Delayed Valuation: A Reanalysis of Goal Features, “Upward” Complementizer Agreement, and the Mechanics of Case

Carstens, Vicki

doi:10.1111/synt.12116

Cited by 65 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We refer the reader to Diercks (2010; 2013 for more information). Although a Reverse Agree analysis of these data is feasible, there have also been two analyses of these data making use of the classical formulation of the Agree mechanism as a downward probing operation (see Diercks, Putnam, and Van Koppen 2012;Carstens 2016). We will not go into these analyses here for reasons of space and refer the reader to the original articles for detailed discussion.…”

Section: Reverse Agree and Ca In Bantumentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementizer Agreement

Koppen

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complementizers agree in phi‐features with the embedded subject in dialects of German and Dutch, in Tense with the embedded clause in Irish and in phi‐features with the matrix subject in certain African languages. These complementizer agreement phenomena will be the main empirical focus of this chapter. In particular it discusses the empirical generalizations and analyses of complementizer agreement itself as well as the relevance of this phenomenon for the theoretical debate on the interaction between the syntactic and the PF module of the grammar, the analysis of agreement, the relation between T 0 and C 0 , and the layout of the left periphery.

show abstract

Section: Reverse Agree and Ca In Bantumentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementizer Agreement

Koppen

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another prominent proposal for the syntax of adjectives is that they are adjoined to the nominal spine, as represented schematically below. A structure like this for adjectives is assumed in analyses of concord by Baier (); Baker (); Carstens (, , ); Ingason and Sigurðsson (); Kramer (); Landau (); Toosarvandani and van Urk () . These approaches all analyze agreement as an application of the syntactic relation Agree (see (4) above).…”

Section: Concord In Gender and Numbermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is the approach taken by Carstens (, , ); Danon (); Kramer (); Landau () . In fact, Carstens (, p. 7) cites concord as evidence that XPs must be able to serve as probes. Carstens proposes that A 0 first attempts to find a goal within its c‐command domain (internal to AP), and upon finding nothing there, [ u ϕ ] (i.e., unvalued ϕ ‐features) of A 0 becomes [ u ϕ ] of AP, and Carstens assumes AP can then find the features of N(P) .…”

Section: Concord In Gender and Numbermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Carstens () does not discuss languages where attributive adjectives can have complements—her analysis predicts that adjectives could show concord with their complements rather than the nouns they modify (assuming those complements could otherwise be suitable goals), and I am not aware of any examples of this type. Thus, independent evidence for that aspect of the proposal is lacking.…”

Section: Concord In Gender and Numbermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Description and analyses of nominal concord (Pt II)

Norris

2017

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the current understanding of what has been called nominal concord, whereby modifiers of a noun match certain features of the noun (e.g., gender, number, or case features). Part I discusses existing understanding of concord, remaining as descriptive as possible. Concord has been argued to involve gender, number, case, and definiteness, and nearly every word class that can be present inside nominal phrases is capable of showing concord. I consider some questions concerning the typology of concord, which is largely uncharted territory. Part II focuses on existing formal analyses of concord. Analyses of ϕ‐feature concord are rather varied, but analyses of case concord more or less converge on the same mechanism. Finally, I consider the insight offered by analyses of cases of mixed concord, where modifiers do not all match each other or the head noun in features or feature values.

show abstract

“…Much previous work presupposes that the same mechanism underlies noun-modifier agreement (often called concord) and argument predicate agreement (see, e.g. Baker 2008;Carstens 2013;Danon 2011;Toosarvandani and van Urk 2012). T hese accounts assume that the same operation underlies both types of agreement: usually a modified version of Agree (Chomsky 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%