Common use of The special status of PF Clause in Contracts

The special status of PF. The general conception that PF may be the component where the phenomenon of CCA happens is not far-fetched. Linear proximity and adjacency are notions that use PF vocabulary rather than syntax vocabulary. Therefore, if linear adjacency is involved in CCA, the phenomenon is likely to belong in the PF component. Also, there is a growing literature that suggests that, though agreement may take place in the syntax, the way the features are spelled-out may not be “faithful” to the syntactic component. For example, features may get altered (for instance, through impoverishment) as discussed by ▇▇▇▇▇ (1992), or a feature maybe absent (as is the case with the number feature in the VSO order in Arabic—Benmamoun 2000). CCA seems to be of the same type—a somewhat impoverished agreement relation that takes place under adjacency with one single conjunct. There are also echoes of this idea in constraint- based approaches where pressures from one constraint may yield an output that violates a faithfulness constraint, cf. Badecker (2007). For example, French has one form for the masculine demonstrative singular and one for the feminine demonstrative singular, yet the feminine form

The special status of PF. The general conception that PF may be the component where the phenomenon of CCA happens is not far-fetched. Linear proximity and adjacency are notions that use PF vocabulary rather than syntax vocabulary. Therefore, if linear adjacency is involved in CCA, the phenomenon is likely to belong in the PF component. Also, there is a growing literature that suggests that, though agreement may take place in the syntax, the way the features are spelled-out may not be “faithful” to the syntactic component. For example, features may get altered (for instance, through impoverishment) as discussed by ▇▇▇▇▇ Noyer (1992), or a feature maybe absent (as is the case with the number feature in the VSO order in Arabic—Benmamoun 2000). CCA seems to be of the same type—a somewhat impoverished agreement relation that takes place under adjacency with one single conjunct. There are also echoes of this idea in constraint- based approaches where pressures from one constraint may yield an output that violates a faithfulness constraint, cf. Badecker (2007). For example, French has one form for the masculine demonstrative singular and one for the feminine demonstrative singular, yet the feminine form