1 / 48

A feature valuation approach to the prohibition on two definite determiners in genitive noun phrases in Irish

National Centre for Language Technology (NCLT) Seminar Series Dublin City University July 18 th 2007. A feature valuation approach to the prohibition on two definite determiners in genitive noun phrases in Irish. Gearóid Ó Donnchadha University College Dublin

issac
Télécharger la présentation

A feature valuation approach to the prohibition on two definite determiners in genitive noun phrases in Irish

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. National Centre for Language Technology (NCLT) Seminar Series Dublin City University July 18th 2007 A feature valuation approach to the prohibition on two definite determinersin genitive noun phrases in Irish Gearóid Ó DonnchadhaUniversity College Dublin This research has been fundedby a scholarship received from the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences (IRCHSS).

  2. Research Question • Possessed noun cannot be accompanied by a definite determiner (An Gúm, 1999: 45; Doyle, 2001: 63; Duffield, 1995: 268; Mac Congail, 2002: 26; Ó Cadhlaigh, 1940:193). • Prohibition on two determiners in genitive noun phrases. • Using the framework of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky, 1995) and subsequent related work, as well as Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993; 1994; Marantz, 1998). • As far as we are aware there is no significant dialectal variation in the constructions discussed

  3. Syntactic Theories Several frameworks for syntactic research • Principles and Parameters • Minimalism • Lexical Functional Grammar • Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar • Categorial Grammar

  4. Generative Syntax • Early Generative Grammar was based on Phrase Structure (PS) rules which generate Deep Structure (DS) and transformational rules which operate on DS to generate Surface Structure (SS). • SS output feeds into the semantic and phonological interface levels called Logical Form (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF). • Proliferation of rules proved problematic and had to be constrained.

  5. Principles and Parameters • Constraints on possible grammars were defined in modules or theories according to the level at which they applied (DS, SS, LF, PF). • X-bar theory • Case theory • Movement theory • Binding theory • theta theory • Abstracting of general principles to replace rules in defining possible languages. • Variation across languages could be accounted for by parameters.

  6. The Minimalist Program • Minimalism is a model of Transformational Grammar which is outlined in Chomsky (1995; 2000; 2001; 2004; 2005). • Using the minimum amount of theoretical machinery seeks to explain the computational processes involved in human language. • Derivational – syntactic structure is built incrementally by Merge and Agree. Well formedness conditions are internal to the derivation. • Representational – syntactic structure is given and well-formedness conditions apply at a specific level of representation. • Derivational versus representational approach is still a highly contentious issue.

  7. The Minimalist Program • DS and SS eliminated, LF and PF remain (interface levels). • A Lexicon and a Computational System (CS). • In CS two operations Merge and Agree build the syntacticstructure required for a sentence. • Merge may be either external (insertion) or internal (movement).

  8. Research Question • How can we explain the following examples? (1) hata an mhairnéalaighhat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’ (2) *an hata an mhairnéalaighthe hat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’

  9. DP D NP N Determiner Phrase (DP) • (Abney, 1987: 9) ‘the DP Hypothesis’. • Noun phrase in Irish (Acquaviva, 2005; Bondaruk, 2006; Carnie, 2000; Doyle, 2002; Duffield, 1995; 1996; Harley, 2000; McCloskey, 2001; 2006) (3) [DP D [NP N …

  10. Move Move Possessor Noun Phrases • Duffield (1995; 1996) comparative analysis with the Semitic languages : (4) [DP D [AgrP Agr [NumP Num [NP N … • Assumes that D has D-features that must be checked which happens when D is occupied by a determiner, a possessive pronoun or a noun. • If D is occupied by a noun it assigns Case (genitive) to the possessor noun phrase (Duffield, 1995: 313). (5) hata an mhairnéalaighhat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’ [DP D hatai [AgrP Agr ti [NumP Num an mhairnéalaigh k [NP tk N ti …

  11. License Move Move Determiner Phrase (DP) • In (6) the possessive pronoun base generated in Agr where it functions as an agreement marker licensing pro in Spec NP. (6) mo theach‘my house’ [DP Dmoi [AgrP Agr ti [NumP Numtheachk [NP proiN tk…

  12. Possessor Noun Phrases • D is already occupied. Determiners, possessive pronouns and prenominal determiners cannot co-occur in possessor noun phrases as shown in (7)-(9): (7)*an mo theachthe my house (8)*mo hata an mhairnéalaighmy hat the sailor (9)*an hata an mhairnéalaighthe hat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’

  13. Type Constructions • Type constructions (Doyle, 1996; Green, 2004). In (10)-(12) - head noun has raised to D checking the D features of D and assigning genitive case to the complement. Following examples from De Bhaldraithe (1959): (10 ) hata mairnéalaighhat sailor (Gen)’a sailor hat’ (11)bean tíwoman house (Gen)’a housewife’ (12)sagart paróistepriest parish (Gen)’a parish priest’

  14. Type Constructions • Definite version of (10)-(12) shown in (13)-(15) are more problematic for Duffield's framework: (13) an hata mairnéalaigh the hat sailor (Gen)’the sailor hat’ (14) an bhean tí the woman house (Gen)’the housewife’ (15) an sagart paróiste the priest parish (Gen)’the parish priest’

  15. DP NP D N N Type Constructions • (13)-(15) cannot be a noun-noun compound following the determiner as in (18), as this type of compound (19) does not have a genitive complement, examples are from (Ó Dónaill, 1977). (18) [DP D [NP N [NP N … (19) othar + carr an t-otharcharr ’the ambulance’‘Masc’ ‘Masc’ ‘Masc’‘Sg’ ‘Sg’ ‘Sg’‘Nom’ ‘Nom’ ‘Nom’

  16. Determiner Placement • Correlation between the placement of the determiner and type of reading involved. (16)an hata mairnéalaighthe hat sailor (Gen)’the sailor hat’ (17) hata an mhairnéalaighhat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’ • In (13)-(15) how is genitive case assigned? • If D is filled no explanation for the determiner.

  17. Type Constructions • Major stumbling block, (13)-(15) are commonplace. Examples (20)–(22) are from (Ó Dónaill, 1977): (20) an mála scoilethe bag school (Gen)’the schoolbag’ (21) an páirc imearthathe field play (Gen)‘the playing field’ (22) an múinteoir eolaíochtathe teacher science (Gen)‘the science teacher’

  18. Paradigm • The following paradigm emerges: (23)hata an mhairnéalaighhat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’ (24)*an hata an mhairnéalaighthe hat the sailor (Gen)’the sailor’s hat’ (25) an hata mairnéalaighthe hat sailor (Gen)’the sailor hat’

  19. New Developments • New developments (Chomsky, 2000; 2001; 2004; 2005). • Elimination of Agr and the introduction of Merge and Agree. • Hypothesis - lexical categories such as verb and noun are not primitive but are compositional and are defined by functional heads within their internal structure i.e. little [v] and little [n] (Borer, 2005a; 2005b; Chomsky, 2001; 2004; Marantz, 1998; Ouhalla, 2005). • Can look at the previous examples (23)-(25) in a new light.

  20. The Minimalist Programand Distributed Morphology • Merge from right to left until required sentence is derived: (26) The man has closed the door • External Merge (27) (27) [DP the [NP door]] • Merge of (27) with the verb: (28) [VP closed [DP the door]...

  21. The Minimalist Programand Distributed Morphology • Merge of (28) with [v]: (29) [vP[DPthe man v[VPclosed [DPthe door] • Merge of (29) with tense (T): (30) [TPT has [vP[DPthe man v[VPclosed [DPthe door] • Internal Merge moves the subject to Spec T resulting in the required derivation: (31) [TP [DPthe man T has [vPv[VPclosed [DPthe door]

  22. Agree The Minimalist Programand Distributed Morphology • NATURE and FUNCTION of [v]. • [v] enters the derivation with its agreement features unvalued and enters Agree with the direct object (DO). Merge with DO results in the valuation of the agreement features of [v] (32) (Chomsky, 2004: 123). Merge also results in the valuation of the Case feature of DO to accusative (33). (32) [vP v[uPerson, uClass, uNum] [DP it [‘3rdPers’., ‘Neut’., ‘Sing’., uCase] …  [vP v[‘3rdPers’., ‘Neut’., ‘Sing’.] [DP it [‘3rdPers’., ‘Neut’., ‘Sing’., uCase] …

  23. Agree The Minimalist Programand Distributed Morphology (33) [TPT [vP [Subj][v’ v[uPers, uClass, uNum] [DP it [‘3rdPers’, ‘Neut’, ‘Sing’, uCase] … [TPT [vP [Subj][v’ v [‘3rdPers’, ‘Neut’, ‘Sing’] [DP it [‘3rdPers’, ‘Neut’, ‘Sing’, ‘Acc’] … • Lexical category verb is not a primitive category but a combination of [v] as a verbaliser which when merged with a root defines that root as a verb: (34) [v] + [Root]  Verb

  24. The Minimalist Programand Distributed Morphology • Proposal - Merge must be motivated.- Need to value unvalued features.- Features are valued by Agree under Merge.- Structure building is driven by feature valuation.

  25. Little [n] as a nominaliser • Gender as a subdivision of Class. Class systems can be considered to fall out into three types: (sex-based) gender systems consisting in two or three genders, with Romance as a typical representative; noun class or multiple (> 3) gender systems, as exemplified by many Niger-Congo languages; and numeral classifier systems, as in Chinese (Kihm, 2001a: 2) • Gender associated with little [n]. gender, a particular realization of Class, expresses the functional element n, whose primary function is to assign nounness to roots. (Kihm, 2001b: 9)

  26. Little [n] as a nominaliser • Acquaviva (2006: 1879) following Kihm (2001b) claims for Irish: The properties that define a noun independent of its syntactic context include gender; in this framework [n] is therefore the host for gender features. • Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz, 1993; Marantz, 1998), deconstructs the traditional lexicon and replaces it with three distinct lists. • List 1 consists of the Roots and Abstract Morphemes or grammatical feature bundles of the language • List 2 contains the Vocabulary Items that match the items of List 1 to their phonological content • List 3, called the Encylopaedia, contains the semantic information associated with a Root or a syntactically constructed object i.e. anidiom such as ‘kick the bucket’ (Embick and Noyer, 2005).

  27. Semantic Interface Morphology- Phonology Interface Computational System Lexicon Vocabulary Distributed Morphology

  28. Little [n] as a nominaliser • An Gúm (1999: 141) states (my translation) that: The second person singular, Imperative is called the root of the verb • The notion of root is discussed in Ó Sé (1991; 2000). Ó Sé (1991: 61) in a detailed discussion of verbal inflection in Modern Irish, states that: Irish verbal forms should be segmented into roots, stems and endings.

  29. Little [n] as a nominaliser • In the following example, I am assuming that Root is acategorial. Examples from (Ó Dónaill, 1977). Root [Root [n]] = Noun [Root [v]] = Verbmeabhr meabhr-án [Masc] ‘memorandum’ meabhr-aím ‘I remember’meabhr meabhr-óg [Fem] ‘thoughful girl’séid séid-eán [Masc] ‘gust (of wind)’ séid-im ‘I blow’séid séid-eog [Fem] ‘puff (of wind)’bodhr bodhr-án [Masc] ‘deaf person’ bodhr-aím ‘I deafen’aistr aistr-eog [Fem] ‘transfer (picture)’ aistr-ím ‘I transfer’ • The association of Class (gender), in the form of little [n], with the root identifies it as a noun.

  30. Little [n] as a nominaliser (35)Noun + [n] Noun cigilt [Fem] –án [Masc]]  cigilteán [Masc] ‘tickle’ ‘ticklesome person’ bláth [Masc] –óg [Fem]]  bláthóg [Fem] ‘flower’ ‘floret’ • In (35) the Class feature of [n] defines the Class of the newly formed noun. (36) [nP n[‘Fem’] [Root]]  N[‘Fem’] (Noun) [nP n[‘Masc’] [nP n[‘Fem’] [Root]]  N[‘Masc’] (Noun) • Necessary to assume the [n] enters the derivation with its Class feature already valued.

  31. Det-N Agreement • Determiner (D) in Irish agrees with the noun [n [Root]] in terms of Class (gender), Case and Number. Definite nouns in Irish indicated by the use of an in the singular and na in the plural. (37) an mhuc the-sg pig-sg-f ’the pig’ (38) an mac the-sg son-sg-m ’the son’ (39) na muca the-pl pig-pl-f ’the pigs’ (40) na mic the-pl son-pl-m ’the sons’

  32. Det-N Agreement • The genitive singular form of the definite determiner is na when feminine, and an when masculine. (41) teach na caillí house the-sg-gen old woman-sg-f (gen) ’the old woman’s house’ (42) teach an fhir house the-sg-gen man-sg-m (gen) ’the man’s house’

  33. Det-N Agreement • The genitive plural form of the definite determiner is na for both classes of noun. (43) teach na gcailleach house the-pl-gen old woman-pl-f (gen) ’the old women’s house’ (44) teach na bhfear house the-pl-gen man-pl-m (gen) ’the men’s house’

  34. Det-N Agreement • Why is it that Det-N agreement occurs? • From (37)-(44) it appears that Det-N agreement occurs under Agree with [n]. D is a Probe and according to Chomsky (2000: 122), a Probe by virtue of having unvalued features: seeks a goal, namely, “matching” features that establish agreement. • Feature valuation takes place in a Probe-Goal relationship. According to Chomsky (2001: 4): uninterpretable features of P and K render their relevant subparts active, so that matching leads to agreement.

  35. Agree Det-N Agreement • Valued features that enter the derivation assign their value to their unvalued counterparts by Agree. Unvalued features are indicated by prefixation with the letter ‘u’ for unvalued [uNum]. Elimination of unvalued features after valuation is indicated in the examples by red [uNum]. (45) [DP D [uClass, uNum, uCase] [nP n [‘Masc’, ‘Sing’, uCase] [RootP Root…  [DP D [uClass, uNum, uCase] [nP n [‘Masc’, ‘Sing’, uCase] [RootP Root…

  36. Agree Agree Genitive Case • Genitive case syntactically conditioned. Assume [n] has an unvalued Case feature valued by same functional head that values Case on D. Case agreement is a One Probe-Two Goals relationship: (46) Head (= v) [DP D[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Acc’] [nP n[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Acc’] [RootP Root… (47) Head(=Finite T)[DP D[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Nom’][nP n[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Nom’][RootP Root…

  37. Agree nP n DP nP D‘Gen’ n‘Gen’ Agree Genitive Case • Proposal - Genitive structures such as (41)-(44) have the derivation shown in (48) or as a tree diagram in (49), where the Case feature of the possessor is valued to genitive by [n]. (48)[nP n [CLASS, ‘Sg’, uCase][RootP Root [DP D[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uCase][nP n[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uCase] [RootPRoot [nP n [CLASS, ‘Sg’, uCase][RootP Root [DP D [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Gen’][nP n [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, ‘Gen’] [RootP Root (49)

  38. Agree Agree Definiteness • Proposal - Definiteness is an unvalued feature on the noun and is an inherent feature of a determiner and nouns have no inherent definiteness. In the following examples N = [n + Root]. (50) an fear ’the man’ D [‘Def’] + N [uDef] DP [D [‘Def’] + N [uDef]] • Null indefinite determiner (51) Ø fear ’a man’ D [‘InDef’] + N [uDef] DP [D [‘InDef’] + N [uDef]]

  39. Agree Definiteness • How to account for (52)? (52) *an hata an mhairnéalaigh the hat the sailor (Gen) ’the sailor’s hat’ • Merge of the noun mhairnéalaigh ‘sailor’ with the definite determiner. (53) [DP D an[DEF, uClass, uNum, uCase] [nP n mhairnéalaigh [CLASS, NUM, uDef, uCase][DP D an[‘Def’, uNum, uClass, uCase] [nP n mhairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uDef, uCase]

  40. Agree Definiteness • Merge of (53) an mhairnéalaigh ‘the sailor’s’ with hata ‘hat’. (54) [nP n hata[CLASS,uNum,uDef,uCase][DP D an[DEF,uCase][nP n mhairnéalaigh[CLASS,uCase] [nP n hata[‘Masc’, uDef, uCase][DP D an[‘Def’, ‘Gen’] [nP n mhairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, ‘Gen’] • No motivation exists for Merge of (54) with a determiner. • Under the above assumptions how might (13) repeated below as (55) be derived: (55) an hata mairnéalaigh the hat sailor (Gen) ’the sailor hat’

  41. Agree Agree Definiteness • Merge of mairnéalaigh with a determiner we get either (56) a definite DP or (57) an indefinite DP: (55) an hata mairnéalaigh (56) [DP D an[‘Def’, uClass, uCase] [nP n mhairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uDef, uCase] (57) [DP D Ø [‘InDef’, uClass, uCase] [nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uDef, uCase] • (56) will not result in the required derivation (55). Continue with the derivation of (57):

  42. Agree Definiteness (57) [DP D Ø [‘InDef’, uCase] [nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uCase] • Merge with hata: (58) [nP n hata[‘Masc’, uDef, uCase][DP D Ø [‘InDef’, ‘Gen’][nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, ‘Gen’] • No motivation for Merge with a definite determiner resulting in (59). Possessor reading derives from the merger of the indefinite determiner with the possessor (57). (59) hata mairnéalaigh hat sailor (Gen) ’a sailor’s hat’

  43. Agree Agree Definiteness • Merge of two nouns: (60) [nP n hata[‘Masc’, uDef, uCase] [nP n mairnéalaigh [‘Masc’, uDef, ‘Gen’] • Merge of (60) with a definite determiner: (61) [DPan[‘Def’, uNum, uClass, uCase][nPhata[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uDef, uCase][nPmairnéalaigh[‘Masc’, uDef] an hata mairnéalaigh the hat sailor (Gen) ’the sailor hat’ • Type reading (definite)

  44. Agree Definiteness • Merge of (60) with an indefinite determiner: (62) [DPØ[‘InDef’, uNum, uClass, uCase][nPhata[‘Masc’, ‘Sg’, uDef, uCase][nPmairnéalaigh[‘Masc’, uDef] hata mairnéalaigh hat sailor (Gen) ’a sailor hat’ • Type reading (indefinite)

  45. Conclusion • In this presentation the following points were discussed: • agreement and derivation of noun phrases in Irish using feature valuation by Merge and Agree. • an explanation of why the prohibition on two definite determiners exists. • the ambiguity of hata mairnéalaigh as ’a sailor’s hat’ or ’a sailor hat’. • the possessor reading ’a sailor’s hat’ results from an initial Merge with a null determiner followed by a Merge with a noun whereas • the type reading ’a sailor hat’ results from an initial Merge with a noun followed by a Merge with a null determiner.

  46. References Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2005. The Morphosemantics of Transnumeral Nouns. In Morphology and Linguistic Typology - On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. Catania. Acquaviva, Paolo. 2006. Goidelic inherent plurals and the morphosemantics of number. Lingua 116: 1860–1887. An Gúm. 1999. Graiméar Gaeilge na mBráithre Críostaí. Baile Átha Cliath: An Gúm. Bondaruk, Anna. 2006. The licensing of subjects and objects in Irish non-finite clauses. Lingua 116: 874-894. Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring Sense Volume I: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring Sense Volume II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carnie, Andrew. 2000. On the Definition of X0 and XP. Syntax 3: 59-106. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin. David Michaels. and Juan Uriagereka. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Structures and Beyond, ed. Adriana Belletti. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1-22. De Bhaldraithe, Tomás ed. 1959. English-Irish Dictionary. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair.

  47. References Doyle, Aidan. 1996. Compounds and syntactic phrases in modern Irish. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 30: 83-96. Doyle, Aidan. 2001. Irish. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Doyle, Aidan. 2002. Covert and Overt Pronominals in Irish.Vol. 1: Lublin Studies in Celtic Languages. Lublin: Folium. Duffield, Nigel. 1995. Particles and Projections in Irish Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Duffield, Nigel. 1996. On structural invariance and lexical diversity in VSO languages. In The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A comparative perspective, eds. Robert D. Borsley. and Ian Roberts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Embick, David. and Noyer, Rolf. 2005. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface. (To appear). In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, eds. G Ramchand. and C Reiss: Oxford Univeristy Press. Green, Antony Dubach. 2004. Lenition, coronal blocking and compounding in Irish. Paper presented at Workshop on Word Domains: Theory and Typology, Leipzig. Halle, Morris. and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken Hale. and Samuel Jay Keyser. 111–176. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Halle, Morris. and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some Key Features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275-288. Harley, Heidi. 2000. Irish, the EPP and PRO ms.

  48. References Kihm, Alain. 2001a. Noun Class, Gender, and The Lexicon-Syntax-Morphology Interfaces: CNRS – Laboratoire de Linguistique formelle. ms. Kihm, Alain. 2001b. Agreement in noun phrases in Semitic: Its nature and some consequences for morphosyntactic representations: CNRS – Laboratoire de Linguistique formelle. ms. Mac Congail, Nollaig. 2002. Leabhar Gramadaí Gaeilge. Indreabhán: Cló Iar-Chonnachta. Marantz, Alec. 1998. No Escape From Syntax: Don't Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. Paper presented at Penn Linguistics Colloqium. McCloskey, James. 2001. The Distribution of Subject Properties in Irish. In Objects and Other Subjects, eds. William D. Davies. and Stanley Dubinsky. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. McCloskey, James. 2006. Irish Existentials: Predicates and Defniteness. Paper presented at Stanford Existentials Fest, Stanford. Ó Cadhlaigh, Cormac. 1940. Gnás na Gaeilge. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair. Ó Dónaill, Niall ed. 1977. Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla. Baile Átha Cliath: Oifig an tSoláthair. Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 1991. Verbal Inflection in Modern Irish. Ériu XLII: 61-81. Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 2000. Gaeilge Chorca Dhuibhne. Baile Átha Cliath: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann. Ouhalla, Jamal. 2005. Agreement Features, Agreement and Antiagreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 655–686.

More Related