Agreement Features

Modern English doesn`t have much correspondence, although it`s there. Let`s see what happens when we encode these agree restrictions in a grammar without context. We start with the simple CFG in (5). ★ Extend the processing of feature structures by NLTK to allow for standardization in list values, and use them to implement an analysis of HPSG-type subcategorization, with SUBCAT valing the value of the chain of its supplements categories with the SUBCAT value of its immediate superior. To account for the behavior of MSA`s concord, I assume that D has unassed gender, number, case and clarity characteristics.4 According to Norris (2014), I also assume that a feature percolation process allows for the sharing of functionality between an X head and its expanded projection. This allows the number, sex, clarity and case characteristics that range from D to percolate to DP. Here we can see that the morphological properties of the verb with the syntactic properties of the subject-nomination sentence vary. This covariance is called agreement. If we take a closer look at the English verb agreement, we will see that the broadcasters of the present generally have two folded forms: one for a singular third person and the other for any other combination of person and number, as shown by 1.1. Note that the attribute adjective in (1) contains an accusatory and indefinite suffix as its modified noun.

In (2), the predictive adjective also takes on the accusatory and indefinite suffix, but in this context these characteristics differ from the nominal and particular characteristics that are presented on the theme DP, “man”. However, the two types of adjectives share the sex and number of characteristics of their noun/modified DP subject. This indicates that sex and number act independently of certainty and case. In this article, I analyze this distinction between the characteristics of the agreement in MSA using a shared approach to agreement within the framework of distributed morphology (see Halle-Marantz 1993; 1994; Harley 1999; Embick – Walnut 2007; a.o.). Like Baier (2015)s Analysis of Noon Addjectival Agreement, I argued that gender and two-way numeral characteristics can be taken into account in syntax, while definiteness and box characteristics are predicted via AGR insertion and PF morphological copying (see Norris 2014). When using this splitting method, it is expected that the characteristics of sex and numbers will appear on adjectives that are both external and internal to the DP, but accuracy and case are limited to agreement on internal DP adjectives. As such, this Squib introduces new data into a topical debate on concordance in morphosytic literature and supports the separation of the characteristics of concord and agreement (cf. Adger – Harbour 2008; Polinsky 2016). A rare type of arrangement that phonologically copies parts of the head instead of agreeing with a grammatical category. [4] For example, in Bainouk: the rest of this squibs looks at how these mechanisms predict the concordance characteristics expressed in MSA by attribute and predictive adjectives. It has been shown that sex/numbers are simply taken into account as part of a syntactic approach to the agreement and that because of their pronounced behaviour, they must be clearly defined by clear and case-specific characteristics that are analyzed as concord characteristics inserted into the PFs.

In continuing to examine the case in the MSA, I show that the complexity of the cases dealt with in this section is simply taken into account by the awarding of cases to predictive adjectives and PF-Concord mechanisms for attributes. There is also a consensus between pronouns and precursors. Examples of this are found in English (although English pronouns mainly follow natural sex and not grammatical sex): we found in the previous section that we could express more generalizations about the properties of verbs by taking into account the subcategorization information of the main category label.