Abstract
The term ‘unagreement’ describes configurations with an apparent person-mismatch between a typically definite plural subject and non-third person verbal agreement found in several null subject languages. Previous works have suggested that languages which have an obligatory definite article in adnominal pronoun constructions (APCs) allow unagreement (cf. standard modern Greek emeis oi glossologoi “we (the) linguists”), while languages that rule out definite articles in APCs do not allow unagreement constructions (cf. standard Italian noi (*i) linguisti). This article presents new evidence from Calabrian Greek (Greko), which corresponds to the predictions for other varieties of Greek, and two southern Italian Romance varieties (northern and southern Calabrese): these varieties exhibit Italian-type APCs but still allow unagreement, contrary to expectations. We discuss how the Romance data may be accommodated by extending a previous account of unagreement and propose that the hybrid pattern observed in the Italo-Romance varieties is a result of historical contact with local Greek varieties.
Highlights
A proper subset of null subject languages, including Standard Modern Greek, Bulgarian, Spanish and Catalan allow definite plural subjects to control third, and first and second verbal person marking as in (1)
We have examined the unagreement phenomenon in the southern Italian varieties from a syntactic perspective
Unagreement is—as far as we know—not displayed at all among northern and central Italian varieties and among southern Italian dialects the phenomenon is definitely patchy, even within the Greek-Romance contact areas, it is most plausible that the varieties that show unagreement nowadays have developed it through contact over time
Summary
A proper subset of null subject languages (nsls), including Standard Modern Greek (smg), Bulgarian, Spanish and Catalan allow definite plural subjects to control third, and first and second verbal person marking as in (1). Choi’s account wrongly predicts the Greek sentence in (10) to be ungrammatical because there is no overt article to license pnc pro-drop (alternatively, the phenomenon would have to be treated as unrelated to plain, definite unagreement) We who.pl fut go.1pl to.the centre eventually ‘Who (of us) will go to the centre eventually?’ This contrast follows if languages like Greek merge person features independently of (definite or indefinite) d in the nominal domain as suggested by Höhn (2016), in the case of (12) scoping over the wh-word inside the same extended nominal projection. We note that we have not found evidence for morphosyntactic microvariation between smg and Greko in the domain of nominal person and assume that the analysis outlined above for apcs and unagreement in smg applies in Greko as well
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.
