Agreement Bib

Agreement
Home Page
Note: This page can best be viewed using unicode encoding.
Agreement: A bibliography
Carole Tiberius, Greville Corbett, Julia Barron

Surrey Morphology Group
Department of Linguistic, Cultural and International Studies
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK.
This bibliography is produced as part of an ESRC project on

Agreement (grant number R000238228). This support is
gratefully acknowledged.
This bibliography comprises collections and special issues

devoted to agreement (section A), monograph-length
studies of agreement , mainly studies of agreement in
particular languages (section B), articles and book chapters

devoted to agreement (section C). There is a good deal of
material on agreement in the Slavonic languages which is
given a separate section (D).
This bibliography does not in general include works which

may refer to agreement morphology in connection with
language acquisition, language reconstruction or sign
language.
This is a draft bibliography, which will be updated at

intervals. We welcome additional items (to
c.tiberius@surrey.ac.uk), whether just the bibliographical

entry or with a brief abstract (please give specific
permission for us to use the abstract). We would be grateful
for hard copies of items omitted (please send to the address

at the top of the bibliography).
Section A: Collections and special issues
Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) 1984.
ESCOL 84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States

Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State
University.
Barlow, Michael & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.) 1988.
Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories,

Descriptions. Stanford, Center for the Study of Language
and Information, Stanford University.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. & Phillips, Colin (eds.) 1993. Papers on
Case and Agreement. I (=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics
18). Cambridge, MA.: Department of Linguistics, MIT.
Brentari, Diane; Larson, Gary N. and MacLeod, Lynn A. (eds.)

1988. CLS 24: Papers from the 24th Annual Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Part II:

Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Note: This is a collection of papers on aspects of agreement

given at the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Corbett, Greville (ed.) 1999. Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2

Special Issue on Agreement.
Danon-Boileau, Laurent, Morel, Mary-Annick & Tamba, Irne

(eds.) 1996. LAccord (Faits de langues 8). Paris: Ophrys.
Phillips, Colin (ed.) 1993. Papers on Case and Agreement. II
(=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19). Cambridge, MA.:

Department of Linguistics, MIT.
Plank, Frans (ed.) 1995. Double case: agreement by

Suffixaufnahme. New York: Oxford University Press.
Section B: Monographs
(Monographs on Slavonic languages are included in Section

D. These are Corbett (1979, 1983a), Crockett (1976),
Grappin (1950), Iomdin (1990), Leko (1986), Mathiassen

(1965), Megaard (1976), Munik (1971), Mullen (1967),
Neidle (1988), Panov (1968), Patton (1969), Pesetsky (1982),

Rozental (1960), Sand (1971), Schmidt (1995), Senkevi
(1964), Skoblikova (1971), Stanoji (1967), Suprun (1959,

1961, 1969), Vanek (1970).)
Alexander 1990. Agreement Configurations: Grammatical
Relations in Modular Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Barlow, Michael 1988. A situated theory of agreement.

Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford.
Published 1992, New York: Garland.
Topic: The nature and definition of

agreement.
Formal syntactic framework: Unificationbased grammar.
Language(s) cited: Arabic, English.

Note: The author makes the claim that
agreement is not a redundant feature-
copying morphosyntactic phenomenon, but

that it is a non-directional feature-merging
phenomenon in which information
distributed throughout the sentence is
unified. A Discourse-Linking Theory of
agreement is presented in which it is claimed

that agreement can only be understood as a
situated phenomenon associated with
information present in discourse situations

and the communication of information
between speaker and hearer.
Belnap, R. Kirk 1991. Grammatical agreement variation in
Cairene Arabic (Arabic). PhD dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania. [Distributed by University Microfilms

International 1992, reference NIR92-00311.]
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The Feature Structure of
Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic
Dialects (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Bessler, Paul Robert 1994. Une Analyse morphosyntaxique
de l'accord grammatical en franais. PhD Dissertation.
University of Toronto. [Dissertation Abstracts International,

A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 1995, 55, 12, June,
3828-A. Order No DANN 92607.]
Blinkenberg, Andreas 1950. Le Problme de laccord en
franais moderne: essai dun typologie. Copenhagen:
Munksgaard.
Bok-Bennema, Reineke 1991. Case and Agreement in Inuit.
Berlin: Foris.
Bosch, Peter 1983. Agreement and anaphora: a study of the
role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. London:

Academic Press.
Topic: Pronouns and anaphora

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: English
Note: This book explores the role of
pronouns in syntax and discourse. It
examines the accounts proposed to explain

how pronouns refer and the constraints on
their interpretation.
Chung, Sandra L. 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence
from Chamorro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Cornish, Francis 1986. Anaphoric relations in English and
French: A Discourse Perspective. London: Croom Helm.

Davies, William D. 1986. Choctaw verb agreement and
universal grammar (Studies in Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dobrin, Lise M. 1999. Phonological form, morphological
class, and syntactic gender: the noun class systems of

Papua New Guinea Arapeshan. Unpublished PhD
dissertation, University of Chicago.
Enrique, Andrs 1997. The Grammaticalization of Object
Agreement in Spanish. PhD Dissertation. University of
Southern California. [Dissertation Abstracts International, A:

The Humanities and Social Sciences, 1998, 58, 11, May,
4253-A. Order No. DA9816021.]
Everett, Daniel 1996. Why there are no Clitics. An alternative
perspective on pronominal allomorphy. SIL, Arlington.
Fabri, Ray 1987. An analysis of grammatical agreement in
Maltese. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Dsseldorf.

Fabri, Ray 1993. Kongruenz und die Grammatik des
Maltesischen (Linguistische Arbeiten 292). Tbingen:
Niemeyer.
Findreng, rne 1976. Zur Kongruenz in Person und
Numerus zwischen Subjekt und finitem Verb im modernen

Deutsch. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Fisher, Ulla T. 1985. The Sweet Sound of Concord: A Study
of Swedish Learners Concord Problems in English (Lund
Studies in English 73). Malm: CWK Gleerup.
Gelderen, Elly van. 1997. Verbal agreement and the
grammar behind its breakdown: Minimalist feature checking

(Linguistische Arbeiten 364). Tbingen: Max Niemeyer
Verlag.
Topic: lack of agreement

Formal syntactic framework: Minimalism
Language(s) cited: Arabic, Dutch, English,
French, Hopi, Kirundi, Kinyarwanda, Swedish,

Urdu/Hindi.
Note: This book is about what the lack of
agreement indicates about the structure of

language. Van Gelderen shows that instances
where agreement is deficient are not due to
psychological factors, but to grammatical
ones. She gives the following reasons: (a)
Lack of Spec-Head agreement. For example,
in Dutch, you get a breakdown of agreement

when the subject follows the verb as in veeg
jij je voeten (wipe your feet) versus jij veegt

je voeten (you wipe your feet); (b) C/overt
movement and expletives. Movement may
result in features being checked by the wrong

element, an expletive. Van Gelderen defines
an expletive as an element deficient in
features. For example, het in Dutch is
specified for person and gender, but
unspecified for number; (c) Impact from

grammaticalising processes. Certain
elements start out as lexical items, specific in

meaning, but acquire a much more general
lexical meaning and/or a more grammatical
function. That is, they lose phi-features and

change categorial features. For example, is
with a preposition or a conjunction; (d)
Structural configurations/ambiguous
structures. Certain complex structures are
intransparent and only part of the structure

might decide agreement. For example,
coordinate structures. The book focuses on
the discussion of Verb Subject, Verb Object,

and Verb-wh agreement structures.
Hoyt, Frederick M. L. 2000. Agreement, specificity effects,

and phrase structure in rural Palestinian Arabic existential
constructions. MA thesis, Cornell University.
Hybye, Poul 1944. L'Accord en franais contemporain:
essai de grammaire descriptive. Copenhagen: Hst & Sns

Forlag.
Jaeger, Christoph 1992. Probleme der syntaktischen
Kongruenz: Theorie und Normvergleich im Deutschen (Reihe

Germanistische Linguistik 132). Tbingen: Max Niemeyer.
Kllstrm, Roger 1993. Kongruens i svenskan (Nordistica
Gothoburgensia 16). Gteborg: Acta Universitatis

Gothoburgensis.
Kathman, David Joseph 1994. The Morphosyntax of
Complex Verb Agreement. PhD dissertation. The University

of Chicago. [Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The
Humanities and Social Sciences, 1995, 55, 12, June, 3829A. Order No DA 9513992.]
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, Antitopic and Verb
Agreement in Non-Standard French. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.
Lapointe, Steven G.1980. A theory of grammatical
agreement. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. New
York. Garland.
Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with Collective Nouns in
English (Lund Studies in English 103). Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell.
Note: This thesis concerns agreement with

collective nouns in American, British and
Australian English. It is based on material
from newspaper corpora and spoken corpora.

The findings suggest that dialectal, stylistic,
diachronic, syntactic and semantic factors
interact in the selection of singular and plural

agreement. It was shown that there are
differences between regional varieties,
between speech and writing and between

written and spoken genres. Syntactic
influence on agreement was seen in the
increased likelihood of plural agreement with

increased distance between the noun (the
controller) and its agreement-carrying words

(the targets). This was observed both in the
number of intervening words between a
controller and its targets and in the
difference between verbs, which are fairly
close to their controllers, and pronouns. This

trend was found in both speech and writing.
These findings suggest that targets acquire
more independence of the form of their
controllers the further they are away.
Semantic factors were also found to be

important in British English. The noun itself
plays a crucial role in the choice of
agreement. A noun such as government very

rarely takes singular verb agreement,
whereas family takes either singular or plural
agreement, and couple generally prefers the

plural. A few verbs were found to require
singular agreement with collective nouns
(e.g. consist, be set up, increase), but other

verb categories (e.g. think, say, work) were
not found to influence agreement decisively.

These and other features described indicate
that a wide range of functional factors
influence variation in agreement patterns.

(author abstract)
Newman, Michael (1997) Epicene pronouns : the linguistics
of a prescriptive problem NY: Garland Publishing
(Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics)
Pelletier, Rosanne Helen 1994. Aspects of the Syntax and
Morphology of Telugu: Agreement and Negation in Verbal

Projections. PhD dissertation. Yale University. [Dissertation
Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social

Sciences, 1994, 55, 6, Dec, 1547-A. Order No DA
9428303.]
Perry, Thomas A. 1975. Problems in Subject-Verb
Agreement. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
[Distributed by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 7611376.]
Roberts, Taylor 2000. Clitics and agreement. PhD
dissertation MIT. Distributed as MIT Working Papers in

Linguistics. Cambridge, MA.
Russell, Dale William. 1987. Cheyenne verb agreement in
GPSG. PhD dissertation. University of Illinois. [Distributed by
University Microfilms International. Ann Arbor. Oder No
8721749.]
Scancarelli, Janine 1987. Grammatical relations and verb

agreement in Cherokee. PhD dissertation, University of
Californian, Los Angeles. [Distributed by University
Microforms International reference 8803692.]
Schtze, Carson T. 1997. INFL in Child and Adult Language:

Agreement, Case, and Licensing. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Singer, Kora 1999. Agreement: Cross-linguistic variation

and acquisition. PhD dissertation University of Chicago.
Note: This thesis concentrates on verbargument agreement in OT.
Steele, Susan 1990. Agreement and Anti-Agreement: A
Syntax of Luiseo (Studies in Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory 17), Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Stefanescu, Ioana 1997. The Syntax of Agreement in
Romanian. PhD dissertation, City University of New York.
Distributed as MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics no. 14.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, MIT,
Department of Linguistics.
Tuite, Kevin 1998. Kartvelian morphosyntax: Number
agreement and morphosyntactic orientation in the south

Caucasian languages. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Vikner, Sten 1994. Verb movement and expletive subjects in

the Germanic languages. Oxford University Press.
Watanabe, Akira 1996. Case absorption and WH-agreement
(Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Section C: Articles
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1994. Classifiers in Tariana.

Anthropological.Linguistics 36 no 4. 407-465.
Aissen, Judith L. 1984. Surrogate Agreement in Tzotzil. In
Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL

84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on
Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 1-12.
Aissen, Judith L. 1988. Extensions of Brother-in-Law
Agreement. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson

(eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches,
Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 219-
235.
Topic: Non-regular controllers of agreement

Formal syntactic framework: Relational
Grammar
Language(s) cited: English, Totzil, Southern

Tiwa
Note: By making a distinction between

Primary Agreement Controllers and
Secondary Agreement Controllers, the author

offers an account of agreement in
constructions with non-regular controllers
which is an extension of the brother-in-law
agreement of Relational Grammar. Secondary

Agreement controllers (i.e. non-final terms)
are allowed to control agreement on b if they

head an arc which is overrun by an arc
headed by a Primary Agreement Controller

for b.
Aissen, Judith L. 1989. Agreement controllers and Tzotzil

comitatives. Language 65. 518-536.
Aissen, Judith L. 1990. Towards a Theory of Agreement
Controllers. In Postal, Paul M. and Brian D. Joseph (eds.)
Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. 279-320.
Topic: Possible controllers of predicate

agreement

Grammar
Language(s) cited: Georgian, Kekchi.

Note: The author offers an account of the
phenomenon by which agreement facts
require reference to non-final grammatical

relations. Agreement controllers may thus
contain inherent features and features which

are acquired from noun phrases which they
have overrun in the course of the phrasal
derivation, i.e. when they have assumed a
grammatical function previously held by
another noun phrase. Language specific rules

will decide whether inherent or acquired
agreement features are referred to in a
particular domain.
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E. 1998. Parametrizing

Agr: word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 491-539.

Allen, Barbara J., Donald G. Frantz, Donna B. Gardiner, David
M. Perlmutter 1990. Verb Agreement, Possessor Ascension,
and Multistratal Representation in Southern Tiwa. In Postal,
Paul M. and Brian D. Joseph (eds.) Studies in Relational

Grammar 3. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 321-383.
Topic: Verbal agreement in possessive

constructions

Grammar
Language(s) cited: Southern Tiwa

Note: In this paper the authors examine a set
of apparently disparate constructions
possessor ascension, goal to 1 advancement,

passive and 3-2 advancement - which
exhibit the same verbal agreement prefix.

The agreement prefixes are complex,
providing information about final subjects
and objects in a cumulative exponent. They

argue that Southern Tiwa shares its basic
clause structure with other languages, but
that there is an additional agreement rule in

the language which references the initial
Absolutive relation. The apparently confusing

agreement morphology can be explained by
the interaction of this rule with the syntactic

rules of advancement and ascension.
Allerton, David 1992. Problems of Modern English grammar

II: Disagreement about agreement: Findings. English
Studies: A Journal of English Language and Literature 73. No

5. Swets & Zeitlinger. 458-468.
Topic: English subject predicate agreement.

Note: The author tests a number of copular
sentences in English to explore both the
nature of subject predicate agreement and
means of identifying the grammatical subject
of such clauses. A number of conclusions are

drawn regarding the relationship between
epithet nouns and entity nouns and the
preferences for agreement with each. It is
illustrated that English seems to have a rigid
subject-verb-predicative order in declarative
sentences and that factors other than notions

like heads and phrases have a role in
determining agreement in English.
Almor, Amit, Maryellen C. MacDonald, Daniel Kempler,

Elaine S. Andersen, and Lorraine K. Tyler. 2001.
Comprehension of long distance number agreement in
probable Alzheimers disease. Language and Cognitive
Processes 16(1). 35-63.
Topic: number agreement and Alzheimers

disease
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Standard American English

Note: Patients with Alzheimers disease (AD)
have difficulty comprehending spoken
language. This difficulty is apparent in their
conversational interaction as well as in their

performance in many laboratory tasks. The
origins of this difficulty, however, are not
well understood. This paper describes
research that was undertaken to investigate

the role of working memory in processing
dependencies of different types and different

lengths by examining the effect of
intervening material on AD patients and
healthy normal controls on-line processing

of grammatical (i.e. subject-verb) and
discourse (i.e. antecedent-anaphor) number

agreement.
Anderson, John 1982. A Disagreeable Note on Grammatical
Relations. In Ren Dirven and Gnter Radden (eds.) Issues in
the Theory of Universal Grammar. Tbingen : G. Narr. 125-
143.
Topic: Agreement controllers

Grammar
Language(s) cited: Latin, Avar, Palauan,
Acehnese, Southern Tiwa, Amharic, Swahili.
Note: The author presents arguments in
favour of a Relational Grammar theory of

agreement controllers which states that
agreement is conditional on termhood, rather

than a requirement that only subjects can
trigger agreement or that there is an
agreement hierarchy such that indirect object

agreement implies direct object agreement.
Anderson, John 1995. The Possessed. In F.R. Palmer (ed.)
Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons.

England: Cambridge University Press. 162-174.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1974. On dis-agreement rules.
Linguistic Inquiry 5. 445-451.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. On representations in
morphology: case, agreement and inversion in Georgian.
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2.157-218.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology

(Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (95-100, 103-118, 137-79).

Anderson, Stephen R. 1997. Remarks on Agreement and
Incorporation Phenomena. In Lizanne Kaiser, ed., Studies in
the Morphosyntax of Clitics, 29-44. (Y.A.L.E. working
papers, vol. 1, 1997).
Andrews, Avery D. 1971. Case agreement of predicate
modifiers in Ancient Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 127-152.

Andrews, Avery D. 1973. Agreement and deletion. In
Claudia Corum, T., Cedric Smith-Stark, Ann Weiser (eds.)
CLS 9: Papers from the ninth regional meeting of the

Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society. 23-33.
Androutsopoulou, Antonia 2001. Adjectival Determiners in

Albanian and Greek. In Mara Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli
(eds.) Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. 161 199.
Note: Contains (somewhat limited) discussion

of the agreement between the genitive case
particles and the possessor in possessive
constructions. (This is discussed in somewhat

more detail in Morgan 1984.)
Anward, Jan. 1988. Verb-Verb agreement in Swedish. McGill
Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative

Germanic Syntax, May 1988. 1-33.
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas and Sportiche,

Dominique 1994. Agreement, word order and conjunction in
some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 195-220.
Aoun, Joseph & Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1999. Gapping, PF
merger and patterns of partial agreement. In Shalom Lappin

& Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.) Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis
and Gapping. New York: Oxford University Press. 175-192.
Aoun, Joseph; Benmamoun, Elabbas & Sportiche,
Dominique. 1999. Further remarks on first conjunct

agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 669- 681.
Asyik, Abdul Gani 1983. The Agreement System in

Acehnese. Mon-Khmer Studies XI. 1-33
Topic: The agreement system of Acehnese

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Acehnese (North Aceh
dialect)
Note: The author provides a description of

the agreement system of Acehnese.
Agreement is found with verbal and adjectival

predicates. It is marked by affixes, the
controller of which is the subject or some
kind of agent (either animate or inanimate).

Avgustinova, Tania and Hans Uszkoreit forthcoming.
Towards a Typology of Agreement Phenomena. In William
Griffin (ed.) "The Role of Agreement in Natural Language":
Proceedings of the 2001 Texas Linguistic Society

Conference. Austin, Texas. 2-4 March 2001.
Topic: typology of agreement relations
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Slavic

Note: Agreement phenomena are instances of
co-variation of linguistic forms which is
typically realised as feature congruity, i.e.

compatibility of values of identical
grammatical categories of syntactically

combined linguistic items. This paper
focuses on the nature of the relations holding

between the "agreeing" items. The main
hypothesis is that systematic relations
motivate shared patterns of variation crosslinguistically as well as across constructions

resulting in a typology. A multidimensional
taxonomy is proposed. The descriptive power

of this taxonomy is demonstrated with
examples from several Slavic languages.

Bailey, Guy, Maynor, Natalie and Cukor-Avila, Patricia 1989.
Variation in subject-verb concord in Early Modern English.
Language Variation and Change 1. 285-300.
Baker, Brett J. forthcoming. How referential is agreement?

The interpretation of polysynthetic dis-agreement in
Nglakgan. In Nicholas Evans and Hans-Jrgen Sasse (eds.)
Problems of polysynthesis. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Topic: verbal markers
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Ngalakgan
Note: With respect to argument affixes in
polysynthetic languages, authors (e.g. Jelinek

1984, M. Baker 1996, Simpson 1991) have
generally taken one of two positions. Either

these affixes should be regarded as
agreement markers, or as pronominal
arguments (anaphors). That is, these affixes

are either arguments of the verb, or they
merely agree with the nominal arguments,

which may be covert. In this paper, Baker
argues that this view is not correct and that

there is a three-way division in the
morphosyntactic and referential behaviour of

argument prefixes in Ngalakgan: bound
anaphoric pronouns, agreement suffixes, and

a third category which cannot be properly
characterised either as an agreement marker

nor as an anaphor, which he calls
pronominal generic affixes. Referentially,

these generic suffixes have affinities with
incorporated generic nouns, and need not

agree with a coreferential argument.
Balari, S. 1992. Two types of agreement. Catalan Working
Papers in Linguistics 1992. Universitat Autnoma de
Barcelona. 1-43.
Topic: The definition of agreement

Formal syntactic framework: Head-Driven
Phrase Structure Grammar
Language(s) cited: English, French, German,

Italian, Gyarong, Spanish
Note: The author proposes that, as a theory

of agreement cannot be either purely
semantic or purely syntactic, an approach in

which agreement is understood as two
separate but related phenomena is better

motivated. He argues for two levels of
agreement involving the introduction of a
new feature infl in the head features of signs.

Morphosyntactic agreement (e.g. subject-
verb agreement in French) will be at the infl

level, while agreement with predicative
adjectives is semantic and will be at the

index level in content. The two types of
agreement relations are Morphosyntactic

Identification found in NP-internal
configurations, where the infl value of the
functor is structure-shared with the infl value

of the argument, and Index Identification
found in subject-predicate agreement, which

is the idenfication of the index which is the
value of some role in the content of verbs.
Other apparent agreement phenomena are

reanalysed as instances of government.
Barbu, Ctlina, Evans, Richard and Mitkov, Ruslan. 2002. A
corpus based investigation of morphological disagreement
in anaphoric relations. In: Manuel Gonzlez Rodrguez and

Carmen Paz Surez Araujo (eds) LREC2002: Third
International Conference on Language Resources and

Evaluation: Proceedings: VI, Paris: European Language
Resources Association. 1995-1999.
Barlow, Michael 1991. The Agreement Hierarchy and

grammatical theory. In Laurel A. Sutton, Christopher
Johnson and Ruth Shields (eds.) Proceedings of the
Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics

Society, February 15--18, 1991: General Session and
Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structure. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California. 30-40.

Barlow, Michael 1993. Accommodating the Agreement
Hierarchy in Linguistic Theories. Ms.

Formal syntactic framework: Discourselinking theory
Language(s) cited: English, Chichewa, Arabic,

Polish.
Note: The author explores the problems
associated with incorporating the predictions

of the Agreement Hierarchy (Corbett 1979,
1983, 1988) into contemporary theories of
agreement (Bresnan and Mchombo 1987 and

Zwicky 1987). He concludes that a clear
distinction between syntactic and semantic

agreement cannot be accommodated in
either approach and that in fact the
distinction is spurious. The Agreement

Hierarchy could be considered to be a
description of differences among agreement

targets with respect to feature identity versus
feature conflict with controllers. He proposes
a solution within Discourse Linking Theory
(Barlow 1992) which has a property-based
account of agreement. Both nouns and
agreement morphemes introduce discourse

referents. The hierarchy can be restated as
the increasing likelihood of the introduction
of new properties as you move to the right of

the hierarchy.
Barlow, Michael 1999. Agreement as a Discourse
Phenomenon. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2.

Special Issue on Agreement. 187-210.
Note: Agreement is widely considered to be

the prime example of a relation based on
linguistic form in which the morphosyntactic

specification of one category, such as a
subject noun phrase, is redundantly
expressed on a separate category such as a

verb. In this paper, I discuss the problems
inherent in such morphosyntactic accounts of

agreement and argue that the consideration
of a range of attested agreement patterns
leads naturally to an account in which
agreement relations are seen as links
between discourse information structures.

Taking a discourse perspective avoids the
descriptive problems associated with current
syntactic approaches to agreement and leads

to a revealing reconsideration of the nature
of agreement relations. (author abstract)
Bartos, Huba 1997. On Subjective and Objective
Agreement in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol.

44 (3-4). 363-384.
Topic: Object agreement in Hungarian

Formal syntactic framework: Minimalism
Language(s) cited: Hungarian
Note: The author examines the two verbal
conjugations in Hungarian, subjective and

objective and presents arguments against
proposed analyses of conjugation choice as

relating to object agreement in terms of
number/person, definiteness or specificity.
Instead an account is offered in which objects

nominals are divided into two types those
with a DP layer, and those without.
Conjugation choice is dependent upon Case

checking at an object agreement functional
projection. [An earlier version of this paper
was published as Object Agreement
Licensing in Hungarian. Working Papers in
the Theory of Grammar, Vol 4. No3. Research

Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy
of Sciences. Budapest.]
Bayer, J. 1984. Towards an explanation of certain that-t
phenomena: The COMP-node in Bavarian. In W. de Geest

and Y. Putseys (eds.) Sentential Complementation.
Dordrecht: Foris. 23-32.
Belletti, A. 2001. Agreement Projections. In Mark Baltin and

Chris Collins (eds.) The Handbook of Contempory Syntactic
Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 483-510.
Belnap, R. Kirk 1993. The meaning of deflected/strict
agreement variation in Cairene Arabic. In Eid, Mushira and

Clive Holes (eds.) Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics V:
Papers from the Fifth Annual Symposium on Arabic

Linguistics. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and Histroy
of Linguistic Science. Vol 101.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia:

John Benjamins. 97-117.
Topic: Variability in agreement.

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Cairene Arabic
Note: A study is described in which
agreement data were collected and analysed

to examine variability between strict and
deflected (feature mismatch) agreement
with human and non-human head nouns.

Various factors including social class,
age/sex and distance between controller and

target were assessed for variability. In
addition a pyscholinguistic experiment is

described. The author concludes that
agreement variability is used by speakers to
signal their perception of the referents so as

to classify it more narrowly.
Belnap, R. Kirk 1999. A New Perspective on the History of
Arabic Variation in Marking Agreement with Plural Heads. In

G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on
Agreement. 169-185.
Note: This paper examines variation in
marking agreement in Arabic. In particular,

the investigation focuses on the variation
between plural and feminine singular
agreement with plural head nouns. Taperecorded naturalistic speech from
sociolinguistic interviews conducted in Cairo

constitute the data for the study of
agreement in New Arabic. These results are
compared to agreement patterns found in a

corpus of Old Arabic texts. Some have
suggested that the agreement variation
found in New and Old Arabic varieties is

random and meaningless. However,
multivariate analysis of the Cairene and the

Old Arabic patterns indicate both are
systematic and that the two are similar in
many respects. The agreement patterns in

question appear to be a resource which
speakers exploit to classify referents. It is
generally agreed that the language contact
situation resulting from the spread of Islam
had a profound effect on the development of

vernacular varieties of Arabic. Some have
argued that the process of language shift to

Arabic was rapid, resulting in deep-reaching
changes in spoken varieties of Arabic. On the

other hand, the formal variety of Arabic that
came to be Classical Arabic is touted as
having changed little. This study suggests
that Classical Arabic, too, appears to be the

result of some contact induced change and
that the agreement system of Cairene is, in
some ways, closer to that of early Old Arabic

than is that of its standardized cousin,
Modern Standard Arabic. From the standpoint

of agreement, it would appear that varieties
such as Cairene have changed less and that
Classical Arabic changed more than one
might suppose. These findings suggest that a

re-examination of the history of Arabic is in
order. (author abstract)
Benmamoun, Elabbas 1996. Agreement asymmetries and
the PF interface. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 106128.
Bentley, Mayrene 1997. Variation in Bantu verbal agreement.

In. Robert K. Herbert (ed.) African Linguistics at the
Crossroads: Papers from Kwaluseni, 1st World Congress of

African Linguistics, Swaziland, 18-22.7.1994. Cologne:
Rdiger Kppe. 239-250.
Berg, Helma van den 1999. Gender and person agreement in

Akusha Dargi. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2.
Special Issue on Agreement. 153-168.
Note: Most Daghestanian languages show

gender agreement between nouns and a
broad set of targets, like verbs, adjectives,

and local expressions. Dargi differs from
other Daghestanian languages, among
others, in that it shows person agreement in

the verb as well. For that reason examples
from the written standard are sometimes
adduced in general linguistic literature. This

article presents partly new data from the
dialect of Akusha. An attempt will be made to

find an adequate explanation for the
presence of both ergative-absolutive and

nominative-accusative patterns of
agreement. (author abstract)
Bickel, Balthasar, 1995. In the vestibule of meaning:
Transitivity inversion as a morphological phenomenon.
Studies in Language 19. 73-127.
Bickel, Balthasar. 2000. On the syntax of agreement in

Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Language 24. 583-609.
Bickel, Balthasar, Walter Bisang and Yogendra P. Yadava
1999. Face vs. empathy: the social foundation of Maithili

verb agreement. Linguistics 37.3. 481 -518.
Bickel, Balthasar and Yogendra P. Yadava 2000. A fresh look

at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110. 343373.
Blevins, James P. 2000. Markedness and agreement.
Transactions of the Philological Society. Volume 98:2.

Blackwell Publishers. 233-262.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David 1997. If the Head Fits...: On the

Morphological Determination of Germanic Syntax.
Linguistics 35. 6(352). 1029-1055.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1998. Pseudo-ergativity in
Chukotko-Kamchatkan Agreement Systems. In La Nash
(ed.) Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes. Volume 27.

Special volume on Ergativity.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 1999 Implications of Itelmen
agreement asymmetries. In Steve S. Chang, Lily Liaw & Josef

Ruppenhofer. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 12-15,

1999: General Session and Parasession on Loan Word
Phenomena. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society,
University of California. 299-310.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2001. The implications of rich
agreement: Why morphology doesnt drive syntax. In: Karine

Megerdoomian & Leora Anne Bar-el (eds) WCCFL 20:
Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal

Linguistics, Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 82-95.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Susi Wurmbrand 1997. Preliminary

notes on agreement in Itelmen. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang and
M. McGinnis (eds.) PF: Papers at the interface. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics. Vol 30. 395-423. [Also published in

Linguistic Discovery. Volume 1. Issue 1. 2002. URL:
http://linguistic-
discovery.dartmouth.edu/WebObjects/Linguistics]
Bock, Kathryn & J. Cooper Cutting 1992. Regulating mental
energy: Performance units in language production. Journal
of Memory and Language 31. 99-127
Bock, Kathryn & Kathleen M. Eberhard 1993. Meaning,
sound and syntax in English number agreement. Language
and Cognitive Processes 8. 57-99
Bock, Kathryn & Carol A. Miller 1991. Broken agreement.
Cognitive Psychology 23. 45-93
Bock, Kathryn, Janet Nicol & J. Cooper Cutting 1999. The

ties that bind: Creating number agreement in speech.
Journal of Memory and Language 40. 3. 330-346
Boeckx, Cedric 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica

54. 354-380.
Bokamba, Eyamba G. 1985. Verbal Agreement as a
Noncyclic Rule in Bantu. In Didier L. Goyvaerts (ed.) African
Linguistics: Essays in Memory of M.W.K. Semikenke (Studies

in the Sciences of Language Series Vol 6). John Benjamins
Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 9-54.
Bokamba, Eyamba G. 1993. Language Variation and Change
in Pervasively Multilingual Societies: Bantu Languages. In
Salikoko S. Mufwene & Lioba Moshi (eds.) Topics in African
Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 100), 207-
252. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.
Bonet, Eulalia 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: A
Morphological Approach. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

22, July. 33-52.
Borer, Hagit. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In Osvaldo Jaeggli &
Kenneth J. Safir (eds.) The Null Subject Parameter (Studies in

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15). Dordrecht:
Kluwer. 69-109.
Brjars, Kersti, Nigel Vincent and Carol Chapman. 1997.

Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: a
feature-based account. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle

(eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. 155-180.
Brjars, Kersti & Chapman, Carol. 1998. Agreement and
pro-drop in some dialects of English. Linguistics 36. 71-98.

Branigan, Phil & MacKenzie, Marguerite. 2001. How much
syntax can you fit into a word? Late insertion and verbal
agreement in Innu-aimn. In Suzanne Gessner Oh & Kayono

Shiobara (eds.) Proceedings of WSCLA 5: UBC Working
Papers in Linguistics 5.37-52.
Branigan, Phil & MacKenzie, Marguerite. 2002. Altruism, -
movement, and object agreement in Innu-aimn. Linguistic
Inquiry 22. 385-407
Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo 1986. Grammatical and

anaphoric agreement. In Papers from the Parasession on
Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the Twenty-Second

Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
278-297.
Bresnan, Joan and Sam A. Mchombo 1987. Topic, pronoun

and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63. 741-782.
Topic: Pronominal agreement

Formal syntactic framework: Lexical
Functional Grammar.
Language(s) cited: Chichewa

Note: The authors illustrate the observation
that person, number and gender are
precisely the pronominal categories which

universally show agreement in anaphoric
relations and claim that the asymmetrical
behaviour of subject and object agreement

markers in Chichewa, a head-marking
language, is indicative of their different

status. Object markers are seen to behave as
incorporated pronouns, bearing person,
number, gender and pred features. They may

be anaphorically linked to a floating topic NP
in the sentence. They cannot occur with an
overt object and if a free pronoun is present
it must be for reasons of contrastive focus or
to introduce a new topic. Subject markers, on

the other hand, have a dual function. They
may behave as incorporated pronouns,
however they may also be simply
grammatical agreement markers. In the latter

case, they lack the pred feature in their fstructure. The features are otherwise
identical.
Bresnan, Joan & Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in

comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 147-185.
Brewer, Jeutonne 1973. Subject Concord of BE in Early Black
English. American Speech, 48(1-2). 5-21.

Brown, Dunstan 1998. Defining 'Subgender': Virile and
Devirilized Nouns in Polish. Lingua 104. 3-4. 187-233.

Butt, Miriam 1993 . Object specificity and agreement in
Hindi/Urdu. In Katharine Beals et al. (eds.) CLS 29: Papers
from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic

Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 89-103.
Byarushengo, Ernest Rugwa and Sarah Tenenbaum 1976.
Agreement and Word Order: A Case for pragmatics in Haya.

In Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the
Berkeley Linguistics Society. 2. 89-99.
Cameron, Richard 1993. Ambiguous agreement, functional

compensation, and nonspecific t in the Spanish of San
Juan, Puerto Rico, and Madrid, Spain. Language Variation
and Change 5. 305-334.
Carmack, Stanford 1997. Blocking in Georgian Verb

Morphology. Language 73, 2 June. 314-338.
Carstens, Vicki 2000. Concord in Minimalist Theory.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1977. The evolution of third person verb
agreement in the Iroquoian languages. In Charles N. Li (ed.)
Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin, TX: University of

Texas Press. 493-524.
Chung, Sandra 1994. Wh-Agreement and "Referentiality" in

Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 1, winter. 1-44.
Chung, Sandra and Carol Georgopoulos. 1988. Agreement
with Gaps in Chamorro and Palauan. In Michael Barlow and

Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in natural language:
approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford: CSLI
Publications. 251-267.
Topic: WH-agreement
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Chamorro, Palauan.
Note: The authors argue that Chamorro and
Palauan illustrate the logical extension of the
claim by Keenan (1974) that functions may

agree with their arguments in that they
exhibit WH-agreement. The verb of a relative
clause or a constituent question may agree in

grammatical function with the gap controlled
by the head NP or the displaced interrogative
phrase. In these languages the morphology
which normally distinguishes realis/irrealis
mood is co-opted to signal agreement with

the grammatical function of a gap.
Clahsen, Harald. 1986. Verb inflections in German child
language: acquisition of agreement markings and the

functions they encode. Linguistics 24. 79-121.
Clahsen, Harald & Penke, Martina 1992. The acquisition of
agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New

evidence on German child language from the Simone-
corpus. In J. Meisel (ed.) The Acquisition of Verb Placement:
Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language

Acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 181-223.
Comrie, Bernard 1975. Polite plurals and predicate
agreement. Language 51. 406-418.
Comrie, Bernard 1980. Agreement, animacy and voice. In
Gunter Brettschneider and Christian Lehmann (eds.) Wege
zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beitrge

zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler (Tbinger Beitrge
zur Linguistik 145). Tbingen: Narr. 229234.
Comrie, Bernard 1982. Verb agreement in Ket. In H. I.
Aronson and B. J. Darden (eds.) Papers from the Second
Conference on the Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR. Folia

Slavica 5:1-3. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. 115-127.
Comrie, Bernard 1984a. Agreement as a Research Tool. In
Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on

Linguistics. The Ohio State University. September 28-30.
13-26.
Comrie, Bernard 1984b. Reflections on verb agreement in

Hindi and related languages. Linguistics 22. 857-864.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Reply to Saksena: Further reflections
on verb agreement in Hindi. Linguistics 23. 143-145.

Comrie, Bernard. 1997. The typology of predicate case
marking. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman and Sandra A.
Thompson (eds.) Essays on language function and language
type. Dedicated to T. Givn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Co. 39-50.
Topic: Case marking of predicate nominals in

copular constructions
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Latin, Finish, Basque,
Polish, Arabic, Oromo, Japanese, Mojave,

Ancient Greek, Icelandic, German.
Note: The author argues that there are two
possibilities for case assignment to predicate

nominals in copular constructions: case can
be assigned by government (by the copula)
which manifests itself as a difference
between the case of the subject and that of

the predicate nominal; case can also be
assigned by agreement, where the case of
the nominal predicate co-varies with that of

the subject. Such an analysis would have to
include case as a possible agreement feature.

Contini-Morava, Ellen. 1996. Things in a Noun-Class
Language. Semantic Functions of Agreement in Swahili. In E.

Andrews and Y. Tobin (eds.) Toward a Calculus of Meaning.
Studies in Markedness, Distinctive Features and Deixis.

Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 251-290.
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal
of Linguistics 15. 203-224.
Corbett, Greville G. and Mtenje, Alfred D. 1987. Gender
agreement in Chichewa. Studies in African Linguistics 18. 138.
Corbett, Greville G. 1995. Agreement. In Jacobs, Joachim,
von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann,

Theo (eds.) Syntax: ein internationales Handbuch
zeitgenssischer Forschung. (An International Handbook of

Contemporary Research) Vol. 2. Berlin. Walter de Gruyter.
1235-1244.
Corbett, Greville G. 1998. Morphology and Agreement . In
Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.) The Handbook
of Morphology. Blackwell Publisher. 191-205.
Corbett, Greville G. 1999. The place of agreement features

in a specification of possible agreement systems. In G.
Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on

Agreement. 211-223.
Note: Agreement features introduce greater

complexity into agreement systems than is
generally recognized. They may determine
the agreement domain (Dargi) and certain
combinations of feature values can rule out
particular sentence types (Tsakhur). Feature
interactions show three levels of complexity:

just the target may be involved (German), or
a computation of controller feature values
may be required (Slovene), or computation
may involve a covert feature (Miya). (author

abstract)
Corbett, Greville G. forthcoming a. Agreement: Terms and
boundaries. In William Griffin (ed.) "The Role of Agreement
in Natural Language": Proceedings of the 2001 Texas

Linguistic Society Conference. Austin, Texas. 2-4 March
2001.
Corbett, Greville G. forthcoming b. Agreement: Canonical

instances and the extent of the phenomenon. In Janet
DeCesaris, Geert Booij, Angela Ralli & Sergio Scalise (eds.)
Proceedings of the Third Mediterranean Morphology

Meeting, Barcelona 2001.
Cornish, Francis. 2000. Laccord, lanaphore et la rfrence:

quelques enjeux. In Martine Coene, Walter De Mulder,
Patrick Dendale & Yves DHulst (eds.) Traiani Augusti
vestigia pressa sequamur: Studia lingvistica in honorem

Lilianae Tasmowski. Padova: Unipress. 509-533.
Costa, Joo. 2001. Postverbal subjects and agreement in

unaccusative contexts in European Portuguese. The
Linguistic Review 18. Walter de Gruyter. 1-17.

Topic: postverbal subject agreement in
unaccusative contexts
Formal syntactic framework: OT

Language(s) cited: Colloquial European
Portuguese
Note: This article discusses cases of subjectpredicate agreement of postverbal subjects

of unaccusative verbs with the verb in
colloquial European Portuguese. Subjects of

unaccusatives in European Portuguese are
different from subjects of transitives and
intransitives in two respects. They are the
only allowed postverbal subjects in sentencefocus contexts (i.e. contexts in which all
elements of a sentence convey new
information), and leaving aside coordinated

subjects, they are the only postverbal
subjects that allow a not fully agreeing verb,
that is, in colloquial speech, it is possible for

plural subjects of unaccusative verbs in
postverbal position to trigger 3rd person
singular verb agreement. In this paper, Costa

proposes an analysis of the behavior of
subjects of unaccusative verbs in terms of

Case. It is proposed that in colloquial
European Portuguese, the argument of
unaccusatives is not obligatorily assigned

nominative case. This proposal is formalised.
Croft, William 1988. Agreement vs. Case Marking and Direct
Objects. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.)
Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories,

Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 159-179.
Topic: Markedness of direct objects.
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Swahili, Punjabi, Kunparlang, Kanuri, Hawaiian, Awa.
Note: The author examines the problem of
characterising the behaviour of direct objects
with respect to agreement and case-marking.

In the light of contradictory views as to the
marked/unmarked status of definite/animate

direct objects, the author proposes an
account based on the notion of relative
markedness. Agreement, which serves to

cross-reference salient arguments, will
always align itself with high animacy, high
definiteness and core grammatical relations.
Case marking typically denotes non-obvious

grammatical relations. Thus the presence of
agreement with a direct object implies that
the entity is less marked, while case marking

is associated with the lower end of the case
hierarchy, so the presence of case marking
on a direct object implies that the entity is
more marked. The natural correlation of
direct objects is with low animacy, low
definiteness and highly affected objects.

Culy, Christopher. 1996. Agreement and Fula Pronouns.
Studies in African Linguistics Volume 25, Number 1. 1-27.

Topic: agreement patterns of pronouns in
Fula
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Fula

Note: This paper is concerned with
agreement patterns exhibited by pronouns in

five varieties of Fula, a West Atlantic
language of Niger Congo. It focusses in
particular on un unusual type of agreement
which is exhibited by some pronouns in Fula,

i.e. agreement in pronominality. Like
pronouns in general, the class of pronouns

which refers to the 3rd person singular
human class, agrees in number, person, and

noun class with the elements they cospecify
with. However, in Fula, these pronouns can
only cospecify with another pronoun of that
class; they cannot cospecify with a full NP in
the same clause. Thus, if two such pronouns

occur within the same clause, they can be
coreferent or they can pick up their reference

external to the clause as normal
pronominals.
Dalmi, Grte 1998. On Object Agreement in Hungarian.
Working Papers in the Theory of Grammar, Vol 5. No 2.
Research Institute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of

Sciences. Budapest.
Topic: Object agreement in Hungarian

Formal syntactic framework: Principles and
Parameters
Language(s) cited: Hungarian, Turkish,

Palauan.
Note: The author examines subjective vs.
objective choice in verbal conjunctions and

offers an alternative account to that
proposed by Bartos (1996) [See Bartos (1997)

in this bibliography]. The proposal is that the
choice of agreement conjugation is motivated

by differences in movement distance of the
verbal head. Definite Object Agreement
involves Short Head Movement, while
Indefinite Object Agreement involves Long

Head Movement.
Dalrymple, Mary & Kaplan, Ronald M. 2000. Feature
indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76. 759798.
Delisle, Gilles L. 1973. Non-Standard Concord and the

Marking Hypothesis. Working Papers on Language
Universals, No 11, April 1973. Stanford University. 85-138.

Demuth, Katherine A. 1988. Noun Classes and Agreement in
Sesotho Acquisition. In Michael Barlow and Charles A.
Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language:
Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI
Topic: The acquisition of agreement marking.

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Sesotho
Note: The author presents the results of a
study into the acquisition of agreement in 4

children aged 2- 4. It appeared that the
children used nominal-modifier agreement
before the systematic marking of nouns, but

did not have most of the anticipated
problems of acquisition, such as
overgeneralization. The author speculates

that children appeared to focus not simply on
the nouns themselves but on the entire
nominal or verbal phrase with its agreement

information so that in Sosotho nouns are
learned in conjunction with their gender class

features, not in isolation. This is helped by
the phonological transparency of class
features within phrases.
Demuth, Katherine and Mark Johnson 1989. Interaction
between Discourse Functions and Agreement in Setawana.
Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 11: 21-35.

Deutsch, Avital and Shlomo Bentin 2001. Syntactic and
Semnatic Factors in Processing Gender Agreement in
Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and Eye Movements. Journal of
Memory and Language 45. 200-224.
Topic: gender agreement

Formal syntactic framework: interactive,
constraint-based models for online sentence

processing
Language(s) cited: Hebrew

Note: This paper discusses the interrelation
between syntactic analysis of agreement and

semantic processing by recording eye-
movement and event-related potentials
(ERPs). They test the hypothesis that if the

processing of agreement is sensitive to
semantic factors, then the interference effect
induced by the violation of agreement should

be greater for sentences in which the
sentential subject is animate than for thoses

sentences in which it is inanimate. The
results of the experiments support this.

Dikken, Marcel den 1999. On the structural representation
of possession and agreement: the case of (anti-)agreement
in Hungarian possessed nominal phrases. In Istvn Kenesei
(ed.) Crossing Boundaries: Advances in the Theory of
Central and Eastern European Languages (=Amsterdam

Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science,
Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory volume 182),

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 137-178.
Dikken, Marcel den. 2001. Pluringulars, pronouns and

quirky agreement. Linguistic Review 18. 19-41.
Dingwall, William, O. 1969. Government, Concord and

Feature-Change Rules. Glossa 3:2. 210-240.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1977. Semantic Neutralization for
Phonological Reasons. Linguistic Inquiry. Vol 8. No 3. 599602.
Topic: lack of agreement in English

Note: This squib discusses cases where
agreement is suspended in colloquial English.

For example, plural nouns in English must
select the copula form are (re) in preference

to is. However, in a where-sentence the
reduced copula s can also be used as an
alternative to re/are because re/are would
be phonologically disharmonious with the

preceding question word where. An
analogous case concerns the use of are
instead of am before nt in sentences like
Arent I silly.
Dobrin, Lise M. 1995. Theoretical consequences of literal

alliterative concord. In Audra Dainora, Rachel Hemphill,
Barbara Luka, Barbara Need and Sheri Pargman (eds.) CLS
31: Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago

Linguistic Society: I: The Main Session. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistic Society. 127-142.
Dobrin, Lise M. 1998. The morphosyntactic reality of
phonological form. In: Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.)
Yearbook of Morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 59-81.

Donohue, Mark 1998. A note on verbal agreement in
Maung. Australian Journal of Linguistics 18. 73-89.

Dorel, Martine & Sezer, Engin 1981. Discourse conditions
and gender smearing in French. In William Cressey and
Donna Jo Napoli (eds.) Linguistic Symposium on Romance
Languages: 9. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

197-215.
Doron, Edit. 1988. On the Complementarity of Subject and

Subject-Verb Agreement. In Michael Barlow and Charles A.

Topic: Null subjects and pro-drop.

Formal syntactic framework: Government and
Binding
Language(s) cited: Irish, Welsh, Chamorro,

Hebrew
Note: The author explores the null subject
phenomena in the languages cited above. In

Irish person and number inflection is
incompatible with a lexical subject, in Welsh

such inflection is incompatible with nonpronominal NPs, while in Chamorro it is
incompatible with overt pronouns. Hebrew
patterns like Chamorro. The author presents

data in support of the claim that the null
subject in Hebrew obtains only when the
pronoun is in a clitic configuration, a
particular configuration where the features of

the complement are all contained in the
features of the head. In a clitic configuration,
Case is assigned to the clitic on the head and

thus the heads features are phonetically
realised, not the complements features.
Thus a phonetically overt pronoun
complement would violate the Case Filter. In

Celtic languages, on the other hand, the
complementarity of inflection and overt
subjects is due to their having incorporated
subject pronouns. They are not null-subject

languages.
Dowty, David and Pauline Jacobson 1988. Agreement as a

Semantic Phenomenon. In Joyce Powers and Kenneth de
Jong (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States

Conference on Linguistics. Ohio State University. 95-108.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Doleschal, Ursula. 1990-91.
Gender agreement via derivational morphology. Acta
Linguistica Hungarica 40. 115-137.
Driem, George van 1991. Tangut verbal agreement and the
patient category in Tibeto-Burman. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 54. 520-534.
Driem, George van 1993. The Proto-Tibeto-Burman verbal

agreement system. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 56. 292-334.
Eberhard, Kathleen M. 1997. The marked effect of number
on subject-verb agreement. Journal of Memory and
Language 36. 2. 147-164.
Eid, Mushira. 1992. Pronouns, Questions and Agreement. In
Ellen Broselow, Mushira Eid, and John McCarthy Perspectives
on Arabic Linguistics IV. Papers from the Fourth Annual

Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. 107-141.
England, John 1976. Dixo Rachel E Vidas: Subject-Verb
Agreement in Old Spanish. The Modern Language Review.

Vol 71. No 4. 812-826.
Enrique-Arias, Andrs. 2002. Accounting for the position of

verbal agreement morphology with psycholinguistic and
diachronic explanatory factors. Studies in Language 26.1-
31.
Evans, Nicholas. 1999. Why argument affixes in

polysynthetic languages are not pronouns: evidence from
Bininj Gun-wok. Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung. Berlin 52, 3/4. 255-281.

Topic: the status of verbal markers
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Bininj Gun-wok
Note: In this paper, Nicholas Evans argues
that accounts of polysynthetic structure
which simply see polysynthetic languages as

verbs whose arguments are directly
represented on the verb are inaccurate, and

will be driven to forced and unnatural
accounts for a whole range of construction

types in which object affixes do not
correspond to free personal pronouns. With
examples from Bininj Gun-wok, he illustrates

that argument prefixes can be used to
represent objects in a range of circumstances

where free personal pronouns would be
inappropriate, such as generic objects,
indefinite and certain non-referential objects

Faarlund, Jan Terje 1977. Embedded clause reduction and
Scandinavian gender agreement. Journal of Linguistics 13.

239-257.
Fabri, Ray 1993. The Subject Agreement Paradigm in

Classical Arabic. Theorie des Lexikons, Arbeiten des
Sonderforschungsbereich 282, No 38. Heinrich Heine
Universitt, Dsseldorf. 1-32.
Farkas, Donka & Ojeda, Almerindo 1983. Agreement and

coordinate NPs. Linguistics 21. 659673.
Farkas, Donka F. and Zec, Draga 1995. Agreement and
pronominal reference. In Guglielmo Cinque and Giuliana
Giusti (eds.) Advances in Roumanian Linguistics (Linguistik

Aktuell 10), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 83-101.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader 1981. Thorie lexicale-
fonctionnelle, contrle et accord en arabe moderne. Arabica

28. 299-332.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader 1988. Agreement in Arabic, Binding

and Coherence. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson
(eds.) Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches,

Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 107-
158.
Topic: Possible agreement systems

Formal syntactic framework: LexicalFunctional Grammar
Language(s) cited: Standard Arabic

Note: The author discusses three hypotheses
of agreement systems arising from
approaches to the nature of the verbal affix

in pro drop languages: the agreement
hypothesis, the incorporation hypothesis and
the non-pronominal theory. He rejects the GB

characterisation of pro drop as involving
strict feature matching between AGR and pro.

Affixes in Arabic can be pronominal or
nonpronominal and so some have two lexical

entries, depending upon whether they occur
with non-pronominal NPs or with pronouns.
He distinguishes 3 types of agreement which

are defined in terms of their domains at f-
structure: Type I "internal" agreement, where

the agreement domain is the f-structure
containing a predicate and its subcategorised

functions; Type II agreement, where the f-
structure is a larger domain and agreement
with modifiers and adjuncts is possible; and

Type III "external agreement" in which the
controller is external to the f-structure of the

target. The author then illustrates the
different binding relations associated with

each type.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1973. Cyclic attraction into networks of

coreference. Language 49. 1-18.
Fayol, Michel, Largy, Pierre & Lemaire, Patrick 1994.
Cognitive overload and orthographic errors: when cognitive

overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors: a study
in French written language. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology 47A. 437-464.
Ferguson, Charles A. 1996. Variation and drift: loss of

agreement in Germanic. In Gregory R. Guy et al. (eds.)
Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of

William Labov: Vol 1, Variation and change in language and
society. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 173-198.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1985. Ergativity, number, and

agreement. In Mary Niepokuj, Mary VanClay, Vassiliki
Nikiforidou, and Deborah Feder (eds.) Proceedings of the
Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.

Berkeley, California. 96-106.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1997. Pronouns and agreement:
systems interaction in the coding of reference. In Hans
Bennis, Pierre Pica and Johan Rooryck (eds.) Atomism and
Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 115-140.
Francis, W.N. 1968. Proximity concord in English. Journal of
English Linguistics 19. 309-318.
Frascarelli, Mara 1999. Subject, nominative case, agreement

and focus. In Lunella Mereu (ed.) Boundaries of morphology
and syntax (Series: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 180).
Friedman, Victor A. 1996. Gender, Class, and Age in the
Daghestanian Highlands: Towards a Unified Account of the

Morphology of Agreement in Lak. In Howard I. Aronson (ed.)
NSL.8: Linguistic Studies in the Non-Slavic Languages of the

Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic
Republics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 187-199.
Gair, James W. & Wali, Kashi. 1989. Hindi agreement as
anaphor. Linguistics 27. 45-70.
Gallmann, Peter 1990. Kategoriell komplexe Wortformen.
Das Zusammanwirken von Morphologie und Syntax bei der

Flexion von Nomen und Adjektiv. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer
Verlag.
Note: Includes information about (non) agreement of nouns

with their modifiers, and the (non) agreement of nouns in
apposition/juxtaposition to other nouns. (See also Lindauer

1995, Schachtl 1989).
Galves, Charlotte 1998. Topics, Subjects, Pronouns and
Agreement in Brazilian Portuguese (Original Title: Topicos,
sujeitos, pronomes e concordancia no Portugues Brasileiro)
Cadernos de Estudos Linguisticos 34. Jan-June. 19-31.
Gavarr, Anna. 2002. Failure to agree in agrammatism. In
Elisabetta Fava Clinical Linguistics: Theory and Applications
in Speech Pathology and Therapy. (Series: Current Issues in

Linguistic Theory 227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 267278.
Gelderen, Elly van 1992. Arguments without number: the

case of it and het. Linguistics 30. 381-387.
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. A and A' agreement. Lingua 85.

135-169.
Gil, David 2001. Noun-phrase types and the number

marking of anaphors. Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung 54. 3-25.
Givn, Talmy. 1970. The resolution of gender conflicts in

Bantu conjunction: When syntax and semantics clash.
Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic

Society, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 250-261.
Givn, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical
agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.) Subject and topic, 14988.
New York: Academic Press.
Green, Georgia M. 1984. Why Agreement Must be Stipulated

for There-Insertion. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda &
McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL 84: Proceedings of the First
Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio:

Ohio State University. 27-34.
Gross, Maurice. 1974. A remark about plural agreement
between determiner and noun. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 620-
622.
Hall, Katherine 1984. Split-Ergativity in the Dekwana (Carib)

Pronominal Agreement System. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie,
Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL 84: Proceedings of the
First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus,

Ohio: Ohio State University. 35-45.
Hallman, Peter. 2000. The structure of agreement failure in
Lebanese Arabic. In: Roger Billerey and Brook Danielle
Lillehaugen (eds) WCCFL 19: Proceedings of the 19th West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville:
Cascadilla Press. 178-190.
Harris, Alice. 1978. Number agreement in Modern Georgian.

In Bernard Comrie (ed.) Classification of grammatical
categories (=International Review of Slavic Linguistics 3, 12), Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc. 75-98.
Harris, Alice C. 1994. Ergative-to-nominative shift in
agreement: Tabassaran. In Howard I. Aronson (ed.) NSL 7:

Linguistic Studies in the Non-Slavic Languages of the
Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic
Republics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 113-131.
Harris, Alice C. 1981 .N-agreement: in Old Georgian.. In:
Bernard Comrie (ed.), Studies in the Languages of the USSR.
Edmonston: Linguistic Research. [Reprinted 1983 in: Papers
in Linguistics 16.121-146.]
Harris, Alice C. 1984 .Case marking, verb agreement:, and
inversion in Udi. In: David M. Perlmutter and Carol G. Rosen

(eds) Studies in Relational Grammar, II, 243-258. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Harris, James W. 1987. Disagreement rules, referral rules

and the Spanish feminine article el. Journal of Linguistics
23. 177-183.
Haspelmath, Martin 1999. Long distance agreement in
Godoberi (Daghestanian) complement clauses. In G. Corbett

(ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on Agreement.
131-151.
Note: The term long distance agreement is

used here for a construction in which the
complement-taking verb agrees with an
argument of its complement clause. Long
distance agreement in gender occurs with

certain complement-taking verbs in
Godoberi, a Nakh-Daghestanian language.

This kind of agreement is quite unusual
cross-linguistically, and unexpected also
from the point of view of current theories of

agreement. While Daghestanian agreement
syntax is unusual in several other respects as

well, I show in this paper that long-distance
agreement in Godoberi is not as "exotic" as it

appears at first sight. The complement-
taking verbs with which it occurs are those

that commonly occur in clause-union
constructions in other languages, and a
similar analysis is proposed for Godoberi

here. In this perspective, long distance
agreement can be taken as one symptom of

incipient grammaticalization of the
complement-taking verbs. I cite parallels

from other languages and end with a brief
general discussion of the role of
grammaticalization in the diachronic spread

of agreement to new targets. (author
abstract)
Hayward, Richard J. 1998. The origins of the North Ometo
verb agreement systems. Journal of African Languages and
Linguistics 19. Walter de Gruyter. 93-111.
Hazen, Kirk (2000) Subject-Verb Concord in a Postinsular
Dialect. Journal of English Linguistics, Vol. 28, No. 2. 127144.
Topic: Diachronic language change

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Ocracoke English (North
Carolina)
Note: The paper describes a survey of
subject-verb agreement in18 ancestral

islanders of Ocracoke. It describes the
superstratum and substratum dialects 18th

century British English and 18th century
Scots-Irish English respectively. The use of
nonstandard 3rd singular concord with plural
subjects is attributed to a two major factors:

coordinated NP subjects and proximity to
subject, while inflectional s was rarely found

with plural pronouns. This behaviour is
attributed to dialect contact in 17th and 18th

centuries and a persistence of the substrate
dialect in modern speakers.
Heath, Jeffrey G. 1997. Lost wax: abrupt replacement of key

morphemes in Australian agreement complexes.
Diachronica 14. 2. fall. 197-232.
Heine, Bernd. 2000. Grammaticalization chains across
languages: An example from Khoisan. In: Spike Gildea (ed.)
Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative linguistics and

grammaticalization, 177-199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[Published version of: Heine, Bernd. 1997. On gender
agreement in Central Khoisan (Khoisan Forum at the Institut

fr Afrikanistik, University of Cologne, Germany, Working
paper 4). Cologne: Institut fr Afrikanistik, Universitt. zu

Kln.]
Helmbrecht, J. 1996. The syntax of person agreement in

East Caucasian languages Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung 49. 127-148.
Hetzron, Robert 1967. Agaw numerals and incongruence in

Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies. Vol 12. No 2. 169-197.
Hetzron, Robert 1972. Phonology in Syntax. Journal of
Linguistics 8. 251-265.
Hetzron, Robert 1973. Conjoining and comitativization in

Hungarian - a study of rule ordering. Foundations of
Language 10. 493-507.
Hetzron, Robert 1974. Extrinsic Ordering in Classical Arabic.

In Robert Hetzron and Santa Barbara (eds.) Afriasiatic
Linguistics. Vol 1. Issue 3. (Monographic Journals of the
Near East). Udena Publications. 1-20.
Hetzron, Robert 1995. Genitival Agreement in Awngi:
Variation on an Afroasiatic Theme. In Frans Plank (ed.)
Double case: agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York, NY:

Oxford U Press Inc., 1995, 325-335.
Hewitt, Steve 2002. The impersonal in Breton. Journal of
Celtic Linguistics 7. 1-39.
Hoeksema, Jack 1986. Some theoretical consequences of
Dutch complementizer agreement. In Vassiliki Nikiforidou,

Mary VanClay and Mary Niepokij, Deborah Feder (eds.)
Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley

Linguistics Society. 147-158.
Holmberg, Anders. 2001. Expletives and Agreement in
Scandinavian Passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic
Hongkai, Sun 1995. A further discussion on verb agreement

in Tibeto-Burman languages. In Yoshio Nishi, James A.
Matisoff, &Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.). New Horizons in Tibeto-
Burman Morphosyntax (Senri Ethnological Studies 41), 1729. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
Hook, Peter Edwin and Dayashankar M. Joshi 1991.
Concordant Adverbs and Postpositions in Gujarati. Indian
Hoyt, Frederick. 2002. Impersonal agreement as a specificity

effect in rural Palestinian Arabic. In: Delworth B. Parkinson &
Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.) Perspectives on Arabic
Linguistics XIII-XIV: Papers from the Thirteenth and

Fourteenth Annual Symposia on Arabic Linguistics (Current
Issues in Linguistic Theory 230). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. 111-141.
Hudson, Richard 1999. Subject-verb agreement in English.
English Language and Linguistics 3. 173-207.
Hulk, Aafke and Tellier, Christine 1999. Conflictual
agreement in Romance nominals. In J.-Marc Authier,
Barbara E. Bullock & Lisa Reed (eds.) Formal Perspectives on
Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the 28th

Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXVIII),
University Park, 16-19 April 1998 (Current Issues in
Iatridou, Sabine 1990. About AgrP. Linguistic Inquiry 21.

551-577.
Ingham, Richard 1998. Tense Without Agreement in Early
Clause Structure. Language Acquisition 7(1).51-81.

Jacobssen, Bengt 1990. Subject-verb concord in equative
sentences in English. Studia Linguistica 44. 30-58.
Jake, Janice L. 1980. Object Verb Agreement in Tigre. In
Kisseberth, Charles W., Braj B. Kachru and Jerry L. Morgan

(eds.) Studies in the Linguistic Sciences. Vol. 10. No 1.
Urbana, Illinois: Department of Linguistics, University of

Illinois. 71-84.
Janda, Richard D. & Varela-Garca, Fabiola. 1991. On lateral

hermaphroditism and other variation in Spanish "feminine"
el. In Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols & Rosa M. Rodrguez.

(eds) CLS 27: Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society 1991: Part I The General Session,
276-290. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Janda, Richard D. 1995. From Agreement Affix to Subject

"Clitic" and Bound Root: -mos > -nos vs. (-)nos(-) and
nos-otros in New Mexican and other Regional Spanish
Dialects. In Audra Dainora, Rachel Hemphill, Barbara Luka,

Barbara Need & Sheri Pargman (eds.) CLS 31: Papers from
the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society:

Volume II: The Parasession on Clitics. Chicago: Chicago
Johns, Alana 1996. The Occasional Absence of Anaphoric

Agreement in Labrador Inuttut. In J. Black and V.
Motapanyane (eds.) Microparametric Syntax and Dialect
Variation. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Series IV. Vol.
139. John Benjamins. Amsterdam-Philadelphia. 121-143.
Kail, Michle and Dominique Bassano 1997. Verb Agreement

Processing in French: A Study Of On-line Grammaticality
Judgments. Language and Speech. 40(1). 25-46.
Kaiser, Georg A. 1994. More about INFL-ection and

Agreement: The Acquisition of Clitic Pronouns in French. In
Jrgen M. Meisel (ed.) Bilingual First Language Acquisition;
French and German Grammatical Development. Language
Acquisition and Language Disorders Vol. 7. John Benjamins.

Amsterdam-Philadelphia. 131-159.
Kllstrm, Roger 1977. Agreement Rules for Swedish Noun
Phrases. In sten Dahl (ed.) Logic, Pragmatics and
Grammar. University of Gteborg. 267-295.
Kllstrm, Roger 1995. Language universals, linguistic
typology, and Nordic agreement. In Allwood, Jens et al.
(eds.) Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the Nordic
Languages and Modern Linguistics & the Scandinavian

Conference of Linguistics. General session, vol. 1.187-201.
Kathman, David 1995. Verb Agreement and Grammatical

Relations. In Burgess, Clifford S., Dziwirek, Katarzyna, &
Gerdts, Donna (eds.) Grammatical Relations: Theoretical
Approaches to Empirical Questions. Stanford, CA: Center
Study Language & Information. 153-170.
Kathol, Andreas 1999. Agreement and the Syntax-
Morphology Interface in HPSG. In Robert Levine and Georgia

Green (eds.) Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure
Grammar. Cambridge University Press. 223-274.
Kayne, Richard 1995. Agreement in three English dialects. In

H. Haider, S. Olsen & S. Vikner (eds.) Studies in Comparative
Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 159-165.
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 1999. Licnoe soglasovanie v lakskom

jazyke: markirovannost i nejtralizacija. In Ekaterina V.
Raxilina & Jakov G. Testelec (eds.). Tipologija i teorija
jazyka: Ot opisanija k objasneniju: K 60-letiju Aleksandra

Evgenevica Kibrika. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kultury. 383-
399.
Keach Camillia N. 1995. Subject and Object Markers as

Agreement and Pronoun Incorporation in Swahili. In
Akinbuyi Akinlabi (ed.) Theoretical Approaches to African
Linguistics (Trends in African Linguistics 1). Trenton NJ:
Africa World Press. 109-116.
Topic: pronominal affixes

Formal syntactic framework: GB
Language(s) cited: Swahili
Note: Keach investigates the functions of
subject and object marking in Swahili
drawing on work by Bresnan and Mchombo

(1987) on Chichewa. Keach concludes that
Swahili and Chichewas SM (subject marker)

have identical functions, that of PI
(Incorporated Pronoun) and agreement.
However, the languages depart with respect
to the behavior of their OMs (object marker),

which is far more complicated in Swahili.
Swahili allocates the PI and agreement
function to animate objects and reserves for

inanimate objects the unambiguous PI
function. The OM is obligatory for animate

objects and optional for inanimates. In the
case of inanimates the OM permits a definite
or specific interpretation of the inanimate NP.

Keenan, Edward L. 1978. On Surface Form and Logical Form.
In Braj B. Kachru (ed.) Linguistics in the Seventies: Directions
and Prospects. Forum Lextures Presented at the 1978

Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America.
(Special issue of Studies in the Linguistic Sciences Vol 8. No

2. Fall 1978. Department of Linguistics. University of
Illinois. 163-203.
Keeney, Terrence J. & Wolfe, Jean. 1972. The acquisition of
agreement in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior 11. 698-705.
Kerke, Simon van de 1996. Agreement in Quechua: Evidence

against Distributed Morphology. In Cremers, Crit, & Den
Dikken, Marcel (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996.

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977. O sootnoenii ponjatija
sintaksiceskogo podcinenija s ponjatijami soglasovanija,

upravlenija i primykanija. In Problemy teoreticeskoj i
cksperimentalnoj lingvistiki: Sbornik statej (Publikacii
otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki, under the
general editorship of V. A. Zvegincev, vyp. 8), 161-179.

Slightly amended version in Aleksandr E. Kibrik 1992.
Ocerki po obcim i prikladnym voprosam jazykoznanija

(universalnoe, tipovoe i specificnoe v jazyke). Moscow:
Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo universiteta. 102-123.
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1985. Toward a typology of ergativity.
In Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.) Grammar
inside and outside the clause. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. 268-323.
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1995. Direct-Oblique Agreement of
Attributes in Daghestanian. In Frans Plank (ed.) Double case:
agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York, NY: Oxford U
Press Inc. 216-229.
Killean, Carolyn G. 1968. Interesting features of gender-
number concord in Modern Literary Arabic. CLS 4. 40-49.

Koizumi, Masatoshi 1993. Object Agreement Phrases and
the Split VP Hypothesis. In Jonathan D. Bobaljik and Colin
Phillips Papers on Case and Agreement. I (=MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 18). Cambridge, MA.: Department of

Linguistics, MIT.
Kulikov, Leonid. 1999. Agreement patterns in Abkhaz

masdar forms. In Helma van den Berg (ed.) Studies in
Caucasian Linguistics: Selected Papers of the Eighth

Caucasian Colloquium. Leiden: Research School CNWS,
Universiteit Leiden. 209-221.
Lapointe, Steven G.1983. A comparison of two recent
theories of agreement. In John F. Richardson, Mitchell Marks

& Amy Chukerman (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on
the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 122-
134. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lapointe, Steven G. 1984. Cooccurrence and Agreement in
Norwegian Noun Phrases. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda

& McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL 84: Proceedings of the First
Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio:

Lapointe, Steven G. 1988. Toward a Unified Theory of
Agreement. In Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson
(eds.) Agreement in natural language: approaches, theories,
descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 67-87.

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Note: The author presents a theory of
agreement which updates that offered in

Lapointe (1980, 1981). Using a modified
version of the Barwise and Cooper (1981)
logic for generalised quantifiers, the author
explores the mechanisms by which agreeing

elements are linked to each other in syntactic
structures.
Lapointe, Steven G. 1996. Review article on Agreement and
anti-agreement: A syntax of Luiseo. By Susan Steele.
Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990. Pp. xi, 446. Language 72. 372379.
Lawler, John M. 1975. On coming to terms in Achenese: The

function of verbal disagreement. In Robin E. Grossman, L.
James San, Timothy J. Vance. CLS 1975. Papers from the

Parasession on Functionalism. 398-408.
Lawler, John M. 1977. A agrees with B in Achenese: a
problem for relational grammar. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan
(eds.) Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations, 219248. New York: Academic Press.
Legate, Julie Anne 1999. The Morphosyntax of Irish
Agreement.In Karlos Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia

Krause, and Vivian Lin (eds.) MITWPL 33, Papers on
Morphology and Syntax, Cycle One. Cambridge MA.

Note: Uses Distributed Morphology to analyse
why agreement morphology and overt
arguments are in complementary distribution

in Irish. Key proposals are: (i) Vocabulary
insertion proceeds top-down and root-out,

(ii) the Invisibility Condition--features
unrealized by a Vocabulary item are deleted.)

(author abstract from website)
Lehmann, Christian 1982 Universal and typological aspects
of agreement. In Hansjakob Seiler/Franz Joseph Stachowiak

(eds.) Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von
Gegenstnden Teil 2 Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhang

in Einzelsprachen. 201-267.
Lehmann, Christian 1988. On the Function of Agreement. In
Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in
natural language: approaches, theories, descriptions.

Stanford: CSLI Publications. 55-65.
Topic: The function of agreement.

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Latin, Dyirbal, Abkhaz,
Russian, German, Hungarian, Swahili, French,

Nahuatl.
Note: The author examines the role of
agreement in language. His basic thesis is

that agreement is referential in nature. Its
primary function is to identify or reidentify

referents by giving information about the
grammatical properties of its referent. The
author distinguishes between two different

types of agreement - internal agreement
and external agreement. Internal agreement

is adnominal agreement (including
determiners, adjectives, numerals, possessive

pronouns) and may involve the category of
case but never of person. It expresses
coreference of the agreeing word with other

words belonging to the same NP. External
agreement (e.g. argument-verb agreement

and possessor-possessum agreement)
involves the category of person, but not of

case and expresses reference to an NP
which specifies the meaning of the agreeing

word.
Lehmann, Christian. 1993. Kongruenz. In Jacobs, Joachim et

al. (eds.), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch. Berlin: W.
de Gruyter (Handbcher der Sprach- und
Kommunikationswissenschaft, 9). 722-729.

Lindauer, Thomas 1995. Genitivattribute. Eine
morphosyntaktische Untersuchung zum deutschen DP/NPSystem. Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Note: Specialist study within the framework
of Gallmann 1990 on genitive case marked
NPs, including some discussion of
(non)agreement of modifiers and nouns in
apposition/juxtaposition. (See also Schachtl
1989).
Lorenzo, Guillermo 1997. On the Exceptional Placement of
AgrO Morphology in Machiguenga: A Short Note on Baker's
Polysynthesis Parameter. Linguistics. 35. 5(351). 929-938.
Luraghi, Silvia 1993. La modificazione nominale nelle lingue

anatoliche. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 78/2. 144-166.
Luraghi, Silvia 1994. Suffix copying and related phenomena:

A prototype approach. Linguistics 32. 1095-1108
Note: Inflected genitives (i.e. NP's with suffix copying) found

in Old Georgian and in some languages of Australia are
compared with case attraction (i.e. agreement of a nominal

modifier with its head noun, Classical Armenian) and
genitival adjectives (Luwian). These types of NP imply nonprototypical distribution of inflectional and derivational
features among morphemes. The occurrence of such
constructions is further shown to be related to
morphological types (fusional vs. agglutinative). It is argued

that the NP's under discussion create difficulties in
perception, brought about by non-prototypicality. (Author

abstract)
Lyons, Christopher 1990. An agreement approach to clitic
doubling. Transactions of the Philological Society 88. 1-57.

Mahajan, Anoop Kumar 1989. Agreement and Agreement
Phrases. In Laka Maftajan (ed.) MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics. Vol 10. 217-252.
Mahfoudhi, Abdessatar. 2002. Agreement lost: agreement

regained: A minimalist account of word order and
agreement variation in Arabic. California Linguistic Notes

27, no. 2.1-28.
Mallen, Enrique 1997. A Minimalist Approach to Concord in

Noun Phrases. Theoretical Linguistics. 23. 1-2. 49-77.
Malln, Enrique. 1997. Agreement and null subjects in
Germanic and Romance. In: Irmengard Rauch & Gerald F.
Carr (eds.) Insights in Germanic Linguistics II: Classic and
Contemporary (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and
Monographs 94), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 155-174.

Marantz, Alec 1984. Predicting Ergative Agreement with
Transitive Auxiliaries. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda &

McCoy, Terry (eds.) 1984. ESCOL 84: Proceedings of the

Marchese, Lynell 1988. Noun Classes and Agreement
Systems in Kru: A Historical Approach. In Michael Barlow

and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in natural
language: approaches, theories, descriptions. Stanford: CSLI
Topic: The development of class and

agreement marking in Kru.
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Eastern and Western Kru

languages
Note: The author attempts to reconstruct the

noun class suffixes of the proto language.
The synchronic variation between the
agreement systems is examined and it is

observed that while external (anaphoric)
agreement is maintained, internal agreement

is being lost in stages. The author observes
that Godi (E.Kru) appears to be in the
process of reinventing class markers through

reanalysis of pronouns via definiteness
markers which are suffixed to the noun.
McCloskey, James 1991. There, It and Agreement. Linguistic

Inquiry Vol 22. No 3. 563-567.
Topic: agreement in expletive-argument

structures

Note: This squib discusses differences in
agreement in expletive-argument structures
with there and it. Expletive-NP chains headed

by there regularly exhibit agreement between
the verb and the postverbal argument,
whereas expletive it never exhibits such
agreement, even in conditions in which the

semantic condition governing plural
agreement with clauses is otherwise met, i.e.

the conjoined propositions are contradictory
or incompatible. Therefore, the author
concludes that there is no expletive-
argument link in constructions that contain

an it pleonastic.
Meisel, Jrgen M. 1994. Getting FAT: Finiteness, Agreement

and Tense in Early Grammars. In Jrgen M. Meisel (ed.)
Bilingual First Language Acquisition. Language Acquisition

and Language Disorders. Vol 7. 89-129.
Meluk, Igor 1993. Agreement, Government and
Congruence. Lingvisticae Investigationes XVII:2 307-373
Mereu, Lunella 1997. For a lexical-functional representation

of agreement affixes and clitics. In Miriam Butt and Tracy
Holloway King (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference.

CSLI Publications.
Topic: Pronominal agreement

Formal syntactic framework: Lexical
Functional Grammar.
Language(s) cited: Italian, Irish, Italian

dialects (Trentino, Fiorentino)
Note: The author treats pronominal clitics
and inflectional affixes as members of the

same category CL/AFF. She distinguishes
between 3 functions of CL/AFF: (a) AGR
forms (eg. personal endings in Italian); (b)
pronominal forms (eg. pronominal clitics in

Italian or French or personal endings in
synthetic verb forms in Irish); (c) ambiguous

between the two (eg. subject markers in
Chichewa). She uses three diagnostic tests to

determine which of the three functions the
CL/AFF has in different languages: (i)
cooccurrence with lexical NPs; (ii) obligatory

vs. optional use; (iii) use of resumptive
pronouns in long-distance relative clauses.

Her conclusion is in line with Bresnan and
Mchombos (1987) distinction between
grammatical and anaphoric agreement with

the addition to the typology of CL/AFFs
behaving exclusively as subject AGR forms.

Mereu, Lunella 1999. Agreement, pronominalization and
word order in pragmatically-oriented languages. In Lunella

Mereu (ed.) Boundaries of morphology and syntax (Current
Issues in Linguistic Theory 180). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. 231-250.
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2000. The emergence of creole subject
verb agreement and the licensing of null subjects. Language
Variation and Change 12. 203-230.
Mitchell, T. F. 1973. Aspects of Concord Revisited with
Special Reference to Sindhi and Cairene Arabic. Archivum
Linguisticum 4. 27-50.
Mitchell, Erika 1994. When AgrO Is Fused to AgrS: What
Morphology can tell us about the Functional Categories. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics, 1994, 22, July, 111-130.
Mithun, Marianne. 1985. Disagreement: the case of
pronominal affixes and nouns. In Deborah Tannen & James

E. Alatis (eds.) Georgetown Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics 1985: Languages and Linguistics: The

Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application.
Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. 50-66.

Mohammad, M. A. 1990. The problem of subject-verb
agreement in Arabic: Towards a solution. In Eid, Mushira

(ed.). Perspectives on Arabic linguistics 1. Amsterdam:
Benjamins. 95-125.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1974. Object-verb agreement. Working
Papers on Language Universals 13. 25-140.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978a. Agreement. In Joseph H
Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Human Language: IV: Syntax.
Stanford University Press. Stanford California. 331-374.
Topic: grammatical agreement

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Note: The purpose of this paper is to present
some crosslinguistically valid informal
generalisations concerning grammatical

agreement. Agreement in this paper is
defined as: a grammatical constituent A is

said to agree with a grammatical constituent
B in properties C in language L if C is a set of

meaning-related properties of A and there is
no covariance relationship between C and
some phonological properties of a
constituent B1 across some subset of the
sentences of language L, where constituent

B1 is adjacent to constituent B and the only
meaning-related non-categorial properties of

constituent B1 are the properties C. In this
definition, A and B are the agreeing
constituents; constituent B1 is called the
agreement marker; and the properties C are

calles the agreement features. The paper
focusses on the following questions: given
the set of sentences in a language that has

agreement, what are the meaning-related
and form-related properties of those
constituents that are in agreement relation

with each other as opposed to those that are
not, and what are the properties with respect

to which they agree that is to say, what are
the agreement features? On the basis of this
working definition and these two questions, a

crosslinguistic survey of three types of
agreement features gender, number, and

person is presented followed by some
crosslinguistic generalisations about
agreeing constituents. Discussion centers on

those instances only where the agrees-with
constituent is a nominal or a noun phrase.
The theory according to which agreement
markers and anaphoric pronouns are
grammatically derived by the same types of
rules is informally shown to be predictive of

some of the restrictions observed both in
respect to agreement features and agreeing

constituents.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978b. On the distribution of ergative

and accusative patterns. Lingua 45. 233-279.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1988. Agreement and Markedness. In
Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions.
Topic: agreement and markedness

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Lebanese Arabic, Swahili,
Hungarian, German, Russian, French.
Note: The author draws on the concept of

agreement from Lehmann (1982) and
considers how it interacts with Greenbergs
(1966) theory of markedness. Agreement can

be seen to involve increased structure a
symptom of markedness. Markedness theory

makes five predictions: (a) the controllers of
agreement should be the more marked; (b)
unmarked terms should preferentially agree

over marked ones; (c) in competition the
unmarked feature should prevail; (d) markers

that represent a more marked category value
should be more complex in form; (e)
agreement should be more likely to occur in

construction types that are marked. The
author concludes that the predictions of
markedness theory do hold for agreement,

though she presents several examples which
run counter to its predictions and calls for a
more refined version of the theory.
Morgan, Jerry L. 1972. Verb agreement as a rule of English.

In Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, and Gloria C. Phares
(eds.) Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society. 278-286.
Morgan, Jerry L. 1984. Some problems of agreement in
English and Albanian. In C. Brugman et al (eds.) Proceedings
of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics

Society. Vol 10. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 233-
247.
Morgan, Jerry L. 1984. Some Problems of Determination in

English Number Agreement. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie,

Munn, Alan 1999. First Conjunct Agreement: Against a

Clausal Analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30.4. 421-446.
Munro, Pamela 1980. Types of Agreement in Mojave.
Occasional Papers on Linguistics. Southern Illinois

University. Vol 7. 1-14.
Murphy, M. Lynne 1997. Agreement as non-directional: an

approach to Bantu concord. In Robert K. Herbert (ed.)
African Linguistics at the Crossroads: Papers from

Kwaluseni, 1st World Congress of African Linguistics,
Swaziland, 18-22.7.1994. Cologne: Rdiger Kppe. 221237.
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1975. A global agreement phenomenon.
Naro, Anthony Julius 1981. The social and structural
dimensions of a syntactic change. Language 57. 63-98

Naro, Anthony Julius & Maria Marta Pereira Scherre 2000.
Variable Concord in Portuguese: the situation in Brazil and

Portugal. In Language Change and Language Contact in
Pidgins and Creoles, livro organizado por John McWhorter.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 236-255.
Nathan, Geoffrey S. 1981. Whats These Facts About?
Linguistic Inquiry. Vol 12 No 1. 151-153.
Topic: lack of agreement in English

Note: This squib is a follow-up on Dixons

(1977) squib. Nathan points out that the
phenomenon discussed by Dixon is far more

wide-spread. s for are/re can even be used
in where-sentences when there is material
between the wh-word and the verb, and it
can also be used with other wh-words (e.g.
how). Nathan gives the following analysis:
"the contracted form of the verb be may be

used in singular when the subject is in the
plural, but only when in a wh-question, and
only when the verb in question is the copula,

not when it is an auxiliary".
Newman, Michael 1998. What can pronouns tell us? A case

study of English epicenes Studies. In Language v 22 no2
353-89.
Note: An oral corpus-based study of epicene pronominal

constructions in English. These constructions involve
pronouns coreferent with singular antecedents and referring

to referents of indeterminate sex. According to the study,
"they" is used in 60 percent of the tokens, "he" in 25
percent, and other forms minimally. Variation corresponds

to three semantic factors: perceived sex stereotypes
associated with the referent, notional number, and
(surprisingly) degree of individuation. These findings
corroborate accounts of the importance of agreement as a
discourse-level phenomenon and of pronouns as elements
whose informational content goes beyond mere denotation.

(author abstract)
Nichols Johanna 1985. The directionality of agreement. In

M. Niepokuj, M. VanClay, V. Nikiforidou and D. Feder (eds.)
Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley

Linguistics Society, February 16--18, 1985. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California. 273286.
Nichols, Johanna 1986. Head marking and dependent

marking grammar. Language 62. 56-119.
Nicol, J. L., Forster, K.I. and Veres, C. 1997 Subject-Verb
Agreement Processes in Comprehension. Journal of Memory
and Language. Vol 36. No 4. 569-587.
Nikolaeva, Irina 1999 Object Agreement, Grammatical
Relations, and Information Structure. Studies in Language

23:2. 377-407.
Topic: Object asymmetries with regard to

agreement.
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Northern Ostyak (Uralic)

Note: The author examines the phenomenon
of optional object agreement in Nothern
Ostyak, a language which has subjective and
objective conjugations in common with some

other Uralic languages. She analyses the
grammatical behaviour of two types of
object, those that trigger agreement on the

verb and those that do not. Comparing the
properties of the two, and contrasting their

behaviour with that found in Chichewa
anaphoric object agreement, according to
Bresnan and Mchombos (1987) analysis, she

concludes that the difference between the
two objects in Ostyak is not due to differing

semantics, argument status or grammatical
relations, but rather is due to their
information structure status. Information
structure is an independent parallel level of

representation. The object that does not
trigger agreement bears the focus function,
and systematically corresponds to the focus

position in the syntax.
Nocentini Alberto. 1999. Topical Constraints in the verbal

agreement of spoken Italian (Tuscan Variety). Rivista di
Linguistica 11.2. 315-339.
Topic: verbal agreement in spoken Italian

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: spoken Italian (Tuscan
variety)
Note: This paper illustrates the constraints

that control verbal agreement in Italian,
focussing on the spoken Tuscan variety.
Subjects are characterised by four properties

in written standard Italian: (i) it governs
verbal agreement (government = G); (ii) it is

placed before the verb
(position = P);
(iii) it plays the pragmatic role of Topic (or
Theme) (topic = T); (iv) it plays the semantic

role of Agent (agent = A).These properties
form a hierarchy controlling verbal
agreement in written Standard Italian, viz. G

> (P&T) > A with G being the dominant
property. In Tuscan Italian, one extra
property can be added to the list of
properties that characterise the subject, the

property F (for first). F combines the
properties of morphological unmarkedness
and syntactic indispensability and defines the
subject as the obligatory unmarked argument

implied by the verb or simply as the first
argument. e.g. il mange chaque jour une
dizaine de personnes dans ce restaurant.

This property F is the dominant property
controlling verbal agreement in Tuscan
Italian. That is, the morpho-syntactic relation

between Subject and (verbal) Predicate
depends on the pragmatic pattern Topic-
Comment (or Theme-Rheme) which governs

verbal agreement.
Ormazabal, Javier. 2000. A Conspiracy Theory of Case and

Agreement. In: Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan
Uriagereka (eds) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax
in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 235-
260.
Ortmann, Albert 2000. Where plural refuses to agree:

feature unification and morphological economy. Acta
Linguistica Hungarica 47.249-288.
Ostrowski, Manfred 1982. Zum Konzept der Kongruenz. In

Hansjakob Seiler and Christian Lehmann (eds.)
Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von

Gegenstnden.Teil I: Bereich und Ordnung der Phnomene.
Tbingen: Narr. 252-269.

Ouhalla, Jamal 1993. Subject-Extraction, Negation and the
Anti-Agreement Effect. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 11. 477-518.
Payne, John R. 1995. Inflecting Postpositions in Indic and

Kashmiri. In Frans Plank (ed.) Double case: agreement by
Suffixaufnahme. New York, NY: Oxford U Press Inc. 283-
298.
Pensalfini, Rob 1999. Optional disagreement and the case

for feature hierarchies. In Sabrina J. Billings, John P. Boyk,
Aaron M. Griffith (eds.) CLS 1999: Papers from the 35th
Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.
Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 167-178
Perlmutter, David M. 1972. A note on syntactic and
semantic number in English. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 243-246.

Perlmutter, David. 1983. Personal vs. impersonal
constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
1.141-200.
Perrot, Jean 1996-1997. Some Propositions Regarding

"Agreement" in Answer to Questions.(Original Title:
Quelques propositions sur "l'accord" en reponse au
questionnaire) Faits de Langues. 1996-1997. 8. 161-164.

Perry, T. A. 1975. A note on the role of agreement in the
grammar of English. Foundations of Language 13.579-589.

Peterson, Peter, G. 1986. Establishing Verb Agreement with
Disjunctively Conjoined Subjects: Strategies Vs Principles.
Australian Journal of Linguistics. Vol 6. No 2. 231-250.
Phillips, Colin 1993. Conditions on Agreement in Yimas. In

Jonathan D. Bobaljik and Colin Phillips Papers on Case and
Agreement. I (=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18).
Cambridge, MA.: Department of Linguistics, MIT.
Pieroni, Silvia 1998. Remarks on iconicity and agreement.
Indogermanische Forschungen, 103.
Topic: Agreement and iconicity
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Ancient Greek

Note: The author examines the phenomena
of case agreement in relative pronouns and

inalienable possessive relations and argues
that agreement may be a semantically
meaningful relation, concluding that: the
more two entities are semantically related,

the higher is the possibility for the nouns
that refer to them to show agreement; the

more the information is pragmatically
presupposed and known, the lower the

frequency of occurrence of independent
case-marking.(The examples are not given a

morpheme-by-morpheme gloss.)
Pishwa, Hanna 1989. Erwerb der deutschen Kongruenzregel

Arbeitspapiere zur Linguistik = Working papers in
linguistics. [Special issue] ; 23 Berlin : Institut fur Linguistik

der Technischen Universitat Berlin PD- 209 p ; 21 cm IS3798312680
Plank, Frans 1984. Romance disagreements: phonology

interfering with syntax. Linguistics 20. 329-349.
Plank, Frans 1993. Peculiarities of Passives of Reflexives in

German. Studies in Language 17-1. 135-167.
Platzack, Christer 1996. Null Subjects, Weak Agr and

Syntactic Differences in Scandinavian. In Thrainsson,
Hoskuldur, Epstein, Samuel David, & Peter, Steve (eds.)
Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Vol II. Dordrecht,

Netherlands: Kluwer. 180-196.
Polinsky, Maria 1992. Verb agreement and object marking
in Selkup: interaction of morphology and syntax. In Costas

P. Canakis, Grace P. Chan, and Jeannette Marshall Denton
(eds.) Papers from the 28th Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society. Vol.1: The Main Session. 412-425.
Polinsky, Maria and Bernard Comrie 1999. Agreement in
Tsez. In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special

Issue on Agreement. 109-151.
Note: Tsez, like most languages of the NakhDaghestanian language family to which it
belongs, has agreement in terms of noun
class. Tsez distinguishes four classes in the

singular, but these are collapsed to two in
the plural; agreement is shown on most
vowel-initial verbs, on some vowel-initial
adjectives and adverbs, on some vowel-initial

particles, and on some pronouns and
numerals. After presenting the basic system,

we investigate a number of more complex
instances. Under conjunction, Tsez
sometimes uses a resolution rule, sometimes

adjacency, with interesting differences
between and- and or-conjunction.
Personification in Tsez does not lead to

change in noun class, even in cases of
agreement with first or second person
pronouns. Finally, Tsez allows the possibility

of long distance agreement, whereby certain
matrix verbs can agree with a noun phrase in

a lower clause. We show that this
phenomenon is intimately connected with the

information structure of the clause, in
particular that long distance agreement is

required when the noun phrase in the lower
clause is topic of that clause; indeed, under
certain circumstances long distance
agreement can serve distinctively to mark the

topic status of a noun phrase in the lower
clause. (author abstract)
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2001. Long-distance

agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 19. 583-646.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag 1988. An information-based

theory of agreement. In Brentari, Diane, Gary N. Larson,
Lynn A. MacLeod (eds.) CLS24: Papers from the 24th Annual
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Part II:

Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory. 236-
257.
Posner, Rebecca 1985. Non-agreement on Romance
disagreements. Journal of Linguistics 21. 437-451.

Postma, Gertjan 1996-1997. Anti-Agreement and AnalogyTwo Interface Requirements on the Verbal Paradigm in
Latin. Faits de Langues. 1996-1997. 8. 103-112.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1984. How Complex Could an
Agreement System be? In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda &

McCoy, Terry (eds.) Proceedings of the First Eastern States
Conference on Linguistics. Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio. 79-103.
Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Arnold M. Zwicky 1986.
Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict.
Language 62: 751 - 773.
Reid, Wallis 1984. Verb Agreement as a Case of Semantic

Redundancy. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy,
Terry (eds.) ESCOL 84: Proceedings of the First Eastern
States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio

State University. 104-115.
Rice, Keren; Saxon, Leslie 1994. The Subject Positions in
Athapaskan Languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

22 July. 173-195.
Rispoli, Matthew 1999. Case and agreement in English
language development. Journal of Child Language 26.357372.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista
di Linguistica 2. 27-42.
Roberts, Ian G. 1985. Agreement parameters and the
development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 3. 21-58.
Roberts, Ian & Ur Shlonsky 1996. Pronominal enclisis in VSO

languages. In Robert D. Borsley & Ian Roberts (eds.) The
syntax of the Celtic languages: a comparative perspective.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 171-200.
Rohrbacher, Bernhard 1995. Explaining the Syntactic
Consequences of "Rich" Agreement Morphology: On the
Licensing of V-to-AgrS Raising and pro. In Aranovich, Raul,

Byrne, William, Preuss, Susanne, & Senturia, Martha (eds.)
The Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference

On Formal Linguistics Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of
Language and Information. 350-364.
Romero, Juan 1999. The Case of Agreement. In Karlos
Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia Krause, and Vivian Lin
Papers on Morphology and Syntax, Cycle One. MIT Working

Papers in Linguistics No 33.
Rouveret, Alain 1991. Functional categories and agreement.
The Linguistic Review 8. 353-387.
Russell, Robert A. 1984. Historical Aspects of Subject-Verb

Agreement in Arabic. In Alvarez, Gloria, Belinda Brodie and
Terry McCoy (eds.) ESCOL 84: Proceedings of the First
Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus. Ohio:

Sadler, Louise. To Appear. Coordination and Asymmetric
Agreement in Welsh. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King

(eds.) Nominals: Inside and Out. CSLI Publications, 2003.
Also available at:
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~louisa/newpapers/
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1994. Remarks on a West Greenlandic

Verbal Paradigm Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 27. 2. 427431.
Sankoff, Gillian 1994. An historical and evolutionary
approach to variation in the Tok Pisin verb phrase. In Papers

from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic
Society. Vol 2: The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic
Theory. 293-320.
Saksena, Anuradha 1981. Verb agreement in Hindi.
Saksena, Anuradha 1985. Verb agreement in Hindi, part II: A

critique of Comries analysis. Linguistics 23. 137-142.
Saxon, Leslie 1984. Control and Agreement in Dogrib. In

Alvarez, Gloria, Belinda Brodie and Terry McCoy (eds.)
ESCOL 84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States

Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State
University. 128-139.
Schachtl, Stefanie 1989. Morphological case and abstract
case: evidence from the German genitive construction. In

Christa Bhatt, Elisabeth Lbel and Claudia Schmidt (eds.)
Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and

Sentences, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company. 99111.
Note: Discusses examples in German in
which even an unambiguously case-marked

noun (Gen. Sg.) is ungrammatical without a
determiner/modifier to agree with it. (See
also Gallman 1990, Lindauer 1995).
Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira & Anthony Julius Naro 1998.

Sobre a concordncia de nmero no portugus falado do
Brasil. In Dialettologia, geolinguistica, sociolinguistica,
organizado por Giovanni Ruffino, 5:509-523. Centro di
Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani, Universit di Palermo.

Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Schmidt, Peter 2000. Agreement domain universals:
Semantically-based proposals and their problems. In L. A.

Kuzmin (ed.) Jazyk, glagol, predloenie: K 70-letiju
Georgija Georgievica Silnickogo (Festschrift for Professor

Georgij Silnitskij), Smolensk. STPU. 227-245.
Topic: semantically-based proposals for GA
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Russian, German,
Caucasian languages, Warlpiri, Chamalal,
Tsakhur, Abkhaz.
Note: This paper discusses two proposals

that have been put forward as absolute
universal principles governing grammatical

agreement (GA), viz Keenans (1974)
Functional (Dependency) Principle and the

Agreement-as-Morphologized-Anaphor
approach (Lapointe 1980).The paper
considers the empirical testability of both

approaches and shows that there exist
potential counterexamples to both principles,

which may invalidate them as absolute
universals.
Schneider-Zioga, Patricia 1995. Specifier/Head Agreement
in Kinande. Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa 23. Aug. 67-96.

Schneider-Zioga, Patricia 1996. An Argument in Favor of
Agreement Phrase. In Virginia Montapayne and Anthony D.
Green (eds.) Proceeding from the Eastern States Conference
on Linguistics 1996, Cornell University.
Schneider-Zioga, Patricia 2000. Anti-agreement and the

Finite Structure of the Left Periphery. University of
California Irvine Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 6.

Schneider-Zioga, Patricia 2002. The Case of Anti-Agreement.
MIT WPIL AFLA 8 Proceedings, MIT, Cambridge, MA 2002
Schreiber, Peter A. 1978. There-insertion and number
agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 318-325.
Schroeder, Christoph. 1999. Number (non)
Agreement. In Schroeder, C. (ed.) The Turkish
nominal phrase in spoken discourse.
(Turcologica 40). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

111-125.
Schtze, Carson T. 1999. English Expeltive Constructions

Are Not Infected. Linguistic Inquiry 30.3. 467-484.
Schwartz, Linda 1988. Asymmetric Feature Distribution in
Pronominal Coordinations. In Michael Barlow and Charles

A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural Language:
Topic: Plural pronoun constructions

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Yapese, Mokilese, Kpelle,
Latvian, Russian, Tagalog, Bulgarian, Dakota,

Kanuri
Note: The author investigates those
constructions in which an initial pronoun in a

coordination is morphologically plural
without necesssarily having a plural referent.

The initial pronoun is considered to be the
head of the coordination, which is marked
with the case and number of the dominating

node. In addition, verb-coded coordinations
are discussed, where the verb appears to
agree with a missing NP in a coordination.
Seidl, Amanda & Dimitriadis, Alexis 1997. The discourse

function of object marking in Swahili. In Kora Singer,
Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson (eds.) CLS 33: Papers
from the Main Session, April 17-19, 1997. Chicago: Chicago
Siewierska, Anna 1996. Word order type and alignment
type. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49. 149176.
Siewierska, Anna 1999. From anaphoric pronoun to
grammatical agreement marker: Why objects dont make it.
In G. Corbett (ed.) Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2. Special Issue on
Agreement. 225-251.
Topic: Types of pronominal agreement.

Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Macushi, Tauya, Dutch,
Welsh, Palauan, Kusaiean, Yagua, Ampezzan,

Southeastern Tepehuan, Wolaian, Anejom,
Friulian, Fassan, Badiot, Older Egyptian,
Polish, Icelandic, Ijo, Roviana, Retuar, Anm,

Kilivila, Labu, Maricopa, Kisar, Hungarian,
Vogul, Nocte, Plains Cree.
Note: The endpoint of the historical evolution

of agreement marker from anaphoric person
pronoun is the loss of referentiality on the
part of the person marker and the obligatory
presence of the nominal argument with which

it agrees. Contrary to what might be
supposed, such agreement, which I, inspired

by Bresnan & Mchombo (1986, 1987), have
termed grammatical, as opposed to
anaphoric or ambiguous (grammatical and
anaphoric) agreement, is cross-linguistically

very rare. Moreover, among the attested
instances of grammatical person agreement

none involve object as compared to subject
agreement. The present paper considers the

distribution and formal realization of
anaphoric, ambiguous and grammatical

agreement markers in a sample of 272
languages and offers some tentative
explanations for the existing asymmetry in

regard to grammatical agreement. It is
suggested that grammatical object
agreement does not arise since ambiguous

agreement, from which grammatical
agreement evolves, is less common with
objects than with subjects, and two of the
potential sources of grammatical agreement,

adherence to a verb-second constraint and
phonological attrition are more likely to
involve subjects rather than objects. (author

abstract)
Siewierska, Anna forthcoming. On the discourse basis of
person agreement marking, In T. Viryanen (ed.) Discourse
Approaches to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Siewierska, Anna and Dik Bakker. 1996. The Distribution of

Subject and Object Agreement and Word Order Type.
Studies in Language. 20:1. 115-161.
Topic: Subject and Object agreement and

word order
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: sample of 237 languages

Note: This article examines the distribution
and formal realization of Subject and Object

agreement markers in different word order
types (V3 (SOV,OSV), V2 (SVO, OVS), V1
(VOS,VSO), free, and split) relative to the

Universal Suffixing Preference, the Head
Ordering Principle, and the Diachronic Syntax

Hypothesis on the basis of a sample of 237
languages. The Universal Suffixing Preference

is based on the assumption that suffixing is
easier to process than prefixing. The Head
Ordering Principle takes inflectional affixes to

be heads of their respective lexical categories
and thus predicts that affixes should be
suffixes in OV languages and prefixes in VO
languages. The Diachronic Syntax Hypothesis

defines a preference for morphemes to be
located in the positions of the separate words

which gave rise to them. The investigation
shows that there is a statistically significant

correlation between agreement and word
order type, and that the coupling of the
Diachronic Syntax Hypothesis with the
Universal Suffixing Preference provides the

best account for the data. Only 6% of the
agreement markers in the sample do not fall

out from the combination of these 2
hypotheses. By comparing the results
stemming from the 237 language sample
with those of other samples the paper seeks

to draw the attention to how areal biases in
samples may affect cross-linguistic
generalisations.
Simon, Horst J. forthcoming. From pragmatics to grammar:

tracing the development of respect in the history of the
German pronouns of address. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma
Taavitsainen (eds.) Origin and Development of Address
Terms in European Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Simpson, Andrew and Wu, Zoe. 2000. The development and
licensing of agreement as a functional projection. In: Roger
Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen (eds) WCCFL 19:
Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal

Linguistics, Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 479-492.
Smith, John C. 1995. Perceptual factors and the
disappearance of agreement between part participle and
direct object in Romance. In John C. Smith & Martin Maiden

(eds.) Linguistic Theory and the Romance Languages
(Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 122). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. 161-180.
Sobin, Nicholas 1997. Agreement, default rules, and
grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 318-343.

Song, Jae Jung. 1994. The verb-object bonding principle
and the pronominal system: with special reference to
Nuclear Micronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 33.

517-565.
Sparks, Randall B. 1984. Heres a few more facts. Linguistic
Inquiry 15.179-183.
Spencer, Andrew. 2000. Agreement morphology in
Chukotkan. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer,

Markus A. Pchtrager & John R. Rennison (eds.)
Morphological Analysis in Comparison (Current Issues in
Topic: verbal agreement in Chukchee and

Koryak
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Chukchee, Koryak

Note: This paper presents an analysis of
verbal agreement in the ergative languages

Chukchee and Koryak showing that certain
aspects of the system pose a problem for
current versions of Distributed Morphology.

Steele, Susan 1988. Agreement and Syntactic Composition:
The Luiseo Single-Possessive Condition. In Michael Barlow
and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in Natural
Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford:

CSLI Publications. 269-286.
Topic: Agreement typology

Formal syntactic framework: Categorial
grammar
Language(s) cited: Luiseo

Note: The author describes the Luiseo word
as a compatible combination of Left-
occurring String and Right Boundary Effect.
The restricted number of possible Argument

Structures in the language determine that
there is never more than one obligatorily
Possessive-marked element per argument

structure.
Stump, Gregory 1984. Agreement vs. incorporation in
Breton. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 289-348.

Suer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-
doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 6. 391-434.
Suer, Margarita 1992. Subject Clitics in the Northern Italian

Vernaculars and the Matching Hypothesis. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory. 10. 641-672.
Szamosi, Michael. 1974. Verb-object agreement in
Hungarian. In Michael W. La Galy, Robert A. Fox, Anthony
Bruck (eds.) CLS 10: Papers from the tenth Regional Meeting
of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago

Taraldsen, Knut Tarald 1996. Reflexives, pronouns, and
subject/verb agreement in Icelandic and Faroese. In James

R. Black & Virginia Motapanyane (eds.) Microparametric
syntax and dialect variation (Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory 139), Amsterdam: Benjamins. 189-211.
Timberlake, Alan. 1988. Case Agreement in Lithuanian. In
Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions.
Topic: Case agreement

Formal syntactic framework: Categorial
grammar
Language(s) cited: Lithuanian

Note: The author gives an account of
agreement in case between a predicate
nominal and its controller. It is suggested
that the predicate carries the morphological
features of its complements, both arguments

and complements.
Toivonen, Ida. 2000. The morphosyntax of Finnish
possessives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18.

579-609.
Trail, A. 1974. Agreement systems in !x. LIMI 2.12-27.

Troike R C 1981. Subject-object concord in Coahuilteco.
Language 57. 658-73.
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981 Interaction of phonological,

grammatical, and semantic factors: an Australian example.
Oceanic Linguistics 20.45-92.
Tuite, Kevin 1984. Case Attraction and Case Agreement. In
Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) ESCOL
84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on

Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. 140-
151.
Urjupina, Olga M. 2001. Osobennosti glagolnogo
soglasovanija po cislu v okeanijskix jazykax. In Vladimir A.

Plungjan (ed.) Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki: I:
Glagolnye kategorii. Moscow: Russkie slovari. 228-261.
Urmanieva, Anna Ju. 2001. Linoe soglasovanie glagola:
tak li vse prosto?.. In Vladimir A. Plungjan (ed.) Issledovanija
po teorii grammatiki: I: Glagolnye kategorii. Moscow:
Russkie slovari. 209-227.
Velzquez-Castillo, Maura 1991. The semantics of Guarani

agreement markers. In Laurel A. Sutton, Christopher
Johnson and Ruth Shields (eds.) Proceedings of the
Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics

Society, February 15-18, 1991: General Session and
Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structure. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics Society. 324-335.
Verschuur, Leon. 1993. Semantic agreement of anaphors
and extended type theory. In Andreas Kathol and Michael
Bernstein (eds.) ESCOL 93: Proceedings of the Tenth Eastern
States Conference on Linguistics. Ithaca: Cornell University,

Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics. 348359.
Vigliocco, Gabriella and Janet Nicol 1998. Separating

hierarchical relations and word order in language
production: is proximity concord syntactic or linear.
Cognition 68. 13-29.
Vigliocco, Gabriella & Franck, Julie. 2001. When Sex affects

Syntax: Contextual Influences in Sentence Production.
Journal of Memory and Language 45. No 3. 368-390.
Vigliocco, Gabriella; Franck, Julie; Antn-Mndez, Ins &
Collina, Simona. forthcoming. The interplay between syntax

and form in sentence production. Language and Cognitive
Processes.
Voeltz, Erhard F. K. 1971. Surface constraints and
agreement resolution: some evidence from Xhosa. Studies in
Aftrican Linguistics 2. 37-60.
Wechsler, Stephen 1999. Gender Resolution in Coordinate
Structures. In C. Smith (ed.) Proceedings of the Workshop on

the Structure of Spoken and Written Texts. Texas Linguistic
Forum. University of Texas at Austin. 1-22.
Note: an extended version of this paper is to

appear: Stephen Wechsler, to appear.
Elsewhere in Gender Resolution. In Kristin
Hanson and Sharon Inkelas (eds.) The Nature
of the Word Essays in Honor of Paul

Kiparsky. MIT Press.
Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlati 1999. Agreement in
Discourse. Proceedings of the Conference on the Structure
of Non-Narrative Texts, University if Texas, Austin. February
1998.
Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlati 2001. A Theory of
Agreement and its Application to Serbo-Croatian. Language
76.4. 799-832.
Wheeler, Max W. 1995. Underspecification and
misagreement in Catalan lexical specifiers. In John Charles
Smith and Martin Maiden (eds.) Linguistic Theory and the
Romance Languages. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory.
Vol 122. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia. 201-229.
Woolford, Ellen 2000. Object agreement in Palauan:
Specificity, Humanness, Economy and Optimality. In I. Paul,

V. Phillips, L.Travis (eds.) Formal Issues in Austronesian
Linguistics. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory. Vol. 49. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

215-245.
Topic: object agreement in Palauan

Formal syntactic framework: Optimality
Theory
Language(s) cited: Palauan

Note: Palauan exhibits a complex pattern of
object agreement and preposition insertion,

conditioned by aspect, specificity, number,
and humanness. Objects must be either
[+human] and/or [+specific, +singular] to

trigger object agreement in a perfective
clause or preposition insertion in an
imperfective clause. Woolford gives an
account of these facts based on a small
number of economy and exclusion principles

which are not unique to Palauan. Palauan
manifests two exclusion principles and two
economy principles. These are:(a) Exclusion
principles: (a1) Specificity Exclusion Principle

(Palauan variant), i.e. NPs inside the VP,
governed by V cannot be
[+specific,+singular]; (a2) Humanness
Exclusion Principle, i.e. NPs inside the VP,
governed by V cannot be [+human]; (b)
Economy principles, i.e. Avoid Movement and

Avoid Insertion. In order to get the
appropriate output, these principles are
ranked. In imperfective constructions the

ranking is Exclusion principles >> Avoid
Movement >> Avoid Insertion; in perfective
constructions the ranking is Avoid Insertion
>> Exclusion Principles >> Avoid Movement.

In Palauan, the ranking in the imperfect is
assumed to be the default ranking (only
Avoid Insertion needs to be changed from

lowest to highest in the perfect).
Wright, Martha 1990. Verb Agreement Parameters. In Ken
deJong and Yongkyoon No (eds.) ESCOL 89 Proceedings of
the Sixth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. 277288.
Wunderlich, Dieter 1994. Towards a lexicon-based theory of

agreement. Theoretical Linguistics Vol 20. No 1. 1-35.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. AGREE: The other VP-internal
subject hypothesis. In: Karine Megerdoomian & Leora Anne

Bar-el (eds) WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast
Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville: Cascadilla
Press. 635-648.
Ydava, Yogendra Prasad 1996. Verb agreement in Maithili.
Journal of Nepalese Studies 1. 109-121.
Zaring, Laurie 1984. Person/Number Inflection in S, NP and

PP: A Parametric Approach. In Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie,

Zwart, Jan-Wouter 1993a. Clues from dialect syntax:
complementizer agreement. In Werner Abraham & Josef
Bayer (eds.) Dialektsyntax (Linguistische Berichte, special

issue 5), 246-70.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter 1993b. Verb Movement and
Complementizer Agreement. In Jonathan D. Bobaljik and

Colin Phillips Papers on Case and Agreement. I (=MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 18). Cambridge, MA.:

Department of Linguistics, MIT.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986a. Agreement features: layers or
tags? Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32.
146-8.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986b. German adjective agreement in
GPSG. Linguistics 24. 957-90.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1991. Systematic versus accidental
phonological identity. In Frans Plank (ed.) Paradigms: the
economy of inflection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 113-131.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Jottings on Adpositions, Case
Inflections, Government, and Agreement. In Diane Brentari,

Gary N. Larson and Lynn A. Macleod (eds.) The Joy of
Grammar: A Festschrift in Honor of James D. McCawley. John
Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

369-383.
Zwicky, Arnold M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum 1983. Phonology

in Syntax: The Somali Optional Agreement Rule. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 1(3). 385-402.
Wunderlich, Dieter 2001. Grammatical agreement. In Neil J.
Smelser and Paul B. Baltes (eds.) International Encyclopedia

of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: IX. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.6330-6334.
Section D: Agreement in the Slavonic Languages
Akopdanjan, A. A. 1962a. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s
podleaim, vyraennym neopredelenno-koliestvennym

suestvitelnym v socetanii s suestvitelnym v
roditelnym padee (Podleaee tipa "bolinstvo zritelej").
Elabuskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogieskij institut: Uenye

zapiski: serija istorii i filologii 13. 32-84.
Akopdanjan, A. A. 1962b. Znaenie predikativnogo glagola

v predloenijax s podleaim tipa "bolinstvo zritelej":
leksieskoe znaenie glagola. Elabuskij gosudarstvennyj
pedagogieskij institut: Uenye zapiski: serija istorii i

filologii13. 85-94.
Akopdanjan, A. A. 1962c. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s

podleaim, vyraennym suestvitelnym "islo" v
soetanii s roditelnym padeom mnoestvennogo isla.
Elabuskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogieskij institut: Uenye

zapiski: serija istorii i filologii. 13. 332-336.
Akopdanjan, A. A. 1962d. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s
podleaim, vyraennym suestvitelnym "ast'" v
soetanii s sucestvitelnym v roditelnom padee
mnoestvennogo isla. InVoprosy teorii i metodiki izuenija
russkogo jazyka vyp. 2 (eboksary, uvaskij
gosudarstvennyj pedagogieskij institut), 150-165.
Akopdanjan, A. A. 1965a. O vidax svjazi glagola-
skazuemogo s podleaim-koliestvenno-imennym
soetaniem. Elabuskij gosudarstvennyj pedagogieskij
institut: Uenye zapiski 15. 122-132.
Akopdanjan, A. A. 1965b. O forme isla glagola-
skazuemogo v predloenijax s koliestvennym podleaim:

Forma glagolaskazuemogo v predloenijax s podleaim
tipa "tri eloveka". Voprosy teorii i metodiki izuenija
russkogo jazyka (Ievsk) vyp. 4. 104-113.
Andrejin, Lj. 1968. Sglasuvane na otnositelnoto
mestoimenie ijto. Ezik i literatura 18. 66-67. Reprinted in

Prvev (1971, 150-151).]
Apresjan, Ju. D. 1982. O vozmonosti opredelenija
lingvistieskix ponjatij. Russian Linguistics 6. 175-196.

Babby, Leonard H. 1973. A note on agreement in Russian.
Glossa. 7. 253-264.
Babby, Leonard H. 1985. Noun phrase internal case

agreement in Russian. Russian Linguistics 9. 1-15.
[Reprinted in Barlow and Ferguson (1988, 287-304).]

Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and
discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 5. 91-138.
Babby, Leonard H. 1988. Noun Phrase Internal Case
Agreement in Russian. In Michael Barlow and Charles A.

Topic: Case agreement

Formal syntactic framework: X-bar syntax.
Language(s) cited: Russian
Note: The author uses evidence from the
behaviour of quantifier phrases in Russian to

argue that the head noun of a noun phrase
does not control the case marking of its
modifiers, but that case is assigned to the

nouns maximal projection where it
percolates down to the available lexical and
phrasal categories. Case assignment appears
to follow a (possibly universal) Syntactic Case

Hierarchy in Russian where lexical case takes
precedence over all other types of case
assignment.
Babi, Stjepan 1973. Sronost (kongruencija) u suvremenom
hrvatskom knjievnom jeziku. Zbornik Zagrebake

slavistike kole I, part 1. 199-218.
Babi, Stjepan 1984-85a. O sronosti openito. Jezik 32, 1.

1-5.
Babi, Stjepan 1984-85b. Sronost s vie subjekata. Jezik
32, 2. 4349.
Babi, Stjepan 1984-85c. Sronosti s koliinskim rijeima.
Jezik 32, 3. 65-75.
Babi, Stjepan 1984-85d. Sronosti s rijeima u kojima se

razlikuje oblik i broj. Jezik 32, 4. 113-118.
Babi, Stjepan 1984-85e. Sronost s razlikom u subjektu i
imenskom dijelu predikata. Jezik 32, 5. 138-140.

Babickij, K. I. 1972. Soglasovannost lenov kak
neobxodimoe uslovie pravilnosti predloenija.
International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 15.
76-94.
Bajec, A. 1955-56. Vezanje veosebkov s povedkom. Jezik
in Slovstvo 1. 12-14.
Beli, A. 1924. Napomena o jednoj sintaksiko-morfolokoj

osobini srpskohrvatskog jezika. Junoslovenski Filolog 4.
2428.
Bilbija, S. 1985. Neslaganje u broju izmedju singularnih
antecedenata i njihovih pronominalnih anafora. Knjievni
jezik (Sarajevo) 14, no. 4. 197-202.
Bogdanov, V. N. 1968. Osobyj sluaj dialektnogo
soglasovanija skazuemogo s podleaim po smyslu i
kategorija predstavitelnosti. Naunye doklady vysej koly:
filologieskie nauki no. 4. 68-75.
Brooks, Maria Z. 1973. Rola liczby i rodzaju przy zgodzie

niektrych podmiotw z orzeczeniem. In L. Matejka (ed.)
American Contributions to the Seventh International

Congress of Slavists: Warsaw, August 21-27, 1973, I,
Linguistics and Poetics. The Hague, Mouton, 59-66.
Browne, Wayles 1990. Kako kongruirati sa infinitivom?
Sistem pojmova za opis slaganja u srpskohrvatskom jeziku.
Naucni Sastanak Slavista u Vukove Dane: Referati i

saoptenja 20, 2.157-163.
Burzan, Mirjana 1981. Interferencija u kongruiranju
predikata sa subjektom u broju u govornoj produkciji
madjarsko-srpskohrvatskih bilingva na srpskohrvatskom
jeziku. Prilozi proucavanju jezika (Novi Sad) 17. 119-139.

Buttke, K. 1972. Zur Kongruenz des Prdikats mit der
Numeralfgung als subjekt im modernen Ukrainischen.
Zeitschrift fr Slawistik 17. 626-635.
Buzssyov, K. 1977. Kategria urenosti a zhoda spony vo

vetch s mennym prsudkom. Jazykovedn tdie 13,
Ruikov zbornk (Bratislava), 61-72.
Bylinskij, K. I. 1939a. Osobye sluai soglasovanija
skazuemogo s podleaim v sovremennom literaturnom
jazyke. Russkij jazyk v kole no. 2. 63-73.

Bylinskij, K. I. 1939b. Osobye sluai soglasovanija
opredelenija s suestvitelnym v sovremennom
literaturnom jazyke. Russkij jazyk v kole no. 3. 12-19.

ernyev, V. I. 1938. O naruenii soglasovanija v russkom
jazyke. In Pamjati akademika N. Ja. Marra (1864-1934).
Moscow and Leningrad, AN SSSR, 258-274. [Reprinted in V.
I. ernyev. Izbrannye trudy,:I. Moscow, Prosveenie, 1970,
194-210.]
Comtet, M. 1985. Funkcija soglasovanija po principu
sosedstva imeni prilagatelnogo v sovremennom russkom

jazyke. Russian Linguistics 9, no. 1. 35-43.
Comtet, Roger. 2001-2002. Accord et fonction de l'adjectif

pithte en russe crit, Cahiers du Centre Interdisciplinaire
des Sciences du Langage, Toulouse-le Mirail, 16, 20012002. 7-19.
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. Predicate Agreement in Russian
(Birmingham Slavonic Monographs, 7). University of

Birmingham, Department of Russian Language and
Literature.
Corbett, Greville G. 1980. Neutral agreement. Quinquereme
- New Studies in Modern Languages 3. 164-170.
Corbett, Greville G. 1981a. A note on grammatical
agreement in inel. Slavonic and East European Review 59.

59-61.
Corbett, Greville G. 1981b. Agreement with honorific vy in
Russian and its significance for subject-raising and for the

analysis of predicative adjectives. New Zealand Slavonic
Journal no. 2. 73-88.
Corbett, Greville G. 1982. Resolution rules for predicate

agreement in the Slavonic languages. Slavonic and
East
European Review 60. 347-378.
Corbett, Greville G. 1983a. Hierarchies, Targets and
Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic. London: Croom
Helm.
Corbett, Greville G. 1983b. Slaganje predikata sa vie
subjekata u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Nauni sastanak
slavista u Vukove dane: Referati i saoptenja 12/1. Beograd:

Medjunarodni slavistiki centar. 93-102.
Corbett, Greville G. 1986. Agreement: a partial specification,

based on Slavonic data. Linguistics 24, no. 6. 995-1023.
[Slightly revised version of a paper which appeared in Barlow

and Ferguson (1988, 23-53).]
Corbett, Greville G. 1988. Agreement: A partial specification

based on Slavonic data. In Michael Barlow and Charles A.
Topic: The specification of the characteristics

of agreement.
Formal syntactic framework: Language(s) cited: Russian, Slovenian, Polish,

Czech, Upper Sorbian, Serbo-Croat.
Note: The author highlights the difficulties

encountered in attaining an adequate
description of agreement by examining data

from Slavonic languages. He examining in
turn problems with identifying agreement
controllers, targets and features. He then
considers the factors which determine
agreement in those cases where there exist

different options. Such factors include
animacy (of the controller) and precedence
(in the syntax). As regards target factors, the

author refers to the agreement hierarchy
(Corbett 1983).
Crockett, Dina B. 1972. More on coordination reduction. In

P. M. Peranteau, J. N. Levi and G. C. Phares (eds.) Papers
from the Eighth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic

Society, April 14-16 1972. Chicago, Chicago Linguistic
Society, 52-61.
Crockett, Dina B. 1976. Agreement in Contemporary
Standard Russian. Cambridge, Mass., Slavica.
Degtjarev, V. I. 1966. Osobennosti soglasovanija
skazuemogo s podleaim - imenem sobiratelnym v

drevnerusskom jazyke. Naunye doklady vysej koly:
filologieskie nauki, no. 3. 138-146.
Dingwall, W. O. 1969. Government, concord and featurechange rules. Glossa 3. 210-240.
Dingwall, W. O. & Tuniks, G. 1973. Government and concord

in Russian: a study in developmental psycholinguistics. In B.
B. Kachru, R. B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli & S. Saporta
(eds.) Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and
Rene Kahane. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 126-184.
Doneva-Mareva, Liljana 1978. Sglasuvaneto na utivoto
Vie ss skazuemoto v blgarskija i ruskija ezik ot

kvantitativno gledita. Sapostavilno ezikoznanie no. 3. 7075.
Duczmal, Stanisaw 1976. Some aspects of subject-verb
concord in Polish and English. Papers and Studies in
Contrastive Linguistics 5. 165-171.
Dziwirek, Katarzyna 1990. Default agreement in Polish. In

Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell and Errapel Majas-
Bikandi (eds.) Grammatical Relations: A Cross-theoretical

Perspective. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association/CSLI.
147-161.
Egerman, L. I. 1975. K voprosu o priinax dvojakogo

soglasovanija imen suestvitelnyx obego roda v
russkom jazyke. Izvestija Voroneskogo pedagogieskogo
instituta 150 (= A. S. Afanasev, E. A. Nazikova and A. M.
Slepcova eds Russkij sintaksis). 63-69.
Egorov, V. G. 1916. Soglasovanie islitelnyx" s"

suestvitelnymi v" velikorusskix" juridieskix"
pamjatnikax" XV-XVII v.v.. Filologieskie zapiski vyp. 2-3,

189-236, vyp. 4-5. 474-529.
Eskova, N. A. 1977. Soglasovanie prilagatelnyx s
oduevlennymi i neoduevlennymi suestvitelnymi v
russkom jazyke. In Semasiologija i grammatika: Kratkie
tezisy dokladov i soobenij jazykovedov Centralnoernozemnoj zony. Tambov. 33-34. (Quoted from Iomdin
1990, 163.)
Faska, Helmut 1959. Nkotre syntaktiske a stilistiske
wosebitose kongruency predikata ze subjektom. Letopis
Instituta za serbski ludospyt (Bautzen), rjad A., vol. 6. 48-
72.
Flaume, T. 1974. Singular and plural forms in Russian:
semantic and stylistic variants. PhD dissertation, University

of Pennsylvania. Distributed by University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor, 74-22,840.
Franck, Julie & Vigliocco, Gabriella. Forthcoming. Conceptual

and word form effects in Russian gender agreement.
Franks, Steven 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Franks, Steven & Greenberg, Gerald R. 1988. Agreement,
tense, and the case of subjects in Russian. In D. Brentari, G.

Larson & L. MacLeod (eds.) CLS 24: Papers from the 24th
Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society:

Part II: Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory.
Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. 71-86.
Georgieva, E. 1955. Po vprosa za sglasuvaneto na

skazuemoto s podloga Blgarski ezik 5. 280-281.
[Reprinted in Prvev (1971, 135137).]
Glavan, Vjenceslav 1927-28. Kongruencija u jeziku starih

akavskih pisaca. Junoslovenski filolog 7. 111-159.
Gotteri, Nigel 1984. The evasive neuter in Polish. In Frank E.
Knowles & J. Ian Press (eds.) Papers in Slavonic Linguistics II.
Birmingham, Department of Modern Languages, University

of Aston in Birmingham, 1-8.
Grappin, Henri 1950. Les noms de nombre en polonais.
Krakw, PAU.
Gudkov, Vladimir 1965. Dodatak pravilima slaganja
predikata sa vie subjekata. Knjievnost i jezik 12. 60-61.
Gudkov, Vladimir P. 1974. Prilog o pravilima kongruencije.
Knjievnost i jezik 21, part 1. 58-61.
Gvozdanovi, Jadranka 1983. Kada odstupamo od
gramatikog roda i broja? Nauni sastanak slavista u Vukove

dane: Referati i saoptenja 13/1. Beograd: Medjunarodni
slavistiki centar, 213219.
Herrity, Peter 1977. Problem kongruencije u
srpskohrvatskom i drugim slovenskim jezicima. Nauni
sastanak slavista u Vukove dane 7. Beograd: Medjunarodni

slavistiki centar, 261273.
Herrity, Peter 1983. Agreement with epicoena and
masculine nouns in -a in the Slavonic languages. Slavonic
and East European Review 61, 1. 41-54.
Hraste, Mate 1953. Moje kolege ili moji kolege? Jezik 2. 6162.
Hraste, Mate 1955-56. O rodu i kongruenciji imena mjesta.
Jezik 4. 70-71.
Huntley, David 1989. Grammatical and lexical features in

number and gender agreement in Old Bulgarian.
Paleobulgarica 13. 2132.
Igartua, Ivn 2000. Osobennosti razvitija soglasovanija v

istorii russkogo jazyka. Russian Linguistics 24.287-320.
Iomdin, Leonid L. 1979a. Fragment modeli russkogo
poverxnostnogo sintaksisa: opredelitelnye konstrukcii.
Junoslovenski filolog 25. 19-54.
Iomdin, Leonid L. 1979b. Ee raz o sintaksieskom
soglasovanii v russkom jazyke (Predvaritelnye publikacii,
vyp. 122). Moscow, Institut russkogo jazyka AN SSSR.
Iomdin, Leonid L. 1980a. O russkix suestvitelnyx tak

nazyvaemogo obego roda. Izvestija AN SSSR: Serija
literatury i jazyka 39, no. 5. 456-461.
Iomdin, Leonid L. 1980b. K postroeniju formalnoj modeli
sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Operator sintaksieskogo

soglasovanija dlja opredelitelnyx konstrucij. Logiko-
semantieskie voprosy iskusstvennogo intellekta. Trudy po

iskusstvennomu intellektu 3 (= Tartu Riikliku likooli
Toimetised/Uenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo

universiteta 551). Tartu, TGU, 51-70.
Iomdin, Leonid L. 1990. Avtomatieskaja obrabotka teksta
na estestvennom jazyke: model soglasovanija. Moscow,

Nauka.
Iordanskij, A. M. 1958. Istorija upotreblenija soglasovannyx

opredelenij pri soetanijax islitelnyx dva, tri, etyre s
imenami suestvitelnymi v russkom jazyke. Uenye
zapiski Vladimirskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogieskogo

instituta, vyp. 4. 54-82.
Ivi, Milka 1971. O razvitii nekotoryx kongruntnyx javlenij
na serbskohorvatskoj jazykovoj territorii. In Problemy istorii
i dialektologii slavjanskix jazykov: Sbornik statej k 70-letiju

lena-korrespondenta AN SSSR V. I. Borkovskogo. Moscow,
Nauka, 126-134.
Janko-Trinickaja, N. A. 1966. Naimenovanie lic enskogo
pola suestvitelnymi enskogo i muskogo roda. In A. E.
Zemskaja & D. N. melev (eds.) Razvitie slovoobrazovanija

sovremennogo russkogo jazyka. Moscow, Nauka, 167-210.
Jemenica, Andrija 1966. O Lalievoj kongruenciji uz
imenice na -a koje oznaavaju muka lica. Knjievnost i
jezik 14. 304310.
Jerkovi, J. 1971. Pitanje konguencije u udbenicima i
nastavi srpskohrvatskog kao nematernjeg jezika. Bilten
Pokrajinskog zavoda za izdavanje udbenika (Novi Sad) 13.

(Quoted from Burzan 1981, 133.)
Jerkovi, J. 1972. Probleme konguencije upitnih reenica sa
ko. Bilten Pokrajinskog zavoda za izdavanje udbenika (Novi

Sad) 18-19. (Quoted from Burzan 1981, 132.)
Jesenovec, F. 1958-59. Ali ste priel (prila)? Jezik in
Slovstvo 4. 30-31.
Junkovi, Zvonimir 1957, Neto o sronosti. Jezik 6. 8-13.

Kallas, Krystyna 1974. O zdaniach Pachnialwiatr i morze.,
Andrzej i Amelia milczeli., Studia z filologii polskiej i
slowianskiej 14. 57-71.
Kehayia, Eva; Jarema, Gonia and Kadziela, Danuta 1990.
Cross-linguistic study of morphological errors in aphasia:

evidence form English, Greek, and Polish. In Jean-Luc
Nespoulous and Pierre Villiard (eds.) Morphology, Phonology
and Aphasia. New York, Springer. 140-155.
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977. O sootnoenii ponjatija
sintaksieskogo podinenija s ponjatijami soglasovanija,

upravlenija i primykanija. In Problemy teoretieskoj i
ksperimentalnoj lingvistiki: Sbornik statej (Publikacii
otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki, under the
general editorship of V. A. Zvegincev, vyp. 8), 161-179.

Slightly amended version in Aleksandr E. Kibrik 1992.
Oerki po obim i prikladnym voprosam jazykoznanija

(universalnoe, tipovoe i specificnoe v jazyke). Moscow:
Kitajgorodskaja, M. V. 1976. Variativnost v vyraenii roda
suestvitelnogo pri oboznaenii enin po professii. In L.

P. Krysin & D. N. melev (eds.) Socialno-lingvistieskie
issledovanija. Moscow, Nauka, 144-155.
Koi, Frantiek 1981. Kongruentn zloen substantvne

syntagmy. Slovensk re 46. 129-140.
Koi, Frantiek 1982. Nekongruentn a kongruentno
nekongruentn zloen substantvne syntagmy. Slovensk
re 47. 12-22.
Kodzasov, Sandro V. 1987. islo v soinitelnyx
konstrukcijax. In A. E Kibrik & A. S. Narinjani (eds.)
Modelirovanie jazykovoj dejatelnosti v intellektualnyx

sistemax. Moscow, Nauka, 204-219.
Koka, N. A. 1963. Nekotorye nabljudenija nad
soglasovaniem v isle glagol'nogo skazuemogo s
podleaim, vyraennym prostymi i oslonennymi

formami. Filologieskij sbornik (stati aspirantov i
soiskatelej), vyp. 1, Alma-Ata. 79-85.
Kopeliovi, A. B. 1977. K voprosu o kodifikacii imen
suestvitelnyx obego roda. In V. A. Ickovi, G. I.
Mis'kevi and L. I. Skvorcov (eds.) Grammatika i norma.
Moscow, Nauka. 178-192.
Kozauk, H. O. 1984. islova vidpovidnist mipidmetom i

prostym prysudkom. Ukrajinska mova i literatura v koli
12. 31-35.
Krzysztof Czuba and Adam Przepirkowski. 1995.
Agreement and Case Assignment in Polish: An Attempt at a
Unified Account. Research Report 783 of IPI PAN (Institute of

Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences). Also
available at http://dach.ipipan.waw.pl/~adamp/Papers/
Kuchr, J. 1959. K rodov shod podstatnych jmen. Nae
Re 42. 193-204. (Quoted from Petr 1982, 226.)
Legia, L. 1958-59. Pripomba k obliki vikanja. Jezik in
Slovstvo 4. 127-128.
Lehfeldt, Werner 1980. Upravlenie, soglasovanie, primykanie

v russkom jazyke: popytka operacionalnogo opredelenija.
Russian Linguistics 4. 249-267.
Lehfeldt, Werner 1984. "Rektion", "Kongruenz", "Adjunktion"

- ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte. In J. J. van Baak (ed.)
Signs of Friendship: To Honour A. G. F. van Holk, Slavist,

Linguist, Semiotician. Amsterdam, Rodopi, 203-223.
Lehfeldt, Werner 1985. "Rektion", "Kongruenz", "Adjunktion"

- ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte: 2. Teil. In Werner
Lehfeldt (ed.) Slavistische Linguistik 1984: Referate des X.
Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens: Konstanz, 11 mit

14. 9. 1984 (Slavistische Beitrge 184). Munich, Otto
Sagner. 133-147.
Lehfeldt, Werner 1991. Zum gegenwrtigen Stand von
Definition und Beschreibung der Kongruenz im Russischen.
Zeitschrift fr Slavische Philologie. Band LI. Heft 1. 1-22.

Heidelberg 1991.
Lehfeldt, Werner 1992. O sootnoenii morfologieskix i

sintaksieskix priznakov v opredelenijax upravlenija,
soglasovanija i primykanija v russkom jazyke. In M.
Guiraud-Weber and C. Zaremba (eds.) Linguistique et
Slavistique: Mlanges offerts Paul Garde: I. Aix-enProvence. 345-359.
Leko, Nedad 1986. Syntax of noun headed structures in

Serbo-Croatian and corresponding phrasal structures in
English. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Distributed
by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, reference 86-28003.

Lekov, I. 1965. Dauerhafte Tendenzen zur numeralen
Positionskongruenz von Subjekt und Prdikat in der
bulgarischen Sprache. Die Welt der Slaven 10. 313-316.
[Reprinted in I. Lekov (1972) Osobenosti na sintakticnija tip

na slavjanskite ezici: Sbornik ot studii, Sofija, Balgarska
akademija na naukite, 24-27.]
Lenek, Rado 1972. O zaznamovanosti in nevtralizaciji
slovnine kategorije spola v slovenskem knjinem jeziku.
Slavistina revija 20. 55-63.
Makarski, Wadysaw 1973. Konstrukcje pluralis maiestatis w

gwarach Rzeszowszczyzny. Poradnik Jzykowy 1. 30-34.
Malevinskij, S. O. 1982. O klassifikacii sobiratelnyx
suestvitelnyx v drevnerusskom jazyke. Izvestija
Sibirskogo otdelenija AN SSSR: Serija obestvennyx nauk
11:3. 135-140.
Mareti, T. 1893-94. Gramatika kongruencija u Vukovim i

Daniievim djelima. Nastavni vjesnik, 333-354. (Quoted
from Herrity 1977, 46.)
Markovi, Svetozar V. 1954. O kolebljivosti slaganja u rodu

kod imenica iji se prirodni i gramatiki rod ne slau (i o
rodu ovih imenica). Pitanja knjievnosti i jezika (Sarajevo), 1.

87110.
Mathiassen, Terje 1965. Bidrag til sprsmlet kongruens

mellom subjekt og predikat i russisk - srlig henblikk p
det nyere sprk (ca 1730-1964), unpublished dissertation,
University of Oslo.
Megaard, John 1976. Predikatets kongruens i serbokroatisk

i setninger med koordinerte subjektsnominalfraser.
unpublished dissertation, University of Oslo.
Meluk, Igor A. 1975. Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix
islovyx vyraenij (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach:
Sonderband 16). Vienna, Institut fr Slawistik der Universitt

Wien.
Meluk, Igor A. 1993. Soglasovanie, upravlenie,
kongruntnost. Voprosy jazykoznanija no. 5. 16-58.

Mikkelsen, Hans K. 1983. O nekim problematinim
sluajevima kongruencije u srpskohrvatskom jeziku
("Paukal" u srpskohrvatskom jeziku) Nauni sastanak
slavista u Vukove dane: Referati i saoptenja 13/1. Beograd:

Medjunarodni slavistiki centar. 7379.
Millet, Y. 1981. L'accord anim || inanim en tchque
contemporain. Studia z filologii polskiej i slowianskiej 20.

157-164.
Munik, I. P. 1971. Grammatieskie kategorii glagola i imeni

v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke. Moscow,
Nauka.
Mullen, James 1967. Agreement of the Verb-Predicate with
a Collective Subject (Studies in the Modern Russian
Language, 5). London, Cambridge University Press.

Neidle, Carol 1982. Case agreement in Russian. In Joan
Bresnan (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical
Relations. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 391-426.

Neidle, Carol 1988. The role of case in Russian syntax
(Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory).

Dordrecht, Kluwer.
Neweklowsky, Gerhard 1983. Gramatiko slaganje
(kongruencija) brojeva u srpskohrvatskim dijalektima.
Nauni sastanak slavista u Vukove dane: Referati i

saoptenja 13/1. Beograd: Medjunarodni slavisticki centar.
1722.
Nichols, Johanna, Rappaport, Gilles. & Timberlake, Alan
1980. Subject, topic and control in Russian. Proceedings of
the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.

372-386.
Norman, Boris. 2001. Substabtivnoe podleaee pri
glagolax v 1-m lice mnoestvennogo isla v bolgarskom
jazyke (dvama studenti trsim rabota). In: Alexander Kiklevi
(ed.) Kolestvennosti gradualnostv estestvennom jazyke

(Die Welt der Slaven, Band 11) Munich: Otto Sagner. 77-86.
Nozsicska, Alfred 1978. Bermerkungen zur Quantifikation,
Konjunktion und Negation im Russischen (1. Teil). Wiener
Slawistischer Almanach 2. 209-239.
Nozsicska, Alfred 1979. Bemerkungen zur Quantifikation,

Konjunktion und Negation im Russischen (2. Teil). Wiener
Slawistischer Almanach 3. 239-275.
Osenova, Petya. To Appear. On Subject-Verb Agreement in

Bulgarian (An HPSG-based account). In Proceedings of the
fourth Formal Description of Slavic Languages Conference,
Potsdam, Germany, November 2001. Also available at:

http://www.bultreebank.org/Publications.html
Panevov, Jarmila 1982. Opisanie soglasovanija v
funkcionalnoj porodajuej modeli: ast I. Prague
Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 38. 5-16.
Panevov, Jarmila 1983. Opisanie soglasovanija v
funkcionalnoj porodajuej modeli: ast II. Prague
Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 40. 43-58.

Panevov, Jarmila. 1991. Nkter otzky shody selektivn a
shody paradigmatick. In Maciej Grochowski and Daniel
Weiss (eds.) Words are physicians for an ailing mind
(Sagners Slavistische Sammlung 17). Munich: Otto Sagner.

323-328.
Panevov Jarmila and Petkevi, Vladimr. 1997. Agreement

in Czech and its formal account. In Uwe Junghanns and
Gerhild Zybatow (eds.) Formale Slavistik. Frankfurt am Main:
Vervuert Verlag. 323-333.
Panov, Michael V. (ed.) 1968. Russkij jazyk i sovetskoe
obestvo, III, Morfologija i sintaksis sovremennogo

russkogo jazyka. Moscow, Nauka.
Prvev, X. 1971. Xristomatija po prakticeska gramatika na
blgarskija ezik: pomagalo za sudenti. Sofija, Nauka i
izkustvo [ 135-137, 147-151].
Patton, Helen 1969. A Study of the Agreement of the

Predicate with a Quantitative Subject in Contemporary
Russian. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Distributed by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 70-7839.

Peretruxin, V. N. 1980. Osobye sluai sintaksieskoj svjazi
skazuemogo s podleaim. Russkij jazyk v kole 67, no. 5.
7882.
Pesetsky, David 1982. Paths and categories. Unpublished
PhD dissertation, MIT.
Petr, Jan 1982a. Shoda eskch pvlastk nzvy citovanmi

v cizm jazyce. Nae re 65. 66-72.
Petr, Jan 1982b. Mluvnick shoda len rozvjejcch nzvy
vtvor slovesnch. Nae re 65. 225-233.
Popela, J. 1971-72. "Shoda" psudku s podmetem v
souasn rutin a etin. Rusky jazyk 22. 337-342.

Popov, Konstantin 1951. Za s glasuvaneto po islo v njakoi
sluai. Blgarski ezik 1, 228-229. [Reprinted in Parvev
(1971, 147148).]
Popov, Konstantin 1957. Za s glasuvaneto na
saestvitelnoto po islo s dve ili povee prilagatelni. Ezik i
literatura 12. 301. [Reprinted in Prvev (1971, 148150).]
Popov, Konstantin 1964. Sintaktinoto s glasuvane v
blgarski ezik. Sofia, Nauka i izkustvo.
Popova, Z. D. 1955. Soglasovanie po materialam Azovskoj

zapisnoj knigi 1698-1699 gg.. Trudy Voroneskogo
universiteta 42, vyp. 3. 91-93.
Popovi, Ljubomir 1983. Derivaciona kongruencija u rodu
kod odredbenih imenica. Nauni sastanak slavista u Vukove
dane: Referati i saoptenja 13/1. Beograd: Medjunarodni

slavisticki centar, 5571.
Popovi, Ljubomir 1991. Honorifika i semantika
kongruencija pri utivom obraanju. Knjievnost i jezik

38/1 (Beograd), 3853.
Potapova, N. P. 1960. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s
podleaim, vyraennym imenem suestvitelnym s
sobiratelnym znaeniem, v govorax permskoj oblasti.
Uenye zapiski Permskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta

16, vyp. 1. 29-40.
Potapova, N. P. 1962. Soglasovanie skazuemogo s
odnorodnymi podleaimi v govorax permskoj oblasti.
Uenye zapiski Permskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta

imeni A. M. Gorkogo 22, vyp. 1. 59-68.
Protenko, I. F. 1961. Formy glagola i prilagatelnogo v
soetanii s nazvanijami lic enskogo pola. Voprosy kultury
rei 3. 116-126.
Przepirkowski, Adam. 2000. Predicative Case Agreement
with Quantifier Phrases in Polish. In Arika Okrent and John
Boyle (eds.) The Proceedings from the Main Session of the
Chicago Linguistic Society's Thirty-sixth Meeting. Chicago,

IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. 343-354. Also available at
http://dach.ipipan.waw.pl/~adamp/Papers/
Przepirkowski, Adam. 2001a. Predicative case agreement

with quantifier phrases in Polish. In Adam Przepirkowski
and Piotr Banski (eds.) Generative Linguistics in Poland:
Syntax and Morphosyntax. Warsaw: Polish Academy of
Sciences. 159-169. Also available at
Przepirkowski, Adam. 2001b. Case and Agreement in
Polish Predicates. In Steven Franks, Tracy Holloway King and

Michael Yadroff (eds.) Annual Workshop on Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Bloomington Meeting

2000. Ann Arbor. Also available at
Revzin, Ilja I. 1970. O specifike soglasovanija po islu v
russkom jazyke. In Jazyk i elovek: sbornik statej pamjati
professora Petra Savvia Kuznecova (1899-1968). Moscow,

Revzin, I. I. 1973. Nekotorye sredstva vyraenija
protivopostavlenija po opredelennosti v sovremennom

russkom jazyke. In A. A. Zaliznjak (ed.) Problemy
grammatieskogo modelirovanija. Moscow, Nauka. 121
137.
Revzin, I. I. 1979. Struktura jazyka kak modelirujuej
sistemy. Moscow, Nauka. ( 236-255, 262-272)
Revzina, Olga G. & Revzin, I. I. 1974. Ob odnom sluae

svjazi soglasovanija s opredelennostju v slavjanksix
jazykax. Slavjanskoe slavjanovedenie no. 3. 54-66.
Robblee, Karen E. 1993. Individuation and Russian
agreement. Slavic and East European Journal 37. 423-441.

Robblee, Karen. Forthcoming The interaction of word order,
agreement and case marking. In Anne-Marie Simon-
Vandenbergen, Kristin Davidse and Dirk Nol (eds.)
Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in

Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Rothstein, Robert A. 1973a. O roli kategorii gramatycznych
w oglnej teorii jzyka: kategoria rodzaju. In L. Matejka (ed.)
American Contributions to the Seventh International

Congress of Slavists: Warsaw, August 21-27, 1973, I,
Linguistics and Poetics. The Hague, Mouton. 307-314.
Rothstein, Robert A. 1973b. Sex, gender and the October

Revolution. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.) A
Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York, Holt, Rinehart. 460-
466.
Rothstein, Robert A. 1976. Uwagi o rodzaju gramaticznym i
cechach semantycznych wyrazv. Jzyk polski 56. 241-253.

Rothstein, Robert A. 1980. Gender and reference in Polish
and Russian. In C. V. Chvany & R. D. Brecht (eds.)
Morphosyntax in Slavic. Columbus, Slavica. 79-97.

Rozental, David E. 1960. "Soglasovanie po smyslu"
skazuemogo s podleaim (Materialy k kursu "Praktieskaja

stilistika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka").
Moscow, Ministerstvo vysego i srednego specialnogo
obrazovanija RSFSR, Moskovskij zaonyj poligrafieskij
institut.
Rozental David 1967. "Soglasovanie po smyslu" kak
stilistieskaja kategorija. Inostrannye jazyki v kole. no. 2.
22-25.
Rusakova, M. V. 2001. Soglasovanie v jazyke i reevoj
dejatelnosti (Na materiala russkogo atributivnogo

slovoscetanija). Unpublished PhD dissertation, St
Petersburg.
Rika, Rudolf 1969. Kongruenzdomnen im Russischen.
Zeitschrift fr Slawistik 14. 747-752.
Safaev, A. S. 1962. O nekotoryx formax soglasovanija v
russkom jazyke. Russkij jazyk v uzbekskoj kole (Tashkent)
5:1. 11-21.
Sand, Diane E. Z. 1971. Agreement of the Predicate with
Quantitative Subjects in Serbo-Croatian. PhD dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.
Sannikov, V. Z. 1968. Soglasovannoe opredelenie. In V. I.

Borkovskij (ed.) Sravnitelno-istoriceskij sintaksis
vostonoslavjanskix jazykov: leny predloenija. Moscow,
Nauka. 47-95.
Sannikov, V. Z. 1978. Soglasovannoe opredelenie. In V. I.
Borkovskij (ed.) Istorieskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka:
Sintaksis: Prostoe predloenie. Moscow, Nauka. 148-186.

Schmidt, Peter & Lehfeldt, Werner 1984. Typen der
morphologischen Markierung: Zur Explikation von
"Kongruenz", "Rektion", "Adjunktion". In P. Rehder (ed.)
Slavistische Linguistik 1983: Referate des IX. Konstanzer

Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens Mnchen, 27. mit 29.9.1983
(Slavistische Beitrge 181). Mnchen, Otto Sagner. 211-239

.
Schmidt, Peter & Lehfeldt, Werner 1995. Kongruenz,
Rektion, Adjunktion: Systematische und historische

Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Morphosyntax und zu den
Wortfgung (slovosoetanija) im Russischen (Specimina
Philologiae Slavicae, Supplementband 37). Mnchen, Otto
Sagner.
Scholz, Friedrich 1965. Genre, Genus und Person im

Russischen. Die Welt der Slaven 10. 281-304.
Senkevi, M. P. 1964. Osobye sluai soglasovanija lenov
predloenija v russkom jazyke: Uebnoe posobie dlja

sluatelej otdelenija povyenija kvalifikacii redaktorov MPI.
Moscow, Ministerstvo vysego i srednego specialnogo
obrazovanija RSFSR, Moskovskij poligrafieskij institut. .
Skoblikova, Elena S. 1959a. Forma skazuemogo pri
podleaem, vyraennom koliestvenno-imennym
soetaniem. In S. I. Oegov (ed.) Voprosy kultury reci 2.

Moscow, Institut russkogo jazyka AN SSSR. 91-116.
Skoblikova, Elena S. 1959b. Upotreblenie skazuemogo pri

razdelitelnyx otnoenijax medu odnorodnymi
podleaimi. Naunye doklady vysej koly: filologieskie

nauki no. 2. 199-205.
Skoblikova, Elena S. 1961a. Oformlenie skazuemogo pri
soedinitelnyx otnoenijax medu odnorodnymi
podleaimi. In Voprosy teorii i metodiki izuenija
russkogo jazyka: Trudy vtoroj naunoj konferencii kafedr

russkogo jazyka pedagogieskix institutov Povolja (20-24
maja 1958 g.). Kujbyev. 162-176.
Skoblikova, Elena S. 1961b. Soglasovanie opredelenij s
odnorodnymi suestvitelnymi. In Voprosy russkogo
jazykoznanija: K 80-letiju professora Aleksandra

Mitrofanovia Lukjanenko. Saratov, Izdatelstvo
Saratovskogo universiteta. 181-190.
Skoblikova, Elena S. 1963. Ob odnoj konstrukcii v
slovosocetanijax s odnorodnymi opredelenijami v russkom

jazyke. Naunye doklady vysej koly: filologieskie nauki,
no. 2. 143-150.
Skoblikova, Elena S. 1967. Rol grammatieskix i smyslovyx

faktorov v oformlenii podinennogo slova pri soglasovanii v
rode i cisle. Uenye zapiski Kujbyevskogo

gosudarstvennogo pedagogieskogo instituta im. V. V.
Kujbyeva, 52. 37-57. (Quoted from Crockett 1976, 448.)
Skoblikova, Elena S. 1971. Soglasovanie i upravlenie v
russkom jazyke. Moscow, Prosveenie.
melv, Dimitri 1962. Nekotorye osobennosti soglasovanija
v russkom jazyke. Russkij jazyk v nacionalnoj kole, no. 4.

2532.
Smith, Michael B. 1994. Agreement and Iconicity in Russian
Impersonal Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 1. 5-56.

Stanoji, Z. S. 1967. Jezik i stil Iva Andria (Funcije
sinonimskih odnosa). Belgrade, Filoloki fakultet

Beogradskog universiteta.
Stone, Gerald 1976. Pronominal address in Sorbian. Ltopis
Instituta za serbski ludospyt Rjad A, 23/2. 182-191.
Stone, Gerald 1977. Address in the Slavonic languages.
Slavonic and East European Review 55. 491-505.
Stroiska, Magda M. 1986. Semantic motivation for gender

agreement. Kwartalnik neofilologiczny 33, 1. 51-60.
Stroiska, Magda M. 1992. Numerals and agreement in

Polish. Canadian Slavonic Papers 34. 429-444.
ulga, Maria V. 1997. Slavjanskij grammatieskij rod:
privativnaja oppozicija. Voprosy jazykoznanija no. 3. 26-39.
Suprun, Adam E. 1959. O russkix islitelnyx. Frunze,

Kirghiz State University.
Suprun, Adam E. 1961. Staroslavjanskie islitelnye. Frunze,
Kirghiz State University.
Suprun, Adam E. 1963a. O soglasovanii skazuemogo s
podleaim, vkljuajuim koliestvennye islitelnye v

serbo-luickix jazykax. Serbo-luickij lingvistieskij
sbornik. Moscow. 138-153.
Suprun, Adam E. 1963b. Zametki po sintaksisu polskix
islitelnyx. Pytannja slovjanskoho movoznavstva (Lvov),

7-8. 135-45.
Suprun, Adam E. 1969. Slavjanskie islitelnye (stanovlenie
islitelnyx kak osoboj asti rei). Minsk, Belorussian State
University.
Sussex, Roland 1980. On agreement, affixation and enclisis
in Polish. In C. V. Chvany & R. D. Brecht (eds.) Morphosyntax
in Slavic. Columbus, Slavica. 187-203.
vedova, Natalja Ju. 1971. Soglasovanie i koordinacija: ix

sxodstva i razliija. In Problemy istorii i dialektologii
slavjanskix jazykov: Sbornik statej k 70-letiju lenakorrespondenta AN SSSR V. I. Borkovskogo. Moscow, Nauka.
312-319.
van Schooneveld, Cornelis H. 1984. Agreement in Russian.
In B. A. Stolz, I. R. Titunik & L. Doleel (eds.) Language and
Literary Theory: In Honor of Ladislav Matejka (Papers in

Slavic Philology 5). Ann Arbor, Department of Slavic
Languages and Literatures. 189-214.
Vanek, Anthony L. 1970. Aspects of Subject-Verb
Agreement (= Studies in Slavic Linguistics, 1). Edmonton,
Department of Slavic Languages, University of Alberta.
Republished in the series: Current Inquiry into Language
and Linguistics, 23, 1977, Edmonton, Linguistic Research.

Veselovsk, Ludmila. 2001. Agreement patterns of Czech
group nouns and quantifiers. In Norbert Corver & Henk van

Riemsdijk (eds.) Semi-lexical Categories: The Function of
Content Words and the Content of Function Words (Studies
in Generative Grammar 59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 274320.
Wechsler, Stephen and Zlati, Larisa 1997. Case and
agreement with Serbian quantified NPs. Paper read at the
16th International Congress of Linguistics, Paris, July 1997.

Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlati 1999. Syntax and
morphological realization in Serbo-Croatian. In Robert D.

Borsley and Adam Przepirkowski (eds.) 1999. Slavic in
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford University:

Center for the Study of Language and Information. 283
309.
Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlati 2001. Case realization
and identity. In Helen de Hoop, Olaf Koeneman, Iris Mulders

and Fred Weerman (eds.) Effects of morphological case.
Special issue of Lingua, 111: 539560.
Note: These two references provide two

different accounts of case
dative/instrumental marking on modifiers in

Serbo-Croat NPs. Where the noun itself is in
an ambiguous case form a disambiguating
modifier, agreeing in case, is required in
order to make the phrase grammatical.
(Similar phenomena in German are discussed
in Gallmann 1990, Lindauer 1995, and
Schachtl 1989, amongst other references.)
Weiss, Daniel 1984. Kongruenz vs. Kongruenzlosigkeit: Zur

typologischen Entwicklung des Polnischen. Zeitschrift fur
Slavische Philogie 44, 1. 144-192.
Xaustova, Ju. F. 1972. Vy sastlivaja, vy sastlivy. Russkaja
re no. 6, 120-121.
Xitrova, V. I. 1964. Oibki uaixsja v soglasovanii v
uslovijax selskoj mestnosti (po materialam Borovskoj koly

Novo-Usmanskogo rajona Voroneskoj oblasti). In V. I.
Sobinnikova Z. D. Popova & A. I. iik-Polejko (eds.)
Materialy konferencii po izueniju junorusskix govorov i

pamjatnikov pismennosti (6-8 dekabrja 1962 goda).
Vorone, Izdatelstvo Voroneskogo universiteta. 122-128.

Zhazha, S. 1960. Zvslastnosti ve skode privlastku i redicim
clenem, v rustine. In: Sbornk Praci Filosofick Fakulty
Brnensk Universitety, A8, 53-68.
Zieniukowa, Jadwiga 1979. Skadnia zgody w zdaniach z
podmiotem szeregowym we wspczesnej polszczynie.
Slavia Occidentalis 36. 117-129.
Zlati, Larisa and Wechsler, Stephen 1997. Mixed Agreement

in Serbian: a Constraint Based Approach. In Brian Agbayani
and Sze-Wing Tang (eds.) The Proceedings of the Fifteenth
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford,
CSLI. 521-535.

Agreement Bib

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Agreement Bib

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Agreement

Note: This page can best be viewed using unicode encoding.

Carole Tiberius, Greville Corbett, Julia Barron

This bibliography is produced as part of an ESRC project on

This bibliography comprises collections and special issues

studies of agreement , mainly studies of agreement in

particular languages (section B), articles and book chapters

This bibliography does not in general include works which

This is a draft bibliography, which will be updated at

c.tiberius@surrey.ac.uk), whether just the bibliographical

permission for us to use the abstract). We would be grateful

for hard copies of items omitted (please send to the address

Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda & McCoy, Terry (eds.) 1984.

ESCOL 84: Proceedings of the First Eastern States

Barlow, Michael & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.) 1988.

Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories,

and Information, Stanford University.

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. & Phillips, Colin (eds.) 1993. Papers on

Case and Agreement. I (=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics

18). Cambridge, MA.: Department of Linguistics, MIT.

Brentari, Diane; Larson, Gary N. and MacLeod, Lynn A. (eds.)

Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Part II:

Note: This is a collection of papers on aspects of agreement

Corbett, Greville (ed.) 1999. Folia Linguistica XXXIII/2

Danon-Boileau, Laurent, Morel, Mary-Annick & Tamba, Irne

Phillips, Colin (ed.) 1993. Papers on Case and Agreement. II

(=MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19). Cambridge, MA.:

Plank, Frans (ed.) 1995. Double case: agreement by

(Monographs on Slavonic languages are included in Section

Grappin (1950), Iomdin (1990), Leko (1986), Mathiassen

Neidle (1988), Panov (1968), Patton (1969), Pesetsky (1982),

(1964), Skoblikova (1971), Stanoji (1967), Suprun (1959,

Alexander 1990. Agreement Configurations: Grammatical

Relations in Modular Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.

Barlow, Michael 1988. A situated theory of agreement.

Topic: The nature and definition of

Formal syntactic framework: Unificationbased grammar.

Language(s) cited: Arabic, English.

agreement is not a redundant feature-

copying morphosyntactic phenomenon, but

distributed throughout the sentence is

unified. A Discourse-Linking Theory of

agreement is presented in which it is claimed

information present in discourse situations

Belnap, R. Kirk 1991. Grammatical agreement variation in

Cairene Arabic (Arabic). PhD dissertation, University of

Pennsylvania. [Distributed by University Microfilms

Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2000. The Feature Structure of

Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic

Dialects (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Bessler, Paul Robert 1994. Une Analyse morphosyntaxique

de l'accord grammatical en franais. PhD Dissertation.

University of Toronto. [Dissertation Abstracts International,

Blinkenberg, Andreas 1950. Le Problme de laccord en

franais moderne: essai dun typologie. Copenhagen:

Bok-Bennema, Reineke 1991. Case and Agreement in Inuit.

Bosch, Peter 1983. Agreement and anaphora: a study of the

role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. London:

Topic: Pronouns and anaphora

pronouns in syntax and discourse. It

examines the accounts proposed to explain

Chung, Sandra L. 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence

from Chamorro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press