Show simple item record

dc.creatorJohnson, Cynthia A.
dc.identifier.citationWorking Papers in Linguistics, no. 60 (2013), 1-9.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0473-9604 (print)
dc.description.abstractIn this paper, I challenge the argument put forth by Corbett (1991) that, within multiple antecedent agreement, the two possible agreement strategies, Resolution and Partial Agreement, can be viewed as semantic and syntactic agreement, respectively. Resolution, while semantically motivated and involving input from all of the agreement controllers, is not the same as semantic agreement in singleantecedent contexts. Partial Agreement, which relies on the morphological features of only one of the antecedents, still requires reference to the semantic features of both antecedents, as this strategy is more likely when the controllers are inanimate. Instead, I propose that the distribution of the two strategies – which nonetheless reflects the Agreement Hierarchy (Corbett 1979) and the Predicate Hierarchy (Comrie 1975) – is a product of the cognitive difficulty multiple antecedent agreement contexts pose for the speaker, such that the rules for this context are really part of broader principles within and across languages.en_US
dc.publisherOhio State University. Department of Linguisticsen_US
dc.rightsThis object is protected by copyright, and is made available here for research and educational purposes. Permission to reuse, publish, or reproduce the object beyond the bounds of Fair Use or other exemptions to copyright law must be obtained from the copyright holder.en_US
dc.titleMultiple Antecedent Agreement as Semantic or Syntactic Agreementen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US

Files in this item


Items in Knowledge Bank are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record