Elided Clausal Conjunction Is Not the Only Source of Closest‐Conjunct Agreement: A Picture‐Matching Study

Boban Arsenijević,Nadira Aljović,Jana Willer‐Gold,Jelena Tušek,Andrew Nevins,Petra Mišmaš,Tanja Milićev,Nedžad Leko,Branimir Stanković,Nermina Čordalija,Marijana Kresić Vukosav,Anita Peti‐Stantić,Frane Malenica,Franc Lanko Marušič,Ivana Mitić,Nataša Milićević

doi:10.1111/synt.12171

Abstract

AbstractA recurring hypothesis about the agreement phenomena generalized as closest‐conjunct agreement takes this pattern to result from reduced clausal conjunction, simply displaying the agreement of the verb with the nonconjoined subject of the clause whose content survives ellipsis (Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche 1994, 1999; see also Wilder 1997). Closest‐conjunct agreement is the dominant agreement pattern in the South Slavic languages Slovenian and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. A natural question is whether closest‐conjunct agreement in these varieties may indeed be analyzed as entirely derived from conjunction reduction. In this article, we report on two experiments conducted to test this. The results reject the hypothesis as far as these languages are concerned, thereby upholding the relevance of models developed to account for closest‐conjunct agreement within theories of agreement.

Highlights

A hypothesis that keeps coming back about the agreement phenomena generalized as conjunct agreement (CCA) is that this pattern results from reduced clausal conjunction and reflects
The experiment was identical to experiment 2 except that the variable clause size was replaced with agreement pattern, so that instead of biclausal examples, monoclausal examples with the default agreement pattern were used; the contrast was between CCA and default agreement
No significant effect was attested for agreement pattern (p = .19, 3.852606), with a 90% rate of choice of the one-event reading for the default-agreement level versus 87% for CCA

Summary

Introduction

In a range of typologically and genetically diverse languages, including Hindi, Arabic, and different members of the Slavic family, a conjoined subject may trigger verbal agreement with one of its conjuncts, as in (1) (Munn 1999, Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche 1994, 1999, Babyonyshev 1996, Marusic, Nevins & Saksida 2007, Marusic, Nevins & Badecker 2015, Bhatt & Walkow 2013, among others).1(1) Qaraʔat ʕaliyaa wa ʕumar l-qißsßsa.Standard Arabic read..F.SG Alia and Omar the-story ‘Alia and Omar read the story.’ (Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche 1994:207)In some languages, this single-conjunct agreement only occurs with the first conjunct (first-conjunct agreement), in others only with the last (last-conjunct agreement); inWe thank Klaus Abels, Susana Bejar, Carlo Geraci, Anna Grabovac, Andrew Murphy, and Gary Thoms for comments. In a range of typologically and genetically diverse languages, including Hindi, Arabic, and different members of the Slavic family, a conjoined subject may trigger verbal agreement with one of its conjuncts, as in (1) (Munn 1999, Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche 1994, 1999, Babyonyshev 1996, Marusic, Nevins & Saksida 2007, Marusic, Nevins & Badecker 2015, Bhatt & Walkow 2013, among others).. Standard Arabic read..F.SG Alia and Omar the-story ‘Alia and Omar read the story.’ (Aoun, Benmamoun & Sportiche 1994:207). In some languages, this single-conjunct agreement only occurs with the first conjunct (first-conjunct agreement), in others only with the last (last-conjunct agreement); in.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion