Agreeing How? Implications for Theories of Agreement and Locality

Abstract

In Lubukusu and Lusaamia, the wh-expression ‘how’ agrees in φ-features with the subject of its clause. We show that agreement on ‘how’ is not always identical to subject agreement on the verb: the two diverge in certain locative inversion and subject extraction environments. On the basis of these facts, we argue that ‘how’ is a vP adjunct with downward-probing uφ independent of the uφ that underlies subject agreement. We also explore locality paradoxes that arise in connection with agreeing ‘how’ in locative inversion constructions. These present challenges to the traditional notion of equidistance from a probe as an explanation for inversion, show that operators may have ‘‘active’’ φ-features even while they are Ā-opaque, and offer insight into the mechanisms making locative inversion possible.

Phonologically determined nominal concord as post-syntactic: Evidence from Guébie

“…Nominal concord is often analyzed using the same tools that account for clausal agreement, where a verb agrees with the phi-features of a subject and/or object in the narrow syntax (Sigurdsson 1993, Carstens 2001, Collins 2004, Sigurdsson 2004, Koopman 2006, Baker 2008, Kramer 2009, Carstens 2011, Danon 2011, Carstens & Diercks 2013, Toosarvandani & van Urk 2014). See Norris (2014: Chapter 3.2) for a thorough examination of previous models of concord in the narrow syntax.…”

“…In a modular approach to grammar, where a narrow syntactic component builds up a hierarchical structure, and post-syntactic operations apply to that structure resulting in surface word order and phonological form, there are conflicting views as to the location of concord operations in the derivation. On one hand, nominal concord has been analyzed using the same tools that account for clausal agreement, where a verb agrees with the phi-features of a subject and/or object (Sigurdsson 1993, Carstens 2001, Collins 2004, Sigurdsson 2004, Koopman 2006, Baker 2008, Kramer 2009, Carstens 2011, Danon 2011, Carstens & Diercks 2013, Toosarvandani & van Urk 2014). Such models place nominal concord in the narrow syntax.…”

Pragmatic effects of clitic doubling

“…Following the conclusions of Diercks (2011aDiercks ( , 2011b and Carstens and Diercks (2013), we assume that the locative clitic arises on a locative-specific functional head (AgrL) that contains only locative phi-features and therefore is only capable of agreeing with locative phrases. Like the preceding examples, this is consistent with an approach where marking multiple objects on the verb is possible, as long as these object markers originate on a distinct syntactic head.…”

“…These examples are introduced and analyzed in section 4. 21 SeeCarstens and Diercks (2013) for an argument from Lubukusu againstBaker's (2008) claim that heads in Bantu probe upwards. Evidence in that paper is drawn from manner adverbs ('how') in some Luyia languages that agree with the subject of the sentence, and in particular, the postverbal unaccusative subject in a locative inversion construction.22 For example,Zeller (2015) analyzes Zulu OMs in right-dislocation constructions as the result of an Agree relation on a right-facing topic head; Ranero (2017) adopts a similar approach for some right dislocations in Luganda.23 If we were to apply the Upward Agreement Hypothesis to Lubukusu in this way, however, it would create an additional (major) analytical difficulty, namely, how to explain object marking for the languages where the OM commonly co-occurs with an in situ object (as demonstrated by Riedel 2009a for languages like Haya, Sambaa, and Swahili).…”

Description and analyses of nominal concord (Pt II)

“…In contrast, subject‐verb agreement is frequently found only on heads. There are very few examples of agreeing adverbs in the literature (see D'Alessandro (, p. 37) on the Ripano dialect of Italian, Grosz and Patel‐Grosz (, p. 228) on Kutchi Gujarati, and Carstens and Diercks () on Lubukusu/Lusaamia). If it is correct to say that adverbs are syntactically similar to adjectives as is often assumed, then the failure of adverbs to show agreement is noteworthy.…”