https://ebookmass.com/product/the-grammar-of-copulas-acrosslanguages-maria-j-arche-editor/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Social Communication Across the Lifespan Heather J. Ferguson
https://ebookmass.com/product/social-communication-across-thelifespan-heather-j-ferguson/
ebookmass.com
Communicating Across Cultures and Languages in the Health Care Setting: Voices of Care 1st Edition Claire Penn
https://ebookmass.com/product/communicating-across-cultures-andlanguages-in-the-health-care-setting-voices-of-care-1st-editionclaire-penn/
ebookmass.com
Conectados (World Languages) 1st Edition Patti J. Marinelli
https://ebookmass.com/product/conectados-world-languages-1st-editionpatti-j-marinelli/
ebookmass.com
Dacie and Lewis Collins Prcctical Haematology 12TH Edition
Barbara J. Bain
https://ebookmass.com/product/dacie-and-lewis-collins-prccticalhaematology-12th-edition-barbara-j-bain/
ebookmass.com
The Midnight Girls: Sapphic Monster Girl Romance Alicia
Jasinska
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-midnight-girls-sapphic-monster-girlromance-alicia-jasinska/
ebookmass.com
Psychology, 13th Edition David G. Myers
https://ebookmass.com/product/psychology-13th-edition-david-g-myers/
ebookmass.com
Specification of Drug Substances and Products: Development and Validation of Analytical Methods 2nd Edition
Christopher M. Riley
https://ebookmass.com/product/specification-of-drug-substances-andproducts-development-and-validation-of-analytical-methods-2nd-editionchristopher-m-riley/ ebookmass.com
The Compatibility of Evolution and Design E. V. R. Kojonen
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-compatibility-of-evolution-anddesign-e-v-r-kojonen/
ebookmass.com
Trapped with the Bad Boy (Bad Boys on Campus Book 4) Josie
Max
https://ebookmass.com/product/trapped-with-the-bad-boy-bad-boys-oncampus-book-4-josie-max/
ebookmass.com
Handbook for Process Plant Operations: Improving Process Safety and System Performance 1st Edition Ccps (Center For Chemical Process Safety)
https://ebookmass.com/product/human-factors-handbook-for-processplant-operations-improving-process-safety-and-system-performance-1stedition-ccps-center-for-chemical-process-safety/ ebookmass.com
TheGrammarofCopulasAcrossLanguages OXFORDSTUDIESINTHEORETICALLINGUISTICS
GENERALEDITORS:DavidAdgerandHagitBorer,QueenMaryUniversityofLondon
ADVISORYEDITORS:StephenAnderson,YaleUniversity;DanielBüring,Universityof Vienna;NomiErteschik-Shir,Ben-GurionUniversity;DonkaFarkas,Universityof California,SantaCruz;AngelikaKratzer,UniversityofMassachusetts,Amherst; AndrewNevins,UniversityCollegeLondon;ChristopherPotts,StanfordUniversity; BarrySchein,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia;PeterSvenonius,Universityof Tromsø;MoiraYip,UniversityCollegeLondon
RECENTTITLES
TheMorphosyntaxofImperatives by DanielaIsac
SentenceandDiscourse
editedby JacquelineGuéron
Optimality-TheoreticSyntax,Semantics,andPragmatics
FromUni-toBidirectionalOptimization
editedby GéraldineLegendre,MichaelT.Putnam,HenriëttedeSwart,andErinZaroukian
TheMorphosyntaxofTransitions
ACaseStudyinLatinandOtherLanguages by VíctorAcedo-Matellán
ModalityAcrossSyntacticCategories
editedby AnaArregui,MaríaLuisaRivero,andAndrésSalanova
TheVerbalDomain
editedby RobertaD’Alessandro,IreneFranco,andÁngelJ.Gallego
ConcealedQuestions by IlariaFrana
PartsofaWhole
DistributivityasaBridgebetweenAspectandMeasurement by LucasChampollion
SemanticsandMorphosyntacticVariation
QualitiesandtheGrammarofPropertyConcepts by ItamarFrancezandAndrewKoontz-Garboden
TheStructureofWordsattheInterfaces
editedby HeatherNewell,MáireNoonan,GlynePiggott,andLisadeMenaTravis
PragmaticAspectsofScalarModifiers
TheSemantics-PragmaticsInterface by OsamuSawada
EncodingEvents FunctionalStructureandVariation by XuhuiHu
GenderandNounClassification
editedby ÉricMathieu,MyriamDali,andGitaZareikar
TheGrammarofExpressivity by DanielGutzmann
TheGrammarofCopulasAcrossLanguages
editedby MaríaJ.Arche,AntonioFábregas,andRafaelMarín
Foracompletelistoftitlespublishedandinpreparationfortheseries,seepp. –.
TheGrammarof CopulasAcross Languages Editedby MARÍAJ.ARCHE,ANTONIOFÁBREGAS, ANDRAFAELMARÍN
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford, OXDP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©editorialmatterandorganizationMaríaJ.Arche,AntonioFábregas,andRafaelMarín ©thechapterstheirseveralauthors
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin
Impression:
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY ,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:
ISBN –––– (hbk.)
ISBN –––– (pbk.)
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon, CRYY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Contents Generalpreface vii
Listofabbreviations ix
Thecontributors xiii
.Mainquestionsinthestudyofcopulas:Categories,structures, andoperations
MaríaJ.Arche,AntonioFábregas,andRafaelMarín
.Copulasandlightverbsasspelloutsofargumentstructure: EvidencefromDenelanguages
NicholasWelch
.Thesupportcopulaintheleftperiphery
TeresaO’Neill
.ThecopulaasanominativeCasemarker
Kwang-supKim
.Numbermatchinginbinominalsmallclauses
SusanaBejar,JessicaDenniss,ArsalanKahnemuyipour,and TomohiroYokoyama
.Agreementwiththepost-verbalDPinPolishdualcopulaclauses
AnnaBondaruk
.On PERSON,animacy,andcopularagreementinCzech
JitkaBartošováandIvonaKučerová
.Aspectsofthesyntaxof ce inFrenchcopularsentences
IsabelleRoyandUrShlonsky
.TheroleofthecopulainperiphrasticpassivesinRussian
OlgaBorik
.ThecopulaincertainCaribbeanSpanishfocusconstructions
LuisSáez
.VariationinBantucopulaconstructions
HannahGibson,RozennGuérois,andLutzMarten
.Predicationalandspeci ficationalcopularsentencesinLogoori
NicolettaLoccioni
References
IndexofTermsandLanguages
Generalpreface Thetheoreticalfocusofthisseriesisontheinterfacesbetweensubcomponentsofthe humangrammaticalsystemandthecloselyrelatedareaoftheinterfacesbetweenthe differentsubdisciplinesoflinguistics.Thenotionof ‘interface ’ hasbecomecentralin grammaticaltheory(forinstance,inChomsky’sMinimalistProgram)andinlinguisticpractice:workontheinterfacesbetweensyntaxandsemantics,syntaxand morphology,phonologyandphonetics,etc.hasledtoadeeperunderstandingof particularlinguisticphenomenaandofthearchitectureofthelinguisticcomponent ofthemind/brain.
Theseriescoversinterfacesbetweencorecomponentsofgrammar,including syntax/morphology,syntax/semantics,syntax/phonology,syntax/pragmatics, morphology/phonology,phonology/phonetics,phonetics/speechprocessing, semantics/pragmatics,andintonation/discoursestructure,aswellasissuesinthe waythatthesystemsofgrammarinvolvingtheseinterfaceareasareacquiredand deployedinuse(includinglanguageacquisition,languagedysfunction,andlanguage processing).Itdemonstrates,wehope,thatproperunderstandingsofparticular linguisticphenomena,languages,languagegroups,orinter-languagevariationsall requirereferencetointerfaces.
Theseriesisopentoworkbylinguistsofalltheoreticalpersuasionsandschoolsof thought.Amainrequirementisthatauthorsshouldwritesoastobeunderstoodby colleaguesinrelatedsubfieldsoflinguisticsandbyscholarsincognatedisciplines.
CopularconstructionshavebeenmysterioussincePaniniandAristotle,and themysterieshaveonlygrownasourknowledgeoftherangeofcross-linguistic variationincopularclauseshasdeveloped.Thisvolumebothsurveyswhereour understandingoftheseconstructionsis,andfurthersubstantiallyextendstherange ofcross-linguisticdata.Thisbringsnew challenges,butalsonewpossibilitiesof deeperunderstanding.Overall,thechaptersmovetowardsanunderstanding ofcopularelementsasbeingmanifestationsofarangeoffunctionalcategoriesin theclausaldomain,asopposedtobeingnecessarilyrealizationsofpredication. Beyondthis,thechaptersextendtherangeofrelevantphenomenabylooking athowcopulasenterintosyntacticdependencieswithotherclausalelements, includingsubjectsandfocalizedconstitu ents,highlightingthewaythatcopular elementsareintegratedintoawiderangeofclausalstructures.
DavidAdger HagitBorer
Listofabbreviations // etc. st/nd/rdperson or nounclassnumber
ACC accusative
ADJ adjective
APPL applicative
ASCamalgamspecificationalcopular
AspPaspectualphrase
AUG augment
AUX auxiliary
COMP complementizer
CONJ conjunction
CONN connective
COP copula
CopPcopularphrase
CPcomplementizerphrase
CSCcanonicalspecificationalcopular
DEF definite
DEM demonstrative
DET determiner
DMDistributedMorphology
DPdeterminerphrase
DUR durative
DV defaultvowel
ECMexceptionalcasemarking
EPPextendedprojectionprinciple
EVD evidentiality
EZ ezafe
FCCSfocusconstructioninCaribbeanSpanish
F/FEM feminine
FOC focus
FV finalvowel
GEN genitive
HChostclause
ICinterruptingclause
ILindividuallevel
IMPF/IPFV imperfect(ive)
INAN inanimate
INC inceptive
IND indicative
INDEF indefinite
INE inessive
INST instrumental
INT intensive
IPinflectionalphrase
IV initialvowel
LOC locative
M/MASC masculine
NEG negative
NMRnumbermatchingrequirement
N/NEU neuter
NOM nominative
NON-VIR non-virile
NPnounphrase
OBJ object
OM objectmarker
PC pronominalcopula
PERS persistive
PFV perfective
PL plural
PLA pluraladdressee
PLUR pluractional
POSS possessive
PPPpastpassiveparticiple
PredPpredicatephrase
PREP preposition
PRES present
PRO pronoun
PROX proximalmarker
PRS present
QN questionmarker
REF referential
REFL reflexive
REL relative
Listofabbreviations
REP repetitive
SBJ subject
SBJV subjunctive
SCsmallclause
SG singular
SLstagelevel
SM subjectmarker
SOTsequenceoftenses
TAMtense/aspect/mood
THM thematic(lexical)prefix
TOP topic
TopPtopicphrase
TPtensephrase
TTtopictime
VIR virile
vPlightverbphrase
VPverbphrase
Thecontributors MARÍA J.ARCHE isaSeniorLecturerattheUniversityofGreenwich,UK.Herresearchfocuses onthesyntaxandsemanticsoftenseandaspectandtheiracquisition.Sheistheauthorofa monographonthecopulasofSpanishentitled IndividualsinTime.Tense,Aspectandthe Individual/StageDistinction publishedbyJohnBenjaminsin .Shehaseditedspecialissues onaspectandargumentstructurefor NaturalLanguageandLinguisticTheory and Lingua.
JITKA BARTOŠOVÁ wasawardedherPhDbyMcMasterUniversity,whereshestudiedonthe CognitiveScienceofLanguageprogram.Herdissertationexplorestheoreticalphenomenaof thesyntax–semanticsinterface,focusingontheempiricaldomainofspecificationaland identificationalcopularclauses.Hermainareasofinterestaresyntacticoperations(movement, inversion,agreement)andthewaytheyaffectsemanticinterpretation.Shemainlyworkson theCzechlanguage.
SUSANA BEJAR isanAssistantProfessorofLinguisticsattheUniversityofTorontoandcoinvestigatoroftheSSHRC-fundedresearchproject ‘CopularAgreementSystems:Localityand Domains’.Herareasofexpertisearesyntaxandmorphology,withafocusoncomplex inflectionalsystemsandtheoriesoffeaturematchingandvaluation.Shehaspublishedarticles injournalssuchas LinguisticInquiry, Syntax,and JournalofLinguistics,andwasco-editorof theOxfordUniversityPressvolume PhiTheory: Phi-featuresacrossmodulesandinterfaces.
ANNA BONDARUK isProfessorattheJohnPaulIICatholicUniversityofLublin,Poland.Sheis HeadoftheDepartmentofTheoreticalLinguistics.Herresearchinterestscoverthesyntaxof Germanic,Celtic,andSlaviclanguages,andtheoreticallinguistics.Sheisanauthorofthree books,the firstofwhichconcernscomparativeconstructionsinEnglishandPolish,thesecond focusesonPROandcontrolinEnglish,Irish,andPolish,andthethirdcentersaroundcopular clausesinEnglishandPolish.Sheiscurrentlyworkingasagrantmemberonacomparative analysisofpsychologicalpredicatesinEnglish,Polish,andSpanish.
OLGA BORIK isAssociateProfessorattheUniversidadNacionaldeEducaciónaDistancia (UNED),Madrid.SheobtainedherPhDdegreefromUtrechtUniversityin .During heracademiccarriershehasheldpositionsattheNewUniversityofRussia(Moscow), UniversidadeNovadeLisboa,andUniversitatAutònomadeBarcelona.Shehaspublisheda monographandseveralarticlesonaspectandtense,aswellasarticlesonthemorphology–semanticsinterfaceandargumentstructure.Hermostrecentresearchinterestsincludesyntax andsemanticsofparticiples,passivesinRussian,semanticsofbarenominals,andkind reference.
JESSICA DENNISS isaPhDcandidateattheUniversityofTorontoandamemberoftheSSHRCfundedresearchproject ‘CopularAgreementSystems:LocalityandDomains’.Herresearch focusesonthesyntaxandmorphologyofAustralianAboriginallanguages,inparticular Ngarinyman,alanguageonwhichshehasconducted fieldwork.Sheiscurrentlypartofthe teamthatisworkingtoproduceaNgarinymandictionary.Shehaspresentedattheconferencesof
theSocietasLinguisticaEuropaea,CanadianLinguisticAssociation,andAustralianLinguistic Society,andhasreceivedaVanierCanadaGraduatescholarshipandaJohnMonashscholarship.
ANTONIO FÁBREGAS gothisPhD()fromtheUniversidadAutónomadeMadrid,andhas beenaFullProfessorofHispanicLinguisticsattheUniversityofTromsø–TheArcticUniversityofNorwaysince .Hisresearchconcentratesonthesyntaxandsemanticsofwordinternalstructures,withparticularattentiontogrammaticalcategories,aspectandtense,and thepropertiesofaffixes.Heistheauthorofmorethanonehundredarticlesandbookchapters injournalslike TheLinguisticReview,LinguisticAnalysis,and JournalofLinguistics forand publishinghousessuchasOxfordUniversityPress,DeGruyter,andJohnBenjamins.Hehas alsowrittenseveralmonographs,suchas Morphology:FromDatatoTheories (,EUP), withSergioScalise,and Lasnominalizaciones (,Visor).Heiscurrentlyassociateeditorof the OxfordResearchEncyclopediaofMorphology,andchiefeditorof Borealis:AnInternational JournalofHispanicLinguistics.
HANNAH GIBSON isLecturerinLinguisticsattheUniversityofEssex.Priortothisshewasa postdoctoralresearcherintheGraduateSchoolofLanguageandCultureatOsakaUniversity andaBritishAcademyPostdoctoralResearchFellowinthedepartmentoflinguisticsatthe SchoolofOrientalandAfricanStudies(SOAS),UniversityofLondon.Herdoctoralresearch examinedaspectsofthemorphosyntaxoftheTanzanianBantulanguageRangi.Herresearch hasincludedworkwithintheDynamicSyntaxtheoreticalframework,aswellasmorebroadly inthe fieldsofsyntax,morphosyntax,andlanguagecontact,withaparticularfocusonthe Bantulanguages.
ROZENN GUÉROIS isapostdoctoralresearcheratGhentUniversity,workingontheresearch project ‘AtypologyofthepassivevoiceinBantu’ (BOF–Specialresearchfund,April –March ).Priortothis,sheworkedasapostdoctoralresearchassistantintheLeverhulmefundedproject ‘MorphosyntacticvariationinBantu:Typology,contactandchange’ (March –March ).AspartofherPhDresearch,sheproduced AgrammarofCuwabo (, UniversitéLyon ).HerresearchfocusesonthemorphosyntacticstudyofBantulanguages fromadescriptiveandtypologicalpointofview.
ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR isanAssociateProfessorofLinguisticsattheUniversityofToronto andco-investigatoroftheSSHRC-fundedresearchproject ‘CopularAgreementSystems: LocalityandDomains’.Hisareasofexpertisearesyntax,morphology,andthesyntax–prosody interface.HehasworkedonanumberoflanguagesincludinghisnativePersian,aswellas English,Armenian,Turkish,andNiuean,amongothers.Heistheauthorofamonographwith OxfordUniversityPressandarticlesinjournalssuchas NaturalLanguageandLinguistic Theory, LinguisticInquiry, Syntax,and JournalofLinguistics
KWANG-SUP KIM receivedhisPhDfromtheUniversityofMaryland,CollegeParkin andis currentlyProfessorofGeneralandEnglishLinguisticsatHankukUniversityofForeign Studies,Korea.Hismaininterestsareinsyntactictheory,comparativesyntax,thesyntax–semanticsinterface,andthesyntax–phonologyinterface.Hehaswrittenabookonlastresort strategiesinminimalism, MinimalismandLastResort (),andhaspublishednumerous articlesinjournalssuchas LinguisticInquiry, Lingua,and StudiesinGenerativeGrammar HewaspresidentoftheKoreanGenerativeGrammarCirclein
Thecontributors
IVONA KUČEROVÁ isProfessorofLinguisticsatMcMasterUniversity.Shespecializesintheoreticalsyntaxandsemantics,andtheirinterface.Herworkexploresthenatureofphi-featuresat thesyntax–semanticsinterface,informationstructureanditsmorphosyntacticcorrelates, definitenesssystemsandtheirrelationtoaspect,themorphosyntaxandmorpho-semantics ofcase,agreement,andcasesplits,thesyntaxofnulllanguages,andthesyntaxofcopular clauses.SheworksmainlyonSlavic,Germanic,andRomancelanguages.
NICOLETTA LOCCIONI isagraduatestudentinthelinguisticsdepartmentoftheUniversityof California,LosAngeles.Hertheoreticalinterestsincludetheoreticalsyntaxandthesyntax–semanticsinterface.Inthepastfewyears,shehasworkedontheinteractionbetweenso-called “individual-levelpredicates” andpasttenseinItalian,pseudo-relativeconstructionsin Romance,andcopularconstructionscross-linguistically.Forherdissertationsheiscurrently workingonthesyntaxandsemanticsofsuperlativesinRomance.
RAFAEL MARÍN isaresearcherinlinguisticsatthelaboratorySTL(UMR ),CNRS/ UniversitédeLille .Hisworkfocusesonlexicalaspectandrelatedphenomena.Hehas mainlyworkedonnonverbalpredication(adjectivesandparticiples,copularconstructions), psychologicalpredicates,andthemorphology–semanticsinterface.Since ,hehasbeenthe DirectoroftheCatalanFoundationforResearchandInnovation.
LUTZ MARTEN isProfessorofGeneralandAfricanLinguisticsatSOAS,UniversityofLondon. Hisresearchfocusesonthedescriptionandanalysisofstructural,social,andfunctionalaspects oflanguage,withaspecificfocusonAfricanlanguages,andheiscurrentlydirectinga Leverhulme-fundedresearchprojectonmorphosyntacticvariationinBantu.Hispublications include AttheSyntax-PragmaticsInterface (OUP, ), AGrammaticalSketchofHerero (withWilhelmMöhligandJekuraKavari,Köppe, ), TheDynamicsofLanguage (with RonnieCannandRuthKempson,Elsevier, ),and ColloquialSwahili (withDonovan McGrath,Routledge, /).
TERESA O’NEILL (PhD,TheGraduateCenter,CUNY)hasservedasAdjunctAssistantProfessor ofLinguisticsattheCityUniversityofNewYorkandColumbiaUniversity.Sheistheformer AssistantDirectoroftheCenterforIntegratedLanguageCommunities,aNationalLanguage ResourceCenter.Herworkhasfocusedonthesyntaxoftense,agreement,andcase,particularlyinunderstudiedlanguagesandvarietiesofEnglish.Sheisalsoactiveinendangered languagedocumentation.
ISABELLE ROY isanAssociateProfessorofLinguisticsattheUniversityofParisVIII,andhas previouslyheldapositionatCASTL–UniversityofTromsø.Hermainresearchinterestsarein linguistictheory,withafocusonthesyntax–semanticsinterface,intheareasofpredication, copularconstructions,adjectives,categoriesandcategorization,andlinguisticontology.Sheis theauthorof NonverbalPredication:CopularSentencesattheSyntax–SemanticsInterface (OUP, ).
LUIS SÁEZ isProfessorattheDepartamentodeLenguaEspañolaattheUniversidadComplutensedeMadrid.HereceivedhisPhDin fromtheUniversidadAutónomade MadridwithadissertationoncomparativeconstructionssupervisedbyCarlosPiera,andhe isco-editor(withCristinaSánchezLópez)ofthebook Lasconstruccionescomparativas (). Hisworkalsoincludesellipsis-relatedarticleslike ‘SluicingwithCopula’ and ‘Peninsular
Spanishpre-nominalpossessivesinellipsiscontexts:APhase-basedaccount’ (LSRL and respectively,)andarticlesfocusingonSpanishclitics(‘Applicativephraseshostingaccusative clitics’ , ‘RestrictionsonencliticsandtheimperativeinIberianSpanish’).
UR SHLONSKY isProfessorofLinguisticsattheUniversityofGeneva.Hismaininterestsarein linguistictheoryandcomparativesyntax,withspecialfocusonSemiticandRomance.
NICHOLAS WELCH isanAssistantProfessorofLinguisticsatMemorialUniversityofNewfoundland.Hisresearchinvestigatestherelationshipbetweenstructureandinterpretation,particularlywithrespecttocopularclauses,temporalgrammar,andthe finestructureoftheclausal periphery.Otherkeyinterestsincludelanguagedocumentationandrevitalization,particularly inthecontextoftheindigenouslanguagesofCanada,inwhichhecurrentlyholdsaTier CanadaResearchChair.
TOMOHIRO YOKOYAMA isaPhDcandidateinlinguisticsattheUniversityofTorontoanda memberoftheSSHRC-fundedresearchproject ‘CopularAgreementSystems:Localityand Domains’.Forhisdissertation,heworksonPersonCaseConstrainteffectsinvariouslanguages.Hisapproachtocombinatorialrestrictionsonweakelementsinvolvesfeaturevaluation inconjunctionwitharticulatedpersonfeatures,whichdivergesfromthetraditionalAgree analyses.HehaspresentedattheconferencesoftheNorthEastLinguisticSociety,the LinguisticSocietyofAmerica,andtheCanadianLinguisticAssociationintheareasof morphosyntax,semantics,andpragmatics.
Mainquestionsinthestudy ofcopulas Categories,structures,andoperations MARÍAJ.ARCHE,ANTONIOFÁBREGAS, ANDRAFAELMARÍN . Introduction:whycopulas?
Thisvolumeisdedicatedtocopulas,andmorespecifically,tohowtheirsyntacticand semanticpropertiescaninformfundamentalissuesinlinguistics.Aswewillshowin thischapter,copulasandcopularclausesareoneoftheareasofgrammarwiththe greatestdegreeofvariationattested.Theyvarybothinforms,astheysurfaceunder differentcategories(verbs,prepositions,pronouns)andheaddifferentfunctional elements(T,Pred,C);andinbehavior,sincetheyparticipateinadiversityof agreementpatterns(e.g.,dualpatternssuchasinPolish)andnon-canonicalconstructions(e.g.,amalgams).Forthisreason,copulasandcopularclausesarea privilegedgroundtoexploreessentialtheoreticalissuesconcerningcategorization, formalmechanismsofthegrammarofagreementandlateinsertion,aswellasclause structure.Insum,theyareanunparalleledwindowintothestudyoftheinnermost mechanismsandpropertiesofhumanlanguage.
Thechapterspresentedherearereviewedversionsofaselectionoftalksofferedat aworkshopheldattheUniversityofGreenwichinJune .Thechaptersall demonstratethattheanalysisofcopulasisfarfromclearwithinindividuallanguages andevenlesssowhenagivenanalysisisappliedtomorethanonelanguage.Sincethe cross-linguisticdiversityincopulasisvast,thetheoreticalaccountsneedtoembrace acutesubtletytocaptureallthenuances.Ourmaingoalinthis firstchapteristo contextualizethecontributionsgatheredinthisvolumebyidentifyingboththe mainempiricalfactsthatatheoryoncopulasshouldaccountforandthetheoretical issuesthatsuchanalyseshaveimmediateconsequencesfor.Wewillmakereference totheempiricalissues,theaccountsexistingtodate,andtheviewsthattheauthors
TheGrammarofCopulasAcrossLanguages.Firstedition.MaríaJ.Arche,AntonioFábregas, andRafaelMarín(eds). Thischapter©MaríaJ.Arche,AntonioFábregas,andRafaelMarín .Firstpublishedin
by OxfordUniversityPress.
inthevolumepropose.Thegeneralissuesatthecoreoftheanalysesofcopulasare thefollowing:
a)Thenatureofgrammaticalcategories;specifically,whatkindsofheadsare madecompulsorybyuniversalgrammarandwhattheneedforsupport elementsis.Aswewillshow,copulashavebeenunderstoodassemantically emptyinflectionalsupports,lightverbsorraisingverbs.Inanyofthese approaches,theexistenceofcopulashighlightsthequestionofwhatconnection thereshouldbebetweenmeaningandlexicalcategorization.Copulasareused incontextswheretheirfunctionappearstogobeyondsimplesupportfora subject-predicatestructure.Theiruseindefininginformationstructureand passivevoiceacrossavarietyoflanguagesisrelevantinordertounderstand theirnature.Howcancopulasbedefinedsoalltheseotherusesareaccounted for,whilenotpredictingthattheyshouldbeusedanywherewhereverbal inflectioncouldinprinciplebeuseful?Aretheretrulysemanticallyempty verbs?Whatisthenatureofsupportelementsingeneral?
b)Theworkingofagreement.CopularsentencescaninvolvetwonominativeNPs sharingonesingleverb,whichisauniquesituationleadingtounexpected agreementpatterns.Thismakescopularconstructionsanunparalleledground tostudythefunctioningofagreement,agreementprobesincontextswhere thereismorethanonecandidategoal,andtoexplorewhetherthereisa matchingrequirementbetweentwoNPsthatarerelatedthroughpredication.
c)Thecontributionoflightelementstodefiningthetypeofclause.Somelanguages seemtohaveonlyonecopula,whileothershavemorethanoneelementthatcan beusedinnonverbalpredicatecontexts.Whyaretherelanguagesthathavemore thanonecopula?Howdoesthisinteractwiththedifferenttypesofcopular sentencesdescribedintheliterature?Howmanydifferenttypesofcopularsentencesarethere,andhowaretheempiricaldistinctionscodified?
Thischapterisorganizedasfollows.In§.,wepresentadetailedsurveyofthemain factsthataglobaltheoryofcopulasshouldaccountfor.Thissectiondiscussesfour aspectsofthegrammarofcopulas:thebehaviorof(prototypical)copulasandthe difficultiesindelimitingtheconceptitself(§..),thetaxonomyofcopularsentences(§..),theexistenceoftwoormorecopulasinagivenlanguage(§..),and otherrolesthatcopulasareassociatedwithacrosslanguages.Later,in§.,wefocus ontwofundamentaltheoreticalproblemsatthecoreofthesefacts:themorphosyntacticroleofcopulas(§..)andhowtheclassi ficationofcopularsentencesistobe analyzed(§..).Finally,in§. wediscussthecurrentpointsofagreementand disagreementinthestudyofcopulas,asrepresentedinthechaptersofthisvolume.
. Mainfactsaboutcopulas Thepurposeofthissectionistodescribetheempiricalfactsthattheoriesofcopulas shouldaccountfor.Giventhesignificantdisagreementsfoundintheliteratureabout thepropercharacterizationoftheempiricalaspectsofcopulas,wewillalsoreferto thedifferentperspectivesontheissuesdiscussed.
.. Thebehaviorofcopulas
Asisthecasewithmanyconceptsborrowedfromtraditionallinguistics,¹copulas turnouttobeanextremelychallengingnotiontodefine,andmostworksthatinvolve ananalysisof be anditscross-linguisticequivalentssimplytakethenotionfor granted.()givesaprototypicalexampleofa bona fide copula: ()Johnis sick.
ThisEnglishexampledisplaysthepropertiesthatareprototypicallyassociatedwith copulas:(i)copulascarryverbalinflection,(ii)copulasappearincontextswherethe predicateisnonverbal,(iii)copulasareelementsusedtolinkthepredicateandthe subject asthetermitselfsuggests fromLatin copula ‘link’,and(iv)copulasare semanticallylight,possiblyempty.
Thus,byvirtueof(i),copulasshouldbeinflectedinwhatevermorphologicalpropertiesverbsdisplayinalanguage(e.g.,tense,aspect,numberandperson,gender...). Byvirtueof(ii),()wouldcorrespondtopredicatingtheadjective sick ofthereferring expression John: λx[sick’(x)](j).Inrelationto(iii),copulascannotdefineapredicateon theirown(*Johnis).Finally,inrelationto(iv),copulasarenecessarytoallowthe adjectivetodefinethepredicate(*Johnsick).However,aswewillshowinthischapter, alltheseprototypicalpropertiesaredebatable,andareinfactthesubjectofenormous cross-linguisticvariationanddisagreementinhowtheyareanalyzed.
Intypologicalstudies(suchasStassen andPustet ),thequestionofwhat isthesetofpropertiesthatcharacterizecopulasbecomescentral.Differentproposals havebeenmadeandmostofthemagreethatthedefinitionstraditionallygivenonthe basisofRomancelanguagesandEnglisharebothtoorestrictiveandtoobroad. Considerthedefinitionbelow,fromPustet(: ): ()Acopulaisalinguisticelementwhichco-occurswithcertainlexemesincertain languageswhentheyfunctionaspredicatenucleus.Acopuladoesnotaddany semanticcontenttothepredicatephraseitiscontainedin.
Firstofall,observethatthedefinitiondoesnotspecifythatthecopulaisaverb,or thatitcombineswithnonverbalpredicates.Withrespecttothe firstproperty,infact, ithasbeennotedthatinmanylanguagescopularelementsarehistoricallyrelatedto pronouns(Hengeveld : ;Stassen : ;HeineandKuteva : )²or
¹LatinandMedievalgrammarssincePriscian’ s Institutiones usedtheterm verbumsubstantivum ‘substantiveverb’ torefertoLatin esse ‘be’.Theterm ‘copula’ wascoinedlater,byAbelard,andwasused inthe GrammairedePort-Royal.ItbecamewidespreadafterMeillet(–),whoemphasizedthata copularverbdidnothavemostofthepropertiesofverbsinagivenlanguage.
²Weleaveasidethenatureofso-calledpronominalcopulas,illustratedin(i)forMaltese(Central SemiticCreole), rdpersonpronounsthatinsomelanguagesarecompulsorytobuildsometypesof copularsentences.SeeDoron(),Borg(),Pereltsvaig(),Dalmi().Bondaruk,this volume,brieflytouchesontheissue. (i)Maltahigzira.
Malta PC island ‘Maltaistheisland.’
deicticelementsingeneral.In!Xuun(Lionnet ),aK’xalanguagespokenin NamibiaandAngola,thedeicticproximalmarker e (a)hasdevelopedauseasa non-locativecopula(b): ()a.men|eetie.
SG head IMPFPROX ‘Thisismyhead.’
b.mba!uutieJor-El.
SG fathernameimpf COP Jor-El ‘Myfather’snameisJor-El.’
Stassen(: –)alsonotesthatpronounsanddiscoursemarkersarefrequently reanalyzedas “abstractlinkingmorphemesinpredicatenominalsentences” inAfrican languageslikeShona,TemneorZulu,amongothers.Similarly,theLakotacopular verb hécha derivesfromthepronouns hé ‘this’ and c h a ‘such’ (Pustet : ).
Note,next,thatinPustet’sdefinitionthereisnoclaimthatcopulasdonot combinewithverbs.Thiscontrastswithotheravailabledefinitions,wherethe combinationwithnonverbalpredicatesistakentobecentral,asin(),from Hengeveld(: ):
(
)Acopulaenablesanonverbalpredicatetoactasamainpredicateinthose languagesandunderthosecircumstancesinwhichthisnonverbalpredicate couldnotfulfilthisfunctiononitsown.
Basedonhersampleof languages,Pustetdefendstheimplicationalhierarchyin ():ifalanguageusescopulasforverbalpredicates(e.g.,participles),itwillalsouse copulasforadjectivesandnouns,butnotviceversa.
(
)NOUNS>ADJECTIVES>VERBS
Thescaleisunderpinnedbythenotionsofvalence,transience,anddynamicityfound inGivón()andCroft(): “withinminimalpairs[inagivenlanguage],the lexicalitemthatiscompatiblewiththecopulaisalwayslesstransitive,less[temporally]transientandlessdynamicthanitscounterpartthatdoesnotadmitcopulause” (Pustet : ).However,copulasdoco-occurwithverbs.Theexamplein() showsacasefromBambara(Pustet : )wherethecopulacombineswitha verbalpredicate:
()nebε taa
SGCOP leave ‘Iamleaving.’
Inlightofthesecases,itmightbequestionedwhetherEnglishorSpanishpassive constructionsareinstancesofthesamepattern(copula + verb),ratherthanone wherethecopulaistreatedasanauxiliaryverb.
()Rorschachfueatacadoporunperro. Rorschachwasattackedbyadog
Pustet’sdefinitionin()makestheclaimthatcopularverbsdonotcontributeany semanticinformationtothepredicate,incontrasttoauxiliaries,whichcouldcontribute modaloraspectualinformation.However,thisclaimisalsoproblematic.Cross-linguistic surveyshaveproposedaclassofsemi-copulas(alsocalledpseudo-copulas),namelythose verbalformswhich,likecopulas,cannotformapredicateindependently,butaddan identifiablemeaningtoit.Anoften-citedexampleofsemi-copulaistheEnglishverb become,whichcontributesachangeofstatemeaningtothepredicate.
()TonyStarkbecame *(amillionaire).
Evenamongprototypicalcopulas,itisnotalwaysclearthatthereisnomeaning contribution.InSpanish,asitiswellknown,twoverbshavebeenconsideredcopular: ser and estar,the firstassociatedtoindividuallevel(IL)propertiesandthesecond associatedtostagelevel(SL)properties(seeMilsark ,Carlson forthe distinction).IL-adjectivesmust,then,combinewith ser,whileSL-adjectivescombine with estar ().
()a.Anacletoesespañol.
Anacletoisser Spanish
b.Anacletoestádesnudo.
Anacletoisestar naked
Theadjectivesthatallowforbothcopulasshowasystematicmeaningdifference: with estar,theypatternwithSLpredicatesreferringtostagesoftheindividual,and with ser,theypatternwithILpredicatespredicatingthepropertyoftheindividualas such(see,amongmanyothers,Leborans , ;Arche ;Camacho ; GallegoandUriagereka ).
()a.RobertoAlcázaresguapo.
RobertoAlcázarisser handsome
b.RobertoAlcázarestáguapo.
RobertoAlcázarisestar handsome
Unlesswearewillingtoduplicatetheentriesfortheadjective guapo ‘handsome’ and alltheothersthatcombinewithbothcopulas,casessuchas()stronglysuggestthat theverb estar (orthestructureassociatedtoit)introducesaspectualinformationthat definesthepredicateasSL(forinstance,asArche ,Brucart ,andCamacho argue).
Spanish estar alsoconstitutesapotentialcounterexampletoanotherprototypical copulaproperty:theinabilitytodefineapredicateindependently.Theexamplein ()showsthatinalocativemeaning, estar canbeusedwithoutanyother(overt) constituent.Unlesswedonotconsiderthisverbacopulainlocativeuses,this propertyisatoddswiththetraditionaldefinition.
()Estoy.
I.amestar ‘Iamhere.’
Theuseandfunctionof estar isintoomanywaysparalleltothatofSpanish ser includingtheabilitytobeusedinpassivesentences whichsuggeststhat estar shouldbelongtothesameclassas ser
Thefactsjustsurveyedsuggestthatamuchlessrestrictivedefinitionofcopula wouldbemoreappropriate.Theproposalin()illustratesthespiritofwhatis needed:
()Acopularelementisanelementneededtodefineapredicationstructure. Suchanelementistypicallyaverb,butnotalways;ittypicallycombineswith nonverbalcategories,andittypicallycarriesminimalmeaning,whichisconnected withitsinabilitytodefineapredicatealone.However,noneofthesepropertiesare necessarytodefineacopula,aswehaveseen.
Thedefinitionin()isadmittedlydescriptive:itdefinesanobjectthroughits surfaceroleandsaysnothingaboutitstheoreticalstatus,whyitisneededoreven aboutthegrammaticalcategorythatitinstantiates.Webelievethatthisisapositive resultthatissustainedbythechaptersinthisvolume.Theyleadtotheconclusion that copula isnotadistinctgrammaticalcategory,butratherthelabelthathasbeen giventoanumberofdistinctobjectsindifferentlanguages.Intheremainderofthis chapter,weexaminethemaincurrenttheoreticalproposalsaboutthenatureof copulasandthestructurestheyparticipatein.Wewillshowthatnoneofthemare freeofproblems,but,morecrucially,thatallofthemhaveclearfactssupportingtheir claimsempirically.Oneimportantpointtobearinmindwhenapproachingthis tensionis,precisely,thatwhatwecall ‘copula’ inonelanguageisquitelikelydifferent fromwhatwecall ‘copula’ inanother;copulasseemtobeinvolvedindifferent syntacticconstructionscross-linguistically.
Typesofcopularsentences
Itisfarfromclearwhetherthereisonlyonekindofcopularconstructionorwhether copulascanparticipateindifferentkindsofstructureswhereasubjectisrelatedtoa nonverbalpredicate.Differentanswershavebeenprovided,partiallydependingon whetherthedistinctionbetweendifferentkindsofcopularsentencesisarguedtobe purelysemanticortohaveanimpactonsyntax.
TheclassicaldivisionofcopularsentencescomesfromHiggins(),whoproposes afour-waysplit,dependingonwhether indifferentcombinations thenonverbal categoriescombinedbythecopulaarereferentialornot:predicational(a),specificational(b),equative(‘identitystatement’ , c),andidentificational(d).
()a.Thewinnerisamanwitharedbeard.
b.ThewinnerisCharlieBrown.
c.BrittReidistheGreenHornet.
d.ThatwomanisSusan.
In(a),thesubjectNPisreferentialandthepost-copularNPispredicative, ascribingsomepropertiestothesubject.Incontrast,in(b)thesubjectisnot referentialinthesensethatitisnotusedtoidentifyareferentinthecontext,and thepost-copularNPidentifiessuchreferent.In(c),anidentitystatement,both NPsareequallyreferential.Finally,accordingtoHiggins,in(d)thesubjectis
referential,butdoesnotprovidetheidentityofthereferent;thepost-copularNP providestheidentity.
Alotofdescriptiveandtheoreticalworkhasbeenconductedonthisissue;see, amongmanyothers,Halliday(),Akmajian(),Keizer(),denDikken (b),Lahousse(),Heycock(),fordifferentinterpretationsanddiscussion.
Higgins’s()taxonomyhasbeenquestionedfromtwosides.Ontheonehand, someauthorshavearguedthatthedivisionisinsufficient.Iteitherneedsother (semantic)classesofcopularsentencestobeadded(e.g.,ade finitionalclass Azombie isa fictionalundeadbeing,Declerck )oritisirrelevantinaccountingfor syntacticphenomena(seeBejaretal.thisvolumeforacritiquealongtheselines). Ontheotherhand,otherauthorshavearguedthatHiggins’s()classi ficationis over-specificandshouldbesimpli fied.Mikkelsen()proposedthatidentificationalsentenceslike(d)shouldbereducedtoeitheridentitystatementsor specificationalclauses.Mikkelsenarguesthatthetypologyofcopularsentences reducestowhetherthetwoNPsdenoteanindividual(type<e>)orapredicate (type<e,t>).
()a.<e>is<e,t>(predicational)
b.<e,t>is<e>(speci ficational)
c.<e>is<e>(equational)
Identificationalslike(d)areinstancesof(c),thatis,equational/identitystatements;incontrast,thosewhosesubjectissimplyademonstrative()reducetothe specificationaltype.
()ThatisSusan.
Incasessuchas() Mikkelsenclaims the firstnominalhasapredicational semantics.Sheprovidesthefollowingreasoning: that,asademonstrative,cannot refertohumans,soitdoesnotmakesensetoclaimthatin() that referstoan entity,sincethatentitywouldpresumablybeSusan,ahumanindividual.Thus,() isaninstanceofaspecificationalsentence.
OtherapproacheshavereducedHiggins’stypologyevenmore,positingonlytwo classes:predicationalandspecificational(orinverse),dependingonwhetherthe morereferentialNPisthe firstorthesecondintheclause.Predicationaland specificationalclauses,aswewillseeinthefollowingpages,aretakenbymany scholarstobethetwobasiccategoriesofcopularsentencestowhichalltheother notedsubtypesshouldbereducedto.Loccioni,inthisvolume,presentsastudyofthe twocopulasinLogoori,aBantulanguage,andarguesthattheirdistributioncaptures thebasicdistinctionbetweenpredicationalandspecificational,givingfurthersupport totheclaimthatthesearethetwotypesthatmustbedistinguishedinthegrammarof naturallanguages.Anexhaustivedividebetweenpredicationalandspecificational clausesimmediatelyaccountsforsentenceslike Johnismyfriend and Myfriendis John,buttheequative/identitystatementtypestillneedstobeaccountedfor.Moro ()infactarguedthatcopularsentencesarenevertrulyequative.Hisreasoningis thefollowing,startingfromabona fideequativesentencelike(): ()Themorningstaristheeveningstar.
IfwetrytomakeapossessivepronouninthesecondNPrefertothe firstNP,we obtainungrammaticality:
() *[Themorningstar]i is[itsi sourceoflight]
ThisissurprisingifneitherofthetwoNPsisapredicateandbotharereferential arguments.InatrueidentitystatementwherebothNPsarereferentialarguments Moroargues thiscoreferenceispossible:
()[Themorningstar]i isequalto[itsi sourceoflight]
So,whyis()uninterpretable?Bindingtheoryshowsthatapronouncontainedina predicativenominalcannotbeboundbytheclausalsubject: *Johni ishisi cook .This isthesameungrammaticalitythatwe findin( );hence,( )is,inactuality,a predicationalsentence,andbyparityalso( ).Thispositioniscontendedby HeycockandKroch( ),who,onthebasisofsemanticfacts,arguethatequative sentencesdoinfactexist,becauseneitherofthetwoNPscanbetakenasreally predicative(e.g., MyopinionaboutAlanMooreisyouropinionaboutFrankMiller). Incontrast,AdgerandRamchand( )arguethatthereisalwaysanasymmetryin referentialitybetweenthetwoNPsinvolvedintheconstruction.SeeWilliams( ) andPereltsvaig()forsimilarobservationsabouttheasymmetry.Theirposition isopposedtoCarnie(: –),whoarguesthattheasymmetriesidentified inequativesentencesfollowfromadistinctionintheta-marking,somethingthat necessarilyimpliesthattheequativecopulacannotbeinterpretedasthelogical identityoperation.
OtherapproachesalsoarguingforjusttwotypesofclausesarepresentinBlom andDaalder(),Heggie(),Verheugd(),Moro(, ),andden Dikken(, a).Interestingly,thesetheoriestendtoconcentrateonthe syntacticpropertiesofthestructure,ratherthanonthesemanticsoftheNPs involved.Aswewillseein§..,infact,ithasbeenarguedthatthereisonlyone typeofcopularsentence,namely,thepredicationalone,whereasthespeci ficational oneissyntacticallyderivedfromit.Beforeweexaminethisissue,letusconsiderthe questionofwhetherthetypologyofcopularsentencesleadsustoconcludethatthere ismorethanoneverb be.
.. Languageswithmultiplecopulas
Ifwetakethedefinitionproposedin()ofacopulabeinganelementthatrelatesa subjecttoanonverbalpredicate(withthecomplicationsnotedbefore),itcanbe concludedthatsomelanguageshavemorethanonecopularelement.Gibsonetal. (thisvolume)offerquiteacomprehensiveoverviewofthedifferentmorphological makeupofcopulasinasampleofBantulanguages.Theynotethateventypologically verycloselanguagesdifferinthenumberofcopulastheyhaveandtheregulations underpinningtheirdistribution.Thevariationofthecopulasincorrelationwiththe constructionstheyappeariniscrucialinadvancingourknowledgeaboutthenature andbehaviorofcopulas.Typologicalstudiescaninformsyntacticandsemantic theoreticalproposalsin,atleast,thefollowingrespects:
a)Thetaxonomyofcopularconstructions.Somecopulashavebeenarguedto appearonlyinparticulartypesofcopularsentences.Thiscanbetakenas evidencethatthesimpledistinctionbetweenpredicationalandinversecopular sentencesneedstobeenrichedonprincipledgrounds.
b)Thenatureofthecopulas.Thefactorsgoverningthedistributionofmultiple copulascanbeinformativewithrespecttothekindofhead(s)thatthecopulas spelloutineachlanguageandthedistinctkindsofelementsthatcanbe subsumedunderthetraditionallabelof ‘copula’
Letusbrieflyaddressthe firstaspect:whatmultiplecopulascantellusaboutthe typologyofcopularsentences.Iftherearedistinct,lexicallydifferentiatedcopulas, whosedistributionspatternwithdistincttypesofcopularsentences,theideathatat leastthosetypesofcopularsentencesmustbegrammaticallydistinguishedbecomes plausible.Inthissense,considerthediscussionbelow.
Someauthorshaveproposedadditionaltypesofcopularsentencesbasedonthe existenceofadditionalcopulas.Forexample,Bolinger()proposedalocative typeinadditiontothepredicationalandequativecopularsentences.Thishasbeen sustainedbyevidencefrom,forexample,Kinyarwanda(Jerro ),whereofthetwo copularelements, ni and –ri,one(ni)hasavarietyofusesand –ri isrestrictedto locationalpredications:
()a.Karemeraa-rim’uRwanda.
Karemera SG-COP inRwanda ‘KaremeraisinRwanda.’
b. *Mukamanaa-riumwarimu.
Mukamana SG-COP teacher
Intended: ‘Mukamanaisateacher.’
c. *Mukamanaa-rimunini.
Mukamana SG-COP big
Intended: ‘Mukamanaisbig.’
Also,accordingtoWauters(),inSereer(Niger-Congo)therearefourcopular elements.Thecopula-oo isusedinequativesentences(a); jeg isusedinexistential constructions(b); ref marksNPcopulasandisspecializedinindividual-level predicates(c); xe cancombinewithstage-levelpredicates,amongthemlocatives (d) whicharealsocompatiblewith ref. ()a.Mark,MusaaJuf=oo.
MarkMusaaJuf-COP ‘MarkisMusaaJuf.’
b.a=jeg-awiinfaafaf. =COP-DV peopledoctor ‘Therearemaledoctors.’
c.osiriñuma=ref-aosiriñmaak.
imam SG POSS =COP-DV imambig ‘Hisimamwasanimportantimam. ’
