Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Agreement vs Concord <strong>in</strong> IcelandicCherlon UsseryCarleton CollegeThis paper exam<strong>in</strong>es <strong>the</strong> morphology of passive participles, floated quantifiers, andsecondary predicates <strong>in</strong> Icelandic. In Icelandic, verbs and passive participles agree only withnom<strong>in</strong>ative DPs. Floated quantifiers and secondary predicates, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, agree withwhatever DP <strong>the</strong>y modify, irrespective of <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>the</strong> DP. The <strong>the</strong>oretical generalizationthat arises is that passive participles (like verbs) agree only with structurally case-markedDPs, while floated quantifiers and secondary predicates agree with both structurally and nonstructurallycase-marked DPs. I show that this difference suggests that agreementmorphology and concord morphology come about via different mechanisms. I argue thatbecause of its relationship to case, verbal agreement – <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g passive participle agreement– should be determ<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntax. I provide an analysis of passive participles based onBhatt’s (2005) idea of covaluation. I argue that T covaluates <strong>the</strong> case feature on <strong>the</strong> participlewhen T probes a nom<strong>in</strong>ative DP. By contrast, I argue that floated quantifier and secondarypredicate concord come about via a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of syntactic case assignment and PF featurecopy<strong>in</strong>g.This analysis contrasts with two types of proposals. The first type, build<strong>in</strong>g on parallelsbetween DPs and CPs, argues that both agreement and concord are established <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> syntaxvia a probe-goal relationship (e.g., Baker 2008, Carstens 2000). The second k<strong>in</strong>d of analysisargues that both types of features are established at PF (e.g., Embick and Noyer 2007, Halleand Marantz 1993, Sigurðsson 2006). I argue that <strong>the</strong> Icelandic data suggest a more nuancedapproach, namely that agreement and concord phenomena should not be treated with a onesize-fits-allapproach.As is well-known, DP-<strong>in</strong>ternal concord generally <strong>in</strong>volves case, gender, and/or numberfeatures while verbal agreement generally <strong>in</strong>volves person, gender, and/or number features.In <strong>the</strong>ir agree<strong>in</strong>g forms, passive participles <strong>in</strong> Icelandic morphologically pattern like floatedquantifiers and secondary predicates. That is, all three items show case, gender, and numberfeatures. On <strong>the</strong> surface, this pattern seems to suggest that passive participle agreement is aform of concord. However, passive participles syntactically behave like verbs, even though<strong>the</strong>ir morphology differs.Icelandic verbs agree <strong>in</strong> person and number with nom<strong>in</strong>ative DPs, as shown <strong>in</strong> (1)a. In(1)b, <strong>the</strong> verb does not agree with <strong>the</strong> dative subject. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> verb appears <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> defaultform, which is homophonous with <strong>the</strong> third person s<strong>in</strong>gular.(1) a. Við lásum/*las bók<strong>in</strong>a. b. Stelpunum leiddist/*leiddust.we.nom read.1pl/dft book.<strong>the</strong>girls-<strong>the</strong>.dat.pl bored.dft/*3pl‘We read <strong>the</strong> book.’‘The girls felt bored.’In passives, <strong>the</strong> participle agrees <strong>in</strong> case, number, and gender with <strong>the</strong> nom<strong>in</strong>ative subject.The auxiliary patterns like ma<strong>in</strong> verbs and also agrees (<strong>in</strong> person and number) with <strong>the</strong>nom<strong>in</strong>ative, as shown <strong>in</strong> (2)a. Just as <strong>in</strong> actives, when <strong>the</strong>re is not a nom<strong>in</strong>ative, <strong>the</strong> verbappears <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> default. In (2)b, nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> auxiliary nor <strong>the</strong> participle agrees with <strong>the</strong> dative.(2) a. Strákarnir voru aðstoðaðir/*aðstoðað. b. Strákunum var hjálpað.boys.<strong>the</strong>.nom was.3pl aided.nom.pl.masc/*dft boys.<strong>the</strong>.dat was.dft helped.dft‘The boys were aided.’‘The boys were helped.’(Boeckx and Hornste<strong>in</strong> 2006, ex 2-3)Follow<strong>in</strong>g Legate 2008 and Woolford 2006, I assume that nom<strong>in</strong>ative is a structural caseand dative is a non-structural case. As such, T assigns nom<strong>in</strong>ative and v Dat assigns dative.