<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P95-1010">
  <Title>Features and Agreement</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> This paper contrasts the treatment of agreement phenomena in standard complex feature structure or 'unification-based' grammars such as HPSG (Pollard and Sag, 1994) with that of perhaps the simplest possible feature extension to Lambek Categorial Grammar (LCG) (Lambek, 1958). We identify a number of situations where the two accounts make different predictions, and find that generally the LCG account is superior. In the process we provide analyses for a number of constructions that have been recognized as problematic for 'unification-based' accounts of agreements (Zaenen and Karttunen, 1984; Pullum and Zwicky, 1986; Ingria, 1990). Our account builds on the analysis of coordination in applicative categorial grammar in Bayer (1994) and the treatment of Boolean connectives in LCG provided by Morrill (1992). Our analysis is similiar to that proposed by Mineur (1993), but differs both in its application and details.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The next section describes the version of LCG we use in this paper; for reasons of space we assume familiarity with the treatment of agreement in 'unification-based' grammars, see Shieber (1986) and Pollard and Sag (1994) for details. Then each of the follow*We would like to thank Bob Carpenter, Pauline Jacobson, John Maxwell, Glynn Morrill and audiences at Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania and the UniversitPSt Stuttgart for helpful comments on this work. Naturally all errors remain our own.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> ing sections up to the conclusion discusses an important difference between the two approaches.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>