The &lt;i&gt;Agreement Theta Generalization&lt;/i&gt;

Maria Polinsky,Omer Preminger

doi:10.5334/gjgl.936

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a new generalization concerning the structural relationship between a head that agrees with a DP in φ-features and the predicate that assigns the (first) thematic role to that DP: the Agreement Theta Generalization (ATG). According to the ATG, configurations where the thematic-role assigner is located in a higher clause than the agreeing head are categorically excluded. We present empirical evidence for the ATG, discuss its analytical import, and show that this generalization bears directly on the proper modeling of syntactic agreement, as well as the prospects for reducing other syntactic (and syntacto-semantic) dependencies to the same underlying mechanism.

Highlights

In this paper, we propose a new generalization concerning the structural relationship between theta assigners and heads showing morpho-phonologically overt phi-feature agreement, when the two interact with the same argument DP
We propose a new generalization concerning the structural relationship between a head that agrees with a DP in φ-features and the predicate that assigns the thematic role to that DP: the Agreement Theta Generalization (ATG)
The generalization can be stated as follows: (1) the agreement theta generalization Let ψ be the predicate that assigns a thematic role to a given DP; and let F0 be a verb or tense/aspect/mood marker that exhibits overt agreement with that DP in phi-features

Summary

Introduction

We propose a new generalization concerning the structural relationship between theta assigners and heads showing morpho-phonologically overt phi-feature agreement, when the two interact with the same argument DP. (For cases that are superficially Tsez-like but do not lend themselves to a clause-edge analysis of this sort, see Bhatt 2005; Bhatt & Keine 2017 on Hindi, Preminger 2009; 2011b on Basque.) treating the lack of attestation of anything like (9b) as a series of coincidences—whereby each particular type of example receives its own dedicated explanation—misses an important generalization. It is this generalization that (1) and (2) are meant to capture..

Refining the generalization

Theoretical implications

Conclusion