1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Advances in the Syntax of DPs
  4. Chapter

Polish equatives as symmetrical structures

image of Polish equatives as symmetrical structures

The chapter focuses on the syntactic structure of true equatives in Polish, i.e. those sentences that contain two proper names or two pronouns flanking the pronominal copula to . These clauses differ considerably from both predicational and specificational sentences as regards verbal agreement and the Person-Case Constraint (PCC). Arguments are offered to prove that the two differences Polish equatives exhibit can be accounted for by positing a special symmetrical structure for this type of copular clause. The analysis is a modified version of Pereltsvaig’s (2001, 2007) proposal, based on Moro (2006) as well as Chomsky (2013). It relies on movement of one of the DPs from within a symmetrical structure to break up the initial symmetry which is triggered by the the need to label the symmetrical structure.

References

  1. Adger, David & Ramchand, Gillian
    2003 Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry34: 325–360. doi: 10.1162/002438903322247515
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903322247515 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    2003 The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Błaszczak, Joanna
    2007 Phase Syntax: The Polish Genitive of Negation. Habilitation dissertation, University of Potsdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Błaszczak, Joanna & Geist, Ljudmila
    2000 Kopulasätze mit den pronominalen Elementen to/ėto in Polnischen und Russischen. InCopular and AUX – Constructions[ZAS Papers in Linguistics 16], Ewald Lang (ed.), 115–139. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boeckx, Cedric
    2000 Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica54(3): 354–380. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9582.00070
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00070 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bondaruk, Anna
    2012 Person–Case Constraint effects in Polish copular constructions. Acta Linguistica Hungarica59(1-2): 49–84. doi: 10.1556/ALing.59.2012.1‑2.3
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.59.2012.1-2.3 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013a Interplay of feature inheritance and information structure in Polish inverse copular sentences. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Ninth Conference . Proceedings of FDSL 9, Göttingen2011 [Linguistik International 28], Uwe Junghanns , Dorothee Fehrmann , Denisa Lenertová & Hagen Pitsch (eds), 37–65, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2013b Copular Clauses in English and Polish. Structure, Derivation and Interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonet, Eulàlia
    1991 Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 1994 The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. InThe Morphology-Syntax connection[MITWPL 22], Heidi Harley & Colin Phillips (eds), 33–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1984 Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD dissertation, Amherst, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InStep by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin , David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2001 Derivation by phase. InKen Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 On phases. InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin , Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 134–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013 Problems of projection. Lingua130: 33–49. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Citko, Barbara
    2008 Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua118: 261–295. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011 Symmetry in Syntax. Merge, Move and labels. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511794278
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511794278 [Google Scholar]
  19. den Dikken, Marcel
    2006 Relators as Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas[Linguistic Inquiry Monographs]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fiengo, Robert and May, Robert
    1994 Indices and Identity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Geist, Ljudmila
    2008 Predication and equation in copular sentences in Russian vs. English. InExistence, Syntax and Semantics, Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6197‑4_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grimshaw, Jane
    1991 Extended projection. Ms, Brandeis University.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 2000 Locality and extended projection. InLexical Specification and Insertion [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 197], Peter Coopmans , Martin Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds)115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.197.07gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.197.07gri [Google Scholar]
  24. Hentschel, Gerd
    2001 On the perspectivisation of noun phrases in copula sentences, mainly in Polish: (Y) to (jest) X and similar phenomena. InStudies on the Syntax and Semantics of Slavonic Languages, Viktor S. Chrakovskij , Maciej Grochowski & Gerd Hentschel (eds), 161–213. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Heycock, Caroline & Kroch, Anthony
    1999 Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry30: 365–397. doi: 10.1162/002438999554110
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554110 [Google Scholar]
  26. Higgins, Roger
    1979 The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hiraiwa, Ken
    2002 Multiple Agree. Paper presented at the 25th GLOW Workshop: Tools in Linguistic Theory, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel & Spyropoulos, Vassilios
    2013 Feature inheritance, VP phases and the information structure of small clauses. Studia Linguistica67(2): 185–224. doi: 10.1111/stul.12013
     https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12013 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2010 Why are there no directionality parameters? Ms, New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lavine, James & Freidin, Robert
    2002 The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics10: 253–289.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mikkelsen, Line
    2005 Copular Clauses. Specification, Predication and Equation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 85]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.85
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.85 [Google Scholar]
  33. Moro, Andrea
    1990  There-raising: Principles across levels. Paper presented at the 13th Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) Colloquium, Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 1997 The Raising of Predicates. Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511519956
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519956 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2000 Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2006 Some notes on unstable structures. Ms, Universitá Vita Salute San Raffaele.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Müller, Gereon
    1998 Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1864‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1864-6 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2004 Verb-second as vP-first. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics7(3): 179–234. doi: 10.1023/B:JCOM.0000016453.71478.3a
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCOM.0000016453.71478.3a [Google Scholar]
  39. Ott, Denis
    2011 Local Instability: The Syntax of Split Topics. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2012 Local Instability: Split Topicalization and Quantifier Float in German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110290950
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110290950 [Google Scholar]
  41. Partee, Barbara
    1987 Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. InStudies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Jeroen Groenendijk , Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds), 115–143. Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1998 Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. InFormal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998, Katarzyna Dziwirek , Herbert Coats & Cynthia Vakareliyska (eds), 361–395. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Pereltsvaig, Asya
    2001 On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations. PhD dissertation, McGill University.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2007 Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-clausal Relations. New York NY: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Reeve, Matthew
    2010 Clefts. PhD dissertation, University College London.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Rezac, Milan
    2008 The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory26: 61–106. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑008‑9032‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9032-6 [Google Scholar]
  47. Richards, Norvin
    1997 What Moves Where When in Which Language. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2005 Person-Case effect in Tagalog and the nature of long-distance extraction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12], Jeffrey Heinz & Dimitrios Ntelitheos (eds), 383–394. Los Angeles CA: UCLA Department of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Richards, Marc
    2008 Defective Agree, Case alternations and the prominence of person. InScales [Linguitische Arbeits Berichte 86], Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds), 137–161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Rivero, Maria Luisa
    2004 Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry35(3): 494–502. doi: 10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.494
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.494 [Google Scholar]
  51. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InElements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schütze, Carson. T
    2001 On the nature of default case. Syntax4: 205–238. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00044
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00044 [Google Scholar]
  53. Shlonsky, Ur
    2000 Subject positions and copular constructions. InInterface Strategies, Hans Bennis , Martin Everaert & Eric Reuland (eds), 325–347. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Slioussar, Natalia
    2007 Grammar and Information Structure. A Study with Reference to Russian. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Williams. Edwin
    1983 Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy6(3): 423–446. doi: 10.1007/BF00627484
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627484 [Google Scholar]
  56. Wiśniewski, Marek
    1990 Formalnogramatyczny opis leksemów to. 2. Słowo to w funkcji spójnika, partykuły, czasownika niewłaściwego (The formal and grammatical description of lexemes to. 2. The word to in the function of conjunction, particle and improper verb). Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici Filologia polskaXXXI(192): 91–119.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Adger, David & Ramchand, Gillian
    2003 Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry34: 325–360. doi: 10.1162/002438903322247515
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903322247515 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    2003 The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Błaszczak, Joanna
    2007 Phase Syntax: The Polish Genitive of Negation. Habilitation dissertation, University of Potsdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Błaszczak, Joanna & Geist, Ljudmila
    2000 Kopulasätze mit den pronominalen Elementen to/ėto in Polnischen und Russischen. InCopular and AUX – Constructions[ZAS Papers in Linguistics 16], Ewald Lang (ed.), 115–139. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boeckx, Cedric
    2000 Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica54(3): 354–380. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9582.00070
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00070 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bondaruk, Anna
    2012 Person–Case Constraint effects in Polish copular constructions. Acta Linguistica Hungarica59(1-2): 49–84. doi: 10.1556/ALing.59.2012.1‑2.3
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.59.2012.1-2.3 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013a Interplay of feature inheritance and information structure in Polish inverse copular sentences. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Ninth Conference . Proceedings of FDSL 9, Göttingen2011 [Linguistik International 28], Uwe Junghanns , Dorothee Fehrmann , Denisa Lenertová & Hagen Pitsch (eds), 37–65, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 2013b Copular Clauses in English and Polish. Structure, Derivation and Interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonet, Eulàlia
    1991 Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 1994 The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. InThe Morphology-Syntax connection[MITWPL 22], Heidi Harley & Colin Phillips (eds), 33–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1984 Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD dissertation, Amherst, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. InStep by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin , David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2001 Derivation by phase. InKen Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 On phases. InFoundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin , Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 134–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013 Problems of projection. Lingua130: 33–49. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Citko, Barbara
    2008 Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua118: 261–295. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.05.009 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011 Symmetry in Syntax. Merge, Move and labels. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511794278
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511794278 [Google Scholar]
  19. den Dikken, Marcel
    2006 Relators as Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas[Linguistic Inquiry Monographs]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fiengo, Robert and May, Robert
    1994 Indices and Identity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Geist, Ljudmila
    2008 Predication and equation in copular sentences in Russian vs. English. InExistence, Syntax and Semantics, Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6197‑4_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6197-4_3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Grimshaw, Jane
    1991 Extended projection. Ms, Brandeis University.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 2000 Locality and extended projection. InLexical Specification and Insertion [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 197], Peter Coopmans , Martin Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds)115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.197.07gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.197.07gri [Google Scholar]
  24. Hentschel, Gerd
    2001 On the perspectivisation of noun phrases in copula sentences, mainly in Polish: (Y) to (jest) X and similar phenomena. InStudies on the Syntax and Semantics of Slavonic Languages, Viktor S. Chrakovskij , Maciej Grochowski & Gerd Hentschel (eds), 161–213. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Heycock, Caroline & Kroch, Anthony
    1999 Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry30: 365–397. doi: 10.1162/002438999554110
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554110 [Google Scholar]
  26. Higgins, Roger
    1979 The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hiraiwa, Ken
    2002 Multiple Agree. Paper presented at the 25th GLOW Workshop: Tools in Linguistic Theory, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel & Spyropoulos, Vassilios
    2013 Feature inheritance, VP phases and the information structure of small clauses. Studia Linguistica67(2): 185–224. doi: 10.1111/stul.12013
     https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12013 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kayne, Richard
    1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2010 Why are there no directionality parameters? Ms, New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lavine, James & Freidin, Robert
    2002 The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics10: 253–289.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Mikkelsen, Line
    2005 Copular Clauses. Specification, Predication and Equation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 85]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.85
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.85 [Google Scholar]
  33. Moro, Andrea
    1990  There-raising: Principles across levels. Paper presented at the 13th Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) Colloquium, Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 1997 The Raising of Predicates. Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511519956
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519956 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2000 Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2006 Some notes on unstable structures. Ms, Universitá Vita Salute San Raffaele.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Müller, Gereon
    1998 Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑1864‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1864-6 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2004 Verb-second as vP-first. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics7(3): 179–234. doi: 10.1023/B:JCOM.0000016453.71478.3a
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCOM.0000016453.71478.3a [Google Scholar]
  39. Ott, Denis
    2011 Local Instability: The Syntax of Split Topics. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2012 Local Instability: Split Topicalization and Quantifier Float in German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110290950
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110290950 [Google Scholar]
  41. Partee, Barbara
    1987 Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. InStudies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Jeroen Groenendijk , Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds), 115–143. Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1998 Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. InFormal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998, Katarzyna Dziwirek , Herbert Coats & Cynthia Vakareliyska (eds), 361–395. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Pereltsvaig, Asya
    2001 On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations. PhD dissertation, McGill University.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2007 Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-clausal Relations. New York NY: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Reeve, Matthew
    2010 Clefts. PhD dissertation, University College London.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Rezac, Milan
    2008 The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory26: 61–106. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑008‑9032‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9032-6 [Google Scholar]
  47. Richards, Norvin
    1997 What Moves Where When in Which Language. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 2005 Person-Case effect in Tagalog and the nature of long-distance extraction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12], Jeffrey Heinz & Dimitrios Ntelitheos (eds), 383–394. Los Angeles CA: UCLA Department of Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Richards, Marc
    2008 Defective Agree, Case alternations and the prominence of person. InScales [Linguitische Arbeits Berichte 86], Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds), 137–161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Rivero, Maria Luisa
    2004 Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry35(3): 494–502. doi: 10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.494
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2004.35.3.494 [Google Scholar]
  51. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InElements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schütze, Carson. T
    2001 On the nature of default case. Syntax4: 205–238. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00044
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00044 [Google Scholar]
  53. Shlonsky, Ur
    2000 Subject positions and copular constructions. InInterface Strategies, Hans Bennis , Martin Everaert & Eric Reuland (eds), 325–347. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Slioussar, Natalia
    2007 Grammar and Information Structure. A Study with Reference to Russian. Utrecht: LOT Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Williams. Edwin
    1983 Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy6(3): 423–446. doi: 10.1007/BF00627484
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627484 [Google Scholar]
  56. Wiśniewski, Marek
    1990 Formalnogramatyczny opis leksemów to. 2. Słowo to w funkcji spójnika, partykuły, czasownika niewłaściwego (The formal and grammatical description of lexemes to. 2. The word to in the function of conjunction, particle and improper verb). Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici Filologia polskaXXXI(192): 91–119.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269690-la.217.03bon
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269690-la.217.03bon
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269690
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error