This squib argues that NPI-licensing and variable binding are subject to a precedence constraint.... more This squib argues that NPI-licensing and variable binding are subject to a precedence constraint. The argument is based on Dutch, which allows extraposition of PPs. There is substantial evidence that when multiple PPs appear after the verb, their order corresponds to reverse c-command (that is, postverbal PPs c-command postverbal PPs to their left). Nonetheless, variable binding and NPI-licensing in the postverbal domain are possible only when the dependent category follows its binder/licenser. We argue that this state of affairs requires (a) Quantifier Raising of the binder/licenser and (b) a precedence constraint on NPI-licensing and variable binding.
We argue, following Barros and Vicente (2011), that right-node raising (RNR) results from either ... more We argue, following Barros and Vicente (2011), that right-node raising (RNR) results from either ellipsis or multidominance. Four considerations support this claim. (a) RNR has properties of ellipsis and of multidominance. (b) Where these are combined, the structure results from repeated RNR: a pivot created through ellipsis contains a right-peripheral secondary pivot created through multidominance. (c) In certain circumstances, one or the other derivation is blocked, so that RNR behaves like pure ellipsis or pure multidominance. (d) Linearization of RNR-as-multidominance requires pruning. The same pruning operation delivers RNR-as-ellipsis, which explains why the two derivations must meet the same ordering constraints.
This chapter argues that Cinque's (2005) result concerning the noun phrase internal order of ... more This chapter argues that Cinque's (2005) result concerning the noun phrase internal order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun can be derived with- appeal to Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom. It claims that a theory which allows branching to the left and to the right but restricts (at least certain kinds of) movement to the left has a better chance of explaining universal word-order asymmetries than theories based on the Linear Correspondence Axiom, because these necessarily invoke movement in an unconstrained way.
In this paper we explore what primitives of syntax may explain why grammatical relations are obli... more In this paper we explore what primitives of syntax may explain why grammatical relations are obligatory, unique, local and sensitive to c-command. We propose that these properties follow from the way information percolates in syntactic trees (as regulated by compositionality) and the way information in nodes is organized (as regulated by set theory). Neeleman & van de Koot 474 1 Throughout this paper we will talk about syntax as if it is a derivational system. It should be noted from the outset that we only do so for presentational purposes and that nothing of substance depends on it. 2 Indeed, in many theories sisterhood or a variant thereof is adopted. Government-binding theory and its successors assume that selection and internal ,-role assignment take place under sisterhood (cf.
One of the strongest arguments for a raising-to-object analysis of English AcI constructions come... more One of the strongest arguments for a raising-to-object analysis of English AcI constructions comes from the fact that adverbials and particles belonging to the matrix clause can intervene between the embedded subject and the embedded predicate. We re-evaluate this argument in the light of a neglected alternative analysis, namely that matrix clause intervention is the result of extraposition of the embedded predicate. We show that this analysis gives a better account of matrix clause intervention than raising to object. Our arguments are based on the scopal properties of the embedded subject, and on the order among multiple intervening elements. We also consider various mixed analyses that feature both raising to object and extraposition. These turn out to be conceptually awkward and empirically flawed.
In this paper, we compare the behaviour of the default in the person system (third person) with t... more In this paper, we compare the behaviour of the default in the person system (third person) with the default in the number system (singular). We argue, following Nevins (2007; 2011), that third person pronouns have person features, while singular DPs lack number features. The evidence for these claims comes from situations in which a single head agrees with multiple DPs that have contrasting person and number specifications. In cases where the number of morphological slots in which agreement can be realized is lower than the number of agreement relations established in syntax, such contrasting specification may prove problematic. As it turns out, conflicts between singular and plural do not result in ungrammaticality, but conflicts between third person and first or second person do. Such person clashes can be avoided if the morphological realization of the relevant person features is syncretic. Alternatively, languages may make use of a person hierarchy that regulates the morphologic...
The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2017
It has proven hard to force a decision between rival analyses of Universal 20. This is because ne... more It has proven hard to force a decision between rival analyses of Universal 20. This is because new typological data are scarce, and the number of syntactic tests applicable in the noun phrase is relatively small. I therefore consider a related set of facts that involve language-internal word order variation in the verb phrase. I first show that the pattern of grammatical and ungrammatical orders in Dutch verb phrases containing three PPs closely matches the pattern of attested and unattested orders in the noun phrase. I then use the distribution of the particle pas 'only' to argue that PP extraposition results from variation in the linearization of sister nodes.
Kayne (1994) was instrumental in putting linear asymmetries on the generative research agenda. Hi... more Kayne (1994) was instrumental in putting linear asymmetries on the generative research agenda. His Linear Correspondence Axiom is seen as a restrictive, conceptually attractive proposal supported by a wealth of empirical evidence. In this paper, we take issue with this assessment. (i) We show that for every structure that violates the LCA, there is an LCA-compatible counterpart, including rightward movement structures and structures with rightward specifiers. (ii) We discuss Cinque's (2005) LCA-based analysis of word order in the extended nominal projection, demonstrating that the data in fact do not support any hypothesis stronger than a ban on rightward movement. (iii) We demonstrate that claims to the effect that central properties of phrase structure (such as headedness and the single-specifier restriction) follow from the LCA are incorrect. (iv) We show that the LCA is toothless without a restrictive theory of movement, but that it can only be reconciled with the data in the absence of such a theory.
Nevins, and Peter Svenonius for comments, suggestions and assistance. PERSON FEATURES AND SYNCRET... more Nevins, and Peter Svenonius for comments, suggestions and assistance. PERSON FEATURES AND SYNCRETISM Any theory of person features must account for known typological patterns (including the inventory of persons and generalizations about syncretism), but also provide a handle on the person morphology of individual languages. In this paper, we develop an analysis of person based on the following core assumptions. (i) Person features represent functions that operate on an initial set of possible discourse referents, or on the output of other person functions. Which combinations of person features are well-formed and which are not follows from the properties of the functions they represent (compare Harbour 2011b,c). (ii) There are two such person features. Their semantic specification implies that one is shared by first and second person, while the other is shared by second and third person (see Kerstens 1993, Halle 1997, Bennis and MacLean 2006, and Aalberse and Don 2011). (iii) Rules that operate on features (including rules of impoverishment and spell-out rules) are sensitive to the order in which the functions represented by person features apply. The main results of the proposed theory are (a) an explanation of the typological inventory of persons (first, second and third in the singular; first inclusive, first exclusive, second and third in the plural); (b) an explanation of the typological observation that syncretism between first and third person is much rarer than syncretism between either first and second, or second and third person (see Baerman et al. 2005, Baerman and Brown 2011); (c) a descriptively adequate analysis of person agreement in Dutch where two person endings arrange themselves in such a way that there is a 2-3 syncretism in the regular case, a 1-2 syncretism under subject-verb inversion, and an optional 1-3 syncretism with a particular lexical class of verbs (modals).
Kong (2011). We thank the respective audiences for useful questions and comments. We would also l... more Kong (2011). We thank the respective audiences for useful questions and comments. We would also like to thank Valentina Bianchi, Antonio Fábregas, David Lobina, Andrew Nevins, Hans van de Koot, and Edwin Williams for discussion, as well as two anonymous reviewers and the editor of this special issue, Jochen Trommer.
This article presents a theory of grammatical dependencies that is in accordance with basic assum... more This article presents a theory of grammatical dependencies that is in accordance with basic assumptions of bare phrase structure theory. It explains Koster's (1987) configurational matrix, the observation that such dependencies share five properties: c-command by the antecedent, obligatoriness, uniqueness of the antecedent, nonuniqueness of the dependent, and locality. The theory is based on two primitive syntactic relations (copying and function application) and a nonatomic view of nodes.
We propose a new generalization governing the crosslinguistic distribution of radical pro drop (t... more We propose a new generalization governing the crosslinguistic distribution of radical pro drop (the type of pro drop found in Chinese). It occurs only in languages whose pronouns are agglutinating for case, number, or some other nominal feature. Other types of languages cannot omit pronouns freely, although they may have agreement-based pro drop. This generalization can for the most part be derived from three assumptions. (a) Spell-out rules for pronouns may target nonterminal categories. (b) Pro drop is zero spell-out (i.e., deletion) of regular pronouns. (c) Competition between spell-out rules is governed by the Elsewhere Principle. A full derivation relies on an acquisitional strategy motivated by the absence of negative evidence. We test our proposal using data from a sample of twenty languages and The World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath et al. 2005).
It is an honour for us to contribute to this special issue. Under Neil's leadership, the linguist... more It is an honour for us to contribute to this special issue. Under Neil's leadership, the linguistics section of the department has benefited from an open intellectual atmosphere that allows critical discussion and the development of new ideas. We have also greatly valued his humane style of management. There are very few linguistics departments in which your boss is also one of your friends. Given that Neil has worked in both phonology and syntax, we hope that this paper will amuse him.
This paper argues that predication theory is instrumental in capturing the distribution of explet... more This paper argues that predication theory is instrumental in capturing the distribution of expletives. (i) In interaction with well-known verb movement parameters, predication theory explains why not all languages have transitive expletive constructions. Conditions on the assignment of external thematic roles have the effect that the functional domain of a clause is only large enough to host both an expletive and a subject if the verb undergoes verb second as well as V to I. (ii) On the assumption that sufficiently rich inflection is argumental, predication theory also provides a trigger for V to I. It is argued that, after verb movement, I can be interpreted as VP's subject. This explains why rich inflection blocks expletive insertion within the verb's predicational domain. (iii) Finally, predication theory forces an analysis of NP raising as predicate formation. As a result, NP raising is optional in many languages, even if no expletive is inserted.
In English, adverbials may intervene between the verb and a selected PP. We initially consider th... more In English, adverbials may intervene between the verb and a selected PP. We initially consider three analyses of this fact. The traditional account is that the PP shifts rightward across a right-adjoined adverbial (Stowell 1981). An alternative account is that the verb moves leftward across a left-adjoined adverbial (Pesetsky 1989, Johnson 1991). A third possibility is a hybrid account that assumes both extraposition and verb raising. We argue that the order of postverbal adverbials favors the extraposition analysis, provided this analysis is combined with the auxiliary hypothesis that certain adverbials can directly modify other adverbials (Rohrbacher 1994, Williams 2014). We then compare two instantiations of the extraposition analysis: the traditional account and an antisymmetric account that emulates PP-extraposition through a combination of PP-intraposition and roll-up movement. While close to being notational variants, these accounts can be teased apart using the very strict l...
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique
This article explores an unexpected extraction pattern out of adjuncts, as in What did John die w... more This article explores an unexpected extraction pattern out of adjuncts, as in What did John die whistling? and What did John hurt himself trying to fix? in English. This type of extraction is possible if the adjuncts are predicative and the matrix verbs are either ergative or (inherent) reflexive. The predicativity of the adjuncts is essential in getting these adjuncts interpreted as arguments; this requires coindexation with a thematic role of the verb, which is shown to obtain. Once transparent adjuncts are integrated into the thematic structure of the clause, the resulting representation exhibits the hallmarks of reflexivity. Reflexive predicates must receive appropriate marking. This explains the second requirement on transparent adjuncts: the matrix verbs are precisely of the type capable of licensing reflexivity.
The literature on processing of person and number agreement contains some apparently contradictor... more The literature on processing of person and number agreement contains some apparently contradictory results. On the one hand, some ERP studies do not find a qualitative difference between person and number when an agreeing verb does not match the features of its subject, the controller of the agreement relation (Silva-Pereyra and Carreiras, 2007; Zawiszewski et al., 2016). On the other hand, an ERP study reported in Mancini et al. (2011b) did find a qualitative difference between agreement violations in person and agreement violations in number, a result further corroborated by an fMRI study reported in Mancini et al. (2017). At the same time, there is also a trend on which the literature appears to agree: on the whole the response to agreement violations in person is stronger than the response to number agreement violations. In this paper we argue that the constellation of reported results can be accounted for by adopting a theory of person and number features that has the following two core properties: (i) pronouns are specified for both person and number, but regular NPs are specified for number only and do not carry any person specification; (ii) all of first, second and third person are characterized by one or more person features, whereas, in contrast, one of the numbers (singular) corresponds to the absence of number features.
Attributive APs precede certain other categories (PPs, genitive DPs, and so on), when the noun pr... more Attributive APs precede certain other categories (PPs, genitive DPs, and so on), when the noun precedes both (Giurgea 2009, Adger 2012). This observation may suggest an analysis in terms of X-bar-style 'structural layering'. However, such an account faces several problems: (i) in languages with PP-AP-N order, scrambling of the AP is permitted, (ii) in languages with AP-N-PP order or PP-NAP order, there is evidence that the AP can c-command the PP, as well as the other way around, and (iii) in languages with NAP -PP order, the AP can take scope over the PP, as well as the other way around, arguably as a consequence of a structural ambiguity. We therefore develop an alternative analysis based on a striking parallel between the syntax of attributive APs and that of objects: while OV languages systematically allow adverbs to intervene between object and verb, VO languages tend to require verb-object-adverb order. This aspect of verbal syntax is familiar and can be captured in terms of a well-known linear constraint: Case Adjacency (Stowell 1981; Janke and Neeleman 2012). We propose that this constraint has a nominal counterpart that ensures NAP adjacency in noun-initial structures. Thus, this instance of NP/VP parallelism has its source in parallel constraints, rather than parallel structural layers.
This squib argues that NPI-licensing and variable binding are subject to a precedence constraint.... more This squib argues that NPI-licensing and variable binding are subject to a precedence constraint. The argument is based on Dutch, which allows extraposition of PPs. There is substantial evidence that when multiple PPs appear after the verb, their order corresponds to reverse c-command (that is, postverbal PPs c-command postverbal PPs to their left). Nonetheless, variable binding and NPI-licensing in the postverbal domain are possible only when the dependent category follows its binder/licenser. We argue that this state of affairs requires (a) Quantifier Raising of the binder/licenser and (b) a precedence constraint on NPI-licensing and variable binding.
We argue, following Barros and Vicente (2011), that right-node raising (RNR) results from either ... more We argue, following Barros and Vicente (2011), that right-node raising (RNR) results from either ellipsis or multidominance. Four considerations support this claim. (a) RNR has properties of ellipsis and of multidominance. (b) Where these are combined, the structure results from repeated RNR: a pivot created through ellipsis contains a right-peripheral secondary pivot created through multidominance. (c) In certain circumstances, one or the other derivation is blocked, so that RNR behaves like pure ellipsis or pure multidominance. (d) Linearization of RNR-as-multidominance requires pruning. The same pruning operation delivers RNR-as-ellipsis, which explains why the two derivations must meet the same ordering constraints.
This chapter argues that Cinque's (2005) result concerning the noun phrase internal order of ... more This chapter argues that Cinque's (2005) result concerning the noun phrase internal order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun can be derived with- appeal to Kayne's (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom. It claims that a theory which allows branching to the left and to the right but restricts (at least certain kinds of) movement to the left has a better chance of explaining universal word-order asymmetries than theories based on the Linear Correspondence Axiom, because these necessarily invoke movement in an unconstrained way.
In this paper we explore what primitives of syntax may explain why grammatical relations are obli... more In this paper we explore what primitives of syntax may explain why grammatical relations are obligatory, unique, local and sensitive to c-command. We propose that these properties follow from the way information percolates in syntactic trees (as regulated by compositionality) and the way information in nodes is organized (as regulated by set theory). Neeleman & van de Koot 474 1 Throughout this paper we will talk about syntax as if it is a derivational system. It should be noted from the outset that we only do so for presentational purposes and that nothing of substance depends on it. 2 Indeed, in many theories sisterhood or a variant thereof is adopted. Government-binding theory and its successors assume that selection and internal ,-role assignment take place under sisterhood (cf.
One of the strongest arguments for a raising-to-object analysis of English AcI constructions come... more One of the strongest arguments for a raising-to-object analysis of English AcI constructions comes from the fact that adverbials and particles belonging to the matrix clause can intervene between the embedded subject and the embedded predicate. We re-evaluate this argument in the light of a neglected alternative analysis, namely that matrix clause intervention is the result of extraposition of the embedded predicate. We show that this analysis gives a better account of matrix clause intervention than raising to object. Our arguments are based on the scopal properties of the embedded subject, and on the order among multiple intervening elements. We also consider various mixed analyses that feature both raising to object and extraposition. These turn out to be conceptually awkward and empirically flawed.
In this paper, we compare the behaviour of the default in the person system (third person) with t... more In this paper, we compare the behaviour of the default in the person system (third person) with the default in the number system (singular). We argue, following Nevins (2007; 2011), that third person pronouns have person features, while singular DPs lack number features. The evidence for these claims comes from situations in which a single head agrees with multiple DPs that have contrasting person and number specifications. In cases where the number of morphological slots in which agreement can be realized is lower than the number of agreement relations established in syntax, such contrasting specification may prove problematic. As it turns out, conflicts between singular and plural do not result in ungrammaticality, but conflicts between third person and first or second person do. Such person clashes can be avoided if the morphological realization of the relevant person features is syncretic. Alternatively, languages may make use of a person hierarchy that regulates the morphologic...
The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2017
It has proven hard to force a decision between rival analyses of Universal 20. This is because ne... more It has proven hard to force a decision between rival analyses of Universal 20. This is because new typological data are scarce, and the number of syntactic tests applicable in the noun phrase is relatively small. I therefore consider a related set of facts that involve language-internal word order variation in the verb phrase. I first show that the pattern of grammatical and ungrammatical orders in Dutch verb phrases containing three PPs closely matches the pattern of attested and unattested orders in the noun phrase. I then use the distribution of the particle pas 'only' to argue that PP extraposition results from variation in the linearization of sister nodes.
Kayne (1994) was instrumental in putting linear asymmetries on the generative research agenda. Hi... more Kayne (1994) was instrumental in putting linear asymmetries on the generative research agenda. His Linear Correspondence Axiom is seen as a restrictive, conceptually attractive proposal supported by a wealth of empirical evidence. In this paper, we take issue with this assessment. (i) We show that for every structure that violates the LCA, there is an LCA-compatible counterpart, including rightward movement structures and structures with rightward specifiers. (ii) We discuss Cinque's (2005) LCA-based analysis of word order in the extended nominal projection, demonstrating that the data in fact do not support any hypothesis stronger than a ban on rightward movement. (iii) We demonstrate that claims to the effect that central properties of phrase structure (such as headedness and the single-specifier restriction) follow from the LCA are incorrect. (iv) We show that the LCA is toothless without a restrictive theory of movement, but that it can only be reconciled with the data in the absence of such a theory.
Nevins, and Peter Svenonius for comments, suggestions and assistance. PERSON FEATURES AND SYNCRET... more Nevins, and Peter Svenonius for comments, suggestions and assistance. PERSON FEATURES AND SYNCRETISM Any theory of person features must account for known typological patterns (including the inventory of persons and generalizations about syncretism), but also provide a handle on the person morphology of individual languages. In this paper, we develop an analysis of person based on the following core assumptions. (i) Person features represent functions that operate on an initial set of possible discourse referents, or on the output of other person functions. Which combinations of person features are well-formed and which are not follows from the properties of the functions they represent (compare Harbour 2011b,c). (ii) There are two such person features. Their semantic specification implies that one is shared by first and second person, while the other is shared by second and third person (see Kerstens 1993, Halle 1997, Bennis and MacLean 2006, and Aalberse and Don 2011). (iii) Rules that operate on features (including rules of impoverishment and spell-out rules) are sensitive to the order in which the functions represented by person features apply. The main results of the proposed theory are (a) an explanation of the typological inventory of persons (first, second and third in the singular; first inclusive, first exclusive, second and third in the plural); (b) an explanation of the typological observation that syncretism between first and third person is much rarer than syncretism between either first and second, or second and third person (see Baerman et al. 2005, Baerman and Brown 2011); (c) a descriptively adequate analysis of person agreement in Dutch where two person endings arrange themselves in such a way that there is a 2-3 syncretism in the regular case, a 1-2 syncretism under subject-verb inversion, and an optional 1-3 syncretism with a particular lexical class of verbs (modals).
Kong (2011). We thank the respective audiences for useful questions and comments. We would also l... more Kong (2011). We thank the respective audiences for useful questions and comments. We would also like to thank Valentina Bianchi, Antonio Fábregas, David Lobina, Andrew Nevins, Hans van de Koot, and Edwin Williams for discussion, as well as two anonymous reviewers and the editor of this special issue, Jochen Trommer.
This article presents a theory of grammatical dependencies that is in accordance with basic assum... more This article presents a theory of grammatical dependencies that is in accordance with basic assumptions of bare phrase structure theory. It explains Koster's (1987) configurational matrix, the observation that such dependencies share five properties: c-command by the antecedent, obligatoriness, uniqueness of the antecedent, nonuniqueness of the dependent, and locality. The theory is based on two primitive syntactic relations (copying and function application) and a nonatomic view of nodes.
We propose a new generalization governing the crosslinguistic distribution of radical pro drop (t... more We propose a new generalization governing the crosslinguistic distribution of radical pro drop (the type of pro drop found in Chinese). It occurs only in languages whose pronouns are agglutinating for case, number, or some other nominal feature. Other types of languages cannot omit pronouns freely, although they may have agreement-based pro drop. This generalization can for the most part be derived from three assumptions. (a) Spell-out rules for pronouns may target nonterminal categories. (b) Pro drop is zero spell-out (i.e., deletion) of regular pronouns. (c) Competition between spell-out rules is governed by the Elsewhere Principle. A full derivation relies on an acquisitional strategy motivated by the absence of negative evidence. We test our proposal using data from a sample of twenty languages and The World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath et al. 2005).
It is an honour for us to contribute to this special issue. Under Neil's leadership, the linguist... more It is an honour for us to contribute to this special issue. Under Neil's leadership, the linguistics section of the department has benefited from an open intellectual atmosphere that allows critical discussion and the development of new ideas. We have also greatly valued his humane style of management. There are very few linguistics departments in which your boss is also one of your friends. Given that Neil has worked in both phonology and syntax, we hope that this paper will amuse him.
This paper argues that predication theory is instrumental in capturing the distribution of explet... more This paper argues that predication theory is instrumental in capturing the distribution of expletives. (i) In interaction with well-known verb movement parameters, predication theory explains why not all languages have transitive expletive constructions. Conditions on the assignment of external thematic roles have the effect that the functional domain of a clause is only large enough to host both an expletive and a subject if the verb undergoes verb second as well as V to I. (ii) On the assumption that sufficiently rich inflection is argumental, predication theory also provides a trigger for V to I. It is argued that, after verb movement, I can be interpreted as VP's subject. This explains why rich inflection blocks expletive insertion within the verb's predicational domain. (iii) Finally, predication theory forces an analysis of NP raising as predicate formation. As a result, NP raising is optional in many languages, even if no expletive is inserted.
In English, adverbials may intervene between the verb and a selected PP. We initially consider th... more In English, adverbials may intervene between the verb and a selected PP. We initially consider three analyses of this fact. The traditional account is that the PP shifts rightward across a right-adjoined adverbial (Stowell 1981). An alternative account is that the verb moves leftward across a left-adjoined adverbial (Pesetsky 1989, Johnson 1991). A third possibility is a hybrid account that assumes both extraposition and verb raising. We argue that the order of postverbal adverbials favors the extraposition analysis, provided this analysis is combined with the auxiliary hypothesis that certain adverbials can directly modify other adverbials (Rohrbacher 1994, Williams 2014). We then compare two instantiations of the extraposition analysis: the traditional account and an antisymmetric account that emulates PP-extraposition through a combination of PP-intraposition and roll-up movement. While close to being notational variants, these accounts can be teased apart using the very strict l...
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique
This article explores an unexpected extraction pattern out of adjuncts, as in What did John die w... more This article explores an unexpected extraction pattern out of adjuncts, as in What did John die whistling? and What did John hurt himself trying to fix? in English. This type of extraction is possible if the adjuncts are predicative and the matrix verbs are either ergative or (inherent) reflexive. The predicativity of the adjuncts is essential in getting these adjuncts interpreted as arguments; this requires coindexation with a thematic role of the verb, which is shown to obtain. Once transparent adjuncts are integrated into the thematic structure of the clause, the resulting representation exhibits the hallmarks of reflexivity. Reflexive predicates must receive appropriate marking. This explains the second requirement on transparent adjuncts: the matrix verbs are precisely of the type capable of licensing reflexivity.
The literature on processing of person and number agreement contains some apparently contradictor... more The literature on processing of person and number agreement contains some apparently contradictory results. On the one hand, some ERP studies do not find a qualitative difference between person and number when an agreeing verb does not match the features of its subject, the controller of the agreement relation (Silva-Pereyra and Carreiras, 2007; Zawiszewski et al., 2016). On the other hand, an ERP study reported in Mancini et al. (2011b) did find a qualitative difference between agreement violations in person and agreement violations in number, a result further corroborated by an fMRI study reported in Mancini et al. (2017). At the same time, there is also a trend on which the literature appears to agree: on the whole the response to agreement violations in person is stronger than the response to number agreement violations. In this paper we argue that the constellation of reported results can be accounted for by adopting a theory of person and number features that has the following two core properties: (i) pronouns are specified for both person and number, but regular NPs are specified for number only and do not carry any person specification; (ii) all of first, second and third person are characterized by one or more person features, whereas, in contrast, one of the numbers (singular) corresponds to the absence of number features.
Attributive APs precede certain other categories (PPs, genitive DPs, and so on), when the noun pr... more Attributive APs precede certain other categories (PPs, genitive DPs, and so on), when the noun precedes both (Giurgea 2009, Adger 2012). This observation may suggest an analysis in terms of X-bar-style 'structural layering'. However, such an account faces several problems: (i) in languages with PP-AP-N order, scrambling of the AP is permitted, (ii) in languages with AP-N-PP order or PP-NAP order, there is evidence that the AP can c-command the PP, as well as the other way around, and (iii) in languages with NAP -PP order, the AP can take scope over the PP, as well as the other way around, arguably as a consequence of a structural ambiguity. We therefore develop an alternative analysis based on a striking parallel between the syntax of attributive APs and that of objects: while OV languages systematically allow adverbs to intervene between object and verb, VO languages tend to require verb-object-adverb order. This aspect of verbal syntax is familiar and can be captured in terms of a well-known linear constraint: Case Adjacency (Stowell 1981; Janke and Neeleman 2012). We propose that this constraint has a nominal counterpart that ensures NAP adjacency in noun-initial structures. Thus, this instance of NP/VP parallelism has its source in parallel constraints, rather than parallel structural layers.
Uploads
Papers by Ad Neeleman