Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Agreement between arguments? Not really

View through CrossRef
This chapter presents novel data from the Nakh-Dagestanian language Archi illustrating a typologically unusual phenomenon of apparent agreement between first person pronouns and absolutive-marked arguments. Apart from their typological significance, these facts challenge current approaches to agreement, which hold that Agree relations can be established only between heads and phrases. The chapter shows that Archi agreeing pronouns do not constitute a uniform class, but subdivide into simple weak pronouns and complex forms composed of a pronoun and a focus marker. Weak pronouns lack [CL] feature specification ([øCL]), and must therefore copy a class feature from the closest v to avoid violating the constraint that all DPs must be specified for [CL]. As a result, the apparent agreement between arguments can be reduced to the unsurprising agreement between the absolutive DP and a series of verbal heads, some of them morphologically null.
Title: Agreement between arguments? Not really
Description:
This chapter presents novel data from the Nakh-Dagestanian language Archi illustrating a typologically unusual phenomenon of apparent agreement between first person pronouns and absolutive-marked arguments.
Apart from their typological significance, these facts challenge current approaches to agreement, which hold that Agree relations can be established only between heads and phrases.
The chapter shows that Archi agreeing pronouns do not constitute a uniform class, but subdivide into simple weak pronouns and complex forms composed of a pronoun and a focus marker.
Weak pronouns lack [CL] feature specification ([øCL]), and must therefore copy a class feature from the closest v to avoid violating the constraint that all DPs must be specified for [CL].
As a result, the apparent agreement between arguments can be reduced to the unsurprising agreement between the absolutive DP and a series of verbal heads, some of them morphologically null.

Related Results

Arguments and Agreement
Arguments and Agreement
Abstract This book brings together new work by leading syntactic theorists from the USA and Europe on a central aspect of syntactic and morphological theory: it expl...
General Conclusion
General Conclusion
Some general remarks are given about methods of argument in metaphysics. The importance of indispensability arguments, and the importance of the fact that such arguments don’t succ...
A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement
A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement
This handbook describes the historical and legal background to the TRIPS Agreement, its role in the WTO and its institutional framework. It reviews the following areas: general pro...
Massive Modularity
Massive Modularity
The objective of the article is to discuss the evolution, hypothesis, and some the more prominent arguments for massive modularity (MM). MM is the hypothesis that the human mind is...
A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement
A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement
This handbook describes the historical and legal background to the TRIPS Agreement, its role in the WTO and its institutional framework and reviews the following areas: general pro...
Reading Continental Philosophy and the History of Thought
Reading Continental Philosophy and the History of Thought
This book frames the mission of the Continental Philosophy and History of Thought series at Lexington Books. International leading scholars contribute essays that explore and redef...
Faith, Flourishing, and Agnosticism
Faith, Flourishing, and Agnosticism
Abstract Faith, Flourishing, and Agnosticism uses conceptual and empirical methods to argue that the many individuals who have ambiguous evidence for God can grow in...
Presentationalism
Presentationalism
This chapter explores the view—“presentationalism”—that normative sentences and propositions are mind-independently true, but what they represent is not normative. There are no nor...

Back to Top