Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:58:45.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Well-formed lists: specificational copular sentences as predicative inversion constructions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2016

AMANDA L. PATTEN
AMANDA L. PATTEN*
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics, University of Birmingham, 3 Elms Road, Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT, UKA.L.Patten@bham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article re-examines the case for analysing specificational NP be NP sentences as predicative inversions. Taking a constructional and functional perspective, I show that only predicational sentences exhibiting a relation of class inclusion permit a specificational interpretation, and argue, following Higgins (1979), that the form of specificational inversion sentences is dependent upon the construction-specific concept of specificational meaning. In this way, the account provides an explanation for the restrictions on NP predicative inversion that have posed a problem for inverse analyses developed from within the formalist tradition. Since the distributional facts can be better captured than with the alternative equative approach (which treats specificational sentences as instances of semantic equation), the article concludes that specificational copular sentences are best analysed as instances of predicative inversion.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 77 - 99
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

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

Footnotes

1

The ideas put forward in this article were presented at ICLC-12 Alberta (June 2013); I would like to thank George Lakoff and other audience members for their encouragement and questions. I would also like to thank Graeme Trousdale, Ewa Dąbrowska and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this article.

References

Akmaijan, Adrian. 1970. Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70 (2), 233–59.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 1996. The discourse function of inversion in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Syntactic diffusion and the indefinite article. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 2000. A constructional approach to clefts. Linguistics 38 (6), 1101–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1986. Two notes on the theory of definiteness. Journal of Linguistics 22, 25–39.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1987. Definiteness and inclusive reference. Journal of Literary Semantics 16, 12–29.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudo-clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Delacruz, Enrique B. 1976. Factives and proposition level constructions in Montague Grammar. In Partee, Barbara H. (ed.), Montague Grammar, 177–99. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den. 2005. Specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts. In Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 4, 292–409. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun. 1997. Inversion in modern English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identification focus versus information focus. Language 74 (2), 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality predication. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27, 405–42.Google Scholar
Heller, Daphna. 2005. Identity and information: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of specificational sentences. PhD thesis, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57 (2), 209–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Kroch, Anthony. 1999 Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (3), 365–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, F. Roger. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2003. Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In Francis, Elaine J. & Michaelis, Laura A. (eds.), Mismatch: Form–function incongruity and the architecture of grammar, 259–310. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. Two types of definite description subjects. In Nissim, Malvina (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th ESSLLI student session (at ESSLI 14), 141–53. Trento, Italy. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~mikkelsen/papers/ESSLLI02_pro.pdf (Accessed 5 July 2011).Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 2000. Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. In Kusumoto, Kiyomi & Villalta, Elisabeth (eds.), Issues in semantics, 183–208. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. [1986] 2004. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Partee, Barbara H. (ed.), Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers by Barbara H. Partee, 203–30. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell. First published in Groenedijk, Jeroen, de Jong, Dick & Stokhof, Martin (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–43. Dordrecht: Foris, 1986.Google Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2012. The English it-cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation (Topics in English Linguistics 79). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Penhallurick, John. 1984. Full-verb inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4, 33–56.Google Scholar
Renský, Miroslav. 1981. The subject/complement conflict in English copulative clauses. In Esser, Jürgen & Hübler, Axel (eds.), Forms and functions: Papers in general English and applied linguistics: Presented to Vilém Fried on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 137–41. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. Focusing properties, or the trap of first order. Theoretical Linguistics 10, 125–45.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2002 Cognitive Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar