Agreement Hierarchy Clause Samples

Agreement Hierarchy. The claim that these subject markers indicate agreement between the subject noun and the verb is also supported by typological evidence. Following ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (1997), agreement marking in languages oper- ates according to an implicational hierarchy of grammatical relations, given in (35). (35) Agreement Hierarchy (▇▇▇▇▇▇ 1997:154)13 subject > direct object > indirect object > other According to this hierarchy, if there is agreement with one of the nominals in the hierarchy, there will also be agreement with those nominals to the left of it. For example, the hierarchy predicts that if verb agreement is used to indicate the grammatical relation of just one nominal, it will be with the subject. If it marks agreement with only two nominals, it will be with both the subject and the direct object, and so on. Furthermore, the frequency with which one finds agreement decreases as one moves rightward along the hierarchy. In other words, subject agreement is very common, direct ob- ject agreement less so, indirect object agreement fairly uncommon, and agreement with other nomi- nals extremely rare. The Lamnso data appear to be in accord with the predictions of this hierarchy. Consider the sentence in (36). The subject noun vitam ‘elephants’ agrees with the verb by means of the enclitic -vi. The di- rect object noun, on the other hand, has no enclitic and, hence, is not marked for agreement with the verb. This pattern is fully consistent with the pattern predicted by the hierarchy: (36) vi-tam-vi kfar vi-kwi 8-elephant-▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ 8-grass ‘The elephants are eating the grass.’ Only one nominal is marked for agreement with the verb – the subject noun. While we argue that ob- ject nouns are not marked for agreement, it is not the case that all object nouns are unmarked. We take up the issue of marking on object nouns in the following sections. ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (cited in Croft 1990: 130) have noted that agreement may be with a pri- ▇▇▇▇ object rather than with a direct object. Hence, agreement would occur with the goal of ditransi- tive verbs rather than with the theme. This would also mean that the patient of transitive verbs should license agreement. However, as the example in (36) illustrates, this is not the case in Lamnso (even in cases where the object is human or animate, properties conducive to agreement marking).
View SourceView Similar (2)
Agreement Hierarchy. The Agreement Hierarchy is a hierarchy of agreement positions postulated on the basis of data collected from a variety of languages that allow alternative agreements (ibid.). AH facilitates predictions about the likelihood of occurrence of syntactic or semantic agreements in a given target position: attributive > predicate > relative pronoun > personal pronoun The four positions indicate the domain where the agreement occurs: within the noun phrase, within the clause, within the sentence, and beyond the sentence. The AH imposes the following constraint on possible agreement patterns: For any controller that permits alternative agreements, as we move rightwards along the Agreement Hierarchy, the likelihood of agreement with greater semantic justification will increase monotonically (that is, with no intervening decrease). (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2006:207) 2.2.1. The hybrid controller величество ‘majesty’ permits alternative agreements: we find syntactic agreement in the attributive position [2b] and semantic agreement in the predicative position [3b]. Let us further observe the AH effect by looking at examples of agreement in the target positions further to the right of the hierarchy: [14] Relative pronoun 3SG.POSS.F majesty(N) ▇▇▇-▇.▇▇ never NEG обнаруживала удаления от справедливого и ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇.▇▇ withdrawal from fair CONJ разумного мира с королём прусским не зна-ет reasonable peace CONJ king prussian NEG know-3SG до until сего this дня day самого the.most главного important … ‘Her majesty, who has never considered withdrawing from peace with the Prussian king, to this day does not know the most crucial thing…’ (Soloviev Istorija Rossii s Drevnejschich Vremen 2017) Here we can see semantic feminine agreement expressed on the relative pronoun которая via the inflectional suffix -ая. As the hybrid controller величество ‘majesty’ has already been shown to permit semantic agreement in the predicative position [3b], the occurrence of semantic agreement in the relative pronoun position is no surprise and is in accord with the AH. [15] Personal pronoun9 Ее 3SG.POSS.F Величество majesty(N) плохо перенос-ит poorly tolerate-3SG путешествияпо travelling by воде water | И она очень сетова-л-а по поводу того, что в CONJ 3SG.F very ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇.▇▇ for reason such that in England autumnalways bad weather (▇▇▇▇▇▇ Lady on the Coin 1995 (Russian Translation by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇)) While it is impossible to say whether the predicate verb переносит ‘tolerates’ agrees with the controller syntac...
View SourceView Similar (2)

Related to Agreement Hierarchy

  • PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 5.1 The Employee agrees to participate in the performance management system that the Employer adopted for the employees of the Employer; 5.2 The Employee accepts that the purpose of the performance management system will be to provide a comprehensive system with specific performance standards to assist the employees and service providers to perform to the standards required; 5.3 The Employer must consult the Employee about the specific performance standards and targets that will be included in the performance management system applicable to the Employee; 5.4 The Employee undertakes to actively focus on the promotion and implementation of the key performance indicators (including special projects relevant to the employee’s responsibilities) within the local government framework; 5.5 The criteria upon which the performance of the Employee shall be assessed shall consist of two components, Operational Performance and Competencies both of which shall be contained in the Performance Agreement; 5.6 The Employee’s assessment will be based on his performance in terms of the outputs/outcomes (performance indicators) identified as per attached Performance Plan, which are linked to the KPAs, and will constitute 80% of the overall assessment result as per the weightings agreed to between the Employer and Employee; 5.7 The Competencies will make up the other 20% of the Employee’s assessment score. The Competencies are spilt into two groups, leading competencies (indicated in blue on the graph below) that drive strategic intent and direction and core competencies (indicated in green on the graph below), which drive the execution of the leading competencies. Strategic direc on and leadership People management Program and project management Financial management Change leadership Governance leadersip Moral competence Planning and organising Analysis and innova on Knowledge and informa on management Communica on Results and quality focus

  • AGREEMENT MANAGEMENT Pinellas Community Foundation designates the following person(s) as the liaison for the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, CEO Pinellas Community Foundation

  • FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT MANAGEMENT The Parties shall manage this Framework Agreement in accordance with Schedule 14 (Framework Management).

  • Local Health Integration Networks and Restructuring In the event of a health service integration with another service provider the Employer and the Union agree to meet. (a) The Employer shall notify affected employees and the Union as soon as a formal decision to integrate is taken. (b) The Employer and the Union shall begin discussions concerning the specifics of the integration forthwith after a decision to integrate is taken. (c) As soon as possible in the course of developing a plan for the implementation of the integration the Employer shall notify affected employees and the Union of the projected staffing needs, and their location.

  • Service Level Agreement 6.1 NCR Voyix will use commercially reasonable efforts to make the Service available to you at or above the Availability Rate set forth at ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇/support/aloha-sla. If NCR Voyix does not meet the Availability Rate, you are entitled to request a service-level credit subject to the terms of this Agreement. This credit is calculated as a percentage of the monthly recurring bill (or monthly pro rata share of billing, if billing does not occur monthly) for the Service for the month in which the Availability Rate was not met. The Availability Rate is determined by: (a) dividing the total number of valid outage minutes in a calendar month by the total number of minutes in that month; (b) subtracting that quotient from 1.00; (c) multiplying that difference by 100; and (d) rounding that result to two decimal places in accordance with standard rounding conventions. The number of outage minutes per day for a given service is determined by the lesser of the number of outage minutes. 6.2 Unavailability due to other conditions or caused by factors outside of NCR Voyix’s reasonable control will not be included in the calculation of the Availability Rate. Further, the following are expressly excluded from the calculation of the Availability Rate: (a) service unavailability affecting services or application program interfaces that are not used by you; (b) cases where fail-over to another data center is available but not utilized; (c) transient time-outs, required re-tries, or slower-than-normal response caused by factors outside of NCR Voyix’s reasonable control; (d) Scheduled Downtime, including maintenance and upgrades; (e) force majeure; (f) transmission or communications outages outside the NCR Voyix- controlled environment; (g) store-level down-time caused by factors outside of NCR Voyix’s reasonable control; (h) outages attributable to services, hardware, or software not provided by NCR Voyix, including, but not limited to, issues resulting from inadequate bandwidth or related to third-party software or services; (i) use of the Service in a manner inconsistent with the documentation for the application program interface or the NCR Voyix Product; (j) your Point of Sale (“POS”) failure or the failure to properly maintain the POS environment, including updating the POS firmware or version of the software running on the POS as recommended by either NCR Voyix, a third-party POS reseller or servicer; and (k) issues related to third party domain name system (“DNS”) errors or failures. 6.3 To obtain a service-level credit, you must submit a claim by contacting NCR Voyix through the website at ▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇/support/aloha-sla Your failure to provide the claim and other information will disqualify you from receiving a credit. NCR Voyix must receive claims within 60 days from the last day of the impacted month. After that date, claims are considered waived and will be refused. You must be in compliance with the Agreement in order to be eligible for a service-level credit. You may not unilaterally offset for any performance or availability issues any amount owed to NCR Voyix. If multiple Services experience an outage in a given month, the total credit for that month will be the highest credit allowed for any single Service which failed; there is no stacking of credits. 6.4 The remedies set forth in the Section are your sole and exclusive remedies for performance or availability issues affecting the Services, including any failure by NCR Voyix to achieve the Availability Rate.