Post-verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in Polish dual copula clauses
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...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | LingBaW |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://czasopisma.kul.pl/index.php/LingBaW/article/view/18009 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832592718248804352 |
|---|---|
| author | Rafał Jurczyk |
| author_facet | Rafał Jurczyk |
| author_sort | Rafał Jurczyk |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
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.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-61368715fd074233b89bbf0813bff913 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2450-5188 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin |
| record_format | Article |
| series | LingBaW |
| spelling | doaj-art-61368715fd074233b89bbf0813bff9132025-01-21T05:13:38ZengThe John Paul II Catholic University of LublinLingBaW2450-51882024-12-011010.31743/lingbaw.18009Post-verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in Polish dual copula clausesRafał Jurczyk0WSB Merito University 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. https://czasopisma.kul.pl/index.php/LingBaW/article/view/18009Polish dual copula clausespost-verbal agreementTP identificationpronominal clitic to |
| spellingShingle | Rafał Jurczyk Post-verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in Polish dual copula clauses LingBaW Polish dual copula clauses post-verbal agreement TP identification pronominal clitic to |
| title | Post-verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in Polish dual copula clauses |
| title_full | Post-verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in Polish dual copula clauses |
| title_fullStr | Post-verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in Polish dual copula clauses |
| title_full_unstemmed | Post-verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in Polish dual copula clauses |
| title_short | Post-verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in Polish dual copula clauses |
| title_sort | post verbal agreement and obligatory presence of particle to in polish dual copula clauses |
| topic | Polish dual copula clauses post-verbal agreement TP identification pronominal clitic to |
| url | https://czasopisma.kul.pl/index.php/LingBaW/article/view/18009 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rafałjurczyk postverbalagreementandobligatorypresenceofparticletoinpolishdualcopulaclauses |