BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//events.la.psu.edu//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20201101T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0400 TZOFFSETTO:-0500 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=11;BYDAY=1SU END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20200308T020000 TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=2SU END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:16843-1456406a65805026160266f3e5f1bef1@events.la.psu.edu DTSTAMP:20260412T053056Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20180126T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20180126T103000 SUMMARY:CLS Speaker Series - Christina Tortora (CUNY) Infinitival Perfects With and Without [ə(v)] in Appalachian English DESCRIPTION:Infinitival Perfects With and Without [ə(v)] in Appalachian English\nIn this talk I discuss a number of empirical and theoretical qu estions revolving around a phenomenon observed in the Audio-Aligned and Parsed Corpus of Appalachian English (AAPCAppE)\, namely\, the variable appearance of the form [ə(v)] in infinitival perfects embedded under mod als (1) and infinitival to (2):\n\nInfinitival perfect embedded under mo dal:\n\n(1) \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;  \; \; \; a. You could heared a pin drop.\n\n \; \; \ ; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;& nbsp\; \; b. You could [əv] heared a pin drop.\n\nto-perfect:\n\n(2)  \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;&n bsp\; a. She had to been up in her sixties.\n\nb. If we had candles\, we had to [əv] made them. \;\n\nOur study reveals unexpected quantitat ive differences between perfects embedded under modals (1) vs. to-perfec ts (2)\, and qualitative differences between to-perfects with and withou t [ə(v)] (typically spelled have / ’ve in formal writing\, or of / a in informal writing). This suggests that infinitival perfects are not struc turally or semantically homogeneous\, at least in some Englishes. I expl ore the possibility that to-perfects without [ə(v)] in Appalachian Engli sh grammatically encode a kind of Sequence of Tense\, providing evidence for the natural continuity of a grammatical phenomenon found in earlier Englishes but which had a history of rigorous proscription in formal En glishes starting in the 18th century.\n\nMy aim is to show that a corpus of vernacular speech such as the AAPCAppE can serve as a rich resource\ , in terms of (i) the opportunity to search over syntactic structures of a particular type\; (ii) the opportunity to check the speech signal aga inst the transcription\, to ensure accuracy\; (iii) the speech signal’s ability to provide relevant phonological features not necessarily readil y available with purely orthographic transcription\; and (iv) the opport unity to study aspects of natural language that are not detected in more formal and standardized versions of linguistic behavior. At the same ti me\, I aim to show that research on a little-studied and infrequent stru cture requires very careful attention to the larger grammatical system w ithin which the object of inquiry is embedded\, and that the AAPCAppE ex hibits enough cases of structural ambiguity in this regard to raise the difficult but important question of “what to count.”\n\n \;\n\nFor m ore details: https://events.la.psu.edu/event/cls-speaker-series-christin a-tortora-cuny-infinitival-perfects-with-and-without-%c9%99v-in-appalach ian-english/ X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:

Infinitival Perfects With and Without [ə(v)] in Appalachian English

In this talk I discuss a number of empirical and theoretical questions revolving around a phenomenon observed in the Audio-Aligned and Pars ed Corpus of Appalachian English (AAPCAppE), namely, the variable ap pearance of the form [ə(v)] in infinitival perfects embedd ed under modals (1) and infinitival to (2):

Infin itival perfect embedded under modal:

(1)  &nbs p;         a. You could heare d a pin drop.

      &n bsp;         b. You could [əv] heared a pin drop.

to-perfect :

(2)        &nb sp;   a. She had to been up in her sixties.

b. If we had candles, we had to [əv] made them . 

Our study reveals unexpected quanti tative differences between perfects embedded under modals (1) vs. to< /i>-perfects (2), and qualitative differences between to-perfects with and without [ə(v)] (typically spelled have / ’ve in formal writing, or of / a in informal writing). This sugge sts that infinitival perfects are not structurally or semantically homog eneous, at least in some Englishes. I explore the possibility that to -perfects without [ə(v)] in Appalachian English grammatically encode a kind of Sequence of Tense, providing evidence for the natural continuity of a grammatical phenomenon found in earlier Englishes but wh ich had a history of rigorous proscription in formal Englishes starting in the 18th century.

My aim is to show that a corpus of vernacular speech such as the AAPCAppE can serve as a rich re source, in terms of (i) the opportunity to search over syntactic structu res of a particular type; (ii) the opportunity to check the speech signa l against the transcription, to ensure accuracy; (iii) the speech signal ’s ability to provide relevant phonological features not necessarily rea dily available with purely orthographic transcription; and (iv) the oppo rtunity to study aspects of natural language that are not detected in mo re formal and standardized versions of linguistic behavior. At the same time, I aim to show that research on a little-studied and infrequent str ucture requires very careful attention to the larger grammatical system within which the object of inquiry is embedded, and that the AAPCAppE ex hibits enough cases of structural ambiguity in this regard to raise the difficult but important question of “what to count.”

&nb sp;

For more details: https://events.la.psu.edu/event/cl s-speaker-series-christina-tortora-cuny-infinitival-perfects-with-and-wi thout-%c9%99v-in-appalachian-english/

LOCATION:127 Moore Building END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR