Abstract
Based on the cross- and intra-linguistic distribution of Person Case Constraint (PCC) effects, this paper shows that there can be no agreement in ϕ-features (PERSON, NUMBER, GENDER/NOUN-CLASS) which systematically lacks a morpho-phonological footprint. That is, there is no such thing as “abstract” ϕ-agreement, null across the entire paradigm. Applying the same diagnostic to instances of clitic doubling, we see that these do involve syntactic agreement. This cannot be because clitic doubling is agreement; it behaves like movement (and unlike agreement) in a variety of respects. Nor can this be because clitic doubling, qua movement, is contingent on prior agreement—since the claim that all movement depends on prior agreement is demonstrably false. Clitic doubling requires prior agreement because it is an instance of non-local head movement, and movement of X0 to Y0 always requires a prior syntactic relationship between Y0 and XP. In local head movement (the kind that is already permitted under the Head Movement Constraint), this requirement is trivially satisfied by (c-)selection. But in non-local cases, agreement must fill this role.
Highlights
It has become exceedingly common in contemporary linguistic theorizing to come across claims of the following sort: “It may appear that verbs in language L do not agree with their arguments, but that is just an arbitrary fact about the morpho-phonology of L
Based on the cross- and intra-linguistic distribution of Person Case Constraint (PCC) effects, this paper shows that there can be no agreement in φ-features which systematically lacks a morpho-phonological footprint
This paper began by surveying some of the evidence that the Person Case Constraint (PCC) is sensitive to the kind of fine-grained hierarchical distinctions that characterize syntax proper
Summary
It has become exceedingly common in contemporary linguistic theorizing to come across claims of the following sort: “It may appear that verbs in language L do not agree with their arguments, but that is just an arbitrary fact about the morpho-phonology of L. Examples include: Binding Theory and fake indexicals (Kratzer 2009; Reuland 2011; Rooryck & Vanden Wyngaerd 2011), negative concord (Zeijlstra 2004; 2008b), modal concord (Zeijlstra 2008a), noun-modifier concord (Mallen 1997; Carstens 2000; Baker 2008), and the formation of in-situ questions (Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2014) These reductions are not the primary focus of this paper; though if the paper’s conclusions are correct, they cast considerable doubt on the veracity of some of these reductions— in particular, those that avail themselves of abstract agreement in φ-features (see section 8). As Nevins (2011: 944) puts it, there is no Number Case Constraint Another noteworthy property of the PCC is that it seems to only arise when there is overt morphology reflecting φ-agreement with the relevant arguments. For the remainder of this paper, I will assume that at least those variants that are sensitive to person features (i.e., all but the Total variant) can be treated as a unitary phenomenon at a sufficient level of abstraction (see section 4)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
