Chapter published in:
Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian
Edited by Höskuldur Thráinsson, Caroline Heycock, Hjalmar P. Petersen and Zakaris Svabo Hansen
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 1] 2017
► pp. 234–275

Variation in copular agreement in Insular Scandinavian

| IDS Mannheim
| University of Edinburgh
This paper explores the syntax of agreement in Insular Scandinavian in copular clauses with two potential goals for agreement. Data from three production experiments – one in Faroese and two in Icelandic – establish several new facts. First, in both languages agreement with the second nominal (DP2) is possible/preferred. Second, there is considerable variation (both within and between languages, and indeed speakers) in the patterns observed. Third, Icelandic shows a surprising pattern of "partial" agreement with DP2 – agreement in number but not person. We discuss the implications for current theorising about agreement, proposing that in these languages, at least, agreement is downwards, and that the available agreement options depend in part on the syntactic position of DP1 when agreement is established.
Keywords: Icelandic, Faroese, copular clauses, agreement, phi-features, inversion
Published online: 18 July 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.1.09har
References

References

Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman
2004 Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Árnason, Kristján
2011 The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark
2008 The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana
2003 Phi-syntax: A Theory of Agreement. Ph. D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
Bejar, Susana and Arsalan Kahnemuyipour
To appear. “Non-canonical agreement in copular sentences.” Journal of Linguistics, 53.3.
Béjar, Susana and Milan Rezac
2009 “Cyclic Agree.” Linguistic Inquiry 40(1: 35–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas
1998 “The Resolution of Number Conflicts in English and German Agreement Patterns.” Linguistics 36: 41–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2000 “Quirky Agreement.” Studia Linguistica 54:354–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
1993 “Predicate Inversion and Minimality.” Ms., Free University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
2006a Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas, Volume 47 of Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2006b “Specificational Copular Sentences and Pseudo-clefts: A Case Study.” In Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Volume IV, pp. 272–409. Oxford, New York: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014, February. “The Attractions of Agreement.” Ms., Linguistics Program, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Fischer, Golda
2003 “The Problem is/are your Parents: Resolving Number Conflicts in Equative Sentences in Dutch and German.” Undergraduate Honours Dissertation in Linguistics, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. and Caroline Heycock
2014 “Agreement in Copula Clauses: Evidence for a Dual Mechanism of Agreement.” Talk given at GLOW 37.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie
1988 The Syntax of Copular Structures. Ph. D. thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Helgason, Pétur
1993 On Coarticulation and Connected Speech Processes in Icelandic. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
2009 “Agreement in Specificational Sentences in Faroese.” Nordlyd (Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics) 36(2), 56–77.Google Scholar
2012 “Specification, Equation, and Agreement in Copular Sentences.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57(2), 209–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Francis R.
1979 The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir
2004 “Agreement and Movement in Icelandic Raising Constructions.” Lingua 114: 651–673. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line
2002 “Specification is not Inverted Predication.” In Masako Hirotani (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 32, Amherst, MA, pp. 403–422. GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
2005 Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation, Volume 85 of Linguistik Aktuell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Copular Clauses.” In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International Hanbook of Natural Language Meaning, Volume 33 of HSK, Chapter 68, pp. 1805–1829. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea
1991 “The Raising of Predicates: Copula, Expletives and Existence.” In Lisa Cheng and Hamida Demirdash (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15, pp. 183–218. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
1997 The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer
2011 Agreement as a Fallible Operation. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel
2005 “Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects.” Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6), 687–737. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Connectivity in a Unified Analysis of Specificational Subjects and Concealed Questions.” In Chris Barker and Pauline Jacobson (Eds.), Direct Compositionality, pp. 264–305. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
1996 “Icelandic Finite Verb Agreement.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57:1–46.Google Scholar
2000 “The Locus of Case and Agreement.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65: 65–108.Google Scholar
2004 “Agree and Agreement: Evidence from Germanic.” In Werner Abraham (Ed.), Focus on Germanic Typology, Volume 6 of Studia Typologica, pp. 61–103. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2006 “The Nom/Acc Alternation in Germanic.” In Jutta M. Hartmann and Laszlo Molnárfi (Eds.), Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax, Volume 97 of Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, pp. 13–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann and Anders Holmberg
2008 “Icelandic Dative Intervention: Person and Number are Separate Probes.” In Roberta D’Alessandro, Suzann Fischer, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson (Eds.), Agreement Restrictions, pp. 251–279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
2007 The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jógvan. í Lon Jacobsen, and Zakaris Svabo Hansen
2004 Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar. Tórshavn: Faroese Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Einar Freyr Sigurðsson, and Jóhannes Gisli Jónsson
2015 Samræmi (agreement). In Tilbrigði i íslenskri setningagerð, Volume II, Chapter 12, pp. 203–231. Reykjavik: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

HARTMANN, JUTTA M. & CAROLINE HEYCOCK
2018. A remark on Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2017: Specificational subjects do have phi-features. Journal of Linguistics 54:3 ► pp. 611 ff. Crossref logo
HARTMANN, JUTTA M. & CAROLINE HEYCOCK
2018. More on phi-features in and out of copular sentences: A reply to Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2018. Journal of Linguistics 54:3 ► pp. 637 ff. Crossref logo
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2019. Restrictions on “Low” person agreement in Dutch specificational copular constructions. Linguistics in the Netherlands 36 ► pp. 130 ff. Crossref logo
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2020. (Morpho)syntactic Variation in Agreement: Specificational Copular Clauses Across Germanic. Frontiers in Psychology 10 Crossref logo
Heycock, Caroline
2020.  In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2020. 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.