9 Oct 2025

Nina Haslinger (Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft – ZAS)

Morphosemantic primitives in universal quantification

(joint work with Alain Noindonmon Hien, Emil Eva Rosina, Viola Schmitt and Valerie Wurm)

The quantifier systems of natural languages encode distinctions that have no counterpart in classical first-order logic, such as the distinction between what I’ll call "distributive" universal quantifiers (English *every*, *each*) and "maximizing" universal quantifiers (English *all*). Distributive universal quantifiers systematically disallow collective and cumulative interpretations wrt. their nuclear scope, whereas maximizing ones permit them to a limited extent and seem to have the effect of picking out a maximal element with respect to a part-whole relation. The standard view has been that this reflects two distinct primitive quantifier meanings, in line with the distinct lexicalizations generally found in European languages.

In this talk, we argue based on data from Keenan & Paperno (2012, 2017) and new data from Mabia languages that the standard view fails to derive a number of typological facts. First, some languages use the same form for distributive and maximizing universal quantifiers, with the choice of interpretation seemingly determined by properties of the complement, such as number and definiteness (cf. Gil 1995, Winter 2001, Fassi Fehri 2020). Second, in languages with distinct distributive and maximizing forms, the same properties of the complement correlate with the choice between quantifier forms in a non-arbitrary way that does not reduce to syntactic agreement and does not have a straightforward account on a standard theory with two lexical primitives. Third, distributive forms are often internally complex and formally related to the numeral *one*.

We propose an alternative account in which there is a single primitive for universal quantification, which contributes either maximization or distributivity depending on the algebraic properties of the restrictor predicate it combines with. "Distributive" forms like English *every* and *each* are analyzed as portmanteau forms that jointly realize the quantifier itself and elements that add a non-overlap or atomicity presupposition concerning the restrictor predicate. We implement this idea within a spanning approach to lexicalization in which portmanteau forms are not exceptional, but reflect the default mechanism for exponents that realize more than one feature. The resulting system derives the correlation between form choice and semantic properties of the restrictor predicate and also allows us to make sense of apparent mismatches between distributivity and complement number, e.g. uses of maximizing forms with definite singular complements to express roughly the meaning of *whole*, and uses of distributive forms with degree-interval expressions as in *every ten minutes*.

This talk is based on our recent NLLT paper, but in some places analytical choices will be made that deviate slightly from the "official" proposal adopted in the paper.

26 Jun 2025

Adam Szczegielniak (University of Gdańsk)

Multiple remnant sluicing

This talk explores the properties of a type of ellipsis called sluicing: ‘Russel claimed some barber shaved himself, but I do not know [which barber]₁ [Russel claimed t₁ shaved himself]’ vis a vis the properties of multiple remnant sluicing: ‘Russel claimed he introduced some barber to some philosopher, but I do not know which barber to which philosopher [Russel claimed he introduced]’. Both types of sluicing are argued to involve wh-movement evacuation of the remnant out of a complete syntactic structure whose PF material is then subsequently deleted (Merchant 2001). However, multiple remnant sluicing has been shown to differ from single remnant sluicing as far extraction restrictions of the wh-remnant (Lasnik 2014, Abels & Dayal 2013, Citko & Gračanin-Yuksek 2020, Barros & Frank 2023). Based on data from island alleviation, I propose a phase based linearization approach (Fox & Pesetsky 2005) that complements existing approaches to how sluices are derived. Furthermore, it will be argued that evacuation of the remnants via wh-movement is best analyzed as prosody driven wh-movement (Richards 2010).

Abels, K. and Dayal, V., 2023. On the syntax of multiple sluicing and what it tells us about wh-scope taking. Linguistic Inquiry, 54(3), pp.429-477.

Barros, M. and Kotek, H., 2019. Ellipsis licensing and redundancy reduction: A focus-based approach. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1).

Barros, M. and Frank, R., 2023. Attention and locality: On clause-boundedness and its exceptions in multiple sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry, 54(4), pp.649-684.

Citko, B. and Gračanin-Yuksek, M., 2020. Conjunction saves multiple sluicing: How *(and) why?. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1).

Fox, D. and Pesetsky, D., 2005. Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 31(1-2), pp.1-45.

Kotek, H. and Barros, M., 2018. Multiple sluicing, scope, and superiority: Consequences for ellipsis identity. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), pp.781-812.

Lasnik, H., 2014. Multiple Sluicing in English?. Syntax, 17(1), pp.1-20.

Merchant, J., 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.

Richards, N., 2010. Uttering Trees. MIT Press.

5 Jun 2025

Sebastian Zawada (IPI PAN)

Agreement in Polish revisited: Evidence from copular clauses

In this talk, I examine some intriguing types of Polish copular constructions in which nominative nominal predicates control agreement – (i) Z Marysi był dobry człowiek ‘Mary (lit. of Mary) was a good person’, (ii) To był skandal ‘This was a scandal’, (iii) Marysia to był dobry człowiek ‘Mary was a good person’ (the underlined phrases in the translations unambiguously agree in gender in the Polish examples). These constructions challenge the traditional view that Polish verbs agree with their subjects. Through a detailed analysis of the syntactic items involved, I show that the observed agreement pattern (as well as canonical subject-verb agreement) is best accounted for by the influential cross-linguistic view that verbs agree with the highest accessible phrase in the domain of agreement. Particular attention is given to constructions such as (iii): I evaluate various syntactic analyses thereof and present novel data that undermine some existing accounts and support a revised version of another.