If none of the options are correct, select „none of the above options“. In a sentence with a compound verb, each verb (dots: 1) can have a different subject, must have the same subject, must not have Corbett, Greville. 1979, the hierarchy of agreements. Linguistics Review 15:203-224. By collecting evidence of the different texts, genres and eras that make up our corpus, this survey confirmed the importance of the strategy of double agreement on related topics. The distribution of AR and AP remains fluid and variable across all our data. At the same time, our Model B proves that AP is not an exception, but a solidly established sa construction. The PA`s impressive quantitative relevance suggests that this is more than just a deviation from rigid syntactic behavior. On the contrary, semantic and discursive factors influence the choice of this or that construction. For the Alcmanicum scheme for which this phrase is particularly well known, see section 2.3. In the AP, the cognitive and linguistic link between the subject trigger and the verb thus appears closer: when the subjects are realized on the same line and the verb appears below, plural overrealization is more frequent than the singular. But what is clear is the stronger connection between the topics that form the coherent sentence of AR.
While, as we have seen, the link between them is extremely rare, sending can quite often separate the verb from the related topics (see z.B Ex. 1, above). On the contrary, the tendency to RA, when human subjects are involved, is undeniable. Within the Animacy value groups, expressions associated with all human subjects are the only class in which RPA exceeds. The correlation between the animacy of the subjects and the match structure is confirmed by a chi-square test for independence: non-singular convergence is strongly favored in animated subjects and just as strongly disapproved by inanimate coordinated subjects. After the chi-square independence test, this correlation is very important.35 This statement (discussed in light of ga data in point 2.2) is invoked by Spyropoulos (2011) for Modern Greek and is sometimes taken for granted in the interpretation of the PA in Ancient Greek (e.g. B Guess and Stephens 2000: 158-159). but has been the subject of heated discussion. Contrary explicitly to the clause, most current accounts (Munn 2000; van Koppen 2007); Bošković 2009) expect the PA to develop in the context of phrasal coordination. .