Cover not available

In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 16: Selected papers from the 47th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Newark, Delaware
Edited by Irene Vogel
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 16] 2020
► pp. 19–36

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Agreement and pronouns

Implications for partial control

 | The Pennsylvania State University
 | The Pennsylvania State University
Published online: 21 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.16.02aut
Abstract
This chapter compares the workings of agreement mismatches involving the French pronoun on with those involving PRO in partial control (PC) environments in order to advance our understanding of the type of plurality that has been assumed to be associated with the latter. The theoretical framework used to effect this comparison is the two-step theory of Agree argued for by Arregi and Nevins (2012) and Smith (2017). The evidence uncovered suggests that whatever is assumed to induce the plurality of PC PRO (e.g. Landau’s (2016b) associative morpheme) leaves neither morphological nor semantic agreement footprints. We also show that, on the LF side, the type of plural set denoted by PC PRO appears to be immune to any sort of quantificational manipulation. We are thus left with an inference of plurality with no tangible grammatical correlates, which points in the direction of a process of pragmatic associative reference along the lines of Haug (2014).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Agreement mismatches with pronouns
  • 3.Agree and syntactically-dependent depictive secondary predicates
  • 4.On some agreement puzzles for PC PRO
    • 4.1Floated quantifiers
    • 4.2Agreement mismatches and the features of PC PRO
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (30)
References
Ardid-Gumiel, Ana. 2001. “The Syntax of Depictives. Subjects, Modes of Judgement and I-L/S-L Properties.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Syntax of Predication, ed. by N. Zhang, 1–26. Berlin: Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc, and Lisa Reed. 2018. “Symmetric Reciprocal Semantics as a Predictor of Partial Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 49: 379–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas, Archna Bhatia, and Maria Polinsky. 2009. “Closest Conjunct Agreement in Head Final Languages.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 67–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 2008. “On Reducing Control to Movement.” Syntax 11: 125–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. “Depictive Secondary Predicates and Small Clause Approaches to Argument Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 49: 537–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert, and Catherine Marshall. 1981. “Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge.” In Elements of Discourse Understanding, ed. by A. Joshi, B. Webber, and I. Sag, 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1983. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic. London: Croon Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2011. “Impersonal Pronouns and Coreference: Two Case Studies.” Unpublished ms., University of Lyon, France.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffey, Patrick. 2014. Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew. 2014. “The Anaphoric Semantics of Partial Control.” In Proceedings of SALT 24, ed. by T. Snider, S. D’Antonio, and M. Weigand, 213–233. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Irimia, Monica-Alexandrina. 2005. “Types of Secondary Predication.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 20–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. “Agreement and the Syntax-Morphology Interface in HPSG.” In Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. by R. Levine, and G. Green, 223–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016a. “Against the Null Comitative Analysis of Partial Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 47: 572–580. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016b. “Agreement at PF: An Argument from Partial Control.” Syntax 19: 79–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lawler, John. 1972. A Problem in Participatory Democracy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc, Tatjana Marvin, and Rok Žaucer. 2003. “Depictive Secondary Predication with No PRO.” Paper presented at the 5th European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages, Leipzig University. [URL]
Morgan, Jerry. 1984. “Some Problems of Determination in English Number Agreement.” In Proceedings of the 1st Eastern States Conference in Linguistics, ed. by G. Alvarez, B. Brodie, and T. McCoy, 69–78. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. “Sideward Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. The Sense of Self: Topics in the Semantics of de se expressions. Boston, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, Katherine. 2014. “Collective Nouns: Polysemy and Predication.” Paper presented at the 2014 Meeting of the Philosophical Linguistics and Linguistical Philosophy Conference in Tarrytown, NY.
Roberts, Ian. 1988. “Predicative APs.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 703–710.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Peter. 2015. “Feature Mismatches: Consequences for Syntax, Morphology and Semantics.” University of Connecticut dissertation, Storrs, CT.
. 2017. “The Syntax of Semantic Agreement in English.” Journal of Linguistics 53: 823–863. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2017. “Formal and Semantic Agreement in Syntax: A Dual Feature Approach.” In Language Use and Linguistic Structure, ed. by J. Emonds, and M. Janebová, 19–36. Olomouc: Palacky University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Landau, Idan
2024. Noncanonical Obligatory Control. Language and Linguistics Compass 18:3 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue