Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 857–874 | Cite as

Phi-feature inflection and agreement: An introduction

  • Marcel den DikkenEmail author


The linguistic literature abounds with discussions of phi-feature inflection. The formalist tradition has, in a variety of ways, approached this phenomenon predominantly in terms of an agreement relationship between two terms of a syntactic structure—for instance, the subject and the finite verb (typically showing agreement for person and number), or the object and a past participle (which, e.g. in the Romance languages, may agree for number and gender, but not for person). But not all these agreement relationships affect all phi-features equally, which raises the question of whether there is to be a unified approach to phi-features in general. And two terms that can entertain an agreement relationship for certain phi-features do not seem to engage in such agreement every time they might be expected to so do. On the surface, plural subjects can co-occur with singularly inflected finite verbs, and vice versa; and sometimes a subpart of the subject seems to control the selection of the inflection on the finite verb, in so-called ‘attraction’ cases. These kinds of phenomena give rise to an in-depth exploration of the nature and reality of agreement relationships, including the possibility of an analysis treating phi-featural properties as autonomous vis-à-vis one another, assigned to each term separately, not under agreement. This special issue brings together a collection of papers and commentaries reflecting on these matters in various ways. In this introduction, I set the stage for the discussion to follow.


Agreement Phi-features Person Number Notional agreement Attraction 


  1. Baker, Mark. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415. Google Scholar
  2. Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard. Google Scholar
  3. Blevins, James. 1995. Syncretism and paradigmatic opposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 113–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 809–865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonet, EulBlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  6. Branigan, Phil, and Marguerite McKenzie. 2002. Altruism, A-bar movement and object agreement in Innu-Aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 385–407. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  8. Collins, Chris, Guitard, Stephanie, and Jim, Wood. 2009. Imposters: An on-line survey of grammaticality judgments. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2: Papers in syntax. New York: New York University Google Scholar
  9. Collins, Chris, and Paul Postal. 2011. Imposters. Cambridge: MIT Press (to appear). Google Scholar
  10. Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Leuven/Dordrecht: Leuven University Press/Foris. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. den Dikken, Marcel. 2001. Pluringulars’, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franck, Julie, Glenda Lassi, Ulrich Frauenfelder, and Luigi Rizzi. 2006. Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 101: 173–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building, Vol. 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Heycock, Caroline. 1994. Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  15. Higgins, F. Roger. 1979. The pseudocleft construction in English. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  16. Kayne, Richard. 1998. Parameters and universals, 187–205. Notes on English agreement. CIEFL Bulletin 1. 40–67; reprinted in Richard Kayne, 2002. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Kimball, John, and Judith Aissen. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 242–246. Google Scholar
  18. Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Otheguy, Ricardo. 2002. Saussurean anti-nomenclaturism in grammatical analysis: A comparative theoretical perspective. In Signal, meaning, and message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics, eds. Wallis Reid, Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern, 373–403. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  20. Picallo, M. Carme. 1991. Nominals and nominalizations in Catalan. Probus 3: 279–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb and noun number in English: A functional explanation. London: Longman. Google Scholar
  23. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing, ed. Susan Rothstein, Vol. 25 of Syntax and Semantics, 37–62. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  24. Rouveret, Alain. 1991. Functional categories and agreement. The Linguistic Review 8: 353–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schütze, Carson. 1999. English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 467–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 318–343. Google Scholar
  27. Wechsler, Stephen, and Hyun-Jong Hahm. 2011. Number markedness and polite plurals. In: Morphology, eds. Jonathan Bobaljik, Andrew Nevins, Hazel Pearson, and Sauerland Uli (to appear). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics ProgramCUNY Graduate CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations