Post-verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in Polish dual copula clauses
Abstract
This paper addresses the obligatory particle to in Polish dual copula clauses (DCCs) with post-verbal agreement and two 3rd person nominative expressions with φ-feature(s) mismatch. It argues that to must be present because the syntax cannot successfully establish the φ-Agree relation between T and the post-verbal nominative expression (NPNOM2). Two crucial premises are adopted. One is Zeiljstra’s (2012) Upward Agree which requires i-features to c-command u-features and, hence, necessitates the closest NPNOM to T to SpecTP-move. The other is Vangsnes’s (2002) obligatory TP identification by the Tense- (provided by T) and φ-features (provided by NPNOM controlling agreement) to anchor the subject to the eventuality denoted by the complex predicate Pred’ [be NPNOM2] (Jurczyk 2021). The examination shows that T-NPNOM2 φ-Agree in DCCs under consideration cannot be established as SpecTP-movement of NPNOM2 is illegitimate; NPNOM2 if formally and syntactically part of Pred’ and is also farther from T than NPNOM1, the pre-verbal nominal expression. Consequently, T’s φ-features remain unvalued, which makes TP formally unidentified. However, since some of T’s NPNOM2-specified features are specified as those on NPNOM1, T attracts NPNOM1 to value them whereas features bearing NPNOM2’s specification get valued as default and lexicalised as the least-marked form in terms of feature specification (following Szucsich 2007), i.e., to[i-neut]. It is thus concluded that the obligatory presence of to is a means of formally identifying TP in case any of T’s NPNOM2-specified φ-features cannot be successfully valued by the T-NPNOM2 Agree relation.
Keywords:
Polish dual copula clauses, post-verbal agreement, TP identification, pronominal clitic toReferences
Bailyn, J., and B. Citko. 1999. Case and agreement in Slavic predicates. In H. Coats, K. Dziwirek and C. M. Vakareliyska (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting, 17–37. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Béjar, S., and A. Kahnemuyipour. 2017. Non-canonical agreement in copular sentences. Journal of Linguistics 53(3): 463–499. (Crossref)
Béjar, S., and A. Kahnemuyipour. 2018. Not all phi-features are created equal: A reply to Hartmann and Heycock. Journal of Linguistics 54(3): 629–635. (Crossref)
Béjar, S., and A. Kahnemuyipour. 2023. Agree and the subjects of specificational clauses. Syntax 26, https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12256 (Crossref)
Benmamoun, E. 2008. Clause structure and the syntax of verbless sentences. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero, and M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 105–131. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Crossref)
Błaszczak, J., and L. Geist. 2001. Zur Rolle des Pronomens to/ėto in spezifizierenden Kopulakonstruktionen im Polnischen und Russischen. In G. Zybatow, U. Junghanns, U. Mehlhorn, and L. Szucsich (eds.), Current issues in formal Slavic linguistics (Linguistik International 5), 247–257. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Bondaruk, A. 2012. Person case constraint in Polish copular constructions. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(1–2): 49–84. (Crossref)
Bondaruk, A. 2013. Copular clauses in English and Polish: structure, derivation and interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Bondaruk, A. 2019. Agreement with the post-verbal DP in Polish dual copula clauses. In M. J. Arche, F. Antonio and R. Marín (eds.), The grammar of copulas across languages, 107–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Crossref)
Cardinaletti, A. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2, 115–165. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Crossref)
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2000. The minimalist inquiries. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge: The MIT Press. (Crossref)
Citko, B. 2008. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118: 261–295. (Crossref)
den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predication inversion, and copulas. Cambridge: The MIT Press. (Crossref)
Coon, J. and S. Keine. 2021. Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry 52(4): 655–710. (Crossref)
Frege, G. 1891/1960. Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. P. Geach and M. Black. Blackwell: Oxford.
Hartmann, J., and Heycock, C. 2016. Evading agreement: A new perspective on low nominative agreement in Icelandic. In C. Hammerly, and B. Prickett (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 67–80. Vol.2. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Hartmann, J., and Heycock, C. 2017. Variation in copular agreement in Insular Scandinavian. In in H. Thráinsson, C. Heycock, H. Petersen, and Z. Hansen (eds.), Syntactic variation in Insular Scandinavian, Volume 1 of Studies in Germanic Linguistics (SIGL), 233–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Crossref)
Hartmann, J., and C. Heycock. 2019a. Restrictions on low person agreement in Dutch copular constructions. Linguist. Netherlands 36, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00028.har (Crossref)
Hartmann, J., and C. Heycock. 2019b. (Morpho)syntactic variation in agreement: specificational copular clauses across Germanic. Frontiers in Psychology 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02994 (Crossref)
Hartmann, J., and C. Heycock. 2022. Person effects in agreement with Icelandic low nominatives: an experimental investigation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41(3): 1029–1090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09564-z (Crossref)
Higgins, R. 1979. The pseudo-cleft constructions in English. New York, NY: Garland.
Hinzen, W. 2009. Hierarchy, merge and truth. In M. Palmarini, J. Uriagereka, and P. Salaburu (eds.), Of minds and language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque country, 123–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Crossref)
Holmberg, A. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445–483. (Crossref)
Jurczyk, R. 2021. Abandoning the EPP-feature in Polish dual copula clauses by redefining the predication relation. Linguistics Beyond and Within 7: 33–57. (Crossref)
Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kempf, Z. 2007. Próba teorii przypadków. Część 2 [The account of the theory of Cases. Part 2]. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski.
Klemensiewicz, Z. 1926. Orzecznik przy formach osobowych słowa być [Predication with finite forms of the word być]. Prace Filologiczne XI: 123–181.
Kopczyński, O. 1778. Gramatyka dla szkół narodowych [Grammar for national schools]. Warszawa: Drukarnia ojców pijarów.
Krifka, M. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In C. Fery, and M. Krifka (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure 6, 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.
Lock, G. 1996. Functional English grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
López, L. 2009. Ranking the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 239–276. (Crossref)
Mahjabeen, J. 2012. Frege’s theory of sense and reference: a critical exposition. Ph.D. diss, Calcutta, University of Calcutta.
Mikkelsen, L. 2005. Copular clauses. Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Crossref)
Mokosz, E. 2022. The puzzles of topic dislocation in Polish. Studies in Polish Linguistics 17(4): 145–176. (Crossref)
Moro, A. 1997. The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Crossref)
Padučeva, E. V. 1985. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesionnost’s deistvitel’nost’u: Referentsial’nye aspekty semantiki mestoimenii [Utterance and its relation to reality: Referential aspects of pronoun semantics]. Moscow: Nauka.
Pesetsky, D., and Torrego, E. 2004. Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories. In J. Guéron, and J. Lecarme (eds.), The syntax of time, 295–537. Cambridge: The MIT Press. (Crossref)
Preminger, O. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Crossref)
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativised minimality. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Rizzi, L. 2018. Subjects, topics and the interpretation of Pro. In R. Petrosino, P. Cerrone, and H. van der Hulst (eds.), From sounds to structures: Beyond the veil of Maya, 510–529. (Crossref)
Rothstein, S. 2004. Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media. (Crossref)
Rutkowski, P. 2006. From demonstratives to copulas: A cross-linguistic perspective and the case of Polish. Journal of Universal Language 7: 147–173. (Crossref)
Seres, D., and M. Teresa Espinal. 2019. Russian definitional generic sentences. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 59. (Crossref)
Shlonsky, U., and Rizzi, L. 2018. Criterial freezing in small clauses and the cartography of copular constructions. In J. M. Hartmann, M. Jäger, A. Kehl, A. Konietzko, and S. Wienkler (eds.), Freezing, studies in generative grammar, 29–65. Berlin & Boston, MA: Mouton de Gruyter. (Crossref)
Sigurðsson, H. A., and A. Holmberg. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: person and number are separate probes. In R. D’Alessandro, S. Fischer, and G. H. Hrafnbjargarson (eds.), Agreement restrictions, 251–279. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (Crossref)
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and New Jersey Press.
Szucsich, L. 2007. Nothing wrong with finite T: Non-agreeing accusative impersonal sentences. In M. Gołędzinowska, U. Savchenko, and R. Compton (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 15, The Toronto Meeting 2006, 417–435. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Tajsner, P. 2015. On specification predication and the derivation of copular to-clauses in Polish. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 50(4): 25–66. (Crossref)
Vangsnes, Ø. 2002. Icelandic expletive constructions and the distribution of subject types. In P. Svenonius (ed.), Subjects, expletives and the EPP, 43–70. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Crossref)
Zeiljstra, H. 2012. There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review 29: 491–539. (Crossref)
WSB Merito University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0546-9321
