Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T21:35:41.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the role of person in the mapping of syntactic features onto their interpretable counterparts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2019

Ivona Kučerová
Ivona Kučerová*
Affiliation:
McMaster University
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Person features play a role in narrow-syntax processes. However, a person feature is often characterized as [±participant], a characterization that suggests pragmatic or semantic features. Relatedly, person has been the subject of an ongoing debate in the literature: one family of approaches argues that 3rd person is an elsewhere case, while another argues that it is a valued interpretable feature. This article provides a programatic argument that this disagreement has a principled basis. I argue that the representation of the features we identify as person changes between narrow syntax and the syntax-semantics interface. The tests and empirical descriptions are incongruent because they target different modules of the grammar and in turn different grammatical objects. The article thus contributes to our understanding of the division of labour among the modules, with a special focus on the autonomous status of narrow syntax.

Résume

Les traits de personne jouent un rôle dans les processus purement syntaxiques. Pourtant, un trait de personne est souvent caractérisée par [±participant], ce qui suggère des propriétés pragmatiques ou sémantiques. De même, la personne a fait l'objet d'un débat persistant dans la littérature: une famille d'approches affirme que la troisième personne est un cas défaut et l'autre fait valoir qu'il s'agit d'un trait interprétable spécifié. Cet article fournit un argument programmatique selon lequel ce désaccord repose sur des principes. Je soutiens que la représentation des traits de personne varie entre la syntaxe étroite et l'interface syntaxe-sémantique. Si les diagnostics et les descriptions empiriques semblent incohérents, c'est qu'ils ciblent différents modules de la grammaire, et donc différents objets grammaticaux. L'article contribue donc à notre compréhension de la division du travail entre modules, en mettant l'accent sur le statut autonome de la syntaxe étroite.

Keywords

personsyntax-semantics interfaceφ-featureslocalityagreementautonomous syntaxpersonneinterface syntaxe-sémantiquetraits φlocalitéaccordsyntaxe autonome
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 64 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 649 - 672
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

This work would have not been possible without the financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Insight Grant 435-2016-1034). Thanks to Diogo Almeida, Susana Béjar, Željko Bošković, Suzi Lima, Gereon Müller, Betsy Ritter, Jon Sprouse, Adam Szczegielniak, Nicholas Welch, audiences at the Brussels Linguistics Colloquium 9, University of Connecticut and the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro for their helpful questions, comments and feedback. Remaining errors are mine.

References

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, ed. Heggie, Lorie and Ordóñez, Francisco, 199–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Walkow, Martin. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(4): 951–1013.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review 25(1/2): 203–230.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense: An exo-skeletal trilogy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 455–496.Google Scholar
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 45(1): 27–89.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2005. Left branch extraction, structure of NP, and scrambling. In The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources and diversity, ed. Sabel, Joachim and Saito., Mamoru Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, ed. Domenico, Elisa Di, Hamann, Cornelia, and Matteini, Simona, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Postal, Paul M.. 2012. Imposters: A study of pronominal agreement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Despić, Miloje. 2011. Syntax in the absence of determiner phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Farkaş, Donka, and Zec, Draga. 1995. Agreement and pronominal reference. In Advances in Roumanian linguistics, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo and Giusti, Guiliana, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferrari-Bridgers, Franca. 2007. The predictability of gender in Italian. Lingua et Linguistica 1: 146–167.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick Georg. 2015. Movement and agreement in Right-Node-Raising constructions. Syntax 18(1): 1–38.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributive morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1991. The exponence of gender in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1): 27–62.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. von Stechow, Arnim and Wunderlich, Dieter, 487–535. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. In The interpretive tract, ed. Sauerland, Uli and Percus, Orin, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 205–246.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Phi-theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, ed. Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David, and Béjar, Susana, 35–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline, and Zamparelli, Roberto. 2005. Friends and colleagues: Plurality, coordination, and the structure of DP. Natural language semantics 13(3): 201–270.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic inquiry 16(4): 547–593.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2010. Comparisons and contrasts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway, and Dalrymple, Mary. 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. Journal of Linguistics 40(1): 69–104.Google Scholar
Kramer, Ruth. 2015. The morphosyntax of gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 187–237.Google Scholar
Kučerová, Ivona. 2002. Subjekt-predikátová shoda v češtině: univerzální nebo specifická jazyková forma? [Subject-predicate agreement in Czech: Specific or universal language form?]. In Čeština – univerzália a specifika [Czech – universals and specifics], ed. Hladká, Zdeňka and Karlík, Petr, vol. 4, 213–222. Prague: Lidové noviny.Google Scholar
Kučerová, Ivona. 2017. On labeling of DP coordinations and the lack of φ-feature resolution in syntactic Agree. In NELS 47: Proceedings of the forty-seventh annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. Lamont, Andrew and Tetzloff, Katerina, 211–220. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Kučerová, Ivona. 2018. φ -features at the syntax-semantics interface: Evidence from nominal inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 49(4): 813–845.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lima, Suzi. 2014. All notional mass nouns are count nouns in Yudja. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory 24: 534–554.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and the interpretation of language, ed. Bäurle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph, and von Stechow, Arnim, 303–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lochbihler, Bethany, and Oxford, Will. 2015. The person-animacy connection in Algonquian. Paper presented at the 2nd Prairies Workshop on Language and Linguistics. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, 14 March 2015.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2008. Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Essays on nominal determination: From morphology to discourse management, ed. Müller, Henrik Høeg and Klinge, Alex, 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc, Nevins, Andrew Ira, and Badecker, William. 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18(1): 39–77.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2013. Intrusive be constructions in (spoken) English: Apposition and beyond. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Minor, Sergey. 2011. Complex indices and a blocking account of the sequence of tenses. Ms., CASTL, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan, and Schmitt, Cristina. 2005. Number and indefinites. Lingua 115(6): 821–855.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Narita, Hiroki. 2011. Phasing in full interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for Person-Case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273–313.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Liudmila. 2014. The secret life of pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, and Romero, Juan. 1998. On the syntactic nature of the me-lui and the Person-Case Constraint. Anuario del Seminario Julio de Urquijo 32: 415–434.Google Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 2018. The person case constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36(4): 1291–1337.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(2): 433.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2013. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Podobryaev, Alexander. 2017. Three routes to person indexicality. Natural Language Semantics 25(4): 329–354.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2004. The EPP in Breton: An unvalued categorial feature. In Triggers, ed. Breitbarth, Anne and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 451–492. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. Featuring animacy and humanness. Presented at the Dog Days Syntax Workshop, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris. 2008. Anaphora resolved. Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris. 2011. Free variable economy. Linguistic Inquiry 42(4): 682–697.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2012. Reconsidering the construct state in Modern Hebrew. Rivista di Linguistica 24(2): 227–266.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 2003. Bound-variable pronouns and the semantics of number. In Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) 2002, ed. Agbayani, Brian, Koskinen, Paivi, and Samiian, Vida, 243–254. Fresno: California State University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT 13, ed. Young, R. and Zhou, Y., 258–275. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli and Elbourne, Paul. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2): 283–319.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter Williams. 2015. Feature mismatches: Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Steriopolo, Olga and Wiltschko, Martina. 2010. Distributed gender hypothesis. In Formal studies in Slavic linguistics: Proceedings of the Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5, ed. Zybatow, Gerhild, Dudchuk, Philip, Minor, Serge, and Pshehotskaya, Ekaterina, vol. 7.5, 153–172. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada. 2012. On the semantics of phi features on pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2): 159–204.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2001. Some reflections on gender and inflectional class assignment in Italian. In Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday, ed. Schaner-Wolles, C., Rennison, J., and Neubarth, F., 479–487. Turin: Rosenberg e Sellier.Google Scholar
Toporišič, Jože. 1976. Slovenska slovnica [Slovenian grammar]. Maribor: Obzorja.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen and Zlatić, Larisa. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 76(4): 799–832.Google Scholar
Willer-Gold, Jana, Arsenijevic̀, Boban, Batinić, Mia, Čordalija, Nermina, Kresić, Marijana, Leko, Nedžad, Marušič, Franc Lanko, Milićev, Tanja, Milićević, Nataša, Mitić, Ivana, Nevins, Andrew, Peti-Stantić, Anita, Stanković, Branimir, Šuligoj, Tina, and Tušek, Jelena. 2016. Conjunct agreement and gender in South Slavic: From theory to experiments to theory. Journal of Slavic linguistics 24(1): 187–224.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1(1): 81–114.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 143–181.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2015. Animating the narrow syntax. The Linguistic Review 32(4): 869–908.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 2000. Distributivity and dependency. Natural language semantics 8(1): 27–69.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa and Pancheva, Roumyana. 2017. A formal characterization of person-based alignment. The case of Paraguayan Guaraní. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35(4): 1161–1204.Google Scholar