Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton September 7, 2013

That's not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra

  • Omer Preminger EMAIL logo
From the journal The Linguistic Review

Abstract

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

Published Online: 2013-09-07
Published in Print: 2013-09-07

©[2013] by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston

Downloaded on 1.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/tlr-2013-0015/html
Scroll to top button