The syntax of nominal copular clauses: theoretical and empirical perspectives
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Edinburgh
Department Name: Sch of Philosophy Psychology & Language
Abstract
One fundamental aspect of language is that sentences are composed of a subject and a predicate. In the best understood cases, the predicate is built around a verb, like "teach", as in
(1a) 'My cousin teaches.'
But predicates can also be built around nouns, like "teacher", as in
(1b) `My cousin is a teacher.'
The copula "be" that English requires here is absent in some other languages: semantically the predicate in the "nominal copular clause" (1b) is `a teacher'. The properties of nominal copular clauses are a long-standing issue for linguistics and philosophy: this project aims to address the challenging and potentially revealing questions posed by such clauses through systematic and detailed cross-linguistic investigation into their syntax and semantics, broadening the empirical landscape beyond well-studied languages to less studied ones.
Issues that will be investigated include those in (I)-(III):
(I) How many structurally different kinds of nominal copular clauses do languages use? If we start from the traditional distinction between predicative examples like (1b) above and `identity statements' like
(2) 'Stephen King is Richard Bachman.' (has the same meaning as 'Richard Bachman is Stephen King')
how do we analyse examples like
(3) 'In the dark, I thought your aunt was you!' (does not have the same meaning as `In the dark, I thought you were your aunt')
which also involve two individuals - like the `identity statement' in (2) - but change their meaning if reversed? Is it just a coincidence that some languages use the same copula in all these cases - and others - or are some of them in fact structurally identical despite differences in meaning? Given that identity is a quintessentially symmetric relation in logic, why is its expression in language typically asymmetric?
(II) Is the structure of noun phrase predicates different from the structure of noun phrases in their other uses? What does the answer tell us about how the meaning of complex expressions is built up from their parts?
(III) Nominal copular sentences are unusual in that the second noun phrase can have some unexpected subject properties. For example, in some languages the typical subject position is taken by the first noun phrase, but the verb agrees with the second, which also has the case for a subject. So, while in Present Day English we say `The problem is me' and not `The problem am I', in German the situation is the reverse (only the equivalent of the second version is acceptable). These "edge cases" allow us to refine and test competing hypotheses about the nature of fundamental processes like agreement and case-assignment.
Where documentation is lacking for relevant languages, online questionnaires will be used to elicit data in carefully constructed experiments that will extend the range of detailed information available about predication in a broader range of languages than is typically available. In addition to the empirical and analytical work done within the project, it will also contribute to future crosslinguistic work by producing and disseminating a detailed framework for eliciting data on copular constructions designed for use by researchers working with less well documented languages.
(1a) 'My cousin teaches.'
But predicates can also be built around nouns, like "teacher", as in
(1b) `My cousin is a teacher.'
The copula "be" that English requires here is absent in some other languages: semantically the predicate in the "nominal copular clause" (1b) is `a teacher'. The properties of nominal copular clauses are a long-standing issue for linguistics and philosophy: this project aims to address the challenging and potentially revealing questions posed by such clauses through systematic and detailed cross-linguistic investigation into their syntax and semantics, broadening the empirical landscape beyond well-studied languages to less studied ones.
Issues that will be investigated include those in (I)-(III):
(I) How many structurally different kinds of nominal copular clauses do languages use? If we start from the traditional distinction between predicative examples like (1b) above and `identity statements' like
(2) 'Stephen King is Richard Bachman.' (has the same meaning as 'Richard Bachman is Stephen King')
how do we analyse examples like
(3) 'In the dark, I thought your aunt was you!' (does not have the same meaning as `In the dark, I thought you were your aunt')
which also involve two individuals - like the `identity statement' in (2) - but change their meaning if reversed? Is it just a coincidence that some languages use the same copula in all these cases - and others - or are some of them in fact structurally identical despite differences in meaning? Given that identity is a quintessentially symmetric relation in logic, why is its expression in language typically asymmetric?
(II) Is the structure of noun phrase predicates different from the structure of noun phrases in their other uses? What does the answer tell us about how the meaning of complex expressions is built up from their parts?
(III) Nominal copular sentences are unusual in that the second noun phrase can have some unexpected subject properties. For example, in some languages the typical subject position is taken by the first noun phrase, but the verb agrees with the second, which also has the case for a subject. So, while in Present Day English we say `The problem is me' and not `The problem am I', in German the situation is the reverse (only the equivalent of the second version is acceptable). These "edge cases" allow us to refine and test competing hypotheses about the nature of fundamental processes like agreement and case-assignment.
Where documentation is lacking for relevant languages, online questionnaires will be used to elicit data in carefully constructed experiments that will extend the range of detailed information available about predication in a broader range of languages than is typically available. In addition to the empirical and analytical work done within the project, it will also contribute to future crosslinguistic work by producing and disseminating a detailed framework for eliciting data on copular constructions designed for use by researchers working with less well documented languages.
