Complementizer agreement in Bavarian: feature inheritance or feature insertion?Complementizer Agreement • November 29th, 2019
• Well-known fact: in many non-standard varieties of Germanic, we can observe instances of multiple agreement where the subject’s ϕ-features ([person], [number] etc.) are reflected not only on the verb, but also on C0 (or some head of a split-C structure):1
Complementizer Agreement and the relation between C° and T°1Complementizer Agreement • January 12th, 2011
A substantial set of West-Germanic dialects displays Complementizer Agreement, henceforth CA (cf. among others Bayer 1984; Haegeman 1992; Zwart 1993, 1997; Law 1991; Carstens 2003). Consider an example of this phenomenon in (1) (from Barbiers et al. 2005).
Complementizer AgreementComplementizer Agreement • July 25th, 2019
This chapter deals with a unique phenomenon found in a subset of the Germanic Languages: Complementizer Agreement (henceforth CA).1,2 CA is attested in (dialects of) Frisian and in a subset of the Dutch and the German dialects. It is, as far as I know, not found in (dialects of) English or the North Germanic languages.3 There is a large descriptive literature on CA in the continental West-Germanic dialects (see Barbiers et al. (2005, 2006), Weiß (2005), van Koppen 2017 for an elaborate list of references).
Complementizer Agreement in Mansfeld GermanComplementizer Agreement • April 16th, 2020
A number of West Germanic dialects exhibit a phenomenon called COMPLEMENTIZER AGREEMENT. Complementizer agreement refers to the property that the shape of subordinating conjunctions (and other elements introducing subordinate clauses) varies, depending on the φ-features of the subject (Koppen 2017, Weiß 2005). The data in
Complementizer Agreement in Tunisian ArabicComplementizer Agreement • May 20th, 2021
Revisiting complementizer agreementComplementizer Agreement • March 20th, 2015
Complementizer Agreement = Clitic Doubling?Complementizer Agreement • January 3rd, 2022
Various approaches to complementizer agreement (CA), mostly on the basis of Germanic, argue that CA is the result of clitic doubling (CD), (e.g., Van Craenenbroeck & Van Koppen 2008, van Alem 2020), as one view to CD involves a purely Agree-based approach, in which clitic results from Agree with a functional head (e.g., Sportiche 1996, Angelopoulos 2019).
Complementizer Agreement in Tunisian Arabic is Subject Clitic DoublingComplementizer Agreement • March 25th, 2022
This analysis captures the difference between Tunisian and the other varieties for which CA is argued to be true agreement.
Title: Lubukusu complementizer agreement as a logophoric relationComplementizer Agreement • November 27th, 2010
This paper introduces a new complementizer agreement relation to the theoretical literature, in which a declarative- embedding complementizer agrees with the subject in its selecting clause in Lubukusu, a Bantu language of Kenya. The agreement relation is extensively documented in a wide variety of syntactic contexts, establishing the empirical generalization that the complementizer agrees with its most local superordinate subject. The claim is then set forth that the complementizer agreement relation is essentially a logophoric phenomena, where a null logophor operator within the embedded CP triggers the complementizer agreement relation. The paper proposes that this logophoric operator is a subject-oriented anaphor, explaining the subject-orientation of complementizer agreement, and that logophoric operators cross-linguistically vary in their syntactic nature, explaining cross-linguistic differences in logophoric phenomena. It is shown that the agreeing complementizer occurs with all
Title: Indirect Agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreementComplementizer Agreement • September 5th, 2011
This paper introduces a new complementizer agreement relation to the theoretical literature from Lubukusu (Bantu, Kenya), in which a declarative-embedding complementizer agrees in an upward orientation with the subject of its selecting clause. The agreement relation is extensively documented in a wide variety of syntactic contexts including ditransitives, causatives, passives, and multiple embeddings, establishing the empirical generalization that the complementizer agrees with the most local superordinate subject. The paper proposes that this agreement relation is not a direct Agree relation, but is instead the result of local agreement between the complementizer and a null subject-oriented anaphor (whose antecedent is necessarily the superordinate subject). This is termed an Indirect Agree relation, defined as instances of agreement between a head and an agreement trigger are mediated by a different syntactic element (a null anaphor, in this case). A variety of evidence is given in s
Merge versus Long Distance Agree: the case of complementizer agreementComplementizer Agreement • January 31st, 2002
Complementizer agreement (CA) in Dutch dialects shows that checking under direct Merge between a head and its complement can trigger richer morphological agreement than checking under Long Distance Agree. Theoretically, our proposal extends claims made in Chomsky (2001a-b) in that not only spec,head- but also head,compl.-relations are privileged checking configurations. Empirically, our analysis is the first to account for the distributional generalisation made by Hoekstra & Smits (1998) and data that proved problematic for previous accounts.
