Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication And Equation

Copular Clauses......Page 2
Editorial page......Page 3
Title page......Page 4
LCC data......Page 5
Contents......Page 6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......Page 8
1. INTRODUCTION......Page 10
Part I. STRUCTURE......Page 13
2.1 Introduction......Page 15
2.1.1 Heggie’s proposal......Page 16
2.1.2 Predicate topicalization in English......Page 17
2.2 Predicate topicalization in Danish......Page 18
2.2.1 Evidence for predicate topicalization in Danish......Page 20
2.2.2 The pragmatic functions of predicate topicalization......Page 24
2.3 Predicate topicalization vs. specification......Page 26
2.3.1 Negation......Page 27
2.3.2 Pronominal form......Page 31
2.3.3 Reflexives......Page 33
2.3.4 Negative polarity items......Page 35
2.4 Taking stock......Page 40
2.5.1 Word order......Page 43
2.5.2 Polar questions......Page 45
2.5.3 Embedding......Page 46
2.6 Conclusion......Page 49
3.1 Predicate raising......Page 50
3.2 Subject raising from symmetric small clause......Page 52
3.3 “Transitive” structure......Page 53
3.4 Conclusion......Page 54
Part II. MEANING......Page 55
4.1 Synopsis......Page 57
4.2 Partee’s theory of noun phrase interpretation......Page 62
4.3 Methodological issues......Page 63
4.4 Consequences for the live syntactic options......Page 67
4.5 Two alternative semantic analyses......Page 70
5. DETERMINING THE SUBJECT TYPE......Page 73
5.1.1 Pronominal form and semantic type......Page 74
5.1.2 It and that as property anaphors......Page 76
5.1.3 Determining the antecedent......Page 79
5.2.1 Tag questions......Page 81
5.2.2 Left-dislocation......Page 83
5.2.3 Question–answer pairs......Page 85
5.3.1 Replicating the contrast in the domain of humans......Page 87
5.3.2 Pronominal contrasts in the domain of inanimates......Page 90
5.3.3 Pronominalization and predicate topicalization......Page 95
5.4.1 Uncertain reference......Page 97
5.4.2 An alternative interpretation of tag questions......Page 99
5.4.3 Some differences between it and that......Page 101
6.2 Possible predicate complements......Page 103
6.3 VP ellipsis as a test for semantic type......Page 108
6.3.1 Some complicating factors......Page 110
6.3.2 VP anaphora in Danish......Page 114
7.1 Possible specificational subjects......Page 117
7.1.1 Group I: Definite descriptions, possessive DPs, and partitive DPs......Page 118
7.1.2 Group II: Quantificational DPs, pronouns, and names......Page 121
7.1.3 Group III: Indefinites......Page 126
7.2 Truncated clefts......Page 127
7.2.1 Truncated and full clefts......Page 129
7.2.2 Determining the subject type......Page 130
7.2.3 Determining the antecedent......Page 134
7.2.4 Some consequences and advantages......Page 137
Part III. USE......Page 140
8.1 Topic–focus structure......Page 142
8.2 Inversion structures......Page 144
8.3.1 Discourse-familiarity......Page 148
8.3.2 Birner’s discourse condition on inversion......Page 152
8.3.3 Discourse-familiarity in specificational clauses......Page 158
8.3.4 Discourse-familiarity and definiteness......Page 162
8.4 Discourse-familiarity and topic......Page 169
9.1 Where we are......Page 171
9.2 A Minimalist analysis......Page 173
9.2.1 Starting assumptions......Page 174
9.2.2 The predicational core......Page 175
9.2.3 Deriving predicational clauses......Page 178
9.2.4 Deriving specificational clauses......Page 180
9.2.5 The markedness of specificational clauses......Page 185
9.2.6 Discussion......Page 188
9.3 Interpreting the structures......Page 195
10. CONCLUSION......Page 200
REFERENCES......Page 204
INDEX......Page 214
The series Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today......Page 220