Introduction 3
ways in which these differ from the corresponding predicational and specificational
copular constructions in this language. It is noted that while in the latter two con-
structions the verbal copula agrees with the post-copular DP, in the former, it shows
default agreement. Building on Higgins (1979) and Pereltsvaig (2001, 2007 ), and
arguing against the view expressed by Reeve (2010), Bondaruk proposes that the two
DPs are initially merged into an asymmetric configuration only in predicational and
specificational constructions. In equative constructions, the two DPs start their syn-
tactic life in a symmetric configuration, specifically, as daughters of an unlabeled small
clause. Relying on Moro’s (1997, 2000 ) dynamic view of Antisymmetry and assuming
that each constituent needs to be labelled, Bondaruk proposes that one DP raises and
adjoins to the small clause before moving further to [Spec, TP]. This movement step
labels the small clause and also brings the raised DP hierarchically closer to T, thereby
making it the only possible target for agreement with T.
Gabi Danon focuses on two grammatical patterns found in a variety of languages, in
which the subject and the verb, copula or predicate are morphologically mismatched
insofar as number is concerned: [A] the subject is singular and the verb/copula is plu-
ral, and [B] the subject is plural and the verb/copula is singular. Relying on data from
English, Hebrew and Russian, and building on earlier work by Corbett (1979), Pollard
and Sag (1994), Elbourne (1999), Wechsler and Zlatić (2003), Kim (2004), and Smith
(2013), Danon argues that in spite of the well-known fact that morphologically singu-
lar nouns may denote pluralities and morphologically plural nouns may be construed
as denoting groups, the patterns [A] and [B] may not in general be accounted for by
invoking semantic agreement. He proposes, adapting work done within the HPSG
framework, that nouns be lexically specified for two bundles of syntactic agreement
features, i.e. index, which determines agreement between the DP and elements exter-
nal to it, and concord, which determines the spread of agreement morphology within
the DP. These two bundles of features may be matched or mismatched, and the role of
(lexical) semantics is limited to licensing some of these mismatches. Relying on these
assumptions, Danon proposes that in the [A] pattern, index, but not concord, includes
the feature [Plural], while in the [B], pattern, index is lacking altogether, so that verbal
morphology simply results from absence of Agreement, a state of affairs that Danon
argues is systematically related to an additional generalization, namely, that the subject
needs to be non-thematic in the [B] pattern.
Julia Horvath addresses a prima facie puzzling state of affairs regarding oblique case
found in Serbian/Croatian. On the one hand, [A] some undeclinable lexical items
(certain female names, quantifiers and numerals) may not occur as complements of
verbs assigning an oblique case to them, unless their maximal projection includes
another item that morphologically realizes that oblique case, and on the other hand,
[B] the same undeclinable items may freely occur as objects of oblique case assigning