About
David Embick is a Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. His primary research areas include syntactic theory, morphological theory with a focus on Distributed Morphology, the interface between syntax and morphology, syntax and phonological form, event and argument structure, and lexical knowledge. Additionally, his research interests extend to language and the brain, including studies involving magnetoencephalography (MEG) and investigations into language and autism. Professor Embick is affiliated with the Experimental Morphology Laboratory (XMorph) and contributes to advancing understanding in these interconnected fields of linguistics.
Research topics
- Computer Science
- Artificial Intelligence
- Natural Language Processing
- Linguistics
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Mathematics
- Biology
- Cognitive science
- Pure mathematics
- Botany
Selected publications
2025-07-31
book-chapterAbstract This chapter provides an overarching view of the work and its primary results. Key notions to be used throughout the work are defined and discussed; these include Case Targeting; the relationship between (morpho)syntactic operations like Agreement and Clitic Movement and their (morpho)phonological correlations with clitics and affixes; and the idea that alignment systems go well beyond a simple ‘Nominative/Accusative’ versus ‘Ergative/Absolutive’ dichotomy. The core properties of Sorani Kurdish transitive clauses are introduced, and an outline of the analysis is presented. Extensions of the analysis to additional clause types are then presented in overview form; these additional types include possessors, and arguments of prepositions; clauses with non-canonical subjects; and passives of ditransitives. Finally, the main theoretical conclusions and implications of the book are outlined.
2025-07-31
otherTheoretical background and preliminaries
2025-07-31
book-chapterAbstract This chapter presents the theoretical background to the work, on both general and specific levels, and provides preliminary applications of the approach to illustrate how it works. On the more general level, the assumptions that are made are drawn from a form of the Minimalist Program for syntax, with further assumptions about morphological realization and PF that are drawn from Distributed Morphology. On the more specific level, the theory of case is outlined. The two primary components of this are first, the idea that syntactic cases are bundles of features; and second, that syntactic operations may target specific features of this type (Case Targeting). Initial applications of the approach are then presented, focusing on the analysis of several phenomena from the Indo-Aryan languages.
2025-07-31
book-chapterAbstract The theoretical implications of the main components of the work are considered in this chapter, which also considers various alternatives to our primary claims. The discussion begins with the nature of case features, and compares the decompositional approach against representational alternatives. Following this, Case Targeting is compared to alternatives that dispense with it; the conclusion developed here is that significant generalizations are missed if Case Targeting is not admitted in some form. Next comes a discussion of morphosyntax/morphophonology mismatches, where agreement versus movement do not correspond directly to realization as a clitic versus affix. An approach allowing such mismatches is shown to be superior to alternatives. Finally, the implications of the approach for case assignment are examined with reference to the controversial status of Ergative case in particular.
Alignment and indexation in transitive (and intransitive) clauses
2025-07-31
book-chapterAbstract This chapter develops an analysis of the indexation patterns seen in Sorani transitive clauses. The key facts to be explained concern how clitics and affixes indexing different arguments relate to syntactic agreement and clitic movement operations. The analysis involves distinct components. First, presence or absence of the head F determines which cases are assigned in the clause. After this, syntactic agreement and clitic movement operations apply, in ways that target specific case features. Finally, the morphemes resulting from these operations are realized as clitics and affixes at PF. The main focus of the is first Standard Sorani Kurdish, which shows split-determined Nominative/Accusative versus Ergative/Objective alignment. Extensions are made to Garmiani Kurdish, which shows Ergative/Accusative; and illustrations from a number of other languages are provided to illustrate loci of crosslinguistic variation.
Alignment and indexation beyond simple (in)transitives
2025-07-31
book-chapterAbstract Beyond the arguments of basic transitive and intransitive clauses, there are several other types of DPs that enter the indexation system of Sorani. This chapter extends the analysis of the previous one to a number of additional clause types. These include arguments that originate as possessors, and as the complement of prepositions; different types of non-canonical subjects; and the subjects of ditransitives that originate as indirect objects. The analysis of these phenomena provide further support for the idea that agreement and clitic movement must target specific cases. Some additional points of interest – including what appears to be a derived Ergative subject in indirect object passives – are analyzed as well. Finally, comparative observations from a number of other Iranian languages flesh out the empirical angle of the chapter along several dimensions.
Comparative Syntax, Morphology, and “Externalization”
Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2025-09-04
book-chapter1st authorCorrespondingAccess to contextually-determined states in the interpretation of English stative participles
Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America · 2025-05-07 · 1 citations
articleOpen accessSenior authorStative passive participles (SPPs) differ in acceptability for different verbs: cf. The boxes are flattened/\#kicked. However, examples like those with kicked can be felicitous in very specific contexts, e.g. when box-kicking is an item to be checked off of a list: what will be called a 'Job is Done' (JiD) interpretation. An unresolved question in the prior literature is whether JiD is eventive or stative. This question takes on added significance in the context of recent work on the interpretation of SPPs. We argue that JiD is indeed stative, and show that this analysis has numerous consequences for understanding the syntax and interpretation of SPPs.
2025-07-31
book-section2025-07-31
book-section
Recent grants
Magnetoencephalographic studies of lexical processing and abstraction in autism
NIH · $1.5M · 2012–2018
Frequent coauthors
- 21 shared
Timothy P. L. Roberts
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
- 14 shared
Lisa Blaskey
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
- 12 shared
Luke Bloy
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
- 10 shared
Emily S. Kuschner
University of Pennsylvania
- 8 shared
Matthew Ku
Imaging Center
- 8 shared
Junko Matsuzaki
- 7 shared
David Poeppel
New York University
- 7 shared
Alec Marantz
New York University
Labs
Education
- 1997
Ph.D., Syntax, morphology, syntax/morphology interface, neurolinguistics
Univ. of Pennsylvania
- Resume-aware match score
- Save to shortlist
- AI-drafted outreach
See your match with David Embick
PhdFit ranks faculty by your research interests, methods, and publications — grounded in their actual work, not templates.
- Free to start
- No credit card
- 30-second signup