Closest Conjunct Agreement
We have not discussed in detail the report by Bhatt and Walkow (2013). Overall, their report seeks to infer that the CCA is only possible with an object agreement in Hindi and that many aspects of his account are clearly not applicable to the serbocroatic. However, they briefly discuss parallels with Serbokroatic (Bhatt and Walkow 2013: 1000f.). In particular, they argue that the CCA`s strategies are born because “T cannot assess its characteristics at &P in Serbo-Croatian, because the resolution of sexual characteristics is not present in &P”. The general idea is that CCA develops in both Serbokroatic and Hindi due to the unacceptibility of sex characteristics on &P, but for various reasons: in Hindi, functions on the &P object are disabled on a case-by-case basis, while in Serbokroatic &P initially has no value for sex. However, this explanation is not satisfactory for the serbokroatic, as it is clear that &P can calculate and makes its own sex to deduce the standard male. Therefore, it is still unclear why &P does not calculate its own gender in cases where we find CCA (the explanation clearly cannot be the same as for Hindi, as there is no subject-object asymmetry). Thus, Bhatt and Walkow (2013: 1001) argue that “CCA is not an option for choosing languages instead of a resolved agreement, but a remedy that occurs if one aspect of syntactic correspondence with &P fails” cannot be maintained if one does not explicitly talk about why the dissolution of sex is blocked in some cases and not in others. In our approach, we follow Marušič et al. (2015) assuming that a resolved agreement is indeed a viable option next to CCA and that this variability is associated with a parametric characteristic of grammar. However, this does not necessarily have to be the case for all Slavic languages. For example, Slovenian shows a double correspondence with the connected singulars (i). Antón-Méndez, Ines, Janet L.
Nicol and Merrill F. Garrett. 2002. The relationship between the treatment of gender and figure agreements. Syntax 5 (1): 1-25. Béjar, Susana. 2003. Syntax Phi: A Theory of Concordance. PhD diss., University of Toronto, Toronto.
The question remains how we can take into account the models of the supplementary upward agreement at Bantu, where the supplement is in line with the purpose of the matrix clause (cf. Baker 2008; Diercks 2010, 2013; Carstens 2016). At present, the exact nature of the conjunction agreement at Bantu is not well understood. However, there are recent descriptions of a number of languages that show that some of the different forms found in Slavic are also attested, for example.B. Last Conjunct Agreement in Lubukusu (i) (see also Mitchley 2015); Diercks et al. 2015). Supporting evidence that the conjunction “and” is inherently plural can be seen by comparison with disjunctions. Arsenijević and Mitić (2016) find that disjunctions allow singular convergence more easily than conjunctions: Corbett, Greville G.
1982. Resolution of predicate compliance rules in Slavic languages. The Slavonic East European Review 60 (3): 347-378. However, this goes against the fundamental assumptions of the analysis, because the dilemma of movement and the accompanying deactivation occur only when a conjunction is extracible. Unlike the first conjunctions, media conjunctions cannot be extracted (cf. Stjepanović 1999, 2015) and there should therefore be no harm in agreeing with the second of the three conjunctions. In addition, it is possible that the coordination of more than two conjunctions does not necessarily involve several specificities of a single head (see section . . .