Refine
Document Type
- Article (6) (remove)
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Keywords
- Englisch (3)
- Icelandic (2)
- Kopulasatz (2)
- Satzakzent (2)
- Spaltsatz (2)
- Syntaktische Analyse (2)
- Syntax (2)
- agreement (2)
- copula (2)
- plurale tantum (2)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (2)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (2)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
- Peer-Review (2)
Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (3)
- Benjamins (1)
- Elsevier (1)
- Universität Leiden (1)
In this paper, I argue against the analyses of the there-construction by Moro (1997) and Hoekstra & Mulder (1990) and for an analysis in the frame of Williams (1994), Hazout (2004) from two angles. First of all, Moro and Hoekstra & Mulder do not correctly predict the behaviour of the there-construction under wh-movement; second, from a semantic point of view, the predicate in the small clause structure is the postverbal DP and not there. Alternatively, I follow the proposal by Williams (1994) in which there is the subject of predication and I will point out a direction to analyse the problematic wh-movement data within this framework.
Freezing in it-clefts
(2013)
This paper discusses a specific subclass of English it-clefts posited in the theoretical literature, so-called predicational clefts. The main point of the paper is to show that there is no need to postulate such a separate class. Predicational clefts look special because of the narrow focus on the adjective within an indefinite pivot, but their special properties can all be derived from this narrow focus in a focus analysis in which it-clefts express contrasting focus. Contrasting focus means that besides the assertion of the proposition expressed in the cleft, there is one contrasting proposition which is excluded. The focus on the adjective in apparent predicational clefts gives rise to a narrow set of relevant alternatives, all of which differ only in the adjectival property within the pivot. The analysis developed here can account for many of the observations for apparent predicational clefts. Other properties are shown to be not conclusive. Thus, predicational clefts need not be considered a special subclass beyond their special focus characteristics.
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.