Copular clauses in Dene languages: Argument structure and interpretation

A widely accepted assumption in both the syntactic and semantic literature is that copulas lack semantic content. A consequent question is how to explain the existence in certain languages of two copular verbs that give rise to different interpretations. Such is the case in numerous languages of the Dene family (formerly known as Athapaskan). We explain this situation with the hypothesis that the copulas realize an underlying three-copula system differing in argument structure. Differences between the interpretations of copular clauses in these languages originate in the compositional semantics of these structures, not in any lexical semantic differences.This hypothesis successfully predicts the distributional differences between the surface forms of the Dene copulas, such as their compatibility with adjuncts of time and intentionality, interactions with accusative case, and semantic lifetime effects.

Verbal and verbless copular clauses in Moro

Moro has a rich array of copular clause constructions which show clear contrasts in their syntactic makeup. One class of copular clauses contain verbal heads, others are headed by non-verbal predicates that bear some inflectional morphology which is shared with verbs, while a final group of copular clauses lack any words which could be identified as verbs. I show that verbal and verb-like copular clauses always contain a predicative core. On the other hand, verbless copular clauses lack predicative semantics, serving the functions of identification or equation. I provide a simple syntactic analysis which accounts for the morphosyntactic distribution of the different types of clauses.

The contrastive topic requirement on specificational subjects

This paper offers a discourse-pragmatic account of the constraint on indefinite DPs as subjects of specificational copular clauses (a doctor is Mary). Building on Mikkelsen's (2004) proposal that specificational subjects are topics, I argue that they must be contrastive topics which properly contain F-marked constituents. I show that this can account for the absolute ban on simple indefinite subjects, and allow for more complex indefinites to be subjects. Finally, I discuss the syntactic analysis that would be predicted given my pragmatic analysis, and the puzzles that arise from it.

The Pronominal Element in Arabic Copular Clauses

In Arabic, a pronominal element (PE) (Note 1) appears in almost all copular clause types, specifically the specificational, identificational, and identity clauses, as well as in clauses with a post-copular definite description. It is obligatory in an identity clause consisting of proper nouns and is otherwise optional. However, the PE cannot be used in Arabic predicational clauses. This paper examines the nature of this PE, why it is illicit in the predicational clause and licit in all other types, and why it is obligatory only in the identity clause consisting of proper nouns and is otherwise optional. It suggests that the PE is a realization of the F head (the identity predicate) in the structure of the identity clause. The illicit use of the PE in the predicational clause follows from the presence of predicative expressions in this type of clause. Lastly, it is shown that the PE is obligatory only in an identity clause involving proper nouns to avoid ambiguity, and is otherwise optional.

Aspect and modality in English predicative and specificational copular clauses

This paper investigates the use of aspect and modality in English predicative and specificational copulars. To examine attractions of aspectual and modal meanings to the VPs in the copular constructions, I carry out collostructional analyses (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003). These attractions are interpreted with respect to (i) the lexicogrammatically coded meaning of the copular clauses and (ii) the pragmatic mechanisms that they trigger (e.g. (non-)exhaustiveness implicature), and (iii) the discursive functions they serve in specific contexts of use. It is crucial that this study takes into account specificational copulars with indefinite vs definite variable NPs, which carry an implicature of non-exhaustiveness vs exhaustiveness respectively. I will argue that the felicity of specific aspectual construals is related to the meanings coded at level (i), while the attraction of modal verbs is related to all three levels.

Nominal vs copular clauses in a diachronic corpus of Ancient Greek historians

We study the distribution of the nominal and copular construction of predicate nominals in a subset of authors from the Ancient Greek Dependency Treebank (AGDT). We concentrate on the texts of the historians Herodotus, Thucydides (both 5th century BCE) and Polybius (2nd century BCE). The data comprise a sample of 440 sentences (Hdt = 175, Thuc = 91, Pol = 174). We analyze the impact of four features that have been discussed in the literature and can be observed in the annotation of AGDT: (1) order of constituents, (2) part of speech of the subjects, (3) type of clause and (4) length of the clause. Furthermore, we test how the predictive power of these factors varies in time from Herodotus and Thucydides to Polybius with the help of a logistic-regression model. The analysis shows that, contrary to a simplistic opinion, the nominal construction does not drop into irrelevance in Hellenistic Greek. Moreover, an analysis of the distributions in the authors highlights a remarkable continuity in the usage patterns. Further work is needed to improve the predictive power of our logistic-regression model and to integrate more data in view of a more comprehensive quantitative diachronic study.

On PERSON, animacy, and copular agreement in Czech

This chapter provides novel empirical evidence from agreement in Czech copular clauses that the [+PERSON] feature is dependent on animacy (Adger and Harbour 2007, Nevins 2007, a.o.). The core evidence comes from agreement with φ‎-feature-deficient pronouns. It is argued that agreement with φ‎-feature-deficient pronouns yields a Multiple Agree configuration (Hiraiwa 2005). Strikingly, the interpretation of such a pronoun is restricted by all φ‎-features present in the Multiple Agree chain. Thus if a φ‎-feature-deficient pronoun with an unvalued PERSON feature enters a Multiple-Agree chain with valued φ‎-features, including a valued PERSON feature, then the PERSON feature restricts the interpretation of the antecedent of the pronoun. Crucially, this happens only if the pronoun gets valued as [+PERSON]. It is argued that this is because [+PERSON] pronouns have φ‎-feature valuation restricted by GENDER presuppositions associated with animate referents (Heim 2008, Sudo 2012, a.o.).