Article published in:
Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic
Edited by Axel Holvoet and Nicole Nau
[Valency, Argument Realization and Grammatical Relations in Baltic 1] 2014
► pp. 181–206

Subjecthood in specificational copular constructions in Lithuanian

| Institute for the Lithuanian Language | Vilnius University
Superficially, copular sentences serving specificational function, such as The winner of the race is John or The tallest girl in the class is Molly, look like inverted structures as compared with their more usual predicative counterparts, cf. John is the winner of the race and Molly is the tallest girl in the class. Though in terms of word order the specificational copular construction can be thought of as derived from its predicative counterpart by means of inversion, this inversion is strongly motivated by the communicative demands of specification and adds new structural properties to the construction: the former predicative nominal ‘moved’ into precopular position inevitably acquires an existential presupposition with regard to its unique referent, thus exhibiting role definiteness, and the information structure of the construction becomes bound to the different referential functions of its two nominals (the role defining NP is always a topic and the role specifying NP a comment). There are thus good functional and structural reasons to treat this specificational construction as a distinctive subtype of copular predication. Syntactically, however, the specificational copular construction, as compared to its predicative counterpart, remains, in many respects, a non-canonical predication. For instance, pseudoclefts (which represent a special case of the specificational copular construction), pose serious challenges to Binding Theory because of certain well-known connectivity effects. Another problem with this kind of copular predication − and this will be the topic of this article − is the inconsistency of subject assignment in such constructions across languages (and sometimes even within the same language). For example, in English, Danish, Swedish and French, the morphosyntactic marking of the subject is conferred on the first nominal of the specificational copular construction, while in Lithuanian, Russian, as well as in Italian and German, the second nominal of the construction acquires this marking. The fact that semantically equivalent structures acquire opposite patterns of morphosyntactic coding of the main grammatical relation, suggesting opposite directions of conceptualization of essentially the same specificational relation, poses a challenge to the main principle of Cognitive Grammar, the so-called content requirement. If one sticks rigorously to the morphosyntactic coding used in specificational copular sentences, one encounters difficulties with defining grammatical relations in terms of conceptual relevance, i.e., as a trajector / landmark configuration.
Published online: 16 May 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/vargreb.1.05mik
References

References

Chomsky, Noam
1981  Lectures on Government and Binding . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S.
1966 Reference and Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 75: 281–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Golda
2003 The problem is / are your parents: Resolving number conflicts in equative sentences in Dutch and German. Honours dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila
2008 Predication and Equation in Copular Sentences. In Existence: Semantics and Syntax [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 84], Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heggie, Lorie
1988 The Syntax of Copular Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna
2005 Identity and Information: Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of Specificational Sentences. PhD dissertation, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
2009 Agreement in specificational sentences in Faroese. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 36, 56–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57(2): 209–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Kroch, Anthony
1998 Inversion and equation in copular sentences. In Papers in Linguistics 10, Artemis Alexiadou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Ursula Kleinhenz, & Paul Law (eds), 71–87. Berlin: Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
1999 Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface Level. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 365–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet
2003  A Cognitive−Functional Approach to Nominalization in English [Cognitive Linguistics Research 26]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Francis R.
1973 The Pseudo−cleft Constructions in English. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA [Published by Garland Press, New York 1979].Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel
2005: Intranzityvinių sakinių tipai: egzistenciniai, lokatyviniai ir posesyviniai sakiniai [Intransitive clause types: existential, locational and possessive clauses]. In Gramatinių funkcijų tyrimai [ Studies in Grammatical Functions ], Axel Holvoet and Rolandas Mikulskas (eds), 139–160. Vilnius: Institute for the Lithuanian Language.Google Scholar
2006 Dėl sintaksinio dviprasmiškumo ir teminės-reminės struktūros [On syntactic ambiguity and theme-rheme structure]. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 55: 116–124.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1976 Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic , Charles N. Li (ed), 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar , vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000  Grammar and Conceptualization , 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001 Topic, Subject, and Possessor. In A Cognitive Approach to the Verb: Morphological and Constructional Perspectives [Cognitive Linguistics Research 16], Hanne Gram Simonsen & Rolf Theil Endresen (eds), 11–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002  Concept, Image, and Symbol . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008  Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, James
2010 Mood and transitivity in Lithuanian: The case of the inferential evidential. Baltic Linguistics 1: 115–142.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line
2004 Specifying Who: On the Structure, Meaning, and Use of Specificational Copular Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
2006 Specificational copular clauses. Talk given at the Kobe Area Circle of Linguistics, Kobe Shoin Women’s University, November 22 2006.Google Scholar
Mikulskas, Rolandas
2006 Pastabos dėl sintaksinio dviprasmiškumo sąvokos ir kiti susiję dalykai [Notes on the notion of syntactic ambiguity and other related matters]. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 55: 1–53.Google Scholar
2009 Jungties konstrukcijos ir jų gramatinis kontekstas [Copular constructions and their grammatical context]. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 61: 113–156.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea
1991 The raising of predicates: copula, expletives and existence. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 15: More Papers on Wh−Movement , Lisa Cheng & Hamida Demirdash (eds), 119–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
1997  The Raising of Predicates . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara
1986 Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be . In Proceedings of NELS 16, Stephen Berman, Jae-Woong Choe & Joyce McDonough (eds), 354–366. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya
2008  Copular Sentences in Russian: A Theory of Intra-Clausal Relations [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 70]. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2001  Predicates and Their Subjects [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 74]. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R.
2002  Cognitive Grammar . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1990 The aspectual case of predicative nouns in Lithuanian texts. In Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Contributions to the Semantics of Time and Temporal Perspective in Slavic and Non-Slavic Languages [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 5], Nils B. Thelin (ed), 325–347. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy
2007  Theory and Typology of Proper Names . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1983 Semantic vs. Syntactic Categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 423–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar