Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:55:18.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A remark on Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2017: Specificational subjects do have phi-features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2018

JUTTA M. HARTMANN  and
CAROLINE HEYCOCK
JUTTA M. HARTMANN*
Affiliation:
Institut für Deutsche Sprache
CAROLINE HEYCOCK*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
*
Author’s address: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Augustaanlage 32, D-68165, Mannheim, Germanyhartmann@ids-mannheim.de
Author’s address: University of Edinburgh, PPLS, 3 Charles Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9AD, Scotland, UKcaroline.heycock@ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a number of languages, agreement in specificational copular sentences can or must be with the second of the two nominals, even when it is the first that occupies the canonical subject position. Béjar & Kahnemuyipour (2017) show that Persian and Eastern Armenian are two such languages. They then argue that ‘NP2 agreement’ occurs because the nominal in subject position (NP1) is not accessible to an external probe. It follows that actual agreement with NP1 should never be possible: the alternative to NP2 agreement should be ‘default’ agreement. We show that this prediction is false. In addition to showing that English has NP1, not default, agreement, we present new data from Icelandic, a language with rich agreement morphology, including cases that involve ‘plurale tantum’ nominals as NP1. These allow us to control for any confound from the fact that typically in a specificational sentence with two nominals differing in number, it is NP2 that is plural. We show that even in this case, the alternative to agreement with NP2 is agreement with NP1, not a default. Hence, we conclude that whatever the correct analysis of specificational sentences turns out to be, it must not predict obligatory failure of NP1 agreement.

Keywords

agreementcopulaIcelandicplurale tantumspecificational clause
Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , 01 August 2018 , pp. 611 - 627
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

This research was partly supported by a British Academy/Leverhulme Trust Small Research Grant awarded to the two authors. We gratefully acknowledge this support. We would also like to express our thanks to Sigríður Mjöll Björnsdóttir for extensive work on the materials, to Höskuldur Thráinsson for having first pointed out to us the existence of the plurale tantum nominals that we make use of and helping us with the materials, and to Julia Restle for support with setting up the experiment on OnExp and processing the resulting data. We would also like to thank Peter Ackema for discussions of the nature of ‘default’ agreement, and the Journal of Linguistics reviewers for helpful remarks and suggestions. Last but not least, we would like to thank the participants in our experiment for their time and trouble.

References

Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen, Robertson, Daniel & Sorace, Antonella. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptablity. Language 72, 32–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2017. Non-canonical agreement in copular sentences. Journal of Linguistics 53.3, 463–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Rezac, Milan. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40.1, 35–73.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 1998. The resolution of number conflicts in English and German agreement patterns. Linguistics 36, 41–70.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty. 1992. The discourse function of inversion in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where’s Phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David & Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi Features Across Interfaces and Modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claus, Berry A., Meijer, Marlijn, Repp, Sophie & Krifka, Manfred. Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system. Semantics & Pragmatics; submitted.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2014. The attractions of agreement. Ms., Linguistics Program, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2008. Thermometer judgements as linguistic evidence. In Maria Riehl, Claudia & Rothe, Astrid (eds.), Was ist linguistische Evidenz?, 69–90. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Heycock, Caroline. 2016. Evading agreement: A new perspective on low nominative agreement in Icelandic. In Hammerly, Christopher & Prickett, Brandon (eds.), Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 2, 67–80. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Heycock, Caroline. 2017a. Toward an explanation for Person effects in low nominative agreement. Presentation at the Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop (CGSW) 32.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Heycock, Caroline. 2017b. Variation in copular agreement in Insular Scandinavian. In Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Heycock, Caroline, Petersen, Hjalmar P. & Hansen, Zakaris Svabo (eds.), Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian, 233–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2009. Agreement in specificational sentences in Faroese. Nordlyd (Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics) 36.2, 57–77.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57.2, 209–240.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Kroch, Anthony. 1998. Inversion and equation in copular sentences. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Fuhrhop, Nanna, Kleinhenz, Ursula & Law, Paul (eds.), Papers in Linguistics, vol. 10, 71–87. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (ZAS).Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. MIT, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 2005. Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 28.6, 687–737.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann & Holmberg, Anders. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. In D’Alessandro, Roberta, Fischer, Susann & Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn (eds.), Agreement Restrictions, 251–279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar