Abstract

This article develops a new approach to a family of hierarchy-effect-inducing configurations, with a focus on Person Case Constraint effects, dative-nominative configurations, and copula constructions. The main line of approach in the recent literature is to attribute these effects to failures of ϕ-Agree or, more specifically, failures of nominal licensing or case checking. We propose that the problem in these configurations is unrelated to nominal licensing, but is instead the result of a probe participating in more than one Agree dependency, a configuration we refer to as feature gluttony. Feature gluttony does not in and of itself lead to ungrammaticality; rather, it can create irresolvably conflicting requirements for subsequent operations. We argue that in the case of clitic configurations, a probe that agrees with more than one DP creates an intervention problem for clitic doubling. In violations involving morphological agreement, gluttony in features may result in a configuration with no available morphological output.

Highlights

  • This article develops a new model of syntactic hierarchy effects, including those found with the Person Case Constraint (PCC) (Perlmutter 1971, Bonet 1991, Anagnostopoulou 2003, Nevins 2007), in Icelandic dative-nominative constructions (SigurLsson 1996, SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008), and in German copula constructions (Coon, Keine, and Wagner 2017, Keine, Wagner, and Coon 2019)

  • We have proposed a new approach to hierarchy effects

  • We suggested that hierarchy effects are due to too much Agree in the sense that a single probe agrees with more than one DP

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This article develops a new model of syntactic hierarchy effects, including those found with the Person Case Constraint (PCC) (Perlmutter 1971, Bonet 1991, Anagnostopoulou 2003, Nevins 2007), in Icelandic dative-nominative constructions (SigurLsson 1996, SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008), and in German copula constructions (Coon, Keine, and Wagner 2017, Keine, Wagner, and Coon 2019). Hierarchy violations generally emerge when the lower DP is featurally more highly specified or marked than the higher DP, as in (2) While such hierarchy effects have been productively approached from a considerable range of perspectives (see, e.g., Anagnostopoulou 2017 for an overview of approaches to the PCC), many accounts share the basic analytical intuition that these effects are the result of failed agreement, whereby an obligatory Agree or movement dependency between DP2 and a verbal head (Probe0 in (4)) is rendered impossible due to the presence of the higher DP1 (Anagnostopoulou 2003, 2005, Bejar and Rezac 2003, Nevins 2007, Baker 2008, 2011, Richards 2008, Preminger 2019, Stegovec 2020; see Adger and Harbour 2007).

Against the PCC as Failed Agree
Some Background on the PCC
PCC Effects as Licensing Failures
Caveats for Licensing Accounts
Gluttony and Clitics
Proposal
The Syntax of Cliticization
How This Works for the PCC
PCC Variation
PCC Repairs
Interim Summary
Gluttony and Agreement
German Copula Constructions
Syncretism and Icelandic Dative-Nominative Constructions
Summary
Possible Extensions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call