Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 939–971 | Cite as

Multiple agree with clitics: person complementarity vs. omnivorous number

  • Andrew NevinsEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper capitalizes on the difference between person complementarity (e.g. PCC effects) and omnivorous number (e.g. the fact that a single plural marker can be used to cross-reference more than one plural argument) by proposing that the same syntactic mechanism of Multiple Agree is responsible for both. The widely divergent surface difference results from the fact that person features are fully binary, whereas number features are syntactically privative. Additionally, arguments drawn from a variety of verbal cross-referencing morphemes implicating phi-interactions between subject and object support the claim that these elements are clitics, necessitating a principled morphosyntactic difference between clitics and other DPs undergoing object shift, and revisitation of the clitic-affix distinction.

Keywords

Multiple agree Omnivorous number Person complementarity Syntactic rebracketing Clitic/affix distinction Tense-invariance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adger, David, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax 10.1: 2–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  3. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2007. Obliteration vs. impoverishment in the Basque g-/z-constraint. In The proceedings of the Penn linguistics colloquium 30, eds. Tatjana Scheffler, Joshua Tauberer, Aviad Eilam, and Laia Mayol, 1–14 (also available at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000280). U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1. Google Scholar
  4. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, Mark. 2011. When agreement is for number and gender but not person. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4), this issue. Google Scholar
  6. Barrie, Michael. 2005. ϕ-features in the Onandaga agreement paradigm. In Proceedings of the annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Google Scholar
  7. Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, eds. Yves Roberge and Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux, 49–62. Elmsford: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  8. Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and John Payne. 2008. There are no clitics. In Morphology and its interfaces, eds. Alexandra Galani, Glyn Hicks, and George Tsoulas, 57–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  10. Bock, Kay, and Erica Middleton. 2011. Reaching agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4), this issue. Google Scholar
  11. Boeckx, Cedric, and Angel Gallego. 2008. Clitic climbing by long-distance agree. Presented at GLOW 2008. Google Scholar
  12. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  13. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Lori Repetti. 2008. Preverbal and postverbal subject clitics in Northern Italian dialects: Phonology, syntax and cross-linguistic variation. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 523–563. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. van Riemsdijk, Henk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  19. Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  20. D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Ian Roberts. 2010. Past participle agreement in Abruzzese: Split auxiliary selection and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 28: 41–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. “Pluringulars”, pronouns, and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duranti, Alessandro. 1979. Object clitic pronouns in Bantu and the topicality hierarchy. Studies in African Linguistics 10: 31–45. Google Scholar
  24. Eberhard, K. 1997. The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 147–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fayol, Michel, Pierre Largy, and Patrick Lemaire. 1994. When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors: A study in French written language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 47.2: 437–464. Google Scholar
  26. Franck, Julie, Glenda Lassi, Ulrich Frauenfelder, and Luigi Rizzi. 2006. Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 101: 173–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Franks, Steven, and Catherine Rudin. 2005. Bulgarian clitics as K0 heads. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The South Carolina meeting, eds. Steven Franks, Frank Gladney, and Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva, 106–118. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  28. Fuss, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  29. Gruber, Bettina. 2008. Complementiser agreement—New evidence from the Upper Austrian variant of Gmunden. Master’s thesis, University of Vienna. Google Scholar
  30. Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Thinking syntactically. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  31. Halle, Morris. 1995. Feature geometry and feature spreading. Linguistic Inquiry 26.1: 1–46. Google Scholar
  32. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In MITWPL 21: Papers on phonology and morphology, eds. Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley, 275–288. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  33. Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Morphosemantic number: From Kiowa noun classes to UG number features. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  34. Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78.3: 482–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harris, Alice. 1981. Georgian syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  36. Harris, Alice. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  37. Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive person case constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions 2. www.constructions-online.de/articles/35.
  38. Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1 ↔ 2 pronominal combinations in native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64: 83–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holmberg, Anders, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2004. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 114: 651–673. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hook, Peter, and V.K. Kaul. 1987. Case alternation, transitionality and the adoption of direct objects in Kashmiri. Indian Linguistics 48: 52–69. Google Scholar
  41. Hyman, Larry. 1976. Phonologization. In Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg, vol. 2, ed. Alphonse Juilland, 407–418. Saratoga: Anma Libri. Google Scholar
  42. Kallulli, Dalina. 2000. Direct object clitic doubling in Albanian and Greek. In Clitic phenomena in European languages, eds. Frits Beukema and Marcel den Dikken, 209–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  43. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  44. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, ed. Paola Benincà, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  45. Kramer, Ruth. 2010. Object markers in Amharic. Handout from a talk given at the 41st annual conference on African linguistics. Google Scholar
  46. Lapointe, Steven. 1996. Comments on Cho and Sells. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 73–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Launey, Michel. 1981. Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques. Tome 1: Grammaire. Paris: L’Harmattan. Google Scholar
  48. Manzini, Rita, and Leonardo Savoia. 2007. A unification of morphology and syntax. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  49. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McCloskey, James, and Kenneth Hale. 2003. On the syntax of person-number inflection in modern Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 487–533. Google Scholar
  51. Merchant, Jason. 2011. Aleut Case Matters. In Pragmatics and autolexical grammar: In honor of Jerry Sadock, eds. Yuasa Etsuyo, Tista Bagchi, and Katharine P. Beals, 193–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  52. Miller, Philip, and Ivan Sag. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15: 573–639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The Representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Phonologically conditioned allomorph selection. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, 2357–2382. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  55. Nevins, Andrew, Brian Dillon, Shiti Malhotra, and Colin Phillips. 2007. The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research 1164: 81–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nevins, Andrew, and Filomena Sandalo. 2011. Markedness and morphotactics in Kadiwéu [+participant] agreement. Morphology 21: 351–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nevins, Andrew, and Oana Savescu. 2010. An apparent number case constraint in Romanian: The role of syncretism. In Romance linguistics 2008, eds. Karlos Arregi, Zsuzsanna Fagyal, Silvina Montrul, and Annie Tremblay, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  58. Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Google Scholar
  59. Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 619–666. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  61. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36.4: 565–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reid, Wallis. 2011. The communicative function of English verbal number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4), this issue. Google Scholar
  63. Rezac, Milan. 2009. On the unifiability of repairs of the person case constraint: French, Basque, Georgian, and Chinook. In Festschrift for Beñat Oyharçabal, eds. Ricardo Etxepare, Ricardo Gómez, and Joseba A. Lakarra. Vols. 1–2 of Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” XLIII, 769–790. Google Scholar
  64. Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  66. Richards, Norvin. 2004. Against bans on lowering. Linguistic Inquiry 35.3: 453–463. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rivero, María Luisa. 2008. Oblique subjects and person restrictions in Spanish: A morphological approach. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Susann Fischer, Roberta D’Alessandro, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 215–250. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  68. Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  69. Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of case domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  70. Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  71. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. R.M.W. Dixon, 112–171. New Jersey: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra and Humanities Press. Google Scholar
  72. Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 114–174. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  73. Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6: 391–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Suñer, Margarita. 2000. Object-shift: Comparing a Romance language to Germanic. Probus 12: 261–289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Torrego, Esther. 1992. Case and agreement structure. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Boston. Google Scholar
  76. Trommer, Jochen. 2010. A postsyntactic morphome cookbook. Paper presented at the Perspectives on the Morphome workshop, Coimbra, October 2010. Google Scholar
  77. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1969. Principles of phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  78. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 79–123. Google Scholar
  79. Valentine, Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin reference grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar
  80. Vikner, Sten. 1997. V-to-I movement and inflectional for person in all tenses. In The new comparative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 189–213. Harlow: Longman. Google Scholar
  81. Walkow, Martin. 2010. A unified analysis of the person case constraint and 3–3-effects in Barceloní Catalan. In The proceedings of NELS 40, eds. Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell, and Robert Staubs. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  82. Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  83. Woolford, Ellen. 2010. Active-stative agreement in Lakota. Ms., UMass Amherst. Available at http://people.umass.edu/ellenw/.
  84. Zribi-Hertz, Anne, and Lamine Diagne. 2002. Clitic placement after syntax: Evidence from Wolof person and locative markers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20: 823–884. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zwicky, Arnold, and Geoffrey Pullum. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59: 502–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations