Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement

Diercks, Michael

doi:10.1007/s11049-013-9187-7

Cited by 40 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted by Preminger (2013) and Preminger & Polinsky (2015), maximally-local configurations are uninformative with respect to the directionality of agreement. We will demonstrate that in some detail in section 5, but for now, note that if Diercks (2013) is correct in his analysis of complementizer agreement in Lubukusu (whereby the only actual agreement relation is the maximally-local relation between the complementizer and the null anaphor), this case would have no particular purchase on the directionality issue.…”

Section: Refining the Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The <i>Agreement Theta Generalization</i>

Polinsky

Preminger

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we propose a new generalization concerning the structural relationship between a head that agrees with a DP in φ-features and the predicate that assigns the (first) thematic role to that DP: the Agreement Theta Generalization (ATG). According to the ATG, configurations where the thematic-role assigner is located in a higher clause than the agreeing head are categorically excluded. We present empirical evidence for the ATG, discuss its analytical import, and show that this generalization bears directly on the proper modeling of syntactic agreement, as well as the prospects for reducing other syntactic (and syntacto-semantic) dependencies to the same underlying mechanism.

show abstract

Section: Refining the Generalizationmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The Lubukusu case discussed byDiercks (2013) differs from many of the cases of complementizer agreement discussed in the literature (see, e.g., fn. 3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

The <i>Agreement Theta Generalization</i>

Polinsky

Preminger

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Diercks () notes a slightly different contrast in Lubukusu, where the complements of emotive factives are different than those of either semifactives or non‐presuppositional verbs. Emotive factives must select non‐agreeing complementizers (78a), while semifactives and non‐presuppositional verbs must select agreeing complementizers (78b–c).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is partly because many of the semifactives cannot be used in the same way in the implicit conditional construction (see below), which is the main investigative tool for the question to be answered, and partly because I remain neutral as to whether the conclusions of this work apply to semifactives. (Compare the Lubukusu data (Diercks ) discussed in section 6.5 for evidence that emotive factives should more generally be treated separately from semifactives. )…”

Section: Basic Data and Framing Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Factivity and Complement‐Types

Schueler

2016

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I argue that the presuppositions associated with factive predicates are triggered not by the predicates themselves, but by their complement clauses. Evidence is brought to bear from different clause types in English, some of which, such as some gerunds and nominalizations, cause the presuppositions to disappear in certain uses of the implicit conditional, or simple subjunctive, construction. I survey the attempt to analyze these facts by assuming that factive predicates trigger presuppositions, that their complement clauses do, and that both do, and find that the thesis that solely the complement clauses are responsible for the presuppositions achieves the maximum explanatory power. This hypothesis has further implications for the nature of presuppositions in general.

show abstract

“…At the outset, this complementizer-like -sappears to be a phonologically reduced form of the clause-final complementizer əsə (see Subbārāo 2012: 165 for a remark to this effect). 2 Agreeing complementizers have been reported in some West Germanic languages like Bavarian (Bayer 1984) and some Bantu languages (Diercks 2013), but not in Indo-Aryan languages. I argue that the agreeing form -s-in Marathi LDA under discussion here is not a standard complementizer lexicalizing the C 0 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A special case of long distance agreement in Marathi

Ozarkar

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses an unexplored case of long distance agreement (LDA) in Marathi in which agreement takes place across an embedded subjunctive clause. In this construction, three distinct heads-an embedded verb, a matrix verb and what appears to be a clause-introducing complementizer-like morpheme-agree with the embedded object. The paper demonstrates that the subjunctive clause embedded in the LDA construction is a restructured clause lacking several functional projections such as TP, NegP and the entire CP layer. Further, it argues that the complementizer-like agreeing morpheme is a clause-linker attached lower than the CP-layer (à la den Dikken 2006). LDA in this construction is mediated by this clause-linker and the restructured nature of the clause it introduces. The analysis in this paper is based within the Minimalist framework of probe-goal mechanism of Agree.

show abstract

Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement

Cited by 40 publications

References 38 publications

The <i>Agreement Theta Generalization</i>

The <i>Agreement Theta Generalization</i>

Factivity and Complement‐Types

A special case of long distance agreement in Marathi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About