* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 17.1983

Fri Jul 07 2006

TOC: Leiden Papers in Linguistics 3/2 (2006)

Editor for this issue: Maria Moreno-Rollins <marialinguistlist.org>

Directory
        1.    Martin Salzmann, Leiden Papers in Linguistics Vol 3, No 2 (2006)


Message 1: Leiden Papers in Linguistics Vol 3, No 2 (2006)
Date: 07-Jul-2006
From: Martin Salzmann <m.d.salzmannlet.leidenuniv.nl>
Subject: Leiden Papers in Linguistics Vol 3, No 2 (2006)


Publisher: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
http://www.lucl.leidenuniv.nl/

Journal Title: Leiden Papers in Linguistics
Volume Number: 3
Issue Number: 2
Issue Date: 2006


Subtitle: Agreement phenomena in a generative framework


Main Text:

A special issue of the Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics has just appeared.
This special issue results from an Agreement Workshop organized on the occasion
of Marjo van Koppen's PhD-defence at Leiden University in April 2005.
The main question raised at this workshop was how agreement phenomena should be
analyzed within a generative framework. The three contributions in this special
volume address exactly this question. The Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics
are found at http://www.lucl.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?m=7&c=294.

Contents

Jonathan David Bobaljik (University of Connecticut): Where’s Φ? Agreement as a
post-syntactic operation. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 3.2, 1-23.

This paper develops an argument that agreement (in particular NP-predicate
agreement) is a morphological and not a syntactic phenomenon. Narrowly, I argue
against the proposition that the configurational/positional licensing of NPs
(what was considered to be the domain of Case Theory in the LGB framework of the
1980s) involves checking/matching/valuing of Φ-features (person, number, gender)
in the syntax. To the extent that verbs show morphological agreement with an NP,
the copying or sharing of features occurs in the morphology, after the syntax.


Marjo van Koppen (Utrecht University): One Probe, Multiple Goals: the case of
First Conjunct Agreement. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 3.2, 25-52.

In this paper I discuss the first part of my thesis, namely variation concerning
agreement with coordinated subjects in Dutch dialects. I show that a verb or a
complementizer in some variants of Dutch agrees with the first conjunct of a
coordinated subject and in other variants with the coordinated subject as a
whole. I argue that the locus of this micro-variation should be attributed to
the post-syntactic lexicon. The syntactic derivation in these varieties is
identical. The analysis is extended to the typologically unrelated languages
Irish and Arabic.


Jan-Wouter Zwart (University of Groningen): Complementizer agreement and
dependency marking typology. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 3.2, 53-72.

The paper considers the status of complementizer agreement from a theoretical
and typological point of view. Theoretically, the phenomenon is strange because
no semantic or syntactic relation between the complementizer and the subject
seems to be underlying it. A probe-goal analysis is rejected, as it would
require positing ad hoc agreement features in C. Typologically, it looks like
complementizer agreement would be a rare instance of ‘nondependent-marking’. The
paper concludes that complementizer agreement should not be described in the
terms employed for subject-verb agreement, but should instead be analyzed as the
result of analogical change, as proposed by Goeman (2000) and Kathol (2001).


Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics
                            Syntax

Subject Language(s): Dutch (nld)

Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.