Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement

14. Agreement with Multiple Sources

14 Agreement with Multiple Sources 14.1 Source Uniqueness One might naturally assume that the ϕ-feature values of a given nonexpletive pronominal must match the ϕ-feature values of some single DP with which it agrees. In our terms, the matching would be with the values of a single source. However, this assumed state of affairs, call it source uniqueness, is in no sense logically necessary. Our previous formulations of the Pronominal Agreement Condition in chapters 7 and 13 nonetheless imposed source uniqueness and, moreover, did so without argument. Consider (1) again, from chapter 13. (1) The Pronominal Agreement Condition (third version) If P is a nonexpletive pronominal, then P agrees with some source in those ϕ-features for which P is not inherently valued. According to this formulation, satisfaction of (1) requires picking out from the potentially many sources for a pronominal P only one with which P then fully agrees. In this chapter, we provide varied evidence that source uniqueness is factually untenable, and we show that a modest modification of (1) can allow for a single pronoun to agree with multiple sources in different ϕ-features. 14.2 Camouflage and Gender Agreement In SHCCs like those in (2), when the SHCC DP antecedes a 3rd person pronoun , the possessive pronoun’s gender must arguably be taken to match that of its ultimate antecedent. (2) a. Your Majesty must protect *itself/yourself/himself/*herself/ *themselves. (spoken to king) b. Your Majesty must protect *itself/yourself/*himself/herself/ *themselves. (spoken to queen) 182 Chapter 14 On our account of pronominal agreement, these data are a bit of a mystery. In (2a), the source for the 3rd person feature value of himself is the immediate antecedent Your Majesty. But we assume that the source for the gender feature value of himself is the ultimate antecedent ADDRESSEE. So these cases illustrate exactly the kind of split that (1) predicts should not exist. An alternative account of (2) would claim that majesty can have either masculine or feminine gender, specified as part of its lexical entry. However, such a proposal misses the relation between the use of majesty in (2) and its use as a neuter noun. (3) They discussed the majesty1 of her performance before it1 was widely acknowledged.1 Fortunately, a minor modification to the Pronominal Agreement Condition can handle cases like (2), by simply stating agreement in terms of particular feature values, as allowed by our definition of agree in (24a) of chapter 4. (4) The Pronominal Agreement Condition (fourth and final version) If P is a nonexpletive pronominal, then for all ϕ-features F of P for which P is not inherently valued, P agrees in F with some source. The revised condition easily accommodates the examples in (2). Take (2a). The pronoun himself agrees in gender with its ultimate antecedent, and in person with its immediate antecedent. Given (4), we now have to face ungrammatical agreements like (5). (5) *Your Majesty must protect itself. Here the reflexive agrees in person, number, and gender with the immediate antecedent. To block such cases, we propose condition (6). (6) The SHCC Gender Agreement Condition (for English) If the immediate antecedent of a pronominal P is an SHCC DP, then P agrees in gender with its ultimate antecedent. 14.3 More Overgeneration Formulating the Pronominal Agreement Condition as in (4) allows many more kinds of agreement than so far discussed. Consider partitives once again. (7) a. [Every one of us]1 thinks we1 are the best. b. [Every one of us]1 thinks he1 is the best. c. [Every one of us]1 thinks they1 are the best. In (7a), the immediate antecedent of we is every one of us, but the subject pronoun agrees with the set DP us (a secondary source for we). In (7b), the Agreement with Multiple Sources 183 immediate antecedent of he is again every one of us, which the pronoun agrees with. In (7c), the immediate antecedent is every one of us, and the pronoun agrees in person with that immediate antecedent and in number (but not person) with the secondary source. Assuming that the plural value of singular they is due to agreement with a source, only (7c) is a case of split agreement. Even were it to turn out that the plural feature value of singular they is not due to agreement with a source (but is rather an inherent value, as proposed in chapter...