In this article, I argue that all of the conjuncts in nominal conjunction always bear the same case. Apparent counterexamples, where conjuncts seem to differ in morphological case marking, are due either to a misanalysis of the underlying syntactic structure or to superficial morphological processes that create the impression of a difference in case marking. Once we control for phenomena of this sort (namely &P clitics, suspended affixation, and allomorphy), we find that case marking in nominal conjunction is always symmetric. This finding is in stark contrast to the phenomenon of ϕ agreement, which is known to exhibit asymmetries in conjunction. I show that the Chomskyan account of case assignment, according to which case arises only as a reflex of ϕ agreement, cannot account for this mismatch without stipulative assumptions. The pattern follows straightforwardly, however, if we assume that case assignment proceeds on the basis of syntactic structure while ϕ agreement can be either syntactic or postsyntactic. Finally, I show that the generalization established can be used as a simple diagnostic to distinguish syntactic case‐marking alternations from morphological ones.

中文翻译：

---

论合取格的对称性

在本文中，我认为名义合取中的所有合取总是有相同的情况。明显的反例（合词在形态学案例标记上似乎有所不同）是由于对基本句法结构的错误分析，或者是由于表面形态学过程造成了案例标记差异的印象。一旦我们控制了这种现象（即＆P气候，悬浮的附着和同构），我们就会发现名义合取中的大小写标记始终是对称的。这一发现与ϕ一致现象形成了鲜明的对比，ϕ一致现象共同表现出不对称性。我表明，乔姆斯基的案例分配说明只能根据ϕ协议的反映而出现，如果没有明确的假设，就无法说明这种不匹配。但是，如果我们假设案例分配是基于句法结构进行的，而ϕ协议可以是句法也可以是后句法，那么这种模式将直接遵循。最后，我证明所建立的概括可以用作一种简单的诊断方法，以区分句法标记案例和形态学标记。