Strong and Weak Person Restrictions

Anagnostopoulou, Elena

doi:10.1075/la.74.08ana

Cited by 176 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A simple example introduces the problem: Modern Greek and Catalan do not tolerate two 1st/2nd person (henceforth 1/2) arguments of a ditransitive verb (the strong PCC), and Spanish does not tolerate a 3rd person dative along with a 1/2 accusative within ditransitives. Taking Anagnostopoulou's (2005) account (to which this paper owes great intellectual debts) as an exemplar, we can model the PCC effects as the result of a difference in the featural representation between 1/2 and 3rd person arguments. A common claim is that 3rd person "is not a person" (Kayne, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects

Nevins

2007

Nat Language Linguistic Theory

220

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In modeling the effects of the Person-Case Constraint (PCC), a common claim is that 3rd person "is not a person". However, while this claim does work in the syntax, it creates problems in the morphology. For example, characterizing the well-known "spurious se effect" in Spanish simply cannot be done without reference to 3rd person. Inspired by alternatives to underspecification that have emerged in phonology (e.g., Calabrese, 1995), a revised featural system is proposed, whereby syntactic agreement may be relativized to certain values of a feature, in particular, the contrastive and marked values. The range of variation in PCC effects is shown to emerge as a consequence of the parametric options allowed on a Probing head, whereas the representation of person remains constant across modules of the grammar and across languages.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I will henceforth call proponents/analyses based on the "3rd person has no person feature" view the 3noP view (e.g., among others, Anagnostopoulou (2005), Adger and Harbour (2006), Bejar and Rezac (2003), Harley and Ritter (2002)). 1 In Sect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects

Nevins

2007

Nat Language Linguistic Theory

220

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This graph-based account is remarkably simple in comparison to syntactic proposals, which not only have to capture the typological variation but must also provide a syntactic encoding for both the G-PCC and the person hierarchy (Anagnostopoulou, 2005;Adger and Harbour, 2007;Nevins, 2007). The specificity of linguistic proposals has certain advantages, as I discuss at the end of Sec.…”

Section: Person Case Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proceedings of the 15th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language

Gierasimczuk

Szymanik

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The volume contains eleven regular papers and two invited papers. It also includes an abstract of a third invited talk. The regular papers were selected from a total of 23 submissions, using the EasyChair conference management system. The conference benefited from the financial support of the British Logic Colloquium (http://www. blc-logic.org) and of AYLIEN (http://aylien.com), which we gratefully acknowledge.Last but not least, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the reviewers for MOL 2017 and to all the people who helped with the local organization. Partee (1986) claimed without proof that the function BE is the only homomorphism that makes the Partee triangle commute. This paper shows that this claim is incorrect unless "homomorphism" is understood as "complete homomorphism." It also shows that BE and A are the inverses of each other on certain natural assumptions. IntroductionIn a famous and influential paper, Partee (1986) discussed type-shifting operators for NP interpretations, including lift, ident and BE: lift = λxλP. P (x), ident = λxλy. [y = x], BE = λPλx. P(λy. [y = x]).She pointed out that these operators satisfy the equality BE • lift = ident, so the following diagram, now often referred to as the Partee triangle, commutes. Partee declared that BE is "natural" because of the following two "facts." Fact 1. BE is a homomorphism from e, t , t to e, t viewed as Boolean structures, i.e., BE(P 1 P 2 ) = BE(P 1 ) BE(P 2 ), BE(P 1 P 2 ) = BE(P 1 ) BE(P 2 ), BE(¬P 1 ) = ¬BE(P 1 ).Fact 2. BE is the unique homomorphism that makes the diagram commute.While Fact 1 is immediate, Fact 2 is not obvious. Partee (1986) nevertheless did not give a proof of Fact 2, but only a note saying, "Thanks to Johan van Benthem for the fact, which he knows how to prove but I don't." Meanwhile, van Benthem (1986) referred to Partee's work and stated Fact 2 on p. 68, but gave no proof either. Despite this quite obscure exposition, because of the classic status of Partee's and van Benthem's work, I suspect that many linguists take Fact 2 for granted while unable to explain it. Not only is this unfortunate, but it is actually as expected, because Fact 2 turns out to be not quite correct unless "homomorphism" is read as "complete homomorphism." The main purpose of this paper is to rectify this detrimental situation.Van Benthem (1986) took the domain of entities to be finite, writing, "Our general feeling is that natural language requires the use of finite models only" (p. 7). Fact 2 is indeed correct on this assumption. However, natural language has predicates like natural number whose extensions are obviously infinite. Also, if we take the domain of portions of matter in the sense of Link (1983) to be a nonatomic join-semilattice, then the domain of entities will surely be infinite, whether countable or uncountable. It is a fact that a single sentence of natural language, albeit only finitely long, can talk about an infinite number of entities, as exemplified in (1).(1) a. Every natural number is odd or even...

show abstract

“…The fact that these are ruled out could simply follow from the strong version of the Person Case Constraint, which amongst other things bans combinations of [+Participant] clitics. The same constraint, however it is to be accounted for (see for various approaches Anagnostopoulou 2003Anagnostopoulou , 2006Béjar and Rezac 2009;Bonet 1991;amongst others), is also operative in French, Italian, and Modern Greek amongst other languages. Given this possibility, the data in (11) cannot form the basis of an argument against the clitic analysis.…”

Section: Background On the Quechua Familymentioning

confidence: 99%

Cliticization feeds agreement: a view from Quechua

Myler

2016

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strong and Weak Person Restrictions

Cited by 176 publications

References 0 publications

The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects

The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects

Proceedings of the 15th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language

Cliticization feeds agreement: a view from Quechua

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About