In O'Dwyer's case, agreement seems to have allowed plea-bargaining to take place before the painful process of removal from the UK.
In this case, agreement before the fact can't help.
However, I am skeptical of their Case agreement analysis for a number of reasons.
At first glance, the Case agreement seems to be compatible with the proposed complex predicate analysis of the double transitives/applicatives in Tsou, given that a major and a secondary predicate each encode a Case agreement feature in its domain.
In the former case, agreement will be possible by working back to the principle, and setting out once more from there; in the second case, apparent agreement will only be skin-deep.
For Rackowski and Richards (2005), the grammatical agreement yields a four-way distinction of Case agreement markers on the verb, viz., nominative vs. accusative vs. dative vs. oblique.
As surveyed in sections The grammatical agreement approach-The Case agreement approach, the Austronesian "focus/voice" system is analyzed as an agreement between a functional head and the trigger in its original position/Case in the grammatical agreement approach.
The little v agrees with the shifted object in Case and the Case agreement is graphically encoded on the verb in Tagalog, as exemplified in 29b-d below.
It ignores the many aspects of grammar that are not recursive, such as phonology, morphology, case, agreement, and many properties of words.
I am largely in line with Rackowski and Richards's phase-based account, but I have reservations for their Case agreement analysis.
Last but not least, their Case agreement analysis faces the same challenges as the grammatical agreement approach; the most challenging fact is the occurrences of double transitives/applicatives in Tsou and Bunun.
