Second, Norris shows that when an owner intervenes between a higher demonstrative and a lower name, the demonstrative always shows the concord with the name of the head in (iia) and not with the intermediate owner as in (iib). The absence of intervention indicates that the concord in (ii) is different from the subject-verbal agreement. As shown in (2), value-added Ns/students can only be singular in English, but be singular or plural in Russian. In (3), Ts can present singular or plural chords in English. I will qualify the singular agreement in (4) and the plural agreement of summant agreement in (5). According to the latest work (Pollard – Sag, 1994; Wechsler – Zlatié 2003; Smith 2015; Landau 2016; Wurmbrand 2017a), I assume that both types of agreements stem from the agreement with two types of features. One type is referred to as convergent, non-interpretable or morphological characteristics (u), while the other is called indexing, interpretive or semantic functions (i). Both types of features can coexist for an item. A probe can accept both functions. Morphological conformity is the result of conformity with morphological characteristics and semantic conformity is the result of compliance with semantic characteristics. The Phi agreement was one of the central themes of research in generative grammar.
Much research has been carried out on the nature of the agreement process and on the internal structure of the characteristics. At the same time, the research has also inspired new questions and old issues that need to be addressed from a new perspective. This paper addresses two such issues: the agreement with multi-assessment and the hierarchy of agreements. Keung, Lap-Ching. 2017. Different mechanisms are the basis of attraction errors and coordination with coordination. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst MA Thesis. The link between multi-evaluation distribution agreements and morphological chords in the chord hierarchy is a natural step. Morphological concordance in Corbett`s sense implies a common morphological marking. In (54a), the demonstrative includes morphological concordance with the nomic committee, because they are both marked as singular (unlike the plural verb). In (54b), the noun value-added student also shows the same unique brand with this and that, despite the plural reference of the entire DP.
Giusti, Giuliana. 2008. Agreement and concord in nominal terms. In Cecile De Cat – Katherine Demuth (Eds.), The Bantu-Romance connection: A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure (Linguistics Aktuell/Linguistics Today 131), 201-237. John Benjamins Verlag. DOI: doi.org/10.1075/la.131.12giu After discovering that the notional RNR contains value-added NS, we look at contract models. As mentioned above, the Nostunon in English, when two individual DPs share a pivot-noun, is necessarily marked as singular as in (14). The same pattern is observed in Hindi in (15) by Belyaev et al. (2015).
I label this model as a distribution agreement that is schematicized in (16): the probe displays the distribution agreement when it receives several singular values and is marked as singular. Shen (2016) reports an agreement to distribute value-added Ns in German, Dutch, Icelandic, Polish, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian. Grosz (2015) argues for a multi-dominance analysis for a summant chord in (27) in which the T merges with the two perfps and corresponds to the two embedded subjects. To distinguish this structure from the nominal RNR, I will call this construction TP RNR. In (27), Grosz (2015) starts from an analysis in which several elements are multidominated.