Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:52:08.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Copular sentences expressing Kimian states in Irish and Russian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Gréte Dalmi
Gréte Dalmi*
Affiliation:
Eszterházy College, Eger, Hungary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The central claim of this article is that the D(avidsonian)-state vs. K(imian)-state distinction established for German and Spanish by Maienborn is of wider crosslinguistic relevance. Stage-level and individual-level secondary predicates are both viewed here as K-states as they contain only a Kimian temporal variable but no Davidsonian event variable. Secondary predicates expressing a K-state may acquire the temporary/actual property interpretation when an alternative state entailment is added to them. In such cases the functional layer of the BE-predicate contains a syntactic operator (OPalt) that can bind the Kimian temporal variable in accessible worlds. If no such entailment is added, the same temporal variable is bound by the T0 functional head of the BE-predicate in the actual world. The auxiliary tá/bhí ‘be’ in Irish imposes the semantic restriction that its secondary predicate must contain the alternative state entailment. The copula is/ba ‘be’, on the other hand, is used in the absence of such an entailment. Case obviation on the secondary predicate head in Russian copular sentences signals alternative state entailment, while case agreement on the secondary predicate appears in the absence of this entailment.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article propose que la distinction entre l’état-D(avidsonien) et l’état-K(imien) établie pour l’allemand et l’espagnol par Maienborn est pertinente pour d’autres langues. Les prédicats secondaires d’individu ou épisodiques sont tous les deux considérés comme des états-K puisqu’ils ne contiennent qu’une variable temporelle kimienne mais aucune variable d’événement davidsonienne. Les prédicats secondaires qui expriment un état-K peuvent acquérir l’interprétation de propriété temporelle/réelle dès qu’une conséquence nécessaire d’état alternatif s’y ajoute. Dans de tels cas, le niveau fonctionnel du prédicat ÊTRE contient un opérateur syntaxique (OPalt) qui peut lier la variable temporelle kimienne dans des mondes accessibles. Lorsqu’une telle conséquence ne s’ajoute pas, la même variable temporelle est liée par la tête fonctionnelle T0 du prédicat ÊTRE dans le monde réel. L’auxiliaire tá/bhí ‘être’ en irlandais impose la restriction sémantique selon laquelle son prédicat secondaire doit contenir la conséquence d’état alternatif. La copule is/ba ‘être’, par contre, est utilisée en l’absence d’une telle conséquence. L’obviation du cas sur la tête du prédicat secondaire dans des phrases copulatives en russe signale une conséquence d’état alternatif, alors que l’accord de cas sur le prédicat secondaire apparaît en l’absence de cette conséquence.

Keywords

Kimian statecopular sentencesalternative statesthe Irish two-BE systemRussian case-agreement vs. case obviationétat kimienphrases copulativesétats alternatifsle système irlandais de deux verbes ÊTREaccord de cas vs obviation de cas en russe
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 341 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, David and Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 325–360.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid 2007. The grammar of focus interpretation. In Interfaces+recursion=language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax/semantics, ed. Gartner, Hans-Martin and Sauerland, Uli, 255–280. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana and Rezac, Milan. 2009. Cyclic agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40:35–73.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert and Roberts, Ian. 1996. The syntax of the Celtic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24:591–656.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 2001. Predication. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small clauses: Not so small and not all alike. In Lingua 118:261–295.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In The generic book, ed. Carlson, Greg and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry 176–223. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte. 1994. Hungarian infinitival constructions. Master’s thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte. 2000. The structure of psych-impersonal predicates. In Proceedings of the Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (SCL) 18, ed. Yuells, James, 193–207. Lund University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte. 2005. The role of agreement in non-finite predication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dalmi, Gréte. 2010. Copular sentences, predication and cyclic agree. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic, VDM.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The logic of decision and action, ed. Resher, Nicholas, 81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1980. The logical form of action sentences: Criticism, comment, and defence. In Essays on actions and events, ed. Davidson, Donald, 105–148. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry 23:353–380.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 1996. Clausal structure and the modern Irish copula. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:1–46.Google Scholar
Durrleman-Tame, Stephanie. 2008. The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geist, Ludmila. 2007. Copular sentences in Russian vs. Spanish at the syntax-semantics interface. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung: Annual meeting of the Gesellschaft fur Setnantik 10, ed. Ebert, Christian and Endriss, Cornelia, 99–110. Berlin: Zentrum fur Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS). [= ZAS Papers in Linguistics 44.]Google Scholar
Greene, David. 1966. The Irish language. Dublin: Three candles.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16:547–593.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 2000. On events in linguistic semantics. In Speaking of events, ed. Higginbotham, James, Pianesi, Fabio, and Varzi, Achille C., 49–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda and Sportiche, Dominique 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85:211–258.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 639–650. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual level predicates. In The generic book, ed. Carlson, Greg and Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, 125–176. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from case. Syntax 9:153–170.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case-transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:877–924.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2001. On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 9:191–240.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2003. Against a Davidsonian analysis of copular sentences. In Proceedings of North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 33, ed. Kadowaki, Makoto and Kadahara, Shigeto, 167–186. Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA), University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2005a. On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copular sentences. Theoretical Linguistics 31:275–316.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2005b. Eventualities and different things: A reply. Theoretical Linguistics 31:383–396.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2005c. A discourse-based account of Spanish serlestar. Linguistics 43: 155–180.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2008. On Davidsonian and Kimian states. In Existence: Semantics and syntax, ed. Comorovski, Ileana and Heusinger, Klaus von, 107–133. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2011. Event semantics. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, ed. Heusinger, Klaus von, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert and Roberts, Ian, 241–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. Elements of grammar, ed. Haegeman, Lilian, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 1988. The role of case in Russian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Parsons, Timothy. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study of subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Patrick, Peter. 2004. Jamaican Creole morphology and syntax. In A handbook of varieties of English: Morphology and syntax, ed. Kortmann, Bernd, Schneider, Edgar W., Upton, Clive, Mesthrie, Rajend, and Burridge, Kate, 407–439. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the nature of intra-clausal relations. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. Copular sentences in Russian. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Richardson, Kylie. 2001. What secondary predicates in Russian tell us about the link between tense, aspect and case. In Syntax of predication: Proceedings of the workshop on Syntax of Predication, ed. Zhang, Niina Ning, 1–25. Berlin: Zentrum fur Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS). [= ZAS Papers in Linguistics 26.]Google Scholar
Richardson, Kylie. 2007. Case and aspect in Slavic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Matt. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2000. Fine-grained structure in the eventuality domain: The semantics of predicative adjectival phrases and BE. Natural Language Semantics 7:347–20.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2001. Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Cristina. 2005. Semi-copúlas: Event and aspectual composition. In Aspectual inquiries, ed. Kempchinsky, Paula and Slabakova, Roumyana, 121–145. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Cristina and Miller, Karen. 2007. Making discourse-dependent decisions: The case of ser and estar in Spanish. Lingua 117:1907–1929.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2000. To be an oblique subject. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 66:1–32.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2002. Non-nominative subjects in Icelandic. In Non-nominative subjects, ed. Bhaskararao, Peri and Subbarao, Karumuri V., 137–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1996. The switcher’s paradise: Non-verbal predication in Maltese. Rivista di Linguistica 8:275–300.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2001. Nonverbal predication in the Circum-Baltic languages. In The Circum-Baltic languages, vol. 2: Typology and contact, ed. Dahl, Östen and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, 569–590. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2008. Zero copula for predicate nominais [Feature 120A]. In The world atlas of language structures, ed. Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard. Munchen: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at: wals.infb/chapter/120.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. The origin of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1991. Small clause restructuring. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Freidin, Robert, 183–218. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie. 2005. The Celtic languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo and Kayne, Richard, 839–880. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar