Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 1207–1261 | Cite as

Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion

  • Andrew MurphyEmail author
  • Zorica Puškar
Article

Abstract

Much recent work on closest conjunct agreement has argued that Agree must be sensitive to linear order. In this paper, we argue that the ‘closest’ aspect of this phenomenon is in fact illusory. What may, at first glance, seem like linearly-conditioned agreement can instead be analyzed as the result of different derivations inside the conjunct phrase. Thus, agreement with a single conjunct is in fact agreement with a conjunct phrase which has inherited the features of only one of its conjuncts. Furthermore, the assumption that a given order of operations inside the conjunct phrase is maintained at later cycles of the derivation makes correct predictions about the possibility for each pattern to occur either pre- or postverbally. Thus, we arrive at a principled analysis of conjunct agreement, which derives only the attested patterns in Serbo-Croatian and rules out ungrammatical structures without recourse to linear order.

Keywords

Agreement Coordination Serbo-Croatian Gender Syntax 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For invaluable feedback at various stages of this work, we would like to thank Gereon Müller, Philipp Weisser, Doreen Georgi, Andrew Nevins, Lanko Marušič, Jana Willer-Gold, Boban Arsenijević, Anke Himmelreich, Martin Salzmann, Sandhya Sundaresan, Rajesh Bhatt, and Ad Neeleman, as well as three anonymous reviewers for NLLT whose comments and questions led to vast improvements in the paper. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at University of Leipzig, Goethe University Frankfurt, FDSL 10.5 in Brno and ConSOLE XXIII in Paris and Agreement Across Borders 2015 in Zadar. We would like to thank the participants at these locations for their feedback. Particular thanks go to the members of the project Coordinated Research in the Experimental Morphosyntax of South Slavic Languages (EMSS) at University College London for discussion of their findings. This research was completed as part of the DFG research training group Interaction of Grammatical Building Blocks (GRK 2011).

References

  1. Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases: An essay on cyclicity in syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  2. Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity and economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. Google Scholar
  5. Al Khalaf, Eman. 2015. Coordination and linear order. PhD diss., University of Delaware. Google Scholar
  6. Aljović, Nadira, and Muamera Begović. 2016. Morphosyntactic aspects of adjectival and verbal first-conjunct agreement. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24 (1): 7–40. Google Scholar
  7. Andrews, Edna. 1990. Markedness theory: The union of asymmetry and semiosis in language. Durham: Duke University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Antón-Méndez, Ines, Janet L. Nicol, and Merrill F. Garrett. 2002. The relation between gender and number agreement processing. Syntax 5 (1): 1–25. Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Dominique Sportiche. 1999. Further remarks on first conjunct agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4): 669–681. Google Scholar
  11. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  12. Arsenijević, Boban, and Ivana Mitić. 2016. On the (in)dependence of gender with respect to number in agreement with coordinated subjects. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24 (1): 41–70. Google Scholar
  13. Arsenijević, Boban, Lanko Marušič, and Jana Willer-Gold. 2015. Experimenting on conjunct agreement under left branch extraction in South Slavic. Ms., University of Niš, University of Nova Gorica and UCL. Google Scholar
  14. Assmann, Anke, Svetlana Edygarova, Doreen Georgi, Timo Klein, and Philipp Weisser. 2014. Case stacking below the surface: On the possessor case alternation in Udmurt. The Linguistic Review 31 (3–4): 447–485. Google Scholar
  15. Assmann, Anke, Doreen Georgi, Fabian Heck, Gereon Müller, and Philipp Weisser. 2015. Ergatives move too early: On an instance of opacity in syntax. Syntax 18 (4): 343–387. Google Scholar
  16. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its principles and parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Baker, Mark, and Ruth Kramer. 2014. Rethinking Amharic prepositions as case markers inserted at PF. Lingua 145: 141–172. Google Scholar
  19. Baker, Mark, and Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28 (3): 593–642. Google Scholar
  20. Baković, Eric. 2011. Opacity and ordering. In The handbook of phonological theory, eds. John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu, 40–67. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell. Google Scholar
  21. Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. Google Scholar
  22. Becker, Michael, and Kathryn Flack Potts. 2011. The emergence of the unmarked. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, Vol. 3, 1363–1379. London: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  23. Bejar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. PhD diss., University of Toronto, Toronto. Google Scholar
  24. Benmamoun, Elabbas, Archna Bhatia, and Maria Polinsky. 2010. Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. In Linguistic variation yearbook 2009, ed. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, 67–88. Google Scholar
  25. Bhatt, Rajesh, and Martin Walkow. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: an argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31 (4): 951–1013. Google Scholar
  26. Bjorkman, Bronwyn, and Hedde Zeijlstra. 2014. Upward agree is superior. Ms., University of Toronto and Universität Göttingen. Google Scholar
  27. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Bobaljik, Jonathan D., and Susi Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23 (4): 809–865. Google Scholar
  29. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. PhD diss., University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  30. Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  31. Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5 (3): 167–218. Google Scholar
  32. Bošković, Željko. 2007a. On successive-cyclic movement and the freezing effect of feature checking. In Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology, eds. Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedus, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 195–233. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  33. Bošković, Željko. 2007b. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4): 589–644. Google Scholar
  34. Bošković, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 37, eds. Emily Elfner and Martin Walkow, 101–115. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  35. Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27 (3): 455–496. Google Scholar
  36. Bošković, Željko. 2010. Conjunct-sensitive agreement: Serbo-Croatian vs Russian. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL) 7.5, eds. Gerhild Zybatow, Philip Dudchuk, Serge Minor, and Ekaterina Pschehotskaya, 31–48. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  37. Bresnan, Joan. 2001. The emergence of the unmarked pronoun. In Optimality-theoretic syntax, eds. Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner, 241–277. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  38. Broekhuis, Hans, and Wim Klooster. 2007. Merge and Move as costly operations. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 45: 17–37. Google Scholar
  39. Broekhuis, Hans, and Ralf Vogel, eds. 2013. Linguistic derivations and filtering: Minimalism and Optimality Theory. London: Equinox. Google Scholar
  40. Carminati, Maria Nella. 2005. Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (person > number > gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 115 (3): 259–285. Google Scholar
  41. Carstens, Vicki. 2003. Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with the case-checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34 (3): 393–412. Google Scholar
  42. Carstens, Vicki. 2016. Delayed valuation: A reanalysis of goal features, ‘upward’ complementizer agreement, and the mechanics of case. Syntax 19 (1): 1–42. Google Scholar
  43. Castillo, Juan Carlos, John E. Drury, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2009. Merge over Move and the Extended Projection Principle: MOM and the EPP revisited. Iberia 1 (1): 53–114. Google Scholar
  44. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, eds. Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
  45. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  46. Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  47. Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. Google Scholar
  48. Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes of economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 417–454. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  49. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  50. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  51. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  52. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–165. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  53. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. Google Scholar
  54. Citko, Barbara. 2004. Agreement asymmetries in coordinate structures. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 12, eds. Olga Arnaudova, Wayles Browne, Maria-Luisa Rivero, and Danijela Stojanović, 91–108. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  55. Corbett, Greville G. 1982. Resolution rules for predicate agreement in the Slavonic languages. The Slavonic East European Review 60 (3): 347–378. Google Scholar
  56. Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number and gender. In Order, concord and constituency, eds. Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein, and Geoffrey Pullum, 175–206. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  57. Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  58. Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  59. Crone, Phil, and Bonnie Krejci. 2016. Agreement in English existentials with conjoined associates. Poster at 2016 LSA Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
  60. Čordalija, Nermina, Amra Bešić, Ivana Jovović, Nevenka Marijanović, Lidija Perković, Midhat Šaljić, Dženana Telagalić, and Nedžad Leko. 2016. Grammars of participle agreement with conjoined subjects in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24 (1): 71–112. Google Scholar
  61. Dalrymple, Mary, and Ronald M. Kaplan. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76 (4): 759–798. Google Scholar
  62. Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from ‘selection’. Syntax 12 (4): 285–323. Google Scholar
  63. Despić, Miloje. 2013. Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry 44 (2): 239–270. Google Scholar
  64. Despić, Miloje. 2016. Coordinating gender: What can coordinate structure agreement tell us about gender? Studies in Polish Linguistics 11 (1): 1–25. Google Scholar
  65. Diercks, Michael. 2010. Agreement with subjects in Lubukusu. PhD diss., Georgetown University. Google Scholar
  66. Diercks, Michael. 2013. Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31 (2): 357–407. Google Scholar
  67. Diercks, Michael, Lindsey Meyer, and Mary Paster. 2015. Agreement with conjoined arguments in Kuria. Studies in African Linguistics 44 (1): 27–46. Google Scholar
  68. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  69. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  70. Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 1999. Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2 (1): 1–27. Google Scholar
  71. Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  72. Franks, Steven, and Jana Willer-Gold. 2014. Agreement strategies with conjoined subjects in Croatian. In New insights into Slavic linguistics, eds. Jacek Witkos and Sylwester Jaworski, 91–113. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  73. Georgi, Doreen. 2014. Opaque interactions of Merge and Agree: On the nature and order of elementary operations. PhD diss., University of Leipzig. Google Scholar
  74. Georgi, Doreen, and Gereon Müller. 2010. Noun-phrase structure by reprojection. Syntax 13 (1): 1–36. Google Scholar
  75. Grosz, Patrick Georg. 2015. Movement and agreement in Right-Node-Raising constructions. Syntax 18 (1): 1–38. Google Scholar
  76. Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  77. Haegeman, Liliane, and Marjo van Koppen. 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation between T and C. Linguistic Inquiry 43 (3): 441–454. Google Scholar
  78. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  79. Hayward, Richard J., and Greville G. Corbett. 1988. Resolution rules in Qafar. Linguistics 26: 259–279. Google Scholar
  80. Heck, Fabian, and Anke Himmelreich. 2017. Opaque intervention. Linguistic Inquiry 48 (1): 47–97. Google Scholar
  81. Heck, Fabian, and Gereon Müller. 2016. On accelerating and decelerating movement: From Minimalist preference principles to Harmonic Serialism. In Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization, eds. Geraldine Legendre, Michael T. Putnam, Henriette de Swart, and Erin Zaroukian, 78–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  82. Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In HUMIT 2000. Vol. 40 of MITWPL, eds. Ora Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance Nathan, and Adam Szczegielniak, 67–80. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  83. Holmberg, Anders, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113: 997–1019. Google Scholar
  84. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  85. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance participle agreement. In Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, ed. Paola Benincà, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  86. Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and agreement from fringe to core: A Minimalist approach. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  87. Keine, Stefan, and Gereon Müller. 2015. Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective, eds. Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej Malchukov, and Marc Richards, 75–130. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  88. Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. In A survey of linguistic science, ed. William O. Dingwall, 576–642. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program. Google Scholar
  89. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In Three dimensions in linguistic theory, ed. Andreas Koutsoudas, 41–54. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  90. Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Agreement configurations: In defense of ‘spec head’. In Agreement systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 159–199. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  91. Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4): 589–632. Google Scholar
  92. Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  93. Levin, Theodore, and Omer Preminger. 2015. Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33 (1): 231–250. Google Scholar
  94. Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In ESCOL ’91: Eighth eastern states conference on linguistics, eds. Germán F. Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae, 234–253. Columbus: Ohio State University. Google Scholar
  95. Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins, and Bill Badecker. 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18 (1): 39–77. Google Scholar
  96. Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins, and Amanda Saksida. 2007. Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 15, eds. Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska, and Ulyana Savchenko. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  97. McCarthy, John J. 2007. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox. Google Scholar
  98. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 24, ed. Mercé González, 333–379. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  99. McCawley, James. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English, Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  100. McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  101. McGinnis, Martha. 2004. Lethal ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 35 (1): 47–95. Google Scholar
  102. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  103. Migdalski, Krzysztof. 2003. The syntax of the l-participle in Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian and Polish. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics: Syntax-Phonology 5 (1): 54–64. Google Scholar
  104. Migdalski, Krzysztof. 2008. The syntax of the l-participle in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL) 5, eds. Gerhild Zybatow, Luka Szucsich, Uve Junghanns, and Roland Meyer, 435–447. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. Google Scholar
  105. Mitchley, Hazel. 2015. Agreement and coordination in Xitsonga, Sesotho and isiXhosa: An Optimality Theoretic perspective. Master’s thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. Google Scholar
  106. Müller, Gereon. 2007. Towards a relativized concept of cyclic linearization. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, eds. Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 61–114. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  107. Müller, Gereon. 2009. Ergativity, accusativity, and the order of Merge and Agree. In Explorations of phase theory: Features and arguments, ed. Kleanthes K. Grohmann, 269–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  108. Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41 (1): 35–82. Google Scholar
  109. Müller, Gereon. 2011. Constraints on displacement: A phase-based approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  110. Munn, Alan. 1987. Coordinate structure and X-bar theory. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (1): 121–140. Google Scholar
  111. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. PhD diss., University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  112. Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4): 643–668. Google Scholar
  113. Nevins, Andrew. 2016. Copying and resolution in South Slavic and South Bantu conjunct agreement. Ms., University College London. Google Scholar
  114. Perlmutter, David M. 2007. In what ways can finite and nonfinite clauses differ? Evidence from Russian. In Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, ed. Irina Nikolaeva, 250–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  115. Perlmutter, David M., and John Moore. 2002. Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language 78: 619–650. Google Scholar
  116. Pesetsky, David. 1989. Language-particular processes and the Earliness Principle. Ms., MIT. Google Scholar
  117. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  118. Picallo, M. Carme. 1991. Nominals and nominalization in Catalan. Probus 3 (3): 279–316. Google Scholar
  119. Platzack, Christer. 2013. Head movement as a phonological operation. In Diagnosing syntax, eds. Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver, 21–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  120. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20 (3): 365–424. Google Scholar
  121. Preminger, Omer. 2013. That’s not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30 (3): 491–500. Google Scholar
  122. Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  123. Preminger, Omer, and Maria Polinsky. 2015. Agreement and semantic concord: A spurious unification. Ms., University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  124. Priestly, Tom M. S. 1993. Slovene. In The Slavonic languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett, 388–451. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  125. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998. Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics 34: 165–179. Google Scholar
  126. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998a. Structure for coordination (Part I). GLOT International 3 (7). Google Scholar
  127. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998b. Structure for coordination (Part II). GLOT International 3 (8). Google Scholar
  128. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1979. Rule interaction and the organization of a grammar. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  129. Rice, Curt. 2006. Optimizing gender. Lingua 116 (9): 1394–1417. Google Scholar
  130. Richards, Marc D. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (3): 563–572. Google Scholar
  131. Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  132. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  133. Rochemont, Michael S. 1985. A theory of stylistic rules in English. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  134. Runić, Jelena. 2014. A new look at clitics, clitic doubling, and argument ellipsis: Evidence from Slavic. PhD diss., University of Connecticut. Google Scholar
  135. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1995. Specifier/head agreement in Kinande. Cahiers Linguistique D’Ottawa 23: 67–96. Google Scholar
  136. Schoorlemmer, Erik, and Tanja Temmerman. 2012. Head movement as a PF-phenomenon: Evidence from identity under ellipsis. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 29, ed. Jaehoon Choi et al., 232–240. Google Scholar
  137. Schütze, Carson T. 1999. English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (3): 467–484. Google Scholar
  138. Shima, Etsuro. 2000. A preference for Move over Merge. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (2): 375–385. Google Scholar
  139. Shlonsky, Ur. 1994. Agreement in Comp. The Linguistic Review 11: 351–375. Google Scholar
  140. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann, and Anders Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 251–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  141. Smith, Peter W. 2015. Feature mismatches: Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. PhD diss., University of Connecticut. Google Scholar
  142. Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Default rules and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28 (2): 318–343. Google Scholar
  143. Sobin, Nicholas. 2014. Th/Ex, agreement, and case in expletive sentences. Syntax 17 (4): 385–416. Google Scholar
  144. Stankiewicz, Edward. 1986. The grammatical genders of the Slavic languages. In The Slavic languages: Unity and diversity, ed. Edward Stankiewicz, 127–139. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  145. Stanković, Branimir. 2014. Sintaksa i semantika odredjenog i neodredjenog pridevskog vida u srpskom jeziku [The syntax and semantics of definite and indefinite adjectives in Serbian]. PhD diss., University of Kragujevac. Google Scholar
  146. Stevanović, Mihailo. 1989. Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik 2 [Contemporary Serbo-Croatian language]. Belgrade: IRO Naučna Knjiga. Google Scholar
  147. Stjepanović, Sandra. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling and multiple wh-fronting have in common? PhD diss., University of Connecticut. Google Scholar
  148. Stjepanović, Sandra. 2015. Left branch extraction and the coordinate structure constraint. Ms., West Virginia University. Google Scholar
  149. Stroik, Thomas S. 2009. Locality in Minimalist syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  150. Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Introduction. In Subjects, expletives, and the epp, ed. Peter Svenonius, 1–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  151. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Extraposition from NP and prosodic structure. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 25, ed. Jill N. Beckman, 503–517. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  152. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  153. van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe – two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. PhD diss., University of Utrecht. Google Scholar
  154. van Koppen, Marjo. 2008. Agreement with coordinate subjects: A comparative perspective. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 121–161. Google Scholar
  155. van Koppen, Marjo, and Johan Rooryck. 2008. Resolving resolution: Underspecification and the law of coordination of likes. Ms., Utrecht University and Leiden University. Google Scholar
  156. van Urk, Coppe, and Norvin Richards. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46 (1): 113–155. Google Scholar
  157. Wagner, Michael. 2010. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 183–237. Google Scholar
  158. Walkow, Martin. 2014. When can you agree with a closest conjunct? In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 31, ed. Robert E. Santana-LaBarge, 474–483. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  159. Weisser, Philipp. 2015. Derived coordination: A Minimalist perspective on clause chains, converbs and asymmetric coordination. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  160. Willer-Gold, Jana, Boban Arsenijević, Mia Batinić, Nermina Čordalija, Marijana Kresić, Nedžad Leko, Lanko Marušič, Tanja Milićev, Nataša Milićević, Ivana Mitić, Andrew Nevins, Anita Peti-Stantić, Branimir Stanković, Tina Šuligoj, and Jelena Tušek. 2016. Morphosyntactic production of coordination agreement in South Slavic: From theory to experiments. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24 (1): 187–224. Google Scholar
  161. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2012. Parasitic participles: Evidence for the theory of verb clusters. Taal en Tongval 64: 129–156. Google Scholar
  162. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29 (3): 491–553. Google Scholar
  163. Zoerner, Ed. 1995. Coordination: The syntax of &p. PhD diss., University of California, Irvine. Google Scholar
  164. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A Minimalist approach. PhD diss., University of Groningen. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für LinguistikUniversität LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations