Ritter, D. ElizabethHanson, Rebecca2005-08-192005-08-192003Hanson, R. (2003). Why can't we all just agree?: animacy and the person case constraint (Master's thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada). Retrieved from https://prism.ucalgary.ca. doi:10.11575/PRISM/12744061287267Xhttp://hdl.handle.net/1880/42486Bibliography: p. 127-133Many typologically diverse languages exhibit a restriction on the objects of a ditransitive verb: in the presence of indirect object agreement, direct object agreement may not be 1st or 2nd person (Bonet 1991; Albizu 1997) or 3rd person animate (Ormazabal and Romero 2002). This restriction is known as the Person Case Constraint (PCC). In this thesis, I assume that the PCC effects derive from general grammatical principles that conspire to produce the observed restrictions. My analysis rests on four claims: 1) the person/number/gender features of both objects are encoded only in verb agreement, while the objects themselves are featurally-deficient pro's; 2) these pro's receive their interpretation by having the agreement features copied onto them; 3) the copying procedure for both null object is moderated by a single functional head; and 4) if both agreement feature sets are specified for the feature [Sentient], the resulting ambiguity will disable the copying mechanism.ix, 133 leaves : ill. ; 30 cm.engUniversity of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.AC1 .T484 2003 H365master thesishttp://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/12744AC1 .T484 2003 H365