Inverse marking and Multiple Agree in Algonquin

Oxford, Will

doi:10.1007/s11049-018-9428-x

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An analysis in which the third-person inverse is syntactic but the SAP inverse is not resolves a tension that runs through much existing work on the Algonquian inverse. On the one hand are proposals that inverse morphology always reflects syntactic inversion (e.g., LeSourd 1976, Rhodes 1976, Jolley 1982, Rhodes 1994, Bruening 2001, Bliss 2005, Quinn 2006, Oxford 2019b). Such proposals account well for the properties of the third-person inverse, but their extension 11 One additional use of long-distance agreement as a diagnostic of syntactic inversion should be mentioned:…”

Section: Existing Approaches To the Algonquian Inversementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recognition that the third-person inverse is a voice construction also highlights a weakness in existing formal accounts. Although Lochbihler 2012 andOxford 2019b The key proposal, in line with Béjar & Rezac 2009, is that the inverse reflects a special outcome of the Agree operation in contexts where the patient's person features are more specified than those of the agent. This account applies to both the SAP inverse (3 → SAP), where only the SAP patient has the feature [Participant], and the third-person inverse (3.obv → 3.px), where only the proximate patient has the feature [Proximate].…”

Section: Existing Approaches To the Algonquian Inversementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A tale of two inverses

Oxford

2023

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The functional‐typological literature distinguishes two kinds of inverse constructions: inverse voice, in which the patient becomes the subject, and inverse alignment, in which the patient is agreed with like a canonical subject. In this literature, Algonquian languages are held to be the prototypical example of a system in which the two kinds of inverses coexist: the inverse is a “deep” voice construction in clauses with two third‐person arguments and a “shallow” alignment pattern in clauses in which a third person acts on a speech‐act participant. This article argues that that conclusion is correct and attempts to reconcile it with formal models of voice and agreement. It is proposed that despite their distinct syntactic underpinnings, both inverse constructions result in a derivation in which Voice lacks phi features and Infl indexes only the patient. This shared outcome explains why the inverse appears to be a unified phenomenon from a morphological perspective even though its syntactic correlates differ in third‐person and speech‐act‐participant contexts.

show abstract

Section: Existing Approaches To the Algonquian Inversementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Existing Approaches To the Algonquian Inversementioning

confidence: 99%

A tale of two inverses

Oxford

2023

Syntax

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 3Ͼ3 and 1Ͼ3 configurations in (3a) and (3b) are grammatical, while the 3Ͼ1 combination in (3c) and the 1Ͼ2 combination in (3d) result in ungrammaticality. 3 ( Much previous work on hierarchy effects has argued that these and other hierarchy-effectinducing configurations arise in environments in which two accessible DPs are found in the same domain as a single agreeing verbal head (e.g., Anagnostopoulou 2003, Béjar and Rezac 2003, Nevins 2007, Preminger 2014, Pancheva and Zubizarreta 2018, Oxford 2019, Stegovec 2020. This is schematized in (4).…”

Section: J E S S I C a C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Preminger 2014, Oxford 2019. Specifically, we assume that probes may consist of hierarchically organized segments (adopting terminology from Béjar and Rezac 2009).…”

Section: Feature Geometriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feature Gluttony

Coon

Keine

2021

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a new approach to a family of hierarchy effect-inducing configurations, with a focus on Person Case Constraint (PCC) effects, dative-nominative configurations, and copula constructions. The main line of approach in the recent literature is to attribute these effects to failures of φ-Agree or, more specifically, failures of nominal licensing or case checking. We propose that the problem in these configurations is unrelated to nominal licensing, but is instead the result of a probe participating in more than one Agree dependency, a configuration we refer to as feature gluttony. Feature gluttony does not in and of itself lead to ungrammaticality, but rather can create irresolvably conflicting requirements for subsequent operations. We argue that in the case of clitic configurations, a probe which agrees with more than one DP creates an intervention problem for clitic-doubling. In violations involving morphological agreement, gluttony in features may result in a configuration with no available morphological output.

show abstract

“… 19 While there is overlap between the Vocabulary Items marking ϕ -features in pronouns and the possessor agreement forms on nouns, they are not always identical. In some cases this may be due to context-sensitive allomorphy or to the fact some possessor agreement forms on nouns are portmanteau, bearing two bundles of phi-features indexing both the number of the noun and the ϕ -features of the possessor (see, e.g., Oxford 2019 on portmanteau agreement).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the structure of (personal) pronouns in Inuktut

Compton

2022

Can. J. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the internal structure of personal pronouns in Inuktut. Building on previous work on syntactic variation and universals in personal pronoun systems (Harley and Ritter 2002, Ghomeshi and Massam 2020) and drawing on arguments that these and demonstrative pronouns are structurally complex (Déchaine and Wiltschko 2002, Leu 2015), it is argued that Inuktut pronouns are morphosyntactically complex, with exponents realizing multiple functional heads as well as an overt root. In particular, it is claimed that (local) person is represented twice, both as a root and in a higher functional projection. Previous arguments that Inuktut pronouns should instead be analyzed as D heads based on Adnominal Pronoun Constructions are also addressed (Yuan 2018, 2021).

show abstract

Inverse marking and Multiple Agree in Algonquin

Cited by 34 publications

References 32 publications

A tale of two inverses

A tale of two inverses

Feature Gluttony

On the structure of (personal) pronouns in Inuktut

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About