Mary Moroney’s research while affiliated with University of Rochester and other places

Novel fieldwork data from Shan (Kra-Dai) adds to the cross-linguistic account of comparative constructions, especially Exceed-type comparatives. Shan can form comparative expressions from adverbs, which had not been analyzed in previous accounts of Exceed-type comparatives (Bochnak 2013; Howell 2013; Clem 2019; a.o.). Synthesizing previous semantic accounts of phrasal comparatives can account for the presented data.

This paper compares two families of theories for numeral classifiers drawing on fieldwork data from two languages, Ch’ol (Mayan, Mexico) and Shan (Kra-Dai, Myanmar). We discuss classifier-for-numeral theories and classifier-for-noun theories, which we argue make different predictions based on the syntactic position and semantic contribution of the classifier in each set of theories. We argue that Ch’ol is a classifier-for-numeral language and Shan is a classifier-for-noun language. This analysis attributes the distinction between classifier-for-numeral and classifier-for-noun languages to cross-linguistic variation in the strategies for numeral modification. The proposed diagnostics are based on the semantic role of the classifier in numeral modification and can be used to distinguish between the two types of numeral classifiers across other languages.

This paper demonstrates that bare nouns in Shan (Tai-Kadai) can express both unique and anaphoric definiteness, a distinction first noted by Schwarz (2009). This pattern of data as well as similar patterns found in Serbian and Kannada motivate adding a category to the typology of definiteness marking described by Jenks (2018) to include languages that allow bare nouns to express anaphoric definiteness. An extended type-shifting analysis offers an account of the availability of bare noun anaphora, as well as the other bare noun interpretations, such as the indefinite, generic, and kind interpretations. Variation in the use of bare nouns versus more marked anaphoric expressions is tied to pragmatic factors such as what anaphoric definite expressions are available in the language, contrast, information structure, and potential ambiguity of nominal expressions. This account proposes that a constrained semantic account of the interpretations of nominal expressions combined with a pragmatic account of their use can model much of the cross-linguistic data on definiteness.

Shan, a Southwestern Tai language spoken in Myanmar, Thailand, and nearby countries, uses bare nouns to express both unique and anaphoric definiteness, a definiteness distinction identified by [15]. This novel data pattern from the author’s fieldwork can be analyzed by adding an anaphoric type shifter, $\iota ^x$, to the available type shifting operations defined by [6] and [7]. Otherwise, the data from Shan fit well with predictions from a type shifting analysis as laid out by [8]. Additionally, this paper demonstrates that the consistency test [7] is not sufficient to determine what counts as a definite determiner for a language.

The Consistency test from Dayal 2004—inspired by Löbner’s (1985) logical property of Consistency—has been used to distinguish between demonstratives and definite determiners in a language, particularly in a type-shifting analysis of bare nouns following Chierchia 1998 and Dayal 2004. This paper looks at three classifier languages, Nuosu Yi (Jiang 2018), Thai (Jenks 2015), and Shan (Moroney 2018) and examines the use of the Consistency test in the study of N/DP syntax and semantics. While the Consistency test can identify demonstratives from their ability to shift reference using deixis, it cannot identify when a nominal expression ‘counts’ as a definite determiner.

In an era of budget constraints as well as next generation technologies - moving from a consortium based and administrated shared ILS (integrated library system) to one that can be managed in-house allows for substantial cost savings, team oriented opportunities for training and growth, and service improvements for library patrons. This chapter will provide background on one university library's decision to move from a local consortium based catalog with a shared and centrally administered back-end to a global catalog with the ability to personalize administration for a single library. Background on institutional culture, key stakeholders, benefits for library staff and end-user will be discussed.