+ All Categories
Home > Documents > The Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguisticsin.bgu.ac.il/en/humsos/flit/Site...

The Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguisticsin.bgu.ac.il/en/humsos/flit/Site...

Date post: 07-Jul-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 19 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
24
The Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics COURSE DESCRIPTION- LINGUISTICS 2015-2016 First year Required INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS AND SYNTAX Dr. Tova Rapoport Fall semester, 4 pts Teaching Assistants: Mor Harpaz: [email protected] Carmel Mor: [email protected] Goals โ€ข Introduce the science of modern linguistics and its fundamental concerns โ€ข Understand the basic subdivisions of the field: phonology, syntax and semantics โ€ข Acquire basic tools for the analysis of syntactic data Requirements and Grading โ€ข Attendance required. โ€ข Exercises: 20% (approximately 2% per exercise for 10 exercises; grades are pass/fail) โ€ข You may work on the exercises either singly or in pairs. (If in a pair, submit once.) โ€ข Intro exam (midterm): 20% โ€ข Syntax exam: 60% INTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS Course requirements: Attendance Homework Assignments: 20% Final Exam: 80%
Transcript

The Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics

COURSE DESCRIPTION- LINGUISTICS 2015-2016

First year

Required

INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS AND SYNTAX

Dr. Tova Rapoport

Fall semester, 4 pts

Teaching Assistants:

Mor Harpaz: [email protected]

Carmel Mor: [email protected]

Goals

โ€ข Introduce the science of modern linguistics and its fundamental concerns

โ€ข Understand the basic subdivisions of the field: phonology, syntax and semantics

โ€ข Acquire basic tools for the analysis of syntactic data

Requirements and Grading

โ€ข Attendance required.

โ€ข Exercises: 20% (approximately 2% per exercise for 10 exercises; grades are pass/fail)

โ€ข You may work on the exercises either singly or in pairs. (If in a pair, submit once.)

โ€ข Intro exam (midterm): 20%

โ€ข Syntax exam: 60%

INTRODUCTION TO SEMANTICS

Course requirements:

Attendance

Homework Assignments: 20%

Final Exam: 80%

INTRODUCTION TO PHONOLOGY

Dr. Dorit Ben-Shalom

Spring semester, 2 pts.

The mechanics of speech production (articulatory phonetics), and the acoustic characteristics of speech

sounds.

Course requirements:

10 in-class quizzes 20%

3 assignments 30%

1 final exam 50%

Required attendance: Final test (but there are quizzes in class)

ืžื‘ื•ื ืœืคื•ื ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื”

ืžื ื’ื ื•ื ื™ ื”ืคืงืช ื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจ (ืคื•ื ื˜ื™ืงื” ื”ืคืงืชื™ืช), ื•ืžืืคื™ื™ื ื™ื ืืงื•ืกื˜ื™ื™ื ืฉืœ ืฆืœื™ืœื™ ื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจ (ืคื•ื ื˜ื™ืงื” ืืงื•ืกื˜ื™ืช).

ื“ืจื™ืฉื•ืช ื”ืงื•ืจืก:

20%ื‘ื—ื ื™ื ื‘ื›ื™ืชื” 10

30%ืžื˜ืœื•ืช 3

50%ืžื‘ื—ืŸ ืกื™ื•ื 1

.ืžื‘ื—ืŸ ืกื™ื•ื (ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื—ื ื™ื ื‘ื›ื™ืชื”)ื—ื•ื‘ืช ื ื•ื›ื—ื•ืช:

READING WORKSHOP FOR LINGUISTIC

Dr. Irena Botwinik

Spring semester, 2 pts.

The main purpose of the workshop is to learn how to read articles in linguistics in a thorough and

critical way. A secondary goal is to expose students to the fields of linguistics that are not covered by

the compulsory courses or by any courses in the department: linguistic relativity, socio-linguistics,

historical linguistics, etc. During the workshop, the students will be asked to read the articles at

home, before class, in order to conduct a fruitful and meaningful discussion of the relevant article,

focusing on the identification of the main claim of the article, the type of arguments advanced to

support the main claim, exposure of tacit assumptions, as well as additional issues which are typical

of linguistic literature, such as the status of examples and counter-examples in supporting/refuting

linguistic theories.

General information:

โ€ข Presence in class is obligatory

โ€ข Some classes will start with a proficiency test of the relevant article (the grade โ€“ pass/fail). At

least 80% of the tests should receive "pass" grade.

โ€ข All the material, including the articles, is on the course site.

โ€ข The exam will include questions on the articles discussed during the course as well as on an

"unseen", that will be revealed a week before the exam.

โ€ข Pay attention to the announcements on the course site

Grade:

Proficiency tests โ€“ 20%, P/F

Graded assignment โ€“ 15%

Active participation in class โ€“ 5%

Final Exam โ€“ 60%

Bonus: Class presentation (possible in groups) โ€“ 10%

References and Readings (there might be changes)

Bradley, J. 2011. Yanyuwa: "Men speak one way, women speak another". In J. Coates and P. Pichler

(eds.), Language and Gender: A Reader, 2nd edition, Part I Gender differences: Pronunciation

and grammar.

Boroditsky, L. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of

time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1-22.

Fattal, I., N. Friedmann, and A. Fattal-Vilevsky. (In press in Brain). The crucial role of thiamine in

the development of syntax and lexical retrieval: A study of infantile thiamine deficiency.

Grodzinsky, Y. 1989. Agrammatic comprehension of relative clauses. Brain and Language 37, 480-

499.

Horvath, J. and P. Wexler 1997. Relexification in Creole and non-Creole languages โ€“ with special

attention to Haitian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Romani, and Rumanian. Mediterranean Language

and Culture Monograph Series, vol. xiii. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 11-71.

Li, P. and L. R. Gleitman 2002. Turning the tables: Spatial language and spatial reasoning. Cognition

83:3, 265-294.

Myhill, J. 2004. A parametrized view of the concept of 'correctness'. Multilingua 23, 389โˆ’416.

Slobin, D. 1996. From 'thought and language' to 'thinking for speaking'. In J. Gumprez and S. Levinson

(eds.), Rethinking Linguistics Relativity. Cambridge University Press, 70-96.

Smith, N. V. 1975. Universal tendencies in the child's acquisition of phonology. In N. O'Connor (ed.),

Language, Cognitive Deficits and Retardation IRMMH Study Group 7. Butterworth, 47-65.

Reprinted in: B. Lust and C. Foley (2004) (eds.), First Language Acquisition: The Essential

Readings. Oxford: Blackwell, 294-306.

Swinney, D. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context

effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 645-659.

Trudgill, P. 2011. Sex and covert prestige. In J. Coates and P. Pichler (eds.), Language and Gender: A

Reader, 2nd edition, Part I Gender differences: Pronunciation and grammar.

Whorf, B. 1956. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Worf, edited by

Carroll JB. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zuckermann, G. 2005. A new vision for "Israeli Hebrew": Theoretical and practical implications of

analyzing Israel's main language as a semi-engineered Semito-European hybrid language.

Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 5.1, 57-71.

First-year electives

INTRODUCTION TO COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE

Dr. Dorit Ben-Shalom

Fall semester, 2 pts.

Basic brain anatomy and physiology, some basic principles of cognitive psychology, and the

different imaging methods that are used to study brain structure and function.

Course requirements:

Midterm 25%

Final exam 75%

Required attendance: mid-term

ืžื“ืขื™ ื”ืขืฆื‘ โ€“ื ืœืžื“ืข ืงื•ื’ื ื™ื˜ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื‘ื•

ืžื‘ื ื” ื•ืชืคืงื•ื“ ืžื•ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืกื™ืกื™ื™ื, ืขืงืจื•ื ื•ืช ื‘ืกื™ืกื™ื™ื ืฉืœ ืคืกื™ื›ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื” ืงื•ื’ื ื™ื˜ื™ื‘ื™ืช, ื•ืฉื™ื˜ื•ืช ื”ื”ื“ืžื™ื” ื”ืฉื•ื ื•ืช ื”ืžืฉืžืฉื•ืช ืœืžื—ืงืจ

ืžื‘ื ื” ื•ืชืคืงื•ื“ ืžื•ื—ื™ื™ื.

:ื“ืจื™ืฉื•ืช ื”ืงื•ืจืก

25% ืžื‘ื—ืŸ ืืžืฆืข ืกืžืกื˜ืจ

75% ืžื‘ื—ืŸ ืกื™ื•ื

ืžื‘ื—ืŸ ืืžืฆืข ืกืžืกื˜ืจ ื—ื•ื‘ืช ื ื•ื›ื—ื•ืช:

INTRODUCTION TO THE LEXICON

Dr. Tova Rapoport

Spring semester, 2 pts

In this course, we will examine the basic concepts relevant to analyses of lexical representation and

the lexicon-syntax interface.

We begin with the aspectual classes and an exploration of the aspectual and argument relations that

distinguish them. We turn to an investigation into the nature of lexical representation, considering

various analyses. We then examine certain phenomena, with the aim of deciding how we can best

account for them with a characterization of the relation between lexical and syntactic representations.

Requirements and grading:

There are regular readings, posted on Moodle.

Students are expected to read the articles, bring any questions and comments to class, and participate

in class discussions. Attendance is therefore required.

Assignments = 25% (You may work on the assignments in pairs, if you wish.)

Final exam = 75%

NATURAL LANGUAGE AND ANIMAL COMMUNICATION

Dr. Olga Kagan

Fall semester, 2 pts.

What are the key differences between natural language and other communication systems, including

the ones used by animals? Is the ability to acquire natural language a property that uniquely

characterizes human beings? Which properties are shared by various animal communication systems

and natural language and which make them distinct? In this course, we will try to provide an answer

to these questions. We will consider properties of communication systems of several species, such as

bees, ants, Diana monkeys, whales and bottlenose dolphins. We will also take a look at certain

experiments, whereby attempts have been made to teach a simplified version of human language to

apes, dolphins and parrots.

Course requirements:

Attendance

Comprehension quizzes 20%

Final Exam: 80%

ืฉืคื” ื˜ื‘ืขื™ืช ื•ืชืงืฉื•ืจืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื

ืžื”ื ื”ื”ื‘ื“ืœื™ื ื”ืขืงืจื•ื ื™ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืคื” ื˜ื‘ืขื™ืช ืœื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืขืจื›ื•ืช ืชืงืฉื•ืจืช ืื—ืจื•ืช ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืžืขืจื›ื•ืช ืชืงืฉื•ืจืช ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื? ื”ืื ืจืง ื‘ื ื™

ืื“ื ืžืกื•ื’ืœื™ื ืœืจื›ื•ืฉ ืฉืคื” ื˜ื‘ืขื™ืช? ืžื”ืŸ ื”ืชื›ื•ื ื•ืช ื”ืžืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช ืœืฉืคื” ืื ื•ืฉื™ืช ื•ืžืขืจื›ื•ืช ืชืงืฉื•ืจืช ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื? ื‘ืžืกื’ืจืช

ื›ื•ืช ืชืงืฉื•ืจืช ืฉืœ ืžืกืคืจ ืกื•ื’ื™ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื, ื›ื•ืœืœ ื“ื‘ื•ืจื™ื, ื ืžืœื™ื, ื”ืงื•ืจืก ื ื ืกื” ืœืขื ื•ืช ืขืœ ืฉืืœื•ืช ืืœื•. ื ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืชื›ื•ื ื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืขืจ

ืงื•ืคื™ ื“ื™ืื ื” ื•ื“ื•ืœืคื™ื ื™ื. ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื’ื ืขืœ ื”ื ื™ืกื™ื•ื ื•ืช ืœืœืžื“ ืงื•ืคื™ื, ื“ื•ืœืคื™ื ื™ื ื•ืชื•ื›ื™ื ื’ืจืกืื•ืช ืžืคื•ืฉื˜ื•ืช ืฉืœ ื”ืฉืคื” ื”ืื ื•ืฉื™ืช.

LINGUISTICS THROUGH SCIENCE FICTION

Prof. Ariel Cohen

Spring semester, 4 pts.

Good science fiction allows us to investigate scientific ideas in unconventional ways. In this course

we will read a number of science fiction stories, consider the linguistic questions they raise, and

compare a contrast the contribution of science fiction with what the science of linguistics says about

the issues.

Choose one of the following options:

A final exam

Three book reports

An original story

Attendance is not required

ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ื‘ืจืื™ ื”ืžื“ืข ื”ื‘ื“ื™ื•ื ื™

ืช. ื‘ืงื•ืจืก ื–ื” ื ืงืจื ืžืกืคืจ ืกื™ืคื•ืจื™ ืžื“ืข ื‘ื“ื™ื•ื ื™, ืžื“ืข ื‘ื“ื™ื•ื ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืืคืฉืจ ืœื ื• ืœื—ืงื•ืจ ืจืขื™ื•ื ื•ืช ืžื“ืขื™ื™ื ื‘ื“ืจื›ื™ื ืœื ืงื•ื ื‘ื ืฆื™ื•ื ืืœื™ื•

.ืžืขืœื™ื ื•ื ืฉื•ื•ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืฉืœ ื”ืžื“ืข ื”ื‘ื“ื™ื•ื ื™ ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ืžื“ืข ื”ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ืขืœ ื ื•ืฉืื™ื ืืœื” ื ื‘ื—ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉืืœื•ืช ื”ื‘ืœืฉื ื™ื•ืช ืฉื”ื

ืžื˜ืœื•ืช ืžื”ืงื•ืจืก

ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื‘ืื™ื, ืœืคื™ ื‘ื—ื™ืจืช ื”ืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜:

ืžื‘ื—ืŸ ืžืกื›ื

ืฉืœื•ืฉื” ื“ื•"ื—ื•ืช ืงืจื™ืื”

ืกื™ืคื•ืจ ืžืงื•ืจื™

ื ื•ื›ื—ื•ืช ืื™ื ื” ื—ื•ื‘ื”

INTRODUCTION TO COGNITIVE SCIENCE โ€“ LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Dr. Aviya Hacohen

Fall semester, 2 pts

The goal of this course is to introduce students to the field of first language acquisition; to present them

with the fundamental questions; and to familiarize them with the basic methodological tools required

for pursuing independent research. We will discuss different language acquisition theories, the

development of the various subparts of language and a number of methodologies to study child

language. This course is not designed to provide definitive answers; its central aim is to intellectually

stimulate the students and motivate them to further explore this incredible capacity which defines us

as humans.

The final grade for the course will be based on:

โ€ข Formulation of questions regarding the readings (15%)

โ€ข Attendance and participation in class discussions (5%)

โ€ข Tutorial assignments (25%)

โ€ข Final exam (55%)

ืจื›ื™ืฉืช ืฉืคื” โ€“ื˜ื™ื‘ื™ ื™ืžื‘ื•ื ืœืžื“ืข ืงื•ื’ื 

ื”ืงื•ืจืก ืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืจื›ื™ืฉืช ืฉืคืช ืื ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืชื•ื›ื ืŸ ืœื”ืงื ื•ืช ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื ื•ืฉื ื”ืชืคืชื—ื•ืช ืฉืคื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืืฆืœ ื™ืœื“ื™ื. ืžื˜ืจืช ื”ืงื•ืจืก ื”ื™ื

ื•ืœื”ืฆื™ื’ ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื”ืžืชื•ื“ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื™ื ืœื—ืฉื•ืฃ ืืช ื”ืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ื™ื ืœืชื—ื•ื ืจื›ื™ืฉืช ื”ืฉืคื”, ืœื‘ื—ื•ืŸ ืืช ืฉืืœื•ืช ื”ื™ืกื•ื“ ืฉืœ ื”ืชื—ื•ื,

ื”ื‘ืกื™ืกื™ื™ื ื”ื ื—ื•ืฆื™ื ืœืžื—ืงืจ ืขืฆืžืื™.

ื‘ืงื•ืจืก ื ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืื•ืจื™ื•ืช ืจื›ื™ืฉืช ืฉืคื” ื•ื‘ืฉืœื‘ื™ ื”ื”ืชืคืชื—ื•ืช ืฉืœ ื—ืœืงื™ ื”ืฉืคื” ื”ืฉื•ื ื™ื, ื•ื›ืŸ ื ืกืงื•ืจ ื˜ื›ื ื™ืงื•ืช ืืงืกืคืจื™ืžื ื˜ืืœื™ื•ืช

ื”ืžืฉืžืฉื•ืช ืœื—ืงืจ ืฉืคืช ื™ืœื“ื™ื.

ื™ืช ื•ืœื’ืจื•ื ืœื”ื ืœืจืฆื•ืช ืœื”ืžืฉื™ืš ืžืฉืžืขื™ื•ืช ืืœื ืœืขื•ืจืจ ืืช ื”ืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ื™ื ืื™ื ื˜ืœืงื˜ื•ืืœ-ื”ืงื•ืจืก ืื™ื ื• ืืžื•ืจ ืœืกืคืง ืชืฉื•ื‘ื•ืช ื—ื“

ื•ืœื—ืงื•ืจ ืืช ื”ื™ื›ื•ืœืช ื”ืžื•ืคืœืื” ื”ื–ื•, ื”ืžื’ื“ื™ืจื” ืื•ืชื ื• ื›ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื.

ื”ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ื”ืกื•ืคื™ ื‘ืงื•ืจืก ืžื•ืจื›ื‘ ืž:

)15%ืฉืืœื•ืช ืงืจื™ืื” ( โ€ข

)5%ื ื•ื›ื—ื•ืช ื•ื”ืฉืชืชืคื•ืช ื‘ื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื‘ื›ื™ืชื” ( โ€ข

)25%ืžื˜ืœื•ืช ืชืจื’ื•ืœ ( โ€ข

)55%ื‘ื—ื™ื ื” ( โ€ข

Selected bibliography

Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language Acquistion: The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lust, B. (2006). Child Language: Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Fromkin, Krashen, Curtiss, Rigler & Rigler (1974)

Eimas, Siqueland, Jusczyk & Vigorito (1971)

Crain & Lillo-Martin (1999)

Boeckx, C. (2010). Language in Cognition: Uncovering Mental Structures and the Rules Behind Them.

Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Cairns, H.S. (1996.) Methods for assessing children's syntax. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Second year

Required courses

SEMANTICS A

Prof. Ariel Cohen

Fall semester, 4 pts.

An age-old definition of linguistics is the investigation of the relation between sound and meaning.

How is it that mere air vibrations or squiggles on a page can convey ideas, thoughts, beliefs, feelings?

In this class, we will consider this question. We will investigate what meanings are, which factors

affect the meaning of an utterance, and consider the meanings of a variety of linguistic constructions.

Requirements: The grade will be based on bi-weekly assignments, a midterm exam and a final.

Prerequisites: Introduction to Semantics

Required textbook: J. Allwood, Lars-Gunnar Andersson and ร–sten Dahl (1977). Logic in Linguistics.

Cambridge University Press.

ืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื” ื

ื”ื’ื“ืจื” ืขืชื™ืงื” ืฉืœ ื”ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื ื—ืงืจ ื”ื™ื—ืก ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื•ืœ ื•ืžืฉืžืขื•ืช. ืื™ืš ื™ื™ืชื›ืŸ ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืชื ื•ื“ื•ืช ืื•ื™ืจ ืื• ืฉืจื‘ื•ื˜ื™ื ืขืœ ื“ืฃ ื ื™ื™ืจ

ื˜ื™ื‘ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืฉืžืขื•ื™ื•ืช, ืืœื• ื’ื•ืจืžื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืœื”ื‘ื™ืข ืจืขื™ื•ื ื•ืช, ืžื—ืฉื‘ื•ืช, ืืžื•ื ื•ืช, ืจื’ืฉื•ืช? ื‘ืงื•ืจืก ื–ื” ื ื‘ื—ืŸ ืฉืืœื” ื–ื•. ื ื—ืงื•ืจ ืืช

.ืงื•ื‘ืขื™ื ืืช ืžืฉืžืขื•ืชื• ืฉืœ ืžื‘ืข, ื•ื ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืžืฉืžืขื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžื’ื•ื•ืŸ ืžื‘ื ื™ื ืœืฉื•ื ื™ื™ื

SEMANTICS B

Dr. Olga Kagan

Fall semester, 4 pts.

In this course, we will continue considering a range of phenomena in formal semantics. We will

investigate such topics as properties of quantifiers, tense, lexical and grammatical aspect, generic

sentences, gradable adjectives, etc.

Course requirements:

Attendance

Homework Assignments: 15%

Midterm Exam: 25%

Final Exam: 60%

Prerequisites: Intro to Semantics, Semantics A

ืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื” ื‘'

ื˜ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื” ืฉืœ ื›ืžืชื™ื, ื–ืžืŸ, ืืกืคืง ื‘ืžืกื’ืจืช ืงื•ืจืก ื–ื” ื ืžืฉื™ืš ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืกื•ื’ื™ื•ืช ืฉื•ื ื•ืช ื‘ืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื” ืคื•ืจืžืœื™ืช. ื ื—ืงื•ืจ ื ื•ืฉืื™ื

.ืชืืจื™ื ืžื“ื•ืจื’ื™ื ื•ืขื•ื“ ื,ืœืงืกื™ืงืœื™ ื•ื“ืงื“ื•ืงื™, ืžืฉืคื˜ื™ื ื’ื ืจื™ื™

ืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื” ื' ืžื‘ื•ื ืœืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื” ื• :ืงื•ืจืก ืงื“ื

SYNTAX A

Dr. Lena Ibnbari

Fall semester, 4 pts.

This course is the first half of an advanced introduction to theoretical syntax within the framework of

generative grammar. The goal is to become familiar with theoretical concepts and principles, and to

develop skills in syntactic description, analysis and argumentation.

Prerequisites: Introduction to Linguistic and Syntax

REQUIRED Course materials:

Textbook: An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory, by Dominique Sportiche, Hilda

Koopman and Edward Stabler, published by Wiley Blackwell

Homework exercises will be available through Moodle.

NOTE: All students are expected to obtain a copy of the textbook. It will also be used in

Syntax B, and should be a valuable resource for seminars and option courses in syntax.

Course requirements:

Attend all classes and read all assigned sections from the textbook

10 exercises (3% each) 30%

Midterm exam 30%

Final exam 40%

Week Date Topic Reading Exercise

Week 1 Oct. 30 Introduction

Foundations of Syntax

Chapters 1,2

Nov. 2 Morphology 1: A word

-lexeme vs word

- word classes

-two kinds of affixes

-inflection โ€“ formal features

chapter 2 Exercise 1 out

Week 2 Nov. 6 Morphology 2: Morphemes

- hierarchical structure

- headedness

chapter 2 Exercise 1 due

- c-selection

Nov. 9 Morphology 3: Compounds

tree structures

Syntax & Morphology - similarities

and differences

chapter 2 Exercise 2 out

Week 3 Nov. 16 Structural Relations

syntactic notions of domination, c-command, precedence

terminology

chapter 3 (beginning) + notes

Exercise 2 due

Nov. 20 Syntactic Analysis 1:

constituency tests:

substitution

S fragment tests

ch.3 Exercise 3 out

Week 4 Nov. 23 Syntactic Analysis 2:

Constituency tests:

Ellipsis, Coordination

ch.3

Exercise 3 due

Nov. 27 Syntactic Analysis 3:

Dislocation tests: movement, clefting, pseudocleft, HNPS, RNR,

Ambiguous sentences

ch.3 Exercise 4 out

Week 5 Nov.30 Clauses: CP & TP Chapter 4 Exercise 4 due

Dec. 4

conf.

DP & its head the structure of pronouns

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Exercise 5 out

Syntactic Phrases: VP, NP, AP PP

-adjunct vs argument

Exercise 5 due

Week 6 Dec.7

X-bar theory: -heads, complements, adjuncts, subjects

Silent heads: D, T, C

- s-selection

- c-selection

Chapter 5 Exercise 6 out

Dec. 14

Subjects across categories: Small clauses

Cross-linguistic variation in X-bar schema PPs

-SVO vs SOV

Chapter 6 Exercise 6 due

Week 7 Dec. 18 Lexical entries, Theta Criterion

Projection Principle

Chapter 6

Week 8 Dec. 21 MIDTERM exam

Dec. 25 NO CLASS CHANUKAH

Week 9 Dec. 28 Movement (1): Head movement Affix Hopping

ch. 8

Jan. 1 Movement (2): Head movement, V-to-T, T-to-C,

ch. 8 Exercise 7 out

Week 10 Jan. 4 Movement (3): Num-to-N ch. 8 Exercise 7 due

Jan. 8 Movement (4): DP movement Raising, to subject

ch. 8 Exercise 8 out

Week 11 Jan. 11 Binding Theory (1) Principle A ch. 7 Exercise 8 due

Jan. 15 Binding Theory (2) Principle B & C

ch. 7 Exercise 9 out

Week 12 Jan. 18 Binding Theory (2) some issues, variations

ch. 7 Exercise 9 due

Jan. 22 VP shells ch. 12

Week 13 Jan. 25 VP shells ch 12 Exercise 10 out

Jan. 21 REVIEW for the final exam --- Exercise 10 due

Febr. 1 FINAL EXAM

SYNTAX B

Will be published

Second- and third-year electives

NEUROLINGUISTICS

Dr. Dorit Ben-Shalom

Fall and spring semesters, 4 pts.

Neural correlates of morphological, syntactic, semantic, phonetic, and phonological behavior.

Prerequisite: Introduction to cognitive neuroscience

Course requirements:

1 class presentation 50%

1 final paper 50%

Required attendance: Class presentation

ื ื•ื™ืจื•ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช

ืงื•ืจืœื˜ื™ื ืขืฆื‘ื™ื™ื ืฉืœ ืขื™ื‘ื•ื“ ืžื•ืจืคื•ืœื•ื’ื™, ืชื—ื‘ื™ืจื™, ืกืžื ื˜ื™, ืคื•ื ื˜ื™, ื•ืคื•ื ื•ืœื•ื’ื™.

ืžื‘ื•ื ืœืžื“ืขื™ ื”ืขืฆื‘ ื”ืงื•ื’ื ื™ื˜ื™ื‘ื™ื™ื ื“ืจื™ืฉืช ืงื“ื:

ื“ืจื™ืฉื•ืช ื”ืงื•ืจืก:

50%ื”ืฆื’ื” ื‘ื›ื™ืชื” 1

50%ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ืกื™ื•ื 1

ื”ืฆื’ื” ื‘ื›ื™ืชื” ื—ื•ื‘ืช ื ื•ื›ื—ื•ืช:

PHONOLOGY: THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL FOUNDATIONS

Dr. Evan Cohen

Fall and spring semesters, 4 pts.

The course is divided into two parts over two semesters. The first semester reviews phonological theory

from start of generative phonology until the present, covering rule-based (SPE) and constraint-based

(Optimality Theory) approaches. The second semester discusses the investigation of phonological

knowledge, covering basic field methods, the study of corpora and experimental methodologies.

Requirements (the number of assignments is subject to change):

1. Prerequisites: Introduction to Phonology (recommended: grade over 75)

2. Regular class attendance: Students missing more than two classes in either semester cannot

complete the course

3. Reading assigned material: TBA

4. Assignments: 4-5 written exercises during the first semester (10% of final grade), 6-8 written

exercises during the second semester (10% of final grade)

5. Written exam: At the end of the first semester (30% of final grade)

6. Final paper: Submitted by 4.8.2016 (50% of final grade)

7. Late submission of assignment or paper: -10%

ืคื•ื ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื”: ื™ืกื•ื“ื•ืช ืชืื•ืจื˜ื™ื™ื ื•ืืžืคื™ืจื™ื™ื

ืง ืœืฉื ื™ ื—ืœืงื™ื ื‘ืžื”ืœืš ืฉื ื™ ืกืžืกื˜ืจื™ื. ื”ืกืžืกื˜ืจ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืกื•ืงืจ ืืช ื”ืชืื•ืจื™ื” ื”ืคื•ื ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ืช ืžืจืืฉื™ืชื” ืฉืœ ื”ืคื•ื ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื” ื”ืงื•ืจืก ืžื—ื•ืœ

ืื™ืœื•ืฆื™ื (ืชืื•ืจื™ื™ืช ื”ืื•ืคื˜ื™ืžืœื™ื•ืช). ื”ืกืžืกื˜ืจ ื”ืฉื ื™ -) ื•ืžื‘ื•ืกืกื•ืชSPEื—ื•ืงื™ื (-ื”ื’ื ืจื˜ื™ื‘ื™ืช ื•ืขื“ ื”ื™ื•ื, ืชื•ืš ื›ื™ืกื•ื™ ื’ื™ืฉื•ืช ืžื‘ื•ืกืกื•ืช

ืกื™ืกื™ื•ืช, ืžื—ืงืจ ืงื•ืจืคื•ืกื™ื ื•ืฉื™ื˜ื•ืช ืžื—ืงืจ ื ื™ืกื•ื™ื™ื•ืช.ืขื•ืกืง ื‘ื—ืงืจ ื”ื™ื“ืข ื”ืคื•ื ื•ืœื•ื’ื™, ืชื•ืš ืกืงื™ืจืช ืžืฉื™ื˜ื•ืช ืžื—ืงืจ ืฉื“ื” ื‘

ื—ื•ื‘ื•ืช ื”ืงื•ืจืก (ืžืกืคืจ ื”ืžื˜ืœื•ืช ื ืชื•ืŸ ืœืฉื™ื ื•ื™):

)75ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ืžืขืœ : ืžื•ืžืœืฅ(ืžื‘ื•ื ืœืคื•ื ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื” : ื“ืจื™ืฉื•ืช ืงื“ื .1

ืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ื™ื ื”ื ืขื“ืจื™ื ืžืฉื ื™ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื”ืœืš ืื—ื“ ื”ืกืžืกื˜ืจื™ื ืื™ื ื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ื ืœื”ืฉืœื™ื ืืช ื—ื•ื‘ื•ืช : ื ื•ื›ื—ื•ืช ืกื“ื™ืจื” .2

ื”ืงื•ืจืก

ื™ืžืกืจื• ื‘ืฉื™ืขื•ืจืคืจื˜ื™ื : ืงืจื™ืื” .3

10%(ืžื˜ืœื•ืช ื‘ืžื”ืœืš ื”ืกืžืกื˜ืจ ื”ืฉื ื™ 6-8), ืžื”ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ื”ืกื•ืคื™ 10%(ืžื˜ืœื•ืช ื‘ืžื”ืœืš ื”ืกืžืกื˜ืจ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ 4-5: ืžื˜ืœื•ืช .4

)ืžื”ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ื”ืกื•ืคื™

)ืžื”ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ื”ืกื•ืคื™ 30%(ื‘ืกื™ื•ื ื”ืกืžืกื˜ืจ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ : ื‘ื—ื™ื ื” ื‘ื›ืชื‘ .5

)ืžื”ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ื”ืกื•ืคื™ 50%( 4.8.2016ื”ื’ืฉื” ืขื“ : ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืžืกื›ืžืช .6

10%-: ื”ื’ืฉื” ืžืื•ื—ืจืช ืฉืœ ืžื˜ืœื” ืื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” .7

BILINGUALISM: ITS NATURE, DEVELOPMENT AND USE

Dr. Irena Botwinik

Fall and spring semesters, 4 pts.

The phenomenon of bilingualism is quite wide-spread, but its nature seems to be quite obscure, often

confused with second language acquisition. The goal of the course is to clarify the phenomenon,

specifying the characteristics of its acquisition, its manifestation in adulthood, as well as its psychological

and neurological consequences.

Topics

I. Acquisition

Typical

Volterra, V. and Tauschner, T. 2007. The acquisition and development of language by bilingual children.

The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li Wei, Chapter13.

Genesee, F. 2007. Early bilingual language development: One language or two? The Bilingualism Reader,

edited by Li Wei, Chapter 14.

Meisel, J. 2007. Code-switching in young bilingual children: The acquisition of grammatical constraints.

The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li Wei, Chapter 15.

II. Use: Code-switching

Poplack, S. 2007. Sometimes I'll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espaรฑol: Toward a typology of

code-switching. The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li Wei, Chapter 10.

Myers-Scotton, C. and Jake, J. 2007. Matching lemmas in a bilingual language competence and

production model: Evidence from intrasentential code-switching. The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li

Wei, Chapter 11.

Muysken, P. 2007. Code-switching and grammatical theory. The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li Wei,

Chapter 12.

III. Psycholinguistic and neurolinguistics dimensions of bilingualism

Bilingual processing

Green,D. 2007. Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in

bilinguals. The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li Wei, Chapter 16.

De Bot, K. 2007. A bilingual production model: Levelt's 'speaking' model adapted. The Bilingualism

Reader, edited by Li Wei, Chapter 17.

Kroll, J. and de Groot, A. 2007. Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to

meaning in two languages. The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li Wei, Chapter 18.

Grosjean, F. 2007. The bilingual's language modes. The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li Wei, Chapter

19.

Bilingual brain

Obler, L., Zatorre, R., Galloway, L., and Vaid, J. 2007. Cerebral lateralization in bilinguals:

methodological issues. The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li Wei, Chapter 20.

Paradis, M. 2007. Language lateralization in bilinguals: Enough already!. The Bilingualism Reader, edited

by Li Wei, Chapter 21.

Abutalebi, J., Capra, S., and Perani, D. 2007. The bilingual brain as revealed by functional neuroimaging.

The Bilingualism Reader, edited by Li Wei, Chapter 21.

Course requirements (tentative)

5-6 assignments: 20%

Presentation of an article: 20%

Final exam: 60%

LINGUISTICS OF SIGN LANGUAGE

Dr. Svetlana Dachkovsky

Fall and spring semesters, 4 pts.

Linguistics of Sign Language introduces students to sign language linguistics on the basis of Israeli

Sign Language. The course has a double focus: 1) it emphasizes the universal properties of language

in signed and spoken modalities, and 2) aims to elucidate the interaction of these properties with the

physical modality of language transmission and with the nature of the language community. The course

is divided into two parts. The first part addresses all the essential aspects of ISL linguistic structure:

phonology, morphological means, realizations of tense and aspect, word order rules, the system of

classifiers, and prosody. The second part provides a glimpse into the history of Israeli Sign language

and of the Deaf community in Israel. It provides evidence for the intricate interaction between

linguistic structure and the history of language, illustrating the discussion of diachronic processes in

ISL with multiple examples from the most recent research. The goal of the course is to demonstrate

the contribution of sign language research to various subfields of general linguistic theory.

Course Assessment:

Homework and assignments -- 20%

Presentation โ€“ 20%

Exam โ€“ 60%

ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืฉืคืช ื”ืกื™ืžื ื™ื

ื”ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื”ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ืช. -ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉืœ ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ืฉืคืช ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื‘ืืžืฆืขื•ืช ืฉืคืชื”ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ืžื›ื™ืจ ืœืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ื™ื ืืช -ื”ืงื•ืจืก ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืฉืคืช

) ืžื‘ืงืฉ 2) ื”ื•ื ืžื“ื’ื™ืฉ ืืช ื”ืชื›ื•ื ื•ืช ื”ืื•ื ื™ื‘ืจืกืœื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืฉืคื” ื”ืŸ ื‘ืื•ืคื ื•ืช ื”ื“ื‘ื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืŸ ื‘ืžืกื•ืžื ืช 1ืœืงื•ืจืก ืฉื ื™ ืžื•ืงื“ื™ื ืขื™ืงืจื™ื™ื:

ื”ืฉืคื” ื ืžืฆืืช ื” ืฉืœ ื”ืงื”ื™ืœื” ืฉื‘ื”ื™ืœื‘ืืจ ืืช ื”ืื™ื ื˜ืจืืงืฆื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืชื›ื•ื ื•ืช ืืœื” ืขื ื”ืื•ืคื ื•ืช ื”ืคื™ื–ื™ืช ืฉืœ ื”ืขื‘ืจืช ื”ืฉืคื” ื•ืขื ืื•ืคื™

ื”ื—ืœืง ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžืชื™ื™ื—ืก ืœื›ืœ ื”ื”ื™ื‘ื˜ื™ื ื”ื‘ืกื™ืกื™ื™ื ืฉืœ ื”ืžื‘ื ื” ื”ื‘ืœืฉื ื™ ืฉืœ ืฉืคืช ื”ืกื™ืžื ื™ื -ื‘ืฉื™ืžื•ืฉ. ื”ืงื•ืจืก ืžื—ื•ืœืง ืœืฉื ื™ ื—ืœืงื™ื

ื”ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ืช: ืคื•ื ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื”, ืžื•ืจืคื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื”, ืชืคื™ืฉืช ืžื•ืฉื’ื™ ื”ื–ืžืŸ, ื—ื•ืงื™ ืกื“ืจ ื”ืžื™ืœื™ื, ืžืขืจื›ืช ื”ืžืกื•ื•ื’ื™ื ื•ืคืจื•ื–ื•ื“ื™ื”. ื”ื—ืœืง ื”ืฉื ื™ ื ื•ืชืŸ

ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ืช ื•ืœืงื”ื™ืœืช ื”ื—ืจืฉื™ื ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ. ื”ืงื•ืจืก ืžืฆื™ื’ ืืช ื”ืื™ื ื˜ืจืืงืฆื™ื” ื”ื”ื“ื•ืงื” ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืฆืฆื” ืœื”ื™ืกื˜ื•ืจื™ื” ืฉืœ ืฉืคืช ื”ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื”

ืžื‘ื ื” ืœืฉื•ื ื™ ืœื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื”ื™ืกื˜ื•ืจื™ื” ืฉืœ ื”ืฉืคื” ื•ืžืฆื™ื’ ืืช ื”ื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื”ื ื•ื’ืข ืœื”ืชืคืชื—ื•ืช ื”ื”ื™ืกื˜ื•ืจื™ืช ืฉืœ ื”ืฉืคื”, ืชื•ืš ืฉื™ืžื•ืฉ ื‘ื“ื•ื’ืžืื•ืช

ืฉื•ื ื™ื ื‘ืชื™ืื•ืจื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžื”ืžื—ืงืจ ื”ืขื“ื›ื ื™ ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ. ืžื˜ืจืช ื”ืงื•ืจืก ืœื”ืฆื™ื’ ืืช ื”ืžื—ืงืจ ืฉืœ ืฉืคืช ื”ืกื™ืžื ื™ื ื•ืืช ืชืจื•ืžืชื• ืœืชืชื™ ืชื—ื•ืžื™ื

ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ื›ืœืœื™ืช.

NULL SUBJECTS

Dr. Peter Herbeck

Spring semester (mini-course), 2 pts.

In this course, students will be given an overview about the characteristics of (null) subjects in

consistent, partial, semi- and non-pro-drop languages. While doing this, students will acquire

knowledge about the different theoretical implementations of the phonological as well as interpretive

properties of the subject position.

The fact that Romance languages like Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese allow null subjects in finite

clauses while English does not has been of crucial relevance for the development of the Principles &

Parameters framework of the 1980s. A uniform definition of the so-called pro-drop parameter and its

correlating properties, however, was soon challenged by data emerging from a wider set of languages,

such as Chinese, Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Hebrew, among others. On one hand, in terms of

binding, null subjects in inflected clauses do not uniformly behave like pure pronominals. On the other

hand, the existence of null subjects in languages without โ€˜strongโ€™ agreement morphology casts doubt

on the sole role of agreement in determining the nature of the subject position. Furthermore, the

existence of overt subjects in nonfinite clauses in various languages challenges the view that the

phonetic properties of subjects can be derived from the finiteness of the clause.

Among the questions that will be dealt with in this course are:

- What is the role of agreement, the EPP, Case, and Verb Movement in determining the

availability of (null) subjects in a language?

- In how far do discourse-sensitive properties have to be taken into account in deriving the

subject position?

- Are there empty categories?

- What role do (lexical) semantic properties of verbs play in deriving the nature of (null)

subjects?

- What consequences do recent theoretical developments and empirical findings in the area of

(null) subjects have for the theory of parametric variation?

Course requirements:

- Three written assignments: 30%

- Final exam: 70%

Key readings

Barbosa, P. (2011a). Pro-drop and Theories of pro in the Minimalist Program Part 1: Consistent Null

Subject Languages and the Pronominal-Agr Hypothesis. Language and Linguistics Compass:

5 (8): 551โ€“570.

Barbosa, P. (2011b). Pro-drop and Theories of pro in the Minimalist Program Part 2: Pronoun

Deletion Analyses of Null Subjects and Partial, Discourse and Semi pro-drop. Language and

Linguistics Compass: 5 (8): 571-587.

Borer, H. (1989). Anaphoric AGR. In O. Jaeggli & K. J. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp.

69- 110). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Camacho, J. (2013). Null Subjects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding โ€“ the Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris

Publications.

Haider, H. (1990). Null Subjects and Expletives in Romance and Germanic. In W. Abraham & W.

Kosmeijer & E.Reuland (eds), Issues in Germanic Syntax (pp. 49-66). Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Holmberg, A. (2005). Is There a Little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4), 533-564.

Huang, C. T. J. (1989). Pro-Drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Theory. In O. Jaeggli & K. J.

Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp. 185-214). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Jaeggli, O. & K. J. Safir (1989). The Null Subject Parameter and Parametric Theory. In O. Jaeggli &

K. J. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp. 1-44). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Landau, I. (2013). Control in Generative Grammar โ€“ A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Neeleman A. & K. Szendrล‘i (2008). Case morphology and radical pro-drop. In: Biberauer, T. (ed.),

The Limits of Syntactic Variation (pp. 331-348). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17 (3), 501-557.

Third-year courses

Electives

TOPICS IN FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Dr. Aviya Hacohen

Spring semester, 4 pts.

The goal of this course is to provide students with an in-depth look at the study of first language

acquisition as a scientific discipline within the realm of cognitive science. We will discuss the key

issues and questions that concern scholars in the field, the main theoretical accounts and the major

empirical findings in the area. The course will also familiarize the students with methodological tools

required for pursuing independent research in language acquisition. Our focus will be on generative

and nativist approaches to language acquisition and we will show that these approaches provide the

most promising account of humansโ€™ linguistic abilities.

The final grade for the course will be based on:

โ€ข Formulation of questions regarding the readings (35%)

โ€ข Attendance and participation in class discussions (10%)

โ€ข Final exam (55%)

ืกื•ื’ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืจื›ื™ืฉืช ืฉืคืช ืื

. ื”ืงื•ื’ื ื™ื˜ื™ื‘ื™ื™ืืžื“ืขื™ืช ื‘ืžืกื’ืจืช ื”ืžื“ืขื™ื ืžื˜ืจืช ื”ืงื•ืจืก ื”ื™ื ืœืชืช ืœืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ื™ื ืžื‘ื˜ ืžืขืžื™ืง ืืœ ื—ืงืจ ืจื›ื™ืฉืช ื”ืฉืคื” ื›ื“ื™ืกืฆื™ืคืœื™ื ื”

ื—ื•ื, ื›ืžื• ื’ื ื‘ืชื™ืื•ืจื™ื•ืช ื”ื‘ื•ืœื˜ื•ืช ื•ื‘ืžืžืฆืื™ื ื‘ืงื•ืจืก ื ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืืœื•ืช ื”ืžืคืชื— ื•ื‘ื ื•ืฉืื™ื ื”ืžืจื›ื–ื™ื™ื ืฉืžืขืกื™ืงื™ื ื—ื•ืงืจื™ื ื‘ืช

ื”ืžืฉืžืขื•ืชื™ื™ื. ื‘ื ื•ืกืฃ, ื™ื•ืฆื’ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ื™ื ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื”ืžืชื•ื“ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื™ื ื”ื ื—ื•ืฆื™ื ืœื‘ื™ืฆื•ืข ืžื—ืงืจ ืขืฆืžืื™ ื‘ืจื›ื™ืฉืช ืฉืคื”. ื”ืคื•ืงื•ืก

ื‘ืงื•ืจืก ื™ื”ื™ื” ืขืœ ื”ื’ื™ืฉื” ื”ื’ื ืจื˜ื™ื‘ื™ืช ื•ื”ื ื™ื™ื˜ื™ื‘ื™ืกื˜ื™ืช, ื•ื ืจืื” ื›ื™ ื’ื™ืฉื•ืช ืืœื• ืžืกืคืงื•ืช ืืช ื”ื”ืกื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืžื‘ื˜ื™ื—ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ืชืจ ืœืฉืคื”

ื•ืœืจื›ื™ืฉืช ืฉืคื” ื‘ืคืจื˜. ืื ื•ืฉื™ืช ื‘ื›ืœืœ

ื”ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ื”ืกื•ืคื™ ื‘ืงื•ืจืก ืžื•ืจื›ื‘ ืž:

)35%ืฉืืœื•ืช ืงืจื™ืื” ( โ€ข

)10%ื ื•ื›ื—ื•ืช ื•ื”ืฉืชืชืคื•ืช ื‘ื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื‘ื›ื™ืชื” ( โ€ข

)55%ื‘ื—ื™ื ื” ( โ€ข

Required reading

Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language Acquistion: The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Boeckx, C. (2010). Language in Cognition: Uncovering Mental Structures and the Rules Behind

Them. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lust, B. (2006). Child Language: Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Fromkin, Krashen, Curtiss, Rigler & Rigler (1974)

Eimas, Siqueland, Jusczyk & Vigorito (1971)

McDaniel, D., McKee, C., & Cairns, H.S. (1996.) Methods for assessing children's syntax.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Schaeffer, Jeannette, Aviya Hacohen, and Arielle Bernstein (2003). The dissociation between

grammar and pragmatics: Evidence from English SLI. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting

of the Israel Associations for Theoretical Linguistics. Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva.

Kanwisher N (2010) Functional specificity in the human brain: A window into the functional

architecture of the mind. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:11163โ€“11170.

Seminars

MODALITY BETWEEN SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS

Dr. Lavi Wolf

Fall and spring semesters, 4 pts.

A linguistic theory of modality needs to take into account the level of syntactic representation in

addition to the semantics. .Syntactic structures are useful tools that enable the cognitive system to

combine information from different domains into a hierarchically organized unit .The interface

between the syntactic and the semantic aspects of modality will be explored in this course, via the

locations of modals, theories of universal functional projections, and phenomena at the syntax-

semantics interface such as modal concord.

ื‘ื™ืŸ ืชื—ื‘ื™ืจ ืœืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื” -ืžื•ื“ืืœื™ื•ืช

ืฆื•ื’ ื”ืชื—ื‘ื™ืจื™ ื‘ื ื•ืกืฃ ืœืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื”. ืžื‘ื ื™ื ืชื—ื‘ื™ืจื™ื™ื ื”ื™ื ื ื›ืœื™ื ื™ืชืื•ืจื™ื•ืช ื”ื ื•ื’ืขื•ืช ืœืžื•ื“ืืœื™ื•ืช ืฆืจื™ื›ื•ืช ืœืงื—ืช ื‘ื—ืฉื‘ื•ืŸ ืืช ืจืžืช ื”ื™

ื˜ื™ื‘ื™ืช ืœืฉืœื‘ ืžื™ื“ืข ืžืชื—ื•ืžื™ื ืฉื•ื ื™ื ืœื›ื“ื™ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื” ื”ืžืื•ืจื’ื ืช ื‘ืื•ืคืŸ ื”ื™ืจืจื›ื™. ื”ืžืžืฉืง ื™ืฉื™ืžื•ืฉื™ื™ื ื”ืžืืคืฉืจื™ื ืœืžืขืจื›ืช ื”ืงื•ื’ื 

ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื”ื™ื‘ื˜ื™ื ื”ืชื—ื‘ื™ืจื™ื™ื ื•ื”ืกืžื ื˜ื™ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžื•ื“ืืœื™ื•ืช ื™ื™ื‘ื—ื ื• ื‘ืงื•ืจืก ื–ื”, ื“ืจืš ืžื™ืงื•ืžื™ื ืฉื•ื ื™ื ืฉืœ ืžื•ื“ืืœื™ื, ืชืื•ืจื™ื•ืช

.modal concordืกืžื ื˜ื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ -ื•ืชื•ืคืขื•ืช ื‘ืžืžืฉืง ื”ืชื—ื‘ื™ืจื™ universal functional projections ืฉืœ

ืžื‘ื•ื ืœืชื—ื‘ื™ืจ ื•ืžื‘ื•ื ืœืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื”: ื•ืจืกื™ ืงื“ืืง

: ื”ืงื•ืจืก ืžื˜ืœื•ืช

10%ื‘ื—ื ื™ื โ€ข

20%ืžืฆื’ืช โ€ข

70%ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืกื•ืคื™ืช โ€ข

ืžื”ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ื 80% โ€“ื ื•ื›ื—ื•ืช ื ื“ืจืฉืช โ€ข

ASPECTUAL EFFECTS IN SYNTAX

Dr. Tova Rapoport

Fall semester, 4 pts.

This course examines the effects of aspect and event structures in syntax.

Prerequisite: Introduction to the Lexicon or equivalent

Requirements:

The course consists of readings and discussions. Students are expected to prepare the readings for each

class and to actively participate in class discussions. Attendance is therefore required.

Each student will choose a topic, collecting data in their native language (original and/or published).

This will be presented in class, accompanied by a professional-level handout (or presentation).

Taking into account both class comments and the contributions of the other presentations, each student

will then write a paper (approximately 10-15 double-spaced pages), making use of the theoretical tools

assembled during the semester.

:Grading

Quizzes and participation 20%

Class presentation + handout 25%

Final seminar paper (including proposal) 55%

ื”ืฉืคืขืช ื”ืืกืคืงื˜ ื‘ืชื—ื‘ื™ืจ

ืงื•ืจืก ื–ื” ื‘ื•ื—ืŸ ื”ืฉืœื›ื•ืช ืžื‘ื ื™ื ืืกืคืงื˜ื•ืืœื™ื™ื ื‘ืชื—ื‘ื™ืจ.

SYNTACTIC PROCESSING

Dr. Irena Botwinik

Fall and spring semesters, 4 pts.

The starting point of the seminar is the processing theory of Pritchett (1992) and its extension by Siloni

(2003). First, we will examine the empirical coverage of the theory in English, Hebrew and Japanese

and delineate the kind of data the theory fails to account for, and the type of data which is ignored in

the theory. Then we will get acquainted with additional theories of language processing, their goals

and methodologies. Finally, if time permits, we will address the issue of sentences with center

embedding (The boy the cat the dog bit scratched ran away.), focusing on the question whether these

sentences present a processing difficulty or are, in fact, ungrammatical.

Topics

I. Sentence processing: Garden path sentences; filler-gap dependencies; ambiguous sentences

II. Lexical processing

III. Center embedding

Grade

Assignments โ€“ 30%

Class presentation โ€“ 20%

Final paper โ€“ 50%

Reading (partial)

Altmann, G. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 2. No. 4.

146-152.

Aoshida, S. M. Yoshida, and C. Phillips. (2009). Incremental Processing of Coreference and Binding

in Japanese. Syntax 12, 93-134.

Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (ed.), Attention and

Performance, Vol. 12. Hillsdale: New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Garret, M. (1980). Levels of processing in language production. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language

Production Vol. 1. Academic Press, London, pp. 177โ€“220.

Ingram, J. C. L. (2007). Neurolinguistics. An Introduction to Spoken Language Processing and its

Disorders. Cambridge University Press.

Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, vol

2, no 1. 15-47.

Konopka, A. (2012). Planning ahead. Journal of Memory and Language 66, 143โ€“162.

MA courses

METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES IN LINGUISTICS (required for the thesis track)

Prof. Ariel Cohen

Fall and spring semesters, 4 pts.

The goal of this course is to introduce graduate students to methods of linguistic research. We will

focus on the notion of linguistic evidence, for or against a theory. We will consider three types of

evidence in particular: thought-up examples, corpus study, and psychological experimentation. We

will use the semantics and pragmatics of superlative quantifiers (at least and at most) as a case study.

ืขืงืจื•ื ื•ืช ืžืชื•ื“ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื™ื ื‘ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช

ื‘ืœืฉื ื™. ื ืชืžืงื“ ืขืœ ื”ืžื•ืฉื’ ืฉืœ ืžื˜ืจืช ื”ืงื•ืจืก ื”ื™ื ืœื”ืงื ื•ืช ืœืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ื™ื ื”ืœื•ืžื“ื™ื ืœืชื•ืืจ ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืœื”ืชื•ื•ื“ืข ื™ื“ืข ื‘ืขืงืจื•ื ื•ืช ืžื—ืงืจ

ืจืื™ื•ืช ื‘ืœืฉื ื™ื•ืช, ื‘ืขื“ ืื• ื ื’ื“ ืชื™ืื•ืจื™ื” ืžืกื•ื™ืžืช. ื ื‘ื—ืŸ ืฉืœื•ืฉื” ืกื•ื’ื™ื ืฉืœ ืจืื™ื•ืช ื‘ืžื™ื•ื—ื“: ื“ื•ื’ืžืื•ืช ืžื•ืžืฆืื•ืช, ื—ืงืจ ืงื•ืจืคื•ืก,

ื•ื ื™ืกื•ื™ื™ื ืคืกื™ื›ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ื™ื. ื”ืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื” ื•ื”ืคืจื’ืžืื˜ื™ืงื” ืฉืœ ื›ืžืชื™ื ืžื•ืคืœื’ื™ื ("ืœืคื—ื•ืช", "ืœื›ืœ ื”ืคื—ื•ืช", "ืœื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ืชืจ") ื›ืžืงืจื” ื‘ื•ื—ืŸ.

THE PARIETAL LOBE IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING

Dr. Dorit Ben-Shalom

Fall and spring semesters, 4 pts.

The role of the parietal lobe in phonological, syntactic, and semantic processing. This course is part

of a series of courses about the contribution of the temporal, parietal, and frontal lobes to language

processing.

ื”ืื•ื ื” ื”ืคืจื™ื˜ืืœื™ืช ื‘ืขื™ื‘ื•ื“ ืฉืคื”

ืฉืœ ืชืจื•ืžืชืŸ ืขืœ ืงื•ืจืกื™ื ืžืกื“ืจืช ื—ืœืง ื”ื•ื ื–ื” ืงื•ืจืก. ืฉืคื” ืฉืœ ื•ืกืžื ื˜ื™, ืชื—ื‘ื™ืจื™, ืคื•ื ื•ืœื•ื’ื™ ื‘ืขื™ื‘ื•ื“ ื”ืคืจื™ื˜ืœื™ืช ื”ืื•ื ื” ืฉืœ ืชืคืงื™ื“ื”

.ืฉืคื” ืœืขื™ื‘ื•ื“ ื•ื”ืคืจื•ื ื˜ืœื™ืช ื”ืคืจื™ื˜ืœื™ืช, ื”ื˜ืžืคื•ืจืœื™ืช ื”ืื•ื ื”

TOPICS IN HEBREW AND RUSSIAN LINGUISTICS.

Dr. Olga Kagan

Fall and spring semesters, 4 pts.

In this course, we will consider a range of topics in Hebrew and Russian linguistics. Topics in Hebrew

linguistics include: roots and word formation, the semantics of templates, dative case, PP-verbs,

indefinite noun phrases, predicate nominal sentences. Topics in Russian linguistics include: โ€œfreeโ€

word order, dative subjects, genitive of negation, long and short adjectives, nominal phrases in a

language without articles. We will also analyze ways in which these two languages have affected each

other.

Course requirements:

Attendance

Presentation: 30%

Seminar paper: 70%

Prerequisites: Semantics A, Syntax A

ื•ืจื•ืกื™ืช ืกื•ื’ื™ื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ืขื‘ืจื™ืช

ื‘ืžืกื’ืจืช ืงื•ืจืก ื–ื” ื ื—ืงื•ืจ ืžืกืคืจ ื ื•ืฉืื™ื ื‘ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ืขื‘ืจื™ืช ื•ืจื•ืกื™ืช. ื‘ืžืกื’ืจืช ื”ื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื‘ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ืขื‘ืจื™ืช ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื”ืฉื•ืจืฉ, ื”ืกืžื ื˜ื™ืงื”

, ืฆื™ืจื•ืคื™ื ืฉืžื ื™ื™ื ืœื ืžื™ื•ื“ืขื™ื, ืžืฉืคื˜ื™ื ื‘ืขืœื™ ืคืจื“ื™ืงื˜ ืฉืžื ื™. ื”ื ื•ืฉืื™ื ื‘ื‘ืœืฉื ื•ืช ืจื•ืกื™ืช ืฉืœ ืžืขืจื›ืช ื”ื‘ื ื™ื™ื ื™ื, ื™ื—ืกื” ื“ืื˜ื™ื‘ื™ืช

ื›ื•ืœืœื™ื ืกื“ืจ ืžื™ืœื™ื "ื—ื•ืคืฉื™", ื ื•ืฉื ื‘ื™ื—ืกื” ื“ืื˜ื™ื‘ื™ืช, ื’ื ื™ื˜ื™ื‘ ืฉืœ ืฉืœื™ืœื”, ืชืืจื™ื ืงืฆืจื™ื ื•ืืจื•ื›ื™ื, ืฆื™ืจื•ืคื™ื ืฉืžื ื™ื™ื ื‘ืฉืคื”

ื—ืกืจืช ืชื•ื•ื™ื•ืช ื™ื“ื•ืข. ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื’ื ืขืœ ื”ื“ืจื›ื™ื ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ื”ืฉืคื•ืช ื”ืฉืคื™ืขื• ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื”ืฉื ื™ื™ื”.

MA THEORY WORKSHOP

Dr. Tova Rapoport

Spring semester, 2 pts.

This course is designed to help students hone their critical skills in investigations of advanced

theoretical material and to develop their own theoretical approach.

The course consists of (i) regular presentations by students, including both relevant literature and

their own research; and (ii) critical comments on presentations by fellow students.

semester ndMA required course for thesis students, 2

Grading:

Attendance is mandatory.

Class presentations: 60%

Final written summary of research: 40%

ืกื“ื ืช ืชืื•ืจื™ื”

ืขืฆืžืื™ืช. ืงื•ืจืก ื–ื” ืžื™ื•ืขื“ ืœื—ื“ื“ ืืช ื”ื™ื›ื•ืœืช ื”ื‘ื™ืงื•ืจืชื™ืช ืฉืœ ื”ืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ ื‘ื—ืงืจ ื—ื•ืžืจ ืชื™ืื•ืจื˜ื™ืช ืžืชืงื“ื ื•ืœืคืชื— ื’ื™ืฉื” ืชื™ืื•ืจื˜ื™ืช

) 2(-ื•ื’ื ืžื—ืงืจ ื”ืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ ื•) ืคืจื–ื ื˜ืฆื™ื•ืช ืชื“ื™ืจื•ืช ืฉืœ ื›ืœ ืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜, ื›ื•ืœืœ ื’ื ืกืคืจื•ืช ืžืงืฆื•ืขื™ืช ืจืœื•ื•ื ื˜ื™ืช 1( -ื”ืงื•ืจืก ืžื•ืจื›ื‘ ืž

ื‘ื™ืงื•ืจืช ื‘ื•ื ื” ืขืœ ื”ืคืจื–ื ื˜ืฆื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ื”ืกื˜ื•ื“ื ื˜ื™ื ื”ืื—ืจื™ื.


Recommended