Landau (2016b) draws on data from person mismatches in partial control to argue that agreement is (at least sometimes) a PF (Phonological Form) phenomenon. The argument depends in part on the premise that there is a reading of sentences such as They wanted to prepare themselves and then meet for debate that corresponds to a structure in which the VP meet for debate has a controlled PRO subject that is semantically first‐person but morphologically third‐person. I argue that according to Landau's own assumptions, PRO in such sentences is not semantically first‐person at any level of representation: Landau's premise relies on a problematic conflation between PRO and the output obtained by applying the group operator to PRO in Landau's approach to partial control. Consequently, Landau's argument for the PF status of agreement does not go through.

中文翻译：

---

部分控制可能无法告诉我们有关协议的问题：对Landau的答复

Landau（2016b）借鉴了部分控制下人与人不匹配的数据，认为一致性（至少有时）是一种PF（语音形式）现象。该论点部分基于这样一个前提，即有一个句子，例如“他们想做好准备，然后开会辩论”，这与VP开会辩论的结构相对应。具有受控的PRO主题，该主题在语义上是第一人称，但在形态上是第三人称。我认为，根据Landau自己的假设，此类句子中的PRO在任何表示形式上都不是语义第一人称：Landau的前提依赖于PRO与在Landau的偏分法中将组运算符应用于PRO所获得的输出之间的问题混合控制。因此，Landau关于协议的PF地位的争论没有通过。