Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 253–310 | Cite as

Investigations on mixed agreement: polite plurals, hybrid nouns and coordinate structures

  • Miloje DespićEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article investigates complex agreement patterns with the polite plural pronoun vi and so-called ‘hybrid nouns’ in Serbian. I show how many curious agreement phenomena are to a great extent determined by the inability of an agreement target to simultaneously agree with an exclusively semantic and an exclusively formal φ-feature of an agreement controller. Consequently, in some cases (e.g., the polite plural pronoun vi) masculine emerges as the default gender value, as a result of an independently motivated mechanism. I argue that an analysis based on these two factors allows for wider empirical coverage than the analysis developed in Wechsler and Hahm (2011) and Wechsler (2011) based on an Agreement Marking Principle. I also discuss the so-called ‘different pronoun hypothesis’, which Wechsler and Hahm (2011) propose to explain different types of agreement triggered by the polite plural pronoun. In light of some new facts, however, I argue that the ‘different adjective hypothesis’ in fact might be on the right track. Along the way, I also develop an analysis of gender agreement with coordinated phrases consisting of singular number conjuncts and suggest that gender in Serbian should be represented in terms of binary features [±masculine] and [±feminine].

Keywords

Mixed agreement Markedness and marked features Hybrid nouns Honorific pronouns Index/Concord 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For discussion of some of the ideas presented here, I wish to thank Andrea Calabrese, Jonathan Bobaljik, the audiences at the FASL 18 Conference (Cornell, May 2009), the Utrecht Syntax Interface Lecture Series (October 2016), the Göttingen Linguistics Colloquium (October 2016) and the Cornell Linguistics Colloquium (February 2017), as well as the participants of my seminars at the Cornell. For assistance with data collection I am very thankful to Alen Bešić, Biljana Čubrović, Ivanka Jelić and Ivana Mitić. Finally, I want to thank two anonymous reviewers and the Editors for their careful and helpful suggestions.

References

  1. Arregi, K., & Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arsenijević, B. (2014). The agreement of adjectives with the honorific pronoun in Serbo-Croatian. Philologia Mediana, VI/6, 39–50. Google Scholar
  3. Arsenijević, B., & Mitić, I. (2015). On the (in)dependence of gender with respect to number in agreement with coordinated subjects: An experimental study. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 24(1), 41–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailyn, J. (2001). The case of slavic predicates. In A. Strigin et al. (Ed.), ZAS occasional papers in linguistics (pp. 1–26). Berlin: Zentrum fur allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Google Scholar
  5. Baker, M. C. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bobaljik, J. D. (2008). Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review, 25, 203–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobaljik, J. D. (to appear). Distributed morphology, In Encyclopaedia. Google Scholar
  8. Bobaljik, J. D., & Zocca, C. L. (2010). Gender markedness: The anatomy of a counter-example. Morphology, 21, 141–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  10. Bonet, E. (1995). Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 607–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bošković, Ž. (2006). Case checking vs. case assignment and the case of adverbial NPs. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 522–533. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bošković, Ž. (2009). Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27(3), 455–496. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowers, J. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 591–656. Google Scholar
  14. Bowers, J. (2001). Predication. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 299–333). Cambridge: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calabrese, A. (2005). Markedness and economy in a derivational model of phonology. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Calabrese, A. (2006). On absolute and contextual syncretism. Remarks on the structure of paradigms and on how to derive it. In A. Bachrach & A. I. Nevins (Eds.), Inflectional identity (pp. 156–205). London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Calabrese, A. (2008). On markedness and underspecification in morphology. Ms., University of Connecticut. Google Scholar
  18. Calabrese, A. (2011). Investigations on markedeness, syncretism and zero exponence in morphology. Morphology, 21(2), 283–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carminati, M. N. (2005). Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (person > number > gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115, 259–285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Comrie, B. (1975). Polite plurals and predicate agreement. Language, 51(2), 406–418. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corbett, G. (1983). Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm. Google Scholar
  22. Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Corbett, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Corbett, G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  25. Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Despić, M. (2010). Markedness and marked features in Serbian. In W. Browne, A. Cooper, A. Fisher, E. Kesici, N. Predolac, & D. Zec (Eds.), Proceedings of the formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 18 (FASL 18): The second Cornell meeting (pp. 1–20). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  27. Despić, M. (2013). A note on paucal, agreement and case. In A. Podobryaev (Ed.), Proceedings of the formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 20 (FASL 20): The second MIT meeting (pp. 57–72). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  28. Despić, M. (2016). Coordinating gender: What can coordinate structure agreement tell us about gender? Studies in Polish Linguistics, 11(1), 1–25. Google Scholar
  29. Embick, D. (2000). Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 185–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reis (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  31. Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  32. Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 249–305). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  33. Greenberg, J. (1966). Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  34. Halle, M. (1997). Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang, & M. McGinnis (Eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics (pp. 425–449). Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  35. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  36. Halle, M., & Vaux, B. (1997). Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology. In J. Jasanoff, C. Melchert, & L. Oliver (Eds.), Mír curad: Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins (pp. 223–240). Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Google Scholar
  37. Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics, 42, 25–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harbour, D. (2006). Person hierarchies and geometry without hierarchies or geometries. Queen Mary’s Occasional Papers Advancing Linguistics 6. Available at http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/dharbour/QMOPAL-06-Harbour.pdf.
  39. Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 78, 482–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heim, I. (2008). Features on bound pronouns. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Béjar (Eds.), Phi theory (pp. 35–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  41. Herrity, P. (2000). Slovene: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Google Scholar
  42. Ingram, D. (1978). Typology and universals of personal pronouns. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. III. Word structure (pp. 213–248). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  43. Jakobson, R. (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Google Scholar
  44. Jakobson, R. (1984). Structure of the Russian verb. In L. R. Waugh & M. Halle (Eds.), Russian and Slavic grammar—studies 1931–1981. Berlin: de Gruyter (Translation of “Zur Struktur des Gender markedness russischen Verbums” in Charisteria Gvilelmo Mathesio qvinqvagenario a discipulis et Circuli Lingvistici Pragensis sodalibus oblata, Prague, 1932.). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kiparsky, P. (1973). “Elsewhere” in phonology. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 93–106). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Google Scholar
  46. Malovrh, P. A., & Lee, J. F. (2010). Connections between processing, production and placement: Acquiring object pronouns in Spanish as a second language. In B. VanPatten & J. Jegerski (Eds.), Second language processing and parsing (pp. 231–256). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marušič, F., Nevins, A., & Saksida, A. (2007). Last conjunct agreement in Slovenian. FASL, 16, 210–227. Google Scholar
  48. Mayo, P. (1993). Belorussian. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 887–946). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  49. Nevins, A. (2007). The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 273–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nevins, A. (2011). Marked targets versus marked triggers and impoverishment of the dual. Linguistic Inquiry, 42(3), 413–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Noyer, R. (1997). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland Publishing. Revised version of 1992 MIT doctoral dissertation. Google Scholar
  52. Noyer, R. (1998). Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In S. G. Lapointe, D. K. Brentari, & P. M. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and Its Relation to Syntax (pp. 264–285). Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  53. Pollard, C., & Sag, I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford/Chicago: CSLI/University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  54. Priestly, T. M. S. (1993). Slovene. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 388–454). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  55. Sadowska, I. (2012). Polish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Google Scholar
  56. Scatton, E. A. (1993). Bulgarian. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 188–247). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  57. Silverstein, M. (1985). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In P. Muysken & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Features and projections (pp. 163–233). Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  58. Short, D. (1993a). Czech. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 455–532). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  59. Short, D. (1993b). Slovak. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 533–592). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  60. Shevelov, G. Y. (1993). Ukrainian. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 957–998). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  61. Stanojčić, Ž., & Popović, L. (1992). The grammar of the Serbian language [gramatika srpskoga jezika]. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva. Google Scholar
  62. Stevanović, M. (1962). The grammar of Serbo-Croatian for senior grades of high school [Gramatika srpskohrvatskog jezika za više razrede gimnazije]. Cetinje: Obod. Google Scholar
  63. Swan, O. E., & Gálová-Lorinc, S. (1990). Beginning Slovak. Columbus: Slavica Publishers, Inc. Google Scholar
  64. Timberlake, A. (1993). Russian. In B. Comrie & G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 827–886). London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  65. Watanabe, A. (2013). Person-number interaction: impoverishment and natural classes. Linguistic Inquiry, 44(3), 469–492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wechsler, S. (2011). Mixed agreement, the person feature, and the index/concord distinction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 999–1031. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wechsler, S., & Hahm, H.-J. (2011). Polite plurals and adjective agreement. Morphology, 21, 247–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wechsler, S., & Zlatić, L. (2000). A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language, 76, 799–832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wechsler, S., & Zlatić, L. (2001). Case realization and identity. Lingua, 111, 539–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wechsler, S., & Zlatić, L. (2003). The many faces of agreement. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  71. Zwicky, A. M. (1978). On markedness in morphology. Die Sprache, 24, 129–143. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations