Specificational Copular Sentences Research Articles

Reversibility in specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts

Reversibility in specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts

The syntax and semantics of Swedish copular sentences: a comparative perspective

This paper investigates the (recent) case alternation in Swedish equative and predicational copular sentences (‘Cicero is Tully’, ‘Cicero is a nice guy’). A central contribution of the paper is showing that this alternation is an LF-phenomenon, contra Sigurðsson (in: Hartmann, Molnárfi (eds) Comparative studies in Germanic syntax: from Afrikaans to Zurich German. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 2006) who conjectures that Swedish is changing in the direction of English and Danish, where all postcopular DPs receive Accusative case, regardless of interpretation. The Swedish alternation is shown to track the same semantic dimension that conditions the choice of predicate case in languages like Polish, Russian and Dutch, namely the distinction between stage and individual level predication. Interestingly, the Swedish alternation is also shown to share distributional properties with the predicate case alternations in these languages. To account for these observations, I propose that the morphological and semantic contrasts between the two alternants are mediated by a structural difference, such that Nominative case involves a biclausal structure, and Accusative a monoclausal structure. This paper further adds to the typological picture, showing that Swedish patterns like Polish, Russian and Dutch, but unlike English and Danish, not just in terms of equative and predicational sentences, but also in specificational copular sentences (‘The fastest runner here is Lisa’). I argue that a particular kind of predicate inversion analysis is required to account for the Swedish type of specification.

The Attractions of Agreement: Why Person Is Different.

This paper establishes the generalization that whenever agreement with the finite verb is controlled by a constituent that is not in a Spec–Head relation with the inflectional head of the clause, this agreement cannot affect person. A syntactic representation for person inside the noun phrase and on the clausal spine is proposed which, in conjunction with the workings of agreement and concord, accommodates this empirical generalization and derives Baker’s Structural Condition on Person Agreement. The proposal also provides an explanation for the φ-feature agreement facts of specificational copular sentences. The paper places its findings on person vs. number agreement in the context of recent psycho- and neuro-linguistic investigation of number/person dissociation.

A remark on Béjar & Kahnemuyipour 2017: Specificational subjects do have phi-features

In a number of languages, agreement in specificational copular sentences can or must be with the second of the two nominals, even when it is the first that occupies the canonical subject position. Béjar & Kahnemuyipour (2017) show that Persian and Eastern Armenian are two such languages. They then argue that ‘NP2 agreement’ occurs because the nominal in subject position (NP1) is not accessible to an external probe. It follows that actual agreement with NP1 should never be possible: the alternative to NP2 agreement should be ‘default’ agreement. We show that this prediction is false. In addition to showing that English has NP1, not default, agreement, we present new data from Icelandic, a language with rich agreement morphology, including cases that involve ‘plurale tantum’ nominals as NP1. These allow us to control for any confound from the fact that typically in a specificational sentence with two nominals differing in number, it is NP2 that is plural. We show that even in this case, the alternative to agreement with NP2 is agreement with NP1, not a default. Hence, we conclude that whatever the correct analysis of specificational sentences turns out to be, it must not predict obligatory failure of NP1 agreement.

Extra be: The syntax of shared shell-noun constructions in English

This article examines the syntax of extra be constructions, common in nonprescriptive English and often considered a curiosity, such as: The problem is, is that she hates apples. It has been claimed that there are many different types of extra be constructions, with the two main types being double be and single be, but this article argues that these distinctions are largely superficial. The article reviews previous accounts, presents the complex data, and categorizes most cases of extra be into one unified syntactic construction, the shared shell-noun construction. It is argued that such constructions are syntactically fairly ordinary biclausal specificational copular sentences, consisting of a setup clause and a resolution clause, which share an argument. A second construction is also proposed for one subset of examples, the linking focus be construction, where be lexicalizes a left-peripheral focus head.

Well-formed lists: specificational copular sentences as predicative inversion constructions

This article re-examines the case for analysing specificational NP be NP sentences as predicative inversions. Taking a constructional and functional perspective, I show that only predicational sentences exhibiting a relation of class inclusion permit a specificational interpretation, and argue, following Higgins (1979), that the form of specificational inversion sentences is dependent upon the construction-specific concept of specificational meaning. In this way, the account provides an explanation for the restrictions on NP predicative inversion that have posed a problem for inverse analyses developed from within the formalist tradition. Since the distributional facts can be better captured than with the alternative equative approach (which treats specificational sentences as instances of semantic equation), the article concludes that specificational copular sentences are best analysed as instances of predicative inversion.

Tense and Intensionality in Specificational Copular Sentences

No abstract.

Specificational Copular Sentences in Russian and English

The Russian sentence (1), from Padučeva and Uspensky (1979), and English (2) are examples of specificational copular sentences: NP2 provides the ‘specification’, or ‘value’ of the description given by NP1.
 
 (1) Vladelec ètogo osobnjaka – juvelir Fužere.
 owner-NOM this-GEN mansion-GEN jeweler-NOM Fuzhere
 ‘The owner of this mansion is the jeweler Fuzhere.’
 
 (2) The biggest problem is the recent budget cuts.
 
 Williams (1983) and Partee (1986) argued that specificational sentences like (2) result from “inversion around the copula”: that NP1 is a predicate (type ) and NP2 is the subject, a referential expression of type e. Partee (1999) argued that such an analysis is right for Russian, citing arguments from Padučeva and Uspensky (1979) that NP2 is the subject of sentence (1). But in that paper I argued that differences between Russian and English suggest that in English there is no such inversion, contra Williams (1983) and Partee (1986): the subject of (2) is NP1, and both NPs are of type e, but with NP1 less referential than NP2, perhaps “attributive”. 
 
 Now, based on classic work by Roger Higgins on English and by Paducheva and Uspensky on Russian, and on a wealth of recent work by Mikkelsen, Geist, Romero, Schlenker, and others, a reexamination the semantics and structure of specificational copular sentences in Russian and English in a typological perspective supports a partly different set of conclusions: (i) NP1 is of type and NP2 is of type e in both English and Russian; (ii) but NP1 is subject in English, while NP2 is subject in Russian; and (iii) NP1 in specificational sentences is universally topical (discourse-old), but only in some languages (like English) is that accomplished by putting NP1 into canonical subject position. In other words, both English (2) and Russian (1) move the -type NP1 into some sentence-initial position for information-structure reasons, but in English NP1 ends up as syntactic subject, whereas in Russian, it’s inverted into some other left-periphery position.

Specificational sentences and the influence of information structure on (anti-)connectivity effects

This paper argues that the difference between connectivity and anti-connectivity effects in specificational copular sentences is heavily influenced by semantics and information structure. It shows that anti-connectivity effects with respect to binding disappear when the influence of information structure is neutralized, whereas anti-connectivity effects with respect to scope result from the semantics of specificational sentences. These data lead to the conclusion that anti-connectivity effects cannot be used as evidence against a syntax-based approach to specificational sentences and binding, that the analysis of specificational sentences should include both a syntactic and a semantic device, and that the syntactic analysis of specificational sentences should rely crucially on their information structure. I present and adopt Heycock & Kroch's (2002) analysis for specificational sentences, in which connectivity effects result from the assembling of ground and focus. The fact that connectivity effects are also exhibited by verb–object–subject word order in French and Spanish, which is marked for the ground-focus partition, is presented as an important piece of independent evidence in favor of this analysis.

The semantic category of the subject NP in Mandarin specificational copular sentences

I show that in Mandarin specificational copular sentences (sentences headed by the copula shi, in which the subject NP is typically a definite or indefinite description), the subject NP should be treated as a referential, rather than a predicative expression. This conclusion bears on the recent debate on whether specificational copular sentences should be treated as equative or as (inverted) predicational sentences, coming out against the latter. Evidence is adduced from (i) the distribution of the copula in nominal and non-nominal predication sentences, which I show also suggests that the Mandarin copula has a predicate-creation function; and (ii) asymmetries in the interpretation of bare nouns and indefinite NPs in the subject and complement positions of shi.

Tense and Intensionality in Specificational Copular Sentences

No abstract.

Specificational pseudoclefts in English

Specificational pseudoclefts (SPCs) have been a great challenge for a syntactic theory, because, despite the surface division between the pre- and post-copular elements, the post-copular ˋpivot' behaves as if it occupied the gap position in the precopular wh-clause. This paper argues that movement-based or deletion-based syntactic approaches and purely semantic approaches have problems in dealing with syntactic properties and connectivity problems of SPCs in English. Observing the parallelism between SPC pivots and short answers to questions, it proposes an HPSG account based on a non-deletion-based QDT (Question-in-disguise theory) approach and on the equative analysis of the specificational copular sentences. The paper shows that SPCs must be handled by an integrated account of the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties of the construction, and argues that the connectivity problems should be approached from such an integrated view.

Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences

No abstract.