Breaking Agreements: Distinguishing Agreement and Clitic Doubling by Their Failures
Name
Preminger-2009-Breaking Agreements Distinguishing Agreement and Clitic Doubling by Their Failures.pdf
Size
702.96 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
1624e94f3043cf72b328a0bee81a1495
Author(s)
Preminger, Omer
Date Issued
October 2009
Journal
Linguistic Inquiry
Publisher
MIT Press
Citation
Preminger, Omer. “Breaking Agreements: Distinguishing Agreement and Clitic Doubling by Their Failures.” Linguistic Inquiry 40.4 (2009): 619-666. © 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Version
Final published version
Abstract
In this article, I propose a novel way to distinguish between agreement and clitic doubling. The innovation lies in examining what happens when the relation between the relevant agreement morphology and the full noun phrase fails to obtain: whether the agreement morpheme still shows up, bearing default -features, or disappears altogether.
The workings of the proposed diagnostic are demonstrated using a family of constructions in “substandard” Basque (Etxepare 2006). Besides supporting the proposed diagnostic, the analysis of Basque provides a new perspective on the typological status of the Basque agreement system, as well as evidence against the traditional analysis of unergatives in Basque as being underlyingly transitive.
Subjects
agreement
clitic doubling
Basque
unergatives
long-distance agreement
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use.
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619
