The category of person plays a central role in a variety of grammatical phenomena, some of which seem to be purely syntactic, while others clearly involve the semantic component. Person distinctions are determined relative to the speech or thought situation (i.e. the local attitude situation): arguments are formally identified as a type of participant (author/addressee) or a non-participant. Person thus bears an inherent affinity with grammatical categories rooted in the other parameters of the attitude situation: time and spatial location. Person, temporality and spatial deixis are unified as different ways to encode perspective: an attitude holder’s view of the described event from the standpoint of the attitude event.
Maria Luisa Zubizarreta’s recent work has explored the role of person-based perspective – an inherently semantic notion - in the analysis of person-sensitivity phenomena that have more traditionally been considered properly syntactic, namely person-sensitivity effects in the syntactic organization of arguments exhibited in direct-inverse systems and in grammars following the Person Case Constratint (PCC) (Zubizarreta and Pancheva 2017, Pancheva and Zubizarreta 2017). Her work has also addressed the role of person features in the representation of evidentiality and temporal reference in Paraguyan Guaraní (Pancheva and Zubizarreta 2018).
The workshop in honor of Maria Luisa Zubizarreta’s work aims to further elucidate the grammars of person and perspective. It welcomes contributions on the themes of her work and also on the many other phenomena that involve person or perspective.
We invite papers that address, among others, the following questions:
(a) What is the nature of person features on nominals and functional projections? How do they differ formally from other features on nominals and functional projections such as number and gender?
(b) What is the relationship between person features and case?
(c) What is the relation between person features and agreement?
(d) Is the frequently distinctive behavior of person agreement derivable from a single syntactic constraint as proposed by Baker’s SCOPA (2008, 2011)?
(e) What is the role of person features in finiteness?
(f) What is the role of person in closest conjunct agreement and other apparently linearity-based agreement effects?
(g) Do person features require special licensing (e.g., Bejar and Rezac 2009, a.o.)?
(h) What feature geometries do person features participate in (e.g., Harley and Ritter 2002, Ackema and Neeleman 2013, Harbour 2016)
(i) Which aspects of the interaction of person and argument structure are universal? Which are language specific? How is variation in person-sensitive systems to be accounted for?
(j)What is the role of person and perspective in the licensing of anaphors that are exempt from binding theory (e.g., Maling 1984, Sells 1987, Pollard & Sag 1992, Reinhart & Reuland 1993, Huang and Liu 2001, Charnavel and Sportiche 2016, Sundaresan 2016, a.o.)
(k) How are person-sensitive phenomena linked to logophoricity (e.g., Sells 1987, Kuno 1987, a.o.)
(l) How are the phenomena of PCC and the Clitic Logophoric Restriction related (e.g., Charnavel and Mateu 2015)?
(m) what is the role of person and perspective in control (e.g., Landau 2015 a.o,)
(n) What do the phenomena of imposters, and imposters and agreement tell us about person? (e.g., Collins & Postal 2012, Collins 2014, a.o.)
(o) What is the role of person features in the analysis of evidentiality (e.g., Speas 2004, 2010, a.o.)
(p) How do person-sensitive systems behave diachronically? How does the history of such systems illuminate our understanding of person and/or perspective?
(q) How is perspective encoded in predicates of personal taste (e.g., Lasersohn 2005, Pearson 2013, Stephenson 2007, a.o.)
(r) How is anchoring to the speech event accomplished by person, tense and spatial deixis (e.g., Ritter and Wiltschko 2014, a.o.)
3601 Trousdale Parkway, Student Union 301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0894
Los Angeles , United States