Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:46:50.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 14 - Complementizer Agreement

from Part II - Morphology and Agreement Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Marjo van Koppen
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses Complementizer Agreement (CA): agreement between the complementizer introducing an embedded finite clause and the subject of that embedded clause. CA is mainly found in Frisian and the nonstandard varieties of Dutch and German. This chapter discusses the morphological properties of CA, in particular the (defectivity of) its paradigm, the relation between the CA paradigm and the verbal agreement paradigm, and the relation between the agreement on the complementizer, clitics, and pro-drop. It also goes into the syntactic properties of CA: its distribution in the left periphery and the relation between the subject and the complementizer.

Keywords

complementizer agreementverbal agreementpro-dropcliticsadjacencyleft peripheryGerman dialectsDutch dialectsFrisian
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 313 - 336
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackema, P. and Neeleman, A. 2004. Beyond Morphology. Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., De Vogelaer, G., Devos, M., and van der Ham, M. 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, Part 1. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., De Vogelaer, G., Devos, M., and van der Ham, M. 2006. “Dynamische Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (DynaSAND).” www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand/.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 1984. “COMP in Bavarian XE ‘Bavarian’ syntax,” The Linguistic Review, 3: 209–274.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 2014. “Syntactic and phonological properties of wh-operators and wh- movement in Bavarian.” In Grewendorf, G. and Weiß, H. (eds.), Bavarian Syntax. Contributions to the Theory of Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 23–50.Google Scholar
Boef, E. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses. Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation, Meertens Instituut (KNAW) / Universiteit Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series 317.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. 2003. “Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a case-checked goal,” Linguistic Inquiry 34.3: 393–412.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. 2016. “Delayed valuation: A reanalysis of ‘upwards’ complementizer agreement and the mechanics of case,” Syntax, 1–42.Google Scholar
Chung, S. 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Craenenbroeck, J. van and van Koppen, M. 2002. “The locality of agreement and the CP-domain,” Handout Glow 2002, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cremers, C. and van Koppen, M. 2008. “Boolean Agreement in Tegelen Dutch,” Lingua 118.8: 1064–1079.Google Scholar
Diercks, M. 2010. Agreement with Subjects in Lubukusu. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Diercks, M. 2013. “Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.2: 357–407.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. 2004. “Diachronic clues to pro-drop and complementizer agreement in Bavarian.” In Fuß, E. and Trips, C. (eds.), Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 59–100.Google Scholar
Fuß, E. 2005. The Rise of Agreement: A Formal Approach to the Syntax and Grammaticalization of Verbal Inflection. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuß, E. 2008. “Multiple agreement and the representation of inflection in the c-domain,” Linguistische Berichte 213: 77–106.Google Scholar
Ginneken, J. van 1939. “De vervoeging der onderschikkende voegwoorden en voornaamwoorden,” Onze Taaltuin, 8:1–11.Google Scholar
Goeman, T. 1980. “Comp-Agreement?” In Zonneveld, W. and Weerman, F. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1977–1979. Dordrecht: Foris: 291–306.Google Scholar
Goeman, T. 1997. “Historiografie van het onderzoek naar voegwoordvervoeging: een bibliografisch overzicht (1821–1997).” In Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. (eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden. Amsterdam: Cahiers van het P. J. Meertensinstituut 9: 112–145.Google Scholar
Goeman, T. 2000. “Structurele aspecten van de morfologie van voegwoordvervoeging: mogelijkheden en beperkingen, morfologisch gewicht en MCGG.” In de Tier, V., Devos, M., and van Keymeulen, J. (eds.), Nochtans was scherp van zin. Huldealbum Hugo Ryckeboer. Een bundel artikelen aangeboden aan Hugo Ryckeboer voor zijn 65e verjaardag. Gent-Deinze: Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde van de Universiteit Gent-Van Daele: 269–294.Google Scholar
Gruber, B. 2008. Complementizer Agreement: New Evidence from the Upper Austrian Variant of Gmunden. Master’s thesis, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Haan, G. de 1997. “Voegwoordcongruentie in het Fries.” In Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. (eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden. Amsterdam: Cahiers van het P.J. Meertensinstituut 9: 50–67.Google Scholar
Haan, G. de 2001. “More is going on upstairs than downstairs: Embedded root phenomena in West Frisian,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 3–38.Google Scholar
Haan, G. de and Weerman, F. 1986. “Finiteness and verb fronting in Frisian.” In Haider, H. and Prinzhorn, M. (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris: 77–110.Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. 1999. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2000. “The external possessor construction in West Flemish,” GG@G1:1–20.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. and van Koppen, M. 2012. “Complementizer Agreement and the relation between T and C,” Linguistic inquiry 43.3: 441–454.Google Scholar
Haeringen, C. van 1958. “Vervoegde voegwoorden in het Oosten,” Driemaandelijkse bladen 19: 115–124.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. 1997. “Vervoegde voegwoorden in de Nederlandse dialecten.” In Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. (eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden. Amsterdam: Cahiers van het P. J. Meertensinstituut 9: 6–30.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E. and Smits, C. 1999. “Everything you always wanted to know about Complementizer Agreement.” In van Gelderen, E. and Samiian, V. (eds.), Proceedings of WECOL 10. California State University: Fresno: 189–200.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. 1997. “Pro-drop, cliticering en voegwoordcongruëntie in het Westgermaans.” In Hoekstra, E and Smits, C. (eds.), Vervoegde voegwoorden. Amsterdam: Cahiers van het P. J. Meertensinstituut 9: 68–86.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. and Marácz, L. 1989. “On the position of inflection in West Germanic,” Working papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 44:75–88.Google Scholar
Koppen, M. van 2005. One Probe, Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOT Dissertations 105.Google Scholar
Koppen, M. van 2012. “The distribution of phi-features in pronouns,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30: 135–177.Google Scholar
Koppen, M. van 2017. “Complementizer agreement.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Companion to Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
Mayr, C. 2010. “On the necessity of phi-features: The case of Bavarian subject extraction.” In Panagiotidis, P. (ed.), The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and wh-dependencies. Oxford University Press: 117–142.Google Scholar
McCloseky, J. 2001. “The morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish,” Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100.Google Scholar
Meer, G. van der 1991. “The ‘conjugation’ of subclause introducers: Frisian -st,” North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE), 17:63–84.Google Scholar
Putnam, M. T. and van Koppen, M. 2011. “All there is to know about the alls-construction,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14.2: 81–109.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. 2000. Configurations of Sentential Complementation: Perspectives from Romance Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schiepek, J. 1899 / 1908. Der Satzbau der Egerländer Mundart. 2 Teile. Prag: Verlag des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. 1987. “Enclitische verschijnselen in het Westbrabants,” Taal en Tongval 39:121–140.Google Scholar
Vanacker, V-F. 1949. “Over enkele meervoudsvormen van voegwoorden,” Taal en Tongval 1: 32–45, 77–93, 108–112.Google Scholar
Vogelaer, G. de 2006. Subjectsmarkering in de Nederlandse en Friese Dialecten. Ph.D. dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Weber, A. 1964. Zürichdeutsche Grammatik. Ein Wegweiser zur guten Mundart. Zürich: Schweizer Spiegel Verlag.Google Scholar
Weise, O. 1907. “Die sogenannte Flexion der Konjunktionen,” Zeitschrift für Deutsche Mundarten 2: 199–205.Google Scholar
Weiß, H. 2005. “Inflected complementizers in Continental West Germanic Dialects,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72: 148–166.Google Scholar
Weiß, H. 2012. “The diachrony of complementizer agreement.” Paper presented at the Complementizer Agreement Workshop, October 17, University of Gent. www.gist.ugent.be/file/366.Google Scholar
Genootschap, Westfries (ed.)1929. West-Friesland’s Oud en Nieuw Jaarboek.Google Scholar
Zwart, J-W. 1993. Dutch Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 1997. A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2001. “Syntactic and phonological verb movement,” Syntax 4.1: 34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1977. “On clitics,” Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. and Pullum, G. 1983. “Cliticization vs. inflection: The case of English n’t,” Language 59.3: 502–513.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×