Against Upwards Agree

References

Authier, Gilles. 2009. Grammaire kryz: Langue caucasique d’Azerbaïdjan, dialect d’Alik. Leuven: Peeters.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Mark C. 2012. On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: Evidence from Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2). 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00085.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and parameters (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107295186Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Mark C. & Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3). 593–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1.Search in Google Scholar

Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1). 35–73. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35.Search in Google Scholar

Belyaev, Oleg. 2013. Optimal Agreement at m-structure. In Proceedings of the LFG13 conference, 90–110. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Bjorkman, Bronwyn & Hedde Zeijlstra. 2019. Checking up on (φ)-agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3). 527–569. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00319.Search in Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0010Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2017. Consolidated morphology: A non-distributed, purely syntactic theory of morphology. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Unpublished ms.Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2019. Generalizing the presuppositional approach to the binding conditions. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Unpublished ms.Search in Google Scholar

Carstens, Vicki. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121(5). 721–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Carstens, Vicki & Michael Diercks. 2013. Agreeing how? Implications for theories of agreement and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 44(2). 179–237. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00125.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger. 2011. Transitivity in Chol: A new argument for the Little-v Hypothesis. In Lena Fainleib, Nick LaCara & Yangsook Park (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 41). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Search in Google Scholar

Coon, Jessica & Omer Preminger. 2017. Split ergativity is not about ergativity. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa Travis (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ergativity, 226–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198739371.013.10Search in Google Scholar

Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. Syntactic ergativity as case discrimination. Proceedings of WCCFL 34. 141–150.Search in Google Scholar

Evstigneeva, Anastasiia. 2017. Soglasovanie v chiragskom darginskom [Agreement in Chirag Dargwa]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana 13(1). 605–626.Search in Google Scholar

Forker, Diana. 2012. The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian. Folia Linguistica 46(1). 75–108. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2012.3.Search in Google Scholar

Forker, Diana. 2020. A grammar of Sanzhi Dargwa (Languages of the Caucasus 2). Berlin: Language Science Press. Available at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/250.Search in Google Scholar

Forker, Diana. 2021. Avar grammar sketch. In Maria Polinsky (ed.), Handbook of the languages of the Caucasus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190690694.013.13Search in Google Scholar

Gagliardi, Annie, Michael Goncalves, Maria Polinsky & Nina Radkevich. 2014. The biabsolutive construction in Lak and Tsez. Lingua 150. 137–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/Zj.lingua.2014.07.003.Search in Google Scholar

Ganenkov, Dmitry. 2019. Case and agreement in Mehweb. In Michael Daniel, Nina Dobrushina & Dmitry Ganenkov (eds.), The Mehweb language: Essays on phonology, morphology and syntax (Languages of the Caucasus 1), 189–234. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3402066.Search in Google Scholar

Harwood, William. 2014. Rise of the auxiliaries: A case for auxiliary raising vs. affix lowering. The Linguistic Review 31(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2014-0001.Search in Google Scholar

Hauk, Bryn. 2020. Deixis and reference tracking in Tsova-Tush. University of Hawai’i at Manoa dissertation. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69014.Search in Google Scholar

Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A grammar of Khwarshi. Universiteit Leiden dissertation. Available at: http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/003836/bookpart.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Kibrik, Aleksandr Evgen’evich (ed.). 1996. Godoberi (LINCOM Studies in Caucasian Linguistics 02). Munich: LINCOM Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Kibrik, Aleksandr Evgen’evich (ed.). 2001. Bagvalinskĭ yazȳk: Grammatika, tekstȳ, slovari. Moscow: Nasledie.Search in Google Scholar

Kibrik, Aleksandr Evgen’evich. 2003. Konstantȳ i peremennȳe yazȳka [Constants and variables of language]. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia.Search in Google Scholar

Kornfilt, Jaklin & Omer Preminger. 2015. Nominative as no case at all: An argument from raising-to-Acc in Sakha. In Andrew Joseph & Esra Predolac (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 9) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 76), 109–120. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar

Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1). 55–101. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Theodore & Omer Preminger. 2015. Case in Sakha: Are two modalities really necessary? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(1). 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9250-z.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Germán Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Chae Hee-Rahk (eds.), Eastern states conference on linguistics, 234–253. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Club.10.1075/la.34.04marSearch in Google Scholar

Murugesan, Gurujegan. 2019. Predicting the Anaphor Agreement Effect and its violations. Leipzig University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush grammar. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2002. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Jacqueline Guéron & Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time, 495–538. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6598.003.0021Search in Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria. 2016a. Agreement in Archi from a minimalist perspective. In Oliver Bond, Greville G. Corbett, Marina Chumakina & Dunstan Brown (eds.), Archi: Complexities of agreement in cross-theoretical perspective, 184–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747291.003.0007Search in Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria. 2016b. Deconstructing ergativity: Two types of ergative languages and their features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190256586.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria & Omer Preminger. 2019. The agreement theta generalization. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/ggl.936.Search in Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria, Nina Radkevich & Marina Chumakina. 2017. Agreement between arguments? Not really. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco & Ángel J. Gallego (eds.), The verbal domain (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 64), 49–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198767886.003.0003.Search in Google Scholar

Preminger, Omer. 2013. That’s not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30(3). 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0015.Search in Google Scholar

Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 64). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Preminger, Omer. 2019. The Anaphor Agreement Effect: Further evidence against binding-as-agreement. College Park: University of Maryland Unpublished ms. Version v7 https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004401 (accessed 4 August 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Preminger, Omer. to appear. Taxonomies of case and ontologies of case. In Elena Anagnostopoulou, Christina Sevdali & Dionysios Mertyris (eds.), On the place of case in grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Preminger, Omer & Maria Polinsky. 2015. Agreement and semantic concord: A spurious unification. Ms. Available at: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002363.Search in Google Scholar

Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of Cyclic Agree. Syntax 6(2). 156–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00059.Search in Google Scholar

Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Available at: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15166.Search in Google Scholar

Rudnev, Pavel. 2015a. Dependency and discourse-configurationality: A study of Avar. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation. Available at: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002465.Search in Google Scholar

Rudnev, Pavel. 2015b. Events, locations and situations: On the interaction of negation and finiteness in Avar. Linguistics in the Netherlands 32. 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.32.11rud.Search in Google Scholar

Rudnev, Pavel. 2020a. Agreeing adpositions in Avar and the directionality-of-valuation debate. Linguistic Inquiry 51(4). 829–844. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00360.Search in Google Scholar

Rudnev, Pavel. 2020b. The Anaphor Agreement Effect is not about featural deficiency: Evidence from Avar. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1). Art. 79. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.907.Search in Google Scholar

Safir, Ken. 2010. Viable syntax: Rethinking minimalist architecture. Biolinguistics 4. 35–107.10.5964/bioling.8757Search in Google Scholar

Safir, Ken. 2014. One true anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1). 91–124. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00149.Search in Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.10.1515/9783110871661-008Search in Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure (Studies in Generative Grammar 55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3). 491–539. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0017.Search in Google Scholar