Morphology

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 131–140 | Cite as

Preface: on the morphosemantics of agreement features

  • Jonathan David Bobaljik
  • Andrew Nevins
  • Uli Sauerland
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arregi K., Nevins A. (2007) Obliteration vs. impoverishment in the Basque g-/z- constraint. U Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13(1): 1–14Google Scholar
  2. Baerman M., Brown D., Corbett G.G. (2005) The syntax–morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbiers S., Bennis H., de Vogelaer G., Devos M., van der Ham M., Haslinger I. et al (2005) Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch dialects, Vol 1: Pronouns, agreement and dependencies. Amsterdam University Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Béjar, S. (2003). Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  5. Corbett G. (1983) Hierarchies, targets and controllers. Penn: Pennsylvania State University Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbett G. (2000) Number. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Corbett G. (2006) Agreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbett G. (2007) Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83: 8–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cysouw M. (2003) The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Dalrymple M., King T.H., Sadler L. (2009) Indeterminacy by underspecification. Journal of Linguistics 45(1): 31–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farkas, D., & de Swart, H. (2007). Inclusive and exclusive plurals reconciled by the strongest meaning hypothesis. In Proceedings of the sixteenth amsterdam colloquium. ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, pp. 79–84.Google Scholar
  12. Forchheimer P. (1953) The category of person in language. Walter de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenberg J. (1963) Universals of language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Grice P. (1989) Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Harbour D. (2007) Morphosemantic number: From Kiowa noun classes to UG number Features. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Harbour D. (2008) On homophony and methodology in morphology. Morphology 18(1): 75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harley H., Ritter E. (2002) A feature-geometric analysis of person and number. Language 78: 482–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haspelmath M. (2006) Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heim I. (2008) Features on bound pronouns. In: Adger D., Harbour D., Bejar S. (eds) Φ-features. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoeksema J. (1983) Plurality and conjunction. In: ter Meulen A. (eds) Studies in model theoretic semantics. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 63–83Google Scholar
  21. Jakobson, R. (1932). Zur Struktur des russichen Verbums. In Charisteria Gvilelmo Mathesio qvinqvagenario a discipulis et Circuli Lingvistici Pragensis soladibus oblata. Prague.Google Scholar
  22. Kratzer A. (2009) Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 187–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krifka M. (1989) Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In: Bartsch R. et al (eds) Semantics and contextual expressions. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 75–116Google Scholar
  24. Manzini M.R., Savoia L. (2005) I dialetti Italiani e Romanci. Morfosintassi Generativa. Alessandria, Edizione dell’OrsoGoogle Scholar
  25. Nevins A. (2007) The representation of third person and its consequences for the person-case constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nevins, A. (2009). Marked triggers vs. marked targets and impoverishment of the dual. Manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  27. Newmeyer F.J. (2005) Possible and probable languages. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Noyer R. (1997) Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Noyer R. (1998) Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In: Lapointe S.G., Brentari D., Farrell P. (eds) Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax. Palo Alto, CSLI, pp 264–285Google Scholar
  30. Sauerland, U. (2003). A new semantics for number. In The proceedings of SALT 13. Cornell University, CLC-Publications, Ithaca, NY, pp. 258–275.Google Scholar
  31. Sauerland, U. (in progress). The presuppositional approach to \({\Phi}\)-features. Manuscript, Center for General Linguistics, Berlin.Google Scholar
  32. Sauerland U., Andersen J., Yatsushiro K. (2005) The plural is semantically unmarked. In: Kepser S., Reis M. (eds) Linguistic evidence—Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives. Berlin, Germany, Mouton d’GruyterGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Schulze, W. (2004). Review of Cysouw 2003. The Linguist List, 15 (284) URL: http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-284.html.
  35. Spector B. (2007) Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In: Sauerland U., Stateva P. (eds) Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics. Basingstoke, UK, Palgrave Macmillan, pp 243–281Google Scholar
  36. Van Eijck J. (1983) Discourse representation theory and plurality. In: ter Meulen A. (eds) Studies in model theoretic semantics. Foris, Dordrecht, pp 85–106Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan David Bobaljik
    • 1
  • Andrew Nevins
    • 2
  • Uli Sauerland
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.UCL LinguisticsLondonUK
  3. 3.Center for General LinguisticsBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations