Specificational copular sentences in Russian and English

Abstract

Williams (1983) andPartee(1986a) argued that specificational sentences like (2) result from “inversion around the copula”: that NP1 is a predicate (type ) and NP2 is the subject, a referential expression of type e. Partee(1999) argued that such an analysis is right for Russian, citing arguments from Padučeva & Uspenskij (1979) that NP2 is the subject of sentence (1). But in that paper I argued that differences between Russian and English suggest that in English there is no such inversion, contra Williams (1983) and Partee (1986a): the subject of (2) is NP1, and both NPs are of type e, but with NP1 less referential than NP2, perhaps “attributive”

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-06-01

Downloads
24 (#1,739,382)

6 months
24 (#432,968)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

A puzzle about hallucination.David Balcarras - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies.
Copular sentences and Binding Theory : the case of French and Principle C.Valérie Amary - 2019 - Corela. Cognition, Représentation, Langage 17-17.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Concealed questions and specificational subjects.Maribel Romero - 2005 - Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (6):687 - 737.
Predicates and Their Subjects.Susan Rothstein - 2001 - Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Semantic vs. Syntactic Categories.Edwin Williams - 1983 - Linguistics and Philosophy 6 (3):423 - 446.

Add more references