Agreement and pronouns
Implications for partial control
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Authier, J.-Marc, and Lisa Reed. 2018. “Symmetric Reciprocal Semantics as a Predictor of Partial Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 49: 379–393. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bowers, John. 2008. “On Reducing Control to Movement.” Syntax 11: 125–143. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. “Depictive Secondary Predicates and Small Clause Approaches to Argument Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 49: 537–559. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Corbett, Greville. 1983. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic. London: Croon Helm.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Creissels, Denis. 2011. “Impersonal Pronouns and Coreference: Two Case Studies.” Unpublished ms., University of Lyon, France.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Duffey, Patrick. 2014. Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Irimia, Monica-Alexandrina. 2005. “Types of Secondary Predication.” Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 20–29.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Landau, Idan. 2016a. “Against the Null Comitative Analysis of Partial Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 47: 572–580. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Landau, Idan. 2016b. “Agreement at PF: An Argument from Partial Control.” Syntax 19: 79–109. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lawler, John. 1972. A Problem in Participatory Democracy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. “Sideward Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–344. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge: MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. The Sense of Self: Topics in the Semantics of de se expressions. Boston, MA: Harvard University dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Smith, Peter. 2015. “Feature Mismatches: Consequences for Syntax, Morphology and Semantics.” University of Connecticut dissertation, Storrs, CT.
Smith, Peter. 2017. “The Syntax of Semantic Agreement in English.” Journal of Linguistics 53: 823–863. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA dissertation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Landau, Idan
2024.
Noncanonical Obligatory Control.
Language and Linguistics Compass 18:3
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 july 2024. 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.