Closest Conjunct Agreement is an Illusion*Academic Paper • June 13th, 2015
This means that Move has to apply at the TP level with the order deriving LCA inside the &P ( 6), there is no optionality. This rules out agreement with the furthest conjunct.
Sten Vikner, University of Aarhus, Denmark,Academic Paper • October 22nd, 2009
Among the Germanic and Romance languages, the languages that lack predicative adjective agreement without lacking attributive adjective agreement are all SOV-languages (including Yiddish). I propose to link this to the OV/VO-difference by suggesting that languages with head-final VPs (i.e. OV-languages) also have head-final Adjective Phrases (AdjPs).
French vs Italian datives: participle agreement, reflexives and the PCC1Academic Paper • June 17th, 2017
Closest Conjunct Agreement is an Illusion*Academic Paper • April 26th, 2016
Problem: Closest Conjunct Agreement seems to be sensitive to linear proximity instead of hier- archical structure and c-command.
Peter B. M. Vranas vranas@iastate.edu Iowa State University 21 November 2004Academic Paper • November 22nd, 2004
Abstract. There is widespread agreement, even among those who accept the possibility of back- ward causation, that it is impossible to change the past. I argue that this agreement corresponds to a relatively uninteresting understanding of what changing the past amounts to. In one sense it is in- deed impossible to change the past: in no possible world is an action performed which makes the past in that world different from the past in that world. In another sense, however, it may be possi- ble to change the past: maybe in some possible world an action is performed which makes the past in that world different from the actual past. I argue that those who accept the possibility of back- ward causation are committed to accepting the possibility that the past changes in the latter sense.
From non-canonical to canonical agreementAcademic Paper • August 21st, 2012
According to a widespread view, adjectives developed out of nouns in Proto-Indo-European, as shown by the fact that the border between nouns and adjectives was fluid in all ancient Indo- European languages, in which it can be shown that many adjectives originated from nouns which, given their meaning, were often used as appositions to other nouns (Brugmann 1888: 420-426; see further Meillet, Vendryes 1924: 530; Kühner, Blass 1890: 547-551 among other). In my paper I discuss how a number of nouns, often functioning as modifiers of other nouns, can give rise to a new word class, that of adjectives, crucially characterized by agreement in all relevant categories. I argue that incipient agreement is non-canonical, while canonical agreement is the last step in a change that results in transcategorization.
