We Don’t Agree (Only) Upward
- 18 June 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by MIT Press in Linguistic Inquiry
- Vol. 53 (3), 1-21
- https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00418
Abstract
For Bjorkman and Zeijlstra (2019), Agree consists of two operations: checking and valuation. Checking involves probing, always upwards from an uninterpretable feature [uF] to an interpretable feature [iF] c-commanding it, and [iF]’s checking [uF]. Valuation generally happens downwards, with the valuer ccommanding the valuee. Upward valuation, in which the probe c-commands the goal, is exceptional and only occurs if downward valuation has failed. In this reply, we argue that this approach is not supported empirically. We present data from Matengo, German, Serbo-Croatian, Sambaa, Liko, and Nez Perce, arguing that upward valuation must be available more generally than Bjorkman and Zeijlstra suggest. For Bjorkman and Zeijlstra (2019), Agree consists of two operations: checking and valuation. Checking involves probing, always upwards from an uninterpretable feature [uF] to an interpretable feature [iF] c-commanding it, and [iF]’s checking [uF]. Valuation generally happens downwards, with the valuer ccommanding the valuee. Upward valuation, in which the probe c-commands the goal, is exceptional and only occurs if downward valuation has failed. In this reply, we argue that this approach is not supported empirically. We present data from Matengo, German, Serbo-Croatian, Sambaa, Liko, and Nez Perce, arguing that upward valuation must be available more generally than Bjorkman and Zeijlstra suggest. For Bjorkman and Zeijlstra (2019), Agree consists of two operations: checking and valuation. Checking involves probing, always upwards from an uninterpretable feature [uF] to an interpretable feature [iF] c-commanding it, and [iF]’s checking [uF]. Valuation generally happens downwards, with the valuer ccommanding the valuee. Upward valuation, in which the probe c-commands the goal, is exceptional and only occurs if downward valuation has failed. In this reply, we argue that this approach is not supported empirically. We present data from Matengo, German, Serbo-Croatian, Sambaa, Liko, and Nez Perce, arguing that upward valuation must be available more generally than Bjorkman and Zeijlstra suggest.This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Argument prominence and agreement: Explaining an unexpected object asymmetry in ZuluLingua, 2015
- The Rich Agreement Hypothesis RehabilitatedLinguistic Inquiry, 2014
- That's not how you agree: A reply to ZeijlstraThe Linguistic Review, 2013
- There is only one way to agreeThe Linguistic Review, 2012
- Parameterizing Case: Evidence from BantuSyntax, 2011
- Word order in Matengo (N13): Topicality and informational rolesLingua, 2011
- Unifying first and last conjunct agreementNatural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2009
- Where's the topic in Zulu?The Linguistic Review, 2009
- The Domain of AgreementNatural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2005
- Agree and Epp in BantuNatural Language & Linguistic Theory, 2005