Speaker: Yiannis Katochoritis (MIT)
Title: Long-distance agreement on Procrustes’ bed: a revival of spec-head
Time: , 12:30pm – 2pm
Location: 32-D461
Abstract: Long-distance agreement (LDA) refers to the phenomenon where a matrix verb may (optionally) agree in ?-features with an embedded argument of its complement clause, otherwise showing default agreement with the entire complement clause. Spanning a clausal boundary and appearing to involve no displacement of the embedded goal, LDA has been one of the core empirical arguments in favor of the operation Agree, which dissociates agreement from movement.
This talk has a double aim: first, to present a previosuly unnoticed observation; that is, (almost) all geographically diverse LDA languages share fundamental typological properties: they are verb-final, with a (full or split) ergative alignment, and with default SOV order; moreover, LDA-transparent embedded clauses are always either restructuring VPs or nominalized/participial TP/CPs; and once a potential LDA goal somehow overtly fronts to the left of the matrix verb, LDA (usually) becomes obligatory.
Second, I attempt to account for this empirical picture through little bits of Kayne’s (1994) Antisymmetry, Bobaljik’s (2008) m-case hierarchy, and the magic power of pied-piping. Specifically, I will suggest a unified analysis of LDA as local feature-checking in a (covert) spec-head configuration, which may allow for iterative feature-copying under recursive merge. Depending on two parameters, the specifier of the agreeing verbal head is filled either directly by the moving DP goal or by the complement clause that pied-pipes the goal at its edge. Hence, LDA is derived via Merge, not Agree. This will eventually yield a typology of (at least) four types of LDA systems, among which I will (struggle to) intergrate the outlier named Algonquian.
The analysis hinges on two crucial premises: one, LDA often features movement properties/constraints; two, the optionality of LDA is only apparent, as it obligatorily interacts with scope and/or information-structure, reducing to the reflex of independently motivated syntactic processes. Thus, I will distinguish between two types of agreement: narrow-syntactic agreement feeds LF or further syntactic operations, and involves downwards valuation by some interpretable feature, (plausibly) under spec-head. This contrasts with uninterpretable agreement, which is pushed post-syntactically, at early PF, and may operate from a distance, via upwards valuation (though still c-command-based).