Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

The syntax of semantic agreement in English 1

  • PETER W. SMITH (a1)
Abstract

This paper investigates the properties of plural agreement that is triggered by collective nouns in British English. Both singular and plural agreement are able to appear with these collective nouns, which are shown to be morphologically singular but semantically plural. Plural agreement, however, is systematically more restricted than singular agreement, appearing in a subset of the environments where singular agreement is allowed. Restrictions on plural come from the nature of agreement; semantic agreement features can only enter into agreement when the controller of agreement c-commands the target of agreement, whereas morphologically motivated agreement is not subject to the same structural restriction. This asymmetry between the two types of agreement is shown to arise from the proposal that Agree (Chomsky 2000, 2001) is distributed over the syntactic and post-syntactic components (Arregi & Nevins 2012).

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The syntax of semantic agreement in English 1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The syntax of semantic agreement in English 1
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The syntax of semantic agreement in English 1
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Author’s address: Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt, Norbert-Wollheim-Platz 1, 60629, Frankfurt am Main, Germany p.smith@em.uni-frankfurt.de
Footnotes
Hide All
[1]

I would like to thank Bob Borsley for much helpful advice with this paper, as well as three anonymous reviewers for Journal of Linguistics. For discussions and comments on the material here, I would like to thank Scott AnderBois, Karlos Arregi, Jon Gajewski, Katharina Hartmann, Johannes Mursell, Andrew Nevins, Hazel Pearson as well as audiences at Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, the University of Connecticut, ConSOLE XX (Universität Leipzig) and ECO5 (UMass Amherst). I would like to thank, in particular, Jonathan Bobaljik, Željko Bošković, Beata Moskal and Susanne Wurmbrand, all of whom provided extensive discussion and comments on various versions of this paper. All errors are naturally my own responsibility.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Alex Alsina  & Boban Arsenijević . 2012. The two faces of agreement. Language 88, 369379.

Karlos Arregi  & Andrew Nevins . 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.

Mark Baker . 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laurie Bauer . 1988. Number agreement with collective nouns in New Zealand English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8, 247259.

Elabbas Benmamoun , Archna Bhatia  & Maria Polinsky . 2009. Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9, 6788.

Rajesh Bhatt  & Martin Walkow . 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: an argument from conjunctions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31, 9511013.

Jonathan D. Bobaljik 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: copies and covert movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 197267.

Robert D. Borsley 2005. Against ConjP. Lingua 115, 461482.

Robert D. Borsley 2009. On the superficiality of Welsh agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 225265.

Željko Bošković . 2002. Clitics as nonbranching elements and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 329340.

Željko Bošković . 2006. Case checking versus case assignment and the case of adverbial NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 522533.

Gennaro Chierchia . 1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 53103. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Noam Chomsky . 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 3349.

Chris Collins  & Paul Postal . 2012. Imposters: a study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Greville Corbett . 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15, 203225.

Greville Corbett . 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hans-Olav Enger . 2013. Scandinavian pancake sentences revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36, 275301.

Danny Fox . 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 157196.

Steven Franks . 1994. Parametric properties of numeral phrases in Slavic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12, 597674.

Ilan Hazout . 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 393430.

Glyn Hicks . 2009. The derivation of anaphoric relations. Amsterdam/Philiadelphia: John Benjamins.

Idan Landau . 2000. Elements of control: structure and meaning in infintival constructions. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory), Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Marjory Meechan  & Michele Foley . 1994. On resolving disagreement: linguistic theory and variation – there’s bridges. Linguistic Variation and Change 6, 6385.

Alan Munn . 1999. First conjunct agreement: against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 643668.

Dennis Ott . 2012. Local instability. (Linguistische Arbeiten 544), Berlin: de Gruyter.

Omer Preminger . 2013. That’s not how you agree: a reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30, 491500.

Eric Reuland . 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439492.

Uli Sauerland  & Paul Elbourne . 2002. Total reconstruction, PF-movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 283319.

Nicholas Sobin . 2004. Expletive constructions are not “lower right corner” movement constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 503508.

Stephen Wechsler  & Larisa Zlatić . 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo–Croatian. Language 76, 799832.

Stephen Wechsler  & Larisa Zlatić . 2012. The wrong two faces. Language 88, 380387.

Susanne Wurmbrand . 2012b. Parasitic participles in Germanic: evidence for the theory of verb clusters. Taal en Tongval 64, 129156.

Hedde Zeijlstra . 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29, 491539.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 326
Total number of PDF views: 766 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1505 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 17th January 2017 - 19th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.