Abstract
We examine a set of agreement asymmetries in the Turkish nominal domain, motivating two core generalizations. Firstly, the assignment of genitive case yields an opacifying effect, making certain large nominals, but not pronouns, into domains inaccessible for agreement. Secondly, this opacifying effect is overridden in cases of binding: if an element that normally fails to agree acts as a binder, it can exceptionally participate in an agreement relationship. We examine the implications of these findings for recent proposals on the nature of the Anaphor Agreement Effect, and for the relationship between case, agreement, and binding.
Highlights
In the Turkish nominal domain, pronouns and anaphors differ in terms of agreement: pronouns obligatorily trigger full nominal agreement, whereas anaphor fail to agree, yielding default third-singular agreement
We find that two anaphors, each with different binding-theoretic requirements, behave uniformly with respect to agreement; as such, whatever derives the agreement asymmetry cannot make direct reference to binding
Recall that the subjects of verbal clauses are nominative, whereas the subjects of nominalized clauses are genitive; we suggest that genitive case is the factor responsible for the emergence of default agreement in the nominal domain
Summary
In the Turkish nominal domain, pronouns and anaphors differ in terms of agreement: pronouns obligatorily trigger full nominal agreement, whereas anaphor fail to agree, yielding default third-singular agreement. B. * (Bizi) [ biz-imi / proi sınav-ı geç-tiğ-in you.pl we-gen exam-acc pass-fnmlz-3sg.poss -acc believe-prog-pst-1pl. Ayşe.nom we-gen cake-acc eat-fnmlz-3sg.poss -dat believe-prog-3sg ‘Ayşe believes that we ate the cake.’ These data are unexpected under a binding-based account of the agreement asymmetry. Bizi [ kendi-miz-ini sınav-ı geç-tiğ-in we self-1pl-gen exam-acc pass-fnmlz-3sg -acc believe-prog-pst-1pl ‘We believed that ourselves passed the exam.’. These data directly contradict the binding-based approach. In nominalized embedded clauses, the two sets of pronouns diverge: biz/siz continue to trigger obligatory co-varying agreement, as seen repeatedly in many examples so far, whereas bizler/sizler trigger default agreement, patterning with anaphors, partitives and APCs. Kemal we-gen there go-fnmlz-1pl.poss -acc think-pst-3sg b. What is the property, shared by anaphors, partitives, APCs and inflected pronouns, that triggers default agreement? (We call these elements default-triggering NPs )
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.
