Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:34:38.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More on phi-features in and out of copular sentences: A reply to Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2018

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 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, Germany hartmann@ids-mannheim.de
Author’s address: University of Edinburgh,PPLS,3 Charles Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AD, Scotland, UK caroline.heycock@ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , 01 August 2018 , pp. 637 - 646
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.

References

Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana, Denniss, Jessica, Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan & Yokoyama, Tomohiro. forthcoming. Number matching in binominal small clauses. In Arche, María J., Fábregas, Antonio & Marin, Rafael (eds.), The grammar of copulas across languages (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2017. Non-canonical agreement in copular sentences. Journal of Linguistics 53.3, 463–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2018. Not all phi-features are created equal: A reply to Hartmann & Heycock 2018 . Journal of Linguistics 54.3, 629–635. [This issue]Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Rezac, Milan. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Perez-Leroux, Ana Teresa & Roberge, Yves (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57.2, 47–74; doi:10.1111/1467-9582.00099.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.), The 46th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 2, 67–80. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Heycock, Caroline. 2017. 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
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Heycock, Caroline. 2018. A remark on Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2017: Specificational subjects do have phi-features. Journal of Linguistics 54.3, 611–627. [This issue]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Roger. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ortmann, Albert. 2000. Where plural refuses to agree: Feature unification and morphological economy. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47, 249–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, Albert. 2002. Economy-based splits, constraints, and lexical representations. In Kaufmann, Ingrid & Stiebels, Barbara (eds.), More than words (Studia Grammatica), 147–177. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 68), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 16, 219–251.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