Speaker: Peter Grishin (MIT)
Title: Passamaquoddy peripheral agreement agrees with the lowest DP
Time: Tuesday, November 9th, 1pm – 2pm
Abstract: The Algonquian verbal template has a slot traditionally termed “peripheral agreement”, as it sits at the linearly rightmost edge of the verb. In Passamaquoddy, this agreement slot has an unusual distribution: it agrees with the lowest 3rd person DP in the clause after A movement in number, animacy, and obviation. (Other Algonquian languages show different agreement patterns with peripheral agreement, most of which are less problematic than Passamaquoddy; see Xu 2020, 2021 for discussion.)
Following Bruening (2001, 2005, 2009), I assume that the external argument c-commands the internal argument in direct configurations, the internal argument A-moves above the external argument in inverse configurations, and that in a ditransitive the external argument and goal always c-command the theme. Peripheral agreement agrees with the single argument of an intransitive, the internal argument of a direct transitive, the external argument of an inverse transitive, and the theme of a ditransitive—in other words, the lowest DP in the clause after A movement. Additionally, given peripheral agreement’s position following tense, and its disappearance in clause types that are plausibly reduced in size (the subordinative), we’re urged to place it quite high in the clausal spine, e.g. C. The resulting picture: you A-move all the DPs into their requisite positions, then you merge C with the peripheral agreement probe, and then it probes down for the lowest DP, in blatant violation of standard assumptions about the locality of Agree.
With this puzzle in place, I discuss some possible (and impossible) avenues of attack to analyze this pattern, and open things up to the audience: please help me figure out what’s going on! Do we really have to rethink everything we know about Agree and the typology of agreement, or is there another option?