The syntax and semantics of Swedish copular sentences: a comparative perspective

This paper investigates the (recent) case alternation in Swedish equative and predicational copular sentences (‘Cicero is Tully’, ‘Cicero is a nice guy’). A central contribution of the paper is showing that this alternation is an LF-phenomenon, contra Sigurðsson (in: Hartmann, Molnárfi (eds) Comparative studies in Germanic syntax: from Afrikaans to Zurich German. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 2006) who conjectures that Swedish is changing in the direction of English and Danish, where all postcopular DPs receive Accusative case, regardless of interpretation. The Swedish alternation is shown to track the same semantic dimension that conditions the choice of predicate case in languages like Polish, Russian and Dutch, namely the distinction between stage and individual level predication. Interestingly, the Swedish alternation is also shown to share distributional properties with the predicate case alternations in these languages. To account for these observations, I propose that the morphological and semantic contrasts between the two alternants are mediated by a structural difference, such that Nominative case involves a biclausal structure, and Accusative a monoclausal structure. This paper further adds to the typological picture, showing that Swedish patterns like Polish, Russian and Dutch, but unlike English and Danish, not just in terms of equative and predicational sentences, but also in specificational copular sentences (‘The fastest runner here is Lisa’). I argue that a particular kind of predicate inversion analysis is required to account for the Swedish type of specification.

The geometry of predication: a configurational derivation of the defining property of clause structure

Predication is the fundamental grammatical relation defining clausal structures in all (and only) human languages. This notion is by definition compositional, since it consists of a link between a subject and a predicate. The central question addressed here is whether this traditional notion, which has never been dismissed ever since the canonical models of Ancient Greek linguistics, can be derived at a formal level from more abstract compositional algorithms. Capitalizing on predication in copular sentences, which allow factoring out non-essential aspects of this phenomenon, such as the morphological asymmetry between verbs and nouns, I propose a configurational approach to predication. This new approach is based on the notion of symmetry as derived by purely compositional mechanisms. Finally, I address some theoretical and empirical consequences of this generalization including those pertaining to neurolinguistics. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Towards mechanistic models of meaning composition’.

Predicational and specificational copular sentences in Logoori

This chapter presents data from Logoori (Bantu) which shows morphosyntactic evidence for two different strategies in place in copular sentences. Unlike English, Logoori predicational and specificational copular sentences do not (have to) have a similar surface syntax. It is claimed that the crucial difference does not rest on two distinct types of underlying predicational structures, rather it is the result of two different derivations. In Logoori, when the referential phrase is in a precopular position, it can either occupy the canonical subject position or (in some cases) it can be dislocated. On the other hand, when the predicative phrase is in precopular position it can only occupy a dislocated position, supporting an inverse analysis for specificational (and identificational) copular sentences in which the predicate must be dislocated outside the TP, much in the spirit of Moro (1997).

Aspects of the syntax of ce in French copular sentences

This chapter offers a syntactic analysis of French ce in copular constructions. It is argued that the distribution of ce is best understood in terms of the conditions on the agree operation inside the copular sentence. The proform ce, an expletive, is inserted whenever an agreement relationship cannot be established between an element in the subject position and an element from the PredP (Bowers 1993). Two sources of agreement failure are considered. In one case, agreement failure results from syntactic constraints on movement (Relativized Minimality, criterial freezing) together with focalization. In the other case, agreement failure results from the absence of accessible phi-features on the subject, possibly as the result of a grammatical shift taking place at the interface. This chapter further highlights the relevance of two subject positions (Subj1 and Subj2) each with their own interpretational properties.