LEADER 06033nam 2200769 450 001 9910787050603321 005 20230803205352.0 010 $a90-272-6969-6 035 $a(CKB)3710000000249122 035 $a(EBL)1798767 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001347019 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)12527829 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001347019 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11364330 035 $a(PQKB)11700034 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1798767 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1798767 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10944084 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL651867 035 $a(OCoLC)891721997 035 $a(EXLCZ)993710000000249122 100 $a20141009h20142014 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcnu|||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aAdvances in the syntax of DPs $estructure, agreement, and case /$fedited by Anna Bondaruk, Gre?te Dalmi, Alexander Grosu ; contributors, Artur Bartnik [and twelve others] 210 1$aAmsterdam, Netherlands ;$aPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d2014. 210 4$dİ2014 215 $a1 online resource (338 p.) 225 1 $aLinguistik Aktuell =$aLinguistics Today,$x0166-0829 ;$vVolume 217 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a1-322-20587-6 311 $a90-272-5700-0 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and index. 327 $aAdvances in the Syntax of DPs; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Dedication page; Table of content; List of contributors; List of abbreviations; List of figures; Editors' note; Preface; Introduction; References; The overgeneration problem and the case of semipredicatives in Russian; 1. Introduction; 2. Some empirical and conceptual issues; 2.1 "Divided" control; 2.2 The problem of variation; 3. Some alternative approaches; 3.1 Vertical binding; 3.2 Control as movement; 3.3 A probe-goal and Agree account; 3.4 A government and binding account; 4. Comparison of approaches: Overarching issues 327 $a4.1 Agreement in case 4.2 Variation; 4.3 Avoiding overgeneration; 5. Semipredicatives versus other adjectives; 5.1 Some data and puzzles; 5.2 Direct assignment; 6. Components of a solution; 6.1 Some leading ideas; 6.1.1 Agreement versus assignment; 6.1.2 Dative versus instrumental; 6.1.3 Arguments versus adjuncts; 6.2 Predicate adjective agreement is local; 6.2.1 Structure is parsimonious; 6.3 Semipredicatives versus ordinary adjectives; 6.3.1 Why ordinary adjectives do not enter into the SD; 6.3.2 Why semipredicatives are not default instrumental 327 $a6.3.3 Why ordinary adjectives always have an instrumental option 6.3.4 Why semipredicatives must agree where ordinary adjectives can; 6.3.5 Why agreement under obligatory Object Control is only possible for semipredicatives; 6.4 Brief thoughts on variation; 6.5 Movement, multi-attachment, timing, and feature sharing; References; Polish equatives as symmetrical structures; 1. Introduction; 2. Inventory of Polish equatives; 3. How do equatives differ from predicational and specificational clauses in Polish?; 3.1 Predicational and specificational clauses in Polish 327 $a3.2 Equatives vs. predicational and specificational clauses in Polish 4. Asymmetrical structure for Polish equatives; 5. Symmetrical structure of Polish equatives; 5.1 Pereltsvaig's (2001, 2007) analysis; 5.2 Pereltsvaig's analysis applied to Polish; 6. Summary; References; Syntactic (dis)agreement is not semantic agreement; 1. Introduction; 2. Two types of number mismatch; 2.1 Singulars with plural agreement ('sg/pl'); 2.2 Plurals with singular agreement ('pl/sg'); 2.3 The proposal; 3. Two types of number mismatch: Empirical evidence; 3.1 Distribution: Copular clauses versus verbal predicates 327 $a3.2 Binding and control 3.3 Semantic properties of the subject; 3.3.1 Quantification; 3.3.2 Definiteness, specificity and genericity; 3.4 Productivity; 4. An analysis of phi-feature mismatches; 4.1 Previous proposals; 4.2 Against a one-level model; 4.3 A two-level model of agreement; 4.4 Application to pl/sg and sg/pl; 4.5 Residual problems; 5. Conclusion; References; A note on oblique case; 1. Introduction; 2. Oblique case, indeclinable nominals, and a Case Realization Condition; 2.1 Undeclined nominals; 2.2 Oblique case and a case realization requirement; 3. The Puzzle 327 $a4. Oblique case is uniformly P-governed: The P-copying proposal 330 $aThis chapter argues for the view that Standard Free Relatives and Transparent Free Relatives have exactly the same bi-dimensional configurational structures, and against the view that they have distinct multi-dimensional structures, the transparent variety being externally headed by a token of a CP-internal post-copular phrase. It is argued that the proposed view yields superior analyses of the following facts: [i] Transparent Free Relatives are typically construed as existentially quantified, regardless of the quantificational force of the pivot, and [ii] certain case mismatch effects, predic 410 0$aLinguistik aktuell ;$vVolume 217. 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSyntax 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xDeterminers 606 $aGrammar, Comparative and general$xCase 606 $aSemantics 606 $aDefiniteness (Linguistics) 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xSyntax. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xDeterminers. 615 0$aGrammar, Comparative and general$xCase. 615 0$aSemantics. 615 0$aDefiniteness (Linguistics) 676 $a415 702 $aBondaruk$b Anna 702 $aDalmi$b Gre?te 702 $aGrosu$b Alexander 702 $aBartnik$b Artur 702 $aTrugman$b Helen$f(1962-2012), 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910787050603321 996 $aAdvances in the syntax of DPs$93733446 997 $aUNINA