Agreement

doi:10.1017/9781108580410.021

17 - Agreement

from Part Four - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2022

Roberta D’Alessandro

Edited by

Adam Ledgeway and

Martin Maiden

Show author details

Adam Ledgeway: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Martin Maiden: Affiliation:
University of Oxford

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter offers an overview of the development of the theory of agreement highlighting the major contributions that have been proposed on the basis of the Romance languages. The first part of the chapter follows the analysis of verb–subject agreement from early generative grammar to contemporary syntactic theory. After a short overview of syntactic agreement, the chapter moves on to morphological agreement, discussing among other things the relation between rich agreement and null subjecthood as well as agreement and subject clitics in Romance. The chapter offers a number of examples from standard and non-standard Romance languages.

Keywords

agreement Agree Spec-Head participial agreement subject clitics rich inflection null subjects long-distance agreement unaccusative subjects

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics , pp. 519 - 543

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108580410.021 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Selected References

Barbosa, P. (1994). ‘A new look at the null subject parameter’, paper presented at Console III, Venice.Google Scholar

Barbosa, P., Duarte, I., and Kato, M. (2005). ‘Null subjects in European and Brazilian Portuguese’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 11–52.CrossRef Google Scholar

Belletti, A. (1982). ‘Morphological passive and pro-drop: the impersonal construction in Italian’, Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 1–34.Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R. (2015). ‘Null subjects’. In Fábregas, A., Mateu, J., and Putnam, M. (eds), Contemporary Linguistic Parameters. London: Bloomsbury Press, 201–26.Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R. (2017). ‘When you have too many features: auxiliaries, agreement, and clitics in Italian varieties’, Glossa 2(1): 50. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.102.Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R. and Pescarini, D. (2016). ‘Agreement restrictions and agreement oddities in Romance’. In Fischer, S. and Gabriel, C. (eds), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance. Berlin: De Gruyter, 267–94.Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, R. and Roberts, I. (2008). ‘Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases’, Linguistic Inquiry 39: 477–91.Google Scholar

Duarte, M. E. and Varejão, F. (2013). ‘Null subjects and agreement marks in European and Brazilian Portuguese’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 12: 101–23. http://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.69.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. (1989). ‘Facets of Romance past participle agreement’. In Benincà, P. (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 85–103 (Reprinted in: Kayne, R. (2000). Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–38).CrossRef Google Scholar

Lammoglia Duarte, M. E. (1995). A perda do princípio ‘Evite Pronome’ no português brasileiro. Doctoral thesis, UNICAMP, São Paulo.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, A. (2012). ‘From Latin to Romance: configurationality, functional categories and head-marking’, Transactions of the Philological Society 110: 122–42.CrossRef Google Scholar

Maiden, M. (2012). ‘A paradox? The morphological history of the Romance present subjunctive’. In Gaglia, S. and Hinzelin, M.-O. (eds), Inﬂection and Word Formation in Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 27–54.Google Scholar