Cover not available
Part of
Bavarian Syntax: Contributions to the theory of syntax
Edited by Günther Grewendorf and Helmut Weiß
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 220] 2014
► pp. 51–82

Complementizer agreement (in Bavarian)

Feature inheritance or feature insertion?

 | IDS Mannheim
In recent minimalist work, it has been argued that C-agreement provides conclusive support for the following theoretical hypotheses (cf. Carstens 2003; van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012): (i) C hosts a separate set of phi-features, a parametric choice possibly linked to the V2 property; (ii) feature checking/valuation is accomplished under (closest) c-command (i.e. by the operation Agree, cf. Chomsky 2000 and subsequent work). This paper reviews the significance of C-agreement for syntactic theory and argues that certain systematic asymmetries between regular verbal agreement and complementizer agreement suggest that the latter does not result from operations that are part of narrow syntax. The case is based on the observation that at least in some Germanic varieties (most notably Bavarian), the realization of inflectional features in the C-domain is sensitive to adjacency effects and deletion of the finite verb in right node raising and comparatives. The fact that C may not carry inflection when the finite verb has been elided is taken to suggest that complementizer agreement does not involve a dependency between C and the subject, but rather between C and the finite verb (i.e. T). More precisely, it is argued that inflectional features present in the C-domain are added post-syntactically via a process of feature insertion (cf. e.g. Embick 1997; Embick & Noyer 2001; Harbour 2003) that creates a copy of T’s (valued) f-set. It will then be shown that this account can also capture phenomena like first conjunct agreement (FCA) and external possessor agreement, which are often presented as crucial evidence of the syntactic nature of complementizer agreement (cf. van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012).
Published online: 26 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.220.03fub
References (71)
References
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2003. Context-sensitive Spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 681–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Beyond Morphology. Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Hans. 1984. Das System der enklitischen Personalpronomina in einer mittelbairischen Mundart. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 51(2): 191–211.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Klitisierung, Reanalyse und die Lizensierung von Nullformen: Zwei Beispiele aus dem Bairischen. In Dialektologie in neuem Gewand [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 19], Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 29-45. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans & Haegeman, Liliane. 1984. On the status of agreement and relative clauses in West Flemish. In Sentential Complementation, Wim de Geest & Yvan Putseys (eds), 33–55. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rhajesh & Walkow, Martin. 2011. Locating agreement in grammar. Paper presented at WCCFL 29.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Where’s ϕ? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi-Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brandner, Ellen. 2011. A new perspective on complementizer agreement. Paper presented at BCGL 6, Brussels.
Bresnan, Joan. 1973. The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 275–343.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2003. Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a Case-checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 393–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104–131. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1983. Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number, and gender. In Order, Concord and Constituency, Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 175–206. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 2000. Number. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Kaplan, Ronald. 1997. A set-based approach to feature resolution. In Proceedings of the LFG 97 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Halloway King (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. 2013. Prepare and repair: On pre-emptive strikes and post-hoc patches. In Repairs. The Added Value of Being Wrong, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 131-153. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dudenredaktion (eds). 2009. Duden: Die Grammatik, Vol. 4, 8th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the Interfaces of Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555-595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2005. The Rise of Agreement. A Formal Approach to the Syntax and Grammaticalization of Verbal Inflection [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 81]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Multiple agreement and the representation of inflection in the C-domain. Linguistische Berichte 213: 78–108.Google Scholar
Gruber, Bettina. 2008. Complementizer Agreement: New Evidence from the Upper Austrian Variant of Gmunden. MA thesis,University of Vienna.
de Haan, Germen & Weerman, Fred. 1986. Finiteness and verb fronting in Frisian. In Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds), 77–110. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1990. Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West Flemish. The Linguistic Review 7: 333–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study in West-Flemish. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & van Koppen, Marjo. 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation between C0 and T. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3): 441–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20, Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In PF: Papers At the Interface [MITWPL 30], Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–450. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2003. The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 543–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right Node Raising and Gapping. Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich & Marácz, Laszlo. 1989. On the position of inflection in West Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44: 75–88.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric & Smits, Caroline. 1999. Everything you always wanted to know about complementizer agreement. In Proceedings of WECOL 1998, Elly van Gelderen & Vida Samiian (eds). Fresno CA: California State University Press.Google Scholar
Jäger, Agnes. 2010. Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln. Linguistische Berichte 224: 467–493.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2001. Syntactic categories and positional shape alternations. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 59–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 93–106.New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1982. Word-formation and the lexicon. In Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, Frances Ingemann (ed.). Lawrence KS: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Kollmer, Michael. 1987. Die schöne Waldlersprach, Bd. I–III. Prackenbach: Kollmer.Google Scholar
van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
. 2006. One probe, multiple goals: The case of first conjunct agreement. Special Issue of Leiden Papers in Linguistics 3(2): 25–52. Marjo van Koppen, Pepijn Hendriks, Frank Landsbergen, Mika Poss & Jenneke van der Wal (eds).Google Scholar
. 2012. The distribution of phi-features in pronouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 135–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Koppen, Marjo & Rooryck, Johan. 2008. Resolving resolution: Underspecification and the law of coordination of likes. Ms, Utrecht University & Leiden University.
Lechner, Winfried. 1999. Comparatives and DP-structure. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
. 2001. Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 683–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1992. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of ESCOL 1991, 234–253.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2009. Why Agree? Why Move? Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4): 643–668. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Ouali, Hamid. 2006. Unifying agreement relations. A minimalist analysis of Berber. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
. 2008. On C-to-T ϕ-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. In Agreement Restrictions, Roberta D'Alessandro, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson & Susann Fischer (eds), 159–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 563–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. What (if anything) does complementizer agreement tells us about Feature Inheritance (and vice versa)? Paper presented at GIST 6, University of Ghent.
Roberts, Ian. 1994. Second position effects and agreement in Comp. Ms, University of Wales, Bangor.
Ross, John Robert. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. In Progress in Linguistics, Manfred Bierwisch & M. Heidolph (eds), 249–259. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Kaplan, Ronald, Karttunen, Lauri, Kay, Martin, Pollard, Carl, Shieber, Stuart & Zaenen, Annie. 1985. Unification and grammatical theory. In Proceedings of the Fifth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Mary Dalrymple, Jeffrey Goldberg, Kristin Hanson & Michael Inman (eds), 238–254. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1994. Agreement in Comp. The Linguistic Review 11: 351-375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2008. Syntax. Eine merkmalbasierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
de Vogelaer, Gunther, Neuckermans, Annemie & Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido 2002. Complementizer agreement in the Flemish dialects. In Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics (MIEPiL) II: Syntactic Microvariation, Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips & Susanne van der Kleij (eds). Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.
Weiß, Helmut. 1998. Die Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Inflected complementizers in Continental West Germanic Dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72: 148–166.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, Peter. 1989. Die Flexionsmorphologie des Verbums im Bairischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Clues from dialect syntax: Complementizer agreement. In Dialektsyntax. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5, Werner Abraham & Josef Bayer (eds), 246–270. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Complementizer agreement and dependency marking typology. Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics 3(2): 53–72.Google Scholar
. 2012. Agreement without agree. Paper presented at GIST 6, University of Ghent.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

van Alem, Astrid
2024. Complementizer agreement is clitic doubling. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Fingerhuth, Matthias & Alexandra N. Lenz
2021. Variation and dynamics of “complementizer agreement” in German. Linguistic Variation 21:2 ► pp. 322 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.