Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19 Agreement and Concord
- 20 Head Dependencies
- 21 A-dependencies
- 22 Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23 The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24 Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25 From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
19 - Agreement and Concord
from Part III - Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19 Agreement and Concord
- 20 Head Dependencies
- 21 A-dependencies
- 22 Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23 The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24 Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25 From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter provides a typological and theoretical overview of the phenomena of agreement and concord, both of which involve morphological covariance between elements. We take the canonical instance of agreement to involve covariance between a verbal element and its arguments, and we discuss the empirical landscape ranging from this core case to more complex and marginal instances of agreement. We focus particularly on empirical observations that have figured prominently in the theoretical literature on agreement, including hierarchy effects, case discrimination, and long-distance agreement. We also provide an overview of the theoretical treatment of agreement via the operation Agree, noting some key developments in the conception of this operation in recent years. We then turn to a discussion of concord, which we take to involve covariance between elements within a nominal phrase in the canonical instance. We discuss some theoretically important empirical patterns, including systems of mixed concord, and compare Agree-based and non-Agree-based theoretical treatments of concord. We evaluate the empirical coverage of these models and note some open empirical and theoretical issues.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 613 - 649Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Heggie, L. and Ordóñez, F. (eds.), Clitic and Affix Combinations [Linguistics Today 74], 199–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 1–23. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., and Sportiche, D.. 1994. Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25(2): 195–220.Google Scholar
Arregi, K., and Hanink, E. A.. 2022. Switch reference as index agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40(3): 651–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babby, L. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(1): 91–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, N. 2015. Adjective agreement in Noon: Evidence for a split theory of noun-modifier concord. In Bui, T. and Özyıldız, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 1. 67–80. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2011. When agreement is for number and gender but not person. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 875–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., and Camargo Souza, L.. 2020. Agree without agreement: Switch- reference and reflexive voice in two Panoan languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(4): 1053–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., and Kramer, R.. 2018. Doubled clitics are pronouns: Amharic objects (and beyond). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(4): 1035–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., and Vinokurova, N.. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3): 593–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, S., and Rezac, M.. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Pérez-Leroux, A. T. and Roberge, Y. (eds.), Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 244], 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, S., and Rezac, M.. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(4): 757–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R., and Keine, S.. 2017. Long-distance agreement. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., vol. IV, 2291–2321. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116(12): 2023–2067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2019. Checking up on (φ-)Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 527–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., and Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi-Theory: Phi Features Across Interfaces and Modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2017. In Defense of a Universal: A Brief Note on Case, Agreement, and Differential Object Marking. Ms., University of Connecticut and Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Bock, K., and Miller, C. A.. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23(1): 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonet, E. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance Languages. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2007. Agree, phases, and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis 33(1–2): 54–96.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27(3): 455–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, P., and MacKenzie, M.. 2002. Altruism, Ā-movement, and object agreement in Innu-aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, J. 2010. On case concord: The syntax of switch-reference clauses. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(2): 239–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. 2000. Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 319–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against ϕ-incompleteness. Syntax 4(3): 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121(5): 721–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. 2016. Delayed valuation: A reanalysis of “upwards” complementizer agreement and the mechanics of Case. Syntax 19(1): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V., and Diercks, M.. 2013. Agreeing how? Implications for theories of agreement and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 44(2): 179–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures in Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2004. Agreement asymmetries in coordinate structures. In Arnaudova, O., Browne, W., Rivero, M. L., and Stojanović, D. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics #12: The Ottawa Meeting 2003, 91–108. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Clem, E. 2022. Accounting for parallels between inverse marking and the PCC. In Bakay, Ö., Pratley, B., Neu, E., and Deal, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 1, 163–176. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Clem, E. 2023. Cyclic expansion in Agree: Maximal projections as probes. Linguistic Inquiry 54(1): 39–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, J. 2017. Little-v0 agreement and templatic morphology in Ch’ol. Syntax 20(2): 101–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, J., and Keine, S.. 2021. Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry 52(4): 655–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 1983. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R., and Roberts, I.. 2008. Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3): 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danon, G. 2011. Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax 14(4): 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2015. Interaction and satisfaction in ϕ-Agreement. In Bui, T. and Özyıldız, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 1, 179–192. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2022. Negative concord as downward Agree. In (Bakay, Ö., Pratley, B., Neu, E., and Deal, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 1., 235–244. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2024. Interaction, satisfaction, and the PCC. Linguistic Inquiry 55(1): 39–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. In press. Current models of Agree. In Crippen, J., Déchaine, R.-M., and Keupdjio, H. (eds.), Move and Agree: Towards a Formal Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dékány, É., and Hegedűs, V.. 2021. Postpositions: Formal and semantic classification. In É. Kiss, K. and Hegedűs, V. (eds.), Syntax of Hungarian: Postpositions and Postpositional Phrases, 11–191. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Delsing, L.-O. 1993. The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages. PhD thesis, University of Lund.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2001. “Pluringulars”, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18(1): 19–41.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2019. The attractions of agreement: Why person is different. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deo, A., and Sharma, D.. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 10(3): 369–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diercks, M. 2013. Indirect Agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(2): 357–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 2012. Patterns of agreement with coordinate noun phrases in Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4): 1027–1060.Google Scholar
Erelt, M. 1999. Agreement in Estonian. In Erelt, M. (ed.), Estonian: Typological Studies III, 7–46. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A. 1988. Agreement in Arabic, binding and coherence. In Barlow, M. and Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, 107–158. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Flores Nájera, L. 2019. La gramática de la cláusula simple en el Náhuatl de Tlaxcala. PhD thesis, CIESAS, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Foley, S., and Toosarvandani, M.. 2022. Extending the Person-Case Constraint to gender: Agreement, locality, and the syntax of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 53(1): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, S., Kalivoda, N., and Toosarvandani, M.. In press. Gender–Case constraints in Zapotec. In press in Proceedings of Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 22.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., and Rizzi, L.. 2006. Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 101(1): 173–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franck, J., Mirdamadi, F., and Kahnemuyipour, A.. 2020. Object attraction and the role of structural hierarchy: Evidence from Persian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 27. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.804.Google Scholar
Galloway, B. 1993. A Grammar of Upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, G. M. 1987. A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the pro-Drop Parameter. PhD thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Giusti, G. 2008. Agreement and concord in nominal expressions. In de Cat, C. and Demuth, K. (eds.), The Bantu-Romance Connection: A Comparative Investigation of Verbal Agreement, DPs, and Information Structure, 201–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabovac, A. 2022. Maximizing the Concord Domain: Concord as Spellout in Slavic. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J.. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays on Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halpert, C. 2019. Raising, unphased. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(1): 123–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerly, C. 2020. Person-Based Prominence in Ojibwe. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hammerly, C., Staub, A., and Dillon, B.. 2019. The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology 110 70–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harley, H. 2013. Feature matching and case/number dissociation in Hiaki. Revista Linguística 9(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Harley, H., and Ritter, E.. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions 1: 1–71.Google Scholar
Ingason, A. K., and Sigurðsson, E. F.. 2017. The interaction of adjectival structure, concord, and affixation. In Lamont, A. and Tetzloff, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 2, 89–98. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., and Vasishth, S.. 2017. Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 94(1): 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Benincà, P. (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, 85–104. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. 1992. On the absence of case chains in Bambara. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10(4): 555–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. 2006. Agreement configurations: In defense of “Spec Head”. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Agreement Systems, 159–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H., and Sportiche, D.. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85(2–3): 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. 2010. The Amharic definite marker and the syntax–morphology interface. Syntax 13(3): 196–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(2): 593–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. 2015. The Morphosyntax of Gender: Evidence from Amharic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laka, I. 1993. The structure of inflection: A case study in X0 syntax. In Hualde, J. I. and de Urbina, J. O. (eds.), Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 105], 21–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2016. DP-internal semantic agreement: A configurational analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(3): 975–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1982. Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In Seiler, H. and Stachowiak, F. J. (eds.), Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen, vol. 2, 201–267. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., and Meier, R. P.. 2011. On the linguistic status of “agreement” in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4): 95–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. 1989. Agreement and agreement phrases. In Laka, I. and Mahajan, A. (eds.), Functional Heads and Clause Structure, 217–252. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mahowald, K., Jurafsky, D., and Norris, M.. 2021. Concord begets concord: A Bayesian model of nominal concord typology. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 6(1): 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, G., Ao, B., and Chae, H.-R. (eds.), Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 234–253. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Marušič, F., Nevins, A., and Badecker, W.. 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18(1): 39–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matasović, R. 2018. An Areal Typology of Agreement Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2008. A case study of predication. In Marušič, F. and Žaucer, R. (eds.), Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics: Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5, 213–239. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
McFadden, T., and Sundaresan, S.. 2021. Unifying species of C-Agreement. In Farinella, A. and Hill, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 2, 91–100. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Meier, R. P. 1982. Icons, Analogues and Morphemes: The Acquisition of Verb Agreement in ASL. PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Meir, I. 1998. Thematic Structure and Verb Agreement in Israeli Sign Language. PhD thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Meir, I., Padden, C. A., Aronoff, M., and Sandler, W.. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43(3): 531–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A. 1974. Object–verb agreement. Working Papers on Language Universals 15: 25–140.Google Scholar
Morgan, G., Barrière, I., and Woll, B.. 2006. The influence of typology and modality on the acquisition of verb agreement morphology in British Sign Language. First Language 26(1): 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 939–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, R. 1998. A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Norris, M. 2014. A Theory of Nominal Concord. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Norris, M. 2017. Description and analyses of nominal concord (Parts I–II). Language and Linguistics Compass 11(11): e12266–e12267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, M. 2018. Unmarked case in Estonian nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(2): 523–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, M. 2019. A typological perspective on nominal concord. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 4(12): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, M. In press. Nominal inflection in Distributed Morphology. To appear in Alexiadou, A., Kramer, R., Marantz, A., and Oltra-Massuet, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J., and Romero, J.. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2): 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozarkar, R. 2020. A special case of long distance agreement in Marathi. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 93. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.698.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A. 1983. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Patel, P. 2006. Split Agreement and Ergativity in Kutchi. Ms., University College London.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2013. Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., Salzmann, M., and Steinbach, M.. 2018. The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 107. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.511.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2016. Agreement in Archi from a Minimalist perspective. In Bond, O., Corbett, G., Chumakina, M., and Brown, D. (eds.), Archi: Complexities of Agreement in a Cross-Theoretical Perspective, 184–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(3): 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Preminger, O.. 2019. The Agreement Theta Generalization. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 102. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.936.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Radkevich, N., and Chumakina, M.. 2017. Agreement between arguments? Not really. In D’Alessandro, R., Franco, I., and Á. Gallego, J. (eds.), The Verbal Domain [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 64], 49–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4): 619–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. 2011. Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 917–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. 2013. That’s not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30(3): 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. 2019. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 13. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.315.Google Scholar
Privizentseva, M. 2023. Nominal ellipsis reveals concord in Moksha Mordvin. Syntax 26(4): 355–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puškar, Z. 2018. Interactions of gender and number agreement: Evidence from Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. Syntax 21(3): 275–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, E. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18(1): 85–109.Google Scholar
Riedel, K. 2009. The Syntax of Object Marking in Sambaa: A Comparative Bantu Perspective. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University [LOT Dissertations].Google Scholar
Rudnev, P. 2020. Agreeing adpositions in Avar and the directionality-of-valuation debate. Linguistic Inquiry 51(4): 829–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoorlemmer, E. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation in agreement on Germanic predicate adjectives. In Sleeman, P., Van de Velde, F., and Perridon, H. (eds.), Adjectives in Germanic and Romance [Linguistics Today 212], 263–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuit, J. 2013. Typological Aspects of Inuit Sign Language. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scida, E. E. 2004. The Inflected Infinitive in Romance Languages. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sichel, I., and Toosarvandani, M.. In press. The featural life of nominals. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. 2013. Alignment of verbal person marking. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1998. Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure: Subjects, Agreement, Case and Clitics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stegovec, A. 2017. Between you and me: Two crosslinguistic generalizations on person restrictions. In Kaplan, A., Kaplan, A., McCarvel, M. K., and Rubin, E. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 498–508. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Stegovec, A. 2020. Taking case out of the Person–Case Constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(1): 261–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1994. The structural location of the attributive adjective. In Duncan, E., Farkas, D., and Spaelti, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 438–454. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1994. The noun phrase. In Kiefer, F. and É Kiss, K. (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian [Syntax and Semantics 27], 179–274. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrill, A. 1999. A Grammar of Lavukaleve: A Papuan Language of the Solomon Islands. PhD thesis, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Toosarvandani, M., and van Urk, C.. 2014. The syntax of nominal concord: What ezafe in Zazaki shows us. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E., and Rysling, A.. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 2, 209–220. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
van Koppen, M. 2005. One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. PhD thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., and Phillips, C.. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61(2): 206–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, S., and Zlatić, L.. 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 2008. Person hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy. In D’Alessandro, R., Fischer, S., and Hrafnbjargarson, G. H. (eds.), Agreement Restrictions, 281–313. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E. 2000. Ergative agreement systems. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10 157–191.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2012a. Parasitic participles in Germanic: Evidence for the theory of verb clusters. Taal en Tongval 64(1): 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2012b. The syntax of valuation in auxiliary-participle constructions. In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., and Trueman, A. (eds.), Coyote Working Papers: Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 154–162. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2014. The Merge condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In Kosta, P., Franks, S. L., Radeva-Bork, T., and Schürcks, L. (eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces, 130–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, M., Maling, J., and Jackendoff, R.. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63(2): 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, M. 2021. Diagnosing object agreement vs. clitic doubling: An Inuit case study. Linguistic Inquiry 52(1): 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2004. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2008. Negative Concord Is Syntactic Agreement. Ms., University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2012. There is only one way to Agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3): 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., and Pancheva, R.. 2017. A formal characterization of person-based alignment: The case of Paraguayan Guaraní. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35(4): 1161–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.