Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 453–481 | Cite as

Agreement and person in anti-agreement

  • Brent Henderson
Article

Abstract

Many languages display correlations between subject-verb agreement and subject extraction that have come to be known as anti-agreement effects. This paper explores an anti-agreement effect found in many Bantu languages whereby a third person singular human subject triggers a unique verbal agreement marker when the subject is extracted. It is argued that co-variation of certain morphological properties of constructions with subject extraction points to an agreement relation between C and T underlying the anti-agreement effect, a conclusion that converges with proposals from Richards (2001) and Boeckx (2003) about the nature of extraction. I also argue that although this agreement relationship involves full sets of phi-features, the differing values acquired by the feature [person] in the nominal and verbal domains often makes it appear as if [person] is uniquely affected in anti-agreement contexts. Finally, I argue that variation in how anti-agreement is spelled out in a language is determined by morphological quirks of the language, especially the organization of its agreement paradigm. I illustrate this latter point using the framework of distributed morphology.

Keywords

Anti-agreement Bantu Phi features Distributed morphology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Cedric Boeckx, Eyamba Bokamba, Nancy Kula, Eric Potsdam and three anonymous reviewers for comments on this work. Also thanks to the participants of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics at the University of Florida as well as the 45th Chicago Linguistic Society where earlier versions of this work were presented. Special thanks to Patricia Mupeta for providing or confirming all of the Bemba data in this paper.

References

  1. Aoun, Joseph, and Audrey Li. 1990. Minimal disjointness. Linguistics 28: 189–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, Mark. 2008. On the nature of the anti-agreement effect: Evidence from wh-in-situ in Ibibio. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 615–632. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett-Keach, Camilla. 1986. Word-internal evidence from Swahili for AUX/INFL. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 559–564. Google Scholar
  4. Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  5. Bokamba, Eyamba. 1976. Relativization in Bantu languages revisited. In The second LACUS forum, ed. Peter A. Riech, 38–50. London: Hornbeam Press. Google Scholar
  6. Boukhris, Fatima. 1998. Les clitiques en Berbère Tamazighte. PhD diss., University Mohamed V, Rabat, Morocco. Google Scholar
  7. Brandi, Luciana, and Patrizia Cordin. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In The null subject parameter, eds. Otto Jaeggli and Ken Safir, 111–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carstens, Vicki. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against ϕ-(in)completeness. Syntax 3: 147–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carstens, Vicki. 2008. Feature inheritance in Bantu. Ms., University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. Google Scholar
  10. Cheng, Lisa. 2006. Decomposing Bantu relatives. In Proceedings of NELS, Vol. 36, 197–216. Google Scholar
  11. Cheng, Lisa, and Nancy Kula. 2007. Phonological and syntactic phrasing in Bemba relatives. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 28: 123–148. Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays on minimalism in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin et al., 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  15. Choueri, Lina. 2002. Issues in the syntax of resumption: restrictive relatives in Lebanese Arabic. PhD diss., University of Southern, California, Los Angeles, CA. Google Scholar
  16. Chung, Sandra. 1982. Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 39–77. Google Scholar
  17. Demuth, Katherine. 1995. Questions, relatives, and minimal projection. Language Acquisition 4: 49–71. Google Scholar
  18. Diercks, Michael. 2009. Subject extraction and (so-called) anti-agreement effects in Bukusu: A criterial freezing approach. In Proceeding of the Chicago Linguistics Society 45(1), eds. R. Bochnak et al., Chicago, IL, 55–69. Google Scholar
  19. Gerdts, Donna. 1980. Antipassives and causatives in Halkomelem. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 6: 300–314. Google Scholar
  20. Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2000. Prolific peripheries: A radical view from the left. PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Google Scholar
  21. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, eds. Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press Google Scholar
  22. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In Papers in phonology and morphology (MITWPL 21), eds. Andrew Carnie et al., Cambridge, MA, 275–288. Google Scholar
  23. Harley, Heidi. 1994. Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. In Papers in phonology and morphology (MITWPL 21), eds. Andrew Carnie et al., Cambridge, MA, 289–320. Google Scholar
  24. Harley, Heidi, and Rolf Noyer. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed morphology. GLOT International 4: 3–9. Google Scholar
  25. Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78: 482–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henderson, Brent. 2004. PF evidence for phases and distributed morphology. In Proceedings of the thirty-fourth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. Keir Moulton and Matthew Wolf, 255–265. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  27. Henderson, Brent. 2006. The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses. PhD diss., University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, IL. Google Scholar
  28. Henderson, Brent. 2009. Anti-agreement and [Person] in Bantu. In Selected proceedings of the 38th annual conference on African linguistics: Linguistic theory and African language documentation, eds. Masangu Matondo, Fiona McLaughlin, and Eric Potsdam, 173–181. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  29. Henderson, Brent. 2011. Agreement, locality, and OVS in Bantu. Lingua 121 (5): 742–753. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hyman, Larry, and Francis Katamba. 1993. The augment in Luganda: Syntax or pragmatics? In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1, ed. Sam Mchombo, 209–256. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  31. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  32. Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. PhD diss., UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Google Scholar
  33. Kinyalolo, Kasangati. 1991. Syntactic dependencies and the spec-head agreement hypothesis in KiLega. PhD diss., UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Google Scholar
  34. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1991. Some current issues in Turkish syntax. In Turkish linguistics today, eds. Hendrik Boeschoten and Ludo Verhoeven, 60–92. Leiden: Brill Publishers. Google Scholar
  35. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. On the syntax and morphology of relative clauses in Turkish. In Linguistic investigations, eds. K. Èmer, A. Kocaman, and S. Özsoy, 24–51. Ankara: Kebikeç Yaynlar. Google Scholar
  36. Longobardi, Giusseppe. 2005. Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 24: 5–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2008. Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Essays on nominal determination, eds. Alex Klinge and Henrik Müller, 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  38. McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A′-binding, and levels of representation in Irish. In The syntax of the modern Celtic languages. ed. Randall Hendrick. Vol. 23 of Syntax and semantics. 199–256. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  39. Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for the person-case constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ngonyani, Deo. 1999. X°-movement in Kiswahili relative clause verbs. Linguistic Analysis 29 (1–2): 137–159. Google Scholar
  41. Nurse, Derek, and Gerard Philippson. 2003. The Bantu languages. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
  42. Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-to-T phi-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. In Agreement restrictions, eds. R. D’Alessandro et al., 159–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  43. Ouhalla, Jamal. 1993. Subject extraction, negation and the anti-agreement effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 477–518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ouhalla, Jamal. 2005. Agreement features, agreement, and anti-agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 655–686. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  46. Phillips, Colin. 1998. Disagreement between adults and children. In Theoretical issues in the morphology-syntax interface, eds. Amaya Mendikoetxea and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 173–212. San Sebastian: ASJU. Google Scholar
  47. Progovac, Ljiljiana. 1993. Non-augmented NPs in Kinande as negative polarity items. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1, ed. Sam Mchombo, 257–270. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  48. Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  49. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook of generative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sabel, Joachim, and Jochen Zeller. 2006. Wh-question formation in Nguni. In African languages and linguistics in broad perspective (selected proceedings of the 35th annual conference of African linguistics, Harvard, Cambridge), eds. John Mugane, John Hutchison, and Dee Worman, 271–283. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  51. Sabimana, Firmard. 1986. The relational structure of Kirundi verbs. PhD diss., Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. Google Scholar
  52. Schafer, Robin. 1995. Negation and verb second in Breton. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13 (2): 135–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2000. Anti-agreement and the fine structure of the left edge. In University of California Irvine working papers in linguistics 6, eds. Ruixi Ai, Francesca Del Gobbo et al., Irvine, CA. Available at http://hssfaculty.fullerton.edu/english/pzioga/for%20website/UCI_working_papers.pdf. Google Scholar
  54. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2002. The case of anti-agreement. In Proceedings of AFLA 8: Eighth meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, MITWIPL 8, eds. Andrea Rackowsky and Norvin Richards, 325–339. Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  55. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007. Anti-agreement, anti-locality and minimality: The syntax of dislocated subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (2): 403–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stowell, Tim. 1991. Determiners in NP and DP. In Views on phrase structure, eds. Katherine Leffel and Denis Bouchard, 37–56. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walusimbi, Livingstone. 1996. Relative clauses in Luganda. Koln: Rudiger Koppe Verlag. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations