Cover not available
Article published In:
Copulas in Spanish and Beyond
Edited by Silvia Gumiel-Molina and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
[Spanish in Context 20:2] 2023
► pp. 389–410

The case for broader copulas

Evidence from Spanish, Tsez, and more

| University of the Free State
Discovering, comparing, and contrasting natural kinds is critical for scientific progress. It should be the goal of linguistic inquiry to seek out natural kinds within and between languages. Unfortunately, the most common definition of a copula is consistently inadequate for categorizing and comparing the data in cross-linguistic research on this topic. The categories of pseudo-copula and semi-copula have been offered to account for constructions which resemble the copular relationship between subject and complement, though with added meaning in that relationship. I will argue that copulas, defined more broadly, function in diverse ways cross-linguistically to instantiate the alterable feature-driven relationship between subject and complement. This article presents a gradient view of copulas based on a set of binary featural parameters with which a language may represent with one or more copulas. A formal description of this phenomena is also offered within in the framework of Distributed Morphology, building on Wilson (2020).
Keywords: copula, pseudo-copula, semi-copula
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The problem: Copulas, semi-copulas, and pseudo-copulas
  • 3.Feature inventory and the subject-complement relationship
  • 4.The hypothesis
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • Special glossing for Tsez data
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00092.wil
References (39)
References
Abdulaev, Arsen K., and Isa K. Abdullaev. 2010. Cezyas folklor/Dido (Tsez) folklore/Didojskij (cezskij) fol´klor. Leipzig–Makhachkala: “Lotos.”Google Scholar
Adger, David, and Gillian Ramchand. 2003. “Predication and Equation.” Linguistic Inquiry 34 (3): 325–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arche, María J. 2012. “On the aspectuality of the Individual-Level/Stage-Level dichotomy.” Borealis 1(2): 109–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. “Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout.” Springer Science and business Media.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn A. M. 2011. “BE-ing the Default: The Morphosyntax of Auxiliaries.” PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.
Camacho, José. 2012. “Ser and Estar: The individual/stage-level distinction and aspectual predication.” The handbook of Hispanic linguistics, 453–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “What do Spanish copulas have in common with Tibetan evidentials?” In New Perspectives on the Study of Ser and Estar [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 5], ed. by Isabel Pérez-Jiénez, Manuel Leonetti and Silvia Gumiel-Molina, 173–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Croft, William. 2022. Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s Languages Cambridge, CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. “Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface.” The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria. 2017. “Evidential commitment and feature mismatch in Spanish estar constructions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1281: 102–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, María Victoria, and Manuel Leonetti. 2002. “Coercion and the stage/individual distinction.” In From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics, ed. by J. Gutierrez-Rexach, 159–179. Oxford, England: Elsevier Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2014. “On the identity of roots.” Theoretical linguistics 40 (3–4): 225–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-Verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irwin, Patricia. 2018. “Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents”, Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1): 24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopeć, Zbigniew. 2020. “Towards a Construction Grammar Analysis of English Pseudo-Copular Constructions with Perceptual Impression Verbs.” Bulletin de la Société Polonaise de Linguistique 761: 321–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. “Severing the external argument from its verb.” In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, ed. by J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel, Pérez-Jiménez, Isabel, and Silvia Gumiel-Molina. 2015. “Ser and estar.” In New perspectives on the study of Ser and Estar, ed. by Isabel Pérez-Jiménez, Manuel Leonetti and Silvia Gumiel-Molina, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2): 201–225.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Verbal argument structure: Events and participants.” Lingua 1301: 152–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín, Rafael. 2009. “Spanish individual-level and stage-level adjectives revisited.” Unpublished manuscript, Université Lille.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Spanish adjectives within bounds.” In Adjectives: Formal analyses in syntax and semantics, ed. by Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr and Ora Matushansky, 307–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markman, Vita. G. 2008. “The case of predicates (revisited): Predicate instrumental in Russian and its restrictions.” Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1(2): 187–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2019. “Against the PredP theory of small clauses.” Linguistic Inquiry 50 (1): 63–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Complex copula systems as suppletive allomorphy.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1): 51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew, and Jeffrey K. Parrott. 2010. “Variable rules meet impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties.” Lingua 120 (5): 1135–1159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2014. Constructions and Environments: Copular, Passive, and Related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierce, Charles S. 1909. ‘Copula’. Term in Mats Bergman and Sami Paavola (Eds.), The Commens Dictionary: Peirce’s Terms in His Own Words. New Edition. Retrieved from [URL], 10.09.2021.
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raxilina, Ekaterina B. 2008. Cognitivny analiz predmetnyx imen: semantika i sočetaemost’ (Cognitive analysis of subject names). Russkie Slovari. Moscow.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. “Verbs and times.” The Philosophical Review 661: 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vydrin, Valentin. 2020. “Non-verbal predication and copulas in three Mande languages.” Journal of West African Languages 7 (1): 77–105.Google Scholar