2026-09-21T12:51:31Z https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh

oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/26100 2023-07-10 col_2142_5131 col_2142_13736 com_2142_5130 com_2142_8975 com_2142_8903

Benmamoun, Elabbas Benmamoun, Elabbas Arregui-Urbina, Karlos Lasersohn, Peter N. Yoon, Hye Suk James Kachru, Yamuna Bhatia, Archna 2011-08-25T22:12:55Z 2011-08-25T22:12:55Z 2011-08 2011-08-25T22:12:55Z 2011-08 Agreement is a prevalent phenomenon observed across languages. It helps us identify which elements in the sentence are linked or should be interpreted together (Bock et al 1999). This property of agreement may imply that the PF would always be faithful to syntax/ LF, i.e. it would always show features of the element with which syntax establishes agreement relationship. However, when we look at agreement in the context of coordination, we find that this is not the case. We can get Closest Conjunct Agreement in addition to the Full Agreement with the whole coordinated phrase. One way to account for the Closest Conjunct Agreement is to assume an underlying clausal coordination with conjunction reduction. I show that the constructions involving Closest Conjunct Agreement should not be analyzed as involving clausal coordination based on various theoretical as well as empirical factors. Another way to account for Closest Conjunct Agreement, especially looking at head initial languages, may be to assume that the structure of coordination plays a role in Closest Conjunct Agreement. Using the data from head final languages (mainly Hindi), I have shown that the structure of coordination is not involved in the Closest Conjunct Agreement constructions always. Based on various empirical facts, such as CCA asymmetry based on the word order as in Arabic, CCA asymmetry based on the verb types as in Hindi, the presence of both First Conjunct Agreement and the Last Conjunct Agreement within the same language, the requirement in some languages for strict adjacency for Closest Conjunct Agreement, mixed agreement facts, etc., I present an alternative analysis of Closest Conjunct Agreement which assumes the role of syntactic agreement relations as well as PF relations of linear proximity/ adjacency. I show that this analysis is generalizable across ii languages with different word orders. Also I show how this analysis is applicable to different types of constructions, such as local Closest Conjunct Agreement as well as Long Distance Closest Conjunct Agreement. The proposed analysis represents a compositional view of agreement, i.e. it assumes that agreement takes place in two stages: first the agreement relationship is established in syntax, and then the agreement features are spelled out in the PF component. Hence it suggests that, in an agreement relation, not only syntax but also the PF component of grammar plays a role. Item withdrawn by Mark Zulauf (zulauf@illinois.edu) on 2011-04-23T01:09:11Z Item was in collections: University of Illinois Theses & Dissertations (ID: 1) No. of bitstreams: 1 Bhatia_Archna.pdf: 822248 bytes, checksum: 2d1b7fe566407a73b5244bfd714205c0 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2011-08-25T22:12:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 Bhatia_Archna.pdf: 784345 bytes, checksum: f1318833dd6e6aad914cdae98fa50ba2 (MD5) license.txt: 4061 bytes, checksum: 290963c62813a5a67610bd47f0b47b99 (MD5) http://hdl.handle.net/2142/26100 en Copyright 2011 Archna Bhatia Agreement Closest Conjunct Agreement (CCA) Coordination Hindi head final compositional view of agreement Agreement in the context of coordination: Hindi as a case study Linguistics 1864 Linguistics 0301 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Dissertation Ph.D. PHD:Linguistics -UIUC 10KS0301PHD