Article published in:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2019
Edited by Janine Berns and Elena Tribushinina
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 36] 2019
► pp. 130146


Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman
2018Features of person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian
1979Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2003The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: M. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
2008The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bard, Ellen, Daniel Robertson, & Antonella Sorace
1996 “Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptablity.” Language 72: 32–68. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susan & Arsalan Kahnemuyipour
2017 “Non-canonical agreement in copular sentences.” Journal of Linguistics 53: 463–499. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “Not all phi-features are created equal: A reply to Hartmann and Heycock.” Journal of Linguistics 54: 629–635. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2000 “Quirky agreement.” Studia Linguistica 54: 354–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 144 ]
den Dikken, Marcel
2006Relators and Linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Phase Extension Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction.” Theoretical Linguistics 33: 1–41. CrossrefGoogle 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 10, CrossrefGoogle 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.
2016The 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 Crossref
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 2, 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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
1988The 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 114: 651–673. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Stefan
2002Es-Clefts und det-Clefts: Zur Syntax, Semantik und Informationsstruktur von Spaltsätzen im Deutschen und Schwedischen. P. D. thesis, Lund University, Lund.Google Scholar
[ p. 145 ]
Mikkelsen, Line
2005Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
1997The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Information-structural restrictions on A-bar scrambling.” The Linguistic Review 27: 365–385. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel
2005 “Concealed questions and specificational subjects.” Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 687–737. CrossrefGoogle 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). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
1996 “Icelandic finite verb agreement.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 146 ]
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2020. (Morpho)syntactic Variation in Agreement: Specificational Copular Clauses Across Germanic. Frontiers in Psychology 10 Crossref logo
van Alem, Astrid & Sjef Barbiers
2021. Poor weak het ‘it’ and agreement patterns in pronominal clefts. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 october 2021. 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.