[:ja]Dr. Shigeru Miyagawa 公開講義（参加無料）のご案内です。（メールの重複ご容赦ください）
Agreement Beyond Phi
宮川繁博士(MIT / University of Tokyo)
2017年3月13-14日 両日とも13:00~18:30
東京大学駒場キャンパス 18号館1F メディアラボ２（予定）
http://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/campusmap/cam02_01_17_j.html
（講義はLecture 1~4からなり、日本語で行われます。講義概要は以下をご覧下さい。）
会場は上記のとおりを予定していますが、参加人数によっては教室変更となる可能性があります。
そのため、お越しになるご予定の方は３月７日までに以下のフォームにてご登録いただけると助かります。
（登録なしでも参加できますが、椅子がないかも知れません）
Lecture Series (March 13-14)
Shigeru Miyagawa, MIT/UTokyo
These lectures are based on Agreement Beyond Phi, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, MIT Press (February 2017).
March 13 (13:00-15:30)
Lecture 1: Allocutive Agreement and the Root
I will take up agreements that agree with a discourse participant — hearer or speaker. A typical case is found in the Souletin dialect of Basque, in which, along with the regular agreement with the subject and other arguments, there is an agreement that agrees with the addressee, such as feminine, singular, colloquial. This is called allocutive agreement. I show that the allocutive agreement requires the performative analysis as earlier proposed by Ross (1970) and recently updated by Speas and Tenny (2003) as “Speech Act Projection.” I will show that the distribution of the SAP exactly matches the definition of “root” that Emonds (1969) proposed. I will give other examples of the allocutive agreement, including the politeness marker –mas- in Japanese and speaker/hearer agreements in the Tibeto-Burman languages, Jingpo and Newari.
March 13 (16::00-18:30)
Lecture 2: Topicalization Across Languages
Topicalization is an operation that typically places a phrase at the left-edge of an expression. Developing a proposal for topics in Chomsky (1977), and using Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl’s (2007) categorization of topics, I will show that across languages, there are topics (Aboutness topic) that uniformly occur in the topic position above CP (S”) as argued by Chomsky while other topic types (Contrastive, Familiar) vary in their position depending on the language. In some languages these topics occur in the same position as the Aboutness topic, above CP, while in others they may occur in TP. This variation in the position of the topic is unexpected in the cartographic approach, which postulates topic positions that are presumably uniform across languages. I will also show the relevancy of the work here to Emonds’s (1969) original proposal for roots, and Hooper and Thompson’s (1973) challenge to Emonds’s proposal, and the recent extension of Hooper and Thompson’s work by Haegeman (2010, 2012).
March 14 (13:00-15:30)
Lecture 3: Pro-drop, E-type Pronouns, and Agreement
Pro-drop is one of the most extensively studied topics in the GB era; these studies typically assumed that the empty element is some form of a pronoun as suggested by the name of the phenomenon. Huang (1991) and Otani and Whitman (1991) identified pro that can have a sloppy interpretation, something that isn’t expected if the empty element is a common pronoun. Huang, and Otani and Whitman, argued that the sloppy interpretation is made possible by VP ellipsis, not pro-drop. Oku (1998), while agreeing that it is not a pro, argued that what is being elided is a fully-specified noun phrase. This has come to be called argument ellipsis, and it is the dominant proposal for the source of the sloppy interpretation. Using Oikonomou’s (to appear) approach, I will argue that the sloppy interpretation is an instance of E-type pronoun, in turn returning us to the original idea that the empty slots are due to pro-drop. I will also look in detail at different manifestations of the pro. In Japanese and Romance, the pro easily finds reference in the discourse context, and the referent is not limited to any grammatical category. In Chinese, the subject pro cannot easily refer “out” to the conversation, and within the sentence, it is limited to the closest subject for its antecedent. I will argue that the difference between Japanese/Romance and Chinese is a difference between strong and weak pronouns.
March 14 (16::00-18:30)
Lecture 4: The Distribution and Structure of ‘Why’
There are two approaches to ‘why’, the movement analysis and the externally merge analysis, the latter originally due to Bromberger (1987, 1992) and Rizzi (1990), later extended in important ways by Ko (2005), Stephanov and Tsai (2008), among others. There are two questions I will address. First, while many languages appear to have both options for ‘why’, Japanese (and possibly Korean) does not appear to have the externally merged option. I will argue that this difference is due to where the focus feature occurs in a language. Second, while many wh-in-situ languages manifest an intervention effect, ‘why’ overcomes intervention. This has been reported in Japanese and Korean. I will argue that the “anti-intervention” effect arises from the general structure of ‘why’, which I will propose by extending proposals in Beck (1996) and Shlonsky and Soare (2011). Within this general proposal for the structure of ‘why’, I will use an insight by Ko (2005) to distinguish those languages that have the anti-intervention effect (Japanese, Korean) from those that do not (Chinese).
なお、これに先立ち、3月12日には慶應大学にて「進化における言語の外在化 Evolution and the Externalization of Language」というタイトルのコロキアムが行われます。
進化における言語の外在化
Evolution and the Externalization of Language
講師：宮川 繁氏（MIT教授、東京大学大学総合教育研究センター特任教授）
日時：2017年3月12日（日）13:00-18:00
会場：慶應義塾大学三田キャンパス 北館３階 大会議室
参加費無料 申込不要（使用言語：日本語・英語）
http://www.icl.keio.ac.jp/colo/2017/01/2017312.html
[:]