Linguistic Variation

Code
570522
Credits
5cr

Goals

At the end of the course students should be acquainted with: 

  • An overview of some hot topics that are currently being investigated in formal approaches to linguistic variation
  • current theoretical and empirical perspectives on the linguistic variation related to phonology
  • current perspectives on language acquisition concerning the syntax-semantic interface and the semantic-pragmatic interface, where variation can be found at group level and at language level

 

Content

1. Linguistic variation in phonology

  1. variation and change in phonological theory
  2. phonological variation through constraint ranking
  3. the typology of syllabic patterns: markedness and faithfulness, and positional faithfulness vs. positional markedness
  4. the typology of stress patterns

2. Linguistic variation in language acquisition

  1. the acquisition of the semantic-pragmatic interface: scalar implicatures
  2. the acquisition of quantification
  3. the acquisition of negation
     

Assessment

The assessment for this course will be based on one exam contributing 60% towards the final grade. The final exam will be composed by two parts: the first part of the exam will evaluate topics covered in the block Linguistic variation in phonology, while the second part will assess material covered in the block Linguistic variation in language acquisition. The final exam will require students to demonstrate not only a solid understanding of the course material, but also critical thinking and effective writing skills. Students will be expected to apply their knowledge to tackle novel empirical and analytical problems.

An additional 40% of the final grade (20% for each block) will be allocated to the completion of exercises or oral presentations to be completed in the classroom. This component aims to assess students’ ability to use their knowledge and apply it in new discussions, enhancing their overall learning experience.

Re-evaluation: In the event that a student receives a final grade below 5 (within the range of 3 - 4.9), they may opt for a re-evaluation via a single final exam if they intend to pass the course. Successful completion of this exam will result in a final grade of 5.

 

Examination-based assessment

Under exceptional and justified circumstances, a single examination (100% of the grade) can be scheduled. Re-evaluation of this assessment can only be considered for students having failed with grades ranging from 3 to 4.9. The maximum final grade can only be 5.

 

References

Book

McCarthy, J. J. (2008).  Optimality Theory: Applyting Theory to Data. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

Guasti, M. T. (2017). Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. 


Chapter

Anttila, A. (2007). “Variation and optionality”. In P. de Lacy (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 519-536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2006). “Phonological change in Optimality Theory”. In K. Brown (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, vol 9, 497-505. Oxford: Elsevier.

Coetzee, A. W. & J. Pater (2011). “The place of variation in phonological theory”. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. C. L. Yu (eds.). The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Second Edition, 401-434.  Chichester, W. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kager, R. (2011). Feet and metrical stress. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. C. L. Yu (eds.). The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Second Edition, 195-228.  Chichester, W. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.


Article

Aravind, A., de Villiers, J., de Villiers, P., Lonigan, C., Phillips, B., Clancy, J., Landry, S., Swank, P., Assel, M., Taylor, H., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. & Valiente, C. (2017). Children’s quantification with every over time. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 10(X), 1. [2]

Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition 118(1): 84-93. [1]

Gotzner, N., Barner, D., & Crain, S. (2020). Disjunction triggers exhaustivity implicatures in 4-to 5-year-olds: Investigating the role of access to alternatives. Journal of Semantics, 37(2): 219-245. [1]

Maldonado, M., & Culbertson, J. (2021). Nobody doesn’t like negative concord. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 50: 1401-1416. [3]

Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2016). Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition 153: 6-18. [1]

Thornton, R., Notley, A., Moscati, V., & Crain, S. (2016). Two negations for the price of one. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1). [3]


Conference papers and lectures

Katsos, N., Cummins, C., Ezeizabarrena, M. J., Gavarró, A., Kuvač Kraljević, J., Hrzica, G., ... & Noveck, I. (2016). Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(33): 9244-9249. [2]