Cover not available
Part of
Advances in the Syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case
Edited by Anna Bondaruk, Gréte Dalmi and Alexander Grosu
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 217] 2014
► pp. 61–94

Polish equatives as symmetrical structures

ORCID logo
The chapter focuses on the syntactic structure of true equatives in Polish, i.e. those sentences that contain two proper names or two pronouns flanking the pronominal copula to . These clauses differ considerably from both predicational and specificational sentences as regards verbal agreement and the Person-Case Constraint (PCC). Arguments are offered to prove that the two differences Polish equatives exhibit can be accounted for by positing a special symmetrical structure for this type of copular clause. The analysis is a modified version of Pereltsvaig’s (2001, 2007) proposal, based on Moro (2006) as well as Chomsky (2013). It relies on movement of one of the DPs from within a symmetrical structure to break up the initial symmetry which is triggered by the the need to label the symmetrical structure.
Published online: 14 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.217.03bon
References (56)
References
Adger, David & Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 325–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2007. Phase Syntax: The Polish Genitive of Negation. Habilitation dissertation, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna & Geist, Ljudmila. 2000. Kopulasätze mit den pronominalen Elementen to/ėto in Polnischen und Russischen. In Copular and AUX – Constructions[ZAS Papers in Linguistics 16], Ewald Lang (ed.), 115–139. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54(3): 354–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna. 2012. Person–Case Constraint effects in Polish copular constructions. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(1-2): 49–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. Interplay of feature inheritance and information structure in Polish inverse copular sentences. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Ninth Conference . Proceedings of FDSL 9, Göttingen 2011 [Linguistik International 28], Uwe Junghanns, Dorothee Fehrmann, Denisa Lenertová & Hagen Pitsch (eds), 37–65,Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2013b. Copular Clauses in English and Polish. Structure, Derivation and Interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1994. The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. In The Morphology-Syntax connection[MITWPL 22], Heidi Harley & Colin Phillips (eds), 33–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD dissertation, Amherst, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 134–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118: 261–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Symmetry in Syntax. Merge, Move and labels. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators as Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila. 2008. Predication and equation in copular sentences in Russian vs. English. InExistence, Syntax and Semantics, Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Ms, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Lexical Specification and Insertion [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 197], Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds) 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Gerd. 2001. On the perspectivisation of noun phrases in copula sentences, mainly in Polish: (Y) to (jest) X and similar phenomena. In Studies on the Syntax and Semantics of Slavonic Languages, Viktor S. Chrakovskij, Maciej Grochowski & Gerd Hentschel (eds), 161–213.Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Kroch, Anthony. 1999. Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2002. Multiple Agree. Paper presented at the 25th GLOW Workshop: Tools in Linguistic Theory, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel & Spyropoulos, Vassilios. 2013. Feature inheritance, VP phases and the information structure of small clauses. Studia Linguistica 67(2): 185–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Why are there no directionality parameters? Ms, New York University.Google Scholar
Lavine, James & Freidin, Robert. 2002. The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10: 253–289.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses. Specification, Predication and Equation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 85]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1990. There-raising: Principles across levels. Paper presented at the 13th Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) Colloquium, Cambridge.
. 1997. The Raising of Predicates. Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Some notes on unstable structures. Ms, Universitá Vita Salute San Raffaele.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1998. Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Verb-second as vP-first. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7(3): 179–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ott, Denis. 2011. Local Instability: The Syntax of Split Topics. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
. 2012. Local Instability: Split Topicalization and Quantifier Float in German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds), 115–143. Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1998. Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998, Katarzyna Dziwirek, Herbert Coats & Cynthia Vakareliyska (eds), 361–395. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
. 2007. Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-clausal Relations. New York NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew. 2010. Clefts. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan. 2008. The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What Moves Where When in Which Language. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2005. Person-Case effect in Tagalog and the nature of long-distance extraction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12], Jeffrey Heinz & Dimitrios Ntelitheos (eds), 383–394. Los Angeles CA: UCLA Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective Agree, Case alternations and the prominence of person. In Scales [Linguitische Arbeits Berichte 86], Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds), 137–161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Rivero, Maria Luisa. 2004. Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 494–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson. T. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4: 205–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2000. Subject positions and copular constructions. In Interface Strategies, Hans Bennis, Martin Everaert & Eric Reuland (eds), 325–347. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Slioussar, Natalia. 2007. Grammar and Information Structure. A Study with Reference to Russian. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Williams. Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(3): 423–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiśniewski, Marek. 1990. Formalnogramatyczny opis leksemów to. 2. Słowo to w funkcji spójnika, partykuły, czasownika niewłaściwego (The formal and grammatical description of lexemes to. 2. The word to in the function of conjunction, particle and improper verb). Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici Filologia polska XXXI(192): 91–119.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Djärv, Kajsa
2021. The syntax and semantics of Swedish copular sentences: a comparative perspective. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 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.