Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion

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, access via your institution.

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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

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