MULTIPLE AGREE

1. (Syntax) In the literature on the syntactic operation AGREE, there are two main accounts about how a probe searches its domain to find a suitable goal: Multiple Agree and Cyclic Agree.
    Under Multiple Agree, a probe simultaneously searches and engages the features of all goals in its domain (Hiraiwa 2001, 2005, Nevins 2007, 2011, Zeijlstra 2004, a.o.).
    In a Cyclic Agree model (e.g., Béjar and Rezac 2009), a probe searches its domain one argument at a time beginning with the most local goal and, under certain circumstances, the probe may look at the next most local goal if it is not fully satisfied by the features on the first argument probed. If the first instance of probing satisfies the probe, however, it bleeds probing of all additional goals in its domain. | Miloje Despić, Michael David Hamilton, and Sarah E. Murray, 2017
2. (Syntax) 

   Multiple Agree (multiple feature checking) with a single probe is a single simultaneous syntactic operation; Agree applies to all the matched goals at the same derivational point derivationally simultaneously. (Hiraiwa 2001)

    Revising and elaborating the theory of Multiple Agree further, I propose (1).
   1. MULTIPLE AGREE (P, _∀G)
      Agree is a derivationally simultaneous operation AGREE (P, _∀G).
   
    There are two fundamental properties to note in Multiple Agree:
   1. Multiplicity: The operation Agree is unrestricted with respect to the number of elements (i.e. goals) just as Merge—whether internal or external—is unrestricted with respect to the number of specifiers (Chomsky 2004).
   2. Simultaneity: Multiple Agree articulates the notion of sequential derivation in Chomsky (1965) in the sense that it reveals the crucial role played by Derivational Simultaneity—more than one operation can be applied simultaneously.
   
    | Ken Hiraiwa, 2005

MULTIPLE COORDINATE COMPLEX

1. (Grammar) A coordinate complex that is composed of three or more conjuncts and a single coordinator. | Nicholas George Winter, 2006
2. (Grammar) It has been commonly assumed in the literature on coordinate structures that (2) is derived from (1).
   1. Bill and Sue and John
   2. Bill, Sue, and John
   
    Adopting terminology from Zhang (2010), I refer to the structure in (1) as a Repeated Coordinate Complex and will refer to the structure in (2) as a Multiple Coordinate Complex.
   3. Repeated Coordinate Complex: A coordinate structure consisting of n − 1 coordinators for n conjuncts while n > 2.
   4. Multiple Coordinate Complex: A coordinate structure consisting one coordinator for n conjuncts while n > 2.
   
    Both Repeated Coordinate Complexes and Multiple Coordinate Complexes stand in contrast to Coordinate Simplexes, illustrated in (5) and defined in (6).
   5. Bill and Sue
   6. Coordinate Simplex: A coordinate structure consisting of two conjuncts and one coordinator.
   
    | Nicholas George Winter, 2017

MULTIPLE EXPONENCE

1. (Morphology) Or, extended exponence. The occurrence of multiple realizations of a single morphosemantic feature, bundle of features, or derivational category within a word. | Alice C. Harris, 2016
2. (Morphology) The theoretical relevance of Multiple Exponence (ME), a one-to-many mapping between a morphological category and its formal expression (Matthews 1974, Stump 1991, 2001, Anderson 2001, 2005, Blevins 2003), has been attributed to the challenges it poses to incrementalist theories of morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993, Noyer 1992, Stump 2001) and principles of economy and structural complexity (Andrews 1990, Anderson 1992, Noyer 1993, Kiparsky 2005). A parade example of ME is found in plural marking in German nouns, where plural is marked by either an affix (1a-b), Umlaut (1c-d), or both by an affix and Umlaut (1e-f).

   1. Multiple Exponence in German plural nouns

      	Singular	Plural	Gloss
      a.	Arm	Arme	'arm'	Suffixation
      b.	Bild	Bilder	'picture'
      c.	Vater	Väter	'father'	umlaut
      d.	Boden	Böden	'earth'
      e.	Wurm	Würmer	'worm'	Suffixation + Umlaut (ME)
      f.	Hals	Hälse	'neck'

    | Gabriella Caballero, 2011
3. (Morphology) When the same morpheme occurs multiple times within a single word. Multiple exponence has been previously described in a number of languages of the Nakh-Dagestanian language family (Bokarev 1949, Harris 2009, Magometov 1961), as well as in other languages such as Limbu, Dumi, Athpare, and Chintang (Kiranti languages, a subgroup of Tibeto-Burman; Bickel et al. 2007, Ebert 1997, van Driem 1987, 1993, 1997, a.o.), Hualapai (Yuman; Watahomigie et al. 1982), and Skou (Papua New Guinea; Donohue 1999, 2003).
   1. Multiple occurrence of the gender (class) agreement marker (CM) on certain verbs and adjectives in Nakh-Dagestanian languages:
      1. Chamalal
         b-ašak'u-b
         'short.SG.CLASS III'
         y -eč'at'v-i
         'black.SG.CLASS II' (Bokarev 1949)
      2. Batsbi
         d-ex-d-o-d-anŏ
         CM-destroy-CM-PRES-CM-EVID
         d-ek'-d-iy-eⁿ
         CM-fall-CM-TR-AOR (Harris 2009)
    | Andrei Antonenko and Alice C. Harris, 2010

MULTIPLE FRAGMENT ANSWER

1. (Syntax) Can be used to respond to multiple wh-questions, as in (1) and (2):
   1.  A: Who speaks which language?
       B: Abby, Greek, and Ben, Albanian. (Merchant 2004)
   2.  A: Who did you speak to about what?
       B: Mary (about) the weather, and Rab (about) the government. (Thoms 2014)
    Note that like Gapping, multiple fragmenting is subject to structural parallelism:
   3.  A: Who has she said has eaten what?
       B: * Peter, his peas, and Sally, her green beans.
      (Intended: She's said Peter has eaten his peas, and Sally has eaten her green beans.)
    | Myung-Kwan Park and Sunjoo Choi, 2016
2. (Syntax) An example:
   1.  Q: Who did they talk to about what?
       A: Mary the news, and John the weather.
    | Matthew Barros and Gary Thoms, 2023

MULTIPLE FRAGMENT ANSWER GENERALIZATION
(Syntax) 

Multiple Fragment Answer Generalization (Park 2013)
Multiple FAs that have the form of [NP-marker, NP-marker/-Ø] are acceptable, but not [NP-Ø, NP-marker/-Ø].

MULTIPLE-PARTICIPANT EVENT
(Semantics) This issue investigates the linguistic encoding of events with three or more participants from the perspectives of language typology and acquisition. Such multiple-participant events include (but are not limited to) any scenario involving at least three participants, typically encoded using transactional verbs like give and show, placement verbs like put, and benefactive and applicative constructions like do (something for someone), among others. There is considerable crosslinguistic and within-language variation in how the participants (the Agent, Causer, Theme, Goal, Recipient, or Experiencer) and the subevents involved in multiple-participant situations are encoded, both at the lexical and the constructional levels.
 For instance, aspects of the multiple-participant event may be encoded using a single verb like the English verb give, or they may be distributed across a series of verbs, as in Lao serial verb constructions (Enfield 2007):

1. khòòj5
   I

   qaw3
   take

   miit4
   knife

   thèèng2
   stab

   mèè1
   mother

   'I stabbed mother with (the) knife.'

MULTIPLE RIGHT DISLOCATION
(Syntax) It has been widely assumed in the literature (see Haraguchi 1973, Kuno 1978, Simon 1989, Rosen 1996, Tanaka 2001, and Abe 2015, a.o.) that Japanese right dislocation is derived by syntactic movement, though details differ among these analyses. In (1), for example, the embedded object sono yubiwa-o 'that ring-ACC' undergoes syntactic right dislocation:

1. Tentyoo-ga
   manager-NOM

   [ John-ga
   John-NOM

   kayku-ni
   guest-DAT

   e
    

   watasi
   give

   wasureta
   forgot

   to ]
   C

   omoteiru
   think

   yo,
   PRT

   sono-yubiwa-o
   that-ring-ACC

   'The manager thinks that John forgot to give that ring to the guest.'

2. Tentyoo-ga
   manager-NOM

   [ John-ga
   John-NOM

   e
    

   e
    

   watasi
   give

   wasureta
   forgot

   to ]
   C

   omoteiru
   think

   yo,
   PRT

   kayku-ni
   guest-DAT

   sono-yubiwa-o
   that-ring-ACC

   'The manager thinks that John forgot to give that ring to the guest.'

MULTIPLE SLUICING

1. (Syntax) A type of clausal ellipsis with more than one wh-remnant being pronounced:
   1.  Everyone worked on something, but I don't know who on what.
   
    The following terminology for the different subparts of the sentences is the most standard in the literature (Merchant 2001, Vicente 2019):

   [ [Everyone]_{(correlate-1)} worked on [something]_{(correlate-2)} ]_(antecedent), 
   [but I don't know]_(intro) [ [who]_(remnant-1) on [what]_(remnant-2) ]_(sluice).

    | Álvaro Cortés Rodríguez, 2020
2. (Syntax) Describes elliptical questions with more than one wh-phrase as remnant. The phenomenon is found in languages which otherwise have wh-in-situ questions, (1), single wh-fronting, (2), and multiple wh-fronting, (3) (Merchant 2001).

   1. Japanese (Nishigauchi 1998)
      John-ga
      John-NOM

      [dareka-ga
      someone-NOM

      nanika-o
      something-ACC

      katta
      bought

      to]
      that

      it-ta.
      said
      Mary-wa
      Mary-TOP

      [dare-ga
      who-NOM

      nani-o
      what-ACC

      ka]
      Q

      siri-tagat-te
      know-want

      iru.
      is

      'John said someone bought something. Mary wants to know who what.'
   2. German
      Jeder
      every

      Student
      student

      hat
      has

      ein
      a

      Buch
      book

      gelesen,
      read

      aber
      but

      ich
      I

      weiß
      know

      nicht
      no

      mehr
      longer

      wer
      who

      welches
      which

      'Every student read a book, but I can't remember which student which book.'
   3. Slovenian (Marušič and Žaucer 2013)
      Vid
      Vid

      je
      AUX

      rekel,
      said

      da
      that

      je
      AUX

      Rok
      Rok

      predstavil
      introduce

      nekomu
      one.DAT

      nekoga,
      one.ACC,

      pa
      but

      ne
      not

      vem
      know

      komu
      who.DAT

      koga.
      who.ACC

      'Vid said that Rok introduced someone to someone, but I don't know who to who.'

    In these languages, multiple sluicing obeys the following two generalizations:
   • All remnants in multiple sluicing must originate in the same (finite) clause.
   • The clause where remnants originate may be inside of an island.
    | Klaus Abels and Veneeta Dayal, 2017

MULTIPLE WH-FRONTING
(Syntax) Rudin (1988) shows that there are two types of multiple Wh-fronting languages. One type is the Bulgarian type, which includes languages such as Bulgarian and Romanian. Rudin argues that in this type of languages all fronted Wh-phrases are in SpecCP, forming a constituent, as in (1). The other type of languages is the Serbo-Croatian type, which includes languages such as SC, Czech, and Polish. According to Rudin, in SC type of languages, the fronted Wh-phrases do not form a constituent; only the first Wh-phrase is located in SpecCP, while other fronted Wh-phrases are adjoined to IP, as shown in (2).

1. Bulgarian
   [_CP
    

   Koj
   who

   kogo
   whom

   [_IP
    

   vižda ] ]
   sees

     'Who sees whom?'
2. Serbo-Croatian
   [_CP
    

   Ko
   who

   [_IP
    

   koga
   whom

   [vidi] ] ]
   sees

     'Who sees whom?'

MULTIVERB CONSTRUCTION

1. (Grammar) For example, the following Lao sentence shows six verbs in a row, in a single prosodically integrated unit, with no inflection or explicit marking of the grammatical relationship between them.
   1. Lao
      caw⁴
      2SG

      lòòng²
      try.out

      mèè⁴
      PCL

      qaw³
      take

      paj³
      go

      hét¹
      make

      kin³
      eat

      beng¹
      look

      'You go ahead and take (them) and try cooking (them)!'
   
    This sentence—the words of a merchant giving a sales pitch for her sausages—is no mere "string of verbs". Such sequences in Lao can be analyzed in terms of nested (usually binary) relationships. In (1), a left-headed complement-taking adverbial lòòng² 'try out' combines with a right-marking adverbial beng¹ 'look' in bracketing a complex verb phrase consisting of a "disposal" construction expressing focus on manipulation of an object (with the combination qaw³–hét¹ 'take (and) do/make') incorporating paj³ 'go' as an inner directional particle, in a purposive clause chain with kin³ 'eat'. The surface string of six contiguous verbs in (1) is highly structured, yet there is little if any surface indication of such structure in the language. | N.J. Enfield, 2008
2. (Grammar) Sentences with multiple verbs and no overt coordinators exist in Asante Twi, a member of the Kwa subgroup of the Niger-Congo language family spoken in the southern half of Ghana.
   1. Ama
      A

      wɔɔ
      pound-PST

      bayerɛ
      yam

      no
      DET

      dii
      eat-PST

      aburo
      corn

      no
      DET

      'Ama pounded the yam [and] ate the corn.'
   2. Kofi
      K

      kyii
      catch-PST

      akɔla
      child

      no
      DET

      bɔɔ
      beat-PST

      no
      3SG

      'Kofi caught the child [and] beat it.'
   3. Ama
      A

      wɔɔ
      pound-PST

      bayerɛ
      yam

      no
      DET

      dii
      eat-PST

      yɛ
      do

      'Ama pounded the yam [and] ate it.'
   
    | Cansada Martin, 2010

MURMUR
See BREATHY.

Page Created By Split April 24, 2025

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x