1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Bavarian Syntax
  4. Chapter

Complementizer agreement (in Bavarian)

Feature inheritance or feature insertion?

image of Complementizer agreement (in Bavarian)
  • Author(s): Eric Fuß 1
  • View Affiliations Hide Affiliations
    Affiliations:
    1 IDS Mannheim
  • Source: Bavarian Syntax , pp 51-82
  • Publication Date November 2014

In recent minimalist work, it has been argued that C-agreement provides conclusive support for the following theoretical hypotheses (cf. Carstens 2003; van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012): (i) C hosts a separate set of phi-features, a parametric choice possibly linked to the V2 property; (ii) feature checking/valuation is accomplished under (closest) c-command (i.e. by the operation Agree, cf. Chomsky 2000 and subsequent work). This paper reviews the significance of C-agreement for syntactic theory and argues that certain systematic asymmetries between regular verbal agreement and complementizer agreement suggest that the latter does not result from operations that are part of narrow syntax. The case is based on the observation that at least in some Germanic varieties (most notably Bavarian), the realization of inflectional features in the C-domain is sensitive to adjacency effects and deletion of the finite verb in right node raising and comparatives. The fact that C may not carry inflection when the finite verb has been elided is taken to suggest that complementizer agreement does not involve a dependency between C and the subject, but rather between C and the finite verb (i.e. T). More precisely, it is argued that inflectional features present in the C-domain are added post-syntactically via a process of feature insertion (cf. e.g. Embick 1997; Embick & Noyer 2001; Harbour 2003) that creates a copy of T’s (valued) f-set. It will then be shown that this account can also capture phenomena like first conjunct agreement (FCA) and external possessor agreement, which are often presented as crucial evidence of the syntactic nature of complementizer agreement (cf. van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012).

  • Affiliations: 1: IDS Mannheim

References

  1. Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
    2003 Context-sensitive Spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21: 681–735. doi: 10.1023/A:1025502221221
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025502221221 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2004 Beyond Morphology. Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Altmann, Hans
    1984 Das System der enklitischen Personalpronomina in einer mittelbairischen Mundart. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik51(2): 191–211.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayer, Josef
    1984 COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review3: 209–274. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1984.3.3.209
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1984.3.3.209 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013 Klitisierung, Reanalyse und die Lizensierung von Nullformen: Zwei Beispiele aus dem Bairischen. InDialektologie in neuem Gewand [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 19], Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 29-45. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennis, Hans & Haegeman, Liliane
    1984 On the status of agreement and relative clauses in West Flemish. InSentential Complementation, Wim de Geest & Yvan Putseys (eds), 33–55. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Benveniste, Emile
    1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhatt, Rhajesh & Walkow, Martin
    2011 Locating agreement in grammar. Paper presented at WCCFL29.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bobaljik, Jonathan
    2008 Where’s ϕ? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. InPhi-Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules, Daniel Harbour , David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brandner, Ellen
    2011 A new perspective on complementizer agreement. Paper presented at BCGL 6, Brussels.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bresnan, Joan
    1973 The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry4: 275–343.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Carstens, Vicki
    2003 Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a Case-checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry34(3): 393–412. doi: 10.1162/002438903322247533
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903322247533 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chomsky, Noam
    2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InStep by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin , David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. InStructures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–131. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 On phases. InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin , Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013 Problems of projection. Lingua130: 33–49. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
    1968 The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Corbett, Greville
    1983 Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number, and gender. InOrder, Concord and Constituency, Gerald Gazdar , Ewan Klein & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 175–206. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2000 Number. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dalrymple, Mary & Kaplan, Ronald
    1997 A set-based approach to feature resolution. InProceedings of the LFG 97 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Halloway King (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dikken, Marcel den
    2013 Prepare and repair: On pre-emptive strikes and post-hoc patches. InRepairs. The Added Value of Being Wrong, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 131-153. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dudenredaktion
    (eds) 2009 Duden: Die Grammatik, Vol. 4, 8th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Embick, David
    1997 Voice and the Interfaces of Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf
    2001 Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry32: 555-595. doi: 10.1162/002438901753373005
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fuß, Eric
    2005 The Rise of Agreement. A Formal Approach to the Syntax and Grammaticalization of Verbal Inflection [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 81]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.81
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.81 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2008 Multiple agreement and the representation of inflection in the C-domain. Linguistische Berichte213: 78–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gruber, Bettina
    2008 Complementizer Agreement: New Evidence from the Upper Austrian Variant of Gmunden. MA thesis, University of Vienna.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. de Haan, Germen & Weerman, Fred
    1986 Finiteness and verb fronting in Frisian. InVerb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds), 77–110. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Haegeman, Liliane
    1990 Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West Flemish. The Linguistic Review7: 333–363. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1990.7.4.333
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1990.7.4.333 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1992 Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study in West-Flemish. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Haegeman, Liliane & van Koppen, Marjo
    2012 Complementizer agreement and the relation between C0 and T. Linguistic Inquiry43(3): 441–454. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00096
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00096 [Google Scholar]
  32. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
    1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. InThe View from Building 20, Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Halle, Morris
    1997 Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. InPF: Papers At the Interface [MITWPL 30], Benjamin Bruening , Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–450. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Harbour, Daniel
    2003 The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21: 543–578. doi: 10.1023/A:1024196621352
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024196621352 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hartmann, Katharina
    2000 Right Node Raising and Gapping. Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.106
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.106 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoekstra, Jarich & Marácz, Laszlo
    1989 On the position of inflection in West Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax44: 75–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoekstra, Eric & Smits, Caroline
    1999 Everything you always wanted to know about complementizer agreement. InProceedings of WECOL 1998, Elly van Gelderen & Vida Samiian (eds). Fresno CA: California State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Jäger, Agnes
    2010 Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln. Linguistische Berichte224: 467–493.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kathol, Andreas
    2001 Syntactic categories and positional shape alternations. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics3: 59–96. doi: 10.1023/A:1011416809405
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011416809405 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kiparsky, Paul
    1973 ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. InA Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 93–106. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1982 Word-formation and the lexicon. InProceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, Frances Ingemann (ed.). Lawrence KS: University of Kansas.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kollmer, Michael
    1987 Die schöne Waldlersprach, Bd. I–III. Prackenbach: Kollmer.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. van Koppen, Marjo
    2005 One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006 One probe, multiple goals: The case of first conjunct agreement. Special Issue of Leiden Papers in Linguistics3(2): 25–52. Marjo van Koppen , Pepijn Hendriks , Frank Landsbergen , Mika Poss & Jenneke van der Wal (eds).
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2012 The distribution of phi-features in pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory30: 135–177. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9159‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9159-8 [Google Scholar]
  47. van Koppen, Marjo & Rooryck, Johan
    2008 Resolving resolution: Underspecification and the law of coordination of likes. Ms, Utrecht University & Leiden University.
  48. Lechner, Winfried
    1999 Comparatives and DP-structure. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2001 Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory19: 683–735. doi: 10.1023/A:1013378908052
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013378908052 [Google Scholar]
  50. Marantz, Alec
    1992 Case and licensing. In Proceedings of ESCOL 1991, 234–253.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    2009 Why Agree? Why Move? Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Munn, Alan
    1993 Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 1999 First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry30(4): 643–668. doi: 10.1162/002438999554246
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554246 [Google Scholar]
  54. Noyer, Rolf
    1997 Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Ouali, Hamid
    2006 Unifying agreement relations. A minimalist analysis of Berber. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2008 On C-to-T ϕ-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. InAgreement Restrictions, Roberta D'Alessandro , Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson & Susann Fischer (eds), 159–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Richards, Marc
    2007 On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry38(3): 563–572. doi: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2012 What (if anything) does complementizer agreement tells us about Feature Inheritance (and vice versa)? Paper presented at GIST 6, University of Ghent.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Roberts, Ian
    1994 Second position effects and agreement in Comp. Ms, University of Wales, Bangor.
  60. Ross, John Robert
    1970 Gapping and the order of constituents. InProgress in Linguistics, Manfred Bierwisch & M. Heidolph (eds), 249–259. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Sag, Ivan , Kaplan, Ronald , Karttunen, Lauri , Kay, Martin , Pollard, Carl , Shieber, Stuart & Zaenen, Annie
    1985 Unification and grammatical theory. InProceedings of the Fifth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Mary Dalrymple , Jeffrey Goldberg , Kristin Hanson & Michael Inman (eds), 238–254. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Shlonsky, Ur
    1994 Agreement in Comp. The Linguistic Review11: 351-375. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1994.11.3‑4.351
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1994.11.3-4.351 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sternefeld, Wolfgang
    2008 Syntax. Eine merkmalbasierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. de Vogelaer, Gunther , Neuckermans, Annemie & Vanden Wyngaerd
    , Guido 2002. Complementizer agreement in the Flemish dialects. InMeertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics (MIEPiL) II: Syntactic Microvariation, Sjef Barbiers , Leonie Cornips & Susanne van der Kleij (eds) Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Weiß, Helmut
    1998 Die Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110912487
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912487 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2005 Inflected complementizers in Continental West Germanic Dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik72: 148–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Wiesinger, Peter
    1989 Die Flexionsmorphologie des Verbums im Bairischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Zwart, Jan-Wouter
    1993 Clues from dialect syntax: Complementizer agreement. InDialektsyntax. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5, Werner Abraham & Josef Bayer (eds), 246–270. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 1997 Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5880‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5880-0 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2006 Complementizer agreement and dependency marking typology. Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics3(2): 53–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 2012 Agreement without agree. Paper presented at GIST 6, University of Ghent.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
    2003 Context-sensitive Spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21: 681–735. doi: 10.1023/A:1025502221221
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025502221221 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2004 Beyond Morphology. Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Altmann, Hans
    1984 Das System der enklitischen Personalpronomina in einer mittelbairischen Mundart. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik51(2): 191–211.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayer, Josef
    1984 COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review3: 209–274. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1984.3.3.209
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1984.3.3.209 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013 Klitisierung, Reanalyse und die Lizensierung von Nullformen: Zwei Beispiele aus dem Bairischen. InDialektologie in neuem Gewand [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 19], Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 29-45. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bennis, Hans & Haegeman, Liliane
    1984 On the status of agreement and relative clauses in West Flemish. InSentential Complementation, Wim de Geest & Yvan Putseys (eds), 33–55. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Benveniste, Emile
    1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhatt, Rhajesh & Walkow, Martin
    2011 Locating agreement in grammar. Paper presented at WCCFL29.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bobaljik, Jonathan
    2008 Where’s ϕ? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. InPhi-Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules, Daniel Harbour , David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brandner, Ellen
    2011 A new perspective on complementizer agreement. Paper presented at BCGL 6, Brussels.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bresnan, Joan
    1973 The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry4: 275–343.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Carstens, Vicki
    2003 Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a Case-checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry34(3): 393–412. doi: 10.1162/002438903322247533
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903322247533 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chomsky, Noam
    2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InStep by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin , David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. InStructures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–131. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 On phases. InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin , Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013 Problems of projection. Lingua130: 33–49. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
    1968 The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Corbett, Greville
    1983 Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number, and gender. InOrder, Concord and Constituency, Gerald Gazdar , Ewan Klein & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 175–206. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2000 Number. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dalrymple, Mary & Kaplan, Ronald
    1997 A set-based approach to feature resolution. InProceedings of the LFG 97 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Halloway King (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Dikken, Marcel den
    2013 Prepare and repair: On pre-emptive strikes and post-hoc patches. InRepairs. The Added Value of Being Wrong, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 131-153. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dudenredaktion
    (eds) 2009 Duden: Die Grammatik, Vol. 4, 8th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Embick, David
    1997 Voice and the Interfaces of Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf
    2001 Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry32: 555-595. doi: 10.1162/002438901753373005
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fuß, Eric
    2005 The Rise of Agreement. A Formal Approach to the Syntax and Grammaticalization of Verbal Inflection [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 81]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.81
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.81 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2008 Multiple agreement and the representation of inflection in the C-domain. Linguistische Berichte213: 78–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gruber, Bettina
    2008 Complementizer Agreement: New Evidence from the Upper Austrian Variant of Gmunden. MA thesis, University of Vienna.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. de Haan, Germen & Weerman, Fred
    1986 Finiteness and verb fronting in Frisian. InVerb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds), 77–110. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Haegeman, Liliane
    1990 Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West Flemish. The Linguistic Review7: 333–363. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1990.7.4.333
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1990.7.4.333 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1992 Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study in West-Flemish. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Haegeman, Liliane & van Koppen, Marjo
    2012 Complementizer agreement and the relation between C0 and T. Linguistic Inquiry43(3): 441–454. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00096
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00096 [Google Scholar]
  32. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
    1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. InThe View from Building 20, Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Halle, Morris
    1997 Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. InPF: Papers At the Interface [MITWPL 30], Benjamin Bruening , Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–450. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Harbour, Daniel
    2003 The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21: 543–578. doi: 10.1023/A:1024196621352
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024196621352 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hartmann, Katharina
    2000 Right Node Raising and Gapping. Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.106
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.106 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoekstra, Jarich & Marácz, Laszlo
    1989 On the position of inflection in West Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax44: 75–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoekstra, Eric & Smits, Caroline
    1999 Everything you always wanted to know about complementizer agreement. InProceedings of WECOL 1998, Elly van Gelderen & Vida Samiian (eds). Fresno CA: California State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Jäger, Agnes
    2010 Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln. Linguistische Berichte224: 467–493.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Kathol, Andreas
    2001 Syntactic categories and positional shape alternations. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics3: 59–96. doi: 10.1023/A:1011416809405
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011416809405 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kiparsky, Paul
    1973 ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. InA Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 93–106. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1982 Word-formation and the lexicon. InProceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, Frances Ingemann (ed.). Lawrence KS: University of Kansas.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kollmer, Michael
    1987 Die schöne Waldlersprach, Bd. I–III. Prackenbach: Kollmer.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. van Koppen, Marjo
    2005 One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006 One probe, multiple goals: The case of first conjunct agreement. Special Issue of Leiden Papers in Linguistics3(2): 25–52. Marjo van Koppen , Pepijn Hendriks , Frank Landsbergen , Mika Poss & Jenneke van der Wal (eds).
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 2012 The distribution of phi-features in pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory30: 135–177. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9159‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9159-8 [Google Scholar]
  47. van Koppen, Marjo & Rooryck, Johan
    2008 Resolving resolution: Underspecification and the law of coordination of likes. Ms, Utrecht University & Leiden University.
  48. Lechner, Winfried
    1999 Comparatives and DP-structure. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 2001 Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory19: 683–735. doi: 10.1023/A:1013378908052
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013378908052 [Google Scholar]
  50. Marantz, Alec
    1992 Case and licensing. In Proceedings of ESCOL 1991, 234–253.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    2009 Why Agree? Why Move? Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Munn, Alan
    1993 Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 1999 First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry30(4): 643–668. doi: 10.1162/002438999554246
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554246 [Google Scholar]
  54. Noyer, Rolf
    1997 Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Ouali, Hamid
    2006 Unifying agreement relations. A minimalist analysis of Berber. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 2008 On C-to-T ϕ-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. InAgreement Restrictions, Roberta D'Alessandro , Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson & Susann Fischer (eds), 159–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Richards, Marc
    2007 On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry38(3): 563–572. doi: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2012 What (if anything) does complementizer agreement tells us about Feature Inheritance (and vice versa)? Paper presented at GIST 6, University of Ghent.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Roberts, Ian
    1994 Second position effects and agreement in Comp. Ms, University of Wales, Bangor.
  60. Ross, John Robert
    1970 Gapping and the order of constituents. InProgress in Linguistics, Manfred Bierwisch & M. Heidolph (eds), 249–259. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Sag, Ivan , Kaplan, Ronald , Karttunen, Lauri , Kay, Martin , Pollard, Carl , Shieber, Stuart & Zaenen, Annie
    1985 Unification and grammatical theory. InProceedings of the Fifth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Mary Dalrymple , Jeffrey Goldberg , Kristin Hanson & Michael Inman (eds), 238–254. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Shlonsky, Ur
    1994 Agreement in Comp. The Linguistic Review11: 351-375. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1994.11.3‑4.351
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1994.11.3-4.351 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sternefeld, Wolfgang
    2008 Syntax. Eine merkmalbasierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. de Vogelaer, Gunther , Neuckermans, Annemie & Vanden Wyngaerd
    , Guido 2002. Complementizer agreement in the Flemish dialects. InMeertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics (MIEPiL) II: Syntactic Microvariation, Sjef Barbiers , Leonie Cornips & Susanne van der Kleij (eds) Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Weiß, Helmut
    1998 Die Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110912487
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110912487 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2005 Inflected complementizers in Continental West Germanic Dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik72: 148–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Wiesinger, Peter
    1989 Die Flexionsmorphologie des Verbums im Bairischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Zwart, Jan-Wouter
    1993 Clues from dialect syntax: Complementizer agreement. InDialektsyntax. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5, Werner Abraham & Josef Bayer (eds), 246–270. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 1997 Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5880‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5880-0 [Google Scholar]
  70. 2006 Complementizer agreement and dependency marking typology. Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics3(2): 53–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. 2012 Agreement without agree. Paper presented at GIST 6, University of Ghent.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269355-la.220.03fub
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269355-la.220.03fub
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269355
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error