Abstract
This paper establishes the generalization that whenever agreement with the finite verb is controlled by a constituent that is not in a Spec–Head relation with the inflectional head of the clause, this agreement cannot affect person. A syntactic representation for person inside the noun phrase and on the clausal spine is proposed which, in conjunction with the workings of agreement and concord, accommodates this empirical generalization and derives Baker’s Structural Condition on Person Agreement. The proposal also provides an explanation for the φ-feature agreement facts of specificational copular sentences. The paper places its findings on person vs. number agreement in the context of recent psycho- and neuro-linguistic investigation of number/person dissociation.
Highlights
Agreement remains a highly complex matter, empirically as well as theoretically
With particular reference to agreement in specificational copular sentences, various ‘agreement attraction’, and long-distance agreement constructions, this paper addresses the question of why agreement phenomena systematically make a distinction between person and the other φ-features
After a survey of the empirical territory I devote the core of the paper to deriving Structural Condition on Person Agreement (SCOPA) and its effects from the syntactic representation of person in the noun phrase and on the clausal spine, and from the workings of agreement and concord
Summary
Agreement remains a highly complex matter, empirically as well as theoretically. With particular reference to agreement in specificational copular sentences, various ‘agreement attraction’, and long-distance agreement constructions, this paper addresses the question of why agreement phenomena systematically make a distinction between person and the other φ-features. Baker’s, (2008, 2011) Structural Condition on Person Agreement (SCOPA) was formulated to account for this, but by itself it offers no explanation for it. (32)(a) all I could see {was/were} two staring eyes (b) all I could see {was/∗were} you (33)(a) ∗ze betwijfelen dat de schuldige ik ben (Dutch) they doubt that the culprit I am (b) ∗ze betwijfelen dat de schuldige jij bent they doubt that the culprit you are (c) ze betwijfelen dat de schuldige Jan is they doubt that the culprit Jan is This again falls out from the proposal in “The Syntax of Agreement: Agree Versus the Spec–Head Relation,” given the analysis of inverse specificational copular sentences first presented in Moro (1997) and developed in further detail in Den Dikken (2006), according to which their syntax involves fronting of the underlying predicate into the structural subject position, as illustrated in (34):. A direct comparison of whrelatives with NON-ROOT wh-questions, leveling the playing field with regard to the placement of the finite verb, would be able to tell us with more precision whether the ‘Kimball and Aissen effect’ is the same or different, qualitatively and/or quantitatively, in relatives and wh-questions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
