Agreement Morphology Linguistics

Note: This paper examines two proposals presented as absolute universal principles for grammatical agreement (GA), viz Keenans (1974) Functional Principle (dependency) and the Approach of Anaphor Agreement as Morphologized (Lapointe 1980). The paper examines the empirical testability of both approaches and shows that there are potential counter-examples of the two principles that they can declare null and void as absolute universals. Plank, Frans. 1984. Romanesque divergences: phonology that disrupts syntax. Linguistics 20. 329-349. Theme: The function of the agreement. Formal syntactic framework: -Language (s) quoted: Latin, Dyirbal, Abkhazia, Russian, German, Hungarian, Swahili, French, Nahuatl. The agreement is defined as the systematic covariance of one element with another. The most undisputed configuration of the agreement is that between a controller – an item that is defined for a value of an agreement functionality per se – and the purpose of the agreement is that it is the element that reflects a deferred functionality value of the controller. However, the distribution of concordance morphological markers is much wider than the controller and objective configurations: objectives can express match values for features that are not visible on the controller, and even show concordance morphologies in the absence of a lexical controller.

A second source of variation is the fact that, in some contexts, one chooses between syntactic agreement (with the formal characteristics of the controller) and semantic agreement (with the semantic characteristics of the reference company). The choice between syntactic and semantic coherence is partly correlated with inter-linguistic rules formulated as chord hierarchy and animacy hierarchy. Enrique-Arias, Andres. 2002. accounting for the position of verbal morphology agrees with psycholinguistic and diachronic explanation factors. Language studies 26.1-31. Note: The end point of the historical evolution of the anaphoric pronoun agreement marker is the loss of the reference on the part of the marker and the obligatory presence of the nominal argument with which it agrees. Contrary to what one might assume, such an agreement, which I have described as grammatically, inspired by Bresnan-Mchombo (1986, 1987), in contrast to anaphoric or ambiguous agreements (grammatical and anaphoric), is very rare. In addition, in certified cases of the grammatical agreement, none is immutable as subject agreement.

This paper discusses the distribution and formal implementation of anaphoric, multiple and grammatical match markers in a sample of 272 languages and provides some preliminary explanations of the existing asymmetry with respect to grammatical agreements. It is proposed that the grammatical object agreement should not be concluded, because an ambiguous agreement, which gives grammatical agreement, is less common for objects than with subjects, and two of the potential sources of grammatical concordance that concern respect for a second limitation and phonological wear rather than subjects. (Authors` summary) Fayol, Michel, Largy, Pierre and Lemaire, Patrick. 1994. Cognitive overload and spelling errors: When cognitive overload amplifies professional contractual errors: a study in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 47A. 437-464. Studies on speech production have shown that a key determinant of verb chord marking is the mental representation of the numerical characteristic of the subject NP as a whole, which is a product of the grammatical specification of the name in the NP domain and the encrypted conceptual information from the message to be conveyed (z.B Bock, Carreiras, Meseguer , 2012; Eberhard, 1997, 1999; Humphreys and Bock, 2005).