Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: a commentary on Baker’s SCOPA

Preminger, Omer

doi:10.1007/s11049-011-9155-z

Cited by 43 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In sum, while there are many possible explanations for the fact that an intended agreement pattern fails to surface (Preminger 2011a, 2011b, Bock and Middleton 2011, interface or performance factors are particularly likely reasons for such a failure. This is especially true when the agreement controller and its target are in a specifier-head relationship, since this is considered the strongest context for agreement to surface (Franck et al 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges Reply to peer commentaries

Benmamoun

Montrul

Polinsky

2013

Theoretical Linguistics

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges Reply to peer commentaries

Benmamoun

Montrul

Polinsky

2013

Theoretical Linguistics

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As Nevins (: 952) puts it, ‘Person‐Case Constraints, while very widespread, never find a parallel in Number‐Case Constraints’ (cf. also Baker ; Preminger 2011b). This is also true for Hittite.…”

Section: The Person Case Constraint In Hittitementioning

confidence: 96%

On the Syntax of Argument Clitics in Hittite

Lyutikova

Sideltsev

2019

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper assesses restrictions on the distribution of the Hittite clitic pronouns as a realization of the Person Case Constraint (PCC). It claims that Hittite exhibits the strong version of the PCC, which blocks the 1st or 2nd person direct object clitic in the presence of the indirect object clitic. Moreover, it argues that in Hittite, the unaccusative or passive, but not transitive, subject clitics participate in the PCC as well, and this fact indicates that the agreement processes resulting in the PCC occur before structural case assignment and independently of it. The paper presents an analysis that implies two distinct mechanisms of licensing: interpretable person licensing, based on the Person Licensing Condition, and Vergnaud‐licensing, based on a feature‐driven version of the Case filter.

show abstract

“…As noted by Preminger (2011b), this requirement appears to be a sui generis requirement on marked features, which does which does not extend to other ϕ-feature classes ( , (pace Baker 2008).…”

Section: X43 the Formal Agreement Requirement On 1st/2nd Person Promentioning

confidence: 96%

“…or (28) will correctly rule out cases like (26), but it leaves open the question of how the local direct object pronoun in the infinitival clause in (25) satisfies its licensing requirements. SeePreminger (2011b) for an explanation based on locality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Split Ergativity is not about Ergativity

Coon

Preminger

2017

The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter argues that split ergativity is epiphenomenal, and that the factors which trigger its appearance are not limited to ergative systems in the first place. In both aspectual and person splits, the split is the result of a bifurcation of the clause into two distinct case/agreement domains, which renders the clause structurally intransitive. Since intransitive subjects do not appear with ergative marking, this straightforwardly accounts for the absence of ergative morphology. Crucially, such bifurcation is not specific to ergative languages; it is simply obfuscated in nominative-accusative environments because there, by definition, transitive and intransitive subjects pattern alike. The account also derives the universal directionality of splits, by linking the structure that is added to independent facts: the use of locative constructions in nonperfective aspects (Bybee et al. 1994, Laka 2006, Coon 2013), and the requirement that 1st/2nd person arguments be structurally licensed (Bejar & Rezac 2003, Preminger 2014).

show abstract

Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: a commentary on Baker’s SCOPA

Cited by 43 publications

References 25 publications

Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges Reply to peer commentaries

Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges Reply to peer commentaries

On the Syntax of Argument Clitics in Hittite

Split Ergativity is not about Ergativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About