Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:09:12.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not all phi-features are created equal: A reply to Hartmann & Heycock 2018

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2018

SUSANA BÉJAR  and
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
SUSANA BÉJAR*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto Mississauga
*
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, 100 Saint George Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G3, Canada[email protected]
Author’s address: Department of Language Studies, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, Erindale Hall 304D, Mississauga, ON, L5L 1C6, Canada[email protected]
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.'
Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , 01 August 2018 , pp. 629 - 635
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.)

References

Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana, Denniss, Jessica, Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan & Yokoyama, Tomohiro. Forthcoming. Number matching in binominal small clauses. In Maria Arche, Antonio Fabregas & Rafael Marin (eds.), The grammar of copulas across languages (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2017. Non-canonical agreement in copular clauses. Journal of Linguistics 53.3, 463–499.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2002. (Anti)reconstruction effects in free relatives: A new argument against the Comp account. Linguistic Inquiry 33.3, 507–511.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Groos, Anneke & van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1981. Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana & Rizzi, Luigi (eds.), Theory of markedness in a generative grammar: Proceedings of the IV Glow Conference, 171–216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78.3, 482–526.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]Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Specification, equation and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57.2, 209–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 2005. Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 687–737.Google Scholar