Search Results

This chapter summarizes the main syntactic claims in the book, namely that the accusative case is linked to the status of ν as [quantized] (a feature which signals that the event structure of a ‘base’ verb is compositional), and the instrumental case on a predicate in East Slavic is the morphological manifestation of a [+bounded] aspectual phrase in the syntax.

This chapter demonstrates that in the Slavic languages the accusative case arises on the internal argument of a ‘base’ verb whose event structure (lexical/semantic aspect) is compositional, whereas lexical case-marking occurs with atelic base verbs whose event structure is never compositional. A syntactic analysis is provided to account for this pattern.

This chapter investigates the area between CP and IP. It proposes to dissociate Nominative case from Phi features and introduces a new functional projection (i.e., PhiP). This projection, which is located in the left-most edge of the I-domain (immediately above TP and right below the Pol projection), hosts the Subject of Predication in its Specifier. The head position of PhiP is where V moves in languages with a rich verbal inflectional agreement, and where the EPP feature is merged. This analysis means that, among other phenomena, the VSO order in Modern Spanish and the subject-inversion phenomenon in Spanish and Italian interrogatives can be described formally in this chapter.

This chapter introduces the central explanandum of the monograph: the obligatory nature of predicate-argument agreement in phi-features (person, number, gender/noun-class). The chapter begins by providing a working definition of the term agreement. It then proceeds to present three different models to capture its obligatoriness: derivational time-bombs, violable constraints, and obligatory operations. Finally, the notion of “failed agreement” is introduced, and its significance in teasing apart these different models is highlighted.

This chapter introduces the major themes of the book. It begins with some basic definitions of gender, natural gender, and arbitrary gender, and then places the book in the context of previous research. The main proposals of the book are laid out: gender is on the nominalizing head n, natural gender is interpretable whereas arbitrary gender is uninterpretable, and these assumptions allow for a typology of two- to three-gender systems. The chapter also provides background on the frameworks adopted in the book (Minimalism and Distributed Morphology), and limitatations in scope are clearly identified (e.g. the book does not focus on the mechanisms of gender agreement). The chapter concludes with a preview of the remaining content of the book, organized as chapter summaries.

This chapter continues to investigate the cross-linguistic predictions of the morphosyntactic analysis of gender developed in Chapter 3. Chapter 3 proposed that Amharic contains a n that has an uninterpretable feminine gender feature, in order to explain feminine arbitrary gender; in contrast, masculine arbitrary gender is assigned by morphological default in the context of a n that lacks gender features. This chapter provides further examples of two-gender languages that contain uninterpretable gender features, including Spanish (Romance), which is like Amharic in that it has an uninterpretable feminine feature. In contrast, Maa (Nilo-Saharan) has a n with an uninterpretable masculine feature. The scope of the chapter also extends to animacy-based gender systems; it is suggested that Algonquian languages like Fox have a gender system that includes a n with an uninterpretable animacy feature. One interesting consequence of these proposals is that the animacy feature must be privative.

Taking a page from the RoN agenda which seeks to attribute fundamentally identical syntax to nouns and verbs, Ackema and Neeleman, in their chapter ‘Unifying nominal and verbal syntax: Agreement and feature realization’ pursue the parallel syntax of nominal and verbal projections by considering agreement phenomena. Some apparent agreement phenomena within the NP behave differently in some respects from verbal agreement, an observation that has led to a view that sees it as a distinct phenomenon, labeled concord. The authors defend two claims. First, concord is not itself an instance of agreement. Rather, following Norris (2014), it consists of the spell-out of features of an XP on terminals contained in that XP. These features can be present on XP because they are inherited from one or more heads contained in XP. These heads may have these features because they partake in agreement, or because they are inherent to the head. Second, neither agreement nor concord is unique to the category of the phrase in which it is found. Following the agenda set in Remarks, the authors argue that both agreement and concord occur in nominal as well as verbal domains. They show that various instances of apparently unusual agreement in TP, such as agreement in which adverbs are targets, are better analysed as cases of concord, and conclude that the general syntax of agreement and concord does not need to refer to nominal or verbal status. <236>

Chapter 1 discusses the latest relevant concepts needed for a good understanding of gender, noun classification, and also number, in current theoretical linguistics. The structure of the volume is presented: it is divided into three parts, each addressing a particular theoretical question that arises when we study gender and noun classification in context. This chapter demonstrates how each of the chapters in the volume speaks to these theoretical questions: (1) What is the role of gender? (2) Where is gender located in the nominal spine? (3) How is gender interpreted?

This chapter analyzes subjunctive imperatives in terms of the features discussed in previous chapters. Subjunctive imperatives differ from true imperatives with respect to the interpretation of their subject (subjunctives are not restricted to 2nd person subjects) and their compatibility with negation (subjunctives are compatible with negation to a higher degree than true imperatives). This chapter proposes that these differences follow from the fact that the Mod head bears phi-features in subjunctive imperatives and from the fact that subjunctive imperatives can check the EPP feature on Mod by a subjunctive particle which is merged higher than Neg. This chapter also discusses truncated subjunctives (forms that require a particle in the affirmative, but not in the negative) and proposes that their restriction to 2nd person subjects can be accounted for by the fact that negation has a blocking effect on the transfer of phi-features from Mod to a lower inflectional head.

This chapterpaper analyzes changes in the null subject parameter in Caribbean Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese varieties. These varieties have mixed null -subject properties that diverge from the null -subject varieties of General Spanish and European Portuguese. Assuming a Minimalist framework that ascribes parametric variation to differences in lexical settings, change is triggered by an increased frequency of overt pronominals and driven by an anti-locality principle that prohibits a Spec, head configuration when the head and the specifier share agreement features. As a result of this principle, subject–-verb agreement with shared phi-features requires the subject to move to the periphery of the clause. When overt pronominals increase in frequency, they become semantically indistinguishable from null ones, inflection shifts from interpretable to unintepretable, the EPP is no longer satisfied, and subjects are displaced from Spec, TP to the left periphery, the morphological and pronominal systems are reorganized and generic null subjects become possible…

This chapter proposes an analysis of infinitive imperatives in terms of the same features and syntactic heads that were shown in previous chapters to be relevant for true imperatives and subjunctive imperatives. All infinitive imperatives have a Mod head that lacks phi-features. However, depending on whether the Mod head bears an [Aspect] feature or not, two types of infinitive imperatives are distinguished. If an [Aspect] feature is present in Mod, it is valued as Generic and licenses a Gen operator that binds the individual variable introduced by the subject. Hence, the subject of such infinitive imperatives is interpreted generically. On the other hand, if Mod lacks [Aspect] (as in the case of negative, “truncated” infinitives), no generic interpretation is available and the subject is valued as 2nd person (identical to the Addressee), just like in true imperatives.

This chapter investigates the parallels and asymmetries between contrastive features in phonology and syntax, with particular reference to the notion of a contrastive hierarchy. In phonology, contrastive features can be assigned to segments by a recursive procedure that applies to the underlying phonemic inventory of a language. To apply such a procedure to morphosyntactic features, it is necessary to identify the inventory of items that the features serve to distinguish. This chapter argues that the relevant morphosyntactic inventory is the inventory of functional lexical items (in the sense used in Distributed Morphology), and not the inventory of vocabulary items. It further proposes that contrastive specification of functional lexical items is done separately on different dimensions of contrast—for example, that person features are specified separately from number features. This approach is illustrated by application to phi-features in Mi’gmaq, where it is shown to be consistent with patterns of agreement.