Common use of Agreement Hierarchy Clause in Contracts

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).

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 nomin- als 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’ ‗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 ‗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. ▇▇▇▇▇ Givón and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Moravcsik (cited in Croft 1990: 130) have noted that agreement may be with a pri- ▇▇▇▇ prima- ry object rather than with a direct object. Hence, agreement would occur with the goal of ditransi- tive ditransitive verbs rather than with the theme. This would also mean that the patient of transitive verbs should license li- cense 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).