Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T23:45:21.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The agreement hierarchy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

G. G. Corbett
G. G. Corbett
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Consideration of the problem of alternative agreement forms (§ 1) leads us to postulate a hierarchy of agreement positions (§ 2) which allows us to make predictions as to the possibility and relative frequency of semantic as compared to syntactic agreement. The hierarchy is justified by data from a variety of languages which permit alternative agreements (§ 3). Confirming evidence comes from a study of the instances where agreement in case and person is required in different languages (§ 4). The status of the hierarchy and the type of prediction it makes are discussed. It is suggested that the hierarchy determines the main divisions of a measure called SYNTACTIC DISTANCE and that other factors (word order, distance between controller and agreeing element, depth of stacking) determine relative degrees of distance within these main divisions (§ 5). The basic claim of the paper is that as syntactic distance increases so does the likelihood of semantic agreement.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , September 1979 , pp. 203 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Comrie, B. (1973). The ergative: variations on a theme. Lingua 32. 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. & Stone, G. (1978). The Russian language since the revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1978). Numerous squishes and squishy numerals in Slavonic. International Review of Slavic Linguistics 3. 43–73.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1979). Predicate agreement in Russian. (Birmingham Slavonic Monographs, 7.) University of Birmingham. Department of Russian Language and Literature.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (forthcoming). A note on grammatical agreement in Śinel'.Google Scholar
Crockett, D. B. (1976). Agreement in contemporary standard Russian. Cambridge, Mass.: Slavica.Google Scholar
England, J. (1976). ‘Dixo Rachel e Vidas’: subject–verb agreement in Old Spanish. MLR 71. 812–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. R. (1971). Theoretical implications of some global phenomena in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Distributed by University Microfilms, 71–27, 891.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1976). Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 149–188.Google Scholar
Graudina, L. K., Ickovič, V. A. & Katlinskaja, L. P. (1976). Grammatičeskaja pravil'nost' russkoj reči: opyt častotno-stilističeskogo slovarja. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Green, G. B. (1918), Notes on Greek and Latin syntax, 5th ed.London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of language, 2nd ed.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 73–113.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. (1964). Le bon usage, 8th ed. Gembloux, Belgium: Duculot.Google Scholar
Harmer, L. C. & Norton, F. J. (1957). A manual of modern Spanish, 2nd ed.London: University Tutorial Press.Google Scholar
Janko-Trinickaja, N. A. (1966). Naimenovanie lic ženskogo pola suščestvitel'nymi ženskogo i muškogo roda. In Zemskaja, A. E. & Šmelev, D. N. (eds), Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka. 167–210.Google Scholar
Karlsson, G. (1968). Eräs suomen inkongruenssi-ilmiö. MSFOu 145. 117–126.Google Scholar
Kennedy, B. H. (1955). The revised Latin primer. London: Green.Google Scholar
Kitajgorodskaja, M. V. (1976). Variativnost' v vyraženii roda suščestvitel'nogo pri oboznačenii ženscin po professii. In Krysin, L. P. & Šmelev, D. N. (eds), Social'nolingvističeskie issledovanija. Moscow: Nauka. 144–155.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A. (1978). Agreement. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. A.Universals of human language, Volume IV, Syntax. Stanford University Press. 331–374.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. (1972). Verb agreement as a rule of English. PCLS 8. 278–286.Google Scholar
Mountford, J. (ed.) (1938). ‘Bradley's Arnold’ Latin prose composition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mučnik, I. P. (1971). Grammatičeskie kategorii glagola i imeni v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Nixon, G. (1972). Corporate-concord phenomena in English. SNPh 44. 120–126.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1972). A note on syntactic and semantic number in English. LIn 3. 243–246.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Published by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1973). Nouniness. In Fujimura, O. (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 137–257.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1975). Clausematiness. In Keenan, E. L. (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language. London: Cambridge University Press. 422–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sand, D. E. Z. (1971). Agreement of the predicate with quantitive subjects in Serbo-Croatian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Distributed by University Microfilms, 72–17, 420.Google Scholar
Skoblikova, E. S. (1971). Soglasovanie i upravlenie v russkom jazyke. Moscow: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
Švedova, N. Ju. (ed.) (1970) Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Whitney, A. H. (1956). Finnish. London: English Universities Press.Google Scholar