That's not how you agree

A reply to Zeijlstra

Datos Bibliográficos

ID20344197
AutoresOmer Preminger (0000-0003-2148-9741, Syracuse University, autor de correspondencia)
Año2013
Volumen30
Número3
Fecha de publicación2013-01-07
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe Linguistic Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0167-6318 • E-ISSN: 1613-3676
EditorialWalter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/tlr-2013-0015
OpenAlexW2004281801
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas28

In a recent paper, Zeijlstra (2012) argues that the theory of agreement should be revised so that the direction of valuation would always be downward: the element that contributes the value (e.g. in the case of predicate-argument agreement in φ-features, the nominal) would be required to c-command the element that receives its value derivatively (e.g. the verb or tense/aspect/mood marker) – rather than the other way around, as standardly assumed. In this short reply, I wish to demonstrate that Zeijlstra's proposal is unsuitable as a theory of φ-agreement (i.e., of morpho-phonologically overt co-variance in φ-features between a finite verb or a tense/aspect/mood marker and a nominal argument). I survey two empirical domains, from Tsez and Basque, demonstrating this point; I then briefly discuss the consequences of these facts for the empirical domains that Zeijlstra examines

Economics · Epistemology · Linguistics · Mood · Past tense · Statistics · Verb · Computer Science · Mathematics · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation · Accounting