In this paper, I focus on understanding what information speakers use in determining agreement, and consider two different types of agreement, syntactic and semantic. Agreement is not a purely syntactic phenomenon, so purely syntactic approach is doom...
In this paper, I focus on understanding what information speakers use in determining agreement, and consider two different types of agreement, syntactic and semantic. Agreement is not a purely syntactic phenomenon, so purely syntactic approach is doomed to fail. I show that with coordinative subjects semantic agreement usually takes precedence over syntactic agreement. I also consider the constituent structure of coordination and the argument for and against conjunction reduction(CR). Some passive examples are evidence for CR, others are evidence against it. However, the passive transformation has fallen out of favor in many theories. Without a passive transformation, CR loses much of its attraction. Assuming that there is no need for CR, it is an open question what structure one should assign to coordinative phrases.