Agreement: An investigation into the distribution of information

Agreement: A bibliography

This bibliography was produced by Carole Tiberius, Greville Corbett and Julia Barron as part of an ESRC project 'Agreement: An investigation into the distribution of information' (Grant number: R000238228). This support is gratefully acknowledged.

The bibliography comprises collections and special issues devoted to agreement (section A), monograph-length studies of agreement , mainly studies of agreement in particular languages (section B), articles and book chapters devoted to agreement (section C). There is a good deal of material on agreement in the Slavonic languages which is given separately (section D).

This bibliography does not in general include works which may refer to agreement morphology in connection with language acquisition, language reconstruction or sign language.

Section A: Collections and special issues

Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.). 1984. ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.

Barlow, Michael & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.). 1988. Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. & Phillips, Colin (eds.). 1993. Papers on Case and Agreement. I (=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18). Cambridge, MA.: Department of Linguistics, MIT.

Brentari, Diane; Larson, Gary N. and MacLeod, Lynn A. (eds.). 1988. CLS 24: Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Part II: Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Note: This is a collection of papers on aspects of agreement given at the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.

Corbett, Greville (ed.). 1999. Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2 Special Issue on Agreement.

Danon-Boileau, Laurent, Morel, Mary-Annick & Tamba, Irène (eds.). 1996. L’Accord (Faits de langues 8). Paris: Ophrys.

Phillips, Colin (ed.). 1993. Papers on Case and Agreement. II (=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19). Cambridge, MA.: Department of Linguistics, MIT.

Plank, Frans (ed.). 1995. Double case: agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York: Oxford University Press.

Section B: Monographs

Monographs on Slavonic languages are included in Section D. These are Corbett (1979, 1983a), Crockett (1976), Grappin (1950), Iomdin (1990), Leko (1986), Mathiassen (1965), Megaard (1976), Mučnik (1971), Mullen (1967), Neidle (1988), Panov (1968), Patton (1969), Pesetsky (1982), Rozental’ (1960), Sand (1971), Schmidt (1995), Senkevič (1964), Skoblikova (1971), Stanojčić (1967), Suprun (1959, 1961, 1969), Vanek (1970).

Alexander, Matthew John. 1990. Agreement Configurations: Grammatical Relations in Modular Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.

Barlow, Michael. 1988. A situated theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford. Published 1992, New York: Garland.

Topic: The nature and definition of agreement.Formal syntactic framework: Unification-based grammar.Language(s) cited: Arabic, English.

Note: The author makes the claim that agreement is not a redundant feature-copying morphosyntactic phenomenon, but that it is a non-directional feature-merging phenomenon in which information distributed throughout the sentence is unified. A Discourse-Linking Theory of agreement is presented in which it is claimed that agreement can only be understood as a situated phenomenon associated with information present in discourse situations and the communication of information between speaker and hearer.

Belnap, R. Kirk. 1991. Grammatical agreement variation in Cairene Arabic (Arabic). PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. [Distributed by University Microfilms International 1992, reference NIR92-00311.]

Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bessler, Paul Robert. 1994. Une Analyse morphosyntaxique de l'accord grammatical en français. PhD Dissertation. University of Toronto. [Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 1995, 55, 12, June, 3828-A. Order No DANN 92607.]

Blinkenberg, Andreas. 1950. Le Problème de l’accord en français moderne: essai d’un typologie. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Bok-Bennema, Reineke. 1991. Case and Agreement in Inuit. Berlin: Foris.

Bosch, Peter. 1983. Agreement and anaphora: a study of the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. London: Academic Press.

Topic: Pronouns and anaphora Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: English

Note: This book explores the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. It examines the accounts proposed to explain how pronouns refer and the constraints on their interpretation.

Chung, Sandra L. 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Cornish, Francis. 1986. Anaphoric relations in English and French: A Discourse Perspective. London: Croom Helm.

Davies, William D. 1986. Choctaw verb agreement and universal grammar (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Dobrin, Lise M. 1999. Phonological form, morphological class, and syntactic gender: the noun class systems of Papua New Guinea Arapeshan. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.

Enrique, Andrés. 1997. The Grammaticalization of Object Agreement in Spanish. PhD Dissertation. University of Southern California. [Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 1998, 58, 11, May, 4253-A. Order No. DA9816021.]

Everett, Daniel. 1996. Why there are no Clitics. An alternative perspective on pronominal allomorphy. SIL, Arlington.

Fabri, Ray. 1987. An analysis of grammatical agreement in Maltese. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Düsseldorf.

Fabri, Ray. 1993. Kongruenz und die Grammatik des Maltesischen (Linguistische Arbeiten 292). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Findreng, Årne. 1976. Zur Kongruenz in Person und Numerus zwischen Subjekt und finitem Verb im modernen Deutsch. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Fisher, Ulla T. 1985. The Sweet Sound of Concord: A Study of Swedish Learners’ Concord Problems in English (Lund Studies in English 73). Malmö: CWK Gleerup.

Gelderen, Elly van. 1997. Verbal agreement and the grammar behind its breakdown: Minimalist feature checking (Linguistische Arbeiten 364). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Topic: lack of agreementFormal syntactic framework: MinimalismLanguage(s) cited: Arabic, Dutch, English, French, Hopi, Kirundi, Kinyarwanda, Swedish, Urdu/Hindi.

Note: This book is about what the lack of agreement indicates about the structure of language. Van Gelderen shows that instances where agreement is deficient are not due to psychological factors, but to grammatical ones. She gives the following reasons: (a) Lack of Spec-Head agreement. For example, in Dutch, you get a breakdown of agreement when the subject follows the verb as in veeg jij je voeten (‘wipe your feet’) versus jij veegt je voeten (‘you wipe your feet’); (b) C/overt movement and expletives. Movement may result in features being checked by the wrong element, an expletive. Van Gelderen defines an expletive as an element ‘deficient’ in features. For example, ‘het’ in Dutch is specified for person and gender, but unspecified for number; (c) Impact from grammaticalising processes. Certain elements start out as lexical items, specific in meaning, but acquire a much more general lexical meaning and/or a more grammatical function. That is, they lose phi-features and change categorial features. For example, is ‘with’ a preposition or a conjunction; (d) Structural configurations/ambiguous structures. Certain complex structures are intransparent and only part of the structure might decide agreement. For example, coordinate structures. The book focuses on the discussion of Verb Subject, Verb Object, and Verb-wh agreement structures.

Hoyt, Frederick M. L. 2000. Agreement, specificity effects, and phrase structure in rural Palestinian Arabic existential constructions. MA thesis, Cornell University.

Høybye, Poul. 1944. L'Accord en français contemporain: essai de grammaire descriptive. Copenhagen: Høst & Søns Forlag.

Jaeger, Christoph. 1992. Probleme der syntaktischen Kongruenz: Theorie und Normvergleich im Deutschen (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 132). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Källström, Roger. 1993. Kongruens i svenskan (Nordistica Gothoburgensia 16). Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Kathman, David Joseph. 1994. The Morphosyntax of Complex Verb Agreement. PhD dissertation. The University of Chicago. [Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 1995, 55, 12, June, 3829-A. Order No DA 9513992.]

Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lapointe, Steven G. 1980. A theory of grammatical agreement. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. New York. Garland.

Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with Collective Nouns in English (Lund Studies in English 103). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Note: This thesis concerns agreement with collective nouns in American, British and Australian English. It is based on material from newspaper corpora and spoken corpora. The findings suggest that dialectal, stylistic, diachronic, syntactic and semantic factors interact in the selection of singular and plural agreement. It was shown that there are differences between regional varieties, between speech and writing and between written and spoken genres. Syntactic influence on agreement was seen in the increased likelihood of plural agreement with increased distance between the noun (the controller) and its agreement-carrying words (the targets). This was observed both in the number of intervening words between a controller and its targets and in the difference between verbs, which are fairly close to their controllers, and pronouns. This trend was found in both speech and writing. These findings suggest that targets acquire more independence of the form of their controllers the further they are away. Semantic factors were also found to be important in British English. The noun itself plays a crucial role in the choice of agreement. A noun such as government very rarely takes singular verb agreement, whereas family takes either singular or plural agreement, and couple generally prefers the plural. A few verbs were found to require singular agreement with collective nouns (e.g. consist, be set up, increase), but other verb categories (e.g. think, say, work) were not found to influence agreement decisively. These and other features described indicate that a wide range of functional factors influence variation in agreement patterns. (author abstract)

Newman, Michael. 1997. Epicene pronouns : the linguistics of a prescriptive problem NY: Garland Publishing (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics)

Pelletier, Rosanne Helen. 1994. Aspects of the Syntax and Morphology of Telugu: Agreement and Negation in Verbal Projections. PhD dissertation. Yale University. [Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 1994, 55, 6, Dec, 1547-A. Order No DA 9428303.]

Perry, Thomas A. 1975. Problems in Subject-Verb Agreement. PhD dissertation, Indiana University. [Distributed by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 76-11376.]

Roberts, Taylor. 2000. Clitics and agreement. PhD dissertation MIT. Distributed as MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA.

Russell, Dale William. 1987. Cheyenne verb agreement in GPSG. PhD dissertation. University of Illinois. [Distributed by University Microfilms International. Ann Arbor. Oder No 8721749.]

Scancarelli, Janine. 1987. Grammatical relations and verb agreement in Cherokee. PhD dissertation, University of Californian, Los Angeles. [Distributed by University Microforms International reference 8803692.]

Schütze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language: Agreement, Case, and Licensing. PhD dissertation, MIT.

Singer, Kora. 1999. Agreement: Cross-linguistic variation and acquisition. PhD dissertation University of Chicago.

Note: This thesis concentrates on verb-argument agreement in OT.

Steele, Susan. 1990. Agreement and Anti-Agreement: A Syntax of Luiseño (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17), Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Stefanescu, Ioana. 1997. The Syntax of Agreement in Romanian. PhD dissertation, City University of New York. Distributed as MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics no. 14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, MIT, Department of Linguistics.

Tuite, Kevin. 1998. Kartvelian morphosyntax: Number agreement and morphosyntactic orientation in the south Caucasian languages. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Vikner, Sten. 1994. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford University Press.

Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Case absorption and WH-agreement (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Section C: Articles

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1994. Classifiers in Tariana. Anthropological.Linguistics 36(4), 407-465.

Aissen, Judith L. 1984. Surrogate Agreement in Tzotzil. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 1-12.

Aissen, Judith L. 1988. Extensions of Brother-in-Law Agreement. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 219-235.

Topic: Non-regular controllers of agreementFormal syntactic framework: Relational GrammarLanguage(s) cited: English, Totzil, Southern Tiwa

Note: By making a distinction between Primary Agreement Controllers and Secondary Agreement Controllers, the author offers an account of agreement in constructions with non-regular controllers which is an extension of the ‘brother-in-law’ agreement of Relational Grammar. Secondary Agreement controllers (i.e. non-final terms) are allowed to control agreement on b if they head an arc which is overrun by an arc headed by a Primary Agreement Controller for b.

Aissen, Judith L. 1989. Agreement controllers and Tzotzil comitatives. Language 65. 518-536.

Aissen, Judith L. 1990. Towards a Theory of Agreement Controllers. In Postal, Paul M. and Brian D. Joseph (eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 279-320.

Topic: Possible controllers of predicate agreementFormal syntactic framework: Relational GrammarLanguage(s) cited: Georgian, K’ekchi.

Note: The author offers an account of the phenomenon by which agreement facts require reference to non-final grammatical relations. Agreement controllers may thus contain inherent features and features which are ‘acquired’ from noun phrases which they have ‘overrun’ in the course of the phrasal derivation, i.e. when they have assumed a grammatical function previously held by another noun phrase. Language specific rules will decide whether inherent or acquired agreement features are referred to in a particular domain.

Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E. 1998. Parametrizing Agr: word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 491-539.

Allen, Barbara J., Donald G. Frantz, Donna B. Gardiner, David M. Perlmutter. 1990. Verb Agreement, Possessor Ascension, and Multistratal Representation in Southern Tiwa. In Postal, Paul M. and Brian D. Joseph (eds.) Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 321-383.

Topic: Verbal agreement in possessive constructionsFormal syntactic framework: Relational GrammaLanguage(s) cited: Southern Tiwa

Note: In this paper the authors examine a set of apparently disparate constructions – possessor ascension, goal to 1 advancement, passive and 3-2 advancement - which exhibit the same verbal agreement prefix. The agreement prefixes are complex, providing information about final subjects and objects in a cumulative exponent. They argue that Southern Tiwa shares its basic clause structure with other languages, but that there is an additional agreement rule in the language which references the initial Absolutive relation. The apparently confusing agreement morphology can be explained by the interaction of this rule with the syntactic rules of advancement and ascension.

Allerton, David. 1992. Problems of Modern English grammar II: Disagreement about agreement: Findings. English Studies: A Journal of English Language and Literature 73(5). Swets & Zeitlinger. 458-468.

Topic: English subject predicate agreement. Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: English

Note: The author tests a number of copular sentences in English to explore both the nature of subject predicate agreement and means of identifying the grammatical subject of such clauses. A number of conclusions are drawn regarding the relationship between epithet nouns and entity nouns and the preferences for agreement with each. It is illustrated that English seems to have a rigid subject-verb-predicative order in declarative sentences and that factors other than notions like heads and phrases have a role in determining agreement in English.

Almor, Amit, Maryellen C. MacDonald, Daniel Kempler, Elaine S. Andersen, and Lorraine K. Tyler. 2001. Comprehension of long distance number agreement in probable Alzheimer’s disease. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(1). 35-63.

Topic: number agreement and Alzheimer’s diseaseFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Standard American English

Note: Patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have difficulty comprehending spoken language. This difficulty is apparent in their conversational interaction as well as in their performance in many laboratory tasks. The origins of this difficulty, however, are not well understood. This paper describes research that was undertaken to investigate the role of working memory in processing dependencies of different types and different lengths by examining the effect of intervening material on AD patients and healthy normal controls’ on-line processing of grammatical (i.e. subject-verb) and discourse (i.e. antecedent-anaphor) number agreement.

Anderson, John. 1982. A Disagreeable Note on Grammatical Relations. In René Dirven and Günter Radden (eds.) Issues in the Theory of Universal Grammar. Tübingen : G. Narr. 125-143.

Topic: Agreement controllersFormal syntactic framework: Relational GrammarLanguage(s) cited: Latin, Avar, Palauan, Acehnese, Southern Tiwa, Amharic, Swahili.

Note: The author presents arguments in favour of a Relational Grammar theory of agreement controllers which states that agreement is conditional on termhood, rather than a requirement that only subjects can trigger agreement or that there is an agreement hierarchy such that indirect object agreement implies direct object agreement.

Anderson, John. 1995. The Possessed. In F.R. Palmer (ed.) Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons. England: Cambridge University Press. 162-174.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1974. On dis-agreement rules. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 445-451.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. On representations in morphology: case, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2.157-218.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (95-100, 103-118, 137-79).

Anderson, Stephen R. 1997. Remarks on Agreement and Incorporation Phenomena. In Lizanne Kaiser, ed., Studies in the Morphosyntax of Clitics, 29-44. (Y.A.L.E. working papers, vol. 1, 1997).

Andrews, Avery D. 1971. Case agreement of predicate modifiers in Ancient Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 127-152.

Andrews, Avery D. 1973. Agreement and deletion. In Claudia Corum, T., Cedric Smith-Stark, Ann Weiser (eds.) CLS 9: Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 23-33.

Androutsopoulou, Antonia. 2001. Adjectival Determiners in Albanian and Greek. In María Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds.) Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 161– 199.

Note: Contains (somewhat limited) discussion of the agreement between the ‘genitive case’ particles and the possessor in possessive constructions. (This is discussed in somewhat more detail in Morgan 1984.)

Anward, Jan. 1988. Verb-Verb agreement in Swedish. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, May 1988. 1-33.

Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas and Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 195-220.

Aoun, Joseph & Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1999. Gapping, PF merger and patterns of partial agreement. In Shalom Lappin & Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.) Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping. New York: Oxford University Press. 175-192.

Aoun, Joseph; Benmamoun, Elabbas & Sportiche, Dominique. 1999. Further remarks on first conjunct agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 669- 681.

Asyik, Abdul Gani 1983. The Agreement System in Acehnese. Mon-Khmer Studies XI. 1-33

Topic: The agreement system of AcehneseFormal syntactic frameworkLanguage(s) cited: Acehnese (North Aceh dialect)

Note: The author provides a description of the agreement system of Acehnese. Agreement is found with verbal and adjectival predicates. It is marked by affixes, the controller of which is the subject or some kind of agent (either animate or inanimate).

Avgustinova, Tania and Hans Uszkoreit. Forthcoming. Towards a Typology of Agreement Phenomena. In William Griffin (ed.) "The Role of Agreement in Natural Language": Proceedings of the 2001 Texas Linguistic Society Conference. Austin, Texas. 2-4 March 2001.

Topic: typology of agreement relationsFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Slavic

Note: Agreement phenomena are instances of co-variation of linguistic forms which is typically realised as feature congruity, i.e. compatibility of values of identical grammatical categories of syntactically combined linguistic items. This paper focuses on the nature of the relations holding between the "agreeing" items. The main hypothesis is that systematic relations motivate shared patterns of variation cross-linguistically as well as across constructions resulting in a typology. A multidimensional taxonomy is proposed. The descriptive power of this taxonomy is demonstrated with examples from several Slavic languages.

Bailey, Guy, Maynor, Natalie and Cukor-Avila, Patricia. 1989. Variation in subject-verb concord in Early Modern English. Language Variation and Change 1. 285-300.

Baker, Brett J. Forthcoming. How referential is agreement? The interpretation of polysynthetic dis-agreement in Nglakgan. In Nicholas Evans and Hans-Jürgen Sasse (eds.) Problems of polysynthesis. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Topic: verbal markersFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Ngalakgan

Note: With respect to argument affixes in polysynthetic languages, authors (e.g. Jelinek 1984, M. Baker 1996, Simpson 1991) have generally taken one of two positions. Either these affixes should be regarded as agreement markers, or as pronominal arguments (‘anaphors’). That is, these affixes are either arguments of the verb, or they merely agree with the nominal arguments, which may be covert. In this paper, Baker argues that this view is not correct and that there is a three-way division in the morphosyntactic and referential behaviour of argument prefixes in Ngalakgan: bound anaphoric pronouns, agreement suffixes, and a third category which cannot be properly characterised either as an agreement marker nor as an anaphor, which he calls ‘pronominal generic affixes’. Referentially, these generic suffixes have affinities with incorporated generic nouns, and need not agree with a coreferential argument.

Balari, S. 1992. Two types of agreement. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 1992. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. 1-43.

Topic: The definition of agreement Formal syntactic framework: Head-Driven Phrase Structure GrammarLanguage(s) cited: English, French, German, Italian, Gyarong, Spanish

Note: The author proposes that, as a theory of agreement cannot be either purely semantic or purely syntactic, an approach in which agreement is understood as two separate but related phenomena is better motivated. He argues for two levels of agreement involving the introduction of a new feature infl in the head features of signs. Morphosyntactic agreement (e.g. subject-verb agreement in French) will be at the infl level, while agreement with predicative adjectives is semantic and will be at the index level in content. The two types of agreement relations are ‘Morphosyntactic Identification’ found in NP-internal configurations, where the infl value of the functor is structure-shared with the infl value of the argument, and ‘Index Identification’ found in subject-predicate agreement, which is the idenfication of the index which is the value of some role in the content of verbs. Other apparent agreement phenomena are reanalysed as instances of government.

Barbu, Cǎtǎlina, Evans, Richard and Mitkov, Ruslan. 2002. A corpus based investigation of morphological disagreement in anaphoric relations. In: Manuel González Rodríguez and Carmen Paz Suárez Araujo (eds) LREC2002: Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation: Proceedings: VI, Paris: European Language Resources Association. 1995-1999.

Barlow, Michael. 1991. The Agreement Hierarchy and grammatical theory. In Laurel A. Sutton, Christopher Johnson and Ruth Shields (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 15--18, 1991: General Session and Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structure. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California. 30-40.

Barlow, Michael. 1993. Accommodating the Agreement Hierarchy in Linguistic Theories. Ms.

Topic: The definition of agreementFormal syntactic framework: Discourse-linking theoryLanguage(s) cited: English, Chichewa, Arabic, Polish.

Note: The author explores the problems associated with incorporating the predictions of the Agreement Hierarchy (Corbett 1979, 1983, 1988) into contemporary theories of agreement (Bresnan and Mchombo 1987 and Zwicky 1987). He concludes that a clear distinction between syntactic and semantic agreement cannot be accommodated in either approach and that in fact the distinction is spurious. The Agreement Hierarchy could be considered to be a description of differences among agreement targets with respect to feature identity versus feature conflict with controllers. He proposes a solution within Discourse Linking Theory (Barlow 1992) which has a property-based account of agreement. Both nouns and agreement morphemes introduce discourse referents. The hierarchy can be restated as the increasing likelihood of the introduction of new properties as you move to the right of the hierarchy.

Barlow, Michael. 1999. Agreement as a Discourse Phenomenon. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on Agreement. 187-210.

Note: Agreement is widely considered to be the prime example of a relation based on linguistic form in which the morphosyntactic specification of one category, such as a subject noun phrase, is redundantly expressed on a separate category such as a verb. In this paper, I discuss the problems inherent in such morphosyntactic accounts of agreement and argue that the consideration of a range of attested agreement patterns leads naturally to an account in which agreement relations are seen as links between discourse information structures. Taking a discourse perspective avoids the descriptive problems associated with current syntactic approaches to agreement and leads to a revealing reconsideration of the nature of agreement relations. (author abstract)

Bartos, Huba 1997. On ‘Subjective’ and ‘Objective’ Agreement in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol. 44 (3-4). 363-384.

Topic: >Object agreement in Hungarian Formal syntactic framework: MinimalismLanguage(s) cited: Hungarian

Note: The author examines the two verbal conjugations in Hungarian, ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ and presents arguments against proposed analyses of conjugation choice as relating to object agreement in terms of number/person, definiteness or specificity. Instead an account is offered in which objects nominals are divided into two types – those with a DP layer, and those without. Conjugation choice is dependent upon Case checking at an object agreement functional projection. [An earlier version of this paper was published as ‘Object Agreement Licensing in Hungarian’. Working Papers in the Theory of Grammar, Vol 4. No3. Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Budapest.]

Bayer, J. 1984. Towards an explanation of certain that-t phenomena: The COMP-node in Bavarian. In W. de Geest and Y. Putseys (eds.) Sentential Complementation. Dordrecht: Foris. 23-32.

Belletti, A. 2001. Agreement Projections. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.) The Handbook of Contempory Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 483-510.

Belnap, R. Kirk. 1993. The meaning of deflected/strict agreement variation in Cairene Arabic. In Eid, Mushira and Clive Holes (eds.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics V: Papers from the Fifth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and Histroy of Linguistic Science. Vol 101.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 97-117.

Topic: Variability in agreement.Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Cairene Arabic

Note: A study is described in which agreement data were collected and analysed to examine variability between ‘strict’ and ‘deflected’ (feature mismatch) agreement with human and non-human head nouns. Various factors including social class, age/sex and distance between controller and target were assessed for variability. In addition a pyscholinguistic experiment is described. The author concludes that agreement variability is used by speakers to signal their perception of the referents so as to classify it more narrowly.

Belnap, R. Kirk. 1999. A New Perspective on the History of Arabic Variation in Marking Agreement with Plural Heads. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on Agreement. 169-185.

Note: This paper examines variation in marking agreement in Arabic. In particular, the investigation focuses on the variation between plural and feminine singular agreement with plural head nouns. Tape-recorded naturalistic speech from sociolinguistic interviews conducted in Cairo constitute the data for the study of agreement in New Arabic. These results are compared to agreement patterns found in a corpus of Old Arabic texts. Some have suggested that the agreement variation found in New and Old Arabic varieties is random and meaningless. However, multivariate analysis of the Cairene and the Old Arabic patterns indicate both are systematic and that the two are similar in many respects. The agreement patterns in question appear to be a resource which speakers exploit to classify referents. It is generally agreed that the language contact situation resulting from the spread of Islam had a profound effect on the development of vernacular varieties of Arabic. Some have argued that the process of language shift to Arabic was rapid, resulting in deep-reaching changes in spoken varieties of Arabic. On the other hand, the formal variety of Arabic that came to be Classical Arabic is touted as having changed little. This study suggests that Classical Arabic, too, appears to be the result of some contact induced change and that the agreement system of Cairene is, in some ways, closer to that of early Old Arabic than is that of its standardized cousin, Modern Standard Arabic. From the standpoint of agreement, it would appear that varieties such as Cairene have changed less and that Classical Arabic changed more than one might suppose. These findings suggest that a re-examination of the history of Arabic is in order. (author abstract)

Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1996. Agreement asymmetries and the PF interface. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 106-128.

Bentley, Mayrene. 1997. Variation in Bantu verbal agreement. In. Robert K. Herbert (ed.) African Linguistics at the Crossroads: Papers from Kwaluseni, 1st World Congress of African Linguistics, Swaziland, 18-22.7.1994. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. 239-250.

Berg, Helma van den. 1999. Gender and person agreement in Akusha Dargi. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on Agreement. 153-168.

Note: Most Daghestanian languages show gender agreement between nouns and a broad set of targets, like verbs, adjectives, and local expressions. Dargi differs from other Daghestanian languages, among others, in that it shows person agreement in the verb as well. For that reason examples from the written standard are sometimes adduced in general linguistic literature. This article presents partly new data from the dialect of Akusha. An attempt will be made to find an adequate explanation for the presence of both ergative-absolutive and nominative-accusative patterns of agreement. (author abstract)

Bickel, Balthasar. 1995. In the vestibule of meaning: Transitivity inversion as a morphological phenomenon. Studies in Language 19. 73-127.

Bickel, Balthasar. 2000. On the syntax of agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Language 24. 583-609.

Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang and Yogendra P. Yadava. 1999. Face vs. empathy: the social foundation of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37.3. 481 -518.

Bickel, Balthasar and Yogendra P. Yadava. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110. 343-373.

Blevins, James P. 2000. Markedness and agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society. Volume 98:2. Blackwell Publishers. 233-262.

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1997. If the Head Fits...: On the Morphological Determination of Germanic Syntax. Linguistics 35. 6(352). 1029-1055.

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1998. Pseudo-ergativity in Chukotko-Kamchatkan Agreement Systems. In Léa Nash (ed.) Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes. Volume 27. Special volume on Ergativity.

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1999 Implications of Itelmen agreement asymmetries. In Steve S. Chang, Lily Liaw & Josef Ruppenhofer. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 12-15, 1999: General Session and Parasession on Loan Word Phenomena. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California. 299-310.

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2001. The implications of rich agreement: Why morphology doesn’t drive syntax. In: Karine Megerdoomian & Leora Anne Bar-el (eds) WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 82-95.

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. and Susi Wurmbrand. 1997. Preliminary notes on agreement in Itelmen. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang and M. McGinnis (eds.) PF: Papers at the interface. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol 30. 395-423. [Also published in Linguistic Discovery. Volume 1. Issue 1. 2002. URL: http://linguistic-discovery.dartmouth.edu/WebObjects/Linguistics]

Bock, Kathryn & J. Cooper Cutting. 1992. Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 99-127

Bock, Kathryn & Kathleen M. Eberhard. 1993. Meaning, sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes 8. 57-99

Bock, Kathryn & Carol A. Miller. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23. 45-93

Bock, Kathryn, Janet Nicol & J. Cooper Cutting. 1999. The ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech. Journal of Memory and Language 40. 3. 330-346

Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54. 354-380.

Bokamba, Eyamba G. 1985. Verbal Agreement as a Noncyclic Rule in Bantu. In Didier L. Goyvaerts (ed.) African Linguistics: Essays in Memory of M.W.K. Semikenke (Studies in the Sciences of Language Series Vol 6). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 9-54.

Bokamba, Eyamba G. 1993. Language Variation and Change in Pervasively Multilingual Societies: Bantu Languages. In Salikoko S. Mufwene & Lioba Moshi (eds.) Topics in African Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 100), 207-252. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bonet, Eulalia. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: A Morphological Approach. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. 22, July. 33-52.

Borer, Hagit. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth J. Safir (eds.) The Null Subject Parameter (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 69-109.

Börjars, Kersti, Nigel Vincent and Carol Chapman. 1997. Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: a feature-based account. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 155-180.

Börjars, Kersti & Chapman, Carol. 1998. Agreement and pro-drop in some dialects of English. Linguistics 36. 71-98.

Branigan, Phil & MacKenzie, Marguerite. 2001. How much syntax can you fit into a word? Late insertion and verbal agreement in Innu-aimûn. In Suzanne Gessner Oh & Kayono Shiobara (eds.) Proceedings of WSCLA 5: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 5.37-52.

Branigan, Phil & MacKenzie, Marguerite. 2002. Altruism, Ā-movement, and object agreement in Innu-aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 385-407

Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo. 1986. Grammatical and anaphoric agreement. In Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the Twenty-Second Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 278-297.

Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63. 741-782.

Topic: Pronominal agreementFormal syntactic framework: Lexical Functional Grammar.Language(s) cited: Chichewa

Note: The authors illustrate the observation that ‘person, number and gender are precisely the pronominal categories which universally show agreement in anaphoric relations’ and claim that the asymmetrical behaviour of subject and object agreement markers in Chichewa, a head-marking language, is indicative of their different status. Object markers are seen to behave as incorporated pronouns, bearing person, number, gender and pred features. They may be anaphorically linked to a floating topic NP in the sentence. They cannot occur with an overt object and if a free pronoun is present it must be for reasons of contrastive focus or to introduce a new topic. Subject markers, on the other hand, have a dual function. They may behave as incorporated pronouns, however they may also be simply grammatical agreement markers. In the latter case, they lack the pred feature in their f-structure. The features are otherwise identical.

Bresnan, Joan & Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 147-185.

Brewer, Jeutonne. 1973. Subject Concord of BE in Early Black English. American Speech, 48(1-2). 5-21.

Brown, Dunstan. 1998. Defining 'Subgender': Virile and Devirilized Nouns in Polish. Lingua 104. 3-4. 187-233.

Butt, Miriam. 1993 . Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. In Katharine Beals et al. (eds.) CLS 29: Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 89-103.

Byarushengo, Ernest Rugwa and Sarah Tenenbaum. 1976. Agreement and Word Order: A Case for pragmatics in Haya. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 2. 89-99.

Cameron, Richard. 1993. Ambiguous agreement, functional compensation, and nonspecific tú in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Madrid, Spain. Language Variation and Change 5. 305-334.

Carmack, Stanford. 1997. Blocking in Georgian Verb Morphology. Language 73, 2 June. 314-338.

Carstens, Vicki. 2000. Concord in Minimalist Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 319-355.

Chafe, Wallace L. 1977. The evolution of third person verb agreement in the Iroquoian languages. In Charles N. Li (ed.) Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 493-524.

Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-Agreement and "Referentiality" in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 1, winter. 1-44.

Chung, Sandra and Carol Georgopoulos. 1988. Agreement with Gaps in Chamorro and Palauan. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in natural language: approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 251-267.

Topic: WH-agreementFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Chamorro, Palauan.

Note: The authors argue that Chamorro and Palauan illustrate the logical extension of the claim by Keenan (1974) that functions may agree with their arguments in that they exhibit WH-agreement. The verb of a relative clause or a constituent question may agree in grammatical function with the gap controlled by the head NP or the displaced interrogative phrase. In these languages the morphology which normally distinguishes realis/irrealis mood is co-opted to signal agreement with the grammatical function of a gap.

Clahsen, Harald. 1986. Verb inflections in German child language: acquisition of agreement markings and the functions they encode. Linguistics 24. 79-121.

Clahsen, Harald & Penke, Martina. 1992. The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the Simone-corpus. In J. Meisel (ed.) The Acquisition of Verb Placement: Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 181-223.

Comrie, Bernard. 1975. Polite plurals and predicate agreement. Language 51. 406-418.

Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Agreement, animacy and voice. In Gunter Brettschneider and Christian Lehmann (eds.) Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 145). Tübingen: Narr. 229–234.

Comrie, Bernard. 1982. Verb agreement in Ket. In H. I. Aronson and B. J. Darden (eds.) Papers from the Second Conference on the Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR. Folia Slavica 5:1-3. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. 115-127.

Comrie, Bernard. 1984a. Agreement as a Research Tool. In Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. The Ohio State University. September 28-30. 13-26.

Comrie, Bernard. 1984b. Reflections on verb agreement in Hindi and related languages. Linguistics 22. 857-864.

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Reply to Saksena: Further reflections on verb agreement in Hindi. Linguistics 23. 143-145.

Comrie, Bernard. 1997. The typology of predicate case marking. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.) Essays on language function and language type. Dedicated to T. Givón. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. 39-50.

Topic: Case marking of predicate nominals in copular constructionsFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Latin, Finish, Basque, Polish, Arabic, Oromo, Japanese, Mojave, Ancient Greek, Icelandic, German.

Note: The author argues that there are two possibilities for case assignment to predicate nominals in copular constructions: case can be assigned by government (by the copula) which manifests itself as a difference between the case of the subject and that of the predicate nominal; case can also be assigned by agreement, where the case of the nominal predicate co-varies with that of the subject. Such an analysis would have to include case as a possible agreement feature.

Contini-Morava, Ellen. 1996. Things in a Noun-Class Language. Semantic Functions of Agreement in Swahili. In E. Andrews and Y. Tobin (eds.) Toward a Calculus of Meaning. Studies in Markedness, Distinctive Features and Deixis. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 251-290.

Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15. 203-224.

Corbett, Greville G. and Mtenje, Alfred D. 1987. Gender agreement in Chichewa. Studies in African Linguistics 18. 1-38.

Corbett, Greville G. 1995. Agreement. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo (eds.) Syntax: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. (An International Handbook of Contemporary Research) Vol. 2. Berlin. Walter de Gruyter. 1235-1244.

Corbett, Greville G. 1998. Morphology and Agreement . In Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.) The Handbook of Morphology. Blackwell Publisher. 191-205.

Corbett, Greville G. 1999. The place of agreement features in a specification of possible agreement systems. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on Agreement. 211-223.

Note: Agreement features introduce greater complexity into agreement systems than is generally recognized. They may determine the agreement domain (Dargi) and certain combinations of feature values can rule out particular sentence types (Tsakhur). Feature interactions show three levels of complexity: just the target may be involved (German), or a computation of controller feature values may be required (Slovene), or computation may involve a covert feature (Miya). (author abstract)

Corbett, Greville G. forthcoming a. Agreement: Terms and boundaries. In William Griffin (ed.) "The Role of Agreement in Natural Language": Proceedings of the 2001 Texas Linguistic Society Conference. Austin, Texas. 2-4 March 2001.

Corbett, Greville G. forthcoming b. Agreement: Canonical instances and the extent of the phenomenon. In Janet DeCesaris, Geert Booij, Angela Ralli & Sergio Scalise (eds.) Proceedings of the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Barcelona 2001.

Cornish, Francis. 2000. L’accord, l’anaphore et la référence: quelques enjeux. In Martine Coene, Walter De Mulder, Patrick Dendale & Yves D’Hulst (eds.) Traiani Augusti vestigia pressa sequamur: Studia lingvistica in honorem Lilianae Tasmowski. Padova: Unipress. 509-533.

Costa, João. 2001. Postverbal subjects and agreement in unaccusative contexts in European Portuguese. The Linguistic Review 18. Walter de Gruyter. 1-17.

Topic: postverbal subject agreement in unaccusative contextsFormal syntactic framework: OTLanguage(s) cited: Colloquial European Portuguese

Note: This article discusses cases of subject-predicate agreement of postverbal subjects of unaccusative verbs with the verb in colloquial European Portuguese. Subjects of unaccusatives in European Portuguese are different from subjects of transitives and intransitives in two respects. They are the only allowed postverbal subjects in sentence-focus contexts (i.e. contexts in which all elements of a sentence convey new information), and leaving aside coordinated subjects, they are the only postverbal subjects that allow a not fully agreeing verb, that is, in colloquial speech, it is possible for plural subjects of unaccusative verbs in postverbal position to trigger 3rd person singular verb agreement. In this paper, Costa proposes an analysis of the behavior of subjects of unaccusative verbs in terms of Case. It is proposed that in colloquial European Portuguese, the argument of unaccusatives is not obligatorily assigned nominative case. This proposal is formalised.

Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. Case Marking and Direct Objects. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 159-179.

Topic: Markedness of direct objects.Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Swahili, Punjabi, Kun-parlang, Kanuri, Hawaiian, Awa.

Note: The author examines the problem of characterising the behaviour of direct objects with respect to agreement and case-marking. In the light of contradictory views as to the marked/unmarked status of definite/animate direct objects, the author proposes an account based on the notion of relative markedness. Agreement, which serves to cross-reference salient arguments, will always align itself with high animacy, high definiteness and core grammatical relations. Case marking typically denotes non-obvious grammatical relations. Thus the presence of agreement with a direct object implies that the entity is less marked, while case marking is associated with the lower end of the case hierarchy, so the presence of case marking on a direct object implies that the entity is more marked. The natural correlation of direct objects is with low animacy, low definiteness and highly affected objects.

Culy, Christopher. 1996. Agreement and Fula Pronouns. Studies in African Linguistics Volume 25, Number 1. 1-27.

Topic: agreement patterns of pronouns in FulaFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Fula

Note: This paper is concerned with agreement patterns exhibited by pronouns in five varieties of Fula, a West Atlantic language of Niger Congo. It focusses in particular on un unusual type of agreement which is exhibited by some pronouns in Fula, i.e. agreement in pronominality. Like pronouns in general, the class of pronouns which refers to the 3^rd person singular human class, agrees in number, person, and noun class with the elements they cospecify with. However, in Fula, these pronouns can only cospecify with another pronoun of that class; they cannot cospecify with a full NP in the same clause. Thus, if two such pronouns occur within the same clause, they can be coreferent or they can pick up their reference external to the clause as normal pronominals.

Dalmi, Gréte. 1998. On Object Agreement in Hungarian. Working Papers in the Theory of Grammar, Vol 5. N^o 2. Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Budapest.

Topic: Object agreement in HungarianFormal syntactic framework: Principles and ParametersLanguage(s) cited: Hungarian, Turkish, Palauan.

Note: The author examines ‘subjective’ vs. ‘objective’ choice in verbal conjunctions and offers an alternative account to that proposed by Bartos (1996) [See Bartos (1997) in this bibliography]. The proposal is that the choice of agreement conjugation is motivated by differences in movement distance of the verbal head. Definite Object Agreement involves Short Head Movement, while Indefinite Object Agreement involves Long Head Movement.

Dalrymple, Mary & Kaplan, Ronald M. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76. 759-798.

Delisle, Gilles L. 1973. Non-Standard Concord and the Marking Hypothesis. Working Papers on Language Universals, N^o 11, April 1973. Stanford University. 85-138.

Demuth, Katherine A. 1988. Noun Classes and Agreement in Sesotho Acquisition. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 305-321.

Topic: The acquisition of agreement marking.Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Sesotho

Note: The author presents the results of a study into the acquisition of agreement in 4 children aged 2- 4½. It appeared that the children used nominal-modifier agreement before the systematic marking of nouns, but did not have most of the anticipated problems of acquisition, such as overgeneralization. The author speculates that children appeared to focus not simply on the nouns themselves but on the entire nominal or verbal phrase with its agreement information so that in Sosotho nouns are learned in conjunction with their gender class features, not in isolation. This is helped by the phonological transparency of class features within phrases.

Demuth, Katherine and Mark Johnson. 1989. Interaction between Discourse Functions and Agreement in Setawana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 11: 21-35.

Deutsch, Avital and Shlomo Bentin. 2001. Syntactic and Semnatic Factors in Processing Gender Agreement in Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and Eye Movements. Journal of Memory and Language 45. 200-224.

Topic: gender agreementFormal syntactic framework: interactive, constraint-based models for online sentence processingLanguage(s) cited: Hebrew

Note: This paper discusses the interrelation between syntactic analysis of agreement and semantic processing by recording eye-movement and event-related potentials (ERPs). They test the hypothesis that if the processing of agreement is sensitive to semantic factors, then the interference effect induced by the violation of agreement should be greater for sentences in which the sentential subject is animate than for thoses sentences in which it is inanimate. The results of the experiments support this.

Dikken, Marcel den. 1999. On the structural representation of possession and agreement: the case of (anti-)agreement in Hungarian possessed nominal phrases. In István Kenesei (ed.) Crossing Boundaries: Advances in the Theory of Central and Eastern European Languages (=Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory volume 182), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 137-178.

Dikken, Marcel den. 2001. Pluringulars, pronouns and quirky agreement. Linguistic Review 18. 19-41.

Dingwall, William, O. 1969. Government, Concord and Feature-Change Rules. Glossa 3:2. 210-240.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1977. Semantic Neutralization for Phonological Reasons. Linguistic Inquiry. Vol 8. N^o 3. 599-602.

Topic: lack of agreement in EnglishFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: English

Note: This squib discusses cases where agreement is suspended in colloquial English. For example, plural nouns in English must select the copula form are (‘re) in preference to is. However, in a where-sentence the reduced copula ’s can also be used as an alternative to ’re/are because ’re/are would be phonologically disharmonious with the preceding question word where. An analogous case concerns the use of are instead of am before n’t in sentences like Aren’t I silly.

Dobrin, Lise M. 1995. Theoretical consequences of literal alliterative concord. In Audra Dainora, Rachel Hemphill, Barbara Luka, Barbara Need and Sheri Pargman (eds.) CLS 31: Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: I: The Main Session. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 127-142.

Dobrin, Lise M. 1998. The morphosyntactic reality of phonological form. In: Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 59-81.

Donohue, Mark. 1998. A note on verbal agreement in Maung. Australian Journal of Linguistics 18. 73-89.

Dorel, Martine & Sezer, Engin. 1981. Discourse conditions and gender smearing in French. In William Cressey and Donna Jo Napoli (eds.) Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages: 9. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 197-215.

Doron, Edit. 1988. On the Complementarity of Subject and Subject-Verb Agreement. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 201-218.

Topic: Null subjects and pro-drop.Formal syntactic framework: Government and BindingLanguage(s) cited: Irish, Welsh, Chamorro, Hebrew

Note: The author explores the null subject phenomena in the languages cited above. In Irish person and number inflection is incompatible with a lexical subject, in Welsh such inflection is incompatible with non-pronominal NPs, while in Chamorro it is incompatible with overt pronouns. Hebrew patterns like Chamorro. The author presents data in support of the claim that the null subject in Hebrew obtains only when the pronoun is in a ‘clitic configuration’, a particular configuration where the features of the complement are all contained in the features of the head. In a clitic configuration, Case is assigned to the clitic on the head and thus the head’s features are phonetically realised, not the complement’s features. Thus a phonetically overt pronoun complement would violate the Case Filter. In Celtic languages, on the other hand, the complementarity of inflection and overt subjects is due to their having incorporated subject pronouns. They are not null-subject languages.

Dowty, David and Pauline Jacobson. 1988. Agreement as a Semantic Phenomenon. In Joyce Powers and Kenneth de Jong (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Ohio State University. 95-108.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Doleschal, Ursula. 1990-91. Gender agreement via derivational morphology. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40. 115-137.

Driem, George van. 1991. Tangut verbal agreement and the patient category in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 54. 520-534.

Driem, George van. 1993. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 56. 292-334.

Eberhard, Kathleen M. 1997. The marked effect of number on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 36. 2. 147-164.

Eid, Mushira. 1992. Pronouns, Questions and Agreement. In Ellen Broselow, Mushira Eid, and John McCarthy Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics IV. Papers from the Fourth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. 107-141.

England, John. 1976. ‘Dixo Rachel E Vidas’: Subject-Verb Agreement in Old Spanish. The Modern Language Review. Vol 71. N^o 4. 812-826.

Enrique-Arias, Andrés. 2002. Accounting for the position of verbal agreement morphology with psycholinguistic and diachronic explanatory factors. Studies in Language 26.1-31.

Evans, Nicholas. 1999. Why argument affixes in polysynthetic languages are not pronouns: evidence from Bininj Gun-wok. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung. Berlin 52, 3/4. 255-281.

Topic: the status of verbal markersFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Bininj Gun-wok

Note: In this paper, Nicholas Evans argues that accounts of polysynthetic structure which simply see polysynthetic languages as verbs whose arguments are directly represented on the verb are inaccurate, and will be driven to forced and unnatural accounts for a whole range of construction types in which object affixes do not correspond to free personal pronouns. With examples from Bininj Gun-wok, he illustrates that argument prefixes can be used to represent objects in a range of circumstances where free personal pronouns would be inappropriate, such as generic objects, indefinite and certain non-referential objects

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1977. Embedded clause reduction and Scandinavian gender agreement. Journal of Linguistics 13. 239-257.

Fabri, Ray. 1993. The Subject Agreement Paradigm in Classical Arabic. Theorie des Lexikons, Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereich 282, N^o 38. Heinrich Heine Universität, Düsseldorf. 1-32.

Farkas, Donka & Ojeda, Almerindo. 1983. Agreement and coordinate NPs. Linguistics 21. 659–673.

Farkas, Donka F. and Zec, Draga. 1995. Agreement and pronominal reference. In Guglielmo Cinque and Giuliana Giusti (eds.) Advances in Roumanian Linguistics (Linguistik Aktuell 10), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 83-101.

Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1981. Théorie lexicale-fonctionnelle, contrôle et accord en arabe moderne. Arabica 28. 299-332.

Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1988. Agreement in Arabic, Binding and Coherence. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 107-158.

Topic: Possible agreement systemsFormal syntactic framework: Lexical-Functional GrammarLanguage(s) cited: Standard Arabic

Note: The author discusses three hypotheses of agreement systems arising from approaches to the nature of the verbal affix in pro drop languages: the agreement hypothesis, the incorporation hypothesis and the non-pronominal theory. He rejects the GB characterisation of pro drop as involving strict feature matching between AGR and pro. Affixes in Arabic can be pronominal or nonpronominal and so some have two lexical entries, depending upon whether they occur with non-pronominal NPs or with pronouns. He distinguishes 3 types of agreement which are defined in terms of their domains at f-structure: Type I "internal" agreement, where the agreement domain is the f-structure containing a predicate and its subcategorised functions; Type II agreement, where the f-structure is a larger domain and agreement with modifiers and adjuncts is possible; and Type III "external agreement" in which the controller is external to the f-structure of the target. The author then illustrates the different binding relations associated with each type.

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1973. Cyclic attraction into networks of coreference. Language 49. 1-18.

Fayol, Michel, Largy, Pierre & Lemaire, Patrick. 1994. Cognitive overload and orthographic errors: when cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors: a study in French written language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 47A. 437-464.

Ferguson, Charles A. 1996. Variation and drift: loss of agreement in Germanic. In Gregory R. Guy et al. (eds.) Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov: Vol 1, Variation and change in language and society. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 173-198.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1985. Ergativity, number, and agreement. In Mary Niepokuj, Mary VanClay, Vassiliki Nikiforidou, and Deborah Feder (eds.) Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley, California. 96-106.

Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1997. Pronouns and agreement: systems interaction in the coding of reference. In Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica and Johan Rooryck (eds.) Atomism and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 115-140.

Francis, W.N. 1968. Proximity concord in English. Journal of English Linguistics 19. 309-318.

Frascarelli, Mara. 1999. Subject, nominative case, agreement and focus. In Lunella Mereu (ed.) Boundaries of morphology and syntax (Series: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 195-215.

Friedman, Victor A. 1996. Gender, Class, and Age in the Daghestanian Highlands: Towards a Unified Account of the Morphology of Agreement in Lak. In Howard I. Aronson (ed.) NSL.8: Linguistic Studies in the Non-Slavic Languages of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic Republics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 187-199.

Gair, James W. & Wali, Kashi. 1989. Hindi agreement as anaphor. Linguistics 27. 45-70.

Gallmann, Peter. 1990. Kategoriell komplexe Wortformen. Das Zusammanwirken von Morphologie und Syntax bei der Flexion von Nomen und Adjektiv. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Note: Includes information about (non) agreement of nouns with their modifiers, and the (non) agreement of nouns in apposition/juxtaposition to other nouns. (See also Lindauer 1995, Schachtl 1989).

Galves, Charlotte. 1998. Topics, Subjects, Pronouns and Agreement in Brazilian Portuguese (Original Title: Topicos, sujeitos, pronomes e concordancia no Portugues Brasileiro) Cadernos de Estudos Linguisticos 34. Jan-June. 19-31.

Gavarró, Anna. 2002. Failure to agree in agrammatism. In Elisabetta Fava Clinical Linguistics: Theory and Applications in Speech Pathology and Therapy. (Series: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 267-278.

Gelderen, Elly van. 1992. Arguments without number: the case of it and het. Linguistics 30. 381-387.

Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. A and A' agreement. Lingua 85. 135-169.

Gil, David. 2001. Noun-phrase types and the number marking of anaphors. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54. 3-25.

Givón, Talmy. 1970. The resolution of gender conflicts in Bantu conjunction: When syntax and semantics clash. Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 250-261.

Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.) Subject and topic, 149–88. New York: Academic Press.

Green, Georgia M. 1984. Why Agreement Must be Stipulated for There-Insertion. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 27-34.

Gross, Maurice. 1974. A remark about plural agreement between determiner and noun. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 620-622.

Hall, Katherine. 1984. Split-Ergativity in the De’kwana (Carib) Pronominal Agreement System. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 35-45.

Hallman, Peter. 2000. The structure of agreement failure in Lebanese Arabic. In: Roger Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen (eds) WCCFL 19: Proceedings of the 19^th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 178-190.

Harris, Alice. 1978. Number agreement in Modern Georgian. In Bernard Comrie (ed.) Classification of grammatical categories (=International Review of Slavic Linguistics 3, 1-2), Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc. 75-98.

Harris, Alice C. 1994. Ergative-to-nominative shift in agreement: Tabassaran. In Howard I. Aronson (ed.) NSL 7: Linguistic Studies in the Non-Slavic Languages of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic Republics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 113-131.

Harris, Alice C. 1981 .N-agreement: in Old Georgian.. In: Bernard Comrie (ed.), Studies in the Languages of the USSR. Edmonston: Linguistic Research. [Reprinted 1983 in: Papers in Linguistics 16.121-146.]

Harris, Alice C. 1984 .Case marking, verb agreement:, and inversion in Udi. In: David M. Perlmutter and Carol G. Rosen (eds) Studies in Relational Grammar, II, 243-258. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Harris, James W. 1987. Disagreement rules, referral rules and the Spanish feminine article el. Journal of Linguistics 23. 177-183.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Long distance agreement in Godoberi (Daghestanian) complement clauses. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on Agreement. 131-151.

Note: The term long distance agreement is used here for a construction in which the complement-taking verb agrees with an argument of its complement clause. Long distance agreement in gender occurs with certain complement-taking verbs in Godoberi, a Nakh-Daghestanian language. This kind of agreement is quite unusual cross-linguistically, and unexpected also from the point of view of current theories of agreement. While Daghestanian agreement syntax is unusual in several other respects as well, I show in this paper that long-distance agreement in Godoberi is not as "exotic" as it appears at first sight. The complement-taking verbs with which it occurs are those that commonly occur in clause-union constructions in other languages, and a similar analysis is proposed for Godoberi here. In this perspective, long distance agreement can be taken as one symptom of incipient grammaticalization of the complement-taking verbs. I cite parallels from other languages and end with a brief general discussion of the role of grammaticalization in the diachronic spread of agreement to new targets. (author abstract)

Hayward, Richard J. 1998. The origins of the North Ometo verb agreement systems. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 19. Walter de Gruyter. 93-111.

Hazen, Kirk. 2000. Subject-Verb Concord in a Postinsular Dialect. Journal of English Linguistics, Vol. 28, N^o. 2. 127-144.

Topic: Diachronic language changeFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Ocracoke English (North Carolina)

Note: The paper describes a survey of subject-verb agreement in18 ancestral islanders of Ocracoke. It describes the superstratum and substratum dialects – 18^th century British English and 18^th century Scots-Irish English respectively. The use of nonstandard 3^rd singular concord with plural subjects is attributed to a two major factors: coordinated NP subjects and proximity to subject, while inflectional –s was rarely found with plural pronouns. This behaviour is attributed to dialect contact in 17^th and 18^th centuries and a persistence of the substrate dialect in modern speakers.

Heath, Jeffrey G. 1997. Lost wax: abrupt replacement of key morphemes in Australian agreement complexes. Diachronica 14. 2. fall. 197-232.

Heine, Bernd. 2000. Grammaticalization chains across languages: An example from Khoisan. In: Spike Gildea (ed.) Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 177-199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Published version of: Heine, Bernd. 1997. On gender agreement in Central Khoisan (Khoisan Forum at the Institut für Afrikanistik, University of Cologne, Germany, Working paper 4). Cologne: Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität. zu Köln.]

Helmbrecht, J. 1996. The syntax of person agreement in East Caucasian languages Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49. 127-148.

Hetzron, Robert. 1967. Agaw numerals and incongruence in Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies. Vol 12. N^o 2. 169-197.

Hetzron, Robert. 1972. Phonology in Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 8. 251-265.

Hetzron, Robert. 1973. Conjoining and comitativization in Hungarian - a study of rule ordering. Foundations of Language 10. 493-507.

Hetzron, Robert. 1974. Extrinsic Ordering in Classical Arabic. In Robert Hetzron and Santa Barbara (eds.) Afriasiatic Linguistics. Vol 1. Issue 3. (Monographic Journals of the Near East). Udena Publications. 1-20.

Hetzron, Robert. 1995. Genitival Agreement in Awngi: Variation on an Afroasiatic Theme. In Frans Plank (ed.) Double case: agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York, NY: Oxford U Press Inc., 1995, 325-335.

Hewitt, Steve. 2002. The impersonal in Breton. Journal of Celtic Linguistics 7. 1-39.

Hoeksema, Jack. 1986. Some theoretical consequences of Dutch complementizer agreement. In Vassiliki Nikiforidou, Mary VanClay and Mary Niepokij, Deborah Feder (eds.) Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 147-158.

Holmberg, Anders. 2001. Expletives and Agreement in Scandinavian Passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4. 85-128.

Hongkai, Sun. 1995. A further discussion on verb agreement in Tibeto-Burman languages. In Yoshio Nishi, James A. Matisoff, & Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.). New Horizons in Tibeto-Burman Morphosyntax (Senri Ethnological Studies 41), 17-29. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

Hook, Peter Edwin and Dayashankar M. Joshi. 1991. Concordant Adverbs and Postpositions in Gujarati. Indian Linguistics 52. 1-14.

Hoyt, Frederick. 2002. Impersonal agreement as a specificity effect in rural Palestinian Arabic. In: Delworth B. Parkinson & Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XIII-XIV: Papers from the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Annual Symposia on Arabic Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 111-141.

Hudson, Richard. 1999. Subject-verb agreement in English. English Language and Linguistics 3. 173-207.

Hulk, Aafke and Tellier, Christine. 1999. Conflictual agreement in Romance nominals. In J.-Marc Authier, Barbara E. Bullock & Lisa Reed (eds.) Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the 28th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXVIII), University Park, 16-19 April 1998 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 179-195.

Iatridou, Sabine 1990. About AgrP. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 551-577.

Ingham, Richard. 1998. Tense Without Agreement in Early Clause Structure. Language Acquisition 7(1).51-81.

Jacobssen, Bengt. 1990. Subject-verb concord in equative sentences in English. Studia Linguistica 44. 30-58.

Jake, Janice L. 1980. Object Verb Agreement in Tigre. In Kisseberth, Charles W., Braj B. Kachru and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.) Studies in the Linguistic Sciences. Vol. 10. N^o 1. Urbana, Illinois: Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois. 71-84.

Janda, Richard D. & Varela-García, Fabiola. 1991. On lateral hermaphroditism and other variation in Spanish "feminine" el. In Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols & Rosa M. Rodríguez. (eds) CLS 27: Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 1991: Part I The General Session, 276-290. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Janda, Richard D. 1995. From Agreement Affix to Subject "Clitic"– and Bound Root: -mos > -nos vs. (-)nos(-) and nos-otros in New Mexican and other Regional Spanish Dialects. In Audra Dainora, Rachel Hemphill, Barbara Luka, Barbara Need & Sheri Pargman (eds.) CLS 31: Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Volume II: The Parasession on Clitics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 118-139.

Johns, Alana. 1996. The Occasional Absence of Anaphoric Agreement in Labrador Inuttut. In J. Black and V. Motapanyane (eds.) Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Series IV. Vol. 139. John Benjamins. Amsterdam-Philadelphia. 121-143.

Kail, Michèle and Dominique Bassano. 1997. Verb Agreement Processing in French: A Study Of On-line Grammaticality Judgments. Language and Speech. 40(1). 25-46.

Kaiser, Georg A. 1994. More about INFL-ection and Agreement: The Acquisition of Clitic Pronouns in French. In Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.) Bilingual First Language Acquisition; French and German Grammatical Development. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders Vol. 7. John Benjamins. Amsterdam-Philadelphia. 131-159.

Källström, Roger. 1977. Agreement Rules for Swedish Noun Phrases. In östen Dahl (ed.) Logic, Pragmatics and Grammar. University of Göteborg. 267-295.

Källström, Roger. 1995. Language universals, linguistic typology, and Nordic agreement. In Allwood, Jens et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics & the Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. General session, vol. 1.187-201.

Kathman, David. 1995. Verb Agreement and Grammatical Relations. In Burgess, Clifford S., Dziwirek, Katarzyna, & Gerdts, Donna (eds.) Grammatical Relations: Theoretical Approaches to Empirical Questions. Stanford, CA: Center Study Language & Information. 153-170.

Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Agreement and the Syntax-Morphology Interface in HPSG. In Robert Levine and Georgia Green (eds.) Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge University Press. 223-274.

Kayne, Richard. 1995. Agreement in three English dialects. In H. Haider, S. Olsen & S. Vikner (eds.) Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 159-165.

Kazenin, Konstantin I. 1999. Licnoe soglasovanie v lakskom jazyke: markirovannost´ i nejtralizacija. In Ekaterina V. Raxilina & Jakov G. Testelec (eds.). Tipologija i teorija jazyka: Ot opisanija k ob´´jasneniju: K 60-letiju Aleksandra Evgen´evica Kibrika. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul´tury. 383-399.

Keach Camillia N. 1995. Subject and Object Markers as Agreement and Pronoun Incorporation in Swahili. In Akinbuyi Akinlabi (ed.) Theoretical Approaches to African Linguistics (Trends in African Linguistics 1). Trenton NJ: Africa World Press. 109-116.

Topic: pronominal affixesFormal syntactic framework: GBLanguage(s) cited: Swahili

Note: Keach investigates the functions of subject and object marking in Swahili drawing on work by Bresnan and Mchombo (1987) on Chichewa. Keach concludes that Swahili and Chichewa’s SM (subject marker) have identical functions, that of PI (Incorporated Pronoun) and agreement. However, the languages depart with respect to the behavior of their OMs (object marker), which is far more complicated in Swahili. Swahili allocates the PI and agreement function to animate objects and reserves for inanimate objects the unambiguous PI function. The OM is obligatory for animate objects and optional for inanimates. In the case of inanimates the OM permits a definite or specific interpretation of the inanimate NP.

Keenan, Edward L. 1978. On Surface Form and Logical Form. In Braj B. Kachru (ed.) Linguistics in the Seventies: Directions and Prospects. Forum Lextures Presented at the 1978 Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America. (Special issue of Studies in the Linguistic Sciences Vol 8. N^o 2. Fall 1978. Department of Linguistics. University of Illinois. 163-203.

Keeney, Terrence J. & Wolfe, Jean. 1972. The acquisition of agreement in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11. 698-705.

Kerke, Simon van de. 1996. Agreement in Quechua: Evidence against Distributed Morphology. In Cremers, Crit, & Den Dikken, Marcel (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 121-131.

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977. O sootnošenii ponjatija sintaksiceskogo podcinenija s ponjatijami soglasovanija, upravlenija i primykanija. In Problemy teoreticeskoj i cksperimental´noj lingvistiki: Sbornik statej (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki, under the general editorship of V. A. Zvegincev, vyp. 8), 161-179. Slightly amended version in Aleksandr E. Kibrik 1992. Ocerki po obšcim i prikladnym voprosam jazykoznanija (universal´noe, tipovoe i specificnoe v jazyke). Moscow: Izdatel´stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. 102-123.

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1985. Toward a typology of ergativity. In Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.) Grammar inside and outside the clause. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 268-323.

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1995. Direct-Oblique Agreement of Attributes in Daghestanian. In Frans Plank (ed.) Double case: agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York, NY: Oxford U Press Inc. 216-229.

Killean, Carolyn G. 1968. Interesting features of gender-number concord in Modern Literary Arabic. CLS 4. 40-49.

Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Object Agreement Phrases and the Split VP Hypothesis. In Jonathan D. Bobaljik and Colin Phillips Papers on Case and Agreement. I (=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18). Cambridge, MA.: Department of Linguistics, MIT.

Kulikov, Leonid. 1999. Agreement patterns in Abkhaz masdar forms. In Helma van den Berg (ed.) Studies in Caucasian Linguistics: Selected Papers of the Eighth Caucasian Colloquium. Leiden: Research School CNWS, Universiteit Leiden. 209-221.

Lapointe, Steven G. 1983. A comparison of two recent theories of agreement. In John F. Richardson, Mitchell Marks & Amy Chukerman (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 122-134. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Lapointe, Steven G. 1984. Cooccurrence and Agreement in Norwegian Noun Phrases. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 46-57.

Lapointe, Steven G. 1988. Toward a Unified Theory of Agreement. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in natural language: approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 67-87.

Topic: The definition of agreement Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: -

Note: The author presents a theory of agreement which updates that offered in Lapointe (1980, 1981). Using a modified version of the Barwise and Cooper (1981) logic for generalised quantifiers, the author explores the mechanisms by which agreeing elements are linked to each other in syntactic structures.

Lapointe, Steven G. 1996. Review article on ‘Agreement and anti-agreement: A syntax of Luiseño. By Susan Steele. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990. Pp. xi, 446. Language 72. 372-379.

Lawler, John M. 1975. On coming to terms in Achenese: The function of verbal disagreement. In Robin E. Grossman, L. James San, Timothy J. Vance. CLS 1975. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. 398-408.

Lawler, John M. 1977. A agrees with B in Achenese: a problem for relational grammar. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations, 219-248. New York: Academic Press.

Legate, Julie Anne. 1999. The Morphosyntax of Irish Agreement.In Karlos Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia Krause, and Vivian Lin (eds.) MITWPL 33, Papers on Morphology and Syntax, Cycle One. Cambridge MA.

Note: Uses Distributed Morphology to analyse why agreement morphology and overt arguments are in complementary distribution in Irish. Key proposals are: (i) Vocabulary insertion proceeds top-down and root-out, (ii) the Invisibility Condition--features unrealized by a Vocabulary item are deleted.) (author abstract from website)

Lehmann, Christian. 1982 Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In Hansjakob Seiler/Franz Joseph Stachowiak (eds.) Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen Teil 2 Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang in Einzelsprachen. 201-267.

Lehmann, Christian. 1988. On the Function of Agreement. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in natural language: approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 55-65.

Topic: The function of agreement.Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Latin, Dyirbal, Abkhaz, Russian, German, Hungarian, Swahili, French, Nahuatl.

Note: The author examines the role of agreement in language. His basic thesis is that agreement is referential in nature. Its primary function is to identify or reidentify referents by giving information about the grammatical properties of its referent. The author distinguishes between two different types of agreement - ‘internal agreement’ and ‘external agreement.’ Internal agreement is adnominal agreement (including determiners, adjectives, numerals, possessive pronouns) and may involve the category of case but never of person. It expresses ‘coreference’ of the agreeing word with other words belonging to the same NP. External agreement (e.g. argument-verb agreement and possessor-possessum agreement) involves the category of person, but not of case and expresses ‘reference’ to an NP which specifies the meaning of the agreeing word.

Lehmann, Christian. 1993. Kongruenz. In Jacobs, Joachim et al. (eds.), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch. Berlin: W. de Gruyter (Handbücher der Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 9). 722-729.

Lindauer, Thomas. 1995. Genitivattribute. Eine morphosyntaktische Untersuchung zum deutschen DP/NP-System. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Note: Specialist study within the framework of Gallmann 1990 on genitive case marked NPs, including some discussion of (non)agreement of modifiers and nouns in apposition/juxtaposition. (See also Schachtl 1989).

Lorenzo, Guillermo. 1997. On the Exceptional Placement of AgrO Morphology in Machiguenga: A Short Note on Baker's Polysynthesis Parameter. Linguistics. 35. 5(351). 929-938.

Luraghi, Silvia. 1993. La modificazione nominale nelle lingue anatoliche. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 78/2. 144-166.

Luraghi, Silvia 1994. Suffix copying and related phenomena: A prototype approach. Linguistics 32. 1095-1108

Note: Inflected genitives (i.e. NP's with suffix copying) found in Old Georgian and in some languages of Australia are compared with case attraction (i.e. agreement of a nominal modifier with its head noun, Classical Armenian) and genitival adjectives (Luwian). These types of NP imply non-prototypical distribution of inflectional and derivational features among morphemes. The occurrence of such constructions is further shown to be related to morphological types (fusional vs. agglutinative). It is argued that the NP's under discussion create difficulties in perception, brought about by non-prototypicality. (Author abstract)

Lyons, Christopher. 1990. An agreement approach to clitic doubling. Transactions of the Philological Society 88. 1-57.

Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1989. Agreement and Agreement Phrases. In Laka Maftajan (ed.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol 10. 217-252.

Mahfoudhi, Abdessatar. 2002. Agreement lost: agreement regained: A minimalist account of word order and agreement variation in Arabic. California Linguistic Notes 27, no. 2.1-28.

Mallen, Enrique 1997. A Minimalist Approach to Concord in Noun Phrases. Theoretical Linguistics. 23. 1-2. 49-77.

Mallén, Enrique. 1997. Agreement and null subjects in Germanic and Romance. In: Irmengard Rauch & Gerald F. Carr (eds.) Insights in Germanic Linguistics II: Classic and Contemporary (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 94), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 155-174.

Marantz, Alec. 1984. Predicting Ergative Agreement with Transitive Auxiliaries. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) 1984. ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 58-68.

Marchese, Lynell. 1988. Noun Classes and Agreement Systems in Kru: A Historical Approach. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in natural language: approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 323-341.

Topic: The development of class and agreement marking in Kru. Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Eastern and Western Kru languages

Note: The author attempts to reconstruct the noun class suffixes of the proto language. The synchronic variation between the agreement systems is examined and it is observed that while external (anaphoric) agreement is maintained, internal agreement is being lost in stages. The author observes that Godié (E.Kru) appears to be in the process of reinventing class markers through reanalysis of pronouns via definiteness markers which are suffixed to the noun.

McCloskey, James. 1991. There, It and Agreement. Linguistic Inquiry Vol 22. N^o 3. 563-567.

Topic: agreement in expletive-argument structuresFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: English

Note: This squib discusses differences in agreement in expletive-argument structures with there and it. Expletive-NP chains headed by there regularly exhibit agreement between the verb and the postverbal argument, whereas expletive it never exhibits such agreement, even in conditions in which the semantic condition governing plural agreement with clauses is otherwise met, i.e. the conjoined propositions are contradictory or incompatible. Therefore, the author concludes that there is no expletive-argument link in constructions that contain an it pleonastic.

Meisel, Jürgen M. 1994. Getting FAT: Finiteness, Agreement and Tense in Early Grammars. In Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.) Bilingual First Language Acquisition. Language Acquisition and Language Disorders. Vol 7. 89-129.

Mel’čuk, Igor. 1993. Agreement, Government and Congruence. Lingvisticae Investigationes XVII:2 307-373

Mereu, Lunella. 1997. For a lexical-functional representation of agreement affixes and clitics. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG’97 Conference. CSLI Publications.

Topic: Pronominal agreementFormal syntactic framework: Lexical Functional Grammar.Language(s) cited: Italian, Irish, Italian dialects (Trentino, Fiorentino)

Note: The author treats pronominal clitics and inflectional affixes as members of the same category CL/AFF. She distinguishes between 3 functions of CL/AFF: (a) AGR forms (eg. personal endings in Italian); (b) pronominal forms (eg. pronominal clitics in Italian or French or personal endings in synthetic verb forms in Irish); (c) ambiguous between the two (eg. subject markers in Chichewa). She uses three diagnostic tests to determine which of the three functions the CL/AFF has in different languages: (i) cooccurrence with lexical NPs; (ii) obligatory vs. optional use; (iii) use of resumptive pronouns in long-distance relative clauses. Her conclusion is in line with Bresnan and Mchombo’s (1987) distinction between grammatical and anaphoric agreement with the addition to the typology of CL/AFFs behaving exclusively as subject AGR forms.

Mereu, Lunella. 1999. Agreement, pronominalization and word order in pragmatically-oriented languages. In Lunella Mereu (ed.) Boundaries of morphology and syntax (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 231-250.

Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2000. The emergence of creole subject–verb agreement and the licensing of null subjects. Language Variation and Change 12. 203-230.

Mitchell, T. F. 1973. Aspects of Concord Revisited with Special Reference to Sindhi and Cairene Arabic. Archivum Linguisticum 4. 27-50.

Mitchell, Erika. 1994. When AgrO Is Fused to AgrS: What Morphology can tell us about the Functional Categories. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 1994, 22, July, 111-130.

Mithun, Marianne. 1985. Disagreement: the case of pronominal affixes and nouns. In Deborah Tannen & James E. Alatis (eds.) Georgetown Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1985: Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 50-66.

Mohammad, M. A. 1990. The problem of subject-verb agreement in Arabic: Towards a solution. In Eid, Mushira (ed.). Perspectives on Arabic linguistics 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 95-125.

Moravcsik, Edith A. 1974. Object-verb agreement. Working Papers on Language Universals 13. 25-140.

Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978a. Agreement. In Joseph H Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Human Language: IV: Syntax. Stanford University Press. Stanford California. 331-374.

Topic: grammatical agreement Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: -

Note: The purpose of this paper is to present some crosslinguistically valid informal generalisations concerning grammatical agreement. Agreement in this paper is defined as: a grammatical constituent A is said to agree with a grammatical constituent B in properties C in language L if C is a set of meaning-related properties of A and there is no covariance relationship between C and some phonological properties of a constituent B₁across some subset of the sentences of language L, where constituent B₁is adjacent to constituent B and the only meaning-related non-categorial properties of constituent B₁are the properties C. In this definition, A and B are the agreeing constituents; constituent B₁is called the agreement marker; and the properties C are calles the agreement features. The paper focusses on the following questions: given the set of sentences in a language that has agreement, what are the meaning-related and form-related properties of those constituents that are in agreement relation with each other as opposed to those that are not, and what are the properties with respect to which they agree – that is to say, what are the agreement features? On the basis of this working definition and these two questions, a crosslinguistic survey of three types of agreement features – gender, number, and person – is presented followed by some crosslinguistic generalisations about agreeing constituents. Discussion centers on those instances only where the agrees-with constituent is a nominal or a noun phrase. The theory according to which agreement markers and anaphoric pronouns are grammatically derived by the same types of rules is informally shown to be predictive of some of the restrictions observed both in respect to agreement features and agreeing constituents.

Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978b. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45. 233-279.

Moravcsik, Edith A. 1988. Agreement and Markedness. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 89-106.

Topic: agreement and markednessFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Lebanese Arabic, Swahili, Hungarian, German, Russian, French.

Note: The author draws on the concept of agreement from Lehmann (1982) and considers how it interacts with Greenberg’s (1966) theory of markedness. Agreement can be seen to involve increased structure – a symptom of markedness. Markedness theory makes five predictions: (a) the controllers of agreement should be the more marked; (b) unmarked terms should preferentially agree over marked ones; (c) in competition the unmarked feature should prevail; (d) markers that represent a more marked category value should be more complex in form; (e) agreement should be more likely to occur in construction types that are marked. The author concludes that the predictions of markedness theory do hold for agreement, though she presents several examples which run counter to its predictions and calls for a more refined version of the theory.

Morgan, Jerry L. 1972. Verb agreement as a rule of English. In Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, and Gloria C. Phares (eds.) Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 278-286.

Morgan, Jerry L. 1984. Some problems of agreement in English and Albanian. In C. Brugman et al (eds.) Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Vol 10. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 233-247.

Morgan, Jerry L. 1984. Some Problems of Determination in English Number Agreement. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 69-78.

Munn, Alan. 1999. First Conjunct Agreement: Against a Clausal Analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30.4. 421-446.

Munro, Pamela. 1980. Types of Agreement in Mojave. Occasional Papers on Linguistics. Southern Illinois University. Vol 7. 1-14.

Murphy, M. Lynne. 1997. Agreement as non-directional: an approach to Bantu concord. In Robert K. Herbert (ed.) African Linguistics at the Crossroads: Papers from Kwaluseni, 1st World Congress of African Linguistics, Swaziland, 18-22.7.1994. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. 221-237.

Napoli, Donna Jo. 1975. A global agreement phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 6. 413-435.

Naro, Anthony Julius. 1981. The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change. Language 57. 63-98

Naro, Anthony Julius & Maria Marta Pereira Scherre. 2000. Variable Concord in Portuguese: the situation in Brazil and Portugal. In Language Change and Language Contact in Pidgins and Creoles, livro organizado por John McWhorter. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 236-255.

Nathan, Geoffrey S. 1981. What’s These Facts About? Linguistic Inquiry. Vol 12 N^o 1. 151-153.

Topic: lack of agreement in EnglishFormal syntactic framework: - Language(s) cited: English

Note: This squib is a follow-up on Dixon’s (1977) squib. Nathan points out that the phenomenon discussed by Dixon is far more wide-spread. ’s for are/’re can even be used in where-sentences when there is material between the wh-word and the verb, and it can also be used with other wh-words (e.g. how). Nathan gives the following analysis: "the contracted form of the verb be may be used in singular when the subject is in the plural, but only when in a wh-question, and only when the verb in question is the copula, not when it is an auxiliary".

Newman, Michael. 1998. What can pronouns tell us? A case study of English epicenes Studies. In Language v 22 no2 353-89.

Note: An oral corpus-based study of epicene pronominal constructions in English. These constructions involve pronouns coreferent with singular antecedents and referring to referents of indeterminate sex. According to the study, "they" is used in 60 percent of the tokens, "he" in 25 percent, and other forms minimally. Variation corresponds to three semantic factors: perceived sex stereotypes associated with the referent, notional number, and (surprisingly) degree of individuation. These findings corroborate accounts of the importance of agreement as a discourse-level phenomenon and of pronouns as elements whose informational content goes beyond mere denotation. (author abstract)

Nichols Johanna. 1985. The directionality of agreement. In M. Niepokuj, M. VanClay, V. Nikiforidou and D. Feder (eds.) Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 16--18, 1985. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California. 273-286.

Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head marking and dependent marking grammar. Language 62. 56-119.

Nicol, J. L., Forster, K.I. and Veres, C. 1997 Subject-Verb Agreement Processes in Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. Vol 36. N^o 4. 569-587.

Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999 Object Agreement, Grammatical Relations, and Information Structure. Studies in Language 23:2. 377-407.

Topic: Object asymmetries with regard to agreement.Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Northern Ostyak (Uralic)

Note: The author examines the phenomenon of optional object agreement in Nothern Ostyak, a language which has subjective and objective conjugations in common with some other Uralic languages. She analyses the grammatical behaviour of two types of object, those that trigger agreement on the verb and those that do not. Comparing the properties of the two, and contrasting their behaviour with that found in Chichewa ‘anaphoric’ object agreement, according to Bresnan and Mchombo’s (1987) analysis, she concludes that the difference between the two objects in Ostyak is not due to differing semantics, argument status or grammatical relations, but rather is due to their information structure status. Information structure is an independent parallel level of representation. The object that does not trigger agreement bears the focus function, and systematically corresponds to the focus position in the syntax.

Nocentini Alberto. 1999. Topical Constraints in the verbal agreement of spoken Italian (Tuscan Variety). Rivista di Linguistica 11.2. 315-339.

Topic: verbal agreement in spoken ItalianFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: spoken Italian (Tuscan variety)

Note: This paper illustrates the constraints that control verbal agreement in Italian, focussing on the spoken Tuscan variety. Subjects are characterised by four properties in written standard Italian: (i) it governs verbal agreement (government = G); (ii) it is placed before the verb(position = P); (iii) it plays the pragmatic role of Topic (or Theme) (topic = T); (iv) it plays the semantic role of Agent (agent = A).These properties form a hierarchy controlling verbal agreement in written Standard Italian, viz. G > (P&T) > A with G being the dominant property. In Tuscan Italian, one extra property can be added to the list of properties that characterise the subject, the property F (for first). F combines the properties of morphological unmarkedness and syntactic indispensability and defines the subject as the obligatory unmarked argument implied by the verb or simply as the first argument. e.g. il mange chaque jour une dizaine de personnes dans ce restaurant. This property F is the dominant property controlling verbal agreement in Tuscan Italian. That is, the morpho-syntactic relation between Subject and (verbal) Predicate depends on the pragmatic pattern Topic-Comment (or Theme-Rheme) which governs verbal agreement.

Ormazabal, Javier. 2000. A Conspiracy Theory of Case and Agreement. In: Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 235-260.

Ortmann, Albert. 2000. Where plural refuses to agree: feature unification and morphological economy. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47.249-288.

Ostrowski, Manfred. 1982. Zum Konzept der Kongruenz. In Hansjakob Seiler and Christian Lehmann (eds.) Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen.Teil I: Bereich und Ordnung der Phänomene. Tübingen: Narr. 252-269.

Ouhalla, Jamal. 1993. Subject-Extraction, Negation and the Anti-Agreement Effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 477-518.

Payne, John R. 1995. Inflecting Postpositions in Indic and Kashmiri. In Frans Plank (ed.) Double case: agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York, NY: Oxford U Press Inc. 283-298.

Pensalfini, Rob. 1999. Optional disagreement and the case for feature hierarchies. In Sabrina J. Billings, John P. Boyk, Aaron M. Griffith (eds.) CLS 1999: Papers from the 35^th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 167-178

Perlmutter, David M. 1972. A note on syntactic and semantic number in English. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 243-246.

Perlmutter, David. 1983. Personal vs. impersonal constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1.141-200.

Perrot, Jean. 1996-1997. Some Propositions Regarding "Agreement" in Answer to Questions.(Original Title: Quelques propositions sur "l'accord" en reponse au questionnaire) Faits de Langues. 1996-1997. 8. 161-164.

Perry, T. A. 1975. A note on the role of agreement in the grammar of English. Foundations of Language 13.579-589.

Peterson, Peter, G. 1986. Establishing Verb Agreement with Disjunctively Conjoined Subjects: Strategies Vs Principles. Australian Journal of Linguistics. Vol 6. N^o 2. 231-250.

Phillips, Colin. 1993. Conditions on Agreement in Yimas. In Jonathan D. Bobaljik and Colin Phillips Papers on Case and Agreement. I (=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18). Cambridge, MA.: Department of Linguistics, MIT.

Pieroni, Silvia. 1998. Remarks on iconicity and agreement. Indogermanische Forschungen, 103.

Topic: Agreement and iconicityFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Ancient Greek

Note: The author examines the phenomena of ‘case agreement’ in relative pronouns and inalienable possessive relations and argues that agreement may be a semantically meaningful relation, concluding that: the more two entities are semantically related, the higher is the possibility for the nouns that refer to them to show agreement; the more the information is pragmatically presupposed and known, the lower the frequency of occurrence of independent case-marking.(The examples are not given a morpheme-by-morpheme gloss.)

Pishwa, Hanna. 1989. Erwerb der deutschen Kongruenzregel Arbeitspapiere zur Linguistik = Working papers in linguistics. [Special issue] ; 23 Berlin : Institut fur Linguistik der Technischen Universitat Berlin PD- 209 p ; 21 cm IS- 3798312680

Plank, Frans. 1984. Romance disagreements: phonology interfering with syntax. Linguistics 20. 329-349.

Plank, Frans. 1993. Peculiarities of Passives of Reflexives in German. Studies in Language 17-1. 135-167.

Platzack, Christer. 1996. Null Subjects, Weak Agr and Syntactic Differences in Scandinavian. In Thrainsson, Hoskuldur, Epstein, Samuel David, & Peter, Steve (eds.) Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Vol II. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. 180-196.

Polinsky, Maria. 1992. Verb agreement and object marking in Sel’kup: interaction of morphology and syntax. In Costas P. Canakis, Grace P. Chan, and Jeannette Marshall Denton (eds.) Papers from the 28^th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol.1: The Main Session. 412-425.

Polinsky, Maria and Bernard Comrie. 1999. Agreement in Tsez. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on Agreement. 109-151.

Note: Tsez, like most languages of the Nakh-Daghestanian language family to which it belongs, has agreement in terms of noun class. Tsez distinguishes four classes in the singular, but these are collapsed to two in the plural; agreement is shown on most vowel-initial verbs, on some vowel-initial adjectives and adverbs, on some vowel-initial particles, and on some pronouns and numerals. After presenting the basic system, we investigate a number of more complex instances. Under conjunction, Tsez sometimes uses a resolution rule, sometimes adjacency, with interesting differences between ‘and’- and ‘or’-conjunction. Personification in Tsez does not lead to change in noun class, even in cases of agreement with first or second person pronouns. Finally, Tsez allows the possibility of long distance agreement, whereby certain matrix verbs can agree with a noun phrase in a lower clause. We show that this phenomenon is intimately connected with the information structure of the clause, in particular that long distance agreement is required when the noun phrase in the lower clause is topic of that clause; indeed, under certain circumstances long distance agreement can serve distinctively to mark the topic status of a noun phrase in the lower clause. (author abstract)

Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 583-646.

Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1988. An information-based theory of agreement. In Brentari, Diane, Gary N. Larson, Lynn A. MacLeod (eds.) CLS24: Papers from the 24^th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Part II: Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory. 236-257.

Posner, Rebecca. 1985. Non-agreement on Romance disagreements. Journal of Linguistics 21. 437-451.

Postma, Gertjan. 1996-1997. Anti-Agreement and Analogy-Two Interface Requirements on the Verbal Paradigm in Latin. Faits de Langues. 1996-1997. 8. 103-112.

Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1984. How Complex Could an Agreement System be? In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 79-103.

Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Arnold M. Zwicky 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62: 751 - 773.

Reid, Wallis. 1984. Verb Agreement as a Case of Semantic Redundancy. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 104-115.

Rice, Keren & Saxon, Leslie. 1994. The Subject Positions in Athapaskan Languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. 22 July. 173-195.

Rispoli, Matthew 1999. Case and agreement in English language development. Journal of Child Language 26.357-372.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica 2. 27-42.

Roberts, Ian G. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 21-58.

Roberts, Ian & Ur Shlonsky. 1996. Pronominal enclisis in VSO languages. In Robert D. Borsley & Ian Roberts (eds.) The syntax of the Celtic languages: a comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 171-200.

Rohrbacher, Bernhard. 1995. Explaining the Syntactic Consequences of "Rich" Agreement Morphology: On the Licensing of V-to-AgrS Raising and pro. In Aranovich, Raul, Byrne, William, Preuss, Susanne, & Senturia, Martha (eds.) The Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference On Formal Linguistics Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 350-364.

Romero, Juan. 1999. The Case of Agreement. In Karlos Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia Krause, and Vivian Lin Papers on Morphology and Syntax, Cycle One. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics N^o 33.

Rouveret, Alain. 1991. Functional categories and agreement. The Linguistic Review 8. 353-387.

Russell, Robert A. 1984. Historical Aspects of Subject-Verb Agreement in Arabic. In Alvarez, Gloria, Belinda Brodie and Terry McCoy (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus. Ohio: Ohio State University. 116-127.

Sadler, Louisa. To Appear. Coordination and Asymmetric Agreement in Welsh. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.) Nominals: Inside and Out. CSLI Publications, 2003. Also available at: http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~ louisa/newpapers/

Sadock, Jerrold M. 1994. Remarks on a West Greenlandic Verbal Paradigm Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 27. 2. 427-431.

Sankoff, Gillian. 1994. An historical and evolutionary approach to variation in the Tok Pisin verb phrase. In Papers from the 30^th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol 2: The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic Theory. 293-320.

Saksena, Anuradha. 1981. Verb agreement in Hindi. Linguistics 19. 467-474.

Saksena, Anuradha. 1985. Verb agreement in Hindi, part II: A critique of Comrie’s analysis. Linguistics 23. 137-142.

Saxon, Leslie. 1984. Control and Agreement in Dogrib. In Alvarez, Gloria, Belinda Brodie and Terry McCoy (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 128-139.

Schachtl, Stefanie. 1989. Morphological case and abstract case: evidence from the German genitive construction. In Christa Bhatt, Elisabeth Löbel and Claudia Schmidt (eds.) Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 99—111.

Note: Discusses examples in German in which even an unambiguously case-marked noun (Gen. Sg.) is ungrammatical without a determiner/modifier to agree with it. (See also Gallman 1990, Lindauer 1995).

Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira & Anthony Julius Naro. 1998. Sobre a concordância de número no português falado do Brasil. In Dialettologia, geolinguistica, sociolinguistica, organizado por Giovanni Ruffino, 5:509-523. Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani, Universitá di Palermo. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Schmidt, Peter. 2000. Agreement domain universals: Semantically-based proposals and their problems. In L. A. Kuz´min (ed.) Jazyk, glagol, predloženie: K 70-letiju Georgija Georgievica Sil´nickogo (Festschrift for Professor Georgij Silnitskij), Smolensk. STPU. 227-245.

Topic: semantically-based proposals for GAFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Russian, German, Caucasian languages, Warlpiri, Chamalal, Tsakhur, Abkhaz.

Note: This paper discusses two proposals that have been put forward as absolute universal principles governing grammatical agreement (GA), viz Keenan’s (1974) Functional (Dependency) Principle and the Agreement-as-Morphologized-Anaphor approach (Lapointe 1980).The paper considers the empirical testability of both approaches and shows that there exist potential counterexamples to both principles, which may invalidate them as absolute universals.

Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1995. Specifier/Head Agreement in Kinande. Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa 23. Aug. 67-96.

Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1996. An Argument in Favor of Agreement Phrase. In Virginia Montapayne and Anthony D. Green (eds.) Proceeding from the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 1996, Cornell University.

Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2000. Anti-agreement and the Finite Structure of the Left Periphery. University of California Irvine Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 6.

Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2002. The Case of Anti-Agreement. MIT WPIL AFLA 8 Proceedings, MIT, Cambridge, MA 2002

Schreiber, Peter A. 1978. There-insertion and number agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 318-325.

Schroeder, Christoph. 1999. Number (non) Agreement. In Schroeder, C. (ed.) The Turkish nominal phrase in spoken discourse. (Turcologica 40). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 111-125.

Schütze, Carson T. 1999. English Expeltive Constructions Are Not Infected. Linguistic Inquiry 30.3. 467-484.

Schwartz, Linda. 1988. Asymmetric Feature Distribution in Pronominal ‘Coordinations’. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 237-249.

Topic: Plural pronoun constructionsFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Yapese, Mokilese, Kpelle, Latvian, Russian, Tagalog, Bulgarian, Dakota, Kanuri

Note: The author investigates those constructions in which an initial pronoun in a coordination is morphologically plural without necesssarily having a plural referent. The initial pronoun is considered to be the head of the coordination, which is marked with the case and number of the dominating node. In addition, verb-coded coordinations are discussed, where the verb appears to agree with a missing NP in a coordination.

Seidl, Amanda & Dimitriadis, Alexis. 1997. The discourse function of object marking in Swahili. In Kora Singer, Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson (eds.) CLS 33: Papers from the Main Session, April 17-19, 1997. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 373-387.

Siewierska, Anna. 1996. Word order type and alignment type. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49. 149-176.

Siewierska, Anna. 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement marker: Why objects don’t make it. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on Agreement. 225-251.

Topic: Types of pronominal agreement. Formal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Macushi, Tauya, Dutch, Welsh, Palauan, Kusaiean, Yagua, Ampezzan, Southeastern Tepehuan, Wolaian, Anejom, Friulian, Fassan, Badiot, Older Egyptian, Polish, Icelandic, Ijo, Roviana, Retuarã, Anêm, Kilivila, Labu, Maricopa, Kisar, Hungarian, Vogul, Nocte, Plains Cree.

Note: The endpoint of the historical evolution of agreement marker from anaphoric person pronoun is the loss of referentiality on the part of the person marker and the obligatory presence of the nominal argument with which it agrees. Contrary to what might be supposed, such agreement, which I, inspired by Bresnan & Mchombo (1986, 1987), have termed grammatical, as opposed to anaphoric or ambiguous (grammatical and anaphoric) agreement, is cross-linguistically very rare. Moreover, among the attested instances of grammatical person agreement none involve object as compared to subject agreement. The present paper considers the distribution and formal realization of anaphoric, ambiguous and grammatical agreement markers in a sample of 272 languages and offers some tentative explanations for the existing asymmetry in regard to grammatical agreement. It is suggested that grammatical object agreement does not arise since ambiguous agreement, from which grammatical agreement evolves, is less common with objects than with subjects, and two of the potential sources of grammatical agreement, adherence to a verb-second constraint and phonological attrition are more likely to involve subjects rather than objects. (author abstract)

Siewierska, Anna. Forthcoming. On the discourse basis of person agreement marking, In T. Viryanen (ed.) Discourse Approaches to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Siewierska, Anna and Dik Bakker. 1996. The Distribution of Subject and Object Agreement and Word Order Type. Studies in Language. 20:1. 115-161.

Topic: Subject and Object agreement and word orderFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: sample of 237 languages

Note: This article examines the distribution and formal realization of Subject and Object agreement markers in different word order types (V3 (SOV,OSV), V2 (SVO, OVS), V1 (VOS,VSO), free, and split) relative to the Universal Suffixing Preference, the Head Ordering Principle, and the Diachronic Syntax Hypothesis on the basis of a sample of 237 languages. The Universal Suffixing Preference is based on the assumption that suffixing is easier to process than prefixing. The Head Ordering Principle takes inflectional affixes to be heads of their respective lexical categories and thus predicts that affixes should be suffixes in OV languages and prefixes in VO languages. The Diachronic Syntax Hypothesis defines a preference for morphemes to be located in the positions of the separate words which gave rise to them. The investigation shows that there is a statistically significant correlation between agreement and word order type, and that the coupling of the Diachronic Syntax Hypothesis with the Universal Suffixing Preference provides the best account for the data. Only 6% of the agreement markers in the sample do not fall out from the combination of these 2 hypotheses. By comparing the results stemming from the 237 language sample with those of other samples the paper seeks to draw the attention to how areal biases in samples may affect cross-linguistic generalisations.

Simon, Horst J. Forthcoming. From pragmatics to grammar: tracing the development of ‘respect’ in the history of the German pronouns of address. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.) Origin and Development of Address Terms in European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Simpson, Andrew and Wu, Zoe. 2000. The development and licensing of agreement as a functional projection. In: Roger Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen (eds) WCCFL 19: Proceedings of the 19^th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 479-492.

Smith, John C. 1995. Perceptual factors and the disappearance of agreement between part participle and direct object in Romance. In John C. Smith & Martin Maiden (eds.) Linguistic Theory and the Romance Languages (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 161-180.

Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 318-343.

Song, Jae Jung. 1994. The verb-object bonding principle and the pronominal system: with special reference to Nuclear Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 33. 517-565.

Sparks, Randall B. 1984. Here’s a few more facts. Linguistic Inquiry 15.179-183.

Spencer, Andrew. 2000. Agreement morphology in Chukotkan. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, Markus A. Pöchtrager & John R. Rennison (eds.) Morphological Analysis in Comparison (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 191-222.

Topic: verbal agreement in Chukchee and KoryakFormal syntactic framework: -Language(s) cited: Chukchee, Koryak

Note: This paper presents an analysis of verbal agreement in the ergative languages Chukchee and Koryak showing that certain aspects of the system pose a problem for current versions of Distributed Morphology.

Steele, Susan. 1988. ‘Agreement’ and Syntactic Composition: The Luiseño Single-Possessive Condition. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 269-286.

Topic: Agreement typology Formal syntactic framework: Categorial grammarLanguage(s) cited: Luiseño

Note: The author describes the Luiseño word as a compatible combination of Left-occurring String and Right Boundary Effect. The restricted number of possible Argument Structures in the language determine that there is never more than one obligatorily Possessive-marked element per argument structure.

Stump, Gregory. 1984. Agreement vs. incorporation in Breton. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 289-348.

Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 391-434.

Suñer, Margarita. 1992. Subject Clitics in the Northern Italian Vernaculars and the Matching Hypothesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 10. 641-672.

Szamosi, Michael. 1974. Verb-object agreement in Hungarian. In Michael W. La Galy, Robert A. Fox, Anthony Bruck (eds.) CLS 10: Papers from the tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 701-711.

Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1996. Reflexives, pronouns, and subject/verb agreement in Icelandic and Faroese. In James R. Black & Virginia Motapanyane (eds.) Microparametric syntax and dialect variation (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 139), Amsterdam: Benjamins. 189-211.

Timberlake, Alan. 1988. Case Agreement in Lithuanian. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 181-199.

Topic: Case agreementFormal syntactic framework: Categorial grammarLanguage(s) cited: Lithuanian

Note: The author gives an account of agreement in case between a predicate nominal and its controller. It is suggested that the predicate carries the morphological features of its complements, both arguments and complements.

Toivonen, Ida. 2000. The morphosyntax of Finnish possessives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 579-609.

Trail, A. 1974. Agreement systems in !xõ. LIMI 2.12-27.

Troike R.C. 1981. Subject-object concord in Coahuilteco. Language 57. 658-73.

Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981 Interaction of phonological, grammatical, and semantic factors: an Australian example. Oceanic Linguistics 20.45-92.

Tuite, Kevin. 1984. Case Attraction and Case Agreement. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 140-151.

Urjupina, Ol´ga M. 2001. Osobennosti glagol´nogo soglasovanija po cislu v okeanijskix jazykax. In Vladimir A. Plungjan (ed.) Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki: I: Glagol´nye kategorii. Moscow: Russkie slovari. 228-261.

Urmančieva, Anna Ju. 2001. Ličnoe soglasovanie glagola: tak li vse prosto?.. In Vladimir A. Plungjan (ed.) Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki: I: Glagol´nye kategorii. Moscow: Russkie slovari. 209-227.

Velázquez-Castillo, Maura. 1991. The semantics of Guarani agreement markers. In Laurel A. Sutton, Christopher Johnson and Ruth Shields (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 15-18, 1991: General Session and Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structure. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 324-335.

Verschuur, Leon. 1993. Semantic agreement of anaphors and extended type theory. In Andreas Kathol and Michael Bernstein (eds.) ESCOL ’93: Proceedings of the Tenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Ithaca: Cornell University, Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics. 348-359.

Vigliocco, Gabriella & Nicol, Janet. 1998. Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: is proximity concord syntactic or linear. Cognition 68. 13-29.

Vigliocco, Gabriella & Franck, Julie. 2001. When Sex affects Syntax: Contextual Influences in Sentence Production. Journal of Memory and Language 45. N^o 3. 368-390.

Vigliocco, Gabriella; Franck, Julie; Antón-Méndez, Inés & Collina, Simona. Forthcoming. The interplay between syntax and form in sentence production. Language and Cognitive Processes.

Voeltz, Erhard F. K. 1971. Surface constraints and agreement resolution: some evidence from Xhosa. Studies in Aftrican Linguistics 2. 37-60.

Wechsler, Stephen. 1999. Gender Resolution in Coordinate Structures. In C. Smith (ed.) Proceedings of the Workshop on the Structure of Spoken and Written Texts. Texas Linguistic Forum. University of Texas at Austin. 1-22.

Note: an extended version of this paper is to appear: Stephen Wechsler, to appear. Elsewhere in Gender Resolution. In Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas (eds.) The Nature of the Word— Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky. MIT Press.

Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlatić. 1999. Agreement in Discourse. Proceedings of the Conference on the Structure of Non-Narrative Texts, University if Texas, Austin. February 1998.

Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlatić. 2001. A Theory of Agreement and its Application to Serbo-Croatian. Language 76.4. 799-832.

Wheeler, Max W. 1995. ‘Underspecification’ and ‘misagreement’ in Catalan lexical specifiers. In John Charles Smith and Martin Maiden (eds.) Linguistic Theory and the Romance Languages. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Vol 122. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 201-229.

Woolford, Ellen. 2000. Object agreement in Palauan: Specificity, Humanness, Economy and Optimality. In I. Paul, V. Phillips, L.Travis (eds.) Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Vol. 49. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 215-245.

Topic: object agreement in PalauanFormal syntactic framework: Optimality TheoryLanguage(s) cited: Palauan

Note: Palauan exhibits a complex pattern of object agreement and preposition insertion, conditioned by aspect, specificity, number, and humanness. Objects must be either [+human] and/or [+specific, +singular] to trigger object agreement in a perfective clause or preposition insertion in an imperfective clause. Woolford gives an account of these facts based on a small number of economy and exclusion principles which are not unique to Palauan. Palauan manifests two exclusion principles and two economy principles. These are:(a) Exclusion principles: (a1) Specificity Exclusion Principle (Palauan variant), i.e. NPs inside the VP, governed by V cannot be [+specific,+singular]; (a2) Humanness Exclusion Principle, i.e. NPs inside the VP, governed by V cannot be [+human]; (b) Economy principles, i.e. Avoid Movement and Avoid Insertion. In order to get the appropriate output, these principles are ranked. In imperfective constructions the ranking is Exclusion principles >> Avoid Movement >> Avoid Insertion; in perfective constructions the ranking is Avoid Insertion >> Exclusion Principles >> Avoid Movement. In Palauan, the ranking in the imperfect is assumed to be the default ranking (only Avoid Insertion needs to be changed from lowest to highest in the perfect).

Wright, Martha. 1990. Verb Agreement Parameters. In Ken deJong and Yongkyoon No (eds.) ESCOL ’89 Proceedings of the Sixth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. 277-288.

Wunderlich, Dieter. 1994. Towards a lexicon-based theory of agreement. Theoretical Linguistics Vol 20. N^o 1. 1-35.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. AGREE: The other VP-internal subject hypothesis. In: Karine Megerdoomian & Leora Anne Bar-el (eds) WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20^th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 635-648.

Yādava, Yogendra Prasad. 1996. Verb agreement in Maithili. Journal of Nepalese Studies 1. 109-121.

Zaring, Laurie. 1984. Person/Number Inflection in S, NP and PP: A Parametric Approach. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL ’84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 152-164.

Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993a. Clues from dialect syntax: complementizer agreement. In Werner Abraham & Josef Bayer (eds.) Dialektsyntax (Linguistische Berichte, special issue 5), 246-70.

Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993b. Verb Movement and Complementizer Agreement. In Jonathan D. Bobaljik and Colin Phillips Papers on Case and Agreement. I (=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18). Cambridge, MA.: Department of Linguistics, MIT.

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986a. Agreement features: layers or tags? Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 146-8.

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986b. German adjective agreement in GPSG. Linguistics 24. 957-90.

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1991. Systematic versus accidental phonological identity. In Frans Plank (ed.) Paradigms: the economy of inflection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 113-131.

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Jottings on Adpositions, Case Inflections, Government, and Agreement. In Diane Brentari, Gary N. Larson and Lynn A. Macleod (eds.) The Joy of Grammar: A Festschrift in Honor of James D. McCawley. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 369-383.

Zwicky, Arnold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum 1983. Phonology in Syntax: The Somali Optional Agreement Rule. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1(3). 385-402.

Wunderlich, Dieter. 2001. Grammatical agreement. In Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: IX. Amsterdam: Elsevier.6330-6334.

Section D: Agreement in the Slavonic Languages

Akopdžanjan, A. A. 1962a. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s podležaščim, vyražennym neopredelenno-količestvennym suščestvitel´nym v socetanii s suščestvitel´nym v roditel´nym padeže (Podležaščee tipa "bol´šinstvo zritelej"). Elabužskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogičeskij institut: Učenye zapiski: serija istorii i filologii 13. 32-84.

Akopdžanjan, A. A. 1962b. Značenie predikativnogo glagola v predloženijax s podležaščim tipa "bol´šinstvo zritelej": leksičeskoe značenie glagola. Elabužskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogičeskij institut: Učenye zapiski: serija istorii i filologii 13. 85-94.

Akopdžanjan, A. A. 1962c. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s podležaščim, vyražennym suščestvitel´nym "čislo" v sočetanii s roditel´nym padežom množestvennogo čisla. Elabužskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogičeskij institut: Učenye zapiski: serija istorii i filologii. 13. 332-336.

Akopdžanjan, A. A. 1962d. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s podležaščim, vyražennym suščestvitel´nym "čast'" v sočetanii s sušcestvitel´nym v roditel´nom padeže množestvennogo čisla. InVoprosy teorii i metodiki izučenija russkogo jazyka vyp. 2 (čeboksary, čuvašskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogičeskij institut), 150-165.

Akopdžanjan, A. A. 1965a. O vidax svjazi glagola-skazuemogo s podležaščim-količestvenno-imennym sočetaniem. Elabužskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogičeskij institut: Učenye zapiski 15. 122-132.

Akopdžanjan, A. A. 1965b. O forme čisla glagola-skazuemogo v predloženijax s količestvennym podležaščim: Forma glagola–skazuemogo v predloženijax s podležaščim tipa "tri čeloveka". Voprosy teorii i metodiki izučenija russkogo jazyka (Iževsk) vyp. 4. 104-113.

Andrejčin, Lj. 1968. Săglasuvane na otnositelnoto mestoimenie čijto. Ezik i literatura 18. 66-67. Reprinted in Părvev (1971, 150-151).]

Apresjan, Ju. D. 1982. O vozmožnosti opredelenija lingvističeskix ponjatij. Russian Linguistics 6. 175-196.

Babby, Leonard H. 1973. A note on agreement in Russian. Glossa. 7. 253-264.

Babby, Leonard H. 1985. Noun phrase internal case agreement in Russian. Russian Linguistics 9. 1-15. [Reprinted in Barlow and Ferguson (1988, 287-304).]

Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 91-138.

Babby, Leonard H. 1988. Noun Phrase Internal Case Agreement in Russian. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 287-304.

Topic: Case agreementFormal syntactic framework: X-bar syntax.Language(s) cited: Russian

Note: The author uses evidence from the behaviour of quantifier phrases in Russian to argue that the head noun of a noun phrase does not control the case marking of its modifiers, but that case is assigned to the noun’s maximal projection where it percolates down to the available lexical and phrasal categories. Case assignment appears to follow a (possibly universal) Syntactic Case Hierarchy in Russian where lexical case takes precedence over all other types of case assignment.

Babić, Stjepan. 1973. Sročnost (kongruencija) u suvremenom hrvatskom književnom jeziku. Zbornik Zagrebačke slavističke škole I, part 1. 199-218.

Babić, Stjepan. 1984-85a. O sročnosti općenito. Jezik 32, 1. 1-5.

Babić, Stjepan. 1984-85b. Sročnost s više subjekata. Jezik 32, 2. 43–49.

Babić, Stjepan. 1984-85c. Sročnosti s količinskim riječima. Jezik 32, 3. 65-75.

Babić, Stjepan. 1984-85d. Sročnosti s riječima u kojima se razlikuje oblik i broj. Jezik 32, 4. 113-118.

Babić, Stjepan. 1984-85e. Sročnost s razlikom u subjektu i imenskom dijelu predikata. Jezik 32, 5. 138-140.

Babickij, K. I. 1972. Soglasovannost´ členov kak neobxodimoe uslovie pravil´nosti predloženija. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 15. 76-94.

Bajec, A. 1955-56. Vezanje večosebkov s povedkom. Jezik in Slovstvo 1. 12-14.

Belić, A. 1924. Napomena o jednoj sintaksičko-morfološkoj osobini srpskohrvatskog jezika. Južnoslovenski Filolog 4. 24–28.

Bilbija, S. 1985. Neslaganje u broju izmedju singularnih antecedenata i njihovih pronominalnih anafora. Književni jezik (Sarajevo) 14, no. 4. 197-202.

Bogdanov, V. N. 1968. Osobyj slučaj dialektnogo soglasovanija skazuemogo s podležaščim po smyslu i kategorija predstavitel´nosti. Naučnye doklady vysšej školy: filologičeskie nauki no. 4. 68-75.

Brooks, Maria Z. 1973. Rola liczby i rodzaju przy zgodzie niektórych podmiotów z orzeczeniem. In L. Matejka (ed.) American Contributions to the Seventh International Congress of Slavists: Warsaw, August 21-27, 1973, I, Linguistics and Poetics. The Hague, Mouton, 59-66.

Browne, Wayles. 1990. Kako kongruirati sa infinitivom? Sistem pojmova za opis slaganja u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Naucni Sastanak Slavista u Vukove Dane: Referati i saopštenja 20, 2.157-163.

Burzan, Mirjana. 1981. Interferencija u kongruiranju predikata sa subjektom u broju u govornoj produkciji madjarsko-srpskohrvatskih bilingva na srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Prilozi proucavanju jezika (Novi Sad) 17. 119-139.

Buttke, K. 1972. Zur Kongruenz des Prädikats mit der Numeralfügung als subjekt im modernen Ukrainischen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 17. 626-635.

Buzássyová, K. 1977. Kategória určenosti a zhoda spony vo vetách s menn´ym prísudkom. Jazykovedné štúdie 13, Ružičkov zborník (Bratislava), 61-72.

Bylinskij, K. I. 1939a. Osobye slučai soglasovanija skazuemogo s podležaščim v sovremennom literaturnom jazyke. Russkij jazyk v škole no. 2. 63-73.

Bylinskij, K. I. 1939b. Osobye slučai soglasovanija opredelenija s suščestvitel´nym v sovremennom literaturnom jazyke. Russkij jazyk v škole no. 3. 12-19.

Černyšev, V. I. 1938. O narušenii soglasovanija v russkom jazyke. In Pamjati akademika N. Ja. Marra (1864-1934). Moscow and Leningrad, AN SSSR, 258-274. [Reprinted in V. I. Černyšev. Izbrannye trudy,:I. Moscow, Prosveščenie, 1970, 194-210.]

Comtet, M. 1985. Funkcija soglasovanija po principu sosedstva imeni prilagatel´nogo v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Russian Linguistics 9, no. 1. 35-43.

Comtet, Roger. 2001-2002. Accord et fonction de l'adjectif épithète en russe écrit, Cahiers du Centre Interdisciplinaire des Sciences du Langage, Toulouse-le Mirail, 16, 2001-2002. 7-19.

Corbett, Greville G. 1979. Predicate Agreement in Russian (Birmingham Slavonic Monographs, 7). University of Birmingham, Department of Russian Language and Literature.

Corbett, Greville G. 1980. Neutral agreement. Quinquereme - New Studies in Modern Languages 3. 164-170.

Corbett, Greville G. 1981a. A note on grammatical agreement in Šinel´. Slavonic and East European Review 59. 59-61.

Corbett, Greville G. 1981b. Agreement with honorific vy in Russian and its significance for subject-raising and for the analysis of predicative adjectives. New Zealand Slavonic Journal no. 2. 73-88.

Corbett, Greville G. 1982. Resolution rules for predicate agreement in the Slavonic languages. Slavonic and East European Review 60. 347-378.

Corbett, Greville G. 1983a. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.

Corbett, Greville G. 1983b. Slaganje predikata sa više subjekata u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane: Referati i saopštenja 12/1. Beograd: Medjunarodni slavistički centar. 93-102.

Corbett, Greville G. 1986. Agreement: a partial specification, based on Slavonic data. Linguistics 24, no. 6. 995-1023. [Slightly revised version of a paper which appeared in Barlow and Ferguson (1988, 23-53).]

Corbett, Greville G. 1988. Agreement: A partial specification based on Slavonic data. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 23-53.

Topic: The specification of the characteristics of agreement.Formal syntactic framework: - Language(s) cited: Russian, Slovenian, Polish, Czech, Upper Sorbian, Serbo-Croat.

Note: The author highlights the difficulties encountered in attaining an adequate description of agreement by examining data from Slavonic languages. He examining in turn problems with identifying agreement controllers, targets and features. He then considers the factors which determine agreement in those cases where there exist different options. Such factors include animacy (of the controller) and precedence (in the syntax). As regards target factors, the author refers to the agreement hierarchy (Corbett 1983).

Crockett, Dina B. 1972. More on coordination reduction. In P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi and G. C. Phares (eds.) Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14-16 1972. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, 52-61.

Crockett, Dina B. 1976. Agreement in Contemporary Standard Russian. Cambridge, Mass., Slavica.

Degtjarev, V. I. 1966. Osobennosti soglasovanija skazuemogo s podležaščim - imenem sobiratel´nym v drevnerusskom jazyke. Naučnye doklady vysšej školy: filologičeskie nauki, no. 3. 138-146.

Dingwall, W. O. 1969. Government, concord and feature-change rules. Glossa 3. 210-240.

Dingwall, W. O. & Tuniks, G. 1973. Government and concord in Russian: a study in developmental psycholinguistics. In B. B. Kachru, R. B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli & S. Saporta (eds.) Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 126-184.

Dončeva-Mareva, Liljana. 1978. Săglasuvaneto na učtivoto Vie săs skazuemoto v bălgarskija i ruskija ezik ot kvantitativno gledišta. Sapostavilno ezikoznanie no. 3. 70-75.

Duczmal, Stanisław. 1976. Some aspects of subject-verb concord in Polish and English. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 5. 165-171.

Dziwirek, Katarzyna. 1990. Default agreement in Polish. In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell and Errapel Majías-Bikandi (eds.) Grammatical Relations: A Cross-theoretical Perspective. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association/CSLI. 147-161.

Egerman, L. I. 1975. K voprosu o pričinax dvojakogo soglasovanija imen suščestvitel´nyx obščego roda v russkom jazyke. Izvestija Voronežskogo pedagogičeskogo instituta 150 (= A. S. Afanas´ev, E. A. Nazikova and A. M. Slepcova eds Russkij sintaksis). 63-69.

Egorov, V. G. 1916. Soglasovanie čislitel´nyx" s" suščestvitel´nymi v" velikorusskix" juridičeskix" pamjatnikax" XV-XVII v.v.. Filologičeskie zapiski vyp. 2-3, 189-236, vyp. 4-5. 474-529.

Es´kova, N. A. 1977. Soglasovanie prilagatel´nyx s oduševlennymi i neoduševlennymi suščestvitel´nymi v russkom jazyke. In Semasiologija i grammatika: Kratkie tezisy dokladov i soobščenij jazykovedov Central´no-Černozemnoj zony. Tambov. 33-34. (Quoted from Iomdin 1990, 163.)

Faska, Helmut. 1959. Nĕkotre syntaktiske a stilistiske wosebitosće kongruency predikata ze subjektom. Letopis Instituta za serbski ludospyt (Bautzen), rjad A., vol. 6. 48-72.

Flaume, T. 1974. Singular and plural forms in Russian: semantic and stylistic variants. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Distributed by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 74-22,840.

Franck, Julie & Vigliocco, Gabriella. Forthcoming. Conceptual and word form effects in Russian gender agreement.

Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.

Franks, Steven. & Greenberg, Gerald R. 1988. Agreement, tense, and the case of subjects in Russian. In D. Brentari, G. Larson & L. MacLeod (eds.) CLS 24: Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Part II: Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. 71-86.

Georgieva, E. 1955. Po văprosa za săglasuvaneto na skazuemoto s podloga Bălgarski ezik 5. 280-281. [Reprinted in Părvev (1971, 135–137).]

Glavan, Vjenceslav. 1927-28. Kongruencija u jeziku starih čakavskih pisaca. Južnoslovenski filolog 7. 111-159.

Gotteri, Nigel. 1984. The evasive neuter in Polish. In Frank E. Knowles & J. Ian Press (eds.) Papers in Slavonic Linguistics II. Birmingham, Department of Modern Languages, University of Aston in Birmingham, 1-8.

Grappin, Henri. 1950. Les noms de nombre en polonais. Kraków, PAU.

Gudkov, Vladimir P. 1965. Dodatak pravilima slaganja predikata sa više subjekata. Književnost i jezik 12. 60-61.

Gudkov, Vladimir P. 1974. Prilog o pravilima kongruencije. Književnost i jezik 21, part 1. 58-61.

Gvozdanović, Jadranka. 1983. Kada odstupamo od gramatičkog roda i broja? Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane: Referati i saopštenja 13/1. Beograd: Medjunarodni slavistički centar, 213–219.

Herrity, Peter 1977. Problem kongruencije u srpskohrvatskom i drugim slovenskim jezicima. Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane 7. Beograd: Medjunarodni slavistički centar, 261–273.

Herrity, Peter 1983. Agreement with epicoena and masculine nouns in -a in the Slavonic languages. Slavonic and East European Review 61, 1. 41-54.

Hraste, Mate. 1953. Moje kolege ili moji kolege? Jezik 2. 61-62.

Hraste, Mate. 1955-56. O rodu i kongruenciji imena mjesta. Jezik 4. 70-71.

Huntley, David. 1989. Grammatical and lexical features in number and gender agreement in Old Bulgarian. Paleobulgarica 13. 21–32.

Igartua, Iván. 2000. Osobennosti razvitija soglasovanija v istorii russkogo jazyka. Russian Linguistics 24.287-320.

Iomdin, Leonid L. 1979a. Fragment modeli russkogo poverxnostnogo sintaksisa: opredelitel´nye konstrukcii. Južnoslovenski filolog 25. 19-54.

Iomdin, Leonid L. 1979b. Ešče raz o sintaksičeskom soglasovanii v russkom jazyke (Predvaritel´nye publikacii, vyp. 122). Moscow, Institut russkogo jazyka AN SSSR.

Iomdin, Leonid L. 1980a. O russkix suščestvitel´nyx tak nazyvaemogo obščego roda. Izvestija AN SSSR: Serija literatury i jazyka 39, no. 5. 456-461.

Iomdin, Leonid L. 1980b. K postroeniju formal´noj modeli sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Operator sintaksičeskogo soglasovanija dlja opredelitel´nyx konstrucij. Logiko-semantičeskie voprosy iskusstvennogo intellekta. Trudy po iskusstvennomu intellektu 3 (= Tartu Riikliku Ülikooli Toimetised/Učenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 551). Tartu, TGU, 51-70.

Iomdin, Leonid L. 1990. Avtomatičeskaja obrabotka teksta na estestvennom jazyke: model´ soglasovanija. Moscow, Nauka.

Iordanskij, A. M. 1958. Istorija upotreblenija soglasovannyx opredelenij pri sočetanijax čislitel´nyx dva, tri, četyre s imenami suščestvitel´nymi v russkom jazyke. Učenye zapiski Vladimirskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo instituta, vyp. 4. 54-82.

Ivić, Milka. 1971. O razvitii nekotoryx kongručntnyx javlenij na serbskohorvatskoj jazykovoj territorii. In Problemy istorii i dialektologii slavjanskix jazykov: Sbornik statej k 70-letiju člena-korrespondenta AN SSSR V. I. Borkovskogo. Moscow, Nauka, 126-134.

Janko-Trinickaja, N. A. 1966. Naimenovanie lic ženskogo pola suščestvitel´nymi ženskogo i mužskogo roda. In A. E. Zemskaja & D. N. Šmelev (eds.) Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow, Nauka, 167-210.

Ječmenica, Andrija 1966. O Lalićevoj kongruenciji uz imenice na -a koje označavaju muška lica. Književnost i jezik 14. 304–310.

Jerković, J. 1971. Pitanje konguencije u udžbenicima i nastavi srpskohrvatskog kao nematernjeg jezika. Bilten Pokrajinskog zavoda za izdavanje udžbenika (Novi Sad) 13. (Quoted from Burzan 1981, 133.)

Jerković, J. 1972. Probleme konguencije upitnih rečenica sa ko. Bilten Pokrajinskog zavoda za izdavanje udžbenika (Novi Sad) 18-19. (Quoted from Burzan 1981, 132.)

Jesenovec, F. 1958-59. Ali ste prišel (prišla)? Jezik in Slovstvo 4. 30-31.

Junković, Zvonimir. 1957, Nešto o sročnosti. Jezik 6. 8-13.

Kallas, Krystyna. 1974. O zdaniach Pachnialwiatr i morze., Andrzej i Amelia milczeli., Studia z filologii polskiej i slowia´nskiej 14. 57-71.

Kehayia, Eva; Jarema, Gonia and Kadziela, Danuta. 1990. Cross-linguistic study of morphological errors in aphasia: evidence form English, Greek, and Polish. In Jean-Luc Nespoulous and Pierre Villiard (eds.) Morphology, Phonology and Aphasia. New York, Springer. 140-155.

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977. O sootnošenii ponjatija sintaksičeskogo podčinenija s ponjatijami soglasovanija, upravlenija i primykanija. In Problemy teoretičeskoj i čksperimental´noj lingvistiki: Sbornik statej (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki, under the general editorship of V. A. Zvegincev, vyp. 8), 161-179. Slightly amended version in Aleksandr E. Kibrik 1992. Očerki po obščim i prikladnym voprosam jazykoznanija (universal´noe, tipovoe i specificnoe v jazyke). Moscow: Izdatel´stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. 102-123.

Kitajgorodskaja, M. V. 1976. Variativnost´ v vyraženii roda suščestvitel´nogo pri oboznačenii ženščin po professii. In L. P. Krysin & D. N. Šmelev (eds.) Social´no-lingvističeskie issledovanija. Moscow, Nauka, 144-155.

Kočiš, František. 1981. Kongruentné zložené substantívne syntagmy. Slovenská reč 46. 129-140.

Kočiš, František. 1982. Nekongruentné a kongruentno–nekongruentné zložené substantívne syntagmy. Slovenská reč 47. 12-22.

Kodzasov, Sandro V. 1987. Čislo v sočinitel´nyx konstrukcijax. In A. E Kibrik & A. S. Narin´jani (eds.) Modelirovanie jazykovoj dejatel´nosti v intellektual´nyx sistemax. Moscow, Nauka, 204-219.

Koka, N. A. 1963. Nekotorye nabljudenija nad soglasovaniem v čisle glagol'nogo skazuemogo s podležaščim, vyražennym prostymi i osložnennymi formami. Filologičeskij sbornik (stat´i aspirantov i soiskatelej), vyp. 1, Alma-Ata. 79-85.

Kopeliovič, A. B. 1977. K voprosu o kodifikacii imen suščestvitel´nyx obščego roda. In V. A. Ickovič, G. I. Mis'kevič and L. I. Skvorcov (eds.) Grammatika i norma. Moscow, Nauka. 178-192.

Kozačuk, H. O. 1984. Čislova vidpovidnist´ mižpidmetom i prostym prysudkom. Ukrajins´ka mova i literatura v školi 12. 31-35.

Krzysztof Czuba and Adam Przepiórkowski. 1995. Agreement and Case Assignment in Polish: An Attempt at a Unified Account. Research Report 783 of IPI PAN (Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences). Also available at http://dach.ipipan.waw.pl/~adamp/Papers/

Kuchár, J. 1959. K rodové shodé podstatn´ych jmen. Naše Reč 42. 193-204. (Quoted from Petr 1982, 226.)

Legiša, L. 1958-59. Pripomba k obliki vikanja. Jezik in Slovstvo 4. 127-128.

Lehfeldt, Werner. 1980. Upravlenie, soglasovanie, primykanie v russkom jazyke: popytka operacional´nogo opredelenija. Russian Linguistics 4. 249-267.

Lehfeldt, Werner. 1984. "Rektion", "Kongruenz", "Adjunktion" - ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte. In J. J. van Baak (ed.) Signs of Friendship: To Honour A. G. F. van Holk, Slavist, Linguist, Semiotician. Amsterdam, Rodopi, 203-223.

Lehfeldt, Werner. 1985. "Rektion", "Kongruenz", "Adjunktion" - ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte: 2. Teil. In Werner Lehfeldt (ed.) Slavistische Linguistik 1984: Referate des X. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens: Konstanz, 11 mit 14. 9. 1984 (Slavistische Beiträge 184). Munich, Otto Sagner. 133-147.

Lehfeldt, Werner. 1991. Zum gegenwärtigen Stand von Definition und Beschreibung der Kongruenz im Russischen. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie. Band LI. Heft 1. 1-22. Heidelberg 1991.

Lehfeldt, Werner. 1992. O sootnošenii morfologičeskix i sintaksičeskix priznakov v opredelenijax upravlenija, soglasovanija i primykanija v russkom jazyke. In M. Guiraud-Weber and C. Zaremba (eds.) Linguistique et Slavistique: Mélanges offerts à Paul Garde: I. Aix-en-Provence. 345-359.

Leko, Nedžad. 1986. Syntax of noun headed structures in Serbo-Croatian and corresponding phrasal structures in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Distributed by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, reference 86-28003.

Lekov, I. 1965. Dauerhafte Tendenzen zur numeralen Positionskongruenz von Subjekt und Prädikat in der bulgarischen Sprache. Die Welt der Slaven 10. 313-316. [Reprinted in I. Lekov (1972) Osobenosti na sintakticnija tip na slavjanskite ezici: Sbornik ot studii, Sofija, Balgarska akademija na naukite, 24-27.]

Lenček, Rado. 1972. O zaznamovanosti in nevtralizaciji slovnične kategorije spola v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku. Slavistična revija 20. 55-63.

Makarski, Władysław. 1973. Konstrukcje pluralis maiestatis w gwarach Rzeszowszczyzny. Poradnik Językowy 1. 30-34.

Malevinskij, S. O. 1982. O klassifikacii sobiratel´nyx suščestvitel´nyx v drevnerusskom jazyke. Izvestija Sibirskogo otdelenija AN SSSR: Serija obščestvennyx nauk 11:3. 135-140.

Maretić, T. 1893-94. Gramatička kongruencija u Vukovim i Daničićevim djelima. Nastavni vjesnik, 333-354. (Quoted from Herrity 1977, 46.)

Marković, Svetozar V. 1954. O kolebljivosti slaganja u rodu kod imenica čiji se prirodni i gramatički rod ne slažu (i o rodu ovih imenica). Pitanja književnosti i jezika (Sarajevo), 1. 87–110.

Mathiassen, Terje. 1965. Bidrag til spørsmålet kongruens mellom subjekt og predikat i russisk - særlig henblikk på det nyere språk (ca 1730-1964), unpublished dissertation, University of Oslo.

Megaard, John. 1976. Predikatets kongruens i serbokroatisk i setninger med koordinerte subjektsnominalfraser. unpublished dissertation, University of Oslo.

Mel´čuk, Igor´ A. 1975. Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach: Sonderband 16). Vienna, Institut für Slawistik der Universität Wien.

Mel´čuk, Igor´ A. 1993. Soglasovanie, upravlenie, kongručntnost´. Voprosy jazykoznanija no. 5. 16-58.

Mikkelsen, Hans K. 1983. O nekim problematičnim slučajevima kongruencije u srpskohrvatskom jeziku ("Paukal" u srpskohrvatskom jeziku) Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane: Referati i saopštenja 13/1. Beograd: Medjunarodni slavistički centar. 73–79.

Millet, Y. 1981. L'accord animé || inanimé en tchèque contemporain. Studia z filologii polskiej i slowia´nskiej 20. 157-164.

Mučnik, I. P. 1971. Grammatičeskie kategorii glagola i imeni v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke. Moscow, Nauka.

Mullen, James. 1967. Agreement of the Verb-Predicate with a Collective Subject (Studies in the Modern Russian Language, 5). London, Cambridge University Press.

Neidle, Carol. 1982. Case agreement in Russian. In Joan Bresnan (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 391-426.

Neidle, Carol. 1988. The role of case in Russian syntax (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht, Kluwer.

Neweklowsky, Gerhard. 1983. Gramatičko slaganje (kongruencija) brojeva u srpskohrvatskim dijalektima. Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane: Referati i saopštenja 13/1. Beograd: Medjunarodni slavisticki centar. 17–22.

Nichols, Johanna, Rappaport, Gilles. & Timberlake, Alan. 1980. Subject, topic and control in Russian. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 372-386.

Norman, Boris. 2001. Substabtivnoe podležaščee pri glagolax v 1-m lice množestvennogo čisla v bolgarskom jazyke (dvama studenti tărsim rabota). In: Alexander Kiklevič (ed.) Kolčestvennost´i gradual´nost´v estestvennom jazyke (Die Welt der Slaven, Band 11) Munich: Otto Sagner. 77-86.

Nozsicska, Alfred. 1978. Bermerkungen zur Quantifikation, Konjunktion und Negation im Russischen (1. Teil). Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 2. 209-239.

Nozsicska, Alfred. 1979. Bemerkungen zur Quantifikation, Konjunktion und Negation im Russischen (2. Teil). Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 3. 239-275.

Osenova, Petya. To Appear. On Subject-Verb Agreement in Bulgarian (An HPSG-based account). In Proceedings of the fourth Formal Description of Slavic Languages Conference, Potsdam, Germany, November 2001. Also available at: http://www.bultreebank.org/Publications.html

Panevová, Jarmila. 1982. Opisanie soglasovanija v funkcional´noj poroždajuščej modeli: Čast´ I. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 38. 5-16.

Panevová, Jarmila. 1983. Opisanie soglasovanija v funkcional´noj poroždajuščej modeli: Čast´ II. rague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 40. 43-58.

Panevová, Jarmila. 1991. Nĕkteré otázky shody selektivní a shody paradigmatické. In Maciej Grochowski and Daniel Weiss (eds.) Words are physicians for an ailing mind (Sagners Slavistische Sammlung 17). Munich: Otto Sagner. 323-328.

Panevová Jarmila and Petkevič, Vladimír. 1997. Agreement in Czech and its formal account. In Uwe Junghanns and Gerhild Zybatow (eds.) Formale Slavistik. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Verlag. 323-333.

Panov, Michael V. (ed.). 1968. Russkij jazyk i sovetskoe obščestvo, III, Morfologija i sintaksis sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow, Nauka.

Părvev, X. 1971. Xristomatija po prakticeska gramatika na bălgarskija ezik: pomagalo za sudenti. Sofija, Nauka i izkustvo [ 135-137, 147-151].

Patton, Helen. 1969. A Study of the Agreement of the Predicate with a Quantitative Subject in Contemporary Russian. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Distributed by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 70-7839.

Peretruxin, V. N. 1980. Osobye slučai sintaksičeskoj svjazi skazuemogo s podležaščim. Russkij jazyk v škole 67, no. 5. 78–82.

Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT.

Petr, Jan. 1982a. Shoda českých přívlastků názvy citovanými v cizím jazyce. Naše reč 65. 66-72.

Petr, Jan. 1982b. Mluvnická shoda členů rozvíjejících názvy výtvorů slovesných. Naše reč 65. 225-233.

Popela, J. 1971-72. "Shoda" přísudku s podmetem v současné ruštinĕ a češtinĕ. Rusk´y jazyk 22. 337-342.

Popov, Konstantin. 1951. Za să glasuvaneto po čislo v njakoi slučai. Bălgarski ezik 1, 228-229. [Reprinted in Parvev (1971, 147–148).]

Popov, Konstantin. 1957. Za să glasuvaneto na saščestvitelnoto po čislo s dve ili poveče prilagatelni. Ezik i literatura 12. 301. [Reprinted in Părvev (1971, 148–150).]

Popov, Konstantin. 1964. Sintaktičnoto să glasuvane v bălgarski ezik. Sofia, Nauka i izkustvo.

Popova, Z. D. 1955. Soglasovanie po materialam Azovskoj zapisnoj knigi 1698-1699 gg. Trudy Voronežskogo universiteta 42, vyp. 3. 91-93.

Popović, Ljubomir. 1983. Derivaciona kongruencija u rodu kod odredbenih imenica. Naučni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane: Referati i saopštenja 13/1. Beograd: Medjunarodni slavisticki centar, 55–71.

Popović, Ljubomir. 1991. Honorifička i semantička kongruencija pri učtivom obraćanju. Književnost i jezik 38/1 (Beograd), 38–53.

Potapova, N. P. 1960. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s podležaščim, vyražennym imenem suščestvitel´nym s sobiratel´nym značeniem, v govorax permskoj oblasti. Učenye zapiski Permskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 16, vyp. 1. 29-40.

Potapova, N. P. 1962. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s odnorodnymi podležaščimi v govorax permskoj oblasti. Učenye zapiski Permskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta imeni A. M. Gor´kogo 22, vyp. 1. 59-68.

Protčenko, I. F. 1961. Formy glagola i prilagatel´nogo v sočetanii s nazvanijami lic ženskogo pola. Voprosy kul´tury reči 3. 116-126.

Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2000. Predicative Case Agreement with Quantifier Phrases in Polish. In Arika Okrent and John Boyle (eds.) The Proceedings from the Main Session of the Chicago Linguistic Society's Thirty-sixth Meeting. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. 343-354. Also available at http://dach.ipipan.waw.pl/~adamp/Papers/

Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2001a. Predicative case agreement with quantifier phrases in Polish. In Adam Przepiórkowski and Piotr Banski (eds.) Generative Linguistics in Poland: Syntax and Morphosyntax. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences. 159-169. Also available at http://dach.ipipan.waw.pl/~adamp/Papers/

Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2001b. Case and Agreement in Polish Predicates. In Steven Franks, Tracy Holloway King and Michael Yadroff (eds.) Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Bloomington Meeting 2000. Ann Arbor. Also available at http://dach.ipipan.waw.pl/~adamp/Papers/

Revzin, Ilja I. 1970. O specifike soglasovanija po čislu v russkom jazyke. In Jazyk i čelovek: sbornik statej pamjati professora Petra Savviča Kuznecova (1899-1968). Moscow, Izdatel´stvo Moskovskogo universiteta. 230-238.

Revzin, I. I. 1973. Nekotorye sredstva vyraženija protivopostavlenija po opredelennosti v sovremennom russkom jazyke. In A. A. Zaliznjak (ed.) Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija. Moscow, Nauka. 121–137.

Revzin, I. I. 1979. Struktura jazyka kak modelirujuščej sistemy. Moscow, Nauka. (236-255, 262-272)

Revzina, Olga G. & Revzin, I. I. 1974. Ob odnom slučae svjazi soglasovanija s opredelennost´ju v slavjanksix jazykax. Slavjanskoe slavjanovedenie no. 3. 54-66.

Robblee, Karen E. 1993. Individuation and Russian agreement. Slavic and East European Journal 37. 423-441.

Robblee, Karen. E. Forthcoming The interaction of word order, agreement and case marking. In Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Kristin Davidse and Dirk Noël (eds.) Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Rothstein, Robert A. 1973a. O roli kategorii gramatycznych w ogólnej teorii języka: kategoria rodzaju. In L. Matejka (ed.) American Contributions to the Seventh International Congress of Slavists: Warsaw, August 21-27, 1973, I, Linguistics and Poetics. The Hague, Mouton. 307-314.

Rothstein, Robert A. 1973b. Sex, gender and the October Revolution. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York, Holt, Rinehart. 460-466.

Rothstein, Robert A. 1976. Uwagi o rodzaju gramaticznym i cechach semantycznych wyrazóv. Język polski 56. 241-253.

Rothstein, Robert A. 1980. Gender and reference in Polish and Russian. In C. V. Chvany & R. D. Brecht (eds.) Morphosyntax in Slavic. Columbus, Slavica. 79-97.

Rozental´, David E. 1960. "Soglasovanie po smyslu" skazuemogo s podležaščim (Materialy k kursu "Praktičeskaja stilistika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka"). Moscow, Ministerstvo vysšego i srednego special´nogo obrazovanija RSFSR, Moskovskij zaočnyj poligrafičeskij institut.

Rozental´, David E. 1967. "Soglasovanie po smyslu" kak stilističeskaja kategorija. Inostrannye jazyki v škole. no. 2. 22-25.

Rusakova, M. V. 2001. Soglasovanie v jazyke i rečevoj dejatel´nosti (Na materiala russkogo atributivnogo slovosčcetanija). Unpublished PhD dissertation, St Petersburg.

Růžička, Rudolf. 1969. Kongruenzdomänen im Russischen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 14. 747-752.

Safaev, A. S. 1962. O nekotoryx formax soglasovanija v russkom jazyke. Russkij jazyk v uzbekskoj škole (Tashkent) 5:1. 11-21.

Sand, Diane E. Z. 1971. Agreement of the Predicate with Quantitative Subjects in Serbo-Croatian. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Sannikov, V. Z. 1968. Soglasovannoe opredelenie. In V. I. Borkovskij (ed.) Sravnitel´no-istoriceskij sintaksis vostočnoslavjanskix jazykov: leny predloženija. Moscow, Nauka. 47-95.

Sannikov, V. Z. 1978. Soglasovannoe opredelenie. In V. I. Borkovskij (ed.) Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka: Sintaksis: Prostoe predloženie. Moscow, Nauka. 148-186.

Schmidt, Peter & Lehfeldt, Werner. 1984. Typen der morphologischen Markierung: Zur Explikation von "Kongruenz", "Rektion", "Adjunktion". In P. Rehder (ed.) Slavistische Linguistik 1983: Referate des IX. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens München, 27. mit 29.9.1983 (Slavistische Beiträge 181). München, Otto Sagner. 211-239 .

Schmidt, Peter & Lehfeldt, Werner. 1995. Kongruenz, Rektion, Adjunktion: Systematische und historische Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Morphosyntax und zu den Wortfügung (slovosoetanija) im Russischen (Specimina Philologiae Slavicae, Supplementband 37). München, Otto Sagner.

Scholz, Friedrich. 1965. Genre, Genus und Person im Russischen. Die Welt der Slaven 10. 281-304.

Senkevič, M. P. 1964. Osobye slučai soglasovanija členov predloženija v russkom jazyke: Učebnoe posobie dlja slušatelej otdelenija povyšenija kvalifikacii redaktorov MPI. Moscow, Ministerstvo vysšego i srednego special´nogo obrazovanija RSFSR, Moskovskij poligrafičeskij institut. .

Skoblikova, Elena S. 1959a. Forma skazuemogo pri podležaščem, vyražennom količestvenno-imennym sočetaniem. In S. I. Ožegov (ed.) Voprosy kul´tury reci 2. Moscow, Institut russkogo jazyka AN SSSR. 91-116.

Skoblikova, Elena S. 1959b. Upotreblenie skazuemogo pri razdelitel´nyx otnošenijax meždu odnorodnymi podležaščimi. Naučnye doklady vysšej školy: filologičeskie nauki no. 2. 199-205.

Skoblikova, Elena S. 1961a. Oformlenie skazuemogo pri soedinitel´nyx otnošenijax meždu odnorodnymi podležaščimi. In Voprosy teorii i metodiki izučenija russkogo jazyka: Trudy vtoroj naučnoj konferencii kafedr russkogo jazyka pedagogičeskix institutov Povolž´ja (20-24 maja 1958 g.). Kujbyšev. 162-176.

Skoblikova, Elena S. 1961b. Soglasovanie opredelenij s odnorodnymi suščestvitel´nymi. In Voprosy russkogo jazykoznanija: K 80-letiju professora Aleksandra Mitrofanoviča Luk´janenko. Saratov, Izdatel´stvo Saratovskogo universiteta. 181-190.

Skoblikova, Elena S. 1963. Ob odnoj konstrukcii v slovosocetanijax s odnorodnymi opredelenijami v russkom jazyke. Naučnye doklady vysšej školy: filologičeskie nauki, no. 2. 143-150.

Skoblikova, Elena S. 1967. Rol´ grammatičeskix i smyslovyx faktorov v oformlenii podčinennogo slova pri soglasovanii v rode i cisle. Učenye zapiski Kujbyševskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo instituta im. V. V. Kujbyševa, 52. 37-57. (Quoted from Crockett 1976, 448.)

Skoblikova, Elena S. 1971. Soglasovanie i upravlenie v russkom jazyke. Moscow, Prosveščenie.

Šmelëv, Dimitri. 1962. Nekotorye osobennosti soglasovanija v russkom jazyke. Russkij jazyk v nacional´noj škole, no. 4. 25–32.

Smith, Michael B. 1994. Agreement and Iconicity in Russian Impersonal Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 1. 5-56.

Stanojčić, Z. S. 1967. Jezik i stil Iva Andrića (Funcije sinonimskih odnosa). Belgrade, Filološki fakultet Beogradskog universiteta.

Stone, Gerald. 1976. Pronominal address in Sorbian. Lĕtopis Instituta za serbski ludospyt Rjad A, 23/2. 182-191.

Stone, Gerald. 1977. Address in the Slavonic languages. Slavonic and East European Review 55. 491-505.

Stroińska, Magda M. 1986. Semantic motivation for gender agreement. Kwartalnik neofilologiczny 33, 1. 51-60.

Stroińska, Magda M. 1992. Numerals and agreement in Polish. Canadian Slavonic Papers 34. 429-444.

Šul´ga, Maria V. 1997. Slavjanskij grammatičeskij rod: privativnaja oppozicija. Voprosy jazykoznanija no. 3. 26-39.

Suprun, Adam E. 1959. O russkix čislitel´nyx. Frunze, Kirghiz State University.

Suprun, Adam E. 1961. Staroslavjanskie čislitel´nye. Frunze, Kirghiz State University.

Suprun, Adam E. 1963a. O soglasovanii skazuemogo s podležaščim, vključajuščim količestvennye čislitel´nye v serbo-lužickix jazykax. Serbo-lužickij lingvističeskij sbornik. Moscow. 138-153.

Suprun, Adam E. 1963b. Zametki po sintaksisu pol´skix čislitel´nyx. Pytannja slovjans´koho movoznavstva (L´vov), 7-8. 135-45.

Suprun, Adam E. 1969. Slavjanskie čislitel´nye (stanovlenie čislitel´nyx kak osoboj časti reči). Minsk, Belorussian State University.

Sussex, Roland. 1980. On agreement, affixation and enclisis in Polish. In C. V. Chvany & R. D. Brecht (eds.) Morphosyntax in Slavic. Columbus, Slavica. 187-203.

Švedova, Natalja Ju. 1971. Soglasovanie i koordinacija: ix sxodstva i različija. In Problemy istorii i dialektologii slavjanskix jazykov: Sbornik statej k 70-letiju člena-korrespondenta AN SSSR V. I. Borkovskogo. Moscow, Nauka. 312-319.

van Schooneveld, Cornelis H. 1984. Agreement in Russian. In B. A. Stolz, I. R. Titunik & L. Doležel (eds.) Language and Literary Theory: In Honor of Ladislav Matejka (Papers in Slavic Philology 5). Ann Arbor, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. 189-214.

Vanek, Anthony L. 1970. Aspects of Subject-Verb Agreement (= Studies in Slavic Linguistics, 1). Edmonton, Department of Slavic Languages, University of Alberta. Republished in the series: Current Inquiry into Language and Linguistics, 23, 1977, Edmonton, Linguistic Research.

Veselovská, Ludmila. 2001. Agreement patterns of Czech group nouns and quantifiers. In Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.) Semi-lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words (Studies in Generative Grammar 59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 274-320.

Wechsler, Stephen and Zlatić, Larisa. 1997. Case and agreement with Serbian quantified NP’s. Paper read at the 16th International Congress of Linguistics, Paris, July 1997.

Wechsler, Stephen and Zlatić, Larisa. 1999. Syntax and morphological realization in Serbo-Croatian. In Robert D. Borsley and Adam Przepiórkowski (eds.) 1999. Slavic in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 283—309.

Wechsler, Stephen and Zlatić, Larisa. 2001. Case realization and identity. In Helen de Hoop, Olaf Koeneman, Iris Mulders and Fred Weerman (eds.) Effects of morphological case. Special issue of Lingua, 111: 539—560.

Note: These two references provide two different accounts of case dative/instrumental marking on modifiers in Serbo-Croat NPs. Where the noun itself is in an ambiguous case form a disambiguating modifier, ‘agreeing’ in case, is required in order to make the phrase grammatical. (Similar phenomena in German are discussed in Gallmann 1990, Lindauer 1995, and Schachtl 1989, amongst other references.)

Weiss, Daniel. 1984. Kongruenz vs. Kongruenzlosigkeit: Zur typologischen Entwicklung des Polnischen. Zeitschrift fur Slavische Philogie 44, 1. 144-192.

Xaustova, Ju. F. 1972. Vy sčastlivaja, vy sčastlivy. Russkaja reč´ no. 6, 120-121.

Xitrova, V. I. 1964. Ošibki učaščixsja v soglasovanii v uslovijax sel´skoj mestnosti (po materialam Borovskoj školy Novo-Usmanskogo rajona Voronežskoj oblasti). In V. I. Sobinnikova Z. D. Popova & A. I. Čižik-Polejko (eds.) Materialy konferencii po izučeniju južnorusskix govorov i pamjatnikov pis´mennosti (6-8 dekabrja 1962 goda). Voronež, Izdatel´stvo Voronežskogo universiteta. 122-128.

Zhazha, S. 1960. Zvslastnosti ve skode privlastku i redicim clenem, v rustine. In: Sborník Praci Filosofické Fakulty Brnenské Universitety, A8, 53-68.

Zieniukowa, Jadwiga. 1979. Składnia zgody w zdaniach z podmiotem szeregowym we współczesnej polszczyźnie. Slavia Occidentalis 36. 117-129.

Zlatić, Larisa and Wechsler, Stephen. 1997. Mixed Agreement in Serbian: a Constraint Based Approach. In Brian Agbayani and Sze-Wing Tang (eds.) The Proceedings of the Fifteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CSLI. 521-535.

Project members

Prof Greville G. Corbett
Dr Dunstan Brown
Dr Andrew Hippisley
Dr Julia Barron
Dr Carole Tiberius

Consultants:

Prof Nick Evans (University of Melbourne)
Prof Marianne Mithun (UC Santa Barbara)

Period of award:

September 1999 - October 2002

Funder

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) - R000238228

TOP