Eccentric Agreement and Multiple Case Checking

Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Volumn 65, Issue , 2006, Pages 47-77

  Bobaljik, Jonathan David ^a   Branigan, Phil ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Complement Clause; Ergative System; External Argument; Intransitive Verb; Matrix Clause

Indexed keywords

EID: 85102012189     PISSN: 09244670     EISSN: 22150358     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-4188-8_3     Document Type: Chapter

References (50)

1. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2002. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3. Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Bayer, Josef. 1984. ‘COMP in Bavarian syntax.’ The Linguistic Review 3, 209-274.
5. Béjar, Susana, and Rezac, Milan. (to appear). ‘Cyclic Agree and the derivation of PCC effects.’ Selected papers from LSRL XXXII. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
6. Bittner, Maria. 1987. ‘On the semantics of the Greenlandic antipassive and related constructions.’ IJAL 53, 194-231.
7. Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, Scope and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
8. Bittner, Maria, and Hale, Ken. 1996. ‘Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class.’ Linguistic Inquiry 27, 531-604.
9. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1995. Morphosyntax: the syntax of verbal inflection, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
10. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1998. ‘Pseudo-ergativity in Chukotko-Kamchatkan agreement systems.’ In Lea Nash, ed., Ergativity: Recherche linguistiques de Vincennes, vol. 27, pp. 21-44. Saint Denis.
11. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. ‘A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘Covert’ Movement.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 197-267.
12. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. ‘Seven prefix-suffix asymmetries in Itel’men.’ In Mary Andronis, Christopher Ball, Heidi Elston and Sylvain Neuvel, eds. CLS 37: The Panels. Papers from the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 32, pp. 205-219. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. ‘
13. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Wurmbrand, Susi. 2002. ‘Notes on Agreement in Itelmen. Linguistic Discovery 1.1, http://linguistic-discovery.dartmouth.edu/WebObjects/Linguistics.
14. Bok-Bennema, Reineke. 1991. Case and Agreement in Inuit. Berlin: Foris.
15. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1994. ‘The Person-Case Constraint: a morphological approach.’ In Heidi Harley and Colin Phillips, eds. The Morphology-Syntax Connection, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 33-52. Cambridge: MITWPL.
16. Bošković, Željko. 2002. ‘On multiple wh-fronting.’ Linguistic Inquiry 33, 351-383.
17. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
18. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory.’ In Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, eds. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 1-52. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
19. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
20. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework.’ In Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, eds. Step by step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, pp. 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic, and Causative Constructions. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. Dunn, Michael. 1999. A Grammar of Chukchi, Ph.D. Dissertation, Australian National University.
24. Embick, David. 2000. ‘Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect.’ Linguistic Inquiry 31, 185-230.
25. Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.
26. Franks, Steven. 1998. ‘Clitics in Slavic.’ Paper presented at Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax: “The State of the Art”, Spencer, Indiana (June 1998), available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~slavconf/linguistics/index.html
27. Guasti, Maria Teresa. 1993. Causatives and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Approach. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.
28. Hale, Ken. 2002. ‘Eccentric agreement.’ In Beatriz Fernández and Pablo Albizu, eds. Kasu eta Komunztaduraren gainean [On Case and Agreement], pp. 15-48. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Euskal Herriko Unibetsitatea.
29. Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. ‘Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection.’ In Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, eds. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 111-176. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
30. Halle, Morris, and Hale, Ken. 1997. Chukchi transitive and antipassive constructions. Ms., Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
31. Johns, Alana. 1996. ‘Ergativity.’ Glot International 2:3-8.
32. Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
33. Kozinsky, Issac S., Nedjalkov, Vladimir, and Polinskaja, Maria S. 1988. ‘Antipassive in Chuckchee: oblique object, object incorporation, zero object.’ In Masayoshi Shibatani, ed. Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34. Lin, Vivian. 2001. ‘A way to undo A-movement.’ In Karine Megerdoomian and Leora A. Bar-El, eds. Proceedings of WCCFL 20, pp. 358-371. Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press.
35. Mahajan, Anoop. 1993. ‘The Ergativity Parameter: have-be alternation, word order and split ergativity.’ Proceedings of NELS 24, pp. 317-331.
36. Marantz, Alec. 1991. ‘Case and licensing.’ Proceedings of ESCOL ’ 91, pp. 234-253.
37. Nash, Léa. 1995. Portée argumentale et marquage casuel dans les langues SOV et dans les langues ergatives: l’exemple du géorgien. Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris 8.
38. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1976. ‘Diathesen und Satzstruktur im Tschuktschischen.’ Studia Grammatica 13:181-213.
39. Pesetsky, David. 1998. ‘Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation.’ In Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis and David Pesetsky, eds. Is the best good enough? pp. 337-383. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and MITWPL.
40. Polinsky, Maria S. 1990. ‘Subject incorporation: evidence from Chukchee.’ In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell and Errapel Mejías-Bikandi, eds. Grammatical relations: a cross-theoretical perspective, pp. 349-364. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
41. Reed, Lisa A. 1996. Toward Logical Form: An Exploration of the Role of Syntax in Semantics. New York: Routledge.
42. Richards, Norvin. 1998. ‘The Principle of Minimal Compliance.’ Linguistic Inquiry 29:599-629.
43. Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Rochette, Anne. 1988. Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Romance Sentential Complementation. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
45. Rouveret, Alain, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. ‘Specifying reference to the Subject: French causatives and conditions on representations.’ Linguistic Inquiry 11:97-202.
46. Skorik, Piotr Ja. 1977. Грaмм ґuк чукоґского язьιкa, чaсґь II: глaгoл, нaречuе, служебньιе словa [Grammar of Chukchi, vol II: verb, adverb and auxiliary words]. Leningrad: Nauka.
47. Spencer, Andrew. 2000. ‘Agreement morphology in Chukotkan.’ In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer and Markus A. Pochtrager, eds. Morphological analysis in comparison, pp. 191-222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
48. Stump, Gregory T. 1993. ‘On rules of referral.’ Language 69, 449-479.
49. Wharram, Douglas. 2003. On the Interpretation of (Un)certain Indefinites in Inuktitut and Related Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
50. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. ‘How to describe inflection.’ Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 372-386.