AGREE. 1. We grant you a non-exclusive licence to use the trade marks in relation to our Scheme in accordance with the TrustMark Brand Identity Guidelines, provided that such use is limited to the Stroma Certification certified trade sectors and is subject to this Agreement. Your right to use the trade marks will continue until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with paragraph 4 below.
AGREE. An (unvalued) probe [uφ: ] may enter into Agree with a goal [ψ:ω] (value ω), only if
AGREE. 1. To develop a certification system called "ecosystem friendly" in a first stage, in which only those tuna fisheries in which vessels with Dolphin Mortality Limits (DMLs) operate shall be eligible to receive certification. This does not prevent vessels that operate without DML is from using other types of cer- tification.
AGREE. Agree that all of the Borrower Documents remain in full force and effect, as expressly modified or altered by or in connection with this Agreement.
AGREE. You agree to:
AGREE. To promote education, culture, and research by means of this Specific Collaboration Agreement, integrating this educational initiative into the broader framework of the promotion of knowledge and skills between the programs of the two institutions set forth in this Collaboration Agreement. Both institutions agree to the following TERMS
AGREE. The mechanism of subject-verb agreement by c-command (‘AGREE’) proposed by Xxxxxxx (1998) is apparently designed to deal with agreement in expletive constructions of the type in (15):
AGREE. For purposes of implementing provisions in Article 13, Faculty Structure, the following shall apply: 5=Outstanding; 4=Highly Proficient; 3=Proficient; 2=Needs Improvement; 1=Unsatisfactory. PLEASE ADD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE ABOUT THE INSTRUCTOR:
AGREE. Following Xxxxxxx 2000, Xxxxxxx 2001, and much subsequent work, I take agreement morphol- ogy to be the result of a feature valuation relationship relationship between a probe with unvalued φ-features and a goal DP. The probe searches the derivation for a φ-feature-bearing element (ob- ject agreement with v0 is schematized in (3)); when an Agree relation is established, the probe’s φ-features are valued, and spelled out as agreement. Pronominal clitics, in contrast, are essentially small, morphologically-bound pronouns. Under a movement approach to clitic-doubling, as schematized in (4), clitics are D0 elements which move from inside a larger DP to attach to a functional head such as T0 (Anagnostopoulou 2003) or v0 (Xxxxxx 2011). The generation and/or movement of pronominal clitics may be the result of an Agree relation, though the crucial difference between these and “true” agreement morphemes is that clitics are D0 heads while pure agreement morphology is the morphological realization of features which have been valued by Agree; see discussion in Harizanov 2014, Xxxxxx 2014, and Xxxxxxxxx 2014. Many languages show phonological differences between pronominal clitics and agreement morphemes—the former behaving as phonological clitics, and the latter as affixes— though this correlation is not perfect. We return to this issue in section 4. In this paper I argue that Ch’ol utilizes both strategies: Set A morphemes are agreement, while Set B markers are pronominal clitics. In the verbal domain, I argue that the Set A markers spell out an agreement relationship between transitive v0 and the transitive subject in its base position, as shown in (5).
AGREE. On the surface, an approach to complementizer agreement based on a syntactic Agree relation along the lines of (Xxxxxxx 2000, 2001) seems intuitive, given that this is an agreement phenomenon.37 If Xxxxx (2008) and Xxxxxxxxx (2010) are on the right track, heads are capable of probing upwards to find a goal for Agree, which would at least in principle allow such an agreement relation where embedded Cº is the probe and the matrix subject is the goal. That being said, beyond the question of allowing an ‘upward’ agreement relation, there are a number of problematic issues for a standard Agree approach to Lubukusu complementizer agreement. The predominant problem is the lack of intervention effects by non-subject DPs: complementizers agree with subjects even in the event that there is an intervening indirect object, or ‘causee’ in a causative verb. On most standard accounts of double object constructions and applicative constructions, the indirect object (i.e. applied object) is structurally higher than the second object, but structurally lower than the subject, and therefore should intervene in any Agree relation between embedded Cº and the matrix subject, an empirical roadblock that I consider fatal to an Agree approach to Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Beyond this, it is not clear how an Agree approach would deal with agreement out of DPs as well, further reason to abandon this approach.
