Towards a General Theory of Multi-Valuation

理论语言学力求从看似随机的跨语言变异中揭示对心理语法的深刻理解。这个项目将研究当协议的目标接收多个值时，如何解决协议。文献表明，这种情况的解决方法因语言的不同而不同。到目前为止，还没有解释为什么语言在这个领域会有不同的方式。在这个项目中，我们的目标是通过系统地查看协议目标和多重估值发生的结构来解释多重估值实例如何解决的变化。如果一个元素接收到相同特性的多个值，则已知有两个主要选项可用：它可以将情况解析为语义上合适的值，例如Sg + Sg = Pl，或者它可以选择壁橱协议控制器的值。这两种情况在不同的语言中都得到了证实，通常根据协议目标的类型（动词、名词、定语元素），语言内部会发生变化。然而，这种变化并不是随机的。某些语言（如英语）。俄罗斯)在所有协议目标上显示出已解决的复数协议，而其他国家在任何目标上都没有解决方案(例如：斯洛维尼亚语)。此外，对于不同的目标，某些语言可能具有不同的模式。例如，在英语中，一个动词的两个单数特征被分解成复数，但像指示语这样的定语成分不可能分解成复数。然而，未经证实的是，在一种语言中，定语成分在这种情况下表现出完全一致，但在动词上却没有。其次，我们将研究当元素接收到冲突值时语言采取的各种修复策略。众所周知，这样的上下文是有标记的，需要修改才能使句子合法。具体而言，我们将重点关注与壁橱控制器的一致解决，旨在为最近从连词一致研究中提出的两步一致模型提供新的证据。最后，我们将研究扩展到连接和分离的协议模式之间的不对称性。连接的被试能够控制已解决的一致，而分离的被试触发与两个分离中最接近的一致。而连词和析词都表现出多重评价的效果特征，暗示着一个共同的句法结构。考虑到它们的共同语法，连接和析取的不同协议策略就无法解释了。我们的研究旨在表明解释的影响在这里起作用，并且给定某些语义上下文，例如否定，解决的一致确实可以在析取中出现，这将暗示连接和析取之间不对称的原因是语义的，而不是句法的。

Theoretical linguistics strives to reveal deep understanding of the mental grammar from the seemingly random cross-linguistic variation. This project will investigate how agreement is resolved when the target of agreement receives multiple values. It has been shown in the literature that the resolution of such a situation is subject to variation across languages. As yet there is no explanation for why languages vary in the way that they do in this realm. Our aim in this project is to account for the variation in how instances of multi-valuation is resolved by systematically looking across both the targets of agreement, and constructions where multi-valuation occurs. If an element receives multiple values for the same feature, two main options are known to be available: it can either resolve the situation to a semantically suitable value, for instance Sg + Sg = Pl, or it can prefer the value of the closet agreement controller. Both situations have been attested across languages, often with language internal variation depending on the type of agreement target (verb vs. noun vs. attributive elements). Yet, this variation is not random. Some languages (eg. Russian) show resolved plural agreement across all agreement targets, whilst others show no resolution for any target (eg. Slovenian). Furthermore some languages can have differing patterns for different targets. In English, for instance, two singular features on a verb are resolved to plural, but resolved agreement is impossible for attributive elements like demonstratives. What is unattested however, is a language where attributive elements show resolved agreement in this situation, but not on verbs. Secondly, we will investigate the various repair strategies that languages take when an element receives conflicting values. Such contexts are known to be marked, and require repairs to allow the sentence to be licit. Specifically, we will focus on the resolution of agreement to the closet controller, aiming to provide novel evidence for the two-step model of agreement that has been advanced recently from studies of agreement with conjunctions. Finally, we extend our investigation to the asymmetry between the agreement patterns in conjunction and disjunction. Conjoined subjects are able to control resolved agreement, whereas disjoined subjects triggers agreement with the closest of the two disjuncts. Both conjunction and disjunction however show the effects characteristic of multi-valuation, hinting at a common syntactic structure. Given their common syntax, the different agreement strategies of conjunction and disjunction are unaccounted for. Our investigation aims to show that influences of interpretation are at play here, and that given certain semantic contexts, such as negation, resolved agreement can indeed arise in disjunctions, which would hint at the cause of the asymmetry between conjunction and disjunction is semantic, rather than syntactic in nature.