Abstract
This article presents novel empirical evidence on verbal agreement patterns observed in conjunction phrases (CPs) in Turkish. To account for the discrepancies observed in native speaker preferences in agreement paradigms in CPs, two experimental tasks were carried out: namely an acceptability judgment task and a forced choice task. Based on the results, it is proposed that there is compositional conjunct agreement in Turkish that takes place in two stages. The agreement relationship is first established between the Agreement head and the coordinated phrase in the syntax. Then, the PF spells out the features of either the coordinated phrase, or the features of the linearly closest conjunct inside the coordinated phrase. I argue that Full Agreement (FA) results from the Spec-head agreement with the CP, whereby the features of both conjuncts are resolved and inherited to the CP (Johannessen 1996). In Closest Conjunct Agreement (CCA), on the other hand, the agreeing head has asymmetric access to one of the prominent conjuncts or its features (Bošković 2009; Johannessen 1998; Munn 1993, 1999; Benmamoun 1992). Thus, in CCA in Turkish, the agreement is with the linearly closest conjunct and the features of that conjunct appear on the verb.
Highlights
Turkish displays the following agreement patterns in conjunction phrases (CPs)
The questions I address in this article are whether empirical evidence provide support for the intuitions of native speakers of Turkish in terms of which verbal agreement patterns are acceptable in CPs and what accounts for theacceptability of different agreement patterns in CPs in Turkish
The syntactic component is responsible for the agreement between the probe and the goal in the case of Full Agreement (FA) while the PF component is responsible for the spelling out of the person and number features of the linearly more proximate conjunct in the case of Conjunct Agreement (CCA) irrespective of whether the CP precedes or follows the verb
Summary
Turkish displays the following agreement patterns in CPs. Items (1) – (3) have identical meanings. My proposal is that the conjunction agreement patterns in Turkish can be explained by a compositional account that takes place in two stages. According to this compositional account, the agreement relationship is first established between the Agreement head and the CP in the syntactic component. Treats conjunctions/coordinators as heads of a phrase in a binarybranching structure, typically the conjunction phrase. Zhang (2009) argues that the external and the internal conjunct are in a Spec-Complement relationship with the head realized by the coordinator as shown below (similar accounts in Munn 1987; Larson 1990; Johannessen 1998; and Zoerner 1995). (4) The complementation structure of CPs in head initial and head final languages
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
