When agreement is for number and gender but not person

Baker, Mark C.

doi:10.1007/s11049-011-9147-z

Cited by 35 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple Agree as a way to license two goals by a single probe in ditransitives has been independently proposed by Anagnostopoulou (2005a) and by Nevins (2007) for languages showing person-case constraint effects. Baker (2008Baker ( , 2011 also proposes that Voice enters Agree with both the IO and the DO in ditransitives. Under the Multiple Agree proposal, the uφ of Voice in 35a enters Agree with both the DAT and the ACC arguments.…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case

Anagnostopoulou¹,

Sevdali²

2015

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents and discusses evidence that genitive and dative objects regularly become nominative in Ancient Greek passives of monotransitives and ditransitives. This is a typologically and theoretically significant state of affairs for two reasons. (i) As is well known, nonaccusative objects are, in many languages, not allowed to enter into Case alternations, a fact that has been accounted for in the government-binding/principles-and-parameters literature on the basis of the assumption that nonaccusative objects-prototypically datives-bear inherent, lexical, or quirky Case. By this reasoning, Ancient Greek genitives and datives must be concluded to have structural Case. (ii) Even in languages where dative-nominative (DAT-NOM) alternations do obtain, they are often limited to ditransitives, a fact that can been taken to suggest that dative qualifies as structural Case only in ditransitives. A language like Ancient Greek, which allows genitive and dative objects to become nominative in all passives (monotransitives and ditransitives), shows that it is, in principle, possible to have a linguistic system where genitive and dative qualify as structural Cases in both monotransitives and ditransitives. Case theories must be designed in such a way as to allow for this option. We argue for an analysis of Case alternations that combines the view that alternating datives and genitives enter the formal operation Agree with a morphological case approach to the distribution of overt case morphology. We furthermore compare Ancient Greek DAT-NOM and genitive-nominative (GEN-NOM) alternations in passives to Icelandic DAT-NOM and GEN-NOM alternations in middles, pointing to a number of interesting differences in the two types of alternations that depend on (i) the types of nonaccusative arguments entering Agree, (ii) the verbal head (Voice or v) entering Agree with nonaccusative objects, and (iii) the rules of dependent case assignment in connection to the role of nominative in the two languages.*

show abstract

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case

Anagnostopoulou¹,

Sevdali²

2015

lan

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The controller determines the referential properties of the controllee (Bresnan 1982). Consider the example in (1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collins & Postal (2012) observe that referential DPs that refer to the speaker(s) can select a 1 st or 3 rd person reflexive in (3) and (4). 1 These particular kinds of expressions, which may exhibit notionally and grammatically distinct person features, are what they call imposters. 2 This example shows that the pronominal alternations have nothing to do with infinitives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PRO and (Under)Specification of Person in Imposter Constructions

Furuya

2016

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper examines a particular type of English control constructions that exhibits morphosyntactic variation. The constructions that are investigated are control that appears in the imposter phenomenon studied by Collins & Postal (2012). Using minimalist syntax in combination with the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM), a syntactic account is offered that validates such variation and shows evidence for PRO in infinitives with imposter constructions, rather than a trace of NP via movement. Furthermore, comparing PRO and pro for the subject gap of control, it shows that PRO can account for binding alternations unlike pro. The current analysis demonstrates that the lack of the underspecification of phi-feature valuation does not result in ungrammaticality whereas the failure of Agree itself leads to ungrammaticality. Moreover, the current analysis offers a systematic picture of the morphosyntactic variation of English nominals in terms of the person feature and it also accounts for cross-linguistic morphosyntactic variation in agreement displayed in Chinese and Japanese.

show abstract

“…In Nahuatl, for example, subjects and objects of monotransitives agree fully for both person (π) and number (#), shown in (1a). 2 In ditransitives like (1b), however, subjects and indirect objects show full person and number agreement (boldface), while direct objects agree only in number (boxed) (Baker 2011, citing Launey 1981. Baker (2011) documents this phenomenon in a number of languages, calling this pattern "two-and-a-half" agreement, to reflect that fact that two arguments show full φ-feature agreement, while others agree only partially.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Béjar and Rezac (2003) derive PCC effects through the requirement that π-features-but not #-features-require a special licensing mechanism. This additional licensing mechanism captures the fact that if any φ-feature is going to "fail", it is going to be person-agreement for person appears to be the most fragile (Baker 2011). Nevins (2011) proposes that this is particular to π, and notes that there is no evidence for a Number Case Constraint.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction of person and number in Mi’gmaq

Coon

Bale²

2014

NLY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents puzzles concerning the representation of features in the agreement system of the Eastern Algonquian language, Mi'gmaq. A growing body of research converges on the idea that φ-agreement should be separated into distinct person (π 0 ), number (# 0 ), and sometimes gender (γ 0 ) probes (e.g. Anagnostopoulou 2003, Béjar 2003, Béjar and Rezac 2003, Laka 1993, Shlonsky 1989, SigurDsson 1996, SigurDsson and Holmberg 2008, Preminger 2012. While these proposals account well for agreement and partial agreement patterns in a number of languages, we show that in order to account for the agreement system of Mi'gmaq, π 0 and # 0 must probe together, which we argue to be the result of fusion of two distinct probes. We discuss the implications of Mi'gmaq agreement for "prominence hierarchies" and feature geometries in the grammar.

show abstract

When agreement is for number and gender but not person

Cited by 35 publications

References 32 publications

Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case

Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case

PRO and (Under)Specification of Person in Imposter Constructions

The interaction of person and number in Mi’gmaq

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About