Icelandic finite verb agreementVerb Agreement • July 19th, 2006
Contract Type FiledJuly 19th, 2006Nonagreement with nominative subjects would yield the underspecification in (36a).8 Conversely, agreement (of a verb or a predicate) with quirky subjects would result in the overspecification in (36b). Taraldsen (1994) suggests that featural overspecification of this sort is ruled out by the principle of econonmy of representation: instead of favoring smaller trees over bigger ones in the same candidate set, he suggests, "the relevant evluation metric actually counts specified features rather than nodes" (p. 49).
Icelandic finite verb agreementVerb Agreement • July 19th, 2006
Contract Type FiledJuly 19th, 2006Nonagreement with nominative subjects would yield the underspecification in (36a).8 Conversely, agreement (of a verb or a predicate) with quirky subjects would result in the overspecification in (36b). Taraldsen (1994) suggests that featural overspecification of this sort is ruled out by the principle of econonmy of representation: instead of favoring smaller trees over bigger ones in the same candidate set, he suggests, "the relevant evluation metric actually counts specified features rather than nodes" (p. 49).
Icelandic finite verb agreementVerb Agreement • July 19th, 2006
Contract Type FiledJuly 19th, 2006Nonagreement with nominative subjects would yield the underspecification in (36a).8 Conversely, agreement (of a verb or a predicate) with quirky subjects would result in the overspecification in (36b). Taraldsen (1994) suggests that featural overspecification of this sort is ruled out by the principle of econonmy of representation: instead of favoring smaller trees over bigger ones in the same candidate set, he suggests, "the relevant evluation metric actually counts specified features rather than nodes" (p. 49).