90 Anna Bondaruk
contradistinction to to-predicational sentences, are immune to the PCC-effect, they
must differ structurally from both predicational and specificational clauses. The struc-
tural representation offered here for Polish equatives is deeply rooted in Pereltsvaig’s
(2001, 2007) proposal, made for Russian equatives, although it departs from this pro-
posal in many significant aspects. Following Pereltsvaig (2007) and Moro (1997, 2000),
arguments have been provided to support the claim that true equatives in Polish require
a symmetrical structure, in which both DPs form a ‘bare’ small clause. Since symmetri-
cal structures are not associated with any label, it is necessary to provide them with one
somehow. The labelling strategy that has been found most adequate for Polish data is
the one advanced by Moro (2006). Following Moro (2006), it has been suggested that
one of the DPs from within a ‘bare’ small clause must be first internally merged with the
‘bare’ small clause to provide it with a label, and, as a result of this movement operation,
the moved DP ends up closer to T than the other DP, which excludes the possibility
of Multiple Agree in equatives. Hence, no PCC-effect is expected to arise in this type
of structure. Moreover, following Reeve (2010), the asymmetrical structure, with EqP,
has been tested against the Polish data. It has been pointed out that, within the asym-
metrical structure, there is no way, except for pure stipulation, to block Multiple Agree
and thus to stop the PCC-effect from surfacing in Polish equatives. For this reason, this
kind of structure has been found unfeasible for Polish equatives. With respect to their
semantics, it has been argued that Polish true equatives are affected by the type-shifting
operation postulated for English by Partee (1987, 1998).ReferencesAdger, David & Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34:
325–360.
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Błaszczak, Joanna. 2007. Phase Syntax: The Polish Genitive of Negation. Habilitation disserta-
tion, University of Potsdam.
Błaszczak, Joanna & Geist, Ljudmila. 2000. Kopulasätze mit den pronominalen Elementen to/ėto
in Polnischen und Russischen. In Copular and AUX – Constructions [ZAS Papers in Linguis-
tics 16], Ewald Lang (ed.), 115–139. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54(3): 354–380.
Bondaruk, Anna. 2012. Person–Case Constraint effects in Polish copular constructions. Acta
Linguistica Hungarica 59(1–2): 49–84.
Bondaruk, Anna. 2013a. Interplay of feature inheritance and information structure in Polish
inverse copular sentences. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Ninth Confer-
ence. Proceedings of FDSL 9, Göttingen 2011 [Linguistik International 28], Uwe Junghanns,
Dorothee Fehrmann, Denisa Lenertová & Hagen Pitsch (eds), 37–65, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.