Shrayana Haldar
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Linguistics, Graduate Student
- University of Massachusetts Amherst, Linguistics, Undergraduateadd
- I'm an alumna of UMass Amherst, class of 2021, where I majored in Linguistics. I'm now a rising third-year graduate s... moreI'm an alumna of UMass Amherst, class of 2021, where I majored in Linguistics. I'm now a rising third-year graduate student of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. My primary interest in linguistics is Theoretical Syntax. Apart from linguistics, I had a secondary major in French and Francophone Studies at UMass Amherst.edit
- Kyle Johnson (Undergraduate, at UMass), Rajesh Bhatt (Undergraduate, at UMass), Danny Fox (GP 1, at MIT), Amir Anvari (GP 1, at MIT), Donca Steriade (GP 1, at MIT)edit
Fox and Nissenbaum (1999) analyzed relative clause extraposition as QRing the host DP and late merging the relative clause to the NP restrictor of the host DP. Based on their analysis, Hulsey and Sauerland (2006) predicted that Late Merge... more
Fox and Nissenbaum (1999) analyzed relative clause extraposition as QRing the host DP and late merging the relative clause to the NP restrictor of the host DP. Based on their analysis, Hulsey and Sauerland (2006) predicted that Late Merge of relative clauses and a Raising derivation of relative clauses are incompatible. In this talk, I will reproduce data from Henderson (2007) which show that this generalization is wrong. Because of issues in Henderson’s account, I will develop my own account of these data exploiting multidominance. Furthermore, I will develop a linearization algorithm to linearize my multidominant structures, much along the lines of Johnson (2012), and eliminate with the help of these linearization principles certain generable parses for Hulsey and Sauerland’s data that seemed to argue for the above incompatibility. I will then close the talk with a discussion of the problems in Henderson’s account.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This paper presents a unified analysis of relative clauses (RCs) that doesn't posit a Raising v. Matching distinction by extending Wholesale Late Merge (WLM), as presented in Takahashi and Hulsey (2009) and show an existing attempt at... more
This paper presents a unified analysis of relative clauses (RCs) that doesn't posit a Raising v. Matching distinction by extending Wholesale Late Merge (WLM), as presented in Takahashi and Hulsey (2009) and show an existing attempt at such a unification (Henderson 2007) is inadequate. I explain with data from Henderson (2007) why such a distinction between Raising and Matching isn't explanatorily fruitful. Then I show that one part of Henderson's way of approaching the unification is problematic — which I jettison — and the other part, I keep. I then substitute the problematic part with a multidominant (Johnson 2018) implementation of WLM.
Research Interests:
This paper first presents additional evidence, on top of those in Simpson, Choudhury, and Menon (2013), for Verb-stranding VP Ellipsis (VVPE) in Bengali. It then demonstrates that the language violates the Verbal Identity Requirement... more
This paper first presents additional evidence, on top of those in Simpson, Choudhury, and Menon (2013), for Verb-stranding VP Ellipsis (VVPE) in Bengali. It then demonstrates that the language violates the Verbal Identity Requirement (VIR) of Goldberg (2005), and then goes on to argue that the violation of the VIR is what should be expected, while the adherence of a language to it is what shouldn't be. The paper concludes itself by suggesting that the VIR might very well be an artifact of more underlying interactions between syntax and phonology.