Acta Linguistica Academica
Volume/Issue:
Volume 64: Issue 2
(Under)specification of the person feature in relative clauses
Author:
Kaori Furuya University of North Texas

Search for other papers by Kaori Furuya in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Pages:
281–311
Online Publication Date:
Jun 2017
Publication Date:
01 Jun 2017
Article Category:
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2017.64.2.6
Keywords:
anti-agreement effect; binding; relatives; (under)specification; person feature; Distributed Morphology
Full access

By examining ϕ-agreement in relative clauses, this paper investigates the relation between syntax and morphology in terms of the person feature. English relativized subjects appear to have different phi-features for the purposes of subject-verb agreement and binding relations. The verbal morphology uniformly displays 3rd person whereas reflexive binding shows 1st/2nd person in addition to 3rd person. If subject extraction must trigger an invariable verbal form as Ouhalla (1993) argues, the binding alternations cannot be accounted for. This paper proposes dual properties of the person feature based on Harley and Ritter’s (2002) feature geometry, and argues that relativized subjects may not obtain both properties of the person feature from the head noun via Agree. This partial agreement causes morphosyntactic variation in English and cross-linguistically in Distributed Morphology (DM). The current analysis demonstrates that referential and morphological (under)specifications are kept separate under the constraint of the syntactic operation Agree.

  • Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax. A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Adger, David. 2011. Bare resumptives. In A. Rouveret (ed.) Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 343–365.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

  • Akmajian, Adrian. 1979. On deriving cleft sentences from pseudocleft sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 149–168.

  • Baker, Mark. C. 2008. On the nature of the antiagreement effect: Evidence from wh-in-situ in Ibibio. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 615–632.

  • Baker, Mark. C. 2011. When agreement is for number and gender but not person. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29. 875–915.

  • Béjar, Susana and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 35–73.

  • Bernstein, Judy B. 2008. The expression of third person in older and contemporary varieties of English. English Studies 89. 571–586.

  • Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Bianchi, Valentina. 2000. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 123–40.

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and “covert” movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20. 157–267.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Boef, Eefje. 2012. Doubling in relative clauses: Aspects of morphosyntactic microvariation in Dutch. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Borsely, Robert and Janig Stephens. 1989. Agreement and the position of subjects in Breton. Natural Llanguage and Linguistic Theory 7. 407–428.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48. 27–89.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Brandi, Luciana and Patrizia Cordin. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the null-subject parameter. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.) The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 111–142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Canac-Marquis, Réjean. 2005. Phases and binding of reflexives and pronouns in English. In C. Gurski (ed.) Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference. Ontario: University of Western Ontario. 482–502.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cheng, Lisa. 2006. Decomposing Bantu relatives. NELS 36. 197–216.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian (eds.) Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71–132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale & Keyser (1993, 1–52).

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 89–155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52.

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland and H.-M. Gärtner (eds.) Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax–semantics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–29.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero and M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.) Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 134–166.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.) Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research. Vol. 1. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 506–569.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Collins, Chris. 2014. Cross-linguistic studies of imposters and pronominal agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Collins, Collins and Paul Postal. 2012. Imposters: A study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudoclefts. Leuven/ Dordrecht: Leuven University Press/Foris.

  • Despić, Miloje. 2015. Phases, reflexives and definiteness. Syntax 18. 201–234.

  • Diercks, Michael. 2010. Agreement with subjects in Lubukusu. Doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University.

  • Diercks, Michael. 2013. Indirect Agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31. 357–407.

  • Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. Specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell. 292–409.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 1–41.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Essien, Okon. 1990. A grammar of the Ibibio language. Ibadan: University Press.

  • Fischer, Silke. 2004. Optimal Binding. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22. 481–526.

  • Fischer, Silke. 2006. Matrix unloaded: Binding in a local derivational approach. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 44. 913–935.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fox, Danny and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen and P. Norquest (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 132–144.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Furuya, Kaori. 2009. The DP hypothesis through the lens of Japanese nominal collocation constructions. Doctoral dissertation. City University of New York.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Furuya, Kaori. 2016a. Person agreement in restrictive relative clauses: Head external analysis verses head internal analysis. Manuscript.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Furuya, Kaori. 2016b. PRO and (under)specification of person in imposter constructions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6. 1723–1731.

  • Furuya, Kaori. 2017. Adjunct control and agreement. Manuscript.

  • Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and A′ binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.). 1993. The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale & Keyser (1993, 111–176).

  • Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In A. Carnie and H. Harley (eds.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Papers on phonology and morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 275–88.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harley, Heidi and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A featuregeometric analysis. Language 78. 482–526.

  • Heck, Fabian and Juan Cuartero. 2008. Long distance agreement in relative clauses. Varieties of Competition 47. 13–48.

  • Henderson, Brent. 2009. Anti-agreement and [Person] in Bantu. In M. Matondo, F. McLaughlin and E. Potsdam (eds.) Selected proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: Linguistic Theory and African Language Documentation. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 173–181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Henderson, Brent. 2013. Agreement and person in anti-agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31. 453–481.

  • Hendrick, Randall. 1988. Anaphora in Celtic and Universal Grammar. Dodrecht: Kluwer.

  • Hicks, Glyn. 2009. The derivation of anaphoric relations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Kimball, John and Judith Aissen. 1971. I think, you think, he think. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 241–246.

  • Kinyalolo, Kasangati. 1991. Syntactic dependencies and the SPEC-head agreement hypothesis in Kilega. Doctoral dissertation. UCLA.

  • Kobele, Gregory. 2010. A formal foundation for A and A-bar movement in the Minimalist Program. In C. Ebert, G. Jäger and J. Michaelis (eds.) Lecture notes in computer science. Berlin: Springer. 145–159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1991. Some current issues in Turkish syntax. In H. Boeschoten and L. Verhoeven (eds.) Turkish linguistics today. Brill: Brill. 60–92.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 48. 187–237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kula, Nancy. 2014. Anaphora in the African languages –Questionnaire for language consultants. http://www.africananaphora.rutgers.edu/bemba-casemenu-203

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dodrecht: Kluwer.

  • Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22. 811–877.

  • Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Landau, Idan. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2008. Binding, phases, and locality. Syntax 11. 281–298.

  • McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A′-binding, and levels of representation in Irish. In R. Hendrick (ed.) Syntax and semantics: The syntax of the Modern Celtic languages. New York: Academic Press. 199–238.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McGinnis, Martha. 2004. Lethal ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 47–95.

  • Morita, Hisashi. 2009. Covert pied-piping in Japanese WH-questions. English Linguistics 26. 374–393.

  • Munakata, Takashi. 2006. Paper presented at Workshop in Altaic Formal Linguistics 3. Intermediate Agree: Complementizer as a Bridge.

  • Nelson, Gerald. 1997. Cleft constructions in spoken and written English. Journal of English Linguistics 25. 340–348.

  • Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for personcase effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 273–313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs.omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29. 939–971.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • O’Herin, Brian. 2002. Case and agreement in Abaza. Arlington, TX: University of Texas Press.

  • Ouali, Hamid. 2008. On C-to-T phi-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and antiagreement in Berber. In R. D’Alessandro, S. Fischer and G. H. Hrafnbjargarson (eds.) Agreement restrictions. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 159–180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ouhalla, Jamal. 1993. Subject extraction, negation and the anti-agreement effect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11. 477–518.

  • Ouhalla, Jamal. 2005. Agreement feature, agreement, and anti-agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23. 655–686.

  • Perlmutter, David M. 1972. Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization. In P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi and G. C. Phares (eds.) The Chicago which hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 73–105.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian and W. K. Wilkins (eds.) Phrasal and clausal architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 262–294.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

  • Quicoli, Carlos A. 2008. Anaphora by phase. Syntax 11. 299–329.

  • Rackowski, Andrea and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 565–599.

  • Reeve, Matthew. 2011. The syntactic structure of English clefts. Lingua 121. 142–171.

  • Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Rooryck, Johann and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd. 2011. Dissolving binding theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham MA: Blaisdell. 222–272.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Safir, Ken. 2014. One true anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 91–124.

  • Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49. 19–46.

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1995. Specifier/head agreement in Kinande. Cahiers Linguistique D’Ottawa 23. 67–96.

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2000. Anti-agreement and the fine structure of the left edge. In R. Ai, F. del Gobbo, M. Irie and H. Ono (eds.) Working papers in linguistics 6. Irvine, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California. 94–114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007. Anti-agreement, anti-locality and minimality: The syntax of dislocated subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 403–446.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sornicola, Rosanna. 1988. It-clefts and wh-clefts: Two awkward sentence types. Journal of Linguistics 24. 343–379.

  • Urk, Coppe and Norvin Richards. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46. 111–155.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Vinokurova, Nadezhda. 2009. On raising and proleptic objects in Sakha. Manuscript. Rutgers University and State University of Yakutsk.

  • Vries, Mark de. 2002. The syntax of relativization. Utrecht: LOT.

  • Watanabe, Akira. 2006. The pied-piper feature. In L. L.-S. Cheng and N. Corver (eds.) Wh-movement: Moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 47–70.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2000. A head raising analysis of relative clauses in Dutch. In A. Alexiadou, P. Law, A. Meinunger and C. Wilder (eds.) The syntax of relative clauses. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 349–386.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Acta Linguistica Academica
Acta Linguistica Academica An International Journal of Linguistics
Print ISSN:
2559-8201
Online ISSN:
2560-1016
Submit Your Manuscript

 

The author instructions are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

 

Editors

Editor-in-Chief: András Cser

Editor: György Rákosi

Review Editor: Tamás Halm

Editorial Board

  • Anne Abeillé / Université Paris Diderot
  • Željko Bošković / University of Connecticut
  • Marcel den Dikken / Eötvös Loránd University; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Hans-Martin Gärtner / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Elly van Gelderen / Arizona State University
  • Anders Holmberg / Newcastle University
  • Katarzyna Jaszczolt / University of Cambridge
  • Dániel Z. Kádár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • István Kenesei / University of Szeged; Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Anikó Lipták / Leiden University
  • Katalin Mády / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gereon Müller / Leipzig University
  • Csaba Pléh / Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Central European University
  • Giampaolo Salvi / Eötvös Loránd University
  • Irina Sekerina / College of Staten Island CUNY
  • Péter Siptár / Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics, Budapest
  • Gregory Stump / University of Kentucky
  • Peter Svenonius / University of Tromsø
  • Anne Tamm / Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church
  • Akira Watanabe / University of Tokyo
  • Jeroen van de Weijer / Shenzhen University

 

Acta Linguistica Academica
Address: Benczúr u. 33. HU–1068 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: (+36 1) 351 0413; (+36 1) 321 4830 ext. 154
Fax: (36 1) 322 9297
E-mail: ala@nytud.mta.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Arts and Humanities Citation Index
  • Bibliographie Linguistique/Linguistic Bibliography
  • International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
  • Linguistics Abstracts
  • Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts
  • MLA International Bibliography
  • SCOPUS
  • Social Science Citation Index
  • LinguisList

 

2023  
Web of Science  
Journal Impact Factor 0.5
Rank by Impact Factor Q3 (Linguistics)
Journal Citation Indicator 0.37
Scopus  
CiteScore 1.0
CiteScore rank Q1 (Literature and Literary Theory)
SNIP 0.571
Scimago  
SJR index 0.344
SJR Q rank Q1

Acta Linguistica Academica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2025 Online subsscription: 648 EUR / 712 USD
Print + online subscription: 744 EUR / 820 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Linguistica Academica
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation		 2017 (1951)
Volumes
per Year		 1
Issues
per Year		 4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia   
Founder's
Address		 H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address		 H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher		 Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2559-8201 (Print)
ISSN 2560-1016 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Mar 2024 0 52 0
Apr 2024 0 25 2
May 2024 0 10 0
Jun 2024 0 9 2
Jul 2024 0 41 3
Aug 2024 0 29 5
Sep 2024 0 11 0