In Support of Long Distance Agree

Αλεξιαδου, Αρτεμισ; Anagnostopoulou, Elena; Iordăchioaia, Gianina; Marchis, Mihaela

doi:10.1515/9783110294774.85

Cited by 6 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such an agreement pattern exists in other languages, notably the Balkan languages (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1999; Rivero & Geber 2004, 2008; Alexiadou et al 2008, to appear; Potsdam & Polinsky 2008, and references therein). The sentence in (58) presents an example from Greek.…”

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…Despite the agreement pattern in (58), there is good evidence that unlike Adyghe, the boldfaced embedded subjects in Greek do not covertly raise into the matrix clause (Alexiadou et al 2008, to appear; Potsdam & Polinsky 2008). We will repeat some of the arguments to support this claim.…”

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Before concluding, we present a tentative account of the parametric difference between Adyghe‐ and Greek‐type languages, which builds on the analysis of Alexiadou et al (to appear). As Alexiadou et al discuss, Greek has certain syntactic characteristics that make the Agree analysis available.…”

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou (1999) and Alexiadou et al (to appear) show that the Greek aspectual verbs arxizo ‘start’ and stamatao ‘stop’ are raising verbs and that they participate in a raising syntax. Ordinary SSR is observed, as shown in (59), and evidence from selectional restrictions, idiom chunks, nominative anaphors, and weak crossover supports an unaccusative argument structure.…”

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A BR analysis is thus not appropriate. Potsdam & Polinsky (2008) and Alexiadou et al (to appear) argue that a long‐distance in‐situ agreement mechanism such as Agree is necessary to account for the Greek pattern:…”

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Backward Raising

Potsdam¹,

Polinsky²

2011

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper documents and analyzes an instance of covert A‐movement, specifically covert subject‐to‐subject raising, in the Northwest Caucasian language Adyghe. We argue that Adyghe has a subject‐to‐subject raising construction in which the subject of an unaccusative verb’s complement clause undergoes A‐movement into the matrix clause, but it does so covertly. We refer to this phenomenon as backward raising. True backward raising is distinguished from apparent cases that have similar agreement patterns but do not show any of the other evidence for movement found in the Adyghe construction. We illustrate the contrast between true and apparent backward raising by comparing Adyghe to Greek. The existence of backward raising helps to adjudicate between various theories of covert movement. It supports a theory in which covert movement involves actual phrasal movement. Covert movement cannot be reduced to a long‐distance feature‐matching relation such as Agree (Chomsky 2000). Linguistic theory thus needs to incorporate both mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Crosslinguistic Observationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Backward Raising

Potsdam¹,

Polinsky²

2011

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

First conjunct clitic doubling in Modern Greek: Evidence for Agree-based approaches to clitic doubling

Paparounas,

Salzmann

2023

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the syntax of the hitherto understudied phenomenon of first conjunct clitic doubling, with reference to Modern Greek. We argue that it provides crucial evidence against movement-based approaches to clitic doubling, which would incorrectly rule out first conjunct clitic doubling as a violation of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. This argument against movement is complemented by evidence from binding, showing that doubled DPs consistently occupy their base positions. The Greek data instead favor an account based purely on feature transmission via Agree. We develop an Agree-based analysis of the Greek facts, and show that existing evidence for movement in Greek clitic doubling (Weak Crossover alleviation, suspension of intervention effects) can be insightfully reanalyzed. The alleviation of Weak Crossover effects receives a more straightforward account compared to movement-based approaches, in that it can be subsumed under the general mitigating effects of information structure (givenness, topicality); the intervention pattern follows once the activity of a DP is related to the involvement of its phi-features in Agree operations; and the distribution of clitic doubling is implemented by means of a licensing approach, assimilating clitic doubling to differential object marking. Finally, we address two morphological aspects of clitic doubling that are often taken to be challenging for an Agree-based account, namely, the syncretism between determiners and clitics, and tense invariance. We show that, upon closer inspection, the former is no less challenging for movement approaches, while the latter cannot be considered a reliable diagnostic to tease apart agreement and clitic doubling.

show abstract

Raising, inversion and agreement in modern Hebrew

Melnik

2015

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the interaction between raising, subject–verb inversion and agreement in Modern Hebrew. It identifies, alongside ‘standard’ (i.e., English-like) subject-to-subject raising, two additional patterns where the embedded subject appears post-verbally. In one, the raising predicate exhibits long-distance agreement with the embedded subject, while in the other, a colloquial variant, it is marked with impersonal (3sm) agreement. The choice between the three raising constructions in the language is shown to be solely dependent on properties of the embedded clause. The data are discussed and analyzed against a background of typological and theoretical work on raising. The analysis, cast in the framework of Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), builds on research on raising, selectional locality, agreement, subjecthood and information structure, as well as verb-initial constructions in Modern Hebrew.

show abstract

In Support of Long Distance Agree

Abstract: Control as Movement (see Hornstein 1999 and subsequent work). We further refer the reader to Alboiu (2007), Alexiadou et al. (to appear), where it is argued that Greek and Romanian have extensive backward control across Obligatory Control (OC) complements.

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Backward Raising

Backward Raising

First conjunct clitic doubling in Modern Greek: Evidence for Agree-based approaches to clitic doubling

Raising, inversion and agreement in modern Hebrew

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About