What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality

Preminger, Omer

doi:10.5334/gjgl.315

Cited by 72 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The issue of determining whether head or phrasal movement takes place in a given configuration has been recognized before (e.g. Matushansky 2006;Harizanov & Gribanova 2019;Preminger 2019), although in slightly different contexts. In the case of participle fronting in Bulgarian, the issue is to allow V movement while disallowing VP movement.…”

Section: Ways Of Restricting Internal Mergementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Head movement to specifier positions

Harizanov

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Syntactic movement of phrases, modeled in terms of Internal Merge, has traditionally been distinguished on empirical grounds from syntactic movement of heads, modeled by other means. I demonstrate that, once the class of head movements implicated in word formation is excluded from consideration (assumed to be, for example, post-syntactic, following Harizanov & Gribanova 2019), the residue of head movements, which are purely syntactic in nature, and phrasal movement can receive a unified treatment. Both phrasal and syntactic head movement are implemented here as instances of Internal Merge (following, for example, Fukui & Takano 1998; Toyoshima 2001; Matushansky 2006; Vicente 2007; 2009). This treatment of syntactic head movement renders long-standing stipulations about structure building such as the Chain Uniformity Condition superfluous. It also makes sense of the properties of syntactic head movement, as demonstrated in a case study of participle fronting in Bulgarian, which targets a specifier position, violates the Head Movement Constraint, can cross finite clause boundaries, and can have discourse effects.

show abstract

Section: Ways Of Restricting Internal Mergementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For these reasons, it is commonly assumed-e.g. explicitly by Preminger (2019) and implicitly in much other work-that probes search for their goals using a criterion that is strictly featural. Such considerations rule out any solution that relies on probing directly for phrase structural status.…”

Section: Ways Of Restricting Internal Mergementioning

confidence: 99%

Head movement to specifier positions

Harizanov

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Having pointed out preliminary observations about the issues with respect to binding that the feature movement accounts face, I discuss next the most closely related analyses presented more recently in Rezac (2008); Roberts (2010b) and Preminger (2019). These works assume that CD-ed objects are arguments and that they stay in situ, as in the feature movement analysis.…”

Section: As Long Head Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1997) or long head movement (cf. Rezac 2008;Roberts 2010b;Preminger 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconstructing Clitic Doubling

Angelopoulos

2019

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper systematically investigates reconstruction properties of Greek clitic doubled objects, motivates an analysis, and shows how this new evidence distinguishes between the numerous existing analyses of Clitic Doubling (CD). It is shown that CD-ed objects are externally merged in argument positions, not adjunct (pace Philippaki-Warburton et al. 2004) and that they must undergo XP/X max movement, by contrast to non CD-ed objects, into the middle field between vP and TP, like A-scrambling (Sportiche 1996). Alternative analyses where the doubled object undergoes X 0 /X min movement (Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1997; Preminger 2019 i.a.) or feature movement (Anagnostopoulou 2003; Marchis & Alexiadou 2013) are shown to be unable to capture this data. Furthermore, the paper argues that CD-ed XPs undergo movement into the middle field in order to license a syntactic feature that relates to their interpretive properties. It also considers the interpretive properties of clitics, and shows that they are expletive determiners lacking semantic import. Lastly, it suggests that clitics can only be present if certain locality conditions are satisfied.

show abstract

“… For examples like (71a), which are not possible even with default marking, but are truly ineffable, we tentatively invoke the Person‐Licensing Condition of Béjar & Rezac (), which says that first‐ and second‐person pronouns need to trigger agreement (in some constructions, in some languages) whereas third‐person NPs do not necessarily have to. Exactly where this condition holds and where it does not is a complex matter, both in Icelandic and crosslinguistically; see Preminger for a recent discussion. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On Partial Agreement and Oblique Case

Atlamaz

Baker

2018

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many languages, overt case marking hides ϕ‐features from agreement probes. In some languages, such as Hindi, this effect is absolute. But in Adıyaman Kurmanji, our focus here, the effect is partial: the number feature of third‐person oblique subjects can be registered on the verb. We account for the difference by saying that overtly case‐marked nominals are in fact agreed with in the syntax, but the actual transfer of ϕ‐feature values happens at PF, where it is sensitive to postsyntactic operations like Fusion. All and only heads that fuse with case (a K head) can feed valuation and thus be realized on the agreement probe. Adıyaman Kurmanji is a language where number fuses with K and this feeds agreement, resulting in partial agreement with overtly case‐marked nominals (in number but not person), whereas Hindi is not. The possibility of object agreement in these languages is, we claim, the result of Multiple Agree, which creates complex feature bundles on agreement probes that are only partially realized morphologically at PF. We further support our theory by applying it to Icelandic and Faroese, languages that are often thought not to have agreement with oblique subjects but that may allow agreement in very specific situations, which our theory elucidates.

show abstract

What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality

Cited by 72 publications

References 64 publications

Head movement to specifier positions

Head movement to specifier positions

Reconstructing Clitic Doubling

On Partial Agreement and Oblique Case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About