Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman. Controllers of partial quantities in agreement relationships. Morphology 23.2: 291-323. We will test our theoretical predictions in the empirical field of agreement (formalized as a dependence between characteristics), with particular attention to “unorthodox” concordance phenomena (conjunction agreement, Anaphor agreement effect, remote agreement, anti-agreement, split agreement, “failure” of the agreement (in the sense of Preminger 2011), etc.), in the hope that these can help to differentiate between different theoretical approaches to function structures and grammatical operations. Nevins, Andrew. 2014. Arrange Link and Agree Copy: two separate steps. Conference at the Agreement Workshop, Recife, Brazil. Bobaljik, Jonathan.
2008, where is phi? Agreement as a post-surgical operation. Phi theory: phi-features across modules and interfaces, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger and Susana Béjar, 295-328. Oup. Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Remote contract at Hindi-Ourdu. Natural language and linguistic theory 23.4: 757-807. Do we need featuraldiacritics/second-order features, and if so, what are the empirical limits (if ever) for featural complexity? (Forte 2010, Adger 2010, Adger/Svenonius 2011) Port, Daniel. 2011. Valencia and order number. Language request 42.4: 561-594. Harbour, Daniel, David Adger, and Susana Béjar, eds.
Phi theory: phi-characteristics across modules and interfaces. Oup. Georgi, Doreen. 2013. A relativized exploratory approach to encoding people in local scenarios. Language variation 12 (2): 153-210. Sundaresan, Sandhya. Revisiting the Anaphor Agreement Effect: a new pattern from Tamil. Language work reports 92: 499-526.
How are the features organized? That is, are they flat, set-type structures, or can they be controlled or have hierarchical structures? (Pollard/Sag 1994, Harley/Ritter 2002) What kind of fetal distinctions are empirically motivated? Z.B. value assessed/not valued vs. interpretable/ininterpretable in relation to something else. (Pesetsky/Torrego 2007). Strong, Michal. Nanosyntax: A short primer for a new linguistic approach. Nordlyd 36.1: 1-6. University of Tromsé.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Phased diversion. In Ken Hale: A Life in the Language. Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52 hicks, Glyn. 2009. Derivation of anaphoric relationships. John Benjamins.
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. 68. Survey linguistic monographs. WITH PRESS. Are the answers to these questions the same for all features or can different features have different characteristics? Z.B. Are some characteristics private, some binary ones, and others involve a hierarchical structure? Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. The syntax of the evaluation and interpretation of characteristics. Phrasing and clausque architecture: Derivative and syntactic interpretation: 262-294.
David Adger: 2010. A minimalist theory of the structure of the characteristics. Features: Perspectives on a keyword in linguistics. Kibort and Corbett, 185-220. Preminger, Omer. 2013. So you do not accept: an answer to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30 (3): 491-500. Zeijlstra, Hedde. There is only one way to agree.
The Linguistic Review 30 (3). Gruyter. 491-539 . Harley, Heidi and Elisabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A Feature geometry analysis.