Agreement Abstract

It is essential that the list of (61) be far from open. For example, it cannot at all include the existence of a binding or falsified indexed relationship with H0 (see Kratzer 2009). If such phenomena were also responsible for the implementation of non-φ φ on H0, it would be impossible to have an appropriate account for the distribution of PCC effects. Remember that the CCP is created, where there is a thoughtless agreement or a doubling of climate (section 5); the presence of fixing indexes and/or false indexing in a given design is not sufficient to produce PCC effects. The conclusion already advanced elsewhere for independent reasons (Preminger 2013); Preminger – Polinsky 2015) is that the phenomena of the latter type do not contain syntactic match in the φ features. But this cannot be the whole story: the canonical instances of the verb in the T0 (z.B. in French) also imply a morphological fusion of the verb with other materials – namely with a tense morphology and/or agreement – and yet this does not prevent the phonological reduction of the lower copy (or copies) of the verb in this case. From this point of view, the question is what distinguishes predictive divisions and climate doubling (considered as a head movement) from more familiar instances of head movement, such as V/v-to-T. Instead, I propose that the generalization of the no-zero agreement and its exceptions should occur because of the evolution of language learning. In particular, the learner begins to think that there are no non-φ features on functional heads (including T0 and v0). Remember that this is not a problem on a case-by-case basis – not even for languages with a rich and easily identifiable case morphology – given the evidence accumulated in recent years against the installation of structural falls assigned by agreement (Preminger 2014, a.o.; see also section 1).

There is then a specific set and, crucially, triggers that would prompt the learner to review this hypothesis and put unvalued φ features on a specific functional head:22 Abstract: Best Practices in Intellectual Property Management Management Management is based on expertise in licensing and contracting. A contract defines a good deal that the parties conclude and defines as such the relationship and expectations of the parties. It is therefore essential to design carefully contracts that clearly and objectively indicate the intentions of the parties.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.