![Predication, nonverbal stative
predicates, and copular sentences
2.1 Predication
The term predication, as used here, refers to the semantic and syntactic relation
between a predicate and a subject. Such a relation may occur at the sentence level
where it may be tensed (i) or at a levelbelow the sentence levelwhere it is not tensed,
i.e., in a small clause,as in the bracketed expression in (2). In the two examples below,
the subject Steve is in a predication relation with the verbal predicateeat:
(1) Steve is eating.
(2) John is watching [Steve eat],
A predicate is a lexical item denoting an open function and whose open positions
must be completed by an argument. Thus, verbs, for instance, have a theta-grid that
specifies lexically their thematic properties, and that must be saturated by closure
by an argument. Thematic relations express the various semantic relations between
the predicate, bearer of the theta-grid that has not been discharged, and the different
participants involved in the event or situation described by the predicate, the receivers
of the thematic roles (e.g., Agent, Patient, Experiencer, Theme, etc.).1
©-assignment
(or "©-marking" for Higginbotham 1985) corresponds to saturation of the argu-
ments: a theta-position is discharged by the ©-marker on an argument. Theta-roles
are a cluster of (semantic) thematic relations assigned to one argument. An external
theta-role is assigned to the subject; internal theta-roles are assigned to direct and
indirect objects, under strictly local conditions. Internal theta-roles are assigned to
1
Thepresent work will be set in a (neo-)Davidsonian view of predicates, in which predicates are predi-
cated of events rather than individuals (i.e., their subject) (Davidson 1967) and theta-roles are relationships
between individual participants in an event and the event itself (as argued for in Higginbotham 1985;
Parsons 1990; and Landman 2000). I am ignoring events, for the time being, for expository reasons. I will
come back to those in section 2.4.
2](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-24-320.jpg)
![Nonverbal Predication
is a predicational head called Pred (forPredication). The subject of the small clause is
projected in the specifier position of PredP:
Bowers argues that the particularity of Pred0
is that it does not take an unsaturated
expression as predicate, but rather a property. Its role is to turn properties into
predicates; the head Pred0
being, thus, the syntactic counterpart of the associated
semantic type-shifting rule (Chierchia 1984 and subsequent works). This head, seen
as functional, introduces a position for the subject:3
(7) a. John, is [PredP t, Pred [AP sick]].
b. John, is [predp t; Pred [pp in his car]].
c. John, is [fredP t; Pred [^p a doctor]].
Contrary to den Dikken (2006), for instance, I therefore do not assume that the copula
itself plays anyrole in mediating the relationship between the predicate and itssubject,
but instead that the copula is a raising verb that takes PredP as its complement, aswill
be made explicit in the next section.
2.3 Copular sentences and small clauses
2.3.1 Copular sentences
Copular sentences do not necessarily express a subject-predicate relationship, and
only a subset of them are unambiguously predicational. Thevery influentialtypology
of copular sentences due to Higgins (1979) distinguishes, for instance, four types of
copular sentences on the basis of the "function" they operate in speech acts:predica-
tional, specificational, identity (also often referred to as equative), and identificational
sentences:
(8) a. Paul is tall. predicational
b. The problem is his tie. specificational
c. Clark Kent is Superman. identity
d. That is John. identificational
Among the four types, one only expresses a predication relation, namely the predica-
tional type. The other three types operate other functions that are not the focus of our
3
Other proposals have been made regarding the label and nature of the functional head heading the
hierarchical small clause, sometimes called Agr° (locus of the agreement features between its complement
and the subject of the small clause; Sportiche 1995 and Gueron and Hoekstra 1995), or Asp0
(Contreras
1995), which do take predicates as their complement.
8
i
s](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-27-320.jpg)
![Some issues in nonverbalpredication
interest in this study. Specificational sentences, whose subject is, following Higgins'
own terminology, superscriptional, i.e., delimits a domain, rather than referential,
and whose predicate identifies a member, or a "variable" of that domain, differ from
predicational sentences in not having a referential subject. In French, for instance,
the syntax of Specificational sentences is clearly distinct from that of predicational
ones. Specificational sentences require the overt subject pronoun fa 'that/it,' which
often appears as the elided form c'.Thus, and contrary to English (cf. (8b) above), an
example like (93) below is ungrammatical and contrasts with (pb):
(9) a. *Le probleme est sa cravate.
the problem is his tie
b. Le probleme c'est sa cravate.
the problem it.is his tie
"The problem is his tie.'
Identity sentences express an identity relationship between the pre-copular DP and
the post-copular expression which, in this case, is not a predicate but rather a full
referential DP. Both members of the identity are referentialexpressions and, in most
cases, can be inverted around the copula (Superman is Clark Kent; cf. (8c))
Finally, identificational sentences such as illustrated in (8d), which involve a deictic
that/this subject and a [+human] post-copular DP expression (generally a proper
name or a definite expression), will also be ignored as they do not involve a post-
copular predicate. There have been suggestions in the literature that the identifica-
tional type might be reducibleto another ofthe first two types (identity statements, as
noted by Higgins 1979 himself, or Specificational sentences as more recently argued
by Mikkelsen 2004 and den Dikken 2006). In any case, they fall into the set of non-
predicational copular constructions.
2.3.2 Copula
2.3.2.1 How many bes? The contrast between predication and equation (i.e., iden-
tity) has led many researchers to believe that there exists more than one verb be.4
4
I am ignoring here the issue whether additional verbs be need to be distinguished to account for the
occurrences of bein existential constructions as in (i) and as an auxiliary in complex tense formation (ii):
(i) a. Ilestdes gens qui pensentle contraire. [FR]
it is INDEF people who think the contrary
"There are people who think the contrary.'
b. Jepense, done je mis. (Descartes)
I think therefore I am
'I think, therefore I am.'
(ii) Jean es^arrive. [FR]
John is arrived
'John has arrived.'
_9](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-28-320.jpg)
![Nonverbal Predication
Advocates of the "two be" approach, often seen as the "traditional" view, assume
a fundamental distinction between the copula be of predication and another verb be
of identity, distinguished by the types of their arguments. Be of predication takes two
arguments: a subject (of type e, i.e., denoting individuals) and a predicate (of type
<e,t>, i.e., which takes a proposition and returns a truth value). Predication be does
not have a semantic content of its own, and simply plays a role in applying the predi-
cate to the subject (as in (iob)):
(10) a. John is sick. (predication)
The be of equation, in contrast, takes two referential expressions (both of type e) as
its arguments. It is generally considered a transitive predicate, which assigns a theta-
role to both its subject and its complement. Its semantic contribution is the identity
relationship between the two individuals denoted by its arguments; it is semantically
equivalent to the sign "=":
(11) a. John is Superman. (equation)
b. XxXy[(x=y)]
Although the contrast is not visible in the form of the copula in languages such as
English or French, other languages, such as Spanish, Portuguese, Modern Irish, and
Scottish Gaelic, have two clearly distinct forms, one found in predicational contexts
and the other in identity sentences:5
(12) a.Juanestd feliz. (predication) [SP
Juan ESTAR.3SG happy
'Juan is happy.'
b. Juan es el assessino. (equation)
Juan SER.3SG the murderer
'Juan is the murderer.'
(13) a. Tha Calumfaiceallach (predication) [see]
BI.3SG Calum careful
'Calum is careful.'
b. S'e Calum an tidsear. (equation)
is.3SG.AGR Calum the teacher
'Calum is the teacher.'
5
As a matter of fact, while the be of predication appears in predicational sentences exclusively, the
identity copula is also found in certain predicative constructions in languages such as, for example, Spanish
and Modern Irish. Compare, for instance, (i) and (12), above. I will come back to these cases at great length
in the chapters to follow.
(i) Juan es feliz.
Juan SER.3SG happy
'Juan is happy
10
b.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-29-320.jpg)
![Some issues in nonverbal predication
This is the position I will adopt in this study. There exists one verb be of predication, a
semantically null copula, distinct from the equative be,a verb with lexical content and
thematic properties. However, I will assume, as is often the case, that predicational be
is not a lexical verb, but rather the realization of aspectual and tense features in the
sentence, in the absence of a verbal head.6
Accordingly, predicational be is devoid of
thematic properties and predicational copular sentences lack a lexical verb altogether.
Alternatively to the "two be" hypothesis, Williams (1983) and Partee (1986, 1987)
have argued that all occurrences of be (in the paradigm in (8)) can, in actuality, be
reduced to a single verb be of predication. Specifically, this means that there exists
only one be, whose meaning is "apply" the predicate to the subject and which takes
two arguments oftype e and type <e,t>. The apparent equative sentences, where both
the subject and the "predicate" in post-copular position are referential DPs, are treated
by a "type-shifting" operation rule that allows referential expressions of type e to be
shifted into expressions of type <e,t> (Williams 1983; Partee 1987; Chierchia 1984).
Entity-denoting expressions, such as Superman in (na) above, are shifted from their
original type to a predicate by the ident principle, which takes referential expressions
of type e and returns a predicate, mapping the individual Superman onto the property
of being identical to Superman: Xx[x=s] (Partee 1987).
A more radical version of this view would be that there is no lexical auxiliary be
altogether and that all occurrences of be are simply the realization of tense/aspect
features in the sentence, in the context of nonverbal predicates which cannot support
tense. Under an approach that treats (any form of) be as nonlexical, be never plays a
role at the level of theta-assignment and all thematic relationship between the predi-
cate (i.e., AP,NP, PP) and its subject must take place inside a nonverbal configuration,
i.e., the small clause (Stowell 1978). This approach could be referred to as the "zero
be" approach (cf. Partee 1998).
2.3.2.2 Predicativebe as a raising verb Prima facie, copular sentences involve more
than one apparent predicate: the nonverbal expression that appears to the right of the
copula (assuming, as in Higginbotham 1985, for instance, that all lexical categories,
and not only verbs, may have a theta-grid) and the copula itself. This poses the issue of
how the subject receives its theta-role. Of course, the problem is solved immediately
under the assumption that the copula is not a lexical verb, and therefore not the bearer
6
There are some issues with this view in English.The copula be can appear in small clauses (i) and with
the progressive (ii), two contexts where be seems to have some semantic contribution. The meaning of the
examples in (a) differs from that of the (b) examples, and the contrast has often been assumed to derive
from the semantic contribution of the copula (see, for instance, Rothstein 1999). I will come back to this
issue later.
(i) a. John made him be sad.
b. John made him sad.
(ii) a. John is being sad.
b. John is sad.
11](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-30-320.jpg)
![12 NonverbalPredication
of atheta-grid and is lacking thematic properties. This means, however that the subject
must receive a theta-role from the nonverbal predicative expression.
Many current accounts have assumed, in fact, that the copula is a raising verb
(following Stowells 1978 original account of existential constructions in English), and
that the nonverbal expression originates in a small-clause constituent, complement of
the copula. The underlying form of a sentence like (14) is, thus, as in (15);and (14) is
obtained by movement ofthe subject out ofthe small clause as in (16). The DP subject
a man originates as the external argument of the predicate on the roof inside the small
clause, and is raised in syntax to the empty subject position e to the left of the copula.
It receives a theta-role in the position it originates in, as a subject of the PP predicate
on the roof in (15):
(14) A man is on the roof.
(15) [ e [ is [sc [aman] [on the roof]]]]
(16) [aman [ is [sc [ ] [on the roof]]]]
In existential constructions, the subject DP remains in situ inside the small clause and
the empty position e is filled by an expletive:
(17) [There [is [sc [a man] [on the roof ] ] ] ]
In accounts that assume that sentences in (18) are predicational rather than equatives
(but see discussion above), the possible "inversion" of the two constituents in post-
and pre-position of the copula can be explained under the raising hypothesis if we
assume raising of the subject in one case (193) and raising of the predicate in the
other (i9b) (Moro 1997 and subsequent works, den Dikken 2006, among others):
(18) a. John is the director,
b. The director is John.
(19) a. [John [ is [sc [t,-] [the director ]]]]
b. [The director [ is [sc [John] [t; ]]]]
Cases involving a definite DP in post-copular position, and which generally allow
inversion, will be largely ignored in this study, however, as they fall, in my view, into
the class of nonpredicational sentences, as mentioned earlier. With that respect, I
differ from den Dikken (2006), who treats equatives as a special case of hierarchical
predicational structures.
2.3.3 Small clauses
2.3.3.1 Hierarchical structures The internal structure of the small clause has been
subject to much debate in the literature. The most controversial issues relate to
whether the small clause: (i) has a hierarchical structure, (ii)involves functional layers](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-31-320.jpg)
![Some issues in nonverbalpredication 15
sentences can be accounted for while maintaining a single hierarchical small-clause
structure, and thereby a single predication relation.
2.4 Nonverbal predicatesin a (neo-)Davidsonian semantics
2.4.1 Event argument
The present work is set in a neo-Davidsonian event-based approach to predicates, in
which predicates do not express directly relations between individuals and proposi-
tions, but rather between individuals and events.
The traditional view on predicates, as introduced earlier, is that they express rela-
tionships between their arguments. A transitive verb like stab, for instance, is a two-
place predicate which expresses a relationship between two arguments, an Agent (x),
the stabber, and an Experiencer (y), the stabbee: STAB(x,y).
Davidson (1967) introduces a different analysis of verbs in which events play a
crucial role. For Davidson, a transitive verb like stab expresses a three-place relation-
ship between two arguments and an implicit event argument (the Davidsonian event
argument) quantified existentially at the sentence level. Thebasic assumption is that a
sentence like (23) says something about an event and that the different arguments of
the predicate (i.e., Brutus and Caesar) are participants in that event.7
Theverb stab,in
the Davidsonian view, is a three-place predicate: STAB(x,y,e), as in the representation
in (24):
(23) Brutus stabbed Caesar.
(24) 3e[Stab(brutus,caesar,e)]
The event analysis is pushed even further in the "neo-Davidsonian" approaches devel-
oped by Higginbotham (1983) and Parsons (1985,1990) for whom verbs are no longer
relational predicates but monadic predicates of events, while thematic relations are
expressed as relations between individual participants in the event and the event itself
(Parsons 1985, 1990). The verb stab, like any other verb, is a one-place predicate of
events: STAB(e), as represented in (25):
(25) 3e[Stab(e) & Subj(e.brutus) & Obj(e,caesar)]
there exists an event e, e is a stabbing and the subject of e is Brutus and the
object of e is Caesar.
Different arguments support the underlying event analysis (see in particular Parsons
1990: chapter 2 for a review of supporting arguments). The strongest one, certainly,
relates to the logic of modifiers. The Davidsonian event allows for a simple and effective
7
I shall ignore tense here for simplification; it is neverthelessalso seen in this framework as a predicate
of events (Parsons 1990, for instance).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-34-320.jpg)
![16 Nonverbal Predication
explanation ofvariable polyadicity ofverbs. Specifically, it accounts for the entailment
patterns in (26):while (i6c) entails both (i6a) and (i6b) (modifier reduction), (i6c)
is not entailed by the conjunction of (i6a) and (i6b):
(26) a. Brutus stabbed Caesar in the kitchen.
b. Brutus stabbed Caesar with a knife.
c. /. Brutus stabbed Caesar in the kitchen with a knife.
not valid
Standard predicate logic cannot provide a clear explanation for the patterns of
inferences. (Neo-)Davidsonian views, which treat modifiers (adverbs and locatives,
instrumental PPs) as modifiers of the implicit event, do (27). Modifier reduction is
explained as a normal property of conjunction, namely that the members of a con-
junction can be eliminated without modifying the truth of the resulting conjunction
(28): (283) entails all other representations in (28):
(27) a. Brutus stabbed Caesar violently in the kitchen with a knife.
b. 3e[Stab(e)&Subj(e,brutus)& Obj(e.caesar) & Violent(e) & In(e,kitchen) &
With(e,knife)]
(28) a. 3e[Stab(e)& Subj(e.brutus) & Obj(e.caesar) & Violent(e) & In(e,kitchen) &
With(e,knife)]
b. /. 3e[Stab(e)&Subj(e,brutus) &Obj(e,caesar) &Violent(e) &In(e,kitchen)]
c. /. 3e[Stab(e) &Subj(e,brutus) & Obj(e.caesar) &Violent(e)]
d. /. 3e[Stab(e) &Subj(e,brutus) &Obj(e,caesar)]
Modifier permutation in (29) can be explained in a similar fashion, as the members of
a conjunction can be permuted without changing the truth of the resulting conjunc-
tion as well (30).
(29) a. Brutus stabbed Caesar violently in the kitchen with a knife.
b. /. Brutus stabbed Caesar violently with a knife in the kitchen.
c. /. Brutus stabbed Caesar in the kitchen violently with a knife.
(30) a. 3e[Stab(e)& Subj(e.brutus) & Obj(e.caesar) & Violent(e) & In(e,kitchen) &
With(e,knife)]
b. /. 3e[Stab(e)&Subj(e.brutus) &Obj(e,caesar) &Violent(e) & With(e.knife)
&In(e,kitchen)]
c. /. 3e[Stab(e) & Subj(e.brutus) & Obj(e,caesar) & In(e,kitchen) &Violent(e)
&With(e,knife)]
That the inference in (26) is not valid (i.e., that the truth of (263) and (26b) does
not entail that their conjunction must be true as well (26c)) is explained using event
variables, once we assume that (263) and (26b)each describe different stabbing events,](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-35-320.jpg)
![Some issues in nonverbalpredication 17
e.g., astabbing in the kitchen that might have been with astiletto and a stabbing with a
knife that might havebeen on the patio. Since events are existentially quantified before
they are conjoined, the implication does not necessarily hold. These facts cannot
be easily captured if verbs and adverbials are ordinary predicates (see, for instance,
Pianesi and Varzi 2000 for a review of the arguments). A second type of evidence in
favor of the implicit event comes from the possibility, linguistically, of making direct
reference to events.Anaphors, for instance, can take as an antecedent the implicit event
introduced by the verb. In (31), the pronoun it in (b) can only take asits antecedent the
event introduced by butter in (a) (Parsons 1990; Higginbotham 1996).8
This suggests
that events are linguistic objects that can be picked up asreferents:
(31) a. John buttered the toast,
b. It was quick.
The third kind of evidence comes from perceptual reports (Higginbotham 1983; Vlach
1983). Sentences like (32)cannot be analyzed as relations between individual partic-
ipants of the predicate. The object of the perception (e.g., saw, heard, watched) must
be an event (here events of buttering,falling, or running). If (32)were analyzed as in
(33) (example from Parsons 1990), this would lead to the wrong entailment patterns.
It would entail that if John felt Mary shuffle her feet, shuffle herfeet was the only thing
that Marywas doing at that time. This is incorrect: on the one hand, one can feel Mary
without feeling her shuffle her feet; on the other hand, one can feel Mary shuffle her
feet without feeling Mary. Instead, the underlying event analysis considers that the
object of the perception verb is an event, in this case a shuffling event, and not an
individual participant in the event, as given by the logical form in (34):
(32) a. John felt Mary shuffle her feet.
b. Steve saw John butter the toast.
c. Paul heard Bill fall.
d. Daisy watched John run.
(33) #Feel(john,mary) & Shuffle(maryfeet)
(34) 3e[Feel(e) & Subj(e.john) & 3e'[Shuffle(e') & Subj(e',mary) & Obj(e',her feet)]
&0bj(e,e')]
8
Note that the pronoun it can also refer to a proposition, as in (ib) below. Reference to propositions,
however, can be distinguished from event reference, as in (3ib), as only the former,but not the latter, allows
for the pronoun it to be substituted by a tftat-clause as in (ii) (see Katz 1995: 20):
(i) a. John buttered the toast,
b. It bothered Paul.
(ii) a. *That John buttered the toast was quick, (event antecedent)
b. That John buttered the toast bothered Paul, (proposition antecedent)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-36-320.jpg)
![Some issues in nonverbalpredication 21
c. /. Manuel estprof aux Beaux-Arts a Paris.
Manuel is professor at.the Fine.Arts.School in Paris
'Manuel is a professor at the School of Fine Arts in Paris.'
not valid
This suggests that nominals, like any other predicates, do have an eventuality argu-
ment, and their representation in example (43c), for instance, must be as in (44):
(44) 3e[professor(e) & Subj(e,manuel) & At(e,fine arts school) & In(e,paris)]
Furthermore, nominals in French can also be found as complements of perception
verbs. The bare form of predicate nominals can appear with perception verbs when
they denote states that are "perceptible," the constraints on nominals are no different
from the ones on other stative predicates (see above):
(45) a. Je ne I'ai vu enfantquune seulefois, et maintenant c'est
I NEC him.have seen child only.one only time and now it.is
deja un adulte.
already an adult
T have seen him as a child only once, and now he is already a grown-up.'
b. J'ai vu Manuel graphiste.
I.have seen Manuel illustrator
T have seen Manuel as an illustrator.'
c. Paul n'a jamais vu Louis etudiant, il etaitprof quand Us
Paul NEG.has never seen Louis student he was professor when they
se sontrencontres.
REFL are met
'Paul has never seen Louis as a student, he was a professor when they met.'
The two arguments support the idea that nouns have an eventuality argument.13
There are, thus, no reasons to believe that nouns differ semantically from other
nonverbal predicates, i.e. adjectives and prepositional phrases, nor from verbal pred-
icates, whether stative or active. I conclude that nouns, like adjectives, are predicates
of eventualities. Nonverbal predicates, like verbs, are predicated of eventualities.14
Since all predicates have an underlying eventuality, it follows that no particu-
lar explanatory force bears on the presence of the Davidsonian argument. Any
13
A further (theory-internal) kind of evidence comes from the possible modification of nouns by
adjectives like former and future, which have been argued (see Larson 1995, 1998) to be predicates of
eventualities only. If we accept these results, the fact that these adjectives are potential modifiers for bare
nominals in French supports the idea that Ns must have an eventuality argument: Paul estancien combattant
'Paul is a veteran' (lit. former fighter), Paul est ancien responsable syndical 'Paul is a former trade-union
leader.'
14
I will accept that all predicative nominals have an eventuality argument. Whether or not, however,
they are also events/states when constructed as referential DPs is beyond the scope of my discussion, and
I will leave this issue open.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-40-320.jpg)
![Some issues in nonverbalpredication 29
(65) a. Juan estd feliz. [SP]
Juan ESTAR.3SG happy
'Juan is happy.' (at the moment)
b. Juan es feliz.
Juan SER.3SG happy
'Juan is happy.' (by nature, a happy person)
Similarly, in Modern Irish, both is and hi are found in predicational sentences:
(66) a. Is duine deas e. [m]
IS.PRES person nice him
'He is a nice person.'
b. Td se tinn.
BI'.PRES him sick
'He is sick.'
The choice of the copula is often associated with differences in meaning described,
in the literature, in terms of the ILP/SLP distinction (Fernandez Leborans 1999 for
Spanish; Adger and Ramchand 2003 for Scottish Gaelic; Carnie 1995, Doherty 1996
for Modern Irish, for instance). Thesituation is,however, certainly more complicated.
In Spanish, nonverbal predicates exhibit a grammatical three-way distinction in
predicational copular sentences. First, there is a distinction in the choice of auxiliary
form, mentioned in (65), and repeated in (6/a-b). In addition, a second distinction is
marked, among predicational sentences constructed with ser,between those that take
a bare complement (6/b)17
and those that require an article (6/c):
(67) a. Juan estd angustiado.
Juan ESTAR.3SG anguished
'Juan is anguished.' (at the moment)
b. Juan es angustiado.
Juan SER.3SG anguished
'Juan is anguished.' (by nature)
17
Most speakers of Spanish do not accept angustiado in construction with serand without the indefinite
article, as in (6/b). This use appears often much improved with an inanimate subject (i), showing that there
is no grammatical blocking ofangustiado with ser. The use of the animate subject Juan in (6/b) is meant to
preserve a minimal variation with the other two examples.
(i) a. Su rostra es angustiado y melancolico.
his face SER.3SG anguished and melancholic
'His face is anguished and melancholic.'
b. El tono es angustiado pero no desesperado.
the tone SER.350 anguished but not desperate
'The tone is anguished but not desperate.'
c. El humanismopicasiano es angustiado
the humanism picassoian SER.3SG anguished
'Picasso's humanism is an anguished one.'](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2382805-250604214102-9f992d4f/85/Nonverbal-Predication-Copular-Sentences-At-The-Syntaxsemantics-Interface-Isabelle-A-Roy-48-320.jpg)
Nonverbal Predication Copular Sentences At The Syntaxsemantics Interface Isabelle A Roy
- 1. Nonverbal Predication Copular Sentences At The Syntaxsemantics Interface Isabelle A Roy download https://ebookbell.com/product/nonverbal-predication-copular- sentences-at-the-syntaxsemantics-interface-isabelle-a-roy-4765610 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Nonverbal Predication In Ancient Egyptian Antonio Loprieno Matthias Mller Sami Uljas https://ebookbell.com/product/nonverbal-predication-in-ancient- egyptian-antonio-loprieno-matthias-mller-sami-uljas-51123132 A Grammar Of Kambaata Ethiopia Part 1 Phonology Nominal Morphology And Nonverbal Predication Yvonne Treis https://ebookbell.com/product/a-grammar-of-kambaata-ethiopia- part-1-phonology-nominal-morphology-and-nonverbal-predication-yvonne- treis-6818328 Nonverbal Predication In Amazonian Languages 1st Edition Simon E Overall Rosa Vallejos Spike Gildea https://ebookbell.com/product/nonverbal-predication-in-amazonian- languages-1st-edition-simon-e-overall-rosa-vallejos-spike- gildea-51635280 Ssc Reasoning Verbal Nonverbal Guide For Cgl Chsl Mts Gd Constable Stenographer Gajendra Kumar https://ebookbell.com/product/ssc-reasoning-verbal-nonverbal-guide- for-cgl-chsl-mts-gd-constable-stenographer-gajendra-kumar-32741756
- 3. Multi Dimensional Reasoning Verbal Nonverbal Editorial Board Samanya Gyan Darpan https://ebookbell.com/product/multi-dimensional-reasoning-verbal- nonverbal-editorial-board-samanya-gyan-darpan-46147500 Rabbinic Body Language Nonverbal Communication In Palestinian Rabbinic Literature Of Late Antiquity 1st Edition Catherine Hezser https://ebookbell.com/product/rabbinic-body-language-nonverbal- communication-in-palestinian-rabbinic-literature-of-late- antiquity-1st-edition-catherine-hezser-51603216 Speaking About The Unspeakable Nonverbal Methods And Experiences In Therapy With Children 1st Edition Dennis Mccarthy https://ebookbell.com/product/speaking-about-the-unspeakable- nonverbal-methods-and-experiences-in-therapy-with-children-1st- edition-dennis-mccarthy-2023400 The Power Of Nonverbal Communication What You Do Is More Important Than What You Say Henry H Calero https://ebookbell.com/product/the-power-of-nonverbal-communication- what-you-do-is-more-important-than-what-you-say-henry-h-calero-2251996 Silent Witness Racines Nonverbal Annotations Of Euripides 1st Edition Susanna Phillippo https://ebookbell.com/product/silent-witness-racines-nonverbal- annotations-of-euripides-1st-edition-susanna-phillippo-37350838
- 7. OXFORD STUDIES IN THEORETICAL LINGUISTICS GENERAL EDITORS David Adger and Hagit Borer, Queen Mary, University of London ADVISORY EDITORS Stephen Anderson, Yale University; Daniel Biiring, University of California, Los Angeles; Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Ben-Gurion University; Donka Farkas, University of California, Santa Cruz; Ange- lika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Andrew Nevins, University College London; Christopher Potts, Stanford University, Amherst; Barry Schein, University of Southern California; Peter Svenonius, University of Troms0; Moira Yip, University College London Recent titles 27 Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure edited by Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel 28 About the Speaker Towards a Syntax of Indexicality by Alessandra Giorgi 29 The Sound Patterns of Syntax edited by Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Lisa Rochman 30 The Complementizer Phase edited by E. Phoevos Panagiotidis 31 Interfaces in Linguistics New Research Perspectives edited by Raffaella Folli and Christiane Ulbrich 32 Negative Indefinites by Doris Penka 33 Events, Phrases, and Questions by Robert Truswell 34 Dissolving Binding Theory by Johan Rooryck and Guido Vanden Wyngaerd 35 The Logic of Pronominal Resumption by Ash Asudeh 36 Modals and Conditionals by Angelika Kratzer 37 The Theta System Argument Structure at the Interface edited by Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Tal Siloni 38 Sluicing Cross-Linguistic Perspectives edited by Jason Merchant and Andrew Simpson 39 Telicity, Change, and State A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure edited by Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally 40 Ways of Structure Building edited by Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria and Vidal Valmala 41 The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence edited by Jochen Trommer 42 Count and Mass Across Languages edited by Diane Massam 43 Genericity edited by Alda Mari, Claire Beyssade, and Fabio Del Prete 44 Strategies of Quantification edited by Kook-Hee Gil, Steve Harlow, and George Tsoulas 45 Nonverbal Predication Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface by Isabelle Roy 46 Diagnosing Syntax edited by Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver 47 Pseudogapping and Ellipsis by Kirsten Gengel For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp 213-14.
- 8. Nonverbal Predication Copular Sentences at the Syntax-Semantics Interface ISABELLE ROY OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
- 9. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, 0x2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Isabelle Roy 2013 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2013 Impression: i All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law,by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available ISBN 978-0-19-954354-0 (hbk.) 978-0-19-954355-7 (pbk.) Printed by the MPG Printgroup, UK
- 10. To Pierre, Cabin, andMargot, in the order of their appearance.
- 11. This page intentionally left blank
- 12. Contents General Preface ix Acknowledgements x List of Figures xi List of Tables xii Abbreviations and Symbols xiii Part I Predicational copular sentences at the syntax-semantics interface 1 Introduction 3 2 Predication, nonverbal stative predicates, and copular sentences 5 2.1 Predication 5 2.2 Syntactic configuration for nonverbal predication 7 2.3 Copular sentences and small clauses 8 2.4 Nonverbal predicates in a (neo-)Davidsonian semantics 15 2.5 Summary of basic premises 22 2.6 Preview of core issues 23 2.7 Conclusion 30 Part II Meanings and structures 3 Meaning and typology of nonverbal predicates 3 5 3.1 Introduction 35 3.2 Indefinite and bare NPs as predicates in French 37 3.3 Properties of bare Ns 61 3.4 Bare Ns vs. As as predicates 71 3.5 Conclusion 90 4 Internal syntax of nonverbal predicates 91 4.1 Nominals 92 4.2 Maximal predicates as NumPs 95 4.3 Non-dense predicates as Classifier phrases 104 4.4 Dense construals no 4.5 Conclusion 113 1
- 13. viii Contents Part III Furtheranalysis 5 The case of the Russian copula 117 5.1 Form of the Russian adjectives 117 5.2 Case alternation: nominative vs. instrumental 126 5.3 Nominative-marked predicates as NumPs 131 5.4 Case 135 5.5 Conclusion 140 6 Spanish multiple be 141 6.1 Evidence for the three-way distinction 141 6.2 The distribution of ser/estar 148 6.3 Onefoe,two allomorphs 164 6.4 On the progressive and "active"-foe 167 6.5 Conclusion 172 7 Irish multiple be and genericity 175 7.1 The two predicative verbs be 7.2 Auxiliary alternation 182 7.3 Irish characterizing sentences 188 7.4 Conclusion 195 8 Conclusion 196 References 199 Index 207 176
- 14. General Preface The theoretical focus of this series is on the interfacesbetween subcomponents of the human grammatical system and the closely related area of the interfaces between the different subdisciplines of linguistics. The notion of "interface" has become central in grammatical theory (for instance, in Chomsky's recent Minimalist Program) and in linguistic practice: work on the interfaces between syntax and semantics, syntax and morphology, phonology and phonetics, etc. has led to a deeper understanding of particular linguistic phenomena and of the architecture of the linguistic component of the mind/brain. The series covers interfaces between core components of grammar, including syntax/morphology, syntax/semantics, syntax/phonology, syntax/pragmatics, mor- phology/phonology, phonology/phonetics, phonetics/speech processing, semantics/ pragmatics, and intonation/discourse structure, as well as issues in the way that the systems of grammar involving these interface areas are acquired and deployed in use (including language acquisition, language dysfunction, and language processing). It demonstrates, we hope, that proper understandings of particular linguistic phenom- ena, languages, language groups, or interlanguage variations all require reference to interfaces. The series is open to work by linguists of all theoretical persuasions and schools of thought. A main requirement is that authors should write so as to be understood by colleagues in related subfields of linguistics and by scholars in cognate disciplines. The phenomenon of predication has been recognized as central to understanding the nature of the relation between grammar and meaning since Aristotle. Isabelle Roy's book argues that there is a single basic syntactic format for predication, but that, within that format, there is a hierarchy of distinct syntactic categories that correlate with semantically different kinds of predication. The novelty lies in the idea that the syntactic—rather than the lexical—properties of the predicates are relevant to semantic interpretation, an idea that is bolstered by the rich crosslinguistic data Roy brings to bear on the topic. David Adger Hagit Borer
- 15. Acknowledgements This book is a revised version of my doctoral dissertation "Non-verbal predications: a syntactic analysis of predicational copular sentences," completed at the University of Southern California in 2006. I take this opportunity to hereby thank once again everyone who was acknowledged at the time. I am as ever particularly grateful to Hagit Borer for challenging discussions, advice, and incommensurable support; and to my dissertation committee members, Roumyana Pancheva, Barry Schein, James Higginbotham, and Elena Guerzoni, for their interest and valuable insights. I also thank CASTL (Center for the Advanced Study of Theoretical Linguistics) at the Uni- versity of Troms0 where a substantial amount of my postdoctoral time was dedicated to the writing ofthis book; and, in no particular order, Minjeong Son, Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke, Luisa Marti, KlausAbels, Antonio Fabregas, Anna- Lena Wiklund, and Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson for having been such extraordi- nary colleagues. I am also very grateful to my colleagues at UMR 7023 "Structures Formelles du Langage" at the University of Paris 8, and most of all Bridget Copley and Elena Soare for their support and to Bridget Copley in particular for many comments on earlier drafts. Finally I also thank Ora Matushansky and Fabienne Martin for many discussions and for their respective works that contributed to constantly keeping me interested in this topic.
- 16. List of Figures 6.1 The three-waydistinction: maximal/non-dense/dense: a double two-way split 172 6.2 Russian three-waydistinction: maximal/non-dense/dense 173 6.3 Spanish three-waydistinction: maximal/non-dense/dense 173 6.4 French three-waydistinction: maximal/non-dense/dense 173
- 17. List of Tables 3.1 Maximal predicates 49 3.2 Distribution of the two variants of predicate nominals in French 61 3.3 Bare Ns in French and the i-level/s-level contrast: a first attempt 67 3.4 Comparative distribution of the various classes of bare Ns in French 71 3.5 Dense and non-dense predicates 81 3.6 Properties of mass and count terms 84 3.7 Properties of dense and non-dense predicates 84 5.1 Long-and short-form adjectives in Russian 117 5.2 Russian forms and interpretations of adjectival predicates 128 5.3 Russian forms and interpretations of nonverbal predicates 129 5.4 Russian forms, interpretations, and categorial restrictions on nonverbal predicates 130 5.5 Predictions for Russian 132 5.6 Russian and French: lexical categories and interpretation 140 6.1 Form and interpretation of nonverbal predicates in Spanish 141 6.2 Distribution of auxiliaries and predicate form and interpretation in Spanish 147 6.3 Categories and interpretation of nonverbal predicates in Spanish 150 6.4 Categorial selection restrictions of ser and estar in Spanish 163 6.5 Summary: the three-way distinction: maximal/non-dense/dense eventualities 172 7.1 Categorical selection restrictions of the two auxiliaries in Irish 182 7.2 Selectional properties of the two auxiliaries in Spanish and Irish 182 7.3 Contrastive distribution of the Irish copula is and Spanish ser 184 7.4 Contrastive distribution of the Irish copula hi and Spanish estar 188 7.5 Predicate forms, interpretations, and choice of copula in Irish and Spanish 188 7.6 Summary of predicate and copula forms and interpretations in Spanish 189 7.7 Summary of predicate and copula forms and interpretations in Irish 189 7.8 Summary for Spanish and Irish 194 8.1 Grammaticalization of the maximal/non-dense/dense distinction in Russian, French, and Spanish 198
- 18. * Abbreviations and Symbols X lambda operator 3 existential quantifier V universalquantifier therefore * ungrammatical sequence # infelicitoussequence (...) optional sequence (*...) sequence must be omitted *(...) sequence cannot be omitted 0 null head 1 person 2 second person 3 third person A adjective ACC accusative ADV adverb AgrP agreement phrase Agrs subject agreement A-LF long-form adjective(Russian) AP adjective phrase A-SF short-form adjective(Russian) ASP aspect AUG augment CL classifier C1P classifier phrase COMP comparative DegP degree phrase DP determiner phrase e event ENG English FEM feminine FP functional phrase PR French Gen genericity operator GEN genitive first
- 19. xiv Abbreviations and Symbols ILP individual-level predicate IMPERF imperfective INST instrumental case IR Irish MASC masculine N noun NEG negation NOM nominative case NP noun phrase NUM number NumP number phrase Op operator P preposition PART partitive PAST past PERF perfective PL plural PP prepositional phrase PRES present PROG progressive REFL reflexive pronoun REL relative pronoun RU Russian SC small clause SCG Scottish Gaelic SG singular SLP stage-levelpredicate SP Spanish SVO subject-verb-objectorder t trace T tense TP tense phrase u utterance VN verbal noun VSO verb-subject-objectorder
- 20. Parti Predicational copular sentences at the syntax-semantics interface
- 21. This page intentionally left blank
- 22. Introduction Predication is a central issue at the syntax-semantics interface that has never ceased to interest researchers. One problem, for instance, is to define the particular configura- tions and conditions under which the predication relation canbe established. Another one is to understand the relation between the semantic properties of predicates and their internal structures, as well as the syntactic structures where they appear. These two matters are closely related and raise their own issues aswell. Focusing on copular sentences, this book addresses in particular the definite tension between the idea that all copular sentences involving a subject-predicate relationship (henceforth, predi- cational copular sentences) belong to the same type of sentences and the variety of grammatical distinctions expressed on nonverbal predicates within the same language and crosslinguistically. For instance, while most, if not all, typologies of copular sentences agree that all subject-predicate constructions (John isyoung, Paul is President, Lucie is on vacation) belong to the same type, namelypredicational sentences,many languages seem to mark grammatical distinctions suggesting that all predicates are not equal. As examples, French allows the apparent optionality of an indefinite article, Russian case marks nominal and certain adjectival predicates, Spanish and Irish have different forms of the auxiliary BE,and so on. This book explores how these syntactic differences, correlating with notable seman- tic differences, can be reconciled with a view that takes predication to be a syntactic relation established in the single structure in (i): There are two aspects to the issue. On the one hand, the core empirical issue is to determine the fine-grained typology of predicational sentences and (nonverbal) predicates. On the other hand, from a theoretical perspective, it is to understand and account for the correlation between the semantic properties of predicates and their particular internal structure. 1
- 23. Nonverbal Predication Concentrating on copular constructions, I will argue that the distinctions observed fall into three different categories: defining, characterizing, and situation-descriptive predicates—departing from more standard views that assume a binary contrast, most commonly between individual-level (IL) and stage-level (SL) predicates (Milsark 1974; Carlson 1977). The distinctions must not be understood, however, as lexical properties associated with nouns, adjectives, and PPs, but as syntactic ones, related to the internal syntactic properties of a given expression. The semantic differences amongst the three types of readings are associated with structural differences for the predicates involved. The characterizing reading isrelated to the presence of a functional projection Classifier while the defining reading is linked to the realization of a projectionNumber. Thesituation-descriptive reading arises only when both projections are lacking. More concretely, I will argue in favor of a hierar- chy of structural complexity between expressions that receive a situation-descriptive reading, those that receivea characterizing reading and necessarily involve a Classifier projection, and those that receive a defining reading and involve an additional layer Number. This book is organized in three parts. Part I (Chapters i and 2) presents a general introduction and my own assumptions regarding predication, nonverbal stative pred- icates, and copular sentences, along with an overview of the core issues addressed in this book. Part II (Chapters 3 and 4) constitutes the main theoretical discussion. In Chapter 3, I develop, on the basis of a detailed study of data from French, a fine-grained typol- ogy of nonverbal predicates based on a three-way semantic distinction. I propose a semantic analysis for the tripartition, set in a neo-Davidsonian semantics extended to (nonverbal) states, and based on two distinct criteria: density and maximality. Chapter 4 is devoted to a discussion of how the semantic distinctions defined in the previous chapter map onto syntactic structures. Part III (Chapters 5, 6, and 7) deals with further analyses and case studies of various languages which clearly grammaticalize a three-way distinction. Chapter 5is concerned with Russian, and in particular predicate case marking and morphological adjective formation. Chapter 6 is devoted to Spanish, a language which has multiple predication copulas, and how the three-way distinction allows us to provide a new insight into the distribution of the auxiliary forms ser/estar in that language. Finally Chapter 7 addresses Modern Irish, another language which has two distinct forms of the predication copula, and leads me to discuss genericity inside predicational copular sentences. Chapter 8 presents an overall conclusion and final remarks on categories and the role they play in predication, going back to the original observation that nouns and other nonverbal predicates may not behave exactly the same. 4
- 24. Predication, nonverbal stative predicates, and copular sentences 2.1 Predication The term predication, as used here, refers to the semantic and syntactic relation between a predicate and a subject. Such a relation may occur at the sentence level where it may be tensed (i) or at a levelbelow the sentence levelwhere it is not tensed, i.e., in a small clause,as in the bracketed expression in (2). In the two examples below, the subject Steve is in a predication relation with the verbal predicateeat: (1) Steve is eating. (2) John is watching [Steve eat], A predicate is a lexical item denoting an open function and whose open positions must be completed by an argument. Thus, verbs, for instance, have a theta-grid that specifies lexically their thematic properties, and that must be saturated by closure by an argument. Thematic relations express the various semantic relations between the predicate, bearer of the theta-grid that has not been discharged, and the different participants involved in the event or situation described by the predicate, the receivers of the thematic roles (e.g., Agent, Patient, Experiencer, Theme, etc.).1 ©-assignment (or "©-marking" for Higginbotham 1985) corresponds to saturation of the argu- ments: a theta-position is discharged by the ©-marker on an argument. Theta-roles are a cluster of (semantic) thematic relations assigned to one argument. An external theta-role is assigned to the subject; internal theta-roles are assigned to direct and indirect objects, under strictly local conditions. Internal theta-roles are assigned to 1 Thepresent work will be set in a (neo-)Davidsonian view of predicates, in which predicates are predi- cated of events rather than individuals (i.e., their subject) (Davidson 1967) and theta-roles are relationships between individual participants in an event and the event itself (as argued for in Higginbotham 1985; Parsons 1990; and Landman 2000). I am ignoring events, for the time being, for expository reasons. I will come back to those in section 2.4. 2
- 25. Nonverbal Predication complements of heads; external theta-roles are assigned in a specifier-head configu- ration. For example, a verb like buy is a two-place predicate that assigns an external theta-role to its subject, the buyer, and an internal theta-role to its object, the theme or object bought. Among the different argument-taking relationships a predicate can have with its various arguments, subjects have a special status, because, contrary to direct and indirect complements, which may or may not be realized depending on the nature of the predicate (intransitive, transitive, ditransitive), they are obligatory. The require- ment that every predicate has an overt subject has been formalized in syntax as the Extended Projection Principle (EPP)by Chomsky (1981, 1982, and many subsequent works), which stipulates that every clause must have a pronounced DP subject. The EPP requirement forces, for instance, a predicate that does not assign a thematic role to its external argument, for the latter to be realized as an expletive (e.g., It rains). Subjects are not strictly equivalent to external arguments (Williams 1981), as, for instance, unaccusative predicates likefall, die do not have an external argument, but have a (grammatical) subject. However, the notion of subject I will be using here is a structural notion following the assumption that predication is obtained under a specific structural relationship (cf. Williams 1980, 1994; Rothstein 1983, 2001; Hig- ginbotham 1985,1987; den Dikken 2006, among others), which I take to be as in the simplified representation in (3):2 Recent proposals have been made to separate the lexical verb from its argument structure. In this line of thinking, the external argument, "severed" from its predicate, is introduced, no longer by V° itself, but by some functional structure above it. The external argument is no longer an argument of the verb (i.e., it does not enter in the thematic lexical representation of verbs, for instance), but an argument of a higher projection. The exact nature of the head licensing the "external argument" is a matter of debate: called sometimes little v (Chomsky 1995; Harley 1995; Marantz 1997) or Voice (Kratzer 1996). What all these approaches have in common, however, is that they maintain a strict configurational specifier-head relationship between the head projecting the external argument and the DP realizing it: An alternative to the syntactic views can be found in Napoli (1989) for instance, where predication is seen as a purely semantic property, formalized by a semantic coindexing rule. 6 2
- 26. Some issues in nonverbalpredication The "external argument" is the argument realized outside the predicate projection; and, in that sense, the term will be used interchangeably with "subject," which I assumed to be a structural notion defined as in(4). 2.2 Syntactic configuration for nonverbal predication The neutral assumption, in an attempt to unify structurally the subject-predicate rela- tionship for verbs and nonverbs, is that nonverbal predicates (i.e., adjectives, nouns, and prepositions) take a subject in the same structural configuration as verbs. In other words, subjects of nonverbal predicates are also licensed under a specifier-head relationship with a functional head projecting the external argument. The nature of this head, however, must differ significantly from that found in the verbal domain, asnonverbal predicates lack properties typically associated with verbs, including the ability to be directly compatible with Tense, Aspect, and Mood. In a main clause, this information must be supported by averbal element, often rendering the presence of a verbal copula obligatory. It is important to note, however, that the copula is not in itself a requirement to establish the predication relation, as it is missing in small clauses, a context where tense is also lacking (more on the copula in section 2.3.2). Instead I will assume that nonverbal predicates always take a subject in a small- clause construction whose structure ishierarchical, and furthermorethat they involve some level of functional projection responsible for introducing the subject. The assumed structure is as in (5).The role of the head Z° is to project an external argu- ment in its specifier position (spec-ZP) where the subject is inserted. The nonverbal predicative expression is generated in the YPposition, as a complement ofZ°, creating a clear parallel with verbal structures, cf. (4): Following Bailyn and Rubin (1991), Bowers (1993), Svenonius (1994), and more recently Adger and Ramchand (2003), I will assume that the head of the small clause _7
- 27. Nonverbal Predication is a predicational head called Pred (forPredication). The subject of the small clause is projected in the specifier position of PredP: Bowers argues that the particularity of Pred0 is that it does not take an unsaturated expression as predicate, but rather a property. Its role is to turn properties into predicates; the head Pred0 being, thus, the syntactic counterpart of the associated semantic type-shifting rule (Chierchia 1984 and subsequent works). This head, seen as functional, introduces a position for the subject:3 (7) a. John, is [PredP t, Pred [AP sick]]. b. John, is [predp t; Pred [pp in his car]]. c. John, is [fredP t; Pred [^p a doctor]]. Contrary to den Dikken (2006), for instance, I therefore do not assume that the copula itself plays anyrole in mediating the relationship between the predicate and itssubject, but instead that the copula is a raising verb that takes PredP as its complement, aswill be made explicit in the next section. 2.3 Copular sentences and small clauses 2.3.1 Copular sentences Copular sentences do not necessarily express a subject-predicate relationship, and only a subset of them are unambiguously predicational. Thevery influentialtypology of copular sentences due to Higgins (1979) distinguishes, for instance, four types of copular sentences on the basis of the "function" they operate in speech acts:predica- tional, specificational, identity (also often referred to as equative), and identificational sentences: (8) a. Paul is tall. predicational b. The problem is his tie. specificational c. Clark Kent is Superman. identity d. That is John. identificational Among the four types, one only expresses a predication relation, namely the predica- tional type. The other three types operate other functions that are not the focus of our 3 Other proposals have been made regarding the label and nature of the functional head heading the hierarchical small clause, sometimes called Agr° (locus of the agreement features between its complement and the subject of the small clause; Sportiche 1995 and Gueron and Hoekstra 1995), or Asp0 (Contreras 1995), which do take predicates as their complement. 8 i s
- 28. Some issues in nonverbalpredication interest in this study. Specificational sentences, whose subject is, following Higgins' own terminology, superscriptional, i.e., delimits a domain, rather than referential, and whose predicate identifies a member, or a "variable" of that domain, differ from predicational sentences in not having a referential subject. In French, for instance, the syntax of Specificational sentences is clearly distinct from that of predicational ones. Specificational sentences require the overt subject pronoun fa 'that/it,' which often appears as the elided form c'.Thus, and contrary to English (cf. (8b) above), an example like (93) below is ungrammatical and contrasts with (pb): (9) a. *Le probleme est sa cravate. the problem is his tie b. Le probleme c'est sa cravate. the problem it.is his tie "The problem is his tie.' Identity sentences express an identity relationship between the pre-copular DP and the post-copular expression which, in this case, is not a predicate but rather a full referential DP. Both members of the identity are referentialexpressions and, in most cases, can be inverted around the copula (Superman is Clark Kent; cf. (8c)) Finally, identificational sentences such as illustrated in (8d), which involve a deictic that/this subject and a [+human] post-copular DP expression (generally a proper name or a definite expression), will also be ignored as they do not involve a post- copular predicate. There have been suggestions in the literature that the identifica- tional type might be reducibleto another ofthe first two types (identity statements, as noted by Higgins 1979 himself, or Specificational sentences as more recently argued by Mikkelsen 2004 and den Dikken 2006). In any case, they fall into the set of non- predicational copular constructions. 2.3.2 Copula 2.3.2.1 How many bes? The contrast between predication and equation (i.e., iden- tity) has led many researchers to believe that there exists more than one verb be.4 4 I am ignoring here the issue whether additional verbs be need to be distinguished to account for the occurrences of bein existential constructions as in (i) and as an auxiliary in complex tense formation (ii): (i) a. Ilestdes gens qui pensentle contraire. [FR] it is INDEF people who think the contrary "There are people who think the contrary.' b. Jepense, done je mis. (Descartes) I think therefore I am 'I think, therefore I am.' (ii) Jean es^arrive. [FR] John is arrived 'John has arrived.' _9
- 29. Nonverbal Predication Advocates of the "two be" approach, often seen as the "traditional" view, assume a fundamental distinction between the copula be of predication and another verb be of identity, distinguished by the types of their arguments. Be of predication takes two arguments: a subject (of type e, i.e., denoting individuals) and a predicate (of type <e,t>, i.e., which takes a proposition and returns a truth value). Predication be does not have a semantic content of its own, and simply plays a role in applying the predi- cate to the subject (as in (iob)): (10) a. John is sick. (predication) The be of equation, in contrast, takes two referential expressions (both of type e) as its arguments. It is generally considered a transitive predicate, which assigns a theta- role to both its subject and its complement. Its semantic contribution is the identity relationship between the two individuals denoted by its arguments; it is semantically equivalent to the sign "=": (11) a. John is Superman. (equation) b. XxXy[(x=y)] Although the contrast is not visible in the form of the copula in languages such as English or French, other languages, such as Spanish, Portuguese, Modern Irish, and Scottish Gaelic, have two clearly distinct forms, one found in predicational contexts and the other in identity sentences:5 (12) a.Juanestd feliz. (predication) [SP Juan ESTAR.3SG happy 'Juan is happy.' b. Juan es el assessino. (equation) Juan SER.3SG the murderer 'Juan is the murderer.' (13) a. Tha Calumfaiceallach (predication) [see] BI.3SG Calum careful 'Calum is careful.' b. S'e Calum an tidsear. (equation) is.3SG.AGR Calum the teacher 'Calum is the teacher.' 5 As a matter of fact, while the be of predication appears in predicational sentences exclusively, the identity copula is also found in certain predicative constructions in languages such as, for example, Spanish and Modern Irish. Compare, for instance, (i) and (12), above. I will come back to these cases at great length in the chapters to follow. (i) Juan es feliz. Juan SER.3SG happy 'Juan is happy 10 b.
- 30. Some issues in nonverbal predication This is the position I will adopt in this study. There exists one verb be of predication, a semantically null copula, distinct from the equative be,a verb with lexical content and thematic properties. However, I will assume, as is often the case, that predicational be is not a lexical verb, but rather the realization of aspectual and tense features in the sentence, in the absence of a verbal head.6 Accordingly, predicational be is devoid of thematic properties and predicational copular sentences lack a lexical verb altogether. Alternatively to the "two be" hypothesis, Williams (1983) and Partee (1986, 1987) have argued that all occurrences of be (in the paradigm in (8)) can, in actuality, be reduced to a single verb be of predication. Specifically, this means that there exists only one be, whose meaning is "apply" the predicate to the subject and which takes two arguments oftype e and type <e,t>. The apparent equative sentences, where both the subject and the "predicate" in post-copular position are referential DPs, are treated by a "type-shifting" operation rule that allows referential expressions of type e to be shifted into expressions of type <e,t> (Williams 1983; Partee 1987; Chierchia 1984). Entity-denoting expressions, such as Superman in (na) above, are shifted from their original type to a predicate by the ident principle, which takes referential expressions of type e and returns a predicate, mapping the individual Superman onto the property of being identical to Superman: Xx[x=s] (Partee 1987). A more radical version of this view would be that there is no lexical auxiliary be altogether and that all occurrences of be are simply the realization of tense/aspect features in the sentence, in the context of nonverbal predicates which cannot support tense. Under an approach that treats (any form of) be as nonlexical, be never plays a role at the level of theta-assignment and all thematic relationship between the predi- cate (i.e., AP,NP, PP) and its subject must take place inside a nonverbal configuration, i.e., the small clause (Stowell 1978). This approach could be referred to as the "zero be" approach (cf. Partee 1998). 2.3.2.2 Predicativebe as a raising verb Prima facie, copular sentences involve more than one apparent predicate: the nonverbal expression that appears to the right of the copula (assuming, as in Higginbotham 1985, for instance, that all lexical categories, and not only verbs, may have a theta-grid) and the copula itself. This poses the issue of how the subject receives its theta-role. Of course, the problem is solved immediately under the assumption that the copula is not a lexical verb, and therefore not the bearer 6 There are some issues with this view in English.The copula be can appear in small clauses (i) and with the progressive (ii), two contexts where be seems to have some semantic contribution. The meaning of the examples in (a) differs from that of the (b) examples, and the contrast has often been assumed to derive from the semantic contribution of the copula (see, for instance, Rothstein 1999). I will come back to this issue later. (i) a. John made him be sad. b. John made him sad. (ii) a. John is being sad. b. John is sad. 11
- 31. 12 NonverbalPredication of atheta-grid and is lacking thematic properties. This means, however that the subject must receive a theta-role from the nonverbal predicative expression. Many current accounts have assumed, in fact, that the copula is a raising verb (following Stowells 1978 original account of existential constructions in English), and that the nonverbal expression originates in a small-clause constituent, complement of the copula. The underlying form of a sentence like (14) is, thus, as in (15);and (14) is obtained by movement ofthe subject out ofthe small clause as in (16). The DP subject a man originates as the external argument of the predicate on the roof inside the small clause, and is raised in syntax to the empty subject position e to the left of the copula. It receives a theta-role in the position it originates in, as a subject of the PP predicate on the roof in (15): (14) A man is on the roof. (15) [ e [ is [sc [aman] [on the roof]]]] (16) [aman [ is [sc [ ] [on the roof]]]] In existential constructions, the subject DP remains in situ inside the small clause and the empty position e is filled by an expletive: (17) [There [is [sc [a man] [on the roof ] ] ] ] In accounts that assume that sentences in (18) are predicational rather than equatives (but see discussion above), the possible "inversion" of the two constituents in post- and pre-position of the copula can be explained under the raising hypothesis if we assume raising of the subject in one case (193) and raising of the predicate in the other (i9b) (Moro 1997 and subsequent works, den Dikken 2006, among others): (18) a. John is the director, b. The director is John. (19) a. [John [ is [sc [t,-] [the director ]]]] b. [The director [ is [sc [John] [t; ]]]] Cases involving a definite DP in post-copular position, and which generally allow inversion, will be largely ignored in this study, however, as they fall, in my view, into the class of nonpredicational sentences, as mentioned earlier. With that respect, I differ from den Dikken (2006), who treats equatives as a special case of hierarchical predicational structures. 2.3.3 Small clauses 2.3.3.1 Hierarchical structures The internal structure of the small clause has been subject to much debate in the literature. The most controversial issues relate to whether the small clause: (i) has a hierarchical structure, (ii)involves functional layers
- 32. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 13 of projection, and (iii) comes in one type only. The position I take here is that small clauses must have a hierarchical structure as in (6) and that their structure is unique, in the sense that allsmall clauses comply with the representation in (6).Stowell (1978, 1981,1983) originally proposed that the projection of an external argument is always constrained by a unique syntactic structure: predicates are X' and the subject is the specifier of XP.Mirroring matrix clauses, nonverbal expressions (N, A, and P) are the head of their own small-clause projection and license their subject in their own spec- ifier position (loa-c). In each case the argument receives a theta-role from the head: Under this view, small clauses, however, contrary to matrix clauses, do not involve functional projections, because they lack precisely the inflections found in matrix clauses. In an attempt to unify small clauses and matrix clauses, it has been proposed more recently, however, that the external argument has to be "severed" from its predicate (Bowers 1993; Svenonius 1994, for instance; see section 2.2). NPs, APs, and PPs are not the maximal projection of their own small clause, but instead the complement of a functional head which licenses the external argument. Subjects are not projected in the specifier position of lexical heads, but rather by functional ones, heading the small clause. See (6) repeated in (21). This view reduces subject-taking by nonverbal predicates to the same configuration as subject-taking in the verbal domain: the DP subject is generated in a spec-head relationship with the functional head introducing the external argument:
- 33. 14 Nonverbal Predication This hypothesis, consistent with other hypotheses in the verbal domain for the licens- ing of external arguments, e.g., VoiceP (Kratzer 1996), little v (Harley 1995; Marantz !997)> as mentioned above, allows a structural unification of the subject-predicate relationship, which makes argument-taking of nonverbal predicates no different than that of verbs. 2.3.3.2 Multiple structures Many researchers believe, however, that small clauses do not come in one type only, but rather that there exist multiple small-clause configu- rations. Carnie (1995), Heycock and Kroch (1999), Matushansky (2000), Pereltsvaig (2001), Rothstein (2001), among many others, distinguish two types of small clauses correlating with interpretational differences, and sometimes with differences in cop- ular auxiliary. In addition to the hierarchical structures discussed above, these authors also accept the existence of a "flat" (also called "bare") small-clause structure. Flat structures are nonhierarchical structures in which two maximal projections are sisters of one another and project a small clause (SC) (Moro 1997): The existence of this type of structure was originally claimed to capture the difference between predicational structure like John is sick and apparently symmetrical (equa- tive) structures like John is the professor, which allow for inversion, as in the professor is John (cf. Moro 1997; Pereltsvaig 2001) (section 2.3.2.2). Independently of whether this structure is motivated for equative sentences (see in particular den Dikken 2006), it has been extended since to account for sentences that do not necessarily involve an identity relation but rather a predicative one. In particular, for instance, Pereltsvaig (2001) and Matushansky (2000) have argued that nominative case-marked predicates in Russian, which are predicative and lack the properties of equative predicates, originate in such a structure. This hypothesis poses, however, various problems. First, it goes against the general claim that predication is obtained in a single configuration, as it allows for a predicate to take a subject in a sis- terhood relationship. The multiplication of configurations renders the understanding of predication much weaker than if we succeed in maintaining a single small-clause structure, and therefore a single way to license subjects (on a par with the licensing of subjects of verbs). As den Dikken (2006) rightly points out, there is no evidence that a symmetrical structure like (22)may be involved in any predicational structure; and for that matter that (22) is allowed at all by UG. To anticipate, I will show here that this hypothesis is in fact unnecessary and that all interpretational differences among predicational
- 34. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 15 sentences can be accounted for while maintaining a single hierarchical small-clause structure, and thereby a single predication relation. 2.4 Nonverbal predicatesin a (neo-)Davidsonian semantics 2.4.1 Event argument The present work is set in a neo-Davidsonian event-based approach to predicates, in which predicates do not express directly relations between individuals and proposi- tions, but rather between individuals and events. The traditional view on predicates, as introduced earlier, is that they express rela- tionships between their arguments. A transitive verb like stab, for instance, is a two- place predicate which expresses a relationship between two arguments, an Agent (x), the stabber, and an Experiencer (y), the stabbee: STAB(x,y). Davidson (1967) introduces a different analysis of verbs in which events play a crucial role. For Davidson, a transitive verb like stab expresses a three-place relation- ship between two arguments and an implicit event argument (the Davidsonian event argument) quantified existentially at the sentence level. Thebasic assumption is that a sentence like (23) says something about an event and that the different arguments of the predicate (i.e., Brutus and Caesar) are participants in that event.7 Theverb stab,in the Davidsonian view, is a three-place predicate: STAB(x,y,e), as in the representation in (24): (23) Brutus stabbed Caesar. (24) 3e[Stab(brutus,caesar,e)] The event analysis is pushed even further in the "neo-Davidsonian" approaches devel- oped by Higginbotham (1983) and Parsons (1985,1990) for whom verbs are no longer relational predicates but monadic predicates of events, while thematic relations are expressed as relations between individual participants in the event and the event itself (Parsons 1985, 1990). The verb stab, like any other verb, is a one-place predicate of events: STAB(e), as represented in (25): (25) 3e[Stab(e) & Subj(e.brutus) & Obj(e,caesar)] there exists an event e, e is a stabbing and the subject of e is Brutus and the object of e is Caesar. Different arguments support the underlying event analysis (see in particular Parsons 1990: chapter 2 for a review of supporting arguments). The strongest one, certainly, relates to the logic of modifiers. The Davidsonian event allows for a simple and effective 7 I shall ignore tense here for simplification; it is neverthelessalso seen in this framework as a predicate of events (Parsons 1990, for instance).
- 35. 16 Nonverbal Predication explanation ofvariable polyadicity ofverbs. Specifically, it accounts for the entailment patterns in (26):while (i6c) entails both (i6a) and (i6b) (modifier reduction), (i6c) is not entailed by the conjunction of (i6a) and (i6b): (26) a. Brutus stabbed Caesar in the kitchen. b. Brutus stabbed Caesar with a knife. c. /. Brutus stabbed Caesar in the kitchen with a knife. not valid Standard predicate logic cannot provide a clear explanation for the patterns of inferences. (Neo-)Davidsonian views, which treat modifiers (adverbs and locatives, instrumental PPs) as modifiers of the implicit event, do (27). Modifier reduction is explained as a normal property of conjunction, namely that the members of a con- junction can be eliminated without modifying the truth of the resulting conjunction (28): (283) entails all other representations in (28): (27) a. Brutus stabbed Caesar violently in the kitchen with a knife. b. 3e[Stab(e)&Subj(e,brutus)& Obj(e.caesar) & Violent(e) & In(e,kitchen) & With(e,knife)] (28) a. 3e[Stab(e)& Subj(e.brutus) & Obj(e.caesar) & Violent(e) & In(e,kitchen) & With(e,knife)] b. /. 3e[Stab(e)&Subj(e,brutus) &Obj(e,caesar) &Violent(e) &In(e,kitchen)] c. /. 3e[Stab(e) &Subj(e,brutus) & Obj(e.caesar) &Violent(e)] d. /. 3e[Stab(e) &Subj(e,brutus) &Obj(e,caesar)] Modifier permutation in (29) can be explained in a similar fashion, as the members of a conjunction can be permuted without changing the truth of the resulting conjunc- tion as well (30). (29) a. Brutus stabbed Caesar violently in the kitchen with a knife. b. /. Brutus stabbed Caesar violently with a knife in the kitchen. c. /. Brutus stabbed Caesar in the kitchen violently with a knife. (30) a. 3e[Stab(e)& Subj(e.brutus) & Obj(e.caesar) & Violent(e) & In(e,kitchen) & With(e,knife)] b. /. 3e[Stab(e)&Subj(e.brutus) &Obj(e,caesar) &Violent(e) & With(e.knife) &In(e,kitchen)] c. /. 3e[Stab(e) & Subj(e.brutus) & Obj(e,caesar) & In(e,kitchen) &Violent(e) &With(e,knife)] That the inference in (26) is not valid (i.e., that the truth of (263) and (26b) does not entail that their conjunction must be true as well (26c)) is explained using event variables, once we assume that (263) and (26b)each describe different stabbing events,
- 36. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 17 e.g., astabbing in the kitchen that might have been with astiletto and a stabbing with a knife that might havebeen on the patio. Since events are existentially quantified before they are conjoined, the implication does not necessarily hold. These facts cannot be easily captured if verbs and adverbials are ordinary predicates (see, for instance, Pianesi and Varzi 2000 for a review of the arguments). A second type of evidence in favor of the implicit event comes from the possibility, linguistically, of making direct reference to events.Anaphors, for instance, can take as an antecedent the implicit event introduced by the verb. In (31), the pronoun it in (b) can only take asits antecedent the event introduced by butter in (a) (Parsons 1990; Higginbotham 1996).8 This suggests that events are linguistic objects that can be picked up asreferents: (31) a. John buttered the toast, b. It was quick. The third kind of evidence comes from perceptual reports (Higginbotham 1983; Vlach 1983). Sentences like (32)cannot be analyzed as relations between individual partic- ipants of the predicate. The object of the perception (e.g., saw, heard, watched) must be an event (here events of buttering,falling, or running). If (32)were analyzed as in (33) (example from Parsons 1990), this would lead to the wrong entailment patterns. It would entail that if John felt Mary shuffle her feet, shuffle herfeet was the only thing that Marywas doing at that time. This is incorrect: on the one hand, one can feel Mary without feeling her shuffle her feet; on the other hand, one can feel Mary shuffle her feet without feeling Mary. Instead, the underlying event analysis considers that the object of the perception verb is an event, in this case a shuffling event, and not an individual participant in the event, as given by the logical form in (34): (32) a. John felt Mary shuffle her feet. b. Steve saw John butter the toast. c. Paul heard Bill fall. d. Daisy watched John run. (33) #Feel(john,mary) & Shuffle(maryfeet) (34) 3e[Feel(e) & Subj(e.john) & 3e'[Shuffle(e') & Subj(e',mary) & Obj(e',her feet)] &0bj(e,e')] 8 Note that the pronoun it can also refer to a proposition, as in (ib) below. Reference to propositions, however, can be distinguished from event reference, as in (3ib), as only the former,but not the latter, allows for the pronoun it to be substituted by a tftat-clause as in (ii) (see Katz 1995: 20): (i) a. John buttered the toast, b. It bothered Paul. (ii) a. *That John buttered the toast was quick, (event antecedent) b. That John buttered the toast bothered Paul, (proposition antecedent)
- 37. 18 Nonverbal Predication Verbs of perception further support the idea that events are linguistic objects, which can constitute arguments of predicates. 2.4.2 Stativepredicates The extension of this view to stative verbs has been advocated for in neo-Davidsonian approaches (Higginbotham 1983; Parsons 1990: chapter 10 and many subsequent works). It is, however, the subject ofmore controversies in the literature. In particular, Katz (1995) argues that no stative predicates have a Davidsonian event argument, while Kratzer (1995) and Maienborn (2003) have proposed that some, but not all, stative predicates have an event argument. In a nutshell, for Kratzer,all and only stage- level predicates have an event argument (whereas individual-level ones do not). For Maienborn states are grouped into two distinct classes according to whether they have a (stative) Davidsonian argument or rather a Kimian-state argument.9 The skepticism comes essentially from the difficulty of reproducing the evidence proposed for active verbs (logic of modifiers, direct reference to events, perceptual reports). It is not at all certain, however, that this comes from the absence of David- sonian argument with state verbs, or other constraints on the tests themselves. For instance, Higginbotham and Ramchand (1997) have argued that the complement of perception verbs must be active and transient, and that perception verbs must take as complement "perceptible" eventualities, i.e., activities or changes of states. The ungrammaticality of (35) alone cannot, therefore, be taken as an argument against a Davidsonian argument altogether: (35) a. *I saw John know the answer. b. *I heard them love Paris. c. *I watched John have a dog. Note in particular that some state verbs are possible, if they describe a "perceptible" state:10 (36) a. Steve saw John stand under the tree. b. Daisy watched Paul resemble his mother, (talking about psychological resemblance, for instance) c. Steve saw/heard John own a car. (in a poker game scenario, for instance)11 The underlying Davidsonian argument for statives is sometimes called a state argument, rather than an event, as statives refer to states rather than processes/actions.Both could be seen as variants of the same object, also sometimes called "eventualities" (Bach 1986). I will henceforth refer to both as the eventuality argument. 10 Note that the predicates in the complements of the perception verbs in (36) are truly stative and not eventive, as they cannot take, for instance, manner adverbial modifications: (i) a. * Daisy watched Paul resemble his mother deliberately, b. *Paul saw him naked deliberately. 11 Example (c) under the poker game scenario, reported by J. Higginbotham in his USC seminar, was originally due to S.Neale. 9
- 38. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 19 Nevertheless, the argument of the logic of modifiers is easily reproducible with state verbs (overcoming the fact that state verbs are rarely compatible with man- ner and other agent-oriented adverbials commonly found with activity verbs: *Bill loves Masha slowly, *Brutus has a dog quietly, etc. (Parsons, 1990: 188). Consider the following (examples in (38) from Landman 2000: 17): (37) a. John believed in God fanatically. b. John believed in God by choice. c. /. John believed in God fanatically by choice. not valid (38) a. I know John well by face from TV. b. I know John slightly personally from a party. c. /.I know John well by face from a party. not valid In both cases, from the conjunction of (a) and (b), there is no entailment that (c) is true as well. In the former case, John may have been believing fanatically in God under a particular constraint, while his believing in God by choice was not fanatic. In the latter case, the knowing of John well and the knowing of John slightly personally may describe two different and unrelated states. Applying the rationale applied to active verbs, one must conclude that the verbs believe and know must be predicates of some eventualities. I take this eventuality to be the Davidsonian event argument. If we accept that state verbs have a Davidsonian argument, a direct extension is to assume a Davidsonian argument for nonverbal statives as well. This is the position taken by neo-Davidsonians and the one I will adopt here aswell, based on the similar behavior of adjectives in the relevant tests. The logic of modifiers with adjectives produces the same results as with other predicates, as illustrated by the paradigms in (39), suggesting that adjectives are predicates of eventualities as well (examples from Parsons 1990: 191; see also Higginbotham 2005). Here, as before, the conjunction of (a) and (b) does not entail that (c) is also true. That the board is grooved with sharp furrows and that the board is grooved along its edge does not entail that it is grooved with sharp furrows along its edge (the grooving along the edge might be different, and the grooving with sharp furrows might be on its face): (39) a. The board is grooved with sharp furrows. b. The board is grooved along its edge. c. /. Theboard is grooved with sharp furrows along its edge. not valid They are also found in perceptual reports, under the conditions discussed above, namely that the state is "perceptible": (40) a. Paul saw him naked. b. Paul saw him under the tree.
- 39. 20 Nonverbal Predication Finally, a nonverbal stative predicate can also act as an antecedent to an anaphor (Par- sons 1990; Higginbotham 1996), as expected if they have an underlying eventuality which can be picked as a referent; cf. (31) above. (41) a. Steve was sick. It lasted 3 days. b. Peter is sick. It worries his mother. c. Danny owns a car. It makes it easier for him to get around. Katz (1995) objects that cases like (41) are not clear eventuality anaphora but "fact" anaphora, thereby dismissing this as an argument for an underlying eventuality in particular. His objection resides in the fact that these sentences can be paraphrased by the phrases thisfact or thefact that: as in, e.g., The fact that Peter is sick worries his mother. The fact, however, that the paraphrase is not available with (413) suggests that the eventuality anaphora is, nevertheless, truly available with stative predicates (see also fn. 8): (42) *The fact that Steve was sick lasted three days. 2.4.3 Nominals The assumption that nominal predicates have an underlying eventuality argument is usually considered even more controversial than in the case of adjectives, and the evidence found in the literature often appeals to particular pragmatic contexts, such as counterfactuals, fairy-tale scenarios, or "time-travel" (Parsons 1990,2000, and others). Instead of reviewing the arguments proposed for English, I will discuss the case of bare nominal predicates in French which provide direct evidence for an underlying eventuality argument with nominals (Roy 2005b). First, the logic of modifiers can be reproduced with (bare) nominals in French.12 As before, sentence (430), which includes two (locative) modifiers, is not entailed by the conjunction of each one of the modifiers in (a) and (b). BecauseManuel can, for instance, teach at the Fine Arts School in London and teach in a private studio in Paris, there is no entailment from the conjunction of (a) and (b) that (c) is true as well: (43) a. Manuel estprof aux Beaux-Arts. Manuel is professor at.the Fine.Arts.School 'Manuel is a professor at the School of Fine Arts.' b. Manuel estprof a Paris. Manuel is professor in Paris 'Manuel is a professor in Paris.' 12 To anticipate, French nominals as direct predicates may appear accompanied by an indefinite article or simply bare (Paul est (un) acteur 'Paul is an actor'). French will be discussed extensively in Chapters 3 and 4.
- 40. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 21 c. /. Manuel estprof aux Beaux-Arts a Paris. Manuel is professor at.the Fine.Arts.School in Paris 'Manuel is a professor at the School of Fine Arts in Paris.' not valid This suggests that nominals, like any other predicates, do have an eventuality argu- ment, and their representation in example (43c), for instance, must be as in (44): (44) 3e[professor(e) & Subj(e,manuel) & At(e,fine arts school) & In(e,paris)] Furthermore, nominals in French can also be found as complements of perception verbs. The bare form of predicate nominals can appear with perception verbs when they denote states that are "perceptible," the constraints on nominals are no different from the ones on other stative predicates (see above): (45) a. Je ne I'ai vu enfantquune seulefois, et maintenant c'est I NEC him.have seen child only.one only time and now it.is deja un adulte. already an adult T have seen him as a child only once, and now he is already a grown-up.' b. J'ai vu Manuel graphiste. I.have seen Manuel illustrator T have seen Manuel as an illustrator.' c. Paul n'a jamais vu Louis etudiant, il etaitprof quand Us Paul NEG.has never seen Louis student he was professor when they se sontrencontres. REFL are met 'Paul has never seen Louis as a student, he was a professor when they met.' The two arguments support the idea that nouns have an eventuality argument.13 There are, thus, no reasons to believe that nouns differ semantically from other nonverbal predicates, i.e. adjectives and prepositional phrases, nor from verbal pred- icates, whether stative or active. I conclude that nouns, like adjectives, are predicates of eventualities. Nonverbal predicates, like verbs, are predicated of eventualities.14 Since all predicates have an underlying eventuality, it follows that no particu- lar explanatory force bears on the presence of the Davidsonian argument. Any 13 A further (theory-internal) kind of evidence comes from the possible modification of nouns by adjectives like former and future, which have been argued (see Larson 1995, 1998) to be predicates of eventualities only. If we accept these results, the fact that these adjectives are potential modifiers for bare nominals in French supports the idea that Ns must have an eventuality argument: Paul estancien combattant 'Paul is a veteran' (lit. former fighter), Paul est ancien responsable syndical 'Paul is a former trade-union leader.' 14 I will accept that all predicative nominals have an eventuality argument. Whether or not, however, they are also events/states when constructed as referential DPs is beyond the scope of my discussion, and I will leave this issue open.
- 41. 22 Nonverbal Predication interpretational differences between the different types of predicates (for instance, individual-level / stage-level predicates) cannot come from whether or not they have an eventuality argument (contra Kratzer 1995, for instance, who has proposed that two types of predicates should be distinguished depending on whether they have a Davidsonian event argument or not, as a way of accounting for the contrast between individual-level and stage-level predicates on the basis of their lexical properties). The position I am taking here is the opposite: all predicates have an eventuality argument, and all differences in interpretation are to be related to other independent factors. 2.5 Summary of basic premises All predicational copular sentences are built upon a single structure involving a PredP whose head Pred0 serves as a mediator to establish the predication relation between the (nonverbal) expression and its subject (46). Pred0 always takes as complement an unsaturated expression: I assume the nonverbal predicate complement of Pred° introduces the eventuality variable, noted e. An aspectual head in AspP above PredP existentially binds the eventuality variable (in most cases; but more on that in Chapter 4). The copula, which is not a lexical verb but a semantically empty element serving as a support for the realization of tense in the sentence, is inserted in T° directly. It
- 42. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 23 then rises to Agrs°, the locus of subject agreement. Movement is required for the checking of agreement features, as traditionally assumed in a checking theory of movement (Chomsky 1995 and subsequent works). The DP subject,which originates in spec-PredP, is raised to spec-Agrs in order to be licensed, via case marking or the satisfaction of an EPP feature of T/Agrs, depending on what licensing strategy one wants to assume. 2.6 Preview of core issues 2.6.1 Introduction The assumption that the same structure underlies all predicational copular sentences is theoretically a good one, as it provides a simple and principled way to treat nonver- bal predication and unify it with verbal predication. However, it also faces important challenges, due in part to the lack of uniformity of expressions found in post-copular position, in terms, specifically, of their categories, interpretation, and structural com- plexity (from bare lexical item to a complex form involving possibly articles or case, for instance). In fact, the reason it has been argued that there exists more than one predicational be (see,for instance, Schmitt 1992 for Spanish) or more than one small- clause structure (see, for instance, Matushansky 2000; Pereltsvaig 2001 for Russian) was precisely to capture distributional differences between different types of predi- cates as well as important related interpretational contrasts. In a theory that assumes a unique configuration for predication together with a unique structure for predicational copular sentences, however, the burden of
- 43. 24 NonverbalPredication explaining these differences falls naturally not on the copula nor on the structure of predication, but on the nonverbal (predicative) expression itself. In other words, interpretational differences between the different types of predi- cational sentences must come from the internal syntax of their rightmost expression (i.e., post-copular predicate).This is preciselythe position that Iwill arguefor here.All differences between the different types and interpretations of predicational sentences are situated at the level of the internal structure of their predicate (PP, AP, C1P, and NumP), while the rest of the structure does not vary and is subject to the regular principles of predication and projection of the external argument introduced earlier. Before entering into the details of the claim, I provide in this section a review of some core issues that this study will have to deal with. The list is not exhaustive but representative of the type of issues that I will discuss here. 2.6.2 The "meaning variation"problem It has been widely noted that predicational post-copular expressions can be inter- preted, roughly, either as stable / inherent properties (e.g., intelligent, tall,from Paris) or as episodic / accidental properties (e.g., absent,sick, on the roof). Since the works of Milsark (1974) and Carlson (1977) the distinction is generallyformalizedas a contrast between individual-level predicates (following Carlsons own terminology), which are said to be predicated of individuals directly, and stage-level predicates (which Milsark calls state-descriptive), which are predicated of stages (i.e., spatio-temporal slices) of individuals. Thecontrast isclaimed to be a grammatical one and has different syntactic effects.15 The contrast between the two types of predicates is visible in various contexts in English. Milsark notes, for instance, that individual-level predicates (ILP) can never appear in the coda of an existential sentence. Existential sentences are grammatical with stage-level predicates (SLP) only: (49) a. *There were people intelligent/tall. ILP b. There are people sick/absent/drunk. SLP The ILP/SLP contrast is also visible in the strong/weak interpretation of bare nom- inals in subject position. Carlson (1977) notes that the interpretation of bare plural subjects differs when constructed with an ILP or SLP predicate. Bare plurals can only receive a generic interpretation when constructed with an ILP (503), while they may be interpreted either as generic or as existential when they appear with an SLP (sob) (Carlson 1977; Kratzer 1995; and see also Diesing 1992 for other weak nominal contexts): 15 More recent works by McNally (1994), Higginbotham and Ramchand (1997), Jager (1997,1999), and Fernald (2000), among others, have started to cast some doubt regarding a single individual-level/stage- level distinction at play in the phenomena discussed by Milsark and Carlson. For reasons that will become clear later, I will not adopt the distinction in this monograph.
- 44. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 25 (50) a. Firemen are altruistic. ILP b. Firemen are available. SLP A third context where the ILP/SLP distinction appears to play a role syntactically is in the complement position of perception verbs. As Carlson observed, only SLPs are acceptable in perceptual reports like (si):16 (51) a. *John saw the president intelligent. ILP b. John saw the president naked. SLP These contrasts raise a series of questions regarding the meaning variability of non- verbal direct predicates. Is their interpretational difference a lexical difference? This position, which has been taken by Kratzer (1995), for instance, relates the contrast between SLPs and ILPs to a difference in their argument structure. ILPs lack a spatio- temporal argument that is present with SLPs. Many advocates of the ILP/SLP distinction agree, however, that both ILPs and SLPs alike must have an eventuality argument (cf. section 2.4.2). Higginbotham (1985), in particular, takes a sentence like (52)as evidence that all (adjectival) pred- icates must have an underlying eventuality argument. Predicates most commonly cited as unambiguously individual-level can get a stage reading in the appropriate contexts: (52) John came to college dumb and left it intelligent. This further argues that if a distinction has to be made between predicates interpreted as individual-level vs. stage-level, the distinction cannot be lexical. As Ramchand (1996) rightly concludes, the general availability of the eventuality argument can- not be linked to its presence in every lexical entry, but rather to the fact that it is constructed by the syntactic structure. In other words, the source of the distinction between ILPs and SLPs is not part of the lexical content of the predicative root but constructed at some higher structural level. This opens the possibility that predicates may be structurally complex expressions and that they do not come in one flavor only, a view that I will defend here (although I will not be working under the ILP/SLP assumption here, but under rather finer-grained distinctions that I will argue are warranted to account for crosslinguistic data in French, Russian, Spanish, and Modern Irish in particular). 2.6.3 Th£ categorical problem Looking at the different lexical categories in copular sentences, various questions arise as well. In theory, at least, the major lexical categories, i.e., nominals (NPs), 16 Additional diagnostics have been proposed in subsequent literature that I will not discuss here. See Kratzer (1995) for a discussion of tvften-conditionals and Stump (1985) for a discussion of free adjuncts and absolute adjuncts, in particular.
- 45. 26 Nonverbal Predication adjectivals (APs), and prepositional phrases (PPs), are generally assumed to belong to the same semantic type, that of predicates. APs and PPs are commonly seen as predicates and therefore denote sets of individuals. If we assume the DP-hypothesis for nominals, stating that referential nominals must involve a functional head D°, the locus of referentiality, NPs, which lack a D-level, are predicates as well (Abney 1987; Longobardi 1994). With the exception of recent works by De Swart, Winter, and Zwarts (2005) and Beyssade and Dobrovie-Sorin (2005), NPs, APs, and PPs are all considered expressions of type <e,t>. Note that I differ slightly from this common view here in assuming that all lexical categories need to be constructed with a Pred° head in order to become a predicate (cf. section 2.2). Under either view does the categorical problem arise. Some languages seem to show a clear dichotomy among the lexical categories, between nominals, on the one hand, and APs and PPs, on the other. In Modern Irish, for instance, NPs are constructed with their own auxiliary is that is different from the one appearing with APs and PPs, bi (examples from Carnie 1995:138-9). These facts suggest that not all lexical categories are in fact equal: (53) a. Is dochtuir^s Sean IS.PRES doctor Sean 'Sean is a doctor.' b. *Is disteA Sean. IS.PRES clever Sean 'Sean is clever.' c. *Is i nDaoirepp Sean. IS.PRES in Derry Sean 'Sean is in Derry.' (54) a. *Td Sean dochtuirtj BI'.PRES Sean doctor 'Sean is a doctor.' b. Td Sean mor^ BI'.PRES Sean big 'Sean is big.' c. Td Sean i mBaile Atha Cliathpp BI'.PRES Sean in Dublin 'Sean is in Dublin.' d. Td Sean go maith^v BI'.PRES Sean ADVgood 'Sean is well.'
- 46. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 27 Semantically, many authors have accepted that nominals are restricted to a certain reading only. While APs can be found with an individual-level or a stage-level read- ing (as stated in section 2.6.2), NPs can only denote ILPs in English, thus blocking systematically the existential reading of bare plural subjects (55), their occurrence in the coda position of existential sentences (56),and in the complement of perception verbs (57).Such facts have led to the generally accepted conclusion that nominals are always ILPs (cf. Milsark 1974, Carlson 1977, for English; Adger and Ramchand 2003 for similar conclusions in Scottish Gaelic, among others): (55) a. Firemen are lifesavers. b. Dogs are mammals. (56) a. *There were people doctors. b. *There was a surgeon a happy woman. (57) *John saw Paul a doctor. NPs and APs have clearly different interpretations, as shown by the fact that they do not constitute possible answers to the same questions. While both NPs and APs can be used to answer the question What isX? (58), only APs, and not NPs, can constitute a felicitous answer to a question about a situation, as in (59): (58) What/How is John?—John is a drunkard / John is drunk. (59) What is going on?—#John is a drunkard / John is drunk. It is possible that the contrast between the two cases is reducible to the distinction between ILPs and SLPs in English, as individual-level adjectives (i.e., adjectives that are generally interpreted as individual-level predicates, assuming that the contrast is syntactic rather than lexical, as discussed earlier) like intelligent,tall, altruistic pattern with NPs like drunkard rather than drunk: (60) What is going on?—#John is intelligent / tall / altruistic. Such an explanation, however, cannot hold for a language like French, for instance, which shows similar contrasts to the ones exemplified in (s8)-(59) (see (6i)-(62) below); but clearly has nominals in so-called stage-level contexts, i.e. for instance, as the complement of perception verbs (63) and in existential sentences (64), see also (45), contexts where English disallows nouns completely: (61) Quest Jean?—Jean estunivrogne /Jean estivre. what.is John John is a drunkard John is drunk. (62) Que sepasse-t-il?—#Jean estun ivrogne /Jean estivre. what is going.on John is a drunkard John is drunk.
- 47. 28 Nonverbal Predication (63) J'ai vu Paul enfant une seulefois. I.have seen Paul child one only time 'I have seen Paul as a child only once.' (64) IIy a des hommes bans danseurs. there.is INDERPL men good.PL dancer.PL "There are men that are good dancers.' It has to be concluded that NPs can exhibit semantic ambiguities and are not inher- ently individual-level in French. However, if NPs are not individual-level only, and if at least some of them can be stage-level, then their ungrammaticality as an answer to question (62) cannot be explained. The French data above suggest that the distinctions among nominals are certainly more fine-grained than generally accepted, and it is not at all evident that they can be captured in terms of the ILP/SLP contrast. The distinctions of interpretation among nominals do not necessarily pattern with those found with adjectives either. Again, if all lexical categories are not equal, where is the distinction located?A related problem is the source of the contrast between nominals in French and their counterparts in English. That the internal structure of nonverbal predicates, and in particular nominals, is more complex than usually assumed is also corroborated by the fact that various languages exhibit grammatical markings suggesting a certain level of internal com- plexity. This complexity is displayed, for instance, by the presence of (indefinite) arti- cles (in English and its apparent "optionality" in languages like French and Spanish), and by overt case marking (in Russian), implying that predicate nominals are not necessarily bare NPs, and that more fine-grained distinctions maybe at play. 2.6.4 The copula problem A different issue that will be addressed is the status of the auxiliary be in lan- guages that distinguish between two forms of the copula in predicational construc- tions, as for instance is the case in Spanish, Portuguese, Modern Irish, and Scottish Gaelic. In Spanish and Modern Irish, the distinction between the predicational copula be and the verb be of identity is marked grammatically by the existence of two distinct auxiliary forms, namely ser I estar and isI hi, in these languages, respec- tively. The distribution of the two forms cannot be adequately captured by the sole oppo- sition between predication and equation, as the so-called "identity" auxiliary, in both languages, is also found in clear predicative contexts as well. In Spanish, for instance, various predicative adjectives, like/e/zz 'happy,' for instance, may appear either with the auxiliary estar or ser:
- 48. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 29 (65) a. Juan estd feliz. [SP] Juan ESTAR.3SG happy 'Juan is happy.' (at the moment) b. Juan es feliz. Juan SER.3SG happy 'Juan is happy.' (by nature, a happy person) Similarly, in Modern Irish, both is and hi are found in predicational sentences: (66) a. Is duine deas e. [m] IS.PRES person nice him 'He is a nice person.' b. Td se tinn. BI'.PRES him sick 'He is sick.' The choice of the copula is often associated with differences in meaning described, in the literature, in terms of the ILP/SLP distinction (Fernandez Leborans 1999 for Spanish; Adger and Ramchand 2003 for Scottish Gaelic; Carnie 1995, Doherty 1996 for Modern Irish, for instance). Thesituation is,however, certainly more complicated. In Spanish, nonverbal predicates exhibit a grammatical three-way distinction in predicational copular sentences. First, there is a distinction in the choice of auxiliary form, mentioned in (65), and repeated in (6/a-b). In addition, a second distinction is marked, among predicational sentences constructed with ser,between those that take a bare complement (6/b)17 and those that require an article (6/c): (67) a. Juan estd angustiado. Juan ESTAR.3SG anguished 'Juan is anguished.' (at the moment) b. Juan es angustiado. Juan SER.3SG anguished 'Juan is anguished.' (by nature) 17 Most speakers of Spanish do not accept angustiado in construction with serand without the indefinite article, as in (6/b). This use appears often much improved with an inanimate subject (i), showing that there is no grammatical blocking ofangustiado with ser. The use of the animate subject Juan in (6/b) is meant to preserve a minimal variation with the other two examples. (i) a. Su rostra es angustiado y melancolico. his face SER.3SG anguished and melancholic 'His face is anguished and melancholic.' b. El tono es angustiado pero no desesperado. the tone SER.350 anguished but not desperate 'The tone is anguished but not desperate.' c. El humanismopicasiano es angustiado the humanism picassoian SER.3SG anguished 'Picasso's humanism is an anguished one.'
- 49. 3o NonverbalPredication c. Juan es un angustiado. Juan SER.3SG an anguished 'Juan is an anguished person.' Similar patterns are found in Russian, for instance, which distinguishes, first, mor- phologically between long forms and short forms of the adjectives (68a-b); and sec- ond, among the long forms between instrumental case marking and nominative case marking (68b-c): (68) a. Man byla umna. Mari was intelligent.A-SF b. Mart byla umnoj. Mari was intelligent.A-LRiNST c. Mari byla umnaja. Mari was intelligent.A-LRNOM 'Mary was intelligent.' In both languages the contrast between the sentences in (a) versus those in (b-c) is usually described as a contrast between IL/SL predicates (e.g., Fernandez Leborans 1999 for Spanish; Wade 1992 for Russian). In independent studies, the contrasts between the forms in (b) versus (c) have also been described as an ILP/SLP distinction (e.g., Wierzbicka 1980; Bailyn and Rubin 1991; Matushansky 2000; Filip 2001, for Russian). Ifweput these results together,we end up with asituation where the forms in (b), in Spanish and in Russian, must be both SLPs and ILPs at the same time. In fact, in many respects, as we will discuss in great length in later chapters, these forms pattern both with stage-level expressions and with individual-level expressions; for instance, they are allowed in certain stage-level contexts such as existential constructions, but they cannot take certain spatio-temporal modifiers. Paradigms such as (6/)-(68) show not only a lack of unity among nonverbal predicates but also that a binary contrast is insufficient to account for it. 2.7 Conclusion The hypothesis that predication occurs in a single syntactic configurationis,in princi- ple, a good one, as it gives us a very tight connection between structure and meaning. The view that predication happens inside a hierarchical small clause in the case of nonverbal predicates is also an interesting one as it allows a perfect parallelism to be preserved with verbal predications. This does not mean, however,that predicational copular sentences necessarily come in one form only. It would be a mistake to think that in lacking a meaningful verbal predicate (i.e., specifically, not a copula) they also lack fine-grained specifications on the interpretation of the predicate.
- 50. Some issues in nonverbalpredication 31 Nevertheless, there is a definite tension between the claim that all predications comply with the hierarchical small-clause structure, and the variety of grammatical contrasts found on the nonverbal expression in predicative position. Many attempts to explain relevant contrasts in a given language, e.g., nominative vs. instrumental case marking in Russian (cf. Pereltsvaig 2001; Matushansky 2000), have led to the claim that small clauses may have a symmetrical structure, rendering it possible for a predicate to take a subject under sisterhood, for instance. Such a claim must be rejected on principle. We are left, however, with putting the burden of understanding what case marking in Russian is, on something that must be linked to the predicative expressions itself. Similar issues arise as we consider the existence across various languages of multiple forms of the predicational auxiliary be; cf. Spanish and Por- tuguese for Romance, and Modern Irish and Scottish Gaelic for Celtic. In a theory that only allows predication to occur in the same structural configurationand assumes one auxiliary be for predication, all semantic differences between apparently different types of predications must fall onto the predicative expression itself. This monograph explores, then, the semantic and aspectualproperties of nonverbal predicates and how they relate to their particular internal structure and syntactic properties. Part of this task is to understand the different interpretations nonverbal predicates may receive, and establish the "fine-grained" typology of predicational expressions necessary to account for the various complex paradigms introduced above (cf. (67),(68)). A related question is how the syntax of predicational copular sentences is linked to their various interpretations. I aim to develop an account of interpre- tational and structural differences based on a fine-grained decomposition of lexical categories.
- 51. This page intentionally left blank
- 52. Part II Meanings and structures
- 53. This page intentionally left blank
- 54. Meaning and typology of nonverbal predicates 3.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to develop a fine-grained typology of nonverbal predicates based on the interpretational properties of predicational copular sentences. I have presented earlier the features predicational copular sentences have in common, and why they are thought to exist as a distinct class of copular sentences. This chapter is concerned with interpretational differences among them. I present evidence that predicational copular sentences do not all belong to the same class, and that more fine-grained distinctions are needed. I argue, on the basis of a detailed study of French data, that the distinctions fall into three distinct but coherent classes, which I will name situation-descriptive, characterizing,and defining sentences. Roughly, situation- descriptive sentences are distinguished from the other two types in that they do not ascribe aproperty to an individual, but instead describe situations. Characterizing and defining sentences are two different types of attributive predication. The former relates to the ascription of a property to an individual, in the way one normally thinks about attributive predication. The latter involves a defining property, i.e.,a property salient enough to "define" an individual as a particular member of a class of individuals. The interpretational differences correlate with grammatical differences as well, often visible in the form of the nonverbal expression appearing to the right of the copula. For instance, the nonverbal predicative expression in a defining sentence must necessarily be introduced by an indefinite article in French, aswill be discussed below. As the three classes of sentences are predicational (andtherefore have the same basic internal syntax) and all nonverbal predicates carry a Davidsonian eventuality variable, the source of the tripartition cannot be found either in structural differences at the levelwhere predication is achieved in the three types ofsentences, or in the pres- ence or absence ofthe underlying eventuality (by assumption always there). Instead, I will argue that the tripartition is the reflex of aspectual differences in the type of even- tuality (specifically, here, states) described by the post-copular predicative expression. States are generally considered to be nonstructured eventualities, characterized as 3
- 55. Another Random Document on Scribd Without Any Related Topics
- 56. Wakanda, 81 World-year, 240 Xavier, Francis, 86 Yahweh, 107, 144, 161, 168, 222 Yama, 121, 243 f. Yang and Yin, 95, 120 f. Zaleucus, 44, 173 Zarathustra (Zoroaster), 38, 44, 58, 131, 163, 187, 201, 221, 246 f. Zend Avesta, the, 187, 191 f., 211 Zeus, 103, 106, 109, 127, 153, 173, 176, 181, 213, 238, 243 Zi (Babylonian), 102 Zuñis, the, 83, 111 * * * * * * * * THE HOME UNIVERSITY LIBRARY OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE 16mo cloth, 50 cents net, by mail 56 cents
- 57. PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION Just Published PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY ... By BERTRAND RUSSELL BUDDHISM ... By MRS. RHYS DAVIDS ENGLISH SECTS ... By W. B. SELBIE THE MAKING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ... By B. W. BACON ETHICS ... By G. E. MOORE MISSIONS ... By MRS. CREIGHTON Future Issues THE OLD TESTAMENT ... By GEORGE MOORE BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS ... By R. H. CHARLES COMPARATIVE RELIGION ... By J. ESTLIN CARPENTER A HISTORY OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT ... By J. B. BURY
- 58. *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK COMPARATIVE RELIGION *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE
- 59. THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
- 60. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
- 61. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
- 62. This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
- 63. with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
- 64. about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
- 65. damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
- 66. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
- 67. remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
- 68. small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
- 69. Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
- 70. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com