1887
Volume 42, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/li.00030.man
2019-07-10
2019-08-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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.
  37. Pineda, A.
    2014 (In)transitivity borders. A study of applicatives in Romance languages and Basque (PhD Dissertation), UAB.
  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/li.00030.man
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agreement , dom , labelling , oblique and 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