Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2019
Edited by Janine Berns and Elena Tribushinina
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 36] 2019
► pp. 130–146
Part II: Selected papers presented at the Dutch Annual Linguistics Day of 2019

Restrictions on “Low” person agreement in Dutch specificational copular constructions

| IDS Mannheim
| University of Edinburgh
Agreement between the verb and its arguments as a predominant phenomenon in language has received major attention in the theoretical literature. One specific aspect under discussion concerns differences between number and person agreement, with the latter being the more restricted one (restricted by Baker’s 2008 SCOPA, by variants of the Person Licensing Condition of Béjar & Rezac 2003, or by multiple agreement see Schütze 2003; Ackema & Neeleman 2018). In this paper we address the restrictions on person agreement with a nominative noun phrase in a low position by investigating a relatively little-discussed configuration, namely specificational copular constructions in Dutch such as dat de inspiratie voor deze roman niet jij %bent/??is. We provide data from both a production and a rating study comparing 3/2 person agreement and show that what initially looks like a “person effect” in Dutch turns out to be a pronoun effect.
Keywords: Dutch, person agreement, copular constructions, syntax
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: “Low” person agreement and specificational copular clauses
  • 2.Production study
    • 2.1Method and participants
    • 2.2Conditions and materials
    • 2.3Results and statistical analysis
    • 2.4Summary
  • 3.Rating study
    • 3.1Method and participants
    • 3.2Conditions and materials
    • 3.3Results and statistical analysis
    • 3.4Summary
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 5 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00028.har
References (42)
References
Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 2018. Features of person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1979. Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: M. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bard, Ellen, Daniel Robertson, & Antonella Sorace. 1996. “Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptablity.” Language 721: 32–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac. 2003. “Person licensing and the derivation of PCC Effects.” Romance Linguistics: Theory and acquisition ed. by A. T. Perez-Leroux and Y. Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susan & Arsalan Kahnemuyipour. 2017. “Non-canonical agreement in copular sentences.” Journal of Linguistics 531: 463–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Not all phi-features are created equal: A reply to Hartmann and Heycock.” Journal of Linguistics 541: 629–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. “Quirky agreement.” Studia Linguistica 541: 354–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Phase Extension Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction.” Theoretical Linguistics 331: 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “The attractions of agreement.” Ms., Linguistics Program, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
. 2019. “The Attractions of Agreement: Why Person Is Different.” Frontiers in Psychology 101, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2008. “Thermometer judgements as linguistic evidence.” Was ist linguistische Evidenz? ed. by C. M. Riehl and A. Rothe, 69–90. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Gerbrich, Hannah, Vivian Schreier, & Sam Featherston. to appear. “Standard items for English judgement studies: Syntax and Semantics.” Information structure and semantic processing ed. by S. Featherston, R. Hörnig, S. von Wietersheim and S. Winkler. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hartmann, Jutta M. 2016. The Syntax and Focus Structure of Specificational Copular Clauses and Clefts. Habilitationsschrift, Tübingen University.Google Scholar
to appear. “Focus and prosody in nominal copular clauses.” Information structure and semantic processing ed. by S. Featherston, R. Hörnig, S. von Wietersheim and S. Winkler. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock. 2016. “Evading agreement: A new perspective on low nominative agreement in Icelandic.” Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), ed. by C. Hammerly and B. Prickett, Volume 21, 67–80. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Variation in copular agreement in Insular Scandinavian.” ed. by H. Thráinsson, C. Heycock, H. P. Petersen and Z. Svabo Hansen, 233–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018a. “Person effects in Low Nominative Agreement in Icelandic: Bringing new data to bear.” Manuscript.Google Scholar
. 2018b. “A remark on Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2017: Specificational subjects do have phi-features.” Journal of Linguistics 54(03): 611–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018c. “Agreement in Copula Clauses: Evidence for a dual mechanism of agreement.” Manuscript.Google Scholar
. Submitted. “(Morpho)syntactic Variation in Agreement: Specificational Copular Clauses across Germanic.” Frontiers in Psychology.
Heggie, Lorie. 1988. The syntax of copular constructions. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2012. “Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/ Revue canadienne de linguistique 57(2): 209–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch. 2002. “Topic, focus, and syntactic representation.” Proceedings of WCCFL 21 ed. by L. Mikkelsen and C. Potts, 141–165. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2004. “Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions.” Lingua 1141: 651–673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huber, Stefan. 2002. Es-Clefts und det-Clefts: Zur Syntax, Semantik und Informationsstruktur von Spaltsätzen im Deutschen und Schwedischen. P. D. thesis, Lund University, Lund.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1991. “The raising of predicates: Copula, expletives, and existence.” More papers on Wh-movement ed. by L. Cheng and H. Demirdache, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 119–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot. 2008. “Dutch Scrambling and the nature of discourse templates.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11(2): 137–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Information-structural restrictions on A-bar scrambling.” The Linguistic Review 271: 365–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2011. “Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: a commentary on Baker’s SCOPA.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(4): 917–937. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 2005. “Concealed questions and specificational subjects.” Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 687–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 2003. “Syncretism and double agreement with Icelandic nominative objects.” Grammar in Focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack ed. by L.-O. Delsing, C. Falk, G. Josefsson and H. Á. Sigurðsson, 295–303. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur and Luigi Rizzi. 2018. “Criterial freezing in small clauses and the cartography of copular constructions.” Freezing ed. by J. M. Hartmann, M. Jäger, A. Kehl, A. Konietzko, and S. Winkler. 29–65. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. “Icelandic finite verb agreement.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 571: 1–46.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldor Ármann & Anders Holmberg. 2008. “Icelandic Dative Intervention: Person and number are separate probes.” Agreement Restrictions ed. by R. D’Alessandro, S. Fischer and G. H. Hrafnbjargarson, 251–279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1996. “Reflexives, pronouns, and subject/V agreement in Icelandic and Faroese.” Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation ed. by J. Black and V. Motopanyane, 189–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ussery, Cherlon. 2017. “Dimensions of variation: Agreement with nominative objects in Icelandic.” Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian ed. by H. Thráinsson, C. Heycock, H. P. Petersen and Z. Svabo Hansen, 165–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

van Alem, Astrid & Sjef Barbiers
2021. Poor weakhet‘it’ and agreement patterns in pronominal clefts. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 53:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2020. (Morpho)syntactic Variation in Agreement: Specificational Copular Clauses Across Germanic. Frontiers in Psychology 10 DOI logo
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2023. Person effects in agreement with Icelandic low nominatives: An experimental investigation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41:3 ► pp. 1029 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.