Agreement Markers – Tuyuri Karin


Agreement Markers


The second argument against syntactic approaches is that the same morphology (i.e. the paradigm of possessive agreement) performs different functions. If the agreement appears on a name, it expresses the person and the number of the owner. If the same chord consists of a case-like P, it expresses the person and number of the pronominal complement. Finally, this agreement expresses, on fall marks, “the flexion of the pronoun in this case” (p. 1209). I argued that case markers and ps similar to cashing also have an underlying possessive syntax, so the Possessiv chord paradigm does not perform different functions: in all the cases listed by Spencer and Stump, it expresses the person and the number of owners. Also note the concordance that is shown to be even in the subjunctive atmosphere. However, in ordinary possessives with a singular third-person possessor, the possessive marker is not confused with concordance (probably because concordance is zero), and the possessive marker is therefore also visible with singular posssimation (67). The substantive phrase is merged with the possessor roll in addition to the possessum. Footnote 17 NP is dominated by PossP.

The head of Poss houses the possessive marker – (j)a/(j)e (see Szabolcsi 1994); Bartos 1999, 2000; É. Kiss 2002). PossP is dominated by a phonologically zero head, which I will call F. The bezeicher of F contains the posseseur (not morphologically marked) in its specitor. Possessive characteristics that refer to the φ characteristics of pronominal owners are grouped with the head F. Footnote 18 The FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME that hosts the agreement marker can be integrated into an EP projection. The structure of (46) is shown in (47). The soil (here the substantive phrase projected by the name of sál`scarf`) is still merged as the owner of the place and then supplanted to become the specitor of FP. The reader will remember that the possessum corresponds only to the pronominal owners and that there is no correspondence between the possessum and a lexical owner. In (47), the posseseur is a lexical name, so there is no correspondence between him and the place of possessum. In other words, in this case, F does not bear signs of conformity (marked in the tree by ∅).

The different behavior of pronouns and lexical nouns in oblique PPs is also followed by the account without help assumptions. We have seen that pronouns are optional with a large P or lowercase obliques, and there is a mandatory match in these PPs. These properties are not passed on to lexical nouns with an oblique P of size or lowercase. The name and capital letter or casus P are simply placed side by side, the name is not optional, and there is no match. Here are some special cases for subject-verb correspondence in English: instead of (9), we get the forms in (10): the pronoun itself is optional, and there is a mandatory match marker after the casus marker. This agreement refers to the φ characteristics of the optional pronoun. Footnote 6 Correspondence is a phenomenon in natural language, in which the form of a word or morpheme is in harmony with the form of another word or phrase in the sentence. For example, in john`s English sentence will go every morning fido, the form of “walks” conditioned by the characteristics of the subject “John”. This can be seen by replacing “John” with an element whose relevant characteristics are different, as in We walk Fido every morning, resulting in a change in form from “walk” to “walk” (or alternatively to a change from “-s” to an empty morpheme, Ø). .

. .