Advances in the Syntax of DPs - Structure, agreement, and case

70 Anna Bondaruk

Specificational clauses are derived in a different way. Bondaruk (2013a) suggests

that in sentences of this type the predicate is equipped with the topic feature, and

therefore T and C probe in parallel. Following Chomsky’s (2008) feature inheritance

scenario, we assume that C passes down its φ-features onto T, without passing down

its discourse features (for an implementation of a similar idea in Polish locative być-

clauses cf. Błaszczak 2007, for the feature inheritance from v to V in small clauses, cf.

Jiménez-Fernández & Spyropoulos 2013). The goal for T is the subject and for C – the

predicate, each of which undergoes Agree with the respective head and subsequently

moves to its specifier position. Moreover, the clause final subject of sentences such as

(10a) is typically associated with a focus interpretation, as confirmed by (12) below,

where (10a) is felicitous only in the context provided in (12a), but not in (12b).

(12) a. Czy dobry student to jest Marek czy Darek?

if good student.nom cop is Mark.nom or Darek.nom

‘Is Mark or Darek a good student?’

b Czy Marek to jest dobry student czy zły?

if Mark.nom cop is good student.nom or bad

‘Is Mark a good student or a bad one?’

In order to guarantee that the sentence final subject in (10a) receives a focus interpre-

tation, an additional movement is necessary, which corresponds to the remnant move-

ment of a T’, as a result of which the T’ lands in the inner specifier of CP (‘tucking in’

as in Richards 1997; for the remnant movement in German cf. Müller 1998, 2004 and

for the remnant movement in Russian cf. Slioussar 2007). The schematic derivation of

the specificational sentence in (10a) is provided in (13) below:

(13) CP

C′

TP

to

jest

C

T′

T vP

PredP

DP Pred′

v

Marek DP

dobry s tudent

Pred

Ø