Closest Conjunct Agreement

Literature Cited

1. Ackema P, Neeleman A 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 21:225–65
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aljović N, Begović M 2016. Morphosyntactic aspects of adjectival and verbal first-conjunct agreement. J. Slav. Linguist. 24:7–39
   [Google Scholar]
3. Aoun J, Benmamoun E, Sportiche D 1994. Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguist. Inq. 25:195–220
   [Google Scholar]
4. Arregi K, Nevins A 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
5. Badecker W 2007. A feature principle for partial agreement. Lingua 117:1541–65
   [Google Scholar]
6. Benmamoun E, Bhatia A, Polinsky M 2009. Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. Linguist. Var. Yearb. 9:67–88
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bhatt R 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 23:757–807
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bhatt R, Walkow M 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: an argument from agreement in conjunctions. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 31:951–1013
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bock K, Miller C 1991. Broken agreement. Cogn. Psychol. 23:45–93
   [Google Scholar]
10. Borsley R 2009. On the superficiality of Welsh agreement. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 27:225–65
    [Google Scholar]
11. Bošković V 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 27:455–96
    [Google Scholar]
12. Bošković V, Franks S 2000. Across-the-board movement and LF. Syntax 3:107–28
    [Google Scholar]
13. Bruening B 2002. Raising to object and proper movementWork. pap., Univ. Del., Newark
14. Camacho J 2003. The Structure of Coordination: Conjunction and Agreement Phenomena in Spanish and Other Languages Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
15. Chomsky N 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
16. Cinque G 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
17. Citko B 2004. Agreement asymmetries in coordinate structures. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12 O Arnaudova, W Browne, ML Rivero, D Stojanović91–108 Ann Arbor: Mich. Slav.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Citko B 2018. Complementizer agreement with coordinated subjects in Polish. Glossa In press
19. Corbett GG 1983. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic London: Croom Helm
20. Cowart W 1997. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
21. Crone P 2016. Finnish first conjunct agreement and the direction of Agree. Finno-Ugric Lang. Linguist. 5:2–45
    [Google Scholar]
22. Dalrymple M, Kaplan RM 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76:759–98
    [Google Scholar]
23. Demonte V, Pérez-Jiménez I 2012. Closest conjunct agreement in Spanish DPs: syntax and beyond. Folia Linguist. 46.1:21–73
    [Google Scholar]
24. Dik S 1968. Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics Amsterdam: North-Holland
25. Doron E 2000. Word order in Hebrew. Research in Afroasiatic Grammar: Papers from the 3rd Conference on Afroasiatic Languages J Lecarme, J Lowenstamm, U Shlonsky41–56 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
26. Eberhard K, Cutting JC, Bock K 2005. Making syntax of sense: number agreement in sentence production. Psychol. Rev. 112.3:531–59
    [Google Scholar]
27. Featherston S 2007. Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot. Theor. Linguist. 33:269–318
    [Google Scholar]
28. Franck J, Vigliocco G, Nicol J 2002. Subject–verb agreement errors in French and English: the role of syntactic hierarchy. Lang. Cogn. Process. 17:371–404
    [Google Scholar]
29. Fuß E 2014. Complementizer agreement (in Bavarian): feature inheritance or feature insertion?. Bavarian Syntax: Contributions to the Theory of Syntax G Grewendorf, H Weiß51–82 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
30. Goodall G 2011. Syntactic satiation and the inversion effect in English and Spanish wh-questions. Syntax 14:29–47
    [Google Scholar]
31. Halle M 1997. Impoverishment and fission. MIT Work. Pap. Linguist. 30:425–50
    [Google Scholar]
32. Harrison AJ 2009. The production of subject–verb agreement in Slovene and EnglishPhD thesis, Univ. Edinburgh, UK
33. Haskell T, MacDonald M 2005. Constituent structure and linear order in language production: evidence from subject–verb agreement. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 31:891–904
    [Google Scholar]
34. Johannessen JB 1996. Partial agreement and coordination: remarks and replies. Linguist. Inq. 27:661–76
    [Google Scholar]
35. Johannessen JB 1998. Coordination New York: Oxford Univ. Press
36. Kalin L, Weisser P 2018. Asymmetric DOM in coordination and its implications for movement-based approaches. Linguist. Inq In press. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00298
    [Crossref]
37. Keung LC, Staub A 2018. Variable agreement with coordinate subjects is not a form of agreement attraction. J. Mem. Lang. 103:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
38. King TH, Dalrymple M 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. J. Linguist. 40:69–104
    [Google Scholar]
39. Kiss KE 2012. Patterns of agreement with coordinate noun phrases in hungarian. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 30:1027–60
    [Google Scholar]
40. Koutsoudas A 1968. The A-over-A convention. Linguistics 46:11–20
    [Google Scholar]
41. Larson B 2013. Arabic conjunct-sensitive agreement and Primitive Operations. Linguist. Inq. 44:611–31
    [Google Scholar]
42. Marušič F, Nevins A, Badecker B 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18:39–77
    [Google Scholar]
43. Marušič F, Nevins A, Saksida A 2007. Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15 R Compton, M Goledzinowska, U Savchenko210–27 Ann Arbor: Mich. Slav.
    [Google Scholar]
44. McGinnis M 1998. Locality in A-movementPhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA
45. Mitchley H 2015. Agreement and coordination in Xitsonga, Sesotho and ishiXhosa: an Optimality Theoretic perspectiveMA thesis, Rhodes Univ., Grahamstown, S. Afr.
46. Mitrović M, Sauerland U 2016. Two conjunctions are better than one. Acta Linguist. Hung. 63:471–94
    [Google Scholar]
47. Moosally M 1998. Noun phrase coordination: Ndebele agreement patterns and crosslinguistic variationPhD thesis, Univ. Tex., Austin
48. Morgan JL 1972. Verb agreement as a rule of English. Proceedings of the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Societypp 278–86 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Mous M 2004. The grammar of conjunctive and disjunctive coordination in Iraqw. Coordinating Constructions: An Overview M Haspelmath109–22 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
50. Munn A 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structuresPhD thesis, Univ. Md., College Park
51. Munn A 1999. First conjunct agreement: against a clausal analysis. Linguist. Inq. 30:643–68
    [Google Scholar]
52. Murphy A, Puškar Z 2018. Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 36:1207–61
    [Google Scholar]
53. Nonato R 2013. Clause-chaining, switch-reference and coordinationPhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA
54. Palmović M, Willer-Gold J 2016. Croatian mixed-gender conjunct agreement: an ERP study. J. Slav. Linguist. 24:137–60
    [Google Scholar]
55. Parrott J 2009. Danish vestigial case and the acquisition of vocabulary in Distributed Morphology. Biolinguistics 3:270–302
    [Google Scholar]
56. Peterson PG 1986. Establishing verb agreement with disjunctively conjoined subjects: strategies versus principles. Aust. J. Linguist. 6:231–49
    [Google Scholar]
57. Peti-Stantić A, Tušek J 2016. First comes first or proximity for all in Croatian: gender agreementPaper presented at the 20th Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature and Folklore, Univ. Utah, Salt Lake City
58. Progovac L 1998.a Structure for coordination. Part I. Glot Int. 3:73–6
    [Google Scholar]
59. Progovac L 1998.b Structure for coordination. Part II. Glot Int. 3:83–8
    [Google Scholar]
60. Sande H 2017. Distributing morphologically conditioned phonology: three cases studies from GuébiePhD thesis, Univ. Calif., Berkeley
61. Schütze C 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
62. Schütze C 1999. English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguist. Inq. 30:467–84
    [Google Scholar]
63. Shen Z 2015. No clash constraint in nominal RNR number agreement. Univ. Pa. Work. Pap. Linguist. 22:27
    [Google Scholar]
64. Smith PW, Moskal B, Hartmann K, Shen Z 2018. Feature conflicts, feature resolution and the structure of either…orWork. pap., Univ. Frankfurt, Ger.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Sobin N 1997. Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguist. Inq. 28:318–43
    [Google Scholar]
66. Stojković J, Driemel I 2018. How to agree with a QNP. Glossa In press
67. Tantalou N, Badecker W 2005. Experimental studies of agreement in Modern Greek and their consequences for grammatical theoryPoster presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference, Univ. Ariz., Tucson
68. Timmermans M, Schriefers H, Dijkstra T, Haverkort M 2004. Disagreement on agreement: person agreement between coordinated subjects and verbs in Dutch and German. Linguistics 42:905–29
    [Google Scholar]
69. van den Berg H 2004. The grammar of conjunctive and disjunctive coordination in Iraqw. Coordinating Constructions: An Overview M Haspelmath197–226 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
70. van Koppen M 2005. One probe—two goals: aspects of agreement in Dutch dialectsPhD thesis, Leiden Univ., Neth.
71. van Koppen M 2006. One probe, multiple goals: the case of First Conjunct Agreement. Leiden Pap. Linguist. 3:spec. issue25–52
    [Google Scholar]
72. Voeltz E 1971. Surface constraints and agreement resolution: some evidence from Xhosa. Stud. Afr. Linguist. 2:37–60
    [Google Scholar]
73. Wagers MW, Lau EF, Philips C 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: representations and processes. J. Mem. Lang. 61:206–37
    [Google Scholar]
74. Wagner M 2005. Prosody and recursionPhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA
75. Walkow M 2013. When can you agree with a closest conjunct?. Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics RE Santana-LaBarge474–83 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
76. Wechsler S 2008. ‘Elsewhere’ in gender resolution. The Nature of the Word: Studies in Honor of Paul Kiparsky K Hanson, S Inkelas567–86 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
77. Wechsler S, Zlatić L 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
78. Weisser P 2015. Derived Coordination: A Minimalist Perspective on Clause Chains, Converbs and Asymmetric Coordination Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
79. Weisser P 2017. Why there is no such thing as Closest Conjunct Case. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society A Lamont, K Tetzloff219–32 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
80. Willer-Gold J, Arsenijević B, Batinić M, Becker M, Čordalija N et al. 2018. when linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. PNAS 115.3:495–500
    [Google Scholar]
81. Willer-Gold J, Arsenijević B, Batinić M, Čordalija N, Kresić M et al. 2016. Conjunct agreement and gender in South Slavic: from theory to experiments to theory. J. Slav. Linguist. 24:187–224
    [Google Scholar]
82. Wurmbrand S 2008. ‘Nor’: neither disjunction nor paradox. Linguist. Inq. 39:511–22
    [Google Scholar]
83. Yngve VH 1960. A model and a hypothesis for language structure. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 104:444–66
    [Google Scholar]
84. Zhang N 2010. Coordination in Syntax Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
85. Zoerner CE 1995. Coordination: the syntax of & P PhD thesis, Univ. Calif., Irvine