The Syntax Of Agreement

1. Introduction: Category distinctions as windows of concordance theory 2. Basic concordance and category 3 distinctions. The unit of verbal and adjective concordance 4. Explanation of the limitation of the agreement of persons 5. Compliance settings. B`s answer is based on the assumption that the characteristic of the person is subject to a particular condition of structural location. If one takes the Spec Head (1986) Spec Head agreement as a precedent, but applies only to the person`s agreement, B postulates that a lens can only personally correspond to a first-person or other person`s controller if the controller occupies the specific or complementary position of the lens: Here are some special cases for subject-verb correspondence in English: In English, defective verbs usually do not show a match for the person or number, they contain the verbs of the modality: can, can, must, must, must, must, should. Another feature is concordance in participations, which have different forms for different sexes: languages cannot have conventional correspondence, such as Japanese or Malay; Little, as in English; a small amount, as in spoken French; a moderate amount, as in Greek or Latin; or a large quantity, as in Swahili. Over a period of two decades, Mark Baker produced a remarkable series of books, each an ambitious crosslinguistic study of a different facet of syntax: grammatical function change operations (Baker 1988), name and pronomenin corporation (Baker 1996), and word classes (Baker 2003).

In The syntax of agreement and concord (SAC), B supports the syntactic distribution of the person, number, and sex characteristics (Phi Characteristics) in grammatical conformity. As in previous studies, B proposes a unique theory and supports it with data from a large number of languages. Bs work is unusual in their combination of depth of analysis and breadth of languages covered. In his own variant of Noam Chomsky`s minimalist program, but also with typological research methods, B finds deep formal similarities that lie beneath the apparent diversity of languages and develops formal syntactic models that allow these generalizations to be deduced. Like an intrepid scholar who travels from one side by dog sled and on the other by canoe, B crosses a varied, often difficult, linguistic terrain to test his hypotheses. The book will help define the field in the coming years. It is a mandatory reading for scholars with grammatical correspondence and at the very top of the proposed reading list for each syntatic….

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.