Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-7332
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9919



Agreement between the verb and its arguments as a predominant phenomenon in language has received major attention in the theoretical literature. One specific aspect under discussion concerns differences between number and person agreement, with the latter being the more restricted one (restricted by Baker’s 2008 SCOPA, by variants of the Person Licensing Condition of Béjar & Rezac 2003, or by multiple agreement see Schütze 2003Ackema & Neeleman 2018). In this paper we address the restrictions on person agreement with a nominative noun phrase in a low position by investigating a relatively little-discussed configuration, namely specificational copular constructions in Dutch such as We provide data from both a production and a rating study comparing 3/2 person agreement and show that what initially looks like a “person effect” in Dutch turns out to be a pronoun effect.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman
    2018Features of person. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/11145.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11145.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Akmajian, Adrian
    1979Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anagnostopoulou, Elena
    2003The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: M. de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Mark C.
    2008The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619830
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619830 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bard, Ellen , Daniel Robertson , & Antonella Sorace
    1996 “Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptablity.” Language72: 32–68. 10.2307/416793
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416793 [Google Scholar]
  6. Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac
    2003 “Person licensing and the derivation of PCC Effects.” Romance Linguistics: Theory and acquisitioned. by A. T. Perez-Leroux and Y. Roberge , 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.244.07bej
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.244.07bej [Google Scholar]
  7. Béjar, Susan & Arsalan Kahnemuyipour
    2017 “Non-canonical agreement in copular sentences.” Journal of Linguistics53: 463–499. 10.1017/S002222671700010X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671700010X [Google Scholar]
  8. 2018 “Not all phi-features are created equal: A reply to Hartmann and Heycock.” Journal of Linguistics54: 629–635. 10.1017/S0022226718000154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000154 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boeckx, Cedric
    2000 “Quirky agreement.” Studia Linguistica54: 354–380. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00070
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00070 [Google Scholar]
  10. den Dikken, Marcel
    2006Relators and Linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT. 10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5873.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2007 “Phase Extension Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction.” Theoretical Linguistics33: 1–41. 10.1515/TL.2007.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2014 “The attractions of agreement.” Ms., Linguistics Program, CUNY Graduate Center.
  13. 2019 “The Attractions of Agreement: Why Person Is Different.” Frontiers in Psychology10, doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00978
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00978 [Google Scholar]
  14. Featherston, Sam
    2008 “Thermometer judgements as linguistic evidence.” Was ist linguistische Evidenz?ed. by C. M. Riehl and A. Rothe , 69–90. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gerbrich, Hannah , Vivian Schreier , & Sam Featherston
    . to appear. “Standard items for English judgement studies: Syntax and Semantics.” Information structure and semantic processing ed. by S. Featherston , R. Hörnig , S. von Wietersheim and S. Winkler . Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hartmann, Jutta M.
    2016The Syntax and Focus Structure of Specificational Copular Clauses and Clefts. Habilitationsschrift, Tübingen University.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. to appear. “Focus and prosody in nominal copular clauses.” Information structure and semantic processing ed. by S. Featherston , R. Hörnig , S. von Wietersheim and S. Winkler . Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110623093‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110623093-004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
    2016 “Evading agreement: A new perspective on low nominative agreement in Icelandic.” Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), ed. by C. Hammerly and B. Prickett , Volume2, 67–80. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017 “Variation in copular agreement in Insular Scandinavian.” ed. by H. Thráinsson , C. Heycock , H. P. Petersen and Z. Svabo Hansen , 233–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sigl.1.09har
  20. 2018a “Person effects in Low Nominative Agreement in Icelandic: Bringing new data to bear.” Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2018b “A remark on Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2017: Specificational subjects do have phi-features.” Journal of Linguistics54(03): 611–627. 10.1017/S0022226718000117
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000117 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2018c “Agreement in Copula Clauses: Evidence for a dual mechanism of agreement.” Manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. . Submitted. “(Morpho)syntactic Variation in Agreement: Specificational Copular Clauses across Germanic.” Frontiers in Psychology.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Heggie, Lorie
    1988 The syntax of copular constructions. PhD thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
  25. Heycock, Caroline
    2012 “Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics/ Revue canadienne de linguistique57(2): 209–240. 10.1017/S0008413100004758
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100004758 [Google Scholar]
  26. Heycock, Caroline & Anthony Kroch
    2002 “Topic, focus, and syntactic representation.” Proceedings of WCCFL 21ed. by L. Mikkelsen and C. Potts , 141–165. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Holmberg, Anders & Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir
    2004 “Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions.” Lingua114: 651–673. 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  28. Huber, Stefan
    2002 Es-Clefts und det-Clefts: Zur Syntax, Semantik und Informationsstruktur von Spaltsätzen im Deutschen und Schwedischen. P. D. thesis, Lund University, Lund.
  29. Mikkelsen, Line
    2005Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.85
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.85 [Google Scholar]
  30. Moro, Andrea
    1991 “The raising of predicates: Copula, expletives, and existence.” More papers on Wh-movemented. by L. Cheng and H. Demirdache , MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 119–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1997The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519956
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519956 [Google Scholar]
  32. Neeleman, Ad & Hans van de Koot
    2008 “Dutch Scrambling and the nature of discourse templates.” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics11(2): 137–189. 10.1007/s10828‑008‑9018‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-008-9018-0 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2010 “Information-structural restrictions on A-bar scrambling.” The Linguistic Review27: 365–385. 10.1515/tlir.2010.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2010.014 [Google Scholar]
  34. Preminger, Omer
    2011 “Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: a commentary on Baker’s SCOPA.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory29(4): 917–937. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9155‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9155-z [Google Scholar]
  35. 2014Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Romero, Maribel
    2005 “Concealed questions and specificational subjects.” Linguistics and Philosophy28(6): 687–737. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑2654‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-2654-9 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schütze, Carson
    2003 “Syncretism and double agreement with Icelandic nominative objects.” Grammar in Focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzacked. by L.-O. Delsing , C. Falk , G. Josefsson and H. Á. Sigurðsson , 295–303. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages, Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Shlonsky, Ur and Luigi Rizzi
    2018 “Criterial freezing in small clauses and the cartography of copular constructions.” Freezinged. by J. M. Hartmann , M. Jäger , A. Kehl , A. Konietzko , and S. Winkler . 29–65. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton). 10.1515/9781501504266‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504266-002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann
    1996 “Icelandic finite verb agreement.” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax57: 1–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sigurðsson, Halldor Ármann & Anders Holmberg
    2008 “Icelandic Dative Intervention: Person and number are separate probes.” Agreement Restrictionsed. by R. D’Alessandro , S. Fischer and G. H. Hrafnbjargarson , 251–279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110207835.251
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207835.251 [Google Scholar]
  41. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald
    1996 “Reflexives, pronouns, and subject/V agreement in Icelandic and Faroese.” Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variationed. by J. Black and V. Motopanyane , 189–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.139.10tar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.139.10tar [Google Scholar]
  42. Ussery, Cherlon
    2017 “Dimensions of variation: Agreement with nominative objects in Icelandic.” Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavianed. by H. Thráinsson , C. Heycock , H. P. Petersen and Z. Svabo Hansen , 165–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sigl.1.07uss
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.1.07uss [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): copular constructions; Dutch; person agreement; syntax
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