The Rich Agreement Hypothesis Rehabilitated

The generalization that V-to-I movement is conditioned by rich subject agreement on the finite verb (the Rich Agreement Hypothesis) has long been taken to indicate a tight connection between syntax and morphology. Recently, the hypothesis has been questioned on both empirical and theoretical grounds...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Linguistic inquiry 2014-10, Vol.45 (4), p.571-615
Main Authors: Koeneman, Olaf, Zeijlstra, Hedde, Zeiljstra, Hedde
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
(rich) agreement
Adverbs
argumenthood
Grammatical tenses
Language acquisition
learnability
Linguistic morphology
Past tense
Pronouns
Semantics
Syntax
syntax-morphology relation
V-to-I movement
Verbs
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fa03a0ef1ddbd03a870ae0bdd7b0cdc7dc90f76237d55cacc0319682587195533
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fa03a0ef1ddbd03a870ae0bdd7b0cdc7dc90f76237d55cacc0319682587195533
container_end_page 615
container_issue 4
container_start_page 571
container_title Linguistic inquiry
container_volume 45
creator Koeneman, Olaf
Zeijlstra, Hedde
Zeiljstra, Hedde
description The generalization that V-to-I movement is conditioned by rich subject agreement on the finite verb (the Rich Agreement Hypothesis) has long been taken to indicate a tight connection between syntax and morphology. Recently, the hypothesis has been questioned on both empirical and theoretical grounds. Here, we demonstrate that the empirical arguments against this hypothesis are incorrect and that it therefore must be rehabilitated in its strongest form. Theoretically, we argue that the correlation between syntax and morphology is not direct (morphology does not drive syntax) but follows from principles of language acquisition: only if language learners are confronted with particular morphological contrasts do they postulate the presence of corresponding formal features that in turn drive syntactic operations.
doi_str_mv 10.1162/LING_a_00167
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proje</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_projectmuse_journals_556258_S1530915014400010</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>43695660</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>43695660</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fa03a0ef1ddbd03a870ae0bdd7b0cdc7dc90f76237d55cacc0319682587195533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMFLwzAUh4MoOKc3r0KPglZfkiZpb8rQbTAU5jyHNEm3jHadTSbMv97OybaDnvIg3_u99z6ELjHcYczJ_Wj40pdKAmAujlAHMwpxhhkcow4ASWKaZuQUnXk_B4As4aKDbiYzG42dnkWP08bayi5CNFgv6zCz3vlobGcqd6ULKlhzjk4KVXp78ft20fvz06Q3iEev_WHvcRRrmtEQFwqoAltgY3LTlqkAZSE3RuSgjRZGZ1AITqgwjGmlNVCc8ZSwVOCMMUq76Hqbu2zqj5X1QVbOa1uWamHrlZdYAHBOOCEtertFdVN739hCLhtXqWYtMciNE3nopMWTXfLc6lCtvJXzetUs2nskY7xdQr5tvG204SRpPWHYL1S5sMf_mfDwB1q6xfQzYS6RFHAKWBIguO2WkMovt_z5P4i42kbMfaib3UEJ5RnjHOg3x86O0A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1700662622</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Rich Agreement Hypothesis Rehabilitated</title><source>Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals</source><creator>Koeneman, Olaf ; Zeijlstra, Hedde ; Zeiljstra, Hedde</creator><creatorcontrib>Koeneman, Olaf ; Zeijlstra, Hedde ; Zeiljstra, Hedde</creatorcontrib><description>The generalization that V-to-I movement is conditioned by rich subject agreement on the finite verb (the Rich Agreement Hypothesis) has long been taken to indicate a tight connection between syntax and morphology. Recently, the hypothesis has been questioned on both empirical and theoretical grounds. Here, we demonstrate that the empirical arguments against this hypothesis are incorrect and that it therefore must be rehabilitated in its strongest form. Theoretically, we argue that the correlation between syntax and morphology is not direct (morphology does not drive syntax) but follows from principles of language acquisition: only if language learners are confronted with particular morphological contrasts do they postulate the presence of corresponding formal features that in turn drive syntactic operations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0024-3892</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1530-9150</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00167</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LIINBL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA: MIT Press</publisher><subject>(rich) agreement ; Adverbs ; argumenthood ; Grammatical tenses ; Language acquisition ; learnability ; Linguistic morphology ; Past tense ; Pronouns ; Semantics ; Syntax ; syntax-morphology relation ; V-to-I movement ; Verbs</subject><ispartof>Linguistic inquiry, 2014-10, Vol.45 (4), p.571-615</ispartof><rights>2014 Massachusetts Institute of Technology</rights><rights>Copyright © The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fa03a0ef1ddbd03a870ae0bdd7b0cdc7dc90f76237d55cacc0319682587195533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fa03a0ef1ddbd03a870ae0bdd7b0cdc7dc90f76237d55cacc0319682587195533</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43695660$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43695660$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,31251,58219,58452</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Koeneman, Olaf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeijlstra, Hedde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeiljstra, Hedde</creatorcontrib><title>The Rich Agreement Hypothesis Rehabilitated</title><title>Linguistic inquiry</title><description>The generalization that V-to-I movement is conditioned by rich subject agreement on the finite verb (the Rich Agreement Hypothesis) has long been taken to indicate a tight connection between syntax and morphology. Recently, the hypothesis has been questioned on both empirical and theoretical grounds. Here, we demonstrate that the empirical arguments against this hypothesis are incorrect and that it therefore must be rehabilitated in its strongest form. Theoretically, we argue that the correlation between syntax and morphology is not direct (morphology does not drive syntax) but follows from principles of language acquisition: only if language learners are confronted with particular morphological contrasts do they postulate the presence of corresponding formal features that in turn drive syntactic operations.</description><subject>(rich) agreement</subject><subject>Adverbs</subject><subject>argumenthood</subject><subject>Grammatical tenses</subject><subject>Language acquisition</subject><subject>learnability</subject><subject>Linguistic morphology</subject><subject>Past tense</subject><subject>Pronouns</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><subject>syntax-morphology relation</subject><subject>V-to-I movement</subject><subject>Verbs</subject><issn>0024-3892</issn><issn>1530-9150</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMFLwzAUh4MoOKc3r0KPglZfkiZpb8rQbTAU5jyHNEm3jHadTSbMv97OybaDnvIg3_u99z6ELjHcYczJ_Wj40pdKAmAujlAHMwpxhhkcow4ASWKaZuQUnXk_B4As4aKDbiYzG42dnkWP08bayi5CNFgv6zCz3vlobGcqd6ULKlhzjk4KVXp78ft20fvz06Q3iEev_WHvcRRrmtEQFwqoAltgY3LTlqkAZSE3RuSgjRZGZ1AITqgwjGmlNVCc8ZSwVOCMMUq76Hqbu2zqj5X1QVbOa1uWamHrlZdYAHBOOCEtertFdVN739hCLhtXqWYtMciNE3nopMWTXfLc6lCtvJXzetUs2nskY7xdQr5tvG204SRpPWHYL1S5sMf_mfDwB1q6xfQzYS6RFHAKWBIguO2WkMovt_z5P4i42kbMfaib3UEJ5RnjHOg3x86O0A</recordid><startdate>20141001</startdate><enddate>20141001</enddate><creator>Koeneman, Olaf</creator><creator>Zeijlstra, Hedde</creator><creator>Zeiljstra, Hedde</creator><general>MIT Press</general><general>The MIT Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141001</creationdate><title>The Rich Agreement Hypothesis Rehabilitated</title><author>Koeneman, Olaf ; Zeijlstra, Hedde ; Zeiljstra, Hedde</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fa03a0ef1ddbd03a870ae0bdd7b0cdc7dc90f76237d55cacc0319682587195533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>(rich) agreement</topic><topic>Adverbs</topic><topic>argumenthood</topic><topic>Grammatical tenses</topic><topic>Language acquisition</topic><topic>learnability</topic><topic>Linguistic morphology</topic><topic>Past tense</topic><topic>Pronouns</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><topic>syntax-morphology relation</topic><topic>V-to-I movement</topic><topic>Verbs</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Koeneman, Olaf</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeijlstra, Hedde</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zeiljstra, Hedde</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Linguistic inquiry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Koeneman, Olaf</au><au>Zeijlstra, Hedde</au><au>Zeiljstra, Hedde</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Rich Agreement Hypothesis Rehabilitated</atitle><jtitle>Linguistic inquiry</jtitle><date>2014-10-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>571</spage><epage>615</epage><pages>571-615</pages><issn>0024-3892</issn><eissn>1530-9150</eissn><coden>LIINBL</coden><abstract>The generalization that V-to-I movement is conditioned by rich subject agreement on the finite verb (the Rich Agreement Hypothesis) has long been taken to indicate a tight connection between syntax and morphology. Recently, the hypothesis has been questioned on both empirical and theoretical grounds. Here, we demonstrate that the empirical arguments against this hypothesis are incorrect and that it therefore must be rehabilitated in its strongest form. Theoretically, we argue that the correlation between syntax and morphology is not direct (morphology does not drive syntax) but follows from principles of language acquisition: only if language learners are confronted with particular morphological contrasts do they postulate the presence of corresponding formal features that in turn drive syntactic operations.</abstract><cop>One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA</cop><pub>MIT Press</pub><doi>10.1162/LING_a_00167</doi><tpages>45</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0024-3892
ispartof Linguistic inquiry, 2014-10, Vol.45 (4), p.571-615
issn 0024-3892
1530-9150
language eng
recordid cdi_projectmuse_journals_556258_S1530915014400010
source Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA); JSTOR Archival Journals
subjects (rich) agreement
Adverbs
argumenthood
Grammatical tenses
Language acquisition
learnability
Linguistic morphology
Past tense
Pronouns
Semantics
Syntax
syntax-morphology relation
V-to-I movement
Verbs
title The Rich Agreement Hypothesis Rehabilitated
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T10%3A25%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proje&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Rich%20Agreement%20Hypothesis%20Rehabilitated&rft.jtitle=Linguistic%20inquiry&rft.au=Koeneman,%20Olaf&rft.date=2014-10-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=571&rft.epage=615&rft.pages=571-615&rft.issn=0024-3892&rft.eissn=1530-9150&rft.coden=LIINBL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1162/LING_a_00167&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proje%3E43695660%3C/jstor_proje%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c393t-fa03a0ef1ddbd03a870ae0bdd7b0cdc7dc90f76237d55cacc0319682587195533%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1700662622&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=43695660&rfr_iscdi=true