Part II: Selected papers presented at the Dutch Annual Linguistics Day
of 2019
Restrictions on “Low” person agreement in Dutch specificational
copular constructions
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.
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
References
Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman
2018 Features of person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Akmajian, Adrian
1979 Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. New York: Garland.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2003 The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: M. de Gruyter.
Baker, Mark C.
2008 The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bard, Ellen, Daniel Robertson, & Antonella Sorace
1996 “
Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptablity.”
Language 721: 32–68.
Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac
Béjar, Susan & Arsalan Kahnemuyipour
2017 “
Non-canonical agreement in copular sentences.”
Journal of Linguistics 531: 463–499.
Béjar, Susan & Arsalan Kahnemuyipour
2018 “
Not all phi-features are created equal: A reply to Hartmann and
Heycock.”
Journal of Linguistics 541: 629–635.
Boeckx, Cedric
2000 “
Quirky agreement.”
Studia Linguistica 541: 354–380.
den Dikken, Marcel
2006 Relators and Linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion,
and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
den Dikken, Marcel
2007 “
Phase Extension Contours of a theory of the role of head movement
in phrasal extraction.”
Theoretical Linguistics 331: 1–41.
den Dikken, Marcel
2014 “
The attractions of agreement.” Ms., Linguistics Program, CUNY Graduate Center.
den Dikken, Marcel
2019 “
The Attractions of Agreement: Why Person Is
Different.”
Frontiers in Psychology 101,
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.
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.
Hartmann, Jutta M.
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
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.
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2018a “
Person effects in Low Nominative Agreement in Icelandic: Bringing
new data to bear.” Manuscript.
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2018b “
A remark on Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2017: Specificational
subjects do have phi-features.”
Journal of Linguistics 54(03): 611–627.
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2018c “
Agreement in Copula Clauses: Evidence for a dual mechanism of
agreement.” Manuscript.
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
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.
Heycock, Caroline
2012 “
Specification, equation, and agreement in copular
sentences.”
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/ Revue canadienne de
linguistique 57(2): 209–240.
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.
Holmberg, Anders & Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir
2004 “
Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising
constructions.”
Lingua 1141: 651–673.
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.
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.
Moro, Andrea
1997 The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of
clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot
2008 “
Dutch Scrambling and the nature of discourse
templates.”
Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11(2): 137–189.
Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot
2010 “
Information-structural restrictions on A-bar
scrambling.”
The Linguistic Review 271: 365–385.
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.
Preminger, Omer
2014 Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Romero, Maribel
2005 “
Concealed questions and specificational subjects.”
Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6): 687–737.
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.
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).
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
1996 “
Icelandic finite verb agreement.”
Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 571: 1–46.
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.
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2020.
(Morpho)syntactic Variation in Agreement: Specificational Copular Clauses Across Germanic.
Frontiers in Psychology 10
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.
van Alem, Astrid & Sjef Barbiers
2021.
Poor weakhet‘it’ and agreement patterns in pronominal clefts.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 53:2
► pp. 221 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 march 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.