Abstract
North Eastern English differs from Standard English with respect to agreement: According to the Northern Subject Rule, 3sg agreement marking (verbal -s) occurs on verbs in clauses with non-3sg subjects provided that they are not personal pronouns adjacent to the verb. However, data from the Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English shows that verbal -s also does not occur with non-adjacent personal pronouns subjects in contemporary North Eastern English. I argue that verbal -s with non-pronominal non-3sg subjects follows from two conceptual assumptions: firstly, the requirement to order feature-driven elementary operations and secondly, splitting up \(\upvarphi \)-Agree into two separate operations (i.e., person and number Agree). The difference in agreement between North Eastern English and Standard English stems from the different ordering of features on T. In Standard English, person and number probes are ordered before the structure building feature, which triggers movement. In the North Eastern English order, however, the structure-building feature intervenes between the two probe features. The full DP/pronoun split is explained by different kinds of movement: In the case of a full DP, subject movement to Spec/TP bleeds number agreement and verbal -s emerges, while pronominal subjects remain in the c-command domain of T because they head-move to T.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
This article is concerned with agreement variation in North Eastern English (NEE). In the literature, this phenomenon is often called Northern Subject Rule (NSR; see, e.g., Pietsch 2005a, b). According to the NSR, verbs can take the 3sg agreement marker -s (verbal -s)Footnote 1 in clauses with non-3sg subjects as shown in (1a). Crucially, this is not possible if the subject is a personal pronoun as in (1b), except if the pronominal subject is non-adjacent to the verb (1c) and (1d).
![figure a](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figa_HTML.png)
Footnote 2 A definition of the NSR with its conditions given is in (2). This definition follows the terminology in the literature although the Position-of-Subject Constraint (PSC) is strictly speaking not a rule and, thus, I will use the terms PSC and adjacency condition interchangeably.
![figure b](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figb_HTML.png)
I propose an analysis which makes use of ordering elementary operations. \(\upvarphi \)-feature Agree is split up into two distinct probe operations (hence, discontinuous \(\upvarphi \)-feature Agree). Variation between NEE and Standard English (StE) agreement arises from the intervention of Internal Merge between two instances of Agree (i.e., person \(\uppi \) and number \(\#\)) in the case of NEE. Internal Merge bleeds number agreement as the subject DP moves out of the c-command domain of T before it can value the number feature on T. In post-syntactic morphology, the exponent -s is inserted. Crucially, personal pronouns are able to remain in the c-command domain of T after Internal Merge as they head-adjoin to T. Therefore, pronominal subjects are able to value the number feature on T, resulting in successful number agreement.
The paper is structured as follows: In Sect. 2, I will illustrate the environments of verbal -s in NEE on the basis of a corpus study. Interestingly, the data will show that the adjacency condition in (2b) is no longer productive in contemporary NEE. Section 3 contains the proposal along with crucial theoretical considerations for the analysis of verbal -s. In Sect. 4, I will summarise previous and alternative accounts on verbal -s in non-standard varieties of English and compare them to the proposal of Sect. 3. Lastly, Sect. 5 concludes the discussion and provides an outlook.
2 Data
2.1 The corpus
The variety of North Eastern English is spoken in the North East of England comprising the counties Northumberland and Durham, the metropolitan county Tyne and Wear (including Gateshead, Newcastle upon Tyne and Sunderland) and parts of North Yorkshire. Empirical evidence comes from the Newcastle Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English 2 (NECTE2), which is the most recent sub-corpus (2007–2010) of the Diacronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English (DECTE, Corrigan et al. 2012) and consists of 366,062 word tokens from 44 interviews with female and male informants between the ages of 16 and 90. The query results were evaluated manually and instances of verbal -s relevant for this study were retrieved.Footnote 3
2.2 Corpus data
Table 1 illustrates the frequencies of traditional NSR contexts (i.e., the full DP/pronominal split and the adjacency condition) in the NECTE2 corpus. The relative frequencies represent the occurrences of -s in a particular configuration (i.e., type of subject or syntactic construction) with respect to all instances of this configuration. In the constructions with pronominal subjects, co-occurrences of I with was were excluded from the count.
As shown by the first row in Table 1, verbal -s variably occurs in clauses with non-3sg full DP subjects and lexical verbs (3a),Footnote 4 and with both present tense (3b) as well as past tense be (3c). Be clearly shows the NSR pattern: Verbal -s (i.e., is and was) occurs in clauses with 3pl full DP subjects, but not with non-(1/)3sg pronominal subjects.Footnote 5 Verbal -s on present or past tense be accounts for 14 of the 15 instances of verbal -s with full 3pl subjects in main clauses.
![figure c](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figc_HTML.png)
According to the PSC of the traditional NSR, verbal -s is not permitted with non-3sg pronominal subjects, except if the pronominal subject is not immediately adjacent to the verb (1c). As the second row in Table 1 suggests, non-adjacent pronominal subjects do not co-occur with verbal -s in the NECTE2 corpus; some examples are given in (4). This is in line with Cole’s (2008, 94) conclusion that the adjacency condition is no longer relevant in contemporary NEE. Studies by Childs (2012) and Buchstaller et al. (2013) also support the claim that the PSC is not productive in contemporary Northern English and Scottish varieties. An updated version of the NSR, adapted to illustrate the phenomenon in contemporary NEE, is given in (5).
![figure d](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figd_HTML.png)
![figure e](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Fige_HTML.png)
However, something must be said about the cases of non-3sg pronouns triggering -s on adjacent verbs, which is not predicted by the NSR conditions (i.e., the values in the second column in rows two to four of Table 1). Interestingly, 59 of the 61 instances of such configurations involve the lexical verb says (6), while the only other two instances are also introducing reported speech (7).
![figure f](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figf_HTML.png)
![figure g](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figg_HTML.png)
Footnote 6 According to Cole (2008, 101), examples such as in (6) are unrelated to the NSR since they are part of a more widespread phenomenon of -s marking the historic present. The high relative frequency of of I says (57/61), as shown by the fourth row in Table 1 (a subset of the third row), also hints at a fixed pattern (cf. Pietsch 2005b, 98). Indeed, verbal -s seems to be correlated with narrative contexts or habitual aspect in various contemporary English dialects, even those historically not linked to the NSR pattern (cf. Godfrey and Tagliamonte 1999 and references therein). Moreover, the narrative -s pattern is also attested in typical NSR dialects (Pietsch 2005b, 137–138). Given these facts and given that narrative -s does not follow the traditional NSR template (i.e., the split between full DPs and verb-adjacent pronouns), I will not consider it in the analysis in Sect. 3.3. However, a brief discussion of how -s could arise even with adjacent pronouns is included in fn. 28.
Table 2 depicts occurrences of -s in NSR-related constructions. Verbal -s is possible in relative clauses that modify a plural DP (8).
![figure h](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figh_HTML.png)
A further interesting case is verbal -s with coordinated verbs, whereby the first verb shows full agreement with the subject, while the second verb shows verbal -s as illustrated in (9). However, the only instance of this construction in the corpus is again introducing reported speech.
![figure i](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figi_HTML.png)
Further cases of verbal -s are exemplified in (10) where expletive there together with a plural associate (e.g., mud rivers in (10a)) trigger singular agreement. These examples seem to pattern with the (proper) NSR in the sense that the involvement of non-3sg full DPs (in this case, the plural associate) can trigger verbal -s on the main verb.
![figure j](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figj_HTML.png)
However, Cole (2008, 105) classifies this as a “default singular system” which she claims to be a part of a wider non-standard pattern that is also present in varieties that do not show NSR-type agreement variation. Moreover, Wilson and Henry (1998, 11–12) argue that verbal -s and singular morphology with existential there are independent phenomena in Belfast English (given that the former seems to be disappearing while the latter is spreading). Non-agreement in existentials occurs independently of the NSR, and I will not consider it for the analysis on verbal -s in the remainder of the paper (see, e.g., Cardinaletti 1997; Schütze 1999; Witkoś 2004, i.a. for approaches to (non-)agreement in existential constructions).
To summarise, the corpus data suggest that verbal -s can be triggered by non-pronominal 3pl subjects in contemporary NEE. An analysis of the NSR must primarily focus on the apparent split between full DP subjects and pronominal subjects in their ability to trigger verbal -s. Moreover, constructions such as verbal -s in relative clauses should be accounted for.
3 Discontinuous agree
In the following, I will make some assumptions about the syntax and morphology for the analysis of verbal -s in North Eastern English (Sect. 3.1). In the ensuing Sect. 3.2, I will propose that verbal -s is the result of discontinuous Agree. In NEE, Internal Merge intervenes between two instances of Agree. While full DP subjects move out of the c-command domain of T to Spec/TP (resulting in unsuccessful number probing and verbal -s), pronominal subjects remain in the c-command domain of T and therefore full agreement is established.Footnote 7 In Sect. 3.3 this proposal is applied to the data. Section 3.4 suggests an extension to the analysis in order to capture varieties with an intact adjacency condition, while finally, Sect. 3.5 briefly discusses an alternative feature ordering.
3.1 Assumptions
3.1.1 Syntactic operations
Elementary syntactic operations are feature-driven (Chomsky 2000, 2001). Merge cyclically builds up syntactic structure and is triggered by structure-building features \([\bullet \text {F}\bullet ]\). Syntactic movement can be translated into Internal Merge: The merged object is already part of the derivation but is displaced and merged again at a higher position in the structure. The second operation is Agree, which encodes arguments by case assignment and/or agreement. It is triggered by unvalued probing features \([*\text {F}\):\(\square *]\) and operates under c-command.Footnote 8 Agree values the probe feature according to the feature value on the respective goal. A standard definition of Agree along the lines of Chomsky (2001) is given in (11).
![figure k](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figk_HTML.png)
![figure l](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figl_HTML.png)
Furthermore, given that syntactic operations are able to show transparent interaction, they have to apply sequentially instead of simultaneously. As both Merge and Agree can be triggered on the same head, an order of the operations is required. This is accomplished by ordering the (structure-building and probing) features on a head via language-specific parameters (Heck and Müller 2007; Müller 2009; Georgi 2014, 2017).
Since \(\upvarphi \)-features are further subdivided into a person [\(\uppi \)] and a number feature [\(\#\)],Footnote 10 which can be valued independently from each other, person and number each require a distinct probing operation (see, e.g., Laka 1993; Kayne 1995; Taraldsen 1995; Tortora 1998; Béjar 2003; Béjar and Rezac 2003; Sigurðsson 2004; Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008; Georgi 2014; Preminger 2014). In other words, if a head H has two probing features \([*\uppi *]\) and \([*\#*]\),Footnote 11 two separate Agree operations are triggered on H instead of a single instance of uniform \(\upvarphi \)-Agree. Again, the operations apply sequentially, with \([*\uppi *]\) being universally ordered before \([*\#*]\) (c.f. Béjar and Rezac 2003; Coon and Keine 2021).Footnote 12
3.1.2 Pronominal head movement
Additionally, an assumption about (English) personal pronouns has to be made: On the basis of bare phrase structure (Chomsky 1995), personal pronouns are taken to be minimal and maximal at the same time as they do not project any further (hence, the notation \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\); cf. Muysken and van Riemsdijk 1986; van Riemsdijk 1998).Footnote 13 Thus, personal pronouns should be able to show characteristics of both phrases and heads; that is they should be able to adjoin directly to heads under head movement (see also Déprez 1994; in an LFG analysis by Börjars and Chapman 1998, pronominal clitics are adjoined to the verb). Instead of phrasal movement, head movement of pronominal subjects is carried out because \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) is able to do so and movement to T is the shortest available movement step (cf. Richards 1999, 2001 for tucking-in). As a result, the personal pronoun is still under c-command of T after movement.Footnote 14
Potential support for pronominal head movement comes in the form of different movement restrictions for pronominal and full DP subjects. Following the analysis of English locative inversion in Collins (1997), the PP down the hill moves to Spec/TP instead of the DP John in the sentence in (13b). Subsequently, movement of the full subject DP is blocked (13c). Movement of a pronominal subject, however, is not blocked by a PP in Spec/TP, as shown by the contrast between (13e) and (13f). If we assume that \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) moves to a head-adjoined position, while a full DP moves to Spec/TP (both triggered by \([\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\) on T), then the difference between (13c) and (13f) is simply explained by the different landing positions of the two movement operations.
![figure m](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figm_HTML.png)
A obvious problem of pronominal head movement arises in the face of T-to-C movement with subject-auxiliary inversion in StE and NEE as in (14). Clearly, only the auxiliary moves to C, while the personal pronoun is left in the T domain:
![figure n](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Fign_HTML.png)
If we allow for head movement of \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) to T, the lower T (i.e., the host of the complex head) has to excorporate and move to C. A head movement account that generally allows excorporation comes from Roberts (2010a). However, while the incorporee is free to successively “pass through” complex heads, excorporation of the host (or projecting head) is only possible under pied-piping. This would generate the ungrammatical (14b). According to this account, the highest instance of T in a structure [T [\({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) T]] is attracted because of the A-over-A Principle (cf. Chomsky 1964a, b, 1973; Bresnan 1976) in (15). According to a strict interpretation, A is taken to be a category with the result that it is always the highest instance of a category that is subject to some syntactic operation.
![figure o](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figo_HTML.png)
A closer look at the A-over-A Principle reveals that there are examples where the lower instance of a category is dislocated, such as DP extraction out of a DP (cf. Ross 1967), which seemingly violates a strict interpretation of the A-over-A Principle. However, an alternative reading of the A-over-A Principle is already suggested by Chomsky (1973) and later adopted by Bresnan (1976): The A-over-A Principle can be viewed as prohibiting dislocation of an item that is not the most inclusive one fitting the structural description of an operation. In other words a syntactic object \({\hbox {X}}_{2}\) can be moved even if it is dominated by a syntactic object \({\hbox {X}}_{1}\) of the same category as long as the syntactic operation cannot apply to \({\hbox {X}}_{1}\).
Returning to T-to-C movement after pronominal head movement, we can say that excorporation of the lower T in a structure [T [\({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) T]] is not prohibited by the A-over-A Principle because the higher T does not fit the structural description of the attracting head C. However with a complex head such as, for example, [T [T Neg]] in (16), T-to-C movement still has to involve pied-piping of the incorporee.Footnote 15
![figure p](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figp_HTML.png)
Thus, there seems to be a difference between incorporated heads of the extended verbal projection, which can be pied-piped in T-to-C movement, and incorporated pronouns, which cannot (as assumed above). One possible way to distinguish between the different kinds of incorporees is to assume that heads which are part of the clausal spine have [+ V] among their features, while a pronominal \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) has [− V] (Biberauer et al. 2014; see also Grimshaw 2000).
Suppose that T-to-C movement is triggered by a feature that can distinguish between [+ V] and [− V] on the attracted head (e.g., with a structure-building feature \([\bullet {\text {T}}_{\mathrm{+V}}\bullet ]\) or \([\bullet \text {+V}\bullet ]\)). As a result, a complex head with a [− V] incorporee such as [T [\({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) T]], does not match the description of T-to-C movement, but a complex head with a verbal incorporee, such as [T [T Neg]], does. In the former case, the A-over-A Principle prevents pied-piping, because only the host of the complex head (not the complex head itself) is compatible with the structural description of the operation. In the latter, Neg is pied-piped alongside T, because the complex head involves only [+ V] elements.
This derives the correct outputs in (14a) and (16) with subject-auxiliary inversion.Footnote 16
3.1.3 Morphology
I assume Distributed Morphology: Feature bundles are built up and valued in syntax, while morphological exponents are inserted post-syntactically. Crucially, the Subset Principle (Halle 1997) is modified and re-formulated as in (17) so that the most specific exponent with a non-conflicting feature value is inserted into a terminal node.
![figure q](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figq_HTML.png)
![figure r](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figr_HTML.png)
Although a departure from Halle’s (1997) original, the formulation of the Subset Principle in (17a) still ensures compatibility with impoverishment. Suppose a Vocabulary item specified as V \(\leftrightarrow \) [+a,+b] and the following possible syntactic contexts:
![figure s](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figs_HTML.png)
Context \({S_{1}}\) is fully specified and bears matching features for the features on V; thus V can be inserted. Context \({S_{2}}\), on the other hand, has a conflicting value on feature b; therefore, V cannot be inserted. Likewise, V cannot be inserted into context \({S_{3}}\), as feature b is deleted by impoverishment (i.e., there is no matching feature b in \({S_{3}}\)). Crucially, however, \({S_{4}}\) has no value for b, while the feature is still present in the context; thus, V can be inserted. In other words: The feature has to be present in the context, but it can be unvalued. As will become clear in the analysis in Sect. 3.3.2 below, \({S_{4}}\) is the relevant context for the NSR pattern.
Preminger (2014) argues that a probe can be left unvalued without causing the derivation to crash. In contrast to Preminger’s assumptions about Kichean, NEE probes are, crucially, not relativised (i.e., they do not have an expected value). This allows the insertion of a specific exponent instead of falling back on a “default” option if a probe is left unvalued because Agree cannot apply.
The Vocabulary items of English verbal inflection on present-tense regular verbs are depicted in (20). 3sg exponent -s is specified for [+3,− pl], while \(\emptyset \) is the elsewhere case (see Halle and Marantz 1993).
![figure t](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figt_HTML.png)
Consider the formulation of the Subset Principle: A terminal node with the person feature valued as [+3] and the number feature not valued ([\(\#: \square \)]) has -s as the most specific Vocabulary item, as the value of the number feature does not conflict. If the terminal node is specified for [+3,+pl], the elsewhere form -\(\emptyset \) is inserted.
3.2 Feature ordering on T in StE and NEE
The current proposal draws on ordering the features on T, which in turn decide the order of application of elementary operations. While in the StE ordering, person and number Agree (i.e., full agreement) happen before merging the subject DP into the specifier of T (21a), the NEE ordering in (21b) places one Agree operation before and another one after (Internal) Merge, respectively (hence, discontinuous \(\upvarphi \)-feature Agree).
![figure u](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figu_HTML.png)
In the case of the NEE ordering, movement of a (plural) full DP subject to Spec/TP bleeds #-Agree, leaving the number feature on T unvalued. After post-syntactic Vocabulary insertion, verbal -s arises. Given the StE ordering, however, T is able to Agree with the DP in number before the subject moves into Spec/TP. Thus, agreement variation between StE and NEE is due to the ordering of features triggering syntactic operations and is, in consequence, determined by the syntax and not a morphological coincidence. The existence of a variety that exhibits verbal -s is expected, given the split-up of \(\upvarphi \)-Agree and the need to determine a sequence of application of elementary operations.
Variability between verbal -s and canonical agreement in the NECTE2 data can be explained by the possibility of both orderings for NEE speakers, whereby the standard ordering (21a) is becoming increasingly prevalent. (See also Cole 2008 for diachronic data on verbal -s in NEE.) Thus, I propose that a construction of two coordinated TPs (with and without verbal -s) such as some do and some doesn’t (Pietsch 2005b, 178) involves code-switching (cf. Kroch 1989, 1994) between the orderings, rather than two different instances of T in a single grammar.
3.3 Analysis
3.3.1 Standard English derivation
Given the StE ordering of features on T (21a) with \(\uppi \)- and \(\#\)-Agree applying in immediate succession, the derivation of (canonical) StE agreement in clauses with a non-pronominal 3pl subject is unproblematic. First, T probes into its c-command domain for \([*\uppi *]\) and finds the subject DP; the feature is valued as [+3] via \(\uppi \)-Agree (22a). Secondly, T probes for \([*\#*]\) under c-command and values this feature as [+pl] after undergoing \(\#\)-Agree with the subject DP (22b). In a third step (22c), the subject DP moves into Spec/TP (Internal Merge) and satisfies the \([\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\)-feature on T (i.e., the EPP feature). Given that both Agree operations are successful, the elsewhere exponent \(-\emptyset \) is inserted into T during morphology (22d).
![figure v](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figv_HTML.png)
3.3.2 North Eastern English derivations
In contrast to that, clauses with verbal -s and a 3pl full-DP subject, such as (3a) (repeated here as (23)), are derived as follows.
![figure w](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figw_HTML.png)
In NEE, the structure-building feature [\(\bullet \text {D}\bullet \)] is ordered before the number probe feature \([*\#*]\) (21b). After T probes for person and ensuing \(\uppi \)-Agree with the subject DP under c-command values T’s [\(*\uppi *\)]-feature as [+3] (24a), the DP moves into the specifier of TP, satisfying the [\(\bullet \text {D}\bullet \)]-feature on T (24b). Subsequently, T probes for its number feature \([*\#*]\), but cannot find the subject DP as it previously moved out of T’s c-command domain. Consequently, \(\#\)-Agree is not successful (24c), leaving the (not relativised) \([*\#*]\)-feature on T unvalued. Thus, movement bleeds number agreement.Footnote 17 Given the modification of the Subset Principle, verbal -s can be inserted into the terminal node T in post-syntactic morphology, as T has no value for its number feature (24d).
![figure x](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figx_HTML.png)
On the other hand, in clauses with non-3sg pronominal subjects, such as (25), verbal -s is not permitted according to the NSR.
![figure y](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figy_HTML.png)
As with the verbal -s derivation, T probes for person and triggers \(\uppi \)-Agree with the subject under c-command, again valuing its [\(*\uppi *\)]-feature as [+3] (26a). In the next step, the assumptions about head movement of pronouns as \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) categories (outlined in Sect. 3.1.2) come into play: The pronoun adjoins to T via head movement, satisfying the [\(\bullet \text {D}\bullet \)]-feature on T (26b). Since T is the closer landing site (compared to Spec/TP), head movement is the shortest possible movement step (Richards 1999, 2001).Footnote 18 Diverging from the previous derivation in (24), the subject pronoun is still in the c-command domain of T. Thus, \(\#\)-probing and subsequent Agree is still possible, valuing the \([*\#*]\)-feature on T as [+pl] (26c). In post-syntactic morphology, the elsewhere form -\(\emptyset \) is inserted into T (26d).
![figure z](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figz_HTML.png)
3.3.3 Verbal -s with be
The same analysis as in (24) can also be applied to cases of verbal -s with be in present tense as in (3b), repeated here as (27a) and in past tense as in (3c), repeated here as (27b).
![figure aa](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figaa_HTML.png)
After successful \(\uppi \)-Agree and failed \(\#\)-Agree of T with a 3pl subject DP, T is valued as [\(\uppi : +3\), \(\#: \square \)] in both present and past tense clauses with be. Since the \([*\#*]\)-feature value is not conflicting, the exponent is is inserted in present tense clauses as (27a), while was is inserted in the past tense case (27b). On the other hand, \(\#\)-Agree of T with a pronominal non-3sg subject, such as in the second clause of (27b) (we were ...), is successful as the pronoun is still within the c-command domain of T after Internal Merge. Thus, T receives a value for its \([*\#*]\)-feature and canonical agreement morphology can arise after Vocabulary insertion. The Vocabulary items of English present and past tense be are depicted in (28) and (29), respectively.Footnote 19
![figure ab](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figab_HTML.png)
![figure ac](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figac_HTML.png)
In addition, this system also captures the fact that NEE does not exhibit was/were variation (i.e., the variable occurrence of was with 1pl, 2sg and 2pl but crucially not with 3pl subjects in some varieties of English; c.f. Adger 2006; Adger and Smith 2010) as the pronominal subjects are still in the c-command domain of T after Internal Merge and thus available for \(\#\)-probing.
3.3.4 Verbal -s in relative clauses
The proposal extends naturally to instances of verbal -s in relative clauses with an external plural DP as in (8) (repeated here as (30)) under the assumption that the head noun is first merged inside the relative clause and raises into a external position (so-called head raising: Vergnaud 1974; Kayne 1994; Bianchi 2000).Footnote 20
![figure ad](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figad_HTML.png)
As the head noun is generated inside the relative clause, out of which it moves during syntax, local relations and thus agreement can be established. To put it differently: If an external nominal expression is generated inside the CP, it is linked to CP-internal positions. Additionally, the head noun moves inside of the DP into the specifier position (Alexiadou et al. 2000). The respective structure of such an expression is given in (31).Footnote 21
![figure ae](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figae_HTML.png)
Following the head raising account, the analysis of verbal -s in relative clauses is the same as for the regular case in (24): Given the ordering of features on T (i.e., [\(*\uppi *]\succ [\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\succ [*\#*]\)), the head noun first agrees with T for person before it moves out of T’s c-command domain. The subsequent number probing is unsuccessful, leaving the number value on T empty. This results in the insertion of exponent -s in post-syntactic morphology.Footnote 22
3.4 Adjacency condition
In contrast to contemporary varieties, historical NSR varieties exhibit an additional adjacency condition (i.e., the Position-of-Subject Constraint in (2b), here repeated as (32)), according to which verbal -s can co-occur with non-3sg pronouns if they are not adjacent to the verb. Examples of PSC-obeying constructions are given in (33) and (34).Footnote 23 Although the PSC has been argued not to operate in contemporary NSR varieties (cf. Sect. 2.2 as well as Cole 2008; Childs 2012; Buchstaller et al. 2013), I will discuss these examples briefly in what follows.
![figure af](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figaf_HTML.png)
![figure ag](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figag_HTML.png)
![figure ah](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figah_HTML.png)
The examples in (33) and (34) can be grouped into two different environments that seem to allow verbal -s: sentences with coordinated verbs whereby the second verb shows verbal -s (33a, 34a) and adverb intervention between a pronominal subject and the verb (33b, 34b). Differentiating between two different PSC environments reflects the fact that they can occur independently from each other in different varieties. According to Pietsch (2005a), verbal -s with adverb intervention is only found in older varieties, while verbal -s with coordinated verbs is typical in conservative varieties. In (35), we see that coordination can license verbal -s while adverb intervention (you just cut) does not trigger verbal -s.
![figure ai](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figai_HTML.png)
Concerning the adjacency condition, there are consequently (at least) three different non-standard varieties: those with verbal -s with adverb intervention and coordination (i.e., the oldest varieties), those with verbal -s with coordination but without adverb intervention (i.e., modern conservative varieties, according to Pietsch 2005a, b) and those without the adjacency condition altogether (i.e., contemporary NEE). I take this as an argument against a unifying analysis of sentences like (33a, 34a) and (33b, 34b) only on the basis of the surface configuration of the pronominal subject being non-adjacent to the verb.
The first group of PSC-observing environments comprises coordination constructions such as (33a) and (34a). For the sentence in (33a), I assume a structure of coordinated TPs (rather than vPs), as I take the distinct inflections (-\(\emptyset \) on the first and the -s on the second verb) as indicators for the presence of two separate T projections:Footnote 24
![figure aj](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figaj_HTML.png)
I take the subject of the lower TP to be an empty category (ec). Following Haegeman (1997), null subjects in spoken English are not the result of pro drop or topic drop, but rather antecedentless empty categories associated with the leftmost specifier of the clause, here Spec/TP (see also Rizzi 1994; Haegeman and Ihsane 1999; Bailey 2011). Thus, in contrast to \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) pronouns, null subjects move directly into Spec/TP and are not able to head-adjoin to T. As a consequence of movement to Spec/TP, full agreement is not possible, as Merge again bleeds #-Agree. This analysis follows the same underlying principle as the basic NSR derivations in Sect. 3.3.2: Under the NEE feature ordering, verbal -s is possible except for if the subject head-adjoines to T and both \(\upvarphi \)-probes on T can be valued. However, if head movement to T is blocked by the nature of the moved item (either being a DP or an empty category), Internal Merge of the subject to Spec/TP bleeds #-Agree.
Let us now turn to the second group of examples where an adverb intervenes between the pronominal subject and the main verb such as in (33b) and (34b).Footnote 25 In principle, there are two possibilities why T cannot undergo #-Agree with the subject. Up until now, the idea was that the subject is too high (in Spec/TP) at the point of #-Agree (Sect. 3.3). The second possibility is that the probe is too low in the structure for successful #-Agree. I would like to suggest the latter option for the adverb intervention effect: T itself is dislocated before #-Agree, leaving the subject outside of T’s c-command domain.
Suppose that in addition to the syntactic operations Merge and Agree, there are two additional interface-oriented operations that are relevant for the derivations: Lowering T to v in order to get tense information to the main verb (Embick and Noyer 2001) and Late Adjunction of adverbs after a phase is complete (Lebeaux 1991; Stepanov 2001). Arguably, these operations are needed in the grammar independently of the phenomenon discussed in this paper. Under the assumption that Generalised Lowering (Stojković 2019) comprises Lowering and Local dislocation as a single operation and, thus, needs adjacency, Adjunction to vP should always follow Lowering of T to v (cf. Bobaljik 1995; Ochi 1999). With respect to syntactic operations, Merge triggered by \([\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\) on T must not follow Lowering: If T with an undischarged \([\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\)-feature would lower into v, (Internal) Merge would be prevented by strict cyclicity and the derivation would crash due to the open structure-building feature. However, as shown, by e.g., Preminger (2014) and assumed throughout this paper, probing features (here \([*\#*]\)) can be left unvalued without crashing the derivation. Given these assumptions, four ordering statements remain from a possible 24: (\([*\uppi *]\) is omitted here under the premise that person Agree is always triggered first in the relevant varieties; see also 3.5.)
![figure ak](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figak_HTML.png)
In (37a,b), no variation with respect to Lowering can arise: Only after the syntactic operations on T are carried out, T is lowered to v under adjacency and the adverb is adjoined to vP. (37a) is the order of operations in Standard English where #-Agree applies before Merge. (37b) generates contemporary North Eastern English without an active adjacency condition, as discussed throughout this paper. The ordering statements in (37c,d), on the other hand, derive grammars with an intact adjacency condition involving adverb intervention. Lowering T to v bleeds successful #-Agree, since the pronominal subject is no longer in the c-command domain of T.Footnote 26
Let us address the remaining question: Why is #-Agree not bled by Lowering if no adverb intervenes between the subject and the main verb in varieties with an active adjacency condition? If Lowering is always ordered before #-Agree in these varieties (37c,d), whether or not an adverb is adjoined to vP after Lowering should not have an effect on #-agreement. In other words: These varieties should have the ordering in (37c,d) with adverbs present and (37b) without.
It is conceivable that in the unmarked case, interface-oriented operations (Lowering and Adjunction) should follow syntactic processes (Merge and Agree). Suppose, however, that two additional soft constraints influence the order of operations: (i) Late adjunction should be triggered by an active phase head (see Müller 2010 for the idea that operations should always be triggered by active phase heads) and (ii) probing features (\([*\text {F}*]\)) should be saturated but can be left unvalued (cf. Preminger 2014). By assumption, a head is active if it has undischarged structure-building or, crucially in this case, probing features (Müller 2010).
Thus without adverbs adjoined, (37b) constitutes the order of operations in NSR varieties both with and without the adjacency condition active, since (37c,d) would lead to an unvalued probe and therefore violate the second constraint. (The first constraint cannot be violated as there is no Adjunction step in the derivation.)
Meanwhile, if adverbs are adjoined to vP during the derivation, the ranking of the soft constraints determines whether the adjacency condition will be observed or not. In grammars where constraint (i) is given more weight to it, T with an undischarged probing feature is lowered to v and creates an active head for Adjunction (ordering statements (37c,d)). Thus, constraint (ii) against undischarged probing features has to be violated, so that constraint (i) against operations on inactive heads is satisfied. If #-Agree would be ordered before Lowering, the lowered head would be inactive and Late adjunction to an inactive head would violate the higher-ranked constraint (i). On the other hand, in a grammar that ranks constraint (ii) higher, #-Agree is triggered before Lowering (and subsequent Adjunction) to value \([*\#*]\) on T (ordering statement (37b)). In this case, the adverb is adjoined to an inactive v(P) (i.e., without undischarged features), which violates constraint (i) in order to satisfy constraint (ii).Footnote 27
Varieties with an active adjacency condition can, thus, be captured by extending the main proposal (i.e., different orderings of operations derive agreement variation; see Sect. 3.2) by two independently needed operations, namely Lowering and Late Adjuntion. Moreover, these varieties force a blending of strictly syntactic and interface-oriented operations (cf. Martinović 2019). It could be speculated that this blending is generally more marked than a strict separation of syntactic and non-syntactic operations. As a result, varieties with the adjacency condition in place are in decline.
Needless to say, these remarks are tentative; but it should be clear that a conservative extension of the ordering approach to varieties incorporating the adjacency condition is within reach.
3.5 Alternative feature ordering
So far, I have shown that ordering Merge and the two Agree operations together with a head-movement account of pronoun movement derives the basic pattern of the Northern Subject Rule in contemporary North Eastern English, namely the split between verbal -s triggered by 3pl full DP subjects and canonical agreement triggered by pronominal subjects. Moreover, the analysis can be extended to verbal -s in relative clauses. To this effect, I argued for two different feature orderings on T to be the reason for the different agreement patterns in StE and NEE:
![figure al](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figal_HTML.png)
Given the assumption that \([*\uppi *]\) is universally ordered before \([*\#*]\) (Béjar and Rezac 2003; Coon and Keine 2021), there should be a third possible feature order on T in addition to the sequences in (38), namely \([\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\succ [*\uppi *]\succ [*\#*]\). According to this ordering, T would not receive any \(\upvarphi \)-values (i.e., T[\(\uppi : \square , \#: \square \)]) during the derivation as movement of a full DP subject would always bleed both instances of Agree. Verbal -s would therefore arise with every full DP subject after Vocabulary insertion. However, pronominal subjects would still be able to agree with T as they do not move out of T’s c-command domain.Footnote 28 Thus, it would derive the same data as the NEE feature order with respect to 3pl full DP subject vs. pronominal subjects.Footnote 29
4 Previous and alternative accounts
In the previous section, I presented an analysis of the Northern Subject Rule on the basis of ordering Merge and two instances of Agree that captures the corpus data laid out in Sect. 2.2: Movement of 3pl full DP subjects to Spec/TP bleeds #-Agree resulting in verbal -s, while pronominal subjects head-adjoin to T allowing full agreement. Moreover, I have shown that the same underlying principle of ordered operations can also account for varieties that allow verbal -s with pronominal subjects in environments attributed to the so-called Position-of-Subject Constraint. In the remainder of this section, I will discuss alternative approaches to the NSR in a number of different varieties and show that the proposal made in this paper can extend to the range of NSR variation more naturally.
4.1 A configurational approach
A structural analysis of NSR effects (“singular concord”) in Belfast English is proposed by Henry (1995). Following the split INFL hypothesis (Pollock 1989; Chomsky 1993), two subject positions are assumed: Spec/AgrSP and Spec/TP, where only the former allows nominative case assignment, \(\upvarphi \)-feature checking and consequently full agreement. Subjects in the latter position are assigned non-nominative (or “default”) case, \(\upvarphi \)-features are not checked and default morphology (-s) surfaces on the verb, resulting in non-agreement (39a).Footnote 30 Optional head-feature strength on AgrS determined through parameter setting accounts for variability: If the head feature is strong, the subject raises to Spec/AgrSP; if the head feature is weak, the subject remains in Spec/TP. Since personal pronouns show nominative case overtly, they are forced into Spec/AgrSP to check nominative case and, therefore, trigger full agreement with the verb (39b).Footnote 31
![figure am](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figam_HTML.png)
According to this approach, verbal -s cannot arise in subject-verb inversion contexts, as T-to-C would include head movement to AgrS and, thus, trigger agreement (Henry 1995, 42–43). However, Pietsch (2005b, 17) argues that subject-verb inversion is a favourable context for verbal -s at least in some varieties (including Northern Irish English data, which is also the variety in question in Henry 1995). Despite this kind of data being not attested in the NECTE2 corpus, the analysis in Sect. 3.3 can easily be extended to verbal -s with subject-auxiliary inversion and full DP subjects, as T-to-C movement would apply only after failed #-Agree.
Although Henry’s (1995) analysis was not modelled to account for verbal -s varieties with an intact adjacency condition, an extension to such varieties would, nevertheless, run into difficulties. According to Henry (1995, 33), pronouns must check nominative case overtly during syntax and can do so only in Spec/AgrS. Without further stipulations, this would exclude the possibility of verbal -s to ever arise with pronominal subjects even if they are non-adjacent to the verb, because verbal -s can only arise if the subject is in Spec/TP during syntax.
A comment has to be made about similarities between the proposal made in Sect. 3.3 and Henry’s (1995) analysis. Both accounts make use of different positions for subjects based on whether or not they are personal pronouns. According to Henry (1995), pronouns have to move to Spec/AgrSP where they trigger full agreement with the verb, while lexical subjects remain in Spec/TP and verbal -s occurs. In varieties without verbal -s, every subject moves to Spec/AgrSP and triggers full agreement. Agreement variation is, hence, due to configurational differences between the two subject positions. In the proposal argued for in the present paper (Sect. 3.2), pronominal subjects move to a position adjacent to T, while lexical subjects move to Spec/TP. The two different subject positions follow from different properties of full DP subjects and pronominal \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) subjects (Sect. 3.1.2). The two accounts diverge with respect to variation: According to the present paper, agreement variation is due to the interaction between movement and agreement. In varieties with verbal -s, movement of the lexical subject bleeds full agreement (pronominal subjects are still in an agreement position after movement). In Standard English on the other hand, agreement is counter-bled by subsequent subject movement (i.e., movement is triggered too late to bleed #-agreement). Thus, variation between varieties as conceived in this paper is not configurational but algorithmic. Agreement variation is derived by the necessity to order features that trigger elementary operations on a given head (cf. Heck and Müller 2007; Müller 2009; Georgi 2014, 2017). The relative order between movement and number agreement triggered by T results in variation between Standard English and North Eastern English with respect to verbal -s.
4.2 A lexical approach
Adger and Smith (2010) argue for a feature-based approach to agreement variation in Buckie English (a local dialect in north-eastern Scotland), involving both was/were variation, as well as verbal -s. Variability is accounted for by the random choice between different lexical items (including functional heads) of the same category (i.e., “Combinatorial Variability”). Assuming the lexicon contains two lexical items of the same functional category with different uninterpretable features, namely X1 [uF1] and X2 [uF2], the selection of either X1 or X2 in the numeration will determine which kind of feature (uF1 or uF2) is used for establishing an agreement chain. Depending on the features used to establish the relation, different morphological forms are mapped onto the head. As the interpretable features in both possible agreement chains would be the same, the meaning of the chain would also not change (see Adger and Smith 2005; Adger 2006).
According to this approach, lexical items are generated by an algorithm seeking maximal generalisations (i.e., the items with the fewest features). First, lexical items with only one feature are generated and their usability is assessed. If it is not deemed satisfactory (e.g., because there are several forms mapping to one item), two-feature items are generated and recursed over. This algorithm, outlined in (40), is a process of establishing a speaker’s lexicon (Adger 2006, 517–518).
![figure an](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figan_HTML.png)
In the case of verbal -s in Buckie English, a further [pronominal: ±] feature on D has to be postulated, to which T has to be sensitive in addition to \(\upvarphi \)-features. Applying the algorithm in (40) thus leads to the lexical items for T (with their morphological form) in (41). Out of this pool of variants, a lexical item is randomly chosen as the input of the derivation. The feature bundles on T after Agree with a 3pl subject that are relevant for verbal -s are depicted in (42).
![figure ao](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figao_HTML.png)
![figure ap](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figap_HTML.png)
Adger and Smith (2010, 1125) conclude that combinatorial variability predicts full plural DP subjects to trigger both -\(\emptyset \) and verbal -s in equal amounts (42b), as the relevant mappings of features to morphological form are either (41b) or (41d). In the Buckie corpus, the frequency of occurrence of verbal -s with such subjects is 58% (choice of form is claimed to also be dependent on other factors), which is taken as support for the proposed system (the expected frequency is 50%). Adger and Smith (2010), thus, predict the right relative frequency of verbal -s with 3pl full DP subjects in Buckie English.Footnote 32
Crucially, the analysis requires the stipulation of a further Agree probe on T sensitive to a pronominal feature on D (in addition to the canonical \(\upvarphi \)-feature probe(s)) to account for the split between pronoun and full DP subjects in their ability to trigger verbal -s in a non-syntactic way. Consequently, variation in this account between varieties with and without verbal -s stems from the presence or absence of one lexical feature.
The postulation of this additional pronominal feature correctly predicts the variable occurrence of verbal -s with complex pronominal subjects (You ones is old’ ken.Adger and Smith 2010, 1127) in Buckie. As I will outline in the discussion on an approach to Appalachian English by Zanuttini and Bernstein (2011) in Sect. 4.3.3, the feature-ordering proposal to variation (Sect. 3.2) can account both for varieties that have verbal -s with complex 1st or 2nd person subjects (such as Buckie and Appalachian English) and for those that do not exhibit verbal -s with complex DPs. The analysis made in this paper can, thus, be easily extended to varieties that show the Buckie distribution of verbal -s.
Moreover in contrast to the analysis in Sect. 3.3 (and its extension in Sect. 3.4), a system that deals with the variation lexically seems not to be equipped for handling varieties with the adjacency condition. While varieties without the adjacency conditions, such as Buckie, can be captured by Adger and Smith’s (2010) system, the analysis has no natural extension to account for further variation with respect to adverb intervention. Given the fact that there is no difference in terms of features between (verb-)adjacent and non-adjacent pronominal subjects, further assumptions about the mechanics of subject verb agreement would have to be made. This is also true for some of the other non-syntactic approaches to the NSR in Sect. 4.3.
4.3 Morphological approaches
4.3.1 Feature specification on vocabulary items
A conceivable analysis could be a purely morphological one on the basis of modifying the vocabulary entries. Verbal -s with plural DPs could arise if the Vocabulary item for -s would only be specified for a person (\(\uppi \)) feature (i.e., [+3]), but not for number (\(\#\)) as displayed in (43). In post-syntactic morphology, -s would then be inserted whenever T is valued as [\(\uppi \):+3] via Agree with the subject of the clause, regardless of its number feature.
![figure aq](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figaq_HTML.png)
This, however, does not capture the full DP/pronoun distinction of the verbal -s data in the NECTE2 corpus. Verbal -s would incorrectly arise with both 3pl full DP subjects and 3pl pronominal subjects.
A possible way to work the full DP/pronoun distinction into the analysis is the additional stipulation of a [±pron(ominal)] feature along the lines of Adger and Smith (2010) (see also Sect. 4.2). It also has to be assumed that this feature participates in Agree for, e.g., a pronominal subject to value T as [+pron]. (A full DP subject would value T as [− pron].) If the Vocabulary item for -s is stipulated to be specified for [person] and [pronominal] as illustrated in example (44), verbal -s would only arise in clauses with non-pronominal subjects. As before, [number] specification on T would not alter the outcome of Vocabulary insertion.
![figure ar](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figar_HTML.png)
However, this specification wrongly excludes the insertion of -s in clauses with 3sg pronominal subjects. There is a possible modification to the Vocabulary entries in (44) such that there are two different Vocabulary items with the exponent -s:
![figure as](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figas_HTML.png)
This approach would derive -s in clauses with non-pronominal subjects (i.e., verbal -s) as well as with 3sg pronominal subjects. However, this treatment is conceptually undesirable as it would only come at the cost of dispensing with systematic syncretism: The system would just spell out both environments in which -s can arise with the help of accidental homophony, despite the fact that the environments in which -s arises are very similar (i.e., present tense verbal inflection in the presence of a 3rd person subject). Moreover, similar adaptions (including homophony) to the Vocabulary entries of present and past tense be would have to be made.
4.3.2 Impoverishment
A further morphological attempt could rely on the operation of impoverishment, which deletes morpho-syntactic features post-syntactically before Vocabulary insertion (see Bonet 1991; Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994). However, there are some problems with this approach. Consider the impoverishment rule in (46a): A [+pl]-feature is deleted in the context of [+3,+pl]. However, for verbal -s to arise after Vocabulary insertion, the Vocabulary item for -s would have to be specified as in (43) (repeated here as (47)). Aside from the problems of this specification sketched above (i.e., not capturing the full DP/pronoun split), deleting [+pl] would have the same outcome as not deleting it at all. A second possible rule in (46b), according to which a [+pl]-feature becomes a [− pl]-feature so that -s (specified for [+3, − pl]) can be inserted, is not even impoverishment since there is no deletion involved.Footnote 33
![figure at](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figat_HTML.png)
![figure au](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figau_HTML.png)
Moreover, impoverishment rules involve deleting features from a node so that a less specific Vocabulary item can be inserted. Yet, as 3rd person is always specified and not a default (Nevins 2007), the Vocabulary item for -s (i.e., the 3rd person marker) is more specific than the Vocabulary item for -\(\emptyset \). As there would be no retreat to the general case, verbal -s cannot arise as a result of impoverishment.
A further approach to the NSR involving impoverishment is hinted at in Nevins and Parrott (2010). The idea is that verbal -s arises because of number impoverishment on D before agreement of the subject with T (which is subsequently unable to probe for number). There are a few problems with this sketched system: Firstly, if vP is spelled out as a phase (triggered by merging T), the subject DP in Spec/vP should not be part of the spell-out as it is in the phase edge and has to be available for operations in the higher phase. Secondly and most importantly, if the DP is sent to PF (where impoverishment takes place), the result of impoverishment (i.e., the node without the number feature) has to be somehow fed-back into narrow syntax for agreement. This would violate cyclicity, however.
4.3.3 Verbal -s as person marking
Similar to the picture in North Eastern English, in Appalachian English (AppE) plural DP subjects occur with verbal -s (48a) but plural pronouns do not (48b). Zanuttini and Bernstein (2011) propose that -s marks person on the verb, while -s is assumed to mark only number (not person) in Standard English.
![figure av](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figav_HTML.png)
Turning first to AppE, Zanuttini and Bernstein (2011) argue that verbal -s occurs when no value for person is encoded on the subject, namely with any third person subject except for they. Following Bernstein (2008), they is claimed to be specified for person via the independent th- morpheme. 3sg pronouns (so-called h-forms), on the other hand, are said to only encode gender while functioning as 3rd person forms. In Standard English on the other hand, the exponent -s only occurs on verbs in clauses with grammatically singular subjects: Zanuttini and Bernstein (2011) assume that you is always grammatically plural but can refer to a singular entity (similar to French vous; see also Kayne 2000) and that I is grammatically unmarked for number (despite having a singular referent), leaving only 3sg DPs with a singular number feature.
Moreover, Zanuttini and Bernstein (2011) propose that agreement on T is relativised for features on N, not on D. If T was looking for a person feature on D, constructions of the kind the + noun would never trigger verbal -s because of the person-bearing morpheme th- in D. In contrast, number is always specified on the noun and not on definite articles in English. Verbal -s in Appalachian English is therefore licensed by the lack of a person feature on N, while in Standard English it is licensed by a singular number feature on N.
However, the analysis does not come without some complications. Zanuttini and Bernstein (2011) assume pronominal N-to-D raising (cf. Postal 1969; Longobardi 1994; Cardinaletti 1994), so that I, you, we and they all have person features on N. However in the case of complex DPs such as [DP you [NP fellows]], you has to be analysed differently so that it does not undergo N-to-D movement. If there was N-to-D raising involved in the derivation, the N-feature for person of raised you would prevent verbal -s from arising, contrary to the fact in AppE (49).
![figure aw](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figaw_HTML.png)
Interestingly, the proposal made in Sect. 3.2 can be extended to varieties like AppE that exhibit verbal -s with complex 1st or 2nd person subjects without further assumptions. If features on T are ordered in such a way that movement precedes both Agree operations (\([\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\succ [*\uppi *]\succ [*\#*]\), see Sect. 3.5), every full DP subject would occur with verbal -s regardless of person. Head movement of \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) would, however, not bleed full agreement and pronominal subjects would still not co-occur with verbal -s. Thus, an analysis that makes use of different ordering statements on T is able to account for this cross-dialectal variation.
4.3.4 Post-syntactic repair
In a recent approach, Fuß and Trips (2020) investigate the synchronic and diachronic properties of the NSR. This approach draws from the notion of “blank generation”, according to which functional heads (i.e., T) can enter syntax without a set of \(\upvarphi \)-features (see also Roberts 2010b). Variation between -\(\emptyset \) and verbal -s arises because of two post-syntactic repair strategies: incorporation of a pronominal \(\upvarphi \)-feature set into T (resulting in -\(\emptyset \)) or default morphology via the elsewhere principle (resulting in -s). Crucially, the specifications of present tense verbal Vocabulary items have to be modified so that -s is underspecified and -\(\emptyset \) is specified for the presence of positive \(\upvarphi \)-feature values (50).Footnote 34 Moreover, incorporation of \(\upvarphi \)-feature sets into T is assumed to be only possible under adjacency of a pronoun to T.
![figure ax](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10828-023-09147-1/MediaObjects/10828_2023_9147_Figax_HTML.png)
The approach is able to account for a traditional NSR pattern. Given that T enters syntax without any \(\upvarphi \)-features, \(\emptyset \)-morphology can only arise if T is adjacent to a non-3sg pronoun as the positively valued \(\upvarphi \)-feature set of the pronoun is incorporated into T under adjacency as a post-syntactic repair operation that takes place before Vocabulary insertion. Thus, incorporation is not possible if the subject is either a non-adjacent pronoun or a full DP. In these cases, -s is inserted as a last resort strategy.Footnote 35
This system is utilised by Fuß and Trips (2020) to analyse Middle English NSR patterns but it cannot adequately explain two crucial aspects in contemporary NEE data in Sect. 2.2 and, thus, cannot be considered as a viable analysis for the modern NSR pattern: Firstly, post-syntactic repair is only suited for NSR patterns with an intact adjacency condition (i.e., the PSC). However, without the adjacency condition (as in contemporary NEE), (non-3sg) pronominal subjects always trigger standard agreement morphology (i.e., -\(\emptyset \)) even if they are not adjacent to the verb. As the system derives -\(\emptyset \) only with the help of post-syntactic incorporation under adjacency and not via Agree, non-adjacent pronominal subjects should not be able to trigger standard agreement. Thus, there is no possibility to derive the full DP/pronoun distinction in varieties where adjacency to the verb is not a factor.
Secondly, explaining verbal -s in be (past) along the lines of this approach is problematic, as was would have to be the elsewhere case and specified for 1sg at the same time. Fuß and Trips (2020) claim that be does not participate in the NSR pattern proposing a separate head Tbe, which always carries \(\upvarphi \)-probes. Yet, the data in Sect. 2.2 suggests that verbal -s on be (i.e., is or was) can be triggered by non-3sg full DP subjects but not by non-3sg personal pronouns (see, e.g., (3c) in Sect. 2.2).
5 Conclusion
Overall, I argue that verbal -s with non-pronominal non-3sg subjects (i.e., the Northern Subject Rule) in North Eastern English follows from two independently motivated assumptions: firstly, the requirement to order elementary operations and secondly, splitting up \(\upvarphi \)-Agree into two separate operations (person and number Agree). The difference in agreement between NEE and Standard English stems from the difference in ordering the features (and thus operations) on T. In the StE ordering, person ([\(*\uppi *\)]) and number ([\(*\#*\)]) probes are ranked before the structure building feature ([\(\bullet \text {D}\bullet \)])—thus giving the impression of a uniform Agree operation before (Internal) Merge. In the NEE ordering, on the other hand, the structure-building feature intervenes between the two probe features (discontinuous Agree). The full DP/pronoun split is explained by different kinds of movement: Pronominal subjects remain in the c-command domain of T for #-Agree because they head-adjoin to T, while in the case of a full DP subject movement to Spec/TP bleeds number agreement and verbal -s emerges. Optionality of verbal -s and canonical agreement in the NEE data is due to the possibility to have both feature orderings in the grammar of NEE speakers.
Moreover, the paper makes claims about the contemporary nature of the NSR. As no instance of verbal -s with a non-adjacent pronominal subject surfaced in the corpus study, it is concluded that the adjacency condition of the NSR (i.e., the Position-of-Subject Constraint) is not relevant for an analysis of verbal -s in contemporary NEE. This is consistent with the results of other studies on the NSR (e.g., Cole 2008; Childs 2012; Buchstaller et al. 2013).
Availability of data and materials
The corpus material is available via https://research.ncl.ac.uk/decte/ Citation Information: Corrigan, Karen P., Isabelle Buchstaller, Adam Mearns and Hermann Moisl. 2012. The Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English. Newcastle University. https://research.ncl.ac.uk/decte.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Notes
If not specified otherwise, I will use this term (i.e., verbal -s) to refer to the occurrence of 3sg morphology on verbs in the context of non-3sg subjects.
If not indicated otherwise, all examples and grammatical judgements in this paper refer to North Eastern English.
For the purpose of the study, the original NECTE2 files were pre-processed. The corpus files were stripped of XML, chunked, tokenised and annotated with Parts-of-Speech tags using the Tree Tagger tool (Schmid 1994, 1995). Subsequently, the tagged corpus files were converted into a database with Pepper (Zipser and Romary 2010) in order to make them compatible with the query tool ANNIS (Krause and Zeldes 2016).
I assume here that the partitive construction in (3a) is a DP and has the following structure: [\(_{\textrm{DP}}\) two [\(_{\textrm{PP}}\) of [\(_{\textrm{DP}}\) those new skates]]] (see also Stickney 2009 for a discussion).
Past tense be is included here because there is no was/were levelling in NEE rather “past tense be still preserves a reflex of the NSR in its distribution” (Cole 2008, 103). In the NECTE2 corpus, there are no instances of you/we was (0%, \(N=628\)).
Cannae is a dialectal form for ‘cannot’. Note also that names are redacted in the corpus.
The notation for structure-building and probing features is adopted from Heck and Müller (2007). In the remainder of this paper, the notation of unvalued probes will be abbreviated to \([*\text {F}*]\), while valued features will be displayed as \([\text {F}:\pm \alpha ]\).
The so-called activity condition is adapted to cases where a syntactic node hosts several unvalued probes that are sequentially discharged. This formulation ensures that more than one probe can be valued by features on the same goal. At the same time, the activity condition prevents agreement between T and the internal DP if it raises to Spec/vP, because \({\hbox {DP}}_{\textrm{Int}}\) would have already received case from v.
This is a simplification as well, as [person] is further subdivided into [± author] and [± participant], with [+ 3] equalling [− author, − participant] (Nevins 2007). In the following, number is taken to be [± plural]. Since gender is irrelevant for English verbal inflection and agreement, it is disregarded here.
While it is true that in the adopted system, the ordering of probes on a given head should in principle be variable across varieties, it is possible that feature ordering is universally invariant in cases where some universal hierarchy determines the sequencing of categories (Müller 2020).
A somewhat related idea comes from Wiltschko (1998), who assumes German personal pronouns to be the spell-out of \(\upvarphi \)-features (AgrD) without any internal structure.
I assume a standard version of c-command (cf. Reinhart 1983; Chomsky 1986), where X c-commands Y iff X does not include Y, Y does not include X and every category that includes X also includes Y. A category X includes a different category Y only if every segment of X dominates Y. This ensures that after head movement \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) can c-command out of the complex T head to bind its trace.
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer who made me aware of this problem and its possible solution.
A reviewer suggest an alternative account to the one outlined in this section, which I will briefly discuss here. The idea would be that \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) moves to Spec/TP in the syntax and post-syntactically merges with T via m-merger (Matushansky 2006),. Thus, syntactic T-to-C movement would bleed post-syntactic m-merger, which would circumvent the issue regarding excorporation of T. A drawback to this approach comes in the form of ordering the operations. As we will see in Sect. 3.2, head movement of \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) to T feeds #-Agree in NEE. This would mean that #-Agree is part of post-syntax (in contrast to \(\uppi \)-Agree, which has to apply before any movement in the syntax). However in Standard English, syntactic movement to Spec/TP has to apply after #-Agree (counter-bleeding). If #-Agree was part of the post-syntactic module, this opacity effect could never arise because syntactic movement would always apply early. Modelling m-merger in narrow syntax (Vicente 2007; Gallego 2010) would run into similar timing problems. As already mentioned, m-merger has to feed #-Agree on T. Simultaneously, T-to-C movement triggered by a feature on C has to bleed m-merger (to circumvent excorporation). Putting together the two ordering statements, this would mean that T-to-C movement triggered by C has to apply before #-Agree triggered by T. Assuming a cyclic syntax, however, C is merged only after T discharged all its features. Thus, syntactic operations triggered by C (i.e., T-to-C) cannot apply before syntactic operations triggered by T (i.e., #-Agree). In the light of these issues, I do not think that an m-merger approach would constitute an improvement to the existing account.
An implicit assumption is that, after movement, traces (or lower copies) become inactive and are not visible for Agree. Only the head of a movement chain is a visible goal for an agreement probe. This is not a new insight, but has to be assumed whenever movement bleeds downward agreement (cf. Chomsky 2000, Rezac 2004, Anand and Nevins 2006 and Georgi 2014).
Since D is not a complement of T, this movement step would technically violate the Head Movement Constraint (HMC; Travis 1984). However, this is unproblematic as D is still the nearest head to T and thus, minimality is observed. Moreover, e.g. Rivero (1994) and Roberts (1994, 2010a) provide approaches to head movement without incorporating the HMC at all. Related to this issue, a reviewer brings up the issue of modal and aspectual constructions, where a pronominal subject has to cross over intervening heads like must and have in the examples in (i), which would also violate the HMC.
-
(i)
-
a.
They must weigh like half of the one I’ve got.
-
b.
The have weighed like half of the one I’ve got.
-
a.
Movement of \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) to T is driven by a \([\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\) on T and only concludes in a head-adjoined position—and not in Spec/TP—because \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) has the relevant properties. Minimality of this head movement operation is still observed even if \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) crosses over potentially intervening heads: Only \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) fits the structural description of the operation and, similarly, it is T (not some intervening head) that attracts \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\).
-
(i)
The Vocabulary items in (28) and (29) seem to predict that complex 1pl subjects would trigger be to spell out as am and was, respectively. There is, however, only limited data of complex pronoun-noun subjects in the NECTE2 corpus, all with canonical agreement (n = 2). Moreover, impoverishment rules could be put into effect to ensure that we linguists are/were arises even with the NEE ordering:
-
(i)
-
a.
+ 1 \(\rightarrow \) \(\emptyset \) / T[#:\(\square \), __]
-
b.
− 2 \(\rightarrow \) \(\emptyset \) / T[+1, #\(\square \), __]
-
a.
-
(i)
Bianchi (2000) proposes that only the nominal moves to Spec/CP. The relative DP is raised to the specifier of a functional projection below C (here XP) followed by extraction of the NP into Spec/CP:
-
(i)
[\(_{\textrm{DP}}\) these [\(_{\textrm{CP}}\) [\(_{\textrm{NP}}\) clubs]\(_{\textrm{k}}\) [C [\(_{\textrm{XP}}\) [\(_{\textrm{DP}}\) what t\(_{\textrm{k}}\)]\(_{\textrm{i}}\) [X [\(_{\textrm{TP}}\) is [\(_{\textrm{vP}}\) t\(_{\textrm{i}}\) paying this well ]]]]]]]
-
(i)
An interesting issue arises regarding relative clauses that attach to personal pronouns, e.g. in clefts. Assuming that clefts have the same structure as relative clauses (except for that CP is the complement of be instead of D; Kayne 1994, 153), their derivation should parallel the head raising analysis of relative clauses. As a consequence, verbal -s should arise with 3pl personal pronouns because #-Agree is bled by the movement of the complex DP. This predicts the forms in (iv). Note, however, that there are no instances of verbal -s in clefts (or relative clauses in general) with 3pl pronouns in the NECTE2 corpus (N = 0), which could be due to the rarity of the phenomenon.
-
(i)
Clefts with personal pronouns and NEE ordering:
-
a.
It is you who are mistaken!
-
b.
*It is you who is mistaken!
-
c.
*It is they who are mistaken!
-
d.
It is they who is mistaken!
-
a.
-
(i)
Indicated material in these examples stems from the following corpora: Northern Ireland Transcribed Corpus of Speech (NITCS; Kirk 1991) with data collected from rural Northern Irish English speakers in the 1970s and Survey of English Dialects (SED; Orton and Halliday 1963) with data collected from rural speakers in the 1950s.
I follow Munn (1987), Zoerner (1995) and Weisser (2015), i.a. and assume that coordination structures are asymmetric: The &-head takes one conjunct as its specifier and the other as its complement. In turn, this rules out a structure whereby coordinated T’ nodes share one and the same specifier (which would make the assumption of a null subject in the second conjunct obsolete), as it would be feasible under an adjunction approach to coordination.
Note that Pietsch (2005b, 9–10) excludes these examples from the NSR as he links them to the phenomenon of habitual -s, noticing that most of the intervening adverbs denote some sense of habitualness. The adverb effect would, therefore, be excluded from the NSR. Following this idea, -s would be reanalysed to correspond to some feature [+habil], and in varieties with both the NSR and the suspected habitual -s, we would deal with a case of accidental homophony.
Similar to the issue with T-to-C movement in Sect. 3.1.2, we have to assume that Lowering only applies to the lower T in a structure [T [\({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) T]] and not to the complex head as the complex head with the incorporated \({\hbox {D}}^{\mathrm{min/max}}\) does not fit the structural description of the operation.
In StE the ranking of the soft constraints does not matter, as \([*\#*]\) is valued before \([\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\) is discharged and T with an open \([\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\)-feature cannot be lowered without crashing the derivation.
If pronouns do not head-adjoin to T but rather move to Spec/TP directly, verbal -s would arise with any subject given this ordering of features on T. This potentially could derive a pattern of generalised -s over all persons, which is attested in some varieties of English (Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi 2004; see also Anderwald 2008 for South-Eastern English).
A possible way to test the two ordering statements would be on the basis of complex DP subjects. Under the alternative order, complex DPs with a 1st or 2nd person pronoun of the type we linguists or you idiots should also be able to trigger verbal -s since they would not transmit a person value to T as \(\uppi \)-Agree is bled by movement to Spec/TP. In contrast, suppose the NEE ordering \([*\uppi *]\succ [\bullet \text {D}\bullet ]\succ [*\#*]\) (38b), [\(*\uppi *\)] on T is already valued for [+1] or [+2] via Agree before the complex DP moves to Spec/TP. As a result, -s cannot be inserted post-syntactically. Unfortunately, there is too little data to decide between the ordering statements on the basis of NECTE2 with only two tokens of complex pronoun-noun subjects throughout the corpus. Moreover, neither Cole (2008), Childs (2012) nor Buchstaller et al. (2013) test subjects of the we linguists type in their respective studies.
A potential issue involves the assumed structure of functional projections, as the existence of AgrSP (being part of split INFL) in Modern English can be questioned. (Multiple subject positions are argued to have been lost at some point after the Middle English stage (de Haas 2011).) According to Bobaljik and Thráinsson (1998), the split INFL parameter is connected to V-to-T movement (lexical verbs must rise out of V because feature checking between T and V is blocked by AgrO) and correlated syntactic phenomena, such as object shift and transitive expletive constructions, which both StE and NEE lack (see also and Alexiadou and Fanselow 2002).
In my understanding, relative frequency is not a strong argument in favour of this approach. The particular lexicon in (41) is able to show a 50/50 split for verbal -s, as there is, in informal terms, one path each to -\(\emptyset \) (b) and -s (d). This distribution does not necessarily hold for other corpora. For instance, in a quantitative corpus study on verbal -s in the NECTE data from 1994, Cole (2008, 97) observes the relative frequency of verbal -s with plural DPs to be 12.8%. To correctly predict this distribution, the lexicon would have to be enriched with additional (unique) lexical items that are matched to -\(\emptyset \) so that there is only a 1/8 chance of verbal -s with plural DP subjects. This would potentially run into difficulties with clauses (c) “Rejecting synonymy” and (d) “Minimizing lexicon” of the algorithm in (40).
Impoverishment in the sense of changing a feature value to a less marked value has been suggested by Noyer (1998).
However, this is incompatible with the notion of iconicity (i.e., \(\emptyset \)-morphology should correspond to radical underspecification; Wiese 1999).
References
Adger, David. 2006. Combinatorial variability. Journal of Linguistics 42 (3): 503–530. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670600418X.
Adger, David, and Jennifer Smith. 2005. Variation and the minimalist project. In Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, ed. Leonie Cornips and Karen P. Corrigan, 149–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.265.10adg.
Adger, David, and Jennifer Smith. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120 (5): 1109–1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.007.
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Gisbert Fanselow. 2002. On the correlation between morphology and syntax: The case of V-to-I. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. C. Jan-Wouter. Zwart and Werner Abraham, 219–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.53.13ale.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger, and Chris Wilder. 2000. Introduction. In The syntax of relative clauses, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, André Meinunger, and Chris Wilder, 1–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.32.01ale.
Anand, Pranav, and Andrew Nevins. 2006. The locus of Ergative case assignment: Evidence from scope. In Ergativity, vol. 65, ed. Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, 3–25. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_1.
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2008. The varieties of English spoken in the southeast of England: Morphology and syntax. In Varieties of English 1: The British Isles, ed. Bernd Kortmann and Clive Upton, 440–462. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208399.2.440.
Bailey, Laura R. 2011. Null subjects in northeast English. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 17 (1): 23–45.
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. PhD diss, University of Toronto, Toronto. https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6503.
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, ed. Ana Teresa Perez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.244.07bej.
Bernstein, Judith B. 2008. English th-forms. In Essays on nominal determination, ed. Henrik Høeg. Müller and Alex Klinge, 213–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bianchi, Valentina. 2000. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (1): 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554316.
Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45 (2): 169–225. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00153.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 1995. Mortphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D., and Höskuldur. Thráinsson. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1 (1): 37–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00003.
Bonet, M. Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Disserstation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13534.
Börjars, Kersti, and Carol Chapman. 1998. Agreement and pro-drop in some dialects of English. Linguistics 36: 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.71.
Bresnan, Joan. 1976. On the form and functioning of transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 7 (1): 3–40.
Browning, Marguerite. 1987. Null operator constructions. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Buchstaller, Isabelle, Karen P. Corrigan, Anders Holmberg, Patrich Honeybone, and Warren Maguire. 2013. T-to-R and the Northern Subject Rule: Questionnaire-based spatial, social and structural linguistics. English Language and Linguistics 17 (1): 85–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674312000330.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1994. On the internal structure of pronominal DPs. The Linguistic Review 11 (3–4): 195–219.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1997. Agreement and control in expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28 (3): 521–533.
Childs, Claire. 2012. Verbal -s and the Northern Subject Rule: Spatial variation in linguistic and sociolinguistic constraints. In Proceedings of the international symposium on limits and areas in dialectology (LimiAr), ed. Álvarez. Pérez, Xosé Afonsi, Ernestina Carrilho, and Magro Catarina, 319–344. Lisbon: Centro de Linguística de Universidade de Lisboa.
Chomsky, Noam. 1964a. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1964b. The logical basis of linguistic theory. In Proceedings of the ninth international congress of linguistics, Cambridge, Mass, ed. Horace G. Lunt. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11 (1): 1–46.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, vol. 24, ed. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser. Current studies in linguistics, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Bare phrase structure. In Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, ed. Héctor. Campos and Paula Kempchinsky, 51–109. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka, and Samuel Jay Keyser, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cole, Marcelle. 2008. What is the Northern Subject Rule? The resilience of a medieval constraint in Tyneside English. Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval Language and Literature (SELIM) 15: 91–114.
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Coon, Jessica, and Stefan Keine. 2021. Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry 52 (4): 655–710. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00386.
Corrigan, Karen P., Isabelle Buchstaller, Adam Mearns, and Hermann Moisl. 2012. The diachronic electronic corpus of tyneside English (DECTE). Newcastle University. https://research.ncl.ac.uk/decte.
de Haas, Nynke K. 2011. Morphosyntactic variation in Northern English: The Northern Subject Rule, its origins and early history. Utrecht: LOT.
de Haas, Nynke K., and Ans van Kemenade. 2015. The origin of the Northern Subject Rule: Subject positions and verbal morphosyntax in older English. English Language and Linguistics 19 (1): 49–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000306.
Déprez, Viviane. 1994. Parameters of object movement. In Studies on scrambling, ed. Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 101–152. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857214.101.
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32 (4): 555–595.
Fuß, Eric, and Carola Trips. 2020. “Them’s the men that does their work best’’: The Northern Subject Rule revisited. In Syntactic architecture and its consequences I: Syntax inside the grammar, ed. András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas, and Sten Vikner, 175–219. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3972844.
Gallego, Ángel. J. 2010. Phase theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Georgi, Doreen. 2014. Opaque interactions of merge and agree: On the nature and order of elementary operations. PhD diss., University of Leipzig, Leipzig.
Georgi, Doreen. 2017. Patterns of movement reflexes as the result of the order of merge and agree. Linguistic Inquiry 48 (4): 585–626. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00255.
Godfrey, Elizabeth, and Sali Tagliamonte. 1999. Another piece for the verbal -s story: Evidence from Devon in southwest England. Language Variation and Change 11 (1): 87–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394599111050.
Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Lexical specification and insertion, ed. Peter Coopmans, Martin B. H. Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw, 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.197.07gri.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1997. Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and in French. English Language and Linguistics 1 (2): 233–270. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674300000526.
Haegeman, Liliane, and Tabea Ihsane. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 3 (1): 117–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674399000155.
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In MIT working papers in linguistics 30: Papers at the interface, ed. Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang, and Martha McGinnis, 425–449. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser. Current studies in linguistics 24, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key feautures of distributed morphology. In MIT working papers in linguistics 21: Papers on phonology and morphology, ed. Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley, 275–288. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78 (3): 482–526. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158.
Heck, Fabian, and Gereon Müller. 2007. Extremely local optimization. In Proceedings of WECOL 26, ed. Erin Bainbridge and Brian Agbayani, 170–183. Fresno, CA: California State University, Departmentof Linguistics.
Heck, Fabian, and Marc Richards. 2010. A probe-goal approach to agreement and non-incorporation restrictions in Southern Tiwa. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28 (3): 681–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9108-y.
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford studies in comparative syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 1995. Agreement and verb morphology in three varieties of English. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner, 159–165. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8416-6_7.
Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kirk, John M. 1991. Northern Ireland transcribed corpus of speech. Colchester: Economic and Social Research Council Data Archive, University of Essex.
Kortmann, Bernd, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2004. Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English. In A handbook of varieties of English, ed. Bernd Kortmann, Edgar W. Schneider, Kate Burridge, Rajend Mesthrie, and Clive Upton. Morphology and syntax, 1142–1202. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197181-142.
Krause, Thomas, and Amir Zeldes. 2016. ANNIS3: A new architecture for generic corpus query and visualization. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31 (1): 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu057.
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1 (3): 199–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394500000168.
Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2, ed. Katharine Beals, Jeannette Denton, Robert Knippen, Lynette Melnar, Hisami Suzuki, and Erica Zeinfeld, 180–201. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Laka, Itziar. 1993. The structure of inflection: A case study in \({\text{ X }}^{0}\) syntax. In Generative studies in Basque linguistics, ed. José Ignacio. Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 21–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.105.02lak.
Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Syntax & semantics 25: Perspectives on phrase structure, ed. Susan D. Rothstein, 209–239. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25 (4): 609–665.
Martinović, Martina. 2019. Interleaving syntax and postsyntax: Spellout before syntactic movement. Syntax 22 (4): 378–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12169.
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1): 69–109.
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: de Gruyter.
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41 (1): 35–82. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35.
Müller, Gereon. 2020. Inflectional morphology in harmonic serialism. Sheffield: Equinox.
Munn, Alan Boag. 1987. Coordinate structure and X-bar theory. McGill Working Papersin Linguistics 4 (1): 121–140.
Muysken, Pieter, and Henk van Riemsdijk. 1986. Projecting features and featuring projections. In Features and projections, ed. Pieter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk, 1–30. Dordrecht: Foris. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871661-002. (Reprint 2016. Berlin: De Gruyter).
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25 (2): 273–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2.
Nevins, Andrew, and Jeffrey K. Parrott. 2010. Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties. Lingua 120 (5): 1135–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.008.
Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, ed. Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari, and Patrick M. Farrell, 264–285. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Ochi, Masao. 1999. Multiple spell-out and PF adjacency. In Proceedings of the northeastern linguistic society 29, ed. Pius Tamanji, Masako Hirotani, and Nancy Hall, 293–306. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Orton, Harold, and W.J. Halliday. 1963. Survey of English dialects. Leeds: E.J. Arnold.
Pietsch, Lukas. 2005a. “Some do and some doesn’t”: Verbal concord variation in the north of the British Isles. In A comparative grammar of British English dialects: Agreement, gender, relative clauses, ed. Bernd Kortmann, Tanja Herrmann, Lukas Pietsch, and Susanne Wagner, 125–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197518.125.
Pietsch, Lukas. 2005b. Variable grammars: Verbal agreement in northern dialects of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110944556.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20 (3): 365–424.
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Modern studies in English, ed. David A. Reibel and Sanford A. Schane, 201–224. Prentice-Hall: Prentice-Hall.
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanja. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and merge. PhD diss., University of Toronto.
Richards, Norvin. 1999. Featural cyclicity and the ordering of multiple specifiers. In Working minimalism, ed. Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 127–158. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvins. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1994. Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12 (1): 63–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992746.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1994. Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, ed. Teun Hoekstra and Bonnie D. Schwartz, 151–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Roberts, Ian. 1994. Two types of head movement in Romance. In Verb movements, ed. David Lightfoot and Norbert Hornstein, 207–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, Ian. 2010a. Agreement and head movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian. 2010b. Blank generation. Paper presented at WOTM (Workshop on Theoretical Morphology) 5, Wittenberg.
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Schmid, Helmut. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of international conference on new methods in language processing, 44–49. Manchester.
Schmid, Helmut. 1995. Improvements in part-of-speech tagging with an application to German. In Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT-workshop, 47–50. Dublin.
Schütze, Carson T. 1999. English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (3): 467–484.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic. In Focus on Germanic typology, ed. Werner Abraham, 61–103. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050084336.61.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann, and Anders Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are seperate probes. In Agreement restrictions, ed. Roberta d’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar H. Hrafnbjargarson, 251–280. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207835.251.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure. Syntax 4 (2): 94–125.
Stickney, Helen. 2009. The emergence of DP in the partitive structure. PhD diss, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Available at https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/131.
Stojković, Jelena. 2019. The fleeting DP in Bulgarian and Macedonian: The view from left-branch extraction. In Structural removal, ed. Andrew Murphy. Linguistische arbeitsberichte 94, 343–384. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner, 307–327. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tortora, Christina. 1998. Agreement, case, and i-subjects. In Proceedings of NELS 29, ed. Pius Tamanji, Masako Hirotani, and Nancy Hall, 397–408.
Tortora, Christina, and Marcel den Dikken. 2010. Subject agreement variation: Support for the configurational approach. Lingua 120 (5): 1089–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.004.
Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
van Riemsdijk, Henry. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009763305416.
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Vicente, Luis. 2007. The syntax of heads and phrases: A study of verb (phrase) fronting. PhD diss., Leiden University.
Weisser, Philipp. 2015. Derived coordination: A minimalist perspective on clause chains, converbs and asymmetric coordination. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wiese, Bernd. 1999. Unterspezifizierte Paradigmen: Form und Funktion in der pronominalen Deklination [Underspecified paradigms: Form and function in pronominal declension]. Linguistik Online 4(3).
Wilson, John, and Alison Henry. 1998. Parameter setting within a socially realistic linguistics. Language in Society 27 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019709.
Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2 (2): 143–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009719229992.
Witkoś, Jacek. 2004. Raising expletives. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 39: 175–195.
Zanuttini, Raffaella, and Judy B. Bernstein. 2011. Micro-comparative syntax in English verbal agreement. In Proceedings of NELS 39, ed. Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin, and Brian Smith, 839–854. GSLA Publications: University of Massachusetts.
Zipser, Florian, and Laurent Romary. 2010. A model oriented approach to the mapping of annotation formats using standards. In Proceedings of the workshop on language resource and language technology standards, LREC 2010. Malta.
Zoerner, ed. 1995. Coordination: TheThe syntax of & P. PhD diss., University of California, Irvine, CA
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Gereon Müller and Artemis Alexiadou for helpful feedback and constructive discussions during various phases of the research. Moreover, I am grateful for valuable comments and questions by the participants of the Leipzig Syntax/Morphology colloquium. Special thanks also to Karen P. Corrigan for granting me access to the Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English. Lastly, I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers, as well as the editor, Jim Wood for comments, criticism and guidance throughout the reviewing process. This research was completed as part of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft research training group Interaction of Grammatical Building Blocks (GRK 2011).
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research was completed as part of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft research training group Interaction of Grammatical Building Blocks (GRK 2011).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Not applicable.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
I have no conflict of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Fritzsche, R. Ordering discontinuous \(\varvec{\varphi }\)-feature agree: verbal -s in North Eastern English. J Comp German Linguistics 26, 7 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-023-09147-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-023-09147-1