Copular Clauses
Specification, predication and equation
| University of California, Berkeley
This book is concerned with a class of copular clauses known as specificational clauses, and its relation to other kinds of copular structures, predicational and equative clauses in particular. Based on evidence from Danish and English, I argue that specificational clauses involve the same core predication structure as predicational clauses — one which combines a referential and a predicative expression to form a minimal predicational unit — but differ in how the predicational core is realized syntactically. Predicational copular clauses represent the canonical realization, where the referential expression is aligned with the most prominent syntactic position, the subject position. Specificational clauses involve an unusual alignment of the predicative expression with subject position. I suggest that this unusual alignment is grounded in information structure: the alignment of the less referential DP with the subject position serves a discourse connective function by letting material that is relatively familiar in the discourse appear before material that is relatively unfamiliar in the discourse. Equative clauses are argued to be fundamentally different.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 85] 2005. viii, 210 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
|
Acknowledgements
|
vii
|
|
1. Introduction
|
1–3
|
|
I. Structure
|
4
|
|
2. Predicate topicalization
|
6–40
|
|
3. Alternative structures for specificational clauses
|
41–45
|
|
II. Meaning
|
46
|
|
4. Decomposing copular clauses
|
48–63
|
|
5. Determining the subject type
|
64–93
|
|
6. The type of the predicate complement
|
94–107
|
|
7. Consequences and extensions
|
108–130
|
|
III. Use
|
131
|
|
8. Aspects of use
|
133–161
|
|
9. An intergrated analysis
|
162–190
|
|
10.Conclusion
|
191–194
|
|
References
|
195–204
|
|
Index
|
205–210
|
“This is a beautiful piece of work, one that I have had much pleasure reading and discussing with students and colleagues. Mikkelsen's account of copular clauses is simply elegant. She is so thorough in her treatment of these copular constructions that in our discussion of her analysis in a recent MIT seminar there wasn't any comment that wasn't already anticipated in her own caveats and footnotes.”
Michel DeGraff, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT
Cited by
Cited by other publications
No author info given
2021.
In The Linguistics of Olfaction [Typological Studies in Language, 131],
AKAHANE, HITOSHI
2006. INNER ISLANDS.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 23:2 ► pp. 315 ff.
Antón-Méndez, Inés
2010. Gender Bender: Gender Errors in L2 Pronoun Production.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39:2 ► pp. 119 ff.
Aravind, Athulya, Martin Hackl & Ken Wexler
2018. Syntactic and Pragmatic Factors in Children’s Comprehension of Cleft Constructions.
Language Acquisition 25:3 ► pp. 284 ff.
Arregi, Karlos, Itamar Francez & Martina Martinović
2020. Three arguments for an individual concept analysis of specificational sentences.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
Barlew, Jefferson
2017. Focus on numbers.
Linguistics and Philosophy 40:4 ► pp. 401 ff.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Luca Ciucci & Margherita Farina
2019. Two types of morphologically expressed non-verbal
predication.
Studies in Language 43:1 ► pp. 120 ff.
Bondaruk, Anna
2012. Person case constraint effects in Polish copular constructions.
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59:1-2 ► pp. 49 ff.
Bondaruk, Anna
2014.
In Advances in the Syntax of DPs [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 217],
► pp. 61 ff.
Béjar, Susana
2011. Remarks on omnivory and complementarity: a commentary on the paper by Andrew Nevins.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29:4 ► pp. 973 ff.
BÉJAR, SUSANA & ARSALAN KAHNEMUYIPOUR
2017. Non-canonical agreement in copular clauses.
Journal of Linguistics 53:3 ► pp. 463 ff.
Castroviejo, Elena, Katherine Fraser & Agustín Vicente
2020. More on pejorative language: insults that go beyond their extension.
Synthese
Christopher, Nadezda
2020.
In Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 213],
► pp. 72 ff.
Citko, Barbara
2011. Small Clauses.
Language and Linguistics Compass 5:10 ► pp. 748 ff.
Davidse, Kristin & Ngum Meyuhnsi Njende
2019. Enumerative there-clauses and there-clefts: specification and information structure.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 51:2 ► pp. 160 ff.
Delahunty, Gerald P.
2012. An analysis of The thing is that S sentences.
Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 22:1 ► pp. 41 ff.
den Dikken, Marcel
2017.
In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition,
► pp. 1 ff.
Felka, Katharina
2014. Number words and reference to numbers.
Philosophical Studies 168:1 ► pp. 261 ff.
FLEISHER, NICHOLAS
2011. Attributive adjectives, infinitival relatives, and the semantics of inappropriateness.
Journal of Linguistics 47:2 ► pp. 341 ff.
García Castillero, Carlos
2013. Old Irish Tonic Pronouns as Extraclausal Constituents.
ÉRIU 63:-1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Gumiel-Molina, Silvia, Norberto Moreno-Quibén & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
2015. Comparison classes and the relative/absolute distinction: a degree-based compositional account of the ser/estar alternation in Spanish.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33:3 ► pp. 955 ff.
Gécseg, Zsuzsanna
2020. Focused Topics in Hungarian: Reconsidering the Pragmatic Relevance of the Structural Focus Position1.
Studia Linguistica 74:3 ► pp. 740 ff.
Hartmann, Jutta & Caroline Heycock
2017.
In Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian [Studies in Germanic Linguistics, 1],
► pp. 233 ff.
Hartmann, Jutta M.
2018. A focus analysis of apparent predicational clefts.
Belgian Journal of Linguistics 32 ► pp. 121 ff.
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2019. Restrictions on “Low” person agreement in Dutch specificational
copular constructions.
Linguistics in the Netherlands 36 ► pp. 130 ff.
Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
2020. (Morpho)syntactic Variation in Agreement: Specificational Copular Clauses Across Germanic.
Frontiers in Psychology 10
Heycock, Caroline
2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 57:2 ► pp. 209 ff.
Heycock, Caroline
2020.
In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics,
► pp. 1 ff.
Hinzen, Wolfram & Martina Wiltschko
2018. The grammar of truth.
Inquiry ► pp. 1 ff.
Jenks, Peter
2014. Generalized Clausal Modifiers in Thai Noun Phrases.
Syntax 17:4 ► pp. 299 ff.
Jin, Dawei
2020. A semantic account of quantifier-induced intervention effects in Chinese why-questions.
Linguistics and Philosophy 43:4 ► pp. 345 ff.
Kagan, Olga
2020.
In The Semantics of Case,
Kasyanova, Polina
2017. Nonverbal Predication in Chukchi.
SSRN Electronic Journal
Kumamoto, Chiaki
2012. REFERENTIALITY OF THE PRONOUNS IT AND THAT IN COPULAR SENTENCES.
Discourse and Interaction 5:2 ► pp. 35 ff.
KUMAMOTO, CHIAKI
2015. <i>The English </i>It<i>-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation</i>.
ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 32:2 ► pp. 419 ff.
Lee, Seung-Ah
2016. Verb Agreement in EnglishWh-Clefts: A Corpus-Based Study.
English Studies 97:7 ► pp. 779 ff.
Massam, Diane & Erin Grant
2014. Given two be’s, how do they Agree?.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 59:3 ► pp. 395 ff.
Mikkelsen, Line
2011. On Prosody and Focus in Object Shift.
Syntax 14:3 ► pp. 230 ff.
Milway, Daniel
2020. The contrastive topic requirement on specificational subjects.
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 65:2 ► pp. 181 ff.
Nowak, Ethan
2020. Really Complex Demonstratives: A Dilemma.
Erkenntnis
Nuger, Justin
2016.
In Building Predicates [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 92],
► pp. 1 ff.
Palancar, Enrique L.
2018.
In Information Structure in Lesser-described Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series, 199],
► pp. 245 ff.
Praet, Wout Van
2019. Aspect and modality in English predicative and specificational copular clauses.
English Text Construction 12:2 ► pp. 196 ff.
Rieppel, Michael
2013. The double life of ‘The mayor of Oakland’.
Linguistics and Philosophy 36:5 ► pp. 417 ff.
Rieppel, Michael
2016. Being Something: Properties and Predicative Quantification.
Mind 125:499 ► pp. 643 ff.
Ringstad, Tina Louise
2019. Distribution and function of embedded V–Neg in Norwegian: A corpus study.
Nordic Journal of Linguistics 42:3 ► pp. 329 ff.
Sabbagh, Joseph
2014. Word Order and Prosodic-Structure Constraints in Tagalog.
Syntax 17:1 ► pp. 40 ff.
Schwartzkopff, Robert
2016. Number sentences and specificational sentences.
Philosophical Studies 173:8 ► pp. 2173 ff.
Snyder, Eric
2017. Numbers and Cardinalities: What’s Really Wrong with the Easy Argument for Numbers?.
Linguistics and Philosophy 40:4 ► pp. 373 ff.
Sprugnoli, Rachele & Sara Tonelli
2019. Novel Event Detection and Classification for Historical Texts.
Computational Linguistics 45:2 ► pp. 229 ff.
Sæbø, Kjell Johan
2019. The explicative genitive and close apposition.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37:3 ► pp. 997 ff.
Van Praet, Wout
2019. Focus assignment in English specificational and predicative clauses: intonation as a cue to information structure?.
Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 51:2 ► pp. 222 ff.
Zhang, Niina Ning
2020. Low predicate inversion in Mandarin.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 29:2 ► pp. 159 ff.
Ørsnes, Bjarne
2013. Wh-Optatives in Danish: Compositional and Noncompositional Aspects.
Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25:2 ► pp. 137 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
Subjects
BIC Subject: CF – Linguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General