Features

29 - Features

from Part V - Features and Agree(ment)

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2026

Ora Matushansky

Edited by

Kleanthes K. Grohmann and

Evelina Leivada

Show author details

Kleanthes K. Grohmann: Affiliation:
University of Cyprus
Evelina Leivada: Affiliation:
Arctic University of Norway

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This vignette examines the use of features in minimalist syntax and the theory behind this use. First, it examines the main oppositions that characterize syntactic features: inherent vs. attributive; valued vs. unvalued; functional vs. categorial; LF-motivated vs. PF-motivated vs. purely syntactic; privative vs. bivalent vs. multivalent. Second, it focuses on the behavior of features correlating with their properties: what agreement, defined as matching or as valuation, can entail about the opposition discussed earlier. Third, it examines the same issues with respect to Case features, which, being defined only syntactically, have been analyzed as a subtype of categorial features or as the uninterpretable counterparts of categorial features. The notion of feature inheritance is considered next, and finally, it addresses the issues of second-order features: interpretability and EPP. The main theoretical point made in this vignette is that a given feature (e.g. definiteness) may be defined in more than one domain (semantics, syntax, or morphology) and exhibit different forms in different domains.

Keywords

features interpretability modularity agreement Case

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Minimalist Program , pp. 573 - 586

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108864152 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2026

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Adger, D., & Harbour, D. (2005). Syntax and syncretisms of the person case constraint. In Hiraiwa, K. & Sabbagh, J. (eds.), Minimalist Approaches to Clause Structure (pp. 1–36). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Adger, D., & Svenonius, P. (2011). Features in minimalist syntax. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (pp. 27–51). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2000). Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238867.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A., & Müller, G. (2008). Class features as probes. In Bachrach, A. & Nevins, A. (eds.), Inflectional Identity (pp. 101–155). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199219254.003.0005CrossRef Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. (1992). Noun classes in Arapesh. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology (pp. 21–32). Springer.Google Scholar

Babby, L. (1997). Nominalization in Russian. In Browne, W., Dornisch, E., Kondrashova, N., & Zec, D. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting 1995 (pp. 53–85). Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Bagchi, T. (2007). On theta role assignment by feature checking. In Reuland, E. J., Bhattacharya, T., & Spathas, G. (eds.), Argument Structure (pp. 159–173). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.108.11bagCrossRef Google Scholar

Bailyn, J. (2004). The case of Q. In Arnaudova, O., Browne, W., Rivero, M., & Stojanovic, D. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12: The Ottawa Meeting (pp. 1–36). Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Bassi, I. (2019). Fake indexicals and their sensitivity to focus. In Baird, M. & Pesetsky, J. (eds.), NELS 49: Proceedings of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society (vol. 1, pp. 111–124). GLSA.Google Scholar

Béjar, S. (2003). Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto].Google Scholar

Béjar, S., & Massam, D. (1999). Multiple case checking. Syntax, 2, 65–79.10.1111/1467-9612.00015CrossRef Google Scholar

Béjar, S., & Rezac, M. (2003). Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Pérez-Leroux, A. T. & Roberge, Y. (eds.), Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition (pp. 49–62). John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.244.07bejCrossRef Google Scholar

Bennis, H., & Haegeman, L. (1984). On the status of agreement in relative clauses in West Flemish. In de Geest, W. & Putseys, Y. (eds.), Sentential Complementation (pp. 33–53). Foris.10.1515/9783110882698-005CrossRef Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. (1966). Structure de relations de personne dans les verbes. In Benveniste, E. (ed.), Problèmes de linguistique générale (pp. 225–236). Gallimard.Google Scholar

Bjorkman, B. (2015). Only some “fake” pasts are real: Contrasting sequence of tense and counterfactuals. Ms. Queen’s University.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (1994). D-Structure, θ-Criterion, and movement into θ-positions. Linguistic Analysis, 24, 247–286.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. (1997). The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. , & Takahashi, D. (1998). Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 347–366.10.1162/002438998553789CrossRef Google Scholar

Brattico, P. (2011). Case assignment, case concord, and the quantificational case construction. Lingua, 121, 1042–1066.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Caha, P. (2007). Case movement in PPs. In Bašić, M., Pantcheva, M., Son, M., & Svenonius, P. (eds.), Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Special Issue on Space, Motion, and Result (pp. 239–299). Nordlyd.Google Scholar

Caha, P. (2010). The German locative-directional alternation. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 13, 179–223.10.1007/s10828-010-9039-3CrossRef Google Scholar

Cheng, L. L. (2006). Decomposing Bantu relatives. In Davis, C., Deal, A. R., & Zabbal, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 36 (pp. 197–216). GLSA.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1–52). MIT Press; reprinted 1995: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume III (pp. 104–131). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C., & Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 89–155). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166119CrossRef Google Scholar

Corbett, G. G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, G. G. (2012). Features. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139206983CrossRef Google Scholar

Cowper, E., & Hall, D. C. (2014). Reductio ad discrimen: Where features come from. Nordlyd, 41(2), 145–164.10.7557/12.3411CrossRef Google Scholar

Despić, M. (2016). Coordinating gender: What can coordinate structure agreement tell us about gender? Studies in Polish Linguistics, 11, 1–25.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. (2013). Distance contrasts in demonstratives. In Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.Google Scholar

Dimitriadis, A. (1997). Alliterative concord in phonology-free syntax. [Paper presentation, March 22]. GLOW Workshop on the Morpho-Syntax and Phonology of African and Afro-Asiatic Languages, Rabat, Morocco.Google Scholar

Dimitriadis, A. (2012). An event semantics for the theta system. In Everaert, M., Marelj, M., & Siloni, T. (eds.), The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface (pp. 308–353). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dobrin, L. M. (1995). Theoretical consequences of literal alliterative concord. In Dainora, A., Hemphill, R., Luka, B., Need, B., & Pargman, S. (eds.), CLS 31: Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 127–142). Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Dobrin, L. M. (1998). The morpho-syntactic reality of phonological form. In Booij, G. & van Marie, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1997 (pp. 59–81). Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-011-4998-3_3CrossRef Google Scholar

Dresher, B. E. (2014). The arch not the stones: Universal feature theory without universal features. Nordlyd, 41, 165–181.10.7557/12.3412CrossRef Google Scholar

Duguine, M. (2013). Pro-drop and linguistic variation: A minimalist analysis. [Doctoral dissertation, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU and University of Nantes].Google Scholar

Emonds, J. E. (2000). Lexicon and Grammar: The English Syntacticon. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Fanselow, G. (2001). Features, θ-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 405–437.10.1162/002438901750372513CrossRef Google Scholar

Fedden, S., & Corbett, G. G. (2017). Gender and classifiers in concurrent systems: Refining the typology of nominal classification. Glossa, 2(1), 1–47.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. (1991). Extended projection. Ms. Brandeis University.Google Scholar

Gruzdeva, E. (2020). Demonstratives in Nivkh: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Studia Orientalia Electronica, 8, 1–60.10.23993/store.84839CrossRef Google Scholar

Haeberli, E. (1999). Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions: Synchronic and diachronic variation in the Germanic languages. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Geneva].Google Scholar

Harbour, D. (2003). Elements of number theory. [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].Google Scholar

Harbour, D. (2008). Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Springer.Google Scholar

Harbour, D. (2014). Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Language, 90, 185–229.10.1353/lan.2014.0003CrossRef Google Scholar

Harbour, D. (2020). Conjunction resolution is nonsyntactic, say paucals. Glossa, 5(1).Google Scholar

Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). Structuring the bundle: A universal morphosyntactic feature geometry. In Wiese, H. & Horst, S. J. (eds.), Pronouns: Grammar and Representation (pp. 23–39). John Benjamins.10.1075/la.52.05harCrossRef Google Scholar

Heim, I. (2008). Features on bound pronouns. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., & Bejar, S. (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces (pp. 35–56). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0002CrossRef Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 69–96.10.1162/002438999553968CrossRef Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. ([1936] 1971). Beitrag zur Allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der Russischen Kasus. In Selected Writings (vol. 2, pp. 23–71). Mouton.Google Scholar

Julien, M. (2002). Syntactic Heads and Word Formation: A Study of Verbal Inflection. Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195149500.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaye, J. (1981). La sélection des formes pronominales en vata. Revue québécoise de linguistique, 11, 117–134.10.7202/602483arCrossRef Google Scholar

Kaye, S. (2023). Agreement between arguments in Andi. In Chumakina, M., Bond, O., & Kaye, S. (eds.), Agreement Beyond the Verb: Unusual Targets, Unexpected Domains (pp. 48–90). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780192897565.003.0002CrossRef Google Scholar

Kibrik, A. E. (1972). O formal’nom vydеlеnsii soglаsovаtеl’nyх klassov v arčinskom jazуke. Voprosу jаzуkoznаnija, 1, 124–131.Google Scholar

Kilarski, M. (2013). Nominal Classification: A History of Its Study from the Classical Period to the Present. John Benjamins.10.1075/sihols.121CrossRef Google Scholar

Kracht, M. (2003). Against the feature bundle theory of case. In Brandner, E. & Zinsmeister, H. (eds.), New Perspectives on Case Theory (pp. 165–190). CSLI.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. & Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109–137). Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5CrossRef Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Strolovitch, D. & Lawson, A. (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII (pp. 92–110). CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (2009). Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 187–237.10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187CrossRef Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1999). Minimalist Analysis. Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lochbihler, B., & Mathieu, E. (2016a). Clause typing and feature inheritance of discourse features. Syntax, 19, 354–391.10.1111/synt.12126CrossRef Google Scholar

Lochbihler, B., & Mathieu, E. (2016b). Wh-agreement in Ojibwe relative clauses: Evidence for CP structure. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 58, 293–318.10.1017/S0008413100003042CrossRef Google Scholar

Manzini, M. R., & Roussou, A. (2000). A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua, 110, 409–447.10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00006-1CrossRef Google Scholar

Marchese, L. (1986). The pronominal system of Godié. In Wiesemann, U. (ed.), Pronominal Systems (pp. 217–255). Narr.Google Scholar

Marchese, L. (1988). 16 noun classes and agreement systems in Kru: A historical approach. In Barlow, M. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions (pp. 323–341). CSLI.Google Scholar

Marchese, L. (n. d.). Noun class systems in the Kru language family. Ms. UCLA.Google Scholar

Marelj, M. (2003). Rules that govern the cooccurrence of theta clusters in the “thetasystem.” Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 357–373.10.1515/thli.28.3.357CrossRef Google Scholar

Marelj, M. (2004). Middles and argument structure across languages. [Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University].Google Scholar

Martin, R. (1999). Case, the extended projection principle, and minimalism. In Epstein, S. D. & Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism (pp. 1–26). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. (2006). Head-movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 69–109.10.1162/002438906775321184CrossRef Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. (2008). A case study of predication. In Marušič, F. & Žaucer, R. (eds.), Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics (pp. 213–239). Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. (2010). Russian predicate case, encore. In Zybatow, G., Dudchuk, P., Minor, S., & Pshehotskaya, E. (eds.), Proceedings of FDSL 7.5 (pp. 117–135). Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Matushansky, O. (2012). On the internal structure of case in Finno-Ugric small clauses. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics, 1, 3–43.Google Scholar

Matushansky, O., & Ionin, T. (2018). Polish numeral NP agreement as a function of surface morphology. In Browne, W., Despic, M., Enzinna, N., Karlin, R., De Lemos, S., & Zec, D. (eds.), Proceedings of FASL 25 (pp. 159–179). Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

McGinnis, M. (2005). On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language, 81, 699–718.10.1353/lan.2005.0141CrossRef Google Scholar

Merchant, J. (2006). Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. In Bunting, J., Desai, S., Peachey, R., Straughn, C., & Tomkova, Z. (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 57–76). Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Müller, G. (2004a). A Distributed Morphology approach to syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In Arnaudova, O., Browne, W., Rivero, M.-L., & Stojanovic, D. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12: The Ottawa Meeting (pp. 353–374). Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Müller, G. (2004b). On decomposing inflection class features: Syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In Müller, G., Gunkel, L., & Zifonun, G. (eds.), Explorations in Nominal Inflection (pp. 189–227). Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197501.189CrossRef Google Scholar

Müller, G. (2011). Syncretism without underspecification: The role of leading forms. Word Structure, 4(1), 53–103.10.3366/word.2011.0004CrossRef Google Scholar

Nevins, A. (2007a). Dual number and context-sensitive markedness. Ms. Harvard University.Google Scholar

Nevins, A. (2007b). The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25, 273–313.10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2CrossRef Google Scholar

Nevins, A. (2008). Cross-modular parallels in the study of phon and phi. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., & Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi Theory: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces (pp. 329–367). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0011CrossRef Google Scholar

Nevins, A. (2011). Marked targets versus marked triggers and impoverishment of the dual. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 413–444.10.1162/LING_a_00052CrossRef Google Scholar

Noyer, R. (1992). Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Garland.Google Scholar

Obata, M., Epstein, S. D., & Baptista, M. (2015). Can crosslinguistically variant grammars be formally identical? Third factor underspecification and the possible elimination of parameters of UG. Lingua, 156, 1–16.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Ogihara, T. (1995). The semantics of tense in embedded clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 663–679.Google Scholar

Opitz, A., Regel, S., Müller, G., & Friederici, A. D. (2013). Neurophysiological evidence for morphological underspecification in German strong adjective inflection. Language, 89, 231–264.10.1353/lan.2013.0033CrossRef Google Scholar

Paciaroni, T. (2023). Unusual agreement targets in Ripano. In Chumakina, M., Bond, O., & Kaye, S. (eds.), Agreement Beyond the Verb: Unusual Targets, Unexpected Domains (pp. 156–197). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780192897565.003.0005CrossRef Google Scholar

Pazelskaya, A., & Tatevosov, S. (2006). Uninflected VPs, deverbal nouns and the aspectual architecture of Russian. In Lavine, J., Franks, S., Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M., & Filip, H. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14: The Princeton Meeting (pp. 258–276). Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (2013). Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019729.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2001). T to C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 355–426). MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0014CrossRef Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2004). Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron, J. & Lecarme, J. (eds.), The Syntax of Time (pp. 495–538). MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6598.003.0021CrossRef Google Scholar

Privizentseva, M. (2023). Semantic agreement in Russian: Gender, declension, and morphological ineffability. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 42, 767–814.10.1007/s11049-023-09587-0CrossRef Google Scholar

Puskar, Z. (2017). Hybrid agreement: Modelling variation, hierarchy effects and phi-feature mismatches. [Doctoral dissertation, Universität Leipzig].Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (2000). The Theta System: Syntactic Realization of Verbal Concepts. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (2003). The theta system: an overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 229–290.10.1515/thli.28.3.229CrossRef Google Scholar

Reintges, C. H., LeSourd, P., & Chung, S. (2006). Movement, wh-agreement and apparent wh-in-situ. In Cheng, L. L. S. & Corver, N. (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving On (pp. 165–194). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Řezáč, M. (2004). Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and Merge. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto].Google Scholar

Richards, M. (2007a). On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 563–572.10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.563CrossRef Google Scholar

Richards, N. (2007b). Lardil “case stacking” and the structural/inherent case distinction. Ms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Sande, H. (2016). An interface model of phonologically determined agreement. In Kim, K., Umbal, P., Block, T., Chan, Q., Cheng, T., Finney, K., Katz, M., Nickel-Thompson, S., & Shorten, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 339–350). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Sande, H. (2019). Phonologically determined nominal concord as post-syntactic: Evidence from Guébie. Journal of Linguistics, 55(4), 831–878.10.1017/S0022226718000476CrossRef Google Scholar

Schneider-Zioga, P. (2009). Wh-agreement and bounded unbounded movement. In Brucart, J. M., Gavarró, A., & Solà, J. (eds.), Merging Features (pp. 46–59). Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199553266.003.0003CrossRef Google Scholar

Sheehan, M., & Van Der Wal, J. (2018). Nominal licensing in caseless languages. Journal of Linguistics, 54, 527–589.10.1017/S0022226718000178CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, P. (2015). Feature mismatches: Consequences for syntax, morphology and semantics. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].Google Scholar

Surányi, B. (2006). Towards a purely derivational approach to syntax. In Varga, L. (ed.), The Even Yearbook 7 (pp. 1–25). Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar

Svenonius, P. (1994). C-selection as feature checking. Studia Linguistica, 48, 133–155.10.1111/j.1467-9582.1994.tb00853.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Torrego, E. (2002). Aspect in the prepositional system of Romance. In Satterfield, T., Tortora, C., & Cresti, D. (eds.), Current Issues in Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ann Arbor, April 8–11, 1999 (pp. 326–346). John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Travis, L. M. (2010). Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4CrossRef Google Scholar

van Koppen, M. (2017). Complementizer agreement. In Everaert, M. & Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. (pp. 1–40). Wiley.Google Scholar

von Stechow, A. (2003). Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. In Kadowaki, M. & Kawahara, S. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33 (pp. 379–403). GLSA.Google Scholar

Wiese, B. (1999). Unterspezifizierte Paradigmen. Form und Funktion in der pronominalen Deklination. Linguistik Online, 4.10.13092/lo.4.1034CrossRef Google Scholar

Williams, E. (1994). Thematic Structure in Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wiltschko, M. (2014). The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139833899CrossRef Google Scholar

Witkoś, J. (2008). Control and agreement with predicative adjectives in Polish. In Fanselow, G. & Witkoś, J. (eds.), Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A Comparative View (pp. 255–277). Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, S. (2017). Feature sharing or how I value my son. In Halpert, C., Kotek, H., & van Urk, C. (eds.), The Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky (pp. 173–182). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Zagona, K. (2014). Sequence-of-tense and the features of finite tenses. Nordlyd, 41, 261–272.10.7557/12.3419CrossRef Google Scholar

Zentz, J. (2015). Bantu wh-agreement and the case against probe impoverishment. In Kramer, R., Zsiga, E. C., & Boyer, O. T. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 290–301). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.