Agreement Markers Linguistics
Pishwa, Hanna. 1989. Acquisition of the German congruence rule Working documents on linguistics – working papers in linguistics. [special edition]; 23 Berlin: Institute of Linguistics of the Technical University of Berlin PD- 209 p; 21 cm IS- 3798312680 Subject: Encrypted Agreement and Alzheimer`s Disease Syntactic Framework: -Language (s) quoted: Standard American English Lyons, Christopher. 1990. A consensual approach to climate doubling. Transaction of the Philological Society 88. 1-57. Dziwirek, Katarzyna.
1990. Standard agreement in Polish. In Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell and Errapel Majéas-Bikandi (note) Grammatical Relations: A Cross-theoretical Perspective. Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association/CSLI. Note: The purpose of this document is to present some informal linguistic generalizations about the grammatical agreement. Compliance in this document is defined as: a grammatical component A must correspond to a grammatical component B in properties C in the L language, if C is a set of properties related to the meaning of A and there is no covariance relationship between C and certain phonological characteristics of a B1 component over a few subsets of the L language, the B1 component being adjacent to component B and the only non-categorical characteristics of element B1 are the C characteristics. In this definition, A and B are the consenting ingredients; The B1 component is referred to as the “agreement marker”; and C features are the chord functions. The paper focuses on the following questions: What are the meanings and characteristics of the form of the voters who, unlike those who are not, are the characteristics of meaning and form of the voters who are in contact, and what are the characteristics on which they agree – that is, what are the characteristics of the agreement? On the basis of this definition of work and these two questions, a linguistic overview of three types of matching characteristics – gender, number and person – is presented, followed by some linguistic generalizations about voter agreement. The discussion focuses only on cases where the pleading part is a nonnominator or a new sentence. The theory that match markers and anaphoric pronouns are grammatically derived from the same types of rules is informally demonstrated as a prediction of some of the restrictions observed in terms of both agreeal and compliance characteristics.
Posner, Rebecca. 1985. No agreement on differences of opinion in the romance. Journal of Linguistics 21. 437-451. If you are referring to general groups or names, you will want to pay attention to the number and gender agreement. Janine Scancarelli. 1987. Grammatical relations and verb agreement in Cherokee. Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles. [Distributed by University Microforms International Reference 8803692.] Such a concordance is also found with predictors: man is tall (“man is great”) vs.
the chair is large (“the chair is large”). (In some languages, such as German. B, that is not the case; only the attribute modifiers show the agreement.) James W. Harris. The rules of disagreement, the rules of reference and the Spanish women`s article. Journal of Linguistics 23. 177-183. Kollstrom, Roger. 1995.
The linguistic universe, linguistic typology and Nordic chords.