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. 233–276
Variation in copular agreement in Insular Scandinavian
Published online: 18 July 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.1.09har
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.1.09har
Abstract
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
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: Agreement with low nominatives in Insular Scandinavian
- 2.Specificational sentences
- 3.Specificational agreement in Faroese
- 3.1Design, methodology, materials, subjects
- 3.2Results and preliminary discussion
- 4.Specificational agreement in Icelandic: Number
- 4.1Introduction
- 4.2Conditions and materials
- 4.3Procedure and participants
- 4.4Data treatment and results
- 4.5Summary and preliminary discussion
- 5.Specificational agreement in Icelandic: Person
- 5.1Introduction
- 5.2Conditions and materials
- 5.3Procedure and participants
- 5.4Data treatment and results
- 5.5Summary and discussion
- 6.Accounting for agreement in specificational sentences
- 6.1Different landing sites for DP1
- 6.2Agreement features in Comp
- 6.3Partial agreement
- 6.4Alternative accounts
- 7.Summary and future work
Notes References
References (36)
Ackema, Peter and Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Mark. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A Theory of Agreement. Ph. D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.
Bejar, Susana and Arsalan Kahnemuyipour. To appear. “Non-canonical agreement in copular sentences.” Journal of Linguistics, 53.3.
Berg, Thomas. 1998. “The Resolution of Number Conflicts in English and German Agreement Patterns.” Linguistics 36: 41–70.
. 2006a. Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas, Volume 47 of Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
. 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.
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.
Hartmann, Jutta M. and Caroline Heycock. 2014. “Agreement in Copula Clauses: Evidence for a Dual Mechanism of Agreement.” Talk given at GLOW 37.
Heggie, Lorie. 1988. The Syntax of Copular Structures. Ph. D. thesis, University of Southern California.
Helgason, Pétur. 1993. On Coarticulation and Connected Speech Processes in Icelandic. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.
Heycock, Caroline. 2009. “Agreement in Specificational Sentences in Faroese.” Nordlyd (Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics) 36(2), 56–77.
. 2012. “Specification, Equation, and Agreement in Copular Sentences.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57(2), 209–240.
Holmberg, Anders and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2004. “Agreement and Movement in Icelandic Raising Constructions.” Lingua 114: 651–673.
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.
. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation, Volume 85 of Linguistik Aktuell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 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.
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.
. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Romero, Maribel. 2005. “Concealed Questions and Specificational Subjects.” Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6), 687–737.
. 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.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. “Icelandic Finite Verb Agreement.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57:1–46.
. 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.
. 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.
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.
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
Jurczyk, Rafał
Bejar, Susana & Arsalan Kahnemuyipour
Lyutikova, E. A. & A. A. Gerasimova
Djärv, Kajsa
Heycock, Caroline
HARTMANN, JUTTA M. & CAROLINE HEYCOCK
HARTMANN, JUTTA M. & CAROLINE HEYCOCK
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2019. Restrictions on “Low” person agreement in Dutch specificational
copular constructions. Linguistics in the Netherlands 36 ► pp. 130 ff.
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. 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.
