Abstract
This work explores the coupling of person-split nominative objects with anomalous subjects (Jahnsson’s Rule (JR), Person-Case Constraint (PCC)). In Breton, split-nominative objects spread from an Icelandic-like combination with oblique subjects of unaccusatives, to Finnish-like combinations with subjects of transitives in constructions like the imperative, and then retreated piecewise. These changes admit of externalist sources, such as frequency entrenchment and analogy over clitic forms, but are bounded by persistent coupling of split-nominative objects with anomalous subjects, and disfavour external sources for it like ambiguity avoidance. An approach is set out through constraints on φ-dependencies, their relationship to case and licensing, and their interaction with grammaticalisable partial φ-specification, building on other work on JR/PCC. The anomalies of the restricting subject are analysed as person-only specification, and extended from quirky obliques to pronouns minimal in absence of number + n/N: imperative pro and human impersonals. The ineffability or accusative of the restricted persons is analysed through the integration of dependent case into Φ/Case theory but apparent syntactic variation is modelled through externalisation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Glossing follows Leipzig, plus: ! imperative-jussive, ADS adessive, PRT participle, PT past, R particle, no gloss for 3SG/default -∅; ≈ for boundary unclear as = or -. In sources, verse is marked †; ⋅ stands for source -; the - boundary breaks up source words but =, ≈ do not unless accompanied by
. Citations and constructed examples use the orthography of Modern Breton. The conventions of Table 2 go by default for others. 1, 2, 3 abbreviate 1st, 2nd, 3rd; 1/2 abbreviates 1st and 2nd; 1/2+ abbreviates 1st, 2nd and any grammaticalised human-logophoric 3rd. A, S, O, R coopt grammatical role terminology: A, external argument of active transitives; O, their internal argument; S, of unaccusatives; O→S of passives; R, added argument; O, (O→)S are also used for like-coded arguments in exceptional case-marking.The internalist-externalist terminology (Collins 2021) is adapted as vague prototypes for refering to mechanisms as externalist in the measure that they are clearly external to theories of narrow human language faculty (so Zipf’s Law of Abbreviation: Clink et al. 2020; Kanwal et al. 2017; Horn 2004; less so ambiguity avoidance with sui-generis details in its application: Walter 2007: 5.1; Harris 2017: 4.4; still less actual details of say iconicity as applied to me lui), and as internalist to the rest relative to theories of “φ” (of which would usually be independent for instance any internal constraints on syllable structure or on feature complexity for amn’t, Broadbent 1999; Nevins 2012).
Exposition simplifies as relevant, a.o. coding of residual R like O (3.3.1), mesoclisis to separable preverbs and tmesis (both lost by Breton-Cornish, DME.II: 2.3), or nuances of enclisis timing (DME.II: 2.4).
The difference between French and Irish will come up at several points. It may be illustrated by French nous=ri/*fri-ons ‘1PL.NOM=laugh/*fry-1PL’ or bois-tu/*je ‘drink=2SG/*1SG,’ with the gaps ineffable, but Ulster Irish conditional chuirfi-mis ‘choose-1PL,’ *chuirfeadh muid ‘choose 1PL’ vs. gapped *chuirfi-dis → chuirfeadh siad for 3PL (for the diachronic pathway, see Roma 2000). Celtic systems also show the preference for bound forms when these realise strong structures (in Breton only with prepositional inflection, Jouitteau and Rezac 2006).
In Brythonic, the imperative has 2SG, 2PL, 1PL forms and no subject distinct from inflections, the jussive 3SG, 3PL and overt subjects that include those ranging over speaker-addressee like each of you (DME.II 5.2; and Sect. 4.5 below).
The surviving mesoclitics may be those with that had nonsyllabic forms later than others, and included 3rd *=s=, lost earlier than 1SG/2SG, perhaps because mostly collapsing with object drop or proclitics (DMB.III with lit.).
The present terminology of have-constructions is grounded in Latin (Baldi and Nuti 2010), following work on possession (Heine 1997): transitive habeo ‘have.1SG’; be in mihi est ‘1SG.DAT be.3SG’; be in apud me est ‘at 1SG.ACC be.3SG’; have for the group; BE is used for the suppleting stems corresponding to be of each system. Each have-construction’s range of uses varies across systems and their stages (Baldi and Nuti 2010 on Latin; Stolz et al. 2008 on Celtic; and elsewhere useful for Breton, Brugman 1988; Myler 2016 and Heine 1997; Stassen 2009); in Middle Breton mihi est and apud me overlap with different frequencies for almost all uses of have/avoir (DME.III). Obliques could be subjects of infinitives in Latin (Barðdal et al. 2020); I do not know whether dative R of mihi est is so attested, nor how early its S is attested as PRO (late in Institutiones, Gaius 1, §60, Justinian 1, x, §2). In Middle Welsh S of mihi est is 3, which is unrevealing under its usual uses there, save in the nonce us = be.2SG kind ‘that thou beest kind to us’ (Rezac 2020: 324), also unrevealing, since in systems where high obliques restrict S, low obliques like the dative of kind do not (Sigurðsson 1996: Sect. 2; Rezac 2016: Sect. 4; also cf. Postal 1986: 153–158, 1990: 177; Rezac 2011: 162–163).
Early, clitic doubling matches φ-features; in later southeastern varieties, it does so when doubling personal pronouns including (N)OC PRO, and otherwise neutralises to 3SGM, also used for doubling arbitrary PRO.
T and v are conventions, and may reflect complex systems such as v for the semantic introducer of A and accusative φ/case locus but Voice for the c-selector of A (Alexiadou et al. 2015), and T for the nominative φ/case locus but Fin for the highest A-position (cf. Cardinaletti 2004; Rizzi and Shlonsky 2006; Holmberg 2017). For structures for have, see Myler 2016; for coding alternations like those quirky nominal ∼ PP here, see Wood and Marantz 2017.
Beside this pathway of agreement change, there is an earlier, compatible one where agreement was initially lost with nominative objects in oblique-subject constructions (DME.II: 3.1, as in Icelandic, Sect. 5.4); differences between the two pathways might appear in contingent and hard to test predictions about agreement in early Welsh and in Middle Breton jussives (DME.II: 5.2). After loss of agreement with nominative objects (pro)nominals, it would in principle have been possible at any point for speakers to reanalyse the first free and later enclitic pronouns coding earlier nominative S as coding accusative O of an expletive-subject transitive (cf. Rigau 2005 on Catalan calere, similarly earlier French falloir) realised as free/enclitic due to clitic cluster conflict with proclitic R (Sect. 3.5.4; see for a later stage of Breton, Lambert 1999: 823) yet restricted in combination with it to 3rd person by a unique instance of me lui in the language (cf. Postal 1990; Rezac 2011: 4.5.5 on French falloir). This seems compatible with what follows with technical changes, but makes incorrect predictions at stage after stage of development (e.g. DME.II: 352 on a later doubling diagnostic of accusatives, DME.II: 357 on a change to what such a system would be expected to look like, and below Sect. 3.5.4).
There may be no way to see if enclisis could operate on low-position S of BE or other intransitives when there is no R in subject position, due to constraints on existential-presentational constructions like focus, 4.3, but cf. presentatives, 3.7.
A-forms likely originate from use of ‘of’ to code partitive O/S (Stark and Widmer 2020) and are sporadically used to code pronominal O in negative clauses in all 16–17C varieties (DME.II: 4.2) before use as stopgaps in 17C and generalised in early 18C. Intriguingly, in none of these uses-stages, or later, are they restricted to pronouns with human or inanimate referents, and so not animacy-related differential object marking (ibid).
The Breton coding of A(/S)-O like R-S in be/have-perfects has been widely observed where have is based on be (mihi est: circum-Baltic, Seržant 2012; Latin, Heine 1997: 4.3; Georgian, Hewitt 1995: 501–502; Harris 1985: 13.2; cf. Hewitt 2016 relating Breton; apud me est: Irish, Wigger 2020), but some of these may be resultatives (Georgian, Boeder 1999).
Various alternatives are compatible with what follows, for instance without light verbs, but others are excluded; notably, reflexivised transitives were not simply intransitives in 16C (as seen in (15)), and A, S do not seem to have assumed aspects of the interpretation of R, S in mihi est even to the extent resultatives have them (cf. on animacy, DME.III). The analysis here restricts quirky case to A of transitives (as similarly e.g. Skopeteas et al. 2012 on Georgian), and thus sweeps under the rug the varying coding of S of unaccusatives and even passives as R of mihi est or S of plain BE in Breton (DME.II: 3.3). A more adequate alternative and closer to a resultative origin is to introduce the dative subject of the perfect by a functional head H related to the perfect, and either have the highest argument of the vP raise to this dative in Spec,H (Bjorkman 2018, cf. Sect. 4.3), or have the dative in Spec,H interpret the highest argument of the vP left open if external or passed up through function composition if internal (Wood 2015). However, other solutions have been also advanced for similar variation in coding the S of unaccusatives (Postal 1989: 96–101; Schäfer 2008: 6.6; Berro 2019: Sect. 4).
In Middle Breton, accusative proclitics are syncretic with genitive ones outside 3SGM and residual 3 mesoclitic, and these suggests that proclitics were accusative as early as late 16C when introduced on participles (DME.II: 3.3, 4.1, cf. 15b). The accusative is revealed clearly in southeastern varieties of 18C—by genitive-accusative differentiation in 1SG, 2SG, 1PL in form, and for all proclitics in the syntax of doubling for all proclitics (DME.II: 3.3), but obscured by allomorphy in north-and-west in early 18C (DME.II: 4.3–4.4). However, the matter is not central to what follows, and a putative genitive of 1/2 proclitics to the participle would fit in as differential object marking (see Sect. 5.2).
There often remained a gap for the participle of be itself, giving They have=them had ∼*They have you=had; this is not unexpected, for with be unlike with transitives, synthetic finite forms did not offer guidance about mutations induced on the stem by plain accusative clitics (Le Goff 1927; but there may be variation, DME.II: 355 note 36; Rezac 2021c; and perhaps also variation on free weak pronouns instead, ibid., Cheveau 2007: 5.4.2).
The internalist mechanism here will incorporate differential object marking a.o. as variety of accusative, though there is no reason to think that any clitic in Breton is DOM, and it is not clear that it is in Finnish (Sect. 4.4 and fn. 35).
A caveat is warranted here that better descriptions of the facts resumed here for these varieties is needed.
Analytical freedom may seem more obvious of the structure and content typically posited in internalist approaches, but at present I do not see how to avoid it even for proposals that hew close to frequency and length. Cf. Haspelmath (2004: 3.4) for entrenchment in Sect. 3.4.2: “If a language were found in which all bound-pronoun combinations were possible at an earlier stage and certain combinations became impossible at a later stage (without attendant further grammaticalization), this would constitute counterevidence to my theory.” If the claim is relative to R + O, then counterexamples are documented stages of some varieties of Basque (lit. in Rezac 2016: 155); if also of R + S, then ongoing changes in varieties Basque (lit. op. cit.: 156–157); if all pronoun combinations, then the many arbitrary gaps in varieties of Basque (op. cit. Sections 7–9) and likely French (Morin 1979; Miller and Monachesi 2003; Rezac 2010)—modulo leeway in what counts as grammaticalisation. Yet the deduction of entrenchment in the work seems to me unaffected by there being other roads than it to gaps, like infrequency due to ambiguity, politeness, phonological markedness, featural complexity, preference for other constructions, though the categorial expectation is lost (see cited lit.). Similarly for the related consequence of form-frequency in Haspelmath’s (2020) Universal 1, counterexemple to which seems among others me lui in French varieties with le leur: m’y (Postal 1990: 3.2 and lit., or Lambrecht 1981: 35).
In Icelandic PCC* in infinitives holds across a variety of structures (Nomura 2005: 79–80; Bobaljik 2008: 10.6; Boeckx 2008: 51; Pesetsky 2021: 2.6.2, “A”) but for some is weaker than in finite clauses or absent (Sigurðsson 2004: 155 note 14, “C”; Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008: 271; cf. note 37 on “C+”). Distinct is licensing of specified subjects in opaque infinitives (with Preminger 2011: 932–934, cf. esp. Bobaljik 2008: 10.6; Schütze 2003: 297 note 2, 1997: 4.1.1.5).
Interaction of φ/A-dependencies with obliqueness can be nuanced within and across systems (for lit. from different perspectives, see Metslang 2013; Barðdal and Eythórsson 2018; Citko et al. 2018). Of A-dependencies, PRO is the most restrictive (against “EPP,” Cardinaletti 2004; Holmberg 2017; local anaphora, Metslang 2013; Barðdal and Eythórsson 2018; WCO, Postal 1993; Bruening 2022; Paparounas and Salzmann 2023). With PRO go specified subjects when diagnosable (Icelandic, Holmberg 2017, and so Breton, 3.3, contrast Italian with richer left periphery, Cardinaletti 2004). However, PRO and specified subjects are often incompatible with what are otherwise oblique subjects (e.g. Anagnostopoulou 2003; Sigurðsson 2003; Rezac 2008b), for what may be trivial morphological reasons such as absence of oblique PRO and oblique + genitive stacking (cf. Jung 2008: 3.4.1, 6.3.3.2 for Russian). If the nominative or absolutive object then cannot independently also be subject, entire constructions can be ineffable (a.o. in Finnish mihi est, Koskinen 1998; Seržant 2015, cf. Kiparsky 2001: 2.4, Vilkuna 1996: 4.4.2; mihi est in Russian, McAnallen 2011).
The mechanics allows extension of inherent case from c/s-selection at generation to e.g. raising to Voice (cf. Dotlačil and Šimík 2013; Anagnostopoulou and Sevdali 2020; Sigurðsson 2017: Ch. 2; but idiosyncratic in e.g. Postal 1986: 2.3.2; Grevisse and Goosse 2008: §279), or prepositional/oblique complementisers (McCloskey 1983; Postal 2003; Jung 2008; cf. Sigurðsson 2003). Such derived obliques always seem local to the assigner, shared with structural ergative case but not agreement in Basque (Rezac et al. 2014; cf. Deal 2019), consistent with distinction between nonlocal featural dependencies through Agree realised in classical structural case (Chomsky 2000), and Merge that yields KP shells upon generation or displacement (Pesetsky 2013: 4.2, 2021: 5.1.2; contrast Sigurðsson 2017: Ch. 2). φ-inert, transparent and quirky inherent case all seem available with inflectional obliques (for revealing variation within/across Icelandic and German, Barðdal and Eythórsson 2018; Basque, Fernández and de Urbina 2009: 3.3; Wood and Sigurðsson 2014; Greek, Michelioukadis 2015), and quirky vs. transparent seems independent of exponence (e.g. with case-number fusion, Atlamaz and Baker 2018; without, Rezac 2008a; Árnadóttir and Sigurðsson 2013); adpositions need better study (for reanalyses of quirky-like paradigms, see on intervention Bruening 2014; subjecthood Cardinaletti 2004; for pertinent unclarities, Miller and Sag 1997: 589 note 21; Landau 2008: 893–894, 905 note 25; Gallego 2019: 3.3).
Other ways of getting quirky inherent case to interact only with person dependencies could be adopted here: quirkiness as φ-completeness interacting with person and number probe position or ordering (Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008; Béjar and Rezac 2003; Preminger 2014; Coon and Keine 2021), but cf. number agreement across undisplaced quirky obliques (Anagnostopoulou 2018; Kučerová 2016: 50 note 4); quirkiness by filtering probes on K (Rezac 2008a), with richer assumptions than used here about match-valuation (q.v. Deal 2015, 2022).
Concretely: only nonminimal π-bearers need π-match for case/licensing (5.4); A-introducing v is a barrier to φ/case (but see Keine 2017 on agreement, Vainikka and Brattico 2014 on case); #-match bars π-match (lit. on quirkiness above; cf. e.g. Coon and Preminger 2014). A vs. O/S is an approximation: object A under oblique-subject raising verbs in Icelandic is licensed and so π-less as 3 even if agreeing for number while 1/2 are only licensed if in an opaque infinitive that provides its own licensing to Spec,T (4.1); object-position S that is also subject in Finnish raising-restructuring leads to accusative rather than split-nominative on embedded O and so has π (cf. Kiparsky 2001: 2.2.3, Rezac 2023a: Sect. 7).
Licensing of quirky obliques is left open. French contrasts DAT > 1/2.*ACC/\(^{\sqrt{}}\)DAT clitic clusters, and comparison of dative clitics with the locative one in the system suggest the former are quirky and the latter inert; but analyses have treated the lower dative as locative-like (Postal 1990; Rezac 2011: Ch. 4 Appendix). Slovenian has DAT > 3/*1/*2.ACC, ACC > 3/*1/*2.DAT clitics with ditransitives with order argued to reflect c-command (Stegovec 2019); but the *’s would also follow if 1/2 were limited to the high dative construction (q.v. Haspelmath 2005). Revealing here would be Icelandic dative-extraction + nominative-fronting with 1/2.DAT (cf. Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008: 267).
Finnish is illustrated from studies and corpora, adapted to minimal pairs, and key data checked with two speakers.
Matrix nominative S here can be nonagreeing in the existential-presentational construction (Kiparsky 2001: 2.2.3), while the embedded S is usually silent under linking to matrix dative-genitive (but for nonstandard types, Laitinen and Vilkuna 1993; Rezac 2023a: 4.2). In standard varieties the matrix dative-genitive (q.v. Huumo and Inaba 1997; Inaba 2007) has invited analysis as raised genitive subject of infinitives (Laitinen and Vilkuna 1993; Koskinen 1998), and that would here be analysable as φ-quirky, but nonstandard adessive favours matrix origin (Rezac 2023a: 4.2), and restructuring (Nelson 1998: II.C.3) or raising to oblique (adapting Koskinen 1998: Ch. 4, cf. note 22), and so does even standard absence of possessive suffixes in matrix infinitives corresponding to this dative-genitive (Rezac 2023a: 4.1). Other subjects of nonfinite clauses do not link to obliques; for transparent infinitives, their subject can be only genitive, only possessive-suffix, or OC PRO, of which the only analysis excluded here is as φ-complete, while the nominal-like genitive+possessive-suffix and NOC PRO of opaque infinitives could be φ-complete (see Vainikka and Brattico 2014; Koskinen 1998 with lit.; and analysis along the lines here in Rezac 2019).
There is a 3-only nonagreeing nominative S in a dialectal raising construction (Rezac 2023a: 4.2, 5.3).
The antipronominal restrictions of existential-presentational and other inversion constructions are complex when studied in depth (English, Kayne 1979; Birner and Ward 2003; Deal 2009: Sect. 8; Kay and Michaelis 2017), and those of the systems here seem similar (Icelandic, Thráinsson 2007: Ch. 6; Finnish, Hakulinen et al. 2004; Rezac 2023a: 5.3; Breton, DME.III). It would be intriguing to reduce antipronominal restrictions on low-S generally to π-intervention (as in Richards 2008 with lit. for expletive constructions in English). However, their patterns do not seem to easily lend themselves to this, nor to the reverse enterprise of reducing person restrictions on S of oblique-subject constructions to other restrictions (cf. Sigurðsson 2012: Sect. 3). Thus the definiteness effect in Icelandic does not constrain S or a given clausal or A-position whether or not there is a higher one available, but rather whatever argument would raise to the canonical subject position if it does not raise there (Sigurðsson 1989: 6.3, 2011). Even more unrelated seem whatever limitations have-constructions have on definites (Myler 2016: 6.3). Certain binominal copula constructions have restrictions analysed as φ-intervention, but their absence in the systems here needs understanding (Vigo 2016; Béjar and Kahnemuyipour 2017; Bhatia 2019; Coon and Keine 2021).
The description of the morphology of arb is limited here to finite synthetic verbs, but arb behaves the same with finite periphrastic formations (Rezac 2023a: 3.2). Nonfinite “passive” clauses share part of the morphology of arb in finite clauses, but some have no relationship to arb (Vainikka 1989: 5.3.1.1), others are difficult to probe (Vainikka 1989: 5.3.1.3, 5.3.2.3). In “active” nonfinite clauses, NOC PRO combines with split-nominative O (Taraldsen 1986; Hakulinen et al. 2004: §939), and is analysable with the same φ-content as arb, though the origin is different (Rezac 2023a: 4.1). PRO in Icelandic and Breton is φ-complete (3SGM for φ-dependencies).
Maling 1993 is the seminal dependent case analysis of 3 nominative objects in Finnish, the link of their distribution though not yet person Icelandic, and recognition of accusative on 1/2, alluding to differential marking; much of this remains elsewhere (Nelson 1998: IV-V; Kiparsky 2001: 2.1.3, 3.1–3.2; Rezac 2011: 5.2; Vainikka and Brattico 2014: Sect. 5). Dependence theories of case are internalist, and in frameworks where their core implication independent → dependent φ/case is not violable, it lead to the expectation that the outcome of diachronic pathways to superficial counterexamples will be acquired either as idioms under evidence of exceptionality or as structures that satisfy depedence theories through covert elements with independent φ/case. For this content there is good evidence in covert but diagnosable full, quasi, or implicit arguments (Szucsich 2007; Schäfer 2008: 6.6, 7.4; Legate 2014: Ch. 4; Wood 2016; cf. Bittner and Hale 1996), agreement of overt obliques (Jónsson 1996; Rezac 2008a; Árnadóttir and Sigurðsson 2013), and overt expletives (cf. Schäfer 2012: Sect. 6). Dependence theories imply less strongly and uniformly when dependent φ/case is available (Kalin 2018: Sect. 5; for a case-study of double object unaccusatives in English, see Baker 1996; vs. passives, Pesetsky 1995; Haddican and Holmberg 2019; contrast Amharic and Maricopa in Baker 2015).
Varieties of Finnic present an intriguing DOM: they recruit the normally partial or negated object partitive as human-pronoun differential object marking (Ojajärvi 1950), and while they do so typically both in ordinary transitives and in repairs of split-nominative (Larjavaara 1990 on a system close to Finnish), sometimes this seems confined to the repairs, and that needs more work (Miljan 2008 on Estonian; but perhaps due to independent reasons, Rezac 2023a: 6.2).
It is assumed that loci are φ-complete even when π alone would do, with otiose # dashed-underlined (Rezac 2008b); and that nothing bars multiple goal (to probe) to probe matches indicated by ! (Bhatt and Keine 2017). Typical outcome follows from externalisation of multiple unified probes with one value (see below in Sect. 5.2) and of split-matching probes as default (see Sect. 5.3): thus arb se + nominative #-only O valuing T for number, π+# accusative O with T default.
More complex scenarios may be illustrated with Basque. In the present, v has a φ-probe satisfied by any O/S, but in the past v it has a π-probe satisfiable only by 1/2, so 3 O lets it Agree with 1/2 A, while SG/PL on any A still needs Agree with # on T and so A is ergative (Béjar and Rezac 2009), save for π-only arb A which is then correctly licensed by v alone and there is no ergative (Albizu 2001). Suppose further that for underived reasons, arb can only be π-licensed by v. It follows that arb A does not allow v’s π-probe to license absolutive 1/2 O, correctly. This O uniquely here appear as dative, as also in even nonleista Spanish in contrast to Italian (diachrony: Rezac 2023b: Sect. 2). Here it can be viewed as added π-probe on Appl because v already has the π-probe that licenses arb (thus with a slightly different set-up Berro et al. 2022, cf. Kalin 2018 on DOM), or not as a repair but a conventionalisation whereby arb-selecting v uses R when vanilla v uses O (q.v. Pineda 2020; cf. possible failure of complementarity in these Basque and Spanish systems where even human 3 is dative as O with arb but not as O in A+R+O or as S in R+S PCC).
If π of quirky obliques needs licensing, 1/2+.R should be barred on shift of O past R, indicated by ? (Slovenian: Stegovec 2019, but see note 26); similarly with shift of S (cf. Icelandic next: unknown).
Differences from Preminger 2019 mostly do not seem pertinent here, apart from tentative attribution of # to v not cued by clitics, and indeterminacy for arguments not agreeing or clitic (Icelandic, Finnish), and even these (given microvariations on me lui in Romance clitics, Pescarini 2021: 4.5.4; Garcia 2009: Ch. 3, 5; Nicol 2005; cf. Basque, Rezac 2016: Sect. 5—leaving uncertainty when accusative clitics that cannot interact with dative ones, as in Breton, Sects. 3.3.2, 3.5.3). Under Preminger’s proposal, systems with PCC* for accusative clitics but not free strong pronouns like Greek or Italian treat the latter like 3rd person nominals of the system. That works readily for Breton, where free pronouns do not control overt agreement, but must be specific to accusatives in Greek and Italian, where they do as nominatives. Suppose then that nominatives (and perhaps accusatives) can externalise case-marked (pro)nominals, but only accusative strong pronouns (also) larger structures invisibilising φ in a shell (like inert oblique K, Sects. 4.3–4.4; comparably Béjar and Rezac 2003: 54; Preminger 2019: note 7; Coon and Keine 2021: 3.5; cf. Caha 2009; Starke 2017 with lit.). The same analysis would also account for insensitivity of accusative strong pronouns to PCC* in the non-agreement/clitic systems of Icelandic and Finnish, and can be extended to nominatives in Icelandic varieties where they do not agree when not raised to subject and are then immune to PCC*, if at least one raising step still needs the shell-less structure because driven by φ-Agree (“C+,” q.v. Árnadóttir and Sigurðsson 2013; Wood and Sigurðsson 2019; vs. contextual nonagreement and some PCC* in “C,” agreement and PCC* in “A” Sigurðsson 1996; Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008; cf. differences in varieties of Basque, Rezac 2008b—Arregi and Nevins 2012: 2.3.4). There is then less need of φ-relativisation of case: incomplete improvement in infinitives of Icelandic “C,” see lit. in Sect. 4.1, and complete in Basque, less clearly Georgian.
Even in “C,” O→S controls number agreement in passives rather than unaccusatives (Sigurðsson 1996: 2.3), arguably under influence of the separate number agreement of the participle between R and (O→)S, and there is other evidence for this agreement influence (Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008: 266; cf. perhaps Schütze 1997: 109 note 17).
. Citations and constructed examples use the orthography of Modern Breton. The conventions of Table References
Abbott, Edwin A. 1870. A Shakespearan grammar. London: Macmillan.
Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 681–735.
Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2018. Features of person. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Adger, David. 2006. Postsyntactic movement and the Old Irish verb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 605–654.
Adger, David, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person-Case Constraint. Syntax 10: 2–37.
Albizu, Pablo. 1998. Generalized Person-Case Constraint. In Theoretical issues on the morphology-syntax interface, eds. Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Amaya Mendikoetxea, 1–33. Donostia: Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia.
Albizu, Pablo. 2001. Sobre la distribución sintáctica de las formas finitas del verbo vasco. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca 35: 65–106.
Alcaraz, Alejo. 2018. The spurious vs. dative problem. In Romance language and linguistic theory, eds. Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs, and Dominique Nouveau, 5–25. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Schäfer. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alkire, Ti, and Carol Rosen. 2010. Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allen, Cynthia. 2006. Case syncretism and word order change. In The handbook of the history of English, eds. Ans van Kemenade and Bettelou Los, 201–223. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. On experiencers. In Studies in Greek syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey Horrocks and Melita Stavrou, 67–93. Dordrecht: Springer.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2017. The Person-Case Constraint. In The companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. Hoboken: Wiley.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2018. Defective intervention effects in two Greek varieties and their implications for φ-incorporation as agree. In Order and structure in syntax, eds. Michelle Sheehan and Laura R. Bailey, 153–178. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Christina Sevdali. 2020. Two modes of dative and genitive assignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38: 987–1051.
Anand, Pranav, and Andrew Nevins. 2006. The locus of ergative case assignment. In Ergativity, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 3–26. Dordrecht: Springer.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13: 571–612.
Andrews, Avery D. 1982. The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 427–503. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Andrews, Avery D. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 507–557.
Ariztimuño, Borja. 2013. Finite verb morphology. In Basque and Proto-Basque, ed. Mikel Martinez Areta, 359–428. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Árnadóttir, Hlíf, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. 2013. Case in disguise. In Variation in datives, eds. Beatriz Fernandez and Ricardo Etxepare, 96–143. London: Oxford University Press.
Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Atlamaz, Ümit, and Mark Baker. 2018. On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax 21: 195–237.
Baker, Mark. 1996. On the structural position of themes and goals. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Jonathan Rooryck and Laura Zaring, 7–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, Mark. 2015. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, Mark, and Jonathan Bobalijk. 2017. On inherent and dependent theories of ergative case. In The Oxford handbook of ergativity, eds. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam and Lisa Demena Travis, 111–134. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baldi, Philip, and Andrea Nuti. 2010. Possession. In New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, eds. Philip Baldi and Pierluigi Cuzzolin, 239–388. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2018. What is a subject? In Noncanonically case-marked subjects, eds. Jóhanna Barðdal, Na’ama Pat-El, and Stephen Mark Carey, 257–273. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani, and Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The story of ‘woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41: 321–377.
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Eleonara Cattafi, Laura Bruno, and Serena Danesi. 2020. Nonnominative subjects in Latin and Ancient Greek. Ms., Ghent University/University of Pisa/University of Bergen. Available https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336146514.
Baramidze, Leli. 1964. Zogierti t’ip’is mešvel-zmnian pormata časaxva da ganvitareba kartulši. Dzveli Kartuli Enis K’atedris Šromebi 9: 95–149.
Bárány, András. 2018. DOM and dative case. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 1–40.
Bárány, András, and Michelle Sheehan. 2022. Challenges for dependent case. Ms., available https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/005823.
Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Béjar, Susana. 2003. University of Toronto. Phi-syntax. PhD diss., University of Toronto.
Béjar, Susana, and Arsalan Kahnemuyipour. 2017. Noncanonical agreement in copular clauses. Journal of Linguistics 53: 463–499.
Bejar, Susana, and Diane Massam. 1999. Multiple case checking. Syntax 2: 65–79.
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics, eds. Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73.
Béjar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. forthcoming. Person and licensing in Georgian. Proceedings of WCCFL 41.
Belletti, Adriana. 2017. Past participle agreement. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. Malden: Blackwell.
Bennett, Ryan, Emily Elfner, and James McCloskey. 2019. Prosody, focus, and ellipsis in Irish. Language 95: 66–106.
Benucci, Franco. 1993. Temporal periphrasis and clitics in Central Romance languages. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 51–83.
Berro, Ane. 2019. (In)transitive verbs. In Aligning grammars, ed. Ane Berro, 82–138. Leiden: Brill.
Berro, Ane, Ane Odria, and Beatriz Fernández. 2022. Person matters in impersonality. Syntax 25: 147–187.
Berwick, Robert C., and Noam Chomsky. 2016. Why only us. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bhatia, Sasia. 2019. Computing agreement in a mixed system. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Stefan Keine. 2017. Long-distance agreement. In The companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. Hoboken: Wiley.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Martin Walkow. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 951–1013.
Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116: 2023–2067.
Birner, Betty J., and Gregory Ward. 2003. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bittner, Maria, and Kenneth Hale. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68.
Bjorkman, Bronwyn M. 2018. Ergative as perfective oblique. Syntax 21: 321–361.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1993. On ergativity and ergative unergatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 45–88.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? In Phi theory, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Phil Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple case checking. In Ergativity, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 47–77. Dordrecht: Springer.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54: 354–380.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Aspects of the syntax of agreement, 42–63. New York: Routledge.
Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes. 2010. Control as movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boeder, Winfried. 1999. Some notes on the Georgian resultative. In Tense-aspect, transitivity and causativity, eds. Werner Abraham and Leonid Kulikov, 117–139. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bonet, M. Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. PhD diss., MIT.
Bonet, Eulàlia. 2008. The Person-Case constraint and repair strategies. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 103–129. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Broadbent, Judith M. 1999. The amn’t gap. Journal of Linguistics 45: 251–284.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Defects of defective intervention. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 707–719.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2020. Idioms, collocations, and structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38: 365–424.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2022. Locative inversion, PP topicalisation, and weak cross-over in English. Journal of Linguistics 58: 739–757.
Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The syntax and semantics of have and its complements. PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley.
Burston, Jack. 1983. Object clitic sequences and cooccurrence restrictions in French. Linguistic Analysis 11: 247–275.
Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case, Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Canneli, Knut. 1889. Tutkimus Kemin kielenmurteesta. Suomi 3(2): 1–119.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions. In The structure of CP and IP, ed. Lugui Rizzi, 115–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2019. Cliticization as extraction. Revista da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística 5: 1–16.
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, eds. Henk van Riemsdijk, Riet Vos, and Ludmila Veselovská, 145–233. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Charnavel, Isabelle, and Victoria Mateu. 2015. The clitic binding restriction revisited. The Linguistic Review 32: 671–701.
Châtelier, Antoine. 2016. Traductions et variabilité en langue bretonne. PhD diss., Université Rennes 2.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Rint Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509–542.
Cheveau, Loïc. 2007. Approche phonologique, morphologique et syntaxique du breton du Grand Lorient (bas-vannetais). PhD diss., Université Rennes 2.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale, eds. Michael Kenstowicz, Samuel Keyser, and Marilyn Goodrich, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Citko, Barbara, Allison German, and Jacek Witkoś. 2018. If you cannot agree, move on! Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 28.
Clink, Dena J., Abdul Hamid Ahmad, and Hoger Klinck. 2020. Brevity is not a universal in animal communication. Royal Society Open Science 7, 200151.
Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The rise and fall of ergativity in Aramaic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collins, John. 2021. Internalist perspectives on language. In The Cambridge handbook of the philolosophy of language, ed. Piotr Stalmaszczyk, 157–173. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, Chris. 2023. Principles of argument structure. Ms., available. https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/006409.
Collins, Chris, and Edward Stabler. 2016. A formalisation of minimalist syntax. Syntax 19: 43–78.
Comrie, Bernard. 1975. The antiergative. Proceedings of CLS 11: 112–121.
Coon, Jessica. 2013. Aspects of split ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coon, Jessica, and Stefan Keine. 2021. Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry 52: 655–710.
Corbett, Greville G. 2004. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 2015. Hybrid nouns and their complexity. In Agreement from a diachronic perspective, eds. J. Fleischer, E. Rieken, and P. Widmer, 191–214. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Corbett, Greville G. 2021. Splits, internal and external, as a window into the nature of features. Morphology 34: 45–91.
Costa, João, and Sandra Pereira. 2013. A gente. The Linguistic Review 30: 161–184.
Cowgill, Warren. 1983. On the prehistory of Celtic passive and deponent inflection. Eriu 34: 73–111.
Crahé, Maxime-Morvan. 2014. The Breton micro-dialect of Languidic. PhD diss., Université Rennes 2.
Cysouw, Michael. 2009. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
D’Alessandro, Roberta. 2007. Impersonal si constructions. Berlin: de Gruyter.
D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Diego Pescarini. 2016. Agreement restrictions and agreement oddities in Romance. In Manual of grammatical interfaces in Romance, eds. Susann Fischer and Christoph Gabriel, 267–294. Berlin: de Gruyter.
D’Alessandro, Roberta, and Ian Roberts. 2008. Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 477–491.
Danon, Gabi. 2013. Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics 49: 55–92.
Day, Meagan, and Sara Zahler. 2014. The continuous path of grammaticalization in Modern Peninsular Spanish. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 71–81.
de Rostrenen, Grégoire. 1738. Grammaire françoise-celtique ou françoise-bretonne. Rennes: Vatar.
de Smit, Merlijn. 2016. The problem of the Old Finnish passive. Journal of Historical Lingusitics 6: 32–71.
de Smit, Merlijn. 2020. Proto-Uralic primary argument case-marking. Ms., Stockholm University.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. The origin and content of expletives. Syntax 12: 285–323.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2015. Interaction and satisfaction in φ-agreement. Proceedings of NELS 45: 179–192.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2019. Raising to ergative. Linguistic Inquiry 50: 388–415.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2022. Interaction, satisfaction, and the PCC. Linguistic Inquiry 55(1): 39–94.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DME.I 2020. Rezac.
DME.II 2021a. Rezac.
DME.III 2021b. Rezac.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1998. Impersonal se constructions in Romance and the passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 399–437.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2017. Reflexive marking in Romance. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk C. van Riemsdijk, 1–105. Hoboken: Wiley.
Doron, Edit, and Geoffrey Khan. 2012. The typology of morphological ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Lingua 122: 225–240.
Dotlačil, Jakub, and Radek Šimík. 2013. Peeling, structural case, and retroactive infinitives. Proceedings of FDSL 9: 105–124.
Driemel, Imke, Ahmet Bilal Özdemir, and Marie-Louise Popp. 2020. A repair for PCC and inverse contexts in Adyghe. Ms. Available https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/005256.
Egerland, Verner. 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71: 75–101.
Eguren, Luis, Olga Fernández Soriano, and Amaya Mendikoetxea. 2016. Introduction. In Rethinking parameters, eds. Luis Eguren, Olga Fernández Soriano and Amaya Mendikoetxea, 1–48. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbourne, Paul. 2008. Demonstratives as individual concepts. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 409–466.
Embick, David, and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53.
Ernault, Emile. 1888. Études bretonnes VI. Revue Celtique 9: 245–266.
Eska, Joseph. 1994. On the crossroads of phonology and syntax. Studia Celtica 28: 39–62.
Etxepare, Ricardo. 2006. Number long distance agreement in (substandard) Basque. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca 40: 303–350.
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Eythórsson, Thórhallur, and Jóhanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique subjects. Language 81: 824–881.
Fenger, Paula. 2018. How impersonal does one get. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21(3): 291–325.
Fernández, Beatriz, and Ortiz de Urbina. 2009. Datiboa hiztegian. Bilbao: EHU.
Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. 1999. Leísmo, laísmo y loísmo. In Gramática de la lengua española, eds. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 1317–1398. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman, and Wim van der Wurff. 2004. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fleuriot, Léon. 1964. Le Vieux-Breton. Paris: Klincksieck.
Fleuriot, Léon. 2002. Skoueroù emdroadurioù e morfologiezh hag ereadur ar brezhoneg. Hor Yezh 228: 14–34.
Foley, Steven, and Maziar Toosarvandani. 2020. Extending the Person-Case Constraint to gender. Linguistic Inquiry 53: 1–40.
Frampton, John, Sam Gutmann, Julie Legate, and Charles Yang. 2000. Remarks on “Derivation by phase”. Ms., Northeastern University and MIT.
Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gallego, Ángel J. 2019. Long distance agreement in Spanish dialects. In Agreement, case and locality in the nominal and verbal domains, eds. Ludovico Franco, Mihaela Marchis Moreno and Matthew Reeve, 85–108. Berlin: Language Science Press.
García García, Marco. 2018. Nominal and verbal parameters in the diachrony of differential object marking in Spanish. In The diachronic typology of differential argument marking, eds. Ilja A. Seržant and Alena Witzlack Makarevich, 209–252. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Garcia, Erica C. 2009. The motivated syntax of arbitrary signs. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Georgi, Doreen. 2012. Local derivation of global case splits. In Local modelling of nonlocal dependencies in syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Tibor Kiss and Gereon Müller, 305–336. Berlin: Gruyter.
Giacalone Ramat, Anna, and Andrea Sansò. 2007. The spread and decline of indefinite man-constructions in European languages. In In studies in language companion series, eds. Paolo Ramat and Elisa Roma, 95–131. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Giacalone Ramat, Anna, and Andrea Sansò. 2011. From passive to impersonal. In Impersonal constructions, eds. Andrej Malchukov and Anna Siewierska, 189–228. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gildea, Spike, and Fernando Zuñiga. 2016. Referential hierarchies. Linguistics 54: 483–529.
Giurgea, Ion. 2019. On the person constraint on Romanian se-passives. In Agreement, case and locality in the nominal and verbal domains, eds. Ludovico Franco, Mihaela Marchis Moreno and Matthew Reeve, 109–147. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Graver, Jenny. 2009. Passives and impersonals. PhD diss., University of Oslo.
Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage, 14th edn. Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.
Guillevic, August, and Pierre Le Goff. 1902. Grammaire bretonne du dialecte de Vannes. Vannes: Lafoyle.
Haddican, Bill, and Anders Holmberg. 2019. Object symmetry effects in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37: 91–122.
Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages. New York: de Gruyter.
Hakkinen, Kaisa. 1994. Agricolasta nykykieleen. Porvoo: Werner Soderstrom.
Hakulinen, Aulie, and Fred Karlsson. 1975. Suomen akkusatiivi. Virittaja 4: 339–363.
Hakulinen, Auli, and Fred Karlsson. 1979. Nykysuomen lauseoppia. Jyväskylä: Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible persons. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Harris, Alice C. 1985. Diachronic syntax. Orlando: Academic Press.
Harris, Alice. 2017. Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartmann, Jutta M., and Caroline Heycock. 2018. A remark on Béjar and Kahnemouyipour 2017. Journal of Linguistics 54(3): 611–627.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive Person-Role Constraint. Constructions 2. Available https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-376.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1): 1–21.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2020. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Linguistics 59: 123–174.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2021. Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries. Journal of Linguistics 57: 605–633.
Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew and Tatiana Nikitina. 2016. Feature sharing in agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 865–910.
Havas, Ferenc. 2008. Unmarked object in the Uralic languages. Linguistica Uralica 43: 1–33.
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, John A. 2014. Crosslinguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Paradigms, ed. Frans Plank, 75–89. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1-2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64: 83–104.
Heestand, Dustin, Ming Xiang, and Maria Polinsky. 2011. Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 138–152.
Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Phi theory, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 35–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Sci.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, and Lea Laitinen. 2006. Person in Finnish. In Grammar from the human perspective, eds. Marja-Liisa Helasvuo and Lyle Campbell, 173–208. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa, and Maria Vilkuna. 2008. Impersonal is personal. Transactions of the Philological Society 106: 216–245.
Hemon, Roparz. 1975. Historical morphology and syntax of Breton. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
Hewitt, Brian G. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hewitt, Steve. 2016. The Georgian perfect tense series and the Western European BE/HAVE auxiliary split. Handout from the South Caucasian Chalk Circle, Paris, September 22.
Höhn, Georg F. K. 2015. Unagreement is an illusion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 543–592.
Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–564.
Holmberg, Anders. 2017. Stylistic Fronting. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. Malden: Blackwell.
Holmberg, Anders, and Urpo Nikanne. 2002. Expletives, subjects and topics in Finnish. In Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, ed. Peter Svenonius, 71–105. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horn, Laurence. 2004. Implicature. In The handbook of pragmatics, eds. Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 3–28. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2004. Oblique subjects and stylistic fronting in the history of Scandinavian and English. PhD diss., University of Aarhus.
Huumo, Tuomas, and Nobufumi Inaba. 1997. Irrallinen genetiivi ja omistusrakenteen ongelma. Virittäjä 101: 27–48.
Inaba, Nofumi. 2007. Vanhan suomen asema diakronisessa kielentutkimusessa. Virittäjä 4: 582–590.
Iosad, Pavel. 2021. Mutations in Celtic. https://lingbuzz.net/006224.
Isac, Daniela. 2015. The morphosyntax of imperatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jahnsson, A. W. 1871. Finska språtakets satslära. Helsingfors.
Janhunen, Juva. 2002. The Nenets imperative sentence and its background. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 24: 71–85.
Jensen, Frede. 1990. Old French and comparative Gallo-Romance syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Jónsson, Johannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2009. Covert nominative and dative subjects in Faroese. Nordlyd 36: 142–164.
Jouitteau, Mélanie, and Milan Rezac. 2006. Deriving the complementarity effect. Lingua 116: 1915–1945.
Jung, Hakyung. 2008. The grammar of have in a have-less language. PhD diss., Harvard University.
Kaiser, Elsi. 2018. Effets of perspective-taking on pronomial reference to humans and animals. Open Linguistics 4: 630–656.
Kaiser, Elsi. 2019. Word order patterns in generic ‘zero person’ constructions in Finnish. Proceedings of the LSA 4(51): 1–15.
Kaiser, Elsi, and Virve-Anneli Vihman. 2006. Invisible arguments. In Demoting the agent, eds. Benjamin Lyngfelt and Torgrim Solstad, 111–141. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kalin, Laura. 2018. Licensing and Differential Object Marking. Syntax 21: 112–159.
Kalin, Laura, and Coppe van Urk. 2015. Aspect splits without ergativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 659–702.
Kanwal, Jasmeen, Kenny Smith, Jennifer Culbertson, and Simon Kirby. 2017. Zipf’s Law of abbreviation and the principle of least effort. Cognition 165: 45–52.
Kay, Paul, and Laura A. Michaelis. 2017. Partial inversion in English. Ms., Stanford University and University of Colorado Boulder.
Kayne, Richard S. 1979. Rightward NP movement in English and French. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 710–719.
Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and agreement from fringe to core. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Keine, Stefan. 2017. Agreement and vP phases. In A schrift to fest Kyle Johnson, eds. Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton, and Anne-Michelle Tessier, 177–186. Linguistics Open Access Publications.
Kempson, Ruth, and Stergios Chatzikyriakidis. 2011. Standard modern and pontic Greek person restrictions. Journal of Greek Linguistics 11: 127–166.
Kennard, Holly J., and Aditi Lahiri. 2017. Mutation in Breton verbs. Journal of Linguistics 53: 113–145.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111: 315–376.
Klokeid, Terry Jack. 1976. Topics in Lardil grammar. PhD diss., MIT.
Koskinen, Päivi. 1998. Features and categories. PhD diss., University of Toronto.
Kramer, Ruth. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 593–634.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237.
Kučerová, Ivona. 2016. Long-distance agreement in Icelandic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19: 49–74.
Laanest, Arvo. 1982. Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: H. Buske.
Laitinen, Lea, and Maria Vilkuna. 1993. Case-marking in necessive construction and split intransitivity. In Case and other categories in Finnish syntax, eds. Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne, 23–48. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 149–172.
Laka, Itziar. 2000. Thetablind case. In Arguments and case, ed. Eric J. Reuland, 103–129. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 1975. Emplois dissymétriques de la coordination. Études Celtiques 14: 479–502.
Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 1999. L’actance dans les langues celtiques. In Actance et valence dans les langues de l’Europe, ed. Jack Feuillet, 295–345. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 2010. Le passif impersonnel du breton moyen. In L’impersonnel, eds. Françoise Daviet-Taylor and Didier Bottineau, 177–219. Paris: PUR.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 877–924.
Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 357–388.
Landau, Idan. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Landau, Idan. 2016. DP-internal semantic Concord. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 975–1020.
Larjavaara, Matti. 1990. Karjalan kielen partitiiviobjekti. Virittäjä 95: 419–437.
Le Bayon, A.-M. 1878. Grammaire bretonne du dialecte de Vannes. Vannes: Lafoyle.
Le Goff, Pierre. 1927. Du tutoiement en breton de Vannes. Annales de Bretagne 37: 198–203.
Le Roux, Pierre. 1957. Le verbe breton. Rennes: J. Plihon.
Lees, Aet. 2015. Case alternations in five Finnic languages. Leiden: Brill.
Legate, Julie. 1999. The morphosyntax of Irish agreement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 219–240.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lehtinen, Tapani. 1985. Vanhan persoonallisen passiivin jatkajiako? Virittäjä 76: 270–289.
Lehtinen, Tapani. 2007. Kielen vuosituhannet. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Leonard, Stephen Pax, and Kristján Árnason. 2011. Language ideology and standardisation in Iceland. In Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe, eds. T. Kristiansen and N. Coupland, 91–96. Oslo: Novus Press.
Lewis, Henry, and Holger Pedersen. 1961. A concise comparative Celtic grammar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Lloyd-Jones, John. 1928. Some features of Middle Welsh syntax. Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 17: 81–101.
Mac Cana, Proinsias. 1973. On Celtic word-order and the Welsh “abnormal” sentence. Ériu 24: 90–120.
MacDonald, Jonathan E. 2017. An implicit projected argument in Spanish impersonal and passive se constructions. Syntax 20: 353–383.
Malamud, Sophia A. 2012. Impersonal indexicals: One, you, man, and du. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 1–48.
Maling, Joan. 1993. Of nominative and accusative. In Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax, eds. Anders Holmberg and Urpo Nikanne, 49–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Maling, Joan, and Johannes Gísli Jónsson. 1995. On nominative objects in Icelandic and the feature [+human]. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 56: 71–79.
Manzini, Maria Rita. 2012. From Romance clitics to case. In Romance languages and linguistic theory, eds. Irene Franco, Sara Lusini and Andrés Saab, 1–12. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Marantz, Alec. 1983. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. Proceedings of ESCOL 8: 243–253.
Marlett, Stephen A. 1986. Syntactic levels and multiattachement in Sierra Popoluca. International Journal of American Linguistics 52: 359–387.
Marušič, Franc, and Andrew Nevins. 2020. Distributed agreement in participial sandwiched confugurations. In Agree to Agree, eds. Peter W. Smith, Johannes Mursell, and Katharina Hartmann, 179–198. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.
Mavrogiorgos, Marios. 2013. Enclisis at the syntax-PF interface. In Challenging clitics, eds. Christine Meklenborg Salvesen and Hans Petter Helland, 27–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
McAnallen, Julia. 2011. The history of predicative possession in Slavic. PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley.
McCloskey, James. 1983. Raising, subcategorisation and selection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 441–481.
McCloskey, James. 1986. Inflection and conjunction in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 245–281.
McCloskey, James. 2007. The grammar of autonomy in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 825–857.
McCloskey, James, and Kenneth Hale. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 487–533.
McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation, Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Medová, Lucie. 2008. Reflexive clitics in the Slavic and Romance languages. PhD diss., Princeton University.
Meelen, Marieke. 2020. Reconstructing the rise of verb second in Welsh. In Rethinking Verb Second, eds. Rebecca Woods and Sam Wolfe, 426–454. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Menard, Martial, and Hervé Bihan. 2016. Devri. devri.bzh.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 1999. Construcciones con se. In Gramática de la lengua española, eds. Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 1631–1722. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya. 2008. Clitic impersonal constructions in Romance. Transactions of the Philological Society 106: 290–336.
Mendikoetxea, Amaya, and Adrain Battye. 1990. Arb se/si in transitive contexts. RGG. Rivista Di Grammatica Generativa 15: 161–195.
Metslang, Helena. 2013. Coding and behaviour of Estonian subjects. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 4: 217–293.
Meyer, Roland. 2010. Reflexive passives and impersonals in North Slavonic languages. Russian Linguistics 34: 285–306.
Michelioukadis, Dimitris. 2015. Dative arguments and abstract case in Greek. PhD diss., University of Cambridge.
Miljan, Merlin. 2008. Grammatical case in Estonian. PhD diss., University of Ediburgh.
Miller, Gary. 2019. The Oxford Gothic grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, Philip H., and Paola Monachesi. 2003. Les pronoms clitiques dans les langues romanes. In Les langues romanes, ed. Danièle Goddard, 53–106. Paris: CNRS.
Miller, Philip H., and Ivan Sag. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 573–639.
Moltmann, Friederike. 2007. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–281.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1979. More remarks on French clitic order. Linguistic Analysis 5: 293–312.
Morin, Yves-Charles. 1985. On the two French subjectless verbs voici and voilà. Language 61: 777–820.
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Næss, Ashild. 2008. Varieties of dative. In The Oxford handbook of Case, eds. Andrei Malchukov and Andrew Spencer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Napoli, Maria. 2018. Ditransitive verbs in Latin. Journal of Latin Linguistics 17: 51–91.
Narò, Anthony J. 1976. The genesis of the reflexive impersonal in Portuguese. Language 52: 779–810.
Nelson, Diane Carlita. 1998. Case competition in Finnish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 21: 145–178.
Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Haplological dissimilation at distinct stages of exponence. In The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. Jochen Trommer, 84–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1995. Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newton, Glenda Elizabeth. 2006. The development and loss of the Old Irish double system of verbal inflection. PhD diss., Cambridge University.
Nicol, Fabrice. 2005. Romance clitic clusters. In Clitic and affix combinations, eds. Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordóñez, 141–197. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nomura, Masashi. 2005. Nominative case and AGREE(ment). PhD diss., University of Connecticut.
Norris, Mark. 2020. Description and analyses of nominal Concord I-II. Available https://lingbuzz.net/003739.
Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Clitic sequences in Nunggubuyu and PF convergence. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 751–826.
Ojajärvi, Aulis. 1950. Sijojen merkitystehtävistä Itä-Karjalan Maaselän murteissa. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
Oranen, Nicklas. 2019. Differential object marking in Tver Karelian. Linguistica Uralica 55: 261–278.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 315–347.
Oxford, Will. 2019. Inverse marking and multiple Agree. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37: 955–996.
Oxford, Will. 2023. A tale of two inverses. Syntax 311–354.
Paparounas, Lefteris, and Martin Salzmann. 2023. First conjunct clitic doubling in Modern Greek. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Parry, Mair. 1998. The reinterpretation of the reflexive in Piedmontese. Transactions of the Philological Society 96: 63–116.
Pearson, Hazel. 2016. The semantics of partial control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 691–738.
Pescarini, Diego. 2014. The evolution of Italo-Romance clitic clusters. In Diachrony and dialects, eds. Adam Ledgeway, Paola Benincà, and Nigel Vincent, 155–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pescarini, Diego. 2017. Parametrising arbitrary constructions. Probus.
Pescarini, Diego. 2021. Romance object clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David. 2021. Exfoliation. Available https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004440.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy K. Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Pineda, Anna. 2020. From dative to accusative. Probus 32: 129–173.
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.
Postal, Paul M. 1986. Studies in passive clauses. Albany: State University of New York.
Postal, Paul M. 1989. Masked inversion in French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1990. French indirect object demotion. In Studies in relational Grammar 3, eds. Paul M. Postal and Brian D. Joseph, 104–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1993. Remarks on weak cross-over effects. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 539–556.
Postal, Paul. 2003. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potsdam, Eric. 1998. Syntactic issues in the English imperative. New York: Garland.
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Asymmetries between person and number in syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 917–937.
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Preminger, Omer. 2019. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 13.
Rappaport, Gilbert. 2009. The grammaticalization of the category masculine personal in West Slavic. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 74: 169–180.
Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6: 156–182.
Rezac, Milan. 2005. The EPP in Breton. In Triggers, eds. Anne Breitbarth and Henk C. van Riemsdijk, 451–492. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Rezac, Milan. 2008a. Phi-Agree and theta-related Case. In Phi theory, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 83–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rezac, Milan. 2008b. The syntax of eccentric agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106.
Rezac, Milan. 2010. Ineffability through modularity. In Defective paradigms, eds. Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett, and Dunstan Brown, 151–180. British Academy.
Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rezac, Milan. 2016. Gaps and stopgaps in Basque finite verb agreement. In Microparameters in the grammar of Basque, eds. Beatriz Fernández and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 139–192. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rezac, Milan. 2019. The derivation of an unsatisfiable probe. Handout from iterativity in Grammar, Leipzig, Dec. 3–4, 2019, 3–4. Available https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5823857.
Rezac, Milan. 2020. Mihi est from Brythonic to Breton I. Indogermanische Forschungen 125: 325–385.
Rezac, Milan. 2021a. Mihi est from Brythonic to Breton II. Indogermanische Forschungen 126: 313–362.
Rezac, Milan. 2021b. Mihi est from Brythonic to Breton III. Available https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6479190.
Rezac, Milan. 2021c. The development of pronominal clitics in earlier Gwenedeg through Barisy’s 1710 Cantiqueu Spirituel. Available https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5823614.
Rezac, Milan. 2023a. Jahnsson’s Rule in Finnish-Karelian. zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10513515.
Rezac, Milan. 2023b. Impersonal-passive se and person restrictons in Romance. zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10513450.
Rezac, Milan. forthcoming. The earliest forms of mihi esse or endevout in Breton. Etudes Celtiques 49.
Rezac, Milan, and Mélanie Jouitteau. 2015. The Breton inflectional impersonal. Dialectología V: 261–292.
Rezac, Milan, and Mélanie Jouitteau. 2016. The ways of referential deficiency. Available https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005878.
Rezac, Milan, Pablo Albizu, and Ricardo Etxepare. 2014. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 1273–1330.
Rhodes, Richard. 1993. Syntax vs. morphology. In Proceedings of BLS 19 special session, 139–147. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Rhodes, Richard A. 1994. Agency, inversion, and thematic alignment in Ojibwe. Proceedings of BLS 20: 431–446.
Richards, Marc. 2008. Quirky expletives. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 181–213.
Richards, Norvin. 2017. Multiple case assignment and the English pseudo-passive. In A schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson, eds. Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton, and Anne-Michelle Tessier, 313–319. Linguistics Open Access Publications.
Rigau, Gemma. 2005. Number agreement variation in Catalan dialects. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, eds. Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne, 775–805. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557.
Rizzi, Luigi, and Ur Shlonsky. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a nonsubject. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 341–362. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, Ian, and Anders Holmberg. 2010. Introduction. In Parametric variation, eds. Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan, 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roma, Elisa. 2000. How subject pronouns spread in Irish. Ériu 51: 107–157.
Rouveret, Alain, and Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Reference to the subject. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97–202.
Rowlett, Paul. 2014. French imperatives, negative ne, and nonsubject clitics. Journal of French Language Studies 24: 29–47.
Sag, Ivan. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar. In Sign-based construction grammar, eds. Hans C. Boas and Ivan A. Sag, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI.
Sag, Ivan, Lauri Karttunen, and Jeffrey Goldberg. 1992. A lexical analysis of Icelandic case. In Lexical matters, eds. Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 301–318. Stanford: CSLI.
Salzmann, Martin, and Gerhard Schaden. 2021. The syntax and semantics of past participle agreement in Alemannic. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 105.
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. A comprehensive semantics for agreement. Ms., ZAS.
Schäfer, Florian. 2008. The syntax of (anti)causatives. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schäfer, Florian. 2012. The passive of reflexive verbs and its implications for theories of binding and case. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 213–268.
Schapansky, Nathalie. 1996. Negation, referentiality and boundedness in Breton. PhD diss., Simon Fraser University.
Schrijver, Peter. 2011. Middle and early modern Breton. In Brythonic Celtic, ed. Elmar Ternes, 359–429. Bremen: Hempen.
Schumacher, Stefan. 2011. Mittel- und Frühneukymrisch. In Brythonic Celtic, ed. Elmar Ternes, 85–235. Bremen: Hempen.
Schütze, Carson. 1993. Towards a minimalist account of quirky case and lmicensing in Icelandic. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 321–375.
Schütze, Carson. 1997. INFL in child and adult language. PhD diss., MIT.
Schütze, Carson. 2003. Syncretism and double agreement with Icelandic nominative objects. In Grammar in focus, eds. Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson and Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, 295–303. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.
Schütze, Carson. 2020. Against some approaches to long-distance agreement without Agree. In Constrast and representation, eds. Bronwyn M. Bjorkman and Daniel Currie Hall, 215–246. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sebeok, Thomas A. 1944. The imperative in spoken Finnish. Language 20: 240–242.
Seržant, Ilja A. 2012. The so-called possessive perfect in North Russian and the Circum-Baltic area. Lingua 122: 356–385.
Seržant, Ilja A. 2015. Dative experiencer constructions as a circum-Baltic isogloss. In Contemporary approaches to Baltic linguistics, eds. Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet, and Björn Wiemer, 325–348. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Sheehan, Michelle. 2014. Partial control in Romance languages. In Romance languages and linguistic theory, eds. Karen Lahousse and Stepanie Marzo, 181–198. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sheehan, Michelle. 2020. The Romance Person Case Constraint is not about clitic clusters. In Dative constructions in Romance and beyond, eds. Anna Pineda and Jaume Mateu, 143–171. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Shklovsky, Kirill. 2012. Person-Case effects in Tseltal. The Linguistic Review 29: 439–490.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2003. To be an oblique subject. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 691–724.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. Icelandic nonnominative subjects. In Nonnominative subjects, eds. Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao. Vol. 2, 137–160. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sigurðsson, Einar Freyr. 2017. Deriving case, agreement and voice phenomena in syntax. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann, and Verner Egerland. 2009. Impersonal null-subjects in Icelandic and elsewhere. Studia Linguistica 63: 158–185.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann and Anders Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 251–280. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Silverstein, Michael. 1977. Person, number, gender in Chinook. Proceedings of BLS 11: 143–156.
Skopeteas, Stavros, Gisbert Fanselow, and Rusudan Asatiani. 2012. Case inversion in Georgian. In Case, word order and prominence, eds. Monique Lamers and Peter de Swart, 145–171. Dordrecht: Springer.
Stark, Elisabeth, and Paul Widmer. 2020. Breton a-marking of (internal) arguments. Linguistics 58: 745–766.
Starke, Michal. 2017. Resolving (DAT = ACC) ≠ GEN. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 104.
Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stegovec, Adrian. 2019. Taking case out of the Person-Case Constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38: 261–311.
Stephens, Janig. 1996. The acquisition of mutations in Breton. Teod 2: 22–32.
Stolz, Thomas, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroth, and Aina Urdze. 2008. Split possession. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Stump, Gregory T. 1984. Agreement vs. incorporation in Breton. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 289–348.
Sudo, Yasutada, and Giorgos Spathas. 2020. Gender and interpretation in Greek. Glossa 5, 129.
Szucsich, Luka. 2007. Nothing wrong with finite T. Proceedings of FASL 15: 401–419.
Tal, Shira, Kenny Smith, Jennifer Culbertson, Eitan Grossman, and Inbal Arnon. 2022. The impact of information structure on the emergence of Differential Object Marking. Cognitive Science 46, (pages n.a.).
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1986. On the distribution of nominative objects in Finnish. In Features and projections, eds. Peter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk, 139–162. Dordrecht: Foris.
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, eds. Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner, 307–327. Dordrecht: Springer.
Taylor, Michael. 2009. On the pronominal status of Brazilian Portuguese a gente. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 1–36.
Ternes, Elmar. 1970. Grammaire structurale du Breton de l’ile de Groix (dialecte occidental). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter GmbH.
Ternes, Elmar, ed. 2011. Brythonic Celtic, Bremen: Hempen.
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1946. A grammar of Old Irish. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
Timberlake, Alan. 1974. The nominative object in Slavic, Baltic, and West Finnic. München: Sagner.
Timberlake, Alan. 1975. The nominative object in Finnish. Lingua 35: 201–230.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2004. Historical pragmatics. In The handbook of pragmatics, eds. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 538–561. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tyler, Matthew. 2018. Absolutive promotion and the condition on clitic hosts in Choctaw. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37: 1145–1203.
Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Vainikka, Anne. 2003. Postverbal case realization in Finnish. In Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics, eds. Diane Carlita Nelson and Satu Manninen, 235–266. Stanford: CSLI.
Vainikka, Anne, and Pauli Brattico. 2014. The Finnish accusative. Linguistics 52: 73–124.
Vainikka, Anne, and Yonata Levy. 2000. Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 613–617.
Vassilieva, Maria Borisovna. 2005. Associative and pronominal plurality. PhD diss., SUNY Stony Brook.
Vigo, Eugenio M. 2016. Copular inversion and nonsubject agreement. PhD diss., Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Vihman, Virve-Aneli, and Diane Nelson. 2019. Effects of animacy in grammar and cognition. Open Linguistics 5: 260–267.
Vilkuna, Maria. 1996. Suomen lauseopin perusteet. Helsinki: Edita.
Vinet, Marie-Therèse. 2003. French clitics and object splits. Romance Linguistics 32: 223–244.
Walkden, George. 2017. The actuation problem. In The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, eds. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, 403–424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walkden, George. 2020. Introduction. In On a law of Indo-European word order, ed. Jacob Wackernagel, 3–32. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Walkow, Martin. 2013. Locating variation in person restrictions. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 247–256.
Walter, Mary Ann. 2007. Repetition avoidance in human language. PhD diss., MIT.
Wechsler, Stephen, and Larisa Zlatić. 2003. The many faces of agreement. Stanford: CSLI.
Wigger, Arndt. 2020. Celtic past tenses past and present. In Perfects in Indo-European languages and beyond, eds. Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel, 49–94. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Willis, David. 1998. Syntactic change in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, David. 2007. Specifier to head reanalysis in the complementizer domain. Transactions of the Philological Society 105: 432–480.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. On”ergativity” in Halkomelem Salish. In Ergativity, eds. Alana Johns, Diane Massam and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 197–227. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wolk, Christopher, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English. Diachronica 30: 382–419.
Wood, Jim. 2015. Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure. Berlin: Springer.
Wood, Jim. 2016. The accusative-subject generalization. Syntax 20: 249–291.
Wood, Jim, and Alec Marantz. 2017. The interpretation of external arguments. In The verbal domain, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco, and Ángel Gallego, 255–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, Jim, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. 2014. Let causatives and (a)symmetric DAT-NOM constructions. Syntax 17: 269–298.
Wood, Jim, and Einar Freyr Sigurðsson. 2019. Cyclic cliticization in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42: 111–127.
Yang, Charles D. 2016. The price of linguistic productivity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Yang, Charles D. 2017. How to wake up irregular (and speechless). In On looking into words (and beyond), eds. Claire Bowern et al., 211–233. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Yazhinova, Uliana. 2018. Case variation in nominative object constructions in the history of Russian. PhD diss., Humboldt University of Berlin.
Yip, Moira, Joan Maling, and Ray Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63: 217–250.
Yoon, James. 2004. Nonnominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Nonnominative subjects, eds. Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri V. Subbarao. Vol. 2, 265–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Young, Catherine McCreight. 1988. Multiple case assignment. PhD diss., MIT.
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2008. Encoding the addressee in the syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 185–218.
Zanuttini, Raffaella, Miok Pak and Paul Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 1231–1274.
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2017. A formal characterization of person-based alignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 1161–1204.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to two readers’ helpful and encouraging comments, and for the gracious defying of the growing editorial whackamole, to D. Harbour; to A. Nevins, S. Béjar, M. Jouitteau, and P. Widmer for remarks or discussion; to R. Bideault for undertaking the more thrilling of the scanning and the reading of the Life of St. Yves; and to Jyväskyläns who had the patience to explain that they only care to have finitely in Finnish. The revisions would have not have met their deadlines but for the quick generosity of many in sending works unavailable through or embargoed on my library resources, and the invaluable hints of where to track down what in Menard and Bihan 2016. Misunderstandings are mine, because of course they are.
Funding
Partial support: ANR-18-FRAL-0006 UV2 (ANR) and FFI2014-51878-P (MINECO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Breton texts
Appendix: Breton texts
- ALLS:
-
Yves Le Diberder and Stéphanie Guillaume (2000). A liù el loér hag er stéred. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.
- AVIE:
-
Jean-Baptiste Oliéreu (1913). En Aviél. Gùéned: Lafolye.
- Bel:
-
Euzen Gueguen (1625). Declaration abvndant eves an catechism. Montrovlles: George Allienne.
- BT:
-
Ed. in John Gwenogvryn Evans ed. (1910). The Book of Taliesin. Llanbedrog.
- CGS:
-
Louis Pourchasse (1810). Choes a gannenneu spirituel aveit er retraid. Guenett: Galles.
- Cath:
-
Anon. (1576). Aman ez dezraov bvhez an itron sanctes Cathell. Montrolles. Ed. in Emile Ernault (1887), La vie de Sainte Catherine, Revue Celtique 8: 76–95.
- CE:
-
Ed. in Lauran Toorians (1991). The Middle Cornish Charter Endorsement. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
- Cnf:
-
Evzen Gvegven (1612). Confessional dastvmet eves an doctoret catholic apostolic ha romain. Naffnet: George Allienne. 2nd ed (1646), Qvemper Avrintin: George Allienne.
- COL:
-
Jean de Ploesquellec (1773). Nouveau dictionnaire ou colloque françois et breton (1773). 5th ed. Quimper: Marin Blot.
- EOV:
-
Jean Marion (1838). En nor ag er vuhé devot. Guénèd: J.M. Galles.
- Gk:
-
Gilles de Keranpuil (1576). Ed. in Émile Ernault (1928-1930), “Le breton de Gilles de Keranpuil. Catechisme et heuryou”, Revue Celtique 45, 202-271, 47, 72-159.
- HJC:
-
Jacques Géquêlleu (1818). Histoer a vuhe Jesus-Chrouist. Lorient: Le Coat Sant-Haouen.
- IN:
-
Charles ar Bris (1710). Introduction dar vuez devot. Quemper: J.L. Derrien.
- J:
-
(1530). A Man es dezrou an passion …. Paris: Quilleuere. Ed in: Le Berre, Yves (2011). La passion et la résurrection bretonnes de 1530 suivies de Tremenuan an ytron guerches Maria, Pemzec leuenez Maria, Buhez mab den, Brest: C.R.B.C.
- M:
-
Jean Marion (1790). Magasin spirituel er beurerion, en artisanet, er serviterion, hac en dud diar er mæzou. Guéned: Galles.
- N:
-
Aman ez desraou buez san nonn …. Ed. in Yves Le Berre, Bernard Tanguy and Yves-Pascal Castel ed. (1999), Buez Santez Nonn, Brest: C.R.B.C.
- PA:
-
Ed. in Whitley Stokes ed. (1860–61). Poem of Mount Calvary. Pascon agan Arluth. Transactions of the Philological Society, 1–100.
- Pm:
-
See J; also ed. in Roparz Hemon ed. (1981). Trois poèmes en moyen-breton. Baile Átha Cliath: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
- RP:
-
Charles ar Bris (1722). Reflexionou profitabl. Saint-Paul de Leon: Le Sieur.
- TJK:
-
Jean-François Le Gonidec (1827). Testamant Nevez hon Aotrou Jézuz-Krist. Angoulem: Trémeau.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Rezac, M. The rise and fall of a person-case constraint in Breton. Nat Lang Linguist Theory (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09598-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09598-x