Mayfest 2025 - Constraints on Meaning
When and why are certain meanings missing?
Research
Research at our top-ranked department spans syntax, semantics, phonology, language acquisition, computational linguistics, psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics.
Connections between our core competencies are strong, with theoretical, experimental and computational work typically pursued in tandem.
A network of collaboration at all levels sustains a research climate that is both vigorous and friendly. Here new ideas develop in conversation, stimulated by the steady activity of our labs and research groups, frequent student meetings with faculty, regular talks by local and invited scholars and collaborations with the broader University of Maryland language science community, the largest and most integrated language science research community in North America.
Featured Research News
Looking forwards and backwards: The real-time processing of Strong and Weak Crossover
Dave, Jeff and Colin show that we can make rapid use of Principle C and c-command information to constrain retrieval of antecedents in online interpretation of pronouns.
Non-ARHU Contributor(s): Dave Kush
Dates:
We investigated the processing of pronouns in Strong and Weak Crossover constructions as a means of probing the extent to which the incremental parser can use syntactic information to guide antecedent retrieval. In Experiment 1 we show that the parser accesses a displaced wh-phrase as an antecedent for a pronoun when no grammatical constraints prohibit binding, but the parser ignores the same wh-phrase when it stands in a Strong Crossover relation to the pronoun. These results are consistent with two possibilities. First, the parser could apply Principle C at antecedent retrieval to exclude the wh-phrase on the basis of the c-command relation between its gap and the pronoun. Alternatively, retrieval might ignore any phrases that do not occupy an Argument position. Experiment 2 distinguished between these two possibilities by testing antecedent retrieval under Weak Crossover. In Weak Crossover binding of the pronoun is ruled out by the argument condition, but not Principle C. The results of Experiment 2 indicate that antecedent retrieval accesses matching wh-phrases in Weak Crossover configurations. On the basis of these findings we conclude that the parser can make rapid use of Principle C and c-command information to constrain retrieval. We discuss how our results support a view of antecedent retrieval that integrates inferences made over unseen syntactic structure into constraints on backward-looking processes like memory retrieval.
Split ergativity is not about ergativity
Split ergativity is an epiphenomenon, argues Maria Polinsky.
Contributor(s): Omer PremingerNon-ARHU Contributor(s): Jessica Coon
Dates:
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Publisher: Oxford University Press
This chapter argues that split ergativity is epiphenomenal, and that the factors which trigger its appearance are not limited to ergative systems in the first place. In both aspectual and person splits, the split is the result of a bifurcation of the clause into two distinct case/agreement domains, which renders the clause structurally intransitive. Since intransitive subjects do not appear with ergative marking, this straightforwardly accounts for the absence of ergative morphology. Crucially, such bifurcation is not specific to ergative languages; it is simply obfuscated in nominative-accusative environments because there, by definition, transitive and intransitive subjects pattern alike. The account also derives the universal directionality of splits, by linking the structure that is added to independent facts: the use of locative constructions in nonperfective aspects (Bybee et al. 1994, Laka 2006, Coon 2013), and the requirement that 1st/2nd person arguments be structurally licensed (Bejar & Rezac 2003, Baker 2008, 2011, Preminger 2011, 2014).
Antipassive
A handbook chapter on Antipassive constructions: intransitive clauses where an oblique dependent corresponds to the direct object in a transitive with the same verb.
Contributor(s): Maria Polinsky
Dates:
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Publisher: Oxford University Press
A handbook chapter on Antipassive constructions: intransitive clauses where an oblique dependent corresponds to the direct object in a transitive with the same verb.
Ergativity and Austronesian-type voice systems
Austronesian voice systems are not the result of syntactic ergativity.
Non-ARHU Contributor(s): Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, Theodore Levin, Coppe van Urk
Dates:
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Austronesian voice systems are not the result of syntactic ergativity.
Experimental approaches to ergative languages
A summary of major results in experimental work on ergative syntax, focussing on competition with accusative syntax, and the effects of ergativity on processing of long distance dependencies.
Contributor(s): Maria PolinskyNon-ARHU Contributor(s): Nicholas Longenbaugh
Dates:
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Publisher: Oxford University Press
A summary of major results in experimental work on ergative syntax, focussing on competition with accusative syntax, and the effects of ergativity on processing of long distance dependencies.
How can feature-sharing be asymmetric? Valuation as UNION over geometric feature structures
Valuation of features is neither overwriting nor sharing, but instead "union" of geometric structures.
Contributor(s): Omer Preminger
Dates:
Publisher: MITWPL
Publisher: MITWPL
Valuation of features is neither overwriting nor sharing, but instead "union" of geometric structures.
The EPP is independent of Case: On illicit unaccusative incorporation
Languages with Noun Incorporation may forbid this with the single argument of an unaccusative. For this reason, says Ted Levin, the work of the EPP cannot be done instead by a requirement for Case.
Non-ARHU Contributor(s): Theodore Levin
Dates:
Publisher: MITWPL
Publisher: MITWPL
Languages with Noun Incorporation may forbid this with the single argument of an unaccusative. For this reason, says Ted Levin, the work of the EPP cannot be done instead by a requirement for Case.
Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet
Scope ambiguities permitted by most speakers of English are not permitted by those who are also heritage speakers of Mandarin, suggest Maria Polinsky and her collaborators.
Contributor(s): Maria PolinskyNon-ARHU Contributor(s): Gregory Scontras, C.-Y. Edwin Tsai, Kenneth Mai
Dates:
Accurately recognizing and resolving ambiguity is a hallmark of linguistic ability. English is a language with scope ambiguities in doubly-quantified sentences like A shark ate every pirate; this sentence can either describe a scenario with a single shark eating all of the pirates, or a scenario with many sharks—a potentially-different one eating each pirate. In Mandarin Chinese, the corresponding sentence is unambiguous, as it can only describe the single-shark scenario. We present experimental evidence to this effect, comparing native speakers of English with native speakers of Mandarin in their interpretations of doubly-quantified sentences. Having demonstrated the difference between these two languages in their ability for inverse scope interpretations, we then probe the robustness of the grammar of scope by extending our experiments to English-dominant adult heritage speakers of Mandarin. Like native speakers of Mandarin, heritage Mandarin speakers lack inverse scope in Mandarin. Crucially, these speakers also lack inverse scope in English, their dominant language in adulthood. We interpret these results as evidence for the pressure to simplify the grammar of scope, decreasing ambiguity when possible. In other words, when two systems meet—as in the case of heritage speakers—the simpler system prevails.
Read More about Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet
Learning an input filter for argument structure acquisition
How do children learn a verb’s argument structure when their input contains nonbasic clauses that obscure verb transitivity? Laurel Perkins shows that it might be enough for them to make a good guess about how likely they are to be wrong.
Non-ARHU Contributor(s): Laurel Perkins
Dates:
How do children learn a verb’s argument structure when their input contains nonbasic clauses that obscure verb transitivity? Here we present a new model that infers verb transitivity by learning to filter out non-basic clauses that were likely parsed in error. In simulations with childdirected speech, we show that this model accurately categorizes the majority of 50 frequent transitive, intransitive and alternating verbs, and jointly learns appropriate parameters for filtering parsing errors. Our model is thus able to filter out problematic data for verb learning without knowing in advance which data need to be filtered.
Think' pragmatically: Children's interpretation of belief reports
Children under 4 respond in nonadultlike ways to uses of verbs like "think". Shevaun, Valentine and Jeff argue that this arise from pragmatic difficulty understanding the relevance of belief, rather than from conceptual or semantic immaturity.
Non-ARHU Contributor(s): Shevaun Lewis
Dates:
Children under 4 years of age often evaluate belief reports based on reality instead of beliefs. They tend to reject sentences like, “John thinks that giraffes have stripes” on the grounds that giraffes do not have stripes. Previous accounts have proposed that such judgments reflect immature Theory of Mind or immature syntactic/semantic representations. We argue that the difficulty is actually pragmatic. Adults frequently use belief reports to provide information about reality (e.g., “I think the stove is still hot”). Young children have difficulty determining when the main point is reality (the stove situation) vs. mental states (John’s ideas about giraffes). We show that if the context emphasizes beliefs, children are more able to evaluate belief reports appropriately (Experiment 1). The pattern of children’s truth value judgments demonstrates that they understand the literal meaning of think sentences, despite their pragmatic difficulty grasping the speaker’s intention (Experiment 2).
Read More about Think' pragmatically: Children's interpretation of belief reports