Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 135–177 | Cite as

The distribution of phi-features in pronouns

  • Marjo van KoppenEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on the question which phi-features are associated with pronouns and how these features are distributed over their internal structure. I argue that pronouns contain Participant and Individuation features (Harley and Ritter 2002). The Participant features and the Individuation features are merged as discrete sets of features which can be targeted for syntactic operations like Agree independently from the other phi-features associated with pronouns. These feature sets are merged and end up on the maximal projection of the pronoun as one feature bundle.

The core data of this paper are constituted by Complementizer Agreement (CA) in Dutch dialects (cf. Haegeman 1992; Zwart 1993). In (the mostly West-Germanic) dialects with CA, the subject of an embedded clause agrees with both the finite verb, and with the complementizer introducing the embedded clause. I show that there are two types of CA dialects. In the first type, the complementizer and the finite verb have the same ending. In the second type, the so-called Double Agreement (DA) dialects, however, the complementizer and the finite verb do not have the same affix. What has gone unnoticed in the literature until now is that these two types of CA dialects can be distinguished on the basis of two more properties: CA in the DA dialects is sensitive to (i) extraction of the embedded subject pronoun to a higher clause and (ii) modification of the subject pronoun by a focus particle. I argue that the differences between these two types of CA can be explained if C does not target the same Goal in these dialects. In the DA dialects CA is the result of a Probe agreeing with the Participant features inside the pronominal structure, whereas CA in the other dialects reflects agreement with the top node of this pronominal structure.

Keywords

Agree and Agreement Internal structure of pronouns C-agreement Microvariation 

References

  1. Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  2. Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Dominique Sportiche. 1994. Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 195–220. Google Scholar
  4. Barbiers, Sjef. 1995. The syntax of interpretation. PhD dissertation, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Google Scholar
  5. Barbiers, Sjef. 2003. Generalized focus particle doubling. Handout, CGSW 18, University of Durham. Google Scholar
  6. Bayer, Joseph. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennis, Hans, and Liliane Haegeman. 1984. On the status of agreement and relative clauses in West Flemish. In Sentential complementation: Proceedings of the international conference held at Ufsal, Brussels, eds. Wim de Geest and Yvan Putseys, 33–53. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, Judy. 1993. The syntactic role of word markers in null nominal constructions. Probus 5: 5–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. den Besten, Hans. 1989. Studies in West Germanic syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Tilburg, The Netherlands. Google Scholar
  10. den Besten, Hans. 1996. Associative DPs. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, eds. Crit Cremers and Marcel den Dikken, 13–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  11. Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. Person and the left periphery. Ms., University of Sienna, Italy. Google Scholar
  12. Bošković, Željko. 2008. Unifying first and second conjunct agreement. Ms., University of Connecticut. Google Scholar
  13. Büring, Daniel, and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19(2): 229–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cardinaletti, Anna. 1998. On the deficient/strong opposition in possessive systems. In Possessors, predicates and movement in the Determiner Phrase, eds. Alexiadou Artemis and Chris Wilder, 17–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google 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. Henk van Riemsijk, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carstens, Vicky. 2002. Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a case-checked Goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 393–412. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Robert Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  20. Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Corver, Norbert, and Denis Delfitto. 1999. On the nature of pronoun movement. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 799–861. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Marjo van Koppen. 2002. The locality of agreement and the CP-domain. Handout, GLOW 2002, Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  23. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Marjo van Koppen. 2003. Congruentie en localiteit in de Nederlandse dialecten [Congruence and locality in Dutch dialects]. In Taal en Tongval Themanummer Dialectsyntaxis, 63–86. Google Scholar
  24. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Marjo van Koppen. 2008. Pronominal doubling in Dutch dialects. In Microvariation in syntactic doubling, eds. Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, and Marika Lekakou, Vol. 36 of Syntax and semantics, 207–239. Bingley: Emerald. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cysouw, Michael. 2001. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Google Scholar
  26. Dalrymple, Mary, and Robert Kaplan. 1997. A set-based approach to feature resolution. In Proceedings of the LFG 97 conference, eds. Miriam Butt and Tracy Halloway King, San Diego: CSLI. Google Scholar
  27. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409–442. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Deunk, G.H. 1977. Grammatica van het Winterswijks. Sasland: Groningen. Google Scholar
  29. den Dikken, Marcel, Anikó Lipták, and Zsófia Zvolenszky. 2001. On inclusive reference anaphora: New perspectives from Hungarian. In WCCFL 20 proceedings, eds. Karine Megerdoomian and Leora Bar-el, 137–149. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  30. Forchheimer, Paul. 1953. The category Person in language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  31. Fuss, Erik. 2005. The rise and fall of agreement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  32. Gruber, Bettina. 2008. Complementiser agreement: New evidence from the Upper Austrian variant of Gmunden. MA thesis, University of Vienna. Google Scholar
  33. de Haan, Ger. 1997. Voegwoordcongruentie in het Fries [Complementizer agreement in Frisian]. In Vervoegde voegwoorden [Inflected complementizers], eds. Hoekstra, Eric and Caroline Smits, 50–67. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. Google Scholar
  34. Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  35. Haegeman, Liliane, and Marjo van Koppen. 2011. Complementizer agreement and the relation between T and C. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001181.
  36. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, eds. Ken Hale and Samuel Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  37. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In MIT working papers in linguistics 21, eds. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Tony Bures, 275–288. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  38. Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In MIT working papers in linguistics 30, eds. Benjamin Bruening, Kang Yoonjung, and Martha McGinnis, 425–449. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  39. Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 1999. Distributed morphology. Glot International 4(4): 3–9. Google Scholar
  41. Harris, Jim. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 27–62. Google Scholar
  42. Hoekstra, Eric, and Caroline Smits. 1997. Vervoegde voegwoorden in de Nederlandse dialecten [Complementizer agreement in Dutch dialects]. In Vervoegde voegwoorden [Inflected complementizers], eds. Eric Hoekstra and Caroline Smits, 6–30. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Instituut. Google Scholar
  43. Hoekstra, Jarich, and László Marácz. 1989. On the position of inflection in West Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian. Syntax 44: 75–88. Google Scholar
  44. Huang, James. 1982. Move wh in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review 82(1): 369–416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Iljic, Robert. 1994. Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: Two markers of plurality. Linguistics 32: 91–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johannessen, Janne. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  47. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  48. van Koppen, Marjo. 2003. A new view on First Conjunct Agreement: Evidence from Dutch dialects. In Studies on agreement, eds. João Costa and Maria Christina Figueiredo Silva, 121–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  49. van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe-two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden, The Netherlands. Google Scholar
  50. van Koppen, Marjo. 2008. Agreement with coordinated subjects: A comparative perspective. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 121–161. Google Scholar
  51. van Koppen, Marjo, and Johan Rooryck. 2008. Resolving resolution: Underspecification and the law of coordination of likes. Ms., Utrecht University. Leiden University. Google Scholar
  52. Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  53. May, Robert. 1985. Logical form. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  54. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  55. Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Rom Harré. 1990. Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  56. van Oostendorp, Marc. 1998. Schwa in phonological theory. Glot International 3(5): 3–8. Google Scholar
  57. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 355–426. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  58. Platzack, Christer. 2004. Agreement and the person phrase hypothesis. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 73: 83–112. Google Scholar
  59. Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The higher functional field: Evidence from Northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  60. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424. Google Scholar
  61. Postal, Paul. 1966. On so-called pronouns in English. In Report of the 17th annual round table meeting on languages and linguistics, ed. Francis P. Dineen, 177–206. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
  62. Progovac, Liljana. 1998. Structure for coordination. Glot International 3: 7–38. Google Scholar
  63. Roehrs, Dorian. 2005. Pronouns are determiners after all. In The function of function words and functional categories, eds. Marcel den Dikken and Christina Tortora, 251–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  64. Rooryck, Johan. 2001. The morphosyntactic structure of articles and pronouns in Dutch. In Germania et alia: A linguistic webschrift for Hans den Besten, eds. Jan Koster and Henk van Riemsdijk, Google Scholar
  65. Rooryck, Johan. 2006. Binding into pronouns. In Language in mind: A tribute to Neil Smith on the occasion of his retirement, eds. Robyn Carston, Diane Blakemore, and Hans van de Koot, Vol. 116 of Lingua, 1561–1579. Google Scholar
  66. Ross, Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  67. Rullmann, Hotze. 2004. First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 159–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sauerland, Uli. 2004. A new semantics for number. Ms., University of Tübingen, Germany. Google Scholar
  69. Sauerland, Uli, Jan Anderssen, and Kazuko Yatsushiro. 2004. The plural involves comparison. Ms., University of Tübingen, University of Connecticut, University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
  70. Shlonsky, Ur. 1989. The hierarchical representation of agreement. Ms., University of Geneva, Switzerland. Google Scholar
  71. Soltan, Usama. 2007. On formal feature licensing in minimalism: Aspects of standard Arabic morphosyntax. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  72. Vassilieva, Masha, and Richard Larson. 2005. The semantics of the plural pronoun construction. Natural Language Semantics 13(2): 101–124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Watanabe, Akira. 2000. Feature copying and binding. Syntax 3: 159–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen. The Netherlands. Google Scholar
  75. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997. A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  76. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2001. Syntactic and phonological verb movement. Syntax 4(1): 34–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht Institute of Linguistics-OTSUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations