Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages

Benmamoun, Elabbas; Bhatia, Archna; Polinsky, Maria

doi:10.1075/livy.9.02ben

Cited by 77 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accounts in which agreement takes place in two stages, one of which is in narrow syntax (Agree/Link) and the other at PF (Agree/Copy), such as Arregi and Nevins (2013), and most other multi-component views of agreement (a.o. Guasti & Rizzi 2002;van Koppen 2005;Franck et al 2006;Marušič et al 2007;Benmamoun et al 2009;Franck 2011;Bhat & Walkow 2013;Polinsky 2014) are still compatible with our data.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Agreement and the structure of relative clauses

Arsenijević

Gračanin-Yuksek

2016

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper proposes an account of asymmetries in agreement patterns that obtain in restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses headed by hybrid agreement nouns d(j)eca 'children', braća 'brothers', and gospoda 'gentry' in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS). We note that relative clauses headed by hybrid nouns display different possibilities of agreement morphology on the relative pronoun koji/a/e 'which', depending, on the one hand, on whether the relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive and on the other, on the case of the relative pronoun. We argue that the observed differences are the result of a conspiracy of the following factors: (i) hybrid number-agreement nouns introduce a null plural pronoun unspecified for gender (Postal 1966;den Dikken 2001; Torrego and Laga 2015), (ii) all plural case forms of the relative pronoun except for nominative and accusative show full gender syncretism (Alsina and Arsenijević 2012b), and (iii) non-restrictive relative clauses involve a null definite pronoun and attach to the head noun higher than the restrictive relative clauses (Postal 1994;de Vries 2002;. We maintain that the facts discussed in the paper argue against analyses which derive the differences between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses from their LF representations, rather than from their overt syntax.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Agreement and the structure of relative clauses

Arsenijević

Gračanin-Yuksek

2016

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Closest conjunct agreement, i.e., the pattern we see in (21), is available in the baseline only with the VS order, (23). Closest conjunct agreement has received a number of theoretical analyses which we will not discuss in great detail here (see Aoun et al 1994, Benmamoun et al 2009, Bošković 2009 for details). For our purposes, the crucial generalization is that the computation of closest conjunct agreement relies on the interaction between syntax and the morpho-phonological component of grammar.…”

Section: Syntax-morphology Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics

Benmamoun¹,

Montrul

Polinsky

2013

Theoretical Linguistics

Self Cite

427

308

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Native speaker competence is typically the result of normal first language acquisition in a predominantly monolingual environment, with optimal and continuous exposure to the language being acquired. In this article, we discuss the case of heritage speakers: receptive bilinguals, speakers of an ethnic or immigrant minority language, whose first language does not reach native-like attainment in adulthood. We present a brief overview of the heritage speaker's linguistic system and discuss competing factors that shape this system in adulthood. We examine several theoretically relevant notions from the standpoint of their representation in heritage language (including case and interface phenomena). The connection between theory and heritage language studies underscores the potential this population offers for linguistic research.

show abstract

“…It has been commonly assumed in that conjunct phrases involve an asymmetric structure &P such that the first conjunct c-commands the second (see, among others, Munn 1993, Benmamoun et al 2009). …”

Section: Sentencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…I further assume a modified version of the AGREE model given in Arregi & Nevins (2012) (see also Benmamoun, Bhatia & Polinsky 2009, Bhatt & Walkow 2013, where AGREE is treated not as a process that matches targets and controllers and immediately copies the value. Rather, AGREE is formed of AGREE-LINK, which matches targets and controllers, and AGREE-COPY, which copies the values from the controller to the target.…”

Section: Semantic Agreement and Agreementioning

confidence: 99%

The syntax of semantic agreement in English

Smith

2017

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the properties of plural agreement that is triggered by collective nouns in British English. Both singular and plural agreement are able to appear with these collective nouns, which are shown to be morphologically singular but semantically plural. Plural agreement, however, is systematically more restricted than singular agreement, appearing in a subset of the environments where singular agreement is allowed. Restrictions on plural come from the nature of agreement; semantic agreement features can only enter into agreement when the controller of agreement c-commands the target of agreement, whereas morphologically motivated agreement is not subject to the same structural restriction. This asymmetry between the two types of agreement is shown to arise from the proposal that AGREE (Chomsky 2000(Chomsky , 2001) is distributed over the syntactic and post-syntactic components (Arregi & Nevins 2012).

show abstract

Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages

Cited by 77 publications

References 21 publications

Agreement and the structure of relative clauses

Agreement and the structure of relative clauses

Heritage languages and their speakers: Opportunities and challenges for linguistics

The syntax of semantic agreement in English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About