Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion

Murphy, Andrew; Puškar, Zorica

doi:10.1007/s11049-017-9396-6

Cited by 23 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Marušič, Nevins & Saksida , Bošković , Marušič & Nevins , Marušič, Nevins & Badecker , Willer‐Gold et al. , Arsenijević and Mitić ,b, Murphy & Puškar ), nor can we confirm that there is a difference in interpretation between CCA and default/resolved agreement in any of the varieties of South Slavic represented here. In all of the examples tested, both in Slovenian and B/C/S, both conjuncts seem to be equally “agentive” regardless of the agreement used.…”

mentioning

confidence: 51%

“…In this article, we reported on two experiments conducted on these languages with the aim of testing whether the underlying‐biclausal hypothesis applies universally to CCA patterns and, more particularly, whether it applies to Slovenian and B/C/S, which have been used to motivate complex agreement mechanisms to yield CCA (Willer‐Gold et al. , Murphy & Puškar ). The results of our experiments reject the conjunction‐reduction hypothesis as the only source of CCA as far as these languages are concerned.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although CCA in South Slavic has motivated a number of modifications to the theory of agreement (e.g., Bošković , Willer‐Gold et al. , Murphy & Puškar ), one of the analyses of CCA that keeps coming back involves clausal conjunction followed by a type of ellipsis. This is referred to as conjunction reduction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Elided Clausal Conjunction Is Not the Only Source of Closest‐Conjunct Agreement: A Picture‐Matching Study

Arsenijević

Willer-Gold

Aljović

et al. 2019

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recurring hypothesis about the agreement phenomena generalized as closest‐conjunct agreement takes this pattern to result from reduced clausal conjunction, simply displaying the agreement of the verb with the nonconjoined subject of the clause whose content survives ellipsis (Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche 1994, 1999; see also Wilder 1997). Closest‐conjunct agreement is the dominant agreement pattern in the South Slavic languages Slovenian and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. A natural question is whether closest‐conjunct agreement in these varieties may indeed be analyzed as entirely derived from conjunction reduction. In this article, we report on two experiments conducted to test this. The results reject the hypothesis as far as these languages are concerned, thereby upholding the relevance of models developed to account for closest‐conjunct agreement within theories of agreement.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Elided Clausal Conjunction Is Not the Only Source of Closest‐Conjunct Agreement: A Picture‐Matching Study

Arsenijević

Willer-Gold

Aljović

et al. 2019

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I now address this issue in a detailed manner. For coordinated constructions, I will assume the structure in (10), as argued for in Murphy & Puškar (2018). I assume that the φ-features of the coordinated DPs are combined, and the resulting φ-complex is visible at the top of the projection.…”

Section: Against a Purely Syntactic Accountmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deceptive datives: Prepositional case in Latvian

Kushnir

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I look at the distribution of case forms in Latvian prepositional constructions. Latvian prepositions assign either the genitive or the accusative case to their complements, primarily in an idiosyncratic manner. This pattern is disrupted in the plural, where all complements of prepositions show up invariably in the dative case. I investigate the nature of this unusual pattern and provide a post-syntactic account of the data, in which I claim that the observed asymmetry is the result of a cumulative effect in Latvian grammar: case may surface unfaithfully in configurations where marked combinations of case and number features occur in positions where certain case feature values are dispreferred to begin with. This effect arose diachronically as a repair mechanism after the language had lost one of its grammatical cases, the instrumental. This cumulative effect is captured using the framework of Harmonic Grammar. I also argue extensively against a purely syntactic account of the data.

show abstract

“…In recent years, quite a number of cases have been found where only the features of one conjunct—usually the closest—appear on the verb. Cases of so‐called closest‐conjunct agreement have been reported in quite a number of languages and language families: Arabic (see among others Bahloul & Harbert , Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche , Munn ), Biblical and Modern Hebrew (Doron ), Dutch (Van Koppen ), English (Munn ), Brazilian Portuguese (Schmitt , Munn ), Hindi (Benmamoun, Bhatia & Polinsky , Benmamoun & Bhatia , Bhatt & Walkow ), Tsez (Benmamoun, Bhatia & Polinsky ), Slavic languages (Citko , Bošković , Murphy & Puškar , Marušič, Nevins & Badecker ), Irish (McCloskey , Van Koppen ), and many others (see, e.g., Johannessen for an overview). An example of closest‐conjunct agreement with postverbal conjoined subjects is found in Old Norse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Symmetry of Case in Conjunction

Weisser

2019

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, I argue that all of the conjuncts in nominal conjunction always bear the same case. Apparent counterexamples, where conjuncts seem to differ in morphological case marking, are due either to a misanalysis of the underlying syntactic structure or to superficial morphological processes that create the impression of a difference in case marking. Once we control for phenomena of this sort (namely &P clitics, suspended affixation, and allomorphy), we find that case marking in nominal conjunction is always symmetric. This finding is in stark contrast to the phenomenon of ϕ agreement, which is known to exhibit asymmetries in conjunction. I show that the Chomskyan account of case assignment, according to which case arises only as a reflex of ϕ agreement, cannot account for this mismatch without stipulative assumptions. The pattern follows straightforwardly, however, if we assume that case assignment proceeds on the basis of syntactic structure while ϕ agreement can be either syntactic or postsyntactic. Finally, I show that the generalization established can be used as a simple diagnostic to distinguish syntactic case-marking alternations from morphological ones.

show abstract

Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion

Cited by 23 publications

References 79 publications

Elided Clausal Conjunction Is Not the Only Source of Closest‐Conjunct Agreement: A Picture‐Matching Study

Elided Clausal Conjunction Is Not the Only Source of Closest‐Conjunct Agreement: A Picture‐Matching Study

Deceptive datives: Prepositional case in Latvian

On the Symmetry of Case in Conjunction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About