Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / Semitic languages / Feature Deletion by Head Movement: A New Solution to Agreement Asymmetries in Modern Standard Arabic

Feature Deletion by Head Movement: A New Solution to Agreement Asymmetries in Modern Standard Arabic

What it is about

In Modern Standard Arabic the verb agrees in number with a preverbal subject but not with a postverbal one, while person and gender agreement are not affected in the same way. Syntactic accounts overgenerate because they need both a preverbal and a postverbal subject position, and morphological accounts undergenerate because they require linear adjacency. Himmelreich proposes that verb movement to T checks the EPP feature, and that this check deletes the verb's number feature (complex head feature deletion). Constructions with the auxiliary kaana show full agreement without a postverbal subject, and the account derives five observations: number (not gender or person) is affected, it depends on linear order, it needs no adjacency, only subjects agree, and pronouns differ from full noun phrases. The paper reports no counts or measurements; the evidence is judged examples checked with MSA speakers.

Ideas

For Mova

I1 belongs in the frame builder (prag) once Arabic enters the pipeline, and in the event reader of world. I2 is a test set for treebanks/ar and for the agreement check. I3 is a question for Syntax: the clause and the sentence (verb-initial clauses): to be tested on the Biblical Hebrew data, not taken from this paper, which does not discuss Hebrew.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.16995/glossa.5731

@article{himmelreich2023feature,
  title = {{Feature Deletion by Head Movement: A New Solution to Agreement Asymmetries in Modern Standard Arabic}},
  author = {Himmelreich, Anke},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2023},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.5731},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5731}
}

References

109 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 681–735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025502221221 ↗
  2. Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2019. Default person versus default number in agreement. In Franco, Ludovico & Moreno, Mihaela Marchis & Reeve, Matthew (eds.), Agreement, case and locality in the nominal and verbal domains, 21–54. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3458062 ↗
  3. Agbayani, Brian. 1998. Feature attraction and category movement. Irvine: University of California dissertation. find
  4. Al-Horais, Nasser. 2012. Minimalist program and its fundamental improvements in syntactic theory: Evidence from agreement asymmetries in Standard Arabic. Pragmalingïüística 20. 8–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2012.i20.01 ↗
  5. Albaty, Yasser A. 2019. Modality, control and restructuring in Arabic. Milwaukee: The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee dissertation. https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/2034. ↗
  6. Albaty, Yasser A. & Ouali, Hamid. 2018. Restructuring and control in Arabic. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 10(2). 169–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18776930-01002001 ↗
  7. Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 491–539. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 ↗
  8. Alharbi, Bader Yousef. 2017. The syntax of copular clauses in Arabic. Milwaukee: The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee dissertation. https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/1573. ↗
  9. Alotaibi, Mansour & Borsley, Robert D. 2013. Gaps and resumptive pronouns in Modern Standard Arabic. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th international conference on headdriven phrase structure grammar. 6–26. CSLI Publications. https://repository.essex.ac.uk/11201/1/alotaibi-borsley.pdf. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2013.1 ↗
  10. Aoun, Joseph A. & Benmamoun, Elabbas & Choueiri, Lina. 2010. The syntax of Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511691775 ↗
  11. Aoun, Joseph & Benmamoun, Elabbas & Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 195–220. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178858. ↗
  12. Arregi, Karlos & Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3889-8 ↗
  13. Assmann, Anke. 2012. An interclausal agreement approach to switch-reference in Quechua. Linguistic Variation 12(2). 103–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.12.2.01ass ↗
  14. Assmann, Anke & Georgi, Doreen & Heck, Fabian & Müller, Gereon & Weisser, Philipp. 2015. Ergatives Move Too Early: On an Instance of Opacity in Syntax. Syntax 18(4). 343–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12034 ↗
  15. Ayoub, Georgine. 1981. Structure de la phrase en Arabe Standard. Paris: Université de Paris VII dissertation. find
  16. Bahloul, Maher & Harbert, Wayne. 1992. Agreement asymmetries in Arabic. In Mead, Jonathan (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. 15–31. Center for the Study of Language and Information. find
  17. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.15.1.06del ↗
  18. Baker, Mark C. 2009. Is head movement still needed for noun incorporation? Lingua 119. 148– 165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.010 ↗
  19. Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The feature structure of functional categories: A comparative study of Arabic dialects. New York: Oxford University Press. find
  20. Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard. find
  21. Biberauer, Teresa & Richards, Mark. 2006. True optionality: When the grammar doesn’t mind. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Minimalist essays, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.91.08bib Bjorkman, Bronwyn. 2011. BE-ing Default: The Morphosyntax of Auxiliaries. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/68911. ↗
  22. Bjorkman, Bronwyn & Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2014. Upward Agree is superior. Ms., lingbuzz/002350. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002350. ↗
  23. Bjorkman, Bronwyn & Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2019. Checking up on (phi-)Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50. 527–569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00319 ↗
  24. Błaszczak, Joanna. 2010. The end of the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) ante portas? In Kang, Young-Se & Yoon, Jong-Yurl & Hong, Jongseon & Wu, Jiun-Shiung & Rhee, Seongha & Kim, Kyoung-Ae & Choi, Dong-Ho & Kim, Kee-Ho & Kang, Hye-Kyung (eds.), Proceedings of the Seoul International Conference on Linguistics 2010, Seoul, Korea: Hankookmunhwasa. https:// www.academia.edu/27672017/The_end_of_the_Extended_Projection_Principle_EPP_ante_portas. ↗
  25. Blümel, Andreas. 2017. Symmetry, shared labels and movement in syntax. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110522518 ↗
  26. Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.63 ↗
  27. Boeckx, Cedric & Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2007. Putting phases in perspective. Syntax 10. 204– 222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00098.x ↗
  28. Borer, Hagit. 1984. Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2. 219–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133282 ↗
  29. Bošković, Zeljko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5. 167–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00051 ↗
  30. Brandi, Luciana & Cordin, Patrizia. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Ken (eds.), The null subject parameter, 111142. Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_4 ↗
  31. Carstens, Vicki. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(2). 219–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-0996-6 ↗
  32. Cecchetto, Carlo & Donati, Caterina. 2010. On labeling: Principle C and head movement. Syntax 13(3). 241–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00140.x ↗
  33. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on Transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. Academic Press, New York. https://lccn.loc.gov/73000186. ↗
  34. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. find
  35. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262527347.001.0001 ↗
  36. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger & Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step. Papers in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, chap. 3, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. find
  37. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/ mitpress/4056.003.0004 ↗
  38. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in the language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 ↗
  39. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert & Otero, Carlos Peregrín & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, chap. 6, 133–166. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009 ↗
  40. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lingua.2012.12.003 ↗
  41. Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Domenico, Elisa Di & Hamann, Cornelia & Matteini, Simona (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.01cho ↗
  42. Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures volume 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  43. Citko, Barbara. 2008. Missing labels. Lingua 118. 907–944. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lingua.2008.01.001 ↗
  44. Dékány, Éva. 2018. Approaches to head movement: A critical assessment. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1). 65. 1–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.316 ↗
  45. Doner, Julianne Margaret. 2019. The EPP across languages. Toronto: University of Toronto dissertation. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/97421/3/Doner_ Julianne_M_201911_PhD_thesis.pdf. ↗
  46. Driemel, Imke & Stojković, Jelena. 2017. Revisiting chain shifts with Minimize Satisfaction. Poster presented “Resolving Conflicts across Borders”, CAAS, Dubrovnik. https://www.academia.edu/35378243/Revisiting_Chain_Shifts_with_Minimize_Satisfaction. ↗
  47. Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 555–595. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005 ↗
  48. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2020. Anti-locality and subject extraction. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5. 84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1079 ↗
  49. Fakih, Abdul-Hafeed Ali. 2016. Agreement in Standard Arabic VSO and SVO word orders: A feature-based inheritance approach. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6(1). 21–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0601.03 ↗
  50. Frajzyngier, Zygmuni. 1982. Indefinite agent, passive and impersonal passive: A functional study. Lingua 58(3). 267–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90036-5 ↗
  51. Haegeman, Liliane. 1990. Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West-Flemish. The Linguistic Review 7. 333–363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1990.7.4.333 ↗
  52. Haiman, John & Benincá, Paola. 1992. The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London/New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203992487 ↗
  53. Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30. 425–449. find
  54. Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, S. Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press. http://web.mit.edu/morrishalle/pubworks/papers/1993_Halle_Marantz_Hale_Keyser_ Distributed_Morphology_Pieces_of_Inflection.pdf. ↗
  55. Harbert,Wayne & Bahloul, Maher. 2002. Postverbal subjects in Arabic and the theory of agreement. In Ouhalla, Jamal & Shlonsky, Ur (eds.), Themes in Arabic and Hebrew syntax, 45–70. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0351-3_2 ↗
  56. Harizanov, Boris. 2019. Head movement to specifier positions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1). 140. 1–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.871 ↗
  57. Harizanov, Boris & Gribanova, Vera. 2019. Whither head movement? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37. 461–522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9420-5 ↗
  58. Himmelreich, Anke. 2017. Case matching effects in free relatives and parasitic gaps: A study on the properties of Agree. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig dissertation. http://www.ankehimmelreich.de/ downloads/himmelreich-2017-diss.pdf. ↗
  59. Keine, Stefan. 2010. Case and Agreement from Fringe to Core: A Minimalist Approach, vol. 536 (Linguistische Arbeiten). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110234404 ↗
  60. Keine, Stefan. 2016. Probes and their horizons. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/8969235.0 ↗
  61. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1989. The null subject parameter in modern Arabic dialects. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Ken (eds.), The null subject parameter, 263–275. Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_9 ↗
  62. Kobayashi, Akiko. 2013. Relativized Agree and agreement asymmetries in Standard Arabic. Ms., Shimane University. https://ir.lib.shimane-u.ac.jp/49626. ↗
  63. Koopman, Hilda & Sczabolcsi, Anna. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262611541/verbal-complexes/. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/ mitpress/7090.001.0001 ↗
  64. Lahne, Antje. 2009. A multiple specifier approach to left-peripheral architecture. Linguistic Analysis 35. 73–108. find
  65. Lambova, Mariana. 2002. Is head movement syntactic?: Evidence from Bulgarian. In Ionin, T. & Ko, Heejeong & Nevins, Andrew (eds.), Proceedings of HUMIT 2001. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43, 91–104. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. find
  66. Lechner, Winnie. 2006. An interpretive effect of head movement. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 45–70. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197723.2.45 ↗
  67. Legate, Julie Anne. 2005. Phases and Cyclic Agreement. In McGinnis, Martha & Richards, Norvin (eds.), Perspectives on Phases. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 147–156. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. find
  68. Mahajan, Anoop. 2003. Word order and (remnant) VP movement. In Karimi, Simin (ed.), Word order and scrambling, 217–237. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758403. ch10 ↗
  69. Manzini, Rita & Savoia, Leonardo M. 2002. Parameters of subject inflection in Italian dialects. In Svenonius, Peter (ed.), Subjects, expletives, and the EPP, 157–199. Oxford University Press. https://hdl.handle.net/2158/307438. ↗
  70. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 69–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321184 ↗
  71. McFadden, Thomas & Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2016. Failure to control is not a failure: it’s pro. In Hammerly, Christopher & Prickett, Brandon (eds.), NELS 46: Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (Volume 3). 1–10. find
  72. McFadden, Thomas & Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2018. Reducing pro and PRO to a single source. The Linguistic Review 35. 463–518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-0003 ↗
  73. Müller, Gereon. 2004a. Phrase impenetrability and wh-intervention. In Stepanov, Arthur & Fanselow, Gisbert & Vogel, Ralf (eds.), Minimality effects in syntax, 289–325. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197365.289 ↗
  74. Müller, Gereon. 2004b. Verb-second as vP-first. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7(3). 179–234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCOM.0000016453.71478.3a ↗
  75. Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1). 35–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.35 ↗
  76. Müller, Gereon. 2011. Constraints on displacement: A phase-based approach, vol. 7 (Language Faculty and Beyond). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.7 ↗
  77. Müller, Gereon. 2016. Minimize satisfaction. Talk given at the Workshop “The Word and the Morpheme, HU Berlin. find
  78. Mohammad, A. Mohammad. 1990. The problem of subject-verb agreement in Arabic: Towards a solution. In Eid, Mushira (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics: Papers from the annual symposium on Arabic linguistics, 95–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ cilt.63.07moh Mohammad, Mohammad A. 2000. Word order, agreement, and pronominalization in Standard and Palestinian Arabic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.181 ↗
  79. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262632010/dynamic-antisymmetry/. ↗
  80. Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29. 939–971. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11049-011-9150-4 ↗
  81. Ott, Dennis. 2012. Local instability: Split topicalization and quantifier float in German. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110290950 ↗
  82. Parkinson, Dilworth. 1981. VSO to SVO in MSA: A study in diglossia syntax. Al- c Arabiyya 14. 24–37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43195488. ↗
  83. Pesetsky, David. 1989. Language-Particular Processes and the Earliness Principle. Ms., MIT. find
  84. Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0014 ↗
  85. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/68196. ↗
  86. Preminger, Omer & Polinsky, Maria. 2015. Agreement and semantic concord: a spurious unification. Ms., lingbuzz/002363. find
  87. Režać, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of Cyclic Agree. Syntax 6. 156–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00059 ↗
  88. Richards, Marc. 2011. Deriving the Edge: What’s in a Phase? Syntax 14. 74–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00146.x Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT dissertation. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/10236. ↗
  89. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 ↗
  90. Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. In Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Corver, Norbert (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 97–134. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7197.003.0010 ↗
  91. Rizzi, Luigi. 2016. Labeling, maximality and the head – phrase distinction. The Linguistic Review 33(1). 103–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0016 ↗
  92. Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals, vol. 59 (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 ↗
  93. Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486975 ↗
  94. Saccon, Graziella. 1993. Post-verbal subjects: A study based on Italian and its dialects. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University dissertation. find
  95. Safir, Ken. 2019. The A/Ā distinction as an epiphenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 50. 285–336. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00305 ↗
  96. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2002. Agreement impoverishment under subject inversion. A crosslinguistic analysis. In Fanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Resolving conflicts in grammar, 49–82. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 11. find
  97. Sauerland, Uli. 2003. A new semantics for number. In Young, Robert B. & Zhou, Yuping (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 13, 258–275. Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics Club. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/ salt.v13i0.2898 ↗
  98. Soltan, Usama. 2006. Standard Arabic subject-verb agreement asymmetry revisited in an Agree-based minimalist syntax. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Agreement systems, 239–265. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.92.11sol ↗
  99. Sportiche, Dominique. 1989. Le mouvement syntaxique: Constraintes et paramètres. Langages 95. 35–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1989.1551 ↗
  100. Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. 2 Bände. find
  101. Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of movement. Storrs: University of Connectitut dissertation. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI9520032/. ↗
  102. Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 79–123. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178889. ↗
  103. Urk, Coppe van. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/101595. ↗
  104. Walkow, Martin. 2010. Subject verb agreement asymmetries and the division of labor between syntax and morphology. Handout, Arabic Linguistics Across Traditions (24th Arabic Linguistics Symposium). https://mwalkow.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/als2010.pdf. ↗
  105. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908329 ↗
  106. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2012. Agree(ment): Looking up or looking down? Lecture given in Agreement Seminar, MIT. https://www.academia.edu/1533673/Agree_ment_Looking_up_or_looking_down. ↗
  107. Wurmbrand, Susi & Haddad, Youssef A. 2014. Cyclic spell-out derived agreement in Arabic raising constructions. In Haddad, Youssef A. & Potsdam, Eric (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics xxviii, 193–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.4.09wur ↗
  108. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation. https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.224908. ↗
  109. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29. 491–539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0017 ↗

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2023-himmelreich-feature-deletion-head-movement-new/