Universal #2006

Legacy number: 2006

 Number  2000
 Original  If a particular target type can mark agreement in gender then in many languages it must. ... This may be called "enforced" gender agreement. ...
In a nutshell, if an agreement target can agree then typically it must agree, even if the agreement controller lacks the appropriate features.
 Standardized  IF an agreement target can agree [in gender, number, or whatever], THEN typically it must agree, even if the agreement controller lacks the appropriate features.
 Keywords  agreement, gender, number
 Domain  inflection, syntax
 Type  implication
 Status  achronic
 Quality  statistical
 Basis  "over 200 languages" from all over the place
 Source  Corbett 1991: 203-204

← Back to Universals Archive

Discussion
Notes
1. Enforced gender agreement creates a problem if the controller is not specified for a gender (e.g., when it is an infinitive or a clause rather than a prototypical NP – see #2007) or if greater specificity is forced on the speaker than is possible/desirable. Different strategies: neutral/default agreement form, unique neutral agreement form, evasive form, special form.2. Claim repeated in slightly different form: "If a language has targets which distinguish gender, then typically they must distinguish gender." (Corbett 1991: 218).3. What about the suspension of agreement in different constructions of the same target words? E.g. German: Adjectives can agree in gender, but they don't when predicative, nor when attributive but postnominal (pur-er Whisky, Whisky pur). Is this "neutral/default" agreement, taking the shape of the bare stem, or simply "non-agreement"? I'd find it hard arguing against the latter – despite its being at odds with yet another universal, #26/63, claiming an agreement preference for postnominal vis-a-vis prenominal adjectives.
Comment
Frans Plank · 3 Aug 2006
1. Enforced gender agreement creates a problem if the controller is not specified for a gender (e.g., when it is an infinitive or a clause rather than a prototypical NP – see <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=2007"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">) or if greater specificity is forced on the speaker than is possible/desirable. Different strategies: neutral/default agreement form, unique neutral agreement form, evasive form, special form.

2. Claim repeated in slightly different form: "If a language has targets which distinguish gender, then typically they must distinguish gender." (Corbett 1991: 218).

3. What about the suspension of agreement in different constructions of the same target words? E.g. German: Adjectives can agree in gender, but they don't when predicative, nor when attributive but postnominal (pur-er Whisky, Whisky pur). Is this "neutral/default" agreement, taking the shape of the bare stem, or simply "non-agreement"? I'd find it hard arguing against the latter – despite its being at odds with yet another universal, <a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=26"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">/<a class="innerLink" href="browse.php?entry_id=63"><img src="../img/entry.gif" border="0">, claiming an agreement preference for postnominal vis-a-vis prenominal adjectives.