Abstract
In this study, past participle agreement (PPA) patterns in French and Italian are explained based on recent minimalist notions involving minimal search and labeling. For minimal computation, Agree minimally values a participle and an in-situ object (Minimal Agree). Hence, the participle is spelled out in a default form. If an object is displaced, a participle can choose to Agree with the object’s copy in its SPEC. Since the Agree operation is coupled with labeling, it fully values the participle (Full Agree), resulting in morphological agreement. In many cases, the optionality of PPA results from the participle’s free selection between the two types of Agree. The proposed analysis also deals with cases where PPA is either obligatory or absent. First, a derived subject obligatorily triggers agreement since Full Agree applies to the subject to label the so-called TP node, which also affects the participle. Second, Italian 3rd person clitic objects control agreement obligatorily, which is attributed to their internal structure. Third, agreement with a wh-object is absent in Italian because of criterial freezing. Since Full Agree is part of criterial licensing, a wh-phrase cannot select this option until it reaches its final criterial position unless some form of reconstruction is available.
Publisher
Open Library of the Humanities
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference59 articles.
1. On partial agreement and oblique case;Atlamaz, ÜmitBaker, Mark;Syntax,2018
2. The domain of agreement;Bobaljik, Jonathan DavidWurmbrand, Susi;Natural Language & Linguistic Theory,2005