Agreement in Modern Greek Coordinate Noun Phrases

Agreement in Modern Greek Coordinate
Noun Phrases
Despina Kazana
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex
June, 2011

Abstract
A central issue posited by those who have studied agreement with coordinate nouns is
that the individual conjuncts have different agreement features from the coordinate phrase
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000). This thesis explores agreement in MG coordinate nouns
within the constraint-based framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar. It investigates
predicate-argument and head-modifier agreement with coordinate nouns and agreement
with disjunctively conjoined nouns.
In predicate-argument agreement, the syntactic and semantic (Corbett, 1991; Wechsler,
2009; Sadler, 2006) agreement principles occur crosslinguistically. I argue that a referential
principle also exists, motivated by a Contextually Introduced Referent implied in the
sentence. CIR is the superordinate term of the coordinate nouns and the predicative adjective/participle
copies its agreement features. Thus, I propose an LFG syntactic account for
referential agreement. In head-modifier agreement, MG modifiers behave different from the
definite determiner. I argue that a shared modifier shows concord agreement, it scopes
over coordinate nouns and occurs with the joint and split interpretations. A shared determiner
shows index/concord agreement, it scopes over coordinate nouns and occurs only
with the joint interpretation. The definite determiner allows some exceptional patterns in
plural and occurs with a split reading when nouns are a natural coordination. I capture natural
coordination patterns following the standard analysis on coordination. In agreement
with disjunctive coordinate nouns, I argue that native speakers choose an agreeing verb
based on the interpretation of disjunction as ‘and-coordinate’ and as ‘exclusive-or’. I capture
this following Eggert’s analysis which treats or as a subset function, using lamda-DRT,
and I introduce a special lexical entry for or which can be interpreted either way. However,
I show that verb agreement is also determined by other factors, such as the features of
individual conjuncts, the type of sentence and the subject position in the sentence.

Acknowledgements
This thesis would never have been completed without the help and support of a number of
people. The first person I am deeply grateful to is my supervisor Professor Louisa Sadler.
Her encouragement and support was really valuable to me and kept me going through the
hard times all these years. Louisa has been an endless source of inspiration from many
different aspects. Her deep knowledge in linguistics and her ability to come across her
ideas is unique. She taught me so many things and answered countless questions through
the time we worked together and she was always there to listen and advise me when I
encountered difficulties. She supported me in evey way she could, not only on linguistic
issues but also on personal issues. Even towards the end when things became really hard,
she believed in me and motivated me to stick to my goal and not give up.
I would also like to thank Doug Arnold, who was there to help me any time of the
day, especially with my LaTex problems. Also, many thanks go to Andrew Spencer, Bob
Borsley, who advised me and guided me in the supervisory board meetings, and Mary
Dalrymple and Ash Asudeh who provided me with some insightful comments in LFG09.
My special thanks go to Maria Flouraki for being a good friend, for sharing with me her
passion in linguistics, for her encouragement and for the great collaboration we had, which
I hope will continue.
Many thanks go to a number of people in the department of Language and Linguistics
at Essex University. In particular, I thank the staff and the members of the Constraintbased
Linguistics Discussion Group: Ryo Otoguro, Takafumi Maekawa, Antonis Polentas,
Miriam Urgelles and Kakia Chatsiou. Also, my deep appreciation goes to Wyn Johnson
for giving me the opportunity to work as a Graduate Teaching Assistant and improve my
teaching skills in the field of linguistics.
My PhD research has been supported financially from the Economic & Social Research
Council, British Government. I am grateful to them since they funded my work all these
years and they also gave me the opportunity to participate in a number of conferences
abroad.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family. Many thanks go to my parents
and my sister for their support especially towards the end. My deepest thanks go to my
partner and husband Apostolos Pinakidis who believed in me from the very beginning,
urged me to start this difficult ‘journey’ and supported me in every aspect from the start.
His motivating words and strong encouragement brought me back when I felt lost and gave
me the courage to finish what I started. Though, I am mostly grateful to him for being a
‘mother’ apart from a father to our baby son. I also need to thank him for his technical
support and feedback and for patiently answering data questions, even though he found it
tiring at times. ..
Finally, I would like to say my deepest thanks to my baby son Manthos who ‘occasionally’
showed some patience when seeing me working long hours in front of the computer.
I would like to say a big sorry to him for not being there most of the time to look after
him as I should. His smile and his hugs were the most important reason to finish what I
started and look forward to what is coming up next...

To my partner and son,
Apostolos and Manthos Pinakidis
iii

List of Abbreviations
MG = Modern Greek
pers = person
gend = gender
semgend = semantic gender
num = number
1 = first person
2 = second person
3 = third person
masc = masculine
fem = feminine
neut = neuter
sg = singular
pl = plural
nom = nominative
gen = genitive
acc = accusative
anim = animate
CCA = Closest Conjunct Agreement
CIR = Contextually Introduced Referent

Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 LFG: An overview 5
2.1 Constituent-structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Functional-Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1 C-structure and f-structure correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Semantic-Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4 Agreement in LFG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.1 Coordination in LFG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.1.1 Distributive vs Nondistributive Features . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4.1.2 Predicate Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.1.3 Noun Phrase Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4.2 The Semantics of Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3 Theories of Agreement 29
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.1 Corbett’s Descriptive Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2.2 Dalrymple and Kaplan’s Set-Based Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.2.3 Wechsler’s Theory of Gender Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2.4 Sadler’s Theory of Resolution in Rumanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.5 Badecker’s Optimality Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.3.1 Agreement in HPSG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.3.2 King and Dalrymple’s Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.3.3 Dalrymple and Nikolaeva’s theory of natural and accidental coordination
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4 Discussing the theoretical approaches to agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4 Predicate Argument Agreement in Modern Greek 70
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.2 The Modern Greek Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.2.1 Resolution in MG Animate Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.2.2 Resolution in MG Inanimate Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.2.3 Mixing Animate and Inanimate Nouns in Coordinate Constructions 87
4.3 Resolution Principles in MG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.3.1 Semantic Resolution in Animate Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.3.2 Syntactic Resolution in Inanimate Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.4 Reference Transfer in Noncoordinate Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

CONTENTS vi
4.4.1 Reference Transfer in Modern Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.5.1 Problems of the Current Theories for the MG data . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.5.2 An Analysis of the MG Expected Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.5.3 An Approach to the MG Referential Agreement Patterns . . . . . . 109
4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5 Head Modifier Agreement in Modern Greek 117
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.2 NP Internal Agreement and Interpretation of the Coordinate Nouns . . . . 118
5.3 NP Internal Agreement in Modern Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.4.1 concord agreement with the MG Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.5.1 Uniform Number and Gender in Coordinate Nouns . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.5.2 Uniform Number and Different Gender in Coordinate Nouns . . . . 140
5.5.2.1 Motivation for the Exceptional Coordinate Constructions . 142
5.5.3 index/concord agreement with the MG Definite Determiner . . . 145
5.5.4 Natural Coordination in Modern Greek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
6 Disjunctively Conjoined Noun Phrases 155
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
6.2 Inclusive vs Exclusive or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
6.2.1 Natural Language or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
6.3.1 Morgan’s Analysis of Disjunctive NPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
6.3.2 Peterson’s Analysis of Disjunctive NPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6.3.3 An Intermodular Theory of Disjunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.3.4 Discussing the three approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
6.4.1 Interpretation and Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 177
6.4.2 Syntax and Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns . . . . 181
6.4.3 Speakers’ Strategies and Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Nouns 186
6.5 Issues on the MG positive & negative predisjunction-disjunction . . . . . . 191
6.6 Analysing Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns . . . . . . . . . 196
6.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
7 Concluding Remarks 204
A Questionnaires on Predicate Argument Agreement 207
A.1 Discussion of questionnnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
A.2 Predicate Argument Agreement sets of examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
A.3 Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
B Questionnaires on agreement with Disjunctively Conjoined Nouns 213
B.1 Discussion of questionnnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
B.2 Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns sets of examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
B.3 Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
C Original Questionnaires in Greek 220

Chapter 1
Introduction
The objective of this thesis is to provide an analysis of agreement phenomena in Modern
Greek 1 coordinate noun phrases joined by the conjunction ke ‘and’ and the disjunction i ‘or’.
We will focus on predicate-argument agreement, which is agreement of the coordinate noun
phrase with the predicate of the sentence (i.e. verb or predicative adjective/participle), and
head-modifier agreement, which is agreement of modifiers (i.e. determiners, attributive
adjectives) with the coordinate noun phrase. Also, we will discuss verb agreement with
disjunctively conjoined nouns.
A number of features are involved in agreement, which vary from language to language.
MG predicate-argument agreement involves the features gender, number and person. A
single or a coordinate noun phrase shows agreement with the verb in number and person
while it shows agreement with the predicative adjective/participle in gender and number.
The following example illustrates the different types of agreement with a noncoordinate
noun:
(1) O
Kostas
the.masc.sg.3 Kostas.masc.sg.3
‘Kostas is very active’
ine
is.sg.3
poli
very
drastirios
active.masc.sg
In most languages, agreement with coordinate noun phrases is interesting since the
coordinate nouns usually have different agreement features from the features of the agreeing
verb or predicative adjective/participle. For example, in MG coordinate phrases conjuncts
with a masc and a fem gender show masc agreement, conjuncts with a 1st and a 2nd
person show 1st person agreement, while two sing conjuncts show pl agreement. Consider
the following examples:
(2) O antras ke
the.masc.sg
xarumeni
happy.masc.pl
man.masc.sg and
‘The man and woman are happy’
(3) Ego ke esi tha
I.1.sg and you.2.sg will
‘Me and you will meet at the house’
i
the.fem.sg
vrethume
meet.2.pl
jineka
woman.fem.sg
sto spiti
at-the house
ine
are.pl
In MG predicate-argument agreement with coordinate nouns, we focus on the gender
feature. Most linguists acknowledge the existence of two different principles in gender
agreement with coordinate nouns, the syntactic and the semantic (Corbett, 1991; Wechsler
and Zlatić, 2003; Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000; Sadler, 2006). We will argue that MG
1 We will refer to Modern Greek with the initials MG from now on.

gender agreement with coordinate noun phrases shows great variation due to an extra
type of principle. MG admits syntactic agreement, semantic agreement, and a third type,
which we will call referential agreement. Therefore, we will attempt to propose a syntacticsemantic
analysis for the first two types of agreement and a syntactic analysis for referential
agreement, although it is contextually determined.
MG head-modifier agreement involves the features number, gender and case. A
determiner or attributive adjective agrees with a single noun in all three features:
(4) O
Janis
the.masc.sg.nom
antras
man.masc.sg.nom
John.masc.sg.nom
‘John is an active man’
ine
is
drastirios
active.masc.sg.nom
In coordinate noun phrases similar requirements hold. A shared attributive adjective
always agrees with the closest conjunct in gender, irrespective of the fact that the two
nouns may have the same or different gender features, and with both conjuncts in case and
number. A shared determiner agrees with both conjuncts in gender, case and number.
These possibilities are shown below:
(5) Oreo
nice.neut.sg.nom
‘Nice house and car’
spiti
house.neut.sg.nom
(6) I
fili
the.masc.pl.nom
mu
my
friends.masc.pl.nom
‘My friends and colleagues’
ke
and
ke
and
aftokinito
car.neut.sg.nom
sinadelfi
colleagues.masc.pl.nom
In MG head-modifier agreement with coordinate nouns, we discuss the number feature
and the gender feature. King and Dalrymple (2004) proposed three different agreement
systems (in concord, index and concord/index) that determine the number feature
in head-modifier agreement in a number of languages. In MG, we will argue that the
definite determiner is captured by the concord/index system and it also occurs with a
restricted set of structures that have the characteristics of natural coordination (Dalrymple
and Nikolaeva, 2006). The rest of the modifiers are captured by the concord system. We
will assume different analyses for the determiner and the rest of the modifiers, while we will
assume the standard analysis of accidental coordination for the restricted set of structures
of natural coordination admitted by the determiner.
MG disjunctive coordinate noun phrases will also be discussed in the current thesis.
The main issues posited by those who have studied disjunctive coordinate nouns (Morgan,
1972, 1984, 1985; Peterson, 1986; Jennings, 1994; Eggert, 2002; Alonso-Ovalle, 2006) are
the semantics of disjunction as a truth-functional inclusive or and a truth-functional exclusive
or, number verb agreement, which is either sg or pl, and the factors that determine
it. Our focus is on number verb agreement. In most languages including MG, number
predicate agreement with disjunctive conjoined nouns varies greatly. Following Morgan
(1985), we will argue that in MG the most crucial factor that determines verb agreement is
the interpretation of the disjunctive coordinate phrase either as an ‘and-coordinate’ resulting
in plural verb agreement, or as an ‘exclusive-or’ resulting in singular verb agreement.
Native speakers assign either the one or the other interpretation to the coordinate phrase
and this interpretation plays a crucial role in the choice of the agreeing verb. In the following
example, speakers choose either a sg verb or a pl verb. The first form is seen as a
result of having to choose only one of the two drinks that are available and therefore the
2

1.1 Overview of the thesis 3
emphasis is given on the choice of one of the two drinks. The second form is the result of
the fact that two different drinks are available after the meal and therefore the emphasis
is on the availability of two different drinks:
(7) Kafes i tsai servir-ete/-onte
coffee or tea is.sg/are.pl-served
‘Coffee or tea is/are served after the dinner’
meta
after
to
the
gevma
dinner
We will argue, however, that agreement ‘by reading’ is one strategy alongside a number
of others in MG disjunctive coordinate phrases. Verb agreement is alternatively determined
by syntactic factors, such as the presence or absence of a predicative adjective/participle in
the coordinate phrase, the type of sentence (i.e declarative, interrogative), or the speaker’s
strategies, such as pl wins, prox and fc wins (Peterson, 1986). Our proposal adopts
the λ-DRT framework and captures successfully the two different interpretations assigned
to disjunctive coordinate nouns. However, it captures only phenomena of interpretation
whereas a complete account should extend to all the aforementioned factors in order to
cover the wide range of data.
Finally, it is interesting to note that agreement in noun phrase coordinate structures in
MG has not been discussed in traditional handbooks and descriptive grammars. Most handbooks
and grammars (Clairis et al. (2004), Holton et al. (1997), Triantaphyllidis (1994),
Triantaphyllidis (2005), Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton (1987) and Mackridge (1985))
present basic issues of the conjunction ke ‘and’ and the disjunction i such as the type of
phrases they coordinate (Mackridge (1985), Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton (1987)) or
the fact that agreement is necessarilly plural in coordinate structures (Holton et al. (1997),
Triantaphyllidis (1994), Triantaphyllidis (2005)). The central phenomena of referential
agreement, natural coordination and interpretation in disjunctive coordinate nouns in MG
are not found in any of the traditional grammars so our research aims to shed some light
into new linguistic areas in MG.
1.1 Overview of the thesis
The organisation of the thesis is as follows. The first chapter (i.e. Chapter 2) presents
an overview of Lexical Functional Grammar summarising the basic ideas on constituentstructure,
functional-structure, the correspondence between the two, and semantic-structure.
We will particularly focus on how agreement and coordination phenomena are treated
within LFG. We present the syntactic and the semantic treatment of sentential coordination,
predicate coordination and noun phrase coordination.
Chapter 3 presents an overview of the most central theories of agreement. We will review
theoretical approaches to predicate-argument agreement that discuss the gender feature
in coordinate nouns. These are Corbett (1983b, 1991), a descriptive approach to gender
resolution, and Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000), a syntactic approach to gender resolution.
Wechsler and Zlatić (2000) and Sadler (2006), who propose a syntactic-semantic analysis
for gender resolution within LFG, and Badecker (2008) a theory of gender agreement in
Optimality Theory. Next, we revisit the theories in head-modifier agreement that discuss
the number feature in coordinate nouns. These include Kathol (1999) and Wechsler and
Zlatić (2000) within HPSG; King and Dalrymple (2004), which presents three different
agreement systems in NP internal agreement, and Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006), which
deals with natural coordination phenomena in a number of languages within LFG.
Chapter 4 describes gender resolution in MG coordinate noun phrases. We will discuss
animate and inanimate nouns and we will show that three main principles control
gender agreement in MG animate and inanimate nouns, the syntactic principle in inanimate
nouns, the semantic principle in animate nouns and the referential principle in both

1.1 Overview of the thesis 4
groups of nouns. For the syntactic and semantic resolution principles, we will propose an
analysis that will combine both syntax and semantics in the resolution process. For the
referential agreement principle, we propose a preliminary analysis within the framework of
LFG by assuming an extra level of representation, the Contextual level C, mapped to the
syntactic level through the inverse mapping function d −1 , and we introduce the Contextually
Introduced Referent that accounts effectively for the unexpected gender agreement
form found in certain noun phrase coordinations.
Chapter 5 discusses mainly number agreement and gender agreement in head-modifier
coordinate noun phrases. A shared MG definite determiner allows only a joint (i.e. when
the coordinate nouns refer to the same individual/entity) interpretation and it is accounted
for by the index/concord system. A shared MG modifier allows a joint and a split (i.e.
when the coordinate nouns refer to different individuals/entities) interpretation and it is
accounted for by the concord system. A number of data, however, show an unexpected
behaviour, such as the case where a split interpretation is admitted when a shared MG
plural definite determiner modifies two plural conjuncts. We will argue that these patterns
must be treated as special cases of natural coordination but we will analyse them assuming
the f-structure of ordinary coordinate nouns since MG behaves different and the f-structure
of natural coordination (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006) cannot capture the MG patterns.
Chapter 6 presents disjunctive coordinate nouns in MG. Verb agreement varies greatly
in these constructions since it can be either sg or pl. Our data will show that different
factors determine verb agreement, such as syntactic, semantic, pragmatic (i.e. contextual
interpretation of the phrase) or speakers’ individual strategies. Our analysis, however,
focuses on the interpretation issue of the disjunctive coordinate phrase and it is formalised
within the framework of λ-DRT, which is context dependent. Thus, we provide an account
taking into consideration that the disjunctively conjoined noun phrase can be interpreted
either with an ‘exclusive’ sense, where a singular verb form is preferred, or with an ‘andcoordinate’
sense, where a plural verb form is preferred.
The last chapter summarises the whole thesis and discusses some remaining issues for
future research.

Chapter 2
LFG: An overview
This chapter is an overview of the formalism of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) as
presented in Nordlinger and Bresnan (To appear), Dalrymple (2001), Falk (2001), Bresnan
(2001) and Austin (2001). LFG was originally developed in the 1970s by Joan Bresnan and
Ronald Kaplan. The actual name of the theory reveals its internal structure. It is a lexical
theory, since the lexicon plays a major role and most of the work is done within the lexicon.
The lexicon captures the syntactic or semantic information of the different word classes,
including any exceptional information. LFG’s syntactic structures are built of words and
the lexicon is the place where words are created. As a lexicalist theory, LFG respects the
Lexical Integrity Principle. It is also “nonderivational” or “nontransformational” since verbal
diatheses relations are stated in the lexicon and not through transformations as in other
theories. Finally, syntactic structures are built monotonically, meaning that information
can be added but no deletion or change of information is allowed.
The theory is also functional and not configurational. This means that grammatical
functions, like subject or object, are central in the theory and they are used to represent
the syntactic structures of the various languages. This type of syntactic information is represented
not in terms of a phrase structure tree but in terms of feature-structures. The
basic idea is that grammatical functions appear as features and other elements that have
a specific function appear as the values to those features. F-structures exist in parallel to
c-structures.
As opposed to generative grammar, the theory is also constraint-based. The architecture
of LFG uses parallel structures in order to represent the different aspects of linguistic
information. These structures or levels have their own architecture, vocabulary and obey a
series of constraints in order to function properly. The central levels of representation are
the c(onstituent)-structure, the f(unctional)-structure, the a(rgument)-structure, the semantic
(σ)- structure, the i(nformation)-structure, the m(orphological) and p(honological)structures.
These parallel levels are linked to each other via correspondence principles,
using correspondence functions or “projection” functions. C-structure, f-structure and astructure
focus on the syntactic aspects of a language, s-structure deals with semantics,
i-structure explores discourse functions and m-structure and p-structure focus on the morphological
and phonological properties of a language. The different levels of representation
and their independent constraints make the theory both universal and applicable to a
number of variable languages. In the current thesis, we focus on the syntactic levels (the
c-structure and f-structure) and the semantic level (the s-structure) and we will describe
how LFG accounts for agreement, focusing on agreement in coordinate noun phrases.

2.1 Constituent-structure 6
2.1 Constituent-structure
C-structure encodes the surface phrasal syntactic organisation of a language, such as linear
order, hierarchical groupings and syntactic categories of constituents, while it interfaces
with the phonological component of the grammar. Constituency information is expressed
through phrase structure trees which depend on phrase structure rules. LFG c-structures
adopt the X-bar model, which accounts effectively for the crosslinguistic variation traced
in phrase structures.
LFG’s c-structure level assumes two types of categories, lexical and functional categories.
The lexical categories are N(oun), P(reposition), V(erb), A(djective) and A(dverb),
which function as heads of phrases of the corresponding phrasal categories NP, PP, VP,
AdjP and AdvP. The functional categories are I, C 1 . The category I (originally for INFL)
(Falk, 1984) is the head of IP, it functions as the head of a finite clause and can be filled by
tensed auxiliary verbs or other finite verbs. The category C (Fassi-Fehri, 1981) is the head
of CP and it can be filled by a verbal element or other elements. In English, for example,
the C position can be filled by a complementiser like that.
Since the organisation of LFG c-structure is based on X-bar theory, it follows the basic
principles of the latter. In X-bar theory any functional or lexical category X is related to
its corresponding projections, the nonmaximal projection X ′ (with “one bar level”) and
the maximal projection X ′′ (with “two bar levels”).
The organisation of information in the phrase structure tree assumes that a lexical
item X is the head of a phrasal item X ′ and it is also the sister to a number of complement
and adjunct phrases (YP...). In turn, X ′ is the head of the phrasal constituent XP and
it is also the sister to a number of specifier phrases (ZP...), all of which form the phrasal
constituent XP (Dalrymple, 2001, 57). In figure (2.1), the whole sentence corresponds to
the IP category. The head of IP is the phrasal item I ′ which also has as its head the lexical
item I. The tensed auxiliary verb fills in the I position and the main verb appears within
the VP. The specifier of IP is the NP ‘David’ and the complement of V ′ is the NP beans:
NP
N
David
IP
I
is
I ′
V
eating
VP
V ′
NP
N
beans
Figure 2.1: A simple phrase structure tree
A central principle in LFG’s c-structure is the Principle of Endocentricity and the categories
involved are called endocentric categories (Bloomfield, 1962). This means that the
phrase structure rules of a language are organised as hierarchical, c-structure configurations
following X ′ Theory. Thus, the maximal projection XP and the nonmaximal projection X ′
are headed categories whose head is X.
1 Two more functional categories are D and K but they will not be discussed here. For details see Bresnan
(1997, 2001c), Sadler (1997) and Dalrymple (2001).

2.1 Constituent-structure 7
A second principle that governs LFG’s c-structure is the Principle of Exocentricity
(Nordlinger and Bresnan, To appear; Bresnan, 2001; Dalrymple, 2001). Although English
and a number of other languages are endocentric, there is also evidence that languages
can make use of exocentric categories. Such languages allow for flatter structures where
the subject and all of the arguments are sisters to the head and syntactic functions are
morphologically determined. For these languages, LFG introduces the exocentric and nonprojective
category S, which is not headed by a lexical head of the same category as itself
and dominates any number of lexical or phrasal heads. S is a category that contains a
predicate and any number of arguments, including the subject of the phrase. The example
below is from Falk (2001):
(1) aanaye kut.t.i kan.t.u
elephant.acc child.nom saw
‘The child saw the elephant’
S
NP
aanaye
NP
kut.t.i
V
kan. t.u
Since LFG uses both principles, it can accommodate data of both types of languages more
effectively and it is a universally applicable theory.
LFG c-structures are subject to the Lexical Integrity Principle, which enforces a distinction
between the morphological and the syntactic components. The internal structure
of words is part of the lexicon and the structure of phrases or sentences is part of syntax.
Morphology determines the internal word formation and syntax deals with phrasal or sentential
composition. Thus, the formation of the internal structure of words is invisible to
syntax. The principle is stated as follows:
Lexical Integrity Principle
Morphologically complete words are leaves of the c-structure tree and each leaf
corresponds to one and only one c-structure node.
(Bresnan, 2001, 92)
Following the above, LFG allows only fully inflected words to occupy the position of cstructure
terminal nodes, and not parts of words or empty categories. Despite the distinction
of morphology and syntax, it is possible for both components to contribute the same
kind of information, being functionally equivalent (Nordlinger and Bresnan, To appear;
Bresnan, 2001).
For a theory that represents information in the form of phrase structure trees, phrase
structure rules are also required to admit or describe the corresponding phrase structure
trees. Thus, PS rules function as conditions that will license the different nodes in a tree.
The following example illustrates a simple phrase structure rule:
(2) S −→ NP VP
The categories on the right of the arrow are the c-structure daughters of the categories
on the left.
LFG’s phrase structure rules are more expressive than the phrase structure rules of
other theories since they consist of a regular expression (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982) in
the right-hand side. Thus, optionality, recursion and disjunction are some of the processes
that are represented in the PS rules admitted by LFG. For example, the rule in (3) states
that either an NP or a PP can appear as the specifier of IP. The disjunction of two

2.2 Functional-Structure 8
different phrase structure categories is represented by the curly brackets and the different
possibilities are stated with a vertical bar |:
(3) IP −→ {NP|PP} I ′
(Dalrymple, 2001, 93)
Similarly, in (4) the parentheses around the NP denotes optionality and the Kleene star
annotation on the PP indicates that any number of PPs can appear after the optional NP:
(4) VP −→ V (NP) PP*
(Dalrymple, 2001, 94)
PS rules allow two types of relations, dominance relations and precedence relations.
Dominance relations are expressed through Immediate Dominance statements, stated with
a comma between the daughter nodes. The rule below states that the VP dominates a V
and an NP node:
(5) VP −→ V, NP
(Dalrymple, 2001, 96)
Precedence relations maybe expressed through Linear Precedence statements. This is
stated by the introduction of a separate constraint with the symbol

2.2 Functional-Structure 9
(8)
⎡
⎤
pred ‘cry〈subj〉’
⎢
⎢tense
past
⎥
⎢ ⎡ ⎤⎥
g: ⎢ pred ‘mary’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎣subj
f: ⎣num
sg
⎥
⎦
pers 3
The label g corresponds to the f-structure of the whole sentence. The three attributes are:
pred, tense and subj. The value of the pred attribute is the semantic form ‘cry〈subj〉’,
which subcategorises for another grammatical function, a subj, and has a unique instantiation,
indicated by single quotes. The attribute tense has the atomic value past, whereas
the attribute subj has a whole f-structure as its value, which is the f-structure f and it
is the subject of the sentence. In turn, the subj f-structure with label f contains the basic
syntactic information that mary contributes. The value of the pred attribute is also
the semantic form ‘mary’, which gives rise to a uniquely instantiated occurrence. The
attribute num has a sg value and the attribute pers has a 3 value (Dalrymple, 2001, 31).
In the same way that c-structures are descibed by a set of phrase structure rules,
f-structures are described by a set of equations known as a “functional description” (Dalrymple,
2001, 101). Thus, the equation in example (9) is satisfied by the f-structure in
example (10) since it contains the attribute num with the value sg:
(9) (f num)= sg
(10) f [num sg]
The relation between an f-structure and the corresponding equation is formally presented
as follows:
(f α)= υ holds if and only if 〈α, υ〉 ∈ f, where f is an f-structure, α is a symbol,
υ is a value
(Dalrymple, 2001, 101)
LFG requires that an f-structure must be the minimal solution that satisfies all the
constraints that the words and phrases of an utterance introduce (Dalrymple, 2001, 101).
In the case of the constraint (9), the f-structure in (10) is the minimal solution as required.
The organisation of an f-structure is restricted by the well-formedness conditions of
completeness, coherence and uniqueness. Completeness ensures that all of the arguments
that a predicate subcategorises for are present in the f-structure. This is formally
stated as follows:
Completeness:
An f-structure is locally complete if and only if it contains all the governable
grammatical functions that its predicate governs. An f-structure is complete if
and only if it and all its subsidiary f-structures are locally complete. (Dalrymple,
2001, 37)
The sentence below is incomplete because there is an argument missing:
(11) *David saw
The f-structure in (12) of the pred ‘see’ requires the grammatical functions subj and
obj. Example (11) contains only a subj and not an obj which makes it incomplete and
therefore unacceptable:
(12)
pred ‘see〈subj,obj〉’

2.2 Functional-Structure 10
The principle of coherence can be seen as the opposite of completeness. It ensures that
only the arguments subcategorised by the predicate are present in the f-structure and not
any extra ones. The formal definition is below:
Coherence
An f-structure is locally coherent if and only if all the governable grammatical
functions that it contains are governed by a local predicate. An f-structure is
coherent if and only if it and all its subsidiary f-structures are locally coherent.
(Dalrymple, 2001, 39)
Sentence (13) is ungrammatical since there is an extra grammatical function, the obj noun
phrase the boy, not subcategorised by the predicate:
(13) *Mary cried the boy
Thus, the f-structure is incoherent since the sentence contains the extra grammatical function
obj, which the predicate cry does not require:
(14) ⎡
⎤
pred ‘cry〈subj〉’
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢subj
pred ‘mary’ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
obj pred ‘boy’
Finally, f-structure postulates the uniqueness or consistency condition which ensures
that an attribute must have only one value and not more than one:
uniqueness or consistency
In a given f-structure a particular attribute may have at most one value
(Dalrymple, 2001, p.39)
The sentence below is ungrammatical since the subj noun phrase the girl is singular but
the verb cry requires its subject to be plural.
(15) *The girl cry
The f-structure is ill-formed because the attribute num has two different values at the
same time. To be well-formed, it needs to have either a sg or pl value and not both
simultaneously:
(16) ⎡
⎤
pred ‘cry〈subj〉’
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣ pred ‘girl’ ⎥
subj ⎦
num sg/pl
The most important aspect about LFG’s f-structure is that it follows the principle of
universality which states “that internal structures are largerly invariant across languages”
(Bresnan, 2001, 45). Thus, sentences in different languages, which are translational equivalents,
will have the same f-structures despite possible differences in their c-structures.
2.2.1 C-structure and f-structure correspondence
This section provides a short description of the correspondence between the two levels
of representation: c-structure and f-structure. LFG uses a formal way to represent the
relation between the two structures, a function 5 φ (phi). This is stated as follows:
5 A function is “a special type of relation which assigns a unique value to its argument” (Dalrymple,
2001, 30).

2.2 Functional-Structure 11
(17) φ: N → F
(Kaplan, 1995)
The correspondence between the c-structure nodes and the f-structure is many-to-one and
each c-structure node is related to a specific and only one f-structure through the φ function.
The examples below display simple diagrams. In example (18), a single node corresponds
to an f-structure, whereas in example (19) more than one node corresponds to the same
f-structure. The correspondence from the c-structure to the f-structure is represented by
an arrow:
(18) V
cried
(19) NP
N ′
N
Mary
pred ‘cry〈subj〉’
tense past
⎡ ⎤
pred ‘mary’
⎢ ⎥
⎣num
sg ⎦
pers 3
The mapping function from c-structure to f-structure is not arbitrary but it obeys certain
principles that are in accordance with the c-structural and f-structural configurations.
In general, a c-structure head and its phrasal projections correspond to the same f-structure,
as in example (19) 6 . Specifiers of the functional categories IP or CP are mapped either
to the grammatical function subj or to the discourse functions topic or focus. Thus, in
English and many other languages the specifier position of IP can be filled by the subj
function or by the topic/focus functions, whereas the specifier position of CP corresponds
to the focus function.
Complements of functional categories are f-structure co-heads and will be mapped to
the same f-structure as their heads, and complements of lexical categories are mapped to
any of the grammatical functions, excluding the subj and the discourse functions. These
notions are shown below:
(20) Mary is calling Chris
NP
N
Mary
IP
I
is
I ′
V
calling
VP
NP
N
Chris
⎡
⎤
pred ‘call〈subj,obj〉’
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢subj
pred ‘mary’ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
obj pred ‘chris’
The specifier NP Mary is mapped to the subj function. The complement of the lexical
category V, which is the NP Chris, is mapped to the obj function. The auxiliary and the
main verb are co-heads and they correspond to the same f-structure whose pred value is
the verb call. When more than one complement appears usually the first one is mapped
to the obj and the second to the objθ, as in the English example in (21):
6 An exception is Japanese which is a “pro-drop” language with no verbal agreement morphology and
the single word kowareta ‘broke’ appears without an overt subject noun phrase. Thus, the subj f-structure
does not corrrespond to any node in the c-structure (Kameyama (1985) cited in Dalrymple (2001)). For a
schematic representation see Dalrymple (2001, 71).

2.2 Functional-Structure 12
(21) Mary gave Chris the keys
NP
N
Mary
V
gave
IP
NP
N
I ′
VP
V ′
Chris
Det
the
NP
N ′
N
keys
⎡
⎤
pred ‘give〈subj,obj,objθ〉’
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢subj
g: pred ‘mary’
⎥
⎢
⎥
f: ⎢obj
h: pred ‘chris ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎣ pred ‘keys’ ⎥
objθ i:
⎦
def +
In such a mathematical framework, it is possible to express the inverse f-structure to cstructure
mapping through the use of the inverse mapping function φ −1 . The mapping
function from c-structure to f-structure and from f-structure to c-structure is possible since
the various levels of representation exist simultaneously in different dimensions and no
derivational process is carried out.
LFG postulates a formal and powerful way of expressing the above schematic correspondence
between a c-structure and an f-structure by applying a series of functionaldescriptions
or equations to the corresponding phrase structure rules. At the core of these
functional equations are two symbols: ∗, ˆ∗, together with the c-structure to f-structure
function φ. The symbol ∗ denotes the f-structure of the current c-structure node on which
the constraint is placed and the symbol ˆ∗ denotes the f-structure corrresponding to the
mother node. A more simplified way to state these notations is the use of arrows, the
up-arrow (↑) and the down-arrow (↓). Based on Dalrymple (2001), these are restated as
follows:
(22) ˆ∗ mother’s f-structure = ↑
∗ self’s f-structure = ↓
The use of such notation relates to the way trees are represented. The upward arrow ↑
denotes the mother node, while the downward ↓ denotes the current node itself, and the
need to show any relevant information is locally passed up the tree from the daughter to
the mother nodes.
Consider the simple example, Mary saw Tom. To show the process clearly, we assign a
variable to each node and relative f-structure, such as fip, fnp, fi ′ etc, and we assume the
following c-structure tree corresponding to the f-structure below:
(23) IPfip
NPfnp I ′ fi ′
⎡
⎤
pred ‘see〈subj,obj〉’
⎢
⎥
⎢
tense past ⎥
⎢
⎥
Nfn
Mary
Vfv
saw
VPfvp
V ′ fv ′
NPfnp
Nfn
Tom
fip,fi ′,fvp,fv ′,fv
The f-descriptions for the above f-structure are as follows:
⎢ pred ‘mary’ ⎥
⎢subj
fnp,fn
⎥
⎢
num sg ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣
pred ‘tom’ ⎥
obj fnp,fn
⎦
num sg

2.2 Functional-Structure 13
(24) (fipsubj) = fnp
fnp = fn
(fnpred) = ‘mary’
fip = fi ′
fi ′ = fvp
fvp = fv ′
fv ′ = fv
(fvpred) = ‘see’
(fvtense) = past
(fv ′obj) = fnp
fnp = fn
(fnpred) = ‘tom’
The phrase structure rules with the relevant annotations for example (23) are the following:
(25) IP → NP I ′
(fipsubj)= fnp
NP → N
fnp = fn
fip = fi ′
I ′ → ( I ) VP
VP → V ′
fvp = fv ′
fi ′ = fvp
V ′ → V NP
fv ′ = fv (fv ′obj) = fnp
The f-descriptions that correspond to a particular c-structure tree can be replaced with
the ↑ and ↓ arrows, as follows:
(26) IP → NP I ′
NP → N
(↑subj)= ↓ ↑ = ↓
↑ = ↓
I ′ → ( I ) VP
VP → V ′
↑ = ↓
↑ = ↓
V ′ → V NP
↑ = ↓ (↑obj) = ↓
Generally, in any annotated phrase structure rule, any daughter node, which appears
on the right hand side of a rule, can be annotated with constraints that capture the relation
between its f-structure and the f-structure of the mother node. If the daughter node is the
head, they map to the same f-structure; if the daughter node is a nonhead, the daughter’s
f-structure will have some relation (say, the obj relation) to the mother’s f-structure. The
two arrows used in the rules assign a stronger locality, since only the functional relation

2.3 Semantic-Structure 14
between a daughter and its mother can be stated. Relations among the f-structures of
a daughter node of an annotated rule with its grandmother node are not allowed to be
expressed (Dalrymple, 2001, 117-120).
The same metavariables are used in lexical entries. Information that relates to each
lexical item will be captured under each lexical entry and that information corresponds to
the relevant f-structure. The lexical entries for example (23) are illustrated below:
(27) saw V (↑ pred) = ‘see〈subj,obj〉’
(↑ tense) = past
Mary N (↑ pred) = ‘mary’
(↑ pers) = 3
(↑ num) = sg
Tom N (↑ pred) = ‘tom’
(↑ pers) = 3
(↑ num) = sg
The ↑ and ↓ arrows have exactly the same use in a lexical entry as the one in the rules since
↑ arrow refers to the node that dominates the lexical item, and ↓ refers to the f-structure
that corresponds to the word itself (Dalrymple, 2001, 120). The same equations can be
annotated to c-structure nodes with which they are associated to make the connection
clearer.
The correspondence between the c-structure to f-structure is most effectively captured
within the principle of Economy of Expression which is stated as follows:
economy of expression
All syntactic phrase structure nodes are optional and are not used unless required
by independent principles (completeness, coherence, semantic expressivity).
(Bresnan, 2001, 91)
This principle ensures that only the syntactic phrase structure nodes that contribute to
important information at the f-structure level are licensed in the phrase structure tree while
it disallows any empty c-structure category, which dominates a non terminal element, to
be expressed in the c-structure tree. Thus, it is immediately related to the f-structure principles
of completeness, coherence and semantic expressivity and admits only the necessary
and minimal information into the c-structure, which will map to the relevant f-structure.
2.3 Semantic-Structure
LFG is a theoretical framework that does not follow the rule-to-rule hypothesis of the
Principle of Compositionality, which states that the rules of syntax are closely related to
the rules of semantics (Bach, 1989), while it does not assume that the rules that combine
the meaning of a sentence should depend on phrasal dominance or linear ordering relations
(Dalrymple, 2001, 218). In LFG, semantic composition is associated to the f-structure and
not to the c-structure level. An important advantage of encoding semantic composition
based on the f-structures is that certain crosslinguistic facts are expressed in principles
of semantic composition that would otherwise remain obscure if we assumed an analysis
following c-structure. Thus, semantic composition relies on the information encoded at the
f-structure level to derive the information at the separate level of semantic-structure.
In LFG, each lexical entry contributes a meaning constructor also known as a premise to
a logical deduction. A meaning constructor is a set of logical instructions applied to obtain

2.3 Semantic-Structure 15
the meaning of the f-structure headed by the lexical entry, by combining the meanings of the
lexical entry and its syntactic arguments. Then, it uses logical ‘glue’ for meaning assembly
(Dalrymple et al., 2002; Dalrymple, 2001). Therefore, once all the required constraints
are gathered, deduction in the logic is used to obtain a meaning for the entire structure.
Meaning constructors consist of a left-hand side known as the meaning side and the righthand
side, which is the glue side, having the form P : L where a meaning P is paired with
a linear logic formula L.
The left-hand side or the meaning side is often represented as a λ-expression 7 which
is a convenient formalism to represent the meanings of sentences. The lambda operator λ
constructs a function by abstracting on a variable contained in a proposition. The function
is applied to its argument as follows:
(28) Function application: [λX.P](a)
The function λX.P is applied to the argument a.
(Dalrymple, 2001, 225)
The expression above states that the lambda operator binds the variable X, which occurs
at least once in the proposition P. Thus, in the example Mary cried represented as
[λX.cry(X)]Mary using the λ-calculus, if we replace all occurrences of X in P with Mary,
we can derive the expression cry(Mary), which is the semantic equivalent. Although the λcalculus
is a useful formalism for assembling the semantics of a sentence provided by surface
constituent structure trees, it is not an effective tool to combine meanings of f-structure
constituents. This is due to the fact that f-structures are unordered and λ-calculus follows
a fixed order of combining a functor with its arguments (Dalrymple et al., 2002).
To avoid the problems posed by the λ-calculus, LFG uses the glue approach a formula
in linear logic in the right-hand side. This is a deductive approach to meaning assembly
which combines the meanings associated with attribute-value structures, through a series
of constraints, so as to deduce the meaning of the whole structure. Thus, once the meaning
constructor or premise of each f-structure has been derived then we use the glue approach
to combine the meaning constructor of the lexical entry with its syntactic arguments in
order to form the meaning of the whole utterance.
LFG also postulates a semantic-structure, which is a separate level of linguistic representation.
The f-structure is associated with the semantic-structure by the correspondence
function σ8 , represented by an arrow from the f-structure to the s-structure. The semantic
projection of an f-structure represents its meaning and it is denoted with the subscript
σ. Thus, the notation fσ is the semantic projection of the f f-structure. An example with
a one-place predicate, such as Mary cried, introduces the following f-structure and the
corresponding s-structure:
⎡
⎤
(29) pred ‘cry〈subj〉’ fσ : (f subj)σ :
⎢ ⎡ ⎤⎥
⎢
f: ⎢
pred ‘mary’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎣subj
g: ⎣pers
3 ⎦
⎥
⎦
num sg
For the simple sentence Mary cried, the following augmented lexical entries are introduced:
7 Other formalisms are DRT and Predicate Calculus. For a definition and details on the lambda calculus
see Partee et al. (1993).
8 The inverse correpondence function σ −1 also holds of an s-structure to an f-structure.

2.3 Semantic-Structure 16
(30) Mary N (g pred) = ‘mary’
Mary : gσ
cry V (f pred)= ‘cry’
λX.cry(X) : (f subj)σ ⊸ fσ
In the first lexical entry, the expression Mary : gσ is the meaning constructor. It does
not really construct any meaning here since it is an individual-denoting expression. Mary
is the meaning and it is associated with the s-structure gσ which is the semantic projection
of the f-structure g. The second lexical entry with the expression λX.cry(X) : (f subj)σ
⊸ f σ shows how we construct meanings. The left part λX.cry(X) displays a one-place
predicate using the λ-calculus. The right part is a formula which contains the connective ⊸
known as the linear implication symbol in linear logic. This symbol expresses a meaning
like if...then...: and it carries a requirement of production and consumption. Thus, the
formula in the second line of the lexical entry of the verb cry, (f subj)σ ⊸ fσ, indicates
that if a semantic resource (f subj)σ is found, it is consumed and the semantic resource
fσ is produced, which is the semantics of the whole structure. Thus, the meaning for the
whole structure is produced once the meaning of the arguments of the verb are obtained.
The meaning constructors for the argument Mary and the predicate cry are as follows:
(31) [Mary] Mary : gσ
[cry] λX.cry(X) : (f subj)σ ⊸ fσ
If we instantiate the f-structure for Mary with label g and the f-structure for cry with label
f, we can derive the following:
(32) [Mary] Mary : gσ
[cry] λX.cry(X) : gσ ⊸ fσ
Discharging the antecedent of an implication on the right hand side of the formula
labeled [cry] means applying a function to its argument on the left-hand side. The formula
[Mary-cry] is defined as follows:
(33) [Mary-cry] : cry(Mary) : fσ
If we combine the premises [Mary] and [cry], we derive the following 9 :
(34) [Mary], [cry]
⊢ [Mary-cry]
⊢ cry(Mary) : fσ
Glue semantics postulates specific rules which associate the meaning side (on the left)
with the glue side (on the right side), shown below:
(35) X : gσ
P : gσ ⊸ fσ
P(X) : fσ
(Dalrymple, 2001, 235)
The rule states that the glue side requires as its argument a semantic structure gσ and the
meaning side also requires an argument for the one-place predicate. Once this argument is
9 The symbol ⊢ stands for the linear logic entailment relation.

2.4 Agreement in LFG 17
available in both cases then it is possible to derive the complete semantic resource in both
the meaning side and the glue sides.
To summarise, linear logic allows the various meanings in a sentence to be expressed
as premises in a logical deduction and derives the meaning of the sentence by combining
these meanings. Thus, through logical deduction meaning contributions are perceived
as resources that are produced and consumed while no semantic composition is assumed,
following the rules of phrasal composition. According to Dalrymple et al. (2002), this entails
a resource-sensitivity of linear logic that disallows any arbitrary duplication, deletion or
addition of formulas. Therefore, each word or phrase makes a unique contribution, which
is shown in the final meaning of the sentence.
2.4 Agreement in LFG
This section provides an introduction to the basic notions of agreement and coordination
within the architecture of Lexical Functional Grammar. Most constraint-based theories,
which analyse agreement, assert that predicates, such as verbs, place constraints on the
features of their arguments and more precisely on the central grammatical features person,
number, gender and case.
In LFG, agreement between a finite verb and its subject is stated through a series
of equations in the lexical entries of the agreeing elements and it is represented at the fstructure
level. For example, the verb below is morphologically marked to indicate that its
subject must be third person singular while the subject must carry the same feature-values
to agree with the verb:
(36) Mary arrives
In the example above, the verb arrives agrees with the subject Mary. The f-structure
includes the attributes person and number, and instantiates the values for these attributes
in the following way:
⎡
⎤
(37) pred ‘arrive〈subj〉’
⎢ ⎡ ⎤⎥
⎢
f: ⎢
pred ‘Mary’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎣subj
g: ⎣person
3 ⎦
⎥
⎦
num sg
The agreement of the two elements is successfully captured by the equations contributed
by the lexical entries for Mary and arrives, instantiated as follows:
(38) arrives: (f subj person) = 3
(f subj num) = sg
Mary: (g person) = 3
(g num) = sg
The annotations on the English phrase structure rules require that the subject of the verb
be the f-structure g following the equation (f subj) = g:
(39) IP → NP VP
(↑subj)=↓ ↑=↓
Since the agreement features specified by the noun phrase match the agreement features
required by the verb, we can conclude that the agreement features of the whole phrase are
consistent and the sentence is well-formed.

2.4 Agreement in LFG 18
In NP internal agreement, LFG assumes the distinction between concord and index
agreement features associated with the nouns and posited at the level of functional
structure, following work in HPSG (Pollard and Sag, 1994; Kathol, 1999; Wechsler and
Zlatić, 2000, 2003). concord features are associated to the declension class of a noun and
control agreement between a noun and its determiner or adjective, and index features are
associated to the semantics of the noun and control agreement between a noun phrase and
a bound pronoun or a verb (King and Dalrymple, 2004). The following simplified phrase
structure rule is introduced:
(40) NP → Det N
↑=↓ ↑=↓
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 71)
The annotation ↑=↓ in the phrase structure rule for both the det and the np requires
that they are co-heads and therefore they share the same f-structure. King and Dalrymple
(2004) propose the following phrase structure tree and f-structure for the simple noun
phrase ‘this boy’:
(41) This boy
DET
this
NP
N
boy
⎡
⎤
spec ‘this’
⎢
⎥
⎢
pred ‘boy’ ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢concord
num sg ⎥
⎢
⎣
⎥
⎦
index num sg
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 72)
The lexical entries for the determiner this and the noun boy are illustrated below:
(42) this (↑spec) = ‘this’
(↑concord num)= sg
boy (↑pred) = ‘boy’
(↑concord num)= sg
(↑index num)= sg
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 72)
The lexical entry of the determiner this requires in its f-structure a noun with sg value
for its concord num feature specification. This is imposed by the equation (↑concord
num)=sg. The lexical entry of the noun boy contributes two types of agreement information,
concord and index. In both specifications, it has sg value for the num feature.
The former is related to the agreement of the noun with its determiner and the latter is
related to the agreement of the noun with the verb. The noun’s agreement information
satisfies the requirements of the determiner since the noun contributes the same concord
feature value as the one required by the determiner, and they form a grammatical phrase.
Therefore, noun phrase internal agreement depends on the concord feature only (Wechsler
and Zlatić, 2000). If the determiner specifies information that conflicts with that of
the noun, such as in the phrase *this boys, the f-structure is unacceptable since the value
of the num feature is required to be simultaneously sg by the determiner and pl by the
noun, and therefore it does not obey the uniqueness condition.
Thus, agreement in all languages involves the interaction of multiple elements and LFG
has the mechanism to encode effectively this interaction, using constraining equations in

2.4 Agreement in LFG 19
the lexical entries of the agreeing elements and representing these equations in well-formed
f-structures.
2.4.1 Coordination in LFG
LFG architecture has the mechanism to capture the phenomenon of coordination, which
will concern us in the rest of the thesis. We will briefly discuss all types of coordination
but the main focus will be on noun phrase coordination.
Coordination was originally discussed within the framework of LFG by Bresnan et al.
(1985b) and was more formally explored by Kaplan and Maxwell (1988) and Dalrymple
et al. (1995). Coordination phenomena are usually divided into two different types, constituent
coordination in which the coordinated elements are phrasal or lexical constituents,
and nonconstituent coordination where the coordinated elements are fragments of phrasal
constituents (Dalrymple et al., 1995). The following sentences represent examples of constituent
and nonconstituent coordination:
(43) a. Constituent Coordination
Bill cried and Mary laughed
Mary cooked and ate the cake
b. Nonconstituent Coordination
Mary flew to Dallas on Wednesday and New York on Friday
David introduced Chris to Tracy and Mary to Tom
Although constituent coordination seems more straightforward than nonconstituent
coordination, it still raises important issues for the more traditional approaches, such as
Conjunction Reduction (CR), proposed by Chomsky (1957) and refined by Dougherty
(1970, 1971). A main problem for those approaches was that it is not always possible to
derive coordinate phrases from full sentences. For example, the two sentences below cannot
be conjoined and form the coordinate structure in (44c):
(44) a. The girl promised John to go
b. The girl persuaded John to go
c. *The girl promised and persuaded John to go
(Kaplan and Maxwell, 1988, 303)
A second problem relates to semantics and that it is possible to have a different semantic
interpretation in a coordinate construction, which derives from two separate propositions.
Thus, in example (45a), the noun man may refer to two different persons, whereas in
example (45b), man refers to a single person:
(45) a. A man saw Tom and a man greeted Tom
b. A man saw and greeted Tom.
In LFG, coordinate structures, either constituent or nonconsituent, are treated as a
set containing the f-structures that correspond to the two coordinated elements (Bresnan
et al., 1985b; Kaplan and Maxwell, 1988). In other words, each conjunct has its own fstructure
which is part of a set. The major advantage of a set representation is that it has
the ability to hold an unbounded number of elements in a single construction and none of
these elements dominates or scopes over the others. The following rule from Dalrymple
(2001, 362) captures coordinate structures 10 :
10 The Kleene plus operator ( + ) allows any number of IPs to appear within the phrase.

2.4 Agreement in LFG 20
(46) IP −→ IP + Conj IP
↓∈↑ ↑=↓ ↓∈↑
This phrase structure rule states that the coordinate sentence consists of a sentence (or more
than one), which is the first conjunct, a conjunction and another sentence following the
latter. The functional annotations in the phrase structure rule specify that the f-structure
of each conjunct is an element of the f-structure that corresponds to the whole coordinate
phrase. A characteristic example of sentential coordination is the sentence Tom cried and
Mary laughed where the two sentences Tom cried and Mary laughed are conjoined by the
conjunction and. The correspondence of the c-structure to the relevant f-structure is seen
below:
(47) Tom cried and Mary laughed
NP
N
Tom
IP
I ′
VP
V
cried
IP
Conj
and
NP
N
Mary
IP
I ′
VP
V
laughed
⎧ ⎡
⎤ ⎫
pred ‘cry〈subj〉’
⎣ ⎦
⎪⎨ subj pred ‘tom’ ⎪⎬
⎡
⎤
pred ‘laugh’
⎣ ⎦
⎪⎩ subj pred ‘mary’ ⎪⎭
The whole structure appears as a set which contains the f-structures that correspond to
the conjunct sentences. Sentential coordination is rather straightforward. Cases of nonsentential
coordination are more complicated and LFG has the mechanism to capture them.
Before turning to these, we introduce the important distinction between distributive and
nonditributive features.
2.4.1.1 Distributive vs Nondistributive Features
Coordinate structures are special since they have features that are different from the features
of their elements, motivating a distinction between distributive and nondistributive
features.
A distributive feature is a feature which is associated with each member of the set and
not with the set as a whole. For example, in a coordinate noun phrase with nominative case
case is a distributive feature since each conjunct noun needs to specify in its f-structure
the attribute case with nom value. Thus, each member of the set needs to have the pair
case nom. An example from Greek illustrates the above:
(48) To
the
agori
boy.nom.sg.3
ke
and
‘The boy and the girl are happy’
to
the
koritsi
girl.nom.sg.3
ine
are.pl
xarumena
happy

2.4 Agreement in LFG 21
NP
to-agori
NP
Conj
ke
NP
to-koritsi
⎡
⎤
num pl
⎢⎧
⎡ ⎤ ⎫⎥
⎢ pred ‘agori’
⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢case
nom ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ d: ⎢
⎢num
sg ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎣pers
3
⎥ ⎥
⎦ ⎥
⎢
f: ⎢
⎪⎨
⎪⎬
⎥
def + ⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢
pred ‘koritsi’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢case
nom ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥ ⎥
⎢ b: ⎢
⎢ ⎢num
sg ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎣ ⎣pers
3
⎥ ⎥
⎦ ⎥
⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎦
def +
Bresnan et al. (1985b) and Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) formally state the above by
extending the definition of function-application (f α) = υ to apply to sets as well. This is
shown below:
If α is a distributive feature and s is a set of f-structures, then (s α)= υ holds
iff (f α) = υ for all f-structures f that are members of the set s.
(Dalrymple, 2001, 365)
A nondistributive feature, on the other hand, is one which appears as a property of the
coordinate phrase as a whole. In example (48) above, the num feature with value pl holds
of the whole coordinate phrase and not of the individual conjuncts and it is nondistributive.
Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000, 72) propose the following formal definition for nondistributive
features:
If α is a nondistributive feature, then (f α) = υ holds iff the pair 〈α,υ〉 ∈ f.
(Dalrymple, 2001, 158)
Apart from num and pers in the above example, preconjunctions, such as both and
either, and conjunctions such as and and or are classified as nondistributive features since
they are attributes of the coordinate phrase as a whole. Thus, the lexical entry for and or
or is represented as follows:
(49) and conj (↑conj) = and (Dalrymple, 2001, 267)
The distinction of distributive and nondistributive features is central in the sections
that follow.
2.4.1.2 Predicate Coordination
LFG also captures non-sentential coordination. Predicate coordination and more specifically
verb coordination is a type of non-sentential coordination in which some parts of the
sentence (i.e. subj and/or obj) are shared by the coordinated constituents. The phrase
structure rule for coordinate predicates uses the same functional annotations as the ones
proposed for sentential coordination but different categories are used since predicates are
the coordinate elements. Thus, it is rewritten as follows:
(50) V −→ V + Cnj V
↓ ∈ ↑ ↓ ∈ ↑
(Dalrymple, 2001, 364)

2.4 Agreement in LFG 22
Based on the rule above, the c-structure and f-structure of the coordinated predicates saw
and bought are shown below:
(51) saw and bought
V
saw
V
Cnj
and
V
bought
⎧
⎫
⎪⎨ pred ‘see〈subj,obj〉’
⎪⎬
f:
⎪⎩ pred ‘buy〈subj,obj〉’ ⎪⎭
When verbs are coordinated they need to comply with the restrictions imposed by the
Coherence and Completeness conditions for the sentence to be grammatically acceptable.
For example, the two predicates in (51) are transitive and each of them needs to have
a subj and an obj for the phrase to be grammatical. This restriction is satisfied if both
predicates share the same subj and obj, or alternatively if the two features distribute to the
individual conjuncts. In the f-structure and c-structure in (52) distributivity requirements
are satisfied. The NP Tom functions as the subject of the f-structure set through the equation
(↑subj)=↓ and the NP oranges functions as the object of the f-structure set through
the equation (↑obj)=↓. Hence both subj and obj features distribute to the individual
conjuncts and therefore the Coherence and Completeness conditions are satisfied:
(52) Tom saw and bought oranges
NP
N
Tom
V
saw
IP
V ′
V
Conj
and
I ′
VP
V
bought
NP
N
oranges
⎧⎡
⎤⎫
pred ‘see〈subj,obj〉’
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢subj
pred ‘〈tom〉’ ⎥
⎪⎨
⎣
⎦⎪⎬
obj pred ‘〈oranges〉’
⎡
⎤
pred ‘buy’
⎢
⎥
⎣subj
⎦
⎪⎩
⎪⎭
obj
The major advantage of the notion of distributivity is that it accounts for both grammatical
and ungrammatical cases. In the case above, the subj and obj are distributed
to each member of the set and this is why the two verbs share the same values for the
subj and obj attributes and the sentence is grammatical. The second advantage is that
distributivity accounts for ungrammatical cases as the ones below:
(53) *Mary promised and persuaded John to go
V
NP
N
Mary
promised
V ′
V
Conj
and
IP
V
I ′
VP
persuaded
NP
N
John
Part
to
VP
The f-structure of the above sentence is shown below:
V ′
V
go

2.4 Agreement in LFG 23
(54)
⎧⎡
⎤ ⎫
pred ‘promise〈subj,xcomp〉’
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎢subj
pred ‘〈Mary〉’
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢obj
pred ‘〈John〉’ ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎪⎨ ⎣ pred ‘go〈Mary〉’ ⎥
xcomp
⎦ ⎪⎬
f:
subj
⎡
⎤
pred ‘persuade〈subj,obj,xcomp〉’
⎢
⎢subj
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢obj
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎣ pred ‘go〈John〉’
⎥
⎦
⎪⎩
xcomp
⎪⎭
subj
The two xcomps are required to be token identical but they are not since they do not
share the same subject. Thus, the phrase is ungrammatical.
2.4.1.3 Noun Phrase Coordination
Noun phrase coordination is the last type of constituent coordination we will present and
which will concern us in the rest of the thesis. The central agreement features in NP
coordination are number, person, gender, case and in some languages noun class 11 .
As in the other types of coordination, noun phrase coordination uses the standard LFG
rule:
(55) NP −→ NP + Cnj NP
↓ ∈ ↑ ↑=↓ ↓ ∈ ↑
(Dalrymple, 2001, 381)
Noun phrase coordination also assumes the distinction between concord and index 12
agreement features, as non-coordinate nouns. index agreement is formally stated by King
and Dalrymple (2004) as follows:
index agreement with a coordinate phrase depends on the index features of
the coordinate phrase as a whole. (King and Dalrymple, 2004, 74)
In predicate-argument agreement, the index features are number, person, gender
and optionally case 13 . A very simple example of a coordinate noun phrase is given below
from Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000, 778):
(56) Jose y yo hablamos/*habláis/*hablan
Jose and I speak.1.pl/*speak.2.pl/*speak.3.pl
‘Jose and I speak’
11 The most characteristic languages with noun class are Bantu languages.
12 Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) and Dalrymple (2001) when discussing agreement in coordinate noun
phrases do not assume the distinction of the index and concord features within the f-structure. This
distinction was later introduced by King and Dalrymple (2004).
13 case is considered to be either distributive or non-distributive, which means that it is one of the index
or concord features, depending on the language involved. Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) seem to suggest
that case and noun class are distributive but Sadler (2003) and McCloskey (1986) argue this is too strong
a position when considering case mismatches in coordinate structures in a number of languages including
English such as the example She and him/he will drive to the movies (Sadler, 2003, 74).

2.4 Agreement in LFG 24
The coordinate phrase contains a first person singular conjunct and a third person singular
conjunct. However, verb agreement is as for a first person plural phrase. Thus, the index
person and index number agreement features of the coordinate structure differ from the
features of individual conjuncts. A simple functional structure which shows clearly the
representation of the index features and the features of the conjuncts for the coordinate
phrase in (56) is shown below from Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000):
⎡⎧
⎡ ⎤⎫⎤
(57)
⎢
pred ‘Jose’
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢ f: ⎣person
3 ⎦
⎥
⎢⎪⎨
⎪⎬ ⎥
⎢ num sg ⎥
⎢ ⎡ ⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘pro’ ⎥
⎢
fi: ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
i: ⎣person
1 ⎦ ⎥
⎢⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎥
⎢ num sg
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢ person 1 ⎥
⎢index
⎥
⎢
⎣
num pl ⎥
⎦
pred conj
King and Dalrymple (2004) propose that index features are nondistributive features.
Thus, the set representing a coordinate structure is allowed to have features that represent
the agreement features for the coordinate set. These are the index features.
concord agreement is also defined by King and Dalrymple (2004) as follows:
concord agreement with a coordinate phrase depends on the concord features
of each conjunct. (King and Dalrymple, 2004, 77)
In head-modifier agreement, the concord features are usually number, gender and
optionally case. In the example below from MG, the adjective needs to agree with each
conjunct in case and num, otherwise the phrase is ungrammatical:
(58) Eksipno
clever.sg.nom
‘Clever boy and girl’
agori
boy.sg.nom
ke
and
koritsi
girl.sg.nom
The adjective is nominative singular and specifies in its lexical entry the feature values
concord num sg and concord case nom. Therefore, each conjunct also needs to be
nominative singular. The f-structure of the coordinate phrase eksipno agori ke koritsi ‘clever
boy and girl’ below shows the basic concepts of the concord feature and the features of
the conjuncts:
(59) eksipno agori ke koritsi
eksipno: (↑concord num) = sg
(↑concord case) = nom

2.4 Agreement in LFG 25
⎡
⎤
adj [pred ‘clever’]
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num pl](nondistrib. feat. of c) ⎥
⎢⎧
⎢ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
⎢ pred ‘boy’
⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ b: ⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
c: ⎢ ⎣ case nom ⎥ ⎥
⎦ ⎥
⎢⎪⎨
⎪⎬ ⎥
⎢ index [num sg]
⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘girl’
⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ g: ⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
⎣ ⎣ case nom ⎥ ⎥
⎦ ⎥
⎦
⎪⎩ index [num sg]
⎪⎭
Thus, the agreement features of the adjective distribute to each conjunct and require
feature matching in order for the phrase to be grammatical. King and Dalrymple (2004)
propose that concord features are distributive features and they are associated only with
the individual members of the set representing the coordinate phrase and not the set as a
whole. These features appear as features of the individual conjuncts only.
To summarise, in noun phrase coordination LFG assumes the distinction between two
central features index and concord. concord features are distributive and are associated
only with the individual conjuncts of a set of a coordinate phrase. These are usually
number, gender and case. index features are nondistributive meaning that the set as
a whole representing the coordinate phrase, can have index features. These are usually
person, number, gender and case (depending on the language) as well as any type
of conjunction (Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000). Thus, a coordinate phrase as a whole is a
hybrid object that apart from the elements it contains, it also has its own attributes and
values.
2.4.2 The Semantics of Coordination
In this section, we will summarise semantics in coordinate structures. Both sentential
and subsentential coordinate structures derive their meanings from the meanings of their
conjuncts. A simple coordinate structure and the meaning representation is shown below:
(60) Tom cried and Mary laughed
cry(Tom) ∧ laugh(Mary)
For the whole sentence to be true, it must be the case that both conjuncts are true. The
following meaning constructor and f-structure are assumed for the above sentence, following
Dalrymple (2001):
(61) cry(Tom) ∧ laugh(Mary): fσ
⎧ ⎡
⎤⎫
pred ‘cry〈subj〉’
⎪⎨
p: ⎣ ⎦
subj pred ‘tom’ ⎪⎬
f: ⎡
⎤
pred ‘laugh〈subj〉’
q: ⎣ ⎦
⎪⎩ subj pred ‘mary’ ⎪⎭
The conjunction ∧ above imposes the restriction that both propositions must be true for
the whole proposition to be true. The meaning constructor is as follows:

2.4 Agreement in LFG 26
(62) [and] λX.λY.X∧Y: (↑ ∈)σ ⊸ [(↑ ∈)σ ⊸ ↑σ]
(Dalrymple, 2001, 374)
The glue side states that two semantic resources are required of type t represented by the
(↑ ∈)σ symbol, which corresponds to each proposition. These semantic resources are
elements of the set which is stated by the ∈ symbol. Once these resources are found and
consumed only then we are able to create a semantic resource for the whole set, represented
as ↑σ.
The detailed meaning constructors for the separate conjuncts and for the conjunction
and are shown below as in Dalrymple (2001):
(63) [cry] λX.cry(X) : hσ ⊸ pσ
[Tom] Tom : hσ
[laugh] λX.laugh(X) : iσ ⊸ qσ
[Mary] Mary : iσ
[and] λX.λY.X∧Y: pσ ⊸ [qσ ⊸ fσ]
Thus, we first combine the meaning constructors of the first conjunct [cry] and [Tom]
then of the second conjunct [laugh] and [Mary] and finally the result of the two will
be combined with the conjunction [and] in order to give the whole coordinate structure.
Following Dalrymple (2001), this is shown below:
(64) [cry], [Tom] ⊢ cry(Tom) : pσ
[laugh], [Mary] ⊢ laugh(Mary) : qσ
[and], [Tom-cry], [Mary-laugh] ⊢ cry(Tom) ∧ laugh(Mary): fσ
Noun phrase coordinate structures follow a similar process with the main difference that
the conjunction and is a group-forming ‘and’. This type of and requires arguments of type
e, which is the type used for individuals. The meaning constructor of the group-forming
‘and’ is illustrated below:
(65) [and] λX.λY.X,Y: (↑ ∈)σ ⊸ [(↑ ∈)σ ⊸ ↑σ]
(Dalrymple, 2001, 384)
The glue side states that two semantic resources are required of type e, which are
members of the set and they are represented as (↑ ∈)σ which corresponds to each
conjunct. Once these are found, they are consumed and therefore we can deduce the
semantic resource of the whole coordinate phrase, represented as ↑σ.
A simple coordinate noun phrase, such as Tom and Mary met, has the corresponding
meaning constructor and f-structure:
(66) meet({Tom,Mary}) : fσ
⎡
⎤
pred ‘meet〈subj〉’
⎢ ⎡
⎤⎥
⎢
num pl ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢conj
and ⎥
⎥
f: ⎢ ⎢⎧
⎢subj
g: ⎢
⎫⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢⎪⎨
h: pred ‘tom’
⎪⎬
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎣ ⎣
⎥
⎥
⎪⎩ i: pred ‘mary’ ⎪⎭
⎦
⎥
⎦
(Dalrymple, 2001, 384)
The meaning deduction for the above coordinate phrase is as follows:

2.4 Agreement in LFG 27
(67) [meet] λX.meet(X) : gσ ⊸ fσ
[Tom] Tom : hσ
[Mary] Mary : iσ
[g-and] λX.λY.X,Y: hσ ⊸ [iσ ⊸ gσ]
Once we combine the two nouns [Tom], [Mary], and the [g-and], we derive the premise
[Tom-and-Mary] as follows:
(68) [Tom-and-Mary] {Tom,Mary} : gσ
The semantic resource gσ is required by the meaning constructor of the verb [meet].
Once the latter is combined with the coordinate phrase [Tom-and-Mary], we can derive
the meaning constructor for the whole sentence:
(69) [Tom-and-Mary], [meet] ⊢ meet({Tom, Mary}) : fσ
A similar process holds if one of the conjuncts is a quantifier. The meaning for the
simple sentence Tom and a student met is the following according to Dalrymple (2001):
(70) Tom and a student met
a(Y, student(Y), meet({Tom, Y}))
The relevant meaning constructor and f-structure for the sentence is shown below, based
on Dalrymple (2001):
(71) a(Y, student(Y), meet({Tom, Y})) : fσ
⎡
pred ‘meet〈subj〉’
⎢ ⎡
⎢
num pl
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢conj
and
⎢ ⎢⎧
f: ⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
⎢subj
g: ⎢⎪⎨
h: pred ‘tom’
⎢ ⎢ ⎡
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
⎣ ⎣ i: ⎣
⎪⎩
spec
⎤
⎤ ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎫⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎤
⎪⎬ ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
pred ‘a’
⎥
⎥
⎦
⎥
⎥
⎪⎭
⎦
⎥
⎦
pred ‘student’
(Dalrymple, 2001, 384)
The meaning deduction for the above coordinate phrase is as follows 14 :
(72) [meet] λX.meet(X) : gσ ⊸ fσ
[Tom] Tom : hσ
[a-student] λS.a(Y, student(Y),S(Y)) : ∀H.[iσ ⊸ H] ⊸ H
[g-and] λX.λY.X,Y: hσ ⊸ [iσ ⊸ gσ]
First, we combine the meaning [Tom] and [g-and] in order to produce the meaning constructor
[Tom-and]:
(73) [Tom-and] λY.{Tom, Y} : iσ ⊸ gσ
14 The universal quantifier ∀ means all or every. It binds the variable H and ranges over semantic structures
which correspond to different scopes of the quantifier. Also, the expression [iσ ⊸ H] ⊸ H asserts that if a
resource of any H is found that satisfies [iσ ⊸ H] then H can be obtained (Partee et al., 1993, Chapter 7).

2.5 Summary 28
Next, the following abstraction rule is used which allows us to introduce and then discharge
a hypothetical premise in the deduction:
(74) X : [iσ]
.
P(X) : fσ
λX.P(X) : iσ ⊸ fσ
(Dalrymple, 2001, 236)
The hypothetical premise X : [iσ ] is introduced which can be combined with the premises
[Tom-and] and [meet] in order to give the meaning constructor [Tom-and-X-meet].
This is shown below:
(75) X : [iσ ] [Tom-and]
{Tom, X} : gσ
[meet]
meet({Tom, X}) : fσ
[Tom-and-X-meet] λX.meet({Tom, X}) : iσ ⊸ fσ
(Dalrymple, 2001, 386)
Finally, if we combine the premise [Tom-and-X-meet] with the premise [a-student] we
derive the whole phrase:
(76) [Tom-and-X-meet], [a-student] ⊢ a(Y, student(Y), meet({Tom,Y})): fσ
(Dalrymple, 2001, 386)
The above section presented a brief summary of how semantic composition works in
coordinate structures using linear logic and in particular ‘glue’ semantics. The basic idea
is to derive the meaning of a sentence by combining the meanings of its parts, which are
represented as premises. Hence, through a series of logical deductions we can derive the
meaning of the sentence.
2.5 Summary
This chapter briefly presented the central concepts in the formalism of Lexical-Functional
Grammar. We focused on the syntactic and semantic levels of representation, analysing
agreement in coordinate constructions. We tried to describe the central notions of sentential
and non-sentential coordination, which generally follow the same mechanism. The rest of
the thesis deals with non-sentential noun phrase coordination. The next chapter focuses on
a review of the most important theoretical approaches to predicate-argument agreement
and head-modifier agreement that capture various phenomena in noun phrase coordination.

Chapter 3
Theories of Agreement
3.1 Introduction
Several theories have been developed concerning the phenomenon of agreement in noun
phrase coordinate constructions. Most theories focus on the gender, number and person
features. The current section presents an overview of the theories that analyse the gender
and number agreement features in coordinate nouns. Predicate-argument agreement and
head-modifier agreement will be presented with reference to the features of gender and
number, respectively.
In predicate-argument agreement, gender ‘resolution’ (Givon, 1970) will be discussed
since it presents crosslinguistic and language-specific variation. The central notion concerning
gender agreement resolution, as proposed by a number of linguists (Corbett, 1991;
Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003; King and Dalrymple, 2004), is whether the resolved form is
based on a syntactic principle, a semantic principle or both principles.
In head-modifier agreement, the number feature will be the main focus. number
agreement of determiners with coordinate nouns shows unexpected variation since there are
languages, such as English, where number agreement is determined syntactically and other
languages, such as Russian, where syntax or semantics determine number agreement. The
person feature does not display any special characteristics at least within the languages
presented here and it will not be discussed in any detail.
3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement
gender resolution has been mostly discussed in theoretical approaches to predicate-argument
agreement. The term ‘resolution’ (Givon, 1970) refers to any rule that specifies the form
of an agreeing element, known as the target, when the controller, the element which determines
the agreement, consists of conjoined nouns. A characteristic approach to gender
resolution is that of Corbett (1991) which uses a list of statements in the form of sets of resolution
rules for the agreement patterns of different languages. Other approaches include
those of Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000), Wechsler and Zlatić (2003, Chap. 8) and Sadler
(2006), which use the set-based approach, but they differ significantly in the operation they
use since they resort either to union or to intersection. Finally, a fairly recent proposal
on predicate-argument agreement in coordinate constructions is that of Badecker (2007,
2008), based on the interacting effects of ranked constraints within Optimality Theoretic
Syntax. Each of these theories will be presented and discussed in this chapter.
3.2.1 Corbett’s Descriptive Approach
Corbett (1983b, 1991) introduces a set of resolution rules for the features person, number
and gender. Concerning the person and number features, Corbett (1983b) argues that

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 30
resolution is straightforward since these features show little variation crosslinguistically
in their resolved forms. person resolution, for example, follows the precedence hierarchy
where “the first person takes precedence over the second, and the second over the
third”(Corbett, 1991, 262), (Siewierska, 2004). person resolution rules are universal since
they occur frequently across languages and they also match the hierarchy of reference,
which is able to constrain the pronominal system, as proposed by Zwicky (1977, 718, 725).
The person resolution rules occur in a specific order and apply in that same order:
Person Resolution Rules
1. If the conjuncts include a first person, first person agreement forms will be
used;
2. If the conjuncts include a second person, second person agreement forms will
be used;
(The default condition is that third person agreement forms are used.)
(Corbett, 1991, 262)
Also, according to Corbett (1983b, 1991, 2000), in number resolution conjoined singular
elements need plural number. His number resolution rules cover languages with and
without a dual number:
Number Resolution Rules
1. If there are two conjuncts only, both of which are in the singular, then dual
agreement form will be used;
2. In all other cases, providing there is at least one non-plural conjunct or three
conjuncts, plural agreement forms will be used;
(Corbett, 1991, 263)
Languages without a dual number must follow only the second resolution rule but
languages with a dual number need to follow the first one too. Thus, for a language like
Slovene, a South Slavonic language with singular, dual and plural number in its system,
if two singulars are conjoined, the verb appears in the dual. If there are more than two
nouns or if one of them is dual or plural, then the predicate is plural.
Gender, on the other hand, is a much more complex feature since it shows great variation
across languages and poses problems of whether its resolved form is semantically
or syntactically driven. The central notion of Corbett’s theory related to gender is the
existence of three different strategies in gender resolution, a syntactic, a semantic and a
mixed strategy, combining the two former.
Syntactic resolution means “the gender of the conjoined nouns involved is what counts,
rather than their meaning” (Corbett, 1991, p.279). Corbett (1991) claims that French,
Spanish, Latvian, Hindi, Panjabi and Modern Hebrew display syntactic gender resolution.
French, for example, is a language with two genders, masculine and feminine. If a noun
phrase consists of a masculine noun, the masculine form is used, otherwise the feminine is
used. The fact that resolution rules are the same in animate and inanimate nouns leads
Corbett (1991) to the conclusion that French 1 follows the syntactic principle of resolution.
The following examples display the above:
(1) le
a
livre et le cahier
sont neufs
book.masc and an excercise-book.masc are new.masc.pl
‘the book and excercise book are new’
1 We shall see that this conclusion is disputed by Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) and Wechsler (2009), who
present a set-based semantic theory of agreement and assert that French shows mixed gender resolution
according to which animate nouns follow the semantic principle and inanimate nouns follow the syntactic
principle.

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 31
(2) le
a
père et la mère sont excellents
father.masc and a mother.fem are excellent.masc
‘the father and mother are excellent’
(Corbett, 1991, p.279)
The resolution rules in French are stated as follows:
Gender Resolution Rules for French
1. If at least one conjunct is masculine, the masculine form is used;
2. Otherwise the feminine is used;
(Corbett, 1991, 279)
Semantic gender resolution “involves reference to the meaning of the conjoined elements
even if this implies disregard for their syntactic gender”(Corbett, 1991, p.269). In other
words the inherent meaning of the conjuncts determines the resolution form to be used and
not their grammatical gender. Corbett (1991) claims that this type is found in Dravidian
and Bantu languages. Tamil, for instance, is a language with three genders, masculine
(for nouns denoting male rationals), feminine (for female rationals) and neuter (for nonrationals)
in the singular and two agreement forms in the plural, the rational (for masculines
and feminines) and the neuter. When all conjuncts denote rationals (whether of the same
or mixed gender) the rational form is used, otherwise if the conjuncts are neuter, the neuter
agreement is used. Thus, Corbett (1991) characterises this type of resolution as semantic
in nature and presents the following examples:
(3) raaman-um murukan-um va-nt-aaÒka
Raman-and Murugan-and come-past-3rd.pl.rational
‘Raman and Murugan came’
(4) naay-um
dog-and
puune-yum
cat-and
‘The dog and the cat came’
(Corbett, 1991, 269)
va-nt-atuÒka
come-past-3rd.pl.neut
The resolution rules are presented as follows:
Gender Resolution Rules for Tamil
1. If all conjuncts denote rationals, the rational form is used;
2. If all conjuncts denote non-rationals, the neuter form is used;
3. Otherwise the rational plural may be used
(Corbett, 1991, 285)
The third type, according to Corbett (1991), combines both the syntactic and semantic
resolution principles. He claims that in languages like Polish, Latin and Rumanian these
two strategies coexist. He argues that persons display semantic resolution and the rest of
the nouns show syntactic resolution. In Latin, for instance, when the coordinate nouns
have a different gender feature then resolution is determined based on whether the nouns
are animate or not. If they are animate the masculine form is used, otherwise neuter is the
resolved gender. These are shown below:
(5) quam pridem pater mihi
how long-ago father.masc me.dat
mortu-i essent
dead-masc.pl were
‘How long ago my father and mother had died’
et
and
mater
mother.fem

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 32
(6) murus
wall.masc
et
and
porta
gate.fem
de
from
caelo
sky
‘The wall and the gate had been struck by lightning’
(Corbett, 1991, 287)
The resolution rules are presented as below:
tact-a
struck-neut.pl
Gender Resolution Rules for Latin
1. If all conjuncts are masculine, the masculine is used;
2. If all conjuncts are feminine, the feminine is used;
3. If all conjuncts denote humans, then the masculine is used;
4. Otherwise the neuter is used
(Corbett, 1991, 285)
erant
were
The first two rules display feature-matching or syntactic resolution, the fourth rule is a
case of syntactic resolution, whereas the third rule follows the semantic principle since the
resolved form is determined by the human/non-human distinction. Other languages such
as Polish and Rumanian that fall within the same category are analysed in more detail in
Corbett (1983b, 1991).
A more formal analysis of the above descriptive approach is found in Corbett and
Fraser (1993). Corbett and Fraser (1993) propose a preliminary formal analysis within
Network Morphology where they present a DATR account of Russian nominal inflections.
To account for animacy in Russian nominal morphology, Corbett and Fraser (1993) express
the ‘prediction rules’ as ‘feature change rules’(130). The latter change the value of certain
feature combinations and are extremely powerful. Corbett and Fraser (1993) retain the idea
of the copying rule in its most general form while the main work done by the feature-change
rules is given to default statements under nominal. Some of the defaults are overridden
in particular parts of individual declension classes 2 .
To summarise, Corbett (1991) provides a series of descriptive rules for all features
person, number and gender and captures a range of languages. However, he does not
attempt a formal approach to these descriptive rules until later in Corbett and Fraser
(1993) where he introduces a preliminary analysis.
3.2.2 Dalrymple and Kaplan’s Set-Based Theory
Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) attempt a formal account of feature resolution. They propose
a set-based theory of person and gender resolution in coordinate constructions within
the constraint-based LFG framework. The central problem behind resolution is that a
coordinate noun phrase has its own feature-values for person, number and gender, as
any other noun or pronoun, distinct from the conjuncts’ feature-values. In the following
example, the first conjunct is third(3) person singular(sg) and the second conjunct is
first(1) person singular(sg). The predicate resolves to features not found in any of the two
conjuncts, the first person plural(1.pl):
(7) Jose y yo hablamos/*habláis/*hablan
Jose and I speak-1pl/*speak-2pl/*speak-3pl
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 778)
In the f-structure below, the first conjunct has different feature-values from the second
conjunct while the whole coordinate phrase has its own feature-values which are different
from the two conjuncts:
2 Details of the defaults are shown in Corbett and Fraser (1993, 131).

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 33
⎡⎧
⎡ ⎤⎫⎤
(8)
⎢
pred ‘Jose’
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ f: ⎣person
3 ⎦ ⎥
⎢⎪⎨
⎪⎬ ⎥
⎢ num sg ⎥
⎢ ⎡ ⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘pro’ ⎥
⎢
fi⎢
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
i: ⎣person
1 ⎦ ⎥
⎢⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎥
⎢ num sg ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎢person
1 ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎣num
pl ⎦
conj and
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 785)
To account for resolution phenomena in coordinate nouns and the distinct feature-values
of the conjuncts from the coordinate phrase as a whole, Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) use
set-valued features, asserting that “sets encode complex values” (p.780). They assign set
values to the agreement attributes person and gender of the individual conjuncts. The
first, second and third persons are represented with any of the following marker sets, such
as the empty set {}, the singleton sets {s} (for speakers), {h} (for hearer) 3 or the two
member set {s,h}. Similarly, the masculine, feminine and neuter genders are represented
with any of the marker sets, such as the empty set {}, the singleton sets {m}, {f} or
{n} and the two member sets {m,f}, {f,n} or {m,n}. We need to note that the use and
variation of the set designators depends on the language itself and whether it includes all
the person and gender values mentioned above.
Once the sets are assigned to the features of individual conjuncts, the resolved feature
value of the coordinate phrase is the set of the union of the values of the conjunct daughters.
The union operator constructs the smallest set and ensures that all the members of the
input sets are included within that. Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) propose a definition of
set union:
(9) x ∪ y is the smallest set z such that x ⊆ z and y ⊆ z
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 785)
This proposition states that “the union will result if we take the smallest set that satisfies
a collection of separately stated mother-daughter subset assertions” (Dalrymple and
Kaplan, 2000, p.785). Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) argue that LFG can accommodate
both the condition of the smallest set, using the minimal f-structures for the functional
description of an utterance, and the mother-daughter subset relation, using the ↑ and
↓ metavariables. Thus, they introduce the following PS rule with the relevant annotations:
(10) NP → NP CONJ NP
↓∈↑ ↓∈↑
(↓person) ⊆ (↑person) (↓person) ⊆ (↑person)
(↓gender) ⊆ (↑gender) (↓gender) ⊆ (↑gender)
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 788)
The first line, already known from coordination of categories, states that each NP
conjunct daughter needs to be a member of the conjunct set of the mother node. The
second line states that the person value of the coordinate phrase will form the smallest
set containing the values of the individual conjuncts, and the same statement is applied to
gender.
3 For languages with more person features, such as the inclusive or exclusive, more marker sets are
required. For details see Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000, 780-83).

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 34
Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) apply their theory to different languages by presenting
person resolution in Fula, English, Spanish and Slovak, and gender resolution in Hindi.
In person resolution, they focus on the syntactic distinctions in pronouns and not on the
referential ones. For languages like English, they assume that the person feature has sets
whose elements are drawn from the markers s and h. Thus, 1st person is represented as
the set {s,h}, 2nd person as the set {h} and 3rd person as the empty set {}:
(11) English, Spanish and Slovak
{s,h}: first person
{h}: second person
{}: third person
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 784)
The agreement patterns for the above languages are shown below:
(12) English, Spanish and Slovak
1 & 2 = 1
1 & 3 = 1
2 & 3 = 2
3 & 3 = 3
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 784)
These agreement patterns state that when a 1st person is coordinated with either a
second person or a third person resolution is 1st person, when a 2nd person is coordinated
with a 3rd person pronoun resolution is 2nd person, and when both conjuncts are 3rd
person resolution is 3rd person.
The table below displays how the union of the conjunct sets produces the set of the
coordinate phrase:
(13) {s,h}(1) ∪ {h}(2) = {s,h}(1)
{s,h}(1) ∪ {}(3) = {s,h}(1)
{h}(2) ∪ {}(3) = {h}(2)
{}(3) ∪ {}(3) = {}(3)
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 784)
In example (14) from Spanish, the third person singular noun combines with the second
person singular pronoun. As predicted by the union of the two conjuncts, the resolution
must be second person plural.
(14) Jose y tu hablais
Jose-3.sg and you-2.sg speak-2.pl
The relevant f-structure is presented below:
(15) Jose y tu hablais

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 35
⎡
⎤
pred ‘speak’
⎢ ⎡
⎢
⎧ ⎡ ⎤⎫⎤
⎥
⎢ ⎢
pred ‘Jose’
⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢ j: ⎣person
{} ⎦
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢⎪⎨
num sg ⎪⎬
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢ ⎡ ⎤ ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
f ⎢ ⎢ pred ‘pro’ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢subj
c: ⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢ i: ⎢
⎢ ⎢ ⎣person
h ⎥ ⎥
⎥
⎦ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢ num sg
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎣ ⎣
person h ⎥
⎥
⎦
⎥
⎦
num pl
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 785)
Thus, the person feature of the above coordinate noun phrase is the union of the person
features of the conjuncts. The relevant marker sets appear in the two conjuncts. Those
sets are subsets of the smallest set that appears in the coordinate NP.
In gender resolution, Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) acknowledge the existence of both
a syntactic and a semantic resolved gender form, although they focus only on syntactic
gender resolution. A case of semantic resolution where the two conjuncts are fem but the
resolved form is masc, is shown below:
(16) [La personne avec la barbe]
[the person with the beard].fem
idiots/?*idiotes
idiots.masc/?*fem
‘The person with the beard and Marie are idiots’
(Wechsler, 2009)
et
and
Marie
Marie.fem
sont
are
For syntactic gender resolution, they present Hindi as an example, which is a two gender
system, consisting of masculine and feminine nouns. In Hindi, when a masculine and a
feminine noun are coordinated, the coordinate phrase has a masculine gender, as in (17).
When the two nouns are feminine the coordinate phrase is feminine, as in (18):
(17) Hindi
meraa
my
m˜e
loc
kuttaa aur merii
dog.masc and my
rahte
hãĩ
live.subj gend=masc.pl
billii
cat.fem
‘My dog and my cat live with me in the house’
(18) yah larki aur uski mãã
this girl.fem and her mother.fem
rahtii
hãĩ
live.subj gend=fem
‘This girl and her mother live in Delhi’
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 788-9)
mere
with
dilli
Delhi
saath
me
m˜e
loc
g h ar
house
The above observation is informally presented as a set of rules for gender resolution
below:
(19) Hindi
· If the conjuncts include at least one masculine noun phrase, the masculine form

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 36
is used.
· Otherwise the feminine form is used.
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 789)
The agreement patterns are shown below:
(20) Hindi
masc & masc= masc
masc & fem= masc
fem & fem= fem
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 789)
Due to the two-way gender system, the marker sets are only two, using a single primitive
marker {m}:
(21) Hindi
masc{m}
fem{}
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 789)
Applying the union operation, they draw the appropriate resolution results for Hindi:
(22) Hindi
{m}(masc) ∪ {m}(masc) = {m}(masc)
{m}(masc) ∪ {}(fem) = {m}(masc)
{}(fem) ∪ {}(fem) = {}(fem)
(Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 789)
Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000), using the feature set representation account for agreement
phenomena in a number of other languages, including Icelandic a language with a
three gender system. In the last section, we will discuss some disadvantages of their theory,
such as that feature assignment is not cross-linguistic but different languages assume
different set-valued features (Vincent and Börjars, 2000) and that Slovene and MG, which
have more complicated gender systems, cannot be captured properly by the current theory
without avoiding the addition of further constraints.
3.2.3 Wechsler’s Theory of Gender Resolution
Wechsler and Zlatić (2000) and Wechsler and Zlatić (2003, Chap. 8) present an account for
gender resolution which includes both the semantic and syntactic principles. They investigate
three languages French, Serbian/Croatian and Icelandic and conclude that inanimate
coordinate nouns are subject to syntactic resolution and animate coordinate nouns are
subject to semantic resolution. They observe that semantic resolution in animate coordinate
NPs is a crosslinguistic phenomenon, even though non-coordinate animate/inanimate
nouns follow grammatical gender.
Evidence for the existence of a semantic resolution principle in animate coordinate
nouns is derived from all three languages. French, for instance, shows feminine resolution
when the conjuncts are feminine, and masculine is the default gender in all other cases, in
both animate and inanimate coordinate nouns:
(23) French rule (M, F):
F.PL: F + F
M.PL: elsewhere
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 173)

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 37
According to Wechsler and Zlatić (2003), the following examples are a clear evidence
that resolution in animate nouns obeys the semantic principle. In example (24), the noun
la sentinelle ‘sentry’ is grammatically feminine and it can refer to both males and females.
When that noun is coordinated with the grammatically feminine noun la femme ‘woman’,
the result is nonetheless masculine resolution:
(24) La sentinelle et sa femme
the.fem.sg sentry and his wife.fem.sg
pris/*prises en otage
taken.masc/*fem.pl as hostage
‘The sentry and his wife were taken hostage’
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 177)
ont été
were
Similarly, in example (25), the noun mannequin ‘fashion model’ is grammatically masculine
but it also refers to a female. When its referent is feminine and it is conjoined with the
grammatically feminine noun maquilleuse ‘make-up artist’, the result triggers feminine
plural agreement:
(25) Le mannequin et sa maquilleuse
the.masc fashion-model and her make-up-artist.fem.sg
assises dans le coin
seated.fem.pl in the corner
‘The fashion model and her make-up artist are seated in the corner’
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 178)
sont
are
The above patterns show that French animate coordinate nouns show semantic resolution.
Inanimate nouns follow the syntactic principle of resolution with the patterns shown in
(23).
Serbian/Croatian has similar resolution rules to French but it is a three gender system,
including a neuter gender. Animate and inanimate nouns follow the resolution rules below:
(26) Serbian/Croatian rule (M, F, NT):
F.PL: F + F
M.PL: elsewhere
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 174)
Evidence that resolution is sex based and not grammatically based in animate nouns
is drawn from examples where the grammatically neuter noun devojče ‘little girl’ is coordinated
with the grammatically feminine noun devojka ‘girl’ and they resolve to feminine
and not to masculine:
(27) Ova velika devojka i moje malo
this.fem.sg big girl and my little
se lepo igrale/?igrali
aux.pl refl well played.fem.pl/?masc.pl
‘This big girl and my little girl played well’
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 179)
devojče su
girl.neut.sg
Inanimate nouns in Serbian/Croatian are syntactically resolved as in (26).
Finally, Icelandic, which displays the following resolution patterns, shows semantic
resolution in animate nouns and syntactic resolution in inanimate nouns:
(28) Icelandic rule (M, F, NT):
F.PL: F + F

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 38
M.PL: M + M
NT.PL: elsewhere (including NT and all mixtures)
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 174)
In the example below, the noun skáld ‘poet’ is grammatically neuter, independent of
the sex of the poet. When it is coordinated with another male denoting noun and it refers
to a male poet then resolution is masculine:
(29) Skaldiþ
the-poet.neut
og
and
Jón
Jon
‘The poet and Jon are famous’
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 179)
eru
are
frægir/*fræg
famous.masc/*neut.pl
Inanimate nouns in Icelandic are syntactically resolved as in (28).
Thus, the above patterns support Wechsler and Zlatić’ s claim that animate coordinate
NPs are subject to semantic resolution while in coordinate constructions when grammatical
and natural gender diverge, resolution follows the natural and not the grammatical
gender as opposed to noncoordinate structures, which always follow grammatical gender.
Inanimate coordinate NPs are subject to syntactic resolution.
In animate nouns, Wechsler and Zlatić (2003, Chapt.8) associate grammatical genders
with semantic correlates: masculine gender correlates with male sex, and feminine gender
with female sex. An NP is assigned either an inherent grammatical gender or a semantic
gender. Grammatical gender is assigned to a non-coordinate NP, which inherits the head
features according to a feature-sharing mechanism between the head noun and the phrase
it heads. Otherwise, semantic gender is assigned to the NP. Semantic feature assignment
occurs in two cases; first, when the head noun is lexically genderless, as in non-coordinated
proper nouns (Dupont) or in sex-neutral nouns (journaliste). Second, when the phrase lacks
a head noun, as in coordinate NPs, which lack a head noun and therefore a grammatical
gender feature. Thus, non-coordinated NPs are assigned grammatical gender unless they
are lexically genderless, in which case they acquire their gender feature based on semantic
interpretations. Coordinated NPs are assigned semantic gender, since they are perceived
as headless constructions. Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) state the above succinctly with the
following principle:
Gender agreement with an animate NP that lacks inherent gender is always
interpreted semantically.
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, p.181)
In French and Serbian/Croatian, which have similar resolution patterns, they propose
two types of genders to derive the resolution facts. The s(emantic)-genders are those with
semantic correlates, such as masculine and feminine; those without a semantic correlate,
such as neuter are referred to as e(mpty/expletive)-genders. For the s-genders they introduce
the following semantic interpretations:
(30) Semantic interpretations of French or Serbian/Croatian s-genders (for NPs without
inherent gender)
a. feminine: ‘female’
b. masculine: ‘non-female’
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 182)
The semantic interpretations for s-genders follow the crosslinguistic generalisation according
to which the gender used for mixed-sex groups in most languages is also the gender

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 39
used for coordinate structures. In French, this gender is masculine, found in plural pronouns
(ils), non-sex-differentiated plural proper nouns (les Dupont), non-sex-differentiated
plural common nouns (les Americains) and in coordinate nouns (Corbett (1991); Farkas
and Zec (1995) all cited in Wechsler and Zlatić (2003, Chap.8, 181)). In Serbian/Croatian
masculine is the gender used for mixed-sex groups, also found in plural pronouns (oni) and
in coordinate nouns. In Icelandic, neuter is the gender used for mixed-sex groups, and it
is found in coordinate constructions too. Thus, in Icelandic Wechsler and Zlatić (2003)
propose different semantic representations to derive the desired results, such as masculine:
‘male’ and feminine: ‘female’.
In French and Serbian/Croatian animate nouns, Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) assume
that the positively defined semantic feature ‘female’ is a distributive property “where for
any distributive property P and set s, P(s) iff ∀ f ∈ s.P(f)” (Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000,
769). Thus, a group of animate entities is a female group if and only if all of its members
are female. On the other hand, the negatively defined semantic feature ‘non-female’ is not
distributive since a ‘non-female’ group is any group that refers either to a mixed group
where at least one member is male and the rest are females, or to a group where all of the
members are males. Thus, in (30) ‘female’ is distributive since it refers to female members
only, whereas ‘non-female’ is not distributive (i.e. ¬‘female’ is true of at least one member
of the group) since it may refer to a mixed group where at least one member is male or
to a male group where all of the members are male. In the two languages, the semantic
interpretations assigned to the corresponding grammatical genders entail that masculine is
the resolved gender for plural animates.
In inanimate nouns agreement is grammatical. Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) assume the
intersection operation based on the notion of distributivity, meaning that the set representing
a property of a group is the intersection of the sets representing the properties of
the members of the group. They represent feminine and masculine genders as positively
or negatively specified features to produce the required results. For example, in French
a masculine and a feminine noun resolve into masculine. Thus, each positively specified
grammatical gender, such as feminine, is represented as the singleton set {f}, and each
negatively specified gender, such as non-feminine (i.e. masculine), is the empty set {}.
The feature assignment is shown below:
(31) a. feminine = {f}
b. non-feminine (masculine) = {}
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 184)
The intersection of two members if one is {f} and the other {} results in a masculine
grammatical gender as required {f} ∩ {} = {}. Otherwise the intersection of two members
which are both feminine results in feminine {f} ∩ {f} = {f}.
E-gender features, like neuter, which lack any semantic correlates and do not follow
distributivity, are accounted for by removing them from the computation of gender features
for NPs denoting groups. They achieve that by intersecting the calculated set with the
set Gs, which represents the s-genders in a language. The following universal constraint is
introduced:
Constraint on inanimate aggregate discourse referents
Let γ1...γn be null or unary sets, representing the respective genders of the
inanimate discourse referents κ1...κn; let γx be a null or unary set representing
the gender of the aggregate (group-denoting) discourse referent X, where the
members of X are κ1...κn; and let Gs be the set of s-gender features in the
grammar. Then γx= γ1 ∩...∩ γn ∩ Gs.
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 184)

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 40
This constraint states that the gender value for an aggregate discourse referent is the
intersection of the gender values of the discourse referent’s elements (conjuncts), minus
any features that are not s-gender features (Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 184). E-genders
can be represented as either unary {n} or null {} sets.
For example in French, the representation of genders is {f} for feminine, with a semantic
correlate ‘female’ and {} for masculine with a semantic correlate ‘non-female’. The set of
s-genders will be the unary set {f} only and this will be intersected with the inanimate
discourse referents:
(32) French
a. Set of s-genders: Gs = {f}
b. Set representations of the genders:
fem: {f} (< ‘female’)
masc: {} (< ‘non-female’)
c. Calculating gender for plural referents
masc & masc = masc {} ∩ {} ∩ Gs = {}
fem & fem = fem {f} ∩ {f} ∩ Gs = {f}
masc & fem = masc {} ∩ {f} ∩ Gs = {}
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 185)
The above rule and derivation of resolution applies not only to coordinate phrases but
generally to aggregate discourse referents.
To account for semantic or grammatical gender assignment, they use the LFG formalism,
in which the features of a grammatical object can be specified by two distinct
elements appearing in the f-structure. They use defining equations for the semantic gender
and constraining equations for the grammatical gender. The semantic values are ‘female’
and ‘non-female’ and they refer to any individual that is either female or non-female, respectively.
The grammatical values are {f} and {} for the feminine or masculine genders,
respectively.
Their proposal works as follows. The adjective below specifies disjunctively two different
values for the feature gend. The ‘female’ value is the semantic value whereas the {f} value
is semantically vacuous and therefore it is the grammatical gender value:
(33) a. competente, A
(↑pred) = ‘competent〈(↑subj)〉’
(↑subj gend) =c{f} ∨ (↑subj gend) = ‘female’
(↑subj num) = sg
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 191)
In example (34), the noun sentinelle specifies [gend {f}], inherited by the NP [La sentinelle
á la barbe]. The semantic form of the predicative adjective [gend ‘female’] would conflict
with the grammatical form specified by the noun and therefore the disjunct [gend {f}] is
selected for the subject. Thus, in this case agreement is syntactic:
(34) [La sentinelle à la barbe] est compétente
(↑gend)= {f} (↑subj gend)=c{f}
The bearded sentry is competent
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 192)
Next, we show how their theory accounts for animate coordinate nouns. In the lexical
entry below, the French predicative adjective competents specifies disjunctively a grammatical
gender [gend {}] and a semantic gender [gend ‘non-female’]:

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 41
(35) a. competents, A
(↑pred) = ‘compétent〈(↑subj)〉’
(↑subj gend) =c{} ∨ (↑subj gend) = ‘non-female’
(↑subj num) = pl
In example (36), the coordinate construction is headless and therefore it lacks a grammatical
gender. The grammatical gender of the adjective [gend {}] cannot find the same
feature in the coordinate noun phrase since the latter lacks a grammatical gender. The semantic
gender value is the only available choice for the noun phrase. Thus, the coordinate
noun phrase is interpreted semantically:
(36) Jean
Jean.masc.sg
et
and
‘Jean and Marie are competent’
Marie
Marie.fem.sg
sont
sont
competents
competent.masc.pl
To summarise, Wechsler and Zlatic’s (2003) theory assumes that non-coordinate NPs
(animate/inanimate) will be assigned grammatical agreement unless they lack an inherent(grammatical)
gender in which case they should be interpreted semantically. Coordinate
animate nouns will be assigned semantic agreement, since they lack an inherent grammatical
gender, while coordinate inanimate nouns will be assigned grammatical agreement if
they are masculine or feminine; otherwise, agreement is derived by the constraint on inanimate
aggregate discourse referents if they are neuter. Thus, Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) use
both semantic and grammatical (syntactic) resolution, where the features are represented
semantically and grammatically, respectively. Some unfortunate aspects of this approach
are that it does not consider languages with different resolution patterns in animate and
inanimate nouns or the problem of undergeneration of some agreement patterns. These
issues will be analysed in the last section.
3.2.4 Sadler’s Theory of Resolution in Rumanian
Sadler (2006) also proposes an analysis of gender resolution in Rumanian and she captures
the distinction between the syntactic and semantic resolution in inanimate and animate
nouns, respectively.
According to Farkas (1990), Farkas and Zec (1995), Lumsden (1992) and Wechsler and
Zlatić (2003), Rumanian is a language with three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter.
Generally, animate nouns are masc when they refer to males, and fem when they refer
to females. In coordinate constructions, animate nouns follow the semantic principle of
resolution. Thus, if any of the conjuncts are male-denoting then resolution is masculine,
otherwise resolution is feminine. The following examples, which show the above general
resolution rules, are from Farkas and Zec (1995) and Moosally (1998), respectively:
(37) Maria
Maria.fem.sg
¸si
and
‘Maria and mother were seen’
(Farkas and Zec, 1995, 94)
(38) Maria
Maria.fem.sg
¸si
and
‘Maria and father were seen’
(Moosally, 1998, 112)
mama
mother.fem.sg
tata
father.masc.sg
au fost vǎzute
were seen.fem.pl
au fost vǎzuti
were seen.masc.sg
The relevant table for the above patterns is from Sadler (2006, 306):

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 42
Table 3.1: Agreement of Rumanian Animate Coordinate Nouns
NP1 NP2 Target
female male male.pl
female female female.pl
male male male.pl
Inanimate nouns may belong to any of the three genders: masculine, feminine and
neuter. However, an interesting pattern emerges according to Corbett (1991), noncoordinate
inanimates distinguish three agreement classes but they have only two target genders:
masculine and feminine. Thus, a masculine noun admits masculine agreement in its dependents,
a feminine noun admits feminine agreement but a neuter noun admits masculine
agreement in the singular and feminine agreement in the plural, as seen below:
(39) un
a.masc
‘a beautiful chair’
(40) douǎ
two.fem
scaun
chair.neut.sg
scaune
chairs.neut.pl
‘two beautiful chairs’
(Sadler, 2006, 303)
frumos
beautiful.masc.sg
frumoase
beautiful.fem.pl
Corbett (1991), despite opposing views (Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003; Bateman and Polinsky,
2005), claims that the three-gender agreement distinction suppports the existence of
three genders especially when one considers inanimate coordinate nouns, which follow syntactic
resolution. In the latter, if all conjuncts are masculine, resolution is masculine,
otherwise resolution is feminine even if the conjuncts are neuter. The following table is
from Sadler (2006, 304):
Table 3.2: Agreement of Rumanian Inanimate Coordinate Nouns
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
nsg nsg fpl fsg msg fpl
fsg fsg fpl fsg nsg fpl
msg msg mpl msg nsg fpl
Sadler’s (2006) proposal treats targets of agreement as underspecifying “the agreement
features of their controllers” instead of treating “neuter nouns as lexically underspecified
for gender” (Sadler, 2006, 310). In other words, targets are not assigned a specific value
based on their controllers but they place their own constraints. Nouns are specified as
belonging to one of the three gender classes, masculine, feminine or neuter. The lexical
entries of nouns normally appear as follows:
(41) copac (↑ pred)=‘tree’ rochie (↑ pred)=‘dress’
(↑ gend)=masc (↑ gend)=fem
(↑ num)=sg (↑ num)=sg
scaun (↑ pred)=‘chair’
(↑ gend)=neut
(↑ num)=sg
(Sadler, 2006, 310)

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 43
Adjectives and determiners are represented as follows:
(42) frumoasă frumos › i
((adj∈↑)gend)=fem ((adj∈↑)gend)=masc
((adj∈↑)num)= sg ((adj∈↑)num)= pl
(↑pred)=‘beautiful’ (↑pred)=‘beautiful’
frumos frumoase
((adj∈↑)gend)¬=fem ((adj∈↑)gend)¬=masc
((adj∈↑)num)= sg ((adj∈↑)num)= pl
(↑pred)=‘beautiful’ (↑pred)=‘beautiful’
(Sadler, 2006, 311)
The lexical entries of the first two adjectives can combine with fsg and mpl nouns
respectively, since the adjectives share the gender value of their head. The next two lexical
entries, for msg and fpl forms of nominal modifiers, are underspecified, meaning that the
masculine singular form cannot combine with a feminine noun but it will combine freely
with a masculine or neuter singular, and similarly the feminine plural will combine with the
feminine or neuter plural. Participles and predicative adjectives are specified in a similar
way (Sadler, 2006, 311).
Sadler (2006, 312) adopts the following marker sets to represent the values of the three
genders in Rumanian:
(43) Marker Sets for Rumanian Nouns
masc{m}
fem{m,n}
neut{n}
In the example below, the feminine noun requires a feminine predicative adjective:
(44) O
a.fem.sg
garoafǎ
carnation.fem.sg
‘A white carnation is expensive’
(Farkas, 1990, 539)
alba
white.fem.sg
e
is
scumpǎ
expensive.fem.sg
The lexical entry of the adjective must allow a feminine {m,n} value for the gender of its
subject since the noun is feminine. A constraining equation must be used to constrain the
gender value. This is represented as follows:
(45) scumpǎ (subj gend must be fem)
(↑subj gend)=c{m n}
(↑subj num)= sg
(↑pred)=‘expensive’
(Sadler, 2006, 313)
In the following example, the noun sc › aune ‘chair’ is lexically specified (↑ gend)={n}.
The agreement features of the predicative adjective need to be underspecified since the
noun itself is neuter(plural) but the agreeing elements are feminine(plural):

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 44
(46) Nis › te
some.fem.pl
sc › aune
chair.neut.pl
‘Some comfortable chairs are useful’
(Farkas, 1990, 540)
confortabile
comfortable.fem.pl
e
are
folositoare
useful.fem.pl
The lexical entry of the adjective cannot be the closed set containing the single element {m}
(meaning that it has to be either neuter {n} or feminine {m,n}). The negative constraint
is used to exclude the possibility of a masculine value in the gender feature:
(47) folositoare (subj gend can’t be masc)
(↑subj gend)¬={m} (f.pl)
(↑subj num)= pl
(↑pred)=‘useful’
(Sadler, 2006, 313)
After placing the above constraints, Sadler (2006) turns to coordinate nouns, and following
Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000), uses set union to derive resolution. The standard
PS rule of coordination, adding the extra feature anim with values + or −, specifying that
nouns are animate or inanimate, accounts for inanimate coordinate nouns:
(48) NP → NP CONJ NP
↓∈↑ ↓∈↑
(↓gend) ⊆ (↑gend) (↓gend) ⊆ (↑gend)
(↓anim)= − (↓anim)= −
(Sadler, 2006, 315)
The above rule accounts for all the coordination cases of inanimate nouns, as shown below:
Table 3.3: Coordination with set values in Inanimate Rumanian Nouns
NP1 NP2 NPcoord Target Morph
{m}(masc) {m}(masc) {m}(masc) mpl
{m,n}(fem) {m,n}(fem) {m,n}(fem) fpl
{n}(neut) {n}(neut) {n}(neut) fpl
{m,n}(fem) {n}(neut) {m,n}(fem) fpl
{m}(masc) {n}(neut) {m,n}(fem) fpl
{m,n}(fem) {m}(masc) {m,n}(fem) fpl
(Sadler, 2006, 314)
The pattern where two neuter singular nouns resolve to feminine plural is also accounted
since the lexical entry of the predicative adjective includes the constraint (↑subj gend)¬={m},
which disallows {m} as a gend value but allows either the {n} or the {m,n} sets. This is
shown below:
(49) Scaunul ¸si dulapul
chair.def.nsg and cupboard.def.nsg
‘The chair and the cupboard are white’
(50) albe (subj gend can’t be masc)
(↑subj gend)¬= {m} (f.pl)
(↑subj num)= pl
sînt
are
albe
white.fpl

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 45
(↑pred)=‘white’
(Sadler, 2006, 4)
Corbett (1991) argues that animate nouns in Rumanian follow semantic resolution. He
introduces the following generalisation:
Gender Resolution Rules for Rumanian
1. If one conjunct denotes a male animate then resolution is masc;
2. If all conjuncts are masc, then masc is used;
3. otherwise fem is used
(Corbett, 1991, 289)
To capture the notion of a male referent, Sadler (2006) uses an extra f-structure feature
semgend with values male and female. Thus, lexical entries of nouns which denote
male individuals (including nouns that are syntactically fem) have the (↑semgend)= male
feature-value and nouns that denote female individuals are specified as (↑semgend)= female.
She introduces the following rule so as to derive resolution in animate nouns:
(51) NP → NP CONJ NP
↓∈↑ ↓∈↑
(↓anim)= + (↓anim)= +
(Sadler, 2006, 317)
[(↑∈ semgend)¬= male
(↑ gend)={m,n}
| (↑ gend)={m}]
The first two lines above are the standard rule of coordination. The second line states that
both conjuncts need to be animate since this rule is animate specific. In the next equation,
Sadler (2006) uses negation, which has a universal interpretation, so as to state that none
of the members of the set should specify a feature-value male in which case the coordinate
phrase should resolve into fem ((↑ gend={m,n})), otherwise the gender of the coordinate
phrase should be masc (| (↑ gend={m}) 4 .
The present proposal is rather powerful since it accounts for both the semantic and
syntactic resolution cases found in animate and inanimate nouns in Rumanian, accordingly.
It also takes into account the central distinction that animate nouns resolve according to
the semantic principle and that inanimate nouns resolve according to the syntactic one. A
problematic aspect is the addition of the extra feature semgend that will be discussed in
the last section.
3.2.5 Badecker’s Optimality Theory
Badecker (2008) proposes a theory of agreement within the framework of Optimality Theory,
which is based on the interaction of a series of ranked constraints. His focuses on the
gender feature for languages that preserve gender distinctions across the singular-plural
divide. In particular, he argues that gender resolution patterns arise from the interaction of
a series of universal but violable markedness and faithfulness constraints, conceived within
4 This is also compatible with (↑∈ semgend)¬=male since it needs to make the two pairs of the dis-
junction mutually exclusive.

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 46
OT (Prince and Smolensky, 2002). He assumes the distinction in noun phrase agreement
between concord and index features (Kathol, 1999; Sadler, 1999; Wechsler and Zlatić,
2000, 2003). He analyzes languages that retain the same gender distinction with both singular
and plural nouns, such as Modern Greek, Icelandic, Serbian/Croatian, Slovene and
Latin, which are three-gender systems, and the two gender systems, Italian and French.
The central concept of his theory is based on six markedness and faithfulness constraints
for gender resolution, whose ranking and importance vary across the languages he discusses.
The first three are markedness constraints and govern the expression of the three genders
(feminine, masculine and neuter), presented below:
Constraint 1, 2, 3
*F, *M, *N: Do not express gender feature f (for each of Feminine, Masculine
and Neuter). (Badecker, 2008, 9)
The main function of the above constraints is to disallow the occurrence of a particular
gender feature in the output and impose economy of structure. Their order varies depending
on the language. These markedness constraints are dominated by a number of other
highly ranked faithfulness constraints, which require “an identity relation between the index
features of conjoined NPs and those of their constituent conjuncts” (Badecker, 2008,
9). The first faithfulness constraint requires the same index between the coordinate phrase
and at least one of the conjuncts for the number and gender features, and tries to capture
the effect of conjunct number on gender resolution with mixed gender value conjuncts.
Thus, conjoined masculine and feminine singular number nouns can resolve to neuter, and
conjoined masculine and feminine plural number nouns can resolve to masculine:
Constraint 4
There is a conjunct phrase whose number and gender feature values are identical
to the resolution values for the conjoined phrase as a whole (∃c[identN ,G(c,ph 5 )]);
violated if the index number and/or gender of a conjoined phrase differs from
that of all its conjuncts. (Badecker, 2008, 10)
The above constraint is violated when the number resolved value is plural and the
conjucts are singular and when the gender resolved value is different from the gender value
of the individual conjuncts. A relevant example is the Modern Greek coordinate phrase
below, from Badecker (2008, 3):
(52) Laspomena itan o
diadromos
muddy.neut.pl was the.masc.sg corridor.masc.sg
i skala
the.fem.sg flight-of-stairs.fem.sg
‘The corridor and the flight of stairs were muddy’
The next faithfulness constraint imposes the requirement that the gender feature value
of a coordinate phrase is identical to the gender feature value of each conjunct. It does not
place any restrictions on the number value. Badecker (2008) states this as follows:
ke
and
(53) Constraint 5
Every phrasal conjunct is identical in its gender feature values to the resolution
values for the conjoined phrase as a whole (∀c[identG(c,ph)]); violated if the
gender of a conjoined phrase differs from that of any of its conjuncts.
(Badecker, 2008, 10)
5 The symbol c stands for conjunct and the symbol ph stands for the coordinate phrase.

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 47
The present constraint is satisfied when the resolved gender value is the same as the
gender value of the conjuncts, and it is violated if at least one of the gender values of the
conjuncts differ from the gender value of the coordinate phrase. The current constraint is
satisfied in example (54), but it is violated in (55):
(54) La donna e la
the.fem.sg woman and the.fem.sg
preoccupate/*preoccupati
worried.fem.pl/*masc.pl
‘The woman and the girl are very worried’
(55) L’ uomo e la
the.masc.sg man and the.fem.sg
preoccupati/*preoccupate
worried.masc.pl/*fem.pl
‘The man and the woman are very worried’
(Badecker, 2008, 6)
ragazza
girl
donna
woman
sono
are.3.pl
sono
are.3.pl
molto
very
molto
very
The last constraint, which relates to the number feature, is known as SemNr and
requires the resolved number value of a conjoined phrase to be plural (or dual). This
constraint ensures that the morpho-syntactic representation of number (singular, dual,
plural) obeys the semantic number. According to Badecker (2008), this constraint is highly
ranked compared to the others in most languages analysed:
(56) Constraint 6
SemNr: the index number of a conjoined NP (if it has one) cannot differ from the
phrase’s semantic number.
(Badecker, 2008, 10)
In his analysis of Modern Greek inanimate nouns 6 , he claims that conjoined mixed
gender nouns with masculine and feminine conjuncts resolve to neut when conjuncts are
both singular and to masc when they are both plural. The resolution patterns are as
follows:
Table 3.4: Agreement of Inanimate Coordinate Nouns
UNIFORM GENDER MIXED GENDER
NP1 & NP2 AP NP1 & NP2 AP
m & m mpl msg & fsg npl
mpl & fpl mpl
f & f fpl m & n npl
n & n npl f & n npl
(Badecker, 2008, 9)
According to the above table, he introduces the following ranking for Modern Greek:
(57) Modern Greek
SemNr ≫ ∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)] ≫ ∀c[identG(c,ph)] ≫ *F ≫ *M ≫ *N
(Badecker, 2008, 10)
The ranking above treats neut as the default gender and fem as the least preferred one.
Since the faithfulness constraints ident are placed higher in the ranking, the markedness
6 Full discussion of what patterns are actually found in MG will follow in the next chapters.

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 48
constraints alone do not determine the resolution value but rather the ident constraints
will play a determining factor.
In coordinate phrases with identical gender conjuncts as in feminine singular nouns, the
resolution value is fem plural, which violates the ident constraint ∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)].
However, the feminine plural value is the optimal one since it does not violate the SemNr,
which is placed higher in the ranking, and the ∀c[identG(c,ph)], which outranks the
markedness constraints.
(58) I kuzina ke i
the.fem.sg
kathares
clean.fem.pl
kitchen.fem.sg and the.fem.sg
‘The kitchen and the bathroom are both clean’
(Badecker, 2008, 11)
The table below shows the optimal form of the relevant example:
tualeta
bathroom.fem.sg
Table 3.5: MG Coordinate Nouns
Identical Gender Conjuncts
[f.sg & f.sg]index a SemNr ∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)] ∀c[identG(c,ph)] *F *M *N
α= n.sg *! * * *
α= m.sg *! * * *
α= f.sg *! *
α= n.pl * *! *
α= m.pl * *! *
Zα= f.pl * *
(Badecker, 2008, 12)
In mixed gender cases, he argues that in masculine and feminine singular conjuncts,
resolution is neut plural, as in example (59). In masculine and feminine plural conjuncts,
resolution is masc plural, as in example (60):
(59) O dromos ke i
the.masc.sg road.masc.sg and the.fem.sg
jemata kosmo
full.neut.pl of-people
‘The road and the square were full of people.’
platia
square.fem.sg
(60) I
dromi ke i
the.masc/fem.pl roads.masc.pl and the.masc/fem.pl
platies itan jemati kosmo
squares.fem.pl were full.mpl of-people
‘The roads and the squares were full of people’
(Badecker, 2008, 14)
itan
were
According to the ranking of the constraints proposed by Badecker (2008), the above
resolution forms depend mostly on the gender markedness constraints and on the identity
constraint ∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)], which determines number and gender simultaneously and
is ranked above the markedness constraints for the three genders. In table (3.6), which
corresponds to example (59), we see that conjoined singular nouns violate both identity
constraints, thus markedness constraints will determine the gender option. Since neuter is
the least marked gender, the resolved form is neut plural (Badecker, 2008, 14):
ine
are

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 49
Table 3.6: MG Coordinate Nouns
Conjoined Masculine and Feminine singular conjuncts
[m.sg & f.sg]index a SemNr ∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)] ∀c[identG(c,ph)] *F *M *N
α= n.sg *! * * *
α= m.sg *! * *
α= f.sg *! * *
Zα= n.pl * * *
α= m.pl * * *!
α= f.pl * * *!
(Badecker, 2008, 14)
In table (3.7), which refers to example (60), neuter plural resolution violates the identity
constraint for gender and number (∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)]), whereas neither masculine plural
nor feminine plural violate the same constraint. Therefore, there are only two possible
resolved forms between masculine and feminine, which makes masc plural the resolution
value:
Table 3.7: MG Coordinate Nouns
Conjoined Masculine and Feminine plural conjuncts
[m.pl & f.pl]index a SemNr ∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)] ∀c[identG(c,ph)] *F *M *N
α= n.sg *! * * *
α= m.sg *! * * *
α= f.sg *! * * *
α= n.pl *! * *
Zα= m.pl * *
α= f.pl * *!
(Badecker, 2008, 14)
The same constraints hold for a number of other attested resolution patterns concerning
languages such as French and Italian, Icelandic, Serbian and Croatian, but the ranking is
different conforming to the resolution patterns of each language. Badecker (2008) presents
the resolution patterns of Italian and French in a tabular form as follows:
Table 3.8: Syntactic resolution patterns for Italian and French
UNIFORM GENDER MIXED GENDER
Italian, French: m & m = m m & f = m
f & f = f
(Badecker, 2008, 9)
According to Badecker (2008) the following constraint ranking works for languages such
as Italian and French:
(61) Italian, French etc.
*N ≫ ... ≫ SemNr ≫ ∀c[identG(c,ph)] ≫ *F ≫ *M ≫∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)]
(Badecker, 2008, 10)
To account for mixed gender conjuncts the identity constraint ∀c[identG(c,ph)] is placed
higher than the two gender markedness constraints *F and *M while *F is also placed higher
than *M. For cases of identical gender conjuncts, Badecker (2008) places the markedness
constraints below the ident constraint while number is accounted again by the high position
of the SemNr constraint. The table below shows the optimal form of a mixed gender
combination:

3.2 Theoretical Approaches to Predicate-Argument Agreement 50
Table 3.9: Italian/French Coordinate Nouns
Mixed gender combinations
[m.pl & f.pl]index a *N SemNr ∀c[identG(c,ph)] *F *M ∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)]
α= n.sg *! * * *
α= m.sg *! * * *
α= f.sg *! * * *
α= n.pl *! * *
Zα= m.pl * *
α= f.pl * *!
(Badecker, 2008, 14)
Other laguages, such as Serbian/Croatian, Slovene and Icelandic 7 are analysed but we
will not discuss the analysis here due to space limitations.
According to Badecker (2008), the above gender resolution patterns obey the syntactic
resolution principle (Corbett, 1991; Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003) since they are determined by
morphological properties like gender and number, which are syntactic features. He proposes
a similar analysis for languages whose resolved gender is controlled by semantic factors,
such as the animacy (or human/non-human) of the conjuncts. In Latin, for example, he
accounts for semantic resolution by assuming that the semantic distinctions correspond
to morpho-syntactic features like [± Animate] (or [±Human]). The resolution patterns in
Latin for identical or mixed gender conjuncts are presented below:
Table 3.10: Semantically motivated resolution for Latin
MIXED GENDER
uniform gender uniformly [+human] uniformly [-human]
m & m = m m & f = m m & f = n
f & f = f m & n = m m & n = n
n & n = n f & n = m f & n = n
(Badecker, 2008, 9)
In example (62), the coordinate phrase consists of a masculine and a feminine [-human]
conjunct which resolve to neuter plural. In example (63), the conjuncts are masculine and
feminine but since they are [+human], they resolve to masculine:
(62) Murus et porta de caelo
wall.masc.sg
errant
were
and gate.fem.sg from sky
‘The wall and gate have been struck by lightening’
(63) Quam pridem pater mehi
how long-ago father.masc.sg me.dat
mortu-i essen
dead.masc.pl were
‘How long ago my father and mother had died’
(Corbett, 1991; Badecker, 2008)
et
and
tact-a
struck.neut.pl
mater
mother.fem.sg
Badecker (2008) introduces an extra constraint to account for the [±Human] distinction,
which is a combination of the markedness constraint *N with the *[+Human] feature. Its
function is to exclude neuter as a resolution value for conjoined [+Human] NPs. The
7 For a complete discussion on the ranking of constraints and relevant examples in Serbian/Croatian,
Slovene and Icelandic see Badecker (2008, 20-26).

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 51
problem with this constraint is that it also disallows neuter as the resolved gender for
conjoined nouns that are both neuter. To avoid that, Badecker (2008) places this constraint
lower in the ranking, below the ident constraint for gender, but above the markedness
constraints. Finally, the feature [Human] is assigned to the conjoined phrase, when the
conjuncts are either [+Human] or [-Human], and this will only affect gender resolution
in mixed gender phrases because the ident constraint ∀c[identG(c,ph)] is placed higher
than the rest of the constraints which relate to gender.
(64) Latin
SemNr ≫ ∀c[identG(c,ph)] ≫ *N&*[+Human] ≫ *F ≫ *M ≫ *N
(Badecker, 2008, 25)
The tables below display how ranking works. For mixed gender cases every resolution
value will necessarily violate the constraint ∀c[identG(c,ph)] and therefore the markedness
constraints will determine the gender value from the least marked to the most marked in
[+H] nouns. In table (3.11), gender resolution for [-H] will be determined by the ranking
of the simple markedness constraints (*F > *M > *N) since *N&[+H] is not violated by
any resolution options and the resolved gender is always neut:
Table 3.11: Latin Coordinate Nouns
Gender resolution as modulated by [-Human]
[m.sg,[-h] & f.sg,[-h]]index a ∀c[identG(c,ph)] *N&*[+Human] *F *M *N ∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)]
Zα= n.pl,[-h] * * *
α= m.pl,[-h] * *!
α= f.pl,[-h] * *!
(Badecker, 2008, 22)
In table (3.12), gender resolution for [+H] will exclude neuter as the resolved gender due
to the locally conjoined markedness constraint *N&[+H] while the remaining options are
controlled by the rest of the constraints and the resulting value is masc for any combination
of conjunct genders which are [+Human]:
Table 3.12: Latin Coordinate Nouns
Gender resolution as modulated by [+Human]
[m.sg,[+h] & f.sg,[+h]]index a ∀c[identG(c,ph)] *N&*[+Human] *F *M *N ∃c[identN ,G(c,ph)]
α= n.pl,[+h] * *! * *
Zα= m.pl,[+h] * *
α= f.pl,[+h] * *!
(Badecker, 2008, 22)
To conclude, the above constraint-based approach which depends on the ranking of
those constraints captures the multiple patterns and it is rather flexible since each language,
depending on the data requirements, adopts a different ranking of the constraints and
allows the admission of new constraints. Two problems are that it becomes non-economical
through the addition of different constraints for different languages, and the ranking of the
various forms leading to an optimal form is not favoured in agreement cases where more
than one agreement form is considered grammatically correct, such as the ones we will
discuss in MG. These issues are discussed in the last section.
3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement
The theoretical approaches to head-modifier agreement in coordinate structures analyse
NP-internal coordination following the two-fold nature of agreement features index and

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 52
concord within the noun phrase and the distinction between distributive and nondistributive
features. The theories that will be presented here are those proposed by Kathol (1999)
and Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) in HPSG, King and Dalrymple (2004) and Dalrymple and
Nikolaeva (2006) in LFG, focusing on number.
3.3.1 Agreement in HPSG
A number of recent proposals in NP agreement in HPSG have postulated the existence of
a head feature agr (Kathol, 1999) or concord (Wechsler and Zlatić, 2000) responsible
for morphosyntactic agreement, together with the index feature responsible for semantic
agreement.
Kathol (1999) extends the treatment of agreement introduced by Pollard and Sag (1994)
and treats agreement as a phenomenon which “involves merging of information contributed
by various resources in the sentence” (Kathol, 1999, 234). He proposes that selector categories,
such as verbs, record their own morphosyntactic agreement features and also select
the agreement features of their argument. This results in structure sharing within the
selector category. For example, in English the verb walks has the following lexical entry:
(65) ⎡
⎡ ⎤⎤
finite
⎢
⎢ ⎥⎥
⎢cat|hd|morsyn|
agr ⎣pers
1 3rd⎦
⎥
⎢
num 2 sg
⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ walking
⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎡ ⎤⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢ index ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢cont⎢
⎢
⎢ ⎢ ⎢pers
⎥
⎥ ⎥
1⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢walker
3 ⎢ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎣ ⎣ ⎣num
2 ⎦
⎥ ⎥
⎦ ⎥
⎦
gend
(Kathol, 1999, 236)
The above entry shows that only pers and num are involved in subject-verb agreement
since these two features are appropriate for the subsort finite of agr. Also, the value of
these features is structure-shared with the value of the same features found on the index of
subject of the verb. Finally, agr, which is the value of morsyn, is part of a larger group
of linguistic information 8 .
Kathol (1999) posits two types of agreement, morphosyntactic and semantic as follows:
(66) morphosyntactic agr(selector) ≈ 9 agr(arg)
semantic agr(selector) ≈ index(arg)
For instance, the following example in French is a hybrid case of agreement, combining
subject-verb morphosyntactic num agreement, subject-verb semantic pers agreement, and
semantic gend and num agreement between the predicative adjective and the noun:
(67) Vous êtes belle
you.2.pl are.pl beautiful.sg.fem
‘You are beautiful’ (Kathol, 1999, 239)
Morphosyntactic num agreement between the subject and the verb is given by the agr
feature. Semantic pers agreement between the verb and the subject and gend and num
agreement between the predicative adjective and the noun are given by the index feature.
8 For a more elaborate f-structure and detailed explanations of it see Kathol (1999, 236-9).
9 The symbol “≈” means “is structured-shared in its relevant parts with” (Kathol, 1999, 241).

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 53
In French, index also reflects the anchoring conditions, meaning that if a phrase refers to a
female individual the index in its gend feature will have the value fem. However, the analysis
proposed for French does not hold for all languages but it varies since morphosyntactic
and semantic agreement differs from language to language 10 . Kathol’s proposal, who posits
a distinction between morphosyntactic and semantic agreement, captures a wide range of
data that cannot be accounted for by the analysis proposed by Pollard and Sag (1994).
Pollard and Sag (1994, 61) assume a distinction between index agreement, which arises
when indices are required to be token identical, concord or syntactic agreement, which
involves structure-sharing between features (referring mainly to the features of case and
declension class in German) on “selector” and selected category, and pragmatic agreement,
which arises when contextual background assumptions need to be consistent.
Wechsler and Zlatić (2000) also treat agreement as hybrid or mixed and present a theory
of agreement in Serbo-Croatian. They view agreement in terms of “two elements specifying
partial information about a single linguistic object” (Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 7) and this
information coming from the two elements must be compatible to result in agreement. They
assume that any “inflected noun has two different feature sets that determine the agreement
values it triggers” (Wechsler and Zlatić, 2000, 7pp). These are concord, which involves
the features case, num and gender, and index which involves the features person, num
and gender.
The concord features of a noun are related to the noun’s inflected form. Thus,
concord|gender is related to the declension class of a noun and concord|case and
concord|number determine its inflected form. The relation between morphology and
concord is shown as follows:
(68) morphology ⇐⇒ concord
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2000, 800)
On the other hand, index|gender and index|number are associated to the noun’s
semantics, i.e. whether the noun denotes a male or female or an aggregate or non-aggregate
entity. This is shown as follows:
(69) index ⇐⇒ semantics
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2000, 800)
The concord and index features are related to each other as follows:
(70) concord ⇐⇒ index
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2000, 800)
Wechsler and Zlatić (2000) summarise in a schema the four types of information concerning
a noun as follows:
(71) morphology ⇐⇒ concord ⇐⇒ index ⇐⇒ semantics
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2000, 800)
The main focus of their work is cases of mismatch agreement and they predict three
types of mismatches in languages such as Serbo-Croatian. The first mismatch occurs between
declension and concord. For example, some nouns have masculine grammatical properties
and they refer to males but they decline following the declension used for feminine
nouns such as Serbian/Croatian. A second mismatch is between index and the semantics
of a noun. For example, a noun may refer to a female but governs masculine agreement.
10 For the discussion of languages such as Spanish, German and English see Kathol (1999, 234-250).

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 54
Finally, the mismatch we are interested in is that between concord and index. They give as
a characteristic example the Serbo-Croatian noun deca ‘children’. This noun triggers feminine
singular agreement on attributive modifiers and non-finite predicate phrases, which
is syntactic agreement, but it triggers neuter plural agreement on coreferential pronouns,
which is semantic agreement. This is illustrated below:
(72) Posmatrali smo ovu dobru decu.
watched.1pl aux this.f.sg good.f.sg children.acc.
su se lepo igrala
aux.3pl refl nicely played.nt.pl
‘We watched these good childreni. Theyi played well.’
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2000, 51)
Ona
they.nt.pl
Wechsler and Zlatić (2000) introduce the following lexical information for the noun
deca:
(73) ⎡ ⎤
num sing
⎢
concord ⎥
⎢ gend fem ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎣ num plur ⎥
index
⎦
gend neut
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 51)
The noun specifies two different features concord and index. concord refers to the
morphosyntactic agreement and index to the semantic agreement. For Serbo-Croatian, determiners,
attributive adjectives and secondary predicates show concord agreement whereas
verbs, primary predicates and bound anaphors show index agreement.
Both approaches proposed by Kathol (1999) and Wechsler and Zlatić (2000) are consistent
with Corbett’s distinction between “agreement ad formam” (syntactic agreement)
and “agreement ad sensum” (semantic agreement) and his “agreement hierarchy” (Corbett,
1979, 1983a, 1991), presented below:
(74) The Agreement Hierarchy
attributive < predicate < relative pronoun < personal pronoun
Corbett (1979) also suggests that the following constraint on agreement systems hold:
(75) As we move rightwards along the hierarchy, the likelihood of semantic agreement
will increase monotonically (Corbett, 1979, 210)
Both approaches capture agreement mismatches and also form the basis for the introduction
of the same features with a similar function in Lexical Functional Grammar.
3.3.2 King and Dalrymple’s Theory
Determiner-noun agreement is straightforward with noncoordinate constructions but more
complicated with coordinate nouns. In general, in noncoordinate nouns, a singular determiner
goes with a singular noun and a plural determiner goes with a plural noun (King
and Dalrymple, 2004). In coordinate phrases, however, agreement is not always straightforward.
In English, for instance, in example (76) the singular determiner will modify two
singular conjuncts. The phrase as a whole, however, behaves as a plural phrase and forces
plural agreement to the predicate, as in example (77):
(76) This boy and girl/ a boy and girl

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 55
(77) This boy and girl are happy
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 69)
In plural number, the plural determiner will modify two plural conjuncts:
(78) These boys and girls (King and Dalrymple, 2004, 69)
Mixed coordinations where one conjunct is singular and the other is plural require
separate determiners:
(79) These boys and girl*/These boys and this girl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 69)
King and Dalrymple (2004) adopt the concord and index feature distinction within
the noun phrase (Chapter 2, section 2.4.1.3). They show that a phrase such as this boy and
girl has a singular concord value and a plural index value, accounting for the singular
number in the determiner and the two conjuncts, and the plural number in the verb,
respectively. The concord and index distinction is straightforwardly related to the LFG
distinction between distributive and nondistributive features.
Unlike concord, index is a non-distributive feature. The following definition for
index agreement is repeated from above:
(80) index agreement with a coordinate phrase depends on the index features of the
coordinate phrase as a whole. (King and Dalrymple, 2004, 74)
In particular, a coordinate phrase is treated as plural due to the presence of a pl value
in its index feature regardless of whether its conjuncts are singular or plural. Even a
phrase with singular nouns behaves as a plural phrase:
(81) Joe and Fred are happy
King and Dalrymple (2004, 74) propose a distinction between semantic number and
syntactic (index) number. They argue that semantically the number feature of a phrase
represents the number of individuals it refers to. When one referent is denoted the num
has a singular value but when more than one referent is denoted the value is plural. As
mentioned above, coordinate phrases usually refer to more than one individual; thus, the
phrase this boy and girl behaves as a plural phrase and has a plural value in its num
feature, as shown in S-V agreement:
(82) This boy and girl are happy
There are cases, however, when a coordinate phrase refers to a single individual, as in
my friend and colleague. In this case, the phrase behaves like a singular phrase and the
value of the num feature is singular:
(83) My friend and colleague is eating a pizza
King and Dalrymple (2004) associate this semantic distinction with a syntactic distinction
in index num requirements. They suggest that a phrase like this boy and girl involves
a group-forming interpretation of the conjunction and, requiring a pl value for the index
num of the noun phrase since the group is composed of ‘a boy and a girl’. They propose
the following LFG annotation:
(84) Group-forming and
(↑index num) = pl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 76)

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 56
Heycock and Zamparelli (2000, 2005) use the term split interpretation/reading to refer to
the group-forming interpretation of the conjunction and.
On the other hand, a coordinate phrase like my friend and colleague denotes a Boolean
interpretation of and, meaning that the individual or individuals referred to have both
properties simultaneously. Thus, in example (83) each individual must be a friend and a
colleague at the same time. In this case, syntactically the index num of the coordinate
phrase must be the same as the index num of one of the conjuncts, annotated as follows:
(85) Boolean and
(↑index num) = (↑∈ index num)
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 76)
The notation (↑∈index num) refers to a member of the conjunct set where the set
membership symbol is an attribute. At the same time, they assume that semantically
all of the conjuncts have the same number. Phrases like my friend and colleaques have
no boolean interpretation since the singular noun friend and the plural noun colleaques
cannot corefer to the same entity. Heycock and Zamparelli (2000, 2005) use the term joint
interpretation/reading for the Boolean and.
The concord feature is a distributive feature, associated only with the individual
members of the set representing the coordinate phrase and not the set as a whole. The
following definition for concord agreement is repeated from above:
(86) concord agreement with a coordinate phrase depends on the concord features
of each conjunct. (King and Dalrymple, 2004, 77)
A singular determiner will require singular conjuncts and a plural determiner plural conjuncts
since the concord features of the conjuncts must match the concord features of
the determiner in order to be licenced.
The f-structure of the coordinate phrase this boy and girl illustrates the above:
⎡
⎤
(87) spec ‘this’(nondistrib. feat. of c)
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num pl](nondistrib. feat. of c) ⎥
⎢
⎢⎧
⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
⎢ pred ‘boy’
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥
⎥
⎢ b: ⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦
⎥
c: ⎢⎪⎨
⎪⎬
⎢ index [num sg]
⎥
⎢
⎡
⎤
⎥
⎢ pred ‘girl’
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
g:
⎣
⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦
⎥
⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎦
index [num sg]
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 77)
In the f-structure above, the set c has both nondistributive and distributive features. The
spec feature with its value ‘this’ and the index feature with its value [num pl] are the
nondistributive features. These are associated with the whole set c while the index pl
feature-value means that the verb is required to show plural agreement. The coordinate
structure also has features which are associated with each of the members b and g of the set
c. These are concord with value [num sg] and index with value [num sg]. The concord
feature is a distributive feature and it can never be associated with the coordinate phrase
as a whole.
The complete representation of the singular coordinate phrase this boy and girl, including
the lexical entry of the determiner, is presented below:

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 57
(88) This boy and girl
this: (↑concord num) = sg
DET
this
NP
N
boy
N
Conj
and
N
girl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 78)
⎡
⎤
spec ‘this’(nondis. feat. )
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num pl](nondis. feat.) ⎥
⎢
⎢⎧
⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
⎢ pred ‘boy’
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥ ⎥
⎢ b: ⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
c: ⎢⎪⎨
⎪⎬
⎢ index [num sg]
⎥
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘girl’
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥ ⎥
g:
⎣
⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎦
index [num sg]
The following example shows the corresponding plural coordinate phrase these boys
and girls, in which the demonstrative determiner specifies in its lexical entry a concord
feature with a [num pl] value and would require conjuncts with the same value:
(89) These boys and girls
these: (↑concord num) = pl
DET
these
NP
N
boys
N
Conj
and
N
girls
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 80)
⎡
⎤
spec ‘these’
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num pl] ⎥
⎢
⎢⎧
⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
⎢ pred ‘boys’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥ ⎥
⎢ b: ⎣concord
[num pl] ⎦ ⎥
c: ⎢⎪⎨
⎪⎬
⎢ index [num pl]
⎥
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘girls’
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥ ⎥
g:
⎣
⎣concord
[num pl] ⎦ ⎥
⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎦
index [num pl]
Coordinations modified by either a singular or a plural determiner in which one noun is
singular and the other is plural are disallowed. The reason is that the two nouns will have
f-structures with concord and index [num sg] feature-values and concord and index
[num pl] feature-values, respectively. When these coordinated nouns are modified by a
determiner that requires concord [num sg], the sg value is incompatible with the value
of the pl conjunct and when they are modified by a determiner that requires concord
[num pl], the pl value is incompatible with the value of the sg conjunct, resulting in
ungrammaticallity:
(90) *This boy and girls
DET
this
NP
N
boy
N
Conj
and
N
girls
⎡
⎤
spec ‘this’
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num sg]
⎥
⎢
⎢⎧
⎡
⎤ ⎫ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘boy’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥ ⎥
⎢ b: ⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
c: ⎢⎪⎨
⎪⎬ ⎥
⎢ index [num sg] ⎥
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘girls’
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥ ⎥
g:
⎣
⎣concord
[num pl/sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎦
index [num pl]

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 58
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 81)
King and Dalrymple (2004) consider both the concord and index features as central
to NP-internal agreement. Some languages may require both features or just one of the
two features to participate in agreement. Based on this assumption, they propose four
possible agreement patterns in NP-internal agreement in terms of the number feature: an
unrestricted one, the concord/index one, the concord one and the index one.
The first one is the least restricted according to which the determiner places no constraints
on the number of the nouns it combines with. A characteristic example in English
is the definite determiner the, which can combine with coordinated singular nouns, plural
nouns and even mixed number plural and singular nouns. The lexical entry of the
determiner is as follows:
(91) the: (↑spec) = ‘the’
All the examples below are well formed:
(92) a. the dog and cat
b. the dogs and cats
c. the dogs and cat
The second system is the most restrictive and involves both index agreement and redundantly
concord agreement in the singular, and concord agreement and redundantly
index agreement in the plural. The singular determiner can modify singular nouns or singular
coordinated nouns, which refer to the same individual, as in my friend and colleague.
Determiner sharing is not allowed with conjoined singular nouns referring to more than
one individual or with coordinated structures consisting of mixed number conjuncts. The
plural determiner can modify plural nouns and coordinated plural nouns, but it cannot
modify coordinations where one of the conjuncts is singular (King and Dalrymple, 2004,
85). For this system, the following annotations are proposed:
(93) concord and index systems:
a. Singular determiner
(↑concord num) = sg
(↑index num) = sg
b. Plural determiner
(↑concord num) = pl
(↑index num) = pl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 85)
According to King and Dalrymple (2004), languages falling within such a system are
Brazilian Portuguese and German. In Brazilian Portuguese, the singular determiner o ‘the’
can modify a singular noun, as in (94), and coordinated singular nouns referring to the
same individual (joint reading), as in (95), but not nouns with different referents, as in
(96):
(94) o
the.m.sg
‘The dog’
cachorro
dog.m.sg

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 59
(95) o
the.m.sg
presidente
president.m.sg
e
and
‘The president and director of Air France’
(96) *o
the.m.sg
cachorro
dog.m.sg
e
and
‘The dog and cat’
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 91)
gato
cat.m.sg
The lexical entry of the determiner o is as follows:
(97) o: (↑spec) = ‘the’
(↑concord num) = sg
(↑index num) = sg
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 92)
diretor
director.m.sg
da
of
Air France
Air France
Since the definite determiner specifies a sg value for the index num feature, a coordinate
phrase with pl value in its index num feature, as the one in (96), would conflict the
requirement of the determiner and would result in an ungrammatical phrase.
The third system involves concord features only. A singular determiner can modify
singular nouns and coordinated structures with singular conjuncts. A plural determiner
can modify a plural noun and coordinate phrases with plural nouns. Determiner sharing
is disallowed with mixed number coordinate nouns (King and Dalrymple, 2004, 86). The
annotations for this system are as follows:
(98) concord systems:
a. Singular determiner
(↑concord num) = sg
b. Plural determiner
(↑concord num) = pl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 86)
Apart form the English demonstrative determiner this/these and that/ those, a language
with such a system is Finnish and Hindi/Urdu. The following examples, are from
Finnish (King and Dalrymple, 2004, 89). In (99), the determiner tämä ‘this’ can modify a
singular noun. In (100), it modifies two singular conjuncts but not a singular and a plural
conjunct, as in (101):
(99) tämä
this.sg
‘this cat’
(100) tämä
this.sg
(101) *tämä
this.sg
kissa
cat.sg
kissa
cat.sg
‘this cat and dog’
kissa
cat.sg
‘this cat and dog’
ja
and
ja
and
koira
dog.sg
koirat
dog.pl
The lexical entry of the determiner tämä ‘this’ is as follows:

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 60
(102) tämä: (↑spec) = ‘tämä’
(↑concord num) = sg
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 89)
The sg value in the concord num feature distributes to each conjunct and requires the
same sg value in the concord num feature of the individual conjuncts; otherwise the
result is ungrammatical.
The last system they propose is the index only which is not very common crosslinguistically
and places constraints on the index feature only. This system allows a plural
determiner to modify either a plural noun or coordinated singular nouns referring to different
individuals, while a singular determiner can modify a singular noun or singular
coordinated nouns only if they refer to the same individual (King and Dalrymple, 2004,
86). Such a language is Russian. The annotations for the index system are as follows:
(103) index system
a. Singular determiner
(↑index num) = sg
b. Plural determiner
(↑index num) = pl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 86)
In example (104), the singular determiner étot/éta/éto ‘this’ modifies a nonconjoined
singular noun, while in (105) it modifies a coordinate noun phrase with singular conjuncts,
referring to the same individual:
(104) éta
this.f.sg
‘this woman’
(105) étot
this.m.sg
ˇzenˇsčina
woman.f.sg
drug
friend.m.sg
i
and
‘this friend and colleague’
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 95)
kollega
colleague.m.sg
The plural determiner éti modifies a plural noun, as in (106), coordinated plural nouns,
as in (107), and singular coordinated nouns, which refer to more than one individual, as in
(108):
(106) éti
these.pl
‘these men’
(107) éti
these.pl
muˇzčny
man.m.pl
muˇzčiny
man.m.pl
‘these men and women’
(108) éti
these.pl
muˇzcina
man.m.sg
i
and
i
and
‘this man and woman’
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 95)
ˇzenˇsčiny
woman.f.pl
ˇzenˇsčina
woman.f.sg
The lexical entry for this type of determiners is presented below:

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 61
(109) éti: (↑spec) = ‘éti’
(↑index num) = pl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 96)
Such a determiner constrains the index value of the coordinate phrase as a whole and
therefore it can be used even with singular nouns.
To conclude, King and Dalrymple (2004) introduce three different agreement systems
based on the distinction between index and concord agreement features and capture a
wide range of data concerning number NP-internal agreement in coordinated constructions.
3.3.3 Dalrymple and Nikolaeva’s theory of natural and accidental coordination
Another theory concerning NP-internal agreement is that proposed by Dalrymple and
Nikolaeva (2006). They examine agreement phenomena in adjectives modifying coordinated
nouns in Finnish and propose a special f-structure for coordinate nouns that are
cases of “natural” coordination, which is different from the f-structure of nouns in “accidental”
coordination. The distinction between “natural” and “accidental” noun phrase
coordination turns out to be an important factor in explaining some agreement patterns
in MG.
Adjectives in Finnish agree with the nouns they modify in number. Singular nouns are
modified by singular adjectives and plural nouns by plural adjectives, as in the following
examples:
(110) iloinen
happy.sg
poika
boy.sg
‘the/a happy boy’
(111) iloiset
happy.pl
pojat
boy.pl
‘the happy boys’
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 824)
In coordinated constructions, plural nouns are modified by a plural adjective, which
scopes over both conjuncts, as seen in example (112). There are cases, however, when
singular nouns are modified by a plural adjective, as in (113):
(112) nuoria
young.part.pl
‘young [girls and boys]’
(113) Iloiset
happy.pl
kädessä
hand.ines
mies
man.sg
tyttöjä
girls.part.pl
ja
and
ja
and
poika
boy.sg
poikia
boys.part.pl
lähtivät
left.3.pl
‘The happy [man and boy] left together hand in hand’
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 825)
yhdessä
together
käsi
hand
In other cases, a plural adjective with singular nouns is considered ungrammatical, as
in (114):
(114) *Han
he
osti
bought.3.sg
uudet
new.acc.pl
‘He bought a new [house and car]’
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 829)
talon
house.acc
ja
and
auton
car.acc

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 62
Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) show that the acceptance of a plural adjective in
singular coordinated nouns is attributed to a semantic distinction between “natural” and
“accidental” coordination (Haspelmath, 2004a; Wälchli, 2005). Thus, plural adjectives
with singular conjuncts are allowed only with naturally coordinated nouns while accidental
coordination disallows them.
In general, accidental coordination refers to “coordination of items that are not expected
to co-occur and which do not have a close semantic relation”(Wälchli, 2005, 5), and natural
coordination refers to “a semantic relation in which two entities are closely related in
meaning and form a conceptual unit” (Haspelmath, 2004a; Wälchli, 2005). There are
cases, however, when natural coordination is marked syntactically.
Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) show that, apart from the semantic relation between
the two conjuncts in a natural coordination construction, there are various syntactic characteristics
that are found in these structures. Natural coordination constructions often
include special coordination markers. For example, Udine, which is a ‘with’ language
(Stassen, 2000) 11 , uses the postposition zuÒe ‘with’ in accidental coordination but the
postposition mule ‘with’ to denote natural coordination. This is illustrated below:
(115) Natural Coordination
bi
I
mamasa
wife
‘I and my wife’
mule/*zuÒe
with/with
(116) Accidental Coordination
bi
I
Sergej
Sergej
zuÒe/*mule
with/with
‘I and Sergej’
(Stassen (2000), cited in Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006, 831))
Also, natural coordination often involves what Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) refer
to as phonological reduction of the coordination markers. They present an example from
the Oceanic languages claiming that in Lenakel the conjunction m is often found in natural
coordination, which is a phonologically reduced form of m@ne found in accidental
coordination (Moyse-Faurie and Lynch, 2004).
Another characteristic of natural coordination is “tight coordination” (Dalrymple and
Nikolaeva, 2006, 831). This means that features such as definiteness, case, possession,
number are marked only once or not at all in the coordinate phrase. Thus, in German
some cases of natural coordination lack determiners completely, a pattern which is generally
disallowed under accidental coordination. This is presented below:
(117) Natural Coordination
Sonne
sun
und
and
Mond
moon
‘the sun and the moon’
(118) Accidental Coordination
der
the
Mond
moon
und
and
ein
a
Sechser
sixpence
11 According to Stassen (2000), a ‘with’ language is one in which nominal coordination is expressed by an
adpositional phrase with the postposition ‘with’ so that the conjuncts have a different syntactic status.

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 63
‘the moon and sixpence’
(Lambrecht (1984), cited in Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006, 831))
Finally, in Eastern Armenian natural coordination involves a single inflectional marking,
seen below:
(119) Natural Coordination
ał
salt
u
and
hac’-d
bread.2sg
‘your salt and bread’
(120) Accidental Coordination
dproc’-i-s
school.dat.1sg
ev
and
usuc’ič’-ner-i-s
teacherpl.dat.1sg
‘for my school and my teacher’
(Minassian (1980), cited in Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006, 831))
Although the above characteristics are associated with cases of natural coordination in
the above languages, they can occasionally occur in cases of accidental coordination too 12 .
Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) point out that not all languages use the above syntactic
characteristics in natural coordination. There are languages that may not use any of these
forms but still display cases of natural coordination, relying only on the relation between
the nouns. Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) assume the existence of two types of relations
between the conjuncts within a natural coordination construction. The first is an intrinsic
relation, such as that of ‘father and mother’ or ‘cup and saucer’ and may involve cases of
reduced syntax, or frozen word order (Benor and Levy, 2006). The second type of relation
is “contextually specified” and depends on information derived from previous discourse or
general world knowledge (Lambrecht, 1984; Heycock and Zamparelli, 2003; Dalrymple and
Nikolaeva, 2006). For example, Wälchli (2005) presents the two nouns Igor-t Natashǎt
‘Igor and Natasha’. He argues that these nouns are not intrinsically but contextually
related since they are perceived as partners and they are coordinated without the need for
the conjunction di ‘and’, which is found in accidental coordination 13 . This second type is
also found in natural coordination structures of the Finnish language.
Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) argue that in Finnish the semantic distinction beween
natural and accidental coordination is expressed by different syntactic constructions without
the need “for different coordination strategies or different morphosyntactic markings
on conjuncts”(825) in these constructions. In fact, Finnish natural coordination structures
resemble those of accidental coordination but their difference lies in the syntactic features
that are associated with each structure. The features of natural coordination have similarities
with the features of plural nouns. Natural coordination admits a plural adjective and
two singular nouns while the nouns are usually contextually related.
In Finnish, two specific structures admit a plural adjective with singular nouns and
exhibit natural coordination. The first one is when a plural “symmetric” adjective, such
as similar, matching or compatible modifies two singular coordinate nouns. The following
example is acceptable according to the speakers:
12 Some exceptions are discussed in Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006).
13 More arguments to support the same view are presented in Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006, 832),
Lambrecht (1984, 794) and Heycock and Zamparelli (2003, 445).

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 64
(121) On
is
ja
and
vaikeaa
difficult
teatteri
theatre
suunnitella
design
yhteensopivat/*yhteensopiva
compatible.pl/*compatible.sg
‘It is difficult to design a compatible [university and theatre]’
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 826)
yliopisto
university
The second structure is when the nouns have any of the semantic features of definiteness,
animacy and humaness and are in subject position. In the following example, repeated from
above, the conjuncts are both considered as definite, human and occur in subject position:
(122) Iloiset
happy.pl
mies
man.sg
ja
and
poika
boy.sg
lähtivät
left.3.pl
‘The happy [man and boy] left together hand in hand’
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 825)
yhdessä
together
käsikädessä
hand-hand.ines
Also, in the example below, although the two nouns are definite inanimate nouns, a
plural adjective is still allowed according to Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006), since the two
conjuncts refer to unique entities, they are subjects, and resemble somehow proper names:
(123) ...wieniläiset
...Viennese.pl
kuoro
choir
ja
and
orkesteri
orchestra
hyökyvät
surge.3.pl
‘...Viennese choir and orchestra surge as they should’
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 828)
kuin
as
pitää
needed
Finally, Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) argue that when conjuncts are indefinite then
plural modification is less frequent and most of the times totally ungrammatical. Thus,
the following example cannot be accepted by native speakers of Finnish:
(124) *Tässä
this.ines
kaupungissa
city.ines
on
is
hyvät
good.pl
yliopisto
university
‘There is a good university and theatre in this city’
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 829)
ja
and
teatteri
theatre
To summarise the findings of Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006), all speakers accept a
plural adjective with two singular conjuncts when the modifier is symmetric and when the
conjuncts are either definite, animate, or human and in subject position. Speakers reject
in general indefinites and non-subject definites with plural adjectives 14 . The acceptance
of a plural adjective with two singular nouns is attributed to the phenomenon of natural
coordination. Thus, Finnish is one of those languages that allows both natural and accidental
coordination. Accidental coordination is found with any kind of nouns without
any restrictions either syntactic or semantic in the coordinate structure but modification of
singular conjuncts by a plural adjective is disallowed. Natural coordination, on the other
hand, involves contextually related nouns which occur in singular number and are modified
by a plural adjective, without using any specific syntactic constructions, such as tight
coordination or inflectional marking.
Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) capture natural coordination phenomena within LFG
and assume the concord and index feature distinction. Accidentally coordinated singular
nouns talo ja auto ‘house and car’ have plural index since the coordinate phrase is plural as
a whole, and singular concord because each conjunct is singular. The example is shown
below:
14 A detailed analysis and presentation of the Finnish data and some exceptions are found in Dalrymple
and Nikolaeva (2006, 825-30).

3.3 Theoretical Approaches to Head-Modifier Agreement 65
(125) Accidental coordination
*vanhat/*vanha
old.pl/old.sg
‘old [house and car]’
AdjP
Adj
*vanhat/*vanha
NP
N’
talo
house
N
talo
N’
N
Conj
ja
ja
and
N
auto
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 840)
auto
car
⎡
⎤
adj [pred ‘old’]
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num pl] ⎥
⎢
⎢⎧
⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
⎢ pred ‘house’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎢⎪⎨
⎪⎬ ⎥
⎢ index [num sg] ⎥
⎢
⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘car’
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥ ⎥
⎣
⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎦
index [num sg]
Finnish adjectives constrain both the concord and index values of the conjuncts,
meaning that a singular adjective requires singular concord and index and a plural
adjective requires plural concord and index. The example above cannot be modified
by either a singular or a plural adjective. A singular adjective is disallowed with singular
conjuncts since the phrase ‘house and car’ has plural index, contradicting the singular
index required by the adjective, leading to agreement feature mismatch. Similarly, a
plural adjective is also disallowed since ‘house and car’ has singular concord but the
adjective requires plural concord and again the agreement features do not match.
In Finnish plural adjectives are allowed with singular conjuncts in natural coordination.
In order to capture this structure, Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) assume that Finnish
specifies a different functional structure, which resembles somehow that of a simple plural
noun. This structure is illustrated below:
(126) Natural coordination
uskolliset
faithful.pl
aviomies
husband
‘faithful [husband and wife]’
AdjP
Adj
uskolliset
NP
N’
N
aviomies
N’
N
Conj
ja
ja
and
N
vaimo
vaimo
wife
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 842)
⎡
⎤
pred ‘conj’
⎢
⎥
⎢concord
[num pl] ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎢index
[num pl] ⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘husband’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥⎥
⎢conj1
⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎢ index [num sg]
⎥
⎢
⎡
⎤⎥
⎢ pred ‘wife’
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥
conj2
⎢
⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎢
⎣ index [num sg] ⎥
⎦
adj [pred ‘faithful’]
The plural adjective is allowed in natural coordination since both concord and index
have plural values which match the agreement requirements of a plural adjective.

3.4 Discussing the theoretical approaches to agreement 66
The two characteristics concerning the f-structure of natural coordination are that these
structures have a specific number of conjuncts, usually no more than two whereas accidental
coordination can hold more than two conjuncts. Secondly, natural coordination f-structure
has plural concord and plural index which makes it similar to the f-structure of a simple
plural noun (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006).
On the whole, the above analysis captures natural coordination in Finnish. Dalrymple
and Nikolaeva (2006) claim that the architecture of LFG itself is important since it allows
the separation of c-structure and f-structure, facilitating the analysis of Finnish by using
the same c-structure in both natural and accidental coordination but a different f-structure.
Thus, morphology and phrase structure is identical in both types of coordination while the
only distinction is made at the f-structure level. Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006, 843-
47) present data from other languages, such as Tundra Nenets, Russian and Bahdinani
Kurdish, which are captured by the same approach.
An important aspect of the current theory is that it deals with cases of natural coordination
and not only with accidental coordination as most theories do. Also, it proposes
a different f-structure for natural coordination patterns that captures a great number of
data in various languages. The main drawback is that there are languages like MG whose
natural coordination patterns cannot be captured by the same f-structure. We will discuss
this issue, however, in more detail in the next section.
3.4 Discussing the theoretical approaches to agreement
The above section presented a summary of the theoretical approaches to predicate-argument
and head-modifier agreement, which discuss the gender and number features in noun
phrase coordinate structures. In this last section, we will discuss and compare the aforementioned
theories.
In theoretical approaches to predicate-argument agreement, it is generally acknowledged
that gender resolution should combine syntactic and semantic principles. Most of the
analyses incorporate into their account a proposal along these lines apart from Dalrymple
and Kaplan (2000). The latter present a syntactically motivated gender agreement theory
but they admit that there are patterns in a number of languages that should be examined
from a semantic perspective since they show semantic resolution. The following example
in French is repeated from above:
(127) La personnne avec la barbe
[The person with the beard].fem
idiots/?*idiotes
idiots.masc/?*fem
‘The person with the beard and Marie are idiots’
(Wechsler, 2009)
et
and
Marie
Marie.fem
sont
are
Secondly, all of the theories capture the specific patterns they present in the languages
they discuss, even though their actual analysis differs significantly. Dalrymple and Kaplan
(2000) use set-union and Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) use set-intersection. Badecker (2008)
captures gender agreement in a large group of languages, ranging from Romance, Slavic,
Icelandic to MG, adopting a limited number of OT constraints whose ranking depends
on the language analysed. Finally, Sadler (2006), who also uses set-union, accommodates
mixed gender agreement in Rumanian assuming two different PS rules for inanimate and
animate nouns.
In all these theories, however, there are some important issues that should be discussed.
Corbett (1991) uses a descriptive approach which includes a series of rules at a theoretical
level. His approach is purely descriptive and does not assume a specific theoretical

3.4 Discussing the theoretical approaches to agreement 67
framework while he does not attempt to explain the linguistic motivation for some agreement
patterns and not for others; instead he merely records them. Also, the rules that he
proposes for the gender feature are language specific and not crosslinguistic as would be
desirable. The main advantage, though, is that he emphasises the distinction between two
separate principles in gender resolution, the semantic and the syntactic, and this idea was
widely adopted by his followers. Only later on in Corbett and Fraser (1993), he proposes
an analysis for animacy in Russian nominal inflections within Network Morphology.
Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) present a rather powerful theory combining set-valued
features by set-union. The first problem occurs in Slovene where they need to impose an
additional constraint in the conjunction conj, an equation f ∈(↑gender), since the sets
used for the three genders and their union cannot capture the pattern where two neuter
nouns resolve to masculine. Thus, the {f} set needs to participate also in the union process.
Therefore, their approach cannot cover all cases of coordination but needs additional
constraints for any extra or unexpected syntactic pattern that occurs in a language. Two
other problems discussed by Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) are those of “undergeneration”
and “overgeneration”. The former possibly refers to those cases of semantic resolution
that Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) do not capture at all, while the latter refers to some
patterns that are unattested and are still generated by a set-based approach with the union
operation. Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) claim that the following unattested pattern can be
generated by the current proposal:
(128) *Unattested (m, f, nt)
a. FEM & FEM = FEM
b. Elsewhere NEUT (NEUT & NEUT; MASC & MASC; and mixes)
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, p.186)
Their presupposition, however, is not explained any further in terms of the marker sets that
should be assigned to the different genders and since there are not any such known gender
systems so far, we cannot consider their argument valid. Finally, Vincent and Börjars
(2000) discuss a few more problems concerning the analysis proposed by Dalrymple and
Kaplan (2000), which are worth mentioned here. Regarding first person, they argue that
the different use of features across languages implies that personal identity is conceived
differently while the primitives s and h do not maintain their semantic content, meaning
that h cannot mean hearer if it appears in the set of the pronoun I. Also, Vincent and
Börjars (2000) argue that English requires two types of first person based on semantic
and pragmatic evidence. In a control context, you and I differs from John and I in the
value of pro 15 . Regarding gender, they argue that feature assignment in each language
is determined by the union operation, which is compatible with LFG’s characteristic of
constructing the smallest f-structure. An alternative operation could be set intersection,
which constructs the largest set. However, Mary Dalrymple points out that intersection is
at odds with the basic architecture of LFG and the fact that the smallest set is consistent
with a given f-description. This means that the intersection of identical gender conjuncts,
such as {m} and {m}, would result in {} since the empty set is the smallest set which is
15 Vincent and Börjars (2000, 7) argue that this is obvious in anaphoric control where split antecedence
is allowed and the vale of PRO can refer to two distinct locations in the clause’s f-structure. Consider the
following examples:
(1) a. Do you remember that I discussed with you offering ourselves as candidates for the election?
b. Do you remember that I discussed with John offering ourselves as candidates for the election?
In (1a), the subject of offering and antecedent of ourselves is the combination of you and I, which is first
person inclusive. In (1b), the subject of offering and antecedent of ourselves is either you and I, John and
I or John, you and I.

3.4 Discussing the theoretical approaches to agreement 68
a subset of both {m} and {m} (Vincent and Börjars, 2000, 16). This is an undesirable
result. Finally, Vincent and Börjars (2000) argue that the different set valued features
adopted in each language are against a crosslinguistic analysis. Although we agree with
Vincent and Borjars’ arguments concerning person, we strongly disagree with their claims
on gender. The theories showed that gender varies greatly and even in a single language
different resolution results are drawn depending on the type of the conjuncts (i.e. animate
or inanimate). Thus, a crosslingustic theory would be difficult to assume since there will
still be languages that would not be accounted for.
The theory developed by Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) has a major advantage. It acknowledges
the distinction of different resolution rules in animate and inanimate nouns
and provides an account based on that. However, the main problem is that they do not
analyse languages where the resolution patterns are not common in animate and inanimate
nouns. They make a brief reference to Rumanian as one of those languages, claiming that
“the resolution mechanism for inanimates is independent of the determinants of animate
gender agreement”(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, 189) but they do not proceed to any analysis
within the context of their own theory. Moreover, their theory seems to be problematic
for the Slovene extra pattern. The requirement for a masc resolved gender cannot be generated
from the intersection of two neuter conjuncts since the intersection of two neuter
nouns will result in neuter and not masculine. Thus, we argue that the problem of undergeneration
is also detected in this theory. Finally, as Badecker (2008) claims, Wechsler
and Zlatić (2003) do not provide any account for cases where number interacts with gender
in order to provide the required gender agreement form, which is a major drawback
for languages like MG and Serbian/Croatian. This is indeed true and the same criticism
could apply to Dalrymple and Kaplan’s (2000) approach, who do not take into account the
interaction of other index features apart from the gender when they provide an account
for the latter.
Sadler (2006) proposes an account for languages with different resolution patterns in
animate and inanimate nouns. The previous theories have addressed the issue but they
have not proposed any concrete analysis, leaving in the margin a number of languages
with this characteristic, such as Latin, Polish, MG and many others. Also, Sadler (2006)
developes a concise proposal since in a simple rule using disjunction she captures both
semantic and syntactic resolution found in animate and inanimate Rumanian nouns, accordingly.
A second advantage is that she combines a crosslinguistic analysis, the set-union
rule, which accounts for the expected patterns of resolution in inanimate nouns found in
most languages, with a language specific one, the semantic rule of resolution proposed for
Rumanian animate nouns. In fact, this approach could capture resolution in coordinate
nouns in a number of languages since the only modifications required would be to adapt
the equations in the semantic rule of resolution for the animate nouns, according to the
language analysed, and retain the standard rule of coordination for the inanimate nouns.
Her attempt carries the same intuitions as that of Wechsler and Zlatić (2003). The only
disadvantage is that she assumes an extra f-structure feature, semgend, to account for
the semantic patterns in Rumanian. It might be desirable to replace this feature by a
constraint which refers to the semantic structure on interpretation. We will show, though,
that this extra feature is required in the analysis of the MG animate nouns and possibly
in other similar languages, meaning that it is not really a redundant feature.
Badecker (2008) proposes an analysis of gender resolution within the Optimality Theory.
He assumes a number of similar constraints which differ across languages only in
their ranking and captures a great range of gender agreement patterns making the proposal
economic and crosslinguistic. He also takes into consideration the different gender
resolution patterns of animate and inanimate nouns for some languages and other factors,
such as the number factor in the conjuncts, which determine gender resolution in some

3.4 Discussing the theoretical approaches to agreement 69
cases. A problem is that for any language with different features such as Tamil with the
rational/non-rational distinction, new constraints need to be assumed which may result
in a different group of constraints depending on the language. This would undermine the
economy and conciseness of the existing theory. Also, agreement is modelled by competition
implying that many different forms may be possible but only one is the optimal. In
some languages, however, like MG we will see that there are other possible agreement patterns
and therefore agreement is not the result of only one correct form. This fact makes
the theory rather undesirable.
The head-modifier theories focus on number NP internal agreement. Kathol (1999) was
the first to postulate a distinction between the two features and these were later adopted
in LFG. Also, Wechsler and Zlatić (2000) introduce two additional types of information
declension and semantics, and capture further agreement mismatches, apart from those
found between concord and index.
The proposal developed by King and Dalrymple (2004) is powerful since it extends
to determiners and adjectives as modifiers and it is crosslinguistic, accounting for various
phenomena in NP-internal agreement in a wide range of languages. MG, however,
presents some restrictions that extend beyond the area of syntax. In particular, the index/concord
system in the singular accounts for noun phrases such as my friend and
colleague is where index has a sg value and the coordinate phrase is semantically interpreted
as referring to one and the same person only (joint reading). In the plural, the
same system accounts for noun phrases such as my friends and colleagues are where index
has a pl value and the coordinate phrase is semantically interpreted as denoting the
same referents (joint) or different referents (split) since the resolved number is plural due
to the plural number in both conjuncts. Although the index/concord system captures
syntactically the MG data, the semantic distinction in plural number is problematic since
MG occurs only with the joint reading when a shared determiner scopes over coordinate
nouns either in the singular or in the plural number. The split reading is allowed only in
specific constructions, as we shall see. Thus, MG plural coordinate nouns behave different
when compared to the languages discussed by King and Dalrymple (2004).
Finally, the theory proposed by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) is important since it is
the only one that discusses the impact of “natural” and “accidental” noun phrase coordination
in agreement in constraint-based frameworks, such as LFG and HPSG. The difference
between the two types of coordination and the agreement requirements are captured by
two different f-structures. The natural coordination f-structure does not represent its conjuncts
using a set and it postulates plural concord and plural index requirements. The
main drawback, however, is whether the f-structure proposed is found crosslinguistically.
We will show that at least in MG the exact same f-structure introduced by Dalrymple and
Nikolaeva (2006) cannot capture the MG cases of natural coordination and the agreement
requirements. Languages with similar behaviour may exist and the present f-structure
would require modifications depending on the characteristics of each language.
Despite the problems discussed in the various approaches, each of these theories contributes
greatly and sheds light on the agreement patterns detected in the various languages.
The following chapters will focus on the analysis of the MG data and we will show that the
main concepts of some of these theories are crucial for the explanation of some agreement
patterns in MG.

Chapter 4
Predicate Argument Agreement in
Modern Greek
4.1 Introduction
Modern Greek predicate-argument agreement in coordinate noun phrases involves the features
gender, number and person. In Modern Greek, number and person resolution is
straightforward and resembles the patterns found in other languages. person resolution,
follows the precedence hierarchy (see Corbett (1991); Siewierska (2004)) where the first
person takes precedence over the second, and the second takes precedence over the third.
In number resolution, coordination of singular elements requires plural number (outside
of the joint reading) in the outcome. gender resolution, however, is much more complex
due to the variation it shows and the difficulty for the current theories in accounting for it.
In this chapter, we will examine gender agreement in predicate argument relations
in Modern Greek. The first section presents the MG data. The next section shows that
MG coordinate nouns follow different resolution principles; animate nouns follow semantic
resolution and inanimate nouns follow syntactic resolution. Our analysis will attempt
to capture both. However, a number of unexpected resolution patterns occur which are
evidence for a third resolution principle. This is referentially derived and depends on
the assumption of a Contextually Introduced element in the discourse. The phenomenon
of referential agreement has not been discussed so far in the present literature, such as
descriptive grammars or traditional handbooks (Clairis et al. (2004), Holton et al. (1997),
Triantaphyllidis (1994), Triantaphyllidis (2005), Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton (1987)
and Mackridge (1985)). The main characteristics of referential agreement and an analysis
of the data are presented in the last two sections.
4.2 The Modern Greek Data
MG animate and inanimate nouns belong to one of the three gender classes: masculine,
feminine and neuter. In animate nouns, masculine refers to males whereas feminine refers
to females. Some exceptions in MG are nouns whose grammatical gender contradicts
the natural/semantic one, such as agori ‘boy’ and koritsi ‘girl’, which are grammatically
neuter but have a masculine and a feminine natural/semantic gender, respectively, the
noun anthropos ‘human being/person’, which is grammatically masculine but refers to both
males and females, and nouns, which are grammatically neuter but lack a natural/semantic
gender, such as pedi ‘child’, moro ‘baby’ and atomo ‘person’ (see Holton et al. (1997) and
Mackridge (1985)). Inanimate nouns belong to any of the three gender classes, assigned
on formal grounds depending on the declension class of the noun.
Non-coordinate noun phrases control their agreement “target” (Corbett, 1991), forcing

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 71
the latter to show grammatical agreement with the former. Thus, the predicative adjective
or participle will agree in gender and number 1 with the noun it is predicated of 2 :
(1) O Kostas
the.masc.sg Kostas.masc.sg
‘Kostas is handsome’
(constructed)
(2) I jinekes
the.fem.pl women.fem.pl
‘The women are happy’
(constructed)
ine
is.sg
ine
are.pl
omorf-os
handsome.masc.sg
xarumen-es
happy.fem.pl
Even nouns whose grammatical gender contradicts their natural control predicative
adjectives and force them to show grammatical gender agreement. For example, the noun
to koritsi ‘the girl’ allows only a neuter predicative adjective despite the fact that it has a
female referent:
(3) To koritsi
the.neut.sg girl.neut.sg
‘The girl is beautiful’
(constructed)
ine
is.sg
omorf-o
beautiful.neut.sg
Semantic agreement is also possible once a pronoun occurs subsequently in the sentence
and refers back to the “controller” (Corbett, 1991) noun, following Corbett’s Agreement
Hierarchy 3 .
MG inanimate concrete and abstract nouns 4 also show grammatical agreement. Thus,
the predicative adjective or participle shows agreement with the noun it is predicated of:
(4) O kipos
the.masc.sg garden.masc.sg
‘The garden is big’
(constructed)
(5) I dimokratia
the.fem.sg democracy.fem.sg
‘Democracy is necessary’
(constructed)
ine
is.sg
ine
is.sg
megal-os
big.masc.sg
aparetit-i
necessary.fem.sg
Gender resolution in MG coordinate nouns is interesting due to the existence of different
resolution patterns. We impose a distinction of two major group patterns, the expected
and unexpected ones.
1 As previously mentioned, number is not important for the time being and therefore we will not discuss
it further.
2 The following examples were collected from Greek newspapers and various books. I will use the abbre-
viation G.N. to stand for Greek Newspaper and G.M. to stand for Greek Magazine followed by the specific
newspaper or magazine from which I have collected each example. The examples that were constructed are
indicated with the word ‘constructed’.
3 The agreement hierarchy is repeated below:
(1) Agreement Hierarchy
attributive < predicate < relative pronoun < personal pronoun
Corbett (1979) argues that “as we move rightwards along the hierarchy, the likelihood of semantic agree-
ment will increase monotonically”(210).
4 We subdivide inanimate nouns into concrete and abstract since this turns out to be relevant in the
sections that follow.

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 72
The expected patterns refer to cases of either grammatical (syntactic) or semantic resolution.
We assume that syntactic resolution occurs in MG inanimate nouns and semantic
resolution occurs in MG animate nouns, following Corbett (1991) and Wechsler and Zlatić
(2003). Thus, the expected cases of MG are those that show either syntactic or semantic
gender resolution, according to animacy distinctions.
Alongside the expected gender patterns observed, an analysis of data collection by
questionnaire showed the existence of a number of unexpected agreement patterns in both
groups of nouns. We will argue that these unexpected patterns fall within a third principle,
which is motivated by “reference transfer” (Nunberg, 1977, 1995, 2005; Pollard and Sag,
1994). Therefore, we postulate three principles of resolution in MG, the syntactic, the
semantic and the referential one. As already mentioned above, this last principle has not
been discussed anywhere in the literature on MG.
Another unusual aspect of coordinate nouns in MG is that in some cases only the number
of the conjuncts, whether singular or plural, plays a role in determining the preference
for a resolution pattern. Thus, in inanimate nouns a specific resolved gender occurs with
higher frequency in singular conjuncts than in plural conjuncts or in plural conjuncts than
in singular conjuncts.
The current discussion will start with the presentation of the patterns found in animate
coordinate nouns and will proceed to inanimate coordinate nouns while we will analyse coordinate
phrases with singular conjuncts separately from plural conjuncts. The method
used to draw the results of the gender values in both groups of nouns is based on the responses
of 26 Greek native speakers who answered certain questionnaires. The participants
are all university graduates from North and South Greece. The questionnaires appeared
in two different forms, in the form of ‘multiple choice’ and in the form of ‘fill in the gaps’.
The answers of the consultants were based on acceptability judgements and, even though
the number of participants is relatively small, their answers are in accordance to my own
original intuition about the various gender resolution patterns. Finally, we need to note
that the examples that will follow are all part of the questionnaires that were issued to the
consultants 5 .
4.2.1 Resolution in MG Animate Nouns
In animate coordinate nouns, the main findings showed that coordinate phrases with singular
and plural conjuncts display the same expected patterns. Additional unexpected
patterns are found in the case of plural conjuncts.
The expected resolved patterns of animate singular coordinate nouns are discussed first.
The responses of the 26 consultants are presented in the following table 6 :
Table 4.1: Animate Singular Coordinate Nouns
Consultant Number: 26
NP1 NP2 Resolution NP1 NP2 Resolution
Mpl Fpl Npl Mpl Fpl Npl
Msg Msg 26 - - Msg Fsg 26 - -
Fsg Fsg - 26 - Msg Nm/f /0sg 26 - -
Nsg Nsg - - 26 Fsg Nm/0sg 26 - -
- - Fsg Nf sg 5 21 -
5 For more details on the methodology and rationale on constructing the questionnaires and on the
responses of the consultants see Appendix A.
6 The order of the conjuncts in the table does not correspond to the order of the conjuncts in the sentences
that appear in the questionnaires. The questionnaires included sentences with conjuncts in the reverse order
too. We simply present the combination of conjuncts in the table and show the responses.

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 73
When a masculine animate noun is coordinated with either a masculine, a feminine
or a neuter 7 the resolution form is always masculine, as in examples (6), (7) and (8),
respectively:
(6) O Petros ke o
Janis
the.masc.sg Peter.masc.sg and the.masc.sg John.masc.sg
ine kurasmen-i. I dulia tus exi eksantlisi.
are.pl tired.masc.pl. The job them.masc.pl has exhausted
‘Peter and John are tired. The work has exhausted them’
(constructed)
(7) O pateras ke i mitera
the.masc.sg father.masc.sg and the.fem.sg mother.fem.sg
ine kurasmen-i. I zoi tus ine diskoli
are.pl tired.masc.pl. The life their.masc.pl is difficult
ke apetitiki
and demanding
‘The father and mother are tired. Their life is difficult and demanding’
(constructed)
(8) O Kostas ke
the.masc.sg Kostas.masc.sg and
ine poli exipn-i
are.pl very clever.masc.pl
‘Kostas and his child are very clever’
(constructed)
to
the.neut.sg
pedi
child.neut.sg
The responses of the consultants showed that a masculine gender is chosen by all (26 out
of 26) consultants when a masculine noun cooccurs with another masculine conjunct, a
feminine conjunct or a neuter conjunct.
Otherwise, resolution is feminine if two feminine nouns are coordinated, as in (9), and
neuter if the coordinated nouns are neuter, as in (10):
(9) I Maria
the.fem.sg Maria.fem.sg
ine xarumen-es
are.pl happy.fem.pl
‘Mary and Kathrine are happy’
(constructed)
ke
and
i
the.fem.sg
(10) To agori ke to
the.neut.sg boy.neut.sg and the.neut.sg
vriskontan kathismen-a piso
were.pl seated.neut.pl back
‘The boy and the girl were seated at the back’
(constructed)
Katerina
Katerina.fem.sg
koritsi
girl.neut.sg
As shown in table (4.1), all consultants (26 of 26) chose a feminine gender in example (9),
and a neuter gender in example (10).
7 As presented in section 1.2, the two grammatically neuter nouns agori ‘boy’ and and koritsi ‘girl’ refer
to a male and a female,respectively, while the pedi ‘child’, moro ‘baby’ and atomo ‘person’ refer to either.
For these nouns, we also introduce the notation Nm/f /0. Thus, if a grammatically neuter noun refers to a
male, it will be described as Nm, if it refers to a female, it will be described as Nf and if it refers to a noun
without a natural/semantic gender, it will be described as N0.
tu
his

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 74
When a grammatically masculine noun is coordinated with a grammatically neuter
noun, which is either a semantic neuter noun or a semantically-vacuous neuter noun 8 ,
gender resolution is also masculine. In the following examples, all consultants (26 out of
26) chose a masculine gender irrespective of the gender denotation of the second conjunct:
(11) O Kostas ke to
the.masc.sg Kostas.masc.sg and the.neut.sg
ine etimi ja anaxorisi
are.pl ready.masc.pl to depart
‘Kostas and the boy are ready to depart’
(constructed)
(12) O Kostas ke to
the.masc.sg Kostas.masc.sg and the.neut.sg
ine etimi ja anaxorisi
are.pl ready.masc.pl to depart
‘Kostas and the girl are ready to depart’
(constructed)
(13) O Kostas ke to
the.masc.sg Kostas.masc.sg and the.neut.sg
ine etimi ja anaxorisi
are.pl ready.masc.pl to depart
‘Kostas and the baby are ready to depart’
(constructed)
agori
boy.neut.sg
koritsi
girl.neut.sg
moro
baby.neut.sg
Also, when two nouns denote females then resolution is feminine; for example, when
the grammatically neuter noun to koritsi ‘the girl’, which refers to a female, is coordinated
with a grammatically feminine noun 21 (out of 26) consultants chose the feminine gender.
However, the questionnaires showed that 5 (out of 26) consultants chose masculine resolution.
This is due to the fact that masculine is the default semantic gender in MG. Thus,
when referents denote females, resolution is feminine and masculine occurs less often as a
default gender form. The example that was given to the consultants is shown below:
(14) I Maria ke to koritsi
the.fem.sg Maria.fem.sg and the.neut.sg girl.neut.sg
ine enthusiasmen-es/-i ja tin kenurja
are.pl enthusiastic.fem.pl/masc.pl for the new
tus
zoi
their.fem/masc.pl life.
‘Mary and her girl are enthusiastic about their new life’
(constructed)
Any other case of coordination of a grammatically feminine noun with a grammatically
neuter noun that refers to a male or with a semantically-vacuous neuter noun yields
masculine resolution. An example is shown below:
(15) I Maria
the.fem.sg
agori/moro
Maria.fem.sg
boy.neut.sg/baby.neut.sg
ke
and
ine
are.pl
to
the.neut.sg
xarumen-i
happy.masc.pl
8 We will introduce the term semantic neuter noun to refer to the two grammatically neuter nouns that
have a semantic gender, to agori ‘the boy’ and to koritsi ‘the girl’, and semantically-vacuous neuter noun
to refer to the neuter nouns that do not have a semantic gender, such as to pedi ‘the child’, to moro ‘the
baby’ and to atomo ‘the person’.
tis
her

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 75
‘Mary and the boy/baby are happy’
(constructed)
Semantically-vacuous neuter nouns, such as to pedi ‘the child’ and to moro ‘the baby’,
always display syntactic agreement in noncoordinated constructions. In coordinate phrases,
these nouns can be referentially specified, referring to a specific person whose gender is
known, or unspecified, denoting a person whose gender is unknown. When these nouns are
unspecified for a referent, the resolution is masculine whether they are coordinated with a
grammatically masculine or a grammatically feminine noun. When they are referentially
specified, however, the resolved gender depends on whether they cooccur with a male or
female denoting noun. For instance, in example (16) when the neuter noun pedi ‘child’ has
a male or a female referrent in the questionnaire all consultants (26 out of 26) choose a
masculine gender. Thus, the grammatically masculine noun pateras ‘father’ is coordinated
with the grammatically neuter noun pedi ‘child’ and whether or not pedi ‘child’ has a male
or female denotation the resolved gender is always masculine. In example (17), when the
grammatically neuter noun to moro ‘baby’, which is coordinated with a feminine noun,
refers to a male or an unspecified referent, all consultants chose a masculine gender (26 out
of 26). Therefore, resolution is masculine. However, when the neuter noun to moro ‘baby’
has a female referent, 21 (out of 26) consultants chose a feminine gender, and therefore
resolution is feminine. In this last case, masculine also occurs as a resolved gender but only
5 (out of 26) consultants chose the masculine form:
(16) O pateras ke to
the.masc.sg father.masc.sg and the.neut.sg
vrethikan dolofonimen-i
were-found.pl murdered.masc.pl
‘The father and child were found murdered’
(G.N.: To Vima)
pedi
child.neut.sg
(17) I Maria ke to moro tis ine
the Mary.fem.sg and the baby.neut.sg her are.pl
kukl-i/-es.
Tus/tis
vlepis ke
beautiful.masc/fem.pl. Them.masc/fem.pl you-see and
tus/tis
thavmazeis
them.masc/fem.pl you-admire
‘Mary and her baby are beautiful. You see them and you admire them’
(constructed)
The gender resolution patterns of MG animate singular coordinate nouns are summarised
in table (4.2) 9 :
9 The presentation of the two conjuncts in the structure does not reflect the order of the conjuncts.
The same conjuncts were tested in the reverse order and the results were the same. However, we do not
include the reverse order to avoid repetition. Also, in order to show clearly the preferred resolved gender,
as was chosen by the consultants, we have used the ‘greater than’(>) symbol while the pattern inside the
parenthesis is a second pattern chosen by the participants and not an unexpected one.

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 76
Table 4.2: Agreement with SG Animate Coordinate Nouns
Singular Conjuncts
NP NP AP NP NP AP
msg msg mpl msg fsg mpl
fsg fsg fpl msg nm/f /0sg mpl
nsg nsg npl fsg nm/0sg mpl
fsg nf sg fpl(>mpl)
Animate plural coordinate nouns have the same expected resolution patterns as animate
singular nouns. The table below presents the responses of the 26 consultants:
Table 4.3: Animate Plural Coordinate Nouns
Consultant Number: 26
NP1 NP2 Resolution NP1 NP2 Resolution
Mpl Fpl Npl Mpl Fpl Npl
Mpl Mpl 26 - - Mpl Fpl 26 - -
Fpl Fpl - 26 - Mpl Nm/f /0pl 26 - -
Npl Npl - - 26 Fpl Nm/0pl 19 - 12
Nm/0pl Fpl 19 7
Fpl Nf pl 5 18 5
Nf pl Fpl 5 18 5
When conjuncts have the same gender then that gender is used in resolution such as in
examples (18), (19) and (20), when conjuncts have different gender then masculine is the
expected default gender, such as in examples (21) and (22). If all conjuncts denote females
then feminine is the resolved gender, such as in example (23). In the examples below, all
consultants (26 out of 26) chose as the resolved gender the same gender as the one found
in the two conjuncts.
(18) I papudes
ke
the.fem.pl grandfathers.fem.pl and
ine agapimen-i
are.pl love-each-other.fem.pl
‘The grandfathers and fathers love each other’
(constructed)
i
the.fem.pl
(19) I jajades
ke i
the.fem.pl grandmothers.fem.pl and the.fem.pl
engones
ine agapimen-es
grandaughters.fem.pl are.pl love-each-other.fem.pl
‘The grandmothers and grandaughters love each other’
(constructed)
(20) Ta agoria
the.neut.pl
xarumen-a
happy.neut.pl
boys.neut.pl
‘The boys and girls are happy’
(constructed)
ke
and
ta
the.neut.pl
paterades
fathers.fem.pl
koritsia
girls.neut.pl
ine
are.pl
In the following examples, all consultants (26 out of 26) chose a masculine gender when
a masculine noun cooccurs with a feminine or a neuter noun:

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 77
(21) I
antres ke
the.masc.pl men.masc.pl and
itan etim-i
were.pl ready.masc.pl
‘The men and women were ready’
(constructed)
(22) I
babades ke
the.masc.pl fathers.masc.pl and
ine poli demen-i
are.pl very close.masc.pl
‘The fathers and boys are very close’
(constructed)
i
the.fem.pl
ta
the.neut.pl
jinekes
women.fem.pl
agoria
boys.neut.pl
In the following example, the majority of the consultants (18 out of 26) chose a feminine
gender as the resolved value and only 5 (out of 26) consultants chose the masculine gender:
(23) I mamades ke
the.fem.pl mothers.fem.pl and
ine agapimen-es/-i
are.pl love-each-other.fem/masc.pl
‘The mothers and girls love each other’
(constructed)
ta
the.neut.pl
koritsia
girls.neut.pl
As opposed to animate singular coordinate nouns, which do not present any unexpected
patterns, animate plural coordinate nouns yield two unexpected cases. The first one is when
the coordinate phrase consists of a feminine plural and a neuter plural noun, which denotes
a masculine referent or an unspecified referent, as shown below:
(24) I jajades
ke ta
the.fem.pl grandmothers.fem.pl and the.neut.pl
engonia
ine xarumen-i/-a
grandchldren.neut.pl are.pl happy.masc/neut.pl
‘The grandmothers and grandchildren are happy’
(constructed)
The expected resolved gender is masculine plural but a high number of consultants
(12 out of 26) chose only the neuter gender or the neuter gender alongside the masculine
one, as the value of the predicative adjective. It could be claimed that neuter gender is a
case of closest conjunct agreement since the predicative adjective seems to agree with
the conjunct closest to it (see Corbett (1991), Sadler (1999), Moosally (1999), Sadler
(2003), Villavicencio et al. (2005) for more details). In order to test the possibility of
whether the gender chosen is a case of CCA, we included in the questionnaires the same
patterns in reverse order, as shown in example (25). When the conjuncts are reversed as
in [nm/0pl & fpl], the results showed that overall 19 (out of 26) consultants chose the
masculine gender and 7 (out of the 26) participants chose the neuter gender. These 7 (out
of 26) consultants were the same people who chose neuter resolution when the conjucts
displayed the order [fpl & nm/0pl]. Therefore, when the conjuncts have the order [fpl &
nm/0pl] 5 consultants (out of 26) choose the neuter gender as a result of closest conjunct
agreement since they chose only masculine when the conjucts displayed the order [nm/0pl
& fpl] whereas 7 participants chose consistently the neuter gender as a result of resolution
irrespective of the order of the conjuncts. This additional pattern is not a case of CCA
but it is an extra agreement gender value.

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 78
(25) Ta pedia
ke
the.neut.pl children.neut.pl and
ine xarumen-i/-a
are.pl happy.masc/neut.pl
‘The children and mothers are happy’
(constructed)
i
the.fem.pl
mamades
mothers.fem.pl
Neuter gender resolution also occurs when a grammatically feminine plural noun is coordinated
with a grammatically neuter plural noun that denotes a female. The consultants
were more inclined to choose the feminine gender (18 out of 26) as the main resolved gender
while neuter occured less often (5 out of 26) with the same frequency as the masculine
(5 out of 26). In example (26), the grammatically feminine noun combines with a grammatically
neuter noun koritsia ‘girls’, which denotes a group of females, yielding mainly
feminine resolution (18 out of 26 consultants). Neuter resolution occurs less often (5 out
of 26) or as a second choice in these structures and it is chosen by consultants who chose
neuter in all similar cases (5 out of 26). Also, some (5 out of 26) consultants chose the
masculine gender:
(26) I jajades
the.fem.pl grandmothers.fem.pl
ine xarumen-es/-a/-i
are.pl happy.fem/neut/masc.pl
‘The grandmothers and girls are happy’
(constructed)
ke
and
ta
the.neut.pl
koritsia
girls.neut.pl
The same consultants who chose neuter when the conjuncts had the word order [fpl &
npl] also chose neuter as an alternative resolved gender when the conjuncts appeared in
the reverse order. This shows that CCA does not determine the gender agreement of the
predicative participle. In the following example, conjuncts appear in the reverse order [npl
& fpl] and the agreeing gender is either feminine (18 out of 26 consultants) or neuter plural
(5 out of 26 consultants) which cooccurs with masculine plural (5 out of 26 consultants),
favouring the feminine gender:
(27) Ta koritsia ke i
the.neut.pl girls.neut.pl and the.fem.pl
ine poli demen-es/-a/-i
are.pl very close.fem/neut/masc.pl
‘The girls and mothers are very close’
(constructed)
mamades
mothers.fem.pl
The observed gender resolution patterns of plural animate coordinate nouns are presented
in table (4.4) 10 below:
Table 4.4: Agreement with PL Animate Coordinate Nouns
Plural Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
mpl mpl mpl mpl fpl mpl
fpl fpl fpl mpl nm/f /0pl mpl
npl npl npl fpl nm/0pl mpl>npl
fpl nf pl fpl>npl/(>mpl)
10 The expected patterns are shown in normal fonts. Any unexpected patterns are presented in small bold
italics in the tables that follow.

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 79
To summarise, the expected patterns of animate nouns are as follows: animate singular
and plural nouns with the same gender resolve to the gender of the conjuncts and
animate mixed gender conjuncts resolve to masculine or else to feminine if nouns denote
females. Animate singular nouns do not show any unexpected patterns but animate plural
nouns show two unexpected patterns. When the conjucts display the combinations [fpl &
nm/0pl] and [fpl & nf pl], the unexpected gender value in both combinations is neuter
plural. A summary of the expected and unexpected patterns of animate singular and plural
nouns including the percentage of the responses of the consultants is presented in a single
table below:
Table 4.5: Agreement with SG/PL Animate Coordinate Nouns
Singular Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP percentage NP1 NP2 AP percentage
msg msg mpl 100% msg fsg mpl 100%
fsg fsg fpl 100% msg nm/f /0sg mpl 100%
nsg nsg npl 100% fsg nm/0sg mpl 100%
fsg nf sg fpl>mpl 80%>20%
Plural Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP percentage NP1 NP2 AP percentage
mpl mpl mpl 100% mpl fpl mpl 100%
fpl fpl fpl 100% mpl nm/f /0pl mpl 100%
npl npl npl 100% fpl nm/0pl mpl>npl 73% > 27%
fpl nf pl fpl>npl>mpl 69% >19%> 19%
4.2.2 Resolution in MG Inanimate Nouns
Inanimate singular and plural coordinate nouns, apart from the expected patterns, admit
a number of unexpected cases too. The expected patterns of singular and plural inanimate
nouns are as follows: nouns with shared gender resolve to that shared gender whereas nouns
with mixed gender resolve to neuter. Both concrete and abstract inanimate coordinate
nouns show the same expected patterns. Differences, however, arise only in the unexpected
patterns of the two groups of nouns. Our discussion includes examples with both concrete
and abstract nouns, which were all included in the questionnaire.
The discussion begins with inanimate singular nouns. The table below presents the
responses of the 26 consultants:
Table 4.6: Inanimate Singular Coordinate Nouns
Consultant Number: 26
NP1 NP2 Resolution NP1 NP2 Resolution
Mpl Fpl Npl Mpl Fpl Npl
Msg Msg 25 - 10 Msg Fsg(Concrete) 12 - 14
Fsg Fsg - 24 11 Msg Fsg(Abstract) 6 6 16
Nsg Nsg - - 26 Msg Nsg - - 26
Fsg Nsg - - 26

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 80
With inanimate singular coordinate nouns, if both nouns are masculine then masculine
is the resolved gender, as in (28), if both nouns are feminine then resolution is feminine, as
in (29), and if both nouns are neuter then resolution is neuter, as in (30). In particular, 25
(out of the 26) consultants chose the masculine gender when both connjuncts are masculine,
24 (out of 26) consultants chose the feminine gender when both conjuncts are feminine and
26 (out of 26) consultants chose the neuter when both conjuncts are neuter. Some of the
examples that were given to the consultants are shown below:
(28) O iroismos ke o
the.masc.sg heroism.masc.sg and the.masc.sg
itan kiriarx-i kata to 1821
were.pl prevalent.masc.pl during the 1821
‘Heroism and fighting were prevalent during 1821’
(G.N.:To Vima)
(29) I vivliothiki ke i
the.fem.sg bookcase.fem.sg and the.fem.sg
ine diaforetik-es
are.pl different.fem.pl
‘The bookcase and dining table are different’
(constructed)
(30) To aftokinito ke
the.neut.sg
akriva
car.neut.sg and
expensive.neut.pl
‘The car and house are expensive’
(constructed)
to
the.neut.sg
agonas
fight.masc.sg
trapezaria
dining-table.fem.sg
spiti
house.neut.sg
ine
are.pl
In conjuncts with mixed gender values, the expected resolution gender is neuter. In
example (31), 16 (out of 26) consultants chose the neuter gender. In example (32), (14 out
of 26) chose the neuter, and in examples (33) and (34) all consultants (26 out of 26) chose
the neuter gender:
(31) O agonas ke i
the.masc.sg fight.masc.sg and the.fem.sg
itan kiriarx-a to 1821
were prevalent.neut.pl in 1821
‘The fight and self-sacrifice were prevalent in 1821’
(G.N.:To Vima)
(32) O kanapes
the.masc.sg
aspr-a
white.neut.pl
sofa.masc.sg
‘The sofa and chair are white’
(constructed)
ke
and
i
the.fem.sg
(33) O erotas ke to
the.masc.sg love.masc.sg and the.neut.sg
ine aparetit-a sti zoi mas
are.pl necessary.neut.pl in-the life our
‘Love and passion are necessary in our life’
(G.M.:VIMAgazino)
aftothisia
self-sacrifice.fem.sg
karekla
chair.fem.sg
pathos
passion.neut.sg
ine
are.pl

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 81
(34) I prospathia ke to
the.fem.sg effort.fem.sg and the.neut.sg
ine apotelesmatik-a
are.pl effective.neut.pl
‘Effort and obstinacy have good results’
(constructed)
pisma
obstinacy.neut.sg
Three unexpected patterns arise in inanimate singular coordinate nouns. The first two
concern coordinate constructions whose conjuncts have the same gender, either masculine
or feminine. In these cases, a significant number of consultants were inclined to choose
the unexpected neuter resolution in addition to the expected patterns. In particular, 10
(out of 26) consultants chose the neuter as an alternative form when conjuncts were both
masculine and 11 (out of the 26) consultants chose the neuter when conjuncts were both
feminine. It is interesting that almost the same consultants chose the neuter gender in cases
where both nouns have the same gender. Only one consultant chose neuter as a second
choice when both conjuncts were feminine and not when both conjuncts were masculine.
Thus, inanimate singular masculine nouns can resolve to masculine or neuter plural, and
inanimate singular feminine nouns can resolve to feminine or neuter plural. Some examples
are shown below:
(35) O pinakas ke o
kanapes
the.masc.sg picture.masc.sg and the.masc.sg sofa.masc.sg
ine megal-i/-a
ja afto to domatio ke tha
are.pl big.masc.pl/neut.pl for this the room and will
tus/ta
valo sto alo
them.masc.pl/neut.pl I-put in-the other
‘The picture and the sofa are big for this room and I will put them in the other
one’
(constructed)
(36) I kuzina
the.fem.sg
kathar-es/-a
kitchen.fem.sg
clean.fem/neut.pl
‘The kitchen and toilet are clean’
(constructed)
(37) I eleftheria
the.fem.sg
taftosim-es/-a
freedom.fem.sg
equal.fem/neut.pl
‘Freedom and faith are equal’
(G.N.:To Vima)
ke
and
ke
and
i
the.fem.sg
i
the.fem.sg
tualeta
toilet.fem.sg
pisti
faith.fem.sg
ine
are.sg
ine
are.pl
The next unexpected pattern occurs in singular mixed gender concrete conjuncts combining
a masculine and a feminine noun. The gender output in these constructions was
not only neuter but also masculine. In fact, 14 (out of 26) consultants chose neuter as an
agreeing gender whereas 12 (out of 26) consultants chose masculine as an agreeing gender in
inanimate singular coordinate nouns. The following examples illustrate two characteristic
cases:
(38) O kanapes ke
the.masc.sg sofa.masc.sg and
ine anet-a/-i
are.pl comfortable.neut/masc.pl
i
the.fem.sg
polithrona
armchair.fem.sg

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 82
‘The sofa and the armchair are comfortable’
(constructed)
(39) O dromos ke
the.masc.sg street.masc.sg and
ine kathar-a/-i
are.pl clean.neut/masc.pl
‘The street and the square are clean’
(constructed)
i
the.fem.sg
platia
square.fem.sg
Badecker (2008), who carried out research on MG inanimate coordinate nouns, argues
that the number of conjuncts is a determining factor in the resolution result of inanimate
coordinate phrases with a masculine and a feminine noun. He argues that coordinate
inanimate singular nouns with a masculine and a feminine conjunct resolve to neuter but
similar constructions with plural conjuncts resolve to masculine. Our field work certainly
contradicts Badecker’s (2008) claim that singular conjuncts display only neuter resolution.
The fact that almost the same number of consultants chose the masculine gender (12 of
26) and the neuter (14 of 26) as the resolved forms is a result that cannot be ignored.
An additional unexpected pattern occurs only in inanimate singular abstract nouns
when the coordinate phrase includes a masculine and a feminine noun. These coordinate
phrases also resolve to feminine plural, apart from the neuter and masculine gender. In
particular, 6 (out of 26) consultants chose the feminine, 16 (out of 26) chose the neuter and
6 (out of 26) chose the masculine. Therefore, although neuter is the expected resolution
gender, a number of consultants realised feminine and masculine on the agreeing adjective.
The first thing we need to check is whether the feminine gender is a case of CCA. The
results show that the same consultants (6 out of 26) who chose feminine as the resolved
gender in [msg & fsg] constructions, also chose feminine when conjuncts have the reverse
order [fsg & msg]. Thus, abstract singular masculine and feminine coordinate nouns show
greater variation with regard to the agreeing gender. The examples that were used in the
questionnaire are shown below:
(40) O thanatos ke i
the.masc.sg death.masc.sg and the.fem.sg
ine simantik-a/-i/-es
to 1821
are.pl important.neut/masc/fem.pl in 1821
‘Death and freedom are important in 1821’
(G.N.:O Ependitis)
(41) I eleftheria ke o
the.fem.sg freedom.fem.sg and the.masc.sg
itan simantik-a/-i/-es
to 1821
were.pl important.neut/masc/fem.pl in 1821
‘Freedom and death were important in 1821’
(constructed)
eleftheria
freedom.fem.sg
thanatos
death.masc.sg
The gender resolution patterns of singular inanimate nouns are presented in the following
table 11 :
11 Table (4.7) presents in a single column the concrete and abstract nouns with the same gender since the
results are the same in both groups of nouns. It presents separately the concrete and abstract nouns with
mixed gender since the results show a difference in the two groups of nouns when conjuncts are mixed in
gender.

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 83
Table 4.7: Agreement with Inanimate SG Coordinate Nouns
Singular Conjuncts
Concrete or Abstract Nouns Concrete Nouns Abstract Nouns
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
msg msg mpl>npl msg fsg npl>mpl msg fsg npl>mpl/fpl
fsg fsg fpl>npl msg nsg npl msg nsg npl
nsg nsg npl fsg nsg npl fsg nsg npl
The expected patterns in inanimate plural coordinate nouns are the same as in inanimate
singular coordinate nouns. The following table shows the noun combinations and the
responses of the consultants:
Table 4.8: Inanimate Plural Coordinate Nouns
Consultant Number: 26
NP1 NP2 Resolution NP1 NP2 Resolution
Mpl Fpl Npl Mpl Fpl Npl
Mpl Mpl 26 - - Mpl Fpl(Concrete) 15 - 13
Fpl Fpl - 26 - Fpl Mpl(Concrete) 17 11
Npl Npl - - 26 Mpl Fpl(Abstract) 15 6 13
Fpl Mpl(Abstract) 16 4 11
Mpl Npl - - 26
Fpl Npl - - 26
Coordinate nouns with the same gender resolve to that same gender, and coordinate
nouns with mixed gender resolve to neuter. In the following examples, concrete and abstract
nouns with the same gender are shown where all consultants (26 out of 26) chose the same
gender as the gender found in the two conjuncts:
(42) I
pinakes ke
the.masc.pl pictures.masc.pl and
ine ateriast-i
are.pl unsuitable.masc.pl
‘The pictures and the sofas are unsuitable’
(constructed)
i
the.masc.pl
kanapedes
sofas.masc.pl
(43) I
kavgathes ke i
the.masc.pl arguments.masc.pl and the.masc.pl
xorismi
ine simantiki ja tin psixologia
break-ups.masc.pl are.pl important.masc.pl for the psychology
ton pedion
of-the children
‘The arguments and break-ups are important for children’s psychology’
(G.M.:To Pedi)
(44) I filosofies
ke i thriskies
the.fem.pl philosophies.fem.pl and the.fem.pl religions.fem.pl
itan kathoristikes ja tus laus
were.pl determining.fem.pl for the people
‘The philosophies and religions were determining for the people’
(www.in.gr)
(45) Ta
the.neut.pl
spitia
houses.neut.pl
ke
and
ta
the.neut.pl
aftokinita
cars.neut.pl

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 84
ine
are.pl
pio
more
akriva
expensive.neut.pl
apo
from
edo
now
‘The houses and cars are more expensive from now on’
(constructed)
ke
and
pera
on
The following examples illustrate inanimate plural coordinate nouns with different gender
combinations that resolve to neuter. In the first example, which combines a masculine
and a feminine noun, 13 (out of 26) consultants choose the neuter gender (15 out of 26
choose the unexpected masculine gender). In the next example, which combines a masculine
and a neuter noun, all consultants (26 out of 26) choose the neuter gender and in
the last two examples, which combine a feminine and a neuter, all consultants (26 out
of 26) choose the neuter gender. The expected resolved gender is the neuter plural and
consultants choose that gender in all cases:
(46) I
dromi ke i
the.masc.pl roads.masc.pl and the.fem.pl
ine jemat-a kosmo
are.pl full-of.neut.pl people
‘The roads and the squares are full of people’
(Holton et al., 1997)
(47) I
dromi ke ta
the.masc.pl roads.masc.pl and the.neut.pl
ine jemat-a kosmo
are.pl full-of.neut.pl people
‘The roads and the alleys are full of people’
(constructed)
(48) Ta estiatoria ke i
the.neut.pl restaurants.neut.pl and the.fem.pl
itan jemat-a kosmo
were.pl full-of.neut.pl people
‘The restaurants and squares were full of people’
(constructed)
(49) I diamartiries ke ta
the.fem.pl protests.fem.pl and the.neut.pl
ine axrist-a s’afti tin periptosi
are.pl useless.neut.pl in this case
‘The protests and complaints are useless in this case’
(G.M.:To Vima)
platies
squares.fem.pl
sokakia
alleys.neut.pl
platies
squares.fem.pl
parapona
complaints.neut.pl
In inanimate plural nouns, only two unexpected genders are confirmed by the questionnaires.
These occur with mixed gender coordinate phrases with a masculine and a feminine
plural noun, which resolve to the unexpected masculine or feminine (less often) and not
only to the expected neuter. The consultants chose both gender values, but the masculine
gender seemed to occur more often than the neuter. In fact, in inanimate concrete plural
nouns, 15 (out of 26) consultants chose the unexpected masculine gender and 13 (out of
26) consultants chose the expected neuter gender. Also, the same combination of conjuncts
but with abstract nouns resulted in the additional unexpected feminine gender (6 out of 26
consultants), alongside the unexpected masculine (15 out of 26 consultants) and expected
neuter (13 out of 26 consultants) genders.

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 85
(50) I
dromi ke i
the.masc.pl roads.masc.pl and the.fem.pl
ine jemat-i/-a
kosmo
are.pl full-of.masc/neut.pl people
‘The roads and the squares are full of people’
(Holton et al., 1997)
platies
squares.fem.pl
(51) I
tifones
ke i plimires
the.masc.pl hurricanes.masc.pl and the.fem.pl floods.fem.pl
itan katastrofik-i/-a/-es
ja tin Tailandi
were destructive.masc/neut/fem.pl for the Thailand
‘The hurricanes and floods were destructive for Thailand’
(www.in.gr)
In order to test whether these genders are the outcome of resolution, we gave the
same combination of nouns with the reverse order [fem & masc] to the consultants. The
examples that were given to the consultants are shown below:
(52) I platies ke i
the.fem.pl squares.fem.pl and the.masc.pl
ine jemat-i/-a
kosmo
are.pl full-of.masc/neut.pl people
‘The squares and roads are full of people’
(Holton et al., 1997)
dromi
roads.masc.pl
(53) I plimires ke i
tifones
the.fem.pl floods.fem.pl and the.masc.pl hurricanes.masc.pl
itan katastrofik-i/-a/-es
ja tin Tailandi
were destructive.masc/neut/fem.pl for the Thailand
‘The floods and hurricanes were destructive for Thailand’
(www.in.gr)
In the first example where conjuncts are concrete, 17 (out of 26) consultants chose
the masculine gender and 11 (out of 26) consultants chose the neuter gender whereas
when conjuncts are abstract 16 (out of 26) consultants chose the masculine gender, 11
(out of 26) consultants chose the neuter gender and 4 (out of the 26) consultants showed
preference to the feminine gender. Therefore, in [fem & masc] constructions the masculine
gender appears with higher frequency due to closest conjunct agreement. Thus, in [fem
& masc] constructions the occurrence of the masculine gender with such high frequency
is attributed both to resolution and to CCA and the occurence of the feminine gender is
attributed to resolution. Also, when abstract conjuncts appear with the order [masc &
fem] the occurence of the feminine gender in higher numbers is due to closest conjunct
agreement since feminine was chosen by fewer consultants (4 out of 26) when conjuncts
appear with the reverse order [fem & masc]. The table below shows both the expected
and unexpected resolved genders in this group of nouns:

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 86
Table 4.9: Agreement with Inanimate PL Coordinate Nouns
Plural Conjuncts
Concrete or Abstract Nouns Concrete Nouns Abstract Nouns
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
mpl mpl mpl mpl fpl npl>mpl mpl fpl npl>mpl/fpl
fpl fpl fpl mpl npl npl mpl npl npl
npl npl npl fpl npl npl fpl npl npl
The data showed that plural coordinate phrases with a masculine and a feminine noun
resolve to the expected neuter but more often to the unexpected masculine and less often
to the unexpected feminine. Thus, neuter and masculine resolution coexist in inanimate
plural nouns with a masculine and a feminine gender. This contradicts Badecker (2008),
who argues that a masculine and a feminine plural noun resolve only to masculine.
To summarise, inanimate coordinate nouns with singular or plural conjuncts show the
same expected patterns. Inanimate coordinate nouns with the same gender resolve to
the gender of the conjuncts and inanimate nouns with mixed gender resolve to neuter.
With regard to the unexpected cases, inanimate concrete coordinate nouns differ from
inanimate abstract nouns since abstract coordinate nouns with a masculine and a feminine
noun resolve not only to the expected neuter but also to the unexpected masculine and
feminine genders. Concrete coordinate nouns with the same combination of nouns resolve
to the expected neuter and to the unexpected masculine. Also, differences are found in the
unexpected patterns which are related to the number of the conjuncts. Inanimate singular
nouns yield unexpected neuter resolution when the coordinate nouns are the same in gender,
either masculine or feminine. Inanimate plural nouns do not allow that. Finally, a difference
is found in the frequency of an agreeing gender. Inanimate singular coordinate nouns with a
masculine and a feminine noun yield expected neuter resolution and unexpected masculine
resolution (and if the conjuncts are abstract unexpected feminine resolution), where neuter
occurs with higher frequency. Inanimate plural nouns yield expected neuter resolution and
unexpected masculline resolution (and if the conjuncts are abstract unexpected feminine
resolution) where masculine occurs with higher frequency than neuter. A summary of the
singular and plural inanimate nouns, their resolution values and the percentage of responses
are presented below:
Table 4.10: Agreement with Inanimate Coordinate Nouns
Singular Conjuncts
Concrete/Abstract Nouns Concrete Nouns Abstract Nouns
NP1 NP2 AP percent NP1 NP2 AP percent NP1 NP2 AP percent
msg msg mpl>npl 96%>38% msg fsg npl>mpl 53%>46% msg fsg npl>mpl/fpl 61%>23%/23%
fsg fsg fpl>npl 92%>42% msg nsg npl 100% msg nsg npl 100%
nsg nsg npl 100% fsg nsg npl 100% fsg nsg npl 100%
Plural Conjuncts
Concrete/Abstract Nouns Concrete Nouns Abstract Nouns
NP1 NP2 AP percent NP1 NP2 AP percent NP1 NP2 AP percent
mpl mpl mpl 100% mpl fpl mpl>npl 63%>42% mpl fpl mpl>npl>fpl 61%>42%>15%
fpl fpl fpl 100% mpl npl npl 100% mpl npl npl 100%
npl npl npl 100% fpl npl npl 100% fpl npl npl 100%
Thus, we argue that the number of the conjuncts determines the resolution pattern,
which agrees with Badecker (2008), but our data show that conjunct number only determines
the preference towards a gender form over the other and does not necessarily
impose neuter resolution in singular conjucts and masculine resolution in plural conjuncts.

4.2 The Modern Greek Data 87
Badecker’s analysis, however, is based on a simplification which associates the number of
the conjuncts with an exclusive resolved gender value.
4.2.3 Mixing Animate and Inanimate Nouns in Coordinate Constructions
In this section, we discuss the possibility of combining animate and inanimate nouns in
coordinate phrases in MG. We argue that MG allows this possibility if the nouns occur in
a comitative structure.
Corbett and Mtenje (1987) and Corbett (1991) discussed the possibility of mixing
animate with inanimate nouns and rational with nonrational nouns in subject position 12 in
a number of languages and argue that some languages allow animate-inanimate or rationalnonrational
coordination. English, for example, allows the coordination of an animate with
an inanimate noun and the coordination is acceptable both syntactically and semantically:
(54) The child and his bike are standing there. Can you see them? (constructed)
Other languages, like Chichewa, disallow the combination of animate and inanimate
nouns. However, if this combination is forced then agreement is usually with the inanimate
noun. This is shown in the example below by the agreement marker a or less often zi, used
for non-humans:
(55) Ana ndi malalanje
children.1.pl and oranges.3.pl
‘Children and oranges are missing’
(Corbett and Mtenje, 1987, 33)
a-ku-sowa
ag-pres-missing
Also, in languages like the Dravidian ones, in which conjuncts denote rationals and
nonrationals, Corbett (1991) argues that speakers do not accept a combination of a rational
with a nonrational noun. Consider the following example in Tamil:
(56) *raaman-um naay-um
Raman-and dog-and
‘Raman and the dog came’
(Corbett, 1991, 270)
va-nt-aaÒka
come.past-3rd.pl.rational
When rationals and non-rationals are combined an alternative form must be used which
is the comitative structure (Corbett, 1991).
MG resembles languages like Chichewa when it comes to the combination of animate
and inanimate nouns since it disfavours the coordination of animate and inanimate nouns
as shown below:
(57) ??O kleftis ke to diamanti
the thief.masc.sg and the diamond.neut.sg
afant-i???/afant-os??/afant-a?
disappeared.masc.pl/masc.sg/neut.pl
‘The thief and the diamond are gone’
(constructed)
(58) ??O kleftis ke ta kosmimata
the thief.masc.sg and the jewellery.neut.pl
afant-i???/afant-os??/afant-a?
disappeared.masc.pl/masc.sg/neut.pl
12 Both Corbett and Mtenje (1987) and Corbett (1991) discuss examples in subject position. Since we are
interested in the gender feature agreement and this is shown when the coordinate phrase occurs in subject
position, we also focus on similar examples in MG.
ine
are
ine
are

4.3 Resolution Principles in MG 88
‘The thief and the jewellery are gone’
(constructed)
The sentences above are strongly disprefered since they combine an animate and an
inanimate noun. That structure is rarely found (in spoken language only) and if it is
admitted, the least marked forms would be the verb to be in plural number and the
predicative adjective/participle to show neuter plural agreement, irrespective of the number
or the gender of the two nouns.
Instead, when MG combines an animate and an inanimate noun, it shows strong preference
to the comitative structure where the predicative adjective/participle shows agreement
with the head noun and not with the second noun phrase. This is illustrated below:
(59) O kleftis me ta
the thief.masc.sg with the
afantos
disappeared.masc.sg
‘The thief with the jewellery is gone’
(constructed)
kosmimata
jewellery.neut.pl
The participle afantos ‘disappeared’ shows agreement with the head noun phrase, the
animate noun kleftis ‘thief’ and not with the inanimate noun kosmimata ‘jewellery’. Thus,
coordinations of animate and inanimate nouns are strongly dispreferred unless they occur
under the comitative structure.
4.3 Resolution Principles in MG
The presentation of the Modern Greek data introduces a distinction between (morpho)syntactic
and semantic resolution. In this section, we will argue that MG animate coordinate
nouns follow the semantic resolution principle, and MG inanimate nouns follow the
syntactic resolution principle. Also, we will argue that the unexpected patterns that are
recorded in both groups of coordinate constructions belong to a different principle, the
referential one.
4.3.1 Semantic Resolution in Animate Nouns
MG animate coordinate nouns are complicated in terms of the resolution strategies they
employ. We argue that the main principle in the expected patterns of MG animate coordinate
nouns is the semantic principle of resolution, which is the characteristic principle
found in most languages. However, there is also evidence that nouns with shared gender
follow feature matching or syntactic agreement irrespective of the referents of the nouns.
Finally, we will show that the unexpected patterns are the result of a third principle, the
referential. The table below is repeated from above for reasons of clarity:
ine
is

4.3 Resolution Principles in MG 89
Table 4.11: Agreement of SG/PL Animate Coordinate Nouns
Singular Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
msg msg mpl msg fsg mpl
fsg fsg fpl msg nm/f /0sg mpl
nsg nsg npl fsg nm/0sg mpl
fsg nf sg fpl(>mpl)
Plural Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
mpl mpl mpl mpl fpl mpl
fpl fpl fpl mpl nm/f /0pl mpl
npl npl npl fpl nm/0pl mpl>npl
fpl nf pl fpl>npl/(>mpl)
Corbett (1991) (following Greenberg (1966) and Schane (1970)), explains the semantic motivation
behind resolution in animate coordinate nouns by associating the resolved gender
of a coordinate phrase with the gender of larger groups of both sexes. Corbett (1991)(citing
Schane (1970)), claims that French sex-differentiated plural common nouns, such as
les Americains(masc.pl), denote a group of male or mixed sex Americans whereas the
corresponding feminine one, les Americaines(fem.pl), denotes only females. This type of
agreement distinction is also found in French coordinate phrases, which resolve to masculine
whenever the coordinate phrase consists of mixed gender conjuncts, and to feminine if
all conjuncts are female.
Sex-differentiated plural common nouns in MG show the same kind of distinction.
When we refer to a group of males or a group of mixed sex, the masculine gender is used
but when we refer to a group of females, the feminine gender is used. For example, the
noun xen-i/-es.masc/fem.pl ‘foreigners’ has a masculine and a feminine gender. If we
want to refer to a group of individuals that consists of both males and females or only
males the masculine gender xeni.masc.pl must be used. When the same noun is used in
its feminine form as in xenes.fem.pl ‘foreigners’, it denotes only a group of females 13 . This
is illustrated below:
(60) I Kriti exi polus ksenus
the Crete has many foreigners.masc.pl
‘Crete has many foreigners’ (male/mixed group of individuals)
(constructed)
(61) I Kriti exi poles ksenes
the Crete has many foreigners.fem.pl
‘Crete has many foreigners’ (female group of individuals)
(constructed)
Therefore, in all mixed gender combinations of MG animate coordinate nouns the
masculine agreement form is used. Thus, MG animate coordinate nouns resolve following
sex-differentiated plural common nouns which is the first evidence that resolution follows
the semantic principle.
Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) present futher evidence that supports the existence of semantic
agreement in animate coordinate nouns of most languages. The following principle,
repeated from above, identifies cases where semantic agreement occurs in a language:
13 Converted nouns like xen-i/-es.masc/fem.pl ‘foreigners’ inflect for gender on the basis of semantics.
Once the sex of their referents can be identified the noun is assigned a gender which acts as the sole controller
of any agreement type (Spencer, 2002, 297).

4.3 Resolution Principles in MG 90
(62) “Gender agreement with an animate NP that lacks an inherent gender is always
interpreted semantically.”
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, p.181)
Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) argue that this principle is triggered in two cases: when the
head noun is lexically genderless or when the phrase lacks a head noun. Cases that lack an
inherent grammatical gender are proper nouns, such as the French proper noun Dupont,
and sex-neutral nouns, such as the French journaliste. These two groups of nouns may
trigger male or female agreement depending on their denotation:
(63) Les Dupont sont beaux/belles
the Duponts are good-looking.masc.pl/good-looking.fem.pl
‘The Duponts(male or mixed/female group) are good-looking’
(64) Les journalistes sont compétents/compétentes
the journalists are competent.masc.pl/competent.fem.pl
‘The journalists (male or mixed/female group) are competent’
(Wechsler and Zlatić, 2003, p.181)
Also, Wechsler and Zlatić (2003) claim that the same agreement forms are found in
French pronouns, which are masculine when referring to a male or mixed group of individuals
or feminine when they refer to a female group:
(65) Ils/elles
parlent
they.masc.pl/fem.pl talk
‘They are talking in the kitchen’
dans
in
la
the
cuisine
kitchen
The same characteristics are also found in MG. Noncoordinate proper names, such as
Filipu or Emanuil, which are lexically genderless nouns, lack a grammatical gender and
they are always interpreted semantically. Thus, in the examples below the proper noun
Filipu is interpreted as a male or female due to the respective masculine/feminine ending
in the predicative adjective and determiner, which shows semantic agreement with the
controller noun:
(66) O Filipu
the.masc.sg Filipu
‘Filipu is good-looking’
(constructed)
(67) I Filipu
the.fem.sg Fillipu
‘Filipu is beautiful’
(constructed)
ine
is
ine
is
omorfos
good-looking.masc.sg
omorfi
beautiful.fem.sg
Also, MG pronouns display the same pattern. The pronoun afti.masc.pl ‘they’ is used
to refer to a group of male or mixed-sex individuals whereas the pronoun aftes.fem.pl
‘they’ is used to refer only to a group of female individuals:
(68) Afti/Aftes
kathonte stin kuzina
they.masc.pl/they.fem.pl are-sitting in-the kitchen
‘They (male or mixed-sex group)/(female group) are-sitting in the kitchen’
(constructed)

4.3 Resolution Principles in MG 91
Sex-neutral nouns such as those illustrated in example (64) are not found in the Greek
language 14 . MG coordinate nouns resolve according to MG pronouns and lexically genderless
nouns which is a second piece of evidence that they resolve semantically.
The resolution patterns in mixed gender coordinate noun phrases are themselves further
evidence that animate nouns follow semantic resolution. The first case concerns the
coordination of a feminine noun with the neuter noun to agori ‘the boy’, which denotes a
male referent. The gender resolution is masculine plural since the second conjunct denotes
a male and therefore the denotation of the conjuncts determines the resolved gender form:
(69) I Maria
the.fem.sg
xarumeni
Maria.fem.sg
happy.masc.pl
‘Mary and the boy are happy’
(constructed)
ke
and
to
the.neut.sg
agori
boy.neut.sg
ine
are.pl
In similar coordinate constructions where a feminine noun is coordinated with the
neuter noun to koritsi ‘the girl’, which denotes a female, gender resolution is feminine.
This result is motivated by the fact that the two nouns denote females and therefore the
denotation of the conjuncts yields this result:
(70) I Maria ke to koritsi tis
the.fem.sg Maria.fem.sg and the.neut.sg girl.neut.sg her
ine enthusiasmen-es ja tin kenurja tus
zoi
are.pl enthusiastic.fem.pl for the new their.fem/masc.pl life.
‘Mary and her girl are enthusiastic about their new life’
(constructed)
Similarly, the grammatically feminine proper noun Maria when it is coordinated with
the grammatically neuter noun to atomo me ti fusta ‘the person with the skirt’ yields
feminine resolution since, as expected, the second conjunct refers to a female. Thus, both
nouns denote female referents and the result is feminine agreement:
(71) I Maria ke to
the.fem.sg Maria.fem.sg and the.neut.sg
ti fusta ine paraksen-es
the skirt are.pl weird.fem.pl
‘Mary and the person with the skirt are weird’
(constructed)
atomo
person.neut.sg
me
with
Also, the coordination of a feminine noun with the semantically-vacuous neuter noun
to moro ‘the baby’ will result in different gender feature values, depending on the denotation
of the second conjunct. Thus, if the noun to moro ‘the baby’ denotes a male or
it is referentially unspecified then resolution is masculine, but if it denotes a female then
resolution is feminine. Both options are illustrated below:
(72) I Maria ke
the.fem.sg Mary.fem.sg and
ine kukl-i/-es.
are.pl beautiful.masc/fem.pl.
tus/-is
thavmazeis
them.masc/fem.pl you-admire
to moro
the.neut.sg baby.neut.sg
Tus/-is
vlepis
Them.masc/fem.pl you-see
tis
her
ke
and
14 One exception is the noun star ‘star’ borrowed from English. The determiner that precedes this noun
will determine whether it refers to male or a female. In coordinate structures, it behaves as the semantically-
vacuous neuter nouns, which we discussed above. For more details see Holton et al. (1997).

4.3 Resolution Principles in MG 92
‘Mary and her baby are beautiful. You see them and you admire them’
(constructed)
In all cases presented above, if the order of the conjuncts is reversed the resolved
agreement form remains the same. We randomly take example (72) and we reverse the
order in the coordinate nouns according to which the neuter noun occurs first and the
feminine noun occurs second:
(73) To moro tis ke i Maria
the.neut.sg baby.neut.sg her and the.fem.sg Mary.fem.sg
ine kukl-i/-es.
Tus/-is
vlepis ke
are.pl beautiful.masc/fem.pl. Them.masc/fem.pl you-see and
tus/-is
thavmazeis
them.masc/fem.pl you-admire
‘The baby and Mary are beautiful. You see them and you admire them’
(constructed)
Thus, the above patterns are clear cases of resolution according to the semantic principle
since what matters in the resolution outcome is the referent of the two conjuncts and not
their syntactic gender.
Apart from the semantic cases above, there seems to be evidence for a preference to
feature matching or syntactic agreement in MG animate coordinate nouns. This becomes
more obvious in animate grammatically neuter conjuncts that resolve to neuter irrespective
of being semantic or semantically-vacuous 15 neuter nouns. Semantic neuter nouns, such
as to agori ‘the boy’ and to koritsi ‘the girl’, have a male and a female semantic gender,
respectively. The semantic principle of resolution would consult the natural gender of the
conjuncts and since they have a male and a female referent, we would expect masculine
resolution. However, none of the consultants chose the masculine gender but selected
the neuter instead. In fact, the masculine gender appears to be highly marked if not
ungrammatical. The relevant example is illustrated below:
(74) To agori ke to
the.neut boy.neut and the.neut
etima/etimi? na figun
ready.neut/masc? to go
‘The boy and the girl are ready to go’
(constructed)
koritsi
girl.neut
Thus, resolution here depends strictly on feature matching since it ignores the meaning
of the conjoined elements and depends on their grammatical gender.
Similarly, when two referentially unspecified neuter nouns, such as to pedi ‘the child’
and to moro ‘the baby’, are coordinated, they resolve to neuter, irrespective of a male or
female referent, of two male referents or two female referents. This is illustrated in the
example below:
(75) To pedi ke
the.neut.sg child.neut.sg and
itan klidomena sto
were.pl locked.neut.pl in-the
to
the.neut.sg
domatio
room
ine
are
moro
baby.neut.sg
15 The term semantic neuter noun refers to the two grammatically neuter nouns that have a semantic
gender, to agori ‘the boy’ and to koritsi ‘the girl’, and the term semantically-vacuous neuter noun refers to
neuter nouns that do not have a semantic gender, such as to pedi ‘the child’, to moro ‘the baby’ and to
atomo ‘the person’.

4.3 Resolution Principles in MG 93
‘The child and the baby were locked in the room’
(constructed)
Thus, this is one more piece of evidence that in uniform gender nouns the grammatical
gender determines resolution and not the natural one, leading to the conclusion that
resolution in these patterns is motivated by the grammatical features of the coordinated
nouns.
When the semantic neuter nouns to agori ‘the boy’ and to koritsi ‘the girl’ are coordinated
with one of the semantically-empty neuter nouns to pedi ‘the child’ and to moro
‘the baby’, the resolved gender is still neuter plural, as illustrated below:
(76) To agori
the.neut.sg
lipimena
sad.neut.pl
boy.neut.sg
‘The boy and the baby are sad’
(constructed)
(77) To koritsi
the.neut.sg
lipimena
sad.neut.pl
girl.neut.sg
‘The girl and the baby are sad’
(constructed)
ke
and
ke
and
to
the.neut.sg
to
the.neut.sg
moro
baby.neut.sg
moro
baby.neut.sg
ine
are.pl
ine
are.pl
In example (76), resolution would be semantic if the semantic neuter noun to agori ‘the
boy’, which refers to a male, and the semantically-vacuous neuter noun to moro ‘the baby’
resolved to masculine. Similarly, in (77), resolution would also follow the semantic principle
if the semantic neuter noun to koritsi ‘the girl’, which denotes a female referent, and the
semantically-vacuous neuter noun to moro ‘the baby’ resolved to masculine or feminine.
None of these cases, though, resolve according to the semantic principle since the coordinate
phrase copies the syntactic gender of the conjuncts. Thus, we can conclude that if animate
neuter nouns or generally uniform gender nouns cooccur in a coordinate phrase, they
strictly follow feature matching agreement and not semantic agreement, despite having or
not a natural gender.
The analysis of the data shows that MG animate coordinate nouns follow the semantic
principle of resolution, which occurs in mixed gender combinations, and also feature
matching agreement, which occurs when the conjuncts share the same gender irrespective
of their referent. A third principle is also present which will be discussed below.
The following table summarises the unexpected resolution patterns in animate coordinate
nouns which occur only in plural nouns (and not in singulars):
Table 4.12: Animate PL Nouns: Unexpected patterns
Plural Conj
NP1 NP2 AP
fpl nm/0pl npl
fpl nf pl npl
The first issue is whether these patterns are instances of semantic resolution. We argued
above that the semantic genders for the MG animate nouns are the masculine gender,
which refers to males, and the feminine gender, which refers to females. Thus, if resolution
was according to the semantic principle, we would expect masculine resolution in the
pattern [fpl & nm/0pl] since one of the conjuncts denotes a male referent, and feminine

4.3 Resolution Principles in MG 94
resolution in the pattern [fpl & nf pl] since both conjuncts denote female referents. However,
the resolved gender is neuter and therefore we argue that the above patterns cannot
be considered cases of semantic resolution.
Second, the issue is whether the above patterns follow the feature matching or syntactic
principle of agreement. Grammatical or feature matching agreement occurs only when the
conjuncts share the same gender. In the above combinations none of the conjuncts have
the same gender and therefore neuter agreement is not a case of syntactic or a feature
matching principle. Finally, in an informal discussion with native speakers, they argued
that the choice of the neuter gender was driven by the fact that both nouns could be
referred to by the noun atoma ‘persons’, which is neuter in gender; although it does not
occur in the sentence, it is implied. Thus, we assume that a different principle is present
in these patterns.
4.3.2 Syntactic Resolution in Inanimate Nouns
Syntactic resolution means that it is the grammatical gender of the nouns that matters
and not their semantic or natural gender. We will argue that the expected patterns of MG
inanimate nouns admit the syntactic resolution principle. Below we repeat the table of
inanimate nouns:
Table 4.13: Agreement with Inanimate Coordinate Nouns
Singular Conjuncts
Concrete/Abstract Nouns Concrete Nouns Abstract Nouns
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
msg msg mpl>npl msg fsg npl>mpl msg fsg npl>mpl>fpl
fsg fsg fpl>npl msg nsg npl msg nsg npl
nsg nsg npl fsg nsg npl fsg nsg npl
Plural Conjuncts
Concrete/Abstract Nouns Concrete Nouns Abstract Nouns
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
mpl mpl mpl mpl fpl mpl>npl mpl fpl mpl>npl>fpl
fpl fpl fpl mpl npl npl mpl npl npl
npl npl npl fpl npl npl fpl npl npl
Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) claim that there are three recurring characteristics in
syntactic gender resolution. First, a coordinate phrase behaves as if it has the same gender
as some noncoordinate element in the language and there are no special agreeement markers
that would appear only with coordinate phrases. Secondly, a coordinate structure with
conjuncts that share the same gender behaves as if it has the same gender found in the
conjuncts, and thirdly, mixed gender conjuncts usually resolve to a gender feature value
found independently in a language, which may or may not be the same as the gender value
of the conjuncts (788).
These characteristics occur in MG inanimate nouns. Coordinate structures with the
same gender conjuncts result in that same gender, which is a case of feature matching of
the grammatical gender value of the individual conjuncts with the gender feature value of
the whole coordinate phrase:
(78) O iroismos ke
the.masc.sg heroism.masc.sg and
itan kiriarx-i kata
were.pl prevalent.masc.pl during
o
the.masc.sg
to 1821
the 1821
agonas
fighting.masc.sg

4.3 Resolution Principles in MG 95
‘Heroism and fighting were prevalent during 1821’
(G.N.: To Vima)
Coordinate structures with mixed gender conjucts also show that syntactic resolution
is the main principle in inanimate nouns since mixed gender conjuncts resolve to neuter.
This is a gender feature value that occurs independently in the language and which is not
necessarily found in the individual conjuncts. For instance, in example (79) the coordinate
phrase consists of a masculine and a feminine noun. The predicative adjective resolves
to neuter which is a different gender value that is not found in any of the two conjuncts.
The same gender value occurs in example (80) where the coordinate phrase consists of a
feminine and a neuter noun. In this case, neuter appears as the gender value only in one
of the two conjuncts:
(79) O kanapes ke
the.masc.sg
aspr-a
white.neut.pl
sofa.masc.sg and
‘The sofa and the chair are white’
(constructed)
(80) I karekla ke
the.fem.sg
anet-a
chair.fem.sg and
comfortable.neut.pl
‘The chair and table are comfortable’
(constructed)
i
the.fem.sg
to
the.neut.sg
polithrona
chair.fem.sg
trapezi
table.neut.sg
ine
are.pl
ine
are.pl
Also, the most important reason that MG inanimate nouns use the syntactic principle
of resolution is that inanimate nouns lack a natural gender and therefore semantics
cannot be consulted in order to derive resolution. Hence, the only principle they could
obey is the syntactic one. For example, the MG coordinate phrase below consists of two
feminine coordinate nouns. The nouns that have a feminine grammatical gender do not
have any semantic gender to affect the resolution process and feminine agreement is chosen
syntactically:
(81) I vivliothiki ke
the.fem.sg bookcase.fem.sg and
ine skur-es
are.pl dark.fem.pl
‘The bookcase and dining-table are dark’
i
the.fem.sg
trapezaria
dining-table.fem.sg
Similarly, mixed gender coordinate nouns without a natural gender admit neuter agreement
since the individual conjuncts do not have a semantic gender:
(82) O thanatos ke
the.masc.sg death.masc.sg and
ine simantik-a
are.pl important.neut.pl
‘Death and freedom are important’
i
the.fem.sg
eleftheria
freedom.fem.sg
Hence, the above examples make it obvious that inanimate nouns do not allow cases of
semantic resolution in any type of gender combination.
Let us consider next whether the exceptional patterns follow the syntactic resolution
principle. The table below presents only the unexpected cases found in this group of nouns:

4.3 Resolution Principles in MG 96
Table 4.14: Inanimate SG/PL Nouns: Unexpected patterns
Singular Nouns
Concrete/Abstract Nouns Concrete Nouns Abstract Nouns
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
msg msg npl msg fsg mpl msg fsg fpl/mpl
fsg fsg npl
Plural Nouns
Concrete Nouns Abstract Nouns
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
mpl fpl mpl mpl fpl mpl/fpl
According to table (4.14), the coordinate structures which consist of conjuncts with the
same gender, either masculine or feminine, resolve to the same gender of the conjuncts and
to the neuter gender as well. This is shown in the examples below
(83) O iroismos ke o
agonas
the.masc.sg heroism.masc.sg and the.masc.sg fighting.masc.sg
itan kiriarx-i/-a
kata to 1821
were.pl prevalent.masc/neut.pl during the 1821
‘Heroism and fighting were prevalent during 1821’
(G.N.: To Vima)
(84) I vivliothiki ke
the.fem.sg bookcase.fem.sg and
ine skur-es/-a
are.pl dark.fem/neut.pl
‘The bookcase and dining-table are dark’
(constructed)
i
the.fem.sg
trapezaria
dining-table.fem.sg
Although neuter is the syntactic gender, these cases are not syntactic since we would expect
in identical gender conjuncts grammatical agreement to result in the same gender found in
the conjuncts and not in a different gender. Thus, the unexpected neuter gender resolution
in shared gender coordinate nouns does not follow the syntactic principle.
Also, mixed gender coordinations with a masculine and a feminine noun resolve to the
expected neuter gender and to the unexpected masculine gender. The same combination
of nouns also resolves to the unexpected feminine gender only if the conjuncts are abstract.
These examples are shown below:
(85) O kanapes ke
the.masc.sg
aspr-a/-i
sofa.masc.sg and
white.neut/masc.pl
‘The sofa and the chair are white’
(constructed)
i
the.fem.sg
(86) O thanatos ke i
the.masc.sg death.masc.sg and the.fem.sg
ine simantik-a/-i/-es
are.pl important.neut.pl/masc.pl/fem.pl
‘Death and freedom are important’
polithrona
chair.fem.sg
eleftheria
freedom.fem.sg
ine
are.pl
These gender feature values are rather unusual in inanimate conjuncts since the expected
gender in mixed gender inanimate nouns is the neuter gender, which is a syntactic

4.4 Reference Transfer in Noncoordinate Constructions 97
gender and not any of the semantic genders, such as the masculine and feminine genders.
The fact that the above cases resolve to a gender which is not syntactic shows that these
resolution patterns do not follow the syntactic principle. In addition, since inanimate nouns
do not resort to semantic resolution anyway, the above patterns must be evidence of the
existence of a third principle. Finally, an informal discussion with the native speakers revealed
that the choice of the unexpected genders was driven by the fact that both nouns
could be referred to by an implied noun, which has agreement features similar to those
of the unexpected form and it does not occur in the sentence. Thus, we assume the unexpected
patterns do not belong to the syntactic or semantic principles of resolution but
they are evidence of a third resolution principle which we will refer to as the referential
principle. Before we analyse referential agreement in MG coordinate nouns, we need to
explain what referential agreement is and whether English or other languages show cases
of referential agreement.
4.4 Reference Transfer in Noncoordinate Constructions
The aim of this section is to present the phenomenon of referential agreement or “reference
transfer”(Pollard and Sag, 1994) and show how the mismatch gender agreement patterns
in MG can be explained in terms of this phenomenon.
Mismatch agreement has been studied by a number of linguists and a number of agreement
phenomena have been noticed to be problematic for the conventional purely syntactic
or semantic views. The most characteristic phenomenon of mismatch agreement, relevant
to the MG data, is that of “meaning transfer” or “reference transfer” 16 .
“Meaning transfer”, according to Nunberg (1977), refers to the “productive linguistic
processes that enable us to use the same expression to refer to what are intuitively distinct
sorts of categories of things” (Nunberg, 1995, 109). These transfers might involve the
figures that traditional rhetoric describes such as metaphors, synesthesias, metonymies
and synecdotes. Nevertheless, the main characteristic of reference transfer is that it is a
linguistic process with specific linguistic mechanisms. “Reference transfer” can apply to
predicates of any kind, lexical or phrasal and also to common nouns. Two characterictic
examples of “transfer” are presented below:
(87) a. I am parked out back
b. The ham sandwich is at table 7
(Nunberg, 1995, 110,115)
Nunberg (1995) gives a brief analysis of how “transfer” works in the above examples.
In both examples, there is a correspondence between the things in one domain and the
things in another domain. Thus, in example (87a) I refers to the car parked in a specific
location by referring to the driver of the car and not to the car itself. Similarly, in example
(87b) the phrase is uttered by a restaurant waiter, who considers that customers acquire
their distinctive properties with regard to the dishes they order. Thus, the noun phrase
‘ham sandwich’ refers to the person who has ordered a ham sandwich.
Nunberg (1995) attempts to explain the linguistic mechanisms of “transfer” in general.
He distinguishes two types of “transfer”. The first one involves demonstratives or indexicals
and it is mentioned as “deferred ostension” or “deferred indexical reference” (Nunberg,
1995, 111). According to Nunberg (1995), this type of transfer “allows a demonstrative or
indexical to refer to an object that corresponds in a certain way to the contextual element
picked out by a demonstration or by the semantic character of the expression” (Nunberg,
1995, 111). Consider the following example:
16 Nunberg (1977, 1995, 2005) uses the term “meaning tranfer”. Pollard and Sag (1994) use the term
“reference transfer”. Both of them refer to the same phenomenon.

4.4 Reference Transfer in Noncoordinate Constructions 98
(88) This is parked out back (holding up a key)
(Nunberg, 1995, 110)
Nunberg (1995) argues that it is more likely that the subject refers not to the key that
the speaker is holding but to the car that the key goes with. The evidence to support
this view is that the number of the demonstrative is determined by the intended referent
and not the demonstratum. So even if the customer is holding up several keys that fit a
single car, he would say This is parked out back, whereas if he is holding up only one key
that fits several cars he would say These are parked out back. Further evidence that the
demonstrative refers to the car is drawn by conjoining another predicate that describes the
car, but not a predicate that describes the key:
(89) a. This is parked out back and may not start
b.?? This fits only the left front door and is parked out back
(Nunberg, 1995, 110)
According to Nunberg (1995), the demonstratives and adjectives of other languages
display similar agreement patterns. Italian, for instance, uses the feminine noun for the
word ‘key’, la chiave, and the masculine noun for the word ‘truck’, il camion. Thus, if a
customer gives an attendant the key to a truck, the referent and not the demonstratum will
determine the gender of the demonstrative and the adjective for ‘parked’, as seen below:
(90) Holding up a key(la chiave,fem.sg) to refer to a truck(il camion,masc.sg)
Questo.masc.sg
This.masc
é
is
‘This is parked in back’
(Nunberg, 1995, 110)
parcheggiato.masc.sg
parked.masc
in
in
dietro
back
A different mechanism of transfer is what is known as “predicate transfer”. In this type
of transfer “the name of a property that applies to something in one domain can sometimes
be used as the name of a property that applies to things in another domain, provided that
the two properties correspond in a certain way”(Nunberg, 1995, 111). This type of transfer
is introduced by the example presented below:
(91) I am parked out back
(Nunberg, 1995, 110)
As Nunberg (1995) claims, most people would say that the transfer involves the subject
of the sentence I. A number of tests, however, indicate that the above example involves a
transfer of the conventional meaning of the predicate parked out back. For instance, if the
speaker had two cars he wouldn’t say:
(92) a. We are parked out back
(Nunberg, 1995, 111)
Secondly, it is possible to conjoin any other predicate that describes the speaker, and
not a predicate that describes the car:
(93) a. I am parked out back and have been waiting for 15 minutes
b. *I am parked out back and may not start
(Nunberg, 1995, 111)

4.4 Reference Transfer in Noncoordinate Constructions 99
Another piece of evidence is that the verb in the sentence is am first-person singular
and not is third-person singular as we would expect if the subject referred to a car. Thus,
the subject of I refers to the speaker, and the transfer involves the predicate parked out
back which contributes a property of persons whose cars are parked out back (Nunberg,
2005).
Finally, Nunberg (1995, 2005) claims that meaning transfer operates on the meanings
of common nouns as well as indexicals, whether they are in predicate position or referring
position. The following example is similar to example (87b):
(94) Who is the ham sandwich?
The process of transfer in this example is that customers acquire their properties based
on their relation to the dishes they order. The common noun ‘ham sandwich’ has a transferred
meaning and it contributes a property of people who have ordered ham sandwiches.
Pollard and Sag (1994) also discuss the phenomenon of “reference transfer” as part
of agreement mismatches, claiming that agreement is often guided by reference transfer,
rather than the grammatical (inherent) agreement properties of the phrase itself. This
notion is illustrated in the two classic examples below which show how the agreement
result is affected by this phenomenon:
(95) a. The ham sandwich is at table 7
b. The hash browns at table nine is getting angry
(Pollard and Sag, 1994, 85)
The first example, repeated from above, displays singular subject-verb agreement. Even
though, it seems that the verb agrees with the grammatically singular noun ham sandwich,
this is not the case. As mentioned above, the waiter uses the specific noun to refer to a
person who has ordered a ham sandwich. The person is a nonaggregate entity and the
verb shows agreement with the referred implied noun. The same notion is illustrated more
clearly in example (95b). The noun phrase hash browns is grammatically (inherently)
plural and therefore we would expect plural verb agreement. Instead, the verb shows
singular agreement since the referent is transferred to the person who has placed the order
and which is a nonaggregate entity.
Pollard and Sag (1994) also introduce another type of reference transfer which occurs
in “singular plurals”. In this group of nouns, there is a conflict between the agreement
features of the subject NP and those that the singular verb requires from its subject. The
following examples illustrate this kind of agreement mismatch:
(96) a. Eggs is my favourite breakfast
b. Eggs bothers me more than okra
(Pollard and Sag, 1994, 70)
In both examples, even though the NP appears in plural number, the verb shows
singular agreement. The noun eggs is referred to by a nonagreggate entity, such as ‘menu
type’ in example (96a) or ‘food’ in example (96b). According to Pollard and Sag (1994),
in both cases the referent of the phrase is in some contextual relation to an object usually
picked out by nonmetaphorical utterances of that phrase, allowing singular agreement.
Similar examples are the ones below, which illustrate the same kind of contextual
relation between the NP and the referred noun:
(97) a. Doing phonology problems and drinking vodka makes me sick
b. Unleashed dogs on city sidewalks threatens the health and welfare of law-abiding
citizens
(Pollard and Sag, 1994, 86)

4.4 Reference Transfer in Noncoordinate Constructions 100
In both cases, the two NPs refer to different nouns, such as an activity or a social
problem, respectively. Since the referred noun is perceived as a nonagreggate entity then
it yields singular agreement to the verb.
The phenomenon of “reference transfer” described above, which affects the agreement
result, seems to be closely related to the type of mismatch gender agreement found in the
MG unexpected patterns described in the previous section. In the next section, we will
argue that “reference transfer” is found in MG data and that it affects the gender and not
the number feature.
4.4.1 Reference Transfer in Modern Greek
In this section, we will show that all the unexpected patterns in MG are cases of agreement
that fall within the phenomenon of “reference transfer” and we adopt the term referential
agreement or referential principle of resolution to refer to this type of resolution.
As already mentioned above, “reference transfer” seems to affect the agreement result
in noncoordinate constructions. In the same way, resolved agreement in coordinate
constructions is not an exception and can be determined by “reference transfer”. In the
agreement cases discussed by Nunberg (1977, 1995) and Pollard and Sag (1994), the agreement
feature that is affected by “reference transfer” is number, as in the case of “singular
plurals”, repeated from above:
(98) Eggs is my favourite breakfast
(Pollard and Sag, 1994, 70)
The noun eggs, which is the subject in the phrase and it is grammatically plural,
is somehow referentially associated with a noun that is implied in the phrase and it is
a nonagreggate entity. The fact that the implied noun is singular leads to a singular
agreement in the verb.
A similar kind of mechanism is in operation in MG coordinate nouns which result in
unexpected gender resolution 17 . The following example discusses how “reference transfer”
works in MG:
(99) I
dromi ke i
the.masc.pl roads.masc.pl and the.fem.pl
ine jemat-i/-a
kosmo
are.pl full-of.masc/neut.pl people
‘The roads and the alleys are full of people’
platies
squares.fem.pl
The inanimate coordinate phrase with a masculine plural and a feminine plural noun
yields two types of agreement, the expected neuter gender, and the unexpected masculine
gender. The former occurs in all cases of mixed gender coordination in inanimate nouns
and it is the result of syntactic resolution, but the latter is unusual for the simple reason
that neuter is the default gender in inanimate nouns and not masculine. What allows
the appearance of the masculine gender in mixed gender cases of inanimate nouns is the
phenomenon of “reference transfer”.
We argue that what happens in MG is that the presence of the masculine gender as the
agreement form in the predicative adjective is due to an implied missing noun, which is
masculine in gender; it does not occur in the phrase but it is brought into the context and
denotes the coordinate nouns. A number of consultants who chose the masculine gender as
17 We have not come across relevant literature on reference transfer in MG non-coordinate and coordinate
constructions. However, we assume that reference transfer in gender occurs only in coordinate nouns in the
patterns discussed here and not in non-coordinates.

4.4 Reference Transfer in Noncoordinate Constructions 101
the agreement feature value were asked what motivated this choice for this specific gender
and they confirmed that they assumed both coordinate nouns were denoted by the common
noun xori ‘spaces’, which is masculine in gender. The above sentence including the implied
noun can be rewritten as follows:
(100) I
dromi ke i platies
the.masc.pl roads.masc.pl and the.fem.pl squares.fem.pl
ine jemat-i xori
me kosmo
are.pl full.masc.pl places.masc.pl with people
‘The roads and the alleys are places full of people’
As in the examples presented by Nunberg (1995) and Pollard and Sag (1994), the
implied missing noun seems to have a semantic relation to the two nouns that are present
in the coordinate phrase. In the case of MG, the relation must be one of hyponymy. The
implied missing noun functions as the superordinate or cover term of the two nouns that
are present in the coordinate phrase and morphosyntactically determines the agreement
result since the predicative adjective is forced to show morphosyntactic agreement with the
implied noun. Therefore, in example (100), the noun xori ‘spaces’ is the superordinate or
cover term of the two nouns dromi ‘roads’ and platies ‘squares’ and, although it is omitted,
it determines the gender feature of the adjective. We need to note that the noun xori
‘spaces’ is not the only possible superordinate term. In fact, a number of consultants chose
the noun perioxes’ ‘areas’ as the hypernymic term which is feminine in gender and it can
also function as a cover term for both nouns. These consultants were fewer (4 out of 26)
when compared to the 15 (out of 26) consultants who chose masculine and the 13 (out of
26) who chose neuter.
The same process takes place in animate coordinate nouns. In example (101), the
two conjuncts resolve to the expected semantic gender feminine plural and the unexpected
neuter plural. The latter occurs due to the phenomenon of referential agreement. Thus, an
implied missing noun is brought into the context, such as atoma ‘persons’, which is neut in
gender and which determines morphosyntactically the agreement gender of the predicative
adjective and functions as the superordinate or cover term for the two conjuncts jajades
‘grandmothers’ and koritsia ‘girls’:
(101) I jajades
ke
the.fem.pl grandmothers.fem.pl and
ine xarumen-es/-a
are happy.fem/neut.pl
‘The grandmothers and the girls are happy’
ta
the.neut.pl
koritsia
girls.neut.pl
The first issue that needs to be discussed with regard to the phenomenon of referential
agreement in MG is that in the specific coordinate structures gender is the main feature
that is affected (also found in Italian), and not number, as in the case of English. Our data
showed that the number feature does not show any unexpected behaviour (i.e. singular
agreement) since number agreement is always plural with coordinate nouns irrespective of
the number of the conjuncts. In fact, singular verb agreement is ungrammatical when the
conjuncts refer to different entities. On the other hand, the adjective has an unexpected
gender form. This gender form is the same as the gender form of the implied noun that is
referred to by the consultants but never occurs in the phrase. Therefore, in MG referential
agreement involves the gender feature and not the number feature, as in other languages.
The second issue is that referential agreement in the MG patterns differs when compared
to the corresponding English ones with regard to the relation of the nouns that are
present in the phrase and the referred implied noun. In English, it seems that the relation
is one of metonymy, where the name of one entity is used to refer to another entity, as in

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 102
example (87b), or one of hyponymy, where the implied noun functions as the superordinate
term of the two conjuncts, which are part of the coordinate phrase, as in examples (96)
and (97). This cover term, which is indirectly implied, determines the gender value in the
predicative adjective. In MG, it seems to be strictly a hyponymic relation where the two
conjuncts are hyponyms of the superordinate implied noun, at least in the cases we have
presented so far.
Also, in some cases the consultants do not bring into the discourse the same implied
noun but a different one. For instance, as already mentioned in example (100) most of the
speakers brought into the context the noun xori ‘spaces’ but some of them brought into the
context the noun perioxes’ ‘areas’. In both cases, the two nouns are considered hypernyms
of the two conjuncts dromi ‘roads’ and platies ‘squares’. Thus, we argue that the consultants
bring into the discourse SOME implied noun that it is necessarily the hypernym of
the two coordinate nouns. This noun has specific agreement features which determine the
agreement features of the predicative adjective. The implied noun may differ from speaker
to speaker depending on the hierarchical grouping of the lexical items in each speaker’s
mind. In most cases, however, speakers tend to bring into the context the same implied
noun.
Finally, the data we have collected and presented to the consultants yield the unexpected
patterns discussed so far. The nature of the phenomenon, which is context dependent,
may allow the possibility of additional unexpected gender values resulting from other
coordinate nouns. This would require more research and a broader collection of data with
a larger number of consultants to detect a comprehensive list of all the possible unexpected
patterns.
Thus, we have argued that the unexpected gender patterns in MG display the phenomenon
of referential agreement. Referential agreement refers to the mismatch gender
agreement between two coordinate nouns and the predicative adjective/participle of the
sentence. According to referential agreement, an implied noun is brought into the context,
it functions as the superordinate term of the coordinate nouns and its agreement features
are copied by the predicative adjective/participle. Referential agreement in MG affects only
the gender feature. In other languages, such as English or Italian, it affects the number
feature or both the number and gender features, respectively.
4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG
This section presents an analysis of the expected agreement patterns in MG coordinate
nouns using the set-based theory. Following Sadler (2006), we will assume the standard rule
of gender resolution for the syntactic patterns of inanimate nouns and we will introduce
a specification in the phrase structure rule for the semantic patterns of animate nouns.
Finally, we will also propose an analysis of the referential agreement patterns based on
LFG.
4.5.1 Problems of the Current Theories for the MG data
Before we present our analysis, we will discuss the various problems of the different theorerical
approaches for the MG data.
Dalrymple and Kaplan’s set-based approach for gender resolution in coordinate phrases
accounts for syntactic cases of gender resolution and not for semantic cases of gender
resolution found in animate coordinate nouns in most languages. MG animate coordinate
phrases show semantic agreement, and therefore their theory of syntactic resolution cannot
capture all the agreement patterns in MG.
If both animate and inanimate nouns are seen as coming under the purview of the
marker set approach in order to derive resolution applying the union operation, it is nec-

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 103
essary to employ two different groups of marker sets for the animate and inanimate nouns.
In MG inanimate nouns, we need to generate the resolution patterns in table (4.15) 18 :
Table 4.15: Agreement of Inanimate SG/PL Coordinate Nouns
Singular Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
msg msg mpl>npl msg fsg npl>mpl/fpl
fsg fsg fpl>npl msg nsg npl
nsg nsg npl fsg nsg npl
Plural Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
mpl mpl mpl mpl fpl mpl>npl>fpl
fpl fpl fpl mpl npl npl
npl npl npl fpl npl npl
The following marker sets for masc, fem and neut inanimate nouns are assigned:
(102) Inanimate Nouns
masc{m}
fem{f}
neut{m,f}
Once the union operation is applied, the assignments above predict the expected resolution
facts in table (4.15), but not the unexpected ones:
(103) Union Operation in Inanimate Nouns
{m}(MASC) ∪ {m}(MASC) = {m}(MASC)
{f}(FEM) ∪ {f}(FEM) = {f}(FEM)
{m,f}(NEUT) ∪ {m,f}(NEUT) = {m,f}(NEUT)
{m}(MASC) ∪ {f}(FEM) = {m,f}(NEUT)
{m}(MASC) ∪ {m,f}(NEUT) = {m,f}(NEUT)
{f}(FEM) ∪ {m,f}(NEUT) = {m,f}(NEUT)
The resolution patterns of animate nouns are different from those of inanimate nouns
and we need to assume different marker sets according to the patterns in table (4.16),
repeated from above:
18 As already discussed above, the unexpected feminine plural agreement occurs in inanimate abstract
singular and plural nouns only.

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 104
Table 4.16: Agreement of Animate SG/PL Coordinate Nouns
Singular Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
msg msg mpl msg fsg mpl
fsg fsg fpl msg nm/f /0sg mpl
nsg nsg npl fsg nm/0sg mpl
fsg nf sg fpl/(mpl)
Plural Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
mpl mpl mpl mpl fpl mpl
fpl fpl fpl mpl nm/f /0pl mpl
npl npl npl fpl nm/0pl mpl/npl
fpl nf pl fpl/(mpl)/npl
The marker sets below can produce the desired results for the animate nouns:
(104) Animate Nouns
masc{f,n}
fem{f}
neut{n}
The input is again the successful production of the expected resolution patterns but it
is impossible to account for the semantic pattern [fpl & nf pl=fpl] and the unexpected
patterns:
(105) Union Operation in Animate Nouns
{f,n} (MASC) ∪ {f,n}(MASC)= {f,n}(MASC)
{f} (FEM) ∪ {f} (FEM) = {f} (FEM)
{n} (NEUT) ∪ {n}(NEUT) = {n}(NEUT)
{f,n} (MASC) ∪ {f}(FEM) = {f,n}(MASC)
{f,n} (MASC) ∪ {n}(NEUT) = {f,n}(MASC)
{f} (FEM) ∪ {n}(NEUT) = {f,n}(MASC)
Several drawbacks result from the use of different marker sets. Firstly, the separate
marker sets are not economical, as would be desirable. Also, the marker sets assumed for
animate nouns cannot capture all the semantic patterns. The noun combinations [fsg &
nf sg] and [fpl & nf pl] are not captured and therefore additional constraints are required
to the existing PS rule, as in Slovene. In addition, in both animate and inanimate nouns
none of the unexpected patterns are accounted for by the marker sets assumed and therefore
further constraints must be imposed so as to capture the unexpected patterns successfully.
Therefore, such an approach is undesirable.
Wechsler and Zlatic’s (2003) proposal also seems problematic for the gender agreement
patterns found in MG. Although it accounts for resolution in animate nouns according
to the semantic principle and resolution in inanimate nouns according to the syntactic
principle, their analysis seems to work only for languages with common resolution patterns
in animate and inanimate nouns and not for languages with different resolution patterns
in the two groups of nouns like MG. Following Wechsler and Zlatić (2003), we assume the
logic of distributivity in MG animate nouns and we assign the semantic values ‘female’ for
a female group where all members are female and ‘non-female’ for a male group or a mixed
gender group. E-gender nouns, like neuter, do not have any semantic correlates and are

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 105
exempt from the logic of distributivity. This assignment would give the desired results in
animate nouns.
Let us turn to MG inanimate nouns which resolve to neuter gender in mixed gender
conjuncts. If we assign the grammatical gender values of inanimates based on the corresponding
semantic values of animates, then each positively specified grammatical gender
such as feminine is represented as {f} and each negatively specified gender such as nonfeminine
(i.e. masculine) is represented as a null set {} and neuter nouns are represented
as the singleton set {n}. To calculate the gender of inanimate nouns we need to remove the
e-gender nouns by intersecting the calculated set with the semantic genders (s-genders).
This would result in the desired patterns in coordinate structures with conjuncts which are
either both masculine or feminine, such as in {f}∩{f} and {}∩{}. However, in coordinate
structures with neuter conjuncts or mixed gender conjuncts as in {}∩{f} or {}∩{n} the
result is masculine and not neuter as required. This is illustrated as follows:
(106) MG
a. Set of s-genders
Gs ={f}
b. Set representations of the s-genders
fem:{f} (

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 106
The above ranking would account for the different gender patterns found in animate and
inanimate nouns because the feature [Human] determines resolution only in mixed gender
conjuncts and also the ident constraint ∀c[identG(c,ph)], which accounts for identical
gender conjuncts, is placed higher than the rest of the constraints which refer to gender.
In mixed gender cases, the ident constraint ∀c[identG(c,ph)] will be violated and then
the gender choice will be determined by shifting from the least marked gender (neuter) to
the next least marked (masculine) when the conjoined phrase is [+Human]. However, the
above ranking is unable to capture the pattern [fsg & nf sg=fpl] or [fpl & nf pl=fpl] in
animate nouns since the optimal form would necessarily be mpl and not fpl because the
constraint *F is placed higher in the ranking and not lower. In addition, Badecker (2008)
argues that inanimate singular coordinate nouns with a masculine and a feminine conjunct
resolve to neuter and the corresponding plural ones resolve to masculine. Our data showed
that such a difference does not necessarily occur since the consultants in coordinate phrases
of both numbers pick up the same resolution genders (i.e. neuter and masculine) but with
greater preference to one or to the other possibly related to the number of conjuncts. Such
a preference cannot be stated in terms of the OT ranked constrainst since OT assumes
only one optimal form. With regard to the unexpected patterns, Badecker’s OT analysis
cannot capture these patterns too. Many different constraints need to be imposed and for
a theory like OT, which admits only the optimal form, the several agreement choices of the
exceptional referential patterns are difficult to account for.
Finally, the major drawback of Sadler’s (2006) analysis is that it cannot accommodate
the MG data due to the wide range of unexpected resolution patterns which are not either
syntactically or semantically motivated but referentially determined. Also, it might be seen
as a disadvantage the use of the additional feature semgend with values male and female
since it may not be required by languages that do not impose the distinction male/female
but other distinctions, such as non-/rational, as in Dravidian languages. In the last case,
we should postulate a different feature with different values too which might result to
redundancies in the grammar. Even though her analysis could be seen as language specific,
it can be easily assumed for other languages since the standard PS rule is maintained in
inanimate nouns, which follow syntactic resolution, and we can introduce any changes in
the semantic rule of animate nouns, which may differ across languages. We will attempt a
similar type of analysis for the expected cases of MG.
To conclude, we presented certain problems of the theories on gender resolution with
regard to the MG data, and we argue that none of them fully captures the range of
resolution results that are found in MG and especially those resolution patterns that are
derived referentially. Next we turn to our analysis.
4.5.2 An Analysis of the MG Expected Patterns
The data analysis showed that the expected patterns of MG animate and inanimate coordinates
differ in the resolved gender value and the gender resolution principle. Animate
coordinate nouns with mixed gender conjuncts resolve to masculine unless all conjuncts
denote females in which case resolution is feminine. If conjuncts have the same gender they
resolve to that shared gender, irrespective of the referents of the nouns. Thus, animate
coordinate nouns show semantic resolution. Inanimate coordinate phrases with mixed gender
conjuncts resolve to neuter. If the conjuncts share the same gender then they resolve
to that shared gender. Thus, inanimate coordinate nouns follow the syntactic principle of
resolution.
According to Kazana (2007), the first task is to propose a unified solution for both
groups of nouns in order to avoid problems of redundancy. To achieve that we need to
employ the same marker sets for both animate and inanimate nouns and use the set-union
operation to derive the required resolution results. Assuming the marker set decomposition,

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 107
we represent the genders for animate and inanimate nouns with the same group of sets.
The sets assumed for both groups of nouns are those of the inanimate nouns since neuter is
the resolved gender for the inanimate nouns and also neuter occurs as the resolved gender
in animate neuter nouns irrespective of the referents. Therefore, the marker sets used to
derive the syntactic gender in inanimate nouns can equally be adopted for the derivation of
both the semantic patterns and the patterns that show feature matching in animate nouns.
The marker sets are the following:
(108) Marker Sets for Animate & Inanimate Nouns
masc{m}
fem {f}
neut {m,f}
(Kazana, 2007)
Inanimate coordinate nouns are straightforwardly derived by the above assumption
accounting for all the expected non-exceptional cases. The inanimate expected agreement
patterns are repeated below:
Table 4.17: Agreement of Inanimate Coordinate Nouns
Singular or Plural Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
msg/pl msg/pl mpl msg/pl fsg/pl npl
fsg/pl fsg/pl fpl msg/pl nsg/pl npl
nsg/pl nsg/pl npl fsg/pl nsg/pl npl
When the specific marker sets are combined through set-union the result is the neuter
gender in all mixed gender coordinate nouns and the gender of the conjuncts in all uniform
gender coordinate nouns:
(109) Union Operation in Inanimate Nouns
{m}(MASC) ∪ {m}(MASC) = {m}(MASC)
{f}(FEM) ∪ {f}(FEM) = {f}(FEM)
{m,f}(NEUT) ∪ {m,f}(NEUT) = {m,f}(NEUT)
{m}(MASC) ∪ {f}(FEM) = {m,f}(NEUT)
{m}(MASC) ∪ {m,f}(NEUT) = {m,f}(NEUT)
{f}(FEM) ∪ {m,f}(NEUT) = {m,f}(NEUT)
(Kazana, 2007)
The LFG phrase structure rule that captures the necessary subset relations is the standard
syntactic rule of coordination proposed by Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000). However,
following Sadler (2006, 14) we also assume that nouns have the lexical specification anim
+/−. Thus, the standard syntactic rule of coordination is assumed:
(110) Syntactic Rule - Inanimate Nouns
NP → NP CONJ NP
↓∈↑ ↓∈↑
(↓anim)= − (↓anim)= −
(↓ gend) ⊆ (↑gend) (↓gend) ⊆ (↑gend)
(Kazana, 2007)
This rule states that in a coordinate phrase each NP conjunct daughter needs to be a
member of the conjunct set of the mother node. In the second line, it is specified that each

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 108
conjunct daughter must be inanimate while the last line states that the set value of each
conjunct daughter needs to be a subset of the set value of the mother node, defined as the
smallest set. Thus, the expected resolution patterns in MG inanimate nouns are captured
using closed sets for the gender features and they undergo resolution using set union.
The same marker sets are also assumed to account for the resolution patterns in MG
animate nouns. The expected agreement patterns are repeated below:
Table 4.18: Agreement of Animate Coordinate Nouns
Singular or Plural Conjuncts
NP1 NP2 AP NP1 NP2 AP
msg/pl msg/pl mpl msg/pl fsg/pl mpl
fsg/pl fsg/pl fpl msg/pl nm/f /0sg/pl mpl
nsg/pl nsg/pl npl fsg/pl nm/0sg/pl mpl
fsg/pl nf sg/pl fpl/(>mpl)
Any attempt to apply these marker sets to capture the expected cases results partly in
the wrong gender feature value since the desired gender feature for the mixed gender cases
is the masculine and not the neuter one, which is generated, as shown below:
(111) Union Operation in Animate Nouns
{m}(MASC) ∪ {m}(MASC) = {m}(MASC)
{f}(FEM) ∪ {f}(FEM) = {f}(FEM)
{m,f}(NEUT) ∪ {m,f}(NEUT) = {m,f}(NEUT)
{m}(MASC) ∪ {f}(FEM) = {m,f}(NEUT)*
{m}(MASC) ∪ {m,f}(NEUT) = {m,f}(NEUT)*
{f}(FEM) ∪ {m,f}(NEUT) = {m,f}(NEUT)*
Thus, set union cannot be used for the resolution patterns of animate nouns.
In order to overcome this problem, we need to employ two additional phrase structure
rules for the patterns of animate nouns without using set union for these cases. The first
rule should incorporate the necessary specifications to capture coordinations with nouns
that share the same marker sets. This rule should postulate the requirement that if all
daughters share the same marker set, then use that marker set. This is formalised as
follows:
(112) Same Gender Rule - Animate Nouns
NP → NP CONJ NP
↓∈↑ ↓∈↑
(↓anim)=+ (↓anim)=+
(↑gend)= (↓gend) (↑gend)=(↓gend)
(Kazana, 2007)
In the above rule, apart from the set membership requirement, two additional specifications
are introduced. The first one requires the conjuncts to be lexically specified as
anim +, and the second requires the conjunct daughters to share the same gender with
the mother node.
The second rule is more complicated since it should capture coordinate phrases with
nouns that have different marker sets. In particular, we observed that if the genders of
the conjuncts are different, then we need to use masculine ({m}) or optionally if conjuncts
denote female individuals then we need to use feminine ({f}). To achieve that we need
to employ the extra feature semgend with values male and female, proposed by Sadler

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 109
(2006). Thus, the lexical entries that refer to male individuals are lexically specified as
(↑semgend)=male and those that refer to female individuals are lexically specified as
(↑semgend)= female. The rule is formalised as follows:
(113) Mixed Gender Rule - Animate Nouns
NP → NP CONJ NP
↓∈↑ ↓∈↑
(↓anim)=+ (↓anim)=+
((↑∈)gend)=(↓gend)
{(↑gend)= {m}
∨
[(↑gend)= {f}
¬(↑∈semgend)= female]}
The first two parts of the above rule impose the set membership requirement and
the specification that the nouns should be lexically specified as anim +. The third line
postulates the restriction that the daughters have distinct marker sets, referring to mixed
gender coordinations. Then, two possibilites arise, either resolution is masculine ({m}),
or resolution is feminine ({f}) in which case all of the conjunct daughters should denote
a female individual. In the last line, negation is expressed universally given a wide scope
interpretation:
(114) ¬(↑∈semgend)= female
This means that there is no member of the set whose value is non-female or else for all
daughters the value is constrained to be female.
To summarise, in this section we presented one PS rule that accounts for the expected
resolution patterns in inanimate nouns, using the crosslinguistic set-union approach, and
two separate PS rules that account for the expected resolution patterns in animate nouns,
introducing specifications for semantic resolution.
Our approach, which resembles that of Sadler (2006), has a number of advantages and
disadvantages. The main advantage is that it captures all the expected patterns in animate
and inanimate nouns using the same marker sets for both groups of nouns. Also, it uses
the standard PS rule of coordinate structures regarding the gender feature alongside the
widely adopted set-union operation in inanimate nouns. It postulates separate PS rules
only for animate nouns whose resolution patterns are language specific.
A problematic aspect is that we also employ the extra feature semgend in the fstructure.
Although this is not advantageous for LFG as it is an extra feature, it turns
out to be useful since it is a placeholder for a semantic treatment of the present resolution
rules since it captures the distinction between male and female denotations of nouns.
The most important problem, however, is that it does not capture the exceptional patterns
in both groups of nouns. A different approach needs to be assumed for these unexpected
patterns and this is where we will turn to next.
4.5.3 An Approach to the MG Referential Agreement Patterns
So far we presented an analysis of the expected patterns of gender resolution in coordinate
phrases. The unexpected patterns cannot be captured by the above proposal since they are
referentially motivated based on discourse conditions. Thus, we will propose an analysis
taking into account the discourse conditions imposed by the native speakers.
The central idea behind the phenomenon of referential agreement in MG involves SOME

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 110
implied noun 19 brought into the discourse by native speakers. The speakers when uttering
a coordinate phrase modified by a predicative adjective/participle do not necessarily
obey the syntactic or semantic expected patterns of resolution, but they follow referential
agreement by implicitly introducing into the context a specific noun with its own morphosyntactic
features. Such a noun will be referred to as the Contextually Introduced
Referent 20 . The agreement target (i.e. the predicative adjective or participle) is forced
to agree with the morphosyntactic features (i.e. gender and number) of the Contextually
Introduced Referent, which is implicitly present in the sentence and which also functions as
the superordinate/hypernymic term of the coordinate nouns. In MG, predicative adjectives
agree grammatically with the subject of the sentence and occur in copular constructions.
For the analysis of the MG copular constructions, we will follow the open function xcomp
analysis 21 proposed by Dalrymple (2001) and Dalrymple et al. (2004a). This analysis assumes
that the copular verb ine ‘be’ subcategorises for an xcomp only, whereas the subj
occurs outside the angled brackets in the semantic form and it is not a semantic argument
of the verb. This type of analysis is preferred for languages in which the postcopular complement
shows agreement with the subject of the copula, as in MG.
Let us first consider an expected case of gender agreement. The following example
consists of two singular masculine nouns that syntactically resolve to masculine:
(115) O pinakas
the.masc.sg picture.masc.sg
ine megali
are.pl big.masc.pl
‘The picture and the sofa are big’
ke
and
The f-structure of the sentence is presented below:
o
the.masc.sg
kanapes
sofa.masc.sg
19 We use capital letters since the implied noun assumed by native speakers may vary from speaker to
speaker but the agreement features of different nouns may coincide.
20 We will briefly refer to the Contextually Introduced Referent by the acronym CIR.
21 Dalrymple et al. (2004a) also propose the closed complement predlink analysis which is required
when the postcopular element already has a subject. According to Dalrymple et al. (2004a, 193) such
constructions are that-clauses, certain gerunds and modal uses of the copula with null pronominal subjects.

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 111
(116) ⎡
⎤
pred ‘be subj’
⎢ ⎡⎧⎡
⎤⎫⎤⎥
⎢ ⎢
pred ‘picture’
⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎥ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢def
+ ⎥ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎥ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢ ⎢person
3 ⎥ ⎥⎥
⎥ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢ ⎣num
sg
⎥ ⎥⎥
⎦ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢⎪⎨
⎪⎬
⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ gend masc
⎥⎥
⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎡ ⎤ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢ pred ‘sofa’
⎥⎥
⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢def
+ ⎥ ⎥⎥
⎢subj
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢ ⎢person
3 ⎥ ⎥⎥
⎥ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢ ⎣num
sg
⎥ ⎥⎥
⎦ ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎥⎥
gend masc ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢person
3 ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢num
pl ⎥⎥
⎥⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎣gend
masc
⎥⎥
⎦ ⎥
⎢ conj and
⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤⎥
⎢ pred ‘big ’ ⎥
⎣xcomp
⎣
⎥
⎦
subj
In the f-structure, the copular verb ine ‘be’ subcategorises for an open complement
xcomp, which is the adjective megali ‘big’. Since the latter is predicative, it should behave
as verbs do. Thus, it requires a subj, which is the same as the subj of the verb ine
‘be’. This subj is the coordinate phrase and it has a plural number and a masc gender,
which is the resolved gender of the two conjuncts. The above syntactic information can be
captured in the lexical entry of the verb ine ‘be’, illustrated below:
(117) ine v (↑pred) = ‘be〈xcomp〉subj’
(↑subj) = (↑xcomp subj)
Since the subject of the verb ‘be’ is structure shared with the subject of the predicative
adjective, the lexical entry of the latter should also specify the following information:
(118) megali (↑pred) = ‘big〈subj〉’
(↑subj num)= pl
(↑subj gend)= masc
Thus, in the expected pattern of gender resolution the adjective megali ‘big’ agrees with
the syntactic controller which is the subj coordinate noun phrase. The above analysis
works effectively for the expected patterns in MG.
The same predicative adjective, however, also presents an alternative unexpected case
of gender agreement, which has the same agreement features with those of SOME implied
noun that occurs in the context. For example, in (119) the adjective shows unexpected
neuter agreement, which might be the gender of the contextually implied noun pragmata
‘things’:
(119) O pinakas
the.masc.sg picture.masc.sg
ine megala
are.pl big.neut.pl
‘The picture and the sofa are big’
ke
and
o
the.masc.sg
kanapes
sofa.masc.sg

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 112
Therefore, the unexpected patterns require the predicative adjective, which is the agreement
target, to display agreement features that do not agree with the syntactic controller,
which is the resolved gender of the coordinate phrase that the adjective is a predicate of,
but with a contextual controller, the Contextually Introduced Referent.
In order to capture the above phenomenon, we will assume that there is an extra level
of representation, the Contextual level. At the Contextual level, the CIR introduces a
r(eferential)-structure with agreement feature-values that the predicative adjective shows
agreement. The correspondence functions assumed within LFG can be used to relate the
Contextual level and the syntactic level as follows:
Let P be the Contextually Introduced Referent and r be the f-structure of
P introduced at the Contextual level of representation C. The syntactic fstructure
level of representation is mapped to the contextual level of representation
through the mapping function d. The inverse mapping function d −1
also holds.
Thus, any f-structure f of coordinated NPs at the syntactic level can be associated to
an r-structure r introduced at the contextual level imposing the following correspondence
relation: d(f)= r. The inverse correpondence relation d −1 (r)= f will also hold denoting
the f-structure from the contextual level to the syntactic level of representation. This is
schematically represented as follows:
f
d
−→ r r
d −1
−−→ f
Figure 4.1: Mapping correspondence
Based on example (119), the r-structure of the Contextually Introduced Referent introduced
at the contextual level C has the following agreement features:
⎡ ⎤
(120) pred ‘thing’
⎢ ⎥
r: ⎣num
pl ⎦
gend neut
The following lexical entry will hold for the CIR:
(121) pragmata (r pred) = ‘thing’
(r num)= pl
(r gend)= neut
In the unexpected pattern, the agreement target (i.e. predicative adjective) will agree
with the contextual controller, the CIR, whose agreement features are specified in the rstructure
and which occurs only at the contextual level C. In example (119), the CIR is the
noun pragmata ‘things’ with the r-structure in (120) and with the lexical entry in (121).
Thus, the adjective megala, apart from the syntactic agreement, which results from the
syntactic controller (i.e. the subject noun phrase), needs to agree with the morphosyntactic
features of the CIR, which is the contextual controller and has the agreement features
num=pl and gend=neut, shown in the r-structure. The lexical entry of the predicative
adjective that shows referential agreement is stated as follows:
(122) megala (↑pred) = ‘big’
(↑d num)= pl
(↑d gend)= neut

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 113
So the general idea is that the predicative adjective will either agree with a syntactic
controller or with a contextual controller. The syntactic controller is the subject noun
phrase which is a coordinate structure and it triggers agreement as a result of resolution;
the contextual controller is the Contextually Introduced Referent which is some implied
noun that is brought into the discourse by the speakers and it occurs at the contextual
level of representation.
As proposed above, there is a mapping function d in the f-to-r direction and an inverse
mapping function d −1 in the r-to-f direction. Then a relationship must hold between f,
which is the f-structure of (↑subj), and r, the r-structure of CIR. This is stated as follows:
(123) d (↑subj) = r
Considering the equation in (123), we propose the following lexical entry for the expected
and the unexpected patterns of the predicative adjective/participle:
(124) megala (↑pred) = ‘big〈subj〉’
{(↑subj num)= pl
(↑subj gend)= neut|
((↑subj)d num)= pl
((↑subj)d gend)= neut}
In (124), the predicative adjective introduces a disjunctive lexical entry. The first part
specifies the expected agreement features as a result of syntactic resolution, and the second
part introduces the unexpected agreement features as a result of referential agreement
with the agreement features of the CIR, which is the hypernym of the two conjuncts.
The disjunctive lexical entry of the predicative adjective captures the main idea of the
phenomenon of referential agreement in MG coordinate noun phrases.
There are some challenges that need to be discussed. The first issue concerns the status
of the r-structure which occurs at the contextual level but it is represented as a syntactic
structure. The r-structure, which is a contextual level structure, must be represented as an
f-structure since it holds all the syntactic features of the implied noun. However, it has to
occur only at the contextual level and not at the syntactic level since it is not syntactically
present in the phrase but it is only implied by the native speakers. In addition, the pred
value in the r-structure is the semantic form of some noun brought into the context by the
native speakers with a unique instantiation. This pred value needs to be present since it is
a specific noun each time which functions as the superordinate term of the two coordinate
nouns of the sentence, although it differs from speaker to speaker depending on speakers’
perception.
The second issue relates to the requirement of capturing the semantic relation of the
subj noun phrase, which occurs at the syntactic level and functions as the hyponym,
with the CIR, which occurs at the contextual level and functions as the hypernym of the
coordinate subj noun phrase. This semantic relation between the Contextually Introduced
Referent and the coordinate nouns is a hypernymic-hyponymic one and could be expressed
within the lexicon in the form of a hierarchy.
Constraint-based theories like LFG and HPSG assume the template hierarchy and the
type hierarchy, respectively. In LFG, the template hierarchy encodes lexical generalisations
in terms of relations between descriptions of structures and not in terms of any
formal inheritance relations between types. These templates are f-structure descriptions
with a name which can be used in other equations to state more complicated descriptions
(Dalrymple et al., 2004b, 201). In LFG, these hierarchies seem to be abbreviatory. On
the other hand, HPSG builds linguistic generalisations also using a type hierarchy where
more specific types inherit their information from less specific but related types. In HPSG,

4.5 An Approach to Gender Agreement in MG 114
lexical generalizations are statable as relations between elements in the type lattice, where
different subtypes function as alternatives and a specific type may belong to many supertypes
(Malouf, 1998; Pollard and Sag, 1994). Thus, in HPSG these hierarchies relate
ontological objects of the theory and do not simply state abbreviations.
In order to capture the semantic relation of the lexical items, we could assume an
ontological hierarchy resembling those of LFG or HPSG, which will show how the various
lexical items are related to each other where the more general term includes within it the
more specific ones. This hierarchy could be represented as follows for the relevant example
in (119):
THINGS
DECORATION FURNITURE
PAINTINGS LIGHTS TABLES
Figure 4.2: A simple hierarchy representing ontological relations
In the hierarchy above, the superordinate term is the noun ‘things’ which includes as
hyponyms the noun ‘decoration’ and the noun ‘furniture’. Within the noun ‘furniture’,
which also functions as a general term, other hyponyms are included like the nouns ‘lights’
and ‘tables’. Also, the noun ‘lights’ is the hyponym of the general term ‘decorations’ since
‘lights’ could be a piece of furniture or a piece of decoration.
A second issue that arises is that the representation of this hierarchy may differ from
speaker to speaker depending on the world knowledge and perception and on the way the
various lexical items are organised in each speaker’s mind. Thus, a person may assume
a specific hierarchy with a specific superordinate term but a different person may assume
a different hierarchy and therefore a different superordinate term for the same coordinate
nouns. As seen above, most speakers chose the noun xori ‘spaces’ as the superordinate
term for the two nouns dromi ‘streets’ and squares ‘platies’ but some speakers chose the
noun perioxes ‘areas’. This clearly shows that native speakers assume a different ontological
representation for the same group of nouns depending on their world knowledge and
perception.
The second issue is related to the field of ontology and could be explained further from
that perspective. Ontology traditionally deals with questions concerning what entities exist
or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy,
and subdivided according to similarities and differences (Genesereth and Nilson, 1987).
Thus, ontology focuses on the relations of different concepts within a system. One aspect
of ontological relations is also that of subordination and superordination. In Schalley and
Zaefferer (2007, 4), these two relations are defined as “weak orderings” as follows:
Conceptual subordination: Concept A 22 is c-subordinated to concept B iff every
instance of A is also an instance of B, and
Conceptual superordination, its converse.
(Schalley and Zaefferer, 2007, 4)
According to the above definition, in example (119) and similar ones, the native speakers
carry extra-linguistic information which affects the current linguistic knowledge. This
information refers to the CIR, which is brought forward into the specific discourse conditions,
and it is usually a superordinate concept which includes within it instances of the two
coordinate nouns. This extralinguistic concept, the CIR, has grammatical features that determine
the gender (and subsequently number) of the predicative adjective. In most cases,
22 A, B and C stand for the related concepts.

4.6 Conclusion 115
native speakers bring into the context the same extralinguistic concept and therefore the
predicative adjective shows agreement with the features of that specific concept. There are
cases, however, that native speakers bring into the discourse different concepts and therefore
there is a divergence into the agreement features of the predicative adjective. This is
more common in abstract coordinate nouns. In the following example, the native speakers
chose different gender features in the predicative adjective, masculine and feminine:
(125) O kopos ke i prospathia
the.masc.sg effort.masc.sg and the.fem.sg trial.fem.sg
aparetit-i/-es ja na proodefsei kanis
necessary.masc/fem.pl for to progress someone
‘The effort and trial are necessary for someone to progress’
The predicative adjective shows masculine plural agreement since native speakers may
bring into the discourse the noun tropi.masc.pl ‘ways’ as the superordinate term, which
is masculine in gender. The feminine gender is also inherited from the predicative adjective
because the superordinate term assumed by some native speakers is enies.fem.pl
‘meanings’, which is feminine gender.
Thus, we have proposed a syntactic analysis of referential agreement and we have
provided an ontological hierarchy that could be used to represent the lexical relations
between the two nouns that appear in the coordinate phrase and the CIR that is implied
by native speakers and appears at the contextual level of representation. The fact that the
CIR may differ from speaker to speaker due to the different way that the various native
speakers perceive the world is viewed from an ontological explanation since the ontological
organisation of lexical items is attributed to extralinguistic conditions.
4.6 Conclusion
In this chapter, we presented predicate-argument agreement in MG coordinate noun phrases,
focusing on the gender feature. The data showed that gender resolution in MG does not
follow a straightforward distinction between syntactic resolution in inanimate nouns and
semantic resolution in animate ones. Instead, MG coordinate nouns show a combination of
expected and unexpected resolution patterns. The expected patterns refer to cases of resolution
that follow either the semantic or the syntactic principles. The unexpected patterns
refer to an additional type of agreement the referential agreement which is determined
by contextual factors. This type of agreement depends on the assumption of a Contextually
Introduced Referent on behalf of the consultants, which triggers morphosyntactic
agreement in the sentential predicate.
The expected patterns of inanimate coordinate nouns follow the syntactic principle of
resolution and the unexpected patterns follow the referential agreement principle. Similarly,
the expected patterns of animate coordinate nouns follow the semantic principle
(same gender nouns show feature matching agreement) and the unexpected patterns follow
referential agreement.
To account for the variation in the expected patterns, we assumed the marker-set
decomposition (Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000) with common marker sets for both groups of
nouns. In inanimate nouns, syntactic resolution is derived by the standard syntactic rule
for gender resolution which follows the set-union operation. In animate nouns, additional
specifications are introduced in the PS rule which capture both the grammatical and the
semantic patterns. Thus, union operation is not applied.
For the unexpected cases, native speakers bring into the discourse an extralinguistic
concept the Contextually Introduced Referent. In LFG, we introduce an extra level of
ine
are

4.6 Conclusion 116
representation, the contextual one, where r-structure is the structure of the referred element.
The agreement features of the referred element in r-structure are introduced to the
f-structure of the predicative adjective through the d mapping function. This preliminary
analysis captures the basic idea of the referential agreement principle. However, we showed
that the CIR, which functions as the superordinate term of the coordinate nouns it refers
to, is extralinguistic in nature and may differ from speaker to speaker. To explain this
extralinguistic phenomenon we have proposed an ontological hierarchy similar to the template
hierarchy assumed by LFG and the type hierarchy assumed by HPSG, which shows
how native speakers represent the various lexical items, and we have argued that the use
of a different CIR across speakers largerly depends on ontology and different perception of
the world.

Chapter 5
Head Modifier Agreement in
Modern Greek
5.1 Introduction
In MG, head-modifier agreement requires the modifier to agree with the noun it modifies
in number, gender and case. The situation is more complicated with coordinate noun
phrases. In the present chapter, we will focus on the number and gender features. In
examining a range of modified coordinate nouns in MG, we found that the MG definite
determiner differs from the rest of the modifiers. A single modifier with wide scope can
modify two coordinate nouns and it agrees in number with both conjuncts but it agrees
in gender with the closest conjunct (CCA), irrespective of the gender of the two nouns.
The shared modifier allows the generation of joint and split readings in both singular and
plural nouns. The definite determiner, however, does not show the same behaviour since
each conjunct needs a separate determiner. A shared definite determiner with wide scope
can modify two coordinate nouns and it agrees in number with both nouns but it only
occurs with the joint reading in both singular and plural nouns. In terms of gender, a
shared definite determiner requires uniform gender conjuncts, whereas it is allowed with
mixed gender conjuncts only when the two nouns are masculine and feminine in gender.
Some exceptional data are found when a shared determiner with wide scope modifies two
coordinate nouns and occurs with the split reading. We will suggest that these patterns
are cases of natural coordination (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006).
The proposal developed by King and Dalrymple (2004) on determiner agreement and
noun coordination lays out a putative crosslinguistic typology based on three different
agreement systems, concord, index and concord/index that relate to the number
feature. We will argue that the MG modifiers are nicely accounted for by the concord
system since they comply with the restrictions of that system. The MG determiner, on the
other hand, is best explained by the most restrictive system, the concord/index. The
exceptional data, which allow a shared definite determiner to modify coordinate nouns
and occurs with the split reading, could be analysed according to the proposal on natural
coordination by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006). However, the syntactic structure of MG
natural coordination patterns differs from the syntactic structure of natural coordination
proposed by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006). Thus, we follow the standard analysis of
accidental coordination for the MG natural coordination cases. It is worth noting that Modern
Greek grammars and traditional textbooks (Clairis et al. (2004), Holton et al. (1997),
Triantaphyllidis (1994), Triantaphyllidis (2005), Joseph and Philippaki-Warburton (1987),
Mackridge (1985) and Holton et al. (1997)) do not present any discussion of modifiers or
the definite determiner with coordinate nouns or the phenomenon of natural coordination
in MG.

5.2 NP Internal Agreement and Interpretation of the Coordinate Nouns 118
The first section revisits the three different agreement systems proposed by King and
Dalrymple (2004), and discusses how the index num feature is associated to a semantic
distinction between the joint and split reading in coordinate nouns modified by a shared
determiner. Next, we present MG modifiers with coordinate nouns and we argue that they
follow the concord agreement system. Then, we present the MG definite determiner
with coordinate nouns and we argue that it follows the index/concord system. The
exceptional patterns are captured assuming the standard analysis of accidental coordination
and not that of natural coordination.
5.2 NP Internal Agreement and Interpretation of the Coordinate Nouns
Modification in NP coordinate structures is rather complicated since a common determiner
cannot always modify two coordinate nouns, and if it does, it yields specific interpretations.
As discussed in Section 3.3.2, King and Dalrymple (2004) predict three different agreement
systems based on the index and concord agreement features when a shared determiner
modifies coordinate nouns in NP internal agreement. The concord system requires
determiners to show agreement only with the concord features of each conjunct. This
system allows a singular determiner to modify coordinated singular nouns and a plural
determiner to modify coordinated plural nouns. In both cases, the conjuncts may refer to
the same or different individuals since there is no index feature restriction.
(1) concord systems:
a. Singular determiner
(↑concord num) = sg
b. Plural determiner
(↑concord num) = pl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 86)
The concord/index system is the most restrictive system and requires the determiner
to show agreement with the concord features of each conjunct and the index feature of
the coordinate phrase as a whole. This system imposes restrictions on both the concord
and index agreement features and allows a singular determiner to modify coordinated
singular nouns. A consequence of this system is that a singular determiner can scope over
conjuncts only when they get a joint or boolean reading. The same system in plural allows
a plural determiner to modify plural coordinate nouns, which can get either a joint or a
split reading.
(2) concord and index systems:
a. Singular determiner
(↑concord num) = sg
(↑index num) = sg
b. Plural determiner
(↑concord num) = pl
(↑index num) = pl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 85)

5.2 NP Internal Agreement and Interpretation of the Coordinate Nouns 119
The index system requires determiners to show agreement only with the index features
of the coordinate phrase as a whole (and not with the concord features of the distinct
conjuncts). This system allows a singular determiner to modify singular nouns that refer
to the same individual and a plural determiner to modify conjoined singular nouns.
(3) index systems:
a. Singular determiner
(↑index num) = sg
b. Plural determiner
(↑index num) = pl
(King and Dalrymple, 2004, 86)
Heycock and Zamparelli (2000, 2005), whose work is discussed in King and Dalrymple
(2004), also examine modification in coordinate noun phrases and discuss the existence of
two possible interpretations when coordinate nouns are modified by a shared determiner.
They refer to these interpretations as the “joint” reading and the “split” reading. The joint
reading occurs when both nouns denote the same individual, and the split reading occurs
when the two nouns refer to different individuals. Both King and Dalrymple (2004) and
Heycock and Zamparelli (2005) observe that there is a difference concerning the readings
that are generated between singular and plural coordinate nouns modified by a shared
definite determiner in languages like Italian, Spanish, German, French and Brazilian Portuguese.
In Brazilian Portuguese, for example, in singular conjuncts, a shared determiner can
modify two coordinate nouns and the coordinate phrase is interpreted with the “joint”
(Heycock and Zamparelli, 1999, 2000) reading, as illustrated below:
(4) O presidente e diretor da Air
the.sg.masc
France
France
president.sg.masc and director.sg.masc of Air
‘The president and director of Air France’
((Heycock and Zamparelli, 2000, 7) cited in (King and Dalrymple, 2004, 92))
If a single determiner modifies coordinate singular nouns and the coordinate phrase is
interpreted with the “split” (Heycock and Zamparelli, 1999, 2000) reading, the phrase is
ungrammatical. This is shown below:
(5) *A mesa e escrivaninha estão arrumadas
‘The table and the small desk are in order’
(Heycock and Zamparelli, 2000, 7)
The split reading can only be admitted if a separate determiner appears before each
conjunct, as seen below:
(6) A mesae a escrivaninha estão arrumadas
‘The table and the small desk are in order’
(Heycock and Zamparelli, 2000, 7)
The same generalisations do not hold when the conjuncts are plural. All languages
discussed in Heycock and Zamparelli (2000, 2005) and King and Dalrymple (2004) allow
both the “split” and the “joint” interpretation in coordinate plural nouns that are modified

5.2 NP Internal Agreement and Interpretation of the Coordinate Nouns 120
by a single plural determiner. The following example is from Italian and it is grammatical
even though a single determiner modifies both nouns and it occurs with the split reading:
(7) Gli amici e nemici di Gianni si trovano
the.pl friends.pl and enemies.pl of Gianni were found
d’ accordo su un solo punto
in agreement on a single point
‘The friends and enemies of Gianni were in-agreement on a single point’
(Heycock and Zamparelli, 2000, 10)
An important aspect of King and Dalrymple’s proposal, which is related to the distinction
proposed by Heycock and Zamparelli (2000) between the joint and split reading, is
that the value of the index num feature of the coordinate phrase represents the number of
individuals it refers to. Thus, syntactic index num is associated to the semantic number
of the referents in a phrase.
Therefore, we can argue that as well as a syntactic agreement pattern we might find
some additional semantic aspects. According to King and Dalrymple (2004, 75), in a coordinate
phrase with singular conjuncts, when the definite determiner has a sg value in
the index num feature the coordinate phrase necessarily refers to only one individual. In
this case, the interpretation of the phrase is the joint reading and the definite determiner
imposes the syntactic feature-value requirement index num=sg. The most characteristic
case is the English example the friend and colleague where the syntactic structure for the
coordinate phrase has the annotation index num=sg and the interpretation is the joint
reading.
On the other hand, in a coordinate phrase with plural conjuncts, when the definite
determiner has a pl value in the index num feature, the coordinate phrase can be interpreted
with the joint or the split reading. The joint reading derives from the fact that
the two coordinate nouns are both plural and they may refer to the same individuals. A
characteristic case is the English example the friends and colleagues. In this case, the two
nouns refer to the same people and the phrase occurs with the joint reading, while the
definite determiner imposes the syntactic requirement index num=pl. The split reading
is also possible since the two coordinate nouns are plural and they may also refer to different
individuals. Thus, the same example can have a split interpretation since the two
nouns can refer to different groups of individuals and the definite determiner imposes the
syntactic requirement index num=pl. We observe that the annotation in the syntactic
structure is the same irrespective of the interpretation of the coordinate phrase as in index
num=pl. Thus, we conclude that in coordinated plural nouns the syntactic structure for
the coordinate phrase has the annotation index num=pl and this annotation corresponds
to the joint or the split interpretation.
The above distinction between split and joint readings and their association to the syntactic
index num feature with sg or pl values are crucial for the MG data, which present
a slightly different behaviour from the languages discussed by Heycock and Zamparelli
(2000) and King and Dalrymple (2004). We will show that in MG coordinate phrases, a
shared modifier follows the concord system and introduces the semantic requirements of
that system, admiting both joint and split interpretations. The shared definite determiner
follows the index/concord system but it appears to introduce some additional semantic
specifications over and above those generated by the most restrictive syntactic agreement
system of King and Dalrymple (2004). The definite determiner allows only the joint reading
with both singular and plural conjuncts; the split interpretation under a shared determiner
is allowed in plural number only in a specific group of data which fall within the case of
natural coordination (Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006).
The method used for the collection of data was based on a wide Internet search, on

5.3 NP Internal Agreement in Modern Greek 121
newspaper articles and on personal discussions with about fifteen native speakers who
confirmed the acceptability and unacceptability of the collected sentences. Consultants
accepted or rejected a phrase based on whether they would use it in everyday language or
they found it unaccaptable and rejected it. Next, we will discuss NP internal agreement
in coordinate nouns in MG.
5.3 NP Internal Agreement in Modern Greek
The MG determiners and modifiers generally encode a three-way gender 1 distinction between
masculine, feminine and neuter in both singular and plural number 2 and agree with
the nouns they modify. In example (8), the definite determiner o modifies the noun andras
and shows singular, masculine, nominative agreement with the latter. In example (9), the
indefinite determiner merika modifies the noun pedia and shows plural, neuter, nominative
agreement with the latter:
(8) o
the.sg.masc.nom
‘the man’
(constructed)
(9) merika
some.pl.neut.nom
‘some children’
(constructed)
antras
man.sg.masc.nom
pedia
children.pl.neut.nom
Similarly, the adjectival modifier megali ‘big’ shows plural, masculine, nominative agreement
with the noun andres ‘men’:
(10) megali
big.pl.masc.nom
‘big men’
(constructed)
antres
men.pl.masc.nom
In the next section, we will discuss first shared MG modifiers with coordinate nouns
and then the definite determiner o-i-to.sg.masc/fem/neut ‘the’ with coordinate nouns.
We present data with identical gender conjuncts and mixed gender conjuncts modified by
a shared modifier and by a shared definite determiner.
5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers
Generally, in MG modifiers with coordinate nouns, a shared modifier scopes over coordinate
nouns and it agrees in num with both nouns while it occurs either with the joint or the
split interpretation in both singular and plural conjuncts. The modifier always agrees in
gender with the closest conjunct. A separate modifier can also appear before each noun
and agrees with the latter in both num and gender. In this case, it occurs only with
a split interpretation. We will discuss examples with various shared modifiers, such as
adjectives, quantifiers and determiners.
In coordinated singular nouns with the same gender, a singular attributive adjective
scopes over two conjuncts and requires singular num agreement with both nouns and
gender agreement with the closest noun 3 . It can convey either a joint or a split reading,
1 There are a few exceptions, such as some numerals, the distributive determiner kathe etc that do not
encode this distinction. For more details see Mackridge (1985) and Holton et al. (1997).
2 The MG determiners and modifiers distinguish four cases, nominative, genitive, accusative and dative
apart from the gender and number distinctions. Case is not central and we will not discuss it further.
3 In uniform gender nouns, the adjective also agrees in gender with the second conjunct.

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 122
depending on whether the two nouns refer to the same or different individuals or entities.
In example (11), the shared adjective scopes over both conjuncts and the only possible
interpretation is the joint one since the nouns refer to a single individual and the verb
shows singular agreement. In example (12), a shared adjective scopes over both nouns but
it conveys a split interpretation since the two conjuncts denote different individuals and
the verb shows plural agreement 4 :
(11) O Gorjias itan megalos
the
ritoras
Gorgias was.sg great.sg.masc
orator.sg.masc
‘Gorgias was a great philosopher and orator’
(History Book, High School 3rd year)
filosofos
philosopher.sg.masc
ke
and
(12) Drastirios pateras ke ijos theorunte
active.sg.masc father.sg.masc and son.sg.masc are-considered.pl
o Onasis ke o Aleksantros
the Onasis and the Alexander
‘Active father and son are considered to be Onassis and Alexander’
(Onasis, 1997)
Also, a singular adjective cannot modify a singular and a plural noun simultaneously,
but it only scopes the closest conjunct, which must be singular, and not the second conjunct:
(13) Drastirios pateras ke iji
theorunte
active.sg.masc father.sg.masc and sons.pl.masc are-considered.pl
o Latsis ke ta pedia tou
the Latsis and the children his
‘Active father and sons are considered Latsis and his children’
In MG, a plural adjective cannot modify singular conjuncts, as seen is example (14):
(14) *Drastirii pateras ke ijos theorunte
active.pl.masc father.sg.masc and son.sg.masc are-considered.pl
o Onasis ke o Aleksantros
the Onasis and the Alexander
‘Active father and son are considered to be Onassis and Alexander’
(constructed)
In coordinated plural phrases, MG modifiers behave in a similar way. The plural
modifier scopes over two conjuncts and specifies plural num agreement with both nouns
and gender agreement with the closest noun. The joint and the split interpretations
are allowed when a shared adjective scopes over coordinate nouns. In example (15), the
conjuncts are modified by the same adjective and they refer to the same concept since the
conjuncts are considered synonyms. In example (16), the adjective scopes over both nouns
but the individuals denote different groups of people and therefore the split reading is the
most plausible interpretation:
4 The following examples were collected from Greek newspapers and various books. I will use the abbre-
viation G.N. to stand for Greek Newspaper and G.M. to stand for Greek Magazine followed by the specific
newspaper or magazine from which I have collected each example. The examples that were constructed are
indicated with the word ‘constructed’.

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 123
(15) Isxires antiparathesis ke antiparavoles
strong.pl.fem juxtapositions.pl.fem and contrasts.pl.fem
ekdilothikan stin kentriki sinedriasi tis Vulis
were-expressed.pl in-the central meeting of-the Parliament
‘Strong juxtapositions and contrasts were-expressed in-the central meeting of the
Parliament’
(G.N.:To Vima)
(16) Megali angioplastes ke zografi
great.pl.masc
eona...
century...
sculptors.pl.masc and painters.pl.masc
‘Great sculptors and painters of the 5th century...’
(www.in.gr)
tu
of-the
Also, a plural adjective cannot modify a plural and a singular noun at the same time.
The plural adjective scopes over the closest conjunct, which is also plural, and not the
second conjunct:
(17) Megali angioplastes ke zografos
great.pl.masc
eona...
century...
sculptors.pl.masc and painter.sg.masc
‘Great sculptors and a painter of the 5th century...’
(constructed)
tu
of-the
Apart from adjectives, the data showed that shared quantifiers and determiners specify
the same num agreement with both nouns and gender agreement with the closet conjunct,
and allow both a joint and a split interpretation when they scope over coordinate nouns. For
example, the quantifier arket-os/-i/-o.sg.masc/fem/neut ‘quite a lot’ and the correlative
determiner opi-os/-a/-o.sg.masc/fem/neut ‘whoever’ have a masculine, a feminine and
a neuter form in both singular and plural numbers and can scope over coordinated singular
or plural nouns that admit both joint and split readings, denoting the same or different
entities, respectively. The examples below illustrate the singular quantifier arket-os/-i/o.sg.masc/fem/neut
‘quite a lot’, which specifies singular agreement with both nouns
and closest conjunct gender agreement:
(18) Arketi
anastatosi ke anisixia
quite-a-lot-of.sg.fem agitation.sg.fem and worry.sg.fem
proklithike eksetias tis ikonomikis krisis
was-caused.sg because-of the financial crisis
‘Quite a lot of agitation and worry was caused because of the financial crisis’
(G.N.:Ethnos)
(19) Arketi
dulia ke organosi
quite-a-lot-of.sg.fem work.sg.fem and organisation.sg.fem
xriastikan sto singekrimeno grafio
were-needed.pl in-the specific office
‘Quite-a-lot of work and organisation were needed in the specific office’
(G.N.:Kathimerini)
The first case denotes reference to the same entity since number verb agreement is singular.
The second case denotes two different entities and the verb shows plural number
5u
5th
5u
5th

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 124
agreement 5 .
The plural quantifier arket-i/-es/-a.pl.masc/fem/neut ‘quite a lot’ scopes over coordinated
plural nouns, which refer either to the same or different individuals, and agrees in
gender with the closest conjunct. In example (20), the two nouns admit the joint reading
denoting the same group of individuals, which has both properties, whereas in example
(21), the nouns admit the split reading denoting different individuals:
(20) Arketi
ftoxi ke anergi
quite-a-lot.pl.masc poor.pl.masc and unemployed.pl.masc
idopiithikan prosfata apo tin eforia
were-warned.pl recently from the tax-office
‘Quite-a-lot of poor and unemployed were notified recently from the tax office’
(G.N.:Ependitis)
(21) Arketi
ipurgi
ke ifipurgi
quite-a-lot.pl.masc ministers.pl.masc and deputy-ministers.pl.masc
psifisan to nomosxedio
voted-for.pl the bill
‘Quite a lot of ministers and deputy-ministers voted for the bill’
(G.N.:To Vima)
The singular or plural correlative determiner opi-os/-a/-o.sg.masc/fem/neut ‘whoever’
modifies coordinated singular or plural nouns, respectively, and admits both readings,
denoting the same or different entities. It specifies the same num agreement with both
conjuncts and it always agrees in gender with the closest conjunct. Consider the following
examples:
(22) Opios
filos ke sinadelfos
whoever.sg.masc friend.sg.masc and colleague.sg.masc
kurasmenos dikeute adia
tired is-entitled day-off
‘Any tired friend and colleague is entitled a day off’
(constructed)
(23) Opio
agori ke
whoever.sg.neut boy.sg.neut and
mporun na kanun etisi
can to make application
‘Any interested boy and girl can apply’
(constructed)
koritsi
girl.sg.neut
ine
is.sg
endiaferonte
are-interested.pl
The first case denotes reference to only one and the same individual since the verb shows
singular number agreement. The second case denotes two different individuals agori ke
koritsi ‘boy and a girl’ and the verb shows plural number agreement.
The plural correlative determiner with coordinated plural nouns also shows the same
syntactic characteristics, while it allows reference to the same or different entities. This is
illustrated in the following examples:
(24) Opii
ftoxi
whoever.pl.masc poor.pl.masc
voithia dikeunte amesa
help are-entitled immediately
ke apori
and destitutes.pl.masc
epidoma anerjias
jobseeker’s allowance
xriazonte
need.pl
5 We should note that a second possibility might be available in the above examples. In particular,
example (18) can also have plural verb agreement with a split interpretation, and example (19) can also
have singular verb agreement with a joint interpretation. These were found less often.

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 125
‘Any poor and destitutes in need of help are immediately entitled to jobseeker’s
allowance’
(G.N.:Ependitis)
(25) Opii
ipurgi
ke ifipurgi
whoever.pl.masc ministers.pl.masc and deputy-ministers.pl.masc
psifisan to nomosxedio tha minun sti Vuli
voted-for.pl the bill will stay in-the Parliament
‘Any ministers and deputy-ministers that voted for the bill will stay in the Parliament’
(G.N.:To Vima)
In example (24), the two nouns refer to the same group of people, but in example (25)
two separate groups are denoted.
In coordinate constructions with conjuncts of different gender the above observations
also hold. A shared modifier scopes over coordinate nouns and agrees in number with both
conjuncts and in gender with the closest conjunct, while it allows both a joint and a split
interpretation.
In example (26), the singular attributive adjective kalos ‘good’ agrees in number with
both conjuncts but in gender with the first conjunct, the noun sinadelfo ‘colleague’. The
adjective still scopes over both nouns and the two conjuncts denote different referents since
they inflect for a plural verb agreement:
(26) Eftixos, exo kalo sinadelfo ke
luckily, I-have good.sg.masc colleague.sg.masc and
sinadelfisa pu ine eksipiretiki
colleague.sg.fem who are.pl helpful.pl
‘Luckily, I have a good man-colleague and woman-colleague who are helpful’
(constructed)
In example (27), the singular attributive adjective agrees in number with both conjuncts
but in gender with the first conjunct only. Semantically, however, the adjective ipervoliki
‘excessive’ scopes over both nouns and the two nouns denote the same referent since they
convey similar meanings:
(27) I narkisistes xaraktirizonte apo ipervoliki
the narcissists are-characterised by excessive.sg.fem
aftareskia
ke aftothavmasmo
self-complacency.sg.fem and self-admiration sg.masc
‘The narcissists are characterised by excessive self-complacency and self-admiration’
(G.M.:VIMAgazino)
Similarly, coordinated plural nouns of the same number but different gender are modified
by an adjective, which agrees in number with both nouns and in gender with the noun
closest to it. Semantically, the adjective scopes over both nouns and the two conjuncts
may refer to different or to identical entities, as in examples (28) and (29), respectively:
(28) Katastrofiki sismi
ke plimires
destructive.pl.masc earthquakes.pl.masc and floods.pl.fem
tin poli apo to 1965
the town since the 1965
‘Destructive earthquakes and floods hit the town since 1965’
www.geocities.com/dsvolou14/ergasies/volos/volos.htm
plitun
hit.pl

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 126
(29) Kathimerines agonies ke agxi
tu
daily.pl.fem agonies.pl.fem and anguishes.pl.neut of-the
mesu elina ine i dulia, i akrivia, ke ta
middle
dania
mortgages
Greek are.pl the job, the high-prices and the
‘Daily agonies and anguishes of the middle class greek are jobs, high prices and
mortgages’
(G.M.:VIMAgazino)
In example (28), the two nouns cannot denote the same entity since they refer to
different natural phenomena. In example (29), the two nouns agonies ke agxi are closely
related concepts and denote the same entity.
In the same way, the quantifier meriki ‘some’ modifies two plural conjuncts with mixed
gender. It agrees in number with both nouns but in gender with the noun closest to it. The
quantifier scopes over both nouns and allows a joint and a split interpretation, respectively:
(30) An ke antimetopise merikus ekfovismus
even though he-faced some.pl.masc intimidations.pl.masc
ke apiles sinexise to ergo tu
and threats.pl.fem, he-continued the work his
‘Even though he faced some intimidations and threats, he continued his work’
(G.N.:Eleftherotipia)
(31) Ja merikus daskalus
ke
for some.pl.masc men-teachers.pl.masc and
daskales
ta imerologia itan apajorevmena
women-teachers.pl.fem the diaries were not-allowed
‘For some men-teachers and women-teachers diaries were not allowed’
(G.M.:VIMAgazino)
In example (30), the two nouns denote the same entity, but in example (31), daskalus
ke daskales ‘men-teachers and women-teachers’ denote different groups of people.
The findings in MG are summarised as follows:
• A singular modifier modifies singular coordinate nouns and occurs with the joint and
the split reading
• A plural modifier modifies plural coordinate nouns and occurs with the joint and the
split reading
• In both cases, the shared modifier agrees in gender with the closest conjunct
• A plural modifier cannot modify singular coordinate nouns and occur either with the
joint or with the split reading
Thus, we can conclude that in MG coordinate nouns with a shared modifier, the number
feature distributes to both conjuncts since both nouns need to specify the same number
feature as their modifier, but the gender feature always shows closest conjunct agreement
(CCA). The shared modifier scopes over coordinate singular or plural nouns and occurs
with the joint or split interpretation. In the next section, we will present the analysis of
MG shared modifiers with coordinate nouns.

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 127
5.4.1 concord agreement with the MG Modifiers
Next, we turn to the analysis of the MG modifiers and whether any of the agreement
systems outlined in King and Dalrymple (2004), concord, concord/index and index,
account for the MG modifiers.
The presentation of coordinate phrases in MG modified by a shared modifier, such as an
adjective or a quantifier, showed that a shared modifier agrees in number with both nouns
but in gender with the closest conjunct. The modifier scopes over coordinate nouns and
occurs with the joint and split readings, while the conjuncts refer to the same or different
individuals, respectively. Therefore, we argue that MG modifiers follow the concord
system. This system would predict the following patterns in MG:
Table 5.1: CONCORD SYSTEM
ANIMATE INANIMATE
JOINT READ
MODsg
Nsg & Nsg SPLIT READ
MODpl
JOINT READ
Npl & Npl SPLIT READ
MODpl
JOINT READ * *
Nsg & Nsg SPLIT READ * *
The following examples will show whether the predictions of the concord system
are borne out in MG. First, we will present coordinated singular nouns with the same
and mixed gender, and then coordinated plural nouns with the same and mixed gender.
According to the MG data, a shared singular modifier modifies coordinated singular nouns
and agrees in gender with the closest conjunct. The shared modifier may occur with the
joint reading. Consider the following example:
(32) O Kostas ine kalos
the Kostas is good.sg.masc
sinadelfos
colleague.sg.masc
‘Kostas is a good friend and colleague’
filos
friend.sg.masc
A singular attributive adjective scopes over the coordinate nouns which denote the
same individual. The adjective kalos ‘good’ requires a sg value for the concord num
feature. The concord num features of the two nouns are also sg and match the featurevalue
of the adjective. The concord gend feature of the adjective agrees with the closest
conjunct, which is the noun filos ‘friend’, although in this case the second conjunct shares
the same gender. The adjective does not impose any restrictions on the index feature and
index agreement is not constrained. Therefore, it shows concord agreement only and it
can occur with the joint interpretation. The lexical entry and f-structure without gender
agreement are as follows:
(33) ‘kalos filos ke sinadelfos’
kalos: (↑pred) = ‘good’
((adj ∈↑) concord num) = sg
ke
and

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 128
ADJ
kalos
NP
N
filos
N
Conj
ke
N
sinadelfos
⎡
⎢ adj pred ‘good’
⎢
c: ⎢
⎣
⎤
⎥
index [num sg] ⎥
⎧ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
pred ‘friend’ ⎥
⎢
⎥ ⎥
b: ⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎪⎨
⎪⎬ ⎥
index [num sg] ⎥
⎡
⎤ ⎥
pred ‘colleague’ ⎥
⎢
⎥ ⎥
g: ⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎪⎩
⎪⎭
⎦
index [num sg]
To account for the phenomenon of closest conjunct agreement in the gender feature,
we will assume the analysis proposed by Dalrymple and Hristov (2010), which follows the
basic notions of Kuhn and Sadler (2007). For these cases where the gender of the modifier
is the same as the gender of one of the conjuncts only, LFG introduces the strategy of
Closest Conjunct Agreement that captures patterns where the conjuncts in a coordinate
structure differ in a feature value and the modifier agrees only with one of them usually
the closest one, but scopes over both. Considerable work on CCA has been done in a
number of languages by Johannessen (1996), Sadler (1999), Sadler (2003), Yatabe (2004),
Villavicencio et al. (2005), Kuhn and Sadler (2007).
Based on Kuhn and Sadler (2007), Dalrymple and Hristov (2010) handle the various
agreement patterns by defining metavariables in order to allow reference to peripheral
conjuncts in a coordinate phrase. They adopt the notation of Kuhn and Sadler (2007), fL
and fL, where f is replaced by any expression that refers to an f-structure and they propose
that these definitions refer to the lefmost and rightmost conjunct in a coordinate phrase,
while it can also refer to a non-coordinate phrase. They also retain the assumption that
index is a nondistributive feature and concord is a distributive feature, and they state
specific agreement requirements based on the two features, while f represents an arbitrary
f-structure. We will not cite the options for the index feature but only for the concord
feature since we are only interested in the concord feature agreement 6 . These are:
(34) • (f concord): the concord features of a noncoordinate phrase or each conjunct
of a coordinate phrase (the standard interpretation of this coordinate phrase)
• (fL concord): the concord features of a noncoordinate phrase or the leftmost
conjunct of a coordinate phrase
• (fR concord): the concord features of a noncoordinate phrase or the rightmost
conjunct of a coordinate phrase
In concord, Dalrymple and Hristov (2010) do not distinguish between ‘optional’ closest
conjunct agreement and exclusive closest conjunct agreement as in index, since in cases
when all conjuncts have the same concord value it is impossible to distinguish between
concord agreement with the closest conjunct and concord agreement with all conjuncts.
Instead, they distinguish only between the strongest requirement of distributive concord
agreement and the weaker requirement of agreement with the closest conjunct.
The expressions (f index) and (f concord) have their standard LFG meaning where
index is a nondistributive (resolving) feature and concord is a distributive feature. The
expression f (L) has the following definition 7 :
6 The index feature allows for more options with regard to the concord feature since it allows for
optional or obligatory agreement with the closest conjunct (Dalrymple and Hristov, 2010, 197).
7 ∈* picks out an arbitrarily deeply embedded member to account for nested coordination. Any con-
straints under attributes in a functional uncertainty path are off-path constraints, regulating the f-structures

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 129
(35) f (L) ≡ f ∈*
¬[(←∈) f→]
These definitions refer to any leftmost or rightmost conjunct, and with embedded coordinations
they may refer to a coordinate phrase, which is leftmost or rightmost in relation
to the other conjuncts, but which contains conjuncts itself. Dalrymple and Hristov (2010)
also add the requirement that the f-structure that is the controller of agreement must not
itself be a coordinate structure:
(38) fL ≡ f ∈* : ¬(fL ∈)
¬[(←∈)

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 130
ADJ
kalos
NP
N
filos
N
Conj
ke
N
sinadelfos
⎡
⎢ adj pred ‘good’
⎢
c: ⎢
⎣
⎤
⎥
index [num sg]
⎥
⎧ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
pred ‘friend’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
b: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num sg
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
gend masc ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎡
⎤ ⎥
pred ‘colleague’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
g: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num sg
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
⎦
gend masc ⎪⎭
Thus, the modifiers show distributed concord num agreement and closest conjunct
(i.e. leftmost) agreement in gender.
Coordinated singular nouns are also modified by a shared modifier, which agrees in
number with both nouns and in gender with the closest conjunct (i.e. leftmost), while the
modifier occurs with the split reading too. Consider two singular concrete nouns:
(40) O
the
Kostas
Kostas
exi
has
oreo
nice.sg.neut
‘Kostas has a nice car and house’
aftokinito
car.sg.neut
ke
and
spiti
house.sg.neut
The adjective oreo ‘nice’ scopes over coordinate nouns that refer to different entities
and specifies a sg value for the concord num feature. The nouns have a sg value in their
concord num feature as specified by the adjective. Also, the adjective does not specify
any restrictions on the index feature and therefore it shows only concord agreement.
The adjective agrees in gender with the closest conjunct, which is the noun aftokinito ‘car’,
although it shows agreement with the second conjunct too due to the uniform gender of
the conjuncts. The split reading is allowed since index agreement is not constrained. The
relevant lexical entry and f-structure are illustrated below:
(41) ‘oreo aftokinito ke spiti’
oreo: (↑pred) = ‘nice’
((adj ∈↑) concord num) = sg
((adj ∈↑)L concord gend) = neut

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 131
NP
ADJ
oreo N
aftokinito
N
Conj
ke
N
spiti
⎡
⎢adj
pred ‘nice’
⎢
c: ⎢
⎣
⎤
⎥
index [num pl]
⎥
⎧ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
pred ‘car
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
b: ⎢ gend neut ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num sg
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
gend neut ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎡
⎤ ⎥
pred ‘house’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
g: ⎢ gend neut ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num sg
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
⎦
gend neut ⎪⎭
Coordinate singular nouns with different gender are also modified by the same modifier.
The modifier shows distributive concord num agreement and occurs with a joint and a
split reading while it shows closest conjunct agreement in gender. In example (42), the
singular adjective megalos agrees with both conjuncts in number and with the first conjunct
only in gender. It specifies a sg value in the concord num feature and the two nouns
have the same feature value. index agreement is not constrained by the adjective and
the joint reading is allowed. The adjective also specifies masc value in the concord
gend feature agreeing only with the closest conjunct (i.e. leftmost). Thus, the adjective
shows distributive concord agreement in number and closest conjunct agreement (CCA)
in gender:
(42) Megalos kopos ke prospathia xriazete
Great.sg.masc labour.sg.masc and effort.sg.fem is-needed.sg
ja na singedrosi to fotografiko iliko...
for to gather the photographic material...
‘Great labour and effort are needed to gather the photographic material...’
The lexical entry and f-structure are illustrated below:
(43) ‘megalos kopos ke prospathia’
megalos: (↑pred) = ‘great’
((adj ∈↑) concord num) = sg
((adj ∈↑)L concord gend) = masc
ADJ
megalos
NP
N
kopos
N
Conj
ke
N
prospathia

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 132
⎡
⎢ adj pred ‘great’
⎢
c: ⎢
⎣
⎤
⎥
index [num sg]
⎥
⎧ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
pred ‘labour’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
b: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num sg
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
gend masc ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎡
⎤ ⎥
pred ‘effort’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
g: ⎢ gend fem ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num sg
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
⎦
gend fem ⎪⎭
Let us turn to coordinated plural nouns with a shared modifier. Coordinated plural
nouns are modified by a plural adjective which agrees in number with both nouns and in
gender with the closest conjunct and occurs with the joint reading. In example (44), the
adjective specifies a pl value in the concord num feature. The two nouns also specify a pl
value in their concord num feature. The adjective does not impose any index agreement
requirements and the two nouns refer to the same entity, which is allowed by the concord
system. Also, the adjective specifies fem value in the concord gend feature agreeing
only with the closest conjunct (i.e. leftmost). The lexical entry and f-structure are shown
in (45):
(44) Isxires antiparathesis ke antiparavoles
strong.pl.fem juxtapositions.pl.fem and contrasts.pl.fem
ekdilothikan stin kentriki sinedriasi tis Vulis
were-expressed.pl in-the central meeting of-the Parliament
‘Strong juxtapositions and contrasts were expressed in the central meeting of the
Parliament’
(45) ‘isxires antiparathesis ke antiparavoles’
isxures: (↑pred) = ‘strong’
((adj ∈↑) concord num) = pl
((adj ∈↑)L concord gend) = fem

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 133
NP
ADJ
isxures N
antiparathesis
N
Conj
ke
N
antiparavoles
⎡
⎢adj
pred ‘strong’
⎢
c: ⎢
⎣
⎤
⎥
index [num pl]
⎥
⎧ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
pred ‘juxtapositions’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
b: ⎢ gend fem ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
gend fem ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎡
⎤ ⎥
pred ‘contrasts’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
g: ⎢ gend fem ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
⎦
gend fem ⎪⎭
Coordinated plural nouns are also modified by a plural adjective which agrees in number
with both nouns and in gender with the closest one and occurs with the split reading too.
In example (46), the adjective specifies a pl value in the concord num feature. The two
nouns also have a pl value in their concord num feature. The split interpretation is
generated since the index feature is not constrained by the adjective. Thus, the adjective
shows only concord agreement. Also, the adjective specifies neut value in the concord
gend feature agreeing only with the closest conjunct (i.e. leftmost), although the second
conjunct shares the same gender. The lexical entry and f-structure are shown in (47):
(46) Pola mikra agoria
many
voithia
help
small.pl.neut boys.pl.neut
‘Many small boys and girls need help’
(47) ‘mikra agoria ke koritsia’
mikra: (↑pred) = ‘young’
((adj ∈↑) concord num) = pl
((adj ∈↑)L concord gend) = neut
ke
and
koritsia
girls.pl.neut
xriazonte
need.pl

5.4 The Modern Greek Modifiers 134
NP
ADJ
mikra N
agoria
N
Conj
ke
N
koritsia
⎡
⎢adj
pred ‘young’
⎢
c: ⎢
⎣
⎤
⎥
index [num pl]
⎥
⎧ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
pred ‘boys ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
b: ⎢ gend neut ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
gend neut ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎡
⎤ ⎥
pred ‘girls’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
g: ⎢ gend neut ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
⎦
gend neut ⎪⎭
Plural conjuncts with different gender are also modified by the same adjective. The
adjective agrees in number with both nouns and occurs with a joint and a split reading,
while it agrees in gender with the closest conjunct. Below we illustrate an example with a
split reading. In example (48), the plural adjective katastrofiki specifies a plural value in
its concord num feature; the two coordinate nouns have a pl value in their concord
num feature, while index agreement is not constrained. The adjective also specifies a
masc value in the concord gend feature, which agrees only with the first conjunct (i.e.
leftmost). The modifier occurs with the split reading since the two conjuncts refer to
different natural phenomena:
(48) Katastrofiki sismi
ke plimires
destructive.pl.masc earthquakes.pl.masc and floods.pl.fem
tin poli apo to 1965
the town since the 1965
‘Destructive earthquakes and floods hit the town since 1965’
The lexical entry and f-structure of the coordinate phrase are shown below:
(49) ‘katastrofiki sismi ke plimires’
katastrofiki: (↑pred) = ‘destructive’
((adj ∈↑) concord num) = pl
((adj ∈↑)L concord gend) = masc
ADJ
katastrofiki
NP
N
sismi
N
Conj
ke
N
plimires
plitun
hit.pl

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 135
⎡
⎢ adj pred ‘destructive’
⎢
c: ⎢
⎣
⎤
⎥
index [num pl]
⎥
⎧ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
pred ‘earthquakes’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
b: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
gend masc ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎡
⎤ ⎥
pred ‘floods’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
g: ⎢ gend fem ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
⎦
gend fem ⎪⎭
To summarise, MG shared singular and plural modifiers show distributive concord
num agreement and closest conjunct (CCA) gend agreement. The modifier agrees in
number with both nouns and in gender with the closest conjunct. The interpretation of
both the joint and split reading is equally possible when a shared modifier scopes over
coordinate nouns since the modifier does not specify any restrictions on the index feature
of the coordinate phrase.
5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner
5.5.1 Uniform Number and Gender in Coordinate Nouns
As opposed to MG modifiers, MG determiners do not have the same behaviour when they
modify coordinate nouns. In both coordinate singular and plural structures, a separate
determiner needs to appear before each conjunct to allow a split reading and each determiner
agrees with the noun it modifies in gender, number and case 8 . A shared determiner,
unlike a shared modifier, needs to agree in number and gender with both conjuncts and
admits only a joint reading.
In coordinate singular nouns, in example (50), the masculine definite determiner o
appears before each noun and modifies it. Similarly, in example (51), the feminine definite
determiner i is placed before each noun and modifies it. In both cases, the determiner agrees
in number and gender with the noun it modifies. Both examples have a split interpretation
since there is a separate determiner before each conjunct and the two conjuncts refer to
different individuals, while the verb and predicative adjective show plural agreement:
(50) O sizigos
the.sg.masc husband.sg.masc
tis ine nei
her are.pl young.pl
‘Her husband and father are young’
(constructed)
ke
and
o
the.sg.masc
pateras
father.sg.masc
8 It might be thought that the occurrence of the definite determiner before each conjunct is attributed
to the fact that it has an affixal status. The MG definite determiner, however, does not behave as an affix
and therefore we cannot assume such an analysis.

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 136
(51) I sizigos ke
the.sg.fem wife.sg.fem and
ine nees
are.pl young.pl
‘His wife and daughter are young’
(constructed)
i
the.sg.fem
kori
daughter.sg.fem
A single definite determiner scopes over coordinate nouns without the requirement for
a second determiner in the second conjunct, only when the coordinate phrase has a joint
interpretation and the two nouns denote the same referent. The definite determiner agrees
in number and gender with both nouns, as shown below:
(52) O filos ke sinadelfos
the.sg.masc friend.sg.masc and colleague.sg.masc
gnorizo xronia
I-know for-years
‘The friend and colleague who I know for years’
(constructed)
pu
who
tu
his
ton
him
In sentence (52), the individual denoted is filos ‘friend’ and sinadelfos ‘colleague’ at the
same time. In MG, this pattern is rather common not only in animate nouns but also in
inanimate nouns too 9 . For example, in (53) the singular definite determiner nouns agrees
in number and gender with both conjuncts and admits the joint interpretation since the
two conjuncts fovos ‘fear’ and tromos ‘terror’ are two closely related notions and they refer
to the same concept:
(53) O fovos ke tromos emfanistike
the.sg.masc fear.sg.masc and terror.sg.masc appeared.sg
stin perioxi
in-the area
‘The fear and terror appeared again in the area’
http://www.hri.org/E/1996/96-10-18.dir/keimena/greece/greece2.htm
ksana
again
Similarly, in example (54), the singular definite determiner agrees in number and gender
with the nouns grafio ‘office’ and iatrio ‘surgery’ and the determiner admits the joint
interpretation since the conjuncts denote the same place:
(54) To grafio ke iatrio
the.sg.neut office.sg.neut and surgery.sg.neut
jinekologu vriskete sto kentro
gynaecologist is.sg in-the centre
‘The office and surgery of the gynaecologist is in the centre’
(constructed)
tu
of-the
To summarise, when a common determiner with wide scope modifies coordinate singular
nouns, it agrees with both conjuncts in number and gender and it occurs only with a joint
interpretation. To generate a split interpretation, the determiner needs to be repeated
before each conjunct.
In plural number, the MG definite determiner behaves different from the definite determiners
of languages such as Italian, German, Dutch, Finnish and Brazilian Portuguese,
which fully allow a split interpretation in addition to the joint one, when a shared plural
9 We have examined concrete and abstract nouns separately to check whether there are any differences
between the two but no differences were found.

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 137
determiner modifies coordinate plural nouns (Heycock and Zamparelli, 1999, 2000; King
and Dalrymple, 2004). In MG, the plural determiner imposes the same restrictions as the
singular determiner when it modifies coordinate nouns. Thus, a separate plural determiner
needs to modify each conjunct to generate a split interpretation and each determiner agrees
in number and gender with the noun it modifies, as shown below:
(55) I
paterades ke i
the.pl.masc fathers.pl.masc and the.pl.masc
papudes
ine poli demeni
grandfathers.pl.masc are.pl very close
‘The fathers and grandfathers are very close’
(constructed)
A shared definite determiner scopes over coordinate plural nouns, agrees in number and
gender with both nouns but it occurs only with the joint interpretation, denoting the same
group of individuals. This is shown below:
(56) I
paterades ke
the.pl.masc
ikojenias
family
fathers.pl.masc and
‘The fathers and protectors of the family’
(constructed)
prostates
protectors.pl.masc
tis
of-the
This exact same pattern occurs in inanimate nouns too. In the following examples, the
two conjuncts are modified by a single plural definite determiner, which agrees with the
conjuncts in number and gender, while the joint reading is the only possible interpretation:
(57) Ta somata ke kalorifer thelun
the.pl.neut radiators.pl.neut and heaters.pl.neut need.pl
alagma me to aerio
to-be-changed with the gas
‘The radiators and heaters need to be changed because of the gas’
(constructed)
(58) I antiparathesis ke antiparavoles tis
the.pl.fem contrasts.pl.fem and juxtapositions.pl.fem of
DAKE itan nootropies tu parelthontos
DAKE were.pl mentalities of-the past
‘The contrasts and juxtapositions of DAKE were mentalities of the past’
(G.N.:Eleftherotipia)
In example (57), the two concrete nouns denote the same items and therefore the
joint interpretation is generated. In example (58), the two abstract nouns also refer to
the same notion and therefore the joint interpretation is only possible. Thus, a shared
plural determiner, which scopes over coordinate plural nouns, occurs only with the joint
interpretation.
Finally, we need to note that a plural definite determiner cannot modify coordinate
singular nouns. The following examples are ungrammatical:
(59) *I ipurgos ke ifipurgos
the.pl.masc
kivernisis
government
minister.sg.masc and deputy-minister.sg.masc
‘The minister and deputy-minister of the government’
(constructed)
tis
of-the

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 138
The findings in MG are summarised as follows:
• A singular definite determiner modifies singular coordinate nouns and occurs with
the joint reading only
• A plural definite determiner modifies plural coordinate nouns and occurs with the
joint reading only
• In both cases, the definite determiner agrees in number and gender with both nouns
• A plural definite determiner cannot modify singular coordinate nouns and occur either
with the joint or the split reading
In the plural, there are some very limited exceptions to the generalisation stated above
- namely a few cases in which a shared plural definite determiner scopes over coordinate
nouns and occurs with a split interpretation. The first exceptional pattern occurs in a
specific group of animate coordinate nouns where the two conjuncts denote closely related
concepts. In the following examples, the shared plural masculine determiner i scopes over
plural animate nouns and occurs with a split interpretation. The definite determiner agrees
in number and gender with the two conjuncts:
(60) I
ipurgi
ke ifipurgi
the.pl.masc ministers.pl.masc and deputy-ministers.pl.masc
kivernisis tis ND
government of ND
‘The ministers and deputy-ministers of the government of ND’
(G.N.:Kathimerini)
(61) I
ergazomeni ke
the.pl.masc
anaferun
mention
employed.pl.masc and
‘The employed and unemployed mention it’
(G.N.:Eleftherotipia)
anerji
unemployed.pl.masc
(62) I
iatri
ke odontiatri
the.pl.masc doctors.pl.masc and dentists.pl.masc
simvasis me to strato
contracts with the army
‘The doctors and dentisists avoid any contracts with the army
http://www.omhroi.gr/article2194.htm
to
it
apofevgun
avoid
tis
of-the
In example (60), the two nouns share a single definite determiner but the two conjuncts
refer to different groups of individuals, allowing only the split interpretation. Semantically,
it is highly unlikely for the same person to be ipurgos ‘minister’ and ifipurgos ‘deputyminister’
at the same time, while the two nouns are closely related in meaning since one
is a ‘minister’ and the other is a ‘deputy-minister’. Following the same reasoning, the two
conjuncts in example (61), although they are modified by a shared definite determiner,
they can only convey the split interpretation since the interpretation of the sentence does
not allow the people who are ergazomeni ‘employed’ to be anerji ‘unemployed’ at the same
time. Also, the two nouns are semantically related since they denote opposite concepts
related to work. Finally, in example (62) the two nouns share a single definite determiner
but the split interpretation is generated since the two nouns denote two semantically related
concepts iatri ‘doctors’ and odontiatri ‘dentists’.
tis
the

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 139
The same restricted pattern also occurs in plural abstract and concrete 10 nouns which
are semantically related. Thus, a single definite determiner scopes over coordinated plural
nouns and occurs with a split interpretation. The definite determiner agrees in gender and
number with both conjuncts. Consider the following examples:
(63) Ta thetika ke
the.pl.neut positives.pl.neut and
ipothesis ine pola
case are.pl many
‘The pros and cons of the case are many’
(G.N.:Ependitis)
arnitika
negatives.pl.neut
(64) Ta ithi
ke ethima
the.pl.neut
diamorfothikan
were-formed.pl
morals.pl.neut and customs.pl.neut
‘The morals and customs as they were formed’
(G.M.:VIMAgazino)
(65) Ta maxeria ke
the.pl.neut knives.pl.neut and
sto trapezi
the table
‘The knives and forks are on the table’
(G.M.:1000+1 Gefsis)
pirunia
forks.pl.neut
opos
as
ine
are.pl
tis
of-the
pano
on
In example (63), the two inanimate abstract nouns refer to different items while the
definite determiner used for the first conjunct thetika ‘positive’ scopes over the second
conjunct too, the noun arnitika ‘negative’. The only reading available in this case is the
split one. Similarly, in examples (64) and (65), the coordinate nouns ithi ke ethima ‘morals
and customs’ and maxeria ke pirounia ‘knives and forks’ refer to different notions/entities.
In both cases, a shared definite determiner scopes over the two conjuncts and the phrases
are acceptable. Thus, in all examples the two nouns refer to different entities 11 .
To summarise, syntactically a shared definite determiner agrees in number and gender
with both conjuncts. Semantically, the shared definite determiner modifies coordinate
nouns and occurs with the joint reading in both singular and plural number. The split
reading is generated only when each conjunct is modified by a separate determiner. There
are some exceptional cases when a shared definite determiner modifies coordinated plural
nouns. The shared definite determiner agrees in gender and number with both nouns,
while it scopes over both coordinate nouns and allows a split reading. We will show that
these cases occur under specific conditions. Thus, MG differs from the other languages
discussed by Heycock and Zamparelli (1999, 2000) and King and Dalrymple (2004) since in
MG a shared definite determiner, when modifying coordinated singular and plural nouns,
generates the joint reading only. In other languages (i.e. Brazilian Portuguese, French,
Italian or German), however, a shared definite determiner scopes over coordinate nouns
and occurs with the joint interpretation in singular conjuncts only, but a joint and a split
interpretation in plural conjuncts.
10 In concrete coordinate nouns, the split reading under a shared determiner was found less often but it
was accepted by more than half of the native speakers. Since the data is based on acceptability judgements,
we will assume that these patterns are possible but occur rarely.
11 As we will show in the 5.5.2.1, all these patterns are cases of natural coordination.

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 140
5.5.2 Uniform Number and Different Gender in Coordinate Nouns
Next, we turn to coordinate structures with uniform number and mixed gender nouns
modified by a shared definite determiner. Conjoined nouns of uniform number and different
gender, either in singular or in plural, are modified by a separate determiner each.
In example (66), the singular animate nouns require a separate determiner since the
nouns have different gender and two different individuals are denoted, the masculine noun
antras ‘man’ and the neuter noun pedi ‘child’. Therefore, the sentence with a shared
determiner is ungrammatical:
(66) *O antras
the.sg.masc man.sg.masc
‘The man and child’
(constructed)
ke
and
pedi
child.sg.neut
Singular inanimate conjuncts show the same behaviour. When the coordinate nouns
have a singular number and different gender, even if they refer to the same entity, they
require a separate determiner each, otherwise the result is ungrammatical. In example
(67), each conjunct requires a separate determiner, even though the two nouns denote the
same concept. Thus, the coordinate phrase with a shared determiner is ungrammatical:
(67) *To pisma ke isxirognomosini
the.sg.neut spite.sg.neut and stubbornness.sg.fem
‘The spite and stubbornness’
(constructed)
In coordinate phrases with plural conjuncts, the same restrictions hold. Animate nouns
of plural number and different gender cannot occur under the same determiner. Each
conjunct requires a separate definite determiner, otherwise the sentence is ungrammatical:
(68) *I antres
the.pl.masc men.pl.masc
‘The men and children’
(constructed)
ke
and
pedia
children.pl.neut
Also, plural inanimate nouns of uniform number and different gender cannot be modified
by a shared definite determiner. The following example is ungrammatical:
(69) *I epeni ke engomia
the.pl.masc praises.pl.masc and commendations.pl.neut
sinthetun to skiniko stin metaolimpiaki Athina
comprise.pl the scenery of-the postolympic Athens
‘Praises and commendations comprise the scenery of the postolympic Athens’
(constructed)
Thus, coordinations of nouns where the two conjuncts have a uniform number and
different gender cannot be modified by the same definite article since the number feature
of the article will match those of both nouns but the gender feature of the article will not
match the agreement features of both conjuncts. Instead, they are modified by a separate
determiner and occur with the split reading only. The findings in MG are summarised as
follows:
• A singular definite determiner cannot modify singular coordinate nouns with different
gender features

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 141
• A plural definite determiner cannot modify plural coordinate nouns with different
gender features
There is again a striking pattern of exceptions to the above which allows a shared
definite determiner to scope over coordinate nouns with uniform number and different
gender and occurs with the split reading. These nouns are usually plural and animate,
with a masculine and a feminine conjunct. These cases occur due to the indeterminate
form (identical morphological and phonological form) of the definite determiner in plural
number. The definite determiner has the same form i ‘the’.pl.masc/fem in masculine and
feminine plural, which satisfies both the masculine plural and feminine plural syntactic
requirements 12 . Consider the following:
(70) I
mathites
ke
the.pl.masc/fem boy-students.pl.masc and
ton sxolion...
of-the schools...
‘The boy-students and girl-students of the schools...’
(www.in.gr)
mathitries
girl-students.pl.fem
(71) I
athlites
ke athlitries
the.pl.masc/fem men-athletes.pl.masc and women-athletes.pl.fem
katatasonte stis teseris katigories
are-classified into-the four categories
‘The men-athletes and women-athletes are classified into four categories’
(www.in.gr)
In both examples, the two nouns have different gender but plural number. The first conjunct
is masculine and the second conjunct is feminine while the definite determiner has
wide scope over both nouns without positing any issues of ungrammaticality.
The same phenomenon occurs when the conjuncts appear in the reverse order. A shared
plural definite determiner scopes over coordinated plural nouns and occurs with the split
reading when the first conjunct is feminine and the second conjunct is masculine, as follows:
(72) I
mathitries ke
the.pl.masc/fem girl-students.pl.fem and
ton sxolion...
of-the schools...
‘The girl-students and boy-students of the schools...’
(constructed)
mathites
boy-students.pl.masc
(73) I
athlitries
ke athlites
the.pl.masc/fem women-athletes.pl.fem and men-athletes.pl.masc
katatasonte stis teseris katigories
are-classified into-the four categories
‘The women-athletes and men-athletes are classified into four categories’
(constructed)
The same pattern is not allowed in singular number when mixed gender (i.e. masculine
and feminine) singular nouns are modified by a shared singular definite determiner.
12 The MG plural definite determiner is spelled and pronounced the same in the masculine and femi-
nine genders in plural number. The plural neuter definite determiner has a different form which is ta
‘the’.pl.neut.

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 142
(74) *O mathitis
ke mathitria
the.sg.masc
sxolion...
schools
boy-student.sg.masc and girl-student.sg.fem
‘The boy-student and girl-student of the schools...’
(constructed)
ton
of-the
Thus, mixed gender but uniform number conjuncts cannot be modified by a shared
definite determiner and generate a split reading. A few exceptional patterns are found in
plural when a shared definite determiner scopes over a coordinate phrase with a masculine
and a feminine plural noun and occurs with the split reading. In the next section, we will
show that the motivation for the occurrence of the exceptional patterns in the syntactically
restricted NP structure in MG is that the coordinated nouns are cases of natural
coordination.
5.5.2.1 Motivation for the Exceptional Coordinate Constructions
In this section, we will argue that the exceptional patterns, which allow a shared definite
determiner to scope over coordinate nouns and occurs with a split interpretation, are cases
of natural coordination (Wälchli, 2005; Haspelmath, 2007; Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006).
We will also consider whether these patterns present any of the syntactic or semantic
characteristics of natural coordination as proposed by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006).
The exceptional patterns that are cases of natural coordination refer to examples (60)-(65)
discussed in section 5.5.1, and examples (70) and (71) discussed in section 5.5.2.
According to Haspelmath (2007), natural coordination is a special semantic relation
in which nouns form a conceptual unit and are related in meaning. Also, Wälchli (2005)
argues that natural coordination involves nouns that are expected to cooccur while the
parts (i.e. the conjuncts) express semantically closely related concepts, which are on the
same hierarchical level and the meaning of the whole is more general than the meaning
of the parts, such as brother-sister/‘siblings’, hands-feet/‘limbs’ etc. Dalrymple and Nikolaeva
(2006, 12) follow the same assumptions but add that natural coordination relation is
also contextually specified, depending on information drawn from the specific discourse
conditions, general world knowledge or utterance situation.
Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) propose that in addition to the above semantic characteristics,
natural coordination is also expressed syntactically in some languages. Some
languages may have different coordination markers in natural and accidental coordination
(e.g. Udine), in other languages natural coordination involves phonological reduction of
the coordination markers (e.g. Oceanic languages). Also, it may involve lack of determiners
and the use of a single inflectional marking, such as in Eastern Armenian. Another
characteristic is that natural coordination usually allows only two conjuncts and no more
than two. Finally, according to Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) a natural coordination
f-structure requires that index and concord feature values must be the same, while the
conjuncts need to be either both singular or both plural. In any case, the coordinate phrase
has an f-structure that resembles the f-structure of a plural noun, as opposed to accidental
coordination where concord is different from index 13 .
In MG, the first exceptional structure, which concerns examples (75), (76) and (77)
repeated from above, allows a shared plural definite determiner to scope over coordinate
plural nouns of the same gender and occurs with a split reading. The nouns coordinated
are not arbitrarily combined conjuncts but denote entities that are characterised by, what
we will call, semantic relatedness. The term semantic relatedness will be used to state that
13 See section 3.3.3 for a brief summary of the characteristics of natural coordination and Dalrymple and
Nikolaeva (2006) for a detailed analysis.

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 143
the two conjuncts are in a special semantic relation with each other by being members
of the same semantic group of nouns, such as hyponyms of the same superordinate term.
This follows from the definition of natural coordination, as proposed by Wälchli (2005),
Haspelmath (2007) and Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006). Thus, the first semantic characteristic
in MG natural coordination is that the nouns must be semantically related in
order to allow a shared definite determiner to scope over coordinate nouns and occur with
a split reading.
(75) I
ipurgi
ke ifipurgi
the.pl.masc ministers.pl.masc and deputy-ministers.pl.masc
kivernisis tis ND
government of ND
‘The ministers and deputy-ministers of the government of ND’
(G.N.:Ependitis)
(76) Ta maxeria ke
the.pl.neut
trapezi
table
knives.pl.neut and
‘The knives and forks are on the table’
(G.M.:1000+1 Gefsis)
pirunia
forks.pl.neut
(77) Ta ithi
ke ethima
the.pl.neut
diamorfothikan
morals.pl.neut and customs.pl.neut
they-were-formed
‘The morals and customs as they were formed’
(G.M.:VIMAgazino)
ine
are.pl
opos
as
sto
on-the
tis
of-the
The nouns in example (75), ipurgi ke ifipurgi ‘ministers and deputy-ministers’ are semantically
related and they both denote entities that function as hyponyms of the same
superordinate term. The superordinate term could be the noun ‘government’. Similarly,
the nouns in examples (76), maxeria ke pirunia ‘knives and forks’ and (77), ithi ke ethima
‘morals and customs’ are also semantically related and could be perceived as members of
the superordinate terms ‘cutlery’ and ‘traditions of a culture’, respectively. Thus, in all
cases the two conjuncts function as hyponyms of a semantically more general term.
In the following example the conjuncts cannot be coordinated under a shared definite
determiner with a split reading:
(78) *I jatri
the.pl.masc doctors.pl.masc
‘The doctors and lawyers’
ke
and
dikigori
lawyers.pl.masc
The two nouns denote two professions and they could be hyponyms of the hypernymic
term ‘professionals’. However, they do not express semantically closely related concepts
or natural coordination since the profession jatros ‘doctor’ does not have any common
characteristics with the profession dikigoros ‘lawyer’. Therefore, the determiner needs to
be overtly specified for each conjunct in order for the phrase to be grammatical. Instead, the
profession jatros ‘doctor’ is semantically related to the profession odontiatros ‘dentist’ and
the profession dikigoros ‘lawyer’ is semantically related to the profession dikastis ‘judge’.
Therefore, if we replace the second conjunct with a noun such as odontiatri ‘dentists’, the
coordinate phrase is acceptable even with a shared definite determiner and it allows a split
reading:

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 144
(79) I
jatri
ke odontiatri
the.pl.masc doctors.pl.masc and dentists.pl.masc
silogu Thesalonikis
association of-Thessaloniki
‘The doctors and dentists of Thessaloniki’s association’
(G.N.:Eleftherotipia)
tu
of-the
A syntactic characteristic in natural coordination constructions, which is also found in
other languages like German, is that a shared definite determiner modifies two coordinate
nouns, and the nouns refer to different individuals (i.e. split interpretation). In MG, this
syntactic structure is admitted in accidentally coordinate nouns and only if the nouns
denote the same individual (i.e. joint interpretation). The same structure is also admitted
in the exceptional patterns discussed in which the nouns are not accidentally coordinated
but naturally coordinated. Therefore, we could hypothesize that the presence of a single
definite determiner scoping over coordinate nouns and generating the split reading is one
of the syntactic characteristics of natural coordination in MG. In other languages, natural
coordination is expressed by the absence of a determiner or by the use of coordination
or phonological markers. Also, another syntactic characteristic of natural coordination is
that the number of conjuncts allowed in these constructions is usually two (less often three
conjuncts) at least in the languages discussed by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006). In MG,
we usually find two conjuncts; coordinations of three conjuncts under a shared determiner
are not strictly ungrammatical but they are used less often and only if the nouns are
semantically related:
(80) ?I jatri,
odontiatri ke
the.pl.masc doctors.pl.masc, dentists.pl.masc and
mikroviologi
tu silogu Thesalonikis
microbiologists.pl.masc of-the association of-Thesaloniki
‘The doctors, dentists and microbiologists of Thesaloniki association’
(constructed)
Therefore, the presence of usually two conjuncts in the above structures in MG should
be considered as one more characteristic of natural coordination.
Finally, a natural coordination f-structure requires that index and concord features
should match and that the coordinate phrase has an f-structure that resembles the fstructure
of a plural noun. Also, the conjuncts need to be either both singular or both
plural. In MG natural coordination cases, this syntactic representation does not occur. In
MG, index and concord features are plural due to the requirement for plural conjuncts
by the plural definite determiner, since the exceptional natural coordination patterns are
only found in the plural. The conjuncts can never be singular while the determiner specifies
for a plural index and concord feature-value, such as in the case of Finnish. Therefore,
in MG the f-structure of natural coordination does not resemble the f-structure of a plural
noun but it appears to be the same as the f-structure of accidental coordination. Thus,
we argue that syntactically the f-structure of MG natural coordination patterns seems to
resemble the f-structure of accidental coordination.
The next exceptional structure is when a plural definite determiner modifies two plural
conjuncts with a masculine and a feminine gender. First of all, this structure is admitted
due to the fact that the definite determiner o, i, to ‘the’.sg.masc/fem/neut in the plural
number is indeterminate and it can show agreement with both a masculine and a feminine
plural noun. It has a separate form only in the neuter gender, which is ta ‘the’.pl.neut.
The indeterminate form of the determiner allows the coordination of a masculine and a
feminine plural noun under the same plural definite article since the latter can satisfy the
syntactic requirements of both nouns. The following example is repeated from above:

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 145
(81) I
papudes
ke
the.pl.masc/fem grandfathers.pl.masc and
ine xarumeni
are.pl happy
‘The grandfathers and grandmothers are happy’
(constructed)
jajades
grandmothers.pl.fem
These patterns are considered cases of natural coordination since a shared determiner
scopes over the two nouns and allows a split reading. Also, these cases only occur with
conjuncts that are necessarily masculine and feminine, semantically related and the number
of conjuncts is usually two. Any coordinate phrase with conjuncts that are masculine and
feminine but not semantically related or with conjuncts that are masculine and neuter and
semantically related are strictly ungrammatical. In these patterns, the split reading is the
only possibility. The following examples are considered ungrammatical:
(82) *I
daskali ke mathitries
the.pl.masc/fem teachers.pl.masc and girl-students.pl.fem
defteras dimotiku
second-year in-primary-school
‘The teachers and girl-students of the second year in primary school’
(constructed)
(83) *I
papudes
ke
the.pl.masc/fem grandfathers.pl.masc and
to anaferun
it mention.pl
‘The grandfathers and grandchildren mention it’
(constructed)
tis
of-the
engonia
grandchildren.pl.neut
In example (82), the two conjuncts are not semantically related and therefore they
cannot be coordinated under the same determiner. In example (83), the conjuncts are
semantically related but the phrase is ungrammantical since the two nouns are masculine
and neuter in gender and they cannot occur under a shared determiner.
To summarise, the MG definite determiner presents a number of exceptional patterns
that occur under specific conditions. The first is when a MG shared plural definite determiner
modifies coordinated plural conjuncts that are semantically related and occurs with
a split interpretation. The second exceptional pattern is when a plural definite determiner
modifies coordinated plural nouns with a masculine and a feminine gender that are semantically
related, and also occurs with a split interpretation. This pattern is motivated by
the indeterminate form of the definite determiner in plural number, which agrees both with
a masculine and a feminine plural noun. These patterns should be seen under the realm
of natural coordination since they present some special characteristics - namely a common
determiner for both conjuncts and a split reading, the presence of usually two conjuncts
and semantically related conjuncts. We argued, though, that syntactically these patterns
have an f-structure that seems to resemble the f-structure of accidental coordination and
not that of natural coordination. In the next section, we will present the analysis of the
shared definite determiner with coordinate nouns.
5.5.3 index/concord agreement with the MG Definite Determiner
We now turn to the analysis of the MG definite determiner with coordinate nouns and
whether any of the three systems, concord, index/concord and index, account for it.
We will argue that the MG defininite determiner follows concord/index agreement. This

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 146
system syntactically accounts for the MG definite determiner but further semantic factors
are involved when it comes to the MG data.
The MG definite determiner presents specific restrictions with regards to the index and
concord features. The only system that is restrictive is the index/concord, and therefore
we will argue that the MG definite determiner follows index/concord agreement.
This system would predict the following patterns in MG:
Table 5.2: INDEX/CONCORD SYSTEM
ANIMATE INANIMATE
JOINT READ
DETsg
Nsg & Nsg SPLIT READ * *
DETpl
JOINT READ
Npl & Npl SPLIT READ
DETpl
JOINT READ * *
Nsg & Nsg SPLIT READ * *
Next, we will examine whether these predications are borne out in MG. In the singular
number, a shared MG definite determiner agrees in number and gender with both nouns
and scopes over coordinated singular nouns that refer to a single individual or entity.
Hence, the MG definite determiner requires a sg value for the index num feature and,
redundantly, a sg value for the concord num feature. The two singular conjuncts also
need to have a sg value in their concord num feature. Finally, the definite determiner
specifies that both conjuncts have the same gender value in their concord gend feature
as the determiner. Consider the following example:
(84) O filos ke sinadelfos
the.sg.masc friend.sg.masc and colleague.sg.masc
ton gnorizo xronia
him.sg.masc I-know for-years
‘The friend and colleague whom I know for years’
pu
who
Since the index feature is responsible for determining the distribution of the determiner
o ‘the’, the lexical entry of the determiner specifies both index and concord features.
Also, it specifies concord gend agreement requirements:
(85) o: (↑spec) = ‘the’
(↑concord num) = sg
(↑concord gend) = masc
(↑index num) = sg
The f-structure would be as follows:

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 147
(86)
⎡
⎤
spec ‘the’
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num sg]
⎥
⎢⎧
⎢ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
⎢ pred ‘friend ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
⎢ b: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎣ num sg
⎥ ⎥
c: ⎢⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
⎢ gend masc ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘colleague’
⎥
⎢
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
num sg ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
⎢
g: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢
⎣
⎣ num sg
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
gend masc ⎪⎭
⎦
Thus, the MG singular definite determiner that scopes over coordinate singular nouns
shows index/concord agreement and generates only the joint reading and not the split
reading.
In plural number, a shared MG definite determiner agrees in number and gender with
both nouns and scopes over coordinated plural nouns, which must necessarily refer to the
same individuals or entities. Hence, in plural number the MG definite determiner requires
a pl value for the index num feature and a pl value for the concord num feature while
the two conjuncts also need to have a pl value in their concord num feature. The definite
determiner also requires that both conjuncts have the same gender value in their concord
gend feature as the determiner itself. Consider the following example with animate nouns:
(87) I
fili
ke
the.pl.masc
voithia
help
friends.pl.masc and
‘The friends and colleagues need help’
sinadelfi
colleagues.pl.masc
xriazonte
need.pl
The lexical entry of the plural defininite determiner specifies both the index and concord
features since the concord and redudantly the index feature determine the distribution
of the determiner:
(88) i: (↑spec) = ‘the’
(↑concord num) = pl
(↑concord gend) = masc
(↑index num) = pl
The f-structure is as follows:

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 148
(89)
⎡
⎤
spec ‘the’
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num pl]
⎥
⎢⎧
⎢ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
⎢ pred ‘friends’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
⎢ b: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
c: ⎢⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
⎢ gend masc ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘colleagues’
⎥
⎢
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
⎢
g: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢
⎣
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
gend masc ⎪⎭
⎦
Thus, the MG plural definite determiner that scopes over coordinate nouns shows index/concord
agreement while it generates the joint reading only.
The analysis above showed that MG singular definite determiner modifies coordinate
singular nouns and occurs only with the joint reading. Also, the MG plural definite determiner
modifies coordinate plural nouns and occurs only with the joint reading when the
coordinate nouns represent an accidental coordination but it occurs with the split reading
when the coordinate nouns are cases of natural coordination. Thus, we state the following
generalisation:
Joint reading in Plural Coordinate Nouns
For languages like MG, a plural definite determiner imposes index/concord
agreement and a boolean/joint interpretation with an accidental coordination
of plural nouns unless the nouns can be construed as a natural coordination.
Therefore, we can conclude that syntactically the MG definite determiner is effectivelly
captured by the index/concord agreement system, but semantically the MG plural determiner
introduces further semantic factors that are beyond those generated by the index/concord
system.
To summarise, the MG singular definite determiner follows the index/concord system,
which allows only the joint reading in singular number. The MG plural definite determiner
is also syntactically captured by the index/concord agreement system. Semantically,
the present system allows both the joint and split interpretation in plural number.
The MG plural definite determiner, however, allows the joint interpretation in accidentally
coordinated nouns and the split interpretation in natural coordinations. This semantic
restriction is only found in MG as opposed to languages such as Brazilian Portuguese, Italian,
French and German, which allow a plural definite determiner with coordinate nouns
to occur with a joint and a split interpretation (King and Dalrymple, 2004, 91). In the
next section, we will discuss the patterns of natural coordination in MG and whether the
syntactic representation of the index/concord system accounts for the MG data or a
different syntactic structure is required.
5.5.4 Natural Coordination in Modern Greek
In MG plural nouns, the split reading emerges only when the conjuncts are candidates for
natural coordination. Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) introduce a special f-structure in

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 149
naturally coordinated nouns, which is different from the f-structure of accidentally coordinated
nouns. As already mentioned, the natural coordination patterns in MG do not have
the same syntactic structure as the syntactic structure of natural coordination proposed
by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006). Therefore, we will show that MG natural coordination
cases are not captured by the f-structure proposed by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva
(2006) but they are accounted for by the index/concord system without any additional
requirements.
The f-structure of natural coordination requires at most two conjuncts. The coordinate
nouns do not appear as members of the set, as in accidental coordination, but they are
two independent conjuncts each contributing its own f-structure within the f-structure of
the phrase as a whole. Also, concord num and index num features need to have a pl
value, resembling the f-structure for compound or plural nouns, whereas conjuncts can be
singular or plural. Finally, the modifier does not impose any requirements on the concord
and index features as in accidental coordination.
The f-structure below in Finnish, repeated from Chapter 2, admits a coordinate phrase
with a plural modifier and singular nouns:
(90) Natural coordination
uskolliset
faithful.pl
aviomies
husband
‘faithful [husband and wife]’
AdjP
Adj
uskolliset
NP
N’
N
aviomies
N’
N
Conj
ja
ja
and
N
vaimo
vaimo
wife
(Dalrymple and Nikolaeva, 2006, 842)
⎡
⎤
pred ‘conj’
⎢
⎥
⎢concord
[num pl] ⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢
⎢index
[num pl] ⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘husband’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥⎥
⎢conj1
⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎢ index [num sg]
⎥
⎢
⎡
⎤⎥
⎢ pred ‘wife’
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎥
conj2
⎢
⎣concord
[num sg] ⎦ ⎥
⎢
⎣ index [num sg] ⎥
⎦
adj [pred ‘faithful’]
The same f-structure representation 14 cannot account for the MG data. First, MG does
not allow patterns where a plural modifier or determiner scopes over singular conjuncts.
The following examples, repeated from above, are ungrammatical:
(91) *Drastirii pateras ke ijos theorunte
active.pl.masc father.sg.masc and son.sg.masc are-considered.pl
o Onasis ke o Aleksantros
the Onasis and the Alexander
‘Active father and son are considered to be Onassis and Alexander’
(constructed)
(92) *I
the.pl.masc
kivernisis
government
ipurgos
minister.sg.masc
ke
and
ifipurgos
deputy-minister.sg.masc
tis
of-the
14 Natural coordination in other languages like Tundra Nenets, Russian and Bahdinani Kurdish are cap-
tured by the same f-structure. See Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006, 843-847) for a detailed analysis.

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 150
‘The minister and deputy-minister of the government’
(constructed)
Natural coordination in MG occurs only with conjuncts that are both plural and whose
modifier/determiner agrees in number 15 with the conjucts. The modifier/determiner specifies
a pl value in the concord num feature and the conjuncts need to have the same
value in their concord num feature. Also, natural coordination patterns in MG allow a
shared determiner to scope over the two conjuncts and it usually occurs with the split interpretation.
Thus, index num needs to be pl since the conjuncts are also plural. Finally,
an important requirement is that the coordinate nouns must necessarily be semantically
related. The following examples are repeated from above:
(93) I
ipurgi
ke ifipurgi
the.pl.masc
kivernisis
government
ministers.pl.masc and deputy-ministers.pl.masc
‘The ministers and deputy-ministers of the government’
(G.N.:Ependitis)
(94) Ta ithi
ke ethima
the.pl.neut morals.pl.neut and customs.pl.neut
diamorfothikan...
they-were-formed
‘The morals and customs as they were formed’
(G.M.:VIMAgazino)
opos
as
tis
of-the
Thus, we argue that the f-structure representation proposed by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva
(2006) cannot capture the MG data since it would generate patterns that are considered
ungrammatical in MG, while natural coordination patterns in MG show different
characteristics from those of the languages discussed in Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006,
843-847).
To account for the MG patterns, we will assume the standard f-structure of accidental
coordination. We will represent the conjuncts as set elements following the f-structure of
accidentally coordinate nouns in order to allow the additional number of conjuncts, which
occasionally occurs in natural coordinate structures in MG. Also, the definite determiner
will specify index and concord agreement requirements.
For instance, in example (94) the definite determiner requires a pl value in the concord
num feature and the nouns need to have the same feature-value concord num=pl in their
f-structure. The index num feature must have a pl value since the two nouns are plural
and refer to different groups of entities. Also, the conjuncts need to be semantically related.
Finally, both conjuncts need to agree in gender with the definite determiner. The lexical
entry and f-structure of example (94) are as follows:
(95) Natural coordination in MG with a definite determiner
(95) ta: (↑spec) = ‘the’
(↑concord num) = pl
(↑concord gend) = neut
(↑index num) = pl
15 Shared modifiers agree in gender with the closest conjunct but the shared definite determiner agrees in
gender with both conjuncts.

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 151
DET
ta
NP
+ N
ithi
N
Conj
ke
N
ethima
⎡
⎤
pred ‘conj’
⎢
⎢spec
‘the’
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num pl]
⎥
⎢⎧
⎢ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
⎢ pred ‘morals’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
⎢ b: ⎢ gend neut ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎢⎪⎨
index
⎦
⎥
⎢ gend neut ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘customs’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
⎢ g: ⎢ gend neut ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎣ ⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
⎦
gend neut ⎪⎭
In example (96) a shared plural definite determiner scopes over a masculine and a
feminine animate noun and occurs with a split reading. The determiner requires a pl value
in the concord num feature and the nouns need to have the same value in their concord
num feature. index num should also be plural since the two nouns are plural. The
conjuncts need to be semantically related. Also, the definite determiner is indeterminate
in gender and it agrees with both conjuncts. The following example is repeated from above:
(96) I
mathites
ke
the.pl.masc/fem boy-students.pl.masc and
tou sxoliu...
of-the school...
‘The boy-students and girl-students of the school... ’
mathitries
girl-students.pl.fem
Following Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000), we capture the fact that the definite determiner
is indeterminate in gender in the plural number, by assigning two values to the
determiner. This will allow the determiner to agree both with a masculine and a feminine
conjunct 16 . The lexical entry and f-structure are presented below:
(97) i: (↑spec) = ‘the’
(↑concord num) = pl
(↑concord gend) = {masc,fem}
16 In LFG, Dalrymple and Kaplan (2000) use the set-based approach for cases of sharing of token identical
forms such as the relatives in German. For example, the relative pronoun was ‘what’ must be accusative
and nominative in case in order to satisfy the verbs gegessen ‘eat’ and übrig ‘left’, respectively:
(1) Ich habe gegessen was übrig war
I have eaten what left was
‘I ate what was left’ (Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 759)
This is captured as follows:
(2) was: (↑case)= {nom,acc}
gegessen: acc ∈ (↑ obj case)
übrig: nom ∈ (↑ subj case) (Dalrymple and Kaplan, 2000, 766)

5.5 The Modern Greek Definite Determiner 152
DET
i
(↑index num) = pl
N
NP
mathites
N
Conj
ke
N
mathitries
⎡
⎤
spec ‘the’
⎢
⎥
⎢index
[num pl]
⎥
⎢⎧
⎢ ⎡
⎤⎫
⎥
⎢ pred ‘boy-students’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
⎢ b: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎢ ⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
c: ⎢⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
⎢ gend masc ⎪⎬ ⎥
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ pred ‘girl-students’
⎥
⎢
⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
⎢
g: ⎢ gend fem ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎢
⎣
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
gend fem ⎪⎭
⎦
Therefore, MG natural coordination cases with a shared definite determiner follow the
index/concord system just like MG accidental coordination cases.
MG modifiers impose similar requirements in natural coordination structures with those
proposed for accidental coordination. The following example is a case of natural coordination
with a modifier:
(98) Gnosti ipurgi
ke ifipurgi
famous.pl.masc ministers.pl.masc and deputy-ministers.pl.masc
parevrethikan sta engenia
attended.pl the opening
‘Famous ministers and deputy-ministers attended the opening’
In example (98), the two nouns are coordinated under a shared modifier and the split
reading is generated. As in accidental coordinate structures with a modifier, the modifier
requires a pl value in the concord num feature and the two conjuncts need to have the
same value in their concord num feature. This is satisfied by both conjuncts since both
members of the set have a pl value in their concord num feature. In modifiers, the
index num feature is not constrained and therefore it may denote different referents. The
modifier agrees in gender with the closest conjunct (i.e. leftmost). The two nouns are also
semantically related. Thus, the standard f-structure for coordinate nouns is also assumed
in natural coordination cases with modifiers. The f-structure of example (98) is illustrated
below:
(99) Natural coordination in MG with a modifier
gnosti: (↑pred) = ‘famous’
((adj∈↑) concord num) = pl
((adj ∈↑)L concord gend) = masc

5.6 Conclusion 153
⎡
NP
ADJP
gnosti N
ipurgi
N
Conj
ke
N
ifipurgi
pred ‘conj’
⎢
⎢
⎢
adj pred ‘famous’
⎢
⎣
⎤
⎥
index [num pl]
⎥
⎧ ⎡
⎤ ⎫ ⎥
pred ‘ministers’
⎥
⎢
⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
b: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎨
index
⎦ ⎥
gend masc ⎪⎬
⎥
⎡
⎤ ⎥
pred ‘deputy-ministers’ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢
num pl ⎥ ⎥
⎢concord
⎥ ⎥
g: ⎢ gend masc ⎥ ⎥
⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢
⎣ num pl
⎥ ⎥
⎪⎩
index
⎦ ⎥
gend masc ⎪⎭
⎦
Thus, the MG natural coordination cases with a shared modifier follow the concord
system.
To summarise, the standard f-structure of accidental coordination is assumed for natural
coordination patterns in MG modifiers and the MG definite determiner. The plural
definite determiner shows index/concord agreement in accidental and in natural coordination
structures, allowing joint and split readings as this system predicts. The modifiers
show concord agreement in natural and in accidental coordination structures. The use of
the set representation allows the addition of two or more conjuncts, which is a possibility
in MG. Thus, the difference between natural and accidental coordination is not a difference
in syntactic representation for MG as in other languages. The f-structure of natural coordination
in MG is the same as the f-structure of accidental coordination. A problem that
still remains is that we do not impose any additional restrictions concerning the relation
between the two conjuncts, which must be semantically related in natural coordination
structures. This is something that must be expressed at the semantic level but it needs
further investigation since it might relate to a different level of representation within the
framework of LFG and will be left for future research.
5.6 Conclusion
In this chapter, we examined NP internal agreement in MG coordinate noun phrases,
focusing on MG modifiers and the MG definite determiner. The data showed that MG
modifiers behave differently from the MG definite determiner. A shared MG modifier
agrees in number with both conjuncts and in gender with the closest conjunct. Also, it
scopes over coordinate singular or plural nouns and allows two types of reading, the joint
and the split reading. On the other hand, a shared MG definite determiner agrees in
number and gender with both conjuncts and it scopes over coordinate singular or plural
nouns, generating only the joint reading. A number of exceptional patterns occur when
a shared MG plural determiner scopes over coordinate plural nouns and generates a split
interpretation. These patterns are considered cases of natural coordination.
We showed that MG modifiers show distributive concord agreement in number and
closest conjunct agreement in gender only and the best system that captures them is the
concord agreement system. Also, the MG definite determiner shows index and concord
agreement in number and distributive concord agreement in gender, while it is captured

5.6 Conclusion 154
by the concord/index agreement system. Syntactically, the MG definite determiner is
accounted for by the concord/index system but in plural number the MG determiner
introduces further specifications that are directly related to semantics.
Finally, to account for natural coordination patterns we argued that we cannot follow
the proposal of Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006). Natural coordination patterns in MG
differ from natural coordination patterns in other languages and the f-structure on natural
coordination proposed by Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) cannot capture MG. Thus, we
argued that the standard f-structure for accidental coordination is able to account for the
MG data in which conjuncts are represented as members of a set, the determiner specifies
both concord and index agreement requirements and the modifiers specify concord
agreement requirements, while the two conjuncts must be semantically related. Further
work is required to examine whether and how it is possible to express the semantic relation
between the conjuncts in natural coordination constructions.

Chapter 6
Disjunctively Conjoined Noun
Phrases
6.1 Introduction
Although disjunction was discussed by a number of scholars, it has not been studied as
extensively as conjunction. More recently, there has been some interest by a number of
linguists, such as Morgan (1972, 1984, 1985), Peterson (1986), Jennings (1994), Eggert
(2002) and Alonso-Ovalle (2006). The central issues discussed are the existence or not of a
second logical operator the exclusive or, the relation of the logical operators to the natural
language or and verb agreement with a disjunctive coordinate noun phrase.
In truth-conditional semantics, logicians agree on the existence of the primary logical
connective or represented as ∨ and known as the inclusive or. A number of linguists,
philosophers and logicians discuss the issue of whether to add to propositional logic a
second logical connective represented as and known as the exclusive or.
Concerning the relation of the logical operators ∨ (and for those who support its
existence) with natural language or, the two former are binary operators restricted to
propositional logic but the latter is not binary and seems to coordinate anything from
sentences to bare noun phrases. Therefore, natural language or is more flexible than the
two logical connectives which connect only whole sentences. Finally, the last issue is verb
agreement with a coordinate noun phrase that consists of two disjuncts, either singular
or mixed in number 1 . Singular number disjuncts allow either a singular or a plural verb.
Mixed number disjuncts follow the same pattern. All the above issues show that disjunction
is a complicated but rather intriguing phenomenon.
In this chapter, we will focus on agreement with disjunctively conjoined nouns. In the
first section, we will discuss the distinction between the inclusive and exclusive or in truthconditional
semantics and whether a similar distinction holds in natural language. Next,
we will present an overview of the theories in disjunctive coordinate nouns. Finally, we will
present disjunction phenomena in MG coordinate noun phrases, trying to shed some light
on the factors that play a crucial role in determining verbal agreement with MG disjunctive
nouns since disjunctive coordinate nouns and especially the issue of verb agreement and
interpretation in MG has not been discussed in any of the MG grammar books (Clairis
et al. (2004), Holton et al. (1997), Triantaphyllidis (1994), Triantaphyllidis (2005), Joseph
and Philippaki-Warburton (1987), Mackridge (1985) and Holton et al. (1997)).
1 Uniformly plural disjuncts will not be examined since the resolved number is always plural and they
do not present any special interest like uniformly singular disjuncts or mixed number disjuncts.

6.2 Inclusive vs Exclusive or 156
6.2 Inclusive vs Exclusive or
The semantics of disjunction or has attracted much interest among semanticians, logicians,
philosophers and linguists. A primary concern is whether, apart from the truth-functional
inclusive or 2 , there is a purely truth-functional exclusive or as well. The second issue is
if natural language adopts a similar kind of distinction between an ‘inclusive-and’ and an
‘exclusive-or’ interpretation. In the current section, we present some background information
on the logic of disjunction.
In its very basic semantic interpretation, disjunction is a logical connective which is
truth-functional; the value for a complex proposition formed with a truth-functional connective
is derived by the truth values of two propositions, without making any reference
to the content of the propositions while the best way to represent the truth-function of a
complex proposition is a truth table that tabulates the graph of how disjunction works.
The majority of logicians and linguists (see Tarski (1941); Ambrose and Lazerowitz
(1962); Quine (1972); Brody (1973); Hurford (1974); Manicas (1976); Georgakakos (1979);
Barker (1985)) perceive a two way distinction of disjunction which is reflected in the use
of natural language or. The first one is what is referred to as “inclusive disjunction” and
it is commonly glossed as ‘and/or’ (Kearns, 2000) in natural language.
In the following table from Kearns (2000), assuming that p and q are the two propositions,
inclusive or disjunction is represented with the truth-functions below:
Table 6.1: Truth Table of Inclusive or
p q p∨q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
Inclusive or results in a truth value whenever one or more of its operands are true and results
in a false value if and only if both of its operands are false. So crucially a proposition p∨q
is T(rue) even if both p and q are true. The following example shows how the logical
disjunction corresponds to ‘inclusive disjunction’ (‘and/or’) in natural language:
(1) You can get there by train or bus
(‘You can get there by train or you can get there by bus’)
(Kearns, 2000)
In this case, the sentence is true if one of the disjuncts is true and even if both disjuncts
are true.
The second logical operator is what they call “exclusive disjunction” which is commonly
glossed as ‘either/or’ in natural language. Exclusive or disjunction would have a different
truth table, which differs from the inclusive or only when the disjuncts are both T(rue).
This is illustrated below from Kearns (2000):
2 We will use single quotes to refer to the two interpretations of or in natural language and italics to refer
to the truh-functional or.

6.2 Inclusive vs Exclusive or 157
Table 6.2: Truth Table of Exclusive or
p q pq
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
Hence, exclusive or disjunction results in a truth value if and only if exactly one of its
operands is true. In other words, pq is F(alse) if both p and q have either a truth value
or alternatively a false value, whereas it is true if at least or at most one of the propositions
is T(rue). The sentence in example (1) illustrates how the logical exclusive or operator
corresponds to natural language. The sentence conveys an exclusive interpretation if it is
paraphrased as ‘You can get there either by train or by bus, (but not both)’. Thus, the
exclusive use of disjunction or in natural language requires the interpretation of sentence
in such a way as to allow the addition of the phrase qualification ‘but not both’ at the end
of the combined proposition.
An opposing view to the general claim above is that there is only one truth-functional
or and that the exclusive sense of or is not a purely truth-functional operator but it is
occasionally understood by the hearer or arises in discourse conditions. Among others (see
Tapscott (1976); Rubin and Young (1989) all cited in Jennings (1994)), the most influential
proponents of that view were Barret and Stanner (1971), Pelletier (1978) and more recently
Jennings (1994).
Barret and Stanner (1971) deny completely the existence of “a purely truth-functional
use of an exclusive or in English”(116), although they accept the existence of both an
‘inclusive’ and an ‘exclusive’ sense of or in English. They support that the English examples
found in logic textbooks that could be used to explain a truth-functional exclusive or fail for
two reasons. First, “the alternants of the alternation in question are logically incompatible
and the problem of the joint truth cannot even arise” and second, what seems to be a
truth-functional or is simply an ellipsis for a more complex expression which is not purely
truth-functional (Barret and Stanner, 1971, 117) 3 . The most characteristic examples which
fail for the first reason are the ones in (2), which are taken to display the exclusive or in
logic:
(2) a. it is raining or it is not raining
b. x is equal to two or x is equal to three
(Barret and Stanner, 1971, 117)
Barret and Stanner (1971) in order to show that the above examples are not cases of
an exclusive or, they rely on the first row of the truth tables of inclusive and exclusive
disjunction. As presented above, exclusive disjunction is distinguished from inclusive only
from the first row of the truth tables since the former requires an F value while the latter
requires a T value as the result of coordinating two propositions that are both T. Thus,
any example that exemplifies the exclusive or needs both of its components to be T(rue)
but the result to be F(alse). Both examples in (2) cannot be explained by the first row of
the exclusive or truth table since the two alternants are incompatible and they cannot be
simultaneously T(rue).
An example which fails for the second reason is shown in (3). Firstly, this example
cannot be a case of a truth-functional or since it is not a statement and only statements
are truth-functional. Barret and Stanner (1971) assume that example (4) “unpacks” the
3 For more details on how they account for the nonexistence of a truth-functional or see Barret and
Stanner (1971, 116).

6.2 Inclusive vs Exclusive or 158
non-statement in (3). In this example, the two alternants are not incompatible and or
could be seen as a case of a truth-functional exclusive or while they assume that example
(5) is a paraphrase of example (4):
(3) Tea or milk
(4) You are permitted to have tea or milk
(5) You are permitted to have tea or you are permitted to have milk
(Barret and Stanner, 1971, 118)
However, they show that (5) is not really a rephrasal of (4). They argue that if example
(5) is combined with the statement ‘you are not permitted to have tea’, it is considered
a consistent statement of the form ‘p∨q: -p’, allowing an inclusive or, or even ‘pq: -
p’, allowing an exclusive or. In this case, or is purely truth-functional and it does not
represent a contradiction. For example, a waiter says ‘You are permitted to have tea or
you are permitted to have milk, I’ve forgotten which’ and sometime later when he returns
to the table he says ‘You are not permitted to have tea so I brought milk’ (Barret and
Stanner, 1971, 119). But if example (4) is combined with the same statement, the result
is a self-contradictory statement and or is not purely truth-functional. For example, the
waiter says ‘You are permitted to have tea or milk’ and when he returns to the table he
says ‘You are not permitted to have tea unless you pay extra’ (Barret and Stanner, 1971,
119). For the above reasons or in (4) cannot be a truth functional exclusive or 4 whereas
or in (5) could be a truth-functional exclusive or. Thus, (5) is not a rephrasal of example
(4) while the phrase tea or milk is simply an ellipsis of the phrase in (4).
Similarly, Pelletier (1978) argues that the only or in English is the inclusive and that
the exclusive or is derived by ellipsis or deletion. His first argument comes from examples
like (6). He supports the claim that the statement is false if taxpayers file for both a single
and a joint return but this interpretation is not due to the disjunction or but rather due
to the restriction imposed by the first conjunct which states that only one return should
be filed:
(6) Taxpayers must file exactly one return, but it may be a single or a joint return
(Pelletier, 1978, 65)
He draws further arguments from sentences which seem to convey an exclusive or as in
(7). First, he assumes that such a sentence is true if and only if its negation is false. A
sentence with either...or negates with neither...nor in order to be false:
(7) Arlene wants a marguerita or a grasshopper
(8) Arlene wants neither a marguerita nor a grasshopper
(Pelletier, 1978, 67)
Also, sentence (8) is true in the same circumstances as the following is true:
(9) Arlene doesn’t want a marguerita and Arlene doesn’t want a grasshopper
(Pelletier, 1978, 67)
Thus, since sentence (9) is interpreted using the conjunction and in order to convey
the equivalent meaning of sentence (8) and in order to be the corresponding false one of
the true sentence (7), Pelletier (1978) concludes that sentence (7) is true only when both
disjuncts are true and that their negative forms are false also when both disjuncts are false.
4 Barret and Stanner (1971, 118-20) present more arguments against the existence of truth-functional
exclusive or.

6.2 Inclusive vs Exclusive or 159
This shows that sentences with the disjunction or are basically inclusive and that exclusive
or is drawn through the process of deletion.
Jennings (1994), also, extensively discusses the issues concerning the existence of an
inclusive and an exclusive or disjunction arguing towards the view that or, like but not dual
to and, does not function as a binary logical connective but as a kind of a “list punctuating
device”(293). For example, both sentences You may have tea, or cofee, or milk or You may
have tea, or you may have cofee, or you may have milk involve lists. The first involves
lists of nouns and the second lists of sentential clauses. None of these two, however, are
disjunctive in an inclusive or an exlusive sense.
The above argument follows from his view that the same distinction between an inclusive
and an exclusive or disjunction cannot hold in Latin either. This means that the lexical
distinction in Latin of the two words vel and aut is not one of inclusive and exclusive or.
In Latin, the original view was that “the word vel expresses weak or inclusive disjunction,
and the word aut corresponds to the word or in its strong or exclusive sense” (Copi, 1971,
241). The following example could be seen as a clear case of an exclusive or where aut
is used in the formation of lists of disjoint or contrasted or opposed items, categories or
classes or states:
(10) Omne enuntiatum aut verum aut falsum est
Every statement is either true or false
(Jennings, 1994, 242)
Once Jennings (1994) considers a different example the behaviour of disjunction has similar
problems as those in English. If the example in (11) is negated as in (12), the resulting
sentence will expect a reading along the lines of inclusive disjunction.
(11) Timebat tribunos aut plebes
One feared the magistrates or the mob
(12) Nemo timebat tribunos aut plebes
No one feared the magistrates or the mob
(Jennings, 1994, 243)
The example in (12) means ‘no one feared either’ and ‘not everyone either feared neither
or feared both’. Thus, it is interpreted as an inclusive disjunction and not as an exclusive
disjunction. Therefore, Jennings (1994) claims that Latin does not really have two words
for or but that Latin had many words that are translated into English as or.
In search of a solution, Jennings (1994) discusses nondisjunctive uses of or found in four
different environments. When or occurs in the complement of a comparative adjective, as
in example (13), when it occurs in expressions of preference, as in (14), when it occurs with
sentences that express modality, as in (15), and when or is immediately subordinated to
if, as in (16):
(13) Mary is heavier than Jack or Bob
(14) I prefer shiitakes or truffles to morels or oysters
(15) Jane likes Sally or Peter
(16) If you drop it or if you throw it, it will break
(Jennings, 1994, 85-9)
He actually adopts a more speech-act oriented approach placing or within the realm of
pragmatics and refers to the co-ordinator or as a discourse-adverbial one. Such uses are
when or is used to mark a list of alternatives, as seen below repeated from above:

6.2 Inclusive vs Exclusive or 160
(17) You may have tea or coffee
(Jennings, 1994, 289)
Associated with this use is when or is used to correct by weakening, seen below:
(18) My brother, or my half-brother, arrived yesterday
(Jennings, 1994, 290)
A further use is one in which possibilities are mooted. This means that or in this case
goes unnoticed since it initiates whole paragraphs and therefore escapes the notice of our
mainly sentential focus. Finally, a last use is the exegetical one mostly found with glosses,
as seen below:
(19) This is a theorem schema, or meta-theorem
(Jennings, 1994, 290)
The expression theorem schema is glossed by the expression meta-theorem. Thus,
Jennings (1994) argues that or is neither truth-functionally inclusive or exclusive but it is
seen as discourse-adverbial.
On the opposite side stand a number of scholars who support the claim that the exclusive
or is the prevalent disjunction and that the inclusive or occurs less often and sometimes
not at all. Lakoff (1971) claims that or is truth-functionally exclusive. One characteristic
example is illustrated below:
(20) Either John eats meat or Harry eats fish
(Lakoff, 1971, 142)
In the above example, there is only one conjunct that is true and therefore the other one
is not. The interpretation assigned to the above example is below and, as it is seen, there
is only one choice:
(21) a. If John doesn’t eat meat, Harry eats fish
b. If John eats meat, Harry doesn’t eat fish
(Lakoff, 1971, 142)
Lakoff (1971) is led to assert that there is an element like choose that underlies the structure
of or. She does not present any convincing evidence but her argument is based on the fact
that sentences containing or are usually ambiguous in that the choice is either assumed
to be that of the speaker or that of the hearer, or that of the participant in the action
or that of any other unspecified person 5 . Thus, this kind of analysis, which assumes the
existence of the verb choose in the underlying structure of disjunction, shows that Lakoff
(1971) accepts only the exclusive or and not the inclusive.
The literature overview showed the different views of scholars regarding the existence
of both a truth-functional inclusive and a truth-functional exclusive or. The most common
belief is that an inclusive or does exist and truth-conditional semantics accounts for that
based on propositional logic. The existence of a purely truth-functional exclusive or is
rather doubtful since in many cases natural language expressions that could be seen as
cases of a truth-functional exclusive or are inadequate to provide an explanation for its
existence (Barret and Stanner, 1971; Pelletier, 1978; Jennings, 1994). Next, we will discuss
some issues related to the natural language or.
5 For more details see Lakoff (1971).

6.2 Inclusive vs Exclusive or 161
6.2.1 Natural Language or
Despite the disagreement concering or truth-conditional semantics, none of the above scholars
denies the existence of an ‘inclusive’(‘and-coordinate’) and an ‘exclusive’(‘or’) sense of
or in natural languages. A rather common line taken by most is that we should be careful
when relating the truth-conditional inclusive or (∨) with or in natural languages since the
former connects merely propositions while the latter connects not only sentences but any
grammatical type. This means that the natural language or is much more flexible than the
truth-conditional inclusive or (∨).
The following sentence can be paraphrased according to propositional logic and in this
case the disjunction of the two NPs corresponds to the disjunction of two propositions. In
this case or is a clear-cut case of the truth-conditional inclusive or:
(22) Tom or Mary will visit me tonight
(23) Tom will visit me tonight or Mary will visit me tonight
(de Swart, 1998, 58)
Many examples, however, do not follow that pattern, such as the following taken from
de Swart (1998):
(24) A doctor or a dentist can write prescriptions
(p ∧ q) where
p = a doctor can write prescriptions
q = a dentist can write prescriptions
(de Swart, 1998, 58)
According to de Swart (1998), the interpretation of the above example is that both
doctors and dentists can write prescriptions, meaning that the correct translation for the
above phrase is a conjunctive statement and not a truth-conditional disjunctive one. Thus,
the phrase above can be paraphrased with and instead of or.
Also, Jennings (1994) showed that natural language or has a wide number of uses that
it can join almost anything especially when taking into consideration discourse conditions.
Thus, the natural language or is much more flexible than the logical connective ∨ and, as
most scholars claim, we should be careful when associating the logical connective with the
‘inclusive-and’(conjunctive) sense of natural language or.
Similarly, although most scholars try to reject the existence of an exclusive or in truthconditional
semantics, there is an implicit belief that the purely disjunctive or ‘exclusive’
sense of natural language or occurs across languages, especially if one considers sentences
based on real world knowledge as the ones below:
(25) Mary is (either) at home or at college right now
In the above sentence, Mary has to be only at one place and not at two places simultaneously.
Thus, the phrase conveys an ‘exclusive’ sense in natural language and it does
not really need to be explained based on the reasoning of truth-conditional semantics in
order to prove the truth of its exclusivity. Thus, we believe that an ‘exclusive’ sense of
natural language or also should be seen separately from the truth-conditions approach and
should be perceived in association to the discourse facts, which is what some linguists have
done. The fact that discourse conditions frequently determine speaker’s perception and
interpretation of various utterances shows that we cannot always rely on syntax and logic
to account for the various grammatical phenomena.
To conclude, we briefly presented evidence showing that the basic controversy among
linguists, logicians and philosophers concerns whether there is an exclusive or in truthconditional
semantics, based on propositional logic using natural language data. What is

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 162
commonly agreed, though, is that there is an ‘inclusive’(‘and-coordinate) and an ‘exclusive’
sense of or in natural language, proved by a number of examples that cannot be explained
relying on propositional logic but are based on discourse facts. Thus, speakers have the
ability to perceive and interpret sentences differently and this is why both interpretations
of or seem to occur freely in natural languages. This conclusion is crucial for the next
sections since it is a view followed by linguists in cases where syntax seems inadequate to
explain some agreement phenomena.
6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs
The present section is an overview of the different approaches that were developed regarding
verb agreement with disjunctive coordinate NPs. The problem of verb agreement with
disjunctive NPs has been approached from different views, the syntactic, semantic and
pragmatic. In this section, we will present an overview of these different approaches and
we will see how each of these explains number verb agreement in disjunctive coordinate
NPs.
6.3.1 Morgan’s Analysis of Disjunctive NPs
Morgan (1972) discussed the issue of number agreement in conjoined and disjoined noun
phrases, focusing on whether the variation in number verb agreement is related to meaning
or to syntactic form.
Morgan (1972) argues that, although verb agreement is a syntactic phenomenon, syntax
is not enough to account for the variation in verb agreement since it is also determined by
semantic/pragmatic principles. He identifies two central problems that occur in coordinate
noun phrases, the “determination” problem and the “selection” problem. We will present
the “determination” problem since this is relevant to the current discussion. The determination
problem refers to the decision as to “what properties of the selected NP determine
the appropriate form of agreement in the verb”(278).
Two structures that focus on the “determination” problem and show how verb agreement
is affected are conjoined subjects and There-insertion, and or-conjoined subjects 6 .
In conjoined subjects, speakers prefer plural verb agreement. There are cases, though,
where the interpretation of the NP determines verb agreement. In example (26a), the
coordinate nouns are perceived as separate entities and the verb is plural, whereas in
example (26b) they are perceived as one entity and the verb is singular:
(26) a. Pickles and strawberries taste good
b. Pickles and strawberries tastes good
(Morgan, 1972, 280)
In cases of “there-insertion”, the verb usually agrees with the noun closest to it, displaying
closest conjunct agreement (i.e. leftmost). This is illustrated below:
(27) There was a man and a woman in the room
(28) There were two women and a man in the room
(Morgan, 1972, 280-1)
Thus, Morgan (1972) shows that both syntax and semantics determine verb agreement
in coordinate NPs.
6 These are part of a group of nouns that he calls Complex NPs. Other structures that are part of
Complex NPs are what he refers to as the “highest quantifiers”, “disembodied heads”, “measure phrases”.
We only focus on the two structures mentioned above, which are of interest to us.

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 163
In or-conjoined subjects, verb agreement patterns are more complicated since cases of
closest conjunct agreement alternate with resolved agreement, but other factors also seem
to play a role in verb agreement, i.e. the presence of the preconjunction either:
(29) (Either) Harry or his parents *is/are coming
(30) (Either) Harry’s parents or his wife ?is/*are coming
(31) There was (either) a bee or two flies in the room
(32) There were either two flies or a bee in the room
(Morgan, 1972, 281)
According to Morgan (1972), in the above examples the majority of speakers choose
closest conjunct agreement when either is present whereas more speakers choose resolved
agreement when either is not present. Also, a number of speakers find both closest conjunct
agreement and resolution with or without the preconjunction either ungrammatical 7 . Thus,
they reject both examples below:
(33) *Are/*is (either) John or his parents here?
(34) *Are/*is (either) John’s parents or his wife here?
(Morgan, 1972, 281)
From the above data, Morgan (1972) concludes that in coordinate noun phrases any
speaker acquires a specific verb agreement principle, and if this fails then s/he uses additional
ones ending up with a set of principles. These principles may range from syntactic to
semantic/pragmatic, meaning that both syntax and semantics are involved in verb agreement.
Morgan (1985) returns to the “determination problem”. His central question is whether
number agreement is syntactically or semantically motivated. If it is syntactic, number
agreement should be associated with the purely formal property of the NPs. If it is semantic,
the question is whether it should be associated with the actual meaning of the NP or
the speaker’s beliefs concerning the properties of the intended referent. In fact, he draws
a distinction between purely syntactic agreement, semantic/pragmatic agreement and a
complex mixture of syntactic and semantic/pragmatic agreement. In syntactic agreement,
the number properties of an NP depend on its syntactic form. In semantic agreement,
number refers to the properties of expressions that are not related to particular occasions
of use but rather depend on the sense or intended referent of the NP. In the complex type
of agreement, sometimes the syntactic agreement will play an active role and other times
the semantic/pragmatic, while it is also possible that syntactic and semantic/pragmatic
agreement may conflict (Morgan, 1985, 70-1).
In or coordinated NPs, Morgan (1985) argues that verb form is determined by semantic/pragmatic
agreement. He argues that two distinct interpretations seem to determine
number verb agreement; when the sentence conveys an ‘inclusive’(‘and’) sense of or, the NP
forces plural verb agreement. When the sentence conveys an ‘exclusive’(‘or’) sense, the verb
shows singular agreement. The following examples display cases of an ‘inclusive’(‘and’) and
an ‘exclusive’(‘or’) reading of or:
(35) John or Bill is/??are going to win the race
(36) I don’t think John or Bill are/*is going to win the race
(Morgan, 1985, 72)
7 Morgan (1972) does not provide any details concerning the number of participants and their responses.

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 164
According to Morgan (1985), in example (35) verb agreement is singular since there
must be only one winner in any world where it is true. He also argues that the same
example can have plural verb agreement such as in (36) since it may convey the meaning
that out of a group of two individuals, no one of them is going to win the race. Thus,
in both cases the interpretation of the utterance determines verb agreement. Therefore,
Morgan shows that in disjunctive NPs the different interpretations of the speakers will
determine verb agreement.
To sum up, Morgan (1972, 1985) concludes that there are crucial syntactic and semantic/pragmatic
principles that determine number verb agreement in coordinate NPs. In
conjoined nouns, this becomes apparent in examples where the referent is interpreted as a
single entity and singular verb agreement is required or as two separate entities and plural
verb agreement is required. In disjunctive coordinate NPs, number verb agreement is even
more undetermined since the choice of the agreeing verb is affected by whether disjunction
conveys an ‘inclusive’(‘and’) sense or an ‘exclusive’(‘or’) sense and this interpretation varies
across speakers.
Morgan’s analysis incorporates basic notions that constitute the beginning for researching
verb agreement with conjunctive and disjunctive NPs from new perspectives. As it turns
out, syntax is not the only factor responsible for the agreement features of the verb but a
combination of different principles drive verb agreement, which range from syntactic to semantic/pragmatic
and relate to speaker perception and variation. One problem, however,
is that, even though he discusses the existence of a pragmatic principle providing valid
data for his claim, he avoids treating it as a separate principle, but instead he assumes it is
an integral part of semantics, incorporating the former within the field of the latter. This
notion ends up being problematic for examples where verb agreement is dependent only
on contextual interpretation. If we consider the example ‘Do you think John or Bill is/are
happy?’, both verbs could be equally acceptable depending on the context and speaker
interpretation, which will largerly determine the choice of the verb. Thus, his analysis is
very influential but still ignores the purely pragmatic factors that seem to play a role in
disjunctive coordinate nouns.
6.3.2 Peterson’s Analysis of Disjunctive NPs
Peterson (1986) has more to say about number agreement with disjunctively conjoined
nouns. He presents some interesting data from English and concludes that syntax itself is
not enough to account for disjunctive conjoined NPs, but rather speakers resort to what he
calls “patch -up rules” of various types. These “patch-up rules” take the form of generalised
principles. Thus, he goes further than Morgan (1972) by establishing the specific principles
that speakers resort to when they decide on number verb agreement in or conjoined nouns.
The discussion is couched in LFG.
Peterson (1986) starts his analysis from the two main principles that have been acknowledged
by a number of linguists, who have worked on disjunctive conjoined nouns,
“proximity” and “plural wins”. Proximity is mentioned in Morgan (1972) as the “closest
conjunct principle” 8 . Similarly, “plural wins” is described in Partridge (1956, 221) as
follows: “if either of the two subjects joined by or... is plural, the ensuing verb must be
plural”.
Peterson (1986) carried out a survey to confirm the existence of the two principles
and check whether any extra principles are also involved in number verb agreement with
disjunctive NPs. He presented a set of data to 42 undergraduate students at the University
of Newcastle (NSW), who were given a set of sentences and were asked to select one of
8 A number of other linguists discuss “proximity”, such as Langendoen (1970, 25), Quirk and Greenbaum
(1973) and Fowler (1926) without giving it a formal name.

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 165
the two given verb forms that they considered to be acceptable. They could also accept
or reject both forms. The questionnaires included two types of sentences with or without
either. Declarative sentences, with the verb following the subject, such as examples (37)
and (38), and interrogative sentences, with the verb preceding the subject, such as examples
(39) and (40):
(37) A rabbit or a goat has/have eaten all my lettuces
(38) Either John or Bill is/are responsible for the mess
(39) Is/are either Fred or Bob responsible for this mess?
(40) Is/are David or Mark coming with me?
(Peterson, 1986, 234-5)
Interrogative sentences without either are considered two way ambiguous. For example,
(40) has two readings, the “alternative” and the “yes/no” reading, paraphrased below,
respectively:
(41) a. Which of the two boys is coming with me? (only 1 of the two must be chosen)
b. Is either of the two boys coming with me? (the answer is yes or no)
(Peterson, 1986, 235)
Reading (41a) forces the choice of only one boy to go with the speaker; reading (41b)
requires a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer meaning that either both boys or none of them will go with
the speaker.
The responses that were given by the consultants fell into various patterns in terms
of number verb agreement. In declarative sentences in which conjuncts have the same
number, Peterson (1986) finds that the consultants choose the plural number whenever the
two disjuncts are plural but there is greater variation in verb agreement when disjuncts
are singular since there are people who accept both a plural and a singular verb. Also, the
presence or absence of either makes no difference to the answers of the participants. His
findings, therefore, contradict Morgan’s (1972) claim that the presence of either disallows
an inclusive(‘and-coordinate’) reading of or. Also, Peterson (1986) argues quite strongly
that the inclusive(‘and’) versus exclusive(‘or’) or distinction plays no crucial role in the
choice of number verb agreement in this group of sentences. If interpretation played a
role, he would expect a higher plural response in (42) than in (43) since the first conveys
more easily the inclusive(‘and-coordinate’) reading than the second. However, this was
not confirmed, concluding that the inclusive/exclusive distinction is not obvious in positive
declaratives.
(42) A rabbit or a goat has/have eaten all my lettuces
(43) Either John or Bill is/are responsible for this mess.
(Peterson, 1986, 237)
The responses of the students of the above two sentences are shown below:
SENTENCE SG PL BOTH N/A
(42) 36 2 4 -
(43) 36 6 - -
The same conclusion is drawn with regard to the inclusive/exclusive distinction in
interrogative sentences. The two way ambiguity in interrogatives is mapped to the inclusive/exclusive
ambiguity of or. Thus, the “alternative” reading corresponds in a way to

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 166
the “exclusive” reading, and the “yes/no” one corresponds to the “inclusive”. In the following
sentences, the higher number of plural in example (44) than in example (45) could
be explained in terms of the inclusive interpretation of the former. However, the same
explanation is not applicable in example (46), which although it includes either and would
prevent an inclusive reading, there were participants who favoured the plu wins strategy.
(44) Is/are David or Mark coming with me?
(45) Are/Is John or Bill going to win the next race?
(46) Is/Are either John or Bill responsible for this mess?
(Peterson, 1986, 234-5)
The numbers of the responses are summarised in the following table:
SENTENCE SG PL BOTH N/A
(44) 30 10 2 -
(45) 40 1 1 -
(46) 28 12 2 -
Thus, Peterson (1986) argues that the inclusive/exlusive or distinction is not in operation
even in interrogatives. Peterson (1986) concludes that the generalisation in these
three types of sentences is that “yes/no” interrogatives favour plural and “alternative”
interrogatives favour singular verb agreement. So it is the contrast between “yes/no” and
“alternative” interpretation and not the contrast between an “inclusive” and “exclusive”
reading of or that is reflected in number verb agreement.
Next, he discusses declarative sentences with disjunctive coordinate nouns in which
the conjuncts differ in number. The degree of uncertainty on the part of the consultants
is much greater for these sentences. He also identifies cases where the consultants gave
different answers when they were asked for a second opinion on the same sentence. In
declarative sentences, when disjuncts occur in the following order [NP.sg or NP.pl] and
[NP.pl or NP.sg], Peterson (1986) identifies two strategies used by the participants, plu
wins and prox. plu wins is stronger than prox since plural is a rather popular choice.
In the following examples, the participants would choose a plural verb more often than a
singular:
(47) a. Either this tree or those shrubs has/have to be cut down
b. Either your cats or my dog has/have eaten all the daisies
(Peterson, 1986, 238)
The table below shows the responses of the participants:
SENTENCE SG PL BOTH N/A
(47a) 6 30 3 3
(47b) 15 25 - 2
A small number of participants used a singular verb form in example (47a). This choice
contradicts both the plu wins and the prox strategy. Peterson (1986) presented two
possible explanations: either the consultants consistently use singular where at least one
conjunct is singular (sing wins strategy), or they choose a verb form which agrees with
the first conjunct (fc wins strategy).
Since there is no convincing evidence for the sing wins strategy, Peterson (1986) assumes
that the existence of an fc wins strategy is more likely. The high choice for a
singular verb form in example (47a) is seen as evidence that fc wins strategy is more

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 167
likely to exist than the sg wins strategy. Also, sg wins is rejected because singular occurs
in high numbers in (47b) as a result of the prox strategy since the second conjunct is singular
and therefore the prox strategy takes effect. Thus, Peterson (1986, 234) concludes
that a third possible strategy is the one in which the verb agrees in number with the first
conjunct, known as the fc wins one. Apart from example (47a) in which singular was
chosen by a significant number of consultants, a singular verb form occurs in high numbers
in the interrogative sentences below:
(48) a. Have/Has the president or the senators read the documents yet?
b. Was/Were the cake or the scones made by Mary?
(Peterson, 1986, 240)
The responses are summarised below:
SENTENCE SG PL BOTH N/A
(48a) 33 3 4 2
(48b) 27 9 4 2
According to Peterson (1986) in the above structures, which involve subject-auxiliary
inversion, fc wins and prox are equivalent strategies. But even though prox could cause
the occurrence of singular, it cannot cause the occurrence of singular in example (47a).
Thus, in either-or declaratives three strategies are adopted by the speakers, plu wins,
prox and fc wins. The strongest is plu wins, followed by the prox, while fc wins is
the weakest of the three.
Finally, in interrogative sentences with mixed number conjuncts, the results are rather
different. In interrogatives without either and a noun order [NP.pl or NP.sg], all three
strategies, plu wins, prox and fc wins, favour a plural verb. In interrogatives with a
noun order [NP.sg or NP.pl], prox and fc wins are in conflict with plu wins since the
first two would produce singular responses and plu wins would produce plural responses.
Participants, however, prefered a singular verb compared to the equivalent declaratives,
which shows a preference for the prox strategy. In interrogatives which contain either,
participants prefer the plu wins strategy more than any other. Thus, for interrogatives
with either the consultants prefer the plu wins than the prox strategy, but for interrogatives
without either the prox strategy wins over the rest.
To sum up, Peterson’s analysis showed that in sentences with subject-auxiliary inversion
prox strategy is stronger but in declaratives plu wins is used more often. Thus, prox is
stronger when the verb precedes the subject, and plu wins is stronger for declarative and
interrogative phrases with either. This implies that there is a strong relation of the strength
of each strategy with the type of sentence construction and these should be examined
together when attempting to analyse disjunctive coordinate nouns 9 .
Through the above analysis, Peterson (1986) concludes that syntactic rules do not
function as principles for verb agreement with disjunctive conjoined subjects but instead
native speakers need to use a number of strategies, known as “patch-up rules”. These
“patch-up rules” are not ad hoc but they can be perceived as generalised principles. These
principles may have a syntactic or semantic character and they differ in strength from
speaker to speaker and also across constructions.
It is clear that Peterson (1986) draws similar conclusions to Morgan (1972, 1985). His
analysis is insightful since it manages to shed some light into the main strategies employed in
English, concerning number verb agreement with disjunctive coordinate NPs. In addition,
9 Peterson (1986) also extends his investigation by looking at neither-nor conjoined subject NPs. As he
concludes, the results are rather unclear and this is why we will not present any details of his investigation
here.

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 168
he identifies formally three different principles used by native speakers, prox, plu wins
and fc wins, rejecting sg wins as a fourth strategy within the limitations of the English
language. Another advantage of his analysis is that he stresses the importance of word
order in determining verb agreement with disjunctive NPs, drawing concrete conclusions
from the data. Finally, he asserts that number verb agreement with disjunctive coordinate
nouns depends on syntactic and semantic or perceptual principles.
An important drawback of his analysis, however, is that he considers the patch-up
rules as generalised principles and he completely ignores the purely pragmatic or discourse
factors that may determine verb agreement. Based on his data, he argues that the type of
sentence determines verb agreement and not the inclusive/exclusive or interpretation. In
declaratives, the inclusive/exclusive distinction is not salient whereas in interrogatives the
contrast between “yes/no” and “alternatives” drives verb agreement. Morgan (1972, 1985),
on the other hand, appears to accept those two interpretations cross-sententially and this
is why he incorporates a semantic/pragmatic principle that determines verb agreement.
One last thing to note is whether these speaker strategies are crosslinguistic and how
many of those are grammaticalised or not in the various languages. Concerning the first
point, we argue that in MG these strategies are not all activated. In fact, the flexibility
of the language itself will determine whether it is possible for all strategies to be used or
not and not all languages display the same kind of flexibility. Secondly, as Peterson (1986)
mentions, in some languages some of the strategies are grammaticalised such as the CCA
strategy in Albanian 10 . This depends on the internal structure of the language. In MG,
these strategies are not grammaticalised but they seem to be part of the speakers’ strategic
choices.
6.3.3 An Intermodular Theory of Disjunction
Eggert (2002) examines disjunctive coordinate nouns and discusses all aspects that seem to
be involved in determining verb agreement, such as syntax, semantics and pragmatics. He
focuses on an analysis of English verb agreement with disjunctive nouns within the framework
of Autolexical Grammar (Sadock, 1991). The advantage of the specific framework is
that it consists of several independent modules each with its own set of rules which share
the same lexicon 11 . Also, the current framework is rather useful in analysing agreement
since it keeps separate each aspect in agreement, e.g. syntax or semantics, allowing an
adequate representation of agreement mismatches.
Autolexical Grammar includes five modules: Linearity, Syntax, Argument/Predicate,
Logical-Scope and Morpho-syntax. In his thesis, Eggert (2002) focuses only on the first
three modules, even though he asserts that the other two are still relevant for the phenomenon
of coordination. Linearity encodes “the linear order of words in a sentence”;
“syntax encodes the dominance and command relations between syntactic phrases in a
10 According to Peterson (1986), in Albanian the adjectival participle must agree with the closest conjunct,
which is the final one.
11 The main difference between LFG and Autolexical Grammar is that LFG distinguishes two syntactic
levels: c-structure (constituent-structure) and f-structure (functional structure) but it has no syntactic
level of LF and no d-structure (Horrocks, 1987); Autolexical Grammar has only one level of syntax, which
corresponds to c-structure in LFG. In theoretical discussions of mismatch phenomena this difference becomes
more obvious. For example, in LFG the argument-structure properties of the verb seem (as in He seems
to like it) are represented in terms of f-structure relations, which are independent of phrase structure
(reference)(Horrocks, 1987). In this case, no movement is involved and the two levels of syntax are more
independent of each other. In Autolexical Grammar, the information concerning the argument-structure of
raising verbs is captured in semantics. According to Sadock (1991), verbs like seem justify the distinction
between phrase structure and semantic structure and say nothing about additional levels of syntax (Francis
and Michaelis, 2000).

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 169
sentence”, and Argument/Predicate “represents the dominance and command relations
but between the semantic phrases in a sentence” (Sadock, 1991, 7). His central addition
is to supplement the current framework with an extra level, the discourse, that is mapped
off of semantic structure, including also a set of weighted agreement constraints.
Eggert (2002) first presents the grammatical structure of coordinate phrases focusing
on agreement phenomena. He argues that agreement is an intermodular phenomenon separated
into syntactic agreement, accounted for by the Linearity and Syntax modules 12 , and
semantic agreement, accounted for by the Argument/Predicate module 13 within Autolexical
Grammar. A clear case of syntactic agreement concerning number is that of closest
conjunct where the verb agrees in number with the noun closest to it, shown below:
(49) a. Either John or his parents were/*was here
b. Either John’s parents or his brother ?was/??were here
(Eggert, 2002, 17)
Semantic agreement is always agreement with the entire noun phrase and depends
on the meaning of the NP. In the examples below, when the two NPs refer to different
individuals as in (50a) (i.e. split reading) the verb shows plural number agreement, whereas
when the NPs refer to the same individual (i.e. joint reading) the verb shows singular
number agreement:
(50) a. Her husband and her lover say that they can’t live without her
b. Her longtime companion and the future editor of her papers was happy to give
his approval to her request (Eggert, 2002, 16)
Eggert (2002) captures the syntactic aspects of agreement in coordinate NPs based on
the Linearity and Syntax modules. He points out that any difference in the hierarchical
structure in linearity will necessarily result in a difference in the linear order. Linearity
contributes greatly since it accounts for ‘closeness’ factors in agreement. The agreement
constraints that require agreement with a particular conjunct are based on the linear position
of the noun, which must be closest to the verb. The phrase structure rules that
the Linearity module enforces are rather simple, producing binary branching trees (Eggert,
2002, 36-7). Like the Syntax module, the structure of Linearity conforms to specific
command relations. The most characteristic relation is for any two constituents α and
β, α precedes β iff α c-commands β. On the other hand, the Syntax module focuses on
constituent structure and command relations. After examining a number of syntactic theories
concerning coordination, such as Chomsky’s (1957) “Conjunction Reduction”(CR),
Goodall’s (1987) “Three dimensional phrase structure” and Johannessen’s (1996) “Coordinate
Alpha”, he concludes that an adapted version of GPSG is more effective simply
because it does not involve transformations and coordinate structures are base-generated.
GPSG relies on two main principles, the Head Feature Convention and the Foot Feature
Principle.
The semantic aspects of agreement in coordinate NPs are captured by the Argument/Predicate
module. Eggert (2002) argues for a unified analysis for each of the two
connectors and and or that will allow them to operate over conjunct sets of any type and
not simply being propositional connectors, as has been done in the past. He favours a
quantificational account of and and or based on the observation that both operators are
12 Issues in morphosyntax are captured within the syntax module. However, he does not discuss further
any issues in morphology since it is beyond the scope of his thesis.
13 His semantic aspect relates only to the Argument/Predicate module and not the Logical-Scope one.
Although, he notes that a complete analysis of coordination requires the Logical-Scope module too, he does
not consider it relevant to agreement and he chooses not to discuss it further.

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 170
involved in the same types of scopal ambiguities as quantified NPs; also, in this way he can
explain patterns of non-distributive conjunction, which pose problems for other approaches
(i.e. CR approach (Chomsky, 1957) and those by Gazdar (1980) and Montague (1973)).
Eggert (2002) argues that conjunction and and disjunction or semantically resemble
quantifiers. He proves this by treating and and or as analogous to all and the existentials,
respectively. As is well known, all and a interact in sentences and produce scope
ambiguities, such as the ones below:
(51) a. All of his friends belong to a band
b. ‘all of his friends are band members’
c. ‘there is a band that all of his friends belong to’
(Eggert, 2002, 78)
The position of the two quantifiers determines the difference in the two readings and
which elements have scope over which.
Similar, ambiguities arise in example (52a) with and and a, being ambiguous between
(52b) and (52c), and in example (53a) with all and or, being ambiguous between (53b) and
(53c):
(52) a. Grant and Jacob are members of a band
b. ‘Grant and Jacob are band members’
c. ‘there is a band that Grant and Jacob are members of’
(Eggert, 2002, 79)
(53) a. All of his friends are members of Sunset Valley or Sketchy Afterdeal
b. ‘All of his friends belong to one of the two bands: Sunset Valley or Sketchy
Afterdeal’
c. ‘All of his friends belong to Sunset Valley, or all of his friends belong to Sketchy
Afterdeal’
(Eggert, 2002, 79)
Moreover, and and or interact in this kind of ambiguity:
(54) a. Grant and Carmine like Gertrude or Carmelia
b. ‘Grant and Carmine are such that they like Gertrude or Carmelia’
c. ‘Gertrude or Carmelia is such that Grant and Carmine like her’
(Eggert, 2002, 79)
Turning to a and all, it is impossible for a syntactically lower all to take scope over
a syntactically higher a. For example, most people have trouble getting reading (55c) for
(55a):
(55) a. A girl likes all the boys
b. ‘A girl is such that she likes all the boys’
c. ‘Every boy is such that a girl likes him’
(Eggert, 2002, 80)
Thus, there is a similarity between and and or and all and a.
Also, and and all show similar behaviour with regard to distributivity since they can
be either distributive or non-distributive. In the following examples, neither and nor all
can be distributive:
(56) a. Grant and Gertrude met in the park

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 171
b. *‘Grant met in the park and Gertrude met in the park’
c. All the sheriffs met in the park
d. *‘Sheriff1 met in the park, Sheriff2 met in the park...’
(Eggert, 2002, 81)
In addition, the cases where conjunction is ambiguous between a distributive and a
non-distributive reading are the same ones where sustituting the phrase all of the Ns is
ambiguous. This is illustrated below:
(57) a. Grant and Gertrude carried the box
b. ‘Grant and Gertrude carried the box severally’
c. ‘Grant and Gertrude carried the box together’
d. All the sheriffs carried the box
e. ‘All the sheriffs carried the box severally’
f. ‘All the sheriffs carried the box together’
(Eggert, 2002, 81)
Thus, Eggert (2002) shows that and and or produce similar scopal ambiguities to
quantifiers and and and all behave similarly with regard to distributivity 14 . The Argument/Predicate
module, which posits a number of rules, can capture a unified treatment of
both operators. The A/P rules, which correspond to arguments and predicates, state how
these combine to form propositions, and treat conjunctions as operators that are allowed
to combine with two or more conjuncts of any category but the conjuncts need to be of the
same category. Finally, an A/P coordination rule is introduced, which treats conjunctions
as n-ary and not binary 15 .
Eggert (2002) shows that apart from the strict semantic factors, there are also discourse
factors involved when determining the ‘semantic number’ of an argument in coordinate
phrases. Thus, he claims that “‘semantic agreement’ should be analysed as a discourse
phenomenon, which is informed by the semantics” (Eggert, 2002, 97). Characteristic cases
of discourse factors mediating in coordinate NPs and determining verb agreement are
cases of “appositive conjunction”(Hoeksema, 1988, 36) (or otherwise mentioned as joint
interpretation) and “deferred reference” (Nunberg, 1995, 115).
A case of appositive conjunction or joint reading is illustrated in example (58). The
conjuncts denote the same referent and they trigger singular agreement. A semantic theory
could capture that. However, appositive conjunction or joint reading is only allowed with
descriptions as in example (58) and not with proper nouns (Hoeksema, 1988, 36), as in
(59):
(58) Grant’s former wife and his mother’s present girlfriend was on the Jerry Springer
show
(59) ??Cassius Clay and Muhammed Ali has/have always been my father’s favorite boxer
(Eggert, 2002, 93)
There are also cases where coreferential proper nouns can be conjoined but the verb
admits plural verb agreement, as below:
(60) Cassius Clay and Muhammed Ali are the same person
(Eggert, 2002, 93)
14 For more details on how the two coordination markers resemble quantifiers see Eggert (2002, 78-83).
15 A complete list of the rules is in Eggert (2002, 84).

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 172
Hoeksema (1988, 30-31) argues that these phrases introduce two distinct intensional
individuals, which correspond to one real-world entity. In these cases, intensionality rather
than extensionality determine verb agreement.
Also, in cases of “deferred reference” agreement is only with the intended referent.
Thus, demonstratives are singular or plural depending on the intended referent, not the
demonstratum:
(61) That/*those french fries is/*are getting impatient
(Eggert, 2002, 96)
Therefore, Eggert (2002) argues that such cases cannot be handled by purely semantic
theories and therefore a discourse based account should be considered.
To capture the discourse and semantic factors in agreement, Eggert (2002) proposes
an analysis of coordinate phrases based on Discourse Representation Theory (Kamp and
Reyle, 1993). DRT uses a discourse structure that is mapped off of grammatical structure.
Such a discourse structure allows the effective incorporation of any discourse-pragmatic
features into the meaning of sentences when the latter are uttered in a particular discourse
context. DRT has the advantage of accounting for complicated phenomena, such as
anaphora, negation and scope. ‘Semantic number’ is also complicated and a DRT analysis
is advantageous since it takes both discourse and semantic factors into consideration when
determining the semantic number of an argument. Thus, considering a given argument,
its semantic number is determined by whatever discourse conditions apply to the discourse
referent that corresponds to the argument.
Eggert (2002) develops a uniform theory for and and or in order to capture the wide
range of data and also introduce a straightforward definition for plurality. He achieves that
by combining DRT with Schwarzschild’s cover theory (Schwarzschild, 1996). He treats
and as a type-specific operator meaning that it is a generic operator that is identified with
“whatever operator is defined for the domain of the conjoined terms”(Eggert, 2002, 92) and
not with meet per se, as in the Boolean approach proposed by Keenan and Faltz (1985).
Thus, and does not map directly into the DRS as set-union but as a generic operator,
meaning that it operates either as set-union or as set-intersection. He achieves that by
assuming that the domains of the conjoinable types are semi-lattices and not Boolean
algebras. Thus, and is assigned to whichever operator is defined for that domain.
Next, he argues that or is not and’s dual. If they were truly duals, or should denote set
intersection just like and denotes set union. However, this is not the case since the simple
phrase Grant or Abigail cannot denote the intersection of {grant} and {abigail}, which
would be the empty set. Also, if and and or were duals, it would be expected to behave
similarly with regard to scope. However, or resembles indefinites since it can scope above
a structurally higher and, while and cannot scope above a structurally higher or. This is
shown below:
(62) a. Grant and Jakob danced with Rebecca or Sukie
b. Grant or Jakob danced with Rebecca and Sukie
(Eggert, 2002, 103)
Finally, one more argument that and and or are not duals is that there are cases they can
have identical meanings. For example, (63) paraphrases as (64) and also as (65) according
to Jennings (1994):
(63) Grant is taller than Gertrude or Abigail
(64) Grant is taller than Gertrude or Grant is taller than Abigail
(65) Grant is taller than Gertrude, and Grant is taller than Abigail
(Jennings, 1994)

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 173
Initially, he adopts the DRT analysis of existentials for disjunction. Existentials trigger
the introduction of a discourse referent that is a member of its restricting predicate. Disjunction
may also be taken to introduce a discourse referent which is a member of the set
of its disjuncts 16 . For example, we could assign the following DRS for the phrase Gertrude
or Abigail:
(66)
x,y,z
gertrude(x)
abigail(y)
z∈{x,y}
(Eggert, 2002, 106)
However, Simons (1998) argues that disjunction does not introduce any discourse referents.
Consider the discouse in the example below:
(67) a. Gertrude or Abigail is singing tonight
b. #She might dance, too
The intended reading for (67a) is ‘whoever is singing tonight (i.e. Gertrude or Abigail)
might dance too’; however, this reading does not become available.
Since disjunction does not seem to introduce a discourse referent (Simons, 1998), Eggert
(2002) argues that disjunction must be treated as a combination of the default operator,
which means whatever operator is defined for the domain, and a subset function, which
means a function that moves from sets to subsets. By treating disjunction as a subset
function, he avoids introducing a discourse referent for disjunction. Also, he borrows from
Schwarzschild (1996) the partition theory of plurals and applies that to disjunction. More
precisely, Schwarzschild (1996) argues that according to the partition theory of plurals
the collective and distributive semantic difference in sentences comes from a contextually
determined variable, a partition on the universe of discourse. Schwarzschild (1996) suggests
that the semantics is the same for both readings and introduces a semantic theory
that treats sentences as vague and not as ambiguous, which should allow for a variety of
interpretations. Therefore, all cases of semantic ambiguity are vague and are explained by
a variety of interpretations. Thus, he captures problematic data and gets the distributive
and collective readings correctly. Consider the following sentence:
(68) Three students carried the piano
(Schwarzschild (1996) cited in Eggert (2002, 127))
In some contexts, the variable partitions ‘three students’ into three cells, one for each
student, which is the distributive reading, but in other contexts, there is only one cell
including all three students, which is the collective reading. This theory also favours the
use of distributive operators and not type-raising ones. Thus, pragmatics will contribute
into limiting the number of interpretations of a sentence or even disambiguate it.
Eggert (2002) after proposing a theory of semantic number that posits a discourse level,
in addition to the modular structures, he also introduces a set of agreement constraints.
Speakers use these constraints in their attempt to determine if a disjunctively conjoined
noun phrase requires singular or plural verb agreement. He argues that agreement facts
are best analysed with weighted constraints and not with rules or ranking constraints,
due to the nature of agreement data. In particular, native speakers have weak intuitions
with regard to agreement phenomena. He claims that there are cases where they are
16 In DRT, disjunction is taken to introduce a discourse referent that is a member of a set of its disjuncts
(z∈{x,y}) (Kamp and Reyle, 1993)

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 174
indecisive as to the correct agreement choice within a pattern. Other times they are able
to state whether one pattern is preferable to another, even though they disagree about
which pattern is preferable. Moreover, sometimes the role of hierarchies is crucial in order
to determine agreement, with animacy hierarchy being the most important.
Eggert (2002) considers that weighted constraints are the most effective method to
account for intermediate judgements, speaker variation and the role of hierarchies in agreement
facts since they may interact in different ways with different speakers and the preference
of the individual speaker depends on the relative weights of individual constraints.
Such constraints also interact better with the animacy hierarchy. Rules, on the other hand,
are not able to account for such variation since they are restrictive in allowing either a grammatical
or ungrammatical structure. Similar problems occur with ranked constraints since
there are only three possible relations that a constraint C1 may have with a constraint C2
when ranking is involved; either C1 out-ranks C2, C1 may be out-ranked by C2 or C1 may
have the same rank as C2.
Eggert (2002) introduces two types of constraints, syntactic and semantic. The syntactic
constraints are formnum, highnum, nearnum (Peterson’s prox) and firstnum
(Peterson’s fc wins). These are stated as follows:
(69) formnum: A verb should agree in grammatical number with its syntactic subject
highnum: A verb should be plural if one of the NP heads of its syntactic subject
is plural
nearnum: A verb should agree in grammatical number with the nearest NP head
of its syntactic subject
firstnum: A verb should agree in grammatical number with the first NP head of
its syntactic subject
(Eggert, 2002, 197)
The semantic constraints are drnum, modelnum, disnum and multijunct while the
definition of semnum is divided into two parts. These are defined below 17 :
(70) semnum1: A pred1 should be marked for semantic number
semnum2: If the semantic number of a pred1 is marked it should have the same
number as its semantic subject
drnum: The sum of any two discourse referents should be a plural discourse referent
modelnum: Where x is a discourse referent and [x] is the assignment of x in model
m,|x| should be equal to |[x]|
disnum: If a pred1 has a disjunctive arg for subject, it should be unspecified for
number
multijunct: A verb should be marked plural if its syntactic subject consists of
more than two np heads
(Eggert, 2002, 243)
Finally, he introduces a constraint which is a semantic-syntactic one:
(71) semnum=formnum: If a verb is marked for number in Syntax, the corresponding
pred1 should be marked for the same number in A/P
(Eggert, 2002, 243)
These constraints capture complicated data, such as disjunctive conjoined nouns, which
are difficult to analyse due to great variation of speakers’ judgements and intuitions. Eggert
17 In the A/P module, A/P structures show how one forms arguments and predicates and combines them
to form propositions. Pred1 is defined as follows: A/P1 PRED1 → β β ∈ {run’, girl’, pretty’,...}.
Therefore, PRED1 refers to any single argument predicate.

6.3 Approaches to Disjunctive Coordinated NPs 175
(2002) notes that many factors determine the speaker’s choice from syntactic, semantic to
discourse or pragmatic while most of the speakers assign weight to the constraints and
these weights may differ considerably from speaker to speaker. Thus, some speakers use
more semantically based strategies while others may use more syntactically based ones.
There are also those who are between the two.
On the whole, Eggert (2002) proposes an intermodular theory of disjunction that analyses
disjunction from the perspective of syntax, semantics and discourse. First, he discusses
the grammatical structure of disjunction in the A/P theory, the Syntax and the Linearity
modules. Next, he presents a theory of semantic number, which also posits a discourse
level within DRT. Finally, he introduces a set of agreement constraints which account for
the fact that speakers use these constraints to determine whether a sentence should have
singular or plural verb agreement. Thus, his model views disjunction as a complicated
phenomenon that requires the active participation of different modules in order to provide
a complete account for disjunction.
6.3.4 Discussing the three approaches
In the previous sections, we decribed the three approaches to disjunction developed by
Morgan (1972, 1985), Peterson (1986) and Eggert (2002) and briefly presented the main
advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. From the three approaches to disjunctive
conjoined nouns, we believe that Eggert’s analysis is more advantageous than the other
two for the simple reason that he acknowledges that discourse conditions play a crucial role
in disjunction and he proposes an analysis on discourse.
First of all, although Morgan (1972, 1985) discussed agreement phenomena determined
by discourse conditions, such as “deferred referrence”, he did not deal extensively with
those but he chooses to incorporate the discourse phenomena to semantics. Therefore,
cases where the interpretation of a sentence and the choice of the verb form depend on
discourse factors are attributed to semantics (and/or pragmatics) according to Morgan
(1972, 1985). Some of the cases that can have either singular or plural verb agreement
depending on the interpretation are the following:
(72) John or Bill is/are??? going to win the race
(73) Do you think John or Bill is/are going to come?
(74) I don’t think John or Bill are/*is going to win the race
(75) Either John or Bill is/*are going to win the race
(Morgan, 1985, 72)
Thus, purely pragmatic factors are ignored in this analysis.
Similarly, Peterson (1986) avoided discussing cases where discourse conditions are the
main motivation for number verb agreement. In fact, his main argument is that the type
of sentence determines the choice of the verb form and not the inclusive/exclusive interpretation
of the sentence. Also, he argues that speaker strategies play a crucial role in verb
agreement and he identifies three main strategies in English, prox, plu wins and fc wins.
Although speaker strategies do seem to play an important role in verb agreement, there are
cases that speakers are indecisive concerning the choice of the verb form which implies that
more than one strategy can be possible or even none of the strategies can clearly determine
the agreement form. In these cases, speakers seem to consult the context and the discourse
conditions, which are able to determine the choice of the verb form. Unfortunately, this
factor is ignored by Peterson (1986). Also, the strategies introduced by Peterson (1986)
are not crosslinguistic. In fact, we will show that in MG only two strategies are activated
the prox and plu wins. Thus, the flexibility of the language itself will determine the
strategies that will be used.

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 176
Eggert (2002), on the other hand, like Jennings (1994), proposes a complete account
based on a discourse based framework DRT. Eggert (2002) draws a distinction between
purely syntactic strategies, purely semantic and a combination of the two. He also takes
into consideration discourse factors that are involved in verb agreement with disjoint nouns,
something that Morgan (1972, 1985) and Peterson (1986) do not manage.
Another characteristic of Eggert’s analysis is that or corresponds to a subset function,
which picks up either one (i.e. resulting in sg agreement) or both (i.e. resulting in pl
agreement) members of the set, being polysemous between two meanings. In fact, he
does not analyse or as being and’s dual while he argues that there are sentences with
disjunction or that do not translate as propositional disjunction, but rather as propositional
conjunction. In particular, he refers to examples that have been discussed by Jennings
(1994), as the one below:
(76) Grant is taller than Gertrude or Abigail (Eggert, 2002, 104)
He claims that Boolean and clausal theories of and and or would predict only the reading
in (77) as being the only available one:
(77) Grant is taller than Gertrude or Grant is taller than Abigail
But (77) also paraphrases as in (78):
(78) Grant is taller than Gertrude and Grant is taller than Abigail
Thus, Eggert (2002) discussed the long standing issues of the different functions of or
as inclusive (∨) and exclusive (∧) and also of the different interpretations of disjunction
or as ‘and-coordinate’ and as ‘exclusive’. In fact, he places emphasis and argues in favour
of the different interpretations of or in discourse. This is taken into consideration when
positing the syntactic and semantic constraints for the account of disjunctive coordinated
nouns. Next, we turn to verb agreement in MG disjunctively conjoined nouns.
6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns
In this section, we examine number verb agreement in disjunctive coordinate nouns in MG
and we will show that a number of factors determine the number of the verb. An important
factor that determines number verb agreement is the interpretation of disjunction. MG
native speakers assign two different interpretations to natural language disjunction or, as
an ‘and-coordinate’ so that the predicate holds of both disjuncts (this is usually the same as
the inclusive interpretation of logical disjunction ∨), and as a true ‘exclusive’ disjunction,
in which the predicate is true of either one or the other of the disjuncts. According to the
interpretation, native speakers show a preference to a specific verb form, such as plural in
the first case and singular in the second.
Second, verb agreement is also determined by a number of syntactic factors; for example,
different gender and person features found in each disjunct, the type of sentence,
which may be either declarative or interrogative, and the presence of a predicative adjective/participle,
which determine the choice of a specific verb agreement form. Third, a
number of different strategies adopted by MG native speakers are also associated to verb
agreement. These strategies differ from other languages and have different weight in each
language. As we will show, MG adopts two basic strategies as opposed to other languages
whose native speakers use more than two.
Finally, we will briefly refer to coordinate nouns joined by the positive predisjunction
and disjunction i...i/ite...ite ‘either...or’ and the negative predisjunction and disjunction
oute...oute ‘neither...nor’. The positive predisjunction and disjunction i...i ‘either...or’ behaves
almost the same as bare disjunction i ‘or’. However, the negative predisjunction and

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 177
disjunction oute...oute ‘neither...nor’ shows great preference to the plural verb agreement
form.
The data analysis was based on two questionnaires that were developed in order to
test the prevalent verb agreement form in disjunctive structures. The aim was to explore
the different interpretations assigned to the coordinate structures and the syntactic factors
that determine verb agreement. The first questionnaire focuses on the interpretation of the
disjunctive coordinate nouns. The second questionnaire focuses on the syntactic factors and
it consists of both declarative and interrogative sentences. The questionnaire was issued to
20 native speakers who are all university graduates from different areas in Greece. Their
choice depends on whether they found the phrase acceptable and they would use it in
everyday language or not 18 .
6.4.1 Interpretation and Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns
In this section, we explore the different interpretations assigned to disjunctive coordinate
nouns. The first group of data involves MG disjunctive phrases with singular disjuncts. In
MG, number verb agreement with a disjunctive phrase largerly depends on the interpretation
of disjunction as an ‘and-coordinate’ or and as an ‘exclusive’ or. Our aim is to show
that MG native speakers allow sing verb agreement when they assign to the disjunctive
phrase an ‘exclusive’ sense, and a pl verb agreement, when they assign to the phrase an
‘and-coordinate’ sense.
In the following example, the coordinate phrase consists of two singular disjuncts, the
proper noun Kostas and the proper noun Maria. The majority of the participants used a
singular verb agreement (14/20), only 4 participants used a pl verb form while 2 participants
selected both a singular and a plural form:
(79) O Kostas i i Maria
the.sg Kostas.sg or the.sg Maria.sg
me to aftokinito.
with the car
‘Kostas or Maria will pick me up with the car’
(constructed)
tha
will
me
me
pari
pick-up.sg
The most plausible interpretation for the largest number of native speakers is an ‘exclusive’
one. In example (79), the ‘exclusive’ interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the
sentence can accept the additional phrase as one of them is working tonight and it can
only be interpreted with an ‘exclusive’ sense:
(80) O Kostas i i Maria tha me pari
the.sg Kostas.sg or the.sg Maria.sg will me pick-up.sg
me to aftokinito, jati enas apo tus dio dulevei
with
apopse.
tonight
the car, as one of the both is-working
‘Kostas or Maria will pick me up with the car, since one of them is working tonight’
(constructed)
Therefore, example (79) is interpreted by the majority of consultants as an action carried
out by one of the two individuals and this is why they prefer a singular verb. Only 4 (out of
20) consultants interpret example (79) as if both of them ‘will pick up the speaker’, which
is why we get a smaller number of consultants that prefer the plural verb.
18 For more details on the methodology and rationale on constructing the questionnaires on disjunctively
conjoined nouns see Appendix B.

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 178
Similarly, in the following example 15 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb.
Therefore, the example is likely to be interpreted with an ‘exclusively’ sense:
(81) To agori i to koritsi prospathi
the.sg boy.sg or the.sg girl.sg tries.sg
sinestimata
feelings
‘The boy or the girl tries to suppress the feelings’
(constructed)
na
to
katastili
suppress
The exclusive interpretation is confirmed by the presence of modifiers, such as separately,
individually, only, that assign an ‘exclusive’ sense in the sentence. Thus, example
(81) is rewritten as follows:
(82) To agori i to koritsi prospathi
the.sg boy.sg or the.sg girl.sg tries.sg
na katastili ta sinestimata
to suppress the feelings
‘The boy or the girl alone tries to suppress the feelings’
(constructed)
mono
alone/only
Only 3 (out of 20) consultants chose a plural verb agreement in example (81), which
is the result of an ‘and-coordinate’ interpretation of or. The same example with a plural
verb agreement is shown below:
(83) To agori i to koritsi prospathun
the.sg boy.sg or the.sg girl.sg try.pl
ta sinestimata
the feelings
‘The boy or the girl try to suppress the feelings’
(constructed)
na
to
tu
its
katastilun
suppress
Thus, the ‘and-coordinate’ interpretation is also acceptable and it is a natural choice
for a few (3/20) native speakers but to a smaller degree. Finally, we need to note that only
2 consultants chose both the plural and the singular verb forms which shows that for these
consultants both interpretations are acceptable.
Alternatively, in the following example where the coordinate phrase also consists of
two singular disjuncts, the largest number of participants were inclined to use the plural
verb agreement form (13/20) while the singular verb form was chosen by fewer (7/20)
consultants:
(84) I jineka i to pedi exun protereotita
the woman.sg or the child.sg have.pl priority
to emvolio kata tis gripis
the vaccine against the flu
‘The woman or child have priority for the vaccine against the flu’
(G.N.: To Vima)
The above example is most likely assigned an ‘and-coordinate’ interpretation considering
that both groups are high-risk groups and require the vaccine. This is confirmed by the
fact that modifiers, which assign distributivity, are not used by native speakers in these
cases and the sentence is paraphrased with the conjunction and, as seen below:
ja
for
ta
the

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 179
(85) I jineka ke to pedi exun protereotita
the woman.sg and the child.sg have.pl priority
to emvolio kata tis gripis
the vaccine against the flu
‘The woman and child have priority for the vaccine against the flu’
(G.N.: O Ependitis)
Similarly, the example (86) is more likely interpreted as an ‘and-coordinate’ phrase. In
particular, 15 (out of 20) consultants chose a plural verb agreement and only 5 (out of 20)
consultants chose a singular verb agreement. However, none of the consultants chose both
verb agreement forms:
(86) To agori i to koritsi
the.sg
diavasma
studying
boy.sg or the.sg girl.sg
‘The boy or the girl are tired from studying’
(www.in.gr)
The above example could be paraphrased as follows:
(87) To agori ke to koritsi
the.sg boy.sg and the.sg girl.sg
to diavasma
the studying
‘The boy and the girl are tired from studying’
(constructed)
exun
have.pl
exun
have.pl
kurasti
tired.pl
kurasti
tired.pl
apo
from
ja
for
apo
from
In fact, example (86) is seen by most consultants as if the event has an effect on both
‘the boy and the girl’ since both are perceived to be studying despite the fact that they
may have not participated together in the same event. However, we need to note that
only example (87), which can be a paraphrase of example (86), would accept modifiers
which assign collectivity, such as both of them, whereas example (86) does not accept such
modifiers. In fact, in example (88), if we add a modifier with a collective meaning, the
sentence is marked if not completely ungrammatical, but not in example (89):
(88) ??To agori i to koritsi exun ke
the.sg boy.sg or the.sg girl.sg have.pl and
kurasti apo to diavasma
tired.pl from the studying
‘The boy or the girl are both of them tired from studying’
(constructed)
(89) To agori ke to koritsi exun ke
the.sg boy.sg and the.sg girl.sg have.pl and
kurasti apo to diavasma
tired.pl from the studying
‘The boy and the girl are both of them tired from studying’
(constructed)
ta
the
ta
the
dio
both
dio
both
The fact that some consultants chose the singular verb form, even though they were
fewer (5/20), shows that an ‘and-coordinate’ interpretation is not the only possibility for
the sentence. Therefore, example (86) was perceived with an ‘exclusive’ sense by a few
to
the

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 180
speakers. Thus, in the two examples above native speakers assigned mainly an ‘andcoordinate’
interpretation followed by a plural verb with very few cases of an ‘exclusive’
interpretation followed by a singular verb. The responses of the consultants of the main
examples discussed are shown in the following table:
Table 6.3: Singular Nouns
Consultant Number: 20
Examples Verb Agreement Form/Interpretation of or
singular/‘exclusive’ plural/‘inclusive’ sing-pl/both
(79) 14 4 2
(81) 15 3 2
(84) 7 13 -
(86) 5 15 -
The table above shows that participants have a preference to a specific verb form usually
related to the interpretation they assign to the corresponding phrase. However, this is not
the only possibility but in all examples a second interpretation is possible, which proves
that the ‘exclusive/and-coordinate’ distinction is not clear-cut but depends on the speaker’s
perception of the specific phrase in the specific discourse conditions.
There are some examples where the ‘exclusive’ and ‘and-coordinate’ interpretations
of or do not overlap but instead there is only one sense assigned to the phrase which is
consistent across native speakers. Jennings (1966) holds that a truth-functional exclusive
example in English is Mary is related to either Jack or Bob (181). In the corresponding
Greek example translated from English, 20 (out of 20) consultants chose the singular verb
agreement form, based on an ‘exclusive’ only interpretation:
(90) O Kostas i o
the.sg Kostas.sg or the.sg
tis Marias
of-the Maria
‘Kostas or Giorgos is Maria’s relative’
(translation from Jennings (1994))
Jorgos
Giorgos.sg
ine
is.sg
singenis
relative.sg
The most plausible meaning assigned to the above sentence is, what Jennings (1966) also
presents for the corresponding English example, that only one of the two must be Maria’s
relative, otherwise if the sentence is interpreted conjunctively, Maria will be related to
both ‘Kostas’ and ‘Jorgos’ 19 . Logicians who support an exclusive or would claim that the
possibility here is that either the first or the second disjunct is true but definitely not both
for the disjunction to be true. If both disjuncts are true then the whole disjunction is false.
The same phrase, however, can be interpreted purely pragmatically since this is what one
would say if they wanted to specify that one of the two people is Maria’s cousin. Thus, in
MG it conveys an ‘exclusive-or’ sense.
Alternatively, there are examples where the ‘and-coordinate’ interpretation is only assigned
by MG native speakers. In the corresponding example in MG translated from
English, all native speakers (20/20) used a plural verb agreement as a result of an ‘andcoordinate’
interpretation of or assigned to the phrase:
(91) O jatros
the.sg
farmaka.
doctor.sg
prescriptions
i
or
o
the.sg
odontiatros
dentist.sg
mporun
can.pl
na
to
grapsun
write
19 Of course the reading where ‘Maria’ is related to both is possible but in this case the conjunction and
would be used to coordinate the two nouns and not the disjunction or.

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 181
‘The doctor or dentist can write prescriptions’
(translation from de Swart (1998))
Thus, the ‘and-coordinate’ interpretation is the only possibility here. de Swart (1998,
57) argues that in English the disjunctive coordinate phrase above does not correspond
to a disjunction of propositions in truth-conditional semantics and we should be careful
when we relate the logical connective to natural language or. Even if this is the case, we
cannot deny the fact that native speakers use a plural verb agreement since they interpret
the sentence as ‘and-coordinate’ considering the fact that both a doctor and a dentist can
write prescriptions 20 .
The above data suggest that there are two interpretations for natural language or in
MG, the ‘and-coordinate’ and the ‘exclusive’ one. In the majority of examples, there is
not a sharp distinction between the two but the context and the specific conditions seem
to determine the kind of meaning that will be assigned to the disjunctive phrase by the
speakers. There are cases, however, that either an ‘and-coordinate’ or an ‘exclusive’ interpretation
occurs exclusively. Some of these cases can be explained using truth-conditional
semantics since the logical operators ∨ and the interpretation for natural language or may
coincide. However, we cannot always rely on truth-conditional semantic since the context
is an important factor to disambiguate the meaning of a phrase.
6.4.2 Syntax and Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns
Next, it is interesting to examine whether any syntactic factors determine verb agreement
in disjunctive coordinate noun phrases. Parker (1983), who studies syntactic number in
English positive disjunctive coordinate nouns with ‘either-or’ and negative disjunctive coordinate
nouns with ‘neither-nor’ 21 , argues that there are relevant variables that determine
whether verb agreement is singular or plural. In the case of disjunctive singular coordinate
nouns, the variables are the gender and the person of the disjuncts. Thus, in English
in mixed gender or mixed person disjuncts participants favour a syntactically plural verb
form. He argues that this preference to a verb form is attributed to knowledge of the
language itself and not only to knowledge of the world on the part of the speakers. This
means that for Parker (1983) pure syntax also determines verb agreement as opposed to
other linguists who also focus on speakers’s strategies or semantic factors (Morgan (1972,
1985); Peterson (1986)). Therefore, mixed gender or mixed person disjuncts should be
treated as syntactically plural. Our goal is to investigate these claims for MG since there
is no similar work in other languages other than English. We will show that MG coordinate
phrases with singular number but mixed gender or mixed person nouns show similar
variation to English and favour plural verb agreement in declarative sentences and CCA
in interrogative sentences.
We will discuss first declarative sentences with mixed gender singular disjuncts. In
Chapter 4, we saw that the expected resolved gender for mixed gender animate conjuncts
is masc and for mixed gender inanimate conjuncts is neut, while only adjectives and participles
(not verbs) show gender agreement. In disjunctive coordinate phrases with mixed
gender disjuncts, the same requirements hold but there is a specific restriction concerning
the number feature of the verb. There are two options available in declarative sentences
with singular mixed gender disjuncts and they relate to the presence or absence of a pred-
20 Among others, Jennings (1994) and de Swart (1998) argue that modality favours the interpretation of or
as and. Also, according to Jennings (1994) or behaves like and when or occurs in expressions of preference,
when it appears in the complement of a comparative adjective and when it is immediately subordinated to
if. 21He refers to disjunctive coordinate nouns with ‘either-or’ as “correlative constructions” and negative
disjunctive coordinate nouns with ‘neither-nor’ as “negative correlative constructions”.

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 182
icative adjective/participle, which inflects for gender. If a predicative adjective/participle is
not present, singular and plural verb agreement varies depending on the interpretation. If
a predicative adjective/participle is present in the verb phrase, the number of the agreeing
predicate and predicative adjective/participle is preferably the plural and therefore resolution
is obeyed for both the number and gender features. The following examples illustrate
these patterns:
(92) O fititis
i i fititria
the male-univ-student.masc.sg or the female-univ-student.fem.sg
pu ine siguri ja kathe epilogi tha
that
petixun
are certain.masc.pl about every choice will
succeed.masc.pl
‘The male-student or female-student that is certain about every choice will succeed’
(constructed)
(93) O pateras i i mitera
the father.masc.sg or the mother.fem.sg
enimeri ja tin katastasi
informed.masc.pl about the situation
‘The father or mother are informed about the situation’
(constructed)
In examples (92) and (93), both coordinate phrases consist of two disjuncts, a masculine
singular and a feminine singular. In both cases, most (12/20) consultants chose plural in the
agreeing verb and predicative adjective in all 4 sentences that appeared in the questionnaire.
A small number of participants (4/20) opted for the singular. The consultants who chose
a singular verb chose the gender of the closest conjunct. Thus, they selected the feminine
gender for the predicative adjective/participle following closest conjunct agreement, as in
(94). When conjuncts appeared in the reverse order, the consultants who chose singular
verb agreement opted for the masculine gender due to CCA, as in (95). Finally, there
were 2 (out of 20) consultants who chose the plural in 3 of the 4 questions and 2 (out of
20) consultants who chose the plural in 2 of the 4 questions. The two examples discussed
appear below:
(94) O fititis
i i fititria
the male-univ-student.masc.sg or the female-univ-student.fem.sg
pu ine siguri ja kathe epilogi tha petuxi
who is certain.fem.sg about every choice will succeed.sg
‘The male-student or female-student who is certain about every choice will succeed’
(constructed)
(95) I fititria
i o fititis
the female-univ-student.fem.sg or the male-univ-student.masc.sg
pu ine siguros ja tin kariera tu tha
that
petixi
is certain.masc.sg about the career his.masc.sg will
succeed.sg
‘The female-student or male-student who is certain about their career will succeed’
(constructed)
On the other hand, in mixed gender nouns if a predicative adjective or participle is
not present, then the number of the predicate can be either singular or plural depending
on the interpretation of the phrase. For instance, the questionnaire included the following
ine
are

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 183
two examples with mixed gender nouns and without a predicative adjective/participle, (96)
and (97). In both cases, 7 (out of 20) consultants chose singular verb agreement, 2 (out of
20) consultants chose plural verb agreement and 11 (out of 20) chose both a singular and
a plural verb agreement. The result is still natural with either forms since verbs show only
number and not gender agreement in MG.
(96) O mathitis
i i mathitria
the male-student.masc.sg or the female-student.fem.sg
mpor-i/-un na enimeroth-i/-un apo tus gonis
can.sg/pl to be-informed.sg/pl by the parents
‘The male-student or female-student can be informed by the parents’
(constructed)
(97) O ijios i i kori
the
viothia
help
son.masc.sg or the daughter.fem.sg
‘The son or the daughter need help’
(constructed)
xriaz-ete/-onte
need.sg/pl
Thus, the presence of a predicative adjective/participle, which forces agreement with the
coordinate phrase, is crucial for the verb form in MG. The table below is a summary of
the above data:
Table 6.4: Disjunction i
Singular Mixed Gender Nouns
Consultant Number: 20
Declaratives Verb Agreement Form
np.sg or np.sg + verb singular plural sing-pl/both
(96) 7 2 11
(97) 7 2 11
np.sg or np.sg + verb + pred.adj/part singular plural sing-pl/both
(92) 4 12 4
(93) 4 12 4
Interrogative sentences without a predicative adjective/participle with singular mixed
gender coordinate NPs, occurring in either preverbal or in postverbal position favour singular
verb agreement (CCA). In example (98), where the interrogative sentence has the
same word order as the declarative and the intonation determines the type of the sentence,
9 (out of 20) consultants chose singular verb agreement and only 4 (out of 20) consultants
chose the plural. However, 7 (out of 20) consultants chose both a singular and a plural
verb. In example (99), the sentence is also interrogative but the coordinate phrase occurs
postverbally. In this case, 11 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb, 4 (out of 20)
consultants chose a plural verb, and 5 (out of 20) consultants chose both a singular and
a plural. In both sentences, the singular verb is preferred, with higher frequency in the
second sentence.
(98) I mitera i to
the.sg.fem mother.sg.fem or the.sg.neut
etimazet-e/-onte ja eksodo;
is-getting-ready.sg/pl to go-out?
‘Is the mother or the boy getting ready to go out?’
(constructed)
agori
boy.sg.neut

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 184
(99) Etimaz-ete/-onte i mitera
is-getting-ready.sg/pl the.sg.fem mother.sg.fem
agori ja eksodo;
boy.sg.neut to go-out?
‘Is the mother or the boy getting ready to go out?’
(constructed)
i
or
to
the.sg.neut
In interrogative sentences with a predicative adjective/participle, the plural verb form
is favoured when the disjunctive phrase occurs preverbally, but the singular verb form
occurs more often when the disjunctive phrase occurs postverbally. In example (100), 13
(out of the 20) consultants chose the plural, 3 (out of the 20) consultants chose the singular
and 4 (out of the 20) consultants chose both the singular and the plural form. From the
consultants who chose both a singular and a plural verb form, 2 of the 4 consultants chose
the plural in 2 of the 3 sentences and 2 of the 4 consultants chose the singular in 2 of the
3 sentences. In (101), 9 (out of the 20) consultants chose the singular, 6 (out of the 20)
consultants chose the plural and 5 (out of the 20) consultants chose both the singular and
the plural form. From the consultants who chose both a singular and a plural verb form,
3 of the 5 consultants chose the singular in 2 of the 3 sentences and 2 of the 5 consultants
chose the plural in 2 of the 3 sentences.
(100) I mitera i to
the.sg.fem mother.sg.fem or the.sg.neut
etim-i/-o
ja eksodo;
ready.pl.masc/sg.neut to go-out?
‘Is the mother or the boy ready to go out?’
(constructed)
(101) Ine etimi i mitera
is ready.sg.fem the.sg mother.sg.fem
agori ja eksodo;
boy.sg.neut to go-out?
‘Is the mother or the boy ready to go out?’
(constructed)
In the following table, we summarise the findings:
i
or
agori
boy.sg.neut
to
the.sg.neut
ine
are.pl
Table 6.5: Disjunction i
Singular Mixed Gender Nouns
Consultant Number: 20
Interrogatives Verb Agreement Form
np.sg or np.sg + verb ? singular plural sing-pl/both
(98) 9 4 7
verb + np.sg or np.sg? singular plural sing-pl/both
(99) 11 4 5
np.sg or np.sg + verb + pred.adj/part? singular plural sing-pl/both
(100) 3 13 4
verb + np.sg or np.sg + pred.adj/part? singular plural sing-pl/both
(101) 9 6 5
In the first group of interrogative sentences, the number of native speakers who chose
a singular verb was higher in verb-subject constructions than in subject-verb constructions.
In the second group of sentences, the native speakers who chose a singular verb

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 185
were very few in subject-verb constructions whereas in verb-subject constructions,
although the singular verb form was high, the plural verb form was not as low as in the
corresponding verb-subject constructions without the predicative adjective/participle.
To summarise, in subject-verb interrogatives and in verb-subject interrogatives
without a predicative adjective/participle, singular verb agreement occurs more frequently
than plural. In interrogative sentences with a predicative adjective/participle, the plural
verb form is still preferable in subject-verb constructions but the singular takes over in
verb-subject constructions.
The next group of coordinate nouns that we will analyse is singular number but different
person disjuncts. The person feature also determines the choice of verb agreement. In
declarative sentences, participants show preference to a plural resolved verb form. In
examples (102) and (103), 17 (out of 20) consultants opted for a plural verb and a resolved
person following the person hierarchy (Corbett, 1991), and 3 (out of 20) consultants chose
the singular verb form (CCA):
(102) Ego
I.1.sg
(103) Ego
I.1.sg
i
or
esi
you.2.sg
‘Me or you will need help’
(constructed)
i
or
o
the
tha
will
Kostas
Kostas.3.sg
‘Me or Kostas will take over the job’
(constructed)
xriastume
need.1.pl
tha
will
voithia
help
analavume
take-over.1.pl
tin
the
dulia
job
When the sentence is interrogative but retains the subject-verb order, the consultants
show preference to a singular verb form and less often to a plural verb form. In particular,
in example (104), 11 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb agreement form and 9
(out of 20) consultants chose a plural verb agreement form. An example is presented below:
(104) Esi
you.2.sg
i
or
i
the
Maria
Maria.3.sg
‘Will you or Maria go to the doctor?’
(constructed)
tha
will
pai
go.3.sg
sto
to-the
jatro;
doctor?
When the interrogative sentence has a verb-subject order then native speakers also
prefer singular verb agreement (and CCA for person). For instance, in example (105), 13
(out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb agreement form and 7 (out of 20) consultants
chose a plural verb agreement form. Therefore, the singular verb form (and CCA for person)
occurs with higher frequency in verb-subject interrogatives than in subject-verb ones.
An example is shown below:
(105) Tha
will
pas
go.2.sg
esi
you.2.sg
i
or
‘Will you or Maria go to the doctor?’
(constructed)
i
the
Maria
Maria.3.sg
sto
to-the
jatro;
doctor?
Thus, in interrogative sentences with singular and mixed person disjuncts, singular verb
agreement is preferred when the sentence has a subject-verb order or a verb-subject
order. To summarise, in declarative sentences with mixed person disjuncts speakers prefer
the plural verb form than the singular (CCA). In interrogative subject-verb or verbsubject
sentences, the singular verb form occurs more often than the plural verb form
with higher frequency in verb-subject sentences. The responses of the relevant examples
are summarised briefly on the table below:

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 186
Table 6.6: Disjunction i
Singular Mixed Person Nouns
Consultant Number: 20
Affirmative Sentence Verb Agreement Form
np.sg or np.sg + verb singular plural sing-pl/both
(102) 3 17 -
(103) 3 17 -
Interrogative Sentences Verb Agreement Form
np.sg or np.sg + verb? singular plural sing-pl/both
(104) 11 9 -
verb + np.sg or np.sg?
(105) 13 7 -
The current section presents the most important data of disjunctively conjoined phrases
when disjuncts have a singular number but different gender and person features. The first
observation is that a different gender and person in the disjuncts determines the choice of
the verb form. Second, the construction itself in which the different disjuncts appear plays
a critical role in verb agreement. In constructions where a predicative adjective/participle
is present plural is favoured whereas when an adjective/participle is absent the choice of
verb agreement is based on the interpretation of the phrase and verb agreement can be
either singular or plural. Also, the difference in the type of sentence seems to determine
strongly whether the verb is plural or singular. Declarative sentences admit both a singular
and a plural verb agreement whereas in interrogative sentences the position of the subject
affects number verb agreement since in postverbal subjects singular verb agreement (CCA)
increases greatly as opposed to preverbal subjects. Thus, we can argue that verb agreement
with disjunctive coordinate nouns is also partly syntactically determined and not only
discourse-based 22 .
6.4.3 Speakers’ Strategies and Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Nouns
In the current part, we will focus on the agreement strategies used by MG native speakers.
In uniform number disjuncts, native speakers choose either a singular or a plural verb,
meaning that the two possible strategies are prox and pl wins 23 . Therefore, we will
focus on coordinate phrases consisting of mixed number disjuncts to check whether any
additional strategies occur and which strategies are stronger when compared to the rest.
The data shows considerable variation with regard to the speakers’ answers. However, as in
other languages, there are some recurring stategies followed by MG native speakers when
choosing verb agreement.
We will focus on subject-verb coordinate constructions with a singular and a plural
disjunct. Three sample sentences are shown below, one declarative and two interrogatives:
(106) To aftokinito i ta mixanakia
the.sg
sintoma
soon
car.sg or the.pl mopeds.pl
‘The car or the mopeds will be-sold soon’
(constructed)
tha
will
pulithun
be-sold.pl
22 We need to note that the above are only speculative remarks which need further investigation with
corpus work and speakers’ personal opinions (though this is more difficult when interpretation is at issue).
23 We will adopt the same terms used in Peterson (1986) for reasons of clarity.

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 187
(107) To moro i ta pedia xriazonte
the.sg
prosoxi;
attention?
baby.sg or the.pl children.pl need.pl
‘Does the baby or the children need more attention?’
(constructed)
(108) O proedros i i ipurgi tha
the.sg president.sg or the.pl ministers.pl will.pl
sto sinedrio
in-the conference?
‘Will the president or the ministers talk in the conference’
(constructed)
perisoteri
more
milisun
talk
The data showed that all 20 (out of 20) consultants choose a plural verb irrespective
of the type of the sentence 24 . The two possible strategies are pl wins and prox but the
plural verb does not show which strategy is employed by the native speakers. pl wins is
favoured for two reasons: the existence of two nouns in the noun phrase and the presence
of a lexically plural disjunct. The prox strategy arises because the plural disjunct occurs
close to the verb and therefore the features of that noun are selected to agree with the
verb. The responses of the participants are summarised in the table below:
Table 6.7: Disjunction i
Mixed Number Nouns
Consultant Number: 20
Conjunct Order Verb Agreement Form
np.sg or np.pl singular plural sing-pl/both
(106) - 20 -
(107) - 20 -
(108) - 20 -
Next, in order to check which of the two strategies determines the choice of the consultants,
we carried out two different tests. In the first test, we gave 4 different sentences
with the reverse order in the disjuncts, placing the plural disjunct first and the singular
disjunct second. The sample sentences, which are either declarative or interrogative, are
presented below:
(109) I gates i o skilos
the.pl cats.pl or the.sg dog.sg
luludia mu;
flowers my?
‘Did your cats or your dog eat my flowers?’
(constructed)
(110) Ta koritsia i o ijos
the.pl
spiti
house
girls.pl or the.sg son.sg
‘The girls or the son will inherit the house’
(constructed)
su
your
tha
will
efag-e/-an
ate.sg/pl
klironomis-i/-un
inherit.sg/pl
24 One participant chose singular in 1 sentence out of the 3 in the questionnaire and it is probably
attributed to an incorrect choice.
ta
the
to
the

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 188
(111) I
the.pl
karekles
chairs.pl
i
or
to
the.sg
trapezi
table.sg
‘Do the chairs or the table need to be painted?’
(constructed)
(112) I podosferistes i o dietitis
the.pl
xrimata
money
footballers.pl or the.sg coach.sg
‘The footballers or the coach earn much money’
(constructed)
thel-i/-un
need.sg/pl
kerdiz-i/-un
earn.sg/pl
vapsimo;
painting?
polla
much
For the participants who choose a plural verb in the four examples above pl wins
strategy is stronger than the prox. The same can be claimed for examples (106), (107)
and (108) where the plural verb form is mainly due to the pl wins strategy and less to the
prox one. In particular, the greatest majority of consultants chose plural verb agreement
in all 4 sentences whereas the singular occurs less often, followed by a few consultants
who chose both forms in some sentences. More precisely, in sentence (109), 15 (out of 20)
consultants chose a plural verb and 4 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb. Only 1
(out of 20) consultant chose both a singular and a plural verb. In sentence (110), 13 (out
of 20) consultants chose a plural verb, 5 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb and
2 (out of 20) consultants chose both forms. In sentence (111), 16 (out of 20) consultants
chose a plural verb, 4 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb and no consultant chose
both forms. Finally, in sentence (112), 15 (out of 20) consultants chose a plural verb, 3
(out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb and 2 (out of 20) consultants chose both
forms. Thus, in the above examples for those who chose only plural, the pl wins strategy
is stronger than the prox one. For those who chose a singular verb, the prox strategy is
prefered, whereas for those who opted for both a singular and a plural verb form, both pl
wins and prox are in operation. Almost in all cases the consultants were consistent in
their responses choosing the same form with a few exceptions. However, since the majority
chose a plural verb form pl wins is the mostly preferred strategy even in nouns with the
order [pl + sg]. The table below summarises the responses of the consultants:
Table 6.8: Disjunction i
Mixed Number Nouns
Consultant Number: 20
Conjunct Order Verb Agreement Form
np.pl or np.sg singular plural sing-pl/both
(109) 4 15 1
(110) 5 13 2
(111) 4 16 -
(112) 3 15 2
The second test we carried out was to include a predicative adjective/participle that
follows the coordinate phrase. As MG encodes gender agreement in the predicative adjective
and not in the predicate itself, these examples would help us test whether the plural in
the verb is based on the pl wins strategy or the prox one. The following example consists
of a singular masculine and a plural feminine disjunct:
(113) O adelfos
the.masc.sg brother.masc.sg
ine taktopiimen-i/-es;
are.pl settled.masc/fem.pl?
i
or
i
the.fem.pl
adelfes
sisters.fem.pl
su
your

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 189
‘Is/are your brother or your sisters settled?’
(constructed)
The results showed that more than half (13/20) of the native speakers chose the masculine
plural form in the predicative adjective, which clearly indicates that pl wins is the main
strategy, whereas less than half (7/20) chose the feminine plural, which shows that prox
is also chosen. In fact, the results were not much different than those of the first test.
Also, when reversing the order of the conjuncts, as in (114), 16 (out of 20) consultants still
choose masculine plural in most cases apart from 4 (out of 20) consultants who chose the
singular verb form as a result of closest conjunct agreement.
(114) I adelfes
the.fem.pl sisters.fem.pl
ine taktopiimeni;
are.pl settled.masc.pl?
i
or
‘Is/are your brother or your sisters settled?’
(constructed)
o
the.masc.sg
adelfos
brother.masc.sg
su
your
The above tests show that in MG coordinate phrases with a singular and a plural
disjunct, two strategies are in operation pl wins and prox. The plural verb form occurs
consistently in [sg + pl] constructions but with lower frequency in [pl + sg] constructions
where prox seems to take over partly. Therefore, the strategies that seem to be in operation
in MG preverbal coordinate phrases are pl wins, followed by the prox one.
Next, we need to check whether “first conjunct agreement” (fc wins) (Peterson, 1986,
239) or “distant conjunct agreement” (Corbett, 2001; Sadler, 2003) are used in MG disjunctive
coordinate nouns. As seen above, coordinate noun phrases with a noun order [sg
+ pl] would never yield singular verb agreement. Therefore, a sentence like the one below
is ungrammatical:
(115) *O
the.masc.sg
exi dulia;
has.sg job?
adelfos
brother.masc.sg
i
or
i
the.fem.pl
‘Has/have your brother or your sisters got a job?’
(constructed)
adelfes
sisters.fem.pl
su
your
Further evidence that fc wins is not a strategy adopted by MG native speakers in disjunctive
conjoined nouns was drawn from sentences with a predicative adjective/participle
where gender agreement is shown. The following example includes a singular masculine
and a plural feminine noun:
(116) O pateras i i kores
the.masc.sg father.masc.sg or the.fem.pl daughters.fem.pl
ine ipefthin-i/-es
ja tin eteria
are.pl responsible.masc/fem.pl for the company
‘The father or the daughters are responsible for the company’
(constructed)
As a result of fc wins, we would expect a masculine singular agreement form in the
adjective above. However, in example (116), 13 (out of 20) consultants resort to a plural
verb form with a masculine plural predicative adjective, as a result of pl wins and gender
resolution, whereas 7 (out of 20) consultants choose feminine plural as a result of CCA.
When reversing the order of the disjuncts, an fc wins strategy would admit a feminine
plural adjective, but instead the plural verb form and the masculine plural predicative

6.4 Verb Agreement in MG Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 190
adjective occurs mainly in 16 (out of 20) consultants whereas a masculine singular adjective
is chosen by 4 (out of 20) consultants as a second choice due to CCA:
(117) I kores
i o
pateras
the.fem.pl daughters.fem.pl or the.masc.sg father.masc.sg
ine ipefthin-i/-os
ja tin eteria
are.pl responsible.masc.pl/masc.sg for the company
‘The daughters or the father are responsible for the company’
(constructed)
Thus, it appears that there is not evidence to support the existence of an fc wins or
“distant conjunct agreement” strategy in MG. Also, the above analysis has not presented
any evidence for the existence of a sg wins (Peterson, 1986, 239) strategy, which seems to
be nonexistent in MG coordinate nouns.
Let us consider next disjunctive phrases with mixed number disjuncts in postverbal
position. The data shows that in MG the different sentence structure does not give different
results, still favouring the pl wins strategy more than the prox one. A relevant example
is shown below:
(118) Etimaz-onte ta agoria i to
getting-prepared.pl the.pl boys.pl or the.sg
ja tis eksetasis;
for the exams?
‘Are the boys or the girl getting prepared for the exams?’
(constructed)
koritsi
girl.sg
su
your
The results of the questionnaire showed that 20 (out of 20) consultants choose a plural
verb. The plural choice is firstly motivated by the pl wins strategy which seems to
determine agreement patterns more widely when compared to the prox strategy. The
second possibility is that the plural verb form is due to the existence of a plural disjunct
close to the verb, referring to the prox strategy.
In order to test again which strategies are involved in postverbal coordinate nouns, we
carried out similar tests as above. The reverse order of the conjuncts, as in example (119),
will result in the choice of a plural verb in 11 (out of the 20) consultants in the sentences
included in the questionnaire, showing that pl wins is indeed a prevalent strategy. The
prox strategy also gains some ground in verb-subject construction as is expected. In
fact, a singular verb was chosen in all sentences by only one consultant, which is due to
the prox strategy. 8 out of the 20 consultants chose a singular verb in 1 of the 2 sentences
and a plural verb in the other sentence. The choice of either a singular or a plural verb is
attributed to the prox or pl wins strategies, respectively.
(119) Etimaz-ete/-onte
getting-prepared.sg/pl
ja tis eksetasis;
for the exams?
to
the.sg
koritsi
girl.sg
i
or
ta
the.pl
‘Are/is the girl or the boys getting prepared for the exams?’
(constructed)
agoria
boys.pl
su
your
In conclusion, in postverbal coordinate phrases with a [pl or sg] noun order the prevalent
strategy is pl wins since the data analysis showed that most native speakers chose
a plural verb. The prox strategy also seems to affect the result since the plural noun is
closest to the plural verb, leading to a 100% selection of the plural verb. In coordinate
phrases with a [sg or pl] disjunct order, consultants will select either a plural only verb

6.5 Issues on the MG positive & negative predisjunction-disjunction 191
form exclusively, following the pl wins strategy, a plural or a singular verb, balancing
the pl wins with the prox one, and in other cases a singular verb, following the prox
strategy.
The last thing to note is that in postverbal coordinate phrases with a plural and a
singular disjunct the verb cannot be singular, as below:
(120) *Etimaz-ete ta koritsia i to
getting-prepared.sg the.pl girl.pl or the.sg
ja tis eksetasis;
for the exams?
‘Are the girls or the boy getting prepared for the exams?’
(constructed)
agori
boy.sg
su
your
Thus, the possibility of “distant agreement” is not part of the MG agreement system.
On the whole, the above analysis showed that in both preverbal and postverbal mixed
number disjunctively coordinate nouns, MG native speakers consistently use two main
agreement strategies, pl wins and prox. No evidence exists in MG for an fc wins or a
sg wins strategy. In preverbal coordinate nouns, the prevalent strategy is pl wins and
this is followed by the prox one. In postverbal coordinate nouns, the pl wins is still a
strong strategy but prox seems to play a more active role.
6.5 Issues on the MG positive & negative predisjunction-disjunction
An important part of the literature in English concerning disjunction has dealt with the
claim that predisjunction and disjunction either...or behaves different from disjunction or
(see Larson (1985); Morgan (1985); Peterson (1986)). This difference is reflected in verb
agreement, which yields different agreement forms when the predisjunction-disjunction
cooccur as opposed to bare disjunction. This section will focus on the presentation of MG
data with the positive and negative predisjunction and disjunction ite...ite ‘either...or’ and
oute...oute ‘neither...nor’, looking at verb agreement.
First, we will present the positive predisjunction and disjunction ite...ite. The results of
the questionnaire, which included sentences with the positive predisjunction and disjunction
with disjuncts of the same or mixed number, gender and person, showed a few differences
from the data which did not include the predisjunction. When the coordinate phrase
consists of two singular disjuncts with the same gender and person, most consultants chose
a singular verb and fewer consultants chose a plural verb. For instance, in example (121),
14 (out of 20) consultants used a singular verb and 6 (out of 20) used a plural verb, and
in example (122), 16 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb and only 4 consultants
chose a plural verb. Finally, in example (123), 14 (out of 20) used a singular verb and 6
(out of 20) used a plural verb. This choice also depends on the interpretation of the phrase,
which is likely to be interpreted as an ‘exclusive’(‘or’) or. Both verb forms are illustrated
in the following example:
(121) I o ijos i i pateras
either the.sg son.sg or the.sg father.sg
par-i/-un meros sto diagonismo
take.sg/pl part in-the contest
‘Either my son or my father will take part in the contest’
(constructed)
(122) I i
either the.sg
analav-i/-un
take-over.sg/pl
mitera i
mother.sg or
tin epimelia
the custody
i
the.sg
thia
aunt.sg
mu
mine
tha
will
tha
will

6.5 Issues on the MG positive & negative predisjunction-disjunction 192
‘Either the mother or the aunt will take over the custody’
(constructed)
(123) I to agori i to koritsi
either the.sg boy.sg or the.sg girl.sg
ta simerina provlimata
the today problems
‘Either the boy or the girl will face today’s problems’
(constructed)
tha
will
antimetopis-i/-un
face.sg/pl
The number of consultants who chose consistently singular verb agreement in data
with the predisjunction and disjunction was more or less the same as in cases without the
predisjunction. The table is shown below:
Table 6.9: Singular Nouns with Identical Gender & Number
Consultant Number: 20
Examples Verb Agreement Form/Interpretation of or
singular/‘exclusive’ plural/‘inclusive’ sing-pl/both
(121) 14 6 -
(122) 16 4 -
(123) 14 6 -
Cases of mixed gender and mixed person singular disjuncts with the predisjunction and
disjunction display also similar results as coordinate phrases without the predisjunction.
In mixed gender disjuncts, with a masculine and a feminine noun, plural verb agreement is
preferred if there is a predicative adjective/participle, whereas the singular and less often
the plural agreement occur without a predicative adjective/participle. In examples (124)
and (125), which have a predicative adjective, 14 (out of 20) consultants chose a plural verb,
3 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb and 3 (out of 20) consultants chose both a
singular and a plural verb. In examples (126) and (127), 9 (out of 20) consultants chose a
singular verb, 3 (out of 20) consultants chose a plural verb and 8 (out of 20) consultants
chose both a singular and a plural verb. The relevant examples are shown below:
(124) I o
pateras i i mitera
either the.masc.sg father.masc.sg or the.fem.sg mother.fem.sg
ine ipefthin-i/-i
ja tin epimelia tu
are.sg
pediu
child
responsible.masc.pl/fem.sg for the custody of-the
‘Either the father or the mother are responsible for the child’s custody’
(constructed)
(125) I o
ijos i i
either the.masc.sg son.masc.sg or the.fem.sg
ine ikan-i/-i
na dosun simvules
are.sg able.masc.pl/fem.sg to give advise
‘Either the son or the daughter are able to give any advise’
(constructed)
(126) I o adelfos i
either the.sg brother.sg or
peras-i/-un sto panepistimio
enter.sg/pl the university
i
the.sg
adelfi
sister.sg
kori
daughter.fem.sg
mu
mine
tha
will

6.5 Issues on the MG positive & negative predisjunction-disjunction 193
‘Either my brother or my sister will enter the university’
(constructed)
(127) I o thios i i thia
either the.sg uncle.sg or the.sg aunt.sg
analav-i/-un to magazi
take-over.sg/pl the shop
‘Either my uncle or my aunt will take over the shop’
(constructed)
The table below summarises the patterns presented:
mu
mine
tha
will
Table 6.10: Predisjunction-Disjunction i...i
Singular Mixed Gender Nouns
Consultant Number: 20
Sentence Type Verb Agreement Form
either np.sg or np.sg + verb singular plural sing-pl/both
(124) 3 14 3
(125) 3 14 3
either np.sg or np.sg + verb + pred.adj/part singular plural sing-pl/both
(126) 9 3 8
(127) 9 3 8
In mixed person disjunctive coordinate nouns with the predisjunction and disjunction,
we also find similar patterns to the cases without the predisjunction. Thus, the plural verb
agreement is favoured in declarative sentences, following person hierarchy (Corbett, 1991).
In all relevant examples, 16 (out of 20) consultants chose a plural verb form and 4 (out of
20) consultants chose a singular verb. Some examples are shown below:
(128) I
either
ego
me.1.sg
i
or
esi
you.2.sg
tha
will
‘Either me or you will take over the business’
(constructed)
(129) I esi i o pateras
either
xartia
papers
you.2.sg or the father.3.sg
‘Either you or the father will sign the papers’
(constructed)
analavume
take-over.1.pl
tha
will
tin
the
ipograpsete
sign.2.pl
epixirisi
business
Interrogative sentences with i...i disjunctively conjoined nouns in preverbal or in postverbal
position show singular and less often plural verb agreement. In particular, in example
(130), 11 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular verb form and 9 (out of 20) consultants
chose a plural verb form. In example (131), 13 (out of 20) consultants chose a singular
verb form and 7 (out of 20) consultants chose a plural verb form. The relevant examples
are shown below:
(130) I esi i i Maria ex-i/-ete
either you.2.sg or the Maria.3.sg has.3.sg/-ve.3.pl
efthini ja tin dulia;
responsibility for the job?
‘Do either you or Maria have the responsibility for the job?’
(constructed)
ta
the
tin
the

6.5 Issues on the MG positive & negative predisjunction-disjunction 194
(131) Exis i esi i i Maria
have.2.sg either you.2.sg or the Maria.3.sg
efthini ja tin dulia;
responsibility for the job?
‘Do either you or Maria have the responsibility for the job?’
(constructed)
The results of mixed person singular disjuncts are illustrated below:
tin
the
Table 6.11: Predisjunction-Disjunction i...i
Singular Mixed Person Nouns
Consultant Number: 20
Affirmative Verb Agreement Form
either np.sg or np.sg + verb. singular plural sing-pl/both
(128) 4 16 -
(129) 4 16 -
Interrogatives Verb Agreement Form
either np.sg or np.sg verb? singular plural sing-pl/both
(130) 11 9 -
verb either np.sg or np.sg?
(131) 13 7 -
On the whole, the positive predisjunction and disjunction yields almost similar results
to bare disjunction i. A singular verb is preferable in singular disjuncts and a plural verb
form comes as a second option, related to the interpretation of the phrase. In mixed
gender disjuncts, singular verb agreement is prefered over plural when no predicative adjective/participle
is present otherwise a plural verb and a resolved gender occurs more often
when a predicative adjective/participle is present. Finally, mixed person disjuncts follow
mainly resolution in declarative sentences and singular or CCA in interrogative sentences 25 .
Disjunctively conjoined nouns with the negative disjunction oute...oute display a general
preference towards a plural verb form and less often to a singular verb form irrespective of
the sentence structure in which they occur. Parker (1983), who also discusses coordinate
nouns joined with neither...nor, finds similar results in English and argues that there are
pragmatic reasons towards this plural choice. He perceives positive or negative disjunctively
conjoined nouns as defining a two-member set, which is divided differently in positive and
negative disjunctions. In positive disjunctive phrases, positive disjunction divides the set
into two subsets, with a single member each. In negative disjunctive phrases, negative
disjunction divides the two-member set into two subsets but one of the subsets contains
two members and the other contains no members at all. This distinction explains the
higher percentage of plural number in negative disjunction. This is illustrated as follows:
(132) either X or Y = {X} - {Y}
neither X nor Y = {XY} - {∅}
(Parker, 1983, 15)
The Greek consultants were given sentences with the negative predisjunction and disjunction
containing singular disjuncts and mixed number disjuncts either of the same or
mixed gender and person. When the disjuncts are both singular number with the same
gender, 17 (out of 20) consultants chose a plural verb whereas only 3 (out of 20) consultants
chose a singular form in both examples. Two characteristic examples are shown below:
25 More elaborate research with a wider range of data and speakers’ judgements is required to draw more
concrete conclusions.

6.5 Issues on the MG positive & negative predisjunction-disjunction 195
(133) Ute to agori ute to
neither the.neut.sg boy.neut.sg nor the
ine etim-a/-o ja afti tin
are/is.pl/sg ready.neut.pl/sg for this the
‘Neither the boy nor the girl are ready for this change’
(constructed)
koritsi
girl.neut.sg
metavoli
change
(134) Ute o pateras ute o ijos
neither the.neut.sg father.neut.sg nor the son.neut.sg
enekrin-e/-an tin agora tis eterias
approved.pl/sg the.neut.sg purchase of-the company
‘Neither the father nor the son approved the company purchase’
(constructed)
When the disjuncts are singular with mixed gender and there is no predicative adjective/participle
then also most (17/20) participants chose a plural verb and only 3 (out of
20) chose a singular verb in all examples. However, when there is a predicative adjective/participle
then a plural verb is used exclusively (20/20) even by those who opted for
a singular verb agreement when the predicative adjective/participle was not present. The
following examples include sentences with and without a predicative adjective/participle,
respectively:
(135) Ute o
antras ute i
neither the.masc.sg man.masc.sg nor the.fem.sg
jineka simvivaz-onte/-ete tin simerini epoxi
woman.fem.sg compromise.pl/sg in these days
‘Neither the man nor the woman compromise nowadays’
(constructed)
(136) Ute o
ijos ute i
neither the.masc.sg son.masc.sg nor the.fem.sg
kori
apodex-onte/-ete to diazigio
daughter.fem.sg accept.pl/sg the divorce
‘Neither the son nor the daughter accept the divorce’
(constructed)
(137) Ute o
pateras ute i
neither the.masc.sg father.masc.sg nor the.fem.sg
mitera ine xarumen-i me afti tin
mother.fem.sg are.pl happy.masc.pl with this the
‘Neither the father nor the mother are happy with this situation’
(constructed)
katastasi
situation
(138) Ute o
pelatis
ute i
neither the.masc.sg male-customer.masc.sg nor the.fem.sg
pelatisa
ine ikanopiimen-i me tin anodo
female-customer.fem.sg are.pl satisfied.masc.pl with the rise
stis times
in prices
‘Neither the male nor the female customer are satisfied with the rise in prices’
(constructed)
The table below summarises the patterns presented:

6.6 Analysing Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 196
Table 6.12: Negative Predisjunction-Disjunction ute...ute
Singular Uniform Gender Nouns
Consultant Number: 20
Sentence Type Verb Agreement Form
neither np.sg nor np.sg + verb singular plural sing-pl/both
(133) 3 17 -
(134) 3 17 -
neither np.sg nornp.sg + verb singular plural sing-pl/both
(135) 3 17 -
(136) 3 17 -
neither np.sg nor np.sg + verb + pred.adj/part singular plural sing-pl/both
(137) - 20 -
(138) - 20 -
Disjuncts with the same number and different person yield similar results where the majority
of consultants (17 out of 20) choose a plural verb and fewer consultants (3 out of
20 consultants) choose a singular. Therefore, the plural verb form is used more often than
the singular and the person hierarchy is strictly obeyed in the former case. Consider the
following example:
(139) Ute
neither
esi
you.2.sg
ute
nor
aftos
he.3.sg
‘Neither you nor he will accept the offer’
(constructed)
(140) Ute
neither
esi
you.2.sg
ute
nor
‘Neither you nor I need help’
(constructed)
ego
I.1.sg
tha
will
xriazomaste
need
dextite
accept.3.pl
voithia
help.2.pl
tin
the
prosfora
offer
From the above data, we conclude that in MG the negative predisjunction and disjunction
generates mainly plural verb agreement. These results seem to be in accordance with
Parker’s view that negative disjunction applies to both members of the coordinate phrase
simultaneously and not selectively only to one of the disjuncts. This is indeed the case since
when attempting to interpret the above examples in MG, the predisjunction will negate
the first conjunct and the disjunction will simultaneously negate the second conjunct too
and both conjuncts are perceived as members of the same set 26 .
6.6 Analysing Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns
We saw that there are different factors that determine verb agreement in disjunctive coordinate
nouns in MG, such as the interpretation of the phrase, syntactic factors (i.e type of
sentence, conjunct’s features, word order) and speaker’s specific strategies. In this section,
we will propose an analysis of verb agreement with disjunctive nouns focusing on the interpretation
of disjunction or as ‘and-coordinate’ or as ‘exclusive-or’ (Flouraki and Kazana,
2009) following Eggert (2002).
Eggert (2002) presents a proposal of verb agreement in disjunctive coordinate nouns,
formulated within DRT, assuming a similar analysis to the DRT analysis of existentials.
Following Winter (1997), who uses choice function to analyse existentials in model theoretic
26 The above cases also require more elaborate research with a wider range of data and speakers’ personal
opinion in order to draw more concrete conclusions.

6.6 Analysing Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 197
semantics, Eggert (2002) treats disjunction not as introducing a discourse referent but as
a choice function where “the predicate combines directly with the function on the set that
consists of discourse referents”(107) standing for the two nouns. A choice function is “a
function f such that for any set A=∅, f(A)∈A” (107). Thus, “a choice function is a function
from a set to a member of that set”(107). This means that if disjuncts are represented as
a set then or as a choice function selects one of the two disjuncts. This is presented as
follows:
(141) CH = {f: for all A =∅, f(A)∈A}
(Eggert, 2002, 110)
Consider the following example which is generally problematic for most analyses of or:
(142) Grant is taller than Abigail or Gertrude
(Eggert, 2002, 110)
If one of the disjuncts is selected, meaning that “for some choice function f Grant is taller
than f{Gertrude, Abigail}”(Eggert, 2002, 112), the DRS is as in (143):
(143)
x,y,z,f
grant(x)
abigail(y)
gertrude(z)
Ch(f)
taller(x, f{y,z})
(Eggert, 2002, 111)
This represents the potential reading e.g. ‘Grant is taller than Abigail or Gertrude-I forget
which’ which is also predicted by other analyses while the choice function is existentially
closed.
Also, as Jennings (1994) suggests or acts in the same way as the free choice any in such
examples. If all/any disjuncts are selected, which is a second possible reading, meaning
that for “all choice functions f Grant is taller than f{Gertrude, Abigail}” (Eggert, 2002,
112), the DRS is as in (144):
(144)
x,y,z
grant(x)
abigail(y)
gertrude(z)
f
Ch(f)
(Eggert, 2002, 111)
→ taller(x, f{y,z})
This represents the reading e.g. ‘Grant is taller than Abigail or/and Gertrude’ while choice
function is universally closed.
Eggert (2002) argues that the main disadvantage of the above analysis is that or has
an amount of polysemy 27 . Thus, he proposes a modification of the analysis of or as a
choice function. To account for both distributive and collective readings and the various
interpretations of or in a wide range of data, Eggert (2002) assumes that or is a different
type of function, a subset function. First, he assumes that the universe of discourse U
27 A detailed presentation of the problems of the present analysis are in Eggert (2002, 113-126).

6.6 Analysing Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 198
does not contain entities, but individuals, which he takes to be sets of entities E. If E is
a set of entities, then U is generated by E and it is the powerset of E minus the empty
set (U=P(E)-∅). He takes U to be a primitive in the model, meaning that most one-place
predicates will be functions from members of U to truth 28 . Thus, the set of one place
predicates P is the domain for terms of type 〈e,t〉 since U is the domain for terms of type
〈e〉 (Eggert, 2002, 115).
Following Schwarzschild (1996), Eggert (2002) assumes that individuals (not entities)
are assigned a contextually determined partition on the universe of discourse in which case
the relationship between arguments and predicates is not set-membership but a subset one
(118). Schwarzschild (1996) suggests that the different readings found in a sentence (i.e.
collective and distributive readings) are not necessarily associated to different semantic
forms. Instead, he suggests that the semantics is the same for both readings, but the
perceived difference in meanings comes from a contextually determined variable, a partition
on the universe of discourse. Following Schwarzschild (1996), Eggert (2002) introduces the
following relation in the DRS “for any relation r and any x,y∈U, then r(x,y) means that
for some conc (i.e. union or combination) of x with y,conc(x,y)⊆r” (Eggert, 2002, 132).
To achieve the above assumptions, he argues that or is a subset function, meaning that for
any “non-empty set A, f(A) is a non-empty subset of A” (Eggert, 2002, 132), stated below:
(145) SUB = {f: (∀ X: X = ∅) (f(X) ⊆ X ∧ f(X)= ∅)}
(Eggert, 2002, 133)
Eggert (2002) presents example (146), which is interpreted in two different ways i)
either Abigail notified all four, or Grant did; ii) Abigail notifie some of the four and Grant
notified the rest. Since notify is taken to be a relation, Eggert (2002) introduces a condition
in the DRS which says ‘notify(x,y)’. Then, there must be a concatenation conc whereby
conc(〚x 〛,〚y 〛)⊆〚notify〛. The possible concatenations are limited by the partitions on x
and y. Taking y to denote the set {gertrude,jakob,beatrice,sukie}, there are three possible
denotations in the present example.
(146) Abigail or Grant notified Gertrude, Jacob, Beatrice, and Sukie
(Eggert, 2002, 132)
The DRS for the above example is the following based on the present analysis:
(147)
t,u,v,w,x,y,f
abigail(t)
grant(u)
gertrude(v)
beatrice(w)
jakob(x)
sukie(y)
SUB(f)
notify(∪f{t,u},∪{v,w,x,y})
(Eggert, 2002, 133)
The possible denotations are the following:
(148) ∪f{t,u}: {{abigail}}, {{grant}} or {{abigail,grant}}
(Eggert, 2002, 133)
There are three possible denotations for example (146). If the denotation is {abigail} then
the final condition states that for some concatenation conc:
28 See Eggert (2002, 115-116, 141-147) for the two DRSs and for more details of the model he assumes.

6.6 Analysing Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 199
(149) conc({{abigail}},{{gertrude},{jakob},{beatrice},{sukie}}) ⊆ 〚notify〛
(Eggert, 2002, 133)
In fact, there is only one possible concatenation: {,,
,}. For the case where the denotation is {grant},
we substitute ‘abigail’ for ‘grant’ in the above formula. Finally, if the denotation is
{abigail,grant}, there are possible concatenation such as {,
,,}. According to Eggert (2002),
we cannot get concatenations in which {abigail,grant} is a member of an ordered pair.
Also, a second example is the one in (150) repeated below, which is a problematic case
for most analyses.
(150) Grant is taller than Abigail or Gertrude
(Eggert, 2002, 110)
A single DRS is proposed as in (151), which corresponds to two possible denotations.
(151)
x,y,z,f
grant(x)
abigail(y)
gertrude(z)
SUB(f)
taller(x,∪f{y,z})
(Eggert, 2002, 135)
Each interpretation depends on the assignment of f{y,z} which is as follows:
(152) ∪f{y,z}: {{abigail}}, {{gertrude}} or {{abigail}, {gertrude}}
(Eggert, 2002, 135)
One possible interpretation is ‘Grant is taller than Abigail or Grant is taller than Gertrude’.
This reading follows if we assume 〚f{y,z}〛={{abigail}}, which is possible since {{abigail}}⊆
{{abigail}, {gertrude}} or 〚f{y,z}〛={{gertrude}}, which is also possible since {{gertrude}}⊆
{{abigail}, {gertrude}} then two possibilities alternate:
(153) conc({{grant}},{{abigail}})⊆ 〚taller〛or
conc({{grant}},{{gertrude}})⊆ 〚taller〛
(Eggert, 2002, 136)
A second possible interpretation, which is the preferred one in this type of example,
is ‘Grant is taller than Abigail, and Grant is taller than Gertrude’ which follows
if we assume 〚f({y,z})〛={{abigail},{gertrude}}. This is a possibility since {{abigail},
{gertrude}}⊆{{abigail},{gertrude}}. In this case the concatenation is as follows:
(154) conc {, }⊆〚taller〛
(Eggert, 2002, 136)
The above analysis poses a single DRS and determines semantically the different interpretations
found in disjunctively coordinate nouns, assuming that disjunction is a subset
function of disjuncts.
Our aim is to formalise the above concept in λ-DRT and Glue Semantics following
Dalrymple (2001) and Kokkonidis (2005)(Flouraki and Kazana, 2009). Let us consider the
following simple example in English which shows either singular or plural verb agreement
depending on the interpretation. The sentence is interpreted as only one of the two is
winning the race (‘exclusive’ interpretation) or out of a group of two individuals one of
them is winning (‘and-coordinate’ interpretation):

6.6 Analysing Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 200
(155) Jane or Mary is/are winning.
First, we will introduce the lexical entries of the sentence above. Following Kokkonidis
(2005), we propose that each word contains information concerning its syntactic specification,
its compositional specification and its semantic specification. The first line of a lexical
entry will give the syntactic category of the word and the f-structure constraints it comes
with. The second line will contain a meaning placeholder (which is the word itself) and its
compostional (Glue) type. This functions as the interface between syntax and semantics
with respect to semantic composition since words have a semantic content. The third line
of each of the lexical entries introduces the meaning of the word expressed in λ-DRT.
Let us start with the word or. We will assume the standard meaning constructor for or
as proposed for [g-and] in Dalrymple (2001). Thus, we assume that the arguments of [or]
are of type e, the type of individuals, and or is represented with the complex type e → (e
→ e) since it joins individuals. We also use the notation (↑∈)subj (Kokkonidis, 2005) for the
two disjuncts since both are syntactically subjects and members of the whole coordinate
phrase, which is the subject of the predicate. The lexical entry for disjunction or is the
following:
(156) (↑conj)= ‘or’
or: e (↑∈)subj ⊸ [e (↑∈)subj ⊸ e↑subj]
Following Eggert (2002), we treat or as a subset function, which ranges over a set of
disjuncts, and the set of disjuncts is the concatenation of the members of the set while we
assume that or does not introduce a discourse referent. Thus, the meaning assignment for
or will be captured in λ-DRT as follows:
(157)
λx.λy
f
SUB(f)
∪f{x,y}
⊔ y ⊔ x
The complete lexical entry with the syntactic representation and meaning assignment
is as follows:
(158) or Conj (↑conj)= ‘or’
or: e (↑∈)subj ⊸ [e (↑∈)subj ⊸ e↑subj]
λx.λy
f
SUB(f)
∪f{x,y}
⊔ y ⊔ x
The lexical entries for the nouns are also of type e and their lexical entries with the
syntactic representation, meaning constructors and meaning assignment are as follows:
(159) Jane PN (↑pred)= ‘Jane’
Jane: e (↑∈)subj
(160) Mary PN (↑pred)= ‘Mary’
Mary: e (↑∈)subj
λx. Jane(x)
λy. Mary(y)

6.6 Analysing Verb Agreement in Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns 201
The verbal one-place predicate is of type e → t, represented as follows:
(161) win V (↑pred)= ‘win’
win: e (↑SUBJ) ⊸ t↑
λx ′ . win(x ′ )
To derive the DRS for the whole sentence, we need to do the union of the individual
DRSs. The process that follows shows how the DRSs are united to derive the coordinate
phrase first and then the whole sentence.
First, we start with the coordinate phrase. If we do the union of or with Jane, we get
the result shown below:
(162)
λy.
f
SUB(f)
∪f{x,y}
⊔ y ⊔
x
Jane(x)
The above DRS corresponds to the compositional glue type e (↑∈)subj ⊸ e↑subj since only
one of the two semantic resources was found and it was consumed.
If we do the union of or Jane with Mary we get the following result:
(163)
f
SUB(f)
∪f{x,y}
⊔
y
Mary(y) ⊔
x
Jane(x)
In the glue part, the second semantic resource was found and it was also consumed. Thus,
the DRS above corresponds to the compositional glue type e↑subj.
If we do the DRS unions, we get the following DRS for the disjunctive coordinate phrase
which is of type e↑subj → t:
(164)
x,y,f
Jane(x)
Mary(y)
SUB(f)
∪f{x,y}
Next we need to apply the verb win to the disjunctive coordinate phrase to get the desired
result for the whole sentence:
(165)
x,y,f
Jane(x)
Mary(y)
SUB(f)
win(∪f{x,y})
The above DRS represents the whole coordinate phrase which is of type t.
The current approach uses λ-DRT in combination with glue semantics and accounts
for a simple disjunctive phrase which results in singular or plural verb agreement based
on whether one or both disjuncts are selected. It exclusively focuses on verb agreement

6.7 Conclusion 202
motivated by the interpretation of disjunctively conjoined nouns. It is a rather simple
analysis based on the central notions proposed by Eggert (2002), such as the assumption
that arguments are treated as individuals assigned a contextually determined partition
and that or is a subset function, while it is able to account contextually for both the
distributive and collective reading of a disjunctive coordinate phrase. Also, it borrows
from Kokkonidis (2005), who combines λ-DRT with glue semantics, leading to a simple
modular design without changing the basic concepts in the glue part and allowing the
syntactic information to be imported into the meaning representation language. Further
work is required to account for disjunctive phrases with more than two disjuncts while
more research is needed to include more complicated types than single individuals and tie
it up with syntax in due course (i.e. index agreement etc.).
6.7 Conclusion
The above preliminary proposal captures effectively verb agreement variation which depends
on interpretational factors. However, the data showed that verb agreement with
MG disjunctive conjoined nouns is rather complicated simply because there are many factors
involved when speakers choose the agreeing number of the verb.
Apart from the interpretational factor, verb agreement with MG disjunctive conjoined
nouns is determined by syntactic factors and speaker’s individual strategies. Thus, these
factors should be considered in the analysis of verb agreement with disjunctive nouns.
So far even the most intermodular and flexible theoretical framework would encounter
difficulties in trying to capture the MG data. Eggert’s analysis can cover issues of syntax,
semantics and pragmatics. Despite its flexibility, though, it would still face problems
in accounting for number verb agreement in MG. First, it cannot predict patterns when
disjuncts have different agreement features or when the structure of the sentence is different
(i.e. presence or absence of a predicative adjective/participle). Also, it cannot explain
when verb agreement variation depends on the type of the sentence (i.e. declarative or
interrogative) or on the subject position (i.e. preverbal or postverbal subjects).
Similarly, Morgan’s analysis acknowledges that syntax, semantics and pragmatics are
involved in verb agreement with disjunctively conjoined nouns. Still, though, his analysis
cannot explain any of the agreement patterns in MG where verb agreement is related to
differences in the agreement features of the two conjuncts, in the structure of the sentences
such as the presence or absence of a predicative adjective, in the type of sentence, (i.e.
declarative or interrogative) and in the subject position. Also, Peterson’s “patch-up rules”
cover a wide range of data in English and account for various patterns in MG such as CCA
and when verb agreement partly depends on the type of the sentences (i.e. declarative or
interrogative). They still encounter problems, though, with cases involving the internal
structure of the sentence or cases related to the interpretation. Hence, verb agreement
with disjunctive conjoined nouns is complicated and it may involve various factors ranging
from syntactic to semantic and pragmatic.
Our proposal, on the other hand, does not consider any other factors apart from the
pragmatic one and would face difficulties when verb agreement is determined by purely
syntactic factors or the different individual strategies chosen by native speakers. However,
we believe that in MG the interpretation of the disjunctive noun phrase is significant in determining
verb agreement and our analysis captures effectively the variation in the agreeing
verb which arises in a wide range of data. We acknowledge, though, that a more complete
analysis is requred for the complicated phenomenon of verb agreement in disjunctive coordinate
nouns. In particular, we showed that number verb agreement with MG disjunctive
conjoined nouns is determined by multiple different factors. Firstly, the preference of the
MG native speakers towards a resolved verb form in mixed gender conjuncts of declarative

6.7 Conclusion 203
sentences and the choice of the closest conjunct agreement form in mixed gender conjuncts
of preverbal or postverbal subject interrogative sentences is certanly directly related to notions
of linearity in word order and prosodic factors. Also, the different strategies adopted
by native speakers in verb agreement determined by the internal agreement features of
the conjuncts and their position in the coordinate phrase are also cases that should be
syntactically treated. Finally, the specific type of each sentence which appears with or
without a predicative adjective/participle is directly related to syntactic issues since it is
the presence or absence of the target that becomes apparent to the native speakers and
leads to the choice of either a singular or a plural verb agreement form. Therefore, these
issues should be seriously considered when attempting to analyse disjunctively conjoined
noun phrases in MG and in other languages.
To conclude, MG verb agreement in disjunctive coordinate nouns turns out to be even
more complicated than verb agreement in conjunctive coordinate nouns. The factors that
seem to lead to a specific verb agreement form are related to syntax, semantics, pragmatics
or discourse factors and even prosodic factors in some cases. Our analysis focuses only on
the discourse conditions, even though it would be favourable to seek a theory that would
involve all these issues. A lot of work needs to be done towards that direction in order to
provide an account considering all the factors that are involved in verb agreement.

Chapter 7
Concluding Remarks
The aim of the thesis was to make a contribution to the linguistic area of agreement in noun
phrase coordinate constructions in MG. The discussion was couched within the framework
of Lexical-Functional Grammar.
In agreement in MG predicate-argument relations, our main focus was the gender
feature. We argued that gender resolution in MG is not only determined by syntactic
and semantic resolution but also by a third principle, which we refered to as the referential
principle. MG inanimate nouns follow syntactic resolution also found in inanimates
of other languages. MG animate nouns follow the semantic resolution principle. A number
of exceptional patterns are also found in both animate and inanimate nouns which
follow the referential principle. This principle is determined by a Contextually Introduced
Referent (CIR), which functions as a superordinate term of the two conjuncts and whose
agreement features are inherited by the predicative adjective/participle. Thus, the gender
(and number) of the predicative adjective/participle is derived contextually. To account
for the syntactic and semantic patterns, we proposed an analysis using the set-based approach,
which combines the syntactic and semantic resolution. Concerning the referential
agreement, we proposed an analysis based on the formalism of LFG. Also, we proposed an
ontological hierarchy which captures the semantic relation of the coordinate nouns with
the hypernymic term. This seems to explain the different gender of the predicative adjective/participle
from the individual conjuncts in referential agreement.
In agreement in MG head-modifier relations, we focused on the number and gender
features. We examined MG modifiers and the MG definite determiner and we showed
that they behave different. Following the three agreement systems proposed by King and
Dalrymple (2004), we argued that MG modifiers agree in number with both nouns and
in gender with the closest conjunct. Thus, modifiers follow the concord system which
allows a shared modifier to scope over coordinate nouns and occurs with a joint and a
split interpretation. On the other hand, the MG definite determiner agrees in number
and gender with both conjuncts. The MG shared determiner follows the index/concord
system and occurs with the joint reading in both singular and plural number when it scopes
over coordinate nouns. A second important finding is that there are some exceptional
patterns when a shared definite determiner scopes over coordinate nouns and admits a split
interpretation. These patterns occur only when the conjuncts are a natural coordination.
For the MG natural coordination patterns, the special f-structure for naturally coordinate
nouns proposed in Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2006) cannot provide an adequate account
so we assumed the standard f-structure of accidentally coordinate nouns where conjuncts
are members of a set and the concord and index features do not match. Thus, the
concord/index system effectively accounts for these patterns too.
Finally, in verb agreement with disjunctive coordinate nouns our main focus was number.
We argued that number verb agreement variation in MG depends on the interpre-

205
tation of disjunction as an ‘and-coordinate’ or as an ‘exclusive’ or. Hence, we proposed an
analysis of verb agreement in λ-DRT, a discourse model combined with λ-calculus, following
Eggert (2002) who treats or as a subset function. This analysis captures the patterns
in question but it needs further improvements to extend to more complicated disjunctive
coordinate phrases. However, we argued that verb agreement in MG disjunctive coordinate
nouns is the result of the effect of other factors too, such as the internal structure of
a sentence or the type of sentence, the different features of the conjuncts and finally the
subject position. Thus, more research is required to provide a solution that will involve all
these factors.
There are, however, some remaining issues for further research that we need to outline.
First, it is the status of the r-structure in referential agreement in predicate-argument
relations. We showed that LFG accounts for these patterns by introducing a specific lexical
entry where the predicative adjective agrees syntactically with the noun that is present in
the phrase or referentially with the Contextually Introduced Referent, which occurs only at
the contextual level and not at the syntactic level. The r-structure of the CIR, which occurs
at the contextual level, has a syntactic representation since the syntactic features of the
CIR are required to be copied by the predicative adjective/participle and this might be a
shortcoming in our analysis. Thus, further work needs to be done towards the structure of
this extra level that relates to context. A second important issue is the ontological relation
between the CIR and the two coordinate nouns. The CIR is the superordinate term and
the coordinate nouns are the hyponyms. In order to capture this relation, we used an
ontological hierarchy, based on an ontological approach. An important question is whether
the information of the CIR and its relation to the conjuncts can be captured at a different
level within LFG, which is a more abstract level. It could be possible, however, that LFG
does not have the adequate mechanisms to provide such kind of abstract information like
other theoretical frameworks. These issues need more work and are directly related to the
internal structure of the framework of LFG.
Second, in head-modifier agreement in MG coordinate nouns, we showed that the MG
definite determiner is syntactically captured by the index/concord system. The MG
definite determiner imposes a further semantic restriction concerning the interpretation
of a shared definite determiner when it scopes over coordinate nouns. In particular, we
showed that the joint interpretation occurs in singular and plural accidentally coordinate
nouns but the split interpretation occurs only in plural naturally coordinate nouns. Thus,
despite the fact that the index/concord system accounts for the MG definite determiner,
the latter imposes further specifications that are related to the field of semantics. Since
semantics is not the area of examinations these may be investigated in the future. A
second important issue is that in MG natural coordination cases the two nouns cooccur
under specific semantic conditions since they need to be semantically related. In LFG, this
type of relation is not expressed in the analysis of natural coordination, but since it plays a
significant role in natural coordination patterns of some languages it should be given some
attention. Nevertheless, it requires further work since it involves the internal structure of
the framework itself.
Finally, the proposal in verb agreement with disjunctive coordinate nouns captures the
interpretation of or as ‘and-coordinate’ and as ‘exclusive-or’ and allows both a singular or
a plural verb agreement form. However, it is a preliminary analysis focusing on individuals
of type e only and we need to work further on its modification so as to extend to other
types of disjunctive phrases, such as quantified coordinate nouns or verb phrases. Also, we
saw that other factors are involved in disjunctive coordinate nouns which probably need
to be incorporated into the analysis of disjunctively coordinate nouns. Hence, the analysis
provided so far needs to be extended in order to overcome the above problems and to cover
a wider range of data in other languages which may have similar behaviour. These issues

will be left for future research.
206

Appendix A
Questionnaires on Predicate
Argument Agreement
A.1 Discussion of questionnnaires
The data analysis was based on four different questionnaires that were developed in order
to test the gender resolution in the same gender or mixed gender animate and inanimate
coordinate nouns. The method used to draw the results of the gender values in both
groups of nouns is based on the responses of 26 Greek native speakers who answered the
four different questionnaires. The participants are all university graduates from North and
South Greece. The different geographical origins of the participants did not play any active
role. The questionnaires appeared in different forms such as ‘multiple choice’ and ‘fill in
the gap’. The consultants filled in the questionnaires based on the choice of the form they
found most appropriate. They were also asked to choose a second possibility if they found
it acceptable.
Some issues need to be discussed regarding questions that were raised about the questionnaires
and how we approached these. The first issue is the type of the questionnaire
that would be given to the participants. We decided to issue four different questionnaires;
the first three appeared in the form of a ‘multiple choice’ where each sentence contained
three different choices with regard to the gender feature. The participants were asked to
give one or two possible answers whenever they found it appropriate. The fourth questionnaire
appeared in the form of ‘fill in the gaps’. In this questionnaire the participants were
asked to respond choosing the best possible answer. Most participants were willing to give
more than one answer. The reason the fourth questionnaire was different was to confirm
some of the responses of the consultants.
The second issue concerned the fact that we needed to check the resolution genders
in both animate and inanimate nouns and in singular and plural conjuncts. We decided
to include only sentences with singular animate and inanimate coordinate nouns in the
first questionnaire and sentences with plural animate and inanimate coordinate nouns in
the second questionnaire. The other two questionnaires included mixed sentences either
with singular animate or inanimate coordinate nouns or with plural animate or inanimate
coordinate nouns.
Another issue concerned the time that the questionnaires should be given to the consultants
since we wanted to leave a short period of time in between the first two questionnaires
and the next two questionnaires. Our aim was to test the consistency of the responses of
the participants. Thus, we issued only the first two questionnaires to the consultants and
then we issued the other two questionnaires after some time to the same consultants in
order to check whether their responses were consistent. Also, some of the sentences were
repeated in the last two questionnaires in order to see whether the same form had been

A.2 Predicate Argument Agreement sets of examples 208
chosen by the consultants previously. Finally, the main issue was to avoid controlling the
responses of the participants. The best way to administer that was to provide the consultants
with different types of questionnaires and without necessarily providing a choice of
forms. Therefore, the first three questionnaires included sentences where the consultants
had to choose one or two possible forms out of the three forms provided, and in the fourth
questionnaire the consultants had to think and decide themselves the form they would
choose to fill in the gap.
The problems that could be found in the above questionnaires are summarized as follows.
Some of the examples were repeated especially in the third and fourth questionnaire.
Possibly a wider range of examples should be included to avoid the problem of repetition.
Second, we presented sentences with animate coordinate nouns separately from sentences
with inanimate coordinate nouns in the first two questionnaires and this separation may
have the effect of controlling the responses of the consultants to some extent. In order
to minimise the effect of controlling their responses, we issued the last two questionnaires
where we presented a mix of sentences with animate and inanimate coordinate nouns.
Finally, the sentences did not appear in a specific context and the responses of the
participants were based only on the sentence they were presented with. However, in the
sentences where we examined the phenomenon of gender resolution this is not an important
problem since we do not focus on the interpretation of the phrase but rather on the resolved
gender form which is derived based on the gender of the two coordinate nouns that are
present in the phrase.
A.2 Predicate Argument Agreement sets of examples
1. Father.m and mother.f are tired. Their life is difficult and demanding
2. Kostas.m and the baby.n are ready to depart
3. Kostas.m and the girl.n are ready to depart
4. Mary.f and her girl.n are enthusiastic about their new life
5. Mary.f and the boy/baby.n are happy
6. Mary.f and her baby.nf are beautiful. You see them and you admire them
7. Mary.f and the person.n with the skirt are weird
8. The child.n and the baby.n were locked in the room
9. The boy.n and the girl.n were seated at the back
10. The men.m and the women.f are ready
11. The boys.n and girls.n are happy
12. The fathers.f and boys.n are very close
13. The grandmothers.f and grandchildren.n are happy
14. The children.n and mothers.f are happy
15. The grandmothers.f and girls.n are happy
16. The girls.n and the mothers.f are very close
17. Heroism.m and fighting.m were prevalent during 1821
28. The picture.m and the sofa.m are big for this room and I will put them in the other
19. The fight.m and self-sacrifice.f were prevalent in 1821
20. Death.m and freedom.f are important
21. Freedom.f and death.m were important in 1821
22. The sofa.m and the table.n are white
23. The bookcase.f and dining-table.f are different
24. Freedom.f and faith.f are equal
25. Effort.f and obstinancy.n have good results
26. Love.f and passion.n are necessary in our life
27. The sofa.m and the armchair.f are comfortable

A.3 Tables 209
28. The street.m and the square.f are clean
29. The pictures.m and sofas.m are unsuitable
30. The philosophies.f and religions.f were determining for the people
31. The houses.n and cars.n are more expensive from now on
32. The roads.m and the squares.f are full of people
33. The squares.f and roads.m are full of people
34. The roads.m and the alleys.n are full of people
35. The hurricanes.m and floods.f were destructive for Tailand
36. The protests.f and complaints.n are useless in this case
A.3 Tables
Table A.1: List of consultants of questionnaires 1,2,3,4
Consultant Number: 26
Consultant Number age gender education origin
c1 37 F BA,MA,PhD Athens
c2 35 F BA Thessaloniki
c3 34 F BA,MA,PhD Crete
c4 35 M BA,MA,PhD Volos
c5 31 F BA Thessaloniki
c6 33 F BA Thessaloniki
c7 25 F BA Thessaloniki
c8 32 F BA,MA,PhD Athens
c9 31 M BA,MA Thessaloniki
c10 55 F BA Thessaloniki
c11 60 M BA Thessaloniki
c12 24 F BA Thessaloniki
c13 36 M BA,MA Thessaloniki
c14 30 M BA,MA Thessaloniki
c15 32 M BA,MA Thessaloniki
c16 36 F BA,MA Orestiada
c17 30 F BA,MA,PhD Orestiada
c18 31 M BA Thessaloniki
c19 27 M BA,MA Thessaloniki
c20 62 F BA Thessaloniki
c21 36 F BA,MA Thessaloniki
c22 32 F BA,MA,PhD Crete
c23 31 M BA,MA Peloponese
c24 24 F BA Thessaloniki
c25 24 F BA Thessaloniki
c26 24 F BA Thessaloniki

A.3 Tables 210
Table A.2: Results of crucial sets of examples
Consultant Number: 26
examples expected unexpected
No. m f n m f n
1 26 - - - - -
c1-c26
2 26 - - - - -
c1-c26 - - - - -
3 26 - - - - -
c1-c26 - - - - -
4 5 21 - - - -
c4,c14,c18 c1,c2,c3,c5,c6,c7,
c20,c24 c8,c9,c10,c11,c12
c13,c15,c16,c17,c19
c21,c22,c23,c25,c26
5 26 - - - - -
c1-c26 - - - - -
6 5 21 - - - -
c4,c15,c18 c1,c2,c3,c5,c6,c7,
c20,c26 c8,c9,c10,c11,c12
c13,c14,c16,c17,c19
c21,c22,c23,c24,c25
7 - 26 - - - -
c1-c26 - - - -
8 - - 26 - - -
c1-c26
9 - - 26 - - -
c1-c26
10 26 - - - - -
c1-c26 - - - - -
11 - - 26 - - -
- - c1-c26 -
12 26 - - - - -
c1-c26 - - -
13 19 - - - - 12
c2,c4,c5,c6,c7, c1,c3,c6
c9,c11,c12,c13, c8,c9,c10
c14,c16,c18,c19 c15,c16,
c20,c21,c22,c23, c17,c20
c25,c26 c24,c26
14 19 - - - - 7
c2,c4,c5,c6,c7, c1,c3,c8,
c9,c11,c12,c13, c10,c15,
c14,c16,c18,c19 c17,c24
c20,c21,c22,c23,
c25,c26
15 5 18 - - - 5
c4,c14,c18 c2,c5,c6,c7 c1,c3,c8
c20,c24 c8,c9,c10 c17,c24
c11,c12,c13
c15,c16,c17
c19,c21,c22
c23,c25,c26
16 5 18 - - - 5
c4,c15,c18 c2,c5,c6,c7, c1,c3,c8
Continued on next page

A.3 Tables 211
Table A.2: Results of crucial sets of examples
Consultant Number: 26
examples expected unexpected
No. m f n m f n
c20,c26 c8,c9,c10, c10,c24
c11,c12,c13,
c14,c16,c17,
c19,c21,c22,
c23,c24,c25
17 25 - - - - 10
c1,c2,c3,c6 c3,c4,c5
c7,c8,c9 c7,c8,c9
,c10,c11,c12 c10,c11,
c13,c14,
c15,c16,c17, c12,c13
c18,c19,c20,
c21,c22,c23,
c24,c25,c26
18 25 - - - - 10
c1,c3,c4 c2,c4,c5,
c6,c7,c8 c7,c8,c9
c9,c10,c11
c12,c13,c14 c10,c11
c15,c16,c17 c20,c24
c18,c19,c20
,c21,c22,c23
c24,c25,c26
19 - - 16 6 6 -
c2,c3,c5,c6 c7,c8 c1,c4,
c7,c8,c9,c11 c12,c14 c10,c16
c13,c17,c19 c15,c18 c21,c24
c20,c22,c23
c25,c26
20 - - 16 6 6 -
c2,c3,c5,c6 c7,c8 c1,c4
c7,c8,c9,c12 c11,c14, c10,c19
c13,c16,c17 c15,c18 c21,c24
c20,c22,c23
c25,c26
21 - - 18 5 5 -
c2,c3,c5,c6,c7 c7,c8 c1,c4
c8,c9,c11,c13 c12,c14 c10,
c15,c16,c17, c18 c21
c19,c20,c22, c24
c23,c25,c26
22 - - 26 - - -
- - c1-c26 -
23 - 24 - - - 11
c1,c2,c3,c5,c6,c7 c3,c4,c7
c8,c9,c10,c11,c13 c8,c9
c14,c15,c16,c17 c10,c11
c18,c19,c20,c21 c12,c13
c22,c23,c24,c25 c20,c24
c26
24 - 24 - - - 11
c1,c2,c3,c5,c6,c7 c3,c4,c5
Continued on next page

A.3 Tables 212
Table A.2: Results of crucial sets of examples
Consultant Number: 26
examples expected unexpected
No. m f n m f n
c8,c9,c10,c11,c12 c8,c9
c14,c15,c16,c17 c10,c11
c18,c19,c20,c21 c12,c13
c22,c23,c24,c25 c20,c24
c26
25 - - 26 - - -
- - c1-c26 -
26 - - 26 - - -
- - c1-c26 -
27 - - 14 12 - -
c1,c2,c6, c3,c4,c5
c7,c12,c14, c8,c9,c10,
c15,c16,c17, c11,c13,c21
c18,c19,c22 c20,c24,c26
c23,c25
28 - - 14 12 -
c1,c2,c6,c7 c3,c4,c5
c12,c14, c8,c9,c10,
c15,c16,c17, c11,c13,c21,
c18,c19,c22, c20,c24,c26
c23,c25
29 26 - - - - -
c1-c26 - - -
30 - 26 - - - -
c1-c26 - -
31 - - 26 - - -
- - c1-c26 -
32 - - 13 15 6 -
c1,c2,c6,c7, c3,c4,c5,c8, c1,c2
c14,c15,c16 c9,c10,c11, c7,c18,
c17,c18,c19, c12,c13,c14, c19,c22
c22,c23,c25 c17,c20,c21,
c24,c26
33 - - 11 17 4 -
c1,c2,c6, c3,c4,c5,c7,c8 c1,c2,
c14,c15,c16 c9,c10,c11,c12 c18,c19,
c17,c18,c19, c13,c14,c17
c22,c23 c20,c21,c22,
c24,c25,c26
34 - - 26 - - -
- - c1-c26 -
35 - - 13 15 6 -
c1,c2,c6,c7, c3,c4,c5,c8, c1,c2,
c14,c15,c16 c9,c10,c11 c7,c18
c17,c18,c19, c12,c13,c14, c19,c22
c22,c23,c25 c17,c20,c21
c24,c26
36 - - 26 - - -
- - c1-c26 -

Appendix B
Questionnaires on agreement with
Disjunctively Conjoined Nouns
B.1 Discussion of questionnnaires
The data analysis is based on questionnaires that were developed in order to test the
prevalent verb agreement form in disjunctively coordinate nouns. The aim is to explore
the different interpretations assigned to the coordinate structures and the syntactic factors
that determine verb agreement. Two different questionnaires were produced for that. The
first questionnaire focused on the choice of verb agreement related to the interpretation of
the disjunctively conjoined nouns and on the choice of verb agreement related to syntactic
factors, it consists of both declarative and interrogative sentences and it includes sentences
with singular disjuncts of the same or different gender and of the same or different person
while the second part consists of mixed number, gender and person disjuncts. The
second questionnaire includes sentences with the positive predisjunction and disjunction
i...i/ite...ite ‘either...or’ and the negative predisjunction and disjunction oute...oute ‘neither...nor’
with singular disjuncts of the same or different gender and person and mixed
number disjuncts also of the same or different gender and person. The questionnaires were
issued to 20 Greek native speakers who are all university graduates from different areas in
Greece. The participants were asked to make a choice from three possible verb forms and
were asked to consider two verb forms whenever they found it appropriate.
Some issues need to be discussed regarding questions that were raised about the questionnaires
on disjunctively conjoined nouns. The first issue concerns the type of the questionnaire
that would be given to the participants. We decided to issue two different questionnaires
which appeared in the form of a ‘multiple choice’. Consultants were given three
different choices and were asked to choose one or two possible answers. The second issue
concerns how we would investigate any different semantic or syntactic phenomena. The
first questionnaire includes sentences which were related to the interpretation of the disjunctively
conjoined phrase; these sentences consisted of singular disjuncts of the same or
different gender and of the same or different person. Also, it includes sentences with a
singular and a plural disjunct that investigates the speakers strategies, and sentences with
singular disjuncts but with different person and different gender that investigates other syntactic
factors (i.e. mixed person or gender and verb agreement). The second questionnaire
includes sentences with the positive predisjunction and disjunction i...i/ite...ite ‘either...or’
and the negative predisjunction and disjunction oute...oute ‘neither...nor’ with singular disjuncts
of the same or different gender and person, and mixed number disjuncts also of the
same or different gender and person. The aim was to test any difference between the bare
disjunction and the predisjunction and disjunction, and the negative predisjunction and
disjunction in relation to verb agreement. A third issue was raised in the first questionnaire

B.2 Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns sets of examples 214
which focused on the interpretation of the disjunctively conjoined nouns. In order to make
sure how the consultants interpreted the disjunctively conjoined nouns they were asked to
give further information on how they would interpret the particular disjunctive coordinate
phrase.
Some problems arise in these questionnaires. Sentences did not appear within a specific
context as would be desirable and the responses of the participants were based only on the
sentence they were presented with. However, since the issue of interpretation is crucial
we asked the consultants to give their reason for the choice of the specific verb form by
providing their personal interpretation of the sentence, such as whether it involves both
coordinate nouns or a single noun. A second problem is that in disjunctively conjoined
nouns we discussed both interpretational factors and syntactic factors and therefore a
wider range of examples should be included to have more accurate results. We need to
note, though, that this was only a preliminary research which can be expanded further
in the future in order to test accurately both the pragmatic factors and the syntactic
factors. Also, some of the data were repeated in both questionnaires. Probably a wider
range of sentences would give more precise and exact results concerning the outcome of the
research. Finally, a major disadvantage is the fact that the participants who responded to
the following questionnaires were around 20, although the questionnaires were originally
sent to around 30 people. This was a serious problem since a larger number of participants
would help us make out possible differences on the way the language is used and draw more
concrete conclusions concerning our results.
B.2 Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns sets of examples
1. Kostas or Maria will pick me up with the car
2. The boy or the girl tries to suppress the feelings
3. The woman or child have priority for the vaccine against flu
4. The boy or the girl are tired from studying
5. Kostas or Giorgos is Maria’s relative
6. The doctor or dentist can write prescriptions
7. The male-student or female-student that is certain about every choice will succeed
8. The male-student or female-student can be informed by the parents
9. The son or the daughter need help
10. Is the mother or the boy getting ready to go out
11. The mother or the boy ready to go out
12. Me or you will need help
13. Me or Kostas will over the job
14. Will you or Maria go to the doctor?
15. The car or the mopeds will be-sold soon
16. Your cats or your dog ate my owers
17. The footballers or the coach earn much money
18. Are your brother or your sisters settled?
19. Is/are your sisters or your brother settled?
20. The father or the daughters are responsible for the company
21. The daughters or the father are responsible for the company?
22. Are the boys or the girl getting prepared for the exams
23. Are the girl or the boys getting prepared for the exams
24. Either my son or my father will take part in the contest
25. Either the mother or the aunt will take over the custody
26. Either the father or the mother are responsible for the child’s custody
27. Either my brother or my sister will enter the university

B.3 Tables 215
28. Either me or you will take over the business
29. Either you or the father will sign the papers
30. Do either you or Maria have the responsibility for the job
31. Neither the boy nor the girl are ready for this change
32. Neither the father nor the mother are happy with this situation
33. Neither the man nor the woman compromise nowadays
34. Neither you nor he will accept the offer
B.3 Tables
Table B.1: List of consultants for questionnaires 1,2
Consultant Number: 20
Consultant Number age gender education origin
c1 60 F - Thessaloniki
c2 32 M BA,MA Thessaloniki
c3 54 F - Thessaloniki
c4 32 F BA Thessaloniki
c5 33 F BA,MA,PhD Crete
c6 32 F BA Thessaloniki
c7 31 M BA,MA Patras
c8 60 M BA Thessaloniki
c9 35 F BA,MA Thessaloniki
c10 35 F - Thessaloniki
c11 40 M BA,MA Thessaloniki
c12 32 F BA,MA Messolongi
c13 26 F BA,MA Thessaloniki
c14 36 F BA,MA,PhD Athens
c15 30 F BA,MA,PhD Orestiada
c16 35 M BA,MA,PhD Volos
c17 27 M BA,MA Thessaloniki
c18 32 F BA Athens
c19 32 F BA,MA Thessaloniki
c20 32 F BA,MA Thessaloniki
Table B.2: Results of crucial sets of examples
Consultant Number: 20
examples sg pl both
1 14 4 2
c1,c2,c3,c4 c8,c11, c17,c19
c5,c6,c7,c9 c16,c20
c10,c12,c13
c14,c15,c18
Continued on next page

B.3 Tables 216
Table B.2: Results of crucial sets of examples
Consultant Number: 20
examples sg pl both
2 15 3 2
c1,c2,c3,c5 c8,c11,c16 c4,c12
c6,c7,c9,c10
c13,c14,c15,c17
c18,c19,c20
3 7 13 -
c5,c6,c11,c12 c1,c2,c3,c4
c13,c14,c15 c7,c8,c9,c10
c16,c17,c18
c19,c20
4 5 15 -
c5,c6,c11 c1,c2,c3,c4
c12,c13 c7,c8,c9,c10
c14,c15,c16,
c17,c18,c19,c20
5 20 - -
c1-c20
6 - 20 -
c1-c20
7 4 12 4
c6,c7, c1,c2,c3,c4 c17,c18
c14,c15 c5,c8,c9,c10 c19,c20
c11,c12,c13,
c16
8 7 2 11
c9,c12,c13,c14 c3,c6 c1,c2,c4,c5
c15,c18,c20 c7,c8,c9,c10
c11,c16,c17,c19
9 7 2 11
c9,c12,c13,c14 c3,c6 c1,c2,c4,c5
c15,c18,c20 c7,c8,c9,c10
c11,c16,c17,c19
10 9 4 7
c2,c4,c5,c6 c1,c3,c8,c10 c11,c12,c13,c17
c7,c9,c14,c15 c18,c19,c20
c16
11 3 13 4
c9,c10,c14 c1,c2,c3,c4 c11,c12,c13,c17
c5,c6,c7,c8
c15,c16,c18
c19,c20
12 3 17 -
c6,c7,c9 c1,c2,c3,c4
c5,c8,c10,c11
c12,c13,c14,c15
c16,c17,c18,c19
Continued on next page

B.3 Tables 217
Table B.2: Results of crucial sets of examples
Consultant Number: 20
examples sg pl both
c20
13 3 17 -
c6,c7,c9 c1,c2,c3,c4
c5,c8,c10,c11
c12,c13,c14,c15
c16,c17,c18,c19
c20
14 11 9 -
c2,c3,c4,c5 c1,c8,c10,c11
c6,c7,c9,c13 c12,c17,c18,c19
c14,c15,c16 c20
15 - 20 -
c1-c20
16 4 15 1
c6,c8,c12,c17 c1,c2,c3,c4 c19
c5,c7,c9,c10
c11,c13,c14,c15
c16,c18,c20
17 3 15 2
c2,c4,c6 c1,c3,c5,c7 c17,c19
c8,c9,c10,c11
c12,c13,c14,c15
c16,c18,c20
18 7 13 -
c12,c13,c14 c1,c2,c3,c4
c16,c17,c18,c19 c5,c6,c7,c8
c9,c10,c11
c15,c20
19 4 16 -
c6,c9,c10,c11 c1,c2,c3,c4
c5,c7,c8,c12
c13,c14,c15,c16
c17,c18,c19,c20
20 7 13 -
c8,c9,c10,c11 c1,c2,c3,c4
c14,c16,c17 c5,c6,c7,c12
c13,c15,c18
c19,c20
21 4 16 -
c9,c10,c11,c16 c1,c2,c3,c4
c5,c6,c7,c8
c12,c13,c14
c15,c17,c18
c19,c20
22 - 20 -
c1-c20
Continued on next page

B.3 Tables 218
Table B.2: Results of crucial sets of examples
Consultant Number: 20
examples sg pl both
23 1 11 8
c1 c2,c3,c7,c12 c4,c5,c6,c8
c13,c14,c16 c9,10,c11,c15
c17,c18,c19,c20
24 14 6 -
c1,c2,c3,c4 c6,c7,c8,c12
c5,c9,c10,c11 c13,c14
c15,c16,c17,c18
c19,c20
25 16 4 -
c1,c2,c3,c4 c6,c7,c8,c12
c5,c9,c10,c11
c13,c14,c15,c16
c17,c18,c19,c20
26 5 12 3
c2,c3,c5,c9 c1,c4,c11,c12 c6,c7,c8
c10 c13,c14,c15,c16
c17,c18,c19,c20
27 9 3 8
c1,c3,c4,c9 c2,c12,c13 c5,c6,c7,c8
c10,c14,c15 c11,c17,c19,c20
c16,c18
28 4 16 -
c6,c7,c9,c10 c1,c2,c3,c4
c5,c8,c11,c12
c13,c14,c15,c16
c17,c18,c19,c20
29 4 16 -
c6,c7,c9,c10 c1,c2,c3,c4
c5,c8,c11,c12
c13,c14,c15,c16
c17,c18,c19,c20
30 11 9 -
c1,c3,c4,c5,c6 c2,c7,c12,c13,c14
c8,c9,c10,c11 c15,c18,c19,c20
c16,c17
31 3 17 -
c7,c10,c11 c1,c2,c3,c4
c5,c6,c8,c9
c12,c13,c14,c15
c16,c17,c18,c19
c20
32 - 20 -
c1-c20
33 3 17 -
c7,c10,c11 c1,c2,c3,c4
Continued on next page

B.3 Tables 219
Table B.2: Results of crucial sets of examples
Consultant Number: 20
examples sg pl both
c5,c6,c8,c9
c12,c13,c14,c15
c16,c17,c18,c19
c20
34 3 17 -
c7,c10,c11 c1,c2,c3,c4
c5,c6,c8,c9
c12,c13,c14,c15
c16,c17,c18,c19
c20

Appendix C
Original Questionnaires in Greek

Predicate Argument Agreement Questionnaires
QUESTIONNAIRE 1
SINGULAR NOUNS
Choose any one or two of the following items that might fill in the gaps!
1. Το τραπέζι και το γραφείο είναι πολύ .................... . Θα ....... µεταφέρω.
a. µεγάλο b. µεγάλοι c. µεγάλα
a. τον b. τα c. τους
2. Ο ηρωισµός και ο θάνατος είναι ....................... στο χώµα της Ελλάδος.
a. χαραγµένος b. χαραγµένα c. χαραγµένοι
3. Ο πίνακας και ο καναπές είναι .................. γι’αυτό το δωµάτιο.
a. µεγάλες b. µεγάλοι c. µεγάλα
4. Η βιβλιοθήκη και η τραπεζαρία είναι ........................
a. διαφορετικοί b. διαφορετικές c. διαφορετικά
5. Η ελευθερία και η πίστη είναι .....................
a. ταυτόσηµες b. ταυτόσηµα c. Tαυτόσηµοι
6. Ο αγώνας και η αυτοθυσία ήταν ................... κατα το 1821.
a. κυρίαρχες b. κυρίαρχοι c. κυρίαρχα
7. Ο θάνατος και η ελευθερία είναι ..............................
a. σηµαντικές b. σηµαντικά c. σηµαντικοί
8. Ο δρόµος και η πλατεία είναι .....................
a. καθαρές b. καθαρά c. καθαροί
9. Ο καναπές και η πολυθρόνα είναι .................
a. άνετες b. άνετοι c.άνετα
10. Η δικαιοσύνη και ο φιλελευθερισµός ήτανε .......................
a. πρωτόγονες b. πρωτόγονοι c. πρωτόγονα
11. Η καρέκλα και ο καναπές είναι ………………..
α. άσπρες b. άσπροι c. άσπρα
12. Ο έρωτας και το πάθος είναι .................. στη ζωή µας. .......... ζεί κανείς λίγες φορές.
a. απαραίτητος b. απαραίτητα c. απαραίτητοι
a. τα b. τις c. το
13. Η προσπάθεια και το πείσµα είναι ...........................
a. αποτελεσµατικές b. αποτελεσµατικοί c. αποτελεσµατικά

14. Ο Πέτρος και ο Γιάννης είναι ...................... Η δουλειά τους έχει εκσαντλήσει.
a. κουρασµένος b. κουρασµένοι c. Κουρασµένα
15. Το αγόρι και το κορίτσι βρίσκονται .......................... πίσω.
a. καθισµένοι b. καθισµένα c. καθισµένες
16. Το παιδί και το µωρό ήταν ………………….. στο δωµάτιο
a. κλειδωµένες b. κλειδωµένοι c. κλειδωµένα
17. Ο πατέρας και η µητέρα είναι ................... Η ζωή τους είναι δύσκολη και απαιτητική.
a. κουρασµένες b. κουρασµένοι c. κουρασµένα
18. Ο Κώστας και το κορίτσι είναι ................. για αναχώρηση.
a. έτοιµοι b. έτοιµες c. έτοιµα
19. Ο πατέρας και το παιδί βρέθηκαν .......................
a. δολοφονηµένες b. δολοφονηµένοι c. δολοφονηµένα
20. Ο Κώστας και το µωρό είναι ................. για αναχώρηση.
a. έτοιµοι b. έτοιµες c. έτοιµα
21. Η Μαρία και το κορίτσι έιναι ................ για την καινούργια τους ζωή.
a. ενθουσιασµένοι b. ενθουσιασµένες c. ενθουσιασµένα
22. Η µητέρα και το µωρό της είναι ...................
a. χαρούµενοι b. χαρούµενες c. χαρούµενα
23. Η Μαρία και το µωρό (αγόρι) της είναι ..................βλέπεις και ........ θαυµάζεις.
a. όµορφοι b. όµορφες c. όµορφα
a. τούς b. τίς
a. τούς b. τίς
24. Η Μαρία και το µώρο (κορίτσι) της είναι ................... ....... βλέπεις και ........
θαυµάζεις.
a. όµορφοι b. όµορφες c. όµορφα
a. τούς b. τίς
a. τούς b. τίς
25. Η Μαρία και το άτοµο µε τη φούστα είναι ..........................
a. περίεργες b. περίεργα c. περίεργοι
Please write your name: …………………………

QUESTIONNAIRE 2
PLURAL NOUNS
Choose any one or two of the following items that might fill in the gaps!
1. Οι γιαγιάδες και τα εγγόνια ήταν ............................
α. χαρούµενα β. χαρούµενοι γ. χαρούµενες
2. Οι άνδρες και οι γυναίκες ήταν .............................
α. έτοιµες β. έτοιµοι γ. έτοιµα
3. Οι παππούδες και τα εγγόνια είναι ...........................
α. χαρούµενα β. χαρούµενοι γ. χαρούµενες
4. Οι γιαγιάδες και τα κορίτσια είναι πολύ............................
α. γελαστοί β. γελαστά γ. γελαστές
5. Τα κορίτσια και οι γιαγιάδες είναι ............................
α. χαρούµενοι β. χαρούµενες γ. χαρούµενα
6. Τα παδιά και οι µαµάδες είναι πολύ ...............................
α. χαρούµενα β. χαρούµενοι γ. χαρούµενες
7. Τα παιδιά και οι µπαµπάδες είναι πολύ .............................
α. δεµένοι β. δεµένα γ. δεµένες
8. Οι µπαµπάδες και τα αγόρια είναι πολύ .................................
α. δεµένοι β. δεµένα γ. δεµένες
9. Τα αγόρια και τα κορίτσια είναι ………………….
α. χαρούµενοι β. χαρούµενες γ. χαρούµενα
10. Οι παππούδες και οι πατεράδες είναι ………………
α. αγαπηµένοι β. αγαπηµένες γ. αγαπηµένα
11. Οι πίνακες και οι καναπέδες είναι .......................
α. αταίριαστοι β. αταίριαστες γ. αταίριαστα
12. Οι καυγάδες και οι χωρισµοί είναι …………για την ψυχολογία των παιδιών.
α. σηµαντικές β. σηµαντικά γ. σηµαντικοί
13. Οι κουζίνες και οι τουαλέτες είναι ..............................
α. καθαρές β. καθαρά γ. καθαροί
14. Οι φιλοσοφίες και οι θρησκείες ήταν ........................ για τους λαούς
α. καθοριστικοί β. καθοριστικά γ. καθοριστικές

15. Οι δρόµοι και οι πλατείες ήταν ............................ κόσµο
α. γεµάτοι β. γεµάτα γ. γεµάτες
16. Οι τυφώνες και οι πληµµύρες ήταν .............................. για την Ταϊλάνδη
α. καταστροφικές β. καταστροφικά γ. καταστροφικοί
17. Οι δρόµοι και τα σοκάκια ήταν .......................... κόσµο
α. γεµάτοι β. γεµάτα γ. γεµάτες
18. Οι διαµαρτυρίες και τα παράπονα είναι ................... σ’ αυτήν τη περίπτωση.
α. άχρηστες β. άχρηστοι γ. Άχρηστα
19. Οι πλατείες και οι δρόµοι ήταν ............................ κόσµο.
α. γεµάτοι β. γεµάτα γ. γεµάτες
20. Τα εστιατόρια και οι πλατείες ήταν ........................... κόσµο
α. γεµάτες β. γεµάτα γ. γεµάτοι
21. Τα σοκάκια και οι πεζόδροµοι ήταν ............................
α. άδειοι β. άδεια γ. άδειες
22. Τα σπίτια και τα αυτοκίνητα είναι πιο ...................... απο εδώ και πέρα.
α. ακριβά β. ακριβοί γ. ακριβές
Please write your name: .................................................

QUESTIONNAIRE 3
SG & PL IN/ANIMATE NOUNS
Choose any one or two of the following items that might fill in the gaps!
1. Το αγόρι και η µητέρα ήταν ................................
α. χαρούµενοι β. χαρούµενες γ. χαρούµενα
2. Η µητέρα και το κορίτσι είναι πολύ ........................µεταξύ τους.
α. δεµένοι β. δεµένες γ. δεµένα
3. Ο κόπος και η προσπάθεια είναι ..................... για να προοδεύσει κανείς.
α. απαραίτητοι β. απαραίτητες γ. απαραίτητα
4. Η κουζίνα και ο πάγκος είναι πολύ ............................
α. βρώµικοι β. βρώµικες γ. βρώµικα
5. Οι καυγάδες και τα µπλεξίµατα είναι ....................στις µέρες µας.
α. επικίνδυνοι β. επικίνδυνες γ. επικίνδυνα
6. Τα µυστήρια και οι θάνατοι παραµένουν .............................
α. ανεξιχνίαστοι β. ανεξιχνίαστες γ. ανεξιχνίαστα
7. Οι απερισκεψίες και τα λάθη είναι ............................για την επιτυχία.
α. καταστροφικοί β. καταστροφικά γ. καταστροφικές
8. Τα παράπονα και οι διαµαρτυρίες είναι .................. σ’ αυτή την περίπτωση
α. άχρηστοι β. άχρηστα γ. άχρηστες
9. Τα τραπέζια και τα θρανία θα βαφτούν ........................
α. άσπροι β. άσπρες γ.άσπρα
10. Οι καθρέφτες και οι νιπτήρες είναι .........................
α. βρώµικοι β. βρώµικες γ. βρώµικα
11. Το παιδί και η γιαγιά είναι .......................
α. αγαπηµένοι β. αγαπηµένες γ.αγαπηµένα
12. Τα αιτήµατα και οι απαιτήσεις είναι ..................... αυτή την ώρα.
α. ανούσιες β. ανούσια γ.ανούσιοι
13. Τα κορίτσια και οι µαµάδες είναι ............................
α. χαρούµενοι β. χαρούµενες γ. χαρούµενα
14. Οι άνδρες και τα κορίτσια είναι ...................................
α. αγαπηµένα β. αγαπηµένες γ. αγαπηµένα

15. Η ελευθερία και ο θάνατος ήταν ……………. το 1821
α. σηµαντικά β. σηµαντικοί γ. σηµαντικές
16. Η αγάπη και το πάθος είναι ………………. στη ζωή µας.
α. απαραίτητα β. απαραίτητες γ.απαραίτητοι
17. Ο καναπές και το τραπέζι είναι .......................
α. άσπρα β. άσπρες γ. άσπροι
18. Οι µαµάδες και τα κορίτσια είναι …………………….
α. αγαπηµένοι β. αγαπηµένες γ.αγαπηµένα
Please write your name: ………………

QUESTIONNAIRE 4
SG & PL IN/ANIMATE NOUNS
Fill in the correct form of the adjective
1. Η γιαγιά και το εγγόνι ήταν γελαστ…………………
2. Η γυναίκα και ο άνδρας είναι ερωτευµέν………………
3. Η καρέκλα και η πολυθρόνα είναι άνετ……………...
4. Η πίστη και η θρησκεία ήταν απαραίτητ…............για την Ελλάδα.
5. Ο καθρέφτης και ο νιπτήρας είναι καθαρ....................
6. Ο τρόµος και ο φόβος ήταν µεγάλ....................... για τους κατοίκους.
7. Η ελευθερία και ο θάνατος ήταν σηµαντικ..............το 1821.
8. Οι γυναίκες και οι άνδρες είναι σκληρά εργαζόµεν..................
9. Τα αγόρια και τα κορίτσια είναι έτοιµ................ για τον αγώνα
10. Τα αγόρια και οι µαµάδες είναι πολύ δεµέν.....................
11. Τα κορίτσια και οι µαµάδες δεν είναι πολύ ...................... αντιθέτως.
12. Οι γυναίκες και τα παιδιά ήταν χαρούµεν……………..
13. Οι δρόµοι και οι πλατείες ήταν γεµάτ...................... κόσµο.
14. Οι πλατείες και τα σοκάκια της Πάρου ήταν άδει............χθές.
15. Οι πλατείες και οι πεζόδροµοι ήταν πολύ βρώµικ........... µετά τη διαδήλωση.
16. Οι φιλοσοφίες και οι θρησκείες ήταν καθοριστικ......... για τους λαούς.
17. Οι τυφώνες και οι πληµµύρες ήταν καταστροφικ....... για την Ταιλάνδη.
18. Οι καυγάδες και οι χωρισµοί είναι καθοριστικ............... γιατις ανθρώπινες σχέσεις.
19. Οι απιστίες και οι χωρισµοί είναι συνηθισµέν................... σήµερα.
20. Οι αποφάσεις και οι νόµοι αυτής της κυβέρνησης είναι ασύµβατ...............
Please write your name: ………………

Disjunctive Coordinate Nouns Questionnaires
QUESTIONNAIRE 1
DISJUNCTION
Choose any one or two of the following items that might fill in the gaps!
1. Ο Κώστας ή η Μαρία θα µε πάρει/πάρουν µε το αυτοκίνητο.
2. Το αγόρι ή το κορίτσι προσπαθεί /προσπαθούν να καταστείλει /καταστείλουν τα
συναισθήµατα
3. Η γυναίκα ή το παιδί έχει/έχουν προτεραιότητα για το εµβόλιο κατά της γρίπης
4. Το αγόρι ή το κορίτσι έχει/έχουν κούραση από το διάβασµα.
5. Ο Κώστας ή ο Γιώργος έχει/έχουν συγγενή την Μαρία
6. Ο γιατρός ή ο οδοντίατρος µπορεί/µπορούν να γράψει/γράψουν φάρµακα
7. Η Μαρία ή η Κατερίνα έχει/έχουν σχέση µε τον Κώστα
8. Ο δικηγόρος ή ο συµβολαιογράφος παρευρίσκεται/παραβρίσκονται στην υπογραφή
συµβολαίων
9. Ο φοιτητής ή η φοιτήτρια που είναι σίγουρος/σίγουρη/σίγουροι για κάθε επιλογή θα
πετύχει/πετύχουν
10. Ο πατέρας ή η µητέρα είναι ενήµερος/ενήµερη/ενήµεροι για την κατάσταση
11. Ο άνδρας ή η γυναίκα που είναι ανήσυχος/ανήσυχη/ ανήσυχοι να
µείνει/µείνουν εδώ.
12. Η φοιτήτρια ή ο φοιτητής που είναι σίγουρος/ σίγουρη/σίγουροι για κάθε επιλογή θα
πετύχει/πετύχουν
13. Ο µαθητής ή η µαθήτρια µπορεί/µπορούν να ενηµερωθεί/ενηµερωθούν από τους γονείς
για την αιτία.
14. Ο γιος ή η κόρη χρειάζεται/χρειάζονται βοήθεια.
15. Η µητέρα ή το αγόρι ετοιµάζεται/ετοιµάζονται για έξοδο;
16. Eτοιµάζεται/ετοιµάζονται η µητέρα ή το αγόρι για έξοδο;
17. Η µητέρα ή το αγόρι είναι έτοιµη/έτοιµο/έτοιµοι για έξοδο;
18. Είναι έτοιµη/έτοιµο/έτοιµοι η µητέρα ή το αγόρι για έξοδο;
19. Ο άνδρας ή η γυναίκα είναι έτοιµος/έτοιµη/έτοιµοι να ξεκινήσει/ξεκινήσουν;
20. Ο µαθητής ή η µαθήτρια είναι πρόθυµος/πρόθυµη/πρόθυµοι να συνεχίσει/συνεχίσουν τη
δουλειά;
21. Εγώ ή εσύ θα χρειαστώ/χρειαστείς/χρειαστούµε βοήθεια.

22. Εγώ ή ο Κώστας θα αναλάβω/αναλάβει/αναλάβουµε τη δουλειά.
23. Εσύ ή ο Γιώργος θα αποφασίσεις/αποφασίσει/αποφασίσετε για το σπίτι.
24. Εσύ ή η Μαρία θα πας/πάει/πάµε στο γιατρό;
25. Εγώ ή ο Κώστας θα πάρω/πάρει/πάρουµε την επιχείρηση;
26. Εσύ ή εγώ θέλεις/θέλω/θέλουµε βοήθεια;
27. Θα πας/πάει/πάµε εσύ ή η Μαρία στο γιατρό;
28. Θα αναλάβω/αναλάβεις/αναλάβουµε εγώ ή εσύ την εταιρεία;
29. Το αυτοκίνητο ή τα µηχανάκια θα πουληθεί/πουληθούν σύντοµα.
30. Το µωρό ή τα παιδιά χρειάζεται/χρειάζονται πιο πολύ προσοχή;
31. Ο πρόεδρος ή οι υπουργοί θα µιλήσει/µιλήσουν στο συνέδριο;
32. Οι γάτες σου ή ο σκύλος µου έφαγε/έφαγαν τα λουλούδια µου;
33. Τα κορίτσια ή ο γιος θα κληρονοµήσει/κληρονοµήσουν το σπίτι.
34. Οι καρέκλες ή το τραπέζι θέλει/θέλουν βάψιµο;
35. Οι ποδοσφαιριστές ή ο διαιτητής κερδίζει/κερδίζουν πολλά χρήµατα
36. Οι αδελφές ή ο αδελφός σου είναι ταχτοποιηµένοι/ταχτοποιηµένες/ταχτοποιηµένος
37. Ο αδελφός ή οι αδελφές σου έχει/έχουν δουλειά;
38. Ο πατέρας ή οι κόρες είναι υπεύθυνος/υπεύθυνοι/υπεύθυνες για την εταιρεία.
39. Οι κόρες ή ο πατέρας είναι υπεύθυνος/υπεύθυνοι/υπεύθυνες για την εταιρεία.
40. Ετοιµάζεται/ετοιµάζονται το κορίτσι ή τα αγόρια σου για τις εξετάσεις;
41. Ετοιµάζεται/ετοιµάζονται τα κορίτσια ή το αγόρι σου για τις εξετάσεις;
NAME:………………………………………………………………………
THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR HELP!!!

QUESTIONNAIRΕ 2
DISJUNCTION
Choose any one or two of the following items!
1. Ή ο γιος ή η κόρη µου θα πάρει/πάρουν µέρος στο διαγωνισµό.
2. Ή η µητέρα ή η γιαγιά θα αναλάβει/αναλάβουν την επιµέλεια
3. Ή το αγόρι ή το κορίτσι θα αντιµετωπίσει/αντιµετωπίσουν τα σηµερινά προβλήµατα.
4. Ή ο πατέρας ή η µητέρα είναι υπεύθυνοι/υπεύθυνος/υπεύθυνη για την επιµέλεια του παιδιού.
5. Ή ο γιος ή η κόρη είναι ικανός/ικανοί/ικανή να δώσουν συµβουλές.
6. Ή ο αδελφός ή η αδελφή µου θα περάσει/περάσουν στο πανεπιστήµιο.
7. Ή ο θείος ή η θεία µου θα αναλάβει/αναλάβουν το µαγαζί.
8. Ή εγώ ή εσύ έχω/έχεις/έχουµε δικαίωµα συµµετοχής στον αγώνα.
9. Ή εγώ ή εσύ θα αναλάβω/αναλάβεις/αναλάβουµε την επιχείρηση.
10. Ή εσύ ή ο πατέρας θα υπογράψεις/υπογράψετε/υπογράψει τα χαρτιά.
11. Ή εσύ ή η Μαρία έχεις/έχετε/έχει την ευθύνη για τη δουλειά.
12. Έχεις/έχουν/έχει ή εσύ ή η Μαρία την ευθύνη για τη δουλειά;
13. Θέλεις/θέλω/θέλουµε ή εγώ ή εσύ να πάρεις/πάρω/πάρουµε τη δουλειά;
14. Ή εσύ ή αυτός θα πάρει/πάρεις/πάρετε µετεγγραφή.
15. Ή οι κόρες ή η µητέρα θα πάει/πάνε εκδροµή.
16.. Ή εµείς ή αυτοί θα συνεργαστούµε/συνεργαστούν µαζί τους.
17. Ή τα µωρά ή το παιδί θα πάρει/πάρουν δώρο φέτος.
18. Ή ο πατέρας ή τα παιδιά θα δουλέψει/δουλέψουν στην επιχείρηση.
19. Ή εγώ ή αυτός αγαπάω/αγαπάει/αγαπάµε την δουλειά του/µάς.
20. Ή εσείς ή τα παιδιά θα αποφασίσετε/αποφασίσουν για την επόµενη χρονιά.
21. Ούτε το αγόρι ούτε το κορίτσι είναι έτοιµο/έτοιµα γι αυτήν την αλλαγή.
22. Ούτε ο πατέρας ούτε ο γιος ενέκρινε/ενέκριναν την αγορά της εταιρείας.
23. Ούτε ο άνδρας ούτε η γυναίκα συµβιβάζεται/συµβιβάζονται την σηµερινή εποχή.
24. Ούτε ο πατέρας ούτε η µητέρα είναι χαρούµενη/χαρούµενος/χαρούµενοι µε αυτή τη
κατάσταση.
25. Ούτε ο πελάτης ούτε η πελάτισσα είναι ικανοποιηµένος/ικανοποιηµένη/ικανοποιηµένοι µε

την άνοδο στις τιµές.
26. Ούτε εσύ ούτε αυτός θα δεχτείς/δεχτεί/δεχτείτε την προσφορά
27. Ούτε εσύ ούτε εγώ χρειάζοµαι/χρειάζεσαι/χρειαζόµαστε βοήθεια.
28. Ούτε τα κορίτσια ούτε η µητέρα είναι σύµφωνη/σύµφωνες για τη µετακόµιση.
NAME:………………………………………………………………………
THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR HELP!!!

Bibliography
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in Alternative Semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Massachusetts Amherst.
Ambrose, Alice and Morris Lazerowitz. 1962. Fundamentals of Symbolic Logic. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Austin, Peter K. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. In N. Smelser and P. Baltes, eds.,
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, pages 8748–8754.
http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/contact/staff/petter/Elsevier.pdf: Elsevier.
Bach, Emmon. 1989. Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Badecker, William. 2007. A feature principle for partial agreement. Lingua 117:1541–1565.
Badecker, William. 2008. Gender resolution: The role of markedness and feature uniformity
in agreement with conjoined noun phrases. John Hopkins University, Draft.
Barker, Stephen. 1985. The Elements of Logic. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Barret, Robert B. and Alfred J. Stanner. 1971. The myth of the exclusive ‘or’. Mind
80(317):116–121.
Bateman, Nicoleta and Maria Polinsky. 2005. Rumanian as a two-gender language. Unpublished
LSA handout.
Benor, Sarah B. and Roger Levy. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis
of English binominals. Language 82(2):233–278.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1962. Language. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Bresnan, Joan. 1997. Mixed categories as head sharing constructions. In M. Butt and
T. H. King, eds., On-line Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Bresnan, Joan. 2001c. Optimal syntax. In J. Dekkers, F. van der Leeuw, and J. van de
Weijer, eds., Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition, chap. 10. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bresnan, Joan, Ronald Kaplan, and Peter Peterson. 1985b. Coordination and the flow of
information through phrase structure. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox Park.
Brody, Baruch A. 1973. Logic: Theoretical and Applied. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 233
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Clairis, Christos, George D. Babiniotis, (in cooperation with Amalia Mozer, Aikaterini
Bakakou-Orfanou, and Stavro Skopetea). 2004. A Grammar of Modern Greek: a
Structural-Functional-Communicative Approach. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
Copi, Irving M. 1971. Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan.
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The Agreement Hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15:203–224.
Corbett, Greville G. 1983a. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in
Slavic. London: Croom Helm Ltd.
Corbett, Greville G. 1983b. Resolution rules: Agreement in person, number and gender. In
G. Gazdar, E. Klein, and G. K. Pullum, eds., Order, Concord and Constituency, pages
175–206. Dordrecht: Foris.
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Corbett, Greville G. 2001. Agreement: Terms and boundaries. In William Griffin, ed.,
The Role of Agreement in Natural Language: Proceedings of the 2001 Texas Linguistic
Society Conference, pages 109–122. Austin, Texas.
Corbett, Greville G. and Norman M. Fraser. 1993. Network morphology: a DATR account
of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29:113–142.
Corbett, Greville G. and A. D. Mtenje. 1987. Gender agreement in Chichewa. Studies in
African Linguistics 18:1–38.
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar, vol. 42 of Syntax and Semantics
Series. Stanford, CA: Academic Press.
Dalrymple, Mary, Helge Dyvik, and Tracy H. King. 2004a. Copular complements: closed or
open? In M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., On-line Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference,
pages 188–198. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Dalrymple, Mary and Bozhil Hristov. 2010. Agreement patterns and coordination in Lexical
Functional Grammar. In M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., Proceedings of the LFG10
Conference, pages 186–206. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Dalrymple, Mary and Ronald Kaplan. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution.
Journal of Language 76(4):759–798.
Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald Kaplan, and Tracy H. King. 2004b. Linguistic generalisations
over descriptions. In M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., On-line Proceedings of the LFG04
Conference, pages 199–208. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald Kaplan, John T. Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen, eds. 1995. Formal
Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Dalrymple, Mary, John Lamping, Fernando Pereira, and Vijay Saraswat. 2002. Linear logic
for meaning assembly. In S. Manandhar, G. P. Lopes, and W. Nutt, eds., Proceedings of
Computational Logic for Natural Language Processing. Edinburgh.
Dalrymple, Mary and Irena Nikolaeva. 2006. Syntax of natural and accidental coordination:
evidence from agreement. Language 82(4):824–849.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 234
de Swart, Henriette. 1998. Introduction to Natural Language Semantics. Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications.
Dougherty, Ray C. 1970. A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures, Part I. Language
46(4):850–898.
Dougherty, Ray C. 1971. A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures, Part II. Language
47(2):298–339.
Eggert, Randall. 2002. Disconcordance: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of or-
Agreement. Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, Chicago: Illinois.
Falk, Yehuda N. 1984. The English auxiliary system: A Lexical-Functional analysis. Language
60(3):483–509.
Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel
Constraint-based Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Farkas, Donka F. 1990. Two cases of underspecification in morphology. Linguistic Inquiry
4(21):539–550.
Farkas, Donka F. and D. Zec. 1995. Agreement and pronominal reference. In G. Cinque and
G. Giusti, eds., Advances in Rumanian Linguistics, pages 83–101. Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Fassi-Fehri, Abdelkader. 1981. Complémentation et Anaphore en Arabe Moderne: Une
Approche Lexicale Fonctionelle. Ph.D. thesis, Univeristé de Paris III, Paris, France.
Flouraki, Maria and Despina Kazana. 2009. Constraining disjunctive constructions in
Modern Greek. In M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., On-line Proceedings of the LFG09
Conference, pages 282–296. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Fowler, Henry W. 1926. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. London: Oxford University
Press.
Francis, Elaine J. and Laura A. Michaelis. 2000. Approaches to mismatch: introduction.
In M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., Proceedings of the BFG00 Conference Workshops. The
University of California, Berkeley: CSLI Publications.
Gazdar, Gerald. 1980. A cross-categorial semantics for coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy
3(3):407–409.
Genesereth, Michael R. and Nils J. Nilson. 1987. Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence.
San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Georgakakos, George. 1979. Elementary Formal Logic. New York.
Givon, Talmy. 1970. The resolution of gender conflicts in Bantu conjunction: when syntax
and semantics clash. In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic
Society, pages 250–261. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies.
The Hague: Mouton.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004a. Coordinating Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In T. Shopen, ed., Language Typology and
Syntactic Description, vol. 2, pages 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd
edn.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 235
Heycock, Caroline and Roberto Zamparelli. 1999. Toward a unified analysis of DP conjunction.
In P. Dekker, ed., Proceedings of the Twelfth Amsterdam Colloquium, pages
127–132. University of Amsterdam: ILLC.
Heycock, Caroline and Roberto Zamparelli. 2000. Friends and colleagues: plurality and
NP coordination. In M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall, and J.-Y. Kim, eds., Proceedings
of the 30th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, vol. 30. Rutgers
University.
Heycock, Caroline and Roberto Zamparelli. 2003. Coordinated bare definites. Linguistic
Inquiry 34(3):443–469.
Heycock, Caroline and Roberto Zamparelli. 2005. Friends and colleagues: plurality, coordination
and the structure of DP. Natural Language Semantics 13(3):201–270.
Hoeksema, Jack. 1988. The semantics of non-Boolean ‘AND’. Journal of Semantics
6(1):19–40.
Holton, David, Peter Mackridge, and Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1997. Greek: A Comprehensive
Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 1987. Generative Grammar. London: Longman.
Hurford, James R. 1974. Exclusive or inclusive disjunction. Foundations of Language
11(3):409–411.
Jennings, Ray E. 1966. Or. Analysis 26:181–184.
Jennings, Ray E. 1994. The Genealogy of Disjunction. USA: Oxford University Press.
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1996. Partial agreement and coordination. Linguistic Inquiry
27(4):661–676.
Joseph, Brian D. and Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1987. Modern Greek. Croom Helm
Descriptive Grammar Series. London: Routledge Kegan and Paul.
Kameyama, M. 1985. Zero Anaphora: The Case of Japanese. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford
University.
Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to Model
Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation
Theory, vol. 1,2 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Kaplan, Ronald. 1995. The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar. In M. Dalrymple,
R. Kaplan, J. T. M. III, and A. Zaenen, eds., Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional
Grammar, pages 7–27. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kaplan, Ronald and Joan Bresnan. 1982. Lexical Functional Grammar: A formal system
for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan, ed., The Mental Representation of
Grammatical Relations, chap. 4, pages 173–281. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kaplan, Ronald and John T. Maxwell. 1988. Constituent coordination in Lexical-
Functional Grammar. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational
Linguistics (COLING88), vol. 1, pages 303–305. Budapest.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 236
Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In
R. Levine and G. Green, eds., Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kazana, Despina. 2007. Gender resolution in Modern Greek. In Essex Graduate Student
Papers in Language and Linguistics, vol. 9, pages 39–56. University of Essex: Department
of Language and Linguistics.
Kearns, Kate. 2000. Semantics. Modern Linguistics Series. England: Macmillan.
Keenan, Edward L. and Leonard M. Faltz. 1985. Boolean Semantics for Natural Language.
Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Boston: D. Reidel.
King, Tracy H. and Mary Dalrymple. 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction.
Journal of Linguistics 40(1):69–104.
Kokkonidis, Miltiadis. 2005. Why glue a donkey to an f-structure when you can constrain
it and bind it instead? In M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., On-line Proceedings of the
LFG05 Conference, pages 238–252. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kuhn, Jonas and Louisa Sadler. 2007. Single conjunct agreement and the formal treatment
of coordination in LFG. In M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., On-line Proceedings of the
LFG07 Conference, pages 302–322. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Lakoff, Robin. 1971. If’s, and’s and but’s about conjunction. In Fillmore and Langendeon,
eds., Studies in Linguistic Semantics, pages 115–149. New York: Holt, Reinhart and
Winston.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1984. Formulaicity, frame semantics and pragmatics in German binomial
expressions. Language 60(4):753–796.
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1970. Essentials of English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston.
Larson, Richard. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 3(2):217–264.
Lumsden, John. 1992. Undespecification in grammatical and natural gender. Linguistic
Inquiry 3(23):469–86.
Mackridge, Peter. 1985. The Modern Greek Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malouf, Robert. 1998. Categories, prototypes and default inheritance. In G. Bouma, G.-J.
Kruijff, and R. Oehrle, eds., Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Formal Grammar,
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Categorial Grammar, pages 207–216. Saarbrucken.
Manicas, Peter T. 1976. Logic: The Essentials. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McCloskey, James. 1986. Inflection and conjunction in Modern Irish. Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 4(2):245–282.
Minassian, Martiros. 1980. Grammaire d’ Armenien Oriental. Delmar, NY: Caravan.
Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in English. In P. Suppes,
J. Moravcsik, and J. Hintikka, eds., Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 237
Moosally, Michelle. 1998. Noun Phrase Coordination: Ndebele Agreement Patterns and
Cross-Linguistic Variation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
Moosally, Michelle. 1999. Subject and object coordination in Ndbele: An HPSG analysis.
In S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugen, and P. Norquest, eds., Proceedings of the WCCFL
18 Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Morgan, Jerry. 1972. Verb agreement as a rule of English. In P. Peranteau, J. Levi,
and G. Phares, eds., Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic
Society, pages 278–286. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Morgan, Jerry. 1984. Some problems of agreement in English and Albanian. In C. Brugman
and M. Macaulay, eds., Proceeding of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, vol. 10, pages 233–
247. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Morgan, Jerry. 1985. Some problems of determination in English number agreement. In
G. Alvarez, B. Brondie, and T. McCoy, eds., Proceeding of the First Eastern States
Conference on Linguistics, pages 69–78. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.
Moyse-Faurie, Claire and John Lynch. 2004. Coordination in Oceanic languages and Proto
Oceanic. In M. Haspelmath, ed., Coordinating Constructions, pages 445–498. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Nordlinger, Rachel and Joan Bresnan. To appear. Lexical-Functional Grammar: Interactions
between morphology and syntax. In R. D. Borsley and K. Börjars, eds., Non-
Transformational Syntax: A Guide to Current Models. Oxford: Blackwells.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1977. The Pragmatics of Reference. Ph.D. thesis, City University of
New York, New York.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of Semantics 12(2):109–132.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 2005. The pragmatics of deferred interpretation. In L. R. Horn and
G. Ward, eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics, chap. 15, pages 344–364. UK: Blackwell.
Parker, Frank. 1983. Number in indefinite pronouns and correlatives. University of South
Florida Language Quarterly 22(1-2):13–16.
Partee, Barbara H., Alice ter Meulen, and Robert E. Wall. 1993. Mathematical Methods
in Linguistics. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2nd edn.
Partridge, Eric. 1956. Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English. London: Hamish
Hamilton.
Pelletier, Francis J. 1978. Or. Theoretical Linguistics 4(1).
Peterson, Peter. 1986. Establishing verb agreement with disjunctively conjoined subjects:
strategies vs. principles. Australian Journal of Linguistics 6(2):231–249.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 2002. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in
Generative Grammar. Maden, MA: Blackwell.
Quine, William V. 1972. Methods of Logic. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 238
Quirk, Randolph and Sidney Greenbaum. 1973. A University Grammar of English. London:
Longman.
Rubin, Ronald and Charles M. Young. 1989. Formal Logic: a Model of English. California:
Mayfield Publishing Co.
Sadler, Louisa. 1997. Clitics and the structure-function mapping. In M. Butt and T. H.
King, eds., On-line proceedings of the LFG97 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Sadler, Louisa. 1999. Non-distributive features and coordination in Welsh. In M. Butt
and T. H. King, eds., On-line proceedings of the LFG99 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Sadler, Louisa. 2003. Coordination and asymmetric agreement in Welsh. In M. Butt
and T. H. King, eds., Nominals: Inside and Out, pages 85–118. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Sadler, Louisa. 2006. Gender resolution in Rumanian. In M. Butt, M. Dalrymple, and T. H.
King, eds., Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ron Kaplan,
pages 437–454. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical Syntax. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Schalley, Andrea C. and Dietmar Zaefferer, eds. 2007. Ontolinguistics: How Ontological
Status Shapes the Linguistics Coding Concepts. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and
Monographs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.
Schane, Sanford A. 1970. Phonological and morphological markedness. In M. Bierwisch
and K. E. Heidolph, eds., Progress in Linguistics, pages 286–294. The Hague: Mouton.
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Simons, Mandy. 1998. Or: Issues in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Disjunction. Ph.D.
thesis, Cornell University.
Spencer, Andrew. 2002. Gender as an inflectional category. Journal of Linguistics 38:279–
312.
Stassen, Leon. 2000. AND-languages and WITH-languages. Linguistic Typology 4(1):1–54.
Tapscott, Bangs L. 1976. Elementary Applied Symbolic Logic. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Englewoods Cliffs.
Tarski, Alfred. 1941. Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of Deductive Sciences.
New York: Oxford University Press, Revised 1946.
Triantaphyllidis, Manolis. 1994. Neo-elleniki Grammatiki. Athens: Organismos Ekdoseon
Didaktikon Biblion.
Triantaphyllidis, Manolis. 2005. Neoelleniki Grammatiki tis Dimotikis. Thessaloniki: Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, Institute of Manolis Triantafillidis, 2nd edn.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 239
Villavicencio, Aline, Louisa Sadler, and Doug Arnold. 2005. An HPSG account of closest
conjunct agreement in NP coordination in Portuguese. In S. Muller, ed., The Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, pages
427–447. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Vincent, Nigel and Kersti Börjars. 2000. Feature resolution and the content of features. In
M. Butt and T. H. King, eds., On-line proceedings of the LFG00 Conference. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wechsler, Stephen. 2009. ‘Elsewhere’ in gender resolution. In K. Hanson and S. Inkelas,
eds., The Nature of the Word-Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky, pages 567–586.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlatić. 2000. A theory of agreement and its application to
Serbo-Croatian. Language 76(4):799–832.
Wechsler, Stephen and Larisa Zlatić. 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford, CA:
CSLI Publications.
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics
and Philosophy 20(4):399–467.
Yatabe, Shûichi. 2004. A comprehensive theory of coordination of unlikes. In S. Muller, ed.,
The Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure
Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. Hierarchies of person. In W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, and S. Philosoph,
eds., Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, pages
714–733. Chicago.