Feature Gluttony - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

Característica gula

Jessica Coon
Stefan Keine

This article develops a new approach to a family of hierarchy-effect-
inducing configurations, with a focus on Person Case Constraint ef-
efectos, dative-nominative configurations, and copula constructions. El
main line of approach in the recent literature is to attribute these effects
to failures of (cid:2)-Agree or, more specifically, failures of nominal licen-
sing or case checking. We propose that the problem in these configura-
tions is unrelated to nominal licensing, but is instead the result of a
probe participating in more than one Agree dependency, a configura-
tion we refer to as feature gluttony. Feature gluttony does not in and
of itself lead to ungrammaticality; bastante, it can create irresolvably
conflicting requirements for subsequent operations. We argue that in
the case of clitic configurations, a probe that agrees with more than one
DP creates an intervention problem for clitic doubling. In violations
involving morphological agreement, gluttony in features may result
in a configuration with no available morphological output.

Palabras clave: Agree, hierarchy effects, Person Case Constraint, (cid:2)-fea-
turas

1 Introducción

This article develops a new model of syntactic hierarchy effects, including those found with the
Person Case Constraint (PCC) (Perlmutter 1971, Bonet 1991, Anagnostopoulou 2003, Nevins
2007), in Icelandic dative-nominative constructions (SigurLsson 1996, SigurLsson and Holmberg
2008), and in German copula constructions (Coon, Keine, and Wagner 2017, Keine, Wagner, y
Coon 2019). The distinguishing feature of hierarchy effects is that a configuration containing two
DPs is grammatical or ungrammatical depending on the relative ranking of the two DPs with
respect to some grammatical hierarchy—for example, 1(cid:3)2(cid:3)3 for person, or PL(cid:3)SG for number.1
We follow previous work in taking these hierarchies to be not encoded directly in the grammar,
but rather to emerge from the feature specifications of the DPs involved, discussed further below.

This project grew out of collaborative work with Michael Wagner, who suggested putting the problem in the probe.
Many thanks to Jon Ander Mendia for Basque judgments and data help, to Rajesh Bhatt for help with Hindi-Urdu, y
to Filipe Hisao Kobayashi for help with Brazilian Portuguese. For valuable comments, comentario, y discusiones, we are
grateful to David Adger, Nico Baier, Mark Baker, Rajesh Bhatt, Kenyon Branan, Steven Foley, Clarissa Forbes, Martín
Haspelmath, Laura Kalin, Martha McGinnis, Roumi Pancheva, Omer Preminger, Betsy Ritter, Carson Schu¨tze, Zach
Piedra, and Maziar Toosarvandani. Special thanks are due to two anonymous LI reviewers, Amy Rose Deal, and Ethan
Poole for providing extensive comments on an earlier draft. Versions of this work have been presented at the Manitoba
Workshop on Person (University of Manitoba), the Workshop on Comparative Syntax and the Workshop on Approaches
to Wh-Intervention (National University of Singapore), NELS 50 (CON); at these universities: McGill, Cornell, UCLA,
Princeton, Maryland, UC Berkeley, Calgary, CON, and Leipzig; and to students in the 2019 McGill Syntax Seminar. Nosotros
thank the audiences for their questions and feedback. Authors’ names are listed in alphabetical order.

1 What we call “hierarchies” here have also been referred to as “scales” in the literature (ver, p.ej., Aissen 1999,

2003, Haspelmath 2004, to appear).

Linguistic Inquiry, Volumen 52, Número 4, Caer 2021
655–710
(cid:2) 2020 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published under
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internacional (CC POR 4.0) licencia.
https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00386

655

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

656

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Such configurations are grammatical if the structurally higher DP is ranked higher on these
hierarchies than the structurally lower DP (as in (1); p.ej., 1(cid:3)3); but these configurations are
ungrammatical if the structurally higher DP is ranked lower on these hierarchies than the structur-
ally lower DP (as in (2); p.ej., 3(cid:3)1), a configuration that may be termed inverse. Hierarchy-
violating inverse configurations commonly require a special form or rescue construction to obviate
the violation.

(1)

Direct
DP1

(cid:2)(cid:2)

DP2

HIGH

(cid:2)(cid:2)

LOW

(2) Inverse
DP1

(cid:2)(cid:2)

DP2

HIGH

(cid:2)(cid:2)

LOW

One of most well-studied instances of a hierarchy effect is the PCC, an example of which
is provided in (3), from Basque.2 Basque displays what is known as the Strong PCC. The Strong
PCC rules out configurations in which a 1st or 2nd person direct object cooccurs with an indirect
object (with some important qualifications to be discussed in section 2.3). In the ditransitive
constructions in (3), the indirect object (italicized) structurally c-commands the direct object
(boldfaced). El 3(cid:3)3 y 1(cid:3)3 configurations in (3a) y (3b) are grammatical, mientras que la 3(cid:3)1
combination in (3C) y el 1(cid:3)2 combination in (3d) result in ungrammaticality.3

(3) Basque ditransitives

a. Zu-k

harakina-ri

liburua saldu d-i-o-zu.

you-ERG butcher-DAT book.ABS sold 3ABS-AUX-3DAT-2ERG
‘You have sold the book to the butcher.’

( 3DAT (cid:3) 3ABS)

b. Zu-k

ni-ri

liburua saldu d-i-da-zu.

you-ERG me-DAT book.ABS sold 3ABS-AUX-1DAT-2ERG
‘You have sold the book to me.’
harakina-ri ni

saldu n-(a)i-o-zu.

C. *Zu-k

( 1DAT (cid:3) 3ABS)

you-ERG butcher-DAT me.ABS sold 1ABS-AUX-3DAT-2ERG
Intended: ‘You have sold me to the butcher.’

(*3DAT (cid:3) 1ABS)

d. *Haiek

ni-ri

saldu z-ai-da-te.

they.ERG me-DAT you.ABS sold 2ABS-AUX-1DAT-3ERG
Intended: ‘They have sold you to me.’

(*1DAT (cid:3) 2ABS)

2 Abbreviations in glosses follow the Leipzig glossing conventions, with the following additions: ADDR – addressee;
CL – clitic; DO – direct object; IO – indirect object; PART – participant; SPKR – speaker. En algunos casos, glosses have been
modified from the original sources for consistency.

3 The examples in (3a,d) are due to Jon Ander Mendia (pers. comm.); (3b–c) are from Laka 1993:27. Abajo, Basque

examples not otherwise attributed are due to Jon Ander Mendia (pers. comm.).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

657

Much previous work on hierarchy effects has argued that these and other hierarchy-effect-
inducing configurations arise in environments in which two accessible DPs are found in the same
domain as a single agreeing verbal head (p.ej., Anagnostopoulou 2003, 2005, Be´jar and Rezac
2003, Nevins 2007, Preminger 2014, 2019, Pancheva and Zubizarreta 2018, Oxford 2019, Stego-
vec 2020, among many others). This is schematized in (4). Descriptively, hierarchy violations
generally emerge when the lower DP is featurally more highly specified or marked than the higher
DP, as in (2).

(4) [Probe0 [ . . . DP1 . . . [ . . . DP2 . . . ]]]

While such hierarchy effects have been productively approached from a considerable range of
perspectives (ver, p.ej., Anagnostopoulou 2017 for an overview of approaches to the PCC), muchos
accounts share the basic analytical intuition that these effects are the result of failed agreement,
whereby an obligatory Agree or movement dependency between DP2 and a verbal head (Probe0
en (4)) is rendered impossible due to the presence of the higher DP1 (Anagnostopoulou 2003,
2005, Be´jar and Rezac 2003, Nevins 2007, Panadero 2008, 2011, Richards 2008, Preminger 2019,
Stegovec 2020; also see Adger and Harbour 2007). The necessity for this Agree or movement
dependency can be framed in terms of case assignment and/or nominal licensing (p.ej., Anagnosto-
poulou 2003, 2005, Be´jar and Rezac 2003, Adger and Harbour 2007, Panadero 2008, 2011, Richards
2008, Kalin 2019, Preminger 2019) or in the need of the DP/clitic to acquire interpretable (cid:2)-
características (Stegovec 2020). Despite significant differences in their technical underpinnings, alcance,
and execution, what these approaches share is the intuition that the PCC is due to the disruption
of this Agree or movement dependency with DP2 by the intervening DP1.

In this article, we explore a new take on hierarchy effects that does not view them as resulting
from failed Agree or failures of nominal licensing. Bastante, we propose that hierarchy effects are
the result of having too much Agree. Específicamente, we argue that in hierarchy-violating structures,
a probe participates in more than one Agree relation, effectively “biting off more than it can
chew,” a configuration that we refer to as feature gluttony. Por ejemplo, in the structure in (4),
feature gluttony (and hence a hierarchy effect) arises when the probe enters into Agree with both
DP1 and DP2.

(5) [Probe0 [ . . . DP1 . . . [ . . . DP2 . . . ]]]

feature gluttony

Feature gluttony—that is, Agree between a single probe and multiple DPs—does not in and of
itself cause ungrammaticality, but it can create irresolvably conflicting requirements for subse-
quent operations, which gives rise to ineffability. The view that we are proposing thus amounts
to a reversal of the standard explanation for hierarchy effects like the PCC: hierarchy effects do
not arise if Agree between a probe and a DP is blocked by a higher DP; bastante, they arise when
such Agree takes place in addition to Agree with a higher DP. A second key difference between
gluttony and traditional approaches is that the gluttony account does not attribute hierarchy effects
to failures of nominal licensing; En realidad, nominal licensing plays no role at all.

In order to characterize the configurations in which double Agree takes place, as in (5), nosotros
draw on recent work on Cyclic Agree by Be´jar (2003) and Be´jar and Rezac (2009) (also see the

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

658

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

distinction between interaction and satisfaction in Deal 2015). From these works, we adopt the
idea that probes may consist of hierarchies of subfeatures (or “segments”), which can agree
independently and with distinct DPs. On our account, gluttony configurations such as (5) son
characterized by DP2 being featurally more specified than DP1 relative to the specification of
the probe. In such configurations, some segments of the probe will agree with DP1, while others
will agree with DP2, giving rise to feature gluttony as in (5).

An important motivation for this shift in perspective on the syntax of hierarchy effects
comes from the observation that hierarchy effects (including PCC effects) frequently disappear
in configurations in which no agreement or cliticization takes place (p.ej., certain nonfinite clauses)
and are wholly absent in languages that lack agreement or clitics altogether (Preminger 2019).
In a nutshell, if hierarchy effects are due to failed Agree with a verbal head, then it is unexpected
that they should disappear in configurations in which no Agree at all takes place with a verbal
cabeza. Por el contrario, on our proposal that hierarchy effects are the result of too much Agree with
a verbal head, it follows directly that configurations that lack such Agree should not display
hierarchy effects. Additional motivation comes from variation in the different possible effects of
feature gluttony and the corresponding repair strategies used to circumvent them.

The rest of this article is organized as follows. We begin in section 2 with an overview of
licensing-based accounts of the PCC. This section provides necessary empirical and theoretical
fondo, and also highlights some of the concerns raised by this family of accounts. Sección
3 introduces our notion of feature gluttony. In PCC configurations, also discussed in section 3,
a probe that interacts with more than one DP creates an intervention problem for clitic doubling. En
violations involving agreement, examined for German copula constructions and Icelandic dative-
nominative configurations in section 4, feature gluttony results in a configuration with no available
morphological output. Sección 5 concludes with a summary and possible extensions.

2 Against the PCC as Failed Agree

As mentioned in section 1, many current accounts analyze the PCC in terms of failed Agree: un
obligatory Agree relationship between a DP/clitic and a verbal head cannot be established, leading
to ungrammaticality. Our goal here is not to give a comprehensive overview or assessment of
such accounts; bastante, it is to examine some of their core properties and then to highlight a class
of challenges to the broad view that PCC effects are due to failed Agree. We show that PCC
efectos (y, as we will show, hierarchy effects more generally) disappear in environments that lack
agreement or clitics, such as certain nonfinite clauses (Preminger 2011, 2019). This observation is
surprising on a failed-Agree account.

To facilitate discussion, we will illustrate the challenge on the basis of highly influential
licensing-based approaches to the PCC. On these approaches, failed Agree between a verbal head
and a DP leads to ungrammaticality because it leaves the DP unlicensed/caseless (Anagnostopou-
lou 2003, 2005, Be´jar and Rezac 2003, Adger and Harbour 2007, Panadero 2008, 2011, Kalin 2019,
Preminger 2019). En la sección 2.1, we present some additional background on PCC effects; en
sección 2.2, we illustrate how a licensing-based account derives the core effects. En la sección 2.3,
we lay out various empirical challenges for the view that PCC effects result from failures of
nominal licensing or failed Agree more generally. These challenges then pave the way for our

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

659

proposal in section 3 that PCC effects are the result of too much Agree, or in our terms, feature
gluttony.

2.1 Some Background on the PCC

The PCC bans certain combinations of person features across multiple phonologically weak argu-
mentos, most commonly pronominal clitics (though we will give examples from other multiple-
DP constructions below; see also Be´jar and Rezac 2009 and Kalin and Van Urk 2015 for extensions
of a licensing account to transitive configurations in certain languages).4 In the Basque example
en (3), Por ejemplo, a 1st or 2nd person direct object is banned in the presence of an indirect
object. PCC effects have been documented in a wide range of unrelated languages, incluido
Griego, Español, Basque, Passamaquoddy, Warlpiri, Slovenian, Kiowa, Francés, Sambaa, Yimas,
Georgian, and Albanian, to name a few (p.ej., Perlmutter 1971, Bonet 1991, Laka 1993, Anagnosto-
poulou 2003, Haspelmath 2004, Adger and Harbour 2007, Nevins 2007, Ormazabal and Romero
2007, Riedel 2009, Doliana 2013, Pancheva and Zubizarreta 2018, Stegovec 2020); see Anagno-
stopoulou 2017:3006 for an extensive list of languages and references.

Despite crosslinguistic commonalities, different “strengths” of PCC have been observed (p.ej.,
Perlmutter 1971, Bonet 1991, 1994, Anagnostopoulou 2005, 2017, Bianchi 2006, Nevins 2007,
Doliana 2013, Pancheva and Zubizarreta 2018, Stegovec 2020). The Strong PCC, instantiated,
Por ejemplo, by Basque in (3), bans any clitic combination in which the lower direct object is
1st or 2nd person. Por el contrario, the Weak PCC bans 1st or 2nd person direct objects only if the
indirect object is 3rd person. Varieties of the PCC are represented in table 1. Despite this variability,
what they have in common is that violations arise when the lower direct object is 1st or 2nd
person.5

2.2 PCC Effects as Licensing Failures

Many current accounts of the PCC attribute the restriction to failed Agree, and in particular, a
failures of nominal licensing (see Albizu 1997 and Rezac 2008b for arguments from Basque that

4 The PCC is frequently stated as a restriction on certain combinations of phonologically weak (cid:2)-exponents, pero
Albizu (1997:4n8) notes that Tsotsil presents an apparent exception. As in other Strong PCC patterns shown below,
Tsotsil prohibits 1st or 2nd person direct objects in all ditransitives. This restriction holds even though Tsotsil has no
overt exponent for 3rd person indirect objects and never allows for the cooccurrence of two object agreement markers/
clitics (Tsotsil is a primary/secondary object language in the sense of Dryer 1986, where only the highest object controls
the verbal agreement marker). This PCC effect hence cannot be attributed to a restriction on combinations of morphemes
(Aissen 1987; see also Shklovsky 2012 on related Tseltal). Because our proposal here does not attribute the PCC to a
restriction on combinations of morphemes, instead attributing it to competition among multiple elements for a single slot,
it extends to the Tsotsil pattern if the null 3rd person object agreement is treated as a phonologically null morpheme or
clitic (see Baker 2006 for the need to distinguish between absence of agreement and phonologically null agreement).

5 Here we set aside the “Super-Strong PCC” (Haspelmath 2004) and the “Giga PCC” or “Total PCC” (Doliana
2013, Preminger 2019). The Super-Strong PCC rules out 3(cid:3)3 in addition to 3(cid:3)1/2, a pattern found in Kambera (Malayo-
Polynesian; see Klamer 1997); the Total or Giga PCC bans all combinations of weak pronouns (p.ej., Cairene Arabic;
see Doliana 2013). Following others, we suggest that these less common bans may be better suited to a morphophonological
or prosodic explanation (ver, p.ej., Nevins 2007 on Spanish “spurious se” and Preminger 2019 for discussion). Por ejemplo,
in Kambera the two object clitics bear the same case and occur adjacent to each other. The ban on 3(cid:3)3 combinations
may thus be attributed to a constraint on adjacent clitics with identical person and case features. The Total or Giga PCC
might plausibly be the result of a prosodic constraint (Preminger 2019:3).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

660

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Mesa 1
Types of the Person Case Constraint

Indirect
object

Direct
(cid:3) object

Examples

Strong

*1/2/3

(cid:3) 1/2

Basque (Laka 1993), Griego (Anagnostopoulou 2003),

Weak

(cid:3) 1/2

Kiowa (Adger and Harbour 2007)

Varieties of Catalan (Bonet 1991) and Italian
(Bianchi 2006), Sambaa (Riedel 2009)

Me-First

*1/2/3

(cid:3) 1

Romanian (Nevins 2007), Bulgarian (Pancheva and

Ultrastrong

(cid:2)

(cid:3) 1/2 &
(cid:3) 1

(cid:3)

Zubizarreta 2018)

Classical Arabic (Fassi Fehri 1988, Nevins 2007)

the PCC is syntactic in nature, not purely morphological; also see Perlmutter 1971 for relevant
discussion). We illustrate this line of approach with the Person Licensing Condition (PLC) de
Be´jar and Rezac 2003, which is stated in (6) (also see Be´jar and Rezac 2009). It is possible to
analizar (6) in terms of the Case Filter (Anagnostopoulou 2003), but we will abstract away from
the relationship between the two here (see also Baker 2008, 2011, Preminger 2014).

(6) Person Licensing Condition (PLC)

An interpretable [PART(ICIPANT)] feature must be licensed by entering into an Agree
relation with a functional category.
(adapted from Be´jar and Rezac 2003:53)

The feature [PART] is borne by 1st and 2nd person DPs, but not by 3rd person DPs. Individual
analyses differ as to whether only 1st and 2nd person DPs need to be licensed (Be´jar and Rezac
2003; also see Ormazabal and Romero 1998) or whether all DPs require licensing (es decir., abstract
Case), but 1st/2nd person DPs must receive it in a special way (Panadero 1996, Anagnostopoulou
2003); see Rezac 2008b for discussion. What licensing accounts of the PCC have in common is
the proposal that there is something special about 1st and 2nd person DPs, to the exclusion of
3rd (see also for example Nichols 2001 and work discussed there) and that this property requires
special licensing through (cid:2)-Agree. This is what (6) encodes.

Abstracting away from specific proposals, the general idea underlying this line of analysis
is that PCC violations arise when the higher DP intervenes between the probe and a lower [PART]
DP, preventing licensing of the [PART] DP. This is schematized for a PCC-violating 3(cid:3)1 configura-
tion in (7) (such as the Basque example in (3C)). Aquí, the object-licensing probe (typically located
on v) first matches the 3rd person indirect object, but due to intervention, the probe cannot agree
with the lower 1st person direct object, which hence remains unlicensed. This violates the PLC
(6), leading to ungrammaticality.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

661

(7) *[Probe0 [ . . . DP[3SG] [ . . . DP[1SG]]]]

licensing failure for DP[1SG]

(cid:51)

(cid:3)

Por el contrario, the structure for a PCC-obeying 1(cid:3)3 configuración, como (3b), is shown in (8). Como
antes, the relevant probe matches the indirect object, but it cannot agree with the direct object.
En este caso, sin embargo, because the direct object is 3rd person and hence does not bear a [PART]
feature, it is not dependent on licensing through Agree with the probe. This lack of Agree is
therefore harmless, and the structure converges.

(8) [vP Probe0 [ . . . DP[1SG] [ . . . DP[3SG]]]]

(cid:51)

Como resultado, on this general line of analysis, 1st and 2nd person DPs remain unlicensed if they
are separated from v by an indirect object. This derives the Strong PCC. For other varieties of
PCC, more needs to be said (ver, p.ej., Anagnostopoulou 2005 and Nevins 2007 for relevant
proposals and discussion). Because we will ultimately argue against a licensing account of the
PCC, we will not review its extensions to varieties other than the Strong PCC in detail here
(though see footnotes 17 y 20).

2.3 Caveats for Licensing Accounts

While a licensing-based approach elegantly captures many of the special properties of [PART] DPs
in hierarchy-violating configurations, recent work has shown that it cannot be the case that all
[PART] DPs need licensing through (cid:2)-Agree, as in the original formulation in (6). En cambio, addi-
tional caveats are required, and these caveats pose an analytical challenge to licensing-based
accounts of the PCC. The most explicit exploration of such caveats is found in Preminger 2011,
2019. Preminger argues that the PLC does not apply to all DPs; bastante, it applies only to those
DPs that occur in a clause that contains a (cid:2)-probe. This revised version of the PLC is stated in
(9); also see Preminger 2019:7 for a more detailed formulation that is also compatible with our
proposal here.6

(9) Person Licensing Condition (PLC)

A [PART(ICIPANT)] feature on a DP in the same clause as a person (cid:2)-probe must be
agreed with by that (cid:2)-probe.
(adapted from Preminger 2011:931; our emphasis)

(9) is weaker than the original PLC in (6) as it includes an additional caveat: licensing of [PART]
through Agree is required only for those DPs that appear in a clause that also hosts a (cid:2)-probe.
DPs in clauses that do not contain a (cid:2)-probe do not need to be licensed by Agree even if they

6 Preminger (2019) adds another caveat: a saber, that DPs that are in case forms inaccessible to Agree must also

be exempt from the requirement that they be licensed by a (cid:2)-probe.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

662

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

bear [PART]. (9) thus amounts to the claim that the licensing need of a [PART] DP is not absolute,
but relative to the syntactic context of this DP.

Crucial evidence for the need for this caveat comes from Basque (Preminger 2011, 2019).
Aquí, PCC effects disappear in nonfinite (es decir., probeless) entornos (Laka 1993:27, Albizu
1997:5, Arregi and Nevins 2012:65–69). Recall from (3) that Basque exhibits PCC effects in
ditransitive constructions, such that inverse “indirect object(cid:3)direct object” combinations such as
3(cid:3)1 are ruled out (ver (10a)). Asombrosamente, if the same argument configuration appears in a
nonfinite clause, no PCC effect obtains, as shown for case-marked infinitival clauses in (10b)
(based on Laka 1993:27; using Preminger’s 2009 terminology) and for adpositional clauses in
(10C).

(10) Basque PCC effects disappear in nonfinite clauses
saldu n-(a)i-o-zu.

harakina-ri ni

a. *Zu-k

you-ERG butcher-DAT me.ABS sold 1ABS-AUX-3DAT-2ERG
‘You have sold me to the butcher.’

b. Gaizki iruditzen (cid:2)-zai-t

[zu-k

harakina-ri ni

wrong look.IPFV 3ABS-AUX-1DAT you-ERG butcher-DAT me.ABS
sal-tze-a].
sell-NMLZ-ART.ABS
‘It seems wrong to me for you to sell me to the butcher.’

(*3DAT (cid:3) 1ABS)

( 3DAT (cid:3) 1ABS)

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

C. Zu-k

[harakina-ri ni

sal-tze-n]
you-ERG butcher-DAT me.ABS sell-NMLZ-LOC attempted 3ABS-AUX-2ERG
‘You have attempted to sell me to the butcher.’

probatu

d-u-zu.

( 3DAT (cid:3) 1ABS)

Why is it that the same combination of verb, indirect object, and direct object results in a PCC
violation in finite clauses (10a), but not in nonfinite clauses (10b–c)? An important difference
entre (10a) y (10b–c) is that the direct and indirect objects in (10b–c) are not clitic-doubled
or agreed with in either the embedded clause or the matrix clause as these nonfinite clauses do
not contain (cid:2)-agreement. Following Preminger (2019), we take this to mean that no (cid:2)-Agree
with these objects has taken place (also see Anagnostopoulou 2003:315, 320 on Greek). It seems
to be the absence of this (cid:2)-Agree that underlies the absence of PCC effects in these configurations.
Effects like those in (10) are not limited to Basque. The disappearance of hierarchy effects
in environments that lack (cid:2)-agreement or cliticization has also been documented for nominalized
clauses in Georgian (Bonet 1991:189–191, Be´jar and Rezac 2003:50; Le´a Nash, pers. comm.)
and—as we will show in section 4—in nonfinite clauses in Icelandic (SigurLsson and Holmberg
2008, Preminger 2011) and German (Keine, Wagner, and Coon 2019). In a similar vein, repairs
to the PCC in languages like Greek and Spanish involve the absence of cliticization, discussed
in section 3.5.

The observation that hierarchy effects like the PCC disappear in configurations in which no
Agree takes place should find an explanation in the analysis of hierarchy effects. But as Preminger
(2011, 2019) points out, a blanket licensing requirement on [PART] DPs such as the PLC in (6)
does not lend itself to such an explanation. Recall that the standard PLC in (6), which requires

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

663

todo [PART] DPs to be licensed through (cid:2)-Agree, explains the ungrammaticality of (10a) as a
licensing failure because the direct object ni cannot be agreed with. Sin embargo, given that the direct
object is not agreed with in (10b–c) either, the original PLC in (6) would predict (10b–c) to also
give rise to a licensing failure, contrary to fact.7 Conversely, given that the direct object is clearly
licensed in (10b–c), whatever licensing mechanism applies in (10b–c) should also be available
en (10a). But this would undermine the licensing-based account of the ungrammaticality of (10a).
The original PLC in (6) therefore leaves the crucial contrast in (10) unaccounted for.

Preminger’s (2011, 2019) revised PLC in (9) is designed to resolve this paradox within the
confines of a licensing account. It does so by stipulating that only [PART] DPs that have a
clausemate (cid:2)-probe need to be licensed through (cid:2)-Agree. Because the direct object in (10b–c)
does not have a clausemate (cid:2)-probe, it is exempted from the licensing requirement, and no PCC
effect arises. A related proposal is advanced by Anagnostopoulou (2003, 2005), who appeals to
a default licensing mechanism to account for grammatical Greek configurations that lack clitic
doubling. Applied to the Basque facts in (10), her proposal would require that such default
licensing be available in nonfinite clauses, but not in finite clauses. Another related suggestion
is made by Pancheva and Zubizarreta (2018:1321–1322), who stipulate that their “P-Constraint”
only targets agreeing DPs, exempting the object in (10b–c).

We conclude with Preminger (2011, 2019) that facts like those in (10) cast doubt on the
original version of the PLC in (6)—or any account that attributes the PCC to failed obligatory
(cid:2)-Agree with a DP. Preminger’s (2011, 2019) weakened version of the PLC is empirically more
adequate because it stipulates that DPs that occur in a clause without a (cid:2)-probe are exempt from
the licensing requirement. While this stipulation derives the facts in (10), it raises important new
preguntas. As it stands, this caveat is successful because it effectively restates the empirical puzzle
as part of the analytical constraint. Eso es, it does not explain why a nominal’s licensing needs
should be suspended in contexts in which a licensing probe is absent or how the sensitivity of
the licensing requirement to the presence of a clausemate (cid:2)-probe could be derived from more
basic principles.

Rather than supplementing the PLC with these caveats, we take the empirical evidence to
suggest that a different approach is warranted, one that severs PCC effects from nominal licensing
en total. Específicamente, we take the discovery that PCC effects disappear in the absence of (cid:2)-
Agree to suggest that the problem lies with the (cid:2)-probe. We propose a significant shift in perspec-
tive on hierarchy effects. Rather than attributing them to failures of nominal licensing or failed
Agree more generally, we explore the view that these effects arise from a problem created by
el (cid:2)-probe.

7 De hecho, en (10b–c) neither the direct nor the indirect object is agreed with. To the extent that we might expect a
contrast between the two cases, a PLC account might lead one to expect the licensing problem to be worse in (10b–c)
than in (10a)—the opposite of what we find.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

664

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

3 Gluttony and Clitics

En esta sección, we lay out an alternative means of deriving the PCC effects examined in section
2. We attribute PCC and other hierarchy effects to what we term feature gluttony. Because our
account is not based on nominal licensing, the caveat described above is not necessary. We begin
by developing our account for clitic doubling and the PCC in this section; in section 4, we then
apply the proposal to hierarchy effects in the domain of agreement.

3.1 Proposal: Probe Gluttony

3.1.1 Feature Geometries We take person and number features to be arranged in feature geome-
intentos (Harley and Ritter 2002, Be´jar 2003, among many others), shown in (11) y (12) for person
and number, respectivamente.

(11)

PERS(ON)

PART(ICIPANT)

SPKR (

(cid:4)SPEAKER)

ADDR(ESSEE)

(12) NUM(BER)

PL(URAL)

These geometries encode entailment relations among features, such that features on lower nodes
entail the features on higher nodes. Por ejemplo, the specification for 1st person is internally
complex, containing not only the feature [SPKR], but the full set of entailed features, [PERS [PART
[SPKR]]]. A 2nd person DP is specified as [PERS [PART [ADDR]]], while 3rd person DPs are specified
simply as [PERS] (es decir., they are characterized by the absence of the three other features; see Nevins
2007 for arguments that 3rd person does not simply correspond to the wholesale absence of person
características). The situation is analogous for number: singular is characterized by the feature [NUM],
whereas plural consists of [NUM [PL]]. More complex specifications are possible, but not discussed
here.8

We furthermore assume that (cid:2)-probes too may vary in the degree to which they are articu-
lated, in a way analogous to the hierarchies in (11) y (12). In Deal’s (2015) terms, they may
vary in what kinds of features they are satisfied by—in other words, what kinds of features must
be matched in order for the probe to stop searching for a goal (Be´jar 2003, Be´jar and Rezac 2009,

8 Because these feature structures determine the application of the syntactic operation Agree, they must be syntacti-
cally represented, not part of PF or morphology. We assume that these structures are universally constrained in that they
represent semantic entailments, though crosslinguistic variation may exist in the number of contrasts present in a given
sistema, discussed in detail in Harley and Ritter 2002. The features could either be part of Universal Grammar or assembled
in a presyntactic generative lexicon; see also footnote 24. We thank a reviewer for raising this question.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

665

Preminger 2014, Oxford 2019). Específicamente, we assume that probes may consist of hierarchically
organized segments (adopting terminology from Be´jar and Rezac 2009). Examples are provided
en (13). The probe in (13a), por ejemplo, is fully satisfied by any DP with person features. El
probes in (13b) y (13C) are pickier: the probe in (13b) is fully satisfied by 1st and 2nd person
DPs, while the probe in (13C) is fully satisfied only by 1st person DPs.

(13) a.

[ uPERS ](cid:5) – fully satisfied by any person-bearing DP

– fully satisfied by 1st and 2nd person DPs

uPERS

uPART

(cid:5)

uPERS

uPART

– fully satisfied by 1st person DPs

uSPKR

(cid:5)

3.1.2 Agree Against this background, we adopt the definition of Agree in (14). Adopting a
proposal by Be´jar and Rezac (2009), Agree is segment-based in that it is initiated by probe
segments. Segments on a probe agree simultaneously and independently of each other, by targeting
the closest accessible DP that bears a matching segment. Continuing to use Deal’s (2015) terminol-
ogia, an agreeing segment [uF] interacts with the DP it agrees with in the sense that the entire
feature geometry that contains [F] is copied over to the probe (see Be´jar and Rezac 2009:45–46
for a similar view). En otras palabras, feature copying is coarse in that it operates on entire feature
geometries, not individual segments.

(14) Agree

A probe segment [uF] agrees with the closest accessible DP in its domain that bears
[F]. If Agree is established, the hierarchy of segments containing [F] is copied over to
the probe, valuing and thus removing [uF].

We adopt Preminger’s (2014) obligatory-operations model, according to which Agree is obligatory
if it is possible, but failure of [uF] to locate a matching [F] on a DP does not crash the derivation.

3.1.3 A Dry Run We begin by illustrating how the system works schematically, since it will
be employed in our accounts of hierarchy effects involving both pronominal clitics (the remainder
of this section) and morphological agreement (sección 4), where different aspects of the overall
proposal will be relevant. The goal at this point is to illustrate the mechanics of the system and
introduce the notation to be used in the more detailed applications to follow. Específicamente, nosotros
show how the Agree system in (14) operates with derivations representing the three types of
possible configurations found between two goal DPs with respect to the unvalued segments of a
higher probe: (a) the lower DP has more segments than the higher DP (as in 3(cid:3)1 for person
características); (b) the lower DP has fewer segments than the higher DP (1(cid:3)3); y (C) the two
DPs have identical segments (3(cid:3)3). The first type of configuration corresponds to an inverse
configuración (ver (2)), and it is only this configuration that results in gluttony.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

666

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Consider first the abstract structure in (15).

(15) [PAG

. . . [ . . . DP[X] . . . [ . . . DP

]]]

Aquí, the articulated probe P contains the unchecked segments [ux [uy ]]. Both segments probe
a structure that contains two DPs. The higher DP contains only the feature [X]; the lower DP
contains the feature hierarchy [X [ y [z]]]; as noted above, for person features, this could correspond
to a 3(cid:3)1 configuración. De acuerdo con (14), ambos [ux] y [uy ] probe the structure and agree
with the closest DP that contains a matching segment. Como resultado, [ux] agrees with the higher
DP, y [uy ] agrees with the lower DP. For ease of notation, we depict such segment-based
Agree using the identifiers 1 y 2 . Por ejemplo, “ux N 1 ” in (15) expresses that [ux] agrees
with the DP bearing index 1 . “uy N 2 ” expresses that [uy ] agrees with the DP bearing 2 .

Because in (15) both DPs are agreed with, the feature geometries of both DPs are copied
over onto the probe, in accordance with (14). The corresponding content of the probe after Agree
is given in (16).

(16) PAG (cid:4) [X]

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

In what follows, we refer to configurations in which segments of a single probe agree with distinct
DPs as feature gluttony or simply gluttony. We call probes like (16), which have agreed with,
and hence acquired values from, two DPs gluttonous. As discussed at length in the remainder of
this article, gluttony and gluttonous probes do not by themselves give rise to ungrammaticality,
but they may result in irresolvably conflicting requirements for subsequent operations, hence
ineffability.

As a second example, consider the structure in (17). Aquí, the higher DP is featurally more
specified than the lower DP (as would be the case, Por ejemplo, con un 1(cid:3)3 configuración).
Because the higher DP contains both [X] y [ y ], ambos [ux] y [uy ] agree with it. The DP’s
entire feature geometry containing [X [ y [z]]] is copied over onto the probe as a result. No Agree
with the lower DP is established.

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

(17) [PAG

. . . [ . . . DP

. . . [ . . . DP[X]]]]

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

667

The content of P that results from (17) is given in (18). En este caso, P is not gluttonous, as it has
only agreed with a single DP.9

X 1

(18) PAG (cid:4) y

Finalmente, gluttony also does not arise if the two DPs are equally specified, as in a 3(cid:3)3
configuración. This is illustrated in (19), where both DPs bear only [X]. [ux] agrees with the
higher DP, y [X] is copied over onto the probe. [uy] is not matched by either DP and so does
not agree. The resulting probe bears the specification in (20).

(19) [PAG

. . . [ . . . DP[X] . . . [ . . . DP[X]]]]

(20) PAG (cid:4) [X] 1

As noted above, failure to agree due to the absence of a matching goal is not fatal (Preminger
2014).

A general consequence of this system is that gluttony arises only if the lower DP contains
more segments than the higher DP relative to the specification of the probe (assuming that the
relevant features are hierarchically organized and thus not entirely disjoint). This is the case in
(15), but not in (17) o (19). Gluttony is therefore limited to inverse configurations.10

Finalmente, as will become clear as we proceed, gluttony also does not, in and of itself, causa
the derivation to crash. In sections 4 y 5, we will present specific cases in which gluttonous
configurations converge. Sin embargo, a probe that has entered into multiple Agree relationships
may precipitate other independently motivated problems, to which we turn next.

3.2 The Syntax of Cliticization: Auxiliary Assumptions

In order to apply this abstract system to the PCC, we adopt a few additional assumptions, cual
have been argued for independently in the recent literature on the PCC and cliticization. Primero,
because the PCC is most commonly described for combinations of clitics, we need to make
explicit our assumptions about cliticization. While morphological agreement (discussed further
in section 4) is the morphological spell-out of valued (cid:2)-características, we follow much previous work

9 It is immaterial whether the DP’s feature geometry is copied over twice (es decir., once by each agreeing segment) o

once because of the assumption that probes are sets and the set-theoretic axiom that (cid:4)A, A, . . . (cid:5) (cid:3) (cid:4)A, . . . (cid:5).

10 Note that while our account may appear to bear some resemblance to Multiple Agree (Hiraiwa 2001, 2005,
Anagnostopoulou 2005, Nevins 2007), in the system proposed here every individual Agree operation is strictly limited
insofar as each segment of a complex probe agrees with (a lo sumo) one DP. Genuine Multiple Agree is ruled out.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

668

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

that takes pronominal cliticization to be an instance of long head movement of a D head, triggered
by an underlying (cid:2)-Agree relationship between the probe (clitic host) and the goal DP (ver
Anagnostopoulou 2003, Preminger 2019, and references cited there), as shown in (21). Aquí, el
probe on the head H enters into Agree with the DP. By assumption, clitic-doubling probes then
require that the D head of the goal DP be moved onto the head hosting the probe (H in this case).
A number of specific implementations are conceivable, and the choice will not matter for our
purposes here.11

(21)

h(cid:4)D

. . .

1
Agree

. . .

head movement

We have nothing new to say about why a clitic-doubling probe triggers head movement; we will
take it as a matter of parametric variation whether (cid:2)-probes additionally trigger cliticization or
no.

Segundo, we follow Be´jar and Rezac (2003) in assuming that person and number are separate
probes. For ease of reference, we will notate the person probe as (cid:6) and the number probe as #
(see also Laka 1993, Taraldsen 1995, Be´jar 2003, Rezac 2003, SigurLsson 2004a, SigurLsson
and Holmberg 2008, Kalin 2019). Además, these two probes are universally ordered such
eso (cid:6) probes before # (Be´jar and Rezac 2003, Preminger 2011).12

Tercero, with Anagnostopoulou (2003), Be´jar and Rezac (2003), and Preminger (2009), nosotros
assume that pronominal cliticization of a DP removes that DP as an intervener for subsequent
operations because it makes this DP behave like the trace of A-movement (Chomsky 2000).

3.3 How This Works for the PCC

With these assumptions in place, we now turn to our account of PCC effects. The core difference
between our proposal and standard licensing-based approaches is that these approaches attribute

11 One option is the big-DP analysis (Uriagereka 1995, Cecchetto 2000, Belletti 2005, Arregi and Nevins 2008,
2012, Van Craenenbroeck and Van Koppen 2008, Roberts 2010). Other examples of accounts that involve both Agree
and movement in the derivation of clitic doubling include Harizanov 2014 and Preminger 2019.

12 Sin embargo, for arguments in favor of the opposite approach, dónde # probes before (cid:6), see SigurLsson and Holmberg

2008.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

669

hierarchy violations to a failure of Agree and hence failed nominal licensing, while on our account
the problem results instead from an overapplication of Agree.

Our initial illustration of the system will focus on the Weak PCC, as found for example in
Catalan, which bans [PART] DPs from appearing in direct object position when the indirect object
is 3rd person (*3(cid:3)[PART]); all other combinations are grammatical, as shown in (22).

(22) Weak PCC
*3 (cid:3) 1/2

Unlike in the Strong PCC, combinations of [PART] DPs are grammatical. To account for the Weak
PCC, we propose that v contains a person probe (cid:6) and a number probe #, specified as in (23).
Fundamentalmente, (cid:6) is articulated as [uPERS [uPART]]. For the sake of concreteness, we depict # como
articulated to [uNUM [uPL]], on the assumption that split probes of this type are always internally
articulated, though nothing hinges on this (see also the discussion in section 3.4.3). As noted in
the previous section, we assume that (cid:6) universally probes before #, which we indicate with the
notation “[(cid:6) (cid:2) #].”13

uPERS

uNUM

(23) v

(cid:2)

uPART (cid:2)

uPL #

We now show how our account derives the Weak PCC in (22), illustrating with examples

from Catalan. We first demonstrate a PCC-compliant 2(cid:3)3 configuration like that in (24).

(24) Catalan

’l

En Josep, te
va recomenar la Mireia.
the Josep 2DAT.CL 3ACC.CL recommended the Mireia
‘She (Mireia) recommended him (Josep) to you.’
(Bonet 1991:178)

( 2 (cid:3) 3)

In this derivation, ambos [uPERS] y [uPART] are matched by the indirect object and hence agree
with it. Porque (cid:6) is a clitic-doubling probe in Catalan, the D of the indirect object DP undergoes
head movement to v, creating the 2nd person clitic te in (24). This step is shown in (25).

13 This might be implemented as extrinsic ordering of features on a head. Ver, Por ejemplo, Mu¨ller 2010 and Georgi

2017 for proposals in a variety of domains.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

670

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

(25) (cid:2)-Agree in 2(cid:3)3 configuración (24)
vP

uPERS

uPART

uNUM

uPL #

(cid:2)
(cid:2)

ApplP

DPIO
1

[2SG]

PERS

Appl(cid:6)

PART

, [NUM]

Appl

DPDO
[3SG]
[[PERS], [NUM]]

ADDR

In the next step, shown in (26), # probes. As noted above, asumimos, following Anagnostopoulou
(2003), Be´jar and Rezac (2003), and Preminger (2009), that clitic doubling of a DP removes that
DP as an intervener for subsequent operations. Because the indirect object has been clitic-doubled
as a result of (cid:6)-Agree, it thus no longer intervenes for #-probing; # locates the lower direct object,
agrees with its [NUM] feature, and creates the 3rd person direct object clitic double (’l in (24)).

(26) #-Agree in 2(cid:3)3 configuración (24)

uPERS

uPART

DIO

(cid:4)v

uNUM

(cid:2)

uPL

ApplP

DPIO
1

[2SG]

PERS

Appl(cid:6)

PART

, [NUM]

Appl

DPDO
[3SG]
2
[[PERS], [NUM] ]

ADDR

Because the probes on v have thus separately agreed with both objects and both have been clitic-
doubled, the resulting configuration contains two clitics on v; setting aside possible language-
specific morphological ordering restrictions on clitic combinations, this is shown in (27).

(27) DDO(cid:3)DIO(cid:3)v

Our proposal inherits from Be´jar and Rezac (2003) the idea that the direct object clitic is the
result of #-Agree, whereas the indirect object clitic results from (cid:6)-Agree (for our account, el
feature identity of the second probe will not play a role in PCC patterns; see also the discussion

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

671

in section 3.4.3). Because clitic doubling involves movement of a D head (mira la sección 2.1), ambos
clitics nonetheless express person and number features. On this “featural coarseness of clitic
doubling,” see Preminger 2014:50–54.

Próximo, we consider a PCC-violating 3(cid:3)2 configuración, an example of which is provided in

(28).

(28) Catalan

*A en Josep, te
va recomanar la Mireia.
to the Josep 2ACC.CL 3DAT.CL recommended the Mireia
Intended: ‘She (Mireia) recommended you to him (Josep).'
(Bonet 1991:179)

(*3 (cid:3) 2)

The schematic structure of (cid:6)-Agree in (28) is shown in (29). Aquí, the segments on (cid:6) agree with
different DPs: [uPERS] agrees with the 3rd person indirect object; [uPART] finds no match on the
higher indirect object and instead agrees with the lower 2nd person direct object.

(29) (cid:2)-Agree in 3(cid:3)2 configuración (28)
vP

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

uPERS

uPART

uNUM

uPL #

(cid:2)
(cid:2)

ApplP

DPIO
1
[[PERS] , [NUM]]

[3SG]

Appl(cid:6)

Appl

DPDO
[2SG]
2

PERS

PART

, [NUM]

ADDR

The two Agree relations in (29) give rise to gluttony: a single probe (es decir., (cid:6)) has agreed with two
DPs. Assuming that the clitic-doubling property of (cid:6) in Catalan is a property of (cid:6)’s individual
segments, each segment demands that the DP it has agreed with cliticize (en otras palabras, cada
segment is strong or has an EPP property). This requirement is stated in (30).

(30) If a segment of a clitic-doubling probe on a head H has agreed with a DP, this DP

must cliticize onto H.

(30) is unproblematic for nongluttonous probes, where all agreeing segments agree with the same
DP: cliticization of this DP then satisfies (30) for all relevant segments. Por el contrario, for gluttonous
probes like (cid:6) en (29), (30) gives rise to a conflict. Primero, because the segments of (cid:6) have agreed

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

672

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

with two DPs, it is clear that cliticizing only one of these two DPs or neither DP violates (30)
and is hence ruled out. Segundo, it is not possible to cliticize the two DPs sequentially, eso es, a
first cliticize one and then cliticize the other. Doing so would temporarily violate (30) for one of
the two segments: cliticizing one DP but not the other in the first step means that there is a DP
that a segment of (cid:6) has agreed with, but that has not cliticized onto v, violating (30). In a standard
Markovian system, where every step of the derivation must be well-formed, this temporary viola-
ción de (30) is fatal. Como consecuencia, a derivation that sequentially cliticizes the two DPs is
ruled out.

The last remaining option would be to attempt to cliticize the two DPs simultaneously. Doing
so would not violate (30). But it would require simultaneous head movement of two Ds to v,
hence an application of Merge that relates three distinct elements in one step. On the standard
assumption that Merge is binary and can hence only ever combine two elements at a time, es
not possible to merge two Ds onto a third head in a single step of the derivation, ruling out this
possibility.

Como consecuencia, there is no way to satisfy (30) if the probe is gluttonous. This results in
ineffability: the structure in (29) invariably leads to ungrammaticality regardless of how the
derivation proceeds.14 Moreover, because Agree is obligatory if it is possible (Preminger 2014),
gluttony—and hence ineffability—is unavoidable in the configuration in (29).15 This derives the
PCC: 3(cid:3)2 y 3(cid:3)1 configurations result in gluttony and hence ungrammaticality due to a viola-
ción de (30).

We next consider combinations of two [PART] DPs—namely, 1(cid:3)2 y 2(cid:3)1—that are gram-

matical in Weak PCC languages, as illustrated in (31).

(31) Catalan

Te’m van recomanar per a la feina.
2CL.1CL recommended for the job
‘They recommended me to you for the job.’/
‘They recommended you to me for the job.’/
(Bonet 1991:179)

( 2 (cid:3) 1)
( 1 (cid:3) 2)

As shown in (32), ambos [uPERS] y [uPART] are matched by the indirect object. No gluttony
arises, and the indirect object cliticizes onto v. Después, # agrees with and clitic-doubles
the direct object, ignoring the already clitic-doubled higher DP, as in (26).16

14 As noted above, we assume that all segments on a probe agree simultaneously. It is therefore not possible for (cid:6)
en (29) to first agree with the indirect object, followed by cliticization of the indirect object, and to subsequently agree
with the direct object, followed by cliticization of the direct object. There simply is no stage of the derivation in which
[uPERS] en (cid:6) has agreed with the indirect object but [uPART] has not agreed with the direct object.

15 For a discussion of cases in which cliticization is optional, and of its impact on the PCC, mira la sección 3.5.
16 In the interest of space, we will not show (cid:2)-features on DPs as full-blown feature structures from now on, aunque
this is a notational simplification. De este modo, [2SG] en (32) is an abbreviation for a [PERS [PART [ADDR]]] feature structure for
person and a [NUM] feature structure for number.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

673

(32) Agree in 2SG(cid:3)1SG (31)

uPERS

uPART

uNUM

(cid:2)
(cid:5)

uPL

. . . [ . . . DPIO

[2SG]

. . . [ . . . DPDO

[1SG] 2

]]]

Finalmente, the structure for grammatical 3(cid:3)3 configurations is provided in (33) (no example
shown in the interest of space). As before, [uPERS] agrees with the indirect object. Porque [uPART]
is not matched by either of the two objects, it does not enter into an Agree relationship with
either DP. Por lo tanto, no gluttony arises. As before, the indirect object is clitic-doubled, y #
agrees with the direct object across it.

(33) Agree in 3SG(cid:3)3SG

uPERS

uNUM

uPART

(cid:2)
(cid:5)

uPL

. . . [ . . . DPIO

[3SG]

. . . [ . . . DPDO

[3SG] 2

]]]

En suma, a gluttonous probe arises only if the direct object is more specific than the indirect
object relative to the specification of the probe. As shown above, this is the case in 3(cid:3)1 y
3(cid:3)2 configuraciones, but not in any other configuration.17 Consequently, it is in precisely these
two configurations that an irresolvable conflict arises with respect to the movement operation
necessary to create pronominal clitics.

The analytical shift from nominal licensing to gluttonous probes enables an immediate expla-
nation of the observation that PCC effects disappear in nonfinite environments that lack agreement
and clitic doubling (ver (10)), and that they more generally are present only when (cid:2)-morfología
is involved. As discussed in section 2.3, the disappearance of PCC effects in environments that
apparently lack Agree makes it necessary to weaken the PLC such that a DP that normally requires
licensing through (cid:2)-Agree no longer requires such licensing if it is not clausemate to a (cid:2)-probe
(es decir., Preminger’s (2011) version of the PLC in (9)). A gluttony account offers a more principled
way of understanding this complication: because the PCC arises when a probe enters into (cid:2)-

17 While a gluttony account naturally handles the grammaticality of [PART](cid:3)[PART] configurations in a Weak PCC
idioma, further complications are required on a licensing account. On a licensing account, which requires [PART] DPs
to be licensed through (cid:6)-Agree, a [PART] direct object can be targeted by (cid:6)-Agree across a [PART] intervener, pero no
across a 3rd person intervener. Anagnostopoulou (2005) and Nevins (2007) develop a licensing-based account for the
Weak PCC that incorporates Multiple Agree (Hiraiwa 2001, 2005). Nevins’s (2007) account relies on Contiguous Agree,
a condition on Multiple Agree that permits the probe to license contiguous DPs with marked (es decir., [(cid:4)PART]) características.
Contiguous Agree allows both DPs to be licensed by a single probe in [PART](cid:3)[PART] configuraciones, but rules out
3(cid:3)[PART] configuraciones, in which an unmarked (es decir., [(cid:5)PART]) feature intervenes. The upshot is that Agree is blocked
by unmarked features, but not by marked features. While this restriction on Multiple Agree achieves the desired contrast,
it is worth noting that it seems to be at odds with established locality principles like Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990),
and it is unnecessary on the account developed here.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

674

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Agree with more than one DP, we immediately predict that the PCC disappears in environments
that lack this probe. This is illustrated in (34), which represents the structure of a 3(cid:3)1 o 3(cid:3)2
configuration in a probeless nonfinite clause. Due to the absence of a (cid:2)-probe, no gluttony arises,
and the structure emerges as well-formed.18

(34) Licit hierarchy configuration with no probe N no gluttony

[ . . . DP[3SG] . . . [ . . . DP[1/2SG] . . . ]]

Because our account does not rely on special licensing requirements for 1st and 2nd person DPs,
no caveat that specifically exempts such DPs from the licensing requirement in structures that
lack a clausemate (cid:2)-probe is necessary. Bastante, the contrast between finite and nonfinite clauses
in Basque in (10) follows immediately from the independently observable contrast between occur-
rence and nonoccurrence of clitic doubling.

3.4 PCC Variation

In the previous section, we illustrated the gluttony account for a Weak PCC system. Recall from
mesa 1 that there is crosslinguistic (y, en algunos casos, interspeaker) variation in the precise set
of configurations that is ruled out. En esta sección, we consider two independently motivated points
of variation within our system that result in the attested variation across PCC types: (a) the nature
of the indirect object DP, y (b) the degree of articulation of the (cid:2)-probe.

3.4.1 Datives and the Strong PCC We begin with the Strong PCC, which rules out not only
3(cid:3)[PART] configurations but also [PART](cid:3)[PART] estructuras. One example of a Strong PCC lan-
guage is Basque; a relevant 1(cid:3)2 configuration is repeated from (3d) en (35) (cf. the grammatical
equivalent configuration in Weak PCC Catalan in (31)).

(35) Strong PCC in Basque

*Haiek

ni-ri

saldu z-ai-da-te.

they.ERG me-DAT you.ABS sold 2ABS-AUX-1DAT-3ERG
Intended: ‘They have sold you to me.’

(*1DAT (cid:3) 2ABS)

We propose that the difference between Weak PCC and Strong PCC languages coincides with
an independently proposed point of crosslinguistic variation: some dative DPs behave syntactically
as 3rd persons, regardless of their actual interpretation (ver, p.ej., Boeckx 2000, Richards 2008,
SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008; also discussed for Icelandic in section 4.2). We thus suggest
that not all of the (cid:2)-features of dative DPs in Basque are visible from the outside and that, de
the point of view of the (cid:2)-probe, all datives in Basque behave as 3rd person DPs. A number of

18 En tono rimbombante, we do not predict that all nonfinite environments give rise to PCC obviation. The crucial prediction
is that PCC effects should disappear in the absence of an agreeing probe. De este modo, in languages in which arguments in
nonfinite clauses are still associated with clitics, PCC effects are predicted to remain. This is the case, por ejemplo, en
Español (Jon Ander Mendia, pers. comm.), not illustrated here for reasons of space.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

675

implementations of this claim are possible. Por ejemplo, dative DPs could be encapsulated under
a K(ase)P shell, which is formally 3rd person and which insulates the interpreted person features
of the dative DP from outside probing (see Atlamaz and Baker 2018 for a related proposal along
these lines for Icelandic datives). Como consecuencia, [PART](cid:3)[PART] configurations will behave
formally as 3(cid:3)[PART] inverse configurations as far as the agreeing (cid:2)-probe is concerned, de nuevo
resulting in gluttony. This is schematized in (36) for a sentence like (35). Aquí, el interno [PART]
feature of the dative DP is invisible to (cid:6), y (cid:6) consequently agrees with [PERS] solo. Como resultado,
[uPART] on the probe agrees with the direct object, leading to gluttony and hence ungrammati-
cality.19

(36) (cid:2)-Agree in 1(cid:3)2 in Basque (35)

uPERS

uPART

(cid:2)
(cid:5)

uNUM

. . . [ DP.DAT[PART]

[PERS]

. . . [DP[PART]

]]]

gluttony

uPL #

Independent evidence for our proposal that dative DPs in Basque are formally 3rd person
comes from the contrast between two different types of dative-absolutive constructions, mostrado
en (37). While both sentences in (37) involve configurations with a dative and an absolutive
DP, Rezac (2008b) provides evidence that they differ in their structure: in dative experiencer
configurations like (37a), the dative DP c-commands the absolutive (DAT(cid:3)ABS), while for motion-
(cid:4)location verbs like the one in (37b), the structure is ABS(cid:3)DAT. Fundamentalmente, hierarchy effects arise
in the former—which mirrors the configuration of the lower two objects in a ditransitive like
(3C)—but not in the latter (Albizu 1997, Rezac 2008b).

(37) Basque
a. *En

Itxaso-ri

gustatzen n-atzai-o.

me.ABS Itxaso-DAT like.IPFV 1ABS-AUX-3DAT
Intended: ‘Itxaso likes me.’
Itxaso
ni-ri
etortzen
Itxaso.ABS me-DAT come.IPFV 3ABS-AUX-1DAT
‘Itxaso comes to me.’

(cid:2)-zai-t.

(*3DAT (cid:3) 1ABS)

( 3ABS (cid:3) 1DAT)

If Basque dative DPs behave formally as 3rd person DPs, we correctly predict the absence of
gluttony in (37b): because the lower [PART]-bearing DP is encased in a dative, the configuration
is effectively 3(cid:3)3, as shown in (38).

19 Note that the cross-referencing of the dative argument on the agreeing auxiliary reflects the actual person specifica-
tion of the dative (p.ej., examples (3d) y (37b)). This is arguably related to the fact that this cross-referencing involves
a dative clitic rather than genuine agreement (see Preminger 2009 and Arregi and Nevins 2012 for arguments to this
efecto). Suppose, for the sake of concreteness, that the D head incorporates into the K head, which then jointly undergo
head movement to v, giving rise to the dative clitic. Because this clitic involves the dative DP’s D head, it reflects the
(cid:2)-features of this D head, not the dummy 3rd person specification of the K head.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

676

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

(38) (cid:2)-Agree in Basque (37b)

uPERS

uNUM

. . . [DP[PERS] . . . [ DP.DAT[PART]

[PERS]]]]

(37b)

uPART

(cid:2)
(cid:5)

uPL #

Both the presence of a PCC effect in (35) (represented in (36)) and the absence of a PCC
effect in (37b) (represented in (38)) now receive a unified account: dative DPs only have a [PERS]
feature visible from the outside and thus behave as 3rd person DPs. This leads to gluttony in (36)
but prevents gluttony in (37b). We predict more generally that for languages (or speakers) con
Weak PCC effects, 1st and 2nd person datives have visible [PART] características, stopping the probe
from entering into gluttony in [PART](cid:3)[PART] configuraciones. Strong PCC effects occur when the
higher dative DP does not have visible [PART] características (also see footnote 22 for another possible
analysis of the Strong PCC effect). Sambaa and Haya, two Bantu languages discussed by Riedel
(2009:cap. 5), obey the Weak PCC, permitting [PART](cid:3)[PART] configurations but ruling out
3(cid:3)[PART]. This is consistent with the fact that indirect objects in these languages lack morphologi-
cal case marking and our account thus correctly predicts that they should behave like Catalan
since the features of the unmarked indirect objects should be fully accessible to the higher probe.
We leave as a topic for future work independent evidence for a distinction between dative indirect
objects in Weak and Strong PCC variants outside of Basque and Bantu, noting for now that the
Strong PCC seems to be the more common variety crosslinguistically and that datives also fre-
quently do not have accessible 1st and 2nd person features.

3.4.2 Features of the Probe By modulating the specifications of the feature probe, lo mismo
basic mechanisms of the gluttony approach laid out in section 3.3 can be used to capture the
other types of PCC effects seen in table 1.20 Universal constraints on the organization of feature
geometries independently rule out unattested patterns.

Probe articulations that derive the remaining PCC patterns from table 1 are given in (39).
As noted above for (23), we assume that if a probe is split into person and number probes, ellos
will be articulated to some degree.21 (39a) shows a probe structure that gives rise to the Weak PCC,
discussed in detail in section 3.3. The Ultrastrong PCC, which rules out the same combinations as

20 Walkow (2013) derives the difference between the Strong and the Ultrastrong PCC in a licensing-based approach
by modulating the degree of articulation of the probe. He locates the probe on a lower head and adopts a Cyclic Agree
approach to licensing, as in Be´jar and Rezac 2009. Yokoyama (2018) accounts for PCC variation by modulating (a)
interpretable features on the DPs themselves and (b) a hierarchy of unvalued (cid:2)-features on the Appl head that mediates
between the two DPs in PCC configurations. Yokoyama appeals not to feature licensing directly, but to a condition on
Merge that requires feature valuation to take place for each Merge operation (Wurmbrand 2014); PCC violations occur
when the lower DP has valued all of Appl’s unvalued (cid:2)-características, preventing a DP from merging in its specifier. Ambos
accounts face the concerns raised in section 2 in being unable to explain the absence of PCC effects in environments
that lack agreement or clitics.

21 Note that an unarticulated (cid:6)-probe would predict the possibility of a language with object clitics/agreement that
lacks PCC effects altogether. Haspelmath (2004) lists several languages that he claims lack PCC effects for combinations
de (cid:2)-exponents; ver, sin embargo, Riedel 2009 on the presence of PCC effects in Haya, and Franks to appear for Polish.
Además, Van Valin (1977:12) notes that a special agreement pattern arises in the Lakhota example given by Haspel-
matemáticas.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

677

the Weak PCC, but additionally bans 2(cid:3)1 configuraciones, follows from the more articulated probe
en (39b). Like the probe in (39a), (39b) will result in gluttony in 3(cid:3)[PART] configuraciones, pero
gluttony will also arise in 2(cid:3)1 configuraciones (como [uSPKR] is matched only by a 1st person DP).
The Me-First PCC, which bans all 1st person direct objects, regardless of the features of the
higher DP, may be treated as the result of the probe in (39C). Due to the absence of the intermediate
[uPART] segmento, this probe results in gluttonous configurations only when the lower DP has
[SPKR].22

(39) PCC probe variation

⇒ Weak PCC

uPERS

uPART

(cid:5)

uPERS

uPART

⇒ Ultrastrong PCC

uSPKR

(cid:5)

uPERS

uSPKR

(cid:5)

⇒ Me-First PCC

22 As Amy Rose Deal (pers. comm.) and a reviewer point out, allowing for probe structures with missing intermediate
segments such as (39C) is not innocuous. Primero, if these feature hierarchies represent semantic entailment relationships,
this raises the question of why [uSPKR] can exist without an accompanying [uPART]. But crucially, (39C) concerns the
feature hierarchy on the probe. This might allow for missing segments because these segments are not semantically
interpreted on probes.

Segundo, the reviewer notes that if missing intermediate segments are permitted, then we predict variation for other
features as well—for example, for the behavior of duals in omnivorous number systems (see footnote 23 y sección
5.2). Depending on the feature hierarchy involved in a three-way number system, if an intermediate segment could be
missing from the number probe, we might expect a dual DP to pattern either as singular or as plural with respect to the
probe (see Cowper 2005 for discussion of different proposals for feature geometries of three-way number systems). En
esta vez, we do not have enough information about hierarchy effects in three-way number systems and therefore save
this as a topic for future work.

As an alternative to the probe in (39C), one might maintain the assumption that missing segments are ruled out
(prohibiting (39C)) and that the Me-First PCC is not caused by gluttony. En efecto, Yokoyama (2018) proposes that the Me-
First PCC is a restriction on ordering of clitics and does not have the same status as the other varieties described above.
If this is correct, then the probe in (39C) is rendered unnecessary.

There is also at least one more possible probe structure not discussed in the main text: a highly articulated probe
as in (i). This probe would provide another means to derive Strong PCC effects, since the presence of both [uSPKR] y
[uADDR] nodes would ensure gluttony in [PART](cid:3)[PART] combinations even if the features of the dative DP are externally
visible.

(i)

uPERS

uPART

⇒ Strong PCC

uSPKR

uADDR (cid:5)

The probe in (i) could be used to analyze strong PCC effects in configurations with a (cid:2)-accessible indirect object or to
analyze the reversible Strong PCC in Slovenian, discussed in footnote 26. Because the PCC in Basque is not symmetric
(mira la sección 3.4.1), our account of the Strong PCC in Basque is unaffected by the possibility of (i).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

678

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

En tono rimbombante, universal restrictions on the arrangement of feature geometries, combined with
the system of gluttony proposed here, immediately rule out certain unattested patterns. Para examen-
por ejemplo, a hypothetical language that banned only [PART](cid:3)3 combinations would require gluttony in
such configurations. But given the independently motivated feature geometry in (11), this is
impossible. The gluttony account therefore derives the fact that no such PCC pattern exists.
Similarmente, we correctly predict that a language that rules out [PART](cid:3)[PART] must also rule out
3(cid:3)[PART], again due to the nature of feature geometries.

3.4.3 Person, Número, and Gender
In addition to variation in the degree to which a given probe
may be articulated, we address predictions with respect to variation in the possibilities for the
features in split (cid:2)-probes. Aquí, we tentatively propose that split (cid:2)-probes are subject not only
to a universal ordering of person before number (sección 2.2), but also to an implicational relation-
ship such that if a (cid:2)-probe is specified beyond simply probing for (cid:2)-características (tu(cid:2)), it will necessar-
ily be specified to probe for person features (tu(cid:6)); if it is split into multiple probes, it will contain
a person probe and only second, a number probe ([tu(cid:6) (cid:2) u#]).23 Finalmente, a gender probe will only
be added after a number probe ([tu(cid:6) (cid:2) u# (cid:2) tu(cid:7)]; see Preminger 2012).24

(40) Probe specification hierarchy

[tu(cid:2)] → [tu(cid:6)] → [tu(cid:6) (cid:2) tu(cid:6)] → [tu(cid:6) (cid:2) tu(cid:6) (cid:2) tu(cid:7)]

This assumption, together with our account of PCC effects above, derives the crosslinguistic
generalization that the PCC applies only to person features—there is no analogous “Number Case
Constraint” effect (Nevins 2011). An illustrative example from Basque is provided in (41). El
absolutive direct object is more specified for number than the indirect object, yet no hierarchy
effect obtains.

(41) Basque

merkataria-ri liburuak

Zu-k
you-ERG merchant-DAT book.PL.ABS sold 3ABS-AUX-PL-3DAT-2ERG
‘You have sold the books to the merchant.’

saldu d-i-zki-o-zu.

( 3SG.DAT (cid:3) 3PL.ABS)

Building on insights by Be´jar and Rezac (2003), also discussed in Coon, Keine, and Wagner
2017, we attribute the absence of “Number Case Constraint” effects to (a) the claim in (40) eso

23 While omnivorous number effects, to be discussed briefly in section 5, might seem to require a lone number probe,
these effects generally involve person features as well. Por ejemplo, omnivorous number in both Georgian (Be´jar 2003,
2011) and Onondaga (Barrie 2005) must crucially make reference to both person and number features.

24 A reviewer asks how these split and articulated probes come into being. Here we might speculate, following
discussion in Preminger 2019, eso (cid:2)-probes do not come as defaults supplied by Universal Grammar, but rather emerge
during the acquisition process when a learner is presented with sufficient evidence that such a probe must be posited.
One could then speculate further that the first probe to be posited by a learner would be a simple unarticulated probe
(tu(cid:2)). A learner faced with, Por ejemplo, multiple clitics, or perhaps the need to expone (cid:2)-features not accessed by the
first probe, would need to posit additional probes (as in the sequence in (40)). The order of probes might in turn correspond
to the order in which (cid:2)-features are accessed inside the nominal projection, with person being in an outer layer, number
features lower down, and gender features more deeply embedded still (see e.g., Danon 2011, Kalin 2018). For now, nosotros
acknowledge this as speculative and leave a full understanding of the nature of articulated probes and crosslinguistic
variation in probe structure as a puzzle for future work.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

679

the presence of a #-probe entails the presence of a (cid:6)-probe, (b) the fact that the (cid:6)-probe agrees
primero, y (C) the fact that clitic doubling of a DP renders this DP invisible to subsequent probing.
Because the indirect object is clitic-doubled after Agree with (cid:6), subsequent #-probing can see
only the direct object. This is shown in (42). Como consecuencia, with only one DP in the search
space of #, there is no potential for gluttony.

(42) #-Agree in (41)
(cid:4)v

[DIO

uPERS

uPART

. . . [ . . . DP[3SG]

. . . [ . . . DP[3PL]

]]]

uNUM

(cid:2)
(cid:5)

uPL

This line of explanation does not attribute the person-number asymmetry in this domain to univer-
sal ontological differences between person and number features (contra Nevins 2011; see also
footnote 41). Además, it predicts that number effects should arise if the higher DP is not
removed as an intervener. Evidence from German, discussed in section 4.1, suggests that this
prediction is borne out.

Turning finally to gender, predictions for gender effects vary depending on where and how
gender is represented in the grammar. If we assume that gender may be part of the (cid:2)-probe
complex, ordenado [tu(cid:6) (cid:2) u# (cid:2) tu(cid:7)], then—following the reasoning and assumptions above—we
similarly expect the absence of a Gender Case Constraint in combinations of two clitic-doubled
DPs. En efecto, in a recent survey of PCC effects, Stegovec (2020) lists a “Gen-CC” alongside Num-
CC as nonexistent. Curiosamente, Toosarvandani (2017), Foley, Kalivoda, and Toosarvandani
(2019), and Foley and Toosarvandani (2019, 2020) discuss what they call a “Gen-CC” in several
varieties of Zapotec. Sin embargo, the relevant Zapotec features (ELDER HUMAN(cid:3)HUMAN(cid:3)ANI-
MATE(cid:3)INANIMATE) involve animacy, not prototypical gender. Foley and Toosarvandani (2020)
themselves recognize that animacy distinctions have a plausible connection to person (hence (cid:6)
in our system), and elsewhere animacy distinctions are treated as part of the same hierarchy that
contains person (ver, p.ej., Silverstein 1976 and the references in Aissen 1999). Ritter (2014, a
appear) provides arguments that animacy contrasts are distinct from gender. Strikingly, Foley and
Toosarvandani (2020:fn. 6) note that some Zapotecan languages do have traditional noun-class-
based gender systems, and these gender systems do not seem to participate in the restrictions on
clitic combinations. Por lo tanto, as Foley and Toosarvandani (2020) acknowledge, while it is cer-
tainly possible to treat animacy as a distinct type of gender, it seems to us at least a priori possible
to analyze the Zapotec restrictions by means of a more highly articulated person probe.25

Finalmente, a reviewer notes that our account makes predictions about combinations involving
more than two (cid:2)-triggering DPs. Específicamente, on our account number effects do not arise in (42)

25 To give a brief illustration of this line of approach, Yala´lag Zapotec combines a Strong PCC with a ban on clitic
combinations in which the indirect object is higher than the subject on the hierarchy ELDER HUMAN(cid:3)HUMAN(cid:3)ANIMATE(cid:3)
INANIMATE. This pattern can be derived within our system by means of the entailment-relationship-encoding (cid:6) geometría
en (i).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

680

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

because the number probe has access to only the lower of the two DPs. If a third lower accessible
DP were added, we might expect that a number effect could arise if the third DP were more
highly specified for number features than the second DP, as in (43).

(43) Hypothetical Number Case Constraint effect

[DIO

(cid:4)v

uPERS

uNUM

[ . . . DP[3SG]

. . . [ . . . DP[3SG]

. . . [ . . . DP[3PL]

]]]]

uPART

(cid:2)
(cid:5)

uPL

Fundamentalmente, in order to test this, we require a configuration in which three DPs are accessible to a
single probe complex. While Foley and Toosarvandani (2019) propose that Zapotec subject,
indirect object, and direct object clitics are all created by a single probe, it is important to note
that the gender hierarchy effects they observe between the subject and primary object DPs (es decir.,
monotransitive theme and ditransitive recipient/goal) are described as being absent for the lower
theme argument in a ditransitive. This might seem to indicate that a separate probe (plausibly on
Appl) is responsible for cliticization of the ditransitive theme, though Foley and Toosarvandani
(2019) discuss complications for this approach as well. For now, we set this case aside as not
obviously instantiating the configuration in (43).

En este momento, we are unaware of other systems for which three (cid:2)-exponents have been
proposed to be generated via a single probe. Por ejemplo, while some Bantu languages permit
tres (cid:2)-markers, the source of subject agreement is typically taken to be finite T, while the object
markers are generated lower (Riedel 2009); as expected, hierarchy effects emerge only between
objects. Another example is Senaya (Kalin and Van Urk 2015). In this language, the verb can
host three clitics; sin embargo, these seem to be the result of distinct probes, not a single probe

(i)

uPERS

uANIM

uHUM

(cid:4) Yalálag Zapotec probe

uRELATIONAL

uSPKR

uADDR (cid:5)

We tentatively suggest that “elder human” may be treated as part of a node that also encompasses the features borne by
1st and 2nd person participants, labeled [RELATIONAL]. Note that the “elder human” clitic is described as “formal 3rd
person” in one variant of Zapotec by Lo´pez Nicola´s (2016), and Operstein (2003:167) writes that in Zapotecan languages,
the human class may be “further split into a number of categories depending on such parameters as sacredness, relative
social status, relative age, personal worth, relation to the community, and sex of the referent.” Crucially, like standard
1st and 2nd person [PART] pronouns, this category requires calculating a relationship to the speaker. Though details would
need to be further worked out, under such an account the “gender” system in Zapotec would be more akin to the proximate/
obviative contrast in Algonquian, also commonly treated as part of the person hierarchy (ver, p.ej., Oxford 2019 for a
recent account).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

681

agreeing with multiple DPs. Como consecuencia, we are not aware of languages that would allow
us to empirically test (43).

3.4.4 Reverse PCC Another PCC pattern that gluttony derives straightforwardly is what Stego-
vec (2020) dubs the “Reverse PCC” in Slovenian. In Slovenian, the order of the dative and
accusative clitics is variable, which Stegovec attributes to optional reordering of the direct object
DP to a position just above the indirect object, but still below the probe on v. Fundamentalmente, cuando
the order of the clitics is flipped, so is the PCC effect. In standard configurations in which the
dative outranks the accusative, 3(cid:3)[PART] configurations are ungrammatical, as shown in (44a).
When the accusative is higher than the dative, it is not the case values of the DPs that matter,
but their structural configuration. As shown in (44b), in DAT(cid:3)ACC configurations the person
restriction now targets the dative.

(44) Slovenian

a. Mama mu

ga/*me/*te

bo predstavila.

Mom 3M.DAT 3M.ACC/*1ACC/*2ACC will introduce
‘Mom will introduce him/me/you to him.’
mu/*mi/*ti

bo predstavila.

b. Mama ga

(3DAT (cid:3) 3ACC/*1ACC/*2ACC)

Mom 3M.ACC 3M.DAT/*1DAT/*2DAT will introduce
‘Mom will introduce him to him/me/you.’
(Stegovec 2020:264, Residencia en (8a–b) y (10a–b))

(3CAC (cid:3) 3DAT/*1DAT/*2DAT)

This symmetrical intervention pattern is consistent with our account. Following Stegovec (2020),
we assume that the direct object can undergo optional movement above the indirect object, pero
still below v. If the (cid:6)-probe first encounters a 3rd person DP (either the indirect object as in
(45a) or a reordered direct object as in (45b)) and the lower DP is 1st or 2nd person, the probe
then agrees with the [PART] feature of the lower DP, causing gluttony and hence ungrammaticality.

(45) a. *(cid:2) . . . DP.DAT[3] . . . DP.ACC[1/2]

b. *(cid:2) . . . DP.ACC[3] . . . DP.DAT[1/2]

The existence of Reverse PCC effects is thus compatible with our proposal.26

26 While Stegovec (2020) dissociates the PCC from abstract Case assignment, the model he proposes instead still
instantiates a failed-Agree account in the sense that it requires a DP (aquí, a weak object clitic) to enter into Agree with
a verbal head, and that PCC effects result from this Agree failing to be established. In this respect, his model differs
from the perspective taken here.

Curiosamente, Slovenian shows the Reverse PCC for both the Strong and the Weak PCC. This indicates that in
Slovenian, el (cid:2)-features of the dative DP are always visible to the (cid:2)-probe (unlike what we argued for Basque in section
3.4.1). This provides an argument that in Slovenian at least, the Strong PCC is due to the probe in footnote 22. We thank
Amy Rose Deal for discussion.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

682

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

3.5 PCC Repairs

Finalmente, we turn to repair strategies for PCC violations. Languages vary as to whether and how
PCC violations may be repaired. In the interest of space, we do not review licensing-based
approaches to repairs here (ver, p.ej., Be´jar and Rezac 2003, Rezac 2010, 2011); en cambio, we focus
on demonstrating how a gluttony approach can naturally account for different attested repair
estrategias.

One type of repair described for PCC effects is to express one of the DPs in the offending
configuration as a PP. A French PCC-violating 3(cid:3)1 configuration is shown in (46a). The intended
meaning can instead be expressed in French if the indirect object is realized not as a pronominal
clitic, but as a full PP, as in (46b).

(46) French PCC and repair

a mí
CL.1SG

*Pablo
Pablo
Intended: ‘Paul will introduce me to him.’

présentera.
will.introduce

lui
CL.3SG

a mí

à lui .
présentera
will.introduce to him

Pablo
Paul CL.1SG
‘Paul will introduce me to him.’
(Anagnostopoulou 2003:311)

(*3DAT (cid:2) 1CAC)

((cid:51)3DAT (cid:2) 1CAC)

This repair is consistent with the gluttony account. On the reasonable assumption that a DP
encased in a PP is not accessible for the (cid:2)-probe, the only available goal in (46b) is the direct
object, as shown in (47). Agree with the direct object cliticizes it, and no gluttony arises in (47).
A similar strategy for circumventing PCC effects is found in Catalan, Español, Kiowa, and Sambaa
(see Bonet 1991, Anagnostopoulou 2003, Adger and Harbour 2007, Riedel 2009).

(47) (cid:2)-Agree in (46b)

uPERS

NUM

. . . [ . . .

PÁGINAS

. . . [ . . . DP[1SG]

]]]

(cid:2)

uPART

(cid:5)

PL #

Another means of avoiding PCC effects, utilized for example in Greek, is to not cliticize
the direct object DP (Anagnostopoulou 2003:312–313). In Greek, accusative pronouns can appear
in their strong form, in which case they do not cliticize. (48a) shows that 3(cid:3)2 configurations are
ungrammatical if the 2nd person direct object is cliticized. Por el contrario, en (48b) the direct object
is a strong pronoun and no PCC violation arises.

(48) Greek PCC and repair

*Tha
FUT CL.GEN.3SG.M CL.ACC.2SG
Intended: ‘They will send you to him.’

stilune.
send.3PL

(*3DAT (cid:2) 2CAC)

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

683

b. Tha

esena .
stilune
send.3PL you.ACC

FUT CL.GEN.3SG.M
‘They will send you to him.’
(Anagnostopoulou 2017:3004, 3006)

((cid:51)3DAT (cid:2) 2CAC)

Recall from sections 3.2 y 3.3 that we assume that cliticization is parasitic on (cid:2)-Agree, cual
is obligatory if possible. This raises the general question of how to treat instances of optional
cliticization. One possibility explored in the literature (see discussion and references in Preminger
2019) is that such apparent optionality does not reflect optionality in the operation that triggers
cliticization; bastante, it reflects a difference in the structural position and accessibility of the goal
DP. Under this line of approach, cliticization contexts involve a DP that is accessible to the
probe (p.ej., a definite/specific DP that has moved to a higher position), while contexts that lack
cliticization do not contain an accessible goal for the probe. For the sake of concreteness, nosotros
follow Be´jar and Rezac (2003:54) in treating strong object pronouns as encapsulated inside a
functional projection FP, which—like a PP—renders the object’s (cid:2)-features invisible to the (cid:2)-
probe. No Agree between the (cid:2)-probe and the DP can be established, with two consequences:
no cliticization takes place, and no gluttony arises. This is shown in (49).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

(49) (cid:2)-Agree in (48b)

uPERS

(cid:2)

NUM

. . . [ . . . DP[3SG]

. . . [ . . .

]]]

uPART

(cid:5)

PL #

A similar account is possible for Kabyle, in which clitic-doubling the indirect object is optional,
and PCC effects do not arise in the absence of a clitic (Baier to appear).

Both strategies reviewed so far are compatible with the gluttony approach insofar as they
involve less cliticization. Additional structure on top of a DP shields this DP from a (cid:2)-probe and
thus prevents the probe from becoming gluttonous.

While some PCC repairs exploit mechanisms that are independently available in a language
(p.ej., it is generally possible in Greek to not cliticize accusative objects; see Anagnostopoulou
2003:313), other strategies are possible only in order to avoid a hierarchy effect (p.ej., in French,
realizing an indirect object as a PP without the addition of focus is possible only in PCC configura-
ciones; see Rezac 2011:107–109).27 The latter type of repair strategy seems to require a transderiva-
tional constraint. Por ejemplo, Rezac (2011) proposes a last-resort interface mechanism (cid:2), cual
sanctions additional (PP/FP) structure if otherwise a licensing failure would arise.28 This line of
approach can be translated into our gluttony account: additional structure is sanctioned as a last
resort if otherwise a probe would become gluttonous.

Another construction that is possible only to repair a PCC violation is that in at least some
varieties of French, the indirect object can be realized with the locative clitic y in repair contexts

27 We thank a reviewer for helpful comments on the second class of repairs.
28 Though see Kalin 2014 for a reanalysis of an apparent last-resort phenomenon without appeal to (cid:2).

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

684

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

(Couquaux 1975). Since y cliticizes a`-headed PPs, Rezac (2010) takes this to mean that in these
varieties the repaired PP indirect object (p.ej., a` lui in (46b)) can be cliticized. This repair is thus
a variant of the one shown in (46b) insofar as the (cid:2)-features of the PP are presumably inaccessible,
and the y clitic is produced by Agree with a probe other than (cid:6).

The final last-resort PCC repair to be discussed here is absolutive displacement in Basque
(Rezac 2008b, 2010, 2011). For some speakers, a PCC violation with unaccusative DAT(cid:3)ABS
verbs may be repaired by promoting an absolutive internal argument to ergative. This repair is
only available for verbs that lack a thematic ergative subject. An example is provided in (50).
The structure is ungrammatical with an absolutive 2nd person object, as this would involve a
DAT(cid:3)2ABS configuration (ver (37a)). The repair is to advance the object to ergative. This advance-
ment is possible only to repair a PCC violation.

(50) Basque absolutive displacement
zu-k

/ *zu

Itxaso-ri
Itxaso-DAT you-ERG / *you.ABS like.IPFV 3ABS-AUX-3DAT-2ERG
‘Itxaso likes you.’
(Rezac 2008b:81)

gustatzen d-i-o-zu.

Building on Rezac 2008b, 2010, 2011, we assume that this repair involves movement of the
absolutive object around the dative, which feeds dependent ergative-case assignment to the absolu-
tivo. For the sake of concreteness, we assume that the absolutive moves around (cid:6) antes (cid:6) probes
(p.ej., to a local specifier). The domain of (cid:6) then only contains the dative DP and no gluttony
arises (the ergative clitic must then be produced by a different head). The last-resort character of
the repair then means that this movement is possible only to prevent a gluttonous probe. See also
Rezac 2010 for a similar pattern in Chinook, originally described by Silverstein (1976).

3.6 Interim Summary

En suma, we have proposed that hierarchy effects arise due to a system of feature gluttony. El
model of Agree in (14) ensures that multiple Agree relations are established only when two DPs
are found in the domain of a single articulated probe, and the lower DP has more of the features
sought by the probe than the higher DP—exactly inverse configurations. For PCC effects (como
well as other possible effects involving clitics), we propose that once a probe has established
more than one Agree relationship, an irresolvable conflict occurs for the movement operation
necessary to create clitics. For constructions that contain an articulated (cid:2)-probe, this then results
in ungrammaticality. En cambio, in nonfinite configurations that lack clitics (and hence a (cid:2)-
probe), gluttony—and hence a PCC effect—does not occur. This account differs from much of
the recent literature in that it does not appeal to (failures of ) nominal licensing. Como resultado, él
avoids the need for the caveats required for licensing-based approaches. It also predicts variation
based on independently motivated parameters and restrictions. Finalmente, we have shown that it is
consistent with observed repair strategies employed in various languages. Próximo, we turn to another
domain in which hierarchy effects are found: (cid:2)-agreement.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

685

4 Gluttony and Agreement

En esta sección, we zoom in on the feature structure of gluttonous probes themselves by looking
at hierarchy effects in the domain of morphological agreement. As outlined above, when a probe
enters into an Agree relationship with more than one DP, (cid:2)-features from each DP are copied to
the probe. Aquí, we show how problems can then arise when (a) each value on the probe demands
a different Vocabulary item (VI) y (b) only a single VI can be inserted. The empirical bases
for this investigation are hierarchy effects in German copula constructions in section 4.1 y
Icelandic dative-nominative constructions in section 4.2. We discuss possible extensions and
repairs in section 5.

4.1 German Copula Constructions

4.1.1 The Pattern Coon, Keine, and Wagner (2017) and Keine, Wagner, and Coon (2019)
investigate a curious person and number restriction in so-called assumed-identity sentences in
Alemán. In such sentences, one DP is assigned the role of another DP (p.ej., in a play or a game
of charades; see Heycock 2012, Be´jar and Kahnemuyipour 2017). Examples are provided in (51a)
y (52a). Por ejemplo, (51a) conveys the meaning that the hearer is assigned the role of Martin
to impersonate in a play or a game; analogously, (52a) conveys that a group of children are
together playing the role of a tree. Coon, Keine, and Wagner (2017) and Keine, Wagner, y
Coon (2019) present experimental evidence indicating that these types of sentences display restric-
tions akin to hierarchy effects. Por ejemplo, mientras que la 2(cid:3)3 configuration in (51a) is grammatical,
el 3(cid:3)2 configuration in (51b) is not. Además, there is a number hierarchy effect such that
the PL(cid:3)SG configuration in (52a) is possible, but the SG(cid:3)PL configuration in (52b) is degraded.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

(51) Person hierarchy
Du
you.NOM are Martin.NOM
‘You are Martin.’

bist Martin.

b. *?Martín

ist du.

Martin.NOM is you.NOM
cf. ‘Martin is you.’

(52) Number hierarchy

a. Die Kinder

sind der Baum.

the children.NOM are the tree.NOM
‘The children are the tree.’
ist die Ba¨ume.

b. *?María

Maria.NOM is the trees.NOM
cf. ‘Maria is the trees.’

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

( 2 (cid:3) 3)

(*3 (cid:3) 2)

( PL (cid:3) SG)

(*SG (cid:3) PL)

Coon, Keine, and Wagner’s (2017) and Keine, Wagner, and Coon’s (2019) experimental evidence
suggests that the ungrammatical configurations are those in (53). Eso es, an assumed-identity
sentence in German is ungrammatical if it violates one of the two hierarchies. The authors cited

686

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

also provide evidence that the effect is not present in English, and hence that it is not plausibly
merely pragmatic in nature.

(53) Hierarchy effects in German copula constructions

a. *3 (cid:3) [PART]
b. *SG (cid:3) PL

The person hierarchy effect in (53a) bears a clear resemblance to the PCC (En particular, the Weak
PCC), with the notable difference that the person restriction is accompanied by a number restriction
(es decir., (53b)), a restriction that is absent in the PCC (mira la sección 3.4.3). Coon, Keine, and Wagner
(2017) and Keine, Wagner, and Coon (2019) set out to unify the person restriction in (53a) con
the PCC, adopting a Nevins 2007–style licensing account. While we will follow their basic
analytical intuition that the two effects should be unified, the licensing account that they propose
encounters the same obstacles as licensing-based accounts of the PCC (sección 2.3). The most
severe problem is that, like PCC effects in Basque (ver (10)), these effects are ameliorated in
nonfinite clauses, as in (54), noted as a problem for a licensing account by Keine, Wagner, y
Coon (2019:642).

(54) a. Martín

scheint [du

zu sein].

Martin.NOM seems
‘Martin seems to be you.’

you.NOM to be

b. María

scheint [die Ba¨ume

zu sein].

Maria.NOM seems
‘Maria seems to be the trees.’

the trees.NOM to be

( 3 (cid:3) 2)

( SG (cid:3) PL)

As was the case for the PCC, these data are difficult for a licensing account to handle because
on such an account the licensing requirement of a DP would need to be suspended if that DP
occurs inside a nonfinite clause, by stipulation.

4.1.2 A Gluttony Account A gluttony account allows us to understand these facts in a more
principled manner. Primero, we note that what distinguishes the copula constructions in (51)–(52)
from regular transitive predicates in German is that both DPs are nominative, hence accessible
to the verbal (cid:2)-probe, which as a matter of principle only agrees with nominative DPs in German
(ver, p.ej., Heycock 2012). It is thus precisely in these copula constructions that the (cid:2)-probe could
agree with two DPs, giving rise to gluttony. Segundo, en Inglés, where these hierarchy effects
are absent, the second DP is accusative, hence invisible to the (cid:2)-probe. In English, entonces, allá
is never a risk of gluttony, como el (cid:2)-probe is only ever able to see a single DP.

To develop this account in greater detail, we propose that the German (cid:6)-probe and #-probe

located on finite T are articulated as in (55), again with (cid:6) probing before #.29

29 Note that the particular specification of the (cid:6)-probe in (55) does not correspond to the available morphological
distinctions in verb agreement. En particular, even though (cid:6) is specified only up to [uPART], verb agreement morphologically
distinguishes between 1st and 2nd person agreement. This follows from the coarseness of feature copying. In line with
(14) and Be´jar and Rezac 2009:45–46, a probing segment interacts (in Deal’s (2015) terms) with the entire feature
geometry of the goal DP, and it hence copies back all person segments of the DP. Analogously, Agree triggered by any
segment of # interacts with all number-feature segments on a DP.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

687

uPERS

uNUM

(55) t

(cid:2)

uPART (cid:2)

uPL #

We first look at an ungrammatical person hierarchy effect in a 3(cid:3)[PART] configuración, as in
(53a), exemplified in (51b), repeated here as (56).

(56) *?Martín

ist du.

Martin.NOM is you.NOM

(*3 (cid:3) 2)

The relevant part of the derivation is shown in (57). As before, (cid:6) probes first: [uPERS] agrees
with the higher, 3rd person DP, mientras [uPART] agrees with the lower predicate nominal. The entire
person-feature geometries of the two DPs are copied over onto (cid:6).

(57) (cid:2)-Agree in (56)

uPERS

uPART

(cid:2)
(cid:5)

uNUM

. . . [DP.NOM[3SG]

. . . [DP.NOM[2SG]

]]]

uPL #

As a result of (57), two person values have been copied over to (cid:6), in accordance with the
definition of Agree in (14): [PERS] from the higher DP (es decir., 1 ), y [PERS [PART [ADDR]]] de
the lower DP (es decir., 2 ). (cid:6) has thus acquired a pair of values, as shown in (58). (Subsequent Agree
por # establishes singular number agreement, not illustrated here for reasons of space.)

(58) Gluttonous (cid:2)-probe in (57)

PERS 2

(cid:2) (cid:4)

[PERS] ,

PART

⇒ CONFLICT

ADDR

ist
(3SG)

bist
(2SG)

The problem here, we propose, is not the double Agree itself (just as double Agree in and
of itself was not the problem in the clitic-doubling cases), but the morphological realization of
the feature structure in (58). We will assume a standard late-insertion model of morphology like
Distributed Morphology, where abstract syntactic heads are postsyntactically realized through
Vocabulary Insertion. We adopt the requirement that Vocabulary Insertion must realize a feature
value by insertion of the most specific Vocabulary item (VI) whose morphosyntactic specification
is a subset of the specification of the syntactic head. Correspondingly, the 3rd person value [PERS]
calls for the VI for 3rd person agreement in German, which is ist. Por el contrario, the 2nd person
feature [PERS [PART [ADDR]]] demands the 2nd person agreement marker bist. Assuming further
that only a single VI may be inserted into a given head (ver, p.ej., Halle and Marantz 1993, 1994,
Arregi and Nevins 2012), a fatal conflict arises: the conflicting VI demands of each person value
must be met, but only a single VI may be inserted into T. Como resultado, the process of Vocabulary

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

688

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Insertion is unable to pick a VI for the multivalued probe in (58), leading to ineffability in
the morphological insertion process. The syntactic structure containing this head thus cannot be
morphologically realized, ruling out configurations that give rise to it, como (51b).30

A remaining question is why default agreement cannot be used to morphologically realize
the gluttonous probe in (58).31 Default agreement in German is a last resort in the sense that it
is possible only in the absence of a nominative DP. En este sentido, default agreement is either the
realization of an unvalued (cid:2)-probe (Preminger 2014) or the realization of a maximally underspeci-
fied VI that is inserted only if the feature value does not demand a more specific VI. Neither
condition is met in (58): primero, the probe contains a value; segundo, insertion of a maximally
underspecified VI is blocked by the availability of a more specific VI (even if this VI is itself
blocked by a competing VI). For these reasons, default agreement does not constitute a valid
realization of a gluttonous probe either.

There is independent evidence for morphological ineffability of the sort in (58). Case-match-
ing effects in across-the-board (ATB) movement provide one such piece of evidence. Citko (2005)
and the references cited there show that ATB movement is possible only if the two gaps are
associated with the same case form. While Citko’s (2005) evidence is drawn primarily from
Polish, the effect also holds in German, as shown in (59). En (59a), the ATB-moved element wen
‘who.ACC’ is associated with the object position of the two verbs hasst ‘hates’ and mag ‘likes’.
Both verbs assign accusative case to their objects, and the resulting structure is well-formed. En
(59b), por otro lado, the two verbs are vertraut ‘trusts’ and mag ‘likes’. As before, mag
assigns accusative case to its object, but crucially vertraut assigns dative case. As shown, el
resulting structure is ungrammatical, regardless of whether the ATB-moved DP appears in its
accusative or its dative form (or any other case form).

(59) Case mismatch effects in German ATB movement

Ene
know who.ACC Jan

Ich weiß [wen
I
‘I know who Jan hates and Maria likes.’

hasst und Maria
.ACC hates and Maria

mag].
.ACC likes

b. *Ich weiß [wen/wem

Ene
know who.ACC/who.DAT Jan
I
‘I know who Jan trusts and Maria likes.’

vertraut und Maria
and Maria

.DAT trusts

mag].
.ACC likes

Assuming a multidominance structure for ATB movement, Citko (2005) explains this restriction
by saying that the ATB-moved DP is assigned two distinct case values in (59b), and these then

30 As Gereon Mu¨ller (pers. comm.) has pointed out to us, conflicts between competing feature values are typically
resolved by appealing to an extrinsic feature hierarchy (p.ej., Lumsden 1992, Noyer 1992, 1997, Mu¨ller 2004). This raises
the question why no such hierarchy is able to resolve the conflict in (58). One possibility is that these feature hierarchies
only order types of features (such as “number (cid:3)(cid:3) class (cid:3)(cid:3) case” in Mu¨ller 2004). En ese caso, then it is precisely in combinations
of multiple values of the same feature that hierarchies fail to resolve the conflict and ineffability arises. We note, sin embargo,
that this is not compatible with all analyses in the literature that invoke feature hierarchies in this way, so further work
is warranted.

31 We thank a reviewer, Laura Kalin, and Omer Preminger for raising this possibility.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

689

create a morphological conflict: the morphology cannot determine which VI to insert, conduciendo a
ineffability. This type of account clearly parallels our explanation for the ungrammaticality of
person hierarchy violations in German copula constructions, as in (58). A similar line of reasoning
is also employed by Kratzer (2009) to account for morphological restrictions on the availability
of fake indexicals in German, by Lumsden (1992) and Schu¨tze (2003) for free relatives in German,
by Asarina (2011) for Right Node Raising constructions in Russian, and by Bjorkman (2016) para
go-get constructions in English. We take these clear parallels in other domains to indicate that
the crucial ingredient of our account—morphological ineffability due to overvaluation—is justi-
fied on independent grounds. Because overvaluation is the result of gluttony, our account assimi-
lates the restriction in copula clauses to this range of other phenomena.32

Let us now compare this state of affairs with configurations that do not display hierarchy
efectos. (61) provides the schematized structure for (cid:6)-Agree in a grammatical 1(cid:3)3 configuración
(como (51a), repeated in (60)). Aquí, ambos [uPERS] y [uPART] agree with the subject DP, y
hence no gluttony arises.

(60) Du

bist Martin.

you.NOM are Martin.NOM

(61) (cid:2)-Agree in (60)

uPERS

uPART

uNUM

. . . [DP.NOM[2SG]

. . . [DP.NOM[3SG]]]]

(cid:2)
(cid:5)

uPL #

( 2 (cid:3) 3)

(cid:6) then has the resulting specification in (62). Porque (cid:6) only contains a single value, Vocabulary
Insertion is straightforward, yielding the structure in (60) (de nuevo, abstracting away from the SG
feature contributed by #). The situation is analogous for (cid:6)-agreement in grammatical 3(cid:3)3 y
[PART](cid:3)[PART] configuraciones.

32 The assimilation of the German hierarchy effects to the ATB movement facts in (59) makes an interesting prediction.
Citko (2005) observes that case-mismatching effects disappear if the two case forms are syncretic, because in this instance
both case values demand the same VI and no conflict arises. While the judgments are not entirely clear-cut, hay
evidence to suggest that this prediction is borne out for German (see also Keine, Wagner, and Coon 2019). Como (i) muestra,
3(cid:3)1 combinations are much improved in the past tense or the subjunctive, where the form of the verb is syncretic between
1SG and 3SG agreement.
(i) a. ?Martín

guerra

ich.

Martin.NOM was.3SG/1SG I.NOM
‘Martin was me.’

b. ?Wenn Martin

ich

wa¨re, . . .

Martin.NOM I.NOM were.3SG/1SG

si
‘If Martin were me, . . .'

Similar amelioration of hierarchy effects in copula constructions under syncretism exists in Hindi-Urdu (Bhatia and Bhatt
2019) and Brazilian Portuguese (Filipe Hisao Kobayashi, pers. comm.); see footnote 34. SigurLsson and Holmberg (2008),
and the references they cite, observe a similar effect for Icelandic dative-nominative constructions, discussed in section
4.2.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

690

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

(62) Nongluttonous (cid:2)-probe in (61)
PERS 1

(cid:2) (cid:4)

PART

VI: bist (2SG)

ADDR

The same line of reasoning extends to the number hierarchy effect. As illustrated in (52),
SG(cid:3)PL configurations are ungrammatical, whereas PL(cid:3)SG configurations are grammatical. El
ungrammatical SG(cid:3)PL configuration is repeated in (63). This restriction is the result of the specifi-
cation of the #-probe in (55). In an ungrammatical 3SG(cid:3)3PL configuration, number agreement is
established as in (64) (note that (cid:6) has already agreed with the higher DP). [uNUM] agrees with
the higher DP, pero [uPL] agrees with the lower DP.

(63) *?María

ist die Ba¨ume.

Maria.NOM is the trees.NOM

(64) #-Agree in (63)

uPERS

uNUM

. . . [DP.NOM[3SG]

. . . [DP.NOM[3PL]

]]]

uPART

(cid:2)
(cid:5)

uPL

(*SG (cid:3) PL)

Because the gluttonous number probe in (64) carries two number values, an irresolvable conflict
arises in the morphological realization of the probe, shown in (65). As in (58), this conflict leads
to ineffability, and the resulting structure crashes in the morphology. This rules out (52b).

(65) Gluttonous #-probe in (64)

# (cid:4)

[NUM]

NUM

⇒ CONFLICT

ist
(3SG)

sind
(3PL)

No such gluttony arises in SG(cid:3)SG, PL(cid:3)PL, or PL(cid:3)SG configurations, because here the lower DP
is not more specific than the higher DP.

Because gluttony for either (cid:6) o # leads to ineffability, these structures are well-formed only
if neither (cid:6) nor # is gluttonous. Como consecuencia, structures are ungrammatical if they violate either
the person hierarchy (53a) or the number hierarchy (53b), as desired.

4.1.3 The Emergence of Number Hierarchy Effects Our account thus unifies the hierarchy ef-
fects in German copula constructions with more familiar PCC effects. But this unification gives
rise to an immediate question. We showed that German copula constructions display a number
hierarchy effect. Sin embargo, no parallel number hierarchy effects have been described for combina-
tions of objects in traditional ditransitive PCC environments, which only restrict person features

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

691

(mira la sección 3.4.3). This contrast might be taken to cast doubt on the unification just proposed.
Sin embargo, following Keine, Wagner, and Coon (2019), we suggest that this difference is in fact
predicted. An important distinction between German and PCC languages is that German lacks clitic
doubling. Recall from the discussion in section 3.3 that we assumed—following Anagnostopoulou
(2003), Be´jar and Rezac (2003), Preminger (2009), and others—that clitic doubling of a DP
removes that DP as an intervener for subsequent Agree operations. In PCC effects involving
clitics, this has the consequence that (cid:6)-Agree with the indirect object removes it as an intervener
for subsequent #-Agree. Como resultado, the #-probe probes past the indirect object, agreeing only
with the lower direct object (ver (66)). Como consecuencia, there is no possibility for gluttony in #-
Agree, and number hierarchy effects are correctly predicted to be absent.

(66) Ditransitive PCC

[vP v[(cid:2) (cid:2) #] . . . [ApplP DPIO

. . . [vicepresidente . . .

DPDO

. . . ]]]

clitic-double

Contrast this to the situation in German. Because German lacks clitic doubling, (cid:6)-Agree with
the higher DP does not remove it as an intervener for subsequent #-Agree. The #-probe thus also
agrees with the higher DP, giving rise to gluttony in SG(cid:3)PL configurations, as in (64). Esto es
schematized in (67).

(67) German copula

[TP T[(cid:2) (cid:2) #] . . . [ . . . DP . . . [ . . . DP . . . ]]]

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

If this reasoning is on the right track, the crucial contrast with respect to the presence or absence
of number hierarchy effects follows from an independently motivated difference—namely, el
presence or absence of clitic doubling—and is hence in line with our unification of the two
phenomena.33

4.1.4 Copula Hierarchy Effects beyond German We have proposed that the hierarchy effect in
German copula constructions arises because in this construction two nominative DPs are in the
domain of a single (cid:2)-probe. This not only accounts for the absence of such an effect in English,
it also predicts that analogous effects arise in other languages in which both DPs appear in a case
form that is visible to verb agreement. A detailed investigation of this prediction is beyond the
scope of this article, but it seems that these effects arise in other languages as well. A first example

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

33 As above, predictions with respect to gender effects depend on the representation of gender in the grammar (ver
sección 3.4.3). All else being equal, if gender features are arranged in a feature hierarchy like person and number features,
then we might expect gender hierarchy effects in copula constructions in languages in which (a) the verb agrees for
género, (b) the higher DP is not clitic-doubled, y (C) both nominals are in accessible case forms. Note however that it
is not a priori clear whether gender features are hierarchically organized. De hecho, if feature hierarchies encode semantic
entailments, then one might expect at least uninterpretable gender to not form hierarchies. We have not systematically
tested gender effects, and leave an assessment of these theoretical options for future research. We thank a reviewer for
helpful comments.

692

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

is Hindi-Urdu. Bhatia and Bhatt (2019) observe person hierarchy effects in copula constructions
in the language, illustrated in (68).

(68) a. [Context: A Bollywood movie where two people are swapping identities]

mE˜ Ramesh hu˜:

aaj-se
today-from I
‘From today onward, I am Ramesh.’ (es decir., ‘I am taking on the role of a 3rd person.’)
( 1 (cid:3) 3)

Ramesh be.PRS.1SG

b. [Context: A Bollywood movie where someone is swapping identities with me]

*aaj-se

Ramesh mE˜ hai/hu˜:

today-from Ramesh I
be.PRS.3SG/be.PRS.1SG
Intended: ‘From today onward, Ramesh is me.’
(Bhatia and Bhatt 2019:3)

(*3 (cid:3) 1)

Además, Hindi-Urdu seems to display a number hierarchy effect as well, as illustrated in (69).

(69) a.

Ram hE˜

naaTak-me˜ do log

es
this play-in
‘In this play, two people are Ram.’
naaTak-me˜ Ram do paatr

two people Ram be.PRS.3PL

hai

b. ??es

Ram two characters be.PRS.3SG

this play-in
‘In this play, Ram is two characters.’
(Rajesh Bhatt, pers. comm.)

( PL (cid:3) SG)

(*SG (cid:3) PL)

A second example is Brazilian Portuguese, which also displays a person hierarchy effect,

as shown in (70).

(70) a. Eu sou ele.
am he
I
b. *Ele e´ eu.
he is I
(Filipe Hisao Kobayashi, pers. comm.)

( 1 (cid:3) 3)

(*3 (cid:3) 1)

There is thus converging evidence that the German pattern is by no means isolated or excep-
tional.34 Just how widespread it is remains to be determined. A reviewer points out that Icelandic,

34 A further parallelism to German (see footnote 32) is that these hierarchy effects seem to disappear under syncretism;
eso es, the morphological form of the verb is syncretic between agreement with the two DPs. Por ejemplo, Bhatia and
Bhatt (2019) note that the hierarchy effect disappears in the past tense, where the auxiliary tha: does not express person
distinctions, as shown in (i).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

(i) [Context: A Bollywood movie where I swapped identities with Ramesh]

us din mE˜ Ramesh tha:
Ramesh be.PST.M.SG and Ramesh I
that day I
‘That day I was Ramesh and Ramesh was me.’
(Bhatia and Bhatt 2019:6)

aur Ramesh mE˜ tha:

be.PST.M.SG

( 1 (cid:3) 3/ 3 (cid:3) 1)

We develop an analysis of the rescuing effect of syncretism in section 4.2.

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

693

in which predicate DPs appear in nominative case, does not seem to exhibit hierarchy effects.
This is illustrated in (71) y (72), both of which are marked but possible according to the
reviewer’s intuitions.

(71) Hann

Èu´.

he.NOM is.3SG you.SG.NOM
‘He is you.’

(72) Hann

tre´n.

he.NOM is.3SG trees.NOM
‘He is the trees.’

( 3 (cid:3) 2)

( SG (cid:3) PL)

We do not at present have a full account of this disparity between Icelandic and the other
languages reviewed above, but we would like to offer some suggestions. One factor that is likely
to play a role is that Icelandic displays a great deal of interspeaker and intraspeaker variability
in agreement in predicational and specificational copula clauses, as investigated experimentally
by Hartmann and Heycock (2017). Because Hartmann and Heycock do not investigate assumed-
identity sentences in Icelandic, it stands to reason in light of this variability that constructions
como (71) y (72) ought to be investigated experimentally in a way analogous to German before
firm conclusions can be reached. One empirical factor that plausibly plays a role here is that in
some constructions, Icelandic does not require verbs to agree with nominative DPs that are not
in Spec,TP (and in this respect Icelandic differs from German). As noted by Thra´insson (1979:
466), SigurLsson (1996), and SigurLsson and Holmberg (2008), a finite verb in a dative-nominative
construction (to be discussed further in the next section) may, but in many varieties does not
have to, agree with the nominative object. This is shown in (73), where the finite verb appears
in its 3SG default agreement form even though the nominative DP is plural. This seems to be the
case as well if the nominative DP is 1st or 2nd person, at least for some speakers (SigurLsson
1996:35, (74C), (75b)).

(73) aL henni

Èeir

lı´kaLi
that her.DAT liked.3SG they.NOM
‘that she liked them’
(SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008:260)

De este modo, if Icelandic has the means of shielding a nominative DP that is not in Spec,TP from agreeing
with the verb in at least some constructions (however this is technically achieved; see SigurLsson
1996 for a proposal), this might offer an explanation for the absence of hierarchy effects in (71)
y (72). Específicamente, if these sentences have a parse in which the lower DP (Èu´ and tre´n,
respectivamente) is shielded from agreement with T, these DPs are invisible to the probes, and as a
result no gluttony arises. This analysis gives rise to the expectation that the possibility of (71)
y (72) should correlate, across speakers, with the option of default agreement in (73). We cannot
assess this prediction within the scope of the present article, but note it as a promising avenue
for future work.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

694

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

4.2 Syncretism and Icelandic Dative-Nominative Constructions

The final phenomenon for which we develop a gluttony account in some detail is the well-known
agreement restrictions in Icelandic dative-nominative (DAT-NOM) constructions (see SigurLsson
1991, 1996, Taraldsen 1995, Holmberg and Hro´arsdo´ttir 2003, SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008).
These bear a clear resemblance to PCC effects, which has been taken to suggest a uniform account
(ver, p.ej., Boeckx 2000, Anagnostopoulou 2003, 2005, Be´jar and Rezac 2003, Richards 2008,
Walkow 2012).

In what follows, we will focus on a person restriction in these environments. There is also a
number restriction, though for the number effect, the pattern is subject to considerable interspeaker
variación, and the relevant generalizations are less well-understood (see Holmberg and Hro´arsdo´ttir
2003, SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008, Ku?erova´ 2016, Ussery 2017). We will therefore put the
number effect aside here in the interest of space, though we see no principled reason why the
feature gluttony account could not be extended to this effect as well.35

An example of an Icelandic DAT-NOM construction is given in (74). It is well-established that
the dative DP in these constructions occupies the true subject position and that the nominative
DP is a true object (see Zaenen, Maling, and Thra´insson 1985). For many speakers, the verb then
agrees with the nominative object, as shown in (74).

(74) Henni

leiddust
bored.3PL the.boys.NOM

strákarnir.

her.DAT
‘She found the boys boring.’
(SigurLsson 1996:1)

((cid:51)3 (cid:2) 3PL)

But as SigurLsson (1996), SigurLsson and Holmberg (2008), and others have shown, agreement
with the lower nominative is subject to the restriction in (75).

(75) Person restriction

In DAT-NOM constructions, only 3rd person NOM may control agreement.
(SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008:254)

Como consecuencia, verb agreement with 1st and 2nd person nominatives is impossible, as shown in
(76).

(76) a. * Henni

leiddumst viL.
bored.1PL we.NOM

her.DAT
Intended: ‘She found us boring.’
(SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008:270)

(*3 (cid:2) 1PL)

35 Possibilities include whether and how number features are represented on the dative DP, and/or variation in the
timing of subject movement with respect to (cid:2)-probing. See Hoover to appear for a gluttony account of Icelandic number
efectos.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

695

b. * Henni

líkaLir Èú.
her.DAT
like.2SG you.SG
Intended: ‘She likes you.’
(SigurLsson 1996:33)

(*3 (cid:2) 2SG)

SigurLsson (1996), Schu¨tze (1997, 2003), and SigurLsson and Holmberg (2008) demonstrate that
the problem is not the 1st or 2nd person object itself, but the fact that the verb agrees with it.
Important evidence comes from configurations like (77), in which the DAT-NOM configuration is
inside a nonfinite clause. Because nonfinite verbs do not agree in Icelandic, there is no agreement
with the nominative object in (77), and this configuration is judged as “quite acceptable” by
SigurLsson and Holmberg (2008:271, 276) (the authors cite other potential factors for the “?"
judgment); also see SigurLsson 2004b:155n14.

(77) Nonagreement fix

?Hu´n vonaList auLvitaL til
she hoped
‘She of course hoped not to find us/you/them very boring.’
(SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008:271)

[aL leiLast

viL /ÈiL /Èeir

of.course for to find.boring.INF we /you /they.NOM not much

ekki mikiL].

The sentence in (77) involves a control structure. In light of evidence that PRO bears dative case
in configurations like (77) (see SigurLsson 1991, 2008), (77) involves a DAT-NOM configuration
just like (76). The crucial distinguishing factor is that the infinitival verb in (77) does not agree
with the nominative object.

Further evidence supporting (75) comes from configurations like (78), which involve a matrix
verb that takes a dative subject and embeds a nonfinite or small clause that in turn contains a
nominative DP. Como (78a) demonstrates, it is possible, todo lo demás es igual, for the matrix verb to
agree with this nominative DP. This is not possible, sin embargo, if the nominative DP is 1st or 2nd
person and verb agreement would therefore involve person agreement. En (78b), the agreeing
form Èyki is ruled out. Significantly, agreement is optional in these constructions. The verb may
also agree with the embedded clause as a whole instead of the nominative DP (the form Èykir in
(78b)). En este caso, the structure is grammatical regardless of the person of the nominative DP
(SigurLsson 1996, Schu¨tze 1997, Hrafnbjargarson 2002, SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008, Pre-
minger 2011).36

(78) Nonagreement fix
Èykja
think.3PL they.NOM

a. Mér

me.DAT
‘I think they are good at soccer.’

Èau

góL í
good in soccer

fótbolta.

36 Además, SigurLsson (1996) shows that at least some speakers allow 1st and 2nd person nominative objects if
the verb shows default agreement, which SigurLsson proposes involves an inherent nominative invisible to verb agreement.
The judgments of these speakers are of course in line with the person restriction in (75).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

696

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

b. Ykkur

Èykir
think.3SG
you.PL.DAT
‘You think I am good at soccer.’
(Hrafnbjargarson 2002:2)

/ *Èyki
/

*think.1SG I.NOM

ég

góLur
bien

fótbolta.

í
in soccer

The generalization that the person restriction disappears in the absence of agreement is
strikingly parallel to the situation we observed for PCC effects in section 2.3 and German copula
clauses in section 4.1. It therefore seems natural to extend the gluttony account to the Icelandic
restriction. We propose that the Icelandic (cid:6)-probe is articulated as in (79).

(79) uPERS

uPART (cid:2)

We furthermore follow recent proposals that dative DPs in Icelandic behave externally as 3rd
person DPs (Chomsky 2000:128, 149n90, Boeckx 2000, Richards 2008, SigurLsson and Holmberg
2008; also see Atlamaz and Baker 2018 for another proposal that Icelandic datives are featurally
deficient from the outside)—regardless of their internal person features—paralleling a similar
behavior we observed for Basque dative DPs above.

A schematic (cid:6)-Agree structure for (76a) is provided in (80). [uPERS] agrees with the dative

DP, y [uPART] agrees with the nominative DP, resulting in a gluttonous probe.37

(80) (cid:2)-Agree in (76a)

uPERS

. . . [DP.DAT[3]

. . . [DP.NOM[1PL] ]]]

uPART

(cid:5)2

The situation that results from (80) is analogous to what we showed for German in section 4.1:
the gluttonous probe cannot be morphologically realized. To illustrate this conflict, (81) proporciona
the relevant past tense mediopassive inflectional paradigm for the verb in (76a) (Thra´insson 1994:
162).

37 As a reviewer notes, because it is the dative DP that moves to Spec,TP in Icelandic DAT-NOM constructions like
(80), our account requires that person agreement not require a Spec-head relation, contra Baker’s (2008) Structural
Condition on Person Agreement (SCOPA; see also Preminger 2011:920–921 for an argument against SCOPA from
Basque). The reviewer also observes that this assumption is in fact independently motivated for Icelandic by the existence
of what SigurLsson (2004a, 2006) calls Reverse Predicate Agreement, as in (i), where Spec,TP is occupied by the expletive
subject ÈaL and the verb agrees with viL ‘us’.

(i) ÏaL erum bara viL.

are.1PL only we.NOM

él
‘It’s only us.’
(SigurLsson 2006:223)

SigurLsson (1996, 2004a, 2006) and SigurLsson and Holmberg (2008) suggest that ÈaL lacks (cid:2)-características. En ese caso, then the
(cid:2)-probe in (i) agrees only with viL ‘us’, and hence no gluttony arises.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

697

(81) Past tense mediopassive suffixes

SG
-ist
-ist
-ist

PL
-umst
-ust
-ust

1
2
3

From the paradigm in (81), we can extract the VIs in (82).

(82) Vocabulary items

[
[

-ist ↔
](cid:5) / –— [SG]#
↔
-ust
](cid:5) / –— [PL]#
-umst ↔ [PERS [PART [SPKR]]](cid:5) / –— [PL]#

(underspecified for person)
(underspecified for person)

The VI -ist is underspecified for person (meaning that it is compatible with all person values),
but it bears a contextual singular specification; -ust is likewise underspecified for person but bears
a contextual plural specification; and -umst is specified for 1st person and plural. Because it is
more specific than -ust, it is inserted in 1PL configurations.

The outcome of applying these VIs to the gluttonous probe in (80) is represented in (83).
Due to the contextual plural specification on the #-probe (not shown in (83)), the 3rd person
value calls for the VI -ust, whereas the 1st person value demands -umst. Because only a single
VI can be inserted into a syntactic head, these conflicting demands lead to ineffability and hence
ungrammaticality in the way discussed for German in section 4.

(83) Gluttonous (cid:2)-probe in (80) (in context of plural number agreement)

PERS 2

(cid:2) (cid:4)

[PERS]

PART

⇒ CONFLICT

SPKR

-ust

-umst

The core idea that what underlies the ungrammaticality of (76) is a morphological conflict that
results from attempting to agree with both DPs was first proposed by Schu¨tze (2003), though he
leaves open what the syntactic derivation that results in this conflict is. Our gluttony account can
thus be seen as providing the syntactic underpinning for Schu¨tze’s proposal. Other proposals that
invoke a morphological conflict have been made by SigurLsson and Holmberg (2008) and Atlamaz
and Baker (2018), but the specifics of their proposals differ significantly from our account.38

38 Atlamaz and Baker’s (2018) account invokes Multiple Agree in the traditional sense, whereby a probe agrees with
all accessible DPs in its domain (see also SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008, where it is proposed that the person probe
agrees with both the dative and the nominative DP). Como consecuencia, their account does not straightforwardly extend
to hierarchy effects, as Multiple Agree arises regardless of whether the two DPs stand in a 1(cid:3)3 o un 3(cid:3)1 configuración.
Our gluttony account derives the fact that 1(cid:3)3 y 3(cid:3)1 configurations are not symmetrical.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

698

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Recall that the restriction on the person of the nominative DP disappears if no verb agrees
with it (es decir., if it is inside a nonfinite clause; ver (78) y (80)). This follows naturally from our
cuenta. Without an agreeing probe, there is no gluttony, and as a result, the morphological-
realization problem does not arise in the first place. The structure is therefore grammatical regard-
less of the person of the nominative DP.

A second important configuration that leads to obviation of the person restriction is the
following: in environments where agreement with the 1st or 2nd person nominative object is
syncretic with 3rd person agreement in the same number, the restriction is lifted for most speakers
(SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008:272; see also SigurLsson 1991, 1996, Taraldsen 1995, Schu¨tze
2003, Thra´insson 2007). An example is provided in (84). En (84a), the nominative DP is ÈiL
‘you.PL’ and the embedding verb is virtust ‘seems’. The conjugation of this verb follows the
paradigm in (81), and the 2PL form is hence syncretic with the 3PL form. En este caso, the 2PL
nominative DP is grammatical. A minimally different configuration is provided in (84b), dónde
the nominative DP is viL ‘we’. En tono rimbombante, the 1PL form of the verb is not syncretic with 3rd
person agreement, and the structure is ungrammatical.

(84) Syncretism fix

a. Henni virtust

ÈiL
her.DAT seemed.2PL/3PL you.PL.NOM somewhat strange
‘You seemed somewhat strange to her.’

eitthvaL

einkennilegir.

b. *Henni virtumst

viL
her.DAT seemed.1PL we.NOM somewhat strange
(SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008:270)

eitthvaL

einkennilegir.

Note that grammaticality is improved for all configurations that display the relevant syncretism.
This includes simple transitive clauses, and it encompasses both main verbs and auxiliaries (Y-
gurLsson 1996, Schu¨tze 2003, Thra´insson 2007, SigurLsson and Holmberg 2008, Atlamaz and
Panadero 2018). Además, the person restriction is completely lifted in the singular of past tense
mediopassive verbs, where all cells are syncretic (ver (81)), as shown by SigurLsson and Holmberg
(2008:270).

Because our account attributes the ungrammaticality of 1st/2nd person nominative objects
not to gluttony itself but to its morphological aftermath, the rescuing effect of syncretism receives
a principled account. Syntactically, (84a) results in a gluttonous (cid:6)-probe, which acquires both a
3rd person value and a 2nd person value. In combination with plural agreement by the number
probe, the person probe and its morphological realization are schematized in (85). Due to the
syncretism pattern of the verb, both 3rd person and 2nd person agreement demand the same VI:
-ust in (82). There is hence no conflict between the morphological requirements of the two values,
and it is possible to simultaneously satisfy both by inserting a single VI.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

699

(85) Gluttonous (cid:2)-probe in (84a) (in context of plural number agreement)

PERS 2

(cid:2) (cid:4)

[PERS]

PART

⇒ NO CONFLICT

ADDR

-ust

Citko (2005) demonstrates that analogous obviation effects under syncretism arise in ATB extrac-
ción (ver (59)); Kratzer (2009) shows the same for fake indexicals in German; Asarina (2011)
observes an analogous pattern for Russian Right Node Raising; Bjorkman (2016) observes it in
English go-get constructions; also see footnotes 32 y 34 for parallel evidence from German
and other languages. This is of course consistent with our claim in section 4.1 that what underlies
hierarchy effects is the same general restriction that also governs the case restriction in ATB
movement configurations. Under a licensing approach to hierarchy effects, it is unclear why
idiosyncrasies of syncretism should affect the grammaticality of the output.

Note finally that our proposal characterizes probes as gluttonous if they have agreed with
more than one DP, but not the other way around. Eso es, it is permissible for one DP to agree
with multiple probes. A relevant configuration from Icelandic, suggested by a reviewer, is given
en (86).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

(86) Ïeir

mundu vera taldir

believed.NOM.M.PL be

they.NOM.M.PL would be
kosnir.
elected.NOM.M.PL
‘They would be believed to be said to have been elected.’
(SigurLsson 2004a:86)

vera sagLir

hafa veriL
said.NOM.M.PL have been

En (86), multiple probes agree with the same DP. Because none of these probes agrees with
multiple DPs, no gluttony arises.

To summarize, gluttony and hence hierarchy effects are found in Icelandic exactly in those
environments in which (a) two (cid:2)-accessible DPs are located in the domain of a single (cid:2)-probe
y (b) the lower DP is more specified than the higher one. In Icelandic, this is the case only in
configurations in which the lower DP is nominative. In NOM-ACC or NOM-DAT constructions, either
the lower DP is completely inaccessible to the (cid:2)-probe, or it maximally bears a [PERS] feature
externamente (es decir., as a “quirky” DP; see discussion on datives in Basque in section 3.4.1 and in this
section above) and is hence never more featurally specific than the higher DP. Como resultado, No
gluttony can arise in such configurations. Combined with the gluttony system, the assumption
that dative DPs have visible 3rd person features yields a unified account not only of (a) the person
efecto, (b) the nonagreement fix, y (C) the syncretism fix, pero también (d) the fact that these restric-
tions are limited to DAT-NOM constructions, in which the lower DP is in an accessible case form.

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

700

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

5 Conclusion and Outlook

5.1 Summary

In this article, we have proposed a new approach to hierarchy effects. The central difference
between this approach and more traditional accounts is that we do not attribute hierarchy effects
to failed Agree or a failure of nominal licensing. Bastante, we suggested that hierarchy effects are
due to too much Agree in the sense that a single probe agrees with more than one DP. Semejante
feature gluttony configurations are not syntactically ill-formed as such, but they may give rise to
irresolvable conflicts for subsequent operations, be they syntactic (in the case of clitic doubling;
sección 3) or morphological (in the case of agreement; sección 4).

The crucial motivation for this departure from nominal licensing came from the observation
that hierarchy effects commonly disappear in environments in which the clitic doubling or agree-
ment associated with them does not arise. This is most directly the case in nonfinite clauses that
lack clitics or agreement, and we have presented evidence that PCC effects as well as the agreement
restrictions in German and Icelandic disappear in such environments. We argued that such effects
present difficulties for a licensing-based approach: if hierarchy effects are due to licensing failures
resulting from insufficient Agree, then having less Agree should not rectify these failures. Mientras
it is possible to complicate the definition of the licensing condition in a way that exempts DPs
from the licensing requirement in precisely such cases—as for example Preminger (2011, 2019)
does—such complications remain stipulated on a licensing account and hence do not explain why
obviation should occur in these configurations.

We suggested that a more principled explanation of these obviation effects becomes available
if the burden of the account is shifted away from nominal licensing and toward verbal probes. Si
hierarchy effects are caused by gluttonous probes, it follows immediately that hierarchy effects
should disappear in structures that do not contain such probes. We are then in a position to
dispense with the added caveats of the revised licensing condition, while still accounting for the
range of facts that motivated these caveats. Además, to the extent that the gluttony account
is on the right track, no appeal to licensing requirements of particular features is necessary anymore
in at least this domain.

Because our account attributes ungrammaticality not to gluttony itself but to its aftermath
(cliticization or the realization of morphological agreement), it predicts that such effects are limited
to configurations with overt agreement or clitics. We showed that this is the case for the PCC,
but it also generalizes to different constructions within a language. Por ejemplo, a reviewer notes
that Icelandic does not show PCC effects in ditransitives despite exhibiting hierarchy effects in
another corner of its grammars (see Schu¨tze 1997); the same is true for German. This contrast
follows straightforwardly on our account. Because objects of ditransitives are not associated with
agreement or clitics in either German or Icelandic, no hierarchy effect could arise. The generaliza-
tion that hierarchy effects only arise with agreement or clitics is explicitly argued for by Preminger
(2019); our account offers a way to derive it.39

39 See Preminger 2019 for discussion of combinations of weak object pronouns in English; though hierarchy effects
are sometimes reported for weak pronouns in English ditransitives (p.ej., They showed him her vs. They showed him me;

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

701

A gluttony-based account furthermore makes principled predictions about the kinds of struc-
tures that give rise to hierarchy effects. Primero, because gluttony by definition only arises if a probe
agrees with more than one DP, hierarchy effects are expected to be limited to such environments.
Segundo, a probe must be articulated (es decir., “picky”) enough to not be completely satisfied by the
first DP that it encounters. Tercero, the lower DP must have more features than the higher DP in
order to be able to value features of the probe that have not been valued by Agree with the higher
DP. This last property is of course the defining characteristic of hierarchy effects.

5.2 Possible Extensions

In closing this article, we will briefly lay out possible extensions of our system. While we have
focused primarily on gluttony that arises in particular corners of certain grammars (ditransitives,
copulas, and DAT-NOM constructions), for many languages of the world hierarchy effects appear
to play a more widespread role. Our account predicts that the factors that contribute to gluttony
(es decir., two accessible DPs in the domain of a single agreeing probe) might be especially prevalent
in languages that (a) are agreement-rich and (b) for which the lower of two DPs is typically in
a case form accessible to the relevant agreeing probe—as in languages that lack morphological
caso, or in ergative-absolutive languages in which the ergative has at least [PERS] visible and the
lower absolutive is accessible, on par with Icelandic DAT-NOM constructions.

Hierarchy-based restrictions in transitives are attested in many languages that fit this descrip-
ción (ver, p.ej., Klaiman 1992, Aissen 1999, Zu´n˜iga 2006, Bliss, Ritter, and Wiltschko 2020).40
Languages of the Algonquian family, Por ejemplo, require special inverse verb forms in hierarchy-
violating transitives. In Lummi (Salish), transitive sentences with 3rd person subjects and partici-
pant objects are ungrammatical (Jelinek and Demers 1983); varieties of Neo-Aramaic ban the
same configurations just in the perfective aspect (Kalin and Van Urk 2015). In Chukchi (Chukotko-
Kamchatkan), certain inverse configurations are similarly banned in transitives, requiring instead
a “spurious antipassive” (Bobaljik and Branigan 2006). In keeping with our system, Algonquian
languages are caseless and head-marking, Lummi is a head-marking ergative language, and Chuk-
chi has ergative case marking and unmarked absolutives. Neo-Aramaic is similarly caseless and
head-marking, and Kalin and Van Urk (2015) argue specifically that what sets the perfective
apart from the imperfective (which lacks the hierarchy effect) is that in the perfective a probe on
T is responsible for both subject and object (cid:2)-indexing morphemes. Rezac (2008a) notes that
person effects akin to the one described for Icelandic in section 4.2 are found with oblique subjects
(not necessarily dative) in Finnish, Chinook, Tamil, Choctaw, Gujarati, and Breton.

see Bonet 1991, Haspelmath 2004), these effects are described as subtle, and speakers we have consulted do not detect
a reliable person-based contrast. This suggests that these effects should not be unified with PCC effects, a conclusion
also reached by Preminger (2019).

40 Klaiman (1992) explicitly discusses the prevalence of inverse systems in head-marking languages—namely, lan-
guages that mark grammatical relations via morphological agreement and lack nominal case. He also lists ergativity as
a factor contributing to inverse systems.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

702

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Some languages may have systematic strategies to resolve widespread hierarchies. Como nosotros
have emphasized throughout, our account does not attribute ungrammaticality to gluttonous probes
tal como. Bastante, gluttonous probes can give rise to irresolvably conflicting requirements for subse-
quent operations, which in turn leads to ineffability. We already showed on the basis of German and
Icelandic that conflicts in the domain of gluttonous agreement do not arise in cases of syncretism in
which both values on the probe demand the same VI. Además, the system lends itself to other
strategies for dealing with gluttonous agreement probes, with distinct empirical signatures. En
what follows, we briefly outline three such strategies predicted to lead to a converging structure,
even in the presence of a gluttonous agreement probe: (a) morphological fission, (b) portmanteau
formas, y (C) the absence of a VI. Note that because the problem for cliticizing probes involved
movement and was hence syntactic, these rescue strategies should be available to agreement
probes, but not to cliticizing probes.

The first morphological strategy for dealing with a gluttonous agreement probe is through
morphological fission. Fission rules are a standard type of operation in Distributed Morphology
that splits a single head into two heads (Noyer 1992, Halle 1997). Fundamentalmente, fission applies after
syntax, but before Vocabulary Insertion. The effect of fission is schematized in (87). Aquí, a
gluttonous probe (cid:6) on T with the (cid:2)-valores (cid:4)(cid:2)1, (cid:2)2(cid:5) is split into two syntactic heads T′ and T(cid:7),
each with only one feature value. Because Vocabulary Insertion targets heads, it can apply to
each without running into the competition problem.

(87) Rescue by fission
2}(cid:5)]T ⇒ [(cid:7)
1, (cid:7)

[{(cid:7)

1]t(cid:6) [(cid:7)
X

2]t(cid:8)
Y

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

The result of such a fission rule would be agglutinative agreement with two DPs that is established
by a single probe. Deal (2015) develops an account for complementizer agreement in Nez Perce
in which a single articulated probe may show agreement with two DPs when the lower DP
matches more of the probe’s features. The features of each DP are realized as separate morphemes,
compatible with morphological fission (though Deal’s analysis does not involve fission).

A second possible rescue strategy for gluttonous agreement probes is portmanteau morphol-
ogia. En este caso, a special VI is inserted that realizes the features of both agreed-with DPs (ver,
p.ej., Heath 1991, 1998, Georgi 2013, Woolford 2016). Because this VI simultaneously realizes
the features of both DPs, it is more specific than any VI that only realizes one of the two values.
Como resultado, no conflict arises, and ineffability is averted. Ver, Por ejemplo, Oxford 2019 for a
proposal governing the distribution of portmanteau morphemes in Algonquian languages; Oxford
proposes that portmanteau forms appear only in environments in which an articulated probe agrees
with both the subject and the object.

A third conceivable rescue strategy for gluttonous agreement probes involves cases in which
one of the two feature values does not correspond to any VI (as opposed to a phonologically null
VI). In the context of the gluttony account, this strategy can be used to analyze omnivorous
number-agreement systems (Nevins 2011). Omnivorous agreement is characterized by a particular
agreement morpheme indexing features of a more highly ranked DP, regardless of that DP’s

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

703

posición. Por ejemplo, in the Kichean Agent Focus construction, en 3(cid:3)3 configurations the verb
bears plural agreement (-mi) if the subject, object, or both are plural, and it is not overtly marked
for number if both are singular (Preminger 2014; ver (88)).

(88) Verbal number agreement in Kichean Agent Focus 3(cid:3)3 configuraciones (Preminger

2014:21)
Subject Object

SG N
norte
PL
SG N
norte

Verb agreement
(cid:2)
-mi
-mi
-mi

To reach a plural object across a singular subject, the #-probe in Kichean must be specified as
[uNUM [uPL]]. SG(cid:3)PL configurations then result in gluttony because # agrees with both the singular
subject and the plural object.41 One line of analysis compatible with our account is that singular
agreement in Kichean is not associated with a VI at all. Eso es, the only VI available to expone
number agreement is -e, which realizes plural. “(cid:2)” in (88) is the absence of a VI. If this line of
analysis is correct, then the gluttonous probe in a SG(cid:3)PL configuration does not result in ineffabil-
idad: because only the plural value is associated with a VI, no competition between VIs arises.
The descriptive result is an omnivorous agreement pattern. All else being equal, we might then
expect singular agreement to correspond to the absence of overt number marking across all
omnivorous number systems. Though more systematic work is needed, we are unaware of counter-
examples to this potential generalization (p.ej., Georgian and Ch’ol fit this pattern; see Be´jar 2011
and Va´zquez A´ lvarez 2011, respectivamente).

En suma, because ineffability does not arise from gluttony itself, but rather from its aftermath,
at least gluttonous agreement probes can be repaired in a variety of ways, including syncretism,
fission, portmanteau morphology, and the absence of a VI. In languages with more systemic
gluttony—as in agreement-rich systems in which both subject and object DPs are accessible to
a single probe—we might expect to find widespread use of one or more of these strategies. Nosotros
leave a comprehensive exploration of such strategies within the current proposal for the future,
but we hope that the proposal ultimately extends beyond the hierarchy effects discussed here.

Referencias

Adger, David, and Daniel Harbour. 2007. Syntax and syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint. Syntax

10:2–37.

Aissen, Judith. 1987. Tzotzil clause structure. Reidel: Dordrecht.

41 Another possibility for explaining omnivorous number would be the absence of [(cid:4)SG] specifications on nonplural
DPs. If in a given language, nonplural DPs are simply unspecified for number features, then no gluttony will occur in
configurations in which a probe agrees with a lower plural DP across a higher nonplural DP. This echoes the account in
Nevins 2011, in which number features are privative, but it allows for crosslinguistic variation. Ver, Por ejemplo, Corbett
2000 and Wiltschko 2008 on “number-neutral” or “general number” systems.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

704

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic

Teoría 17:673–711.

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economía. Natural Language and Linguistic

Teoría 21:435–483.

Albizu, Pablo. 1997. Generalized Person-Case Constraint: A case for a syntax-driven inflectional morphol-
ogia. In Theoretical issues at the morphology-syntax interface, ed. by Amaya Mendikoetxea and
Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 1–33. Bilbao: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.

Anagnostopoulou, elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlina: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, elena. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Clitic
and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives, ed. by Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordon˜ez,
199–235. Ámsterdam: Juan Benjamín.

Anagnostopoulou, elena. 2017. The Person Case Constraint. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax,
ed. by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 3001–3047. 2y ed.. Oxford: Blackwell.
Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2008. Agreement and clitic restrictions in Basque. In Agreement restric-
ciones, ed. by Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 49–85.
Berlina: de Gruyter.

Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of Spellout.

Dordrecht: Saltador.

Asarina, Alevtina (Alya). 2011. Case in Uyghur and beyond. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
Atlamaz, U¨ mit, and Mark Baker. 2018. On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax 21:195–237.
Baier, Nico. To appear. The Person Case Constraint in Kabyle. In Topics in Kabyle linguistics, ed. by Nico
Baier, Jessica Coon, and Morgan Sonderegger. Montréal, QC: Universidad McGill, Department of
Lingüística.

Panadero, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: prensa de la Universidad de Oxford.
Panadero, Mark C. 2006. On zero agreement and polysynthesis. In Arguments and agreement, ed by Peter
Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike Schoorlemmer, and Fred Weermann, 289–320. Oxford: Oxford
Prensa universitaria.

Panadero, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Prensa de la Universidad de Cambridge.
Panadero, Mark C. 2011. When agreement is for number and gender but not person. Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory 29:875–915.

Barrie, Miguel. 2005. (cid:2)-features in the Onondaga agreement paradigm. En Actas de la 2005 annual
conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed by Claire Gurski. http://cla-acl/wp-content
/uploads/actes-2005/Barrie.pdf.

Be´jar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation, universidad de toronto.
Be´jar, Susana. 2011. Remarks on omnivory and complementarity: A commentary on the paper by Andrew

Nevins. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:973–997.

Be´jar, Susana, and Arsalan Kahnemuyipour. 2017. Non-canonical agreement in copular clauses. Diario de

Lingüística 53:463–499.

Be´jar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance
linguistics: Theory and acquisition, ed. by Ana Teresa Pe´rez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 49–62.
Ámsterdam: Juan Benjamín.

Be´jar, Susana, and Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40:35–73.
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17:1–35.
Bhatia, Sakshi, and Rajesh Bhatt. 2019. Implications of feature realization in Hindi-Urdu: Copular sentences
and fake indexicals. Handout of talk at the workshop Dependency in Syntactic CoVariance: Phi-
Agreement, Reference, and Case (DISCO), University of Leipzig.

Bianchi, Valentina. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116:2023–2067.
Bjorkman, Bronwyn. 2016. Go get, come see. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34:53–91.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

705

Bliss, Brezo, Elizabeth Ritter, and Martina Wiltschko. 2020. Inverse systems and person hierarchy effects.
In The Routledge handbook of North American languages, ed. by Daniel Siddiqi, Michael Barrie,
Carrie Gillon, Jason Haugen, and Eric Mathieu, 193–209. Nueva York: Routledge.

Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Phil Branigan. 2006. Eccentric agreement and multiple Case checking. En
Ergativity: Emerging issues, ed. by Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 47–77.
Dordrecht: Desorden.

Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54:354–380.
Bonet, Eula`lia. 1991. Morphology after syntax. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
Bonet, Eula`lia. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. In The morphology-syntax
connection, ed. by Heidi Harley and Colin Phillips, 33–52. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22.
Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Cecchetto, carlo. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12:93–126.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays in syntax in honor
of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge,
MAMÁ: CON prensa.

Citko, Barbara. 2005. On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge. Lingüístico

Consulta 36:475–496.

Coon, Jessica, Stefan Keine, and Michael Wagner. 2017. Hierarchy effects in copular constructions: El
PCC corner of German. In NELS 47, ed. by Andrew Lamont and Katerina Tetzloff, 1:205–214.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Número. Cambridge: Prensa de la Universidad de Cambridge.
Couquaux, Daniel. 1975. Une re`gle de re´analyse en franc¸ais. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 4:

32–72.

Cowper, Elizabeth A. 2005. A note on number. Linguistic Inquiry 36:441–455.
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen van, and Marjo van Koppen. 2008. Pronominal doubling in Dutch dialects: Big DPs
and coordinations. In Microvariation in syntactic doubling, ed. by Sjef Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman,
Marika Lekakou, and Margreet van der Ham, 207–249. Bingley: Emerald.

Danon, Gabi. 2011. Agreement and the DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax 14:297–317.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2015. Interaction and satisfaction in (cid:2)-agreement. In NELS 45, ed. by Thuy Bui and
Deniz O¨ zyãldãz, 1:179–192. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student
Asociación.

Doliana, Aarón. 2013. The super-strong Person Case Constraint: Scarcity of resources by scale-driven impov-
erishment. In Rule interaction in grammar, ed. by Fabian Heck and Anke Assmann, 177–202.
Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 90. Universita¨t Leipzig.

Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidatives. Idioma 62:808–845.
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 1988. Agreement and Arabic, binding and coherence. In Agreement in natural
idioma: Enfoques, teorías, descripción, ed. by Michael Barlow and Charles Ferguson, 107–158.
stanford, California: CSLI Publications.

Foley, Steven, Nick Kalivoda, and Maziar Toosarvandani. 2019. Forbidden clitic clusters in Zapotec. En
Proceedings of the 53rd meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Daniel Edmiston, Marina
Ermolaeva, Emre Hakgu¨der, Jackie Lai, Kathryn Montemurro, Brandon Rhodes, Amara Sankhagowit,
and Michael Tabatowski, 87–102. chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.

Foley, Steven, and Maziar Toosarvandani. 2019. Prounoun cliticization, wh-movement, and the Principle
of Minimal Compliance. In NELS 49, ed. by Maggie Baird and Jonathan Pesetsky, 1:251–264.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

Foley, Steven, and Maziar Toosarvandani. 2020. Extending the Person-Case Constraint to gender: Agreement,
locality, and the syntax of pronouns. To appear in Linguistic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1162
/ling_a_00395.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

706

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Franks, Steven. To appear. PCC violations and their resolutions. In Formal Approaches in Slavic Linguistics

26, ed. by Tania Ionin and Jonathan MacDonald. Michigan Slavic Publications.

Georgi, Doreen. 2013. Deriving the distribution of person portmanteaux by relativized probing. In NELS
42, ed. by Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett, 155–168. Amherst: University of Massachusetts,
Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

Georgi, Doreen. 2017. Patterns of movement reflexes as the result of the order of Merge and Agree. Lingüístico

Consulta 48:585–626.

Halle, morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Papers at the interface, ed.
by Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang, and Martha McGinnis, 425–449. MIT Working Papers in
Lingüística 30. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Republished in Research
in Afroasiatic grammar: Papers from the third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, ed. by Jacque-
line Lecarme, Jean Lowenstein, and Ur Shlonsky, 125–151. Ámsterdam: Juan Benjamín (2000).
Halle, morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view
from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth Hale and
Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.

Halle, morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Papers on phonol-
ogy and morphology, ed. by Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley, with Tony Bures, 275–288. CON
Working Papers in Linguistics 21. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface: A-movement and morpho-

logical merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32:1033–1088.

Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis.

Idioma 78:482–526.

Hartman, Jutta, and Caroline Heycock. 2017. Variation in copular agreement in Insular Scandinavian. En
Syntactic variation in Insular Scandinavian, ed. by Ho¨skuldur Thra´insson, Caroline Heycock, Hjal-
mar Petersen, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen, 233–275. Ámsterdam: Juan Benjamín.

Haspelmath, Martín. 2004. Explaining the Ditransitive Person-Role Constraint: A usage-based approach.

Constructions 2:1–71.

Haspelmath, Martín. To appear. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits.

Lingüística.

Heath, jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Paradigms: The economy of

inflection, ed. by Frans Plank, 75–89. Berlina: Mouton de Gruyter.

Heath, jeffrey. 1998. Pronominal skewing in 1 ↔ 2 combinations in Native American languages. interna-

tional Journal of American Linguistics 64:83–104.

Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal

of Linguistics 57:209–240.

Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese. In The proceed-
ings of the MIT-Harvard joint conference (HUMIT 2000), ed. by Ora Matushansky, 67–80. CON
Working Papers in Linguistics 40. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Doctoral

disertación, CON.

Holmberg, Anders, and Thorbjo¨rg Hro´arsdo´ttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising con-

structions. Lingua 113:997–1019.

Aspiradora, Jacob. To appear. Accounting for variation in number agreement in Icelandic dative-nominative
constructions. In WCCFL 38: Proceedings of the 38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
ed. by Daniel Reisinger and Rachel Soo. Somerville, MAMÁ: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn. 2002. Reduced agreement in Icelandic and Old English. Ms., Universidad

of Aarhus.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

707

Para Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard Demers. 1983. An agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages.

International Journal of American Linguistics 49:167–185.

Kalin, laura. 2014. Apparent last resort agreement in Senaya ditransitives. In NELS 43, ed. by Hsin-Lun
Huang, Ethan Poole, and Amanda Rysling, 203–214. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate
Linguistic Student Association.

Kalin, laura. 2018. Licensing and differential object marking: The view from Neo-Aramaic. Syntax 21:

112–159.

Kalin, laura. 2019. Nominal licensing is driven by valued (phi-)características. Nordlyd 43:15–29.
Kalin, laura, and Coppe van Urk. 2015. Aspect splits without ergativity: Agreement asymmetries in Neo-

Aramaic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33:659–702.

Keine, Stefan, Michael Wagner, and Jessica Coon. 2019. Hierarchy effects in copula constructions. canadiense

Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 64:617–648.

Klaiman, METRO. h. 1992. Inverse languages. Lingua 88:227–261.
Klamer, Marian. 1997. Spelling out clitics in Kambera. Lingüística 35:895–927.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40:

187–237.

Ku?erova´, Ivona. 2016. Long-distance agreement in Icelandic: Locality restored. Journal of Comparative

Germanic Linguistics 19:49–74.

Laka, Itziar. 1993. The structure of inflection: A case study in X0 syntax. In Generative studies in Basque
linguistics, ed. by Jose´ Ignacio Hualde and Jon Ortiz de Urbina, 21–70. Ámsterdam: Juan Benjamín.
Lo´pez Nicola´s, Oscar. 2016. Estudios de la fonologı´a y grama´tica del zapoteco de Zoochina. Doctoral
disertación, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologı´a Social, Ciudad de México.
Lumsden, John. 1992. Underspecification in grammatical and natural gender. Linguistic Inquiry 23:469–

486.

Mu¨ller, Gereon. 2004. A Distributed Morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. En
Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12: The Ottawa Meeting, ed. by Olga Arnaudova, Wayles
Browne, Maria Luisa Rivero, and Danijela Stojanovic, 353–373. ann-arbor: Michigan Slavic Publi-
cations.

Mu¨ller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41:35–82.
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:273–313.

Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple Agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natu-

ral Language and Linguistic Theory 29:939–971.

Nichols, Lynn. 2001. The syntactic basis of referential hierarchy phenomena: Clues from languages with

and without morphological case. Lingua 111:515–537.

Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Características, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral disserta-

ción, CON.

Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Características, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Nueva York:

Garland.

Operstein, Natalie. 2003. Person pronouns in Zapotec and Zapotecan. International Journal of American

Lingüística 69:154–185.

Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 1998. On the syntactic nature of the me-lui and the Person-Case

Restricción. Anuario del Seminario de Filologı´a Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” 32:415–434.

Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2007. The Object Agreement Constraint. Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory 25:315–347.

Oxford, Will. 2019. Inverse marking and Multiple Agree in Algonquin: Complementarity and variability.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37:955–996.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

708

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Pancheva, Roumyana, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. 2018. The Person Case Constraint: The syntactic encod-

ing of perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36:1291–1337.

Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Nueva York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures.

Linguistic Inquiry 40:619–666.

Preminger, Omer. 2011. Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s

SCOPA. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:917–937.

Preminger, Omer. 2012. Partial agreement and the direction of valuation. Handout for paper presented at

Universidad McGill. https://omer.lingsite.org/handout-for-partial-agr-dir-of-valuation.

Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Preminger, Omer. 2019. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality.

Glossa 4(1), 13.

Rezac, Milan. 2003. The fine structure of Cyclic Agree. Syntax 6:156–182.
Rezac, Milan. 2008a. Phi across modules. EM. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000765.
Rezac, Milan. 2008b. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displace-

ment in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:61–106.

Rezac, Milan. 2010. On the unifiability of repairs of the Person Case Constraint: Francés, Basque, Georgian,
and Chinook. In Ben˜at Oihartzabali Gorazarre – Festschrift for Ben˜at Oyharc¸abal, ed. by Ricardo
Etxepare, Ricardo Go´mez, and Joseba A. Lakarra. Special issue of Anuario del Seminario de Filologı´a
Vasca “Julio de Urquijo” 43(1–2):769–790.

Rezac, Milan. 2011. Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Dordrecht: Saltador.
Richards, Bagazo. 2008. Quirky expletives. In Agreement restrictions, ed. by Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann

pescador, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 181–213. Berlina: Mouton de Gruyter.

Riedel, Kristina. 2009. The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: A comparative Bantu perspective. Doctoral

disertación, Universidad de Leiden. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.

Ritter, Elizabeth. 2014. Featuring animacy. Nordlyd 41:103–124.
Ritter, Elizabeth. To appear. Sentience and event structure: Evidence from Blackfoot. In Festschrift for
Elizabeth Cowper, ed. by Bronwyn Bjorkman and Daniel Currie Hall. Oxford: Universidad de Oxford
Prensa.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement. Cambridge, MAMÁ: CON prensa.
Schu¨tze, carson. 1997. INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing. Doctoral disserta-

ción, CON.

Schu¨tze, carson. 2003. Syncretism and double agreement with Icelandic nominative objects. In Grammar
in focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack, ed. by Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlo¨g Josefsson,
and Halldo´r A´ rmann SigurLsson, 1:295–303. Lund: Lund University, Department of Scandinavian
Idiomas.

Shklovsky, Kirill. 2012. Tseltal clause structure. Doctoral dissertation, CON.
SigurLsson, Halldo´r A´ rmann. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:327–364.

SigurLsson, Halldo´r A´ rmann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax

57:1–46.

SigurLsson, Halldo´r A´ rmann. 2004a. Agree and agreement: Evidence from Germanic. In Focus on Germanic

typology, ed. by Werner Abraham, 61–103. Berlina: Akademie Verlag.

SigurLsson, Halldo´r A´ rmann. 2004b. Icelandic non-nominative subjects: Facts and implications. In Non-
nominative subjects, ed. by Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao, 2:137–159. Amster-
dam: Juan Benjamín.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F E A T U R E G L U T T O N Y

709

SigurLsson, Halldo´r A´ rmann. 2006. Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. In Agreement systems, ed. por

Cedric Boeckx, 201–237. Ámsterdam: Juan Benjamín.

SigurLsson, Halldo´r A´ rmann. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:403–450.
SigurLsson, Halldo´r A´ rmann, and Anders Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and Number
are separate probes. In Agreement restrictions, ed. by Roberta D’Alessandro, Susann Fischer, y
Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, 251–280. Berlina: Mouton de Gruyter.

Silverstein, Miguel. 1976. Hierarchies of features and ergativity. In Grammatical categories in Australian

idiomas, ed. by R. METRO. W.. dixon, 112–171. Atlantic Highlands, Nueva Jersey: Humanities Press.

Stegovec, Adrian. 2020. Taking case out of the Person-Case Constraint. Natural Language and Linguistic

Teoría 38:261–311.

Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Studies in comparative
Germanic syntax, ed. by Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner, 307–327. Dordrecht: Desorden.

Thra´insson, Ho¨skuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. Nueva York: Garland.
Thra´insson, Ho¨skuldur. 1994. Icelandic. In The Germanic languages, ed. by Ekkehard Ko¨nig and Johan van

der Auwera, 142–189. Londres: Routledge.

Thra´insson, Ho¨skuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Prensa de la Universidad de Cambridge.
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2017. On reaching agreement early (and late). In Asking the right questions: Essays
in honor of Sandra Chung, ed. by Jason Ostrove, Ruth Kramer, and Joey Sabbagh, 124–138. Santa
Cruz: Universidad de California, Department of Linguistics.

Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

26:79–123.

Ussery, Cherlon. 2017. Dimensions of variation: Agreement with nominative objects in Icelandic. In Syntactic
variation in Insular Scandinavian, ed. by Ho¨skuldur Thra´insson, Caroline Heycock, Hjalmar Peter-
sen, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen, 165–197. Ámsterdam: Juan Benjamín.

Van Valin, Robert D. 1977. Aspects of Lakhota syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de California,

berkeley.

Va´zquez A´ lvarez, Juan J. 2011. A grammar of Chol, a Mayan language. Doctoral dissertation, Universidad

of Texas, austin.

Walkow, Martín. 2012. Objetivos, big and small. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Walkow, Martín. 2013. Locating variation in person restrictions. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Penn
Linguistics Colloquium, ed. by Kobey Shwayder, 247–256. University of Pennsylvania Working
Papers in Linguistics 19.1. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol19/iss1/28.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic

Teoría 26:639–694.

Woolford, Ellen. 2016. Two types of portmanteau agreement: Syntactic and morphological. In Optimality-
theoretic syntax, semantics, and pragmatics: From uni- to bidirectional optimization, ed. by Ge´raldine
Legendre, Michael T. Putnam, Henrie¨tte de Swart, and Erin Zaroukian, 111–135. Oxford: Oxford
Prensa universitaria.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. The Merge Condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In Minimalism and beyond:
Radicalizing the interfaces, ed. by Peter Kosta, Steven Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork, and Lilia
Schu¨rcks, 130–166. Ámsterdam: Juan Benjamín.

Yokoyama, Tomohiro. 2018. Incremental valuation and the Person Case Constraint: Five attested patterns.
In NELS 48, ed. by Sherry Hucklebridge and Max Nelson, 265–274. Amherst: University of Massa-
chusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association.

Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, and Ho¨skuldur Thra´insson. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelan-

dic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:441–483.

Zu´n˜iga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment: Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas.

Ámsterdam: Juan Benjamín.

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

710

J E S S I C A C O O N A N D S T E F A N K E I N E

Jessica Coon
Department of Linguistics
Universidad McGill

jessica.coon@mcgill.ca

Stefan Keine
Department of Linguistics
Universidad de California, Los Angeles

keine@ucla.edu

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
2
4
6
5
5
1
9
7
0
2
1
9

/
yo
i

norte
gramo
_
a
_
0
0
3
8
6
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Descargar PDF