Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion

  • 695 Accesses

  • 7 Citations

Abstract

Much recent work on closest conjunct agreement has argued that Agree must be sensitive to linear order. In this paper, we argue that the ‘closest’ aspect of this phenomenon is in fact illusory. What may, at first glance, seem like linearly-conditioned agreement can instead be analyzed as the result of different derivations inside the conjunct phrase. Thus, agreement with a single conjunct is in fact agreement with a conjunct phrase which has inherited the features of only one of its conjuncts. Furthermore, the assumption that a given order of operations inside the conjunct phrase is maintained at later cycles of the derivation makes correct predictions about the possibility for each pattern to occur either pre- or postverbally. Thus, we arrive at a principled analysis of conjunct agreement, which derives only the attested patterns in Serbo-Croatian and rules out ungrammatical structures without recourse to linear order.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For the most part, our examples involve inanimate, plural NPs since these consistently trigger plural agreement and do not show animacy-based interactions with gender agreement. Conjunction of singular NPs results in further puzzling restrictions, which we do not deal with here (but see Sect. 4.4.6 and Corbett 2006:256; Franks and Willer-Gold 2014:108 for discussion).

  2. 2.

    However, Willer-Gold et al. (2016) report that default agreement with postverbal subjects is found far less frequently than with preverbal subjects. We have no particular explanation for this preference and treat both as possible options available to the grammar.

  3. 3.

    For example, the production study by Willer-Gold et al. (2016) found that, with N+F coordination, agreement with the linearly further conjunct preverbally (neuter) was produced 18% percent of the time, whereas the rate of agreement with the furthest conjunct in postverbal position (feminine) was only 2%.

  4. 4.

    Bošković (2009:474) claims that this is not the case, since (assuming the multiple-specifier structure in (i)) ‘every NP in Spec&P in principle counts as a potential pied-piper.’ As a result, they will be deactivated and only the last conjunct can be targeted for Agree.

    1. (i)

      [&P NP1 [&′ NP2 [&′ & NP3 ]]]

    However, this is at odds with the core assumptions of the analysis, since the movement dilemma and concomitant deactivation only arises if a conjunct is extractable. Unlike first conjuncts, medial conjuncts cannot be extracted (cf. Stjepanović 1999, 2015) and as a result, there should actually be nothing wrong with agreeing with the second of three conjuncts. Furthermore, it is conceivable that coordinations of more than two conjuncts do not necessarily involve multiple specifiers of a single & head (see Sect. 4.5 for discussion).

  5. 5.

    In addition, given that Bošković’s account crucially relies on the fact that the first conjunct can, in principle, be extracted, there is no discussion of what actually happens if this conjunct is extracted. Although the empirical situation with extraction and agreement is still unclear, there has been some initial work by Arsenijević et al. (2015). They found that, in the configuration in (i), speakers allow for all agreement strategies (resolved and agreement with either conjunct):

    1. (i)
      figuref

    In Bošković’s system, it seems impossible to agree with one conjunct but extract another, since the two processes are inextricably linked. In our analysis (and others such as Marušič et al. 2015), the determination of which conjunct is extracted is separate from the choice of agreement controller. For reasons of space and empirical murkiness, we do not present a detailed analysis of the interaction between putative CSC violations and agreement, however this is an important direction for future research.

  6. 6.

    We have not addressed the account by Bhatt and Walkow (2013) in detail here. Overall, their account aims to derive the fact that CCA is only possible with object agreement in Hindi and many aspects of their account are not obviously applicable to Serbo-Croatian. However, they do briefly discuss parallels with Serbo-Croatian (Bhatt and Walkow 2013:1000f.). In particular, they argue that strategies of CCA arise because ‘T cannot value its features on &P in Serbo-Croatian because of the failure of resolution of gender features in &P’. The general idea is that CCA arises in both Serbo-Croatian and Hindi due to the inaccessibility of gender features on &P, but for different reasons: in Hindi, the features on object &P are deactivated under case assignment, whereas in Serbo-Croatian, &P does not have a value for gender to begin with. However, this explanation is unsatisfactory for Serbo-Croatian since it is clear that &P can and does compute its own gender to derive default masculine. Thus, it remains puzzling as to why &P does not compute its own gender in those instances in which we find CCA (the explanation clearly cannot be the same as for Hindi since there is no subject/object asymmetry). Thus, Bhatt and Walkow’s (2013:1001) claim that ‘CCA is not an option that languages choose instead of resolved agreement, rather it is a repair that arises when some aspect of syntactic agreement with &P fails’ cannot be maintained if one is not explicit about why gender resolution is blocked in certain cases and not others. In our approach, we follow Marušič et al. (2015) in assuming that resolved agreement is in fact a viable option alongside CCA and that this variability is linked to some parametric property of the grammar.

  7. 7.

    We follow work by Bošković (2008), Despić (2013) and Runić (2014) a.o. in assuming that Serbo-Croatian does not project a DP layer (although see Progovac 1998, Stanković 2014 for arguments for the opposing view). However, nothing in our analysis hinges on this assumption.

  8. 8.

    However, this may not necessarily be the case for all Slavic languages. For example, Slovenian shows dual agreement with conjoined singulars (i).

    1. (i)
      figurei

    Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that Slovenian does agree with each of its conjuncts in number, as well as gender. We leave the exact degree of parametric variation to future research.

  9. 9.

    The main empirical phenomenon that Preminger draws from to motivate the idea of fallible Agree comes from agreement in the ‘agent focus’ construction in Kichean. Crucially, this language has both subject/object agreement, and thus one could view agreement as being due to a fallible, complex probe on T (that is subsequently fissioned into two terminals at PF in a DM framework; Halle and Marantz 1993, Embick and Noyer 2007). Furthermore, in a language such as Icelandic that only has subject agreement, T seems to only bear a simplex probe. This is supported by well-documented instances of intervention effects with dative DPs (e.g. Holmberg and Hróarsdóttir 2003; Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008), where T does not have a second chance to probe after failed agreement with the dative (cf. Preminger 2014:160).

  10. 10.

    Note that, assuming a strictly local, derivational syntax, Upward Agree can only ever be Spec-Head Agree since there will be no other higher structure present at the point at which ↑Agr↑ applies—thus ↑Agr↑ is always trivially Spec-Head Agree. Agreement with an element higher in the structure than the specifier would constitute a violation of the Strict Cycle Condition (Chomsky 1973; McCawley 1988).

  11. 11.

    There is still the question of what formal means can be used to implement (36), that is, how can we ensure that the order of operations is maintained across the derivation? A number of options come to mind. For present purposes, we assume that the order in which operations apply is a syntactic primitive to which the derivation has permanent access. If this is ‘stored’ throughout the derivation, this implies that derivations have memory across phases. However, it seems conceivable that the order of operations could be ‘inherited’ from lower heads. As a reviewer correctly observes, this cannot be done by the operation (downward) Agree in our system since there are orders in which ↓Agr↓ fails to apply. Instead, this operation would be akin to inheritance as assumed for C and T (Richards 2007; Chomsky 2008), which must be a distinct process from Agree. A viable alternative would be to assume (36) as a transderivational constraint (e.g. in Optimality Theory; Broekhuis and Vogel 2013) that filters out any derivations that do not conform to the order of operations established at the previous cycle. We will remain agnostic with regard to the exact implementation of (36), but will simply demonstrate its predictive power in the analysis to follow.

  12. 12.

    Note that we keep the position of Move constant: it either applies first, or not at all. On the one hand, this is for practical reasons since allowing for the variable ordering of three operations means that we only have to consider 6 possibles orders (3! = 3 × 2 × 1). Allowing for the position of Move to vary would then generate 24 orders (4! = 4 x 3 x 2 x 1), and potentially unwanted outcomes. Furthermore, the early application of Move could follow from deeper principles of grammar such as the Earliness principle (Pesetsky 1989) or even a general preference for Move before Merge (see Shima 2000; Broekhuis and Klooster 2007; Chomsky 2013:41 and Heck and Müller 2016:79 for general discussion).

  13. 13.

    It is worth noting that this masculine agreement on the participle cannot be viewed as default morphology resulting from ‘failed’ agreement (cf. Preminger 2014), but we must rather treat it as agreement with coordination itself (see Sect. 4.4.2). The only potential candidate for what may look like failed agreement is the neuter singular agreement in impersonals and weather-verbs, as in (ia)–(ic) (adapted from Franks 1995:293):

    1. (i)
      figurem

    However, we argue that the [n.3.sg] value in impersonal sentences without an overt subject is not the result of default valuation due to failed agreement, but rather agreement with a silent expletive, following Franks (1995) who claims that ‘the neuter third person singular is technically not a non-agreeing form but rather the result of syntactic agreement with an empty subject’ (Franks 1995:113). We follow Perlmutter and Moore (2002), Perlmutter (2007), Legate (2014) in assuming that impersonal expletives are cases of pro-drop in SC, just like it is argued for Russian and Polish in these works. Additionally, Franks (1995:113), Perlmutter (2007:285) and Legate (2014:98) argue that the expletive pro carries 3rd person singular neuter features (also see Svenonius 2002:8). Such expletives also lack semantic content (see Chomsky 1981:323ff.; Svenonius 2002:8, and in particular Perlmutter 2007:282f. for various tests that confirm this for Russian, as well as Franks 1995:294 for the claim that subject of impersonal is not assigned a theta-role).

  14. 14.

    We do not discuss the vP cycle here. One may worry about whether certain orders of operations make incorrect predictions with regard to assignment of accusative case by v. However, we follow recent ‘dependent case’ approaches in which case is assigned in competition with a structurally c-commanded DP (e.g. Marantz 1991; McFadden 2004; Preminger 2014; Baker and Vinokurova 2010; Baker 2015; Levin and Preminger 2015). Therefore, a given order of operations is irrelevant for case assignment.

  15. 15.

    To simplify things somewhat, we do not include faithfulness constraints that might punish deletion (e.g. Max). However, these should be assumed to crucially be ranked lower than the relevant markedness constraints in order to trigger the repair. Furthermore, we do not consider candidates which add features, as this would not improve the harmony of a candidate with respect to *FeatClash.

  16. 16.

    Nevertheless, there does seem to be a strong preference for non-masculine agreement in uniform gender conjunctions (NN/FF) (see Willer-Gold et al. 2016:204,214ff.). Furthermore, the rate of masculine masculine in postverbal position was even lower (only 2% with NN conjuncts and 3% with FF conjuncts; Willer-Gold et al. 2016:204). One option to account for this preference would be to restrict the selection of & without pre-specified gender for derivations with uniform gender conjuncts. However, this strikes us as requiring a undesirable degree of Look Ahead. Instead, one could build this into the resolution mechanism itself. For speakers who do not allow for masculine with FF and NN combinations, one could adopt a higher-ranked constraint such as (i) that protects the most frequently-occurring value in the input.

    1. (i)

      MajorityRule:

      In a feature-value pair containing the values α and β; if there are n occurrences of β and >n occurrences of α in the input, then preserve α in the output.

    If ranked higher than the relevant markedness constraints, this would rule out masculine if it is the least numerous value in the input. Furthermore, this constraint could be ranked stochastically (e.g. Boersma 1998) to reflect the production preferences reported by Willer-Gold et al. (2016).

  17. 17.

    It is important to note that we do not assume that the functional sequence (f-seq) is built by Merge. If this were the case, then ↑Agr↑ would apply before the vP complement had been merged. Crucially, Merge is an operation that checks c-selectional features (e.g. for nominal arguments). Following Adger (2003), we assume that f-seq is not built with c-selectional features since this would entail massive redundancy in the lexicon (since parts of f-seq can be omitted). For concreteness sake, we could distinguish two types of merge: f-Merge and c-Merge. The former would be responsible for building the f-seq (e.g. merging the next highest head on the f-seq that is available in the numeration) and would always apply first (before Move). The latter operation would then be the Merge operation that is of direct interest to us here.

  18. 18.

    A reviewer wonders whether the fact that more than one order leads to FCA means that we would expect it to be a more common strategy. This does not necessarily seem to be the case empirically (cf. Willer-Gold et al. 2016). This depends to some extent on whether one views the order of operations as being random or not. A particular choice of order results in a deterministic derivation, so a speaker could ‘know’ in some sense what agreement strategy they will end up with. At present, we do not commit to any particular claim about the relative frequency of a particular order. All orders are equally available to the speaker at a given time (like the competing grammars of Marušič et al. 2015) and if there are usage preferences, these come from elsewhere.

  19. 19.

    Supporting evidence for the conjunction ‘and’ being inherently plural can be seen by comparing it to disjunctions. Arsenijević and Mitić (2016) note that disjunctions allow for singular agreement more readily than conjunctions:

    1. (i)
      figurew

    This suggests that while conjunctions are always pre-specified for plural number, disjunctions have the option of being underspecified.

  20. 20.

    Two anonymous reviewers point out that another possible structure for conjunctions with multiple NPs is (i), which has been proposed by Wagner (2010:196) on the basis of prosodic evidence.

    1. (i)

      [&P1 [&P2 NP1 & NP2] [&′1 &1 NP3]]

    Here &P2 is in the specifier, while NP3 is the complement of &P1. This structure can be ruled out in Serbo-Croatian, however, based on its predictions with respect to Left-Branch Extraction (LBE). As shown by Stjepanović (2015), in coordinate phrases with multiple conjuncts, only the first one can be extracted (contra Bošković 2009:474 who claims that none can be extracted):

    1. (ii)
      figurex

    Since the first conjunct is in Spec-&P, this is a subcase of LBE. Treating the first two conjuncts as an &P in the specifier of another &P predicts that it should be possible to LBE-extract the first two conjuncts as a unit. This prediction is not borne out, however, as (iii) shows that such extraction is ungrammatical.

    1. (iii)
      figurey
  21. 21.

    Interestingly, even if we were to adopt the structure with multiple specifiers suggested in (87a), agreement with the middle conjunct would still be ruled out under present assumptions. Since ↑Agr↑ is defined as m-command, the highest specifier will always be preferred since this is the closest m-commanded goal from the root node. Thus, we rule out Medial Conjunct Agreement, regardless of the exact analysis of multiple coordination one wishes to adopt.

  22. 22.

    Note that in order for this derivation to conform to the constraint on Uniform Order of Operations in (36), the &P must actually move into Spec-PartP2 where it targeted for ↑Agr↑. We assume that the participle moves to a higher head in extended verbal projection, and thus precedes the conjunct phrase.

  23. 23.

    Another option would be that all operations apply downward and the subject stays in situ. Given the fact that clauses introduced by an agreeing complementizer are verb-final in Dutch, it is difficult to determine whether movement to Spec-TP has actually taken place (but see Diesing 1992; Bobaljik and Wurmbrand 2005 for possibly relevant scope diagnostics).

  24. 24.

    This approach is similar to the analysis of complementizer agreement in Shlonsky (1994), where agreement first takes place in a Spec-Head configuration of an AgrC projection, and this head bearing the agreement morphology subsequently moves to a higher C head.

  25. 25.

    We have not yet mentioned where head movement fits into the current system. One option is that it is feature driven in the syntax (e.g. Müller 2007; Georgi and Müller 2010) and then would be checked by applying Move. Alternatively, it could be viewed as a PF process (Chomsky 1995; Merchant 2001; Schoorlemmer and Temmerman 2012; Platzack 2013). Since head movement does not play a crucial role for the phenomena under discussion, we do not commit to either of these views.

  26. 26.

    This is an alternative to the approach by van Koppen (2005), who assumes that the possibility of agreeing with the first conjunct is determined by the morphological specificity of the resulting agreement at PF. If the exponent realizing agreement with the coordinate (plural) is less specific than the one realizing the first conjunct (singular), then agreement with the first conjunct is preferred. In our account, there is no reference to morphological specificity (since Agree is purely syntactic) and deactivation is simply parametrized between dialects.

  27. 27.

    There still remains the question of how we can account for patterns of upward complementizer agreement in Bantu, where the complementizer agrees with the subject of the matrix clause (cf. Baker 2008; Diercks 2010, 2013; Carstens 2016). At present, the exact nature of conjunct agreement in Bantu is not well understood. However, there have been some recent descriptions of a number of languages showing that some of the variety of patterns found in Slavic are also attested, e.g. Last Conjunct Agreement in Lubukusu (i) (also cf. Mitchley 2015; Diercks et al. 2015).

    1. (i)
      figuread

    The challenge for the present account would be to see whether one can ascertain any interesting correlation with the position of the matrix subject &P and the type of agreement strategy. However, if Diercks’ (2010, 2013) ‘indirect’ anaphoric approach to upward complementizer agreement is correct, then the patterns of agreement we find with coordinate structures may ultimately tell us more about the nature of this dependency than the general mechanism of CCA (cf. Diercks 2010:300, fn. 11).

References

  1. Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases: An essay on cyclicity in syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  2. Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  3. Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711.

  4. Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity and economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483.

  5. Al Khalaf, Eman. 2015. Coordination and linear order. PhD diss., University of Delaware.

  6. Aljović, Nadira, and Muamera Begović. 2016. Morphosyntactic aspects of adjectival and verbal first-conjunct agreement. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24 (1): 7–40.

  7. Andrews, Edna. 1990. Markedness theory: The union of asymmetry and semiosis in language. Durham: Duke University Press.

  8. Antón-Méndez, Ines, Janet L. Nicol, and Merrill F. Garrett. 2002. The relation between gender and number agreement processing. Syntax 5 (1): 1–25.

  9. Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Dominique Sportiche. 1994. Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 195–220.

  10. Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Dominique Sportiche. 1999. Further remarks on first conjunct agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4): 669–681.

  11. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics. Dordrecht: Springer.

  12. Arsenijević, Boban, and Ivana Mitić. 2016. On the (in)dependence of gender with respect to number in agreement with coordinated subjects. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24 (1): 41–70.

  13. Arsenijević, Boban, Lanko Marušič, and Jana Willer-Gold. 2015. Experimenting on conjunct agreement under left branch extraction in South Slavic. Ms., University of Niš, University of Nova Gorica and UCL.

  14. Assmann, Anke, Svetlana Edygarova, Doreen Georgi, Timo Klein, and Philipp Weisser. 2014. Case stacking below the surface: On the possessor case alternation in Udmurt. The Linguistic Review 31 (3–4): 447–485.

  15. Assmann, Anke, Doreen Georgi, Fabian Heck, Gereon Müller, and Philipp Weisser. 2015. Ergatives move too early: On an instance of opacity in syntax. Syntax 18 (4): 343–387.

  16. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  17. Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its principles and parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  18. Baker, Mark, and Ruth Kramer. 2014. Rethinking Amharic prepositions as case markers inserted at PF. Lingua 145: 141–172.

  19. Baker, Mark, and Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28 (3): 593–642.

  20. Baković, Eric. 2011. Opacity and ordering. In The handbook of phonological theory, eds. John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu, 40–67. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.

  21. Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274.

  22. Becker, Michael, and Kathryn Flack Potts. 2011. The emergence of the unmarked. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, eds. Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume, and Keren Rice, Vol. 3, 1363–1379. London: Blackwell.

  23. Bejar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. PhD diss., University of Toronto, Toronto.

  24. Benmamoun, Elabbas, Archna Bhatia, and Maria Polinsky. 2010. Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. In Linguistic variation yearbook 2009, ed. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, 67–88.

  25. Bhatt, Rajesh, and Martin Walkow. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: an argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31 (4): 951–1013.

  26. Bjorkman, Bronwyn, and Hedde Zeijlstra. 2014. Upward agree is superior. Ms., University of Toronto and Universität Göttingen.

  27. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  28. Bobaljik, Jonathan D., and Susi Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23 (4): 809–865.

  29. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. PhD diss., University of Amsterdam.

  30. Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  31. Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5 (3): 167–218.

  32. Bošković, Željko. 2007a. On successive-cyclic movement and the freezing effect of feature checking. In Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology, eds. Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedus, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 195–233. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  33. Bošković, Željko. 2007b. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4): 589–644.

  34. Bošković, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 37, eds. Emily Elfner and Martin Walkow, 101–115. Amherst: GLSA.

  35. Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27 (3): 455–496.

  36. Bošković, Željko. 2010. Conjunct-sensitive agreement: Serbo-Croatian vs Russian. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL) 7.5, eds. Gerhild Zybatow, Philip Dudchuk, Serge Minor, and Ekaterina Pschehotskaya, 31–48. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

  37. Bresnan, Joan. 2001. The emergence of the unmarked pronoun. In Optimality-theoretic syntax, eds. Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner, 241–277. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  38. Broekhuis, Hans, and Wim Klooster. 2007. Merge and Move as costly operations. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 45: 17–37.

  39. Broekhuis, Hans, and Ralf Vogel, eds. 2013. Linguistic derivations and filtering: Minimalism and Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.

  40. Carminati, Maria Nella. 2005. Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (person > number > gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua 115 (3): 259–285.

  41. Carstens, Vicki. 2003. Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with the case-checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34 (3): 393–412.

  42. Carstens, Vicki. 2016. Delayed valuation: A reanalysis of goal features, ‘upward’ complementizer agreement, and the mechanics of case. Syntax 19 (1): 1–42.

  43. Castillo, Juan Carlos, John E. Drury, and Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2009. Merge over Move and the Extended Projection Principle: MOM and the EPP revisited. Iberia 1 (1): 53–114.

  44. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, eds. Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

  45. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

  46. Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  47. Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.

  48. Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes of economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 417–454. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  49. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  50. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  51. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  52. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–165. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  53. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.

  54. Citko, Barbara. 2004. Agreement asymmetries in coordinate structures. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 12, eds. Olga Arnaudova, Wayles Browne, Maria-Luisa Rivero, and Danijela Stojanović, 91–108. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

  55. Corbett, Greville G. 1982. Resolution rules for predicate agreement in the Slavonic languages. The Slavonic East European Review 60 (3): 347–378.

  56. Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number and gender. In Order, concord and constituency, eds. Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein, and Geoffrey Pullum, 175–206. Dordrecht: Foris.

  57. Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  58. Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  59. Crone, Phil, and Bonnie Krejci. 2016. Agreement in English existentials with conjoined associates. Poster at 2016 LSA Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C.

  60. Čordalija, Nermina, Amra Bešić, Ivana Jovović, Nevenka Marijanović, Lidija Perković, Midhat Šaljić, Dženana Telagalić, and Nedžad Leko. 2016. Grammars of participle agreement with conjoined subjects in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24 (1): 71–112.

  61. Dalrymple, Mary, and Ronald M. Kaplan. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76 (4): 759–798.

  62. Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from ‘selection’. Syntax 12 (4): 285–323.

  63. Despić, Miloje. 2013. Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry 44 (2): 239–270.

  64. Despić, Miloje. 2016. Coordinating gender: What can coordinate structure agreement tell us about gender? Studies in Polish Linguistics 11 (1): 1–25.

  65. Diercks, Michael. 2010. Agreement with subjects in Lubukusu. PhD diss., Georgetown University.

  66. Diercks, Michael. 2013. Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31 (2): 357–407.

  67. Diercks, Michael, Lindsey Meyer, and Mary Paster. 2015. Agreement with conjoined arguments in Kuria. Studies in African Linguistics 44 (1): 27–46.

  68. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  69. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  70. Frampton, John, and Sam Gutmann. 1999. Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax. Syntax 2 (1): 1–27.

  71. Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.

  72. Franks, Steven, and Jana Willer-Gold. 2014. Agreement strategies with conjoined subjects in Croatian. In New insights into Slavic linguistics, eds. Jacek Witkos and Sylwester Jaworski, 91–113. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

  73. Georgi, Doreen. 2014. Opaque interactions of Merge and Agree: On the nature and order of elementary operations. PhD diss., University of Leipzig.

  74. Georgi, Doreen, and Gereon Müller. 2010. Noun-phrase structure by reprojection. Syntax 13 (1): 1–36.

  75. Grosz, Patrick Georg. 2015. Movement and agreement in Right-Node-Raising constructions. Syntax 18 (1): 1–38.

  76. Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  77. Haegeman, Liliane, and Marjo van Koppen. 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation between T and C. Linguistic Inquiry 43 (3): 441–454.

  78. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  79. Hayward, Richard J., and Greville G. Corbett. 1988. Resolution rules in Qafar. Linguistics 26: 259–279.

  80. Heck, Fabian, and Anke Himmelreich. 2017. Opaque intervention. Linguistic Inquiry 48 (1): 47–97.

  81. Heck, Fabian, and Gereon Müller. 2016. On accelerating and decelerating movement: From Minimalist preference principles to Harmonic Serialism. In Optimality-theoretic syntax, semantics and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization, eds. Geraldine Legendre, Michael T. Putnam, Henriette de Swart, and Erin Zaroukian, 78–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  82. Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In HUMIT 2000. Vol. 40 of MITWPL, eds. Ora Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance Nathan, and Adam Szczegielniak, 67–80. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  83. Holmberg, Anders, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113: 997–1019.

  84. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  85. Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance participle agreement. In Dialect variation and the theory of grammar, ed. Paola Benincà, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.

  86. Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and agreement from fringe to core: A Minimalist approach. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  87. Keine, Stefan, and Gereon Müller. 2015. Differential argument encoding by impoverishment. In Scales and hierarchies: A cross-disciplinary perspective, eds. Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej Malchukov, and Marc Richards, 75–130. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  88. Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. In A survey of linguistic science, ed. William O. Dingwall, 576–642. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program.

  89. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In Three dimensions in linguistic theory, ed. Andreas Koutsoudas, 41–54. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

  90. Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Agreement configurations: In defense of ‘spec head’. In Agreement systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 159–199. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  91. Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4): 589–632.

  92. Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  93. Levin, Theodore, and Omer Preminger. 2015. Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33 (1): 231–250.

  94. Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In ESCOL ’91: Eighth eastern states conference on linguistics, eds. Germán F. Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae, 234–253. Columbus: Ohio State University.

  95. Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins, and Bill Badecker. 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18 (1): 39–77.

  96. Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins, and Amanda Saksida. 2007. Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 15, eds. Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska, and Ulyana Savchenko. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

  97. McCarthy, John J. 2007. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.

  98. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 24, ed. Mercé González, 333–379. Amherst: GLSA.

  99. McCawley, James. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English, Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago.

  100. McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.

  101. McGinnis, Martha. 2004. Lethal ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 35 (1): 47–95.

  102. Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  103. Migdalski, Krzysztof. 2003. The syntax of the l-participle in Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian and Polish. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics: Syntax-Phonology 5 (1): 54–64.

  104. Migdalski, Krzysztof. 2008. The syntax of the l-participle in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL) 5, eds. Gerhild Zybatow, Luka Szucsich, Uve Junghanns, and Roland Meyer, 435–447. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.

  105. Mitchley, Hazel. 2015. Agreement and coordination in Xitsonga, Sesotho and isiXhosa: An Optimality Theoretic perspective. Master’s thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa.

  106. Müller, Gereon. 2007. Towards a relativized concept of cyclic linearization. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, eds. Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 61–114. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  107. Müller, Gereon. 2009. Ergativity, accusativity, and the order of Merge and Agree. In Explorations of phase theory: Features and arguments, ed. Kleanthes K. Grohmann, 269–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  108. Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41 (1): 35–82.

  109. Müller, Gereon. 2011. Constraints on displacement: A phase-based approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  110. Munn, Alan. 1987. Coordinate structure and X-bar theory. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (1): 121–140.

  111. Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. PhD diss., University of Maryland.

  112. Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4): 643–668.

  113. Nevins, Andrew. 2016. Copying and resolution in South Slavic and South Bantu conjunct agreement. Ms., University College London.

  114. Perlmutter, David M. 2007. In what ways can finite and nonfinite clauses differ? Evidence from Russian. In Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, ed. Irina Nikolaeva, 250–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  115. Perlmutter, David M., and John Moore. 2002. Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language 78: 619–650.

  116. Pesetsky, David. 1989. Language-particular processes and the Earliness Principle. Ms., MIT.

  117. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  118. Picallo, M. Carme. 1991. Nominals and nominalization in Catalan. Probus 3 (3): 279–316.

  119. Platzack, Christer. 2013. Head movement as a phonological operation. In Diagnosing syntax, eds. Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver, 21–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  120. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20 (3): 365–424.

  121. Preminger, Omer. 2013. That’s not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30 (3): 491–500.

  122. Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  123. Preminger, Omer, and Maria Polinsky. 2015. Agreement and semantic concord: A spurious unification. Ms., University of Maryland.

  124. Priestly, Tom M. S. 1993. Slovene. In The Slavonic languages, eds. Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett, 388–451. London: Routledge.

  125. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998. Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics 34: 165–179.

  126. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998a. Structure for coordination (Part I). GLOT International 3 (7).

  127. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998b. Structure for coordination (Part II). GLOT International 3 (8).

  128. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1979. Rule interaction and the organization of a grammar. New York: Garland.

  129. Rice, Curt. 2006. Optimizing gender. Lingua 116 (9): 1394–1417.

  130. Richards, Marc D. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (3): 563–572.

  131. Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  132. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  133. Rochemont, Michael S. 1985. A theory of stylistic rules in English. New York: Garland.

  134. Runić, Jelena. 2014. A new look at clitics, clitic doubling, and argument ellipsis: Evidence from Slavic. PhD diss., University of Connecticut.

  135. Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1995. Specifier/head agreement in Kinande. Cahiers Linguistique D’Ottawa 23: 67–96.

  136. Schoorlemmer, Erik, and Tanja Temmerman. 2012. Head movement as a PF-phenomenon: Evidence from identity under ellipsis. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 29, ed. Jaehoon Choi et al., 232–240.

  137. Schütze, Carson T. 1999. English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (3): 467–484.

  138. Shima, Etsuro. 2000. A preference for Move over Merge. Linguistic Inquiry 31 (2): 375–385.

  139. Shlonsky, Ur. 1994. Agreement in Comp. The Linguistic Review 11: 351–375.

  140. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann, and Anders Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. In Agreement restrictions, eds. Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 251–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  141. Smith, Peter W. 2015. Feature mismatches: Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. PhD diss., University of Connecticut.

  142. Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Default rules and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28 (2): 318–343.

  143. Sobin, Nicholas. 2014. Th/Ex, agreement, and case in expletive sentences. Syntax 17 (4): 385–416.

  144. Stankiewicz, Edward. 1986. The grammatical genders of the Slavic languages. In The Slavic languages: Unity and diversity, ed. Edward Stankiewicz, 127–139. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  145. Stanković, Branimir. 2014. Sintaksa i semantika odredjenog i neodredjenog pridevskog vida u srpskom jeziku [The syntax and semantics of definite and indefinite adjectives in Serbian]. PhD diss., University of Kragujevac.

  146. Stevanović, Mihailo. 1989. Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik 2 [Contemporary Serbo-Croatian language]. Belgrade: IRO Naučna Knjiga.

  147. Stjepanović, Sandra. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling and multiple wh-fronting have in common? PhD diss., University of Connecticut.

  148. Stjepanović, Sandra. 2015. Left branch extraction and the coordinate structure constraint. Ms., West Virginia University.

  149. Stroik, Thomas S. 2009. Locality in Minimalist syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  150. Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Introduction. In Subjects, expletives, and the epp, ed. Peter Svenonius, 1–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  151. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Extraposition from NP and prosodic structure. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 25, ed. Jill N. Beckman, 503–517. Amherst: GLSA.

  152. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. New York: Oxford University Press.

  153. van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe – two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. PhD diss., University of Utrecht.

  154. van Koppen, Marjo. 2008. Agreement with coordinate subjects: A comparative perspective. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 121–161.

  155. van Koppen, Marjo, and Johan Rooryck. 2008. Resolving resolution: Underspecification and the law of coordination of likes. Ms., Utrecht University and Leiden University.

  156. van Urk, Coppe, and Norvin Richards. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46 (1): 113–155.

  157. Wagner, Michael. 2010. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 183–237.

  158. Walkow, Martin. 2014. When can you agree with a closest conjunct? In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 31, ed. Robert E. Santana-LaBarge, 474–483. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

  159. Weisser, Philipp. 2015. Derived coordination: A Minimalist perspective on clause chains, converbs and asymmetric coordination. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  160. Willer-Gold, Jana, Boban Arsenijević, Mia Batinić, Nermina Čordalija, Marijana Kresić, Nedžad Leko, Lanko Marušič, Tanja Milićev, Nataša Milićević, Ivana Mitić, Andrew Nevins, Anita Peti-Stantić, Branimir Stanković, Tina Šuligoj, and Jelena Tušek. 2016. Morphosyntactic production of coordination agreement in South Slavic: From theory to experiments. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24 (1): 187–224.

  161. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2012. Parasitic participles: Evidence for the theory of verb clusters. Taal en Tongval 64: 129–156.

  162. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29 (3): 491–553.

  163. Zoerner, Ed. 1995. Coordination: The syntax of &p. PhD diss., University of California, Irvine.

  164. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax: A Minimalist approach. PhD diss., University of Groningen.

Download references

Acknowledgements

For invaluable feedback at various stages of this work, we would like to thank Gereon Müller, Philipp Weisser, Doreen Georgi, Andrew Nevins, Lanko Marušič, Jana Willer-Gold, Boban Arsenijević, Anke Himmelreich, Martin Salzmann, Sandhya Sundaresan, Rajesh Bhatt, and Ad Neeleman, as well as three anonymous reviewers for NLLT whose comments and questions led to vast improvements in the paper. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at University of Leipzig, Goethe University Frankfurt, FDSL 10.5 in Brno and ConSOLE XXIII in Paris and Agreement Across Borders 2015 in Zadar. We would like to thank the participants at these locations for their feedback. Particular thanks go to the members of the project Coordinated Research in the Experimental Morphosyntax of South Slavic Languages (EMSS) at University College London for discussion of their findings. This research was completed as part of the DFG research training group Interaction of Grammatical Building Blocks (GRK 2011).

Author information

Correspondence to Andrew Murphy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murphy, A., Puškar, Z. Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 36, 1207–1261 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9396-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Agreement
  • Coordination
  • Serbo-Croatian
  • Gender
  • Syntax