“…Similarly, Smith () makes key changes to the mechanism of Agree and adopts some non‐standard assumptions about the merge order of various targets, in order to generate the attested patterns. These analyses show that hybrid agreement is not crystal clear evidence in favor of a second location for gender features in the syntax, and further investigation is necessary to determine which approach is best for hybrid agreement generally (see King, ; Landau, for recent evaluations of a variety of approaches).…”
Section: Gender In Multiple Locationsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Hybrid agreement seems to provide evidence for two gender features within the same DP: the gender of the noun (henceforth: arbitrary gender) and biological sex . One very common approach to hybrid agreement is to posit two different locations for these features: Arbitrary gender is on the nominal, but a biological sex feature can be optionally merged higher up in the structure (see e.g., Sauerland, ; Pereltsvaig, ; Yatsushiro & Sauerland, ; Asarina, ; Steriopolo & Wiltschko, ; Pesetsky, ; Rappaport, ; Landau, ; Acquaviva, ; King, ) . This is shown schematically in (18) for the data in (17): …”
Section: Gender In Multiple Locationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some of these proposals (Sauerland, ; Pereltsvaig, ; Steriopolo & Wiltschko, ; Rappaport, ), the biological sex feature is on/above D, which is too high for it to affect biological sex agreement on adjectives (this holds whether DP‐internal agreement is accomplished via the syntactic relation Agree; Chomsky, , ; or feature sharing, see e.g., Norris, ) . However, the remainder of the proposals (Yatsushiro & Sauerland, ; Asarina, ; Pesetsky, ; Landau, ; Acquaviva, ) locate the biological sex feature in the middle of the nominal spine, like in (18), either as its own ‘gender’ head (Asarina, , Pesetsky, , Acquaviva, ) or as a feature on Num (Landau, ). These analyses are thus multilocation approaches to gender…”
The goal of this paper is to critically review the results of linguistic research on the syntactic location of gender features. It has become relatively clear that gender features do not project their own phrase “GenP” and they are not located on the Num(ber) head that hosts number features. Instead, the field mostly agrees that gender features are located on the nominal—either on N or, in approaches that decompose lexical categories, on the nominalizing head n. Additional gender features have been proposed higher in the structure in order to capture certain processes that impose their own gender (e.g., diminutives are always feminine in the Semitic language Amharic) and to capture patterns of hybrid agreement (e.g., Russian nouns that are grammatically masculine but may trigger feminine agreement when referring to a woman).
“…Similarly, Smith () makes key changes to the mechanism of Agree and adopts some non‐standard assumptions about the merge order of various targets, in order to generate the attested patterns. These analyses show that hybrid agreement is not crystal clear evidence in favor of a second location for gender features in the syntax, and further investigation is necessary to determine which approach is best for hybrid agreement generally (see King, ; Landau, for recent evaluations of a variety of approaches).…”
Section: Gender In Multiple Locationsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Hybrid agreement seems to provide evidence for two gender features within the same DP: the gender of the noun (henceforth: arbitrary gender) and biological sex . One very common approach to hybrid agreement is to posit two different locations for these features: Arbitrary gender is on the nominal, but a biological sex feature can be optionally merged higher up in the structure (see e.g., Sauerland, ; Pereltsvaig, ; Yatsushiro & Sauerland, ; Asarina, ; Steriopolo & Wiltschko, ; Pesetsky, ; Rappaport, ; Landau, ; Acquaviva, ; King, ) . This is shown schematically in (18) for the data in (17): …”
Section: Gender In Multiple Locationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some of these proposals (Sauerland, ; Pereltsvaig, ; Steriopolo & Wiltschko, ; Rappaport, ), the biological sex feature is on/above D, which is too high for it to affect biological sex agreement on adjectives (this holds whether DP‐internal agreement is accomplished via the syntactic relation Agree; Chomsky, , ; or feature sharing, see e.g., Norris, ) . However, the remainder of the proposals (Yatsushiro & Sauerland, ; Asarina, ; Pesetsky, ; Landau, ; Acquaviva, ) locate the biological sex feature in the middle of the nominal spine, like in (18), either as its own ‘gender’ head (Asarina, , Pesetsky, , Acquaviva, ) or as a feature on Num (Landau, ). These analyses are thus multilocation approaches to gender…”
The goal of this paper is to critically review the results of linguistic research on the syntactic location of gender features. It has become relatively clear that gender features do not project their own phrase “GenP” and they are not located on the Num(ber) head that hosts number features. Instead, the field mostly agrees that gender features are located on the nominal—either on N or, in approaches that decompose lexical categories, on the nominalizing head n. Additional gender features have been proposed higher in the structure in order to capture certain processes that impose their own gender (e.g., diminutives are always feminine in the Semitic language Amharic) and to capture patterns of hybrid agreement (e.g., Russian nouns that are grammatically masculine but may trigger feminine agreement when referring to a woman).
“…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).…”
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.
“…Landau () discusses and analyzes a pattern of this type in Modern Hebrew, and in his discussion, he also cites Chichewa, Finnish, Lebanese Arabic, Russian, and Serbo‐Croatian as languages with this type of mixed concord. I discuss Landau's analysis in Part II.…”
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 the 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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
