Volume 42, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



We consider two sets of facts. The first is that objects may or may not agree with perfect participles in Indo-Aryan. The second is that (pseudo)partitive subjects may agree with the verb in the plural or not. We account for the parameter, basing on the assumption that corresponds to embedding of a DP under an oblique adposition: if P projects, the object is labelled PP and does not agree; if D projects, it is labelled DP, projecting like any other DP. On the contrary, inherent datives, where P/K is lexically selected, must project P/K and are therefore not goals for Agree. We extend this labelling account to (pseudo)partitives, as well as to optionally agreeing oblique clitics in Romance.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alexiadou, A.
    2001Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.42
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.42 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anand, P. & Nevins, A.
    2005 The locus of ergative Case assignment: Evidence from scope. In A. Johns , D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 143–171. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barker, C.
    1998 Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 679–717. 10.1023/A:1005917421076
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005917421076 [Google Scholar]
  4. Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L.
    1996 Su alcuni casi di accordo del participio passato in francese e in italiano. In P. Benincà , G. Cinque , T. De Mauro & N. Vincent (Eds.), Italiano e dialetti nel tempo: saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy, 7–22. Roma: Bulzoni.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Belvin, R. , & den Dikken, M.
    1997There, happens, to, be, have . Lingua, 101, 151–183. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(96)00049‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00049-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N.
    2011 The biolinguistic program: the current state of its evolution and development. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise, 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biberauer, T. , Holmberg, A. , Roberts, I. , & Sheehan, M.
    2014 Complexity in comparative syntax: the view from modern parametric theory. In F. Newmeyer & L. Preston (Eds.), Measuring Linguistic Complexity, 103–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carstens, V.
    2000 Concord in Minimalist Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 2: 319–355. 10.1162/002438900554370
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554370 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chierchia, G.
    1998 Partitives, reference to kinds and semantic variation. In A. Lawson (Ed.), Proceedings of Semantics And Linguistic Theory Volume VII, 73–98. Cornell University: CLC Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky, N.
    1981Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1986Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2001 Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Danon, G.
    2013 Agreement alternations with quantified nominals in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics, 49, 55–92. 10.1017/S0022226712000333
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226712000333 [Google Scholar]
  14. Demonte, V. & Pérez-Jiménez, I.
    2015 Construcciones partitivas y pseudopartivas en español. In E. Hernández & P. M. Butragueño (Eds.), Variación y diversidad lingüística, 15–98. Ciudad de México: El Colegio de México.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fillmore, C. J.
    1968 The Case for Case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Franco, L. , Manzini, M. R. & L. Savoia
    2015 Linkers and agreement. The Linguistic Review, 32, 277–332.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Franco, L. & Manzini, M. R.
    2017 Instrumental prepositions and case: Contexts of occurrence and alternations with datives. Glossa, 2(1): 8, 1–47. 10.5334/gjgl.111
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.111 [Google Scholar]
  18. Franco, L. , Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L.
    To appear. Locative Ps as general relators: Location, direction, DOM in Romance. In V. Acedo Matellan Eds. Linguistic Variation Special Issue.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Franks, S.
    1994 Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 597–674. 10.1007/BF00992929
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992929 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grosz, P. & Patel-Grosz, P.
    2014 Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati. In P. Chandra & R. Srishti (Eds.), The lexicon-syntax interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages, 217–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.209.10gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.209.10gro [Google Scholar]
  21. Irimia, M. A.
    2018 Differential objects and other structural objects. Linguistics Society of America 2018 Proceedings, 3, 50:1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Johns, A.
    1992 Deriving ergativity. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 57–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kayne, R.
    1984Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783111682228
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111682228 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kiparsky, P.
    2008 Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. In J. Good (Ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  25. Korn, A.
    2008 Marking of Arguments in Balochi Ergative and Mixed Constructions. In S. Karimi , V. Samiian & D. Stilo (Eds.), Aspects of Iranian linguistics, 249–276. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Laka, I.
    2006 Deriving split ergativity in the progressive: the case of Basque. In A. Johns , D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues, 173–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 10.1007/1‑4020‑4188‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  27. Longobardi, G.
    2001 The Structure of DPs: Some Principles, Parameters, and Problems. In M. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756416.ch18
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lorusso, P. & Franco, L.
    2017 Patterns of syntactic agreement with embedded NPs, Lingua, 195, 39–56. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Manzini, M. R.
    2019 Parameters and the design of the Language Faculty. Northern Italian partial null subjects. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory1: 24–56. 10.1075/elt.00003.man
    https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00003.man [Google Scholar]
  30. Manzini, M. R. & L. Franco
    2016 Goal and DOM datives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34, 197–240. 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9303‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9303-y [Google Scholar]
  31. Manzini, M. R. , & L. M. Savoia
    2005I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa (3volumes). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Manzini, M. R. , Savoia, L. & Franco, L.
    2015 Ergative Case, Aspect and Person Splits: Two Case Studies. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 62, 297–351. 10.1556/064.2015.62.3.3
    https://doi.org/10.1556/064.2015.62.3.3 [Google Scholar]
  33. Manzini, M. R. , Savoia, L.
    2018The morphosyntax of Albanian and Aromanian varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501505140
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505140 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nash, L.
    2017 The structural source of split ergativity and ergative case in Georgian. In J. Coon , D. Massam & L. Travis (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, 175–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Patel-Grosz, P. & Grosz, P.
    2014 Agreement and verb types in Kutchi Gujarati, In P. Chandra & R. Srishti (Eds.), The Lexicon – Syntax Interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages, 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.209.10gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.209.10gro [Google Scholar]
  36. Pesetsky, D.
    1982 Paths and Categories (PhD dissertation), MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pineda, A.
    2014 (In)transitivity borders. A study of applicatives in Romance languages and Basque (PhD Dissertation), UAB.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Polinsky, M.
    2016Deconstructing Ergativity. Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their Features. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190256586.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190256586.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rezac, M. , Albizu, P. & Etxepare, R.
    2014 The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32, 1273–1330. 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9239‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9239-7 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schwarzschild, R.
    2006 The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax, 9, 67–110. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2006.00083.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x [Google Scholar]
  41. Selkirk, E.
    1977 Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In P. Culicover , T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Svenonius, P.
    2002 Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 5, 197–225. 10.1023/A:1021252206904
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021252206904 [Google Scholar]
  43. Toosarvandani, M. & Nasser, H.
    2017 Quantification in Persian. In D. Paperno & E. L. Keenan (Eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II, 665–696. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑44330‑0_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44330-0_13 [Google Scholar]
  44. Torrego, E.
    2009 Variability in the Case Patterns of Causative Formation in Romance and Its Implications. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 445–470. 10.1162/LING_a_00004
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00004 [Google Scholar]
  45. Verbeke, S.
    2013Alignment and ergativity in new Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292671
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292671 [Google Scholar]
  46. Woolford, E.
    2006 Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 111–130. 10.1162/002438906775321175
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321175 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zamparelli, R.
    2008 Dei ex-machina: a note on plural/mass indefinite determiners, Studia Linguistica, 63, 301–327. 10.1111/j.1467‑9582.2008.00149.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.00149.x [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agreement; dom; labelling; oblique; pseudopartitives
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