Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-v8zcx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-09T16:54:25.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Types of Non-Verbal Predication in Modern Irish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Andrew Carnie
Andrew Carnie*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The number of copular constructions found with non-verbal predicates in Universal Grammar has recently been a matter of some controversy. Traditional theories have claimed that there are two constructions: an equative—with two argument NPs—and predicative—with a single argument and a non-verbal predicate. Recently this bifurcation has been challenged by authors who claim that equative constructions show asymmetries similar to those found in predicatives, and that these asymmetries are due to a simple subject/predicate distinction. They claim that there is a single predicative copular construction in natural language. In this article, syntactic evidence for the traditional semantic division between equatives and predicatives is provided. It is shown that in Modern Irish, there are two word orders corresponding to the equative/predicative split and these two have distinct syntactic and semantic properties. Further, it is also shown that the asymmetries used to argue for a single copular construction are due to simple structural conditions rather than a subject/predicate split.

Résumé

Résumé

Le nombre de constructions copulatives que l’on peut retrouver avec des prédicats non-verbaux a récemment fait l’objet de controverse. Les approches traditionnelles soutiennent qu’il existe deux constructions copulatives : une construction équative—avec deux syntagmes nominaux arguments—et une construction predicative—avec un seul argument et un prédicat non-verbal. Récemment, plusieurs auteurs ont remis en cause cette opposition en argumentant que les constructions équatives manifestent des asymétries semblables à celles des constructions predicatives, que ces asymétries sont dues à une simple distinction sujet/prédicat, et qu’il n’existerait donc qu’une seule construction copulative dans les langues naturelles : la construction predicative. Cet article présente des arguments syntaxiques en faveur de la division sémantique traditionnelle entre les équatives et les predicatives. Il est montré qu’en irlandais moderne, deux ordres de mots distincts correspondent à la division équative/prédicative et que ces deux constructions possèdent des propriétés syntaxiques et sémantiques distinctes. De plus, il est aussi démontré que les asymétries utilisées comme argument en faveur d’une unique construction copulative sont dues a de simples conditions structurales plutôt qu’à une division sujet/prédicat.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 42 , Special Issue 1-2: Topics in Celtic Syntax , June 1997 , pp. 57 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1997

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahlqvist, Anders. 1972. Some aspects of the copula in Irish. Éigse 14:269–274.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Carnie, Andrew. 1996. A minimalist approach to some problems of Irish word order. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 223–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 1995. Non-verbal predication and head-movement. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, and McCloskey, James. 1987. Government, barriers, and small clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18:173–238.Google Scholar
Collberg, Sheila Dooley. 1990. An expanded INFL syntax for Modern Irish. Lund University Working Papers 36:1–17.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Predicates across categories. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 1992. The syntax of predication in Haitian, in Proceedings of NELS 22:103–117. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 1996. Clausal structure and the Modern Irish copula. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:1–46.Google Scholar
Doherty, Cathal. 1997. Predicate initial constructions in Irish. In The Proceedings of the Fifteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Agbayani, Brian and Tang, Sze-Wing, 81–95. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1986. The pronominal copula’ as agreement clitic. Syntax and semantics 19: The syntax of pronominal clitics, ed. Borer, Hagit, 313–332. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Duffield, Nigel. 1995. Particles and projections in Irish syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1993. Beyond predication. The inverse copular construction in English. Ms., Université de Paris X, Nanterre.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, Eithne. 1993. Nonfinite clauses in Modern Irish and Old English. In CLS 29: Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Beals, K. et al., 199–214. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie. 1988. The syntax of copular structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie. 1990. An ECP account of the non-overt copula in Israeli Hebrew. In Proceedings of NELS 20:185–199. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hendrick, Randall. 1994. The Brythonic Celtic copula and head raising. In Verb Movement, ed. Lightfoot, David and Hornstein, Norbert, 163–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hendrick, Randall. 1996. Syntactic effects of suppletion in the Celtic copulas. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 75–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1991. Layers of predication. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1994. The internal structure of small clauses: new evidence from inversion. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 25, ed. Beckman, Jill N., 223–238. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Higgins, Francis Roger. 1973. The pseudocleft construction in English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Huang, James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP. Linguistic Inquiry 24:1–37.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics: A case study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1983. A VP in a VSO language? In Order, Concord, and Constituency ed. Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 9–55. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A-bar binding and levels of representation in Irish. In Syntax and semantics 23: The syntax of the modern Celtic languages, ed. Hendrick, Randall, 199–248. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996a. On the scope of verb movement in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:47–104.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1996b. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 241–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James, and Hale, Kenneth. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1:487–533.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1991. The raising of predicates: Copula, expletives and existence. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15:119–181.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ó Maille, . 1912. Contributions to the history of verbs of existence in Irish. Ériu 6:1–102.Google Scholar
Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 1987. The copula and preverbal particles in West Kerry Irish. Celtica 19:98–110.Google Scholar
Ó Sé, Diarmuid. 1995. An teanga bheo: Corca Dhuibhne. Baile Átha Cliath: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Eireann.Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, Mícheal. 1983. The erosion of the copula in Modern Irish dialects. Celtica 15:117–127.Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, Mícheal. 1989. Modern Irish: Grammatical structure and dialectal variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1986. Ambiguous pseudoclefts with unambiguous be. In Proceedings of NELS 16, ed. Berman, Stephen, Choe, Jae-Woong, and McDonough, Joyce, 354–366. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rapoport, Tova. 1987. Copular, nominal, and small clauses: A study of Israeli Hebrew. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1987. Three forms of English be. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 9:225–236..Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain. 1996. Bod in the present tense. The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. Borsley, Robert D. and Roberts, Ian, 125–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1919. The philosophy of mathematics. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1968. Introduction à la grammaire generative. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
Sproat, Richard. 1985. Welsh syntax and VSO structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:173–216.Google Scholar
Stenson, Nancy. 1981. Studies in Irish syntax. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Zaring, Laurie. 1996. Two “be” or not two “be”: Identity, predication and the Welsh copula. Linguistics and Philosophy 19:103–142.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1992. Dutch expletives and small clause predicate raising. In Proceedings of NELS 22:477–491. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar