Advanced

Selection through Uninterpretable Features

Nordström, Jackie LU (2006) In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77
Abstract
Abstract

This paper offers a new description and explanation of morphological agreement, argument-verb agreement in particular. The hypothesis explored is that argument-verb agreement is directly related to selection of arguments (s-selection), i.e. s-selectional features are in fact ф-features ([PERSON, NUMBER(, GENDER)], and that morphological argument-verb agreement mirrors this relation. Call this Selection Through Uninterpretable Features Theory, or STUF-Theory. The idea is that if X has uninterpretable ф, it selects a Lexical Item carrying ф from the Lexical Array with which it can agree. This

means that the distinction between structural and inherent case partly disappears and Case-Theory moves closer to θ-Theory.... (More)
Abstract

This paper offers a new description and explanation of morphological agreement, argument-verb agreement in particular. The hypothesis explored is that argument-verb agreement is directly related to selection of arguments (s-selection), i.e. s-selectional features are in fact ф-features ([PERSON, NUMBER(, GENDER)], and that morphological argument-verb agreement mirrors this relation. Call this Selection Through Uninterpretable Features Theory, or STUF-Theory. The idea is that if X has uninterpretable ф, it selects a Lexical Item carrying ф from the Lexical Array with which it can agree. This

means that the distinction between structural and inherent case partly disappears and Case-Theory moves closer to θ-Theory. Still, STUF-Theory must permit some non-θ-related case as well, namely when X carries uф but the Lexical

Array has no more Lexical Item that can be inserted. Then, X instead probes its domain for a goal (in accordance with Chomsky 2004).

STUF-Theory entails that morphological argument-verb agreement cannot be an Agree-relation holding between T and some DP (since T does not s-select), but must rather be an Agree-relation between ν and some DP. For the

same reason, it should be V that assigns accusative case to some DP. The benefit with such an analysis is that agreement would no longer be seen as an imperfection in the Faculty of Language, but should rather be regarded as a vital component in the building of syntactic structures. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Working Paper
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Icelandic, Spec-head relation, Agreement, s-selection
in
Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
20b547f1-2840-4a4f-9943-4c736dac7761 (old id 538733)
date added to LUP
2007-09-28 07:14:00
date last changed
2016-04-16 10:38:59
@misc{20b547f1-2840-4a4f-9943-4c736dac7761,
  abstract     = {Abstract<br/><br>
This paper offers a new description and explanation of morphological agreement, argument-verb agreement in particular. The hypothesis explored is that argument-verb agreement is directly related to selection of arguments (s-selection), i.e. s-selectional features are in fact ф-features ([PERSON, NUMBER(, GENDER)], and that morphological argument-verb agreement mirrors this relation. Call this Selection Through Uninterpretable Features Theory, or STUF-Theory. The idea is that if X has uninterpretable ф, it selects a Lexical Item carrying ф from the Lexical Array with which it can agree. This<br/><br>
means that the distinction between structural and inherent case partly disappears and Case-Theory moves closer to θ-Theory. Still, STUF-Theory must permit some non-θ-related case as well, namely when X carries uф but the Lexical<br/><br>
Array has no more Lexical Item that can be inserted. Then, X instead probes its domain for a goal (in accordance with Chomsky 2004).<br/><br>
 STUF-Theory entails that morphological argument-verb agreement cannot be an Agree-relation holding between T and some DP (since T does not s-select), but must rather be an Agree-relation between ν and some DP. For the<br/><br>
same reason, it should be V that assigns accusative case to some DP. The benefit with such an analysis is that agreement would no longer be seen as an imperfection in the Faculty of Language, but should rather be regarded as a vital component in the building of syntactic structures.},
  author       = {Nordström, Jackie},
  keyword      = {Icelandic,Spec-head relation,Agreement,s-selection},
  language     = {eng},
  series       = {Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77},
  title        = {Selection through Uninterpretable Features},
  year         = {2006},
}