In English, the defective verbs usually show no agreement for the person or the number, they contain the modal verbs: can, can, can, must, should, should. Far from being a curiosity of verbal concordance, the alternation between singular agreement and plural agreement is quite systematic beyond objectives. As shown below, the change is visible on both anaphores (2a,b) and pronouns (2c,d). In this section, we have seen that different parallels can be drawn between pluralistic agreements controlled by NPCs in English and semantic agreements in other languages, suggesting that this is the same phenomenon. In fact, this link is directly established in the approach I propose here: plural agreement is created when the NPC iF is the value used in agreement, and iFs are characteristics that are interpreted by semantics. Muskens R. (1996) Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143-186 Baker also shows that predictive predictors are also in harmony in Icelandic with their subject, suggesting that an agreement can also turn upwards (provided that the preacher does not at any time master the predictive subject (dikken 2007). House, I. 1982. The semantics of certain nomadic phrases. Dissertation, MIT.
To understand why pluralistic agreement does not allow the reading of the predicate, we need to understand the structural difference between the subject and predictive reading. For reading the theme, I guess the structure is this, the best committee moving from the pre-indicative XP ID to the channel subject position (Spec, TP) (see the Dikken Reference den Dikken2007). Given that semantic plurality seems to be able to be achieved without the additional element, it raises serious doubts as to the view that this additional element is responsible for plurality. Moreover, the parallels with the semantic agreement become mere coincidences, while the characteristics presented by a plural agreement reflect more general properties of semantic conformity known elsewhere. In addition to the restrictions observed by a plural demonstration agreement, there are three other discrepancies between the singular and plural agreements controlled by the NPCs. First, the existential constructs in English, as mentioned in Elbourne (Reference Elbourne, Hall, Hirotani and Tamanji199) and Munn (Reference Munn1999), do not allow for pluralistic convergence when the associated argument is a NPC (5).