it is the most natural way of speaking.

If the auxiliary is not contracted, nasal gobbling is less acceptable:

13. a. *I am mʌ nʌ go.

b. *I a mʌ nʌ go.

Nasal gobbling involves the nasal spreading auto-segmentally to the following C slot:

14. m g ʌ n ʌ

| | | |

C V C V

Given the representation in (14), the 1SG nasal docks to the initial C, delinking the [g], yielding the correct form: mÊŒ nÊŒ. This is the same nasal gobbling rule as seen in (8) above. 

One thing to notice is that these reductions do not occur with the main verb use of ‘going to’:

15. a. *I am gʌ nʌ the beach.

Intended: ‘I am going to the beach.’

b. *I’mÊŒ nÊŒ the beach.

Intended: ‘I am going to the beach.’

Let’s see where the chain of reductions stops. First, the unstressed preposition ‘to’ can also be pronounced tÊŒ

16. I am going tʌ the beach.

But the following is completely unacceptable:

17.

a. *I am goi nʌ the beach.

b. *I am gʌ nʌ the beach.

So it seems that o-->ÊŒ for ‘go’ and nasal gobbling are not possible for the main for ‘go’. This suggests that the internal structure of main verb going is different from the internal structure of auxiliary verb going, in a way which blocks nasal gobbling and suppletion for main verbs, but I do not pursue that here.

Another thing to notice is that the changes only occur if ‘be’ in ‘be going to’ is finite:

18. a. He may be going to go.

b. He must be going to go (based on what I know).

c. To be going to

While the sentences in (18) are uncommon, the ones in (19) sound unacceptable to me:

19. a. *He may be gʌ nʌ go.

b. *He must be gʌ nʌ go.

c. *To be gʌ nʌ go.

If a negation (or adverbs) intervenes between the auxiliary and ‘go’, the following form is possible:

20. I’m not gÊŒ nÊŒ go

But not:

21.

a. I’m not mÊŒ nÊŒ go

b. *I’mÊŒ not nÊŒ go

So nasal gobbling seems to require phonological adjacency.

Nasal gobbling is found in many places in English phonology, which are well-known, so I will not repeat them here. Off the top of my head, I know of: ‘I don’t know’ (‘I dunno’), ‘something’ (smthn), ‘pumpkin’ (pungkin). 

In the cases that I am considering in this paper, the nasal is always part of a function word (e.g., the -ing suffix, or the auxiliary ‘am’), and the target consonant is also part of a function word (e.g., infinitival to, future going). Generalizing (8) and (14) we have, the following rule:

22. Nasal Gobbling

Structural description: N is non-syllabified nasal consonant of any place of articulation. xy are the first two segments of a non-stressed function word.

N x[stop] y[vowel]

|      |

C         V

Structural change: the nasal optionally docks to the initial C, delinking the x segment.

Tuesday, April 15, 2025

Top Likes and Dislikes of Working in Academics

After more than three decades working in academics (graduated from MIT 1993), this is a small list of things that like and dislike the most. I understand that my position at a private university in the United States is very privileged. Don’t get me wrong, I am grateful for having my job. The order of presentation is random.

Quantifier Raising: Entailment and Inverse Scope (Syntax II, Spring 2025)

Consider the following two sentences, each involving an existential quantifier phrase and a universal quantifier phrase.

1.
a. Some boy loves every girl.
b. Every boy loves some girl.

In both cases, we can ask what the possible logical form representations of the sentence are, and what the truth conditions of those representations are. If we adopt the syntactic operation QR, then (1a) with inverse scope yields truth conditions that clearly distinguish it from (1a) with surface scope. The question of whether inverse scope is needed for sentences like (1b) is more intricate. This note goes into these issues in detail.

Applying QR to (1a), there are two logical form representations:

2.
LF1: (surface scope)
[TP <[some boy]1> [TP <[every girl]2> [TP DP1 loves DP2]]
LF2: (inverse scope)
[TP <[every girl]2> [TP <[some boy]1> [TP DP1 loves DP2]]

In these structures, the notation <…> indicates that the occurrence is not pronounced. In LF1, for example, [some boy] has two occurrences, but only the one in subject position is pronounced. Furthermore, in these representations the possibility of VP adjunct is ignored (see Fox 2002 for discussion).

These LF representations can be paraphrased as follows:

3. LF1 (paraphrase): There is some boy who loves every girl.
LF2 (paraphrase): For every girl, there is some boy who loves her.

Now consider the following two situations:

4.
S1: John love Sue, Mary and Kathy.
(and there are no other people or relationships involved)
S2: John loves Sue, Bill loves Mary, Chris loves Kathy.
(and there are no other people or relationships involved)

Calculating the truth value of each LF representation in each situation (actual semantic calculation omitted), we have the following results (SS = surface scope, IS = inverse scope):

5. S1 S2
LF1 (SS) true false
LF2 (IS) true true

This table shows that LF2 (inverse scope) is true in S2, whereas LF1 (surface scope) is not. These truth values provide an important argument for the existence of inverse scope. If inverse scope were not allowed, there is no way we could capture the intuition that (1a) (with structure LF2) is true in S2.

In the theory I presented in class (from May 1977, Fox 2002), inverse scope is accounted for in terms of QR. In inverse scope, the object undergoes QR to a scope position higher than the subject scope position (see LF2 above). Therefore, the data in (5) provides evidence supporting the covert movement operation QR.

This table shows that only S2 distinguishes the two LF representations, S1 does not. Therefore, it is clear that LF1 is stronger, in the sense that whenever LF1 is true, so is LF2, but not vice versa. In fact, using formal semantic tools, it is possible to prove the following:

6. a. LF1 entails LF2 (LF1 ⊨ LF2)
b. LF2 does not entail LF1 (LF2 ⊭ LF1)

When there is an entailment relation like this between two LFs, it is sometimes hard to distinguish them empirically. For example, in 5, both LF representations were true in S1. And so S1 could not be used to distinguish them.

With this background, consider now (1b) above. Applying QR to (1b), there are two logical form representations:

7.
LF1: (surface scope)
[TP <[every boy]1> [TP <[some girl]2> [TP DP1 loves DP2]]
LF2: (inverse scope)
[TP <[some girl]2> [TP <[every boy]1> [TP DP1 loves DP2]]

These LF representations can be paraphrased as follows:

8. LF1 (paraphrase): For every boy, there is some girl who he loves.
LF2 (paraphrase): There is some girl who every boy loves.

Now consider the following two situations:

9.
S1: John loves Sue, Bill loves Mary, Chris loves Kathy.
(and there are no other people or relationships involved)
S2: John love Sue, Bill loves Sue, Chris loves Sue.
(and there are no other people or relationships involved)

Calculating the truth value of each LF representation in each situation (calculation omitted), we have the following results:


10. S1 S2
LF1 (SS) true true
LF2 (IS) false true

In this case, LF2 is stronger than LF1, in the sense that LF1 is true whenever LF2 is true. In other words, we have the following entailment relations:

11. a. LF2 entails LF1 (LF2 ⊨ LF1)
b. LF1 does not entail LF2. (LF1 ⊭ LF2)

Now let’s ask what the evidence is for the inverse scope representation in LF2 of the sentence in (1b). Unfortunately, because of the entailment relations, there is no situation (such as S1 or S2) where LF2 (inverse scope) is true and LF1 (surface scope) is false. This makes it difficult to justify the inverse scope representation purely on the basis of situations where the LF representations are true. Therefore, the question is whether in this case one needs an inverse scope representation of (1b) at all.

To put matters more intuitively, concerning (1b), if it is true that there is some girl who every boy loves (inverse scope) then it is also true that for every boy, there is some girl who he loves (surface scope). So perhaps in this case we could say that only the surface scope representation in LF1 is possible, but it is vague as to whether everybody loves the same girl or not.

We can summarize as follows:

12.
a. Some boy loves every girl.

i. Inverse scope does not entail surface scope.

ii. There is a situation where inverse scope LF is true,
but surface scope LF is not true.

b. Every boy loves some girl.

i. Inverse scope entails surface scope.

ii. If inverse scope LF is true in some situation,
then so is surface scope LF.

Notice that LF1 and LF2 in (7) are not equivalent, and so they are false in different cases (see (10)). In particular LF1 is true in S1 but LF2 is false in S1. This leads to the suggestion that we could use falsity to distinguish the interpretations of LF1 and LF2.

So, given S1, consider the following dialogue:

13. (in S1)
A: Isn’t it strange that every boy loves some girl? (with structure LF2)
Intended: Isn’t it strange that there is some girl that every boy loves?
B: That is false, they all love different girls.

If this were an acceptable discourse it would provide evidence that both LF1 and LF2 are needed for (1b). Since it would show that LF2 (inverse scope) is possible, and is false in a particular situation. Unfortunately, it is not very easy to access the inverse scope interpretation in 13A, and the discourse seems forced.

Another similar way to distinguish LF1 and LF2 is through constructions like “It is false that” and “It is not the case that”. These constructions negate the embedded clause:

14. a. It is false that every boy loves some girl.
Intended: It is false that there is some girl that every boy loves.
b. It is not the case that every boy loves some girl.
Intended: It is not the case that there is some girl that every boy loves.

If LF2 (inverse scope) were a possible representation here, then the sentences would be true in S1. Once again, the facts are not that clear.

There are ways to bring out inverse scope. For example, adding the word particular makes it much easier:

15. a. It is false that every boy loves some particular girl.
Intended: It is false that there is some particular girl that every boy loves.
b. It is not the case that every boy loves some particular girl.
Intended: It is not the case that there is some particular girl that every boy loves.

This kind of sentence where one is negating the inverse scope LF representations suggests that inverse scope is also needed in examples such as (1b).

In summary, based on truth conditions, it is easier to justify an inverse scope LF representation for (1a) than it is for (1b). However, given the clear need for an inverse scope LF representation for (1a), the null hypothesis is that such an inverse scope representation should also be available for (1b). That conclusion leaves open the difficult status of the judgments in (13) and (14).







Thursday, April 10, 2025

New Horizons in Morphology as Syntax: My Three Published Papers

MaS (Morphology as Syntax) is a framework which asks the question of whether putative morphological phenomena can be can be accounted for in terms of syntactic principles and operations. In MaS there is no morphological component, nor are there any post-syntactic morphological operations.

So far, I have been able to publish three papers in this framework. I list the papers, and their abstracts below, in chronological order. These three papers are enough to get a general feel for the framework, and some tools to begin working with it.

I would really love to hear from people who are doing work in a related spirt, taking syntax seriously in the analysis of putative morphological generalizations.

1. Spanish usted as an Imposter (2021, Probus, with Francisco Ordóñez)

Abstract: Across dialects, Spanish uses the third person forms usted and ustedes to refer to the addressee. In this squib, we propose an imposter analysis of these forms in the framework of Collins and Postal (2012. Imposters. MIT Press, Cambridge.). (link)

2. Towards a Theory of Morphology as Syntax (2023, Studies in Chinese Linguistics, with Richard Kayne)

Abstract: Phenomena traditionally thought of as morphological can be accounted for in terms of syntactic operations and principles, hence bringing forth questions that traditional morphology fails to ask (for instance, concerning the licensing of empty morphemes). The language faculty contains no specific morphological component, nor any post-syntactic morphological operations. (link)

3. A Syntactic Approach to Case Contiguity (2025, Continua)

Abstract: Building on the empirical results and theoretical insights of Caha (2013), I show howto derive the Case Contiguity Constraint in a syntactic theory of morphology. In particular, I show how to derive *ABA in the domain of case syncretism without appeal to late insertion. (link)



Thursday, March 27, 2025

How to Syntax 3 (‘only’ Modifying Noun Phrases)

This is the third of a series of blog posts showing how I think about a syntax problem when I first notice it. For the first and second installment, see:

How to Syntax I (the now that-Construction)

How to Syntax 2 (Adverbs with Attributive Adjectives)

That first glimpse of a problem is an important period in thinking about syntax. I will occasionally choose phenomena that I notice, and talk about them in an informal fashion, breaking down the process of preliminary syntactic exploration. That is, I am just thinking off the top of my head (brainstorming), with few or no revisions. Ideally, I will give myself a time period of two to three hours maximum to prevent polishing. The focus of the discussion will be on process. I am not trying to come up with a polished analysis. Of course, if people suggest references for me to look at, I will look at them later, but that would be a second stage of thought, not the preliminary exploration.

Data Discovery

I do not recall how I first noticed the construction. I have known about it since at least Fall 2021, where I mentioned it briefly in a seminar I taught. But I kept it on the back burner, knowing at some point I would get back to it.

Combinatorial Basics

I want to investigate phrases such as the following:

(1) a. He is the only candidate.

b. The only candidate is sitting over there.

c. I met the only candidate.

For convenience, I will occasionally refer to this as the ‘only’-NP construction. An alternative involves the expression ‘one and only’, as in ‘He is the one and only candidate.’ Another related expression is ‘the lone candidate’. I leave aside these alternatives for now.

At first glance, the construction consists of a definite determiner, followed by ‘only’, followed by a noun. 

An indefinite determiner is difficult or impossible to get:

(2) a. *He is an only candidate.

b. *An only candidate is sitting over there.

c. *I met an only candidate.

The examples in (2) all seem unacceptable to me, putting aside fixed phrases like ‘an only child’. Similarly, in the following (b) examples, the determiners with ‘only’ seem unacceptable:

(3) a. John is the only person I know.

b. John is a (*only) person I know.

(4) a. The only weird person is sitting over there.

b. That (*only) weird person is sitting over there.

(5) a. The only candidate is sitting over there.

b. Every (*only) candidate is sitting over there.

But possessors work fine:

(5) a. He is my only friend.

b. My only friend is sitting over there.

c. I met my only friend.

(6) a. his only friend

b. your only friend

c. their only friend

When there is an adjective or a numeral in the DP, it must follow ‘only’:

(7) a. The only big dog was in the corner.

b. *The big only dog was in the corner.

(8) a. The only two reporters were out for lunch.

b. *The two only reporters were out for lunch.

Although focus particles such as ‘only’ and ‘even’ overlap in their distributions (see (9) and (10)), the focus particle ‘even’ cannot be used in the same way (see (11)):

(9) a. Only John left early.

b. Even John left early.

(10) a. John only likes Mary.

b. John even likes Mary.

(11) a. *He is the even candidate.

b. *The even candidate is sitting over there.

c. *I met the even candidate.


Paraphrase and Entailment

Usually when ‘only’ modifies a constituent X, X is in focus. The general scheme is this, where (b) and (c) are entailments of (a):

(12) a. Only John came to the party.

b. John came to the party, but nobody else did.

c. It is not the case that Mary (or anybody else) came to the party.

In other words, for this example any DP substitution for John is false, as shown in (12c).

Similarly, when ‘only’ appears with a predicative constituent:

(13) a. John is only watching TV.

b. John is watching TV, but he is not doing anything else.

c. It is not the case that John is working (or doing anything else).

Now consider how such a paraphrase would work with the ‘only’-NP construction:

(14) a. The only dog was in the corner.

b. The dog was in the corner, but for no other x was the x in the corner.

c. It was not the case that the cat was in the corer (or any other animal).

These truth conditions are just wrong. Clearly, for (14a), it is possible that a cat could also be in the corner. In other words, interpreting [the only NOUN] as a focus construction where NOUN is in focus does not give the right results.

So what is the right paraphrase? It seems to be the following:

(15) a. The only dog was in the corner.

b. The x such that only x is a dog was in the corner.

(16) a. I saw the only person I know.

b. I saw the x such only x is a person I know.

In formal notation, the translation is (assuming a Fregean account of the definite article):

(17) a. the only dog

b. ιx[dog(x) ∧ ∀y[dog(y) --> x = y]]

‘The unique x such that x is a dog and for every y, 

if y is a dog, the y = x’

But such a definition poses a bit of a conundrum. Consider the definition of the definite article from Heim and Kratzer (pg. 75):

(18) a. [[the]] = λf. f ɛ D<e,t> and there is exactly one x such that f(x) = 1.

                 the unique y such that f(y) = 1.

b. [[the dog]] = Presupposition: there is exactly one x such that dog(x) = 1.

        Denotation: the unique y such that dog(y) = 1.

Comparing (17) and (18), it looks like ‘only’ is just restating the presupposition of the definite article. In other words, ‘only’ appears to be semantically vacuous when appearing with the definite article. But is this true?

(19) a. My friend is over there.

b. My only friend is over there.

If you and I are at a party, and I say (19a) pointing to the corer, you might infer that my unique friend at the party is over there. There is a uniqueness presupposition, but it is very fluid and flexible. In fact, if I say (19a), it could be the friend of mine that we were just talking about, even if I have lots of friends at the party.

On the other hand, (19b) seems less fluid and more rigid. Once again, if we are at the party, and I say (19b) pointing to the corer, your natural inference is that I don’t have any other friends in my life. If I wanted it to be clear we were talking about friends at the party, I would have to say: ‘My only friend at this party is over there.’

So it seems at the very least there is a difference in the possibility for domain restriction between the two forms (with and without ‘only’). I leave investigating this to further work, since today’s session is just supposed to be the first glimpse of the construction.


Speculations on Structure

As part of the first glimpse into the construction, I would like to speculate on the syntactic structure. The value of the speculation is that is provides a concrete way to test further predictions (against the structure). So consider the following sentence repeated from above:

(20) a. The only dog was in the corner.

b. The x such that only x is a dog was in the corner.

My suggestion is that ‘only’ does not modify its sister semantically in the same way that the focus particle normally modifies its sister (creating a quantificational structure, quantifying over alternatives). 

First, I assume that in definite DPs like ‘the dog’, ‘the person’, there is a null category which is the argument of the noun phrase (see Collins 2024 for discussion, see also Koopman 2003, 2005). For convenience, let’s call that empty category ec:

(21) [the [ec dog]]

Second, this is enough to start to account for ‘only’-NP, if we say that ‘only’ modifies the empty category, with the interpretation in (22b).

(22) a. [the [[only ec] dog]]

b. the x such that only x is a dog.

I leave out the labels of the constituents, just giving the bare minimum for this first glace.


Combinatorial Basics Revisited

Now that I have put in place the sketch of an analysis, we can revisit some of the basic combinatorial properties listed above. For lack of time, I will not discuss all of them, but consider again the ordering of an adjective and ‘only’, repeated below:

(23) a. The only big dog was in the corner.

b. *The big only dog was in the corner.

I assume the structure is:

(24) a. [the [ec big dog]]

b. the x such that only x is a big dog

In other words, ‘big dog’ is acting as the predicate, and ec is the subject, so there is no way for ec to intervene between ‘big’ and ‘dog’. Therefore, since ‘only’ modifies ec, there is no way for ‘only’ to appear between ‘big’ and dog’.


Negative Polarity Item Licensing

A well-known property of ‘only’-phrases is that they license negative polarity items, as shown in (25):

(25) a. Only John knows any physics.

b. *John knows any physics.

But clearly, such licensing does not extend to the ‘only’-NP construction:

(26) a. *The only candidate knows any physics.

b. *The candidate knows any physics.

The difference between (25) and (26) follows from the analysis I outlined above in (22) above since on that analysis ‘only’ takes scope internal to the DP. In other words, in (25a) [only John] takes scope over the entire clause. In (26a), ‘only’ takes scope internal to the subject DP, not over the entire clause.

However, internal to the modified NP, a NPI becomes possible:

(27) a. *The candidate who has ever been to France is John.

b. The only candidate who has ever been to France is John.

This fact could also follow from the analysis is if the correct way to break it down is:

(28) a. the only candidate who has ever been to France

b. the x such that only x is a candidate and only x has ever been to France

I leave working out details to future work.


Technical Glitch

My preliminary analysis rests on the assumption that ‘only’ can modify an empty category ec. But in general, it does not look like ‘only’ can modify empty categories.

(29) a. I want (only) Mary to go.

b. I want (*only) PRO to go.

Intended: ‘I want only myself to go.’

(30) a. Only John left.

b. The man that (*only) ec left.

Example (29b) shows that ‘only’ cannot modify PRO. Example (30b) shows that ‘only’ cannot modify the trace of subject extraction in a relative clause.

It is unclear to me for the moment how to get around this problem. But acknowledging technical glitches is an important part of the discovery process. It could lead you to reject your initial analysis, or to give a much better analysis down the road.

One possibility, no considered so far, is that ‘the’ itself is the argument of the noun, so the structure would be the following:

(31) [[the only] dog]

If this were the case, it would look a bit like post focus ‘only’ in the following example:

(32) John only is allowed to enter the fort.

I put the issue aside for now.


Conclusion

I have spent a few hours analyzing the ‘only’-NP construction. The preliminary syntactic methods I have applied are the following:

(31)

a. Combinatorial basics

b. Paraphrase

c. Speculations on structure

d. Explaining facts in terms of structure

e. NPI licensing

f. Technical Glitch

The theoretical significance of the construction is that it may support the structure of DPs and the Argument Criterion as outlined in Collins 2024.


 

Sunday, March 16, 2025

Concept Map of Intellectual Development (18 to 24 years)

Here is a concept map of the essential ingredients of my intellectual development and how they converged on syntax. 



Friday, February 21, 2025

Grammatical Analysis I: Merge (Lecture 4, Spring 2025)

 Here is the lecture on Merge, in the fourth lecture.

After this, Merge is the basis for everything we talk about in the semester.


Lecture 4: Merge

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

Sunday, February 9, 2025

Principles of Argument Structure: A Merge-Based Approach (Concept Map)

 This is my first attempt to display the connection between the various concepts in my recent MIT Press monograph. Let me know what you think!





Friday, February 7, 2025

Basic Skills (A versus A'-Movement)

Syntax II Spring 2025

Week 2: Basic Skills: A versus A’-Movement


By the end of the semester, a student taking Syntax II (graduate level) should have the following basic skills. 


1.

Be able to argue whether or not there is a movement relationship between two positions X and Y.

2.

Be able to define A-position and A’-position. 

3.

Be able to give a wide range of example sentences illustrating A-movement and A’-movement in English. The student should be able to draw plausible tree diagrams for each of these examples (e.g., tough-movement).

See Class Exercise

4.

For any particular example of movement, the student should be able to argue (using various diagnostics) that it is A or A’-movement.

5.

Be able to list the main properties distinguishing A-movement and A’-movement (e.g., binding, reconstruction, parasitic gaps, improper movement, weak crossover, etc.). The student should be able to define all the relevant principles that enter into these properties (e.g., they should be able to define weak crossover, they should know about the copy theory of movement).

6.

For each property in (5), the student should be able to give example sentences illustrating that property. For example, the student should be able to show that A-movement does not show Weak Crossover Effects. Likewise, the student should be able to show that A-movement does not give rise to condition C reconstruction effects.


Monday, February 3, 2025

Schoolhouse Rock Videos

I grew up watching these videos all the time. The tunes are very catchy and they are a pretty good popular source of information on basic grammatical categories. I have no idea whether people outside the US know of them.

Last week, in my undergraduate syntax class, I recommended to the students that they watch them. We don't literally follow the definitions in the videos, but they are an entertaining way to review.

Schoolhouse Rock (Grammar Rock) Videos

A Noun is a Person Place or Thing

Busy Prepositions

Conjunction Junction

Interjections

Lolly Lolly Lolly Get Your Adverbs Here

Rufus Xavier Sarsaparilla

The Tale of Mr. Morton

Unpack Your Adjectives

Verb That’s What’s Happening






Wednesday, January 29, 2025

Grammatical Analysis I (Assignment 1)(Spring 2025)

Here is my first assignment for undergraduate syntax. It is all about the internet.

I am trying to keep up with the times.


GA I Assignment 1