This paper investigates multi-valuation, i.e. cases where one probe agrees with multiple goals thus obtaining multiple feature values. Focusing on number agreement, I look at the cross-linguistic patterns on multi-valued Ns in the nominal Right Node Raising construction (Nominal RNR) reported in Belyaev et al. (
Phi agreement has been one of the central research topics in generative grammar. Numerous research has made headway regarding the nature of the agreeing process and the inner structure of phi features. At the same time, the research has also inspired new questions and old questions to be looked at from a new perspective. This paper sets out to address two such questions: agreement with multi-valuation and the Agreement Hierarchy.
By multi-valuation, I refer to cases where one probe agrees with multiple goals and receives multiple values as is schematized in (1).
(1)
In this paper I focus on two types of multi-valuation: multi-valued Ns in the nominal Right Node Raising construction (Nominal RNR) in (2) and multi-valued Ts in the TP RNR construction in (3). Following previous research, I will argue that the head noun in (2) and the auxiliary (T head) in (3) are multi-dominated, and thus agree with two singular features at the same time.
(2)
a.
This tall and that short
b.
Etot
this
vysokij
tall
i
and
tot
that
nizkij
short
student.
para.
couple
‘This tall and that short students are a couple.’
(3) | John’s glad that Mary, and Bill’s happy that Sue, |
As is shown in (2) the multi-valued Ns
(4)
(5)
The empirical contribution of this paper lies in the cross-linguistic distribution of the two agreement patterns across the two targets. Although previous research has noted both agreement patterns on both multi-valued targets, no one has yet compared targets within and across languages. The current paper surveys a dozen languages and observes a novel typological gap: no languages show summative agreement on the multi-valued Ns and distributive agreement on the multi-valued Ts.
On the theoretical side, this paper makes the connection between multi-valuation and hybrid noun agreement via the Agreement Hierarchy. I propose that multi-valuation is another subcase of the Agreement Hierarchy, which opens up new possibilities for a formal account for the Hierarchy. In particular, I will argue that distributive agreement in multi-valuation results from agreeing with the morphological feature and summative agreement results from agreeing with the semantic feature.
The outline of the paper is as follows. Section 2 focuses on two multi-valued probes: multi-valued Ns and multi-valued Ts. I show that two agreement patterns are observed across languages on both targets. In Section 3, I compare the multi-valued Ns and Ts in each language and show that the distribution of the two multi-valuation agreement patterns is not free. Section 4 links multi-valuation with the Agreement Hierarchy discussed by Corbett (
In this section I discuss Nominal RNR as a case of multi-valued Ns. Right Node Raising constructions (RNR) are cases where the conjuncts share the rightmost portion of the structure. In (6a) for example, the object
(6) | a. | John likes, but Mary hates, |
b. | John likes apples but Mary hates apples. |
Nominal RNR refers to cases where two DPs share one noun. The intended interpretation of (7a) is in (7b) and
(7) | a. | This tall and that short |
b. | This tall student and that short student are a couple. |
Although the conjoined DPs refer to two individuals when both of the DPs are singular, the pivot must be singular in English. The plural pivot in (8) is unacceptable.
(8) | *This tall and that short |
This is true for different kinds of DPs in (9). Note that the presence of the number marking in the remnant in the DPs is not necessary for the pivot to be singular. In (9d–e),
(9) | a. | This and that |
b. | A tall and a short |
|
c. | One tall and one short |
|
d. | John’s tall and Mary’s short |
|
e. | His tall and her short |
Note also that strings like
(10) | John’s tall and Mary’s short |
Shen (
(11)
John’s tall and Mary’s short
One necessary component of the analysis is that the DP internal agreement (among the
Apart from multi-dominance, RNR is alternatively analyzed as across-the-board movement (ATB) or ellipsis. Shen (
A reviewer pointed out there is an alternative multi-dominance construction in (12). In (12) the
(12)
John’s tall and Mary’s short
Here I list two reasons why the structure in (11) is superior for Nominal RNR to (12). First, when the two sharing DPs are different in number values (i.e. a mismatch between two sources), the pivot noun shows closest conjunct agreement in English amongst other languages as in (13). Since there is only one
(13) | a. | |
b. |
Second, in the next subsection we will show that the pivot noun in Nominal RNR can be plural in languages like Russian while each DP contains a singular-marked adjective, see (22b). This pattern essentially involves a mismatch between the pivot and both of the sources. Again, given that (12) only has one
Having established that Nominal RNR involves multi-valued Ns, we look into the agreement patterns. As is noted above, in English when two singular DPs share one pivot noun, the noun is necessarily marked as singular as in (14). The same pattern is independently observed in Hindi in (15) by Belyaev et al. (
(14) | This tall and that short |
(15)
yah
this.
haraa
green.
aur
and
yah
this.
piilaa
yellow.
flag.
‘this green flag and this yellow flag’ (2 flags total)
(16)
Distributive agreement is not the only pattern observed on multi-valued Ns. Belyaev et al. (
(17)
vysokij
tall.
i
and
xudoj
thin.
man.
‘a tall man and a thin man’
(18)
Belyaev et al. (
v
in
Moskovskom
Moscow.
selskoxozjajstvennom
argricultural.
i
and
Kievskom
Keiv.
politexničeskom
polytechnic.
institute.
‘at the Moscow Agricultural and the Kiev Polytechnic Institutes’
Harizanov & Gribanova (
(19)
a.
bǎlgarsk-i-ja
Bulgarian-
i
and
rusk-i
Russian-
nation-
‘the Bulgarian nation and the Russian nation’
b.
pǎrv-a-ta
first-
i
and
posledn-a
last-
page-
‘the first page and the last page’
However, note that the sentences in (19) involve only one definite marker on the first adjective, which is not strictly parallel to the Nominal RNR construction that we have been discussing e.g. in (14). The sentences in (19) can be analyzed as a conjunction of two adjectives instead of a multi-dominance construction (
In cases where each conjunct includes one definite marker and an adjective as in (20) which is more parallel to the Nominal RNR cases discussed above, my consultants found the singular pivot in (20a) much more acceptable than the plural pivot in (20b).
(20)
a.
?parva-ta
first.
i
and
posledna-ta
last.
page-
b.
?*parva-ta
first.
i
and
posledna-ta
last.
page-
‘the first page and the last page’
In (21), each source contains a demonstrative and an adjective, making the analysis of conjoined sources invalid, the singular pivot is degraded but accepted while the plural pivot is completely out. In light of these data, I conclude that multi-valued Ns in Bulgarian show distributed agreement.
(21)
a.
?Tazi
this
pyrva
first
i
and
onazi
that
posledna
last
page-
lipsvat
miss
ot
from
knigi-te.
books-
b.
*Tazi
this
pyrva
first
i
and
onazi
that
posledna
last
page-
lipsvat
miss
ot
from
knigi-te.
books-
‘This first page and that last page are missing from the book.’
As for Russian, the sentence in (17) from Belyaev et al. (
(22)
a.
Etot
this
vysokij
tall
i
and
tot
that
nizkij
short
student.
para.
couple
b.
Etot
this
vysokij
tall
i
and
tot
that
nizkij
short
student.
para.
couple
‘This tall student and that short student are a couple.’
Following Grosz (
(23)
In this section, we have shown when the noun is valued by multiple singular features in Nominal RNR, languages differ in the number marking of the multi-valued element: English and Hindi among other languages show distributive agreement while Russian shows summative agreement.
Having discussed multi-valued Ns, we turn to another multi-valued target: T heads. Like Nominal RNR, the first case of multi-valued Ts involves Right Node Raising. Postal (
(24) | Sue is proud that Bill[ |
Grosz (
(25)
Maria
Maria
é
is
felice
happy
che
that
Gianni[
Gianni,
e
and
Sue
Sue
é
is
orgogliosa
proud
che
that
Bill[
Bill,
have.
viaggiato in Australia.
travelled to Australia
‘Maria is glad that Gianni, and Sue is proud that Bill, have travelled to Australia.’
(26)
Jure
Jure
misli
thinks
da
that
Maja[
Maja,
in
and
Boris
Boris
verjame
believes
da
that
Sara[
Sara,
travel.
na Kitajsko.
to China
‘Jure thinks that Maja travels to China and Boris believes that Sara travels to China.’
Grosz (
(27)
As is noted in (24) and (25), singular marking on the T head is optionally available in English and Italian. For the singular marking observed in TP RNR, Grosz (
(28) | Sue is proud that Bill[ |
The second option is to assume that TP RNR in every language is a product of multi-dominance regardless of the agreement patterns. Different agreement patterns do not involve different structures of RNR but different agreement mechanisms. The implication of this approach for multi-valuation is that both the singular marking and summative agreement in TP RNR involve multi-valued Ts. The point of variation is how languages resolve multi-valued Ts with two singular values. Languages like English resolve the multi-valuation with summative agreement or distributive agreement, whereas languages like Serbo-Croatian resolve it only with distributive agreement.
Grosz (
In addition to these arguments, I provide another piece of evidence for the unified multi-dominance analysis of TP RNR. The kind of ellipsis that TP RNR would involve in (28) is called Stripping where an entire clause except one constituent (the subject in (28)) is elided. Stripping has been observed and discussed since the 70s (
(29) | a. | Merchant ( |
Abby speaks passable Dutch, and BEN, too. | ||
b. | Merchant ( |
|
*Abby claimed Ben would ask her out, but she didn’t think that Bill (too). |
Sentences in (29) involves forward Stripping, i.e. ellipsis in the second conjunct. Larson (
(30) | Barros & Vicente ( |
Alice already has, and Bob is about to, negotiate his salary with the manager. | |
‘ |
Larson (
(31) | Larson ( |
*Alice is happy that |
Consequently, the shared T in English, be it singular or plural, results from a multi-dominance structure and involves multi-valuation.
Before ending this section, I want to point out that multi-valued Ts do not only exist in RNR constructions. Gluckman (
(32)
Ni
1
roantang
always
rang-
ka
go
-e.
-1
‘We always go.’
(33)
Nga -ma
1
nang
2
hetho
teach
-e.
-1
‘I shall teach you.’
(34)
Gluckman proposes that the plural marking in (33) is a
In this section, I have shown that multi-valuation can also target T heads in TP RNR and composed plurality in Nocte, and that ellipsis is not a valid predictor of multi-dominance/valuation. Like the multi-valued Ns, T heads valued by multiple singular features can show distributive and summative agreement depending on the particular language and idiolect.
In the previous section we saw that both summative agreement and distributive agreement have been observed on multi-valued Ns and Ts. A natural question to ask is whether the distribution of the agreement patterns in the multi-valuation context is free across targets or restricted in a certain language.
Crossing two multi-valued targets and two agreement patterns, there are four logically possible language types in Table
Logically possible language types.
multi-valued N | multi-valued T | |
---|---|---|
Type 1 | Distributive | Distributive |
Type 2 | Summative | Summative |
Type 3 | Distributive | Summative |
Type 4 | Summative | Distributive |
Looking into the distribution, I conducted a cross-linguistic survey of multi-valuation on Ns and Ts. Multi-valued Ns are probed with Nominal RNR and multi-valued Ts with TP RNR. In each construction, the pivot is valued by two singular goals. The plural marking indicates summative agreement and the singular marking indicates distributive agreement. Combining the survey and the observations made in the previous literature (
Distribution of summative and distributive agreement across targets and languages.
multi-valued N | multi-valued T | |
---|---|---|
Hungarian | Distributive | * |
Brazilian Portuguese | Distributive | Distributive |
Dutch | Distributive | Distributive |
Finnish | Distributive | Distributive |
Greek | Distributive | Distributive |
Hindi | Distributive | Distributive |
Icelandic | Distributive | Distributive |
Polish | Distributive | Distributive |
Serbo-Croatian | Distributive | Distributive |
Slovenian | Distributive | Distributive |
Romanian | Distributive | Distributive |
English | Distributive | Distributive/Summative |
German | Distributive | Distributive/Summative |
Italian | Distributive | Distributive/Summative |
Slovak | Distributive | Summative |
Spanish | Distributive | Summative |
Hebrew | Distributive/Summative | Distributive/Summative |
Russian | Distributive/Summative | Summative |
As can be seen from Table
(35) | Distributive agreement generalization: If the multi-valued Ts in a language exclusively show distributive agreement, the multi-valued Ns must also show distributive agreement and not summative agreement. |
In terms of typology, three types of languages have been attested. Below I illustrate each type with data from two languages.
The first type of language shows distributive agreement on multi-valued Ns and Ts, modular cases where neither singular nor plural marking is possible on one of the agreement targets. This type of language includes Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Slovak, Icelandic, Dutch, Hindi, Romanian, Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, Finnish, Hungarian, and Spanish. Below are examples from Slovenian and Icelandic.
(36)
Multi-valued Ns in Slovenian: distributive agreement
a.
Ta
this
visok
tall
in
and
tisti
that
majhen
short
boy.
sta
are
par.
couple
b.
*Ta
this
visok
tall
in
and
tisti
that
majhen
short
boys.
sta
are
par.
couple
‘This tall boy and that short boy are a couple.’
(37)
Multi-valued Ts in Slovenian: distributive agreement
a.
Jure
Jure
misli
thinks
da
that
Maja,
Maja,
in
and
Boris
Boris
verjame
believes
da
that
Sara,
Sara,
travel
na
Kitajsko.
China
b.
*Jure
Jure
misli
thinks
da
that
Maja,
Maja,
in
and
Boris
Boris
verjame
believes
da
that
Sara,
Sara,
travel.
na
to
Kitajsko.
China
‘Jure thinks that Maja travels to China and Boris believes that Sara travels to China.’
(38)
Multi-valued Ns in Icelandic: distributive agreement
a.
Minn
my.
hávaxni
tall
og
and
þinn
your.
lágvaxni
short
student.
eru
are
sætt
cute
par.
couple
b.
*?Minn
my.
hávaxni
tall
og
and
þinn
your.
lágvaxni
short
student.
eru
are
sætt
cute
par.
couple
‘My student and your student are a cute couple.’
(39)
Multi-valued Ts in Icelandic: distributive agreement
a.
Jón
Jon
heldur
thinks
að
that
María,
Maria,
og
and
Villi
Villi
trúir
believes
að
that
Súsanna,
Susanna,
have.
ferðast
travelled
til
to
Kína.
China
b.
*Jón
Jon
heldur
thinks
að
that
María,
Maria,
og
and
Villi
Villi
trúir
believes
að
that
Súsanna,
Susanna,
have.
ferðast
travelled
til
to
Kína.
China
‘John thinks that Mary travelled to China and Bill believes that Sue travelled to China.’
The second language type allows summative agreement on multi-valued Ns and Ts. Russian is one example of this type. Both distributive agreement and summative agreement is allowed on multi-valued Ns while only summative agreement is allowed on multi-valued Ts.
(40)
Multi-valued Ns in Russian: distributive/summative agreement
a.
Etot
this
vysokij
tall
i
and
tot
that
nizkij
short
student.
para.
couple
b.
Etot
this
vysokij
tall
i
and
tot
that
nizkij
short
student.
para.
couple
‘This tall student and that short students are a couple.’
(41)
Multi-valued Ts in Russian: summative agreement
a.
??Ivan
Ivan
dumaet
thinks
chto
Masha,
Masha,
a
and
Vasya
Vasya
dumaet
thinks
chto
Dasha,
Dasha,
went-
v
to
Kitaj.
China
b.
Ivan
Ivan
dumaet
thinks
chto
Masha,
Masha,
a
and
Vasya
Vasya
dumaet
thinks
chto
Dasha,
Dasha,
went-
v
to
Kitaj.
China
‘Ivan thinks that Masha went to China and Vasya thinks that Dasha went to China.’
Hebrew is another example of this language type. One speaker I consulted accepted both distributive agreement and summative agreement on both multi-valued Ns and Ts. The other Hebrew speaker only accepted distributive agreement on both multi-valued Ns and Ts. Although this individual variation is observed, it is shown that summative agreement is allowed on both multi-valued Ns and Ts for at least some speakers.
(42)
Multi-valued Ns: distributive/summative agreement
a.
the-student.
ha-gavoha
the-tall
ha-ze
the-this
ve-ha-namux
and-the-short
ha-hu
the-that
hem
are
zug.
couple
b.
the-student.
ha-gavoha
the-tall
ha-ze
the-this
ve-ha-namux
and-the-short
ha-hu
the-that
hem
are
zug.
couple
‘This tall student and that short student are a couple.’
(43)
Multi-valued Ts: distributive/summative agreement
a.
Dina
Dina
smexa
glad
she-Yosi,
that-Yosi
ve-Maya
and-Maya
ge’a
proud
she-Dani,
that-Dani
travelled.
le-ostralya.
to-Australia
b.
Dina
Dina
smexa
glad
she-Yosi,
that-Yosi
ve-Maya
and-Maya
ge’a
proud
she-Dani,
that-Dani
travelled.
le-ostralya.
to-Australia
‘Dina is glad that Yosi travelled to Australia and Maya is proud that Dani, travelled to Australia.’
The third type of languages show distributive agreement on multi-valued Ns and summative agreement on Multi-valued Ts. English, Slovak, German, and Italian are included in this type. Examples from English and Slovak are shown below.
(44) | Multi-valued Ns in English: distributive agreement | |
a. | This tall and that short |
|
b. | *This tall and that short |
(45) | Multi-valued Ts in English: distributive agreement and summative agreement | |
a. | Sue’s proud that Bill, and Mary’s glad that John, |
|
b. | Sue’s proud that Bill, and Mary’s glad that John, |
(46)
Multi-valued Ns in Slovak: distributive agreement
a.
Jeden
one
vysoky
tall.
a
and
jeden
one
nizky
short.
student.
su
are
parik.
couple
b.
*Jeden
one
vysoky
tall.
a
and
jeden
one
nizky
short.
students.
su
are
parik.
couple
‘One tall student and one short student are a couple.’
(47)
Multi-valued Ts in Slovak: summative agreement
a.
*Tána
Tanja
je
is
pysná,
proud
ze
that
Franta,
Franta
a
and
Vera
Vera
je
is
ráda,
glad
ze
that
Tom,
Tom
will.3
cestovat
travel.inf
do
to
Nigérie.
Nigeria
b.
Tána
Tanja
je
is
pysná,
proud
ze
that
Franta,
Franta,
a
and
Vera
Vera
je
is
ráda,
glad
ze
that
Tom,
Tom,
will.3
cestovat
travel.inf
do
to
Nigérie.
Nigeria
‘Tanja is proud that Franta will travel to Nigeria and Vera is glad that Tom will travel to Nigeria.’
This last type of language is not attested in the sampled languages.
As is indicated in Table
Attested language types.
multi-valued N | multi-valued T | ||
---|---|---|---|
Type 1 | Distributive | Distributive | Slovenian |
Type 2 | Summative | Summative | Russian |
Type 3 | Distributive | Summative | English |
Type 4 | Summative | Distributive |
A brief remark on the sampling of languages. The claim that Type 4 languages do not exist is made based the relatively small pool of 17 languages. This might cause some concern regarding the robustness of the claim. Proving a negative universal like a typological gap can be tricky if possible at all. Ideally one would need to go through all the languages (dead, living, and emerging). Practically, one should test as many languages as possible.
On the other hand, the nature of multi-valuation restricts the pool of candidate languages to a small subset. First, the candidate languages need to show number marking on nouns and verbs. This rules out languages like Chinese, Japanese, Korean among many others. Second, the candidate languages need to allow Nominal RNR and/or TP RNR. Languages that have agreement but do not allow Nominal RNR or TP RNR have to be excluded. On a practical level, since Nominal RNR and TP RNR constructions are generally not included in traditional grammars, native speakers have to be consulted with. According to WALS, apart from the 17 languages reported here, most of the languages that show both nominal and verbal number markings are indigenous languages spoken in Africa, Oceania, or North and South America. We were not able to contact the speakers of these languages. The 17 languages reported in the survey are a result of these limitations. They include all eligible languages that the author have access to native speakers of. For now, we will proceed with the available evidence while keeping in mind that more languages should be surveyed.
In the next section, I argue for a link between the patterns discussed in this section and the Agreement Hierarchy, a long-standing set of generalization observed for hybrid noun agreement. I propose that summative/distributive agreement dichotomy is a subcase of morphological/semantic agreement.
The 3/4 pattern observed on multi-valued Ns and Ts is also seen in other agreement phenomena. A series of work by Corbett (
(48) | a. | This committee has gathered. |
b. | This committee have gathered. |
(49) | a. | This committee offered itself to criticism. |
b. | This committee offered themselves to criticism. |
This effect is also observed in gender agreement in languages like German and Russian (
(50)
Russian hybrid nouns: morphologically masculine, semantically feminine.
a.
Novyj
new.
vrač
doctor
skazal.
said.
b.
Novaja
new.
vrač
doctor
skazala.
said.
c.
Novyj
new.
vrač
doctor
skazala.
said.
d.
*Novaja
new.
vrač
doctor
skazal.
said.
‘The new female doctor spoke.’
Table
A 3/4 pattern in hybrid noun agreement.
attributive | verb | |
---|---|---|
morphological | morphological | attested |
semantic | semantic | attested |
morphological | semantic | attested |
semantic | morphological |
The same pattern is observed on other agreement targets. Although verbs in English can show either morphological or semantic agreement, personal pronouns tend to show more semantic agreement than the verbs. In (51c), the auxiliary
Another 3/4 pattern in hybrid noun agreement.
verb | personal pronoun | |
---|---|---|
morphological | morphological | attested |
semantic | semantic | attested |
morphological | semantic | attested |
semantic | morphological |
(51) | Smith ( |
|
a. | The government |
|
b. | The government |
|
c. | The government |
|
d. | *The government |
With evidence from a variety of constructions and languages in addition to the 3/4 patterns shown above, Corbett (
(52) | attributive — predicate — relative pronoun — personal pronoun | |
← morphological agreement | semantic agreement → |
Empirical work has shown that the Hierarchy effect holds for at least 3 levels: 1. the corpus level: the positions to the right of the Hierarchy are more likely to show semantic agreement and the positions to the left of the Hierarchy are more likely to show morphological agreement; 2. the sentence level: if a position shows morphological agreement, no positions to its left on the Hierarchy can show semantic agreement in the same sentence; 3. the language level: no languages show morphological agreement on a position X exclusively and semantic agreement on positions left to X.
Various work has been addressing different aspects of the Agreement Hierarchy effect. Corbett (
Now we can come back to multi-valuation and its relation with the Agreement Hierarchy. The Hierarchy is motivated by the 3/4 patterns in hybrid noun agreement shown in Tables
Thus I propose that multi-valuation, like hybrid noun agreement, is a case of the Agreement Hierarchy effect. If we align distributive agreement in multi-valuation with morphological agreement and summative agreement with semantic agreement, and add the N heads to the Agreement Hierarchy as in (53), the typological gap in multi-valuation in Table
(53) | N — T |
This proposal makes three additions to the Agreement Hierarchy in (52). First it adds multi-valuation as a subcase of the Hierarchy effect on top of hybrid noun agreement. As far as the author is aware, the discussion on the Agreement Hierarchy has been exclusively on hybrid noun agreement. The second addition is to add N heads as a position on the Hierarchy. When the Agreement Hierarchy was originally proposed, N was treated as the source of the gender and number features. Subsequent work has revealed that the
This section argues for the connection between summative agreement and semantic agreement as well as that between distributive agreement and morphological agreement. Empirically, mismatches in distributive agreement are resolved as closest conjunct agreement (CCA) which is associated with morphological agreement, mismatches in summative agreement are taken care of by resolved agreement which is associated with semantic agreement.
Linking distributive agreement in multi-valuation with morphological agreement in the Agreement Hierarchy is a natural move. Morphological agreement in Corbett’s sense involves a shared morphological number marking. In (54a) the demonstrative
(54) | a. | This. |
b. | This. |
Empirically, Corbett (
(55) | a. | These. |
b. | *These. |
|
c. | This. |
|
d. | *This. |
For languages that only allow distributive agreement in multi-valued Ts, the prediction is that CCA is also observed when the embedded subjects in two conjuncts mismatch in number. This prediction is borne out. To investigate agreement in RNR constructions in Dutch, Kluck (
(56)
Anna
Anna
beweerde
claimed
dat
that
maar
but
Steven
Steven
zei
said
dat
that
het
the
gas
gas
aan
on
laten
let
staan.
stand
‘Anna claimed that we left the gas open, but Steven said that you left the gas open.’ (average rating: 3.5/5)
(57)
Joke
Joke
zei
said
dat
that
maar
but
Pieter
Pieter
dacht
thought
dat
that
de
the
deur
door
open
open
laten
let
staan.
stand
‘Joke said that we left the door open, but Pieter thought that you left the door open.’ (average rating: 2/5)
Linking summative agreement in multi-valuation with semantic agreement in the Agreement Hierarchy is also justified conceptually. Semantic agreement with hybrid nouns reflects not the morphological marking of the noun but the semantic reference. In accounting for summative agreement on multi-valued Ts, Grosz (
(58) | a. | John’s glad that Sue1, and Bill’s proud that Mary2, |
b. | John’s glad that his mother1, and Bill’s proud that his wife1, |
Data from mismatch cases support this connection as well. Semantic agreement resolves mismatches by resolved agreement. This is indeed what we found in TP RNR in English, when the two embedded subjects are of different number values in (59), the shared T can show plural marking regardless of the order of the two subjects.
(59) | a. | John’s glad that the twins. |
b. | John’s glad that Mary. |
Furthermore, clear predictions are also made for Russian Nominal RNR, which allows both distributive and summative agreement in the context of mismatches. The summative/semantic agreement would generate plural pivots regardless of the order of the mismatching conjuncts. The distributive/morphological agreement generates the closest conjunct agreement pattern: singular pivots when the second conjunct is singular; plural pivots when the second conjunct is plural. Combining both types of agreement, it is predicted that the plural pivot is allowed in mismatches regardless of which conjunct is plural, and the singular pivot is allowed only when the second conjunct is singular. These predictions are borne out in (60).
(60)
Russian mismatches
a.
?Eti
these.
vysokije
tall.
i
and
tot
that.
nizkij
short.
student.
vstretilisj.
met
b.
Eti
these.
vysokije
tall.pl
i
and
tot
that.
nizkij
short.
student.
vstretilisj.
met
‘These tall students and that short student met.’
c.
*Etot
this.
vysokij
tall.
i
and
te
those.
nizkije
short.
student.
vstretilisj.
met
d.
Etot
this.
vysokij
tall.
i
and
te
those.
nizkije
short.
students.
vstretilisj.
met
‘This tall student and those short students met.’
So far I have argued that summative agreement in multi-valuation is a case of semantic agreement and distributive agreement a case of morphological agreement. In this subsection I lay out one way to formally represent these two sets of agreement in both hybrid noun agreement and multi-valuation.
Following recent work (
Since the
For common nouns like
(61) | This student has arrived. | ||
a. | [ |
initial stage | |
b. | [ |
DP internal agreement | |
c. | [ |
DP external agreement |
Hybrid nouns are special in that their morphological feature and semantic feature have different values. For example in (62), the
(62) | this government | ||
a. | [ |
(initial stage) | |
b. | [ |
(DP internal agreement) |
The T head, as before, agrees with the D head. In English it can either copy the singular morphological feature or the plural semantic feature from the D head. The former results in morphological agreement in (63) and the latter semantic agreement in (64). It is worth pointing out that the type of agreement depends on the type of feature on the
(63) | This government has gathered. | morphological agreement |
[ |
(64) | This government have gathered. | semantic agreement |
[ |
Turning to multi-valuation, in Nominal RNR in (65), the pivot noun is shared by two DPs, thus agreeing with two
(65) | this tall and that short |
D |
(66) | a. | D |
morphological |
b. | D |
semantic |
The difference between N
(67)
a.
b.
In sum I propose that morphological/semantic agreement boils down to agreeing with morphological or semantic features in both hybrid noun agreement and multi-valuation. Different agreement patterns in multi-valuation result from distinct feature arithmetic when resolving multiple morphological/semantic agreement relations. The distributive agreement generalization in (35) thus can be rephrased as follows: if Ts in a language can only agree with morphological features, the Ns must also agree with morphological features and not semantic features. I will leave the sketch above as is for now, as it is beyond the scope of the current paper to hash out the detailed predictions stemming from this formalism.
It is worth noting that linking multi-valuation to the Agreement Hierarchy is not an explanation for the 3/4 pattern observed in multi-valuation. The Agreement Hierarchy in itself is a generalization of the cross-linguistic and cross-domain patterns observed in hybrid noun agreement, now also in multi-valuation. Given that hybrid noun agreement has been investigated in the context of the Agreement Hierarchy since the 70s, a natural move toward a formal account for the multi-valuation pattern is to borrow insights from the existing accounts for hybrid noun agreement. However, such previous accounts are concerned with the sentence level of the Hierarchy, and the multi-valuation Agreement Hierarchy operates on the language level.
To elaborate, the Agreement Hierarchy has at least three levels: the corpus level, the sentence level, and the language level. I will leave the corpus level aside in this paper (see
(68) | the Hierarchy on the sentence level: no sentence is such that position X shows morphological agreement and position Y (to the left of X on the Hierarchy) shows semantic agreement. |
The Hierarchy effect in hybrid noun agreement can be observed on the sentence level as in (69), because multiple agreement configurations (attributive-noun, noun-verb, etc.) can be packed in one sentence.
(69) | the hybrid noun Agreement Hierarchy on the sentence level: there is no noun such that it triggers morphological agreement on position X and triggers semantic agreement on position Y (to the left of X on the Hierarchy) |
As is discussed above, multi-valuation on Ns require the Nominal RNR construction and multi-valuation on Ts require the TP RNR construction where the T agrees with two separate embedded subjects. These two constructions cannot be packed in one sentence in the relevant way. As a result, the multi-valuation aspect of the Agreement Hierarchy cannot be evaluated on the sentence level.
On the other hand, the language level of the Hierarchy is stated in (70). Unlike the sentence level, it does not require packing multiple agreement configurations in one sentence. Instead it holds across different sentences in a language.
(70) | the Agreement Hierarchy on the language level: there is no language such that position X only allows morphological agreement, and position Y (to the left of X on the Hierarchy) allows semantic agreement in |
Both hybrid noun agreement and multi-valuation can be evaluated on this level as is stated in (71) and (72), both of which predict a typological gap.
(71) | the hybrid noun Agreement Hierarchy on the language level: there is no language in which there is a noun that must trigger morphological agreement on the position X and also triggers semantic agreement on position Y (to the left of X on the Hierarchy). |
(72) | the multi-valuation Agreement Hierarchy on the language level: there is no language in which the multi-valued X must show morphological agreement, and multi-valued Y shows semantics agreement, given that Y is on the left of X on the Hierarchy. |
The accounts proposed for the sentence level of the Hierarchy do not extend to the language level in an obvious way. For example, coupled with assumptions such as late merge of adjectives, Smith (
Landau (
Given the distinctions between the sentence level and the language level of the Hierarchy effects, the two levels may require distinct accounts. The language level of the Hierarchy has been rarely discussed in the previous literature. As far as I know, no formal approach has been proposed. The current paper frames the research question regarding the language level of the Hierarchy, leaving the formal account for future research.
To summarize, this section builds on the distribution of two agreement patterns in multi-valuation reported in Section 4 and previous empirical work on hybrid noun agreement and connects the two seemingly unrelated phenomena with the Agreement Hierarchy. I hope to have demonstrated that the alignment of summative agreement with semantic agreement and distributive agreement with morphological agreement are conceptually and empirically appealing. I propose that the Agreement Hierarchy, which has been discussed exclusively regarding hybrid noun agreement, also scopes over multi-valuation. I have also discussed different levels of the Agreement Hierarchy effects and whether existing accounts for hybrid noun agreement can be extended to multi-valuation.
In this paper I have surveyed a small but robust body of research on multi-valuation, cases where one probe agrees with multiple goals and gets multiple feature values. I use Nominal RNR as the case of multi-valued Ns and TP RNR as the case of multi-valued Ts. Following Grosz (
Treating multi-valuation as an Agreement Hierarchy effect opens up a set of research questions. I will list two here. First, if both hybrid noun agreement and multi-valuation involve the Agreement Hierarchy, one question to ask is whether the same target on the hierarchy shows the same type of agreement in the two constructions. Can an element show semantic agreement in hybrid noun agreement but morphological agreement in multi-valuation? The second research question involves the relative positions of attributive elements and nouns on the Hierarchy. Determiners and adjectives in multi-valuation-like constructions like
1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person,
See Citko (
For discussion on multi-dominance see Moltmann (
Note that in the derivation, the noun receives its values from the APs which in turn are from the
It is worth noting, however, that the nature of the DP internal agreement is currently under debate. There is another type of analysis that assumes two separate mechanisms for the DP internal agreement and subject-verb agreement. See Giusti (
As one reviewer pointed out, Norris (
(i) a. Ema mother pragas scold [k all. kooke cake. söövaØ] eat- poisi boy. läbi. through
b. *Ema mother pragas scold [k all. kooke cake. sööva-d] eat- poisi boy. läbi. through ‘Mother scolded the boy eating all the cakes.
Second, Norris shows that if a possessor intervenes between a higher demonstrative and a lower noun, the demonstrative still shows concord with the head noun in (iia) and not with the intervening possessor as in (iib). The lack of intervention effect indicates that the concord in (ii) is different from the subject-verb agreement.
(ii) a. see-Ø this- andme-te data- hulk amount.
b. nee-d this- andme-te data- hulk amount. ‘this amount of data’
Although nominal concord in Estonian above shows distinct behavior from garden variety subject-verb agreement, the Agree analysis of nominal concord can account for (i) and (ii). In fact, Norris (
Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out. Note that the arguments against the ellipsis analysis in Shen (
The acceptability of summative agreement in English (24) is subject to inter-speaker variation. Three experiments have been conducted by Yatabe (
A reviewer suggests that the agreement patterns in TP RNR might be a speech error resulting from some processing mechanism (similar to but distinct from the agreement attraction effects), given its inter-speaker variation and relatively low rating. Although this is an interesting suggestion, it has been argued against by Grosz (
(i) a. [dass that der the. Traktor tractor zu to reparieren repair ], , und and [der the. Wagen wagon zu to verkaufen sell ], , versucht tried wurden/wurde. were/was ‘… that someone tried to repair the tractor and sell the wagon.’
b. [dass that den the. Traktor tractor zu to reparieren repair ], , und and [den the. Wagen wagon zu to verkaufen sell ], , versucht tried wurde/*wurden. was/were ‘… that someone tried to repair the tractor and sell the wagon.’
Although it is not impossible in principle to come up with a processing mechanism that can account for (i), I cannot evaluate such theory without explicit details. It is also worth pointing out that processing effects like agreement attraction are present when the participants perform online tasks such as self paced reading and sentence completion or offline tasks while under time pressure (see
It is important to note that the arguments here only indicate that the TP RNR construction with multi-valued Ts doesn’t involve PF deletion/ellipsis. It does not make the claim that PF deletion/ellipsis operations are not involved in RNR constructions in general. There is ample evidence across languages that RNR does involve ellipsis/PF deletion in some contexts (see
The cross-linguistic survey was conducted online or in person. I thank the following people for participating and sharing their native judgments. Brazilian Portuguese: Renato Lacerda; Dutch: Paula Fenger, Ava Creemers, Fenna Bergsma; English: Jonathan Bobaljik, Heidi Klockmann, Troy Messick, Emma Nguyen, Laura Snider, Lyn Tieu, Chantale Yunt; Finnish: Karoliina Lohiniva; German: Alex Göbel, Magdalena Kaufmann, Stefan Kaufmann, Susi Wurmbrand; Greek: Christos Christopolous; Hebrew: Hadas Kotek, Idan Landau; Hindi: Ava Irani; Hungarian: Dóra Kata Takács; Icelandic: Gísli Rúnar Harðarson; Italian: Pietro Cerrone, Roberto Petrosino, Sandra Villata; Polish: Marcin Dadan, Asia Pietraszko; Romanian: Vanessa Petroj; Russian: Ksenia Bogomelets, Vadim Kimmelman, Helen Koulidobrova, Pavel Koval, Nina Radkevich; Serbo-Croatian: Aida Talić, Neda Todorovic; Slovenian: Marko Hladnik, Adrian Stegovic; Slovak: Veronika Richtarcikova; Spanish: Gabriel Martínez Vera, Justin Royer, Francisco Torreira.
The judgments reported here are from two of the three Russian native speakers that I consulted. The third speaker only allows CCA in mismatch cases. This is consistent with the judgment she provided for the matching Nominal RNR in (22) where she only allows a singular pivot.
For now I assume a selectional relation between the
As a reviewer pointed out, the feature set-up of
For helpful discussion and suggestions on various stages of this project, I thank Jonathan Bobaljik, Željko Bošković, Susi Wurmbrand and other linguists at the University of Connecticut, as well as the audience at the Resolving Conflicts Across Borders Conference 2017 and SICOGG 2017. I also received invaluable comments from three anonymous reviewers and the editors (Andrew Nevins and Jana Willer Gold) of this special issue. This paper is an extension of Chapter 4 of Shen (
The author has no competing interests to declare.