Main questions in the study of copulas

This chapter identifies the main empirical facts that a grammar of copulas should capture (their categorical nature, the different constructions they are part of) and examines how the theoretical analyses existing to date and those advanced in this volume fare with respect to them. It is shown that copulas, given their frontier-like categorical nature and uttermost diversity in forms and behavior across languages and structures, are a privileged ground to explore essential theoretical issues of the functional domain of language. The wealth of new data from unrelated languages brought to light in this volume enables the elicitation of unknown descriptions, proving previous accounts insufficient. Likewise, this compilation allows the reader to appraise theoretical analyses of formal mechanisms that affect language in general (e.g. agreement), exceeding the scope of copulas themselves.

Predicational and specificational copular sentences in Logoori

This chapter presents data from Logoori (Bantu) which shows morphosyntactic evidence for two different strategies in place in copular sentences. Unlike English, Logoori predicational and specificational copular sentences do not (have to) have a similar surface syntax. It is claimed that the crucial difference does not rest on two distinct types of underlying predicational structures, rather it is the result of two different derivations. In Logoori, when the referential phrase is in a precopular position, it can either occupy the canonical subject position or (in some cases) it can be dislocated. On the other hand, when the predicative phrase is in precopular position it can only occupy a dislocated position, supporting an inverse analysis for specificational (and identificational) copular sentences in which the predicate must be dislocated outside the TP, much in the spirit of Moro (1997).

Aspects of the syntax of ce in French copular sentences

This chapter offers a syntactic analysis of French ce in copular constructions. It is argued that the distribution of ce is best understood in terms of the conditions on the agree operation inside the copular sentence. The proform ce, an expletive, is inserted whenever an agreement relationship cannot be established between an element in the subject position and an element from the PredP (Bowers 1993). Two sources of agreement failure are considered. In one case, agreement failure results from syntactic constraints on movement (Relativized Minimality, criterial freezing) together with focalization. In the other case, agreement failure results from the absence of accessible phi-features on the subject, possibly as the result of a grammatical shift taking place at the interface. This chapter further highlights the relevance of two subject positions (Subj1 and Subj2) each with their own interpretational properties.

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.).

Number matching in binominal small clauses

This chapter examines covariation in number specification in small clauses with two nominals, as exemplified by copular clauses with a nominal predicate (DP1 BE DP2). Number matching between DP1 and DP2 is obligatory in some such structures, but not others. Two questions arising from this are addressed: (A) By what formal mechanism should number matching between the DP1 and DP2 be enforced? (B) What determines whether matching is required or not? Regarding (A) this chapter argues that Agree is not well-suited for modeling this feature-sharing relation and proposes instead that number matching arises as a reflex of feature-valuation at Merge when DP2 has an unvalued number feature [_#]. Regarding (B), it is proposed that the availability of valuation as a reflex of Merge is sensitive to the feature structure of DP2 and is blocked when, for independent reasons, DP2 does not introduce an accessible [_#]. Three such cases are examined.

The copula as a nominative Case marker

In Korean the morpheme /-I/ has conventionally been taken to be a copula, since it functions as a host for tense affixes when the predicate is a nominal. This chapter, however, argues that it is a nominative Case marker on the basis of morpho-phonological and syntactic evidence. First of all, /-I/ and the nominative Case marker are phonologically identical; second, they are in complementary distribution, and third, they are subject to the same distributional restrictions. On these grounds this chapter claims that the constituent that has been assumed to be a copula is an allomorph of the nominative Case marker. There are some apparent counterexamples to this claim, but this chapter shows that they turn out to be not genuine counterexamples.

The role of the copula in periphrastic passives in Russian

One of the most interesting properties of the periphrastic passive construction in Russian is the optional realization of the copula verb be. Although the presence of the copula does not affect the grammaticality of the construction per se, there are semantic effects related to the presence/absence of the copula verb in a passive sentence. One of the clearest differences concerns the temporal interpretation of a sentence: a passive sentence without a copula corresponds to a present interpretation, whereas the same sentence with the copula realized has a past interpretation. This is in accordance with the grammatical pattern of copula realization in Russian: the present tense copula in nominal predicates is not overtly realized. This chapter shows that copula realization in Russian is conditioned only by a temporal interpretation, just as the traditional view has it, and is not related to a stative vs. eventive interpretation of passive sentences, as has been proposed by Paslawska and von Stechow (2003).

Copulas and light verbs as spellouts of argument structure

Dene (Athapaskan) languages typically have a small inventory of semantically light verbs. This chapter demonstrates that their interpretations derive wholly from their syntactic context in predictable ways and proposes these verbs are spellouts of morphosyntactic structure with either semantically vacuous roots or none at all. They are shown to form a cline of structural complexity and it is suggested that some of the cross-linguistic semantic variability observed in light verbs may originate from this structural variation. Additionally, since these verbs serve as matrix verbs of full clauses, they cast doubt on claims that light verbs are syntactically dependent on main verbs. The extreme semantic impoverishment and configurational relatedness of these verbs suggests that they are a unified class. Two of them are commonly termed copulas; the data and analysis presented here, however, suggest that a principled distinction between copulas and light verbs may ultimately be illusory.

The support copula in the left periphery

This chapter presents novel evidence for the morphological support approach to the copula, based on data from non-standard amalgam specificational copular constructions in English, like We need coffee is what we need. In these constructions, the copula linking the two clauses shows unusual syntactic and semantic properties. Evidence from an interpretation experiment shows that, although it is inflected for tense, the copula of an amalgam construction fails to associate with semantic tense. Furthermore, the amalgam copula cannot associate with the syntactic hallmarks of the T-domain or the V-domain; however, it can combine with material from the C-domain, suggesting that in these constructions, only the C-domain is present. To account for the amalgam specificational copular construction, a late-insertion analysis of the copula is adopted, under which the inflected forms of the copula are inserted as morphological support wherever inflectional features, combinations of [fin], [tense], and [φ‎], are stranded on a functional head. Since these features can be spelled out on a copula in C in the absence of T and V, it must be the case that higher functional projections can be independent from lower ones.

Variation in Bantu copula constructions

This chapter provides an overview of variation in Bantu non-verbal predication and copula constructions. These constructions exhibit a wide range of fine-grained micro-variation against a backdrop of broad typological similarity across the Bantu family. Variation is seen in the function of copulas, in their morphosyntactic properties, and with respect to the elements with which they combine. A key feature of Bantu copula constructions is the presence of several morphologically distinct copulas in many languages, often with different interpretations and restricted distribution. After surveying copulas found in Bantu, the chapter focuses on five languages—Mongo, Rangi, Digo, Swahili, and Cuwabo—and shows differences in complementation for the different copula forms, with tighter restrictions on locative, existential, and possessive interpretations across the sample, as compared to identificational and attributive interpretations. The data presented in the chapter are relevant for theoretical studies of copulas and the study of language change and language contact.