Closest Conjunct Agreement in Head-Final Languages

We discuss the phenomenon of closest conjunct agreement with a special focus on head-final languages; we present data from two such languages, Hindi and Tsez, which allow agreement with the rightmost conjunct when the verb follows the conjoined phrase. This contrasts with head-initial languages, such as Arabic, where close conjunct agreement is with the leftmost conjunct in clauses with VS order. In addition, both languages exhibit certain flexibility of word order at root clause level; when the verb precedes the conjoined phrase, it can also agree with the leftmost conjunct. The empirical data from the two languages raise the following questions. First, is the typological difference between head-initial and head-final languages in the context of coordination due to a difference in the structure of coordination in these two groups? Second, to what extent is the syntactic configuration relevant to the computation of closest conjunct agreement? Third, what is the role of linear proximity in closest conjunct agreement? These questions have wider implications for the analysis of agreement and the relation between syntax and the morpho-phonological component.

[1]  William Badecker,et al.  A feature principle for partial agreement , 2007 .

[2]  Elabbas Benmamoun,et al.  Functional and inflectional morphology problems of projection, representation and derivation , 1992 .

[3]  Alec Marantz,et al.  Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure , 1988 .

[4]  Alan Munn.  Three Types of Coordination Asymmetries , 2000 .

[5]  Maryellen C MacDonald,et al.  Constituent structure and linear order in language production: evidence from subject-verb agreement. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  MACLYN McCARY,et al.  Further Remarks , 1999 .

[7]  J. Johannessen.  Partial agreement and coordination , 1996 .

[8]  Dominique Sportiche,et al.  Further Remarks on First Conjunct Agreement , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[9]  Heidi Lorimor.  Conjunctions and Grammatical Agreement , 2007 .

[10]  Jongil Kwon,et al.  TOPICS IN THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF , 2009 .

[11]  Maria Polinsky,et al.  Agreement in Tsez , 1999 .

[12]  J. Sadock.  Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Parallel Grammatical Representations , 1990 .

[13]  E. Benmamoun.  Agreement Asymmetries and the PF Interface , 2000 .

[14]  Robert Rolf Noyer.  Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure , 1992 .

[15]  Usama Soltan,et al.  Standard Arabic subject-verb agreement asymmetry revisited in an Agree-based minimalist syntax , 2006 .

[16]  Ming Xianga,et al.  From surface form to mental representation : A processing investigation of Russian numerical phrases 1 , 2009 .

[17]  A. Munn,et al.  First Conjunct Agreement: Against a Clausal Analysis , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[18]  Ayesha Kidwai,et al.  XP-adjunction in universal grammar : scrambling and binding in Hindi-Urdu , 2000 .

[19]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  A Syntactic Analysis of Interference in Subject–Verb Agreement , 2007 .

[20]  Dominique Sportiche,et al.  Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic , 1994 .

[21]  Ellen M. Kaisse.  Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology , 1985 .

[22]  Marjo van Koppen,et al.  One Probe - Two Goals : Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects , 2005 .

[23]  Ad Neeleman,et al.  Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation , 2004 .

[24]  F. Huddle.  Coordination , 1966, Open Knowledge Institutions.

[25]  Mark C. Baker,et al.  The Syntax of Agreement and Concord , 2008 .

[26]  E. Selkirk.  On derived domains in sentence phonology , 1986, Phonology.

[27]  K. Bock,et al.  The Ties That Bind: Creating Number Agreement in Speech , 1999 .

[28]  Yamuna Kachru,et al.  Aspects of Hindi grammar , 1980 .

[29]  Marjo van Koppen.  Agreement with coordinated subjects: A comparative perspective , 2008 .

[30]  Elabbas Benmamoun,et al.  Featureless Expressions: When Morphophonological Markers Are Absent , 2006, Linguistic Inquiry.

[31]  Ora Matushansky,et al.  The Composition of Complex Cardinals , 2006, J. Semant..

[32]  M. Babyonyshev.  Structural connection in syntax and processing : studies in Russian and Japanese , 1997 .

[33]  Dominique Sportiche,et al.  The position of subjects , 1991 .

[34]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[35]  Gabriella Vigliocco,et al.  Subject-verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy , 2002 .

[36]  Shengli Feng.  Prosodically constrained syntactic changes in Early Archaic Chinese , 1996 .

[37]  ðeljko Boškoviƒ.  Unifying first and last conjunct agreement , 2009 .

[38]  Luigi Rizzi,et al.  Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction , 2006, Cognition.

[39]  刘英.  Singular & Plural(单数和复数) , 2002 .

[40]  Shin Fukuda,et al.  Backward Control , 2008, Lang. Linguistics Compass.