Genus und Sexus im Konflikt.

The specialty of hybrid nouns is their different agreement according to certain features of the agreement target. They result from a conflict within in the gender assignment system. For example, the German noun Mädchen (semi-transparent diminutive for denoting a girl) is grammatical neuter but it refers to a female person. In German, nouns denoting females are feminine but diminutives are neuter. Since both rules apply, you can refer to Mädchen with a neuter (es) but also with a feminine pronoun (sie). There are different factors which influence the agreement pattern: the linear distance between noun and pronoun and the type of agreement target. So far there are only few studies on the influence of possible non-grammatical factors such as the age of the referent. In this paper, I elaborate on those factors and present the results of a discourse completion task focusing on the influence of a sexualized context.

Broken plurals and (mis)matching of ɸ-features in Tunisian Arabic

The aim of this paper is to explain an unusual agreement pattern that arises between Tunisian Arabic broken plurals and their targets. For example, a verb may agree with a plural subject in all ɸ-features or, rather oddly, in singular/feminine, even when the subject (the controller) is masculine plural. Developing an idea first briefly sketched—but ultimately not adopted—by Zabbal (2002), we argue that broken plurals are hybrid nouns. Hybrid nouns have been the topic of much recent research (Corbett, 2000, 2015; den Dikken, 2001; Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003; Danon, 2011, 2013; Matushansky, 2013; Landau, 2015; Smith, 2015): either their syntactic or semantic features can be the target of agreement, creating the possibility of an agreement mismatch. Using Harbour’s (2011, 2014) theory of number, coupled with some innovations, we provide the featural make-up of Tunisian Arabic broken plurals and contrast it with that of collectives, on the one hand, and sound plurals, on the other. We propose that the feminine agreement seen with broken plurals is associated with a [+ group] feature, one that is exponed as -a. In the course of the discussion, we will argue that all gender features are visible at LF (Hammerly, 2018) and that semantic agreement is routinely possible with nouns that are low on the Animacy Hierarchy.

Mixed gender agreement in the case of Russian hybrid nouns

This work presents a study of mixed gender agreement in the case of hybrid nouns in Russian. Examination of a number of approaches which seek to account for the category “gender” shows that these approaches are problematic when trying to explain mixed gender agreement in hybrid nouns. It is proposed here that the multiple-layer DP-hypothesis by Zamparelli (1995 and subsequent work) is best suited to analyze the Russian data. However, this rests on the crucial assumption that Russian demonstratives can occupy multiple positions within the DP, something that must still be verified by future work.

Syntactic and semantic agreement in Eegimaa (Banjal)

Typological research on agreement systems recognises syntactic and semantic agreement as the two main types of agreement, with the former considered to be more canonical. An examination of different manifestations of semantic agreement found in the Gújjolaay Eegimaa1 noun class (non sex based gender) system is proposed in this paper from the perspective of Canonical Typology, and the findings are related to the Agreement Hierarchy predictions. The results show that Eegimaa has hybrid nouns and constructional mismatches which trigger semantically based agreement mismatches, both in gender and number between controller nouns and certain targets. This paper shows that Eegimaa has two main subtypes of semantic agreement: human semantic agreement and locative semantic agreement. The data and the analysis proposed here reveal novel results according to which these two types of semantic agreement behave differently in relation to the Agreement Hierarchy.

Morphology and syntax … and semantics … and pragmatics

Agreement minimally involves interaction between morphology and syntax, as a target’s features vary according to the morphological form of a controller in a given syntactic context. However, semantics can also play a role, and the term “semantic agreement” has been used to describe various constructions where morphosyntactic feature values of the agreement target do not match the formal features of the controller, reflecting instead meaning-based properties of the noun. In this paper, we deconstruct instances of “semantic agreement,” as there is good evidence to believe that more than just the semantics is involved in the agreement process. In some cases, e.g. Russian hybrid nouns like vrač ‘doctor’, the local context provides the agreement features, giving a type of “pragmatic agreement”. In other cases, socio-cultural information plays a role, showing a broader type of pragmatic agreement. In light of these observations, we offer a deconstruction of semantic agreement phenomena in order to show the complex ways morphology interacts with syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Finally, we argue that the distinction between syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic agreement is paralleled by (and benefits from) earlier discussions of syntactic versus pragmatic control.