2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The dynamics of agreement and conjunction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(61) wa-nzehe wa-li-ghul-a li-banzi na ma-bwe 2-elders SM2-OM5-buy-FV 5-wood and 6-stone 'The elders bought a wooden board and stones' There are differences of detail between the languages which show partial agreement, as well as different restrictions on when partial agreement is possible (related to wordorder as well as animacy), but the main distinction captured here is whether partial agreement is possible at all or not (see Marten 2000Marten , 2003Marten , 2005 for further discussion).…”
Section: Partial Agreementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(61) wa-nzehe wa-li-ghul-a li-banzi na ma-bwe 2-elders SM2-OM5-buy-FV 5-wood and 6-stone 'The elders bought a wooden board and stones' There are differences of detail between the languages which show partial agreement, as well as different restrictions on when partial agreement is possible (related to wordorder as well as animacy), but the main distinction captured here is whether partial agreement is possible at all or not (see Marten 2000Marten , 2003Marten , 2005 for further discussion).…”
Section: Partial Agreementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Like the previous example, (26) involves the building of a linked node at the outset of the parse, which is decorated with information from Rosa. Following previous analyses (Cann et al, 2005;Marten, 2005), the Swahili conjunction na can be analysed as lexically inducing a link structure, and so in this example, the building of a link structure is explicitly encoded.…”
Section: [ T D $ I N L I N E ]mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…10 The unification of the two nodes is possible because the subject marker is analysed as not lexically including a bottom restriction, allowing the projection of the information from both the subject and the subject maker in the same local domain, an analysis which will also be exploited for post-verbal subjects below. With respect to class agreement, a more complex analysis is required for agreement with conjoined subjects (see Marten, 2000Marten, , 2005. 11 Alternatively, a globally unfixed node might be constructed before the locally unfixed node is built, a case which I discuss further below.…”
Section: [ T D $ I N L I N E ]mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Technically such cases require the LINK relation to be introduced. Marten (2005) describes the LINK relation as "not related to the matrix tree by a function-argument relation" (i.e. it is not a mother or a daughter node), it is part of the tree and imposes a requirement on the main tree that there be a copy of its formula value included" (534).…”
Section: T N(a) ?T Y(t) ↑ * T N(a)f•(mary) F•(john) F•(dislikes) ?Tmentioning
confidence: 99%